Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Economics of Bike Lanes

economicsintelligence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 203 posts

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#121

Post by pyre »

anamax wrote: post #120
pyre wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it really upsets me when I see fellow cyclists > acting like dicks Too many people that drive cars ignore cyclists, and I think that the 'dick cyclist' to some extent stems out of the need to be seen on the road. I've heard people say that it's better to have a driver think you're an asshole, because at least that means that they see you. In general, I find it really odd that people in cars think that cyclists need…

> The person driving the car is the one holding the deadlier weapon, why are they not held to a higher sense of responsibility? They are. There are insurance requirements for driving, licensing, etc. I'm unaware of any legal restrictions on bicyling on public roads (apart from staying off certain restricted access roads, typically interstates). We can argue about whether these requirements are adequate, but it's absu…

  > We can argue about whether these requirements are
  > adequate, but it's absurd to suggest that they don't
  > exist.
Maybe I phrased my point poorly. My point was that people in cars tend to want to hold people on bicycles to a higher standard of road awareness than they hold themselves to. There's rarely a sense of, "Maybe I should be more careful," and more often a sense of, "You should just get out of my way."

A reasonable analogy would be hunters and guns. Hunters are required to get both a hunting license and a gun license (barring bow hunters, etc). If someone is wandering around in the forest during hunting season, who is the person that should be more aware of their surroundings. We can argue that both people should be, but the hunter is the person with the deadly weapon.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#122

Post by sjwright »

law wrote: post #18
dpark wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think by "free," Cassidy means "libre," in that adding bike lanes decreases the number of available parking spaces. Just FYI, I'm pretty sure that's not an appropriate use of "libre". "Libre" is more along the lines of "liberty" or "freedom", not "available" or "unused". > There's absolutely no justification for an increase in bike lanes when they're currently underutilized, as Cassidy argues This is incorrect. A…

I'm well aware of the technical distinction between "libre" and "available." I should have said that Cassidy's belief is more in line with "libre," rather than gratuitous. A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider. As for your support of the network effect, it's not…

> A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking.

A viable argument could be made that governments which don't provide free helicopter rides infringe on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private helicopter services.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#123

Post by mturmon »

randallsquared wrote: post #56
mturmon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out, lots of people have this very same "little thing" to get off their chest. Every discussion of urban cycling goes off on this particular tangent. It's tiresome. If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side. As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as…

Where's the outrage at these drivers? Is there a contingent of bikers somewhere angry at drivers doing 65 in a 60? If not, what does it have to do with anything? The violations that people get upset about are those that actively endanger or inconvenience them or people like them.

My point is simply that people haul out the "cyclists don't stop at stop signs" argument, in a selective way, without applying it to all traffic rules that are targeted at safety.

You're right, the "65 in a 60" was a rhetorical device. I used it, of course, because it's a law that so many people break.

But seriously, rhetorical devices aside: speeding in residential districts is a real problem for pedestrian (and driver, and cyclist) safety. And I think that's pretty clear.

Why don't we talk about how consistently cyclists obey posted speed limits? ;-)

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#124

Post by bkor »

hack_edu wrote: post #22
bkor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.

... all these things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes that were strictly enforced as DEDICATED bike lanes. Next time you're on a busy street with bike lanes, pay attention to the number of double-parked delivery trucks and other stationary non-bike business. These make the road more dangerous and slower (an important factor in route choice) than a non-bike lane street.

That almost never happens in my country. Streets with bike lanes are very common. Sometimes a truck might stop where it shouldn't for 1-2 min, but they'll be fined if noticed.

Streets with bike lanes are way faster in my experience. But I'm also used to dedicated bike lanes.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#125

Post by bkor »

khill wrote: post #55
bkor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.

Bike lanes only work if they are physically separate from the road. Otherwise, they are covered with debris swept off the main road surface, populated by double-parked delivery trucks and cars,or a random hazard of opening car doors and cyclists who are too stupid to obey the rules of the road (e.g., riding the wrong direction).

That is not my experience at all (double parked trucks + cars + opening of car doors). If you have more cyclists, then traffic will get used to it. Until that happens it might seem worse, but in my experience bike lanes on the road are fine.

Of course, separate is better. Just not mandatory.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#126

Post by bkor »

scott_s wrote: post #50
bkor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.

Speak up in what way? Flag them down and scold them on the street? That's not a wise thing to do.

Scold them down?!? I said speak up, not start an argument. E.g. something like "please cycle a bit slower, your speed is dangerous / pedestrian area". Though don't be stupid about it. I was told not to cycle on a pedestrian path while I was going slower than a pedestrian.

And if you cannot speak up, then why complain about it? Think society only works if there is some level of checks in place if you're behaving nicely. And that should be done by people, not police.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#127

Post by xyzzyz »

sjwright wrote: post #107
ww520 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want car drivers to respect bikers, stop running red lights and stop signs. Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety rules, others would have less regard for your safety. The conserving momentum is just a BS excuse; stopping is for safety overall for everyone involved, not just you. A car can also run through stop sign to conserve momentum and save on gas but for overall safety sake it stops.

If you think car drivers disrespect cyclists for safety reasons (e.g. running red lights) and not for inconveniencing car drivers (e.g. by momentarily slowing traffic flow in one lane) you're fucking deluded.

While I agree with your point, I downvoted you because of your language. As long as you are on HN, please, stay civil. We don't need nor want this kind of discussion here.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#128

Post by bkor »

mseebach wrote: post #25
bkor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All those things would happen way less if there were dedicated bike lanes. And you should speak up when someone on a bike is creating a dangerous situation. I don't get why you would not.

In theory, yes. If you want to see adults behave like they're immortal, spend an hour in Copenhagen bicycle rush hour. Copenhagen bicyclists are actively taught that they are superior to any other mode of transport, and it shows. And yes, I have cycled in Copenhagen for years and not at all innocent in this matter.

Amsterdam cyclists are terribly annoying. But that doesn't mean it cannot work in other cities.

Like e.g. policy checking for cars speeding too much, police should also check the behaviour of cyclists. E.g. working lights when it is dark, running red lights, etc.

Though instead of checking for red lights, make sure the traffic signal changes quickly for cyclists. That's more effective.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#129

Post by bkor »

PaulHoule wrote: post #98
hugh3 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perspective: I both cycle and drive quite a lot. When I'm driving, I hate cyclists, and when I'm cycling I hate drivers. Both groups are filled with complete freaking idiots who shouldn't be allowed onto the roads under any circumstances.

Cyclists don't just conflict with cars, they conflict with Pedestrians. I've been hit by cyclists more than once. (And OK, I hit a pedestrian when I was riding a bike back when I was a teenager too.) Walking in L.A. I experience near-misses with cyclists riding illegally on the sidewalk about as often as I experience near-misses from people running red lights when I'm in a car.

I guess there are not enough bike lanes?

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#130

Post by protomyth »

adrianN wrote: post #117
protomyth wrote: post #112

On the economic side, are bikes registered and bike owners paying for tabs each year likes cars in NYC? It would seem that would go a long way towards paying for new bike lanes over parking.

Bikes damage the road orders of magnitude less than cars. Without having run the numbers, I'd wager that the city could actually save some money in the long run if more bike lanes would decrease car traffic.

It still costs money to put in the lanes. They may last longer, but there is a startup cost. I doubt there is a study that shows more bike lanes would decrease the actual amount of traffic to make a material difference in road maintenance costs.
Post reply on HN