Live data from Hacker News

The Economics of Bike Lanes

economicsintelligence.com

131–140 of 203 posts

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#131
post #126
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nicel…

That's why I used "scold" - no matter how politely you try to do it, most people don't take kindly to being criticized about their driving/cycling by strangers, particularly when it requires being stopped by said stranger. They will feel like they're being scolded. And they will probably respond in kind.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#132
post #81
post #2

This discussion about the value and use of bike lanes keeps amazing me. It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. Living in the Netherlands, the benefits of separate bike lanes (to point of a separate transit system) are so incredibly obvious. It's not some cultural particularity, it's because cycling has been made easy, nice (most of the time) and safe here. (see ht…

> It seems many people hold a negative view without having good arguments, almost religiously. I tried discussing the benefits of cycling with a friend. "Bikes actually use as much energy to produce as cars, since they're made of high-tech materials which use a lot of energy in manufacture." "Whenever I'm stuck in traffic, it's usually down to a cyclist somewhere." "Having several cars is very environmentally friendl…

Those objections have one thing in common: they are all flimsy after-the-fact rationalizations constructed to protect an irrational conclusion that your friend has already decided to believe, i.e. that cars are better than bikes in every way, and to hell with bikes. They're not his real objection to bikes.

A good conversational tactic for that kind of situation is to try to get him to agree in advance to what evidence would sway him. If you prove to him that cars are less energy-intensive to produce than cars, or that having several cars is less environmentally friendly than having one decent all-purpose car, will he agree to accept that, and actually change his mind? The purpose of getting pre-commitment here is to avoid the inevitable back-pedaling (no pun intended) and shifting of the goal-posts that would otherwise happen once you rebut his claims.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#133
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have not had a car for over 20 years. I've ridden my bike forever - to/from school since I was in grade school. Currently I live in San Francisco which has, some could say, an aggressive bike culture. Sometimes, I am one of those guys and I used to ride in the monthly Critical Mass rides. The fact of the matter is that we live in a pro-car country. California in general is a very pro-car state. The drive in diner w…

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've ever driven or biked in San Francisco (or I'm assuming any other marginally bike-friendly city) you'll quickly understand that for bicyclists, stop signs are yields and red lights are stop signs. You're just going to have to get used to that, at least on low-volume, low-speed streets.

That of course is not what the law says, and many people (especially drivers and people who don't like bicycles) will disagree. However, it's a cultural norm which, when ignored, leads to far more frustrating four-way encounters. e.g. "law-abiding" cyclist approaches stop sign at the same time a car on the right has already arrived. Car, expecting cyclist to enter intersection (because that's what every other cyclist does) waits. Other cars approach intersection. Cyclist, wanting to abide by the law, slows so that first car can proceed through the intersection. Car waits, expecting cyclist to go through. Other cars wait. Law-abiding cyclist comes to complete stop. Well-meaning (but wrong) car motions cyclist to proceed, ceding right of way. Other cars seethe. Precious seconds wasted.

Sometimes as a cyclist it's better to just run that stop sign and save everybody the hassle. As a cyclist in SF, that's what I do, if there isn't already a car stopped at the intersection and/or very clearly arriving there before me. If there's a car starting to cross in front of me, I go behind it. If I'm coming up behind a car who has the right away as they proceed into the intersection, I'm going to piggyback through the intersection with them rather than stopping myself. I feel I'm abiding the spirit of right-of-way if not the letter of the traffic laws.

Also I notice that most drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians don't understand right of way to begin with, to the point of making weird and dangerous decisions: drivers stopping midway through an intersection trying to be "nice" to some pedestrian or cyclist whose turn it might not be. Dont do it! Take right of way when you have it. Pedestrians doing the same to motion cars through intersections even as they are in the middle of a crosswalk. Ack!

And no the conserving momentum thing is not BS. It's inherent to that mode of transportation. Watch how cyclists navigate stop signs some time. Even when they're more or less obeying the law, very few are coming to a complete stop. Starting and stopping a bike takes much more physical effort than it does a car. Combine that with the vast differences in kinetic energy between them, and I am so much more sympathetic to the cyclist cruising through the stop sign than the car who does the same (and again, actually take note sometime -- cars are as bad about not stopping at stop signs as bikes are).

Finally, as a car owner and driver, to other drivers: get over yourselves! You don't need to be in such a hurry. So what if a pedestrian crosses your path or a bike cruises through a stop sign? You have thousands of pounds of heavy machinery at your command. Be happy about that, pat yourself on the back,etc. You've already got a lot to be pleased with. If you need to stop more quickly than you would have liked, all you have to do is press down on that lever on the floor and you're back up to speed. Life is too short to get your blood pressure up about this sort of stuff. And if it does really get to you, maybe you should gasp park it and go for a walk.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#134
post #108
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reckless behavior endangering others are looked on dimly, regardless it's a biker or driver. No to the extreme exaggeration 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over.' It's more like 'if you run a red light or stop sign, I might accidentally run you over.'

It's my experience that a lot of people will get more pissed off at "someone using did " when is a bike. Maybe it's just that they've become numb to people doing dangerous things in cars because it happens so much more often?

I have never ever ever heard someone say that it's ok for a car to just blow through a red light. Just now, equalarrow made the implication that it is ok for bikes to go through red lights at their personal discretion.

Do you have an example of "someone using did " where it wouldn't be considered way more egregious if someone did it in a car than a bike?

I think it's possible you have a flawed perception because everyone accepts that it's absolutely not ok with cars, while tons of people argue that the same things are ok for bikes, then there is significantly more people complaining about bikes because most people that run red lights don't go around talking about how they know better than the law.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#135
post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

One thing you miss here is the asymmetry of risk. Cyclists are at highest level of risk while on the road. They're moving at enough speed to cause serious injury to themselves, but they're still usually about half the speed of cars. Modern automobiles have excellent safety characteristics and pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action. A mistake on a bike is going to almost always be a life-or-death s…

Even if we completely accept what you are saying, I think there are a couple reasons why that doesn't change anything.

We don't allow people to risk their own lives. We force people by law to wear motorcycle helmets and seatbelts (ignoring a very few number of states). That doesn't at all improve the chances for other people to survive. You aren't considering the fact that a bicyclist causes injuries to people who aren't them. There are plenty of scenarios for this, cars swerving into incoming traffic, into a utility pole into pedestrians to avoid a cyclist. Way more people die from swerving to avoid animals than from hitting animals; even hitting a deer isn't likely to kill you in a modern automobile, but swerving into a tree to avoid one will.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#136
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've ever driven or biked in San Francisco (or I'm assuming any other marginally bike-friendly city) you'll quickly understand that for bicyclists, stop signs are yields and red lights are stop signs. You're just going to have to get used to that, at least on low-volume, low-speed streets. That of course is not what the law says, and many people (especially drivers and people who don't like bicycles) will disagr…

> Life is too short to get your blood pressure up about this sort of stuff.

Likewise next time you see a car cut in front of your bike, just let it roll and don't let the rage get to you.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#137
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your arguments make sense in an environment where cycling isn't deeply inherent in a culture. I've cycled across NYC, Chicago and LA, and also Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and London, Paris and Barcelona. Amsterdam and Copenhagen are amazing: as a cyclist you feel completely respected and the sheer numbers of you give a sense of legitimacy. Your own traffic lights and true cycle lanes lead to really safe transport, and you…

It's important to note that both cycling and walking aren't "inherent" to cities or cultures. It's great to have a biking culture but it's also been repeatedly demonstrated that if you make it harder to drive (by reducing parking, using traffic calming, or using congestion charges) and easier to ride or walk (via bike lanes, mass transit, etc.), the population shifts its behavior over time, benefitting everyone. I po…

Right, I completely agree with you, sorry if I didn't make that clear. That's why I pointed out London and Paris - they are making efforts to be more cycle friendly and it shows.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#138
post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

One thing you miss here is the asymmetry of risk. Cyclists are at highest level of risk while on the road. They're moving at enough speed to cause serious injury to themselves, but they're still usually about half the speed of cars. Modern automobiles have excellent safety characteristics and pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action. A mistake on a bike is going to almost always be a life-or-death s…

> pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action

Except when they don't, due to mobility problems or having pets with them or other reasons. Expecting anyone to jump out of your way when you come barreling down the sidewalk is going to hurt someone.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#139
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since you want to be reckless and ignore safety > rules, others would have less regard for your safety. Does that mean that I can treat people that ignore safety in cars the same way? Or does this 'if you even step an inch over the line, I will run you over' attitude only extend to bikers?

I'd argue running red lights is stepping several feet over the line.

You might want to qualify that statement before someone asks you about an empty, well-lit intersection with sweet sight lines at 2 am on a Tuesday night.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#140
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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.

You are lucky. My cycle to work (downtown Toronto, Canada) is in all fairness rather relaxed (bike lane 80% of the way, largely non-arterial street), but it is a rare day when I don't have to leave the bike lane at least once for a stopped delivery vehicle or truck. Best part? Any tickets they may get are waived if they go to the transportation department and prove they were on delivery. Apparently it's the city's way of being business-friendly.
Post reply on HN