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

151–160 of 203 posts

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#151

Post by goodweeds »

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…

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).

I've actually wondered why there aren't insurance and licensing requirements. I would be happy paying my fair share of infrastructure maintenance as a cyclist, especially if it helped give a voice and build safer roads for bicyclists.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#152

Post by pkulak »

Jun8 wrote: 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…

Some cyclists ride like idiots and some drivers drive like assholes when it comes to bikes. However, if you ride a bike, you'll be impacted by an asshole driver probably a couple times on your way to your destination, and then a couple more times on your way back. Talk to a driver about idiot cyclists and they'll give you a story from 6 months ago. It's not a fair fight, and not just because of the weight difference.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#153

Post by lazerwalker »

pyre wrote: post #100
lazerwalker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're mistaken in dividing it up into a cars vs. bikes/pedestrians binary. There are motorists who act completely inappropriately towards bikers, and there are bikers who act in a manner that is equally unbefitting. Both are a big problem, and the one doesn't justify the other. Personally, as a non-car-owning biker, it really upsets me when I see fellow cyclists acting like dicks. It makes it that much harde…

> 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…

I would argue that it's very possible to be an assertive cyclist whose presence is well-known on the road without resorting to actively breaking traffic laws or antagonizing your fellow road-goers.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#154

Post by elithrar »

goodweeds wrote: post #151
anamax wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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). I've actually wondered why there aren't insurance and licensing requirements. I would be happy paying my fair share of infrastructure maintenance as a cyclist, especially if it helped give a voice and…

> I've actually wondered why there aren't insurance and licensing requirements. I would be happy paying my fair share of infrastructure maintenance as a cyclist, especially if it helped give a voice and build safer roads for bicyclists.

There are big debates about whether bicycle (rider?) licensing would be effective, but my two concerns are:

1) Added cost gives no incentive to car drivers to start commuting by bike, which would have at least some effect on congestion, pollution and health.

2) How do you enforce it?

There needs to be a big improvement in driver education, and responsible cycling needs to be promoted from a young age. Cutting reds and not signalling is behavioural issue that won't be magically fixed by registration/licensing.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#155

Post by megablast »

lazerwalker wrote: post #57
equalarrow wrote: post #39

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…

I think you're mistaken in dividing it up into a cars vs. bikes/pedestrians binary. There are motorists who act completely inappropriately towards bikers, and there are bikers who act in a manner that is equally unbefitting. Both are a big problem, and the one doesn't justify the other. Personally, as a non-car-owning biker, it really upsets me when I see fellow cyclists acting like dicks. It makes it that much harde…

It was the grandparent that started singling out bad bikers, all the while ignoring bad car drivers.

Bikes are a problem? Right. Cars kill over 1.4 million people a year, and injure over 50 million people. Anybody arguing about problem cyclists really need a reality check.

I don't care anywhere near as much about dick cyclists who may get themselves killed, compared to problem car drivers who will get me killed.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#156

Post by jrockway »

kgermino wrote: post #146
graywh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US and Canada, you generally yield to the driver on your right.

Different context. This would be more comparable to an expressway, where you should keep to the right side except for passing. In my experience on trails (including the lakefront trail in Chicago) people on bikes tend to understand this, runners/joggers are usually pretty good about it, and people going for a walk are god-awful at it. I don't mind people going slow (its frustrating because I'm commuting not recreatio…

This is the sad reality of being a cyclist: we are the neglected middle child. In the eyes of the law, we are vehicles. In the eyes of motor vehicles, we are an annoyance that slows them down. So, the motor establishment builds separated bikeways for us and tries to use the law to force us to use them. Then pedestrians find these bikeways convenient and pleasant, and make them so dangerous for cyclists as to be essentially unusable. Then they post to HN (or whatever) and complain about all the bikes using the bikeways and how dangerous this is for their pleasant afternoon walk.

Personally, I don't believe in advocating for bikeways for this reason. Bikes will never get to use them, and if they cross traffic at all, they are death traps (because drivers don't look for objects moving as fast as bicycles on the sidewalk when they are turning). The only exception is the lakefront trail because it has a total of 12 street crossings in 20 miles (4 of them in the last mile of the north side, two that have essentially no traffic, and two in the last mile on the south side). This property makes it safe to use. All it needs is a really nice running path and sidewalk closer to the lake (so that pedestrians won't even want to use it), and finally you have a bicycle expressway, one of the few places anything in Chicago can go 10 miles in 30 minutes. This will never happen, though, because it will cost money and because the recreational cyclists will force the pedestrians off the pedestrian-only part onto the bike-only part. Sigh.

I think the best general solution is what Chicago does: a lot of streets have a picture of a bicycle painted onto the right traffic lane and signs that say "shared lane, yield to bicycles". This lets cars know that bikes are doing the right thing. Then you just need bicycle driver education (I like "Effective Cycling") so that the cyclists stay safe and don't impede the flow of traffic. Unfortunately, I've found that getting on a bicycle seems to mean turning off your brain and doing whatever feels right, which is often wrong.

(And that's why I don't like bike lanes, because they make doing the wrong thing feel like "the law". "There's that stripe, so I must make my left turn from the curb, that line on the road says so." Then they die and everyone whines about how dangerous cycling is.)

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#157

Post by jrockway »

graywh wrote: post #103
jrockway wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that cars run as many stop signs as cyclists. The rule is come to a complete stop and yield to your left. Cars treat the rule as "sort of lower your speed and yield to people that haven't stopped quite as much". This is chaos. The cyclists are just doing what the other vehicles do. (Also, you can't be surprised that there are cyclists on the Lakefront Trail. If they ride on the streets, their average spe…

In the US and Canada, you generally yield to the driver on your right.

Very poor wording on my part. Yes, you must yield the intersection to the car on your right. But the one on the left is the one that's going to kill you, because once you both try to get through the intersection at the same time, you have no escape route other than a very sharp right turn. If you mistakenly start moving when the driver to your right does, you can stop, turn left, or turn right, giving you three possible ways to avoid a crash.

(I looked this up in the Illinois driver manual, and it gets a size-negative-a-million one-bullet-point mention. No wonder nobody can use stop signs.)

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#158

Post by megablast »

esrauch wrote: post #134
pyre wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ever…

Then you have your head in the sand.

Read ww520 comment, he mentions drivers taking cyclists seriously. This is a typical bias, and the implication is clear. He is a driver, he already takes drivers seriously, because he is one.

Whatever it means to 'take someone seriously', I am hoping he does not mean avoid running of the road.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#159

Post by jrockway »

pyre wrote: post #92
Jun8 wrote: 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…

> And the worst part is you can't say anything, because these > guys are living a healthy lifestyle, right? The issue is one of stereotypes. A lot of people have very visceral reactions to cyclists: I saw some guy on a bike doing something dangerous, therefore all bikes must be banned and/or all/most cyclists are evil demons. On the other hand, I could show you numerous examples of people behaving badly in cars. Car…

I think Forrester has some stats that show riding in a bike lane is more dangerous than sharing the road with traffic. But one could argue that bike lanes attract cyclists who haven't learned or thought about safe cycling, whereas the unmarked street scares that demographic away.

The problem city planners are having is that they want to be "bike friendly" in every way except educating road users. Some stripes on the road don't make cycling safe. Cyclists that think carefully and act predictably do, and no stripe on the road is ever going to do that.

We need drivers education classes that cover driving from the perspective of a cyclist. This will ensure that when drivers want to ride their bike, they do it safely, and it will ensure that drivers know to share the road with bicycles. (I would take it a step further and require licensing for bicycle-only drivers, but that is too unpopular to ever happen.)

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#160

Post by kgermino »

jrockway wrote: post #156
kgermino wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different context. This would be more comparable to an expressway, where you should keep to the right side except for passing. In my experience on trails (including the lakefront trail in Chicago) people on bikes tend to understand this, runners/joggers are usually pretty good about it, and people going for a walk are god-awful at it. I don't mind people going slow (its frustrating because I'm commuting not recreatio…

This is the sad reality of being a cyclist: we are the neglected middle child. In the eyes of the law, we are vehicles. In the eyes of motor vehicles, we are an annoyance that slows them down. So, the motor establishment builds separated bikeways for us and tries to use the law to force us to use them. Then pedestrians find these bikeways convenient and pleasant, and make them so dangerous for cyclists as to be essen…

>>(And that's why I don't like bike lanes, because they make doing the wrong thing feel like "the law". "There's that stripe, so I must make my left turn from the curb, that line on the road says so." Then they die and everyone whines about how dangerous cycling is.)

... or they don't turn from the curb, cut over to the left lane and drivers get pissed because "my tax dollars paid for that bike lane and you'rs still blocking me" I agree, there's really no way to win.

Have you checked out the new cycle lanes on Kinzie/Jackson yet? What are your thoughts? I haven't been able to get down there yet (I'm in MKE and life keeps getting in the way) but I feel like I myself would hate riding in them. Of course the advantage is that these new bike lanes (protected and otherwise) might draw out far more riders than we see currently. It's a hard dilemma for me because I want to see more people biking and accepting bikes on the road, but I still want to be able to go my own speed and safely mingle with traffic to get where I'm going.

Post reply on HN