The Economics of Bike Lanes • Hacker News Board

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#161

Post by pyre » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 1:52 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #159

pyre wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

  > Some stripes on the road don't make cycling safe.
  > Cyclists that think carefully and act predictably do

I don't have any data to back this up, but it's my feeling that there are more drivers on the road that just don't pay enough attention to the road than there are reckless cyclists. At the very least, when there are cycle lanes there is a 'barrier' where if a driver crosses it they are unquestionably in the wrong.

  > require licensing for bicycle-only drivers

I would argue that there is less of a need to cyclists to get licensed. Recklessly driving a car is far more dangerous than recklessly driving a bicycle.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#162

Post by goodweeds » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 1:55 AM UTC

elithrar wrote: post #154

goodweeds wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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.

Maybe not directly, but the funds generated from licensing and penalties could go towards education programs, tax rebates for those who start commuting by bike, improving safety for cyclists, etc. My guess is that there's a network effect to be had. Once you hit a certain density or,(ugh) critical mass of cyclists on the road you get a point where it is safe and socially-accepted enough that it will become commonplace, and everybody wins.

2) How do you enforce it?

I don't know, I have no experience in the machinations of government. However, I'm confident that if you tell state and municipal governments that they could generate revenue off of it, they will find a way.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#163

Post by pyre » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 1:58 AM UTC

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…

  > most people that run red lights don't go around
  > talking about how they know better than the law.

You've obviously never been pulled over for performing a 'rolling stop' at a stop sign. Most people that are pulled over for such things will complaint to high hell about them.

There is large area between running a red light at 90mph without even batting an eye, and coming to an almost (but technically not complete) stop before continuing through an intersection with a stop sign.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#164

Post by stouset » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 1:59 AM UTC

ww520 wrote: post #105

pyre wrote: 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?

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.'

Bullshit.

Simply by choosing to ride a bike, a cyclist makes the roads so much safer (comparatively) for everyone else, they could cycle backwards through the streets while blindfolded and it would _still_ likely be a net benefit to the safety of others on the road (nothing claimed about the cyclist him- or her-self).

And this is before you consider the notion that the vast majority of drivers speed (speed limits are seen as the _lower_ limit by many), and many tailgate, roll through stoplights, turn and change lanes without signaling, and send text messages while doing all of the above.

The safety numbers are so overwhelmingly in favor of cycling, talking about the "endangerment of others" in this context is, quite frankly, laughable.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#165

Post by jrockway » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 2:00 AM UTC

kgermino wrote: post #160

jrockway wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For those of you not from Chicago, Chicago has created an experimental bike lane on a downtown street. They put some reflective poles in the middle of the side of the road where cars park, then designated everything from those poles to the curb a bike lane. Cars now park to the left of bicycles and to the right of cars, creating an interesting setup. There is no risk of being "doored" now, but traffic coming out of side streets can't see bikes in the bike lanes. They've compensated for this with tons and tons of paint on the road and lots of signs.

I have ridden the Kinzie one in both directions. I usually need to turn left at Clinton or Des Plaines, and this is now very difficult, as it's tough to move from the poled-in area to the real traffic lane at speed. To turn at Clinton, I have to cut over traffic right after the bridge. To turn at Des Plaines, the lane change is simpler because the poles are gone, but that giant hill makes turning left there very difficult. I like to get over to the left well before the intersection so that I don't miss the turn due to too much traffic, but the poles force me to stay in the bike lane longer than I might want to during heavy traffic. (OK, there is never any traffic on Kinzie, so this is not a real problem.)

The stop signs along the route are very difficult for everyone, because nobody knows how to react to this weird lane thing that exists nowhere else on earth. Should cars yield to bikes? Should bikes yield to cars? There are some signs put up that try to tell you what to do, but I've read them a million times and can't remember what they say.

Kinzie is such a lightly-used street that I don't understand how these dividers help make the road safer. That big hill at the 5-way intersection is the only thing non-ideal about Kinzie, and of course that's never going to be fixed. Some reflective poles in the middle of the road don't do it for me.

While this doesn't excite me, there are changes that would. Parked cars could be removed from the side of the road, leaving enough room for cyclists and cars to truly share the right lane. (No need for bike lane markings; the extra room is just as good and much cheaper to create.) Speed limits could be lowered from 30 to 25, so that, with training, bikes and cars could actually be going to same speed. This means that traffic light timings would be just as good for bikes as for cars, meaning that there would be no travel time advantage for cars.

I doubt this will happen, so as a substitute, how about giving people speeding tickets in Chicago? I've never seen anyone get one, and I've seen people getting off the freeway and continuing to drive 75 on the surface streets. 75 on a city street? Come on.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#166

Post by stouset » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 2:04 AM UTC

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…

> 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?

Speeding, for one.

Talking on the phone or texting while driving, for another.

These things are responsible for countless preventable deaths on the roadways, and yet they're completely tolerated by most drivers.

Except text messaging, perhaps. In that case, it's always the asshole on their cell phone in the _other_ car doing something stupid. Of course, you never notice the dozens of times that _you're_ the asshole, because you're trying to fire off that quick text.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#167

Post by pyre » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 2:05 AM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #111

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…

"it really odd that people in cars think that cyclists need to watch out for cars and not the other way around" But isn't it even odder that cyclists think the same thing about pedestrians? My encounters with the "dick cyclist" has always been when I was walking. Isn't this similar to what cyclists think about the "dick driver"? It seems whenever people are in a position of "power" they become pushy, impatient, and c…

In reality, most people that are cyclists are not dicks, at least where I am. Most people go out of their way to avoid pedestrians. There are some people that are 'dick cyclists,' but I see them act like dicks towards cards, pedestrians, and other cyclists alike. It has nothing to do with a position of power, and more to do with a general attitude.

The problem between car drivers and bike riders, is that there are a lot of drivers that view the position of the person in the car as the 'normal' position, and the position of the cyclist as the 'abnormal' position.

Take the article that the OP is in response to. It is written along the lines of:

  I drive a car, and do not drive bicycle. I therefore
  have little vested interest in infrastructure relating
  to bicycles and a strong vested interest in infrastructure
  related to cars. Therefore I see infrastructure related
  to bicycles as 'stealing' time/space/resources away
  from the infrastructure related to cars.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#168

Post by jrockway » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 2:05 AM UTC

So, I'm going to make one general comment that is sort of a reply to everything. We have to stop making bike policies based on the actions of uneducated cyclists and drivers. Nobody will learn anything without being taught. There are a lot of comments that say, "cyclists make driving dangerous". This is probably true; there are a lot of cyclists that can't bike safely on the road. The solution is not to punish those that can safely share the road; the solution is to teach people how to safely ride their bike in traffic. Then they won't be annoying, they'll be fellow safe road users.

Similarly, we need to educate drivers in treating cyclists respectfully. Don't tolerate running stop signs; that's illegal. But you must tolerate cyclists that are taking the entire right lane because they think they need it for their safety. Look behind you, change to the left lane, and overtake on the left. Don't be annoyed, because this is how roads work. There is going to be traffic and some of it is going to be slower than you. That's why there are multiple lanes. Relax, drive intelligently, and you won't even notice the cyclists because they won't seem any different from any other traffic.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#169

Post by protomyth » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 2:08 AM UTC

jarek wrote: post #145

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.

There exist a couple of studies that show the costs of administration of a bicycle registration program is more than the revenue collected when you make the registration cost reasonable. (Sorry, haven't got links right now.) That's before you get into defining exactly which bicycles have to be registered, and figuring out how to enforce it.

If we are going to put in more bicycle lanes with the bike owners having ownership and not just taking space from the already taxed car drivers, money needs to be collected. The US needs to start actually paying for things. Roads for vehicles (trucks) are at least used for delivery of everyone's goods, bike lanes and trails don't have that secondary use. Car parking removed for bike lanes can be a profit center.

I don't understand the "which" part. Wouldn't it be all bikes that are legal on the bike paths? That's how motorcycles work for roads.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#170

Post by stouset » Tue, Oct 25, 2011, 2:09 AM UTC

Lagged2Death wrote: post #141

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…

I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude. Yes. Bikers have this in common with the drivers of trucks, buses, cars, SUVs, joggers, pedestrians, etc. They all break any rules that make their lives harder if they believe they're likely to get away with said breaking. All of them, all the time. They're all just people, and they're all really the same.

No, no, no. You don't understand. _I'm_ different. _I'm_ not part of the problem. Everyone else is, you see.