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

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#181

Post by esrauch »

stouset wrote: post #166
esrauch wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 asshol…

The thing about speeding and texting is that they are both incredibly difficult to do on a bike. I take your point though.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#182

Post by nitrogen »

potatolicious wrote: post #82
nitrogen wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unlimited point-to-point mobility provided by a car allows people to optimize their routines almost down to the second, so losing 30 seconds behind a cyclist can make the difference between being on time and being late. Though this can be disputed, I would argue that aggressively minimizing time spent in transportation (and thus maximizing time spent at work or leisure) is beneficial to the economy and society.

... except I know way too many people who voluntarily subscribe to 50-60 minute commutes in a car instead of simply living closer to work. Optimizing for less time spent in transportation is nice, but there's a balance - both for yourself and society. A bunch of gas-guzzling one-ton hunks of steel squeezing their way down a packed freeway, with only a single passenger inside each... hardly seems beneficial to the eco…

The commute isn't necessarily voluntary -- living closer to work may not be viable (especially for non-programmer types who work in the city but don't make enough to afford living there with their family), or may lack certain features (like a private yard or swimming pool) that make the commute worth it.

I'm not advocating for the status quo of one giant inefficient beast of steel per person, just explaining why some drivers get upset about small delays. It is my opinion that any transportation system that completely replaces the current road system will need to allow for the type of minimal-latency point-to-point mobility we now enjoy with cars (during off-peak hours, at least). The reason I believe this is that people are easy to move, but businesses, houses, and other resources are not. Extra mobility allows us to match the right people with the right resources in less time.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#183

Post by esrauch »

pyre wrote: post #163
esrauch wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) s…

And there is a huge difference between rolling through a stop sign and rolling through a red light. I don't think the former is that big of a deal for both bicycles and cars, and I think the latter is a big deal for both bicycles and cars. I rarely see cars just decide to not stop for a red light, and I see bicycles do it on a weekly basis. I'm not talking about stop at a red light, look and see that no one is there, I'm talking about just go straight through a red light without slowing down.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#184

Post by stouset »

ww520 wrote: post #175
stouset wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's interesting to see how far bikers would twist the truth to justify running red light and stop sign.

Or, alternatively, how oblivious drivers are to the true human cost to their mode of transportation.

Let's take New York, since it wasn't too hard to find relevant data. Data can be found at:

  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010NYSAccSummary.pdf
  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010BicycleAccSummary.pdf
  http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010PedestrianAccSummary.pdf
  http://gruskinfoundation.org/pdfs/Pedestrian-Cyclist-Accidents_3-1.pdf
In 2010, there were: 311 pedestrians and 36 cyclists killed by motor vehicle drivers. On top of this, there were 16,090 pedestrians and 6,058 cyclists injured by collisions with motor vehicles. 4,898 of the injuries (of pedestrians alone) were considered moderate or serious.

On the flip side, we have the comprehensive statistics on pedestrian/cyclist injuries compiled at Hunter University. In 2010, 927 pedestrians were treated for injuries involving cyclists. Of those, 84 received inpatient treatment, indicating a moderate or severe injury. Note that they count zero deaths.

Let's compile what we've got:

  Cars : 347 deaths, 4898 moderate or severe injuries, 17,250 minor injuries
  Bikes:   0 deaths,   84 moderate or severe injuries,    843 minor injuries
Now let's involve the WHO. Long story short, cars cause over twice as many deaths due to emissions as they do from accidents. No joke. We'll make it an even 2x, just to be generous. And we won't even attempt to estimate the "injuries" in the form of asthma and bronchitis they cause.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/369169.stm

  Cars : 1,041 deaths, 4898 moderate or severe injuries, 17,250 minor injuries
  Bikes:     0 deaths,   84 moderate or severe injuries,    843 minor injuries
Draw conclusions as you will. Unfortunately, it's somewhat impossible to reconcile the numbers at this point. Cars drive many more miles annually than bikes do, but cyclists also tend to live closer to their destinations, greatly reducing the number of miles they require traveling. Most estimates peg cycling traffic at around 2% of automobile traffic, give or take.

At that rate of comparison, cyclists would be expected to have caused 20.8 deaths, 97 moderate or severe injuries, and 345 minor injuries. If it were up to me, I'd opt for the higher number of minor injuries and greatly reduced number of deaths any day.

Please also take note that in this comparison, I was very generous to cars. We didn't add data on injuries and fatalities caused by car-on-car crashes versus bicycle-on-bicycle crashes, which I'm sure we can both agree would have come out far in favor of the cyclists. We also didn't consider non-fatal health effects of car emissions, and we rounded down fatal health effects. We also haven't even begun to talk about the year-over-year decrease in cyclist-related pedestrian fatalities in New York even though cycling participation has been increasing by double digits (as high as 26%) yearly.

And the cars _still_ came out looking bad.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#185

Post by stouset »

ww520 wrote: post #176
stouset wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people here are arguing that it isn't even wrong. If nobody's coming, you have clear visibility and lines of sight, there's absolutely no rational argument for this behavior being a "dangerous" action on behalf of either cyclists or pedestrians. And before you start, it's not even remotely comparable for a car. In a car, you're essentially in a sensory-deprivation chamber, and you're several feet farther from th…

If bikers blow red light with no one on around, people won't be complaining about them since they won't be there to witness it. People are complaining because clearly they saw bikers doing it in their vicinity.

Vicinity can include cars behind cyclists who do this perfectly safely.

But your point is completely irrelevant regardless. The existence of people who blow through red lights regardless of oncoming traffic does not make people who carefully and deliberately go through a red light with no oncoming traffic dangerous.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#186

Post by ww520 »

stouset wrote: post #185
ww520 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If bikers blow red light with no one on around, people won't be complaining about them since they won't be there to witness it. People are complaining because clearly they saw bikers doing it in their vicinity.

Vicinity can include cars behind cyclists who do this perfectly safely. But your point is completely irrelevant regardless. The existence of people who blow through red lights regardless of oncoming traffic does not make people who carefully and deliberately go through a red light with no oncoming traffic dangerous.

You are basically saying that bikers are such super road warriors that they don't have to obey traffic laws since they are all aware of their surrounding. Then don't get mad when car drivers ignore you and run you off the road since they don't expect you are not following the rules.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#187

Post by ww520 »

stouset wrote: post #184
ww520 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting to see how far bikers would twist the truth to justify running red light and stop sign.

Or, alternatively, how oblivious drivers are to the true human cost to their mode of transportation. Let's take New York, since it wasn't too hard to find relevant data. Data can be found at: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010NYSAccSummary.pdf http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010BicycleAccSummary.pdf http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010PedestrianAccSummary.pdf http://gruskinfoundation.org/pd…

What do all these have to do with bikers blowing through red light and stop sign?

On the flip side, these causalities reinforce the requirement of ALL road participants to follow the traffic laws. If the bikers stop at red and stop sign, don't you think the biker injures would go down?

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#188

Post by stouset »

ww520 wrote: post #186
stouset wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vicinity can include cars behind cyclists who do this perfectly safely. But your point is completely irrelevant regardless. The existence of people who blow through red lights regardless of oncoming traffic does not make people who carefully and deliberately go through a red light with no oncoming traffic dangerous.

You are basically saying that bikers are such super road warriors that they don't have to obey traffic laws since they are all aware of their surrounding. Then don't get mad when car drivers ignore you and run you off the road since they don't expect you are not following the rules.

Not that you've been listening, but I'm saying that the risk to others posed by cyclists and pedestrians doing the equivalent of jaywalking is minuscule compared to the dangers we as a society tolerate from cars day after day.

Making as big a deal of it as you have been is insane. Your thinking is no different than those who argue that vaccines are dangerous due to increased incidence of autism. Even _if_ it were true, its importance is still overwhelmed by the sheer number of lives saved compared to the alternative.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#189

Post by stouset »

ww520 wrote: post #187
stouset wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, alternatively, how oblivious drivers are to the true human cost to their mode of transportation. Let's take New York, since it wasn't too hard to find relevant data. Data can be found at: http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010NYSAccSummary.pdf http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010BicycleAccSummary.pdf http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/Statistics/2010PedestrianAccSummary.pdf http://gruskinfoundation.org/pd…

What do all these have to do with bikers blowing through red light and stop sign? On the flip side, these causalities reinforce the requirement of ALL road participants to follow the traffic laws. If the bikers stop at red and stop sign, don't you think the biker injures would go down?

Funny you should mention that. In the UK, at least, women are at greater risk of death while cycling precisely because they follow this exact traffic law.

  http://www.metro.co.uk/news/46427-women-cyclists-more-at-risk-of-death
And the numbers emphasize exactly the point I made earlier. Cycling is less dangerous than driving. So much so that nitpicking stupid crap like cyclists running lights with no oncoming traffic is idiotic. Even with behavior like this, they're _still_ safer than cars.

Daily, we put up with drivers who speed, talk on their cell phones, drive while drunk, tailgate, dart between lanes without signaling, roll through stop signs, pollute the air we breathe, burn through our limited reserves of fossil fuels, injure forty million people per year, and kill one and a half million people per year, and you're hung up on the, what, _tens_ of deaths caused by cyclists per year due to running red lights? If that?

While you're at it, why not join the crusade against the grave threat we face from children running with scissors?

Get. A. Fucking. Grip.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#190

Post by ww520 »

stouset wrote: post #189
ww520 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do all these have to do with bikers blowing through red light and stop sign? On the flip side, these causalities reinforce the requirement of ALL road participants to follow the traffic laws. If the bikers stop at red and stop sign, don't you think the biker injures would go down?

Funny you should mention that. In the UK, at least, women are at greater risk of death while cycling precisely because they follow this exact traffic law. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/46427-women-cyclists-more-at-risk-of-death And the numbers emphasize exactly the point I made earlier. Cycling is less dangerous than driving. So much so that nitpicking stupid crap like cyclists running lights with no oncoming traffic i…

Funny you picked that story. The study was for woman cyclists having higher fatal collision with trucks than men. The study doesn't say cyclists stopped at traffic light having a higher chance of fatal collision with trucks. The news report picked two collisions and twisted the study's conclusion. Looks to me pretty bad reporting.

> Get. A. Fucking. Grip.

Nice way to live up to the angry biker image. Calm down.

Post reply on HN