251–260 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many elderly people do you see at all ? If you think about it, you might realize there are several explanations other than "nobody uses those things"
I live in a big city, so I see a lot of elderly people. But especially the ones who are not mobile anymore you probably see less. If they were using those tricycle things, I would certainly see them at least some times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Better cycling infrastructure" should mean an effectively car-free network of streets . Yes this can be achieved while still allowing cars to access residences on these streets. This is what has been frustrating for me as a life long advocate for decades . People think bike lanes are a solution. They are not, bike lanes are for cars, not for bikes. Bikes and public transit should each get about 5%-10% of car-free su…
while i can appreciate the idea, in LA, there's basically zero chance we get such a car-free network of streets, so i advocate for replacing free street parking with dedicated bike lanes. ideally, also narrowing the car lanes too for traffic calming and add some sort of barrier (even just periodic bumps or a hump). it's nearly as good, reduces externalized subsidies to cars, it's more achievable politically and civic…
In SF we are slowly, and contentiously creating this network. Perhaps it will fail, but it's mostly becoming real at this point. It will only take and extended period of gas prices to act as a catalyst.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
while i can appreciate the idea, in LA, there's basically zero chance we get such a car-free network of streets, so i advocate for replacing free street parking with dedicated bike lanes. ideally, also narrowing the car lanes too for traffic calming and add some sort of barrier (even just periodic bumps or a hump). it's nearly as good, reduces externalized subsidies to cars, it's more achievable politically and civic…
I mean, i just don't know what to say. Anything less is insufficient. Bike lanes "are for other people," which is the paradigm that propagates the bikes and ebikes never being a real alternative to the automobile. In SF we are slowly, and contentiously creating this network. Perhaps it will fail, but it's mostly becoming real at this point. It will only take and extended period of gas prices to act as a catalyst.
i agree about gas prices needing to be higher though. i've long advocated for raising gas taxes (and removing indirect subsidies) to price in externalities and reconfigure markets (not just transportation, but housing, grocery, and everything else too) to be more efficient as a result. you could even fund bikes lanes with those taxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, i just don't know what to say. Anything less is insufficient. Bike lanes "are for other people," which is the paradigm that propagates the bikes and ebikes never being a real alternative to the automobile. In SF we are slowly, and contentiously creating this network. Perhaps it will fail, but it's mostly becoming real at this point. It will only take and extended period of gas prices to act as a catalyst.
you're letting perfect be the enemy of the good. you can get extensive biking infrastructure nearly immediately by doing a conversion of street parking. creating a separate, dedicated network is much slower and more expensive, if even possible. i've lived in SF and there is no way that the wealthy folks there, just like LA, will allow anything more than a few token bike lanes just to appease the peons and appear magn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're letting perfect be the enemy of the good. you can get extensive biking infrastructure nearly immediately by doing a conversion of street parking. creating a separate, dedicated network is much slower and more expensive, if even possible. i've lived in SF and there is no way that the wealthy folks there, just like LA, will allow anything more than a few token bike lanes just to appease the peons and appear magn…
I'm not letting perfect be the enemy. I'll push for whatever infrastructure I can get, i just think a lack of ambition is also a flaw. Ask for what you need, not just what you think you can get. That's how SF got a near car-free route from the ocean to the ferry building.
sure, you can ask for anything. and not doing so isn't for lacking ambition. that's a projective ad hominem. sometimes people differ in what they perceive as wholly sufficient.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about people that can’t drive a motorcycle, like children? Or people that can’t afford a motorcycle? Or people that have nowhere to store a motorbike (I’ll like to see you hang a motorbike on a wall)? Do we just abandon them? > we avoid the whole issue of converting car lanes to bicycle lanes and then reverting that decision because a traffic jam occurred and residents were not impressed, wasting money in the pr…
Kids are legislatively forbidden from riding motorcycles. Just let them do AM or another form of certification for small bikes that get to 50ish kmh. It's not like they can't get to 50 with a bicycle. I'd even argue it's safer since it's easier to wear protective gear when you don't have to pedal. Affording it isn't a real issue either. (i)Second hand motorcycles can be had for really cheap since they're treated as t…
Can you explain to me how my 4 year old who can barely use her bicycle can reach 50 km/hour? I can't even do it myself on our city bike or transport bike. An electric bicycle is far more expensive (you calling 1000 USD cheap), and they are legally not allowed to go quicker than 25 km/hour. An electric transport bike new goes for 4000 EUR here (NL). Its all fucking expensive.
But regardless of the latter you're out of your mind if you believe young children are able to drive 50 km/hour on a bike, let alone safely. The issue I have with electric bikes is that they often cause accidents (usually elder) on specific bike lanes. I really don't want anyone to drive more quick than 25 km/hour there. Speedbikers and sports bikers are another problem, they're inconsiderate and don't give a rat about other users of the public space.
So much of this advice is “ride to the left” and I wish to emphasize it. Novice riders are trained to stick to an invisible (or painted) bike lake which ends up with them being far less visible than they need to be. Your safety is more important than some car’s need to get to work 5 seconds faster, and you shouldn’t feel controlling anxiety if some idiot honks at you for riding in the main traffic lane. You have righ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kids are legislatively forbidden from riding motorcycles. Just let them do AM or another form of certification for small bikes that get to 50ish kmh. It's not like they can't get to 50 with a bicycle. I'd even argue it's safer since it's easier to wear protective gear when you don't have to pedal. Affording it isn't a real issue either. (i)Second hand motorcycles can be had for really cheap since they're treated as t…
> Kids are legislatively forbidden from riding motorcycles. Just let them do AM or another form of certification for small bikes that get to 50ish kmh. It's not like they can't get to 50 with a bicycle. Can you explain to me how my 4 year old who can barely use her bicycle can reach 50 km/hour? I can't even do it myself on our city bike or transport bike. An electric bicycle is far more expensive (you calling 1000 US…
I'm also not mentioning electric vehicles since at the moment they are a luxury product (excluding DIY). If you're looking for value it's definitely still in ICE. Although 1000 isn't exactly cheap a decent bicycle does cost 200-250 second hand in my experience. Anything cheaper tends to break the moment you give it some torque after forgetting to switch down a couple gears for a stop. I've broken so many cheap cranks it's not even funny.
Also as mentioned, there's public transport and maybe moving near your work in case that's somehow too expensive. (I reckon lots of people on ~minimum salary don't work in expensive parts of the city)
And I still reckon even a kid with a half decent bike can get to 50 on a nice downhill. Not too sure though and I don't feel like encouraging a kid to try although knowing how my generation was as kids they'll try without encouragement once they can ride in a straight line.
I'm kinda curious if a kid can do it now so I just opened https://www.omnicalculator.com/sports/cycling-wattage to get a rough idea and although it's definitely far from perfect for:
- 16kg person weight
- 9kg bike
- 50km/h goal
- Hoods position to assume some tuck
- On asphalt with -6 grade
I get 350W. On -10 grade 211W. (to maintain)
Only issue is I can't find a power measurement over time for a 4 year old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Kids are legislatively forbidden from riding motorcycles. Just let them do AM or another form of certification for small bikes that get to 50ish kmh. It's not like they can't get to 50 with a bicycle. Can you explain to me how my 4 year old who can barely use her bicycle can reach 50 km/hour? I can't even do it myself on our city bike or transport bike. An electric bicycle is far more expensive (you calling 1000 US…
Your 4 year old does not need to commute per bicycle and in general should not be riding a bicycle on busy streets. Even on busy bicycle paths small kids can be problematic (slow and unpredictable) so they're honestly better off on the sidewalk, on barely used (residential) streets and in parks. I'm also not mentioning electric vehicles since at the moment they are a luxury product (excluding DIY). If you're looking…
Our oldest is now 4, like I said she can barely bicycle as it is. Kids of age 8, 10, 12 they go to elementary school, and many go by bicycle. Sure, some walk too. After age 12 they go to high school, and these are more far away usually so its either public transport or bicycle. Bicycle is cheaper for parents, and the kids get some exercise, plus the bike lanes are reasonably secure (its illegal now to use a smartphone while using bicycle). Now, yes my 4 year old can barely cycle, and she should be on the sideways indeed. However at some point she's gonna be old enough to start cycling to school and such. And you want her to get combined with cars who drive 60 past her school where they are only allowed 30? Its an insane thought, seriously. Open up Google Maps or Apple Maps or whatever and have a look at the Amsterdam center. Look at some of the roads where cars are allowed. Now, yes, the roads where people live in a house/apartment and such, these are generally small and yes the cars gotta drive together with the bicycles. But when you go from one neighborhood to another, the cars are separated. They drive on their own lane, usually easily 50 km/hour, multiple lanes, traffic lights or roundabouts at different larger roads. You really do not want to cross such roads casually, you want to use the zebra crossing. And as a cyclist what you want to do is listen to the traffic lights, and stay on the bicyclist road. This is in a large city.
Of course, in a small village or even small town, you can have it more casual. For example you could say the main road which connects to a city is mainly for cars, with separated bike lane, but for the rest cars and cyclists must share the road. And this works, perfectly well. But I grew up in a town of about 80k people, and we had various separated roads.
My point being we already make all kind of concessions in The Netherlands:
1) Bicyclists may not use smartphones anymore while using their bicycle because these caused accidents.
2) Sometimes streets and bicycle lane is separated, sometimes the bicycle lane is shared but marked as such (means cars may use the area, but bicyclists have priority), and sometimes they are shared which in practice means cars much adapt to the bicyclists (and they don't like such but if they not allowed 50 km/hour that's OK). It depends on the area, and its decided by local city/province government.
3) Electric bikes are an ongoing issue/debate. Usually the elder drive them, and they cause accidents. I mentioned it because they're a serious problem, but according to local law they're not allowed to drive more quick than 25 km/hour or they fall under different jurisdiction than manual/classic bicyclists.
(In your world, the manual/classic bicyclists would be able to easily go twice as quick as the legal limit of electric cyclists. While they can go quicker than 25 km/hour, and racers do indeed regularly, the casual cyclists do not and will not. They will not adapt to the 50 km/hour of the cars. Also, people in The Netherlands often have old bicycles ('barrels') cause they still work, and these won't get stolen. They won't have a new chain, they're made for flat/city terrain, and all too often you have wind not in the back. So its not only 4 year olds who would be in disadvantage; also pre-teens in general, as well as many elder.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your 4 year old does not need to commute per bicycle and in general should not be riding a bicycle on busy streets. Even on busy bicycle paths small kids can be problematic (slow and unpredictable) so they're honestly better off on the sidewalk, on barely used (residential) streets and in parks. I'm also not mentioning electric vehicles since at the moment they are a luxury product (excluding DIY). If you're looking…
People drive on average 18 km/hour on a bicycle here (flat terrain). That is nowhere _near_ 50 km/hour. Racers drive such speeds, and they are aerodynamic, on a race bike, well maintained bike, etc. Our oldest is now 4, like I said she can barely bicycle as it is. Kids of age 8, 10, 12 they go to elementary school, and many go by bicycle. Sure, some walk too. After age 12 they go to high school, and these are more fa…
Sure, you can separate cyclists from cars on new roads, but it's not financially reasonable to rebuild the whole city trying to get people to move from cars (comfort) to bicycles (lack of comfort + physical effort + slow).
I don't mind cycling focused cities. I've lived in one and it was nice, but it was also rather small so the size allowed for bicycles to make sense. Ain't no one riding a bicycle 20km to work.
In my world, provided the separated cycling infrastructure wasn't made in the beginning, it seems way easier and cheaper to incentivise people to move from cars and bicycles to motorcycles since the comfort/cost impact isn't as big in both directions instead of trying to redesign the whole road infrastructure.
The example with 50kmh was meant as something of a top speed. if a kid can reach it or close to it on a downhill where their brakes are underpowered and tires undersized/lacking traction while having the incentive to not brake so they don't have to pedal you might as well give them a little mofa.
Sure, it raises the average speed but it also removes the issues of wearing gear (I can wear a full textile kit with shoes and gloves and don't sweat at all as long as I'm going 15-20kmh in 30ish degrees C) and removes the disgusting incentive to avoid braking to reduce pedaling. It also gives them the ability to keep up with traffic so drivers aren't inclined to try dangerous overtaking maneuvers.