Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

ridereport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 170 posts

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#81

Post by sokoloff »

gameshot911 wrote: post #79
sokoloff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s little reason to carry full coverage on a car over 7 years old and, classic cars aside, almost no reason past 10 years.

>There’s little reason to carry full coverage on a car over 7 years old Can you elucidate? I assume by 'full coverage' you mean comprehensive (you get paid if your car gets damaged), vs liability-only (other person gets paid if you damage their dar). Doing some very approximative math, my 7 year old car is worth $12k, and adding comprehensive insurance costs an additional $500/year. Why is it so obvious I wouldn't wa…

Different states call it different things, but I’m talking about dropping “collision” and “other than collision” coverage as the car gets older.

Your chance of a total loss on the car from a collision that’s your fault or a non-collision loss is well under 4%/year (the economic break even if your additional coverage is $500 on $12K). If you can’t write a check for $12K, you might need to keep the coverage. If you can, you make money (statistically) by dropping it.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#82

Post by avianlyric »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #62
mattcantstop wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40,000 people are killed each year by cars in the United States. We do need to ensure bikes and scooters are not on the sidewalks. The best way to do this is to build dedicated bike lanes that remove bicycles and scooters from the sidewalk and from the road (where cars are too dangerous). But I can't take humans serious as this stage where 40,000 of us are dying each year and so little is done to prevent it despite i…

I get that. But those are cars generally driving at highway speeds, and there is a lot of safety built it. These e bikes and scooters are going quite fast in urban environments with more or less zero protection for the cyclist/scooterist, and who are closer to pedestrians.

> I get that. But those are cars generally driving at highway speeds, and there is a lot of safety built it.

Tell that to 40,000 dead pedestrians every year.

> These e bikes and scooters are going quite fast in urban environments with more or less zero protection for the cyclist/scooterist, and who are closer to pedestrians.

And e-bike or scooter with a human weighs at most 200kg total. That 20% of the weight of small car (1000kg), which means 20% of the energy in a collision. The e-bikes and scooters would need to travelling well in excess of 30mph before their deadliness to pedestrians in a collision would get even close to a car.

Something backed up by the stats, if you can even find them. So few pedestrians deaths are caused by bikes and scooters that most countries and municipalities don’t even bother tracking the data. In the UK an upper-bound on bike caused pedestrian deaths is about 2 per year, and more likely number is 0.5 per year.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#83

Post by Scubabear68 »

avianlyric wrote: post #82
Scubabear68 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that. But those are cars generally driving at highway speeds, and there is a lot of safety built it. These e bikes and scooters are going quite fast in urban environments with more or less zero protection for the cyclist/scooterist, and who are closer to pedestrians.

> I get that. But those are cars generally driving at highway speeds, and there is a lot of safety built it. Tell that to 40,000 dead pedestrians every year. > These e bikes and scooters are going quite fast in urban environments with more or less zero protection for the cyclist/scooterist, and who are closer to pedestrians. And e-bike or scooter with a human weighs at most 200kg total. That 20% of the weight of smal…

So asking for stats on e-bike injury rates is wrong?

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#84

Post by fshbbdssbbgdd »

gameshot911 wrote: post #79
sokoloff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s little reason to carry full coverage on a car over 7 years old and, classic cars aside, almost no reason past 10 years.

>There’s little reason to carry full coverage on a car over 7 years old Can you elucidate? I assume by 'full coverage' you mean comprehensive (you get paid if your car gets damaged), vs liability-only (other person gets paid if you damage their dar). Doing some very approximative math, my 7 year old car is worth $12k, and adding comprehensive insurance costs an additional $500/year. Why is it so obvious I wouldn't wa…

Do you figure there is a 4% chance your car gets totaled each year (in a crash that’s not someone else’s fault)? That sounds pretty high.

I don’t buy collision for a few reasons:

1. I can afford to self-insure.

2. If I pay for collision, I’m more likely to make a claim, which will make my insurance even more expensive in the future. Also, using insurance makes the repairs more expensive, and otherwise incurs more costs to society (various people will be involved in the claims process). These costs are incorporated into the price of the insurance.

I can understand paying for it if losing your car would ruin you, or if you think you are much more likely than average to crash (in a way the insurance rate for your demographic doesn’t capture), but otherwise it seems like a bad deal.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#85

Post by maxerickson »

bradleyjg wrote: post #52

I’m not exactly sure what counts as an e-bike but here in nyc we have people riding vehicles that are significantly heavier than a typical bike, go 20ish miles an hour, and require no peddling in bike lanes. Can’t say I care for that.

Exceeding the speeds expected by other users is the only issue really.

I guess if the weight is way out of proportion that can start to be a problem.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#86

Post by zachkatz »

chitowneats wrote: post #72
rainsford wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also argue the potential savings and advantages of e-bikes are undervalued because the bike infrastructure in even the best US cities isn't particularly great. I've spent a fair amount of time in Denver, and while there are some good spots and ongoing improvements, the bike infrastructure in the city is honestly a lot worse than you might expect. Better bike infrastructure would almost certainly increase the e-bi…

Denver is trying. But they have so far to go. I wish them luck and success. The driving culture is strong.

Here's a random main street in Denver: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7322582,-104.9861576,3a,75y,...

Or another one: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7356145,-104.9873758,3a,75y,...

...or another one: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7383571,-104.9929042,3a,75y,...

You can click around to pretty much any street in the city, and 100% of the space is dedicated to cars. A complete bike network that enables mass cycling is a dense grid that makes basically every street safe to cycle on: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2015/05/the-grid-most-i...

This is what trying looks like (Jersey City's Quick Build Bike Network ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mC1l8L5aBA

Or this (Inside the New Plan to Make Paris ‘100% Cyclable): https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-22/how-paris...

Denver is not even really trying.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#87

Post by KeithBrink »

sokoloff wrote: post #81
gameshot911 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There’s little reason to carry full coverage on a car over 7 years old Can you elucidate? I assume by 'full coverage' you mean comprehensive (you get paid if your car gets damaged), vs liability-only (other person gets paid if you damage their dar). Doing some very approximative math, my 7 year old car is worth $12k, and adding comprehensive insurance costs an additional $500/year. Why is it so obvious I wouldn't wa…

Different states call it different things, but I’m talking about dropping “collision” and “other than collision” coverage as the car gets older. Your chance of a total loss on the car from a collision that’s your fault or a non-collision loss is well under 4%/year (the economic break even if your additional coverage is $500 on $12K). If you can’t write a check for $12K, you might need to keep the coverage. If you can…

Making money based on statistics is what the insurance company does. The whole point of insurance is paying extra money to the insurance company in case I'm personally on the wrong side of the statistic.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#88

Post by [deleted] »

JPKab wrote: post #31

I'm a huge fan of programs like this, but one thing that cities like Denver (especially Denver) need to be wary of are things that actively worsen bike commutes over time. I live nearby, and one of the things that is a frequent topic of conversation is how dangerous certain bike trails in Denver are due to assaults and muggings. This is a new phenomenon, and there are bike trails in Denver I wouldn't go near on an ex…

[deleted]

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#89

Post by sokoloff »

KeithBrink wrote: post #87
sokoloff wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different states call it different things, but I’m talking about dropping “collision” and “other than collision” coverage as the car gets older. Your chance of a total loss on the car from a collision that’s your fault or a non-collision loss is well under 4%/year (the economic break even if your additional coverage is $500 on $12K). If you can’t write a check for $12K, you might need to keep the coverage. If you can…

Making money based on statistics is what the insurance company does. The whole point of insurance is paying extra money to the insurance company in case I'm personally on the wrong side of the statistic.

That makes sense for ruinous losses. If $12K would be a ruinous loss, you’re doing precisely the right thing, if you assume you have to have that exact car.

Having a $5K car would probably be more financially appropriate, but that’s a side topic when considering only “buy this insurance or not”.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#90

Post by kccqzy »

convolvatron wrote: post #74
komali2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a cyclist for the last 15 years I get this. At the end of the day you gotta keep to what you think will keep you alive. I can't be sure of the exact mechanisms or whether I'm observing behavior correctly, but a strategy that seemed to be shaking out in SF is cyclists aggressively standing up for our rights, by for example one person blocking cars from making illegal rights while the rest of the bicyclists rode alo…

that thing where they stop and insist you cross first even though they have the right away really bothers me. it takes longer for both of us and creates a really uncomfortable ambiguity about whether they are actually going to start. I've just started going up on the sidewalk and dropping a foot to make it clear I'm just not going to cross...or turn if it makes sense I guess its not as bad the mission post pandemic.…

Yes! As a bicyclist on my route I regularly yield to cars that stopped before me on a 4-way stop, but those cars insist I cross first. During broad daylight they often wave to me, but at night it can be difficult to see whether they actually intend to let me cross first.
Post reply on HN