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

Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 969 posts

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#421

Post by tempsy »

raphaelj wrote: post #36

Somewhat unrelated to the article, but I live in a mid-size EU city and dumped my car for an e-bike a few months ago. Surprisingly, it hasn't been that hard (my GF kept her car, and I have a car-sharing subscription): Pros: - Immediately stopped having insomnia. Better feel overall; - about €300/month in additional disposable income. That's basically a free lunch everyday! - significantly faster if parking is taken i…

I always hear people make the argument that cost savings is the biggest benefit of ditching a car and living in a city with good public transportation.

Then I look at NYC and it's $5k to rent a 1 bedroom and everything as soon as you walk out the door is 30-50% more expensive than most other cities.

No one is saving money not having a car in NYC when everything else is so much more expensive.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#422

Post by hammock »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #302
hammock wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's a remarkable statistic If you consider levying a $20-30/day tax to every driver,[1] plus another $12/day if your car is too old,[2] plus $200-600/year to park on public roads,[3] causing people to stop driving as remarkable, then sure. Edit: why the downvotes? [1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10279911/Sadiq-Khan... [2] https://www.carthrottle.com/post/youll-now-be-charged-extra-... [3] https://en.wi…

All that sounds wonderful actually. Cities are for people, not cars.

[flagged]

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#423

Post by codethief »

swexbe wrote: post #235
alkjsdlkjasd wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quickly do the calculations: Walking: 5 km/h * 70kg = 97 kgm/s e-bike: 20 km/h * 90 kg = 500 kgm/s car: 50 km/h * 2000kg = 28,000 kgm/s

Wouldn’t joules be more indicative of damage caused?

No. The kinetic energy of the car/bike/… doesn't tell you anything because you don't know how much energy gets transferred to the victim until you have applied momentum conservation to the elastic/inelastic problem. So, the right approach would be (in this order): Calculate momenta, calculate how much momentum gets transferred to the victim via momentum conservation, deduce the resulting change (increase) in kinetic energy of the victim. This kinetic energy will be converted into heat (= damage/injuries) in one way or another, so it's the relevant physical quantity for our considerations.

Finally, in case of an inelastic problem (likely with cars, not so likely with bikes or people), you also need to consider the energy loss during momentum transfer. Once again, this energy will become heat (= do damage), so it adds to the aforementioned increase in kinetic energy when we're interested in how much damage will be done.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#424

Post by mellosouls »

jonahrd wrote: post #398
mellosouls wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there are always going to be anecdotal exceptions ("parking isn't an issue for me, I just park on site"), but I think fans on either side can have quite rose-tinted views when assessing the pros and cons; I was just pointing out an omission in one of the examples.

I live in the highest density cycling city in North America (Montreal) and this is not anecdotal. A huge portion of my office cycle-commutes to work, and the vast majority do not shower. This was doubly-true before I worked at my current company, where there weren't showers, and still most people used bikes to commute. At what point do anecdotes from people who actually live this experience day to day become more use…

I used to commute by bike myself (and would still if logistics allowed), so you should probably not presume.

The fact is, short of linking to professional analysis and reporting we are all here relating anecdotes - and that's ok.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#425

Post by rootusrootus »

scott_w wrote: post #378
pclmulqdq wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Driving without due care and attention" sounds like a statute that has a much more specific interpretation than you think, and the police probably aren't the ones who misinterpreted that here. "Careless driving" and "reckless driving" are against the law in many states in the US, but both actually have very specific interpretations that are not entirely contained in the text of the statute. This is the joy of living…

So just to be clear “drivers who fuck around go to jail” is not true. But it’s cyclists that are the problem in this discussion.

Don't you hate it when one side just paints the other as being all of the problem? That's very frustrating.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#427

Post by ghusto »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #174
ghusto wrote: post #99

My main transportation vehicle for anything under 15km is a bicycle. I go through rain, ice, snow — doesn't make a difference to me, I'll be cycling. Yes, I've cycled through storms, can't see what the fuss is about really. I would still never cycle in London. It doesn't have proper cycle infrastructure, just some painted lines on roads designed for cars. You're taking your life in your hands there. The car drivers a…

This isn't about London. This is about the City of London, which is about 2 square km in the heart of London (and a separate city). The City of London is incredibly driver-hostile and pedestrian-friendly, so I was personally surprised that this hadn't happened already.

The City of London couldn't have changed that much since the last time I was there, about 5 years ago. It's where all the banks and that are, right? Seemed very much a no-go in the same way to me.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#428

Post by codethief »

loeg wrote: post #358
alkjsdlkjasd wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To quickly do the calculations: Walking: 5 km/h * 70kg = 97 kgm/s e-bike: 20 km/h * 90 kg = 500 kgm/s car: 50 km/h * 2000kg = 28,000 kgm/s

Energy is proportionate to the square of velocity. So it's: Walking: 5 km/h * 70kg => 875 (although this is a very slow estimate for a walker) (please ignore the non-canonical units) e-bike: 20 km/h * 90 kg => 18,000 (I think your estimate for ebike mass might be on the low side at 20kg, but whatever) car: 50 km/h * 2000kg => 2,500,000 (and that's a fairly low speed for cars! Drunk drivers often drive faster than is…

Initial kinetic energy is not the right physical quantity to look at. Most of that kinetic energy will remain in the car/bike/…, i.e. it doesn't tell you much about how much energy will get transferred to the victim – it merely gives you a bound from above.

More details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35233887

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#429

Post by joaonmatos »

nonethewiser wrote: post #150
thinkindie wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Berlin, within the Ring (for those familiar with the city). I don't own a car, I have multiple carsharing subscriptions and I have two children, 1 and 4. We have a cargo bike to move them around and do groceries, almost in any weather (as long as it doesn't rain), otherwise we have public transport as a backup.

Where do you live for those of us unfamiliar with the city? Paris? More on topic - Bikes make a lot of sense in the city but if you add kids to the equation the safety risk just becomes too high to stomach IMO.

The Berlin S-Bahn Ring is a looping railway around the city center. It excludes some higher density areas in the north of the city and includes some less populated areas in the south of the city, but being inside the ring is the most accepted benchmark of living in the city core.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#430

Post by airza »

loeg wrote: post #355
matsemann wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - might be impossible depending on work or children; The newer style of cargo bikes can for many families replace a car. Have two kids seated in the trunk of the bike and drop them off at kindergarten, then continue biking to work and pick them up on the way home. Those are a bit on the pricier side, though. Still cheap compared to a car, but people often look at them as something "extravagant" or "in addition" to…

Unfortunately the big front-loaded cargo bikes are, well, big. Almost as long as a car, if not as wide. You need to park them somewhere and they're definitely too big and heavy to carry up any stairs. They're also expensive, like mid 4 figures USD. This starts to look like a similar problem to car ownership and parking. (I say this all as an avid cyclist -- my household has four bikes and one car.) Rentals seem like…

A bakfiets is nowhere near the size of a car. Come on now.
Post reply on HN