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

761–770 of 969 posts

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#761

Post by sidfthec »

matsemann wrote: post #118
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…

> - 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…

Why is no one talking about the safety of hauling kids on a bike? It's incredibly dangerous compared to a car.

In my city, it's not if but when you'll get hit by a car on a bike. Yet I see parents increasingly think it's okay to haul their children on their bikes.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#762

Post by ryukafalz »

dustedcodes wrote: post #611
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 really dislike cars in cities, but equally I dislike cyclists and cycling myself for the following reasons: > do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft; Not sure where bicycle theft is not a thing, I've not encountered this, even in Vienna, one of the safest cities in the world. You still need to lock your bicycle safely. > you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking; In…

> You always end up with muddy splashes on your trousers. If you cycle then better not wear nice shoes or light trousers, which again limits where/when you can effectively use a bicycle as a way of commute.

Does your bike not have fenders?

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#763

Post by dukeofdoom »

ignormies wrote: post #360
dukeofdoom wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite the same. The problem with a bike seat is the bike seat cuts off circulation in point where a lot of blood vessels pass through, riding has been linked to cancer. Along with the more common city riding hazards like car passangers opening doors, falling over and you breaking bones, getting run over, or even directly breathing in exhaust fumes from trucks.

> the bike seat cuts off circulation in point where a lot of blood vessels pass through, riding has been linked to cancer Even if this is true (I'm skeptical without seeing a source), you're more than free to mount whatever style of seat you want on your bike. No one's stopping you. > Along with the more common city riding hazards like car passangers opening doors, falling over and you breaking bones, getting run ove…

I remember watching 60 minutes, and watching streets in China filled with people riding bikes everywhere. Fast forward to now, and clearly even communists prefer cars. The reasons are endless why a car is superior way to travel, 99% of the time for most people.

However, I have nothing against bikes. I rode one my first year of university, daily; rain and snow. I was a poor student. It had its benefits, but it sucked in many ways.

Separated Bike paths is both a safer and nicer experience. No need to try and get rid of cars.

Because biking in cities is dangerous, I wouldn't go around telling people to do it.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#764

Post by oangemangut »

sidfthec wrote: post #761
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…

Why is no one talking about the safety of hauling kids on a bike? It's incredibly dangerous compared to a car. In my city, it's not if but when you'll get hit by a car on a bike. Yet I see parents increasingly think it's okay to haul their children on their bikes.

Because it should be okay, and it's a societal failing that it currently isn't as safe as it should be. Cars are always safer for their occupants, but using them puts vulnerable road users at greater risk of serious injury or death. In my city I love to see more people on the road with their kids on e-bikes. It shouldn't be a moral failing on part of the parent to be doing that. OTOH, just this morning one of the A*Hole parents back her SUV out of a parking space in a day care parking lot while on the phone and holding the phone to her ear. When I motioned for her to get off her phone in the DAYCARE PARKING LOT she shrugged and sped off.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#765

Post by dukeofdoom »

RankingMember wrote: post #231
dukeofdoom wrote: post #65

biking is great except for ball cancer due to sitting postion

Source? It doesn't look like a direct causal relationship has been proven thus far- the current (inconclusive) state of research is summed up here: https://blog.dana-farber.org/insight/2015/12/does-cycling-in...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890221/

Sure, here are some studies that have investigated the possible association between cycling and the risk of testicular or prostate cancer:

A 2014 study published in the Journal of Men's Health found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of testicular cancer in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.

A 2015 study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of erectile dysfunction and decreased libido in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.

A 2017 study published in the Journal of Urology found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#766

Post by prmoustache »

slothtrop wrote: post #579
prmoustache wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A kid goes to daycare for what 3 years? If you have 2-3 kids and you don't wait 10 years in between these are just 10 years of your life.

Meaning what, it's not worth owning a vehicle for a 10 year span? Be serious.

Meaning this is a moot point for most of your life.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#767

Post by piva00 »

thrashh wrote: post #716
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The population is only 20% of the problem -> look at Berlin, it's population has grown 0.3% over the past 30 years, but the house prices have gone stratospheric just like they have in every other major city. 40% of the housing problem is whatever the fuck is going on in the banking system -> it enables us to commit all of our life savings for the rest of our productive lives to pay for a roof over our heads. It's lik…

The price going up has probably reduced population growth though, so pointing to low growth but high prices doesn’t tell us that much. Not to say that there isn’t something else going on.

Pointing to low growth and high prices tell us that isn't simple supply and demand pushing the prices up. Berlin even more as large swaths of the city are still underdeveloped after losing 2 million inhabitants since the 1940s-1950s.

How can Berlin, a city with ample free space and free buildings still see a massive increase in housing prices if it was a simple issue of supply and demand? There's undoubtedly something else much fishier going on.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#768

Post by lozenge »

b112 wrote: post #577
mjevans wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax the undesired behavior. Using housing as an _investment_ should be heavily taxed based on the behavior's negative impact to society. Live somewhere for at least 35% of a year (more than 1/3rd), then most of that tax goes away since it's a 'primary residence'. (35% to allow for moving as well as possible 'sunbird' / 'winter/summer homes', while still catching anyone who treats housing as an 'investment' (a tax upo…

So landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy, now raise rents dramatically? So the end result, the poor pay more? Instead, what Vancouver did was simply tax empty housing.

Landlords don't provide housing, buildings do. If they are taxed out of owning the building, they'll sell it to somebody who can live in it.

Yes, the world needs some amount of rented housing, but a huge percentage of people renting now want to own, just to have stability and control over their living environment.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#769

Post by CalRobert »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #571
CalRobert wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the risk you face is sliding" Yes, including sliding over my child who is riding her bike to school, and killing her. "your failure case is no longer sliding, but it's toppling over." In which case the primary injury will be to your dignity.

> In which case the primary injury will be to your dignity. I just came flying off my bike two months ago after hitting some nasty patch of ice. Broken hand, a good dent in my helmet, many bruises. If it wasn't for the helmet, I might have been taken away in an ambulance. I've been cycling regularly for 12 years, so this isn't some noob error.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you heal well. I was referencing the point about going so slow you can't stay upright.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#770

Post by seagullriffic »

sidfthec wrote: post #761
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…

Why is no one talking about the safety of hauling kids on a bike? It's incredibly dangerous compared to a car. In my city, it's not if but when you'll get hit by a car on a bike. Yet I see parents increasingly think it's okay to haul their children on their bikes.

I hope this is meant ironically.

Cars regularly mount pavements/sidewalks as well, and kill pedestrians who are not even in the road.

The correct response to "cars make cities unsafe for everyone" is of course to ban all but the most essential cars from cities. It is not to suggest that the _other_ forms of transport (including walking on the pavement/sidewalk!) are so unsafe as to be irresponsible, in the presence of cars.

Post reply on HN