Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City • Hacker News Board

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#231

Post by msandford » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 3:24 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #226

msandford wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They want to feign anger and offense when motorists complain when they take their bikes onto roadways that were not intended or engineered for them and they block traffic and cause safety issues. The part I take issue with is "were not intended" because the laws are very clear on what rights and responsibilities cyclists have when using the roads. The law gives them a right to be there. The majority of states laws…

So two things. By "intended" I specifically mean the semantics of the travelway. Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. Everything from angle to speed surveys are done specifically for the automobile. Is that a great injustice to other forms of transportation? Perhaps, but that's the way it is. It's changing, and roads are more commonly being designed and engineered to support other transport options,…

> Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop.

I understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. Perhaps where you live they are, but there are many places where they are not.

I agree that getting cyclists off the car traffic lanes and into designated cycling lanes is the best solution to these issues.

Does the fact that some cyclists get away with running stop signs (which many cars also run, or merely slow down rather than "full and complete stop" at) somehow offset the fact that when cyclists die at the hands of a driver little to nothing happens to said driver?

Personally I think that cyclist deaths and the lack of consequence for drivers is a problem. And I'm all for ticketing cyclists who blatantly run stop signs; less so of ticketing cyclists who slowly roll through stop signs the same way many drivers do.

What's fair is fair and if cars can get away with it then cyclists should too. If cars can't, cyclists shouldn't either.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#232

Post by bane » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 3:28 AM UTC

nknighthb wrote: post #165

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally millions of people.

That's an interesting statistic. Where did you find it? I ask because the available statistics I've seen on NYC car ownership and daily usage would make me wonder if there are even 1 million cars operated on NYC streets per day.

http://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#233

Post by recursive » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 3:32 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #221

recursive wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wikipedia page says nothing about minimum speeds. 21202 and 21654 explicitly list restrictions that must be followed when traveling at "less than the normal speed of traffic". This suggests to me that doing so is legal. By the way, 21202 is exactly what I quoted to you, so it's kind of funny that you would repeat it back to me. 22400 deals with impeding traffic, "unless it's necessary for the safe operation" of t…

Well, if you're just going to ignore all the parts of the law that apply, then it doesn't really matter what the law says does it?

If I were ignoring them, it wouldn't matter what they say. Fortunately, I'm not ignoring them.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#234

Post by mikeash » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 3:36 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #228

mikeash wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, "literally dozens of miles", that's hilarious. How many thousands of miles of streets do you have locally?

How many hundreds of millions of cars driving how many billions of road miles are driven by cars vs. bikes? Is the decision to build roads for cars and not bikes still confusing for you?

What do you mean, "still" confusing?

I'm not confused. I just think it's hilarious to present "dozens of miles" as if it were a lot. I make no comment on the correctness of the quantity built.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#235

Post by bane » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 3:47 AM UTC

iak8god wrote: post #153

bane wrote: post #13

I'm one of those drivers who hates sharing roadways with bikers. It's not that I have to share, but between slowing traffic down, pure safety concerns for the biker (who I as the automobile driver am responsible for in the case of an accident) and the generally shitty entitled attitude lots of bike riders seem to have (probably earned from dealing with irritated drivers like me) I get my hackles raised every time I s…

> Bikes aren't automobiles no matter how much we debate about it. They shouldn't be sharing the road with cars. I think you're confusing roads with highways . A highway is a place that cars goes and bikes can't go. A bike path is a place that bikes go and cars can't go. Roads are for cars and bikes and for people to live on and near and cross on foot regularly. Imagine a cyclist saying "Cars don't operate at human-sc…

> See how car-centric the debate is, that such a statement will be immediately dismissed.

It's car centric because roads are car centric. From design to paving, the vast vast majority of roads are designed purely for the automobile. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But it is what it is.

I'm definitely not talking about highways. I'm talking about the average kind of road that you see for millions upon millions of miles all over the U.S.

This http://enews.ntta.org/images/2014-01/Open%20Road.jpg is not a road meant for bikes or pedestrians. But it's a typical road that you'll find almost anywhere.

This one at least has some designated space for people on bikes http://velotraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bike-lane.... but it's definitely not pedestrian friendly. However it clearly has a "cars go here" and "bikes go here" aspect to the marking design.

I would personally love to see every road everywhere at least have that. But I'd love it if the average road segregated bikes and cars even further. http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960...

I'm picking these non-urban pictures on purpose, because cyclists seem to think they only exist in cities and that any problems people have about cyclists comes from angry car drivers in cities or I'm some asshole with issues with highways or something. But there are more than 4 million miles of roads (8.61 million lane miles) and almost 3 million of those are in non-urban environments. I'm personally interested in the 75% of all roads that aren't in cities because that's mostly what I and about half the U.S. population drives on. Of all these roads, less than 300,000 can be called highways. Which includes roads that look like this

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8810165,-77.3978133,3a,75y,1...

for which I think there should also be good cycling infrastructure.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#236

Post by bane » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 3:59 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #234

bane wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many hundreds of millions of cars driving how many billions of road miles are driven by cars vs. bikes? Is the decision to build roads for cars and not bikes still confusing for you?

What do you mean, "still" confusing? I'm not confused. I just think it's hilarious to present "dozens of miles" as if it were a lot. I make no comment on the correctness of the quantity built.

Well, I know in my development specifically we built about 40 miles of paved bike trail. The neighboring developments all have connecting trails of similar size.

It all connects into the regional bike trail system which includes a 50 mile paved and marked trail that gets you literally from farmland into the major city and crosses through almost every other sizable city and employment center along the way, each with connecting bike systems of their own. I don't know for my county specifically but the neighboring county has something like 500 miles of paved bike trail. I'm pretty sure my county isn't quite that extensive or well integrated but it's almost all fairly new, within the last 20 years.

It doesn't bring every town to within a friendly bike ride, but if you live and work near the 50 mile main trail, it's reasonable to bike commute to work every day.

The whole system across 3 counties and about 3 million people is something like 20 times the size of Copenhagen's to put it into perspective. It's just that my taxes mostly cover my local area and we're probably at under 100 miles of trail all told or about half what all of NYC has.

I don't know if that's a lot or not. It's not a mirror of the road system in terms of size (which I'd personally like to change), but it's no slouch either.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#237

Post by bane » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:01 AM UTC

msandford wrote: post #231

bane wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So two things. By "intended" I specifically mean the semantics of the travelway. Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. Everything from angle to speed surveys are done specifically for the automobile. Is that a great injustice to other forms of transportation? Perhaps, but that's the way it is. It's changing, and roads are more commonly being designed and engineered to support other transport options,…

> Roads are specifically engineered for cars, full stop. I understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. Perhaps where you live they are, but there are many places where they are not. I agree that getting cyclists off the car traffic lanes and into designated cycling lanes is the best solution to these issues. Does the fact that some cyclists get away with running stop signs (which many cars also…

There's a little over 4 million roads in the U.S. (streets to highways) about 3 million of those are non-urban paved. So even if the remaining million miles of road are all designed specifically for bikes, I can guarantee the other 3 million were not.

> What's fair is fair and if cars can get away with it then cyclists should too. If cars can't, cyclists shouldn't either.

I absolutely agree.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#238

Post by bane » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:04 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #55

bane wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The road is not a perfectly good place for bikes to travel. It's like saying the conveyor belt in an automated slaughter house is a good place to dance because it's flat and doesn't move too fast or that pedestrians should just walk down the middle of the road because it's not a bad walking surface. The biggest possible problem is that as the auto driver you become responsible for any bike rider you come into contact…

Cyclists also pay taxes, including for roads. Not only that, but they consume goods that were shipped, in part, by truck; thereby they put dollars into the road-based economy like everyone else. Dedicated bike lanes tend not to exist everywhere. The initiatives for such things tend to be concentrated in city downtown areas where there are many riders. Once you are out in the boonies, there tends to be nothing. Often…

I agree with everything you say here which is why I support any initiative which increases the dedicated bike trail system in my area and makes it more useful.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#239

Post by derekp7 » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:17 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #27

derekp7 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm OK with the occasional cyclist. It is when there is a group of 30 from a club riding in a pack, going 15 MPH, on a 45 MPH highway with not a lot of passing areas that get irritating. The other thing that I don't like is having to pass the same cyclist several times in traffic. They pass you on the right when traffic is stoped, but don't move over so you can pass them on the left when traffic starts to move again.

Im sure its annoying, but its that way for a reason. You are belted into a multi-thousand-pound steel-reinforced vehicle. They are riding on some pipes with a Styrofoam block strapped to their head. I most states its legal for cycles (motor and non) to pass cars and pull to the head of the line at a light. Not sure why; but that's the way it is. Stopped cars + agile cyclist = no problem. When traffic is moving after…

The thing is, every time a car passes a bicycle on a busy road, especially one that isn't designed to accommodate bicycles and cars safely (i.e., one with 0 inches paved shoulder to the right of the white line) it is inherently dangerous. And if the bicycle causes the same car to pass multiple times, the agitation of the driver goes up. The safe thing to do, is for the bicycle to go ahead and pass on the right, stop at the light, then wait for the cars that already passed once to clear through the intersection before proceeding. At least that's what I try to do when I cycle to work (i.e., not treat the cars as enemies, but to be empathetic). And if I happen to be on a road with a lot of traffic, I'll periodically hit the gravel for a bit for cars to get around me if there is oncoming traffic.

Re: Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

#240

Post by jrockway » Thu, Sep 11, 2014, 4:20 AM UTC

soperj wrote: post #146

true_religion wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often gas taxes/vehicle property tax is tagged by the state to be dedicated solely towards road development and upkeep. If there's ever a shortfall, they stop maintaining lesser used roads because the rest of the budget has already been decided. This is despite the fact that it takes more than gas + property tax to fund the highway system. Thinking about that... I get your point, non-drivers are funding the roadway s…

Not to mention bikers inflict 0 wear & tear on the road.

Not quite zero, there are some speed bumps that I notice in NYC where the bouncing motion of the bikes has worn additional bumps in the speed bump.

Of course, you don't really need the speed bumps in the bike lane. I assume it's there because people will drive around it if it doesn't cover the entire road surface. (Protected bike lanes would fix that, but I'm not really a protected bike lane proponent, so we'll pretend I didn't mention that.)