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

The Economics of Bike Lanes

economicsintelligence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 203 posts

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#141

Post by Lagged2Death »

Jun8 wrote: post #7

I totally agree with the idea in the OP (not that we have much free parking left in Chicago). But I have to get something off my chest, although it's tangential to this post. (I know this will be sacrilege to the many HN bikers but here it goes): First a disclaimer: I, at 40+, cannot ride a bike reliably (yeah, I know, it funny, there's a long backstory), in fact I learned how to ride about 10 years ago, not by apply…

I find the behavior of most bikers in traffic to be dangerous, obnoxious and rude.

Yes. Bikers have this in common with the drivers of trucks, buses, cars, SUVs, joggers, pedestrians, etc. They all break any rules that make their lives harder if they believe they're likely to get away with said breaking. All of them, all the time.

They're all just people, and they're all really the same.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#142

Post by marbu »

hyperbovine wrote: post #99
joebadmo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a daily bike commuter and I would love to see a Netherlands-like biking network in the US, but it's hard for me to imagine anywhere that's not as flat as most of the Netherlands. I could see it here in Portland or maybe Philly, but I don't think it would really increase the numbers of cyclists that much in, say, Seattle, where I used to live (and bike).

Those cities are the exception, not the rule. Just off the top of my head, Manhattan, Chicago, Denver, Miami, Boston, Dallas, LA, San Diego, Atlanta, D.C., Phoenix are all flat enough for a person in decent shape to get around by bike. I think the winter is a bigger issue than the terrain, but overall I think most Americans could be biking most of the time (given a lot of changes in infrastructure, policy and public…

When the countryside is flat and good infrastructure exists at the same time, the winter is not that big issue. It's not ideal, but it's not stopping most of the people either. For example people in Sweden have no problem with it: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/winter-cycling-in-umea-... The issues of winter cycling are quite small compared to issues accociated with changing the cycling culture and building the infrastructure. So I suppose if Americans made their "flat enough cities" bike friendly, they would cycle even during winter, as other nations with good cycling conditions do.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#143

Post by jarek »

hugh3 wrote: post #67
mchanson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Cambridge, MA the police have been enforcing traffic laws with bikers. Dunno what effect it has had, but enforcement, IMHO, as a place in getting bikers to obey the traffic laws. Drivers, on the whole, behave pretty badly too. As a driver, biker, and pedestrian in the Boston area I don't think I would say any of those groups act better than others. Would love separated bike lanes. Biking in the city is very satisf…

I once got a ticket ($140ish) for cruising through a stop sign on a bike. Ever since then, I come to an obnoxious tire-skidding halt at every stop sign before starting up again (and take the opportunity to swear at those who don't obey the rules). The trouble is that I'm currently in America, where traffic planners have apparently decided that every goddamn intersection should have a four-way stop sign. This, to me,…

A couple of months ago, I started riding extremely rule-abiding, only making an exception for hook turns when I don't feel safe doing a normal left turn, mostly so I could feel morally superior to those who don't and feel better about myself. (It's great thinking I obey stop signs more than 90% of motorists I see!) Although it definitely helps that my ride is a rather casual 12 minute affair (and uphill, so all the stops give me a breather), after a couple of months it became rather second nature and honestly not a big deal. I also found that Toronto pedestrians smile at you when you give them way :).

Agreed about the lack of yield signs in North America though. Problematically, it normalizes rolling stops, making it harder to distinguish intersections where a stop is actually necessary.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#144

Post by rbranson »

alxp wrote: post #138
rbranson wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing you miss here is the asymmetry of risk. Cyclists are at highest level of risk while on the road. They're moving at enough speed to cause serious injury to themselves, but they're still usually about half the speed of cars. Modern automobiles have excellent safety characteristics and pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action. A mistake on a bike is going to almost always be a life-or-death s…

> pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action Except when they don't, due to mobility problems or having pets with them or other reasons. Expecting anyone to jump out of your way when you come barreling down the sidewalk is going to hurt someone.

I'm not excusing poor behavior -- but that there is a significant statistical advantage to automobile drivers -- and that this should be taken into consideration. With great power comes great responsibility.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#145

Post by jarek »

protomyth wrote: post #112

On the economic side, are bikes registered and bike owners paying for tabs each year likes cars in NYC? It would seem that would go a long way towards paying for new bike lanes over parking.

There exist a couple of studies that show the costs of administration of a bicycle registration program is more than the revenue collected when you make the registration cost reasonable. (Sorry, haven't got links right now.) That's before you get into defining exactly which bicycles have to be registered, and figuring out how to enforce it.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#146

Post by kgermino »

graywh wrote: post #103
jrockway wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that cars run as many stop signs as cyclists. The rule is come to a complete stop and yield to your left. Cars treat the rule as "sort of lower your speed and yield to people that haven't stopped quite as much". This is chaos. The cyclists are just doing what the other vehicles do. (Also, you can't be surprised that there are cyclists on the Lakefront Trail. If they ride on the streets, their average spe…

In the US and Canada, you generally yield to the driver on your right.

Different context. This would be more comparable to an expressway, where you should keep to the right side except for passing.

In my experience on trails (including the lakefront trail in Chicago) people on bikes tend to understand this, runners/joggers are usually pretty good about it, and people going for a walk are god-awful at it. I don't mind people going slow (its frustrating because I'm commuting not recreational riding) but when you have a group of walkers going four wide on one of the only trails in the city designated for bikes (downtown there's a separate walkway for pedestrians closer to the lake) blocking all traffic, and getting upset with you when you try to pass them that's beyond obnoxious.

P.S. this applies on normal sidewalks as well (also escalators, moving walkways, city life in general). Unless your the only one in an area, walk in a straight line and not 4-wide so people going faster can get around you and people going the other direction don't have to stop and wait for you to run into them.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#147

Post by rbranson »

esrauch wrote: post #135
rbranson wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing you miss here is the asymmetry of risk. Cyclists are at highest level of risk while on the road. They're moving at enough speed to cause serious injury to themselves, but they're still usually about half the speed of cars. Modern automobiles have excellent safety characteristics and pedestrians have more of an ability to take evasive action. A mistake on a bike is going to almost always be a life-or-death s…

Even if we completely accept what you are saying, I think there are a couple reasons why that doesn't change anything. We don't allow people to risk their own lives. We force people by law to wear motorcycle helmets and seatbelts (ignoring a very few number of states). That doesn't at all improve the chances for other people to survive. You aren't considering the fact that a bicyclist causes injuries to people who ar…

I think you have a valid point -- but my point about asymmetry of risk still stands. Even if cyclists cause more accidents because of this swerving to avoid maneuver, the injury risk to the cyclist in any accident (fatal or otherwise) is still much higher.

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#148

Post by scelerat »

ww520 wrote: post #136
scelerat wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've ever driven or biked in San Francisco (or I'm assuming any other marginally bike-friendly city) you'll quickly understand that for bicyclists, stop signs are yields and red lights are stop signs. You're just going to have to get used to that, at least on low-volume, low-speed streets. That of course is not what the law says, and many people (especially drivers and people who don't like bicycles) will disagr…

> Life is too short to get your blood pressure up about this sort of stuff. Likewise next time you see a car cut in front of your bike, just let it roll and don't let the rage get to you.

Inconvenience vs peril. One thing is annoying while another is potentially deadly. Different reactions seem justified, don't you think?

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#149

Post by epochwolf »

kgermino wrote: post #76
mturmon wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It turns out, lots of people have this very same "little thing" to get off their chest. Every discussion of urban cycling goes off on this particular tangent. It's tiresome. If you talk to people who cycle in cities, you'll find a lot of anger and rage at drivers also. These people may be eccentric, but their opinion seems based on facts as well. So consider the other side. As a further catalyst, I challenge you, as…

Where do you live that people go 65 in a 60? Where I'm from (Chicago/ Milwaukee) you're lucky if traffic's only going 70 in a 50/55.

> Where do you live that people go 65 in a 60?

Seattle is like this in a few spots.

> Where I'm from (Chicago/ Milwaukee) you're lucky if traffic's only going 70 in a 50/55.

I grew up in Green Bay, WI. I know exactly what you're thinking. :)

Re: The Economics of Bike Lanes

#150

Post by mnutt »

Jun8 wrote: post #111
pyre wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it really upsets me when I see fellow cyclists > acting like dicks Too many people that drive cars ignore cyclists, and I think that the 'dick cyclist' to some extent stems out of the need to be seen on the road. I've heard people say that it's better to have a driver think you're an asshole, because at least that means that they see you. In general, I find it really odd that people in cars think that cyclists need…

"it really odd that people in cars think that cyclists need to watch out for cars and not the other way around" But isn't it even odder that cyclists think the same thing about pedestrians? My encounters with the "dick cyclist" has always been when I was walking. Isn't this similar to what cyclists think about the "dick driver"? It seems whenever people are in a position of "power" they become pushy, impatient, and c…

I think the difference in the two interactions is that if a biker hits a pedestrian they are likely to be hurt just as bad as the pedestrian if not worse.

A driver who hits a cyclist or pedestrian risks a dent in the hood at the worst. So while the "dick cyclist" is annoying, the position of power isn't comparable.

Post reply on HN