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

Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

momentummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 218 posts

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#171

Post by ThunderSizzle »

digging wrote: post #166
ThunderSizzle wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While those are "dedicated bike lanes", it wasn't infrastructure built for bikes. Typically those are existing road safety shoulders converted to a bike lane. I dont count that as dedicated bike infrastructure.

If your definition of bicycle infrastructure excludes anything insufficient to facilitate increased usage, then yes we can agree it is obvious that building such will facilitate increased usage, but that's a useless statement. But if we talk about all bicycle infrastructure, which is a conversation useful to have, it is clear from the multiple issues I pointed out (not limited to lack of physical separation) that sim…

Almost all of your points are because what you are describing isn't bike infrastructure, it's a line of paint on a highway's shoulder that use to be a pull-over safety shoulder - that's why they terminate randomly, don't have any barriers, there's random/low density, and direct sunlight). It's literally a political line in the road to get federal money from the DOT, which is why it shouldn't be counted as bike infrastructure. It's a literal line on a state highway.

Any real conversation about bike infrastructure would need to start with recognize a political line in the road is not real bike infrastructure any more than Amtrak using freight lines is a real passenger rail route.

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#172

Post by jobs_throwaway »

Retric wrote: post #101
darkamaul wrote: post #63

As a daily biker in Paris (and for years), I think it is hard to grasp the changes Paris has seen in the last years. You now even get to see some congestion on bike lanes (Bd Sebastopol for instance), because they are too many cyclist on an older (and thus too narrow) bike lane. This change, the new subway lanes, and the reduction of car usage in the city make the city much more enjoyable on a day to day basis, espec…

> especially for pedestrians as cyclists are less annoying than drivers As an American pedestrian I find cyclists far worse on average than drivers. They far more often ignore traffic signs and I have seen multiple collisions including one that looked quite serious, though luckily no fatalities. On a per person basis my personal annoyance scale goes subway riders have least impact, followed by busses, normal pedestri…

Laughable opinion as a fellow American and New Yorker. A bike crash is an unfortunate, and potentially scary event. A car crash is often life threatening or fatal. You're just not weighing the cost of each type of incident properly

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#173

Post by _whiteCaps_ »

wongarsu wrote: post #110
c0nfused wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key here is mostly to go slow. Right now,if I'm bike commuting I need to keep up with cars or risk getting rear ended or tailgated or shouted at. Setting things up so you don't have to worry about cars while on your bike means you can bike at a more reasonable speed instead of 25mph. Think beach cruiser bikes not guys in spandex on race bikes

Also infrequent cyclists are often overdressed. You don't need to get out the spandex, but if the weather permits dress so that you are slightly cold while standing still. That gives you the thermal budget to heat up from exercise without instantly sweating.

Be bold, start cold!

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#174

Post by watwut »

noio wrote: post #138
chopsuey5540 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've also been a daily cyclist for over 10 years in Paris and paradoxically, I feel less safe now when I'm riding on shared infrastructure (that is roads without a separated cycling lane). I attribute it to the fact that people driving, and especially people who HAVE to drive (taxis, deliveries, etc...) are facing insane levels of congestion and are lashing out on cyclists because they blame them for being stuck in t…

I guess people aren’t always rational, but do those who blame the cyclists not realize how bad things would be if those cyclists were also in cars?

Previously, some were in cars, but others in public transport.

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#175

Post by 6bb32646d83d »

alistairSH wrote: post #151
chopsuey5540 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Paris, most people who are now biking are people who would have taken public transportation before, so the amount of cars on the roads is roughly the same as before.

Do you have a citation for that? Is car ownership and usage for city residents really the same?

I don't live there anymore but I grew up in Paris -

I knew absolutely nobody living in Paris driving to another location in Paris. It's always been metro first, bicycle sometime. Almost all of the passenger car you see in Paris are people driving from the suburb.

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#176

Post by watwut »

extr wrote: post #61
calcifer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a fitness issue. Millions of people cycle everywhere in Netherlands, in regular clothes, without needing showers in between.

It's not a fitness issue. The netherlands is fairly flat and has a cooler climate than any major US city. It's just not possible to be pedaling up/down hills in any amount of heat/humidity and not get sweaty.

It is as possible as walking in the same place, unless we talk about some kind of super steep hill where would just push the bike.

Very likely issue here is that people who are used to cycle for sport only are not used to bike for transport. They don't do equivalent of walk, they do equivalent of run. So they get sweaty, because they race.

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#177

Post by lupusreal »

SamBam wrote: post #161
lupusreal wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seconding this. American cyclists are extremely rude to pedestrians. Whenever somebody brings this up, cyclists dismiss it by pointing out that cars kill more pedestrians than bikes. Well that's certainly true, but I've never had cars yell at me for walking on the sidewalk or over a crosswalk, while cyclists have hurled abuse and (deliberate) near misses at me more times than I can count.

> but I've never had cars yell at me for walking ... over a crosswalk You don't live in Boston, I see.

True, I don't. I recognize that driver and pedestrian culture are very different indifferent cities. However a significant number of cyclists seem to hate pedestrians everywhere I've gone.

To the other responder, I agree that cars are frequently assholes to cyclists, but how is that relevant to cyclists abusing pedestrians?

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#178

Post by al_borland »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #158
al_borland wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the way many areas of the US are laid out (being car-centric), a bike bias may be needed. Bikes to get to where you want to go, then once you’re there, walk around. Currently, a lot of people need to drive to get to an area they would walk. Everything is very spread out.

I can walk with my toddler and infant and post c-section wife. I can't bike ride with them. Of course, I can also drive almost anywhere with them.

There are various solutions for biking with an infant, and from what I can tell, a c-section takes 6-8 weeks for recovery. No one ever side bikes should be the only possible form for transport. Use the car for 2 months while your wife recovers, for the trips she needs to take. If you live in a walkable area, go for a walk.

A bike path is easier to drop in than rebuilding entire cites and relocating the entire population around those walkable areas. Bike paths take years, consolidating urban sprawl would take decades, even if the political will existed.

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#179

Post by CalRobert »

Retric wrote: post #146
CalRobert wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars (drivers, really) are very, very dangerous. They are the leading cause of dead children. They are also one of the reasons kids don't play in the street. I find that far less annoying than cyclists.

Drivers are a lot more common than cyclists in the US. So yes cars kill ~7,000 pedestrians per year vs ~4 (2013-2020) for bikes, but normalize the numbers and bikes are also very dangerous in the US especially on a per mile basis. https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-kill... https://www.statista.com/chart/17194/pedestrian-fatalities-i...

your first link is for the UK, I think? That seems like a separate issue in a place with very different urban design and habits.

What's remarkable is that cars kill thousands of pedestrians _even after we've greatly reduced the frequency of walking_. If the pool were full of sharks then deaths by shark would quickly fall to 0 of course since nobody would swim anymore!

Re: Paris cycling numbers double in one year thanks to investment

#180

Post by jobs_throwaway »

Retric wrote: post #146
CalRobert wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars (drivers, really) are very, very dangerous. They are the leading cause of dead children. They are also one of the reasons kids don't play in the street. I find that far less annoying than cyclists.

Drivers are a lot more common than cyclists in the US. So yes cars kill ~7,000 pedestrians per year vs ~4 (2013-2020) for bikes, but normalize the numbers and bikes are also very dangerous in the US especially on a per mile basis. https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-kill... https://www.statista.com/chart/17194/pedestrian-fatalities-i...

Seems like much of the danger of cycling is due to being near cars though, while the reverse isn't true. Better infrastructure and less car subsidy is likely to make cycling a lot safer, whereas cars already have ~all the infrastructure and subsidy and are still enormously dangerous
Post reply on HN