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

Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#211

Post by tosser0001 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #77
amalcon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the existing separated bike lanes are incorporated into the sidewalk, and therefore protected by the curb. There are a few that are "protected" by rows of parked cars or bolted-down pylons, but this would seem to not be legal under the new law. I'm actually not sure how they manage to get those bike lanes cleared, seeing as how the sidewalks are always covered in snow, but there seems to be some method.

There are smaller vehicles that are used to plow just the bike lanes in some parts of the world. It probably doesn't matter so much though because the percentage of people who continue biking even in cold winter and with adverse snow conditions is quite low.

The city does clear the snow from bike lanes with little mini bobcat tractors, but there's only so much that can be done. In mid-winter, I think studded snow tires are a must. And even those aren't exactly magic. There were a couple of late season storms this year were the city basically didn't plow much at all because they knew it would melt; and while the slush was navigable easily with a car, trying to carve through that on a bike was pretty freaky. Studs are great on ice and hard pack but with mash potato snow they don't help much.

Even when things are cleared off, melting and refreezing can make the lanes treacherous. That said, I estimate the number of people riding mid-winter is probably less than 10% of what you see in Spring through Fall.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#212

Post by bluejekyll »

rayiner wrote: post #197
bluejekyll wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've experienced this same anecdote in similar situations for the past 20 years as well. There has been a long push by auto manufacturers to make anything other than cars that use the roads seen as both illegitimate and illegal. For example, see the history of Jaywalking laws: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 . Starting around 1920's the auto-industry encouraged laws around the US to make crossing the stree…

> We need to slow down auto-traffic and encourage more non-vehicular use of the roads, while making those roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, skate boarders, etc. Is that the most efficient use of the roads? Especially in a place like Boston, where most people in the metro area don’t live in (and can’t afford to live in) the city itself. At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestri…

It depends on what you mean by efficient, I guess. I like the graphic on this article, https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/how-much-space-do-pe...

It shows how many more people can efficiently use roads while on bikes than in cars. So, if we define efficiency by that measure (obviously this matters more in cities and congested areas), then yes, it's more efficient.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#213

Post by snazz »

antisthenes wrote: post #203
radicalbyte wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. It's way faster for me to cycle to the supermarket, the gym and the kids daycare compared to driving. It beats being lazy in a car and I'm very thankful that the infrastructure here in NL supports it.

> I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. This makes no sense. You can pedal an electric bike at least as fast if not faster than a regular bike. Some e-bikes are speed limited to cut out the assist at a certain speed, but it doesn't mean it also removes your ability to pedal hard and achieve the same speed.

You could, but most e-bikers choose not to go too fast. Additionally, they often have thicker tires and enourage poor aerodynamic body positions which mean that they decelerate faster.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#214

Post by wool_gather »

ghaff wrote: post #113
gnulinux wrote: post #75

As a biker in Cambridge, I have mixed feelings about this. Biking in Cambridge is subpar, I lived in Berkeley, CA 4 years and biking was MUCH more comfortable there. I'm worried this will hinder the progress and slow down constructing new bike lanes. I want more protection BUT I also want bike lanes every where. If they're not gonna construct more bike lanes because now it has more regulation, this is a negative deve…

Cambridge also seems to have a disproportionate number of unsafe bicyclists (and pedestrians) for some reason. Maybe it's all the students. It's probably a net good thing that cycling lanes are being improved although there are certainly tradeoffs given the traffic and parking situation. However, whenever I'm driving home up Beacon Street after dark, there are invariably cyclists zipping around with no lights, going…

> Cambridge also seems to have a disproportionate number of unsafe bicyclists (and pedestrians) for some reason.

There's a certain "vicious cycle" element to this. If bicycling generally appears unsafe, then mostly (over)confident, risk-tolerant people will do it. Those are the same people who are comfortable getting away with unwise things like running stoplights the wrong way at dusk on their no-brakes fixie with a single tiny red blinkie mounted high on their messenger bag. ;)

It's also tied into a common argument against biking infrastructure: "Why would we build this? There aren't any people biking now." Chicken-egg, but there are many people who won't bike if it seems unsafe. And those people have a good chance of behaving more sensibly when they are convinced to ride.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#215

Post by rayiner »

stefan_ wrote: post #210
rayiner wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need to slow down auto-traffic and encourage more non-vehicular use of the roads, while making those roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, skate boarders, etc. Is that the most efficient use of the roads? Especially in a place like Boston, where most people in the metro area don’t live in (and can’t afford to live in) the city itself. At a certain point doesn’t creating a preference for pedestri…

You mean the roads downtown should be inaccessible to people living downtown so suburban people can commute in on 2 ton steel boxes that they then store for the day in downtown? No, that is indeed not the most efficient use of the roads. The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport. (Bus transport is also not slowed down by cyclists, or of a…

> The most efficient use of the roads would be to rip them out and use the space for vastly more efficient public transport.

More efficient for who? The software developer who lives in a condo downtown, or the lady who cleans his office that drives in from the suburbs?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#216

Post by tosser0001 »

chadash wrote: post #56
close04 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the perfect time to do it. Building the protected bike lane in the road design from the get go is the most effective way to make both cyclists and drivers happy and safe.

I totally agree with you. If you are re-doing a road, that's the best time to build a bike lane. But I'm personally not convinced that it's necessary on every new road. I lived on a side street in Cambridge that saw maybe one car every twenty minutes. I was lucky to have a private driveway, but my neighbors would have been pretty angry if you took away their street parking to put in a bike lane on a street with very…

This is going to get ugly in Cambridge because a lot of parking is going to be eliminated and people who used to be able to park near their homes will be parking on the side streets. People who live on those side streets are going to suddenly find it more difficult to find parking.

I'm for adding bike lanes, but there are plenty of people who work far outside the city and who need to drive are going to find it intolerable. A lot of people will be forced to move, while the value of off-street parking will go up.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#217

Post by unilynx »

antisthenes wrote: post #203
radicalbyte wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. It's way faster for me to cycle to the supermarket, the gym and the kids daycare compared to driving. It beats being lazy in a car and I'm very thankful that the infrastructure here in NL supports it.

> I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. This makes no sense. You can pedal an electric bike at least as fast if not faster than a regular bike. Some e-bikes are speed limited to cut out the assist at a certain speed, but it doesn't mean it also removes your ability to pedal hard and achieve the same speed.

They generally reduce their assist and completely cut out at 28 to 30km/hour, so to actually cycle 30km/hour takes as much effort as it would on a normal bicycle.

Most Dutch cycle at about 25km/hour (whether or not electric) - those cyclists that easily do 30 on normal city bikes are probably the last generation that will switch to e-bikes.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#218

Post by CydeWeys »

btrettel wrote: post #172
CydeWeys wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet protected bike lanes are proven to vastly increase the number of people who are willing to bike, which then makes biking safer for everyone because of sheer numbers. I'm a confident enough cyclist to bike in the street, take the lane, and ignore all the honking assholes, but my girlfriend isn't. The protected bike lanes are great because it means we can bike to things together.

I don't know if the increase in the number of cyclists outweighs the problems with the intersections. I get the impression from your various comments here that you have never rode a bike in the US, so perhaps our experience differs. On my daily commute in Austin I cross I-35 via a bike lane that is sometimes semi-protected. I think many inexperienced cyclists think that this is "safe" because it's sometimes protected…

I don't know how your impression could be more wrong; I ride my bike to work in NYC every day. I've literally said as much in many of my comments here, and talked about my personal experiences. You have responded to some of these comments.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#219

Post by CydeWeys »

btrettel wrote: post #168
CydeWeys wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not. Protected bike lanes are for sure safer than unprotected bike lanes. If there are problems at intersections, that means that the bike lanes aren't protected enough . Amsterdam for example doesn't have these kinds of issues because their design (and especially light signaling) is better.

> If there are problems at intersections, that means that the bike lanes aren't protected enough. Amsterdam for example doesn't have these kinds of issues because their design (and especially light signaling) is better. I agree. The problem is that I have never seen those sorts of lanes in the US. The choice is between semi-protected lanes which may be worse or no lanes. I don't know precisely which is better, but I…

We have intersections like this in NYC. Look at 8th and 9th Avenues in Chelsea for one example. There are separate phases for bikes going straight and vehicles turning left across them.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#220

Post by bobwaycott »

rayiner wrote: post #204
zymhan wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. It is almost always the car drivers who don't want to sacrifice the single lane required to make a two way, protected bike lane. Case in point, Peachtree St in Atlanta ~3 years ago. https://www.ajc.com/news/traffic/bike-lane-plan-for-peachtre... https://www.ajc.com/news/local/bike-lanes-peachtree-road-for...

Atlanta is a great example of where it makes no sense to have bike lines. I lived in Atlanta for eight years. It’s a commuter city. The only people biking are relatively privileged yuppies living in the fancy new apartments and condos that have sprung up recently. Why spend public money, and inconvenience drivers in the process, for their sake? If we’re going to use up a lane, let’s do it in a socially responsible wa…

> Why spend public money, and inconvenience drivers in the process, for their sake?

Because the cyclists, too, are part of the public? It's not like that public money is solely sourced from automobile drivers. Many people I know who live and work and pay taxes in Atlanta cycle and drive, depending on where they're going. Are you really suggesting auto-drivers are more important citizens whose convenience matters more than the safety of others? Should Atlanta also start de-prioritizing safe sidewalks and crosswalks so people who are walking all over Midtown and downtown don't inconvenience the drivers? Suggesting the many people who aren't traveling along on 4 or more wheels should be ignored for the sake of convenience to those who are seems awfully silly.

Post reply on HN