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

Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 764 posts

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#231

Post by BitwiseFool »

dmm wrote: post #133
BitwiseFool wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why bicyclists can't just use the sidewalk for most of the commute. I get that it becomes impractical in dense areas where people are actually walking but most of the roads I travel along have vacant sidewalks.

The most dangerous part of a sidewalk for a cyclist are places where they intersect roads. Drivers just aren't expecting sidewalk users moving at bike speeds. Some areas have long stretches of sidewalk without intersections those are fine for cycling assuming they have little pedestrian traffic or are wide enough to pass safely.

This is pretty much my conception of when cyclists should be using the sidewalk instead.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#232

Post by avianlyric »

CabSauce wrote: post #10

That's great. Assuming the following: - Your commute is sufficiently short - You have facilities to shower and dress at work - You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo - Weather is sufficiently good - You're sufficiently healthy

Or you buy an e-bike, and the electric motor does all the heavy lifting. Allowing you to cycle in coat with breaking into a sweat.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#233

Post by Fricken »

sokoloff wrote: post #176
Fricken wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We use snow plows up here in Canada.

On the bike paths as well? That's very progressive of Canada. We don't do that effectively here in Massachusetts.

On the bike paths as well, yes. In my home city of Edmonton they are a priority. According HN I don't ride year round in Edmonton, it's impossible.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#234

Post by Aerroon »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #163
Aerroon wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do in winter? Or during rain?

Oulu, Finland is way further north than most cities and handles it fine: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2021/01/22...

Being further north should actually make it easier. If it's consistently below zero then you're less likely to get the really dangerous ice.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#235

Post by avianlyric »

Aerroon wrote: post #156
flaque wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m convinced most people haven’t realized just how good ebikes have gotten. ~$1000 gets you basically a slow, mini-motorcycle. It’s dramatically cheaper than a car, longer range than a bike, and wonderful in cities.

Considering how common bike theft is, I'm not sure I'd consider a bicycle that's half the price of a used car to be a great deal. I like ebikes and bicycles in general, but they're expensive for what you get. Perhaps if cheaper bikes appeared while still being decent then people might consider them more often?

Bike insurance is substantially cheaper than car insurance. It’s also substantially cheaper than paying for fuel.

You could get an ebike, insure it, and come out well ahead just from fuel savings.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#236

Post by vishnugupta »

stfp wrote: post #150
jedberg wrote: post #35

Switching from gas to electric is something I can do all on my own. Switching from gas car to cycling is something that would require major investments from my city and developers. Both are noble goals, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of good. Switch to electric now, and also encourage new roads and new developments to be bike friendly, so that switching to a bike is something that will be viable in 20 or 30 y…

But it doesn't require major investments. It's really minor investments compared to other infrastructure projects. The issue is taking away even a tiny fraction of car space basically triggers some kind of political road rage.

> But it doesn't require major investments.

Having lived and cycled in Amsterdam to me it did seem like a major investment. Sure if one were to design a greenfield city then it’s not a big deal. But to pivot a car centric city to safely accommodate cyclists is a major change. The city residents have to go through the transition process which isn’t going to be fun.

I’ve seen it done half ass way in India and US which end up being deadly for cyclists.

I am all for cycling, I absolutely loved my two year stint at Amsterdam. It’s a life changing experience. But let’s not underestimate the costs involved in transition. Also, the city residents have to be onboard with the process, as they are the biggest stakeholders. Otherwise the implementation will get dumped half way through with disastrous results.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#237

Post by DebtDeflation »

the_duke wrote: post #67
CabSauce wrote: post #10

That's great. Assuming the following: - Your commute is sufficiently short - You have facilities to shower and dress at work - You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo - Weather is sufficiently good - You're sufficiently healthy

Ebikes mostly solve 1, 2, 3 and 6 on your list. They are quite fast, require very little physical effort, and have a small fraction of the energy consumption of a car. And you can still get the health benefit by investing as much muscle work as you want to.

>Ebikes

I came here to post this. I hadn't ridden a bicycle in almost 30 years when I bought my eBike back in January. 2500W Luna, having a blast with it.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#238

Post by cuu508 »

temp8964 wrote: post #182
umvi wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put on a coat/rain jacket

Jacket might be ok for small rain, but for heavy rain and thunderstorm? No. Employers expect employees to come to work every business day, and people expect business to open every business day, even under heavy rain and thunderstorm. Watch! Heavy rain/wind! Most people can't go to work! Most businesses are closed! Teachers can't go to schools! Nurses can't go to clinics and hospitals! What a ridiculous picture of a m…

"There is no bad weather, only inappropriate clothing." :-)

If the existing materials are not good enough, perhaps we can invent more waterproof, windproof, breathable, warmer, cheaper etc. materials

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#239

Post by vinni2 »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #53
vinni2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like what you need is this https://www.podbike.com/

That's an electric car which, according to the article, is the wrong choice. It has all of the parking issues as a regular car. It needs all of the electricity to move its weight. Just because it has two pedals doesn't make it a bike.

It’s compact approved for bike paths and parking.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#240

Post by bluGill »

garyrichardson wrote: post #122
ab111111111 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What major investment would be required from the city or developers to set up cycling infrastructure? Painting some cycle lanes onto the roads? Marking a few car parking places as bike parking places? That's all that cycling infrastructure really is, so it's super cheap. A lot cheaper than, say, building charging stations for electric cars.

I live on the west coast in Canada. We have lots of bike lines. It's 30KM of them up and down multiple hills (most people would consider mountains) for me to get to work. Realistically, you've got to convince me to leave my 3000+sqft house (with bedrooms for all my kids) and yard to move to a 1000sqft apartment in the city (and make my kids share a room) and take on a bigger mortgage so that I'm closer to work. Also…

In the city you should be close enough to the store that you just get the days groceries as you go by.

The lack of affordable 2500sq ft apartments is the big failure. It doesn't cost that much more to build them, and so rent shouldn't be any more than a house payment ($1500/month!). If that doesn't exist it is because zoning won't let them build it. (or more likely they can, but why do that when you can get more $$$ from 3 800sqft apartments each at $1000/month. Until the high profit apartments are filled nobody will build the ones families would actually live in.

Or to put it a different way: it isn't 1880. People have always wanted more space, now with cars we can afford it in the suburbs.

Post reply on HN