A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles • Hacker News Board

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#241

Post by Broken_Hippo » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 8:51 AM UTC

freeone3000 wrote: post #227

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bike lanes in neighborhoods aren't as necessary as the traffic is slow and there isn't much in neighborhoods to bike to - grocery stores, jobs, and so on. This is pretty much a recipe for failure. Instead, we need major corridors to have safe bike lanes. The major route between residential and business areas is a good place to start since the scariest traffic is there.

If there's no shops or jobs in the places people live, maybe that needs to be fixed first? Putting the jobs close to the people sounds like it would solve a lot of these transit issues by needing less of it.

I generally agree with you. Having a grocery store within walking distance and safe walking has been one of the joys of moving to Norway from the states. Not having a car is very freeing and puts some room in finances. The closest I've come to this sort of safe walk was living in a small town, and even it paled to the town of 180k I'm living in now: I didn't have house-to-job sidewalks in the small town and couldn't have done this living just a little out of town.

I also think that getting jobs and places close to residential areas is a separate issue as we still need the bike lanes on the most unsafe areas. The two main things I think of are:

1. The folks working at major employers need bike access as well. Factories, call centers, distribution centers and large offices. Some of these places just aren't suited for neighborhoods, though they can be close by. It is much easier to get proper use of bike lanes if some or many of the big places have such access.

2. It actually takes more work to get the places closer, at least in the states. This is in no small part because of zoning and red tape. I don't really want to downplay that it'd take a slight difference in society as well - along with the likely need to subsidise som of the places.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#242

Post by Symbiote » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 9:55 AM UTC

kd5bjo wrote: post #236

Johnny555 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is explaining why many drivers dislike cyclists. This accurately describes some of the complaints I've heard from non-cyclists: Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. Whether or not the cyclists are actually followin…

The reason these behaviors are frustrating to drivers is that bicycles are hard to overtake. They’re unpredictable and fragile compared to a car, and so the driver has to give them a wide berth, often having to wait behind them for a long time until there’s a break in oncoming traffic to get around them. That’s not so much of a problem, as that’s the same with every slow-moving vehicle. Bicycles, however, are the onl…

> When they overtake a standing queue, Bicyclists, from the point of view of drivers, are acting against the common interest of smoothly flowing traffic for their own gain and taking advantage of a temporary situation to screw up the natural order of faster vehicles at the front of the line and slower ones at the back.

Now compare that behaviour with motorists, who are acting against the common interest of society and the environment by using a 2 tonne metal box to move around, leaving air and noise pollution, death, destruction and congestion in their wake.

I realize you're only explaining the behaviours, but we've built a society that chooses convenience at the cost of over a million road deaths per year, envelops cities in smog, and is responsible for a huge chunk of CO₂ emissions.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#243

Post by Symbiote » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 10:01 AM UTC

rizzin wrote: post #208

dancek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the problem with open parking stealing bikes, stealing parts or breaking bikes? The obvious safety strategy is to have a bike of lesser value with better locks than what's available nearby. But I also ponder what it would be like to own a really valuable bike. Do people steal handlebars or something, because that would make sense to me? Or is vandalism the bigger issue?

>Is the problem with open parking stealing bikes, stealing parts or breaking bikes? I'd like to add an often overlooked problem with open parking: bikes that are left there forever to rust and rot.

In Denmark, every year or two someone will put a tag around all the bicycles parked somewhere overnight. After a month or so, the still-tagged bicycles will be removed.

The local council do this in public areas, and the owners of buildings etc for private areas.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#244

Post by kd5bjo » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 10:24 AM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #242

kd5bjo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason these behaviors are frustrating to drivers is that bicycles are hard to overtake. They’re unpredictable and fragile compared to a car, and so the driver has to give them a wide berth, often having to wait behind them for a long time until there’s a break in oncoming traffic to get around them. That’s not so much of a problem, as that’s the same with every slow-moving vehicle. Bicycles, however, are the onl…

> When they overtake a standing queue, Bicyclists, from the point of view of drivers, are acting against the common interest of smoothly flowing traffic for their own gain and taking advantage of a temporary situation to screw up the natural order of faster vehicles at the front of the line and slower ones at the back. Now compare that behaviour with motorists, who are acting against the common interest of society an…

So, queue jumping is a moral act as long as the people you’re jumping in front of are bad people? Even if so, they’re most of the population and making someone angry is rarely a good tactic to convince them to help you.

It’s possible to disagree with everything someone stands for and still treat them with civility. Many people on both sides of this debate that are concerned primarily with their own convenience, and this should be a rational policy discussion instead of a holy war.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#245

Post by markus92 » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 10:25 AM UTC

tonymet wrote: post #55

quick survey : how many readers actually ride to work?

I don't have a car, and if I had parking is pretty much impossible at work. 15 mins ride every day, 2.5mi/4km.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#246

Post by davemabe » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 11:01 AM UTC

halbritt wrote: post #82

rkangel wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a chicken and egg situation with cycling and cycling infrastructure (as there is with any mode of transport). Any method that allows for incremental advances has got to be an improvement to the chances of increasing cycle usage.

I read a study a while back that suggested that there is a maximum of approximately 6% of any given population will use cycling as a means of transportation without cycling infrastructure isolated from automobile traffic similar to Copenhagen. I'm hoping that the growth of things like electric scooters will drive more demand for such things.

Do you have a link to the study? I'd love to read it.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#247

Post by adrianN » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 11:10 AM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #240

adrianN wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycling is morally superior to driving a car alone as an able bodied person. Cars pollute a lot and they and their infrastructure take up a lot of valuable space in cities.

As someone who is concerned about climate change and enjoys cycling, I'm still going to have to strongly disagree with this one. There are plenty of reasons why one might choose to drive over bike; calling one strictly morally superior to the other is extreme. Morality isn't that simple.

There are many good reasons to burn coal too.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#248

Post by remicmacs » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 11:21 AM UTC

cataphract wrote: post #191

Johnny555 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is explaining why many drivers dislike cyclists. This accurately describes some of the complaints I've heard from non-cyclists: Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. Whether or not the cyclists are actually followin…

We usually say that the only thing that angers motorists more than cyclists breaking the rules of the road is cyclists following the rules of the road :) The implication is that while they get angered by cyclists running reds, doing illegal turns, or lane splitting (assuming it's illegal), they also get angered if by following the rules the cyclists slow them down.

You're kind of confirming a feeling I have.

I am a daily cyclist and I started strictly following the rules after being scared by an accident I had. I realized eventually that I don't feel safer by following the rules. In fact there are a lot of days when I feel even more in danger than before (namely: rain days and friday nights).

I used to think that was because of the shock from the accident.

I'd like some material on that if you happen to know about it.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#249

Post by chapium » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 11:23 AM UTC

kd5bjo wrote: post #236

Johnny555 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is explaining why many drivers dislike cyclists. This accurately describes some of the complaints I've heard from non-cyclists: Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside. Whether or not the cyclists are actually followin…

The reason these behaviors are frustrating to drivers is that bicycles are hard to overtake. They’re unpredictable and fragile compared to a car, and so the driver has to give them a wide berth, often having to wait behind them for a long time until there’s a break in oncoming traffic to get around them. That’s not so much of a problem, as that’s the same with every slow-moving vehicle. Bicycles, however, are the onl…

It seems like city drivers prefer that cyclists move forward in the queue rather than stop in the middle of the lane 5 or 6 cars back in line.

Re: A “bike platform” that temporarily swaps one car parking space for ten bicycles

#250

Post by mrmanner » Thu, Jul 11, 2019, 11:26 AM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #222

mrmanner wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic idea of “experimentation is good” holds for bike lanes as well — before making a permanent strategy decision for an entire city they could try painting bike lanes in a neighborhood or for one commute where people are willing to try biking. When it works out, it’s easier to convince car people that they’re better off when there are fewer cars on the road even if the road is smaller.

Wrong. A painted bike lane provides no sense of security, and is for the most part completely ignored by car drivers. You can use temporary solid barriers, concrete or those water fillable plastic ones, or bolted posts instead. Anything that atleast damages a car on impact really. However, a switch to cycling needs to be systemic and can take a fairly long time, so I'm not sure how a limited and 'one street' experime…

> A painted bike lane provides no sense of security, and is for the most part completely ignored by car drivers.

If car drivers completely ignore a painted bike lane, that needs to be followed up by the police. So they need to be part of the experiment :) I agree that solid barriers are often better, esp. on roads with high speeds, but where I live painted bike lanes work in many cases.

> a switch to cycling needs to be systemic

I think there's room for experimentation before the systemic shift - e.g. find one residential area and one commercial that many travel between, make good, temporary bike lanes and paths between them, let those that want borrow bicycles for the duration of the experiment and see what happens. If it works, make it permanent and move on to new places.

("one area" can obviously be "a few areas", and the commute can be to a school/university/whatever, and there could be a grocery store on the way, and...)