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

After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 317 posts

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#281

Post by infogulch »

bluntfang wrote: post #224
joegahona wrote: post #31

> The dangers came into focus this year after 25 cyclists were killed on city streets — the highest toll in two decades. The "highest toll in two decades" gives some context, but I wish writers would share ratio metrics rather than absolute numbers in cases like this. I.e. the number of active cyclists on the road might be outpacing the deaths, but we don't know when you just say "25 cyclists were killed in 2019." Al…

Are you saying the value of these cyclist's lives is based on how many cyclists there are?

No, the value of the risk factor for an individual choosing wether to use bikes for transportation is based on how many total cyclists there are.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#282

Post by ptaipale »

pedantsamaritan wrote: post #267
ptaipale wrote: post #10

Where do bike deaths happen in New York? On streets when riding straight, or in intersections? (On both, of course, but what is the distribution?)

Here's a list of this year's deaths with links to details: https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/these-14-cyclists-d...

Interesting, thanks.

It doesn't say it directly, but it appears that heavy vehicles turning (right) at an intersection are a relatively common setup for fatalities. Unfortunately separate bike lanes don't help there.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#283

Post by flanbiscuit »

Aaronmacaron wrote: post #143
OutsmartDan wrote: post #62

As an avid cyclist in NYC, this is a huge step forward into cyclist protection. I can't tell you how many times i've almost been hit, or doored, by a car. Sometimes, it's a lot safer to run a red light to get in front of a car versus waiting for the light to turn- but of course that's not legal. Honestly, as huge and condensed NYC is, I am surprised this hasn't happened years ago. It's much, much more efficient to ge…

In Europe there are separate traffic lights for bicycles that turn green a few second earlier than the car traffic lights. This adds a lot of safety since the bikes have time to get past the first car in line. I think a lot of accidents where the car turns right and overlooks a bike in the blind spot can be prevented through this measure.

NYC has these as well. 8th Ave has a separate protected bike line for a large part of midtown down to the west village and the bike Lanes does have its own green light. I personally haven't seen it elsewhere but wouldn't be surprised if there were more

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#284

Post by viburnum »

u801e wrote: post #164
viburnum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, right?! It’s sooo much nicer that way. That’s a good demonstration of how bikes are really just slightly faster pedestrians and not slow cars.

Cyclists typically move between 10 to 30 mph. Pedestrians move between 2 to 6 mph. That's not slightly faster.

You watch Dutch bike videos, people are maybe going 12 mph, usually less. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9yqG6hAS4s

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#285

Post by TulliusCicero »

u801e wrote: post #227
TulliusCicero wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does partially solve the problem. Protected intersections make lanes of walking and biking much more obvious to drivers, and the curbs are such that drivers slow down more and have better visibility.

Except for the fact that the bike lane is hidden by parked cars until shortly before getting to the intersection. What do you see in this image: https://imgur.com/a/JcS4RK5 The other thing is that if you go by the figures and text in https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/don... on pages 12 and 13, you'll find that a right turning driver can only see about 8.2 feet to their right when making a turn.…

Not all protected bike lanes are parking protected. Don't think this is common in the Netherlands. Parking protected is better than having bikes on the other side of parked cars, but yes visibility is less than ideal.

Anyway, you're ignoring the other two things I pointed out about protected intersections. It makes the bike lane itself more obvious, and the curb design forces drivers to slow down more.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#286

Post by timwaagh »

objektif wrote: post #272
a13n wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're literally dying and you think the solution should be "don't bike"?

That is a strange way to look at it. Question I am asking is not whether biking should be made safer instead I am asking why biking should be considered a form of transportation at all that needs to be funded by taxpayers? This is a serious question try to answer without getting emotional. Should we have another lane for skaters? How about hand walkers?

Just about every cyclist means a car taken off the road. they take maybe about one-sixth the roadspace of a car and that's not factoring in the additional distance heavy and slow-breaking cars need between them to drive safely at speed. which means each extra cyclists reduces congestion which helps drivers especially in congested cities. so it stands to reason it's net-positive to have more cyclists relative to drivers. subways also become more useful when decently fast last-mile options are available. having bikes on pedestrian lanes is unsafe and unattractive and having them on driveways is also unsafe and unattractive, so both of these options lead to less cyclists, more cars and hence a terrible driving experience.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#287

Post by u801e »

viburnum wrote: post #284
u801e wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyclists typically move between 10 to 30 mph. Pedestrians move between 2 to 6 mph. That's not slightly faster.

You watch Dutch bike videos, people are maybe going 12 mph, usually less. For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9yqG6hAS4s

My own bike commute where I pick up the kids from school and drop them off at after school activities involves about 15 miles of riding. I average about 11 mph while moving and it takes me about 1 hour and 30 minutes (including the time it takes me to pick them up, load them in the trailer, unload them and drop them off. My lowest speed up hills is around 5 mph and my top speed is around 27 mph when going downhill.

If I were to only go 12 mph or less, then my average speed would be significantly lower and I would not be able to complete this commute in a reasonable period of time, nor would I be able to get my kids to their after school programs on time.

Infrastructure like what the Dutch have is not suitable or safe for the speeds I ride, but taking the lane on the actual road works out just fine.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#288

Post by nemo44x »

frabbit wrote: post #280
nemo44x wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lost revenue from parking tickets. The city is in a very precarious situation right now with debt of 81k per resident and high tax paying citizens leaving the city faster than they are being replaced. Pension obligations are exploding and since 1% of the population funds 50% of the tax revenue, we can’t afford to lose anymore. Building bike lanes is very kumbaya but these types of things are not sustainable as-is. So…

Someone has to pay for it, why not the ones that use it? Just tax the GHG-emitters fairly and there cities coffers will be over-flowing. That will help shift the incentive for those too dim and slothful to make a change on their own.

I agree that fuel tax should increase. However, that appears to be political suicide.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#289

Post by ordinaryperson »

themoonbus wrote: post #240
ordinaryperson wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Again, his exact statement was: "Cyclists in NYC (and I imagine most cities) do not, and have never had, a history of 'endangering the lives of others.'" He's stating unequivocally that cyclists do not have -- and have never had -- a history of endangering the lives of others. They kill people. I certainly call that endangering the lives of others. They don't kill a lot of people. Neither do sharks -- in the US t…

"A history". As I said, you are interpreting that word differently than they are. I think it's valid to interpret "a history" to mean "something that happens with some amount of frequency". I also suppose it's valid to interpret "a history" as "something that's every happened". At the end, you write "don't and have never never endangered", which is something only you are saying.

A history = means a history, not a low probability history, not a high probability history, just a history. You seem to be creating requirements for a "a history" to "needs to happen with a certain frequency." Even 1 time would be a history, altho cyclists kill more people than that.

It's not something "only I am saying." Cyclists have a history of endangering pedestrians...it's a low probability event but by any rational definition of "history" it's a track record aka history.

Not sure why people are so eager to defend cyclists they're willing to overlook the fact that they can and do endanger pedestrians and now -- in your case -- pretend they have no "history" of doing so because it's not happening often enough for your satisfaction.

And it looks like this parent comment was deleted and this thread is now detached -- I'm assuming the moderators also had a problem with that original statement.

Re: After Spike in Deaths, New York to Get 250 Miles of Protected Bike Lanes

#290

Post by u801e »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #285
u801e wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the fact that the bike lane is hidden by parked cars until shortly before getting to the intersection. What do you see in this image: https://imgur.com/a/JcS4RK5 The other thing is that if you go by the figures and text in https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/don... on pages 12 and 13, you'll find that a right turning driver can only see about 8.2 feet to their right when making a turn.…

Not all protected bike lanes are parking protected. Don't think this is common in the Netherlands. Parking protected is better than having bikes on the other side of parked cars, but yes visibility is less than ideal. Anyway, you're ignoring the other two things I pointed out about protected intersections. It makes the bike lane itself more obvious, and the curb design forces drivers to slow down more.

> Parking protected is better than having bikes on the other side of parked cars, but yes visibility is less than ideal.

Without visibility, the motorist and cyclist could be on a collision course and not even know it until it's too late.

On the other hand, if the cyclist is on the road in the middle of the general purpose traffic lane, the motorist will see them in advance and either change lanes to pass or slow down and wait until it's safe to do so. At intersections there won't be any turning conflicts because the turning motorist is either directly in front or directly behind the cyclist (meaning the motorist won't cross the path of the cyclist when making their turn).

The fact is that the vast majority of motorist/cyclist collisions occur at intersections, so it makes more sense to cycle in a way such that you're visible to other drivers between intersections and follow the vehicle traffic rules when proceeding through one.

Post reply on HN