Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities • Hacker News Board

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#371

Post by DoreenMichele » Sat, Sep 15, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

dhnsmakala wrote: post #370

hhmc wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for encouraging me to think, since I was wilfully choosing not to before. > I only have to trust drivers not to do egregious things like head on collision at high speeds. You have wildly underestimated how small of a mistake can end your life in even low-speed traffic. It's fine, a lot of drivers have an unearned sense of resilience, so you're not unique. You're also intentionally ignoring the alternate rou…

Again, please think a little. 'bicyclists face a higher risk of crash related injury and deaths than occupants in motor vehicles' https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/bicycle/index.html I can't believe you need proof for such a simple statement. The best you can do is 'trust me, low speed accident very dangerous' Sure, some places are more bike friendly than others. But even here in the bay area ciclists are mostly…

Similar comparison point:

I paid accident claims for more than five years. A one vehicle low speed car accident typically meant whiplash and physical therapy. Similar accident on a motorcycle could result in broken bones that needed repeat surgeries because they weren't healing properly.

The difference in outcomes between similar scenarios for car versus motorcycle was pretty dramatic.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#372

Post by mikhailfranco » Sat, Sep 15, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #309

Johnny555 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though a sub 3 mile commute is also easy to serve with transit. I have a 12 mile bike commute. The bus is an option, but it only runs once an hour.

A sub-3-mile commute is walkable.

Runnable: 5 km ~ 25 mins

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#373

Post by adrianmonk » Sat, Sep 15, 2018, 6:09 PM UTC

village-idiot wrote: post #244

adrianmonk wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it safer, though? I'm not very experienced with this stuff, but one of the issues is having sufficient traction to make it up hills, and all-wheel drive is superior at that. If you have to roll back down a hill and try again with a running start, that may be doable, but that makes things more chaotic and unpredictable on the roads (compared to making it up the first time). In an ideal world, other drivers would…

No, it’s more convenient. I personally would argue that AWD can make cars less safe because of the false confidence it provides. The most important thing you can do with a car is brake and turn, as those affect safety the most. All cars brake with all four wheels, drive type has absolutely no effect at all. All modern cars have enough braking power to slide on clean concrete, let alone snow and ice. The only thing yo…

I think we really have no argument with each other here because we're talking about two different things: car capabilities vs. overall picture including driver behavior. "AWD vehicles perform better in ice/snow" is a different statement from "you're safer in an AWD vehicle".

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#374

Post by village-idiot » Sat, Sep 15, 2018, 8:21 PM UTC

jbob2000 wrote: post #366

village-idiot wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if they had done that earlier their bodies probably wouldn’t be so broken. Sitting still is bad for you. I just find your hatred for cyclists utterly bizarre. Did a cyclist murder a family member and you need revenge, or what?

I absolutely do not hate cyclists, I am one myself. When I lived in the city, I commuted in to work on a bike. I have lived that life and know what it’s about. What I disagree with is the idea that we can build a society around cycling. I was lucky to be able to live close enough to work and be abled enough to do the ride 5 days a week. And I was lucky that, on days with bad weather, I could work from home because of…

Oh, so you made up my position (rip up all the roads), and then got pissed about it. Got it.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#375

Post by enobrev » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 2:39 AM UTC

marssaxman wrote: post #172

enobrev wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying Brooklyn, The Bronx, and the neighborhoods outside of downtown Chicago are suburbs? If so, we may have vastly different ideas about the definition of a city. Also, Seattle, Philly, Boston, Miami, and lots of other smaller cities are very much unlike living in the suburbs.

I know nothing about the latter three cities, but most of Seattle is made up of low-density, residential-only neighborhoods, very suburban-feeling to my sensibilities - and I'm talking about the city proper, too, not including all the even-more-suburban areas surrounding.

I grew up in Chicago. I've lived in Brooklyn, LA, Seattle, and now I'm back in Chicago.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a ton more "city" in those neighborhoods than those high-rises. Density is only one variable in an incredibly large equasion. Seattle has a good deal of its own as well. Even in neighborhoods as nice as Queen Anne.

That said, I wish most other cities had it as good as Seattle. And I wish Seattle was far more diverse than it is.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#376

Post by Johnny555 » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 4:17 AM UTC

mikhailfranco wrote: post #372

kazinator wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A sub-3-mile commute is walkable.

Runnable: 5 km ~ 25 mins

8 minute miles with a backpack with a laptop and a change of clothes? Perhaps for some people, but not everyone.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#377

Post by hhmc » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 2:02 PM UTC

dhnsmakala wrote: post #370

hhmc wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for encouraging me to think, since I was wilfully choosing not to before. > I only have to trust drivers not to do egregious things like head on collision at high speeds. You have wildly underestimated how small of a mistake can end your life in even low-speed traffic. It's fine, a lot of drivers have an unearned sense of resilience, so you're not unique. You're also intentionally ignoring the alternate rou…

Again, please think a little. 'bicyclists face a higher risk of crash related injury and deaths than occupants in motor vehicles' https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/bicycle/index.html I can't believe you need proof for such a simple statement. The best you can do is 'trust me, low speed accident very dangerous' Sure, some places are more bike friendly than others. But even here in the bay area ciclists are mostly…

Is it possible for you to reply without being condescending, or are your points not compelling enough on their own?

Your "proof" is geographicly local. Please consider there is a world outside the USA. Feel free to look up rates in Amsterdam, Copenhagen, London.

Please, think a little.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#378

Post by oftenwrong » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 2:48 PM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #219

oftenwrong wrote: post #94

A city that is bike-friendly is good, but a city that is walking-friendly is better. The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that even be necessary in day-to-day life? It is easily possible to build a neighbourhood where three generations of a family can live, work, attend school, shop, and more within walking distance. Walking is the simplest, most universal, and most natural mode of…

> The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that even be necessary in day-to-day life? Uh... because I want to visit friends? Go see a show? Explore? Take a job that's not immediately next door? There are a million reasons why. You know what cities were insanely walkable? The endless concrete enclaves of Khrushchyovkas in the USSR. Walkable does not mean pleasant.

Key word: "necessary"

In a walkable environment you can still make longer trips using other modes.

I can't speak to the cities of the USSR, but your "counter-example" is meaningless regardless.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#379

Post by oftenwrong » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 2:50 PM UTC

hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #222

oftenwrong wrote: post #94

A city that is bike-friendly is good, but a city that is walking-friendly is better. The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that even be necessary in day-to-day life? It is easily possible to build a neighbourhood where three generations of a family can live, work, attend school, shop, and more within walking distance. Walking is the simplest, most universal, and most natural mode of…

More people can walk than can/will ride a bike. Many old people avoid biking due to poor balance and strength, but can walk without issue. Biking allows you to move without moving your full body weight across your for and ankle. Bicycles are great for people with lower body joint issues. Three wheelers work great for people with balance issues. Tokyo is a testament to the power of bicycles to increase mobility for al…

Tokyo is a good example of a city that is very walkable, but it is also very bikeable, and has top-tier transit, and you can even own a car. The same cannot be said for places that are planned to exclude walking simply based on the distance between destinations.

Re: Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities

#380

Post by oftenwrong » Sun, Sep 16, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #280

oftenwrong wrote: post #94

A city that is bike-friendly is good, but a city that is walking-friendly is better. The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that even be necessary in day-to-day life? It is easily possible to build a neighbourhood where three generations of a family can live, work, attend school, shop, and more within walking distance. Walking is the simplest, most universal, and most natural mode of…

I live 12 miles from work. I live closer to work than 75% of my colleagues. Some live 30+ miles away. The bars and hangouts my friends visit are all over town. And for the things nearby: Would I rather spend an hour walking 5 miles to a park or restaurant, or 12 minutes with good bike lanes? In the south, you don't want to stay out long unless you're ready to sweat. 10 minutes at a casual biking pace is several miles…

>I live 12 miles from work. I live closer to work than 75% of my colleagues. Some live 30+ miles away.

That arrangement precludes walking as a practical form of transportation. Build things closer together. Your typical destination could be 12 minutes away on foot, not an hour. When you want to travel to something that is an hour's walk away, you can bike instead. Bikes work fine in places that are walking-scale. Walking doesn't work in places that are biking-scale.

Not sure what else to say about the temperature. The design of a place can be altered to make it more bearable, like having plentiful street trees and awnings for shade. In the end, some people cannot bring themselves to exist outside of artificial cooling and heating. It's largely a cultural thing. People walk in other very hot places, and in other very cold places. Dress for the weather, endure some discomfort, and take some judgement from the weaker people.