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

371–380 of 485 posts

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#371

Post by btrettel »

adrianmonk wrote: post #350
btrettel wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this a needed change, but as I've said in the other comments, I am yet to encounter one of those sorts of intersections in the US. Though I have been told today on HN that they do exist in the US.

Does this not fit the definition? https://austintexas.gov/news/new-central-austin-bicycle-sign... http://fitness.blog.austin360.com/2017/08/04/new-bicycle-tra...

This could be what is needed. Thanks. I didn't see a specific mention of the turning problem, but I guess it's supposed to fix that.

But I should note that those cover only a small fraction of the intersections with this problem in Austin. So few that I've never seen them and I ride a bike on a daily basis. I have been on many of the mentioned streets, but I must not have gone through those intersections as I would remember a special bike light.

(Plus, you can see a few cars parked in the bike lane in one of the photos in the second link. So much for respect for cyclists...)

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#372

Post by rayiner »

apeace wrote: post #356
callinyouin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I hope you get hit!" This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. I've had so many friends hit by cars. My partner was struck by a car last fall and broke her leg in two places. She's s…

I would never yell at a bicyclist, and certainly would never hope one got hit. But I have to say, as an NYC pedestrian, I actively hate bicyclists. They don't follow the rules of the road-- at all . Red lights? Stop signs? Ignored. Pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk? Probably fine to whiz past them with 6 inches to spare. I almost get hit by fast-moving bikes once or twice a year. A car has never even come close to…

I feel the same way here in DC. Both as a pedestrian and as a driver. (For example, the other day my wife and I were trying to cross a street and nearly got hit by a bicyclist going the wrong way in the lane. Of course, I was looking for cars following the rules and didn’t think to look for a bicycle coming from the other direction.)

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#373

Post by CydeWeys »

btrettel wrote: post #309
CydeWeys wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the US doesn't have protected bike lanes, but that's what we're talking about here. I'm talking about my experience with one of the better protected bike lane setups in the US, and the advantages it grants. Come visit some time. I'll show you the bike lanes myself.

Given my experience in Austin, it's necessary to highlight the difference between a good bike lane and a bad bike lane. Politicians usually don't know the difference. In practice it seems you typically get bad bike lanes. When you have "protected" bike lanes with no protection against turning vehicles that are constantly full of debris (e.g., the "chipseal" finishing technique they use on the roads here makes the bik…

If you really want to see cycling mecca, you've of course got to go to Amsterdam, but it does at least sound like we're better here than in Austin. Though of course there's still much more work to be done.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#374

Post by TulliusCicero »

u801e wrote: post #355
TulliusCicero wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Generally "protected" bike lines are not protected at intersections, which is where most problems occur. Then also build protected intersections? These are common in truly bike-friendly cities. I see them frequently here in Munich (admittedly not as bike-friendly as Dutch cities, but much better than any US city).

Those are either actual interchanges (like how a highway/motorway interacts with a surface street), or a traffic light controlled intersection. Most protected infrastructure out there do not do either.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Most of what I've seen called "protected intersections" do include traffic lights. Are you using a different definition?

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#375

Post by hector_vasquez »

apeace wrote: post #356
callinyouin wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I hope you get hit!" This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. I've had so many friends hit by cars. My partner was struck by a car last fall and broke her leg in two places. She's s…

I would never yell at a bicyclist, and certainly would never hope one got hit. But I have to say, as an NYC pedestrian, I actively hate bicyclists. They don't follow the rules of the road-- at all . Red lights? Stop signs? Ignored. Pedestrians crossing in a crosswalk? Probably fine to whiz past them with 6 inches to spare. I almost get hit by fast-moving bikes once or twice a year. A car has never even come close to…

As a former NYC cyclist, I can say that your accusations are patently absurd. First, if cyclists blasted through red lights without looking we would all get hit by cars within a few intersections. Second, of course cars have come close to hitting you. It's New York. That's how they drive there. It is always jarring to hear what I anecdotally believe to be a minority of pedestrians who actually believe that cyclists are in any way, shape, or form more of a threat to their safety than motor vehicles. Luckily for us all, NYC is getting more and more friendly to cycling, though it still does have a long way to go.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#376

Post by TulliusCicero »

btrettel wrote: post #367
TulliusCicero wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen vehicular cyclists have good points in theory, but in practice their results seem to be awful. Are there places practicing 'vehicular cycling' that have high rates of cycling and good levels of safety? Infrastructural cyclists can point to the obvious success in the Netherlands and some other bike-friendly cities/countries, at least.

> but in practice their results seem to be awful Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion? I don't think there are rigorous scientific studies into vehicular or infrastructural cycling. If the infrastructural approach is more popular it's probably because many people seem to accept the infrastructural arguments uncritically. The vehicular camp makes excellent points that I believe have greatly improve…

> Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion?

Well, for biking numbers, there are infrastructure-oriented places like the Netherlands with very high rates of biking. I'm not aware of anywhere comparable for vehicular cycling, at least in the developed world.

> Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion?

Places where vehicular cycling is more common like the US seem to have worse safety numbers. I think you're right though that there aren't any in-depth studies, or at least I haven't seen them.

Admittedly, to me it seems obvious that cars being separate from bikes will be safer for people on bikes than sharing the space. Just like how everyone would uncritically accept that walking on sidewalks is safer than walking in car lanes, because it just seems really obvious.

Granted, you're looking at it as a personal style, whereas I'm looking at it in terms of public policy: which one is safer for cyclists as a whole, which one encourages more cycling. If you're saying, "well vehicular cycling policy is great except for that part where it only works for a tiny % of the populace" then that by itself means it's kind of useless.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#377

Post by TulliusCicero »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #362
TulliusCicero wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But can they bike from a train station in the city? Can they bike around the suburb they live in? Yes, they probably can.

Can they find a parking spot in the train station? No, no they can't.

Many suburbs in Europe are set up with either lots of parking at the station, or such that people even in the suburb are within walking/biking distance of the station. I can show you examples if you're interested.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#378

Post by JohnFen »

mywittyname wrote: post #267
techsupporter wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This, to me, signals the general attitude people have towards bicyclists in the US. The average person either doesn't care or, for some misguided reason or another, actively hates bicyclists. I've been yelled at by drivers for no apparent reason so many times I've lost count. My experience as a pedestrian (I don't ride a bike on the street so I can't speak to that experience) mirrors this. More than once, I've been…

> "if you weren't so fucking poor you wouldn't have to ride the bus!" I honestly think this is a huge factor in violence against cyclists & pedestrians. Drivers think you're automatically beneath them in the societal pecking order if you're walking or biking, so they feel justified or entitled to victimize you. People do similar shit to other people who they perceive to be poor, such as homeless, maids, delivery driv…

Yes, it's very interesting. I moved to a city (in the US) where driving a car is actually unnecessary, so I sold mine and ride a bike as my primary transportation. I am so happy to not have to deal with car ownership -- it's improved my life tremendously.

Although I haven't been subjected to any abuse about it, more than once I have had people make comments about when I'll be able to buy a car, as if finances are why I don't have one. The funny thing is that my income is in the top 5% of the area, and I have enough liquid cash right now to buy almost any car I want outright. I just don't want one.

People make weird assumptions.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#379

Post by wtetzner »

atoav wrote: post #312
wtetzner wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he means most people don't live close enough to the city that they could reasonably ride a bike to get where they need to go.

That is why you have park & ride concepts and trains. In many european cities you have places just outside the city where you can park your car or hop of and take your bike and take the last mile by bike or public transport. Having all your commuters drive their car into the city is not at all a good idea. I lived for years at one heavy intersection in one of Germanys biggest cities and I can tell you, if you watch t…

Park & ride is a fine idea, but Massachusetts needs to invest in that sort of infrastructure before it will become viable for commuters.

Currently there's the commuter rail, which is hard to get to from many areas, is quite expensive, and doesn't run very frequently. It's not good enough to get people to stop driving.

Re: Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law

#380

Post by wtetzner »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #377
cannonedhamster wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can they find a parking spot in the train station? No, no they can't.

Many suburbs in Europe are set up with either lots of parking at the station, or such that people even in the suburb are within walking/biking distance of the station. I can show you examples if you're interested.

I don't think it's a problem that can't be solved. But Massachusetts needs to invest in that infrastructure before it will become viable. Just making the city more navigable by bikes doesn't solve the problem.
Post reply on HN