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

We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 561 posts

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#391

Post by Freak_NL »

brnt wrote: post #372
chapium wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling while cycling or driving are not equivalents. A vehicle is much more massive than a bike and to use a phone while accelerating is far more negligent. The chances of a cyclist accident harming someone other than themselves while on a phone are far lower than distracted driving accident.

Sure, but 'phone-use' while cycling (thanks ;)) is the number two reason bikes cause lethal accidents for themselves or other bicycles, i.e. it's a big deal. Source (in Dutch): https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/fietsers-voor-h...

Thankfully, using a smartphone while riding a bicycle is now illegal in the Netherlands (since this summer), but it will take a long time for people to stop regarding using their smartphone whatever they are doing as normal.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#392

Post by Konnstann »

rapnie wrote: post #334
willis936 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that helmet not be the norm when riding bikes? Biking is more dangerous than walking, even if you did it on an isolated trail. Is looking cooler worth the increased risk of a traumatic brain injury? I’m okay with society thinking it isn’t.

This is addressed in the article I referenced: > David Roberts: The Dutch don’t wear bike helmets. How safe is it to ride a bike in the Netherlands? > Chris Bruntlett: We — like you — live in a place where helmets have been mandated by law, because they’ve been accepted as a commonsense safety device, normal as a seatbelt. But the Dutch show that [for them], safety in infrastructure, safety in slowing cars, and safet…

I've biked for most of my life in the US, and while I agree cars are a bigger problem for cyclists than anything else, describing helmet use as "armor" against cars is ridiculous. I wear a helmet when on a bike because I've had my skull fractured falling off of a bike, with no cars in sight. A decent helmet costs what, $30?

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#393

Post by willis936 »

99052882514569 wrote: post #369
willis936 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biking isn’t safe enough to not wear a helmet just because there have been changes to make biking less likely to have an accident. If putting on a helmet is too much work then physically moving yourself to your destination is wayyy too much work. That is to say, it isn’t too much work and it isn’t a barrier to entry. At the very least citizens should appreciate the danger of biking without a helmet even if they choos…

Biking isn't completely safe. Do helmets really help all that much? Very questionable[0]. Wearing a helmet, for example, promotes less safe behaviour by both cyclists and by drivers around them. The sense of safety a helmet gives you when you cycle is mostly a false one. Lack of cycling infrastructure is a far greater danger anyway. In countries with the best cyclist safety records, no one wears or owns bike helmets,…

From the re-analysis cited in the wikipedia article:

"Do bicycle helmets reduce the risk of injury to the head, face or neck? With respect to head injury, the answer is clearly yes, and the re-analysis of the meta-analysis reported by Attewell et al.(2001) in this paper has not changed this answer."

https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2012.12.003

If it's behavior that's being targeted by policies around helmets, then why would a more care-free attitude towards biking make it safer?

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#394

Post by efa »

gwbas1c wrote: post #345

I lived in Palo Alto, CA, (heart of Silicon Valley) and commuted by bike to work. (I even took my bike on the train for a few weeks.) Once I met my wife, we were able to bike to each other's homes and also bike to work. It was great! Then we moved in together, and because she had a dog, Palo Alto became prohibitively expensive, and we had to move a few miles away. I only used my bike three times after that. Even wors…

Totally agree. Where I live I can't go anywhere in a timely manner via bike. Most places are just too spread out. But I love the idea of making downtown areas totally car free (or with the exceptions you mentioned).

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#395

Post by efa »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #338
jka wrote: post #257

It's excellent to see momentum building like this. Cycling: - Has lower cost-of-entry in terms of purchase/rental - Keeps you healthier, which can also contribute to remaining active and mobile in older age - Provides easier self-maintenance for most common faults - Requires less fuel (particularly combustible/fossil) - Can be just as fast, or faster, for transit from A to B in urban environments (especially with e-b…

So many great points. Bikes are the number one carbon cutting technology we need to scale up.

And working from home. Just no commute at all!

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#396

Post by baumy »

willis936 wrote: post #354
jamil7 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about a barrier to entry to casual cycling here, people commuting in work clothes are not going to be able to reach speeds of 20mph in a busy city, if they do it's up to them to decide whether or a not they should wear a helmet.

Then there should be an enforced speed limit for cyclers not wearing helmets. There is a delicate balance between personal freedom and the greater good. Seatbelts do not protect anyone other than the person wearing it but societies have deemed making them mandatory is a good idea. Helmets have moved into the same category and I think they should stay there. The benefits of lower barrier to entry aren’t worth the incr…

> The benefits of lower barrier to entry aren’t worth the increased, unnecessary risks.

Every study I've ever seen contradicts your statement here.

You are all over this thread making strong, sweeping claims about bike safety and your only supporting data point seems to be "KE = 1/2mv^2". But there are entire cities in Europe where biking with no helmet is the norm, lots of people do it every day, and serious accidents are all but unheard of - there are other comments on this post with citations to back that up. There is also evidence that getting more people out biking increases bike safety more than anything else [1], and requiring helmets for everyone at all times makes this very difficult to achieve.

Please stop passing off your gut feeling as fact, it is spreading misinformation and - though I know it seems counterintuitive - actually making biking less safe. To be clear, kinetic energy being proportional to the square of velocity is a fact, that fact's impact on real world bike safety is a much more complicated question.

Disclaimer for what it's worth - I've been biking to and from either work, school or social events about once a day for the past 11 years, and I almost always wear a helmet :)

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/02/24/the-mor...

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#397

Post by Freak_NL »

willis936 wrote: post #376
jacobparker wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Biking isn’t safe enough to not wear a helmet Could you explain why you think that? That’s a pretty general statement. Are you imagining city biking here, or something more like racing in the country-side? Some data about how this is dangerous could be convincing: https://youtu.be/Boi0XEm9-4E count the helmets. Just to be clear, I’m not against helmets (I wear one, as is custom in my country).

No, I don’t have the data on hand or the time to hunt down studies that may well not exist. That shouldn’t keep people from knowing what they know. City biking regularly gets up to 15 mph. No I don’t have a citation. Falling over the handlebars is likely when coming to a sudden stop. Brain injuries are not going to be rare occurrences in such cases. No I don’t have a citation.

> Falling over the handlebars is likely when coming to a sudden stop.

Only if you are riding a bicycle completely unsuitable for commuting or general urban use; like a mountain bike or racing bicycle.

Commonly used bicycles in Denmark and the Netherlands look like this:

https://omidbikes.nl/wp-content/uploads/mat-zwart-7.jpg

Note the handlebars and upright rider position that basically prevent going over the handlebars during an emergency stop. That kind of accident just doesn't happen here.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#398

Post by leecarraher »

I think there is a bit of a catch-22 in regard to ridership and using already limited city roadway resources. I am privileged to have a protected bike lane for a about 50% of my commute to work, but can't deny the argument that it is vastly underutilized in comparison to roadways. Unfortunately this seems to further polarize cyclists and non-cyclists when I do need to share the roadway. It is a difficult problem that large scale public works cannot solve alone.

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#399

Post by richthegeek »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #184
dcolkitt wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that Holland is entirely flat, has an average high of 71 in the summer, and rarely if ever gets icy. The Dutch experience simply doesn't translate to most of America because of the terrain and climate. Elderly people people will die if you make them walk in the Florida summer. 7 year old children lack the leg-strength to bike up California hills. Both groups are likely to slip and crack their heads…

I actually appreciate you pointing this out. I get rather tired of smug assertions that America can just do everything like it's done in Europe or something when the landscape and population density are so very different. But I don't think that means we can't borrow any lessons at all from them. The biggest lesson we can borrow from the Dutch seems to be that they set out to intentionally make their cities more pedes…

From the reverse argument: it's really very tiring that the ultimate defense from any American on any topic ultimately boils down to American Exceptionalism.

Yes you have a wide variety of population densities and climates. So does Europe. So does everywhere else in the world.

It's the most boring and lazy argument to make, and it never actually answers anything. Exactly what is so different about LA compared to Paris that it can't have good cheap internet and cyclists must die at 5 times the rate?

Re: We Need to Dream Bigger Than Bike Lanes

#400

Post by jsinai »

brnt wrote: post #296
rapnie wrote: post #232

What I see a lot in this thread is people's either/or opinions. Love cars / hate bycicles or vice versa. No. It is a balancing act, where cars, bycicles and public transport co-exist, and infrastructure is developed strategically in smart ways and in a prolonged effort. When I was young in The Netherlands for the most part the cars still dominated the streets. Over time I've seen cities and road networks gradually be…

As a Dutchman who's lived in a few places abroad, the cycling 'problem' is quite simple: it needs to be the norm. No helmet, because neither do you require them for pedestrians. You can cycle in all weather, just as you would walking (a hard mental one, my non-Dutch partner can't get over the idea cycling is for sunshine). Public space design must start with safe (no sharp turns, looking at you France!) and separate…

>In urban areas, cycling is faster, and electric biking is expanding your reach a few times over.

In Cambridge, UK, where I used to live it once took me quicker to ride to the same destination than a taxi. In fact it’s well known that cycling in Cambridge’s city centre is much faster than taking a car.

Post reply on HN