Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities • Hacker News Board

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#661

Post by temp8964 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

jamil7 wrote: post #609

temp8964 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jacket might be ok for small rain, but for heavy rain and thunderstorm? No. Employers expect employees to come to work every business day, and people expect business to open every business day, even under heavy rain and thunderstorm. Watch! Heavy rain/wind! Most people can't go to work! Most businesses are closed! Teachers can't go to schools! Nurses can't go to clinics and hospitals! What a ridiculous picture of a m…

Couple of things from my anecdotal experience. Firstly, people already do this, yeah there are less cyclists in winter but the dedicated still ride. Secondly, nobody is advocating for bikes and nothing else, bike infrastructure in combination with a proper public transport system. Finally I see older people riding bikes regularly, often with a grandkid on the back or front and I'd guess they're in better shape for it…

You are not talking about biking as the choice for most people for every day use.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#662

Post by thehappypm » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:44 PM UTC

dijit wrote: post #639

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are part of a local democratic infrastructure that is actually pretty good by global standards in the US.

> that is actually pretty good by global standards in the US Citation needed. From a European perspective, it is not my impression that the local democratic system is good in any US city. But that could be my filter bubble, we only heard bad things because people shout the loudest about bad things.

What are the main problems you think of local government? I'm curious what the perception is in Europe. American cities aren't the pretty, walkable, public-transit oriented cities you have in Europe but that doesn't mean they're failures either.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#663

Post by FooBarBizBazz » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

umeshunni wrote: post #140

CabSauce wrote: post #10

That's great. Assuming the following: - Your commute is sufficiently short - You have facilities to shower and dress at work - You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo - Weather is sufficiently good - You're sufficiently healthy

Most of the world over the next 50 years will live in hot, big, Asian and African cities with >1M or >10M people. Vast transit networks will be the primary form of commute for those billions, not bicycles. Electric cars, vans, busses will solve the last few miles and support the cargo use cases. It's telling that the most of the examples in the article and in the comments are about tiny shrinking European towns (lol,…

A sad thing is that those are cities where bicycles are actually pretty common, but where they are becoming less common, because of the choices being made about development. The same is true in India and in Eastern Europe. Comfortable, mixed low-speed pedestrian/bicycle/scooter/animal traffic is getting replaced with dangerous high-speed car traffic, complete with traffic barriers. It's painful to watch a mistake get made, on a massive scale, in real time. The American Way is the wrong way, here.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#664

Post by cycomanic » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:03 PM UTC

FpUser wrote: post #546

TheTrotters wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean “no means of escape?” There are trains, buses, taxis, bikes, rental cars etc. To me owning a car seems much more miserable!

>"To me owning a car seems much more miserable!" Well you are free not to own it. Nobody's forcing you. Actually my main mean of transportation in Toronto is bicycle myself (well I work from home for the last 20 years anyways). I also own car (van actually) and it gives me great and hassle free degree of freedom. If I am in a mood and I often am I can jump in and in few hours be in complete wilderness swimming in som…

Yes and you can say that a helicopter would offer you even more freedom, but does that mean we should build our cities so that everyone has there own helipad?

Ironically it probably would take up less space than the infrastructure build for cars.

But this is the point made by the OP, essentially for the convenience to jump into your car a couple of times a year and drive to the wilderness without having to walk or take a means of public transport, you require cities to be build around those cars. The issue is you don't directly see the cost associated with it, because you're used to it. The thing is, if you actually had to pay for that convenience (because if we would not have to build the car infrastructure cities could be much cheaper) directly there clearly would be a point where you would say it is not worth it.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#665

Post by Robotbeat » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

jamil7 wrote: post #610

Robotbeat wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I find the article has things 100% backwards. If you live in a place where you don't need a car, then sure, I guess that might work, but the VAST majority of Americans do not. They would have to move somewhere else. There isn't enough housing in such places, so new apartments (and schools and stores) would need to be built. That takes time and emits a bunch itself. We don't have the time to empty the suburbs (a…

> (They also last at least 10 times longer than bikes, in terms of number of miles... including tires, etc.) What? By what metric?

Miles. Bike tires last 1000-3000 miles. Really good ones, maybe 5000 miles. EXTREMELY good ones 10,000 miles.

Car tires last 30,000 to 50,000 miles. Really good ones are 80,000 to 100,000 miles.

Similar for the mechanisms.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#666

Post by duxup » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:07 PM UTC

Laarlf wrote: post #317

duxup wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say there's a demonetization of everything these days where so many topics are full 'us vs them' tribal ordeals now.

Live and let live is a dead concept. Large cities kinda are the reason for that. Before, small towns had small communities with similar interests.

>small communities with similar interests

I duno man, I've lived in small towns, they're happy to get all tribal among themselves all on their own...

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#667

Post by TomSwirly » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #143

lotsofpulp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower one’s expectations of quality of life and consume less.

I don’t want to lower my quality of life so far that I can’t get an ambulance or have to be homebound once I can no longer walk.

I live in a bicycle centered city and we have excellent ambulance response _because_ there is less traffic.

Disabled people have various mobility devices that go on the bike paths.

The quality of life is a lot better here.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#668

Post by adrianN » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

moistbar wrote: post #651

adrianN wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a ridiculous proposal. Imagine the cost of creating a whole secondary road network above the current road network and the extra spaces needed for ramps up and down the elevated cycleway. This is something you can do in very special circumstances, but nowhere close to a general solution.

And suggesting that we try and squeeze cyclists onto already-overcrowded streets is any less ridiculous? I should have known that you're not allowed to speak ill of bikes here, jesus christ.

In my city about two lanes of every street are wasted for parked cars. So there is plenty of space for useful traffic if you get rid of those.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#669

Post by tomjen3 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:32 PM UTC

digital-cygnet wrote: post #484

Tiktaalik wrote: post #436

Switching to electric cars from ICE cars is continuing to do the wrong thing and make the wrong choices, but doing this wrong thing a bit better. It's still the same status quo, woefully terrible and unsustainable transportation model. Automobile oriented transportation doesn't scale, is a huge waste of resources, and perpetuates unsustainable, ultra expensive and resource intensive sprawling urban development patter…

In my experience, most people really do not understand how fundamentally unsuited cars are to solving urban (or dense suburban) transportation problems. Without really staring at the underlying geometry, it is hard for laypeople to understand that automobile-centric development patterns are by-and-large incapable of producing the kind of human-scale, dense, walkable areas that are (1) instinctively pleasing to be in,…

>In my experience, most people really do not understand how fundamentally unsuited cars are to solving urban (or dense suburban) transportation problems.

In my experience, most people who are against cars really do not understand how fucking awesome it is to drive a car and how well it works in terms of getting me from A to B in the minimum time with the minimum fuss with plenty of space for my shopping. Nothing else comes close unless you are only going around an uber dense area in rush hour.

Yes, there are issues with cars. I will still rather be stuck in traffic, sitting in my own comfortable indoor seat than riding a bike to work or taking the bus with no guarantee of a seat, nor enough space to sit even if I get it. A little planning and I am at work before rush hour and it isn't even an issue.

If I was to take public transportation it would need to not take twice the time (I measured it from the time I was outside my building to the time I was inside at work), it would need to be far more comfortable and I would need to be certain that there wouldn't be trouble in the bus.

But most of all? I would need to be certain that the people who made the changes were previously happy drivers and are now happy public commuters.

I did just buy a nice bike for the exercise and the ease of parking, but it only makes sense for short journeys to dense places where parking is the major issue.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#670

Post by JoeAltmaier » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:34 PM UTC

u801e wrote: post #536

uoaei wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your lawful right on roads in both cities is that you may occupy any traffic lane at any time on a bicycle. Be sure to ride in the center (maybe even slightly to the left) to avoid encouraging those behind you to try to squeeze by. Motorists are used to cyclists being slow because of this overly cautious approach that novice cyclists take to riding bikes on roadways. Another way to help retrain motorists' expectation…

> Another way to help retrain motorists' expectations is to do better to keep up with traffic. Whether a cyclist can maintain 20 mph or just 10 mph isn't going to make a difference to the motorists. But taking the lane by default will train them to change lanes to pass like they would when encountering any other slow vehicle.

And while they're being trained, bicyclist get hurt. Its a difficult problem, and we're in a difficult place. I don't know of a good solution.