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

#751

Post by dmm » Fri, Apr 09, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

souprock wrote: post #495

dmm wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing to consider is that in many areas it's not legal for cyclists to use the sidewalk. Most sidewalks aren't appropriate for cycling. The exceptions I was describing are mostly found in big commercial developments, target, walmart, etc. Around me they tend to build wide sidewalks, well separated from the busy road. Here's an example: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9146941,-92.3196647,117m/dat... But most s…

OK, I'll imagine I'm a cyclist, trying to cross a four-way stop. When I was a teen, I used to do exactly that, riding my 10-speed on the sidewalk. This is how it goes: Approach the intersection, coasting and then braking. Come to a stop, with feet on the ground. Optionally, dismount. Wait for a big gap in the stream of cars. Walk or ride across the intersection, remounting as necessary, and then continue on riding. I…

> Optionally, dismount.

For sure, one of the advantages of cycling is that you can at any time become a pedestrian by dismounting. This allows you to take advantage of pedestrian crossings. It's going to be really annoying to dismount at every intersection or every ~500ft/155m.

> The cyclist doesn't cross until the cars are gone.

There's a four-way stop by my house that continuously has traffic for a hour twice a day during rush hour.

> remounting as necessary

A key to road safety is behaving in a predictable manner. Cars are supposed to yield to pedestrians at crosswalk but bikes are vehicles.

It's far safer at the intersection to merge into traffic, take the lane and yield the intersection with the same rules as other vehicles.

> It's far safer than the alternatives.

History shows it's not. Sidewalks aren't designed for use by vehicles going 3x the speed of pedestrians.

It's not safe for the pedestrians and it's not safe for the cyclists.

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

#752

Post by 908B64B197 » Fri, Apr 09, 2021, 8:23 PM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #718

908B64B197 wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Love the explanation. But what about adding some underground parking?

It's a fix but a costly one. An underground car spot costs in the tens of thousands and so this ends up boosting the price of housing in addition to making construction more complex and time consuming. As well there's the environmental impact. Concrete creates a lot of CO2 and we actually need to use less of it going forward.

Issue is, cars are incredibly convenient.

Need to get somewhere in the suburbs? Carry large items? Go in the nature for the weekend? Any route that's not been anticipated by the central-public-transport-planning-committee is probably way better done with a car latency-wise.

Above a certain income threshold, it'll be really hard to convince people to ditch their car completely. You might get away with reducing car footprint from one per adult to one per household. Any dense development should have some sort of underground parking planned for it. Then it makes it much easier to get rid of on-street parking and convert the space into safe cycling infrastructure.

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

#753

Post by Tiktaalik » Fri, Apr 09, 2021, 9:31 PM UTC

908B64B197 wrote: post #752

Tiktaalik wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fix but a costly one. An underground car spot costs in the tens of thousands and so this ends up boosting the price of housing in addition to making construction more complex and time consuming. As well there's the environmental impact. Concrete creates a lot of CO2 and we actually need to use less of it going forward.

Issue is, cars are incredibly convenient. Need to get somewhere in the suburbs? Carry large items? Go in the nature for the weekend? Any route that's not been anticipated by the central-public-transport-planning-committee is probably way better done with a car latency-wise. Above a certain income threshold, it'll be really hard to convince people to ditch their car completely. You might get away with reducing car foo…

It's no real argument that cars will always win the day on the edge cases, though the real question is whether we should be designing our cities to accomodate the edge cases for the majority cases. The majority of transportation uses are much more mundane and can be well served by active transportation and public transportation.

For example creating a bus route to the base of the mountain so that hikers and snowshoers can access the wilderness is a big win for the public at large, but nonetheless there will always be a group of enthusiasts that want go on a further flung mountain hike, and they'll need to use a car to get there. Doesn't mean it wasn't a good idea to create the infrastructure that accommodates the bigger group.

Building big expensive concrete car lots, assuming everyone has a car, is an example of building for the edge case. In Vancouver, a city that has done not a bad job of building protected bike lanes, there's data out now to support that the parking lots that it has mandated in new apartment buildings are in fact overbuilt, under utilized and part vacant!

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

#754

Post by souprock » Fri, Apr 09, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

dmm wrote: post #751

souprock wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I'll imagine I'm a cyclist, trying to cross a four-way stop. When I was a teen, I used to do exactly that, riding my 10-speed on the sidewalk. This is how it goes: Approach the intersection, coasting and then braking. Come to a stop, with feet on the ground. Optionally, dismount. Wait for a big gap in the stream of cars. Walk or ride across the intersection, remounting as necessary, and then continue on riding. I…

> Optionally, dismount. For sure, one of the advantages of cycling is that you can at any time become a pedestrian by dismounting. This allows you to take advantage of pedestrian crossings. It's going to be really annoying to dismount at every intersection or every ~500ft/155m. > The cyclist doesn't cross until the cars are gone. There's a four-way stop by my house that continuously has traffic for a hour twice a day…

At the four-way stop by your house that continuously has traffic for a hour twice a day during rush hour, how do pedestrians cross? Is it even safe for them to cross?

Whatever the answer, that works for cyclists. Simply dismount, then act like a pedestrian. Maybe the intersection is unsafe for pedestrians, in which case it is also unsafe for cyclists.

The idea that "bikes are vehicles" is a load of nonsense. It's clear that the only cyclists talking to legislators are the ones in the top 0.01% for acceleration and speed. For all the rest of us, we're pedestrians, even if the law pretends otherwise.

The speed difference, mass difference, and energy difference are all terrible for bikes against trucks. Pretending otherwise is silly. We might as well compare an little old person on a bike, just 120 pounds total going 10 MPH, with 210-pound Usain Bolt running at 28 MPH.

The problem of running down pedestrians with a bike is simply solved by not doing that. The cyclist must slow down and give a wide gap or get some sort of acknowledgement that passing is OK. This isn't hard.

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

#755

Post by occz » Fri, Apr 09, 2021, 10:16 PM UTC

moistbar wrote: post #708

occz wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be comfortable to drive around in a city. You are in a place with lots of people you can harm with your vehicle if you drive around fast, you should be driving slowly and paying close attention to your surroundings. Proper bicycle infrastructure (separated bike lanes etc.) and quality public transportation is the solution - the comfortable option should generally be to take a train/metro/bus/tram/boat.

Just come out and say you irrationally hate cars already, Jesus Christ.

I do not irrationally hate cars - I just have the perspective that we should design our shared spaces in a manner that leads to the least amount of deaths.

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

#756

Post by occz » Fri, Apr 09, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

moistbar wrote: post #419

occz wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be comfortable to drive around in a city. You are in a place with lots of people you can harm with your vehicle if you drive around fast, you should be driving slowly and paying close attention to your surroundings. Proper bicycle infrastructure (separated bike lanes etc.) and quality public transportation is the solution - the comfortable option should generally be to take a train/metro/bus/tram/boat.

> It should not be comfortable to drive around in a city. By this logic, aggressive drivers are also a good thing because they stress you out while driving.

I'm not sure that aggressive drivers actually cause other drivers to drive more safely.

Of course, you didn't believe that either when you wrote that comment.

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

#757

Post by occz » Fri, Apr 09, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #672

occz wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be comfortable to drive around in a city. You are in a place with lots of people you can harm with your vehicle if you drive around fast, you should be driving slowly and paying close attention to your surroundings. Proper bicycle infrastructure (separated bike lanes etc.) and quality public transportation is the solution - the comfortable option should generally be to take a train/metro/bus/tram/boat.

Please. Try to make the public transport comfortable. That means a seat (I get that in a car), not having to crawl over somebody else next to me or have them sit too close. It means not having to worry is a fight is about to break out, having some punk shine a laser in your eyes (happened to me), having space to put down my bag and some place to put my feet (I am short, I don't reach the floor in most busses). It mea…

>Please. Try to make the public transport comfortable. That means a seat (I get that in a car), not having to crawl over somebody else next to me or have them sit too close.

I agree that investments should be made to keep the capacity of public transportation at not too crowded levels at all times. However, have your legs been weakened enough by spending time in a car that you're unable to stand occasionally?

>It means not having to worry is a fight is about to break out,

This is probably a socio-economic issue if anything

>having some punk shine a laser in your eyes (happened to me),

Sad to hear that has happened to you.

>having space to put down my bag and some place to put my feet (I am short, I don't reach the floor in most busses).

I agree that the design of certain means of public transportation suffers from poor design.

>It means no crying children (meaning no small children on the buss at all). It means that and a million other things.

Might I suggest moving to the remote wilderness, instead? There you will be fully insulated from the rest of mankind.

>It also means I don't have to stand in the rain to wait for a bus, ever.

This problem is mostly solved by covered bus stops (roof + a few walls), that protects against the elements.

>Oh, and it means no pandemic. I am not going to sit in an enclosed space with strangers at this time.

The pandemic is the exception. Just because traveling by car (second to not traveling at all, by the way) is better than public transportation during the pandemic does not mean that we should ignore the incredible harm that car-centric design is inflicting continuously on the world.

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

#758

Post by occz » Fri, Apr 09, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #342

occz wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should not be comfortable to drive around in a city. You are in a place with lots of people you can harm with your vehicle if you drive around fast, you should be driving slowly and paying close attention to your surroundings. Proper bicycle infrastructure (separated bike lanes etc.) and quality public transportation is the solution - the comfortable option should generally be to take a train/metro/bus/tram/boat.

If uncomfortable drivers were good drivers tanks and fork lifts wouldn't have seat cushions. Unless cars are different than every piece of heavy equipment and industrial machinery ever (which have been studied into oblivion because there's money at stake) comfortable drivers are safe/effective/better drivers because it reduces cognitive load allowing operators to be more attentive to second order things (mirrors, wha…

In addition to the other response, I suggest you check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming - these are all measures that make it slightly less comfortable to drive in order to create safer environments for non-protected trafficants.

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

#759

Post by 908B64B197 » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #753

908B64B197 wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Issue is, cars are incredibly convenient. Need to get somewhere in the suburbs? Carry large items? Go in the nature for the weekend? Any route that's not been anticipated by the central-public-transport-planning-committee is probably way better done with a car latency-wise. Above a certain income threshold, it'll be really hard to convince people to ditch their car completely. You might get away with reducing car foo…

It's no real argument that cars will always win the day on the edge cases, though the real question is whether we should be designing our cities to accomodate the edge cases for the majority cases. The majority of transportation uses are much more mundane and can be well served by active transportation and public transportation. For example creating a bus route to the base of the mountain so that hikers and snowshoer…

> whether we should be designing our cities to accomodate the edge cases for the majority cases.

Edge cases will always need to be accommodated. That's one of the foundation of engineering and good design.

> In Vancouver, a city that has done not a bad job of building protected bike lanes, there's data out now to support that the parking lots that it has mandated in new apartment buildings are in fact overbuilt, under utilized and part vacant!

In a city that's famous for having real estate sold for investment purposes and not actually occupied? Shocking!

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

#760

Post by mrshadowgoose » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #733

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can offer a contrary anecdote. I grew up in a Canadian city, but my family never had a car. I spent my entire childhood bussing everywhere. It sucked. It really fucking sucked and I hated it the entire time. Most journeys across the city required waiting for transfers in temperatures ranging from -30C to +30C. Any kind of irregular or lengthy trip was always an exercise in planning and frustration when scheduled bu…

I hate buses too. I had a 12 mile journey to get to school when I was 15. I rode to school on my bike as soon as I realised it was possible. Buses are the absolute worst for me so it's no surprise a car would be considered more comfortable. Are you sure you didn't also learn to be comfortable in a car? You had to learn to drive, right? And didn't all that bussing condition you to find it comfortable in a cramped meta…

>"Are you sure you didn't also learn to be comfortable in a car?"

Yes, I'm pretty sure that I didn't have to learn to be comfortable in an environment that I immediately found comfortable.

>"You had to learn to drive, right?"

I must have forgotten the part where I was indoctrinated into praising the wonders of the holy automobile.

>"And didn't all that bussing condition you to find it comfortable in a cramped metal box that moves?"

No? What part of my anecdote made you think that I ever became comfortable with bussing? Are you really suggesting that a hard-shell non-adjustable bus seat (if one is lucky enough to not be standing), with strangers squished up again you, is comparable to what one gets in most automobiles?

>"I like driving but hate commuting in heavy traffic. I'm pretty sure most people do"

Moving the goalposts eh?

Still waiting for a direct response to my previous comment, but I don't really expect to get one. "It seems like you are either 1) rejecting the possibility that technological innovation will allow for responsible and scalable use of automobiles and/or 2) rejecting human comfort as a valid argument for doing anything"