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

Things people blamed on bicycles

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 852 posts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#821

Post by brandnewaccount »

anonporridge wrote: post #702
DubiousPusher wrote: post #695

This is why I cringe a bit at those bemoaning the horrible, awful, traumatic fate of journalism. Journalism is stupid. It always was stupid. It always will be stupid. That's not to say it has no value. But the reader has always been and always will be responsible to sift through the heaping mounds of dumb and find that value. I'm not exaggerating when I say, the New York Times, our paper of record has published some…

"I miss the time when we could trust the news to just give us the simple truth!" Dude, that's a time that never existed. The news has always been at least as much propaganda as it is simple information sharing. Perhaps the only reason we think it's especially bad now is that we're all aware of competing propaganda organizations pushing conflicting narratives. In the past, you might only have one local newspaper, so i…

Who are you quoting?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#822

Post by josephcsible »

kuschku wrote: post #820
josephcsible wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should cyclists, who got the roads built in the first place , be driven from the roads by motorists? This feels a bit like saying that the US shouldn't have abolished slavery since it was founded by slave owners. > Roads used to be shared between horses, carriages, bicycles, vendors, and pedestrians. Lead used to be in paint and gas. Doctors used to perform surgery without even washing their hands first. People…

> No, we just want different spaces to be used for different means of transportation, similarly to how you wouldn't want someone riding a motorcycle on the sidewalk. So does every cyclist. Yet it's motorists that protest against that every time they'd have to sacrifice a lane.

Distinguish being against bike paths vs. being against losing a lane from a road that already has too few lanes.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#823

Post by kuschku »

josephcsible wrote: post #822
kuschku wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, we just want different spaces to be used for different means of transportation, similarly to how you wouldn't want someone riding a motorcycle on the sidewalk. So does every cyclist. Yet it's motorists that protest against that every time they'd have to sacrifice a lane.

Distinguish being against bike paths vs. being against losing a lane from a road that already has too few lanes.

Demand dynamically adjusts to supply. People have a distance they're willing to commute to work, and this distance is measured in minutes.

People also want to have as low rent/housing costs as possible, so they'll often want to move as far away from the city as possible.

e.g., I'll never move to a place where my commute to work is over 30 minutes.

If you add lanes, travel time decreases, so more people move further away. This increases demand, so that congestion quickly becomes just as bad as it is today.

This means there are never enough lanes. If you reduce the lanes, over the next years people will move closer to the city again, demand will decrease, and the congestion won't be any worse than it is today.

You can never have enough or too many lanes, all you can do is decide whether you want to subsidize people moving further away while making cars required for transportation, or if you do something against this, and reduce the lanes available to cars.

Considering this is a zero-sum game, if you reject replacing lanes with bike lanes, you reject bike lanes pretty much everywhere.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#824

Post by josephcsible »

kuschku wrote: post #823
josephcsible wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Distinguish being against bike paths vs. being against losing a lane from a road that already has too few lanes.

Demand dynamically adjusts to supply. People have a distance they're willing to commute to work, and this distance is measured in minutes. People also want to have as low rent/housing costs as possible, so they'll often want to move as far away from the city as possible. e.g., I'll never move to a place where my commute to work is over 30 minutes. If you add lanes, travel time decreases, so more people move further a…

Isn't a current big problem that housing is way too expensive? If so, isn't it silly to do things that reduce the number of viable housing options for most people?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#825

Post by osmaelo »

tablespoon wrote: post #699
kjkjadksj wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why male saddles have a channel down the middle these days versus the old brooks style saddle

> This is why male saddles have a channel down the middle these days versus the old brooks style saddle The article says those are actually worse: > Bike saddles that feature a groove down the middle or holes in the center to alleviate pressure can actually make the problem worse by increasing pressure on either side of the groove. > "They feel better," Schrader said of the grooved seats. "With the traditional saddle…

https://spongywonder.com/ as featured on https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt5LyiivTZA

Although I haven’t had the chance to use it extensively, my spongy wonder feels great! No more pain while riding. It really does help.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#826

Post by wpietri »

DonHopkins wrote: post #807
wpietri wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't take a lot of people for aggression to feel common to cyclists. Just as a proxy measure of right-wing-ness, 11% of people in Balitmore city voted for Trump, and 35% in Baltimore County. But I think the aggression is part of dominance assertion, a behavior that is more approved of on the right, but you still see plenty of on the left.

Rolling coal on cyclists, and proudly posting videos of it on youtube, and plowing trucks through the bicyclists, and writing articles portraying the perpetrators as heroes, is a hell of a lot worse than the common everyday "aggression" that American cyclists experience. They're absolutely not equivalent. Can you link to hundreds videos of left wingers with Biden bumper stickers rolling coal on anti-environmentalists…

You seem to be arguing with something I didn't say. So much so that I'm wondering if you meant to reply to something else.

If you're really trying to reply to me, could you please connect what you're asking of me with what you said?

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#827

Post by fragmede »

celtain wrote: post #646
ricardobeat wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cycling already has the lowest percentage of road traffic fatalities compared to other modes. The highest is pedestrians - should pedestrians wear helmets? A helmet requirement is wholly incompatible with the role of cycling in NL. You hop on a bike anywhere, regardless of what you're wearing. It's a casual transportation mode, just like walking, not a sport activity. This proposal can only make sense for people who…

>A helmet requirement is wholly incompatible with the role of cycling in NL. You hop on a bike anywhere, regardless of what you're wearing. I don't really understand this. I keep my helmet clipped to my handlebars, so if I have my bike, I have my helmet. Is it really so much of an inconvenience? I'm sympathetic to the overall anti-helmet-requirement position, even seemingly trivial concerns like "it messes up my hair…

That helmet's getting stolen as soon as you go into a store or cafe or the office. Having inside bike parking where it would be safe is a luxury that doesn't exist in most places.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#828

Post by kuschku »

josephcsible wrote: post #824
kuschku wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Demand dynamically adjusts to supply. People have a distance they're willing to commute to work, and this distance is measured in minutes. People also want to have as low rent/housing costs as possible, so they'll often want to move as far away from the city as possible. e.g., I'll never move to a place where my commute to work is over 30 minutes. If you add lanes, travel time decreases, so more people move further a…

Isn't a current big problem that housing is way too expensive? If so, isn't it silly to do things that reduce the number of viable housing options for most people?

The issue of “housing is too expensive” is primarily because of zoning. Most of Germany has zoning only in new, in-development districts. Major parts of most cities are not zoned at all.

This allows development of mixed use, middle-density (think: 3-8 floors) buildings, which provide a lot of housing at far lower cost compared to high rises.

These mixed, often mostly walkable, neighborhoods are what can help provide living space. Single-family housing is something that just gets cities into debt, increases traffic, yet does not improve the housing situation at all.

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#829

Post by kjkjadksj »

DonHopkins wrote: post #811
kjkjadksj wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why male saddles have a channel down the middle these days versus the old brooks style saddle

Now can anyone explain why male bikes have this annoying tube right where it can injure you the most? I'm deeply suspicious of gender specific bicycle designs.

Thats the best geometry unless you wear kilts and skirts

Re: Things people blamed on bicycles

#830

Post by sleepybrett »

brewdad wrote: post #741
sleepybrett wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In seattle I'm staring to see a lot more adult Fietsers than I'm historically used to seeing. E-Bikes have really opened up the audience for more casual cyclers (at least in the spring and summer months).

E-bikes make the hills manageable for mere mortals.

i am certainly 100% mortal.
Post reply on HN