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

Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

821–830 of 969 posts

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#821

Post by wolverine876 »

novok wrote: post #497
gambiting wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but like.........people always say that (for example) in London you can't live closer to work because houses/flats are too expensive. Ok, I mean that's true, but how are you going to solve that? It's a gigantic city which is already full to the brim, with literally 1000+ years of building on top of every single square inch of land available. You would probably have to demolish large areas of London and replace t…

Lol Tokyo and many other mega cities in the world are great examples how none of those things are actual barriers. London's issue is political will, because too many wealthy and politically connected people currently profit from the current status quo at the expense of the exploited supermajority.

How much does housing cost in Tokyo?

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#822

Post by wolverine876 »

rickydroll wrote: post #399
substation13 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why cities are better for the environment. I don't think rural car usage has nearly as much negative impact as driving in a big city though, so this shouldn't be a strong policy focus. Awesome that the kids can ride to school!

I think the rural/city better for the environment is a bit of cherry picking of statistics. It's important however to respect what's good for each of us. For me, living in the city meant shitty health outcomes, spending way too much money on rent and food, way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment etc. For me a good life means dark skies, green trees, a chance of dying every time I go…

> way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment

What does that refer to?

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#823

Post by wolverine876 »

enriquto wrote: post #442
rickydroll wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the rural/city better for the environment is a bit of cherry picking of statistics. It's important however to respect what's good for each of us. For me, living in the city meant shitty health outcomes, spending way too much money on rent and food, way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment etc. For me a good life means dark skies, green trees, a chance of dying every time I go…

> Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city. "The noise"... are you advocating for a rural setting without cars here? Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.

> Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.

While I love cities, I think that's not really the story. Cities would light up their streets with or without cars. Could you imagine if New York, somehow sans cars, with pitch black streets at night? The crime fear is way overdone - cities are very safe these says. But I think I still prefer streetlights.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#824

Post by locallost »

chroma wrote: post #713
locallost wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that metric, walking is the most dangerous mode of transport. Somehow seems illogical.

The comparison is valid because people in this thread are saying that bikes should substitute for many car trips. If they were saying the same thing about walking then I’d make the point about waking safety. But walking can’t substitute for many car trips so it’s a non-issue. Cars have disadvantages and externalities, but they are much safer than bicycles. This is true even in the most bike-friendly countries on eart…

The original argument did not involve which trips can be replaced by walking or cycling, merely that per distance driven cars are safer. This makes driving a car much safer than walking, which should give us pause and make us reconsider if it makes sense. It doesn't -- merely having and regularly using a car makes people travel greater distances. Without a car they wouldn't do it, and increased car dependance results in worse traffic safety. If the US had the same per capita death rate as the Netherlands, there would be around 12k deaths. Instead there are over 40k.

The additional kicker is that most of the pedestrians and cyclists killed die after a collision with a car. As it is, roughly two million people in the world die in traffic per year, almost all of it involving cars. So much for safety.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#825

Post by wolverine876 »

judge2020 wrote: post #299
ArcticLandfall wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You live in a city bubble Or relatively, you live in a suburban bubble? Different lifestyles, different modes of transport.

There is no bubble, only a lack of desire to seek out knowledge about other lifestyles. The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet.

> The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet.

I'm pretty sure it was discussed long before the Internet.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#826

Post by wolverine876 »

ars wrote: post #700
tfourb wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farmlands and suburbs are completely different things, especially in the context of urban development. Industrial zones are also a completely different category entirely. Living in Germany, most German cities do not have anything that is comparable to a U.S. "suburb". Building codes demand a quite high density, even for single family homes for new developments and older developments have the tendency to get denser as…

And Germany is tiny compared to the US. A farm in Germany is how far of a drive from the nearest city? In the US you could drive 10 hours from a farm to get to the nearest large city. Suburbs and tiny cities are what farms need to survive.

Tiny overstates it. I think ~30% of the size.

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#827

Post by wolverine876 »

andy_ppp wrote: post #818
wolverine876 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pros: I'd add to your list: No stress of driving in traffic. Imagine your ride home is pleasant personal time and exercise in the fresh air, not cars honking in a standstill in traffic. You feel better after riding. I've had bike shops apologize for a $20 charge. :D They are thinking in a different context; I'm comparing that to my alternative, a car and its repair bills. > significantly faster if parking is taken…

> I'd add to your list: No stress of driving in traffic. Imagine your ride home is pleasant personal time and exercise in the fresh air, not cars honking in a standstill in traffic. You feel better after riding. I imagine you have never cycled across London during peak hours, depending on the day some of the most nerve shredding cycling you can imagine; some of the angriest motorists in the world running people off t…

Sorry, good point. I generally don't ride in traffic (defined as multiple lanes with lots of cars moving quickly); I almost always find other routes without much problem. Do you need to ride in traffic in London? See this post for what I mean:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35241049

And I have done the sort of thing you describe - it's still better than driving. :)

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#829

Post by Gigachad »

ilovecurl wrote: post #5

Somewhat important detail to note: The City of London's (AKA "The Square Mile") geographical area is 1.12 square miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London This is great news.

In Australia this area would be referred to as the CBD (Central Business District) although I'm not sure this term is globally used. My American friend had no idea what I was talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district

Re: Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London

#830

Post by zarzavat »

avianlyric wrote: post #406
zarzavat wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The City of London is notable for allowing businesses to vote because so few people live there. There is one residential district inside the City in the Barbican estate, the rest is commercial.

The City of London allows corporations to vote because its existence as local authority predates anything else that exists in the UK. Mentions of The City of London's special rights exist in the Magna Carta, and it was never included in any of the local authority voting reforms the occurred since its creation. The local population number have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of corporate votes in The City…

Sure but if the City had turned out to be full of people, those ancient rights would have been modified to suit the requirements of modern democracy. The City’s unique form of governance is only possible because it is predominantly a commercial district.
Post reply on HN