[HN Gopher] Cycling is more important than electric cars for rea...
___________________________________________________________________
Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero
cities
Author : dfgdghdf
Score : 232 points
Date : 2021-04-07 17:43 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theconversation.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theconversation.com)
| nemoniac wrote:
| I can imagine this is true in a city where there aren't many
| electric cars and there isn't much cycling.
|
| Where I live (Amsterdam) there's plenty of cycling so I wonder if
| there might not be more to win from electric cars?
| dcchambers wrote:
| I'm an avid commuter-cyclist and weekend bike warrior and I am
| lucky to live in a very bike-friendly city (well, for the 8-10
| months of the year that we don't have snow anyway).
|
| I think the main issue people have with cycling is that it's not
| a quick fix compared to the promise of the electric car. It means
| a real investment in biking infrastucture and a change of mindset
| & funding at the national, state, and city level. It means a
| complete re-thinking of how the average American city is built.
| It means you need to actually get outside and leave the comfort
| of your perfectly climate controlled life. None of these things
| are easy for the average person to accept. We are far too
| spoiled.
|
| TL;DR - It's easy to greenwash with an electric car. And people
| like things that are easy.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Cycling as transport, not bicycling as leisure.
| frereubu wrote:
| My sense is that popularising electric bikes has a huge impact in
| cities because it takes away a lot of the physical effort. The
| first time you ride an electric bike something clicks in your
| head, and I've seen it in people from all walks of life. It
| instantly recalibrates your mental radius for cycling, including
| things like hills etc. The Netherlands is a favourite reference
| point for cycling advocates, and justifiably so in terms of
| infrstructure planning, but it's incredibly flat. Electric bikes
| make that quibble a moot point.
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| It is very flat, but it's also quite wet and VERY windy. The
| Netherlands would not be the best place to cycle if it weren't
| for the infrastructure that they chose to build.
| fvdessen wrote:
| Cycling is not only good for the environment, but for cities in
| general.
|
| During the last confinement, when car traffic completely stopped,
| I realised that cars are the single biggest reason why living in
| the city can be unpleasant. People may not realise it
| consciously, but when they move out of the city, what they are
| looking for is a place with not as much cars driving around.
|
| Cars destroy cities by making a vicious circle of making it
| unpleasant to live there, therefore enticing people to move to
| the suburbs and commute by car, which make the problem worse.
|
| Setting up biking infrastructure fixes this, because it reduces
| the room for cars used by commuters, while creating room for
| bicycles used by people living in the city.
|
| With less cars, you can make the city center where people work
| liveable. You can have offices mixed with housing and have people
| live close to their work place, further diminishing the need for
| cars.
|
| If you think that your city can't possibly be a good place to
| cycle because weather / hills / etc, you are probably mistaken.
| Electric bikes and the appropriate clothes make biking pleasant
| in most places. IF there are not too many cars and infrastructure
| for the bicycle of course, which is probably the thing you don't
| have
| Laarlf wrote:
| I look at European city centers where cars often times get
| thrown out now and: they don't agree. Profits were way down
| even before COVID. Even if you offer people the option to not
| use their car, they will avoid it. No form of transportation
| will ever be as pleasant to use. Cars don't make cities
| unpleasant, cities themselves are unpleasant. No matter if cars
| exist or not. Bikes, pedestrians and cars must be properly
| separated to make safe cities. Doing that would maybe convince
| a few people to take a bike.
|
| Or we can go back as you described. Destroy the cities we have
| built and build small walkable towns. That would mean that you
| have no say in what your job will be, but your parents do.
| That's over 100 year old concept that worked well back then and
| would probably work well if you built it up again. But with
| modern demands of "personal freedom" it's impossible to build.
| fvdessen wrote:
| The cities were there for thousands of years before the cars.
| In fact part of them were literally destroyed to make room
| for cars. It is from that point that the upper middle class
| left the city to live in the suburbs. Before they lived in
| the center. Now they are too many living in the suburbs, the
| traffic is hell, and everybody loses. Neighbourhoods where
| they removed the cars are a big success, where have you seen
| it happen differently ?
|
| And I don't understand your issue with the jobs. Most jobs
| are in the cities, which is why people commute there. Why not
| live in the city then ?
| rossng wrote:
| Is there any evidence that removing cars from cities has a
| negative economic impact? All the stats I've seen point to
| the exact opposite.
|
| For example:
|
| * https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-
| reports/econom...
|
| * https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-
| infras...
|
| * https://cyclingindustry.news/724m-in-economic-benefit-
| on-80m...
|
| In my anecdotal experience from the UK, high streets have
| been destroyed because they have failed to keep up with what
| people want.
|
| Decades back, we started copying the US and building lots of
| out of town shopping centres surrounded by acres of car
| parking. Town centres started to compete by making it easier
| to drive in urban areas - but in doing so, they made the
| environment much less pleasant (loud, dirty, unsafe etc.)
|
| Over time, retail became homogenised to the degree that every
| high street and shopping centre had exactly the same set of
| shops. This worked until internet shopping arrived. Why go
| outside to shop when it doesn't offer anything that you can't
| get on the internet - cheaper, and with a larger selection?
|
| Now the only thriving high streets are those that offer
| something more than the internet can. Unique independent
| shops; space for people to meet friends and relax; street
| cafes; art/culture and so on. Removing cars in favour of
| walking and cycling is one of simplest and most powerful
| tools available to achieve this.
| jedberg wrote:
| Switching from gas to electric is something I can do all on my
| own. Switching from gas car to cycling is something that would
| require major investments from my city and developers.
|
| Both are noble goals, but let's not let perfect be the enemy of
| good. Switch to electric now, and _also_ encourage new roads and
| new developments to be bike friendly, so that switching to a bike
| is something that will be viable in 20 or 30 years for most
| cities in America.
|
| Edit: To clarify, the investment I'm referring to is rezoning
| entire cities and tearing down single family homes and replacing
| them with mixed use buildings to bring commercial spaces closer
| to residential spaces. Most American cities have commercial
| centers and are then surrounded by residential, with very little
| mixing of the two. For example the closest place for me to buy
| food is .75 mile away, but the closest supermarket is 1.5 miles
| and I have to cross two major roads and a Freeway to get there.
| mc32 wrote:
| Rather than switching people who already own a car to bikes,
| it's much much easier to keep people who bike biking: i.e.
| India, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. and not let them adopt a car
| centric pony of view (as well as students in the US/Can. who
| are 16 going on 18 and steer them towards bikes.
| titzer wrote:
| Step 1. Paint bike lanes. Step 2. Fine bastards who violate
| them.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| It's a tiny, tiny investment compared with almost any other
| investment a city can make.
|
| > switching to a bike is something that will be viable in 20 or
| 30 years
|
| 20 or 30 years? I'll be dead of old age!
| agumonkey wrote:
| Hey, without cars we would need no lanes.
| jtdev wrote:
| How will good be moved? How will the infirm get around? I
| admire the cyclist ideal that they are fixing the problems of
| the world by not driving/owning cars... but it seems like a
| very superficial, quasi-moralistic solution that's really not
| likely to have the impact that is desired/needed.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Goods and disabled people and emergency vehicles combined
| are probably < 10% of traffic within cities.
|
| The objective isn't to get rid of all car lanes, just
| replace some of them.
| dsomers wrote:
| Honestly these are such lame points that I hear again and
| again. I lived in Toronto, bad bike infrastructure, and now
| live in Amsterdam with great infrastructure. People here
| with limited mobility use electric wheelchairs in the bike
| lanes and therefore have more and cheaper and safer
| mobility options than in Toronto. A person in an electric
| mobility scoter can safely go from the city centre to the
| airport on the edge of the city. They also have the option
| to take a cab or a car of course, cars are still an option
| but they are not priorities over bikes here -- you're also
| totally ignoring that it's dangerous for some disabled
| people to even use cars -- but mobility scooters can be a
| safer option. Deliveries come in the morning on trucks, but
| that's less necessary with more electric cargo bike being
| used every day.
|
| Cars suck.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Public transit
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Lower one's expectations of quality of life and consume
| less.
| jedberg wrote:
| 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.
| lovegoblin wrote:
| The comment is an excellent exercise in reductio ad
| absurdum.
| [deleted]
| estebank wrote:
| More people on bikes means fewer cars. Coupled with
| frequent public transport means that your ambulance will
| not be stuck in traffic and that the bus that lets you
| not be homebound will take as long as the car you
| currently drive to get to the same places. And if you
| still need to drive, you will still be able to, it just
| won't be _the only_ option available.
| jonvk wrote:
| There's nothing like cars to lower quality of life. They
| are noisy, require huge areas to be paved over, thus
| removing prime property in cities from more useful
| purposes. Particulate matter emissions from the engines,
| but also from brake and tire wear are unhealthy[1][2]. We
| don't let kids play outside anymore because we are afraid
| they will be hit by drivers. We kill animals after they
| hurt one person, yet we fear to cross a street anywhere
| for fear of being hit by someone recklessly driving a few
| tons at speed and defend the right to drive as though it
| were primordial. And really, who finds a street lined
| with parked cars and stuffed with traffic inching forward
| esthetic. A few cars are hugely useful to grant mobility
| to the few people who cannot get around otherwise,
| provide emergency services, and move bulky goods. I'm not
| saying plumbers shouldn't be able to arrive with their
| truck full of tools, just that the overabundance of cars
| really lowers the quality of life of the vast majority of
| people.
|
| 1. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitst
| ream/J... 2. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_file_down
| load.cfm?p_downl...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I agree with all of that, but people mostly perceive that
| they can't live in a large house on a large plot of land.
| Spread out living with requisite car transportation also
| creates a stratified society where you don't have to be
| near those you do not want to be near, which people might
| also perceive as a benefit.
| umvi wrote:
| We need _fewer_ roads and cars, not zero roads and cars.
| Think 2 lane road vs. 6 lane road.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| > How will good be moved?
|
| Same way they are now, on major roads.
|
| > How will the infirm get around?
|
| They use mobility cars or scooters in the bike lanes, is
| what happens in bike friendly places like where I live.
|
| Funny, I always hear this question from right wing people
| who otherwise have no interest in helping "the infirm". I'm
| sure you aren't one of those people, right?
|
| > it seems like a very superficial, quasi-moralistic
| solution
|
| The alternative solution seems to be "Burn all the fossil
| fuels, die miserably," so I welcome some sort of
| alternative.
| stemlord wrote:
| Yes it would require radically rethinking how a lot of
| cities are designed, definitely a distant goalpost
| stfp wrote:
| No dude, there would still be cars for these use cases,
| come on. All we need is some protected bike lanes, maybe
| like 10% of the space allocated to cars.
| estebank wrote:
| More people on bikes doesn't mean _all_ people on bikes.
| Aerroon wrote:
| What do you do in winter? Or during rain?
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Oulu, Finland is way further north than most cities and
| handles it fine: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.
| com/amp/2021/01/22...
| Aerroon wrote:
| Being further north should actually make it easier. If
| it's consistently below zero then you're less likely to
| get the really dangerous ice.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's funny, no matter how I post about cities that have
| made cycling for transport work, there's _always_ someone
| downplaying how meaningful it is.
|
| You could look at Stockholm or Amsterdam or Copenhagen or
| Munich for biking, too. Those are all colder cities (but
| not as cold as Oulu) with decent or better bike
| infrastructure and cycling rates.
|
| I'm in Munich and can speak to my experience here. Munich
| isn't as good as Dutch cities, but it's still better than
| any US city I've visited or heard of, by a fair margin.
| Weather is similar to Seattle, so kind of cold on
| average, but not horribly so. This winter we definitely
| had a fair amount of freezing though, and actually the
| last couple days we had snow again.
|
| Munich makes it work with lots of protected bike lanes
| that clearly used to just be sidewalk. That's not ideal
| -- it cuts into walking space, obviously -- but it's
| still better than no bike infra, or painted bike lanes.
| There's also a fair number of off-street trails, multi-
| use paths (half the time these are just sidewalks where
| bikes are allowed, really) and walk/bike cut-throughs in
| neighborhoods. Oh, and the default road width in
| residential neighborhoods is small, which helps a lot.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| Public transport and walking. Actually, I bike in the rain
| with a raincoat, it's great.
|
| For the last four years, I have occupied an internal
| combustion engine almost exactly once per year.
|
| It's not just been doable, I'm in the best shape I've been
| in twenty years.
| umvi wrote:
| Put on a coat/rain jacket
| sokoloff wrote:
| For cold or rain? Sure. For 4-6" of snow, you're going to
| need a lot more than a jacket to cycle in that.
| Fricken wrote:
| We use snow plows up here in Canada.
| Aerroon wrote:
| That's great for the hour after the snowplow passes, but
| what about after that? Snow + ice on a bike is a pretty
| easy crash. Even a slow speed crash on a bike can break
| bones, unlike cars.
| rhys91 wrote:
| There's a level of risk associated with the activity,
| there's no denying that. Risk mitigation factors can be
| applied to reduce the risk to a palatable level for a lot
| of people. Snow tyres, riding slowly, using lights in low
| light etc.
|
| The opportunity is to convince more people that cycling
| is a legitimate option for a large group of people.
| Infrastructure investment instills confidence and further
| education for both cyclists and drivers help to manage
| that risk.
|
| Whilst cycling in the snow might not be your cup of tea,
| there's a cohort of people who could consider it as a net
| positive to get from A to B, exercise and put less wear
| into the road. And we need to support those people.
| mijamo wrote:
| Snowplows don't remove all the snow usually because it
| would damage the road a lot, so you are left with packed
| snow which is fine to ride on.
|
| You can also use studs tires if you worry.
|
| I ride my bike in Sweden frequently even with a lot of
| snow without trouble. The only thing to worry about is
| when spring comes and the snow melts by day and freezes
| at night but on the main bicycle lanes the problem is
| solved by salting them once the weather gets mild.
|
| I use a regular gravel bike (so not huge tires, 38mm)
| without stubs tires. Never fell.
|
| I just don't ride during snowstorms directly of course
| but in those cases even buses and trains can be canceled
| until it calms down a bit.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| As a fellow swede I don't think your argument holds
| against the real argument they're not mentioning. People
| want to ride cars because they're lazy and they don't
| want to experience the elements, but since it's shameful
| to admit they'll come up with any other excuse to sit in
| their car, drink soft drinks, eat junk food and listen to
| the radio with perfectly controlled climate surrounding
| them.
|
| I bought myself a Xiaomi scooter and wear a good jacket
| while listen to music through my Sony overears riding to
| work. I'll have to wait with the soft drink and junk food
| til I arrive though. I also wear a backpack to carry
| whatever.
| sokoloff wrote:
| On the bike paths as well? That's very progressive of
| Canada. We don't do that effectively here in
| Massachusetts.
| Fricken wrote:
| On the bike paths as well, yes. In my home city of
| Edmonton they are a priority. According HN I don't ride
| year round in Edmonton, it's impossible.
| onnimonni wrote:
| We used trucks with snow plows constantly in Finland too
| when it snows. The city where I'm from is called Tampere.
| I thought that the city used to be quite hostile towards
| bicycles ten years ago but since then they have built so
| many new biking lanes or removed lanes for the cars and
| replaced them for pedestrians and cycles. It was just
| faster to go everywhere with bicycle and with bicyclr6you
| don't need to spend time to search for a free parking
| place. If it rained a lot I used rain jacket or used the
| public transportation. In the winter we used tires with
| spikes in them (to battle the slippery ice).
|
| Removing some lanes makes the city much more enjoyable
| for everyone but ofc this is harder to do in really old
| cities which were designed for horses or big metropolitan
| areas wherr extra land is scarce.
|
| We moved to Tallinn, Estonia last year and compared to
| Finland the cycle lanes here are poorly designed and many
| local politicians still support cars over cycles which is
| a sad.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Chiming in from Minneapolis, major bike paths/routes are
| generally plowed just as often as the roads. It can be a
| hurdle, but it's not as bad as you might think.
| temp8964 wrote:
| 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 modern city.
|
| New proposal: this city only allows residents who are
| 20s/30s years old and healthy and fit.
| cuu508 wrote:
| "There is no bad weather, only inappropriate clothing."
| :-)
|
| If the existing materials are not good enough, perhaps we
| can invent more waterproof, windproof, breathable,
| warmer, cheaper etc. materials
| temp8964 wrote:
| I realized there is an easier solution: the whole city is
| a huge building, everyone lives and works inside. And you
| get time to go out once a while. ^_^.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| I'm almost 60. I'm not a jock. I bike everywhere.
|
| Try again.
| occz wrote:
| Take the public transportation you also need to invest in.
| zucker42 wrote:
| NotJustBikes has a great video on winter cycling
| https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU
| ab111111111 wrote:
| What major investment would be required from the city or
| developers to set up cycling infrastructure? Painting some
| cycle lanes onto the roads? Marking a few car parking places as
| bike parking places? That's all that cycling infrastructure
| really is, so it's super cheap. A lot cheaper than, say,
| building charging stations for electric cars.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| There is so much more to cycling safety than this. Many roads
| don't have shoulders, or don't have the width for dedicated
| bike lanes. Drivers are often very hostile to bike riders who
| take up car lanes, esp. if the bikes go under the speed limit
| and if the cars have to wait at all.
|
| Blindspots. Intersections. Parallel parking/parking in bike
| lanes. Safe and clean parking of bikes at destinations.
|
| The entire design and build requirements of roads have to be
| reconsidered to make cycling/scooters first class citizens in
| cities. As it stands in the US, most cities are pretty
| dangerous for cyclists.
| Steltek wrote:
| From personal experience in town meetings:
|
| * City roads are narrow and don't have empty space just
| waiting to be painted green. Bike lanes will cost you parking
| spots or a car travel lane. This gets huge pushback.
|
| * Dangerous drivers must be removed from roads. You can be
| hit, killed even, with video evidence and the driver may
| escape punishment entirely.
|
| * Cities (or specifically NIMBY residents) must stop
| resisting increased density, mixed use, and useless parking
| minimums. Not everyone wants to live in a suburban
| development, miles from useful amenities.
|
| * Bikes and alternative transportation are compliments and
| need to be developed together. Biking to transit hubs is
| huge. It's not just green paint wherever it fits.
| occz wrote:
| >City roads are narrow and don't have empty space just
| waiting to be painted green. Bike lanes will cost you
| parking spots or a car travel lane. This gets huge
| pushback.
|
| Both should be sacrificed in order to break the car-
| infested cities. I imagine the pushback must be annoying to
| deal with, yes, but there's just no way you're going to be
| able to reconstruct your cities to be safe with this absurd
| amount of space dedicated to cars in cities of all places.
|
| I suppose we might be on the same page here, though it's
| not entirely clear to me at the moment.
|
| 100% agree with the rest of your comment.
| Packofbezens wrote:
| Dangerous <everything> must be removed from roads. There is
| a non-negligible amount of bikers skipping red lights, or
| using the sidewalk (forbidden in many cities), or even
| going the opposite way on one-way streets. The rationale in
| most cases is that a bike is not a motor vehicle and thus
| should not observe the same rules. This is a problem even
| in a scenario without cars, as it leads to collision vs.
| other bicyclists or pedestrians.
|
| This behaviour from a few individuals pushes anti-bikers to
| protest even more, making it harder for these initiatives
| to thrive.
|
| As ridiculous as it sounds, a deterrent similar to a
| license plate may become a necessity.
| Steltek wrote:
| Not to say that behavior is okay but you're comparing
| apples and oranges. Drivers kill tens of thousands of
| people a year. Bikes are responsible for <1 person a year
| on average. People citing misbehavior by some cyclists
| need to get some perspective.
|
| Meanwhile, the driver who hit me (in a bike lane)
| defended himself to the cop by saying "it's hard to not
| hit bikers". He was not even given a warning. I had video
| evidence from a helmetcam.
| bko wrote:
| $12 million a mile: Here's how bike-lane costs shot sky high
| in Seattle
|
| The larger and more ambitious the project the greater the
| costs. I imagine a massive upgrade would be even more
| expensive
|
| https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
| news/transportation/12-...
| gowld wrote:
| Most of that cost was for preserving driving lanes while
| adding bike lanes. It could just as well be called the cost
| of car lanes.
| soperj wrote:
| Considering what is spent on roads, like for instance, an
| overpass, is that even very much?
| jeanaimarre wrote:
| Things like protected bike lanes and bike only routes are
| essential if you want mass adoption. They cost more than
| paint and require political leadership that is currently
| lacking.
| cabernal wrote:
| The trick is to get drivers to follow those markings. Where I
| live I see cars/trucks regularly park on bike lanes with
| little repercussion. Add to that a hostility between drivers
| and cyclists sharing the road; this might just be an issue
| where I live (Toronto)
|
| Cycling lane poles would be ideal, but a lot of drivers push
| back on this since they see it as precious space being taken
| away from them.
| estebank wrote:
| In places where adequate protection was added, in some
| cases it was removed because drivers couldn't keep from
| leaving their lane. I guess drivers getting into accidents
| on their own is worse than lethal accidents involving
| cyclists on a bike lane.
|
| https://liveboston617.org/2020/12/16/dangerous-bike-lane-
| div...
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| That's crappy infrastructure that's effectively inaccessible
| to most.
|
| Good biking infrastructure is physically segregated
| infrastructure, which is less trivial to build (though still
| way cheaper and easier than infrastructure for cars).
| garyrichardson wrote:
| I live on the west coast in Canada. We have lots of bike
| lines. It's 30KM of them up and down multiple hills (most
| people would consider mountains) for me to get to work.
|
| Realistically, you've got to convince me to leave my
| 3000+sqft house (with bedrooms for all my kids) and yard to
| move to a 1000sqft apartment in the city (and make my kids
| share a room) and take on a bigger mortgage so that I'm
| closer to work. Also how do I get groceries for a family of 5
| home on my bike?
|
| Life for the majority of people where I live has not been set
| up to be bicycle friendly and bike lanes don't change that
| barrier.
| bluGill wrote:
| In the city you should be close enough to the store that
| you just get the days groceries as you go by.
|
| The lack of affordable 2500sq ft apartments is the big
| failure. It doesn't cost that much more to build them, and
| so rent shouldn't be any more than a house payment
| ($1500/month!). If that doesn't exist it is because zoning
| won't let them build it. (or more likely they can, but why
| do that when you can get more $$$ from 3 800sqft apartments
| each at $1000/month. Until the high profit apartments are
| filled nobody will build the ones families would actually
| live in.
|
| Or to put it a different way: it isn't 1880. People have
| always wanted more space, now with cars we can afford it in
| the suburbs.
| doikor wrote:
| > Also how do I get groceries for a family of 5 home on my
| bike?
|
| Cargo bike. Also used for getting the smaller kids (too
| small to bike safely/fast enough) to daycare etc.
|
| Or when living in a properly dense city just bring it with
| you one backpack at a time. This is what my mother did when
| I was a kid. Just stopped by the shop on her way home from
| work.
| kubariet wrote:
| A more realistic proposal is making your neighborhood
| slightly denser and more pedestrian/bike/transit friendly.
| Most of the neighborhood can remain single family homes,
| but a central area should be slightly denser (3ish story
| buildings with retail on the bottom floor and residential
| apartments above). Your major transportation needs can now
| avoid cars in the following ways:
|
| 1. This central area should have a connection to a frequent
| public transit option which can get you to your job. BRT
| would be the easiest to roll out, but the ideal for most
| people would probably be some sort of medium/commuter rail
| with decent WiFi onboard and enough seating/frequent enough
| trains so that the average commuter can sit and work if
| they'd like. Obviously this won't take everyone out of
| their car, but the majority of commuters in your
| neighborhood could use this instead since it would be
| faster and more convenient. Ideally there would be
| trains/buses running at least every 10 minutes.
|
| 2. Because there is a retail area close to your residence
| you can realistically walk/bike to get groceries and do
| routine errands. Bike paths in your residential
| neighborhood make this easier because they feel (and are)
| much safer for everyday people to use instead of sharing
| streets with cars. Ideally the paths are safe enough for
| you to feel comfortable with your elderly relatives or
| children biking on them.
|
| This is obviously very different from how North American
| suburbs are set up today and would require a large amount
| of investment and changes in the way that we do public
| policy and planning. However, it is certainly possible to
| have suburbs that are bike/pedestrian friendly if you put
| the infrastructure in place to do so.
| garyrichardson wrote:
| Ah. interesting. I generally agree and fully support this
| method of urban planning, but the results here haven't
| resulted in more cycling.
|
| What you describe is exactly how my suburb is set up.
| There are several clusters of mixed housing (single
| family, town houses, apartments) built around a few
| retail centers (and the retail centers usually have
| housing built on top of them). There is also both light
| rail and regular rail for transportation from the retail
| centers. I live 3-5K from the various central areas.
|
| Here are my observations:
|
| * cars are really only avoided for people in the
| residential apartments above or directly attached to the
| grocery stores. Nobody here rides their bike to shop
| (based on never seeing bicycles at the grocery store).
|
| * there's still ~ 200M of elevation change inside of that
| 3-5K range. Only the most hard core are interesting in
| cycling that on a regular basis.
|
| * It's a 5 minute drive or 30 minute bus ride to get to
| the light rail centre from my location (others are
| closer, some are farther). Some are content to take a
| bus, but many others drive. There are some who cycle but
| it's a tiny percentage.
|
| * It's wet here all year long, but uncomfortably cold 5
| months of the year. Those who cycle for transportation
| tend to only do it during May/June/July/August.
| kubariet wrote:
| My _guess_ is that it 's not purely elevation/weather
| based, but that certainly is a factor for people's
| comfort. E-bikes can help with the elevation issue at the
| cost of being more expensive of course.
|
| What's the level of bike infrastructure available? It can
| be surprising how protected people need to feel from cars
| to use bikes over other modes of transit. I personally
| only bike in bike lanes and will avoid sharrows and walk
| my bike on the sidewalk if there isn't a lane available.
| My partner will only bike on grade separated paths. This
| leads to us mostly walking or taking public transit since
| we're in an urban area, but both of us would gladly bike
| if we had a good network of bike lanes to do so.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Often in old European cities there is no space to take away
| from, unless you cut from pedestrian side, or rebuild whole
| block to have wider gap. Or you completely remove that single
| one way lane, and good bye resupplies for the
| shops/restaurants and good luck to those poor folks that will
| move in/away. The bigger the city, usually the older it is,
| and center looks like this - tons of single lane one-ways.
|
| US roads always stroke me as super wide and at least those I
| saw myself had plenty of space for this.
|
| One example to illustrate the difference - on say Swiss or
| French car parks, if you park perfectly in the center of the
| parking spot and if cars around you do the same, even with
| regular car (say BMW 3 series) you can't just open the door
| fully, often not even that half-open position in the middle.
| Significantly wider cars effectively take 2 spaces, but then
| again not many folks buy them here also for this reason.
| soperj wrote:
| In the Netherlands they turn those single one way lanes
| into bike first streets.
| occz wrote:
| >Or you completely remove that single one way lane, and
| good bye resupplies for the shops/restaurants and good luck
| to those poor folks that will move in/away.
|
| This is not true - we have streets that have been converted
| to be fully pedestrian+bicycle, and resupplies/moving in is
| not really an issue because these vehicles get exceptions.
| The sign combination 'Motor traffic forbidden / Exception
| for authorized vehicles' is pretty damn common in my
| European city.
| zucker42 wrote:
| If you want a good impression of the type of shift that it's
| going to take to make U.S. streets more bike friendly, you
| can watch the great YouTube channel NotJustBikes, which
| overviews some of way the Netherlands' infrastructure is
| built from the ground up to be not car dependent. While the
| investment required to build physical bike infrastructure is
| small compared to other infrastructure projects, building
| cities for bikes requires overcoming political opposition and
| indifference, rethinking zoning laws and other harmful,
| bureaucratic rules and slowly reshaping cities to not rely on
| cars. It's not simply a matter of chucking a line of paint on
| a 35 mph road and then complaining when cyclists don't use
| it.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| My town painted a few lanes. Bike deaths didn't change. Bike
| ridership didn't increase.
|
| Paint doesn't do squat for making car lanes safe for bikes.
| amwelles wrote:
| Something tells me there's a lot more to it than that.
| kalenx wrote:
| Setting up a cycle lane in place is cheap, but not easy (at
| least in North America, people will always complain about the
| "war on cars").
|
| Also, setting up a good cycle lane can be more expensive than
| you think. If you have a nice bike lane that spreads over 5
| km but there's a 200 meters gap in it because of a bridge
| which was too narrow to keep the bike path, then you don't
| have a nice lane at all.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I've never understood why bicyclists can't just use the
| sidewalk for most of the commute. I get that it becomes
| impractical in dense areas where people are actually
| walking but most of the roads I travel along have vacant
| sidewalks.
| stfp wrote:
| You should try it?
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I used to do this all the time growing up. But I assume
| times have changed because it's illegal now.
| estebank wrote:
| On top of everything else mentioned in the sibling
| comments, riding on the sidewalk is _illegal_ in many
| locales.
|
| https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/bicycle-accidents/riding-
| your-...
| acrispino wrote:
| In some places it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk.
|
| Also, the width and amount of obstructions on sidewalks
| varies widely.
| bluGill wrote:
| Cars and bikes mix better than bikes and walkers. Which
| is to say not very well. Walkers move in unpredictable
| ways and freeze when a bike is heading at them. Bikes
| move more like cars - they get a bit better handling, and
| are not as fast, but overall they act like cars.
|
| I wouldn't want to bike when there are many cars in the
| same lane as me, but it is still safer than biking on
| sidewalks where are many pedestrians.
| obmelvin wrote:
| Riding on the sidewalk is dangerous. Cars do not look for
| you when moving between the street and a parking
| lot/driveway/etc.
|
| I have had more close calls with cars riding on at most
| 10 miles of sidewalk (and that's being generous to be
| honest) in the past decade than with ~6000mi riding in
| the road.
| EdwinLarkin wrote:
| Depends how walkable the city is.The more walkable it is
| the more people you will see on the sidewalk.Sidewalks
| are for pedestrians not for fast moving vehicles.
| jtdev wrote:
| You know how many in the cycling movement view
| automobiles as being fast, dangerous, machines clogging
| up the roads? Many pedestrians view cyclists as a similar
| fast, dangerous (often rude and inconsiderate) presence
| on the sidewalk.
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| * It's illegal in most countries
|
| * It tends to be busy with pedestrians (not everywhere,
| as you mention)
|
| * It's not safe when crossing side-roads
|
| * It's inefficient if you walk at junctions
| dmm wrote:
| The most dangerous part of a sidewalk for a cyclist are
| places where they intersect roads. Drivers just aren't
| expecting sidewalk users moving at bike speeds.
|
| Some areas have long stretches of sidewalk without
| intersections those are fine for cycling assuming they
| have little pedestrian traffic or are wide enough to pass
| safely.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| This is pretty much my conception of when cyclists should
| be using the sidewalk instead.
| vinay427 wrote:
| Assuming we're not talking about the extra-wide sidewalks
| common in city centers which sometimes also host
| designated bike lanes, ordinary sidewalks that I've seen
| throughout the US and Europe are nowhere near wide enough
| to fit even a single cyclist passing alongside a
| pedestrian without a risk of collision. Add multiple
| pedestrians walking alongside each other, other hazards
| such as parked cars, less competent cyclists such as
| children, or pets (on or off leashes) and it quickly
| becomes a recipe for disaster for one or both of the
| sidewalk users.
|
| Also, bicyclists in cities tend to travel closer to the
| speeds of cars than pedestrians, and tend to have more
| similar dynamics such as turning radius and stopping
| distance which infrastructure for cars is already
| designed around. Additionally, car drivers are licensed
| and there is an expectation of awareness that they must
| exhibit. This makes it far easier to place slower-moving
| "hazards" in their path than adding faster-moving
| vehicles in the path of pedestrians.
| jedberg wrote:
| Building offices and commercial buildings closer to homes.
| Most cities are not bikeable because it's just too far to get
| to anything that isn't a home.
| ericd wrote:
| A very large percentage of the population are uncomfortable
| biking when there's only a line of paint between them and
| automobiles. Separated bike lanes (ideally with physical
| barriers) increase the percentage of the population that will
| be willing to bike very considerably. If biking is going to
| make a major impact, we need that level of infrastructure
| change on at least some set of major thoroughfares in cities.
| fossuser wrote:
| I agree - plus there's already enough culture war arguing just
| with EVs, now we're going to pivot to the NIMBY battlefield
| that is cycling?
|
| Make progress where you can.
|
| I'd love for their to be more cycling options (and things are
| way better than they used to be), but no reason to
| disincentivize transitioning to EVs too (or framing it as some
| battle between them).
| cma wrote:
| > Switching from gas to electric is something I can do all on
| my own.
|
| There were lots of government subsidies, federally funded
| academic research, etc. involved in making it a practical
| choice you can make.
| vesinisa wrote:
| Doesn't it worry you to live in a city whose infrastructure is
| not compatible with global emission goals? Within the next
| decades either of too scenarios will realize: a) your home will
| loose most of its market value as nobody will be able to live
| there, OR b) we are all royally f*ked. Neither sounds too good.
| supertrope wrote:
| It is very hard to motivate people to act on a problem
| decades in the making. With health problems people will
| continue to smoke and overeat despite their doctor warning
| them. Besides the time element, climate change is the
| ultimate example of private gain (your income and
| consumption) and socialized cost (literally the entire
| planet).
| jedberg wrote:
| > Doesn't it worry you to live in a city whose infrastructure
| is not compatible with global emission goals?
|
| It does. I'm constantly pushing to rezone the entire city as
| multi-use and multi-dwelling. The city council has ignored
| me, and most of my fellow citizens vehemently disagree, as
| they believe _that_ would devalue their property.
| psychiatrist24 wrote:
| 1.5 miles is doable by bicycle. Bridges or tunnels can be built
| for crossing roads and freeways.
| avianlyric wrote:
| It's worth noting that this is an article written by a U.K.
| author, and mostly references European cities.
|
| While obviously the same principle applies in the US, achieving
| higher rates of cycling in Europe is substantially easier, both
| politically and practically, in Europe than the US. Europe is
| significantly more compact cities, and public transport is
| usually very good, additionally many European cities have
| already invested heavily in cycling infrastructure.
| stfp wrote:
| But it doesn't require major investments. It's really minor
| investments compared to other infrastructure projects. The
| issue is taking away even a tiny fraction of car space
| basically triggers some kind of political road rage.
| vishnugupta wrote:
| > But it doesn't require major investments.
|
| Having lived and cycled in Amsterdam to me it did seem like a
| major investment. Sure if one were to design a greenfield
| city then it's not a big deal. But to pivot a car centric
| city to safely accommodate cyclists is a major change. The
| city residents have to go through the transition process
| which isn't going to be fun.
|
| I've seen it done half ass way in India and US which end up
| being deadly for cyclists.
|
| I am all for cycling, I absolutely loved my two year stint at
| Amsterdam. It's a life changing experience. But let's not
| underestimate the costs involved in transition. Also, the
| city residents have to be onboard with the process, as they
| are the biggest stakeholders. Otherwise the implementation
| will get dumped half way through with disastrous results.
| bww wrote:
| The second part there is the key. Bikes work just fine on
| roads built for cars and building bike lanes is dirt cheap
| compared to pretty much any other kind of infrastructure
| project. You do, however, need the political will to
| actually take that space from cars and reallocate it to
| bikes and pedestrians.
|
| In urban areas that are already dense this can be done
| without any significant infrastructue investments by simply
| changing how the traffic patterns work on existing roads.
|
| A good example of this is Barcelona's "superblocks":
| https://www.vox.com/energy-and-
| environment/2019/4/9/18300797...
| jedberg wrote:
| The major investment I'm referring to is tearing down houses
| and building mixed use buildings. Otherwise in most cities
| biking is impractical because of a lack of commercial space
| near residential.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| They're minor investments practically, and major investments
| politically.
|
| As you say, for many motorists, giving up space on even some
| roads to cyclists is treated like some sort of war crime.
| There's very much of attitude of, "we can't just have a
| majority of the road space -- we need nearly all of it!"
| moistbar wrote:
| Spoken like someone who's never driven in a city.
|
| City streets are narrow and extremely uncomfortable to
| drive on as it is.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| That's weird, I don't remember consenting to mind
| reading.
|
| Of course I've driven in big cities. I agree that it's
| not great...which is why the solution is to make
| alternative options as viable as possible: walking,
| biking, transit. Then you don't _have_ to drive in big
| cities, and more space on roads is freed up for those who
| do.
|
| Cities are defined by their population density, and cars
| by their nature are geometrically inefficient. The
| solution is higher efficiency modes, not doubling down on
| something ill-suited to its environment.
| TomSwirly wrote:
| Then _don't drive in the city._
|
| Why is this so hard to understand? Unless you're a
| delivery vehicle, driving in a city is just antisocial.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| If you're just used to regular US cities, this is hard to
| grasp. Average US cities -- even bigger ones -- the
| public transport is slow, sparse, and unreliable; biking
| is uncomfortable and dangerous; and everything is so
| spread out that walking is mostly impractical.
|
| When you're thinking in that context and imagine
| switching modes...it just sounds terrible. Because it is.
|
| That doesn't mean the solution is everyone driving
| forever though: the solution is improving the
| infrastructure and land use to where other options ARE
| more viable. They should be good enough to where you
| don't have to convince anyone to use them; their
| usefulness should speak for themselves.
| [deleted]
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Also cycling in 100+ degree weather is rough in Texas,
| Arizona, etc
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Obviously it's not ideal weather, but I think people
| maybe exaggerate how much that matters relative to
| infrastructure. I haven't heard of any examples in the
| more southern US (or comparable parts of the world) where
| they built great infrastructure and people ignored it
| because of the heat.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| As it should be!
| alex_g wrote:
| This reads like you're someone who's never cycled in a
| city.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Seriously. Driving in NYC or SF can be obnoxious and
| frustrating, sure...but it virtually never feels
| downright life-threatening, the way biking can very
| frequently feel.
| moistbar wrote:
| On the contrary, if you act like a car, using the same
| streets as the cars is quite safe in my experience. I've
| safely cycled with a cello on my back by simply following
| the rules most cyclists claim to follow but ignore:
| stopping at stop lights, signalling when I'm about to
| turn.
|
| You know, looking out for my own safety.
|
| EDIT: If following the same rules as everyone else is too
| much to ask, maybe you should just stay off the road no
| matter what you're driving.
| alex_g wrote:
| If the only way to cycle safely in the city is to pretend
| you're a full sized motor vehicle, it sounds like you
| understand how ridiculous it is that the roads are
| designed for and devoted to cars.
| cogman10 wrote:
| My near misses have never been at intersections or due to
| missing hand signals.
|
| My near misses have been because some idiot decides to
| hug or even drive in the cycling lane (usually while
| texting) or when someone parks a car in the cycling lane
| forcing me to move into the road (with cars being
| incapable of waiting for me to get around the idiot that
| decided to park in the cycling lane).
|
| Those are instances of following the road rules perfectly
| yet still nearly getting in a dangerous wreck.
|
| It's not a problem of rules, it's a problem of cyclists
| not having safe places to cycle. It's a problem of cities
| not planning for cyclists. It's a problem of cities not
| enforcing rules that ultimately protect cycling.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| There simply aren't enough cyclists to be a voting block
| so it's a chicken and egg problem. People aren't going to
| cycle because it's dangerous because there aren't enough
| people to vote in change for cyclists. It just goes
| around in circles.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Correct. Where you do get progress, it's mostly an
| ideology thing: more politically progressive people view
| more support for biking and transit as good things even
| when they don't currently use those things themselves.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| This is victim blaming. Plenty of cyclists follow the
| rules and then get slammed by cars.
|
| The last year before I moved to Germany, I got hit by
| cars twice, and neither time was I at fault. Once I got
| t-boned by someone who didn't look before turning, the
| other time someone suddenly went across the bike lane to
| pull into a parking lot. Neither crash was serious, but
| the first rattled me quite a bit -- my son was on my bike
| with me and got a scratch (and the bike rear wheel was
| totaled).
|
| For that first crash, the more serious one, a cop showed
| up and wrote a report, but didn't even give the guy a
| ticket. In the US, driving a car makes you the privileged
| class, and you can get away with a lot.
| colpabar wrote:
| > _City streets are narrow and extremely uncomfortable to
| drive on as it is._
|
| I agree. I live in a city and am constantly afraid of all
| the gigantic cars that fly by me whenever I walk
| anywhere. I'm also constantly (albeit much less) afraid
| of someone stepping out onto the street when they're not
| supposed to and not being able to stop in time. But
| maybe, just maybe, the cars (that get bigger every year)
| are the problem? Maybe instead of declaring that roads
| are for cars and roads are too small so nothing can be
| improved, we could make it easier to get around cities
| without a car?
|
| I just find it ridiculous that anyone who lives in a city
| has to live with the fact that a 3 inch curb is all
| that's stopping a massive hunk of metal from running them
| over. I find it ridiculous that bike (or non-car) lanes
| are considered evil because of the idea that not being
| able to park directly in front of your destination means
| that no one will go there. And I say this as someone who
| drives a car _and_ rides a bike in a city, because I 'm
| well aware that a lot of people who ride bikes do so in a
| very unsafe way. But I'd take getting hit by someone on a
| bike over getting hit by even a moped every single time.
|
| People live in cities, not cars. I shouldn't have to fear
| for my life while walking down the street.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Living in a democratic country means the will of the
| voters will most always win so I wouldn't expect there to
| be any changes anytime soon in the USA for more than
| minor accommodations for pedestrians, certainly cities
| will not decrease cars on the road for the foreseeable
| future save maybe a city here and there.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| In Stockholm, Sweden there's 36 cars to a 100 people, the
| rest use a combination of walking, cycling, electric
| scooters, taxis and public transport.
|
| There are still jams in Stockholm, but only for people
| who chose to ride by car, their problem!
| michael1999 wrote:
| It can be a real winner politically, depending on the
| electoral boundaries. Roads have such limited throughput
| that a new bike lane might inconvenience only a few hundred
| people in cars, while opening up the city to thousands of
| people on bikes. Once politicians figure out that
| calculation, it can go very quickly.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| That's a fair point. But demographically, often the
| people most protective of car space are the ones who show
| up loudly at community meetings. That can have an impact.
| adamcstephens wrote:
| Reducing lanes, when combined with other optimizations,
| can actually _improve_ travel time for cars. The problem
| is you have to actually implement the changes in order to
| prove this to people.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| An issue in that "political favor" calculus is money:
|
| A) Cars have a tall stack of interest groups with money
| to throw around politically. Manufacturers, Dealerships,
| Gas corporations. lobbying groups including, especially,
| but not limited to the AAA all have skin in the game and
| have thrown money at politics. (In general bicycle groups
| are rarely as organized, rarely have much in the way of
| profits or income to burn on political favors.)
|
| B) Taxes. Today roads are partly paid for with gas taxes
| and sometimes vehicle property taxes. A lot of motorists
| feel so _entitled_ to the roads simply because they see
| those tax numbers directly on their gas bills and vehicle
| registration fees and think that they own the roads
| because they feel like they have the receipts. (Nevermind
| that there is no state in the US that entirely pays for
| roads out of such taxes, and the "I paid for it, so I
| own it" fallacy seems to refuse to ever actually prorate
| its "ownership" against the actual small percentages any
| individual contributes to the total budget.)
| SllX wrote:
| The political cost within a democratic society is a reality
| and a real cost you have to contend with if you want to
| reshape how public roads are used. So, yes, the cost is high
| compared to switching cars.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| The political cost is largely from losing lobbying $ from
| car companies (and possibly construction companies).
| SllX wrote:
| Maybe where you're at. Where I'm at it's mostly NIMBYs
| and small business owners.
|
| Either way, the source is irrelevant to the fact that it
| is a real cost.
| luckylion wrote:
| > The issue is taking away even a tiny fraction of car space
| basically triggers some kind of political road rage.
|
| How do you take "a tiny fraction" away from a street that has
| one lane in each direction to build a dedicated bike lane?
| Make it a one-way street and just kill traffic? It's not as
| simple as you make it out to be. Don't infer motivations, I
| don't own a car and ride my bike everywhere.
|
| It's mostly a money issue, at least where I live. That part
| of the budget is spent on "climate managers" (for a city of
| 20k) instead of improving bike infrastructure.
| estebank wrote:
| In a significant portion of the US "high density" looks
| like this:
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7474901,-122.4878233,3a,75y
| ,...
| luckylion wrote:
| And that looks trivial to work with. I'm from Europe
| where most towns have grown very organically over
| centuries, there are fewer multi-lane streets (and it's
| essentially unheard of in residential areas) and it's
| crowded. Quite a few people would welcome better bike
| infrastructure over here, but it's hard to do. The
| opposite seems to be true in the US.
| Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote:
| >The issue is taking away even a tiny fraction of car space
| basically triggers some kind of political road rage.
|
| I don't think that's a fair comparison. I live in what many
| outsiders consider a bike friendly city though in reality
| it's impractical and unsafe to bike most places. If you're
| willing to also walk/bus your bike, flout local law on
| bicycling in pedestrian areas, and bike on major
| thoroughfares without bike lanes between travel lanes and
| parked cars then I suppose you'll be happy. That is until you
| get door checked, run off the road, ticketed, or hit.
|
| Redesigning just the main streets and their auxiliaries would
| require making tough choices like one way roads that you'll
| cause you to drive considerably further to your destination.
| Removing on street parking, when our city already has a
| parking deficit. Removing the verges where they exist to
| accommodate bike lanes. On the many streets without verges
| the options are one way traffic or no parking, mixed use
| lanes for truck traffic and bicycles is unsafe. I suppose the
| buildings on one side could be seized under eminent domain,
| but that just balloons the cost and time scale.
|
| All this is too say that without widespread infrastructure,
| especially between cities, biking is facing an uphill climb
| to widespread adoption. People want to be safe on their
| commutes. They want their bikes and cars safe while they work
| and shop. Designing And building infrastructure for bikes in
| cities that have been maximally developed is an incredibly
| and wastefully expensive exercise in compromise that does
| little to meaningfully reduce vehicular traffic.
| closeparen wrote:
| Cycling is suited to distances of a few miles. Within a few
| miles of a sprawl house there are only other sprawl houses.
| The mix and layout of buildings and uses also needs to be
| overhauled so that putting reasonable numbers of
| hours/calories into a bike gets you somewhere useful.
| dublinben wrote:
| In the US nearly 30 percent of trips are a mile or shorter,
| 40 percent are two miles or shorter and 50 percent are
| three miles or shorter.[0]
|
| These distances can be easily covered on foot or bike with
| minimal change in infrastructure.
|
| [0] https://www.bikeleague.org/content/national-household-
| travel...
| nitrogen wrote:
| Wouldn't those three mile or less trips usually be for
| transporting cargo that wouldn't fit on a bike?
| eCa wrote:
| There are bikes that can take fairly large loads[1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freight_bicycle
| kenned3 wrote:
| in the summer i commute to/from work 3 times a week on my
| bike. It is 50km (31 miles) one way. So i ride to work
| monday, home wednesday, to work friday type of thing.
|
| This trip takes me around 2 hours and people think i am
| crazy for doing this.. but those same individuals will
| spend an hour commuting and then go to the gym for an hour?
|
| Cycling isnt suited to a few miles.. I have never been
| "athletic" and can do a 50KM ride with a bit of training.
|
| If the ground is fairly flat i'd say 10 miles is
| reasonable.
| upofadown wrote:
| Walking is only suited to distances of a few miles. People
| walk at 3 mph. Bikes are 4-5 times faster than walking.
| mjevans wrote:
| In the US we'd be better off refactoring cities with a goal
| of 'Caves of Steel' (Asimov), which would put far more
| within biking and walking distance as the core of the city
| expanded outwards.
|
| This seems likely to work better in areas that aren't as
| geographically constrained. Seattle, for example, has far
| too much water around it and industrial areas near that.
| It'd be a good one-shot conversion though.
| moistbar wrote:
| I don't know if you've ever driven in an American city, but
| those streets can barely fit a single lane of car traffic in
| some cases. Philadelphia in particular has streets so narrow
| that the line of parked cars along the side is enough to
| basically block the whole street. It's already incredibly
| uncomfortable to drive on those streets, so I don't get why
| you're so surprised that people would be angry about further
| increasing their already quite high levels of discomfort.
| papertokyo wrote:
| The majority of streets in American cities are massive.
| Single lane streets are generally slower traffic so
| separated cycle lanes aren't necessary...just some markings
| to remind drivers that cyclists might use this part of the
| road. Paris has a lot of those.
| moistbar wrote:
| The bike lanes in the east coast cities I've been to
| aren't safe for cyclists and do nothing but take up
| breathing room for drivers. It's not uncommon to see a
| bike lane disappear after 50 feet because there was no
| space to continue it.
| chucksta wrote:
| Most streets of that size Philadelphia do not require a
| bike lane. But say they tiny fraction they took of 11th
| which is massive...
|
| https://www.inquirer.com/transportation/philadelphia-
| street-...
| occz wrote:
| 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.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| 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, what
| the car in front of the car in front of them is doing and
| so on).
|
| I agree we need much more public transit and bike lanes.
| I think most car commuters would switch to subway at the
| city outskirts if the value prop was good enough.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| That's because there are so few people who bike. Around here
| it's probably 2 or 3% max (Austin) if that. Also drivers here
| are so aggressive towards bikes (and the USA in general) it's
| just not safe. Bikes really need dedicated routes as far away
| from cars as possible.
| jeddy3 wrote:
| Oh my god, the pushback in every single article that even
| mentions bicycles are so predictable.
|
| As soon as one straw man argument is adressed, it's changed to
| the next one.
|
| - First, But what if you need to move a sofa, or are disabled??
|
| - Then, but what if you have 20 miles to your job, and 20 miles
| in the opposite direction for groceries??
|
| - But what if you have four kids?
|
| - What if it rains sometimes?
|
| - What if you live in Sahara or north of the Polar circle?
|
| - What if your e-bike gets stolen?
|
| Next Up: what if someone gets offended by seing a bicycle?
| dang wrote:
| Please don't repeat flamewar tropes, even if other comments are
| also repeating them. It just contributes to the tedious
| repetition. The drivers-vs-cyclists flamewar is one of the
| nastiest and most repetitive that we ever see.
|
| The only solution to bad comments is some weighted average of
| (a) adding more good comments and (b) not adding more bad
| comments.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| m463 wrote:
| I wonder if telecommuting like many are doing right now trumps
| _everything_.
| gedy wrote:
| One of my companies was trying to shame people into carpooling,
| and a number of folks who lived close enough to bike
| (sometimes) were quite smug about that being superior. Both
| groups were noticeably silent when a few of us remote workers
| pointed out we didn't need a commute or to power and cool a
| large office.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| Right now I know that we are getting a LOT of deliveries during
| the pandemic... I'm not sure it's quite that simple.
| HDMI_Cable wrote:
| Well its probably better than driving out to the store. Since
| delivery trucks have many packages, the CO2 footprint per
| package is lower than one person in one car driving.
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| But then what typically would be a single trip ends up
| being multiple delivered packages. There's also the
| environmental cost of the extra packaging.
| burlesona wrote:
| Unfortunately, no. Surprisingly, telecommuters appear to drive
| _more_ than office workers:
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09658...
| schemescape wrote:
| The abstract for that paper isn't clearly saying that:
|
| > Approximately 20% of telecommuters stay at home all day
| during a workday, while only 8% of commuters do.
| Telecommuters that have at least one trip during their
| workday accrue more vehicle miles travelled and number of
| trips than their commuter counterparts.
|
| So if you throw out the 20% who don't leave their home, the
| rest accumulate more miles on average?
|
| And they mention telecommuters meeting clients (vs. office
| workers staying at the office), so I'm not sure the
| populations are even comparable.
|
| Maybe the paper goes into these details?
| djrogers wrote:
| That study is either flawed, misinterpreted, or does not
| apply to American workers. The average US commute is 32 miles
| round trip, and that happens _every work day_.
|
| There is just no possible way that everyone is now driving
| <32mi every day running errands that they would have run
| before being forced into remote work.
|
| Every other look at this, including things like the Apple
| Maps reports and government stats have shown that miles
| driven is way down. In fact I know a lot of families who have
| had to buy battery tenders for one of their cars because it's
| sitting unused so much.
| wiredfool wrote:
| The last two times I filled the gas tank in my car were
| 9/19 and 12/21.
|
| Not US, but still.
| bentcorner wrote:
| American here with a long commute. I've filled up my car
| once during WFH. I used to fill it almost every week.
| jedberg wrote:
| I'd like to dig into that study, because it feels impossible
| to me. Whether I work at home or an office, I have the same
| errands to run. Either way I'm going to plan my trip.
|
| The only thing I can think of is that I might spread out the
| errands more across the week since I don't have to do it
| after work.
|
| But anecdotally, my wife and I both started being home full
| time six years ago, and despite have kids since then (which
| greatly adds to the places one needs to go), our overall
| milage went way down, to the point where we even got rid of a
| car. After the pandemic, when the kids start doing a lot more
| after school activities, we may not even get a second car
| because Uber/Lyft can cover the rare trip that needs to
| happen simultaneously.
| burlesona wrote:
| I agree it's surprising. I suspect it's not an individual
| phenomenon, but a population level statistic, which is
| influenced by lifestyle preferences of remote workers
| versus office workers.
|
| Suppose office workers are more likely to live in an urban
| center, and conversely remote workers are more likely to
| live in a rural area. If that delta is large then it would
| easily explain the trend, because it really isn't telling
| us about office workers versus remote, but rather urban
| versus rural.
|
| Anecdotally, about half the folks I know who have gone
| remote have moved out to rural areas.
| ykevinator3 wrote:
| I think the author has self serving blinders on. The
| hypothetically in indisputable but the reality of it ever
| happening is a non starter.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Cycling is wonderful and I've lived with only a bike and no car
| at least three times in my adult life. But cycling just isn't
| going to work in many, many cases.
|
| Large parts of the population are too old, too infirm or
| handicapped in some way to make it more than a few blocks. Yes,
| some could be forced to lose some weight and get in better shape,
| but that's not going to work for many people with chronic
| conditions.
|
| Then you need to take into account that the weather is bad for a
| significant part of the year. In the north, snow and ice make it
| dangerous to drive a car with all wheel drive. Bikes are
| downright dangerous in those conditions. Gentle rain may be
| workable but many rainy days make it dangerous to ride. Even a
| sunny, summer day is not-so-good for those who need to go into an
| office or a meeting without taking a shower to wash off the
| sweat.
|
| Now mix in the fact that bikes can't carry more than a token
| amount of luggage. Parents with small kids, people with
| groceries, and anyone working on any project bigger than say,
| knitting or watchmaking, can't carry their stuff on a bike. The
| extra weight exacerbates all of the issues with hills, health and
| weather.
|
| Now mix in darkness. In winter, many people leave home before it
| gets light and come home after darkness. Sure, you can manage
| with a good light, but it's just markedly more dangerous at night
| on a bike.
|
| Now let's talk about how this dream of biking hurts the poor. By
| definition, people who can't afford very much end up in the worst
| homes and that almost always means the places with the longest
| commutes. Sure bikes are cheaper than cars and that sounds good
| for the poor, but the reality is that their poverty consigns them
| to live much, much further away.
|
| I like bikes and I would like them to be used when possible, but
| bike-rights advocates don't do themselves any favors by making
| extreme statements like this. Bikes just can't replace cars for a
| significant number of people. Oh, sure, the young, unmarried,
| childless hipsters who write these things can do okay, but
| they're ignoring that there are many, many people who can't. Bike
| talk like this is anti-old, anti-family, anti-worker and anti-
| poor.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| Bikes are unlikely to replace every use case, however for many
| people, they can replace a significant chunk of their travel.
|
| In the USA, 60% of all vehicle trips were less than 6 miles -
| which is a perfectly cyclable distance for the majority of
| people. With pannier racks, it is completely feasible to cycle
| with groceries.
|
| Weather and danger is for sure a problem, but better urban
| planning can make this much less of an issue. Provide
| incentives for employers to offer showers. The whole point of
| this article is that cycling is a great thing for carbon
| footprint so it deserves investment to fix the reasons why
| people feel unable to cycle.
|
| Obviously push cycles are not a panacea. If you live somewhere
| very hilly, you might need an e-bike. If you live in the
| suburbs, you might cycle to a train station and continue your
| journey by train. If you live somewhere rural, you almost
| certainly still will need to own a car for part of your
| transport needs. But I cycled about ten thousand miles on my
| last PS300 bicycle over a few years (now upgraded to an
| e-bike), which saved me a ton of money, improved my health and
| reduced congestion/pollution for everyone else.
| aBioGuy wrote:
| I have two little kids. I also own an electric cargo bike. It
| has replaced over 2,000 car miles in the past year. I can bike
| to the grocery store, with two kids, and come back with a
| week's worth of groceries.
| jrussino wrote:
| Which bike? I also have two little kids and would do this in
| a heartbeat if I felt that they could be reasonably safe.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| So it replaced 2000 miles. If the average person puts 10k-15k
| on a car, it sounds like you only used it on a few little
| trips around the neighborhood.
|
| You're making my point for me. I'm not saying bikes don't
| work. I'm just saying that there are many times that they
| don't work. And it sounds like you're a bike lover and even
| then, you couldn't replace 8k-13k a year of car travel.
|
| And I'll note that you're using an _electric_ bike. That 's
| like an electric car, but with only two wheels. So you're
| really on the wrong side according to this article.
| maccard wrote:
| > if the average person puts 10k-15k on a car, it sounds
| like you only used it on a few little trips around the
| neighborhood.
|
| The average mileage in the UK is 7k miles annually.
| Americans just drive too much.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| If most people managed to reduce their car driving by 2000
| miles per year, I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| IT's not. But my point is that you still need cars for
| the other 5k++ miles. I'm not saying that bike riding
| isn't nice, merely that it is not possible for many, many
| people during many, many parts of the year.
|
| Okay, some hipster with two young kids can take a
| saturday jaunt on a super-long, super-expensive electric
| bike, but that's not going to work for most people when
| it's cold, dark and rainy.
| vinni2 wrote:
| Sounds like what you need is this https://www.podbike.com/
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| That's an electric car which, according to the article, is
| the wrong choice. It has all of the parking issues as a
| regular car. It needs all of the electricity to move its
| weight.
|
| Just because it has two pedals doesn't make it a bike.
| vinni2 wrote:
| It's compact approved for bike paths and parking.
| s0rce wrote:
| Large parts of the population are too old and infirm to drive
| safely any distance.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| And so? Would they be able to handle a bike? I don't think
| so. The point is that large parts of the population can't
| make the transition to this bike shangrila because of age
| and/or health.
| estebank wrote:
| That's why urban density allowing for frequent public
| transport is a necessity that happens to also integrate
| well with cycling infrastructure.
| steelframe wrote:
| Cities need to build completely separated trails that accommodate
| both cyclists and pedestrians. Ideally that means providing
| pedestrians with a raised sidewalk portion.
|
| I've been an avid road cyclist for many moons (hence my
| username), but I've pulled back on that after my 5th road crash.
| As I've been getting older, my ability to "bounce back" from
| serious injury has diminished, and I'm now left with arthritis in
| my hand from my most recent crash where a motorist broke it by
| passing too close and hitting me (https://imgur.com/a/LdNQSRT).
| The difference in speed was probably less than 10mph, but that
| was enough to cause a lot of damage.
|
| Every bike ride in mixed vehicular traffic is a roll of the dice,
| and no matter how experienced and defensive you are as a rider,
| your luck is eventually going to run out. Somebody is going to do
| something really sudden and dangerous, causing you to crash. When
| that happens, it's then a question of, "How bad this time?"
|
| I'm fortunate that my commute can be done 80% on completely
| separated paved trails. These days I throw my bike in the
| hatchback, drive the 20% of the distance to a park-and-ride by
| the trail, and ride on the trail into the city.
|
| If there weren't a trail along my commute route, I wouldn't be
| commuting by bicycle at all. It's my city's commitment to build
| the infrastructure that makes me willing to do it.
| rollcat wrote:
| Well I wish cities would also make the infrastructure accessible
| to other muscle-powered vehicles, like skateboards, longboards,
| scooters, inline skates, etc.
|
| Personally I very strongly prefer longboards over bicycles for
| commuting (it's more fun, you can just grab and carry it, both of
| your hands are always free when riding, etc) however there's just
| so many things that are fine-ish for bikes or pedestrians, but
| ruin the fun for skateboards. Cracks in the pavement. A street
| crossing with a lowered curb that is just slightly too high to
| roll over. Narrow sidewalk next to a busy, downhill street.
| Cracks in the pavement. Cobblestone. Badly timed traffic lights.
| Cracks in the pavement. Dirt roads. Potholes.
|
| One important observation, a city that's awful to skate tends to
| also be much less accessible to pedestrians. You might think it's
| irrelevant until you meet someone (or end up) in a wheelchair, or
| with a stroller.
| kostarelo wrote:
| Would you consider it to be more dangerous than riding a bike?
| I'm always amazed by how skaters are able to stop or "hit the
| breaks" where there are none.
| rollcat wrote:
| > Would you consider it to be more dangerous than riding a
| bike?
|
| Yes it is more dangerous, for the simple fact that falling on
| your back and slamming the back of your head on concrete is a
| very real and considerable danger, and its effects can be
| extremely severe. Skating helmets are shaped differently from
| bike helmets because of this one thing. It's not a common
| occurrence (I see people falling forward and injuring their
| knee or hip ~100x as often), but can be deadly.
|
| For casual, daily commuting I wouldn't say it's more
| dangerous on average. I've had plenty of minor accidents
| while I was learning (I'd say first 12 months), mostly scraps
| and bruises, once a twisted ankle. If I compare it to how I
| was learning to cycle as a kid, it's a very similar
| experience ;)
|
| The hardest part will come from learning to manage your
| front/back balance in addition to left/right. It's always
| safer to keep your weight forward, it will also keep you more
| stable at higher speeds.
|
| Overall the longboarding community is extremely serious and
| conscious wrt safety, unlike some street skateboarders nobody
| will ever point a finger at you for casually wearing a helmet
| and/or pads, and if you'd ever try anything remotely related
| to freeride/downhill/sliding without adequate protection,
| you're likely to have your board taken away until you suit
| up. I believe natural selection had something to do with
| that.
|
| > I'm always amazed by how skaters are able to stop or "hit
| the breaks" where there are none.
|
| Where you see no brakes, I've counted 5 different methods to
| control your speed, all of them have their uses ;) In the
| order you'd learn/need them: bail, footbrake, carve, slide,
| airbrake, bail (again). Simply stepping off the board is most
| effective at sidewalk speeds, all you need is reflex and
| balance; you'd also learn to fall. At 20+kmh, footbraking
| (dragging your foot on the ground) becomes necessary as bails
| can hurt. Down a mild hill, carving (slaloming) will help you
| keep your speed down, without touching the ground (and
| grinding down your sole, foot burns are a thing lol).
|
| At 30+, you almost certainly are going to need a helmet, it's
| also when sliding starts being effective (never EVER slide
| without a helmet). Airbraking is simply the opposite of
| tucking - instead of curling down to make your body shape
| more aerodynamic, you stand up and spread your arms, it can
| be the difference between going 30 or 60 down a hill. Lastly,
| if you need to crash safely at 40+, you learn how to ride out
| your speed on your gloves, pads, leather, etc.
|
| Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Amb-BpA4RRI
| CabSauce wrote:
| 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
| vcanhoto wrote:
| The Dutch would disagree with you pretty much with every single
| point. Except the last one, maybe.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| That's great for the Dutch but I don't live in the
| Netherlands, I live in Texas. All of the above are absolutely
| concerns - especially in the summer.
| [deleted]
| jariel wrote:
| Until they had to bike in Canadian winter? Or on SF hills? Or
| 30 Km to work with 2 kids to drop of 8 Km in the other
| direction?
|
| The Netherlands is nearly a perfect place for biking, which
| is why they bike.
| jeddy3 wrote:
| Well, obvious places less suited for biking is going to be
| obviously less suited for biking.
|
| Just as driving a car in Venice, in a jungle, or up to the
| summit of Mount Everest is not optimal.
|
| That said, biking in Swedish winter works just fine. We
| plow our bike paths as well as roads, and get on with our
| lives.
| miahi wrote:
| They do have a lot of advantages: a flat country, good
| infrastructure for cycling, cool climate. That means you
| don't sweat on the way to work so you don't need showers and
| to change clothes.
| twiddling wrote:
| Small country, high density, etc.
| dmm wrote:
| Commuting by car has and creates lots of problems but all of
| these are ignored because cars are normal and bikes aren't.
| That's the biggest problem.
|
| For example, driving a car is necessary to be a full member of
| society in most places in the US. If you can't drive basic
| things like going to work, buying food, visiting family, seeing
| a doctor aren't possible or take 2-3x more time without a car.
| As a result people are very hesitant to take away people's
| licenses, even if they really shouldn't be driving.
|
| > - Your commute is sufficiently short
|
| This is the most important one. Most people would be happy
| biking 2mi/3.25km to work. I like biking a lot so I would bike
| up to 10mi/16km.
|
| > - You have facilities to shower and dress at work
|
| I commuted by bike for years in hot, humid climate without
| showering at work. Consider all of the remarkable achievements
| of humanity. You could figure out something that could work for
| your situation.
|
| > - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo
|
| Places where cycling is normal have various solutions for this.
| isbjorn16 wrote:
| > > - You have facilities to shower and dress at work
|
| > I commuted by bike for years in hot, humid climate without
| showering at work. Consider all of the remarkable
| achievements of humanity. You could figure out something that
| could work for your situation.
|
| It's called a shower. I weigh 300lbs. Trust me, I am going to
| be sweating like I was sprayed by the grossest stink hose of
| all time. Sure, I'd love to believe I'd be closer to 200lbs
| than 300lbs after a year or two of riding, but that's a year
| or two smelling like a rank asshole. On behalf of myself and
| everyone around me, hard pass.
| killjoywashere wrote:
| I'm 45, I've been riding bicycles for leisure and competition
| since I could walk. I've been to big cities on multiple
| continents, small towns, islands, raised kids, etc, etc. I'd
| say you're missing "someplace to put the bike at work" and
| could probably skip the time and facilities to shower for some
| commutes. But yeah, that's a good list of impediments.
| rednerrus wrote:
| You can buy an electric assist cargo bike for $1,500. No car
| payment, no insurance, minimal sweating, etc.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| battery-assisted bicycles address #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6. And
| probably #5 too.
| mchusma wrote:
| I'll note safety of cycling is a big concern of mine, and by
| far the biggest reason I do not generally bicycle to commute,
| and only do it for leisure off roads whenever possible.
|
| Cycling is roughly 2x as dangerous as driving (1) to the person
| themselves per mile travelled and motorcycling is 35 times as
| dangerous (2).
|
| Electric bikes are probably somewhere in the middle.
|
| I am hoping once we get humans off the road, cycling can be
| safe and I would love to cycle places.
|
| (1)
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221414051...
| (2) https://www.askadamskutner.com/motorcycle-accident/how-do-
| ca...
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| You are not alone. Transport for London found safety concerns
| as the biggest reason people do not cycle in London.
| Interestingly, many people who do cycle also considered it
| too dangerous.
|
| For what it's worth, your risk from diseases of inactivity
| (diabetes, heart disease, etc) are far greater than the risk
| of cycling, even with poor infrastructure. Most people who
| take up cycling to work see an increase in life expectancy.
|
| The solution is to separate cyclists from motor traffic on
| all major roads and introduce 30kmph limits on quiet roads.
| The Netherlands did this and has far lower accident rates,
| despite having more children and elderly people cycling. They
| don't wear helmets either!
| m01 wrote:
| Cycling safety is definitely something to think about.
|
| However, I also feel that one should think about the safety
| of other road users when choosing one's transport method.
|
| Your first reference notes that "over half of the deaths in
| car crashes were to road users other than the drivers
| themselves". Looking at Fig 1., fatal cycling accidents that
| didn't involve cars were almost all (~92%) fatal to the
| cyclist rather than to other road users.
|
| EDIT: And then there's the contribution to air pollution-
| related deaths to think about as well, see e.g.
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-
| news/nearly-9-500... (2015), and I guess more broadly the
| contribution to climate-change related fatalities. I
| appreciate these are difficult to measure.
| briga wrote:
| I would assume cycling safety increases proportionally with
| bike infrastructure. Something tells me the people dying on
| bicycles aren't dying from collisions with other bicyclists.
| If you have adequate infrastructure bike safety starts to
| become a marginal concern.
| Zababa wrote:
| - You can either store your bike at home and on your job, or
| rent a bike
| m01 wrote:
| Combining cycling with other forms of public transport (e.g.
| trains) enables much longer-distance commutes, and effectively
| increases the "catchment area" of (e.g.) train stations. Other
| sibling comments have addressed the other points.
| leifg wrote:
| - the commute is sufficiently flat
| maccard wrote:
| It's not really a requirement. I live in Edinburgh, and cycle
| to work in a hilly city over icy cobblestones .
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Edinburgh is so compact that you can practically walk
| everywhere. I frequently did when I lived there.
| estebank wrote:
| Before shelter in place I commuted by bike in notoriously
| hilly San Francisco and biggest concerns was people on cars
| acting aggressively or having a safe place to lock the bike,
| not hills.
|
| Electric bikes are also an option that allows more people to
| ride in a wider range of situations that would otherwise be a
| limitation, including hilly terrain.
| mynegation wrote:
| + the route is safe enough or - better yet - there are
| dedicated bike lanes for most of the route
| genericone wrote:
| - bicycle parking/storage at destinations ( you're not going to
| bring a muddy bicycle into the office )
|
| - physically separated bicycle/automobile traffic ( safety like
| the netherlands )
|
| - cycling support infrastructure ( to quickly address flats /
| part breakage when out and about )
|
| - reliable backup transportation ( when all else fails )
| verbify wrote:
| Electric bikes mitigate some of your concerns.
| ab111111111 wrote:
| Not insurmountable issues, in my experience:
|
| - Your commute is sufficiently short (I managed a 30k round
| trip every day at my last job. Took about 45 minutes each way.)
|
| - You have facilities to shower and dress at work (I was lucky
| enough to have this, but some people who don't use e-bikes to
| avoid arriving as a sweaty mess)
|
| - You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work (Say 15
| minutes? Is that really a major issue? Just think of all the
| time you're saving by exercising and commuting at the same
| time.)
|
| - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo (I've got a
| kid's bike trailer and a kid's bike seat to take my kids to
| Kindergarten on the way to work)
|
| - Weather is sufficiently good (I live in Germany. I get by.
| When there's deep fresh snow I don't cycle, the rest of the
| time it's fine.)
|
| - You're sufficiently healthy (Cycling's a great way to get
| sufficiently healthy.)
| jedberg wrote:
| The Dutch have solved the kids/cargo problem. My friend lives
| in a suburb of Amsterdam. She has an electric assist bike with
| a cargo carrier. She uses it to carry kids and cargo, like
| groceries and such.
|
| She used it to carry four kids (her three and one of mine) when
| we visited. We took the rented car and she beat us there.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Wasn't Netherlands where a big accident with many kids
| happened a few years ago?
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45586492
| analog31 wrote:
| In my view, the most striking feature of the Dutch solution
| is that it's not a type of bike, but a _transportation
| system_ developed over a span of years within a specific
| niche of climate, terrain, population density, and so forth.
| Cargo bikes came after the system was already up and running.
|
| Moving any specific component of that system to another niche
| might help a little, and I'd welcome any progress, but is not
| a solution.
|
| With that said, I'm a year around bike commuter. Cargo bikes,
| trailers, and baekfiets are gaining popularity in my locale,
| especially the electrics.
| twiddling wrote:
| I actually have a picture of my Opa delivering bread in the
| 1920s with a cargo bike (bakfiets) in the Netherlands.
| analog31 wrote:
| That's really cool. I had no idea they went back that
| far.
| twiddling wrote:
| https://mechaniccycling.com/blogs/blog/a-visual-history-
| of-t...
| monkmartinez wrote:
| How do I carry my kids and groceries in +100F(38c) or nearly
| freezing weather?
| psychiatrist24 wrote:
| Same way as in other weather.
| africanboy wrote:
| Netherlands is not a good benchmark for the rest of the World
| where altitude it's a thing
|
| > _The Vaalserberg is a hill with a height of 322.4 metres
| (1,058 ft) above NAP and is the highest point in mainland
| Netherlands_
|
| before anyone gets the wrong idea, the biggest problem is not
| going up, but going down (especially with kids, cargo or
| kids+cargo)
| jjj1232 wrote:
| Long commutes are something most bike-enthusiasts want to fix
| too! That means more affordable housing, usually.
|
| But I agree, weather and disability issues definitely require
| some kind of supplemental modes of transportation. Even then
| I'd rather we invested in public transportation instead of
| cars.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Yeah it's not like many cities all over the world already have
| 10%+ biking numbers, pack it up everyone, it's an impossible
| problem.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I think you're approaching this from the wrong direction (the
| article's framing doesn't really help). It's about how we
| allocate funds at a high level, not that every city needs to
| have an equal amount of cycling. From a climate change
| perspective, we care little about where we take cars off the
| road.
|
| So while it's true that Siberia won't ever be bike-first, we
| should understand that each person we can get to transition to
| biking is worth 10x the carbon reduction of getting them to
| transition to an EV. It will also be harder! But the 10x
| heuristic should help us think about how to balance the
| increased difficulties against increased benefits.
|
| Also, this is a transition that will eventually involve
| everyone. There will always be people who can't cycle and we
| need to maintain room for them to be full participants in a
| non-petrochemical-based economy. This makes low-carbon personal
| transport like cycling even more valuable in the context of
| needing to allow people with more limited mobility options
| access (they will need the parking spaces we increasingly hope
| to move away from).
| africanboy wrote:
| > we care little about where we take cars off the road.
|
| as someone who almost completely abandoned the car, even
| though I live in Rome, one of the most car crowded cities in
| the West (and probably the World), if we care about taking
| cars off the road, we need to make cities walkable
|
| Many areas of Rome already are and have been by design,
| because pedestrians and cars don't compete for the same space
| and there are large enough sidewalks
|
| in the city centre where streets are narrow, cars usually
| drive very very slowly, because the road is occupied by
| people walking and have precedence
|
| But when pedestrian share the space with other vehicles, like
| in car restricted areas, that's where things start to get
| unpleasant if not impossible
|
| bikes, electric bikes, scooters they all make walking
| difficult to the point that pedestrian need to be careful
| about them more than with cars
|
| in this covid times with virtually no cars for Rome
| standards, my biggest concern when I am around is avoiding
| riders and their bikes, they are everywhere and respect no
| rule.
|
| I can be relatively sure that on a one way only street no car
| is gonna suddenly appear from the wrong direction, not so
| much with bikes (and other two wheeled vehicles) especially
| because they are extremely quiet
|
| this is my experience after 45 years as a Roman citizen and 7
| years without a car
| aeturnum wrote:
| > if we care about taking cars off the road, we need to
| make cities walkable
|
| I couldn't agree more! IMO increasing walkability will be
| key to both increasing density and decreasing carbon
| impact.
|
| The point I was driving at when saying we don't care where
| we take cars off the streets is that taking 100 cars out
| of, say, Rome, has about the same impact as taking 10 cars
| out of 10 other cities. There are places which are more
| interested in moving away from cars today than others and,
| while we eventually want to get all of them, we can start
| where resistance is lowest.
| the_duke wrote:
| Ebikes mostly solve 1, 2, 3 and 6 on your list.
|
| They are quite fast, require very little physical effort, and
| have a small fraction of the energy consumption of a car.
|
| And you can still get the health benefit by investing as much
| muscle work as you want to.
| flaque wrote:
| I'm convinced most people haven't realized just how good
| ebikes have gotten.
|
| ~$1000 gets you basically a slow, mini-motorcycle.
|
| It's dramatically cheaper than a car, longer range than a
| bike, and wonderful in cities.
| Aerroon wrote:
| Considering how common bike theft is, I'm not sure I'd
| consider a bicycle that's half the price of a used car to
| be a great deal. I like ebikes and bicycles in general, but
| they're expensive for what you get. Perhaps if cheaper
| bikes appeared while still being decent then people might
| consider them more often?
| avianlyric wrote:
| Bike insurance is substantially cheaper than car
| insurance. It's also substantially cheaper than paying
| for fuel.
|
| You could get an ebike, insure it, and come out well
| ahead just from fuel savings.
| basch wrote:
| For someone who wants a more bicycle like experience, it's
| better to set expectations beginning at $3k-4k.
|
| And as far as "longer range than a bike" that's more than
| likely untrue. The largest batteries, best motors, and most
| efficient mode might make it to 100 miles on a charge, but
| more realistic on more common models is 30-40 miles in a
| middle power mode. A 40 mile limit is less than you can
| acomplish on a non electric bike.
| flaque wrote:
| By range, I meant the amount a non-athletic person might
| use for commuting.
|
| Most people can easily go 20 miles on an electric bike,
| but have difficulty going 20 miles on a normal bike.
|
| Also Rad power bikes are in the ~$1000 range and are
| great!
| trulyme wrote:
| I would be worried about leaving it unattended though. Are
| anti-stealing systems any good these days?
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| >Ebikes
|
| I came here to post this. I hadn't ridden a bicycle in almost
| 30 years when I bought my eBike back in January. 2500W Luna,
| having a blast with it.
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| > Your commute is sufficiently short
|
| Cities are usually quite small in area. USA is an exception to
| this but that is due to car dependency. We can't reverse care
| dependency if we continue to pander to it. In London, the
| average speed of traffic is much lower than a gentle cycle. For
| longer distances, municipalities should focus on rail
| infrastructure. You might also consider an e-bike, which can
| double or triple your range as a cyclist.
|
| > You have facilities to shower and dress at work
|
| Cycling at a moderate pace does not make you any sweatier than
| public transport . With adequate infrastructure, cycling in a
| city can be leisurely, rather than a battle against motor
| traffic. Riding a bike is not the same as racing a bike, much
| like how walking is not the same as running.
|
| > You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work
|
| Presumably you have to shower somewhere. What difference does
| it make if it is before or after your commute?
|
| > You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo
|
| Cargo bikes are remarkably efficient and can carry two small
| children. They are cheaper than a car too. Older children can
| cycle. Did you know 75% of dutch teenagers cycle to school?
| However, we need infrastructure where people feel safe to do
| this. For occasional journeys a car may still be required, but
| that's fine, we are targeting the 90% case here.
|
| > Weather is sufficiently good
|
| Cycling away from traffic in the rain with fenders and a jacket
| is no worse than walking. Toughen up?
|
| > You're sufficiently healthy
|
| In The Netherlands, disabled and elderly people can use powered
| scooters and wheel chairs on the cycle paths. This gives them
| independence even after losing their driving license. In other
| countries, they would likely end up in a home. For those who
| must use a car, that is still an option. Traffic is actually
| reduced since cycle lanes have much greater carrying capacity
| in terms of _people_.
| big_curses wrote:
| Regarding weather and showering, I think the person is
| thinking more about the times of year when it is 100 degrees
| F outside and 60% humidity for 1/3 of the year.
| sokoloff wrote:
| From your reply, I'm guessing snow isn't much of a factor
| where you live.
| rossng wrote:
| I would highly recommend watching this video about exactly
| that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
| umeshunni wrote:
| 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,
| Copenhagen).
| ylhert wrote:
| nearly every one of your concerns is addressed by this
| wonderful youtube channel - "Not Just Bikes":
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| - You live somewhere warm enough to bike year-round.
| yaacov wrote:
| And cool enough! I'd rather bike year round in New York than
| in Phoenix. But if you can bike 80% of the time it's not so
| bad to take inconvenient public transit the other 20%.
| cinntaile wrote:
| This is not a real issue, you can bike at any cold
| temperature if you dress accordingly.
|
| What is a real issue is a lack of cycling infrastructure, if
| it's dangerous to commute to work by bike then a car is a
| better choice.
| jamesrr39 wrote:
| Cycling is very popular for commuting here in Sweden...
| refactor_master wrote:
| "There's no such thing as bad weather".
| abfan1127 wrote:
| uhh, I tried cycling in Phoenix in Summer. When the heat
| from the sun above, the heat from the cement below, and the
| heat from the cars beside me, I quickly realized this is
| dumb. My commute was only 6 miles, and I arrived at home
| fully consumed 3 Liters of water with what appeared to be 3
| Liters of sweat collected in my shirt and shorts. It also
| took an hour to cool down.
| FredPret wrote:
| Try cycling through 3ft of snow or on ice... with snow-
| plows lumbering by.
|
| Even if you're walking, -20C and below is just too damn
| cold even if you have proper gear.
| doikor wrote:
| The cycling paths should have the same priority as roads
| for cars. So if the weather is that bad you are not
| driving to work using your car or taking a bus either.
| estebank wrote:
| > Try cycling through 3ft of snow or on ice... with snow-
| plows lumbering by.
|
| That sounds like bad infrastructure, which admittedly is
| the default almost everywhere.
| FredPret wrote:
| Practically speaking, keeping 100% of the ice off of even
| well-used sidewalks 100% of the time all winter long
| isn't going to happen. All it takes is one patch of black
| ice and you can have a very serious bike crash.
|
| There's also a safety issue in that if you're in that
| kind of cold for long enough, it'll kill you, jacket or
| no jacket.
| estebank wrote:
| > Practically speaking, keeping 100% of the ice off of
| even well-used sidewalks 100% of the time all winter long
| isn't going to happen.
|
| Again, it's a matter of infrastructure and priorities:
| https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU?t=260
|
| > There's also a safety issue in that if you're in that
| kind of cold for long enough, it'll kill you, jacket or
| no jacket.
|
| In any situation where being outside for the time a
| commute could take would kill you, roads wouldn't be safe
| to be driven on.
| doikor wrote:
| A lot of people cycle to work in Finland in the winter. This
| also applies in the northern parts like Oulu. All you need is
| a good cycling network that is properly maintained in the
| winter and people will use it.
|
| A okish video about winter biking
| https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU
|
| Basically the temperature does not really matter much. It has
| more to do with the maintenance. If the cycling paths exist
| and are in good condition people will use them. Actually I
| think properly cold weather (stays below freezing most of the
| winter) is better then when weather is going above and below
| freezing point all the time.
|
| edit: And cycling in the rain is much worse then riding in
| the winter in my opinion.
| twiddling wrote:
| "All you need is a good cycling network that is properly
| maintained in the winter and people will use it."
|
| If you're going to invest in infrastructure, I would think
| that investments in public transit will be more palatable
| to the taxpayers.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| Invest in both. Both are needed.
| doikor wrote:
| In the cities we do invest in that too. Also cycling is
| superior (faster, cheaper, more convenient) to public
| transport for short enough trips.
|
| Also public transport and cycling are not opposites of
| each other. Here in Helsinki a lot of people cycle to the
| train or metro station and then take that to the city for
| their commute. You can also take your bike into the train
| or metro here if that works better for you.
|
| People also drive their cars to the metro/train station
| and do the same. Parking can be really expensive (and
| hard to find) in the center if you happen to work there.
| For example my work place (a bit over 100 person IT
| company office) we have a total of 2 car parking spots
| for the whole company that you reserve in a google sheet
| when you need it.
| Aerroon wrote:
| I have a hard time seeing there being much cycling in
| winter. Icy conditions are scary on a bicycle. All it takes
| is for snow to cover some ice and the bicycle can simply
| slip out from under you. Not only that. It's also possible
| for temperature to be above 0 during the day, but drop to
| below freezing in the evening/at night. You might not even
| realize that some of the bike paths are icy. I had that
| happen a few years ago. My knee still feels painful from
| time to time because of it.
|
| Another problem with cycling in the snow is that it's way
| harder. You need much wider and softer tires, but this also
| means that you need to put in more energy. Going uphill is
| a pain. Add a little soft snow and/or ice to it and it's
| awful. You'll also sweat in the coat. Batteries for ebikes
| don't work as well in the cold either.
|
| I think you pretty much need an alternative transportation
| system for winter. Or maybe we should all start using
| electric tricycles or quads.
| doikor wrote:
| Did you actually watch the video? It went into most of
| your complaints but here we go.
|
| > I have a hard time seeing there being much cycling in
| winter.
|
| And yet we got schools with 1000 out of the 1200 students
| cycling to school in -17c weather in Oulu. Out of the
| rest 100 to 150 walked and a couple took kicksleds.
|
| https://twitter.com/pekkatahkola/status/10932972616042659
| 85
|
| > Icy conditions are scary on a bicycle.
|
| Me (and a few million other Finns and Swedes and
| Norwegians and ...) would disagree.
|
| > All it takes is for snow to cover some ice and the
| bicycle can simply slip out from under you.
|
| This is why we maintain the roads. Also studded tires
| exist for bikes too but are rarely used here (Finland)
|
| > It's also possible for temperature to be above 0 during
| the day, but drop to below freezing in the evening/at
| night.
|
| Does happen. But again maintain your roads. Not really a
| problem on its own. Only if you let cars drive on the
| hard packed snow that has now melted which creates huge
| grooves that then freeze. Solved by not allowing cars on
| the bike paths.
|
| > Another problem with cycling in the snow is that it's
| way harder. You need much wider and softer tires, but
| this also means that you need to put in more energy.
|
| I rode the exact same bike summer and winter with the
| same quite narrow tires meant for asphalt (never had
| studded tires on my bicycle) for the last 25+ years and
| still do. Well not the same bike over all the years but
| only ever owned 1 bike at the same time.
|
| Actually now that I think about it is a bit harder when
| really cold (think -25c) but not for the reason you said.
| The grease/oil in your chains, ball bearings, etc starts
| to gel up making it harder. Could probably fix it by
| changing the oils but nobody bothers with that. Just
| cycle harder (or slower and accept the commute taking 5
| minutes longer)
|
| > Going uphill is a pain.
|
| Just cycle harder. You will get in shape quite fast. If
| you have proper gears it is not a big problem (outside of
| some extreme hills that are pain in the ass to even walk
| up)
|
| > You'll also sweat in the coat.
|
| Don't wear too thick of a coat or just open it up a bit.
|
| > Batteries for ebikes don't work as well in the cold
| either.
|
| Based on comments from my friends they work just fine. We
| have electric cars here and they work too.
|
| > I think you pretty much need an alternative
| transportation system for winter.
|
| Again watch the video I linked about winter biking.
|
| Basically riding in the rain is much more of pain in the
| ass.
| fumar wrote:
| I rode year round in Chicago. When weather was too extreme
| and unreasonable I took public transportation.
| twiddling wrote:
| ding ding. We also need to invest in proper public transit
| avianlyric wrote:
| Or you buy an e-bike, and the electric motor does all the heavy
| lifting. Allowing you to cycle in coat with breaking into a
| sweat.
| jtdev wrote:
| Cycling to/from work, grocery stores, etc. is completely
| infeasible for 6 months of the year in approximately 1/3 of the
| United States. In addition to seasonal infeasibility, much of the
| U.S. is rural... good luck commuting 15 miles each way to work.
| alkonaut wrote:
| If it's doable in Scandinavia I'd say it's doable in the whole
| US too. It's not comfortable some days, but it's doable
| (disclaimer - I don't do it even in nice weather but I pass a
| lot of people with my car that do).
| jtdev wrote:
| Short urban commutes in winter are not an issue (or shortish
| commutes in Scandanavian high density population areas)...
| it's the idea of long commutes in rural areas and/or long
| commutes in rural areas during winter that is not just
| inconvenient but actually quite dangerous.
| doikor wrote:
| I don't think anyone is suggesting that some farmer
| switches to cycling to shop. Most of these articles are
| talking about people living in/near the cities. The average
| commute is 6 miles or so which is short enough to cycle
| just fine.
|
| > commutes in rural areas during winter that is not just
| inconvenient but actually quite dangerous.
|
| Not if you build the infrastructure for it and maintain it.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Where I live 20km from Stockholm it's pretty common to ride
| year round at least. That's around 45min to 1h. It's
| definitely not very dense the first 10km, but no exactly
| rural either. Infrastructure is good though with separate
| bike paths more or less door to door, and some bike lanes
| once you reach the city limits (though not as good as class
| leading Copenhagen).
| globular-toast wrote:
| Right, so before cars were widespread (~50 years ago) people
| just didn't go to work?
|
| I didn't own a car until I was 27 and when there's no other
| choice, you definitely can use a bike in all weathers. It
| sucks, but that's life. You appreciate the warmth more after
| weather so cold it makes your face sting.
|
| As for rural living, the article is talking about cities, so
| the idea is you travel to the edge of the city by car then get
| on a bike.
| twiddling wrote:
| "Right, so before cars were widespread (~50 years ago) people
| just didn't go to work?"
|
| People lived a lot closer to their work then..,
| fvdessen wrote:
| Maybe people should live a lot closer to their work again
| ahelwer wrote:
| I biked to work year-round in Calgary, Canada every workday
| during a 16 month internship. Including during heavy snow.
| Tungsten-studded bike tires made it easy. This was before the
| current era of electric-powered fatbikes, which easily handle
| such conditions.
| 5555624 wrote:
| >is completely infeasible for 6 months of the year in
| approximately 1/3 of the United States
|
| Why? Because of winter? They make cold weather gear for
| cycling. You can even buy rechargeable, heated gloves. You can
| buy studded tires, as well.
|
| I had a year-round, 10 mile, each way, commute for 19 years, in
| temperatures ranging from 0F to 100F. (Humidity, raising the
| Heat Index over 100, is far worse than the cold.)
| cameronh90 wrote:
| 15 miles is not that far. 45 minutes with a US (20MPH) e-bike.
| Average commute is 30 mins each way. And that's time you don't
| have to spend at the gym now.
| jtdev wrote:
| You going to shower at work? How do you get your kids to
| school? Are you going to put them on the handlebars?
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Well, I think you're right, kinda, but either their own
| bikes or in one of those carts you attach.
|
| Shower at work? why, because you're sweaty? yeah, the
| humidity on East Coast is killer. I don't shower, but I
| keep a change of clothes at work.
| twiddling wrote:
| Waiting for the bakfiets crowd to show up.
| estebank wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=dutch+children+bike&source=
| l...
| jtdev wrote:
| Using NL as an example here is a major stretch... NL has
| been designed around non motorized transport; it's like
| using Venice as an example for why gondola based transit
| is a good idea for North America <>
| cameronh90 wrote:
| "You going to shower at work?"
|
| Yes? Or alternatively just dry off and change clothes.
|
| "How do you get your kids to school?"
|
| Kids here take the school bus - or indeed cycle to school.
| I cycled to school from about age 6.
| b0rsuk wrote:
| When was the last time you've seen cycling in an action movie?
| _Microft wrote:
| Does Tomb Raider with Alicia Vikander count?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfQRfYmbZI
| olivermarks wrote:
| My sister and her husband were keen cyclists in London, despite
| constant bike theft and falls due to terrible road condition but
| they now have artificial knees and a bad back respectively and
| can't cycle. My sister in particular is incensed about the road
| blocks put up all over London that have resulted in several local
| deaths as emergency vehicles can't get through to attend to heart
| attacks etc.
|
| In dense urban areas those fit enough can cycle as they do in
| China and other Asian cultures but there is a concern in the west
| about weather conditions practicality, hilly terrain etc. I get
| that lots of global warming worriers love cycling but there is a
| practical element to this that is all too often ignored
| mprovost wrote:
| People dying because ambulances are delayed by low traffic
| areas in London is a myth started by the Daily Mail. There's no
| evidence of it happening. In fact the ambulance services
| support these schemes. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/13/covid-
| bike-a...
| olivermarks wrote:
| https://soundcloud.com/privateeyenews/page-94-the-private-
| ey...
|
| 15 minutes in, Private Eye has been covering LTN's for a
| couple of years now
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| > My sister in particular is incensed about the road blocks put
| up all over London that have resulted in several local deaths
| as emergency vehicles can't get through to attend to heart
| attacks etc.
|
| Source?
|
| I'm guessing you are talking about LTNs (Low Traffic
| Neighbourhoods). For those outside the UK, these are schemes
| where through motor traffic is prevented from using residential
| roads. The idea has been around for decades, but they have seen
| a recent government push due to people switching away from
| public transport due to COVID. They are usually implemented by
| strategically placing modal filters (bollards, gates,
| enforcement cameras, etc). Emergency services are given keys to
| the gates and bollards. Walkers and cyclists can travel through
| unimpeded.
|
| In a public Q&A, London Ambulance Service said they had no
| evidence of delays due to new LTNs. In fact, they are generally
| supportive of the schemes. By law, councils must consult with
| emergency services before implementation.
|
| They have also been the subject of disinformation campaigns by
| right wing newspapers and taxi driver unions.
| olivermarks wrote:
| The source is my sister's practical and local experience. the
| Private Eye podcast covered LTN's recently in some detail
| also
|
| https://soundcloud.com/privateeyenews/page-94-the-private-
| ey...
|
| 15 minutes in
| imnotlost wrote:
| If you want me to ride my bike more on the street I need physical
| barriers between me and the people who happen to be driving a car
| while texting, tweeting, snapping selfies, napping, etc.
| acwan93 wrote:
| There's a demonization of cyclists in general if you live in an
| American city. Until this stigma goes away, which will usher in
| infrastructure and mentality changes, this will not occur.
|
| City councils believe cycling is recreational, not for commuting
| or for "real" use. I mentioned this about getting my LA suburb to
| actually embrace Class II bike lanes previously, and there's
| simply no political will.
|
| Simply put, it's sexier to put EV charging stations than bike
| lanes as a form of virtue signaling.
| stemlord wrote:
| I believe a lot of bicycle hate in middle class American
| culture is a result of propaganda from big oil corporate
| lobbying.
|
| I also read somewhere recently a theory that big cars are a way
| of protecting (even just psychologically) wealthy people from
| reality as they have to travel through areas of poverty to get
| from one wealthy pocket to another. Makes sense when recalling
| Rob Moses's work with nyc
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| > I also read somewhere recently a theory that big cars are a
| way of protecting (even just psychologically) wealthy people
| from reality as they have to travel through areas of poverty
| to get from one wealthy pocket to another.
|
| That theory seems to arise from a disgust for the wealthy
| (rightly or wrongly) as opposed to an earnest evaluation.
|
| I would put money on the theory that big cars can have more
| nice things in them and are safer, so the rich buy them.
| stemlord wrote:
| Yeah maybe, that same article argued that SUVs aren't
| actually safer though. Wish I could find it, I think I
| found it via HN
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| It's not just in the so-called America. In countries with rich
| cycling traditions, like here in Colombia or even in Spain, you
| can easily find people who hates cyclists. News about a cyclist
| killed in road-rage incidents are not rare.
| clairity wrote:
| that's a manifestation of the power and perspective of wealthy
| residents more than sexiness or virtue signaling. it's the same
| reason why it's so hard to aggressively internalize the costs
| of sprawl, to in turn lay the groundwork of incentives to move
| cities in a meaningfully more sustainable direction (rather
| than the weak appearance of it).
| abrowne wrote:
| Depends on the city? Minneapolis-St. Paul has ok cycling
| infrastructure for North America that certainly could be
| improved, but I don't see a negative attitude
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Wait until you try to replace some car parking lanes with
| protected bike or bus lanes to improve throughput.
| basch wrote:
| Already happened.
|
| https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2020/12/after-major-
| upgra...
|
| - Thanks to "mill and overlay" repaving, the city and
| county have added short stretches of bike lanes on:
| Territorial Road, Larpenteur Avenue, Fairview Avenue,
| Arlington Avenue, Marshall Avenue, and Tedesco Street.
| Together these connect bike lane gaps around the city,
| including a few key bridges and dangerous intersections.
|
| - Ramsey County engineered a "road diet" on Energy Park
| Drive and installed a wide bike lane running for two miles
| between Lexington Parkway and Raymond Avenue. The new
| connection boosts safety for drivers and offers bicyclists
| a safe connection with few intersections. The result is a
| quick, if boring, route from the heart of the city to the
| University of Minnesota transitway.
|
| - As part of the ongoing work to build off-street bike
| routes through downtown, the city installed its first ever
| concrete-protected, two-way cycle track on 9th and 10th
| Streets. To do this, city staff removed parking and made
| these streets one-way for cars, though the bike route
| remains a bit awkward as it navigates the Green Line
| station at Cedar Street.
|
| - The generations-long debate over the future of Ayd Mill
| Road was finally resolved this year with a repaved three-
| lane freeway and a brand new off-street bike connection.
| It's a lovely link for people on foot or bicycle, and now
| pothole-free for drivers. That said, the trail remains
| slightly useless as everyday transportation until
| (someday!) advocates figure out a way to connect the path
| to Minneapolis and the Midtown Greenway. If that happens,
| the new Greenway trail would become the best interurban
| bicycle route in the country.
|
| - Using a federal grant, the city constructed an off-
| street, curb-separated bike trail along Como Avenue from
| Como Park, west past the State Fairgrounds, and to Raymond
| Avenue. The wide trail with tabled intersection crossings
| alongside a narrower roadway transforms a key street that,
| especially two weeks out of the year, will become a
| lifeline for bicycles to access the State Fair and the
| University of Minnesota.
|
| - With another federal grant, the Parks Department
| completed a missing link in the regional bike trail along
| the west side of the Mississippi River. The new Piram Trail
| links Harriet Island along Plato Boulevard, past the St.
| Paul Airport, a string of industrial properties, and all
| the way to South St. Paul's Kaposia Landing park. The
| intriguing path through the riparian woods means that
| cyclists and hikers can travel along a separated riverfront
| trail all the way from North Minneapolis to Hastings.
|
| - With more federal dollars, the City completed the biggest
| link of the Grand Rounds, connecting Lake Phalen to Mounds
| Park along Johnson Parkway. The new path transforms East
| Side bicycling with a two-mile, off-street trail with
| tabled crossings that closes off a handful of intersections
| along an old frontage road. The result is a seamless
| family-friendly connection between two of St. Paul's best
| parks.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| That's fair, I know Minneapolis is one of the top cities
| for bike infrastructure in the US. Possibly _the_ top
| city, at least for bigger cities.
|
| If you search "Minneapolis war on cars" you can
| definitely find some people complaining, though.
| acwan93 wrote:
| Even in the Bay Area, the Lincoln Ave road diet in Willow
| Glen (San Jose) was severely divided, and I considered
| the Bay Area to be way more bike friendly than other
| regions in America.
|
| https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/06/16/san-jose-lincoln-
| aven...
| basch wrote:
| Since Portland and Seattle are 180 miles apart, it's
| probably fair to argue that Minneapolis-StPaul combined
| is the best or second best current bike metro in the
| country. Similar in population size to Seattle, bit
| bigger than Portland.
|
| Does anyone have a good up to date source for miles of
| protected bike lane per city, thats been updated since
| last year?
| chmod775 wrote:
| > City councils believe cycling is recreational, not for
| commuting or for "real" use.
|
| And nobody gives them a talking to? If any official said that
| here they would never live down the humiliation. They'd be the
| butt of every joke for weeks.
|
| Some societies appear to tolerate stupid ideas that I'd be
| afraid to say out loud. Or maybe nobody actually believes that.
|
| Is there actually someone from a city council or whoever on
| record saying that? I am doubtful.
|
| It's not even this specific thing. There's a lot of "nothing
| going is going to happen because X believes Y" to go around
| that may just be straw men. Seems more like a defeatist
| attitude to me than something resembling reality.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| There are hardly any active commuting cyclists in most
| cities, so no. Anyone who speaks up is outnumbered 50x by
| motorists who feel extremely entitled to never have to see a
| bike.
| acwan93 wrote:
| Don't forget the active recreational cyclists ("middle aged
| man in lycra", or MAMIL) who only cycle on the weekends.
| The city planner in the LA suburb I was referencing said
| that the councilmen were all weekend cyclists, so didn't
| see the need for bike lanes as a form of commuting.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Yeah our local town council has bike paths under dept of
| Recreation. So they go from nowhere to nowhere. And they get
| closed for 6 months because some truck got parked on it for
| some unrelated construction project. And they don't get
| repaired or even maintained adequately.
| duxup wrote:
| I would say there's a demonetization of everything these days
| where so many topics are full 'us vs them' tribal ordeals now.
| Laarlf wrote:
| 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.
| abeppu wrote:
| > colleagues and I reveal that people who walk or cycle have
| lower carbon footprints from daily travel, including in cities
| where lots of people are already doing this.
|
| Not to disagree with the broader point, but I think it's worth
| distinguishing "travel" from "transportation". I don't have a
| car, and I bike and walk for almost all of my daily personal
| "travel". But, I think this also makes me more willing to use
| delivery services, in which case I'm offloading some carbon
| footprint to trucks and vans which might not be counted as part
| of my "daily travel". Part of the appearance of reduced emissions
| can come from sweeping some emissions into a different category.
| avianlyric wrote:
| You might be offloading some carbon onto delivery service, but
| those services are almost certainly more carbon efficient and
| you using a personal car to go shopping.
|
| A delivery van might do 200+ deliveries in one trip. Compared
| to a single delivery in your personal car. That a huge number
| of people to split the carbon cost between.
|
| You might argue that delivery can travel further, but that
| would just be ignoring the carbon cost of have goods delivered
| and stored in a grocery store.
|
| I think almost certainly deliveries are more carbon friendly,
| after all the goods are coming from the same source, but with
| delivery every step the carbon footprint is shared with 10s to
| hundreds of other people. The only exception to this is
| probably takeaway food, in which case I recommend that you
| cycle to restaurant and eat there.
| abeppu wrote:
| I'm willing to believe that a delivery service is more
| efficient than me personally driving an empty car to pick up
| something and bring it home. I'm just saying, depending on
| how stuff is tabulated, one could systematically over-state
| the emission reductions associated with being a daily
| cyclist.
| globular-toast wrote:
| The marginal cost of you using those delivery services is much
| smaller than you personally driving a car to the shop, though.
| Delivery companies can very effectively minimise the amortised
| cost per delivery.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I've very pro-bike but this is a pretty good point.
|
| That said, with big panniers or a cargo bike, it's pretty easy
| to take care of daily needs with a bike. We have an electric
| cargo bike, and it's somewhat uncommon for us to feel like we
| _need_ a car for something.
| samcheng wrote:
| I'm surprised at all of the anti-cycling sentiment here.
|
| It's really a better mode of transportation than the car, in
| certain situations. It's healthy, relaxing, good for traffic and
| the environment, and convenient for short trips.
|
| The article isn't saying that you need to ditch the car for a
| bakfiets, just that you can have a significant positive impact by
| doing SOME of your trips via bicycle. Remember that most car
| trips are with a single driver and no passenger, and are short
| trips around town.
|
| Give it a shot!
| supertrope wrote:
| Very few people choose to bike in an environment hostile to
| pedestrians and bicyclists. The infrastructure and culture has
| to come first. And the infrastructure won't come until there's
| a critical mass of people demanding it.
| lovegoblin wrote:
| > I'm surprised at all of the anti-cycling sentiment here.
|
| Given how profoundly anti-bicycle North America in general is,
| I'm actually surprised it's not a lot worse.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't take HN threads into regional or other flamewar.
| It's not what this site is for.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Most Americans have only lived in places where biking is
| treated as a toy, and where adult biking for transport is
| dangerous and uncomfortable. Thus, they end up believing that
| it must be so everywhere, that good biking for transport is
| impossible.
|
| It's an issue of ignorance. If everywhere you've lived is like
| that, you assume it's a law of the universe. Even if someone
| points out that other cities manage it fine, you're already
| emotionally invested, so you'll deflect (e.g. "well that city
| isn't identical to mine, so obviously it's irrelevant") rather
| than consider a different possibility.
| julienb_sea wrote:
| The zeitgeist has clearly made their choice. Every comment even
| mildly questioning the viability of cycling as a replacement for
| transportation in most contexts is downvoted.
| balls187 wrote:
| In 2006 I started commuting to work by bike. After two days,
| after 5 near miss collisions with automobiles, I stopped.
| ppf wrote:
| It's absolutely true, and something that is forgotten in the rush
| for "green" EVs. In the long run, the fuel is not the
| unsustainable part of mass public car ownership, it's the rest of
| the car (or at least, the idea of owning a multi-ton high-speed
| metal box that can carry you and a large amount of your
| possessions as far as you like).
|
| Using EVs to transition to something else, leaving behind craters
| and huge scars from mineral extraction, and huge amounts of
| e-waste, is just absurd on its face (but very profitable).
| phnofive wrote:
| The headline claim as laid out in the article:
|
| > we found that emissions from cycling can be more than 30 times
| lower for each trip than driving a fossil fuel car, and about ten
| times lower than driving an electric one
|
| Assuming we're comparing single occupant passenger vehicles to
| bicycles (incl. e-bikes), this seems fairly self-evident and
| hardly actionable.
|
| > We observed around 4,000 people living in London, Antwerp,
| Barcelona, Vienna, Orebro, Rome and Zurich.
|
| > [...]people who walk or cycle have lower carbon footprints from
| daily travel, including in cities where lots of people are
| already doing this.
|
| Okay, again, big surprise. Where that infrastructure exists to
| support such a move in dense cities, abolishing private car
| ownership would surely have some climate impact, but can we
| quantify it any better than .03x of '?'?
| s0rce wrote:
| Why isn't this actionable? We are currently making significant
| public and private investments into electric cars based on
| their reduced emissions. Why not also invest in cycling
| infrastructure (beyond the very limited capacity that most US
| cities are currently doing)?
| phnofive wrote:
| There is no evidence to suggest millions of bicycle commuters
| are waiting in the wings for more green paint.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| As they say, the power is in the marginal consumer. There
| are people who, given more bicycle infrastructure, will be
| helped over the threshold to riding a bicycle for more
| trips (I'm one of them; I will commute by bicycle, but the
| roads around me don't make riding home from a store with a
| trailer a safe decision).
|
| Also, painting more lines on a road is usually more of a
| half-hearted municipal response to requests for bicycle
| infrastructure; the changes that are established to improve
| ridership are physically separated bicycle lanes, the
| network effect of more cyclists, and holding drivers
| responsible when their behaviors kill or maim more
| vulnerable road users.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| Not green paint, but safe cycling infrastructure would
| absolutely convert my girlfriend to a cyclist.
|
| The amount of people who call me insane for cycling on
| London roads is no joke.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I am. Cycling in the city is dangerous.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Aren't there studies that show the health benefits out
| weigh the dangers? I think the problem is more that it
| feels more dangerous and is, as a result, is often quite
| stressful.
| ahelwer wrote:
| That's the sort of comparison you can only make over the
| entire population. Looking at it from the perspective of
| an individual, it's a raw deal if my general fitness is
| improved but then two years later I get hit by a car and
| walk with a limp for the rest of my life.
|
| I do bike commute and lived in Seattle for 7.5 years
| without a car.
| bildung wrote:
| There is plenty of evidence from many cities around the
| world. Copenhagen is a rather famous example, their
| turnaround from being very car-centric to being very bike-
| friendly started in the 70s IIRC, and the transit patterns
| followed as planned.
| s0rce wrote:
| There actually is pretty significant evidence:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/climate/bikes-climate-
| cha...
|
| https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e2024399118
|
| https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-
| content/uploads/2013/12/jpt16.4_...
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213
| 6...
|
| https://www.nar.realtor/blogs/spaces-to-places/bike-lanes-
| bu...
|
| https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-
| releases/2011/januar...
|
| (although you might be correct about green paint, thats
| fake infrastructure and paint won't protect people from
| getting hit by cars)
| elmomle wrote:
| When it comes to transportation infrastructure, you
| certainly don't want to plan the future based on apparent
| present demand. Los Angeles vs Copenhagen is a great
| comparison of the results of continually building for what
| people seem to want "now" (in the former case) versus
| building to create a better future.
| clairity wrote:
| LA actually has decent public transportation now, and
| it's getting better. it's also the perfect city for
| biking, with lower temperature variances, elevation
| variances, and precipitation rates than most cities. we
| just need to convert on-street parking into bike lanes
| everywhere, and we'd be all set (with protected lanes
| built out over time).
|
| LA may have been the poster child of poor planning in the
| 80's, but i'd suggest cities like phoenix, houston and
| atlanta have surpassed it in that regard.
| elmomle wrote:
| Agreed, the city has made a lot of progress. I was indeed
| thinking of its planning for most of the 20th century!
| twiddling wrote:
| Because most US cities are not compact and flat as Copenhagen
| glial wrote:
| Today, they aren't. But we could and should alter zoning
| laws to encourage density.
| s0rce wrote:
| Millions numbers of people live in urbanized flat valleys
| in California (Oakland, San Jose, Redding, Sacramento,
| Fresno, Bakersfield, parts of LA/SGV/Inland Empire/OC).
| helicalspiral wrote:
| ebikes, though a bit more expensive, make getting over the
| hills in even SF doable
| umeshunni wrote:
| SF is a very compact city (7 miles across)
| com2kid wrote:
| I'm not willing to spend thousands on an ebike while
| living in a city where I expect my bike to be stolen at
| least once a year.
|
| (and all of my bikes that were stolen, were stolen out of
| locked garages!)
| s0rce wrote:
| Even 1 bike per year isn't that bad if you have
| insurance, car maintenance + depreciation is probably
| more. Not to mention when your catalytic converter gets
| stolen.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The cycling rate in Arhus Denmark is almost as good as
| Copenhagen and it's quite a hilly city.
| twiddling wrote:
| eBikes definitely help with the topography issues ( Seattle
| , Pittsburgh ). You still have the sprawl and separated
| land use patterns in a lot of cities though.
|
| Of course summer commuting in Houston or Phoenix is going
| to suck no matter what your bike is
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Don't ebikes bring in a lot of the enviromental concerns
| as an electric car? Less for sure, but it probably starts
| to close that 10x number.
| vinni2 wrote:
| I don't get it where is the emission coming from bicycle trips?
| amarshall wrote:
| > vehicle life cycle emissions considered emissions from the
| manufacture of vehicles, with aggregate carbon values per
| vehicle type (cars, motorcycles, bikes and public transport
| vehicles) derived assuming typical lifetime mileages, mass
| body weights, material composition and material-specific
| emissions and energy use factors.
|
| and
|
| > The observed e-bike share was 4.5%; therefore, average
| emissions include 4.5% e-bike, 95.5% normal bike.
|
| It's not totally clear to me if the emissions required to
| produce the energy the human burned to power the bicycle are
| included--it would certainly vary quite a bit based on the
| food.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I would assume from the manufacture of the bicycle.
| vinni2 wrote:
| Really? Manufacturing a bicycle has only 10x lower carbon
| footprint than manufacturing an electric car? Doesn't sound
| logical to me.
| s0rce wrote:
| I guess you have to eat a bit more if you ride more, I
| certainly notice when I bike to work (5mi each way, 300ft
| climb) that I need to eat a bit more food. Certainly no where
| near the energy of a car though but its not zero. Assuming
| you want to maintain your weight.
| vinni2 wrote:
| That's a strong assumption. I for one wouldn't eat less if
| I stopped biking. I commute to work, do shopping and go
| everywhere by bike throughout the year. I don't own a car.
| s0rce wrote:
| Just my experience. I stopped biking to work due to COVID
| and I eat less than before. I tried to just go for a 5mi
| ride in the morning but I'm not motivated w/o the commute
| and just take the dog for a walk instead.
| bradlys wrote:
| Are you saying you have a mythical body that burns no
| calories when biking? Or are you saying you'd be willing
| to gain more weight because you'll never change your
| diet?
| kgwgk wrote:
| The bike does need energy to move.
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| True, but adults need around 30 mins exercise per day
| anyway so we can take the carbon budget from that.
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| I have a multi-city dedicated completely separate from traffic
| bike path that would take up 90% of my bicycle commute distance
| but I still drive to work because the last 2 miles to get into
| the office involves mingling with high speed traffic, broken
| glass, trash, illegally parked cars and my favorite: "SHARE THE
| ROAD" signs.
| aBioGuy wrote:
| Doesn't this suggest that cities should continue to build out
| their bike infrastructure? You can't get high bike use without
| protected lanes / etc.
| globular-toast wrote:
| Only when cities completely ban car travel will cycling increase.
| Cars are currently first class road users. They get extra
| protection and sympathy from the police. All infrastructure is
| built for them with cycling infrastructure being laughable and
| often regressive. On top of that, most people are just too fat
| and lazy to cycle by choice.
| Laarlf wrote:
| That is correct. You will not convince most people to ditch the
| car unless you deliberately make it horrible or by completely
| banning it. It's like poisoning alcohol during
| prohibition.you're putting "public" interest over personal
| interest at all costs.
| mustafa_pasi wrote:
| Banning unnecessarily big cars would be enough. My utopia would
| be a city where people all drive around in micro city cars like
| the Citroen Ami. It would fix 95% of the problems with no real
| decrease in living standards for anyone.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| >> Switching from gas car to cycling is something that would
| require major investments from my city and developers.
|
| ...
|
| >>Switch to electric now, and also encourage new roads and new
| developments to be bike friendly, so that switching to a bike is
| something that will be viable in 20 or 30 years for most cities
| in America.
|
| Your attitude towards the proposal of moving to bicycle is
| literally the same as those against moving from fossil to
| electric.
| garyrichardson wrote:
| > This is partly because electric cars aren't truly zero-carbon -
| mining the raw materials for their batteries, manufacturing them
| and generating the electricity they run on produces emissions.
|
| Ok. But then unless you're hand making the bikes out of wood you
| scavenged from fallen trees and don't use rubber tires, neither
| are bikes.
|
| Like many pro cycling articles this one is one sided and assumes
| there is one solution to our environmental problems. Sure, we
| need people to cycle more, but we also need electric cars,
| changes in how and where we live, changes in what we eat, etc.
|
| Probably the fastest way to impact all of this is internalizing
| the cost of carbon into all of our activities.. ie a big fat
| carbon tax.
| avianlyric wrote:
| > Ok. But then unless you're hand making the bikes out of wood
| you scavenged from fallen trees and don't use rubber tires,
| neither are bikes.
|
| Are you honestly trying to imply the making a bike has even a
| vaguely similar environmental impact as making a car?
|
| I mean seriously, a bike weights at most 20kg. A car at least
| 1000kg. That means you should be able get at least 50 bikes out
| of a single car.
| acd wrote:
| An Electric Bus or Taxi is also more important than an electric
| private car simply because they drive more people per hour.
|
| 1. Cycle 2. Electric Bus/Tram/Taxi 3. Electric Car/Biogas Car
|
| http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/shrink-your-travel-footprint
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-07 23:01 UTC)