undefined | Better HN

0 pointss0rce4y ago0 comments

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)?

0 comments

twiddling4y ago

Because most US cities are not compact and flat as Copenhagen

helicalspiral4y ago

ebikes, though a bit more expensive, make getting over the hills in even SF doable

com2kid4y ago

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!)

1 more reply

umeshunni4y ago

SF is a very compact city (7 miles across)

bryanlarsen4y ago

The cycling rate in Århus Denmark is almost as good as Copenhagen and it's quite a hilly city.

twiddling4y ago

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

SketchySeaBeast4y ago

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.

s0rceOP4y ago

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).

glial4y ago

Today, they aren't. But we could and should alter zoning laws to encourage density.

phnofive4y ago

There is no evidence to suggest millions of bicycle commuters are waiting in the wings for more green paint.

s0rceOP4y ago

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/S22136...

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)

InitialLastName4y ago

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.

bildung4y ago

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.

pessimizer4y ago

I am. Cycling in the city is dangerous.

VBprogrammer4y ago

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.

1 more reply

cameronh904y ago

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.

elmomle4y ago

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.

clairity4y ago

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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

twiddling4y ago

Because most US cities are not compact and flat as Copenhagen

helicalspiral4y ago

ebikes, though a bit more expensive, make getting over the hills in even SF doable

com2kid4y ago

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!)

1 more reply

umeshunni4y ago

SF is a very compact city (7 miles across)

bryanlarsen4y ago

The cycling rate in Århus Denmark is almost as good as Copenhagen and it's quite a hilly city.

twiddling4y ago

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

SketchySeaBeast4y ago

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.

s0rceOP4y ago

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).

glial4y ago

Today, they aren't. But we could and should alter zoning laws to encourage density.

phnofive4y ago

There is no evidence to suggest millions of bicycle commuters are waiting in the wings for more green paint.

s0rceOP4y ago

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/S22136...

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)

InitialLastName4y ago

bildung4y ago

pessimizer4y ago

I am. Cycling in the city is dangerous.

VBprogrammer4y ago

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.

1 more reply

cameronh904y ago

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.

elmomle4y ago

clairity4y ago

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.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse