
The bicycle is making a comeback in US cities - antongribok
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36778953
======
michaelwww
The true revolution has hit public consciousness yet and that is the rise of
electric bicycles. I own one and nearly every time I ride it cross town I
think again that it's nearly the perfect form of human transportation. It is
said that pedal bicycles are the most efficient form of human transportation.
With a motor and a lithium ion battery that charges up at a rate of 150W for 3
hours and then delivers 12-15 miles of transport at 20 mph, depending on much
pedaling is done to assist uphill, and I imagine that you only increase that
efficiency. Electric bikes are allowed to use the bike lanes in California,
while fossil fuel powered motors are not, so bikes can take routes that beat
all the car and truck traffic. I don't break a sweat riding an electric bike
so I don't need to take a shower when arriving at work. Take the optimistic
tone of this article and add electricity and you really have a revolution.

~~~
artursapek
Are electric bicycles desirable mainly because of lower physical effort, or
higher top speed? I am an avid cyclist in NYC and I don't think I would be
comfortable going any faster than my current top speed. And I really enjoy the
exercise. So why would I choose an electric bicycle over my traditional one?

~~~
Frondo
In my experience (as someone who cycles 50-75 miles a week) people go for the
electric bikes for less exertion. Probably 3-4 times a week people on e-bikes
pass me on hills, zooming along.

They always seem to be heavier-set than your typical bike commuter, so if the
motor's getting them out on the road and getting some exercise and fitness in,
I think that is just fantastic. Anything to get people out of their cars!
Maybe they'll even upgrade to a real bike some day :)

~~~
buovjaga
> Maybe they'll even upgrade to a real bike some day :)

Several stories I've read about ebikes point to stats about nearly all ebike
owners getting hooked and continuing to buy them instead of regular ones.

That said, an ebike turns into a regular bike immediately after you turn off
the assistance.

~~~
Piskvorrr
Regular and heavy as hell; those batteries won't pull themselves (well they
_could_ , but you get the point ;))

To give my anecdote, I'm considering getting an e-bike for commuting, or
perhaps retrofit onto my regular bike: the ride is not long (~10 miles x2),
but hills on both sides are significantly easier with an assist.

~~~
buovjaga
One way to think of it: assistance for commuting to avoid sweating / no
assistance with battery left at home when wanting to exercise.

Btw. I've had an ebike for 4 years and I'm a skinny 34-year-old man. It can
still be plenty of work to ride it during the Finnish winter :)

------
intrasight
I've commuted by bicycle while in school in Toronto and at a couple of jobs
since. But I've ceased to be interested in sharing roads with cars. The
weight-scale of the two vehicle types is just too different, and I don't
bounce as well as I used to. I do love biking on trails though, and welcome
the additional trails being built around the nation and here in Pittsburgh.

------
cauterized
If there were protected bike lanes along my commute (about 3 miles), I'd cycle
to work in a heartbeat. (Well, showers at the office, preferably clean ones,
would also help.)

Instead, only about 25% of the trip has bike lanes at all. And they share a
curb with the buses (which might be the worst arrangement possible, since
cyclists and bus drivers have to keep dodging one another in and out of the
lane - endangering the cyclists and slowing the buses).

Instead, I walk when the weather is right. Cycling right beside cars would
scare the shit out of me.

~~~
dominotw
I had 3 of my coworkers killed in Chicago in last 2 years. One to to drunk
driver, 2 to visibility issues( one was extreme downhill curve where a cyclist
would suddenly appear out of nowhere. Other was a truck making a left turn
between two cars, no way the truck driver could have seen the cyclist) .

Only people with a deathwish would ride a bike on streets shared by other
vehicles.

Don't be stupid, think of your family.

~~~
beardicus
> Only people with a deathwish would ride a bike on streets shared by other
> vehicles.

I'll grant that the risk of death in an accident is probably higher on bike,
but the risk of death by being sedentary should also not be ignored in the
calculation. I don't have a deathwish, and I commuted 30 miles a day on a bike
for years. It was great. I've never been in better shape. We have a problem
with cars killing people with alarming regularity. The solution probably isn't
to avoid riding bikes or being a pedestrian.

~~~
dominotw
surely there are better ways to get in shape that don't involve risking your
life on daily basis.

~~~
gleenn
I think you're being pretty harsh. I don't have a death wish, I ride my bike
frequently in SF because I love to ride, it's great exercise, it's by far the
fastest way to get to work, and it's one less bicyclist-killing machine on the
road. From a philosophical point of view, if everyone did what I did, there
would be a lot of upsides for everyone. If everyone decided to ride a car,
there would be many downsides.

------
djhworld
I live in London (UK), cycling is fairly popular here but I'm terrified of
being killed so don't bother with it.

I'm wondering how the US approaches bicycle safety as a whole, it's all well
and good building a cycle lane, but in some places that's not feasible so you
have to merge with traffic. How do US drivers treat cyclists?

~~~
steveax
If you need to take the lane, take the lane. Do not offer what might look like
a "squeeze by" to auto drivers but rather ride in the center of the lane and
move to the right when it is safe to do so.

~~~
crispyambulance
I agree, I think many novice cyclists inadvertently put themselves in dicey
situations by being "too nice" to car traffic. It truly is safer to be visible
and temporarily "in the way" than to ride in the door zone or gutter and risk
getting doored, side-swiped or right-hooked.

Being nice might momentarily appease an impatient driver, but it puts the
cyclist at risk and makes them appear erratic to other traffic.

------
api_or_ipa
I don't understand why so many people use their cars for every chore in the
Bay Area. A decent bike commuter can do 16 mph which is plenty fast for most
trips. It's also 'free' in that you burn lunch instead of fuel.

~~~
SirensOfTitan
I would love to ride a bike around SF, but the thought of being hit by a car
is sort of terrifying to me. As a result I ride the bus everywhere: it's non
ideal.

~~~
abrkn
I was looking into buying a bike for commuting from Mission to SoMa until I
noticed how there are multiple hit and runs reported every week. Several times
have I witnessed Uber/Lyft drivers (with me as a passenger) endanger
bicyclists during the morning commute. How do they solve this in other cities?

~~~
Maultasche
The Netherlands does this very well. Car traffic is nicely separated from
bicycle traffic, which is nicely separated from pedestrians. There's even an
entire nationwide network of bicycle paths.

I suggest using Google street view to look around. Usually, you can see a bike
path off on the side of the road that's nicely separated from the cars. I
don't think that Google has gotten around to taking street view pictures in
all the bike-only paths in more rural areas, although I hear they've done that
in some places.

The Netherlands has been committed to improving bicycle use and safety since
the 1950s, so they've built up a lot of infrastructure with that in mind. In
fact, I hear that in any accident in the Netherlands involving a car and
bicycle, the car is always at fault unless they can prove that the bicycle was
being reckless. It makes cars a lot more careful, and encourages riding a bike
instead of driving.

From what I hear, the effect is from all this that automobile traffic in is
pretty congested and slow. The Dutch government seems to be making a general
policy of discouraging car driving and encouraging alternate forms of
transportation, as a means to unclog the roads and reduce pollution. The
Netherlands is very dense, so pollution would be very bad if all those people
were driving everywhere.

I'm not Dutch, but sometimes I wish I were, because I would very much like to
bike to work on a regular basis. My city in California has some bike lanes,
but they aren't very wide and are right next to the cars. They've been
starting to build bike paths that are completely separate from roads, but we
don't yet have a city-wide bike path network yet. I suspect we'll eventually
get one, but it will be decades away. I'll go biking with my children on quiet
residential streets or the bike paths, but there's no way I'd take them on the
bike lanes on the bigger roads.

------
nashashmi
In New York, one thing I have strongly noticed is the decrease in smog even on
rush hour crowded avenues. This alone has made it drastically healthier to go
outside whether it be on bike or walk. Just a few more years and we will be
able to avoid long trips to the parks and do recreational walking immediately
outside of our doors.

------
Havoc
Just bought a bike this weekend. Great fun thanks to cycle lanes along the
beach. Don't see it being a viable mode of transportation for day-to-day
though.

>a bike lane next to [...] church infringed on religious freedom by preventing
members from parking.

That's a pretty bizarre interpretation of "religious freedom".

------
pasbesoin
I want three things: 1) Stay dry. 2) Not wear out my normal nor "dressy"
clothes. 3) Ride safely.

I can even forgo # 1 if I get to change and shower at the end.

So... you want cyclists? Find out what's really keeping them off bikes, and
fix it.

P.S. And theft. You can just park your car and walk away from it -- mostly.

~~~
Zigurd
Some of these things could be solved with better electronics. Like providing
tagging/tracking technology that would keep thieves away, and a proximity
warning that would flash a bright taillight at cars coming too close or
approaching too quickly.

------
Zigurd
There are some bright spots, like Cambridge, but there needs to be vastly
better enforcement of having drivers keep a distance from cyclists. If
cyclist-aware autonomous braking were required for cars, that might do it in a
few years. But American drivers are angry and incompetent.

------
marknutter
I really hope that motorcycles make a comeback as well. They are incredibly
fuel efficient, they don't take up nearly as much room, are far cheaper to buy
and maintain than cars, and a heck of a lot of fun.

~~~
justinator
> They are incredibly fuel efficient,

Sadly, this is a myth.

[https://practicalfrugalliving.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/busti...](https://practicalfrugalliving.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/busting-
the-myth-that-motorcycles-save-gas-and-money/)

[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbuste...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-
motorcycle-emissions.html)

[http://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycles-fuel-
economy/](http://motorbikewriter.com/motorcycles-fuel-economy/)

~~~
marknutter
None of those links refute my claim that motorcycles are fuel efficient. The
first link says that large displacement bikes are "no more efficient than a
prius" which is one of the most fuel efficient cars on the road. Take any new
250cc motorcycle and compare it to any new compact car and the motorcycle will
have higher fuel efficiency every single time.

The only article that seems to support your assertion is the mythbusters one,
which doesn't refute the claim that motorcycles are more fuel efficient, but
instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by
motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether. That
would be easily solved by stricter pollution control standards on bikes which
would absolutely happen if more people started riding. The article then goes
onto admit:

"Despite the MythBusters' findings, emissions are only part of the story of a
vehicle's true greenness. According to the Motorcycle Industry Council,
motorcycle manufacturing requires thousands fewer pounds of raw materials than
automobiles. They require less fossil fuel, so they require less energy to
pull that fossil fuel out of the ground. They use fewer chemicals and oils
than cars. And motorcycles produced today are 90% cleaner in California than
they were 30 years ago."

So I stand by my original statement. Did you even read the articles, or did
you just whip off a quick google search and link the first three articles that
seemed to support your claim?

~~~
justinator
> but instead cites the fact that proportionally more pollution is emitted by
> motorcycles than by cars which is a completely separate issue altogether.

But a pretty big one, that you're side-stepping by quoting a special interest
group from the motorcycle industry. Fuel efficiency could be better, but
emissions are always worse.

Here's another source for you, Ana-Marija Vasic and Martin Weilenmann.
Comparison of Real-World Emissions from Two-Wheelers and Passenger Cars
[http://josiah.berkeley.edu/MiniProjects/Vasic2006.pdf](http://josiah.berkeley.edu/MiniProjects/Vasic2006.pdf)

I would wager that ab bicycle will have a better fuel efficiency, emissions,
and environmental cost of production than a car, or a motorcycle.

~~~
marknutter
I was never comparing motorcycles to bicycles. Of course bicycles are more
energy efficient. But compared to cars motorcycles are far more efficient -
especially electric motorcycles which are starting to hit the mainstream now.

