
Cycling Is Key to Safer, Healthier, More Vital Cities - jseliger
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/09/cycling-is-key-to-safer-healthier-more-vital-cities/570139/
======
screye
A 2 key points about well designed bike lanes that aren't bought up enough
are:

1\. raised / structural separation between the road and bikes path.

2\. bike paths can be used for just about anything that is not a car/motorbike
or a pedestrian. Skaters, skate boarders, mopeds and bikes can all share a
common separated path way.

I have tried biking in Boston and it is a nightmare. Bike Lanes marked on the
road are taken as suggestions by cars, rather than a proper space for bikes.
Taking the side of the road causes cars to pass me too closely and taking a
lane draws verbal abuse ( happened 3 times in 1 month...then I stopped).
Technically Boston suburbs allow bikes to ride on empty sidewalks, but that
draws silent stares and again occasional verbal abuse.

In addition to that , everyone from pedestrians to car owners seem to be
complaining about the new bird bike scooters and boosted boards. With major
ride sharing companies trying to move to 2 wheelers and community shared
biking hubs becoming a thing, giving all the problem children their own space
would be an excellent solution.

All of these alternate means of transportation run at about the same speed and
can't cause fatal damage on collision. Definitively separating them from cars
should significantly improve safety.

IMO, biking might be the solution that allows for zoning laws to be lax, as
increased density wouldn't affect traffic as adversely. The increased density
should also cut commute times. Aren't those literally the 2 biggest complaints
about tech hubs in US ? The decreased pollution and healthcare benefits just
the cherry on top.

~~~
telchar
I'd add that a significantly under-discussed element of safe biking
infrastructure is safer intersections. My city has lots of bike lanes that are
sufficiently wide (and many that aren't) and no consideration all at for how a
cyclist is supposed to safely traverse an intersection. My commute requires me
to cross several lanes of traffic to get from the bike lane to the left turn
lane on a road where cars go ~40mph - there's no way to do that without a
significant risk of getting clobbered. That's to say nothing of the potential
for someone hooking right through me when I go straight at an intersection as
apparently no one checks their side mirror before turning.

Unfortunately even cities that consider biking infrastructure often seem to
ignore how to connect bike lanes in a reasonably safe way. The only city I've
seen that does this is Portland, OR and they make heavy use of separated paths
to do so.

~~~
mjevans
The best practice that I'm aware of is:

    
    
        * AT AN INTERSECTION
        * Dismount and walk the bike across the cross-walk, as a pedestrian.
    

IMO we've engineered intersections all wrong to begin with. There shouldn't
even be cross-walks there (they should be mid-block dedicated services, placed
where pedestrians WANT to cross and __VERY CLEARLY__ marked as existing; not
the dinky lights many cities go for (Seattle comes to mind)).

I don't know how to handle bikes and turns at an intersection, separation of
level would be far more ideal.

~~~
jandrese
This is what I was taught when I was a kid and it's really dumb.

1\. Bikes can't go on sidewalks, so you're already screwed one way or another.

2\. It's a huge hassle to get off and on at every intersection.

Of course there's a problem with the bike acting like a vehicle too, even if
it can keep up with traffic. Stoplight sensors don't register bikes so you end
up waiting for a car to show up so it can trigger the sensor and change the
light.

~~~
kazinator
> _Stoplight sensors don 't register bikes_

If you're a cyclist and stopped on a red, waiting for it to change, you're
seriously breaking ranks. :)

I mostly just bolt for it when the coast is clear.

There are places where I wait, but if it's keyed to a sensor coil, I'm
definitely not waiting for a vehicle to arrive.

------
oftenwrong
A city that is bike-friendly is good, but a city that is walking-friendly is
better. The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why
should that even be necessary in day-to-day life? It is easily possible to
build a neighbourhood where three generations of a family can live, work,
attend school, shop, and more within walking distance. Walking is the
simplest, most universal, and most natural mode of human transportation. All
it requires is a compact pattern of development.

Walking has low requirements for infrastructure. An uneven sidewalk is no
problem. An unpaved trail through the woods is fine for most people. I have
seen people posthole through blizzards in a walkable neighbourhood when nobody
could bicycle or drive a car.

For the individual, there is no mechanical equipment to maintain, no parking
spot to find; they just need some decent footwear.

More people can walk than can/will ride a bike. Many old people avoid biking
due to poor balance and strength, but can walk without issue. People that
cannot walk, such as people in wheelchairs, also benefit from the short
distances between destinations. The blind can walk, but cannot ride a bike.

~~~
ng12
> The bicycle is a great way to exceed "walking distance", but why should that
> even be necessary in day-to-day life?

Uh... because I want to visit friends? Go see a show? Explore? Take a job
that's not immediately next door? There are a million reasons why.

You know what cities were insanely walkable? The endless concrete enclaves of
Khrushchyovkas in the USSR. Walkable does not mean pleasant.

~~~
Johnny555
Biking isn't just a means of transportation, it's also a means of recreation -
on weekends I bike to get outside the city, tree lined country roads make for
a nice relaxing ride.

------
CloudYeller
In most cities, especially in America, there's a vicious cycle: 0) Cycling is
dangerous because there are too many vehicles on the road 1) There are so many
vehicles on the road because everyone knows it's dangerous to cycle 2) Go to 0

Breaking out of that loop requires building safe infrastructure for cycling,
like indestructable cement dividers between bike lanes and vehicle lanes or
no-vehicles-allowed-in-<large area of city> days

~~~
village-idiot
And creating the infrastructure is wildly unpopular, because typically it
involves either taking lanes away from cars, or slowing them down.

The initiative to reduce car-pedestrian collisions in LA has stopped because
the drivers put pressure on politicians to stop slowing traffic down.
Advocates are implying (and sometimes outright saying) that a few dozen deaths
a year are an acceptable price to pay for a shorter commute. That's how far we
are from solving this problem.

~~~
Spivak
> Advocates are implying (and sometimes outright saying) that a few dozen
> deaths a year are an acceptable price to pay for a shorter commute.

Why are you implying that this is faulty reasoning? I mean traffic deaths
would be virtually eliminated if the speed limit across the board was 15 mph.
But I know I would rather drive 65 because the risk is worth it -- and over a
large population that increase in risk turns into real tangible deaths. Same
with any risky behavior that we all engage in every day.

Let's do the back of the napkin calculations, take Columbus Ohio as the
example of an everycity. Columbus had in 2014 750,000 commuters and say your
average person makes $25/hr ($55k annually).

Say you were able to shave on average 1 minute off their commute.

($25/hr) * (1hr/60m) * (1m) * (2 trips/work day) * (261 work days/yr) *
(750,000 people/trip) = $163,125,000/yr

How does a few dozen lives compare to $163 million dollars of value? Is
slowing down traffic worth it?

~~~
unethical_ban
Theoretical/in-a-vacuum numbers like this always make me suspicious; it isn't
as if workers would have $163m less at the end of a year any more than
companies would have $163m less in accounts. That isn't how life works.

EVEN if it did - what if, as traffic were slowed and bike lanes and walking
lanes were put in, commuter life improved? Society appreciated the new living
space and they got healthier and spent less on fuel and cars? That new
economies were enabled by new, healthier, cheaper forms of transport?

~~~
village-idiot
Also, self consciously trading other people’s lives for a few minutes a day is
gross.

~~~
Spivak
Assuming we're still going with 1 minute a day saved which was an
intentionally low estimate we're still talking about 12 years worth of time
saved over the course of a year. Those minutes add up.

------
SketchySeaBeast
My wife has been biking to work for a couple of years now (I work in an
industrial zone - I don't trust the awareness of large truck drivers - so I
don't follow suit) and it's really revitalized her joy for the city. Her
commute has become something she loves. Because of this new found passion
we've both bought new bikes, have started passing our weekends by experiencing
the city from the view of a bicyclist, and while it can be frustrating finding
a place where you're bike can go (our city has been building bike lanes and
mixed use paths like crazy which help a great deal), it's been incredibly
enjoyable to bike to those places one normally wouldn't go due to the car
traffic and the pain of parking. Last weekend we put 100 km on over a days
travel just getting out and enjoying the city, we've also taken day trips out
to neighbouring municipalities to better explore.

The problem with all this of course is that it snowed here yesterday, and
that's just the first sign of a trend that's going to last until April.

~~~
Fricken
Oh, are you in Edmonton? I've been cycling 365 since the bad old days, and
it's great to see all the new cyclists out all seasons with the city's
commitment to keeping the paths clear of snow. Cycling in winter really isn't
much more hardcore than walking outside in winter, you just gotta dress for it
and slow down a little. Honestly I prefer cold to rain. I look at Vancouver's
cyclists and think 'you guys are committed!'

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Do you have Yeti/Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Harry and the Henderson's type bike? Or
skinny tires and determination? The commute is about 45 minutes in the summer,
so in the winter that's a long time to be cold.

~~~
CydeWeys
The only cold problems I have with long distance biking in cold weather are
caused by poor circulation in my hands and feet. I inevitably get too warm in
my core within 15 minutes of commencing biking and start unzipping my outer
layer. To keep my head warm, a balaclava and helmet suffices. It's the cold
hands that are the worst though; even in thick gloves they still get too cold.
I might have to start trying chemical warmers.

~~~
adrianN
There are gloves with electric heaters that you can charge via micro usb.

~~~
CydeWeys
Thanks, I should look into that. Hands getting cold is really the biggest
problem for me. Those same gloves work fine for warmth when I'm walking, but
it's the holding onto handlebars that restricts circulation to the point where
they get too cold.

Note that this is only really a problem below -5C or so; at "merely" freezing
I can manage.

------
chrissnell
I love cycling. I grew up in my father's bicycle store and nearly 50 years
later, he's still running the business and we've all worked in it at one time
or another. I ride bikes around the neighborhood with my kids every day.

With that said, the U.S. is not the Netherlands. Like most Americans, I depend
on my vehicle to get my kids to school and myself to the grocery store, which
are 4-5 miles away from my house. This country is not predominately compact or
dense. Cycling is not the de-facto best solution for every place. [1]

I wish we could stop bringing up Amsterdam with every conversation about bike
lanes. I'm all for building bike paths over green space but I don't support
the closing of busy traffic lanes to support a relatively small cycling
commuter population. It creates traffic snarls, more pollution, and wastes a
lot of people's time.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-vista-del-mar-
la...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-vista-del-mar-
lanes-20170726-story.html)

~~~
bagacrap
The purpose of building more infrastructure is to get more people on bikes,
not just to placate the ones already on bikes. Getting more people on bikes
will reduce traffic and pollution, not increase it.

------
shoguning
Nice article, but I fear North Americans just don't care by and large.

I've had some passing involvement with bike advocacy and have been a bike
commuter in Los Angeles for the past six years. My impression is that in the
early 2000s, there was a flowering of bike advocacy and infrastructure.

But now we've reached the point of resistance where other transport modes are
pushing back against any more consideration for bikes. In short, cycling is
now big enough to matter but not big enough to win.

I've often wondered if there was an approach other than the incrementalist,
go-along-get-along approach that most bike advocacy has taken. The electric
scooter startups have changed the transport landscape more quickly than
anything else I've seen.

~~~
dkhenry
I think cycling advocacy is alive and well, but the gains aren't as dramatic,
because now they are incremental improvements to what has already been won.
You are seeing miles and miles of shared bike lanes going up all across the
US. I think back in the 2000's even that infrastructure was a pie in the sky
dream. The jump to the next level of infrastructure hasn't taken off yet, but
you are starting to see some cities actually invest in segregated bike lanes
and bike highways. Since those changes require actual work and not just paint
on the street I think they will be slower and take a lot more time, but I see
them coming.

For instance, inside DC there was a number of dedicated bike lanes, and even a
good number of segregated bike lanes. I could get all through the core of the
city on a bike with relative safety, once you got out into the north Virginia
suburbs the bike infrastructure turned into mostly painted lines, with a few
notable trails and then by the time you hit the outer suburbs there was
nothing, but they were starting to put painted lines out as far as Reston, VA
( 25mi outside the city )

~~~
shoguning
Bike commuting growth has stopped/reversed in most places in the US in the
last couple of years: [https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/14/bike-commuting-
growth...](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/14/bike-commuting-growth-has-
leveled-off-but-not-everywhere-in-the-u-s/)

My worry is that there actually aren't enough people to use the bike infra to
justify continued/increasing costs--or at least makes it easy to argue
against. For example, there is a bike path next to a new light rail line in
West LA (expo line for the curious). I used it to commute for ~1 year and the
traffic I observed on it was very minimal considering the cost it must have
taken to put in and maintain (lights at night too).

Yeah there are a couple bike hotspots like Portland and Minneapolis (maybe
DC?) but outside that, the demand is minimal unfortunately.

~~~
dkhenry
DC was listed in that article as one of the places that didn't experience that
trend so my anecdotal evidence is most likely biased. However I would be
interested to see a similar survey done for 2017 and 2018 to see how electric
bikes and scooters have changed things. I still see mostly normal bikes on my
trips to work, but I have been seeing more and more e-bikes making the trip.

------
_corym
I’m a big proponent of bicycling, not only because of it’s health benefits but
also because of city-design. Recently there was a poll taken place in my city
which proposed reducing lanes to add more sidewalk and bike lanes to a few
streets for the added commute time of around 1-2 minutes. As both a driver and
a cyclist this is an acceptable trade off. Especially since the proposed
streets had previously seen a lot of vehicle-pedestrian accidents.

I think an important part of having a more bikable city is that it leads to a
more livable city. My bike ride to work takes me through the south-east part
of town which was previously segregated. These areas aren’t well-suited to
biking, but should be. If you are poor and your car breaks down you still have
to have a way to get to work. A car is a hell of a lot more expensive then a
bike or a bus.

------
5parks1
The Dutch cycling culture is worthy of praise, but people frequently forget or
ignore a key element of its success: Amsterdam is pancake flat. I live outside
of Denver, and my neighborhood is very cycling friendly, but my 8-year old
daughter can't make it up the hill on our street without walking.

~~~
adrianN
There are many cities that are as flat as Amsterdam and have a similar climate
but have a fraction of the cyclists.

~~~
5parks1
Right. I don't think the flatness and climate are the sole reason for its
success, but they're certainly a big contributor.

------
option
I wonder how a bike or even public transit is going to replace a car? 1) How
am I supposed ro go to the beach with two kids, stuff for picnic and
surfboards on a bike or even on a bus?!! 2) Public transit is all good, but
have you ever been in a PEOPLE jam during rush hour in a subway? Because I
had. And I will take SV traffic jam over it any day.

The truly bad things happen because of radicalism - it should not be bikes +
public transit vs cars. It should be a healthy, safe mix of both.

~~~
underhill
It doesn't have to totally replace cars. The ideal is to drop down from a 2
car household to a 1 car household and only use it for bigger errands and
trips, or you drop down to a 0 car household and use the money you save on car
payments, gas, and insurance to occasionally rent or carshare. The best is for
biking/walking/transit to replace daily trips to/from places like work,
dinner, downtown, the movies, the park, etc.

~~~
tjr225
Right...I'm somewhat of a "militant" cyclist. I think it has the capacity to
radically change how people get to and from work if we can shift people's
perspectives regarding using them, and build protected bike
lanes/highways/trails that reach all over and access public transportation.

I bike two miles to a train station downtown, and I take the train to a stop
in a nearby city, bike two miles to work. Sometimes I bike all the way home
(20 miles-ish) for a nice, convenient workout. I also get to work from home
two days a week. I read books on the train, I have made great friends on the
train. This is the best commute I have ever had, and I will miss it dearly
if/when my situation changes.

That said, I can never go completely car free. My wife and I like to go hiking
in the mountains or go to the coast with our dogs on the weekend. A car is the
only way to get there with our pets.

------
brootstrap
Much like Lebron, i recall the days of my youth when i was old enough to start
biking around town, 20/30 minutes or more away from home. Felt like a whole
world out there and many great memories doing simple stuff like biking with a
few friends to the nearest gas station or walgreens and pooling up a few bucks
to buy candy and a drink.

~~~
agumonkey
This fascinates me, the days of near digital-free days. From today it feels
empty, but I remember being quite happy (if not a lot happier then). We just
enjoyed things differently.

------
fipple
I’m simply never going to support any policy framework that would require me
to cycle in Chicago in the winter. I know it’s possible but I’m not doing it.

~~~
adrianmonk
And we can talk about how maybe you should because it's better for you, but
this brings up a larger issue: when it comes to how whole populations behave,
comfort is a factor that can't be totally ignored.

Basically it creates a trade-off. Some percentage of people will decide one
way and some the other way. This is going to affect adoption if you try to
build a city around this idea.

Incidentally, there are also issues in hotter climates. Here in Texas, it hit
100°F (37.7°C) more than 50 days this summer. And it doesn't get cold at
night. You can try to avoid the heat by biking to work early, but even at
6:00am, it might still be 80°F (26.6°C) and humid. So you _will_ arrive
sweaty, and if you don't do something about that, you will smell bad all day.
(The ideal is if your office provides showers.) You're also probably going to
end up taking two showers every day since you are sweaty when you get home.

~~~
mmirate
^ This is precisely why I think biking is crazy.

------
kcorbitt
> On a bike, you inherently have to make a physical connection with people. In
> a car, you're separated by glass and steel. But when you're out on a bike,
> you can actually see everybody, you can say hello to the people that you
> meet along the way.

This is an underrated aspect of commuting by bike. I ride 8 miles into San
Francisco every day, and more often then not I get a little bit of human
interaction somewhere along that route. It might be waving and saying "hi" to
a member of the homeless community on the side of the bike path under a
freeway interchange, or another bike commuter asking me about my electric
bike, or just a driver smiling and waving me through an intersection ahead of
them. These small human touches bring joy to me on a regular basis and are one
of several reasons why I love my commute.

~~~
agumonkey
I think that even without interactions, it makes people less ready to be
angry, which is a plus.

------
cdaringe
Smaller, cleaner, more efficient transport can help? Small to moderate amounts
of fitness will improve quality of life? Less cars will yield less fatalities?
I don't mean to poke fun at the article--I'm grateful for it--but this is all
obvious to a bike commuter from the rainy PNW.

It's time IMHO that extreme convenience comes at a high price. That is, car
access to every city block doesn't need to be the status quo. Make me walk a
few blocks if I drive to town, or make me use transit/etc if my car can only
make it up to major city boundaries. At the very least, put high incentives in
place to keep daily flows down.

There are fair solutions to be found that do not disproportionately different
working classes/income levels.

Keep biking.

------
nrook
37,461 people were killed by motor vehicles in the United States in 2016[1].
Whether it's more pleasurable to live in a city or a suburb is beside the
point; our only options are to encourage the use of cycling and mass transit,
or to condemn 37,461 more people to death every year from now on.

[1]
[https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/8124...](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812451)

------
Damogran6
Ctrl-F 'Snow' : No hits

I know about Denver and Minneapolis...they both have times where cycling is a
non-starter

~~~
noahc
I've cycled through winters with wind chill in the -15F range and up to a half
foot of snow on the ground. So, it is more than doable to do in both those
cities.

~~~
Damogran6
Everyone is not you. Can it be done? Sure. SHOULD it be done by a cross-
section of the populous?

~~~
noahc
I don't see why it couldn't be done by almost anyone given that they live
close enough to work. Anything less than 10 miles is doable assuming you have
a good route.

~~~
cr1895
>almost anyone

I think that you considerably overestimate the capabilities of “almost anyone”

~~~
bluGill
Will power is a capability most people are lacking in, so I guess you are
right. Most people have the physical ability, though few realize it.

------
cgoecknerwald
In Pasadena, we just spent a ton of money trying out the Metro bike-sharing
program [1]. Unfortunately, it turns out the key to making a biking culture is
not just putting down a ton of rentable bikes. [2]

I'd love to see safer bike highways, but the city doesn't seem able to do more
than mark the pavement with sharrows. I understand that Pasadena's urban
planning model frequently pits cars and bikes against each other - but, I
wonder if we could cut into some of the significant lawn space on each side of
the street in order to make bike lanes?

[1] [https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2018/07/09/pasadena-to-
pull...](https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2018/07/09/pasadena-to-pull-out-of-
metro-bike-share-one-year-after-launch/)

[2] It turns out people in the affluent parts of Pasadena aren't driving
because they can't afford a bike.

------
kennyadam
Give me bicycle lanes and I'll cycle to work every day! Force me to share a
lane with multi-ton metal beasts travelling much faster than me and I'll just
get the bus thanks.

~~~
u801e
> Force me to share a lane with multi-ton metal beasts travelling much faster
> than me

That's the problem with the keep as far right as practical law that only
applies to bicyclists. For other slow vehicles, it means that they use the
rightmost lane available for traffic. For bicyclists, it means that they need
to share the lane side-by-side with a car in a lane that's only wide enough
for the car by itself or two bicyclists riding abreast.

If the bicycle specific keep as far right as practicable law was repealed such
that the cyclist could just use the entire width of the lane they're in, then
people riding a bicycle in traffic wouldn't have the lane sharing problem you
describe.

------
maerF0x0
In San Francisco one major barrier to cycling is theft. You basically cannot
leave a bike for > 1hr. This additional burden means many who would bike (such
as myself) no longer consider it an option. I previously biked upto 45minutes
each way for work.

> A 2013 report by the city’s legislative analyst estimated that 4,085 bikes
> worth $4.6 million were stolen in 2012, with the downtown and South of
> Market neighborhoods the hardest hit.

[https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/DIY-crime-
fighters...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/DIY-crime-fighters-try-
to-roll-back-bike-theft-12502750.php)

~~~
Faaak
Buy a sturdy lock ?

~~~
kazinator
Cue familiar joke about all bicycles being fifty pounds, if we factor in the
lock needed to protect them: a 5 pound bike needs a 45 pound lock, a 20 pound
bike needs a 30 pound lock, and a fifty pound bike needs no lock at all.

Some get around this by buying multiple locks and keeping them at commuting
destinations.

------
swingline-747
Davis, CA seems like a bikers' paradise until one visits the Netherlands.
"Bike highways" with separation and clearly-marked routes. (Insert holy
enlightment sound fx.)

------
unstatusthequo
Also the electric scooters sure help avoid Uber and Lyft bloat in cities, and
getting more resistance than they should, IMHO. Hey SF, might want to consider
that. The scooters weren't that messy compared to getting down 2nd street at
9am on any weekday.

Personally I try to OneWheel since I can ride it and pick it up with me. Don't
have to worry about it being jacked by the SF petty crime syndicate.

------
robbrown451
I think a big issue is how quickly things are changing in terms of what
vehicles are used. There is an explosion in commuter vehicles now, both of the
rentable and privately owned variety. I think the rentable ones are probably
experiencing the most rapid change.

Motorized scooters, semi-motorized bikes (the ones that "flatten hills"),
"hoverboards," motorized skateboards along with those one-wheeled self-
balancing things that I want so badly. :) Haven't seen motorized roller skates
in the real world but I'm betting on them arriving soon.

And then there are the self driving cabs that we know are coming soon.
Combined with the rentable scooters and bikes, these can allow mixing it up in
interesting and practical ways.

It seems like thinking of cars, bikes and pedestrians as 3 distinct categories
is not going to work for long. Maybe a bit fanciful, but I could almost
imagine rainbow stripes drawn on the roads, with red being for cars, purple
being for pedestrians, and if you're using a motorized skateboard or a bike,
you'd tend to ride in the greenish area.

------
cyphunk
Effect and side effect seem mixed up here. What is great about Amsterdam isn't
the bikes, it's the lack of cars. Yes adding infrastructure for bikes takes
space away from cars so the results appear one in the same. But perhaps
focusing instead primarily on car reduction we'd find better ways to plot more
livable cities.

------
mbritton72
Cities are so varied, and have such complex contextual traffic flow
variations, that comparing two is an unhelpful oversimplification. What works
for the Netherlands will not work for Boston. What works for Osaka will not
work for Bangalore.

~~~
s73v3r_
I think that's an incredibly defeatist attitude to take, and the perfect
excuse to not improve anything or try to learn from what others have done.

------
zoul
I’d love more bikes in our town, but it’s not very flat. Is there some data on
how much flat does the town have to be to get around on a bike? (I guess
electric bikes change that equation a bit, but they’re still quite expensive.)

~~~
modzu
hopefully carbon fiber continues to get cheaper, because having a lighter bike
really does make a difference on climbs. that said, anybody can go up a hill
in a low enough gear(!), but psychologically it can still feel like a lot of
work to pedal so much and go up so slowly. so part of it is learning how to
ride. for that reason i agree hills are a (surmountable) barrier to entry and
probably hillier places have less cycling. everyone quotes Amsterdam as a
great model, but its flat geography is easily suited for cycling -- a better
model would be a place that has challenging geography AND still succeeds with
great infrastructure. i do think things are moving in the right direction
though, people are starting to wake up and realize that there are countless
personal and social benefits to cycling

~~~
nradov
Carbon fiber only makes a marginal difference in total weight. Especially when
you factor in all the extra stuff that bike commuters frequently carry
(laptop, lunch, lights, lock, etc).

~~~
modzu
it is true the difference in total weight is quite marginal (maybe 1%?) but
that doesn't mean the impact is equal to 1%.

there is a perceptual quality that is often neglected when calculating the
differences purely in terms of physical forces.

we agree a lighter bike will only be marginally faster in terms of speed on
the ground but to say a rider doesn't notice a 1% difference in their speed
requires an appeal to perception not to physics. those few seconds of a
commute count.

i think that's why big granny gears that could roll a tank up a hill still
don't solve the problem -- they just feel too slow

~~~
modzu
another way to think about it is this --

you could say to someone, "don't complain about your bike -- just lose 10 lbs
and you'll get to your destination faster than you would by changing your
bike".

yeah ok, but like losing weight is easy (actually it is if you bike a lot,
hehe).

but if you put that person on a walmart beater and compare their commute with
a carbon bike, they sure as hell will report a difference, even if the clock
doesn't.

the point is that we are concerned with getting people on bikes and moving
their bodies, not about time trials (which ironically is where fast bikes are
marketed, because the premise is that it doesn't matter for everyone else.
maybe it does!)

does it matter enough to spend 10k on a carbon bike today? well that depends
on your finances. but when they are cost competitive? yes, please.

~~~
nradov
Walmart bikes are miserable to ride because of the horrible groupsets, not the
frame material. Carbon fiber bikes are available now for much less than $10K,
but if you're on a tight budget it's usually better to pick a bike with a
cheaper metal frame so that you can get a more expensive groupset.

------
mitchtbaum
Velomobiles like Organic Transit's ELF and Better Bike's PEBL have most of the
benefits of a bicycle and a car.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velomobile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velomobile)

[https://organictransit.com/](https://organictransit.com/)

[http://www.better.bike/](http://www.better.bike/)

------
niftich
Once you delve into the article, it becomes clear that it's the changes in the
town's infrastructure and urban form that have to be done to enable safe and
worry-free cycling that result in a more livable space, where mobility goes up
within the town. Cycling isn't the cause; rather, it's an effect of an urban
form that treats them as valid form of transport, and doesn't force them to
gladiate among heavy cars that go five times faster, or confine them to narrow
strips where unprotected pedestrians walk five times slower.

The 'shared space' concept, where traffic-calmed cars are in close proximity
to bikes and pedestrians, relies both on traffic devices, the emergent slow
speed of traffic to act as a barrier to overtaking, and on the psychological
inhibition of drivers to not flaunt the idea and drive like madmen anyway. It
also trades physical separation of pedestrians for an emergent one, which is a
raw deal for some disabled people (e.g. those with impaired sight, hearing, or
mobility), or those with small children. This is a tradeoff that some
communities don't find acceptable.

But for the majority of people for whom it works, mingling car traffic, bike
traffic, and pedestrian traffic in close proximity has the advantage of
decreasing the utility of high speeds that could otherwise be attained by cars
and increasing the utility of lower speeds and non-motorized forms of
transport. This effect encourages the town's urban form to be compact and
provide employment and services close to residences or transit nodes (like
train stations), which leads to the cityscape familiar from the Netherlands.

Areas that were developed with the assumption that the sole choice of
transportation will be the automobile face many barriers to retrofitting other
modes of transport as a realistic choice. This is because density is a key
metric: a car covers 20 times the distance in the same amount of time as
walking. If there is no employment or services within a walkable radius, any
sidewalks or bike lanes are largely for recreation, and don't offer a
meaningful everyday alternative to driving. This is why dense areas like CBD
Vancouver can mull over these changes, but doing the same in Surrey is a lost
cause. In the US, where urban employment is a mix between those living there
and those commuting by car from far away, the streets of cities are still
dominated by cars that are trying to cover distance in little time. Market
Street in San Francisco is chock-full of transit and pedestrians and
stoplights, which prevent it from being an urban highway, but other streets in
SF are far too rapid to safely host pedestrians or bikes, even though the city
around it was clearly built at a time when slower transport was the norm.

------
jxub
I have also to recommend longboarding here. Way funnier and easier to carry
with, and commute time is pretty much the same in the city.

------
soroso
I am under the impression that the author never really biked in Amsterdam
5:30pm from center to south in a week day.

------
cgoecknerwald
On a related note, "Making Space for Cycling" has compiled an excellent guide
on bike-friendly urban development/renewal. [1]

[1]
[http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org](http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org)

------
squozzer
I live in a regular house in the burbs. Not a spring chicken age-wise. Here's
what it would take to get me into denser housing -

1) Privacy - sharing a wall or floor should NOT give my neighbors privy to my
arguments, love-making, or guitar playing.

2) Personal transportation != pedal-pushing. I gave that up when I turned 16.
I'll take a scooter.

3) Reliable public transport for long-distance travel. Meaning well-
maintained, to useful destinations, and not subject to wage strikes (probably
meaning automated.)

------
Zigurd
There are some technology fixes available: Autonomous braking that recognizes
cyclists should be mandatory, and retrofitted to trucks traveling on city
streets. Bikes could also be fitted with cameras that could be used to issue
traffic citations for passing too close.

------
randyrand
Not in any city with a real winter (-10F to 20F)

I already loath going into my ice cold car and waiting for the heat.

~~~
modzu
the exercise actually warms you up quite a lot! you really just need
protection from the wind, for your hands in particular. a quality set of mitts
or pogies for extreme cold and ur good to go :)

------
village-idiot
Anyone who's believed that the key to sustainable futures is simply swapping
out ICE for electric motors simply is being wishful at best, willfully
difficult at worse.

The biggest problem I have with electric cars is that they continue to
encourage low density low efficiency suburbs with hours long commutes into the
high density cities. This is economically unsustainable, roads are expensive,
and will only get worse as EVs pay no gas tax and weigh more than their ICE
cousins. Considering that America's road system is in bad need of repair and
we don't have the will or funds to fix it, doubling down on them is not a wise
call.

Also, it's not like producing an EV is a carbon neutral act.

~~~
chrissnell
The ship sailed on low-density suburbs 60 years ago. We're past the point of
return on those. Outside of San Francisco, Manhattan, and downtown Chicago,
most people live in the 'burbs and that's not changing. We will be living with
this housing stock for decades--if not centuries--to come. It's best to
engineer around that reality, not to daydream of an Amsterdam-like utopia that
will never happen for 99% of this country.

~~~
village-idiot
You are far too certain. 70 years ago a prognosticator wouldn't be considered
insane to say "the ship sailed on cities 50 years ago, Americans live in
downtown and that's not changing". These things do change, often quite
quickly.

Personally, I think the Boomers are in for a big shock when they try to sell
their homes for a "fair" price, and discover that Millennials neither want nor
can afford large suburban homes. Once that happens the market (and politics
probably) are going to do some really freaky things.

~~~
brightball
> Millennials neither want nor can afford large suburban homes

I see this often. Very few people want large homes when they are either single
or don't have kids.

As soon as you do have kids and they start to grow to an age where they want
to play outside, having space to run, play sports, be away from traffic, have
their own room, etc gets a lot higher on your priority list.

You can also get a suburban home without it being "large" and still get a lot
of space to go with it. People used to get "starter homes" and then
periodically trade up if/when their incomes increased or they had some equity
in the home.

It seems like the biggest barrier to this today is that people want to go
straight to the HGTV home. I can't tell you how many people I've known who,
straight out of school, overextend to the most expensive house they can
afford.

If you want more house, for your money...that usually means buying farther
away from density.

~~~
notauser
Yes, but fewer people are having children, which reduces the demand for
suburban living.

The suburbs also have less attraction for me as a parent. In the old days you
could let your kids roam a suburb freely - now you can't. So why not live in a
city? You have the same restrictions, but also a lot more distractions such as
free museums.

~~~
clavalle
Why can't you let your kids roam in a suburb?

~~~
Steltek
I suppose my kids could technically "roam" but they won't have anywhere to go
that's interesting. Most kids can't even walk or bike to school in the
suburbs.

~~~
brightball
Interesting is also very different for a kid. Kids get interested in bugs, the
woods, forts, climbing on trees.

~~~
vkou
In the suburbs I've lived in, there are no forts, woods, or trees that you can
climb, without being told off by whomever owns the property the tree is on.

------
HIPisTheAnswer
Emitting toxic gases into the atmosphere is a crime against others. Therefore,
using (most) internal combustion engines is a crime. We have a lot of
criminals today.

------
dhnsmakala
When you cycle, you are putting a great deal of trust into each and every car
that drives by you.

I'll pass.

~~~
hhmc
The same argument applies to driving any vehicle. e.g. When you're driving a
car and you cross a junction/intersection - you're trusting the stopped
drivers to not run a red.

~~~
dhnsmakala
No, not the same level of trust. Fender bender vs crippled.

~~~
adrianN
You never use highways either?

------
interfixus
So nice to see the sensible and pragmatic Dutch going without the silly,
soulgutting bicycle helmets. Not to mention the usual orgy of blinkenlights
and assorted fluorescent garments.

~~~
KozmoNau7
I'm curious, why do you consider helmets to be "silly" and "soulgutting"?

The blinking lights are essential in order to be seen in twilight and dark
conditions. Hi-viz also aids in this.

~~~
interfixus
First, and quite anecdotally, I have never once in some fifty-odd years of
cycling been even remotely close to a situation of "yeah, I could really have
done with a helmet there". _Fifty-odd_ of course does indicate that I'm of a
generation less accustomed to safety symbolism in all aspects of life, I'll
grant you that. Second, I enjoy my bike and use it more or less daily. I
wouldn't - neither use nor enjoy - if I were forced into donning some strange
kind of hard hat that I didn't wish to don. I like my choices to be my own.
The helmet still _is_ a choice where I live, but I clearly see that changing
within not too many years. And anyone I see wearing a helmet is casting a vote
in that direction. They are - and should be, of course - free to do so, but
please don't preach the other way at me. Third: I have worked as a
professional driver of both trucks and buses. My very clear experience is that
the most dangerous cyclists are often among the ones decked out in full safety
regalia. It's as if some people feel that having paid their dues and performed
the ritual, they are thereby exempt from risk. Strange phenomenon, but all too
real.

Yes, I also detest airbags. But wear my seatbelt religiously.

~~~
KozmoNau7
In ~25 years of cycling, I've been in two situations where a helmet most
likely saved me from severe concussion and probably a fractured skull. Neither
accident was solely my fault. A bicycle helmet is not "safety symbolism", it
has verifiable benefits in reducing the severity of head injuries. Your
phrasing and choice of words seem to suggest that people should just "harden
up" and "things were better in the old days", which is a highly problematic
position to take, one which smacks of rose-tinted glasses.

By your reasoning, motorcycle helmets and protective clothing is also
pointless. After all, I've had no accidents in ~10 years of motorcycling, so
the safety gear must be completely pointless? Nevertheless, I would never get
on a motorcycle without proper gear, because I've seen the damage that can
happen. I've also seen the head trauma that can happen in a bicycle crash, so
I wear a helmet.

I'm not sure why you think people wearing helmets are casting votes for
mandatory helmet laws. I'm certainly not a proponent of such laws, but I am
very much a proponent of wearing a helmet, in order to reduce the severity of
injuries. I am certain the vast majority of helmet wearers agree with me, we
put on the helmet by choice, not because we want to force others to do the
same.

The most dangerous cyclists are the ones constantly on their phones and/or
with loud music in their ears. Same as car/truck drivers. The hardcore lycra-
clad cyclists go rather fast, but they're also highly aware of their
surroundings. Your experience from the limited visibility of a truck driver's
seat is leading you to false conclusions.

------
jbob2000
I can't afford a condo in the big cities, I'm not sure how riding a bike will
change that? In fact it will probably make it worse as people move to the
cities to ride their bikes, which will make real estate there even more
expensive.

Low density and low efficiency means low cost. Efficiency doesn't maintain
itself.

~~~
ajmurmann
I don't think it has to be like that. We subsidize the suburbs by spreading
the cost of roads across everyone. It's a hidden cost that makes living in the
suburbs much cheaper than it actually is to society. At the same time we
increase cost in high density areas with zoning regulations.

~~~
adrianN
At least here in Germany you also get tax breaks for long commutes. Something
like 30 cents per kilometer per day iirc. We also subsidize parking spots in
cities. Often they are free and if they aren't they are much cheaper than the
space they consume.

