
In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009) - organicgrant
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?_r=2&em
======
Luc
I think having the right legal framework helps a lot to get a good bicycle
culture.

Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will
always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at
fault.

Most streets where I live (in the center of Antwerp) are one-way for cars, but
two-way for bicycles. And cars are limited to 30 km/h.

My wife goes to work on her bicycle and gets paid for it (per km) by her
employer, enough to buy a new bike every year.

At busy crossings with stop lights, bicycles get a designated space in front
of the cars. That way when the light turns green the bicyclists can get going
first, safely turn etc.

I just saw 2 policemen on bicycles pass in front of my window...

Measures like these help make bicycling something accepted by society, not
something only crazy lycra-clad hipsters do.

~~~
run4yourlives
_Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will
always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at
fault._

Sorry, but doesn't anyone have an issue with this? Why is there an expectation
that cyclists cannot possibly be held responsible for their actions?

By this logic, if my mini hits a bus, I shouldn't be responsible, even if I
ran a red light.

I tend to agree with most of the other points, but this one is ridiculous.

~~~
roc
I'm not seeing a huge difference between that and the state of vehicle laws in
my home state (Michigan).

Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another
vehicle does, you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit'
if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency.

I have a friend who actually did get a ticket for hitting a car that ran a red
light. Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law,
but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.

~~~
detst
> Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another
> vehicle does [...]

That's not true. Recently, I was a passenger in a car that stopped very
quickly and made a turn into a restaurant. We were hit from behind and the
driver of our car received a ticket because it was an erratic, unsafe
maneuver.

> you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your
> lane needs to be vacated in an emergency

It's possible to do this and still hit the car in front of you. I hit someone
in front of me trying to make an illegal U-turn. I tried to avoid it but still
hit them. They received a ticket.

> Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but
> 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.

I don't know the specifics but your friend probably got the ticket because it
was determined by the cop after hearing both sides of the story that it was
reasonable for him to see the other car coming. He may have been determined at
fault in the context traffic laws but not in terms of who pays for it because
Michigan is a no-fault insurance state.

I don't see how this is anything like Michigan.

------
bitboxer
I lived in Münster, Germany for a few years. Münster is THE bike town in
germany. Statistically every citizen has 1.8 bikes. And i begann to love
biking there. A lot is done in that city to make biking the #1 way of
transportation. Now I am living in Cologne, Germany and see the difference. I
miss the good bike lanes but I kept biking in cologne.

Nothing is better for your head than biking a few miles home after a hard day
of work.

~~~
train_robber
Yes absolutely. I used to live in a suburb of Stuttgart, and that was around
the first time I really tried biking. It was definitely worth it, the well
maintained bike lanes, the free burning of the fat, lovely relaxing scenery
and off course a few extra bucks saved per day. Biking lanes, is in my book a
top investment a city can make, wonder why not many keep it high on their
priorities.

~~~
organicgrant
Boulder, CO in USA has done a LOT for putting in bike lanes. Very bike-
friendly city. Up there with Portland, OR and Austin, TX

~~~
toumhi
I've lived for two years in Austin, now in Amsterdam (the one in Europe).
Amsterdam (and actually, most of Europe) is infinitely better for biking than
Austin. Actually I almost never rode my bike in Austin. Always cars passing at
high speed right next to you. I think USA cities have still a lot more to do
to be real bike-friendly.

~~~
organicgrant
Hipsters in Austin ride their fixies off car bumpers. Having a death wish is
trendy these days. Greenbelt is also BA. (badass) I admire them for staying
fit on their bikes. Helps to counteract their main foods of Lone Star beer and
clove cigs

~~~
jacquesm
Fixies (fixed gear bicycles) are illegal in traffic in almost all places and
are intended for track use only.

~~~
tiki12revolt
I'm not exactly sure that is true. If they have a brake mount and at least one
brake, they are street legal. Do you have a source for your assertion?

~~~
jacquesm
<http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090630-20291.html>

[http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-
fi...](http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/)

Indeed, mounting at least one brake seems to satisfy that particular judge.

[http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/10251/Riding_Cool_fi...](http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/10251/Riding_Cool_fixedgear_bikes_without_brakes)

So, yes, again, you can mount 'a brake' and be legal in some places but not
everywhere, the whole thrill here seems to come from not having all that
'stuff' on the bike.

If you've ever done any serious bicycling then you realise that the fixed
wheel bike has no other place than the track.

In traffic you'd have to be an artist to safely ride one and the problem with
them being in traffic is not just that you'd have to be an artist but also
that circumstances can determine what is safe and what is not.

Brakes are used for normal reduction in speed, in such cases a fixed gear will
do, after all, all you're doing is removing energy from the 'system' (bike +
rider) in the same way you put it in, through your leg muscles.

But brakes have a second function as well, which is to react to traffic
conditions, things outside of your control. And you may find that you need to
remove energy from the 'system' a lot quicker than you originally put it in.

For a bike with a fixed gear (one without a freewheel) this will mandate you
to continue to make pedalling motions while you are using that other brake. If
the reason why you need to brake stops you from doing that you are now in deep
trouble because you will find two nice sized hammers roughly where your pedals
used to be that are pounding the crap out of your legs, which can easily cause
you to completely lose control of your bike. If you happen to be unbalanced a
pedal can strike the road with incredible force and if your foot happens to be
between the pedal and the road that's really bad.

So, where-ever the legislation hasn't caught up yet with fixed gear bikes
being outlawed because of the 'trend' will sooner or later do so because
they're simply not as safe as bikes that have freewheels.

It's a pity for the few people that started this trend and that know their
stuff and are only endangering themselves, but now that the masses are
flooding in and are copying the couriers legislation seems to be the answer
taken by the authorities.

In the Netherlands, bicycle country #2 after China I believe they've been
illegal since 1950 or so.

~~~
starkfist
I've ridden a fixed gear bike exclusively for the past 15 years. (alright,
that's not exactly true... I have a dutch bike for groceries and recently
bought a Brompton for traveling) It was built for me by the patron saint of
internet cyclists, Sheldon Brown (RIP).

<http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html>

You just need a front brake to dump speed, and ride a gearing suitable for
your environment. For instance, in NYC this is about 42/16.

~~~
jacquesm
Going fast and having just a front brake can easily cause you to do a forward
flip. 80% of your stopping power is in the front brake, but if you're going
very fast engaging the front brake for an emergency stop can make a bad
situation worse.

That's a pretty sad story there, I read a bit on his site and he seems to have
been a very nice and knowledgeable guy. I'm pretty sure he would have smiled
at the way you characterised him, there are worse things that people could say
about you after you die.

For an analogue, you can drive in traffic with a car and never touch the
brakes, if you're a really good driver and you plan ahead. So, in theory you
could remove your brakes and still be safe.

So, now for the obligatory 'think of the children' argument, but it could just
as easy be the think of other people in traffic that do unexpected stuff or
the mistakes that you yourself might make (nobody is infallible):

Until the day that that toddler walks out in front of you. And then, whether
you're in a car or on a bike doing a good clip you're going to be very happy
that you have all the stopping power that you could possibly want.

Now a clever counter argument would be that a freewheel cycle with discs on
front and rear wheels would offer _less_ stopping power than a fixed gear
cycle similarly equipped.

As for bike styles, I have a recumbent (a Zephyr) for fast touring on bike
trails but I'd never ever take it in to traffic with vehicles around me (too
low), also it has a very large bell on it (and I don't care if people think
it's gay), because people are simply not used to bikes doing that sort of
speed.

~~~
lutorm
I've never bought the front brake argument. As a bicyclist, motorcyclist, and
physicist, I know that 100% of your stopping power is on the front brake,
exactly because (as you say) the front brake can make you do a forward flip.
This means that all your weight is on the front wheel, and the only thing you
can do with your rear brake is make the rear wheel lose traction, and _that_
will indeed make a bad situation worse.

The answer is to become proficient in the use of your front brake and commit
the proper brake pressure to muscle memory so that you do not grab at it and
skip the front wheel before weight has shifted, or do a "stoppie". _Practice
maximum braking from speed, it could save your life!_

There is one counter-argument to this: In situations with poor traction (on
snow, ice, sand, etc.) you don't have enough traction to shift all your weight
to the front. In those cases, the optimal case is judicious use of both
brakes. But if you bike on such surfaces, you have much more to learn
anyway...

Second lesson: People rely too much on brakes. In most high-speed situations,
swerving is a better action. (Due to the way braking distance vs turning
distance scales with speed.) _Practice change direction quickly to avoid
obstacles in your path!_

Sorry for the long post, but it was fresh in my mind: My wife got side swiped
by a car turning right yesterday. She's fine, but we had a long discussion
about bicycle proficiency and the futility of being "dead right".

~~~
jacquesm
I went ass-over-teakettle once on a tenspeed in Amsterdam traffic, I was very
much in a hurry (trying to catch the train to work) and rode faster than the
car traffic, a guy turned right into my 'lane' and I hit the front brake in a
reflex. Too hard, I flipped right over and bounced off the pavement after
doing a salto. Bad scrapes everywhere, fortunately nothing more serious than
that (I used to be made of elastic, if I tried that today I'd be dead). I
never realised that you could do that until it happened.

I was 'right' too, but since swerving wasn't an option and my front brake
worked a bit better than expected I wonder if there would have been a better
way to handle this (sliding sideways for instance). Accidents lurk in
remarkably small corners. My nightmare scenario for a fixed gear cycle would
be downhill at a good speed with a sudden obstruction. That would be the
'perfect storm'.

Glad to hear your wife is fine, bicyclists are on the bad side of any close
encounters of the third kind with other traffic.

------
harscoat
21st Century, that anybody can argue against (in this thread or elsewhere)
that going by bike to work is way better, healthier, more humanly fulfilling,
than by car leaves me speechless. Vote for mayors pro bike roads or ask for
showers at work, there is always a solution.

~~~
whatusername
Some of us live in cities where it rains pretty frequently. Today would be
lovely on a bike. Yesterday in the rain - not so much.

~~~
unwind
In Sweden (average 164 days/year with rain), there's a saying typically used
by parents when their kids complain about the weather.

It goes, translated very verbatim: "there is no bad weather, only bad
clothes". It's far snappier in Swedish where it rhymes, but I guess the point
comes across, still.

Update: after reading a few more comments, I guess this doesn't address the
other end of the spectrum, that it can be too warm/humid to go by bike. Score
one for cultural bias.

~~~
brazzy
I've always thought that it was a common saying in Britain, notorious for its
bad weather. IIRC the world's rainiest place is some island off the coast of
Scotland.

~~~
arethuza
No - not even close for total amount of precipitation.

However, the Scottish Highlands do excel in miserable drizzle that falls
continuously for days, weeks and probably months ("dreich").

And yes, I am Scottish and have spent a lot of time outdoors!

~~~
brazzy
By "rainiest" I did mean "highest number of rainy days" rather than "highest
amount of precipitation".

~~~
arethuza
Is there an "official" name for that statistic?

~~~
henrikschroder
"misery"

------
brc
I get the point - and I support the development of car-free suburbs for people
who want them. Streets safe for children, people saying hello instead of
staring from behind closed windows, etc. Less local pollution, more friendly
streets, less accidents : all pluses.

I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I
am some sort of evil person for having one.

Further, not everywhere is suitable. Someone riding around cities near me have
got high humidity and steep hills to deal with : you don't ride a bike without
some serious fitness. Those cruisy bikes you see in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and
Cambridge are of no use.

What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no
laws saying you should do it. Entirely personal choice all round.

For my part I have a large car but work from home, so it gets driven maybe
once per fortnight. There's no way I would part with it : it's my ticket to
freedom when I do choose to get out and about. And I enjoy it thoroughly when
I do.

~~~
pchristensen
"I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that
I am some sort of evil person for having one."

In the US, it's basically illegal to build any kind of development that
doesn't require a car or two. Some exceptions, like Kentlands in MD, or
Stapleton in Denver, require developers to prepare plans in advance, lobby for
variances to zoning and parking requirements. It's also harder to get
financing for non-standard projects. All this means that unless you're
building a standard subdivision, an office park, or a strip mall, you're at a
competitive disadvantage and incur higher costs and risks.

Let there be no illusion that the "market" provided the built environment we
have.

~~~
anamax
> It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects.

That's the market speaking.

~~~
organicgrant
I spent ten years as a real estate broker and developer. The market wants
improvement to zoning codes to reflect current (post 1955) sensibilities.
Unfortuneately archaic zoning codes and change-fearing planning and zoning
commissions prevent most progressive projects from ever getting off the
ground.

There are always exceptions to the rule in some localities...but as a
nation... the U.S. is being held back by laws written 50 years ago. Mandatory
setbacks (20 ft between buildings, mandatory front and rear yards, minimum
number of parking spaces...all practices counterintuitive to effective land
use.

~~~
anamax
> Mandatory setbacks (20 ft between buildings, mandatory front and rear yards,
> minimum number of parking spaces...all practices counterintuitive to
> effective land use.

It depends on your definition of "effective". Folks pay more for houses with
20 ft set backs than they're willing to pay for 10 ft set backs. Folks pay
more for single-family detached than they're willing to pay for townhouses.
And so on.

------
organicgrant
Ever notice that in much of Europe bikes get used for _work_ as well as
general transportation/play?

In EU: postman, grocery getting/delivery, common commute vehicle, etc etc

In USA: NYC bike couriers.

~~~
ugh
I have met quite a few Americans who think of biking as a sport first and as a
means of transport second which is exactly opposite to how I perceive biking
(I’m from Germany). That might have something to do with city planning (many
places where you would want to go are actually realistically reachable by
bike), it might (and I’m quite fond of that hypothesis) also have something to
do with driving age. 16 in the USA, 18 in Germany.

~~~
roc
It's considered sport first, because transportation by bike is _usually_
impractical in the US. (Outside of maybe a half-dozen cities and some one-off
"I work a mile from home" anecdotes, it's almost entirely impractical)

The average commute (one-way) is about 25km. There will be no bike lanes. The
drivers on the road will generally have no clue how they should deal with you,
if they even notice you. The sidewalks (where US bikers sometimes find refuge,
as no-one _walks_ in America either) are sporadic, at best. Your destination
probably won't have so much as a simple bike rack, let alone a shower.

Because of this, when adults in America think of biking, they (generally)
think of putting their bikes on the car and driving to a place that was
designed to have decent/sane space for biking. (usually parks)

Children can effectively bike around subdivisions, mostly because they have
nowhere to go aside from their friends houses and the corner store.

So biking is seen by adults as either being sport, or --frankly-- a whimsical
sort of transport. Because to bike in most the US you have to be, in some
sense, not serious about trying to get anywhere.

------
bobbyflanders
In other words, I should come into work completely drenched in sweat? In many
parts of the USA, it is very humid and temperatures can easily reach 90 and
above. How do you expect people to bike in such conditions? In addition, many
people commute long distances to work, which may take up to an hour just by
car.

Bikes are great, but not very practical.

~~~
masklinn
> In other words, I should come into work completely drenched in sweat?

With enough training (build up the habit) and if you don't exert yourself too
much (it's not like you have to go 20mph all the way), you shouldn't sweat too
much. Add in a pair of showers on work site and you're golden.

> In addition, many people commute long distances to work, which may take up
> to an hour just by car.

That's an issue of brain-dead urban planning and stupid personal housing
considerations, not of bikes.

> Bikes are great, but not very practical.

The article, and all of Amsterdam or Münster, already prove you wrong. Why do
you make declamations which are already disproven before they even get out
your mouth?

~~~
organicgrant
If you choose to live 50+ miles from work and commute everyday...you're making
a compromise for a reason (spouse, slow real estate market, etc). But
likely...you're doing it wrong. I am seeing an emergence of physically aware
programmers who realize sitting in a chair all day isn't an healthy
environment. Biking to and from work gives some great exercise and time to
clear your head.

pg gets ideas in the shower. I get them cruising on the bike. Same effect.

~~~
organicgrant
OMG, there's another trending topic right now "Exercise Boosts Your Brain -
Here's How" <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1580236>

I believe that post will also feed hungry trolls

------
khandelwal
One of the great things about riding your bike into downtown (or into town) is
that parking for bikes is easier to find and closer to your destination than
that for cars. For years, the only way I'd go to the Alamo Drafthouse in
downtown Austin was by bike.

------
SpacemanSpiff
Reminds me of this lovely movie:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDqUKj1GwJY&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDqUKj1GwJY&feature=related)

Makes me miss living in Berlin!

------
forinti
I guess you have to have lived through a car phase to discover that you can do
without and be better off.

Here in Brazil people are currently enamoured by their new wealth and I see
cars getting bigger and bigger.

------
organicgrant
I like this article, because it's really about noncomformity. Hackers aren't
afraid of social and cultural norms. To be truly excellent, you can't follow
the crowd.

98% of zoning laws in the US are about maintaining the status quo. The status
quo is sort of meh.

Hackers, bikers, entrepreneurs, and other daring souls mix it up. And the
world is a better place for it.

Mix it up.

------
pragmatic
Isn't this a simple function of population density? Can we just say that and
be done with this stupid argument?

If the US had the population density of Japan or parts of Europe, yes we could
all bike and have super fast broadband. That's not the case.

~~~
roc
The US doesn't have the population density of Japan or Europe _because_ of our
zoning laws. The barriers to even _try_ these kinds of developments in the US
are _massive_. The barriers to build yet-another cul-de-sac subdivision of
mcmansions that are proven to increase congestion, travel-time, stress,
infrastructure cost, individual waste and municipal waste are non-existent.

Zoning laws dictate density. We have sprawl because our laws engineered it and
we were lucky enough to have the wealth and space to allow such frivolous
waste to continue for so long.

------
nradov
My office building is finally going to install showers. :-) But someone stole
my bike. :-(

------
ritarius
check out my tangentially related project: <http://abogo.cnt.org/> tells you
how much the average household in your neighborhood spends on transportation.
Let me know what you think!

------
organicgrant
In Vauban, near the French and Swiss borders, streets are completely “car-
free” — except the main thoroughfare headed to Freiburg

------
Marticus
But being the NY Times, are we sure they didn't just jump the gun again and
it's all misrepresented? MAYBE THEY RIDE MOPEDS.

~~~
organicgrant
Mopeds aren't cars

