Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Cyclists now outnumber motorists in City of London
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/03/01/cyclists-now-outnumber-motorists-in-city-of-london/
949 comments
> - might be impossible depending on work or children;
The newer style of cargo bikes can for many families replace a car. Have two kids seated in the trunk of the bike and drop them off at kindergarten, then continue biking to work and pick them up on the way home.
Those are a bit on the pricier side, though. Still cheap compared to a car, but people often look at them as something "extravagant" or "in addition" to a car. But they can be a replacement for most car use, and then just rent a car for other more seldom occasions.
And to avoid the initial big purchase, not even sure if it's something for you, there's a startup where I live ( https://whee.no/ ) where you also can rent the bike on a monthly basis. Really recommended to see if it suits your lifestyle.
Lastly, I also think this kind of easier movement will change how people live. You can no longer expect to move out of the city and still get a short way to everything by using your car, making life miserable for everyone else (noise, danger, pollution, too much asphalt). So I think we will see a shift in where people settle, where they will no longer base their lives around owning multiple cars.
The newer style of cargo bikes can for many families replace a car. Have two kids seated in the trunk of the bike and drop them off at kindergarten, then continue biking to work and pick them up on the way home.
Those are a bit on the pricier side, though. Still cheap compared to a car, but people often look at them as something "extravagant" or "in addition" to a car. But they can be a replacement for most car use, and then just rent a car for other more seldom occasions.
And to avoid the initial big purchase, not even sure if it's something for you, there's a startup where I live ( https://whee.no/ ) where you also can rent the bike on a monthly basis. Really recommended to see if it suits your lifestyle.
Lastly, I also think this kind of easier movement will change how people live. You can no longer expect to move out of the city and still get a short way to everything by using your car, making life miserable for everyone else (noise, danger, pollution, too much asphalt). So I think we will see a shift in where people settle, where they will no longer base their lives around owning multiple cars.
In upfront transparency to avoid sounding like I have a superiority complex based on just how much I love my cargo bike, our family does still have a car.
Okay that being said… our cargo bike has replaced 90% of our “last mile” driving here in the city. We take the kids to school on it, we do grocery runs, we take it to the park, out to dinner, just about anywhere we can. In the first two years we’ve put at least 2k miles on it.
When we first bought it, I thought “okay when my wife rides the ebike with kids, I’ll just ride behind on my road bike.”
It took all but a week for us to go buy a second ebike because of how failed my idea was. The guy at the bike shop, same that we bought the cargo bike from, laughed and said that happened all the time.
While we have always been big into bikes, we’re on another level now. I always feel sorry for the poor suckers at the park who ask me how we like the bike who have to listen to me rave about it for 20 minutes when a “we love it” probably would have been enough.
Okay that being said… our cargo bike has replaced 90% of our “last mile” driving here in the city. We take the kids to school on it, we do grocery runs, we take it to the park, out to dinner, just about anywhere we can. In the first two years we’ve put at least 2k miles on it.
When we first bought it, I thought “okay when my wife rides the ebike with kids, I’ll just ride behind on my road bike.”
It took all but a week for us to go buy a second ebike because of how failed my idea was. The guy at the bike shop, same that we bought the cargo bike from, laughed and said that happened all the time.
While we have always been big into bikes, we’re on another level now. I always feel sorry for the poor suckers at the park who ask me how we like the bike who have to listen to me rave about it for 20 minutes when a “we love it” probably would have been enough.
I'm on the same boat. Now I'm the proud owner of two Urban Arrow cargo bikes (His and Hers) and I don't know how to live without it.
Larry vs Harry Bullit rider here. my wife and I even rode it from London to Berlin (cheated with the ferry and train a lot) when we moved in late December. We have 2.5 kids. No car. I use car sharing when I need a van or wanna drive to the airport. Life is good
Presumably you live in a place where it's safe to cycle. If so, I am envious.
I might be safer than you think. I used to refuse to ride in a city because it seemed dangerous and many people I knew who rode in traffic had been in accidents with cars. But when I ended up on a bike trying it out, I found I could almost always (~95% of the time) avoid traffic, even without bike lanes.
Side streets and alleys are great - too slow for cars, but you're probably cycling at 10-15 mph, which is fine. Parks can be great - a shortcut with no cars and beautiful scenery, while the cars have to go the long way. Campuses, plazas, etc. etc. Even sidewalks when empty or nearly-empty can work to bypass traffic or go the 'wrong' way.[0]
[0] Second to riding, cyclists love to lecture others on how to ride. And a favorite outlet for their obsession is sidewalks. They don't discuss or consider the reasons or merits, they just have found an easy outlet for self-righteousness and repeat the same phrases over and over. Just remember that sidewalks are for pedestrians first; you are a visitor. Give them the right of way always, let them know when you're behind them (e.g., 'on your left!'), and give them plenty of space (trying walking when a bike buzzes past in either direction - from behind, you can't even hear it coming). Defer to their safety, real and perceived. It's easy. No problems at all IME, except self-righteous people over-excited at an opportunity to lecture someone.
Side streets and alleys are great - too slow for cars, but you're probably cycling at 10-15 mph, which is fine. Parks can be great - a shortcut with no cars and beautiful scenery, while the cars have to go the long way. Campuses, plazas, etc. etc. Even sidewalks when empty or nearly-empty can work to bypass traffic or go the 'wrong' way.[0]
[0] Second to riding, cyclists love to lecture others on how to ride. And a favorite outlet for their obsession is sidewalks. They don't discuss or consider the reasons or merits, they just have found an easy outlet for self-righteousness and repeat the same phrases over and over. Just remember that sidewalks are for pedestrians first; you are a visitor. Give them the right of way always, let them know when you're behind them (e.g., 'on your left!'), and give them plenty of space (trying walking when a bike buzzes past in either direction - from behind, you can't even hear it coming). Defer to their safety, real and perceived. It's easy. No problems at all IME, except self-righteous people over-excited at an opportunity to lecture someone.
[deleted]
You don't get to pick where you live?
I value my time and safety, so I live inner city, near a park and river I can ride to almost anywhere along.
I value my time and safety, so I live inner city, near a park and river I can ride to almost anywhere along.
If you're particularly envious you may want to consider asking how those who can't drive make do in your location. Life's about making choices and seeking different perspectives might help change and/or inform your priors.
What was the issue with the road bike idea?
I consider myself a pretty strong cyclist, and I was huffing and puffing trying to keep pace with my wife and kids on the ebike.
Having experienced widely varying amounts of power output with the local bikeshare bikes, their varied condition and assisted vs non-, I don't have any illusions here - it's just a different experience to be able to spin it once and feel the bike boost you up to max effort. Even the heavily built bikeshare frames can easily outclass a road bike, if there's no mechanical issue. Although there often is - the chains, gears and tires really take a beating.
The e-bikes here are generally quicker off the mark at lights but that lasts like ten seconds before a decent road bike or legs zips by them because they’re limited to 15kmph
I tried my friend's cargo e-bike for 20 minutes in Edinburgh - I didn't even notice that lag. As i turned up the dial for the motor, it just felt like I was turning down the physics! Everything just got magically easier.
How though? They couldn’t been going that fast.
Most probably it wasn't electric
> So I think we will see a shift in where people settle, where they will no longer base their lives around owning multiple cars.
Magical thinking will not make it so. My partner and I moved further away from the city where she works because we wanted to move in together and we can't afford rent or property where either of us used to live.
I work from home so most the time my car sits charging the driveway. However, all of my doctors are at least a half-hour drive away, my dental clinic is a 50 minute drive, my hobbies are anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour half drive away. The rest of my family is an hour away so no amount of moving will change these things without making the rest of them worse.
But bicycles will work fine for 10% of my travel except for there being no infrastructure supporting bicycling.
Magical thinking will not make it so. My partner and I moved further away from the city where she works because we wanted to move in together and we can't afford rent or property where either of us used to live.
I work from home so most the time my car sits charging the driveway. However, all of my doctors are at least a half-hour drive away, my dental clinic is a 50 minute drive, my hobbies are anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour half drive away. The rest of my family is an hour away so no amount of moving will change these things without making the rest of them worse.
But bicycles will work fine for 10% of my travel except for there being no infrastructure supporting bicycling.
It sounds like your underarching problem here is housing costs.
Sure but like.........people always say that (for example) in London you can't live closer to work because houses/flats are too expensive. Ok, I mean that's true, but how are you going to solve that? It's a gigantic city which is already full to the brim, with literally 1000+ years of building on top of every single square inch of land available. You would probably have to demolish large areas of London and replace them with high-density housing to match demand - but obviously that's never going to happen. What other options are there? Maybe the only inevitable conclusion is that not everyone can live in London(or any other major city). You can't fix expensive housing in them by just wishing they were cheaper, or with regulations(or I'd love to hear how any regulations would help, beyond banning things like AirBnb).
The population is only 20% of the problem -> look at Berlin, it's population has grown 0.3% over the past 30 years, but the house prices have gone stratospheric just like they have in every other major city.
40% of the housing problem is whatever the fuck is going on in the banking system -> it enables us to commit all of our life savings for the rest of our productive lives to pay for a roof over our heads. It's like a hostage situation with the highest bidder.
> You would probably have to demolish large areas of London and replace them with high-density housing to match demand - but obviously that's never going to happen.
So true, my friend is not even allowed to raise your roof by 20 cm to create an extra room in the loft.
The planning system here is so crazy, I am confident it's like 40% of the problem.
40% of the housing problem is whatever the fuck is going on in the banking system -> it enables us to commit all of our life savings for the rest of our productive lives to pay for a roof over our heads. It's like a hostage situation with the highest bidder.
> You would probably have to demolish large areas of London and replace them with high-density housing to match demand - but obviously that's never going to happen.
So true, my friend is not even allowed to raise your roof by 20 cm to create an extra room in the loft.
The planning system here is so crazy, I am confident it's like 40% of the problem.
The price going up has probably reduced population growth though, so pointing to low growth but high prices doesn’t tell us that much.
Not to say that there isn’t something else going on.
Not to say that there isn’t something else going on.
Pointing to low growth and high prices tell us that isn't simple supply and demand pushing the prices up. Berlin even more as large swaths of the city are still underdeveloped after losing 2 million inhabitants since the 1940s-1950s.
How can Berlin, a city with ample free space and free buildings still see a massive increase in housing prices if it was a simple issue of supply and demand? There's undoubtedly something else much fishier going on.
How can Berlin, a city with ample free space and free buildings still see a massive increase in housing prices if it was a simple issue of supply and demand? There's undoubtedly something else much fishier going on.
(American POV):
Here in most places it is because supply is suppressed by government policy and the planning and approval process. Want to add a room to your house? That could be 10's of thousands in planning fees if it is even allowed and it still could be denied. Want to turn your laundromat into an apartment complex? Denied: the proposal will cast shadows across a lot where the city is thinking of building a playground for a local school[0].
Overall its very much in the interests of those who own property to keep more from being built and they naturally act for those interests.
[0]Not hyperbole - this is an actual example.
Here in most places it is because supply is suppressed by government policy and the planning and approval process. Want to add a room to your house? That could be 10's of thousands in planning fees if it is even allowed and it still could be denied. Want to turn your laundromat into an apartment complex? Denied: the proposal will cast shadows across a lot where the city is thinking of building a playground for a local school[0].
Overall its very much in the interests of those who own property to keep more from being built and they naturally act for those interests.
[0]Not hyperbole - this is an actual example.
I would also not trust that number of 0.3% population growth. Were did you get it from? There are a lot of refugees from Ukraine, for example, which may have given prices another boost in the last year.
Lol Tokyo and many other mega cities in the world are great examples how none of those things are actual barriers. London's issue is political will, because too many wealthy and politically connected people currently profit from the current status quo at the expense of the exploited supermajority.
Just saying "look at Tokyo" doesn't mean anything.
How exactly would you change London to be more like tokyo? As the simplest question - which areas of London would you demolish to make room for high density Japanese housing? Alternatively, if you're going to build wide, how would you connect those areas with the centre, if building new metro lines is pretty much impossible in London for historical reasons?
"London's issue is political will, because too many wealthy and politically connected people currently profit from the current status quo"
That just sounds like saying "it's the elites fault, dude". Like, sure, but please propose any actual solution.
How exactly would you change London to be more like tokyo? As the simplest question - which areas of London would you demolish to make room for high density Japanese housing? Alternatively, if you're going to build wide, how would you connect those areas with the centre, if building new metro lines is pretty much impossible in London for historical reasons?
"London's issue is political will, because too many wealthy and politically connected people currently profit from the current status quo"
That just sounds like saying "it's the elites fault, dude". Like, sure, but please propose any actual solution.
You adopt the housing law of japan, which is set at the federal level and not the local level, where zoning is set in large regional areas, where if something is zoned for a 'high nuisance level' you can build anything of a lower nuisance level inside of those zones.
You don't need your neighbors permission to build, everything is basically by-right where you follow well a well defined housing code vs. needing special approval for every little thing. Just get out of the way and stop needing a license to do anything and you will see how quickly the market will sort it out in London. The people of London will decide THEMSELVES, what to demolish or not once given permission to do so, no central planning needed.
But it doesn't because the current system benefits those elites. Any time large amounts of special permission is needed to get anything done, creates the space for corruption in which a bureaucrat can benefit through bribes of one form or another.
What your basically acting like is acting like you can't exercise and eat right to lose weight while you have no mental issues, financial issues, health issues, disability or age issues blocking you from doing the basic things. London has the money, ability and ground where all this is possible. It's a form of learned helplessness in front of a system that has given you no way out.
You don't need your neighbors permission to build, everything is basically by-right where you follow well a well defined housing code vs. needing special approval for every little thing. Just get out of the way and stop needing a license to do anything and you will see how quickly the market will sort it out in London. The people of London will decide THEMSELVES, what to demolish or not once given permission to do so, no central planning needed.
But it doesn't because the current system benefits those elites. Any time large amounts of special permission is needed to get anything done, creates the space for corruption in which a bureaucrat can benefit through bribes of one form or another.
What your basically acting like is acting like you can't exercise and eat right to lose weight while you have no mental issues, financial issues, health issues, disability or age issues blocking you from doing the basic things. London has the money, ability and ground where all this is possible. It's a form of learned helplessness in front of a system that has given you no way out.
Mate there is no other group campaigning harder to relax building requirements in London than the elites. There are so many rich people complaining they can't add another conservatory or floor or dig up a basement in their Victorian mansion in London. If you made it easier to build you'd basically hand a giant fat present to the hands of the elite. The idea that the elites keep the status quo by making bureocracy complex in London is almost naive.
Your looking at the wrong "elites". Look at who is preventing 30 story apartment buildings and then you'll know who actually runs the city.
This seems pretty silly to me. 30 story blocks of flats tend to be prevented by the planning permission system (potentially before they are proposed as developers may know what won’t succeed) which is roughly a combination of local government and local residents. There are other things which may make building difficult – historical preservation (eg listed buildings) applies to much of the more central parts of the city, construction can be expensive, etc.
Perhaps the real London elites are the clay underneath the city which makes tall buildings more expensive.
Perhaps the real London elites are the clay underneath the city which makes tall buildings more expensive.
I'm sure everybody would like the right to build on their property as they see fit. That doesn't mean that they would want to grant their neighbors the same privilege.
Have you heard the expression cutting off your nose to spite your face? That's exactly what you're doing here.
Yeah, maybe some elites will get to renovate their houses. Who cares. Large apartment buildings would get built with huge numbers of units to help drive down rent.
Yeah, maybe some elites will get to renovate their houses. Who cares. Large apartment buildings would get built with huge numbers of units to help drive down rent.
On street parking is banned in Tokyo
When buying a car you have to prove you have access to a drive way
that's step one
When buying a car you have to prove you have access to a drive way
that's step one
> building new metro lines is pretty much impossible in London for historical reasons
Didn’t they open a new one last year?
Didn’t they open a new one last year?
They did - it was in development for over 20 years. At this rate to reach the density of Tokyo we would have to wait until the 4th millenium.
I think you’re not accounting for the density of Tokyo dropping. By the 4th millennium there will only be five Japanese people left, two of them catgirls.
Thinking out loud:
- Ask for 90% of the buildings to be less than 120% of the average price.
- Have lottery system for lot allocation
- Make it easy for groups and communities to buy lots
- Cap the lot prices per sqf
- Evaluate the projects on the community impacts vs $$$
See also this to understand how capitalist architecture makes everyone miserable: https://youtu.be/VoYZlyBHyQM
- Ask for 90% of the buildings to be less than 120% of the average price.
- Have lottery system for lot allocation
- Make it easy for groups and communities to buy lots
- Cap the lot prices per sqf
- Evaluate the projects on the community impacts vs $$$
See also this to understand how capitalist architecture makes everyone miserable: https://youtu.be/VoYZlyBHyQM
You are asking for price controls. Historically, those have almost universally decreased availability and exacerbated shortages.
How much does housing cost in Tokyo?
Fairly cheap. A guy working in a convenience store can afford his own apartment.
The problem is that housing in Tokyo is very small, and most Westerners (particular Americans) simply can't fathom living in it, and it would never be allowed to be built there. Westerners need to change their expectations.
The problem is that housing in Tokyo is very small, and most Westerners (particular Americans) simply can't fathom living in it, and it would never be allowed to be built there. Westerners need to change their expectations.
> "You would probably have to demolish large areas of London and replace them with high-density housing to match demand - but obviously that's never going to happen."
Nah. There's still many areas of fairly low-quality, low-density housing near the centre of London. In fact, just about everywhere you look there are residential towers under construction: there must be hundreds of them going up right now! There is still plenty of scope to greatly improve the quality and efficiency of housing in London without sacrificing open, green spaces.
Nah. There's still many areas of fairly low-quality, low-density housing near the centre of London. In fact, just about everywhere you look there are residential towers under construction: there must be hundreds of them going up right now! There is still plenty of scope to greatly improve the quality and efficiency of housing in London without sacrificing open, green spaces.
London has really good public transportation and, as this article mentions, lots of people in London do cycle to work (half of all the offices I’ve had in London has had an on-premises bicycle “shed”).
In fact I’ve met so many Londoners who never even bothered to learn to drive.
In my experience, it’s generally American cities that require a car rather than European cities. Generally speaking of course, you get good and bad city designs in all countries.
In fact I’ve met so many Londoners who never even bothered to learn to drive.
In my experience, it’s generally American cities that require a car rather than European cities. Generally speaking of course, you get good and bad city designs in all countries.
of course, which is why a staggering 1 million of people commute in and out of london every day. But again, I'm just asking how exactly can we address the high price of housing near workplaces in London specifically, if London is already full to the brim and new housing isn't happening not because of regulations or lack of political will - there's just no space to build any more.
I think the main drives are real estate investments and centralisation... Tokyo doesn't really have these issues in part due to cultural differences but also due to better regulations on urbanism. []
[] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
[] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGbC5j4pG9w
Move some of the work places.
European cities only don't require a car for those lucky enough to live in the city center of major capitals.
The further away from city suburbs, one might get a lucky 1 bus per hour if at all.
The further away from city suburbs, one might get a lucky 1 bus per hour if at all.
Depends on the city but generally what you’ve described is completely untrue. Usually European cities try to pedestrianise their centre as much as they can and have all sorts of public transport schemes from Park and Ride to regular underground and overground rail services.
I live miles out of from London and get the train in. Almost nobody I work with live in the city and none of them drive in. In fact you wouldnt want to drive in London.
This has been true for so many European cities, Cambridge, Chelmsford, York, Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, etc. all are very accessible for non-car owners.
Anyone who claims you need a car to live in a European city is someone who hasn’t experienced many European cities ;)
I live miles out of from London and get the train in. Almost nobody I work with live in the city and none of them drive in. In fact you wouldnt want to drive in London.
This has been true for so many European cities, Cambridge, Chelmsford, York, Amsterdam, Paris, Berlin, etc. all are very accessible for non-car owners.
Anyone who claims you need a car to live in a European city is someone who hasn’t experienced many European cities ;)
Yeah, I guess I need to throw away my passport.
It is no accident you only listed capital sized cities.
It is no accident you only listed capital sized cities.
The first three, so literally half that list, are relatively small cities. Certainly not “capital sized”.
I’ve noticed this trend you have of defining things in absolute terms despite the evidence being transparently not. Which I normally make an effort not to reply to your silly comments however on this occasion didn’t check who the commenter was before responding. Which is basically a longwinded way of saying I’m not going to continue on with this absurd exchange any further.
I’ve noticed this trend you have of defining things in absolute terms despite the evidence being transparently not. Which I normally make an effort not to reply to your silly comments however on this occasion didn’t check who the commenter was before responding. Which is basically a longwinded way of saying I’m not going to continue on with this absurd exchange any further.
Maybe you should actually try to live in a "city" in southern Europe.
Just don't pick Lisbon, Porto, Madrid, Barcelona, Rom, Napel, Milano, Athens, Zagreb for the actual experience.
Here is a suggestion, country side in the middle of the country, or one of the Mediterrean or Atlantic island.
Just don't pick Lisbon, Porto, Madrid, Barcelona, Rom, Napel, Milano, Athens, Zagreb for the actual experience.
Here is a suggestion, country side in the middle of the country, or one of the Mediterrean or Atlantic island.
I live in the countryside now. I’m not oblivious to the benefits of driving. What I’m doing is providing counter arguments to the ridiculous absolutes you’re coming out with. Comments like “only” are simply bullshit.
But I suspect that’s intentional behaviour. You don’t want people to agree, you are actively seeking out an argument. Because if you wanted a sensible discussion you’d see that our two points were complimentary rather than contradictory.
But I suspect that’s intentional behaviour. You don’t want people to agree, you are actively seeking out an argument. Because if you wanted a sensible discussion you’d see that our two points were complimentary rather than contradictory.
I lived in the suburbs of a medium sized city. Everything was easily accessible by bike, but of course many people still preferred the convenience of a car. It took about 25 minutes from my apartment to the city center.
My wife grew up in the suburbs of an even smaller city. It took about 10 minutes to reach that city center by bike, but almost everybody drove because the road connecting the suburb to the city center feels very unsafe on a bike.
My wife grew up in the suburbs of an even smaller city. It took about 10 minutes to reach that city center by bike, but almost everybody drove because the road connecting the suburb to the city center feels very unsafe on a bike.
Two anecdotes, plenty of European cities aren't as fortunate, specially in southern countries.
Many cities are only city in name, and in practice more towns aspiring to be cities, specially in southern and eastern Europe.
Here is one anecdote, Portalegre might be a nice city, as Northen Alentejo capital in Portugal, yet those 20 km on average from the neighbouring villages aren't that nice to do on bycicle specially during Summertime with temperatures up to 45 degrees celsius. And if you're thinking about taking a bus, better save money for a taxi, unless you're willing to spend the whole day in the city, as there is only one bus into each direction connecting the neighbouring villages to the city.
Many cities are only city in name, and in practice more towns aspiring to be cities, specially in southern and eastern Europe.
Here is one anecdote, Portalegre might be a nice city, as Northen Alentejo capital in Portugal, yet those 20 km on average from the neighbouring villages aren't that nice to do on bycicle specially during Summertime with temperatures up to 45 degrees celsius. And if you're thinking about taking a bus, better save money for a taxi, unless you're willing to spend the whole day in the city, as there is only one bus into each direction connecting the neighbouring villages to the city.
I’ve cited plenty more cities. And could cite more still.
Besides, your statement was an absolute so the GP only needed one of example to disprove you yet gave you two.
Besides, your statement was an absolute so the GP only needed one of example to disprove you yet gave you two.
Capital sized cities.
There are plenty of cities in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Croatia,... where it doesn't hold.
You know, those that people from the cities you listed love to rent cars for their vacations, and enjoy what many locals can't afford.
There are plenty of cities in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Croatia,... where it doesn't hold.
You know, those that people from the cities you listed love to rent cars for their vacations, and enjoy what many locals can't afford.
How can they rent cars when they don’t have a driving license?
And no, they weren’t all capital sized cities.
I also don’t understand what vacationing has to do with anything when I was talking about backpackers, nomads and expats. Basically the polar opposite of people who vacation.
And no, they weren’t all capital sized cities.
I also don’t understand what vacationing has to do with anything when I was talking about backpackers, nomads and expats. Basically the polar opposite of people who vacation.
It seems so bizarre that an adult would never learn to drive. Like you might not need to drive for daily city life but it really limits your options if you ever want to travel.
I agree. I know it's complete herecy, but I've done Europe-by-train and Europe-by-rental-car each many times, and I much prefer the latter. If you're talking about travel in America it's not even a question. You learn how to drive or you're going to be stuck in the same 10 mile redius for the rest of your life.
I'm one of the no-license London populace, and travel more frequently than most. I don't find that it has limited me at all. On the occasions when I absolutely need a car instead of the existing options, taxis are available.
That seems like a very limited perspective. I've been to many places in the world where taxis don't run. Being able to drive is a basic life skill, like knowing how to swim or cook a meal.
Many of the people I’ve met who cannot drive are actually some of the most traveled people I know. In fact spending short periods in lots of different countries makes it a whole lot harder to learn to drive.
I didn’t learn to drive until I was in my 30s and used to spend my 20s travelling the length and breadth of the U.K. and Europe. I even had a long distance relationship at the time too. A long distance relationship that worked because we are now married.
Sometimes I might have to plan a journey in advance (to figure out the route) but there were plenty of times I just went where the wind took me (proverbially speaking). And frankly even after learning to drive, smart phones weren’t invented yet and satnavs were luxuries, so you’d often still need to plan ahead even if you could drive.
So no, driving needn’t be an essential life skill for everyone. And that doesn’t mean they have a limited perspective either. On the contrary, if you cannot imagine life without driving then it is your perspective which is limited.
I didn’t learn to drive until I was in my 30s and used to spend my 20s travelling the length and breadth of the U.K. and Europe. I even had a long distance relationship at the time too. A long distance relationship that worked because we are now married.
Sometimes I might have to plan a journey in advance (to figure out the route) but there were plenty of times I just went where the wind took me (proverbially speaking). And frankly even after learning to drive, smart phones weren’t invented yet and satnavs were luxuries, so you’d often still need to plan ahead even if you could drive.
So no, driving needn’t be an essential life skill for everyone. And that doesn’t mean they have a limited perspective either. On the contrary, if you cannot imagine life without driving then it is your perspective which is limited.
> In fact spending short periods in lots of different countries makes it a whole lot harder to learn to drive.
Huh?
Huh?
Learning to drive in some countries and for some individuals can take months, be hugely costly and still only result in a license that isn’t immediately transferable to other countries (eg you have to hold a license for x years before you can drive abroad and/or older than x years old).
Other countries might not even allow you to apply for a learners licence unless you have a specific visa.
So if you’re a young adult and travel a lot, it might not even be possible, let alone practical, to earn a license.
Which is precisely why I didn’t learn to drive until I was in my 30s and ready to start a family.
Other countries might not even allow you to apply for a learners licence unless you have a specific visa.
So if you’re a young adult and travel a lot, it might not even be possible, let alone practical, to earn a license.
Which is precisely why I didn’t learn to drive until I was in my 30s and ready to start a family.
Different perspectives, perhaps. I'm sure it is a basic life skill if cars are necessary. For me and people around me, they aren't, and so it isn't. Any places without taxis have their replacements, or - much more likely - aren't suited for car travel at all. Swimming and cooking are skills of far greater necessity. It's strange to me to see driving compared to them.
Woodworking and the wiring of houses are also basic life skills, I imagine. I'll try to learn them when I get there. But so far, I've never wanted for the need to drive a car.
Woodworking and the wiring of houses are also basic life skills, I imagine. I'll try to learn them when I get there. But so far, I've never wanted for the need to drive a car.
Bullshit.
Traveled all over the world. Lived in 8 different cities. Never needed a car.
I am confused what you think you need a car for?? It is such a strange stance. Where have you gone that I can not go? Public transport exists. So do private tour buses.
Traveled all over the world. Lived in 8 different cities. Never needed a car.
I am confused what you think you need a car for?? It is such a strange stance. Where have you gone that I can not go? Public transport exists. So do private tour buses.
There might be a survivorship bias here. You will have travelled to large cities with public transport because those are the most viable places to go if you can't drive. If you want to go to places that are remote/not got tourist infrastructure with buses (e.g Vietnam et Al) then you'd seem somewhat stuck. TL:DR A lot of the world is not located in metropolitan cities.
I know loads of people who have backpacked around Vietnam without a driving license. Some even consider backpacking a right of passage.
40-year Londoner here. The truth is that commuting costs compensate for cheaper rents. And where there is a difference you can also factor in the extra “work” time from spending 3 hours commuting every day. This changes when you work from home, but even then there are few places in suburban England where a decent cargo bike can’t replace a car. England isn’t like America where the towns were built around cars. Our towns pre-date them . (Except Milton Keynes)
Also, re-property costs. It’s mostly speculative. If we banned foreign non-resident buyers and disincentivised buy-to-let landlords then prices would be much lower.
Also, re-property costs. It’s mostly speculative. If we banned foreign non-resident buyers and disincentivised buy-to-let landlords then prices would be much lower.
You probably aren't renting further out. Owning a place versus just renting it changes the calculus quite a bit, and you are coming out ahead compared to paying 25% more to live closer in. Working from home also makes a huge difference. A longer commute is tolerable if you only have to do it a few times a week. The days where you don't commute add up to pay rise.
The problem is everyone else realises this too. Pricing in the south east of England is based around proximity to London commuter lines. You can go a huge distance to Southampton and you're still paying a large premium on housing because it's on an express line to London. Or the tiny town of Fleet which is in Hartley Whitney but has some of the highest prices and desirability in the country, again it's on an express train route to London. Ticket pricing works by marking up prices on these commuter routes to London and using those to subsidise the rest of the customers. The model somewhat falls apart as the wealthier commuters were far more likely to be in jobs that moved to flexitime/remote hence the scramble for revenue now post pandemic.
To answer your point to "live further out" as in actually pay enough for housing that it covers the ticket costs you're talking about Birmingham and beyond hour commutes.
To answer your point to "live further out" as in actually pay enough for housing that it covers the ticket costs you're talking about Birmingham and beyond hour commutes.
In terms of regulations, I'd propose we bring back bigger down payment requirements (20%) and end the infinite availability of artificially low-interest debt. The absurdly cheap debt has driven speculation by bigger entities on housing, driving up the prices, and eased lending standards have just attempted to give individuals and families a fighting chance at competing for homes, also driving up the prices. I'm not sure how financing of homes in London compares to the US, but the effect of near zero interest rates (which is behind us at the moment but I wouldn't hold your breath) have been global. I don't know how you encourage mom and pop landlords while cutting out a lot of the wild speculative money looking for a home in real estate, but it seems pretty important to figure out.
Tax the undesired behavior. Using housing as an _investment_ should be heavily taxed based on the behavior's negative impact to society.
Live somewhere for at least 35% of a year (more than 1/3rd), then most of that tax goes away since it's a 'primary residence'. (35% to allow for moving as well as possible 'sunbird' / 'winter/summer homes', while still catching anyone who treats housing as an 'investment' (a tax upon the poor))
Live somewhere for at least 35% of a year (more than 1/3rd), then most of that tax goes away since it's a 'primary residence'. (35% to allow for moving as well as possible 'sunbird' / 'winter/summer homes', while still catching anyone who treats housing as an 'investment' (a tax upon the poor))
So landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy, now raise rents dramatically?
So the end result, the poor pay more?
Instead, what Vancouver did was simply tax empty housing.
So the end result, the poor pay more?
Instead, what Vancouver did was simply tax empty housing.
Landlords don't provide housing, buildings do. If they are taxed out of owning the building, they'll sell it to somebody who can live in it.
Yes, the world needs some amount of rented housing, but a huge percentage of people renting now want to own, just to have stability and control over their living environment.
Yes, the world needs some amount of rented housing, but a huge percentage of people renting now want to own, just to have stability and control over their living environment.
landlords, who provide housing for those not ready/able to buy
Why is that framing preferred over "landlords, who reduce housing supply by keeping properties off the market"?
Why is that framing preferred over "landlords, who reduce housing supply by keeping properties off the market"?
They don't reduce housing supply. The same number of people are living in that building as would be if the building had been sold to them.
If you want to get to the root of the problem, look at the development process. Start with your local zoning laws. It is insane how tightly prescriptive they are, usually, and they generally have lots of density-limiting provisions like mandatory parking, maximum floor to area ratios, maximum heights, minimum setbacks, etc.
And then there's the planning/approval process.
If you want to get to the root of the problem, look at the development process. Start with your local zoning laws. It is insane how tightly prescriptive they are, usually, and they generally have lots of density-limiting provisions like mandatory parking, maximum floor to area ratios, maximum heights, minimum setbacks, etc.
And then there's the planning/approval process.
> They don't reduce housing supply
They don't reduce housing supply for living, but they do reduce housing supply for owning. Normal people being able to own the house that they live in seems like a reasonable societal goal to me, but the current economic climate is making that harder and harder as houses move into the hands of landlords (private and commercial).
They don't reduce housing supply for living, but they do reduce housing supply for owning. Normal people being able to own the house that they live in seems like a reasonable societal goal to me, but the current economic climate is making that harder and harder as houses move into the hands of landlords (private and commercial).
Hotels, apartments, etc; things designed for such rentals should be in an entirely different category than (intended as single owner / dwelling) housing.
So a block of flats should be intended to be either be all-renters or all-owners?
Regulatory structures and methods of oversight differ. It also impacts civic planning, and as we're seeing in real time, inelastic market needs as the basis of an ''investment'', cause extreme inflation.
[deleted]
There are ways to fix it, but none of them are politically palatable - for a couple of generations now, homeowners have come to believe their house is an investment. If you propose any action that will reduce the value of their "investment", you will be voted out at the earliest opportunity.
Unfortunately, I can't see a way this gets fixed under the current political systems in the West, so it will eventually be fixed one of the more old-fashioned ways.
It always comes down to two things: Land cost, and building cost. You get those two down and you'll see housing costs come down.
Land cost can be brought down by building furthere away from the center or in the countryside -> have smaller villages or towns outside of london.
As for building costs. How about we talk to developers and ask them what the biggest building costs are? Often times, it's regulation, regulation regulations. Get rid of all the ones that are causing high prices: at least this should be done in certain areas to allow those who want low cost housing some options.
200 years ago, Henry david thoreagh built a cabin for 28$. That's about 3000 dollars in today's cost. and back then the average person was able to pay off their house in just 10 years! The average house cost about 800$ which was about 800 days of unskilled labor (1/5th of what it is today if you include prop taxes) If it could be done then, then why can't it be done now? why has our standard of living dropped so much, that it's actually considerably lower than it was 200 years ago?
Land cost can be brought down by building furthere away from the center or in the countryside -> have smaller villages or towns outside of london.
As for building costs. How about we talk to developers and ask them what the biggest building costs are? Often times, it's regulation, regulation regulations. Get rid of all the ones that are causing high prices: at least this should be done in certain areas to allow those who want low cost housing some options.
200 years ago, Henry david thoreagh built a cabin for 28$. That's about 3000 dollars in today's cost. and back then the average person was able to pay off their house in just 10 years! The average house cost about 800$ which was about 800 days of unskilled labor (1/5th of what it is today if you include prop taxes) If it could be done then, then why can't it be done now? why has our standard of living dropped so much, that it's actually considerably lower than it was 200 years ago?
You say he built a cabin but it was basically a shed. One room, one floor. No insulation against noise or heat loss, no electricity, no running water, no toilet.
Our standard of living had massively increased since Thoreagh's shed, in part because of regulation requiring it. I'd be surprised to learn you can't build a shed for $3000.
Our standard of living had massively increased since Thoreagh's shed, in part because of regulation requiring it. I'd be surprised to learn you can't build a shed for $3000.
One problem is huge swatch of premium land being dedicated to cars (parking lots, wasted whole floors of residential building for parking, huge highways through the city etc.
How much of a problem is this in London? New towers sometimes have parking underneath (ie where people don’t really want to live), others don’t; lots of the suburban part of the city has driveways or garages. I’m curious which huge highways you’re talking about?
> we can't afford rent or property where either of us used to live.
I’ve never seen this not be the case.
Are European cities organized differently or something? I’ve never see affordable living within biking distance of a business district, in the US. Prices are usually double.
I’ve never seen this not be the case.
Are European cities organized differently or something? I’ve never see affordable living within biking distance of a business district, in the US. Prices are usually double.
Some European cities with millions of citizen can have a similar footprint of North American cities of just hundreds of thousand of people. It's more dense.
Sprinkle a bit of mixed used zoning, bike infrastructure and public transport on top.
I live in the outskirts of a city of almost 300 000, and can be in city center by bike in 20 minutes. I'm at work in 10 minutes.
Copenhagen: • City 183.20 km2 (70.73 sq mi) • pop 1,366,301 • Density 4,417.65/km2 (11,441.7/sq mi)
Kansas City, Missouri: • City 318.80 sq mi (825.69 km2) • pop 508,090 • Density 623.31/km2 (1,614.38/sq mi )
Sprinkle a bit of mixed used zoning, bike infrastructure and public transport on top.
I live in the outskirts of a city of almost 300 000, and can be in city center by bike in 20 minutes. I'm at work in 10 minutes.
Copenhagen: • City 183.20 km2 (70.73 sq mi) • pop 1,366,301 • Density 4,417.65/km2 (11,441.7/sq mi)
Kansas City, Missouri: • City 318.80 sq mi (825.69 km2) • pop 508,090 • Density 623.31/km2 (1,614.38/sq mi )
Yes. European cities were, in general, well-developed before the car was invented.
US cities are built around the car. This means more space dedicated to parking, which means less space for homes and businesses, which means things are farther apart, which means people need cars.
It’s a negative feedback loop.
US cities are built around the car. This means more space dedicated to parking, which means less space for homes and businesses, which means things are farther apart, which means people need cars.
It’s a negative feedback loop.
You can observe this very well in Germany. You have many cities that were destroyed during World War 2, and rebuilt around the car. You can compare them to the cities that were built before, and not destroyed. Nowadays, the latter are typically those cities popular with tourists and inhabitants due to their lively and walkable city centers, while city centers of the further category are oftentimes abandoned and avoided areas during the evenings and weekends. Impressive to see how the car-based city concept has failed for the inhabitants, and how hard it is for those cities to adapt to the post-industrial era.
Of course, failure is subjective: car-based cities have been essential for the car industry because many inhabitants are completely dependent on having a car.
Of course, failure is subjective: car-based cities have been essential for the car industry because many inhabitants are completely dependent on having a car.
> You can observe this very well in Germany. You have many cities that were destroyed during World War 2, and rebuilt around the car. You can compare them to the cities that were built before, and not destroyed.
I think that’s more likely “and rebuilt according to the old plan”. Very few German cities escaped with limited bombing damage.
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/air-war-germany-map/:
“Of the 54 largest cities (>100,000 inhabitants) in Germany, only four survived without significant damage: Lübeck, Wiesbaden, Halle and Erfurt.”
I think that’s more likely “and rebuilt according to the old plan”. Very few German cities escaped with limited bombing damage.
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/air-war-germany-map/:
“Of the 54 largest cities (>100,000 inhabitants) in Germany, only four survived without significant damage: Lübeck, Wiesbaden, Halle and Erfurt.”
There is a tremendous gap between "limited damage" and "destroyed", and in most of that range you wouldn't have much opportunity to change the layout despite the damage being "significant".
I don't think this is quite true. To nitpick. My knowledge is that European urban planning was very similar and car centric until the late 60s. At that time things diverged, US stayed the course with car centric split zoning where Europe shifted away from car centric design and heavily favored mixed zoning
Eg, in many US cities, it is illegal to have a bakery on the ground floor of an apartment building.
Though, bottom line, my point is US and EU cities were designed very similarly from 1940 until 1970
Eg, in many US cities, it is illegal to have a bakery on the ground floor of an apartment building.
Though, bottom line, my point is US and EU cities were designed very similarly from 1940 until 1970
> My knowledge is that European urban planning was very similar and car centric until the late 60s
There was and is scarce 'city planning' in Europe because there is scarce planning that can be done. The majority of cities have emerged in the middle ages at the latest, and there is nothing that can be done to 'plan' them. Even for the peripheries (as they are called) this is so: They formed around the villages or remote settlements in the peripheries of the cities, so there was no planning there at all.
The closes that can be said to be built 'around cars' would be the urban construction of gated communities or high rises in the peripheries. But they still were not built around cars - those communities can still perfectly live within their own locale by having access to everything. The only difference that requires a car would be those people having jobs in the city and having to drive 20-30 minutes every day to the city and back.
> Though, bottom line, my point is US and EU cities were designed very similarly from 1940 until 1970
That is patently false.
There was and is scarce 'city planning' in Europe because there is scarce planning that can be done. The majority of cities have emerged in the middle ages at the latest, and there is nothing that can be done to 'plan' them. Even for the peripheries (as they are called) this is so: They formed around the villages or remote settlements in the peripheries of the cities, so there was no planning there at all.
The closes that can be said to be built 'around cars' would be the urban construction of gated communities or high rises in the peripheries. But they still were not built around cars - those communities can still perfectly live within their own locale by having access to everything. The only difference that requires a car would be those people having jobs in the city and having to drive 20-30 minutes every day to the city and back.
> Though, bottom line, my point is US and EU cities were designed very similarly from 1940 until 1970
That is patently false.
I agree that most European (and many ancient) cities had no city planning and grew organically. Though, this is not what I'm talking about. Yet, there are still quibbles around this as many European cities were rebuilt many times. Sometimes this reconstruction was the result of war, sometimes it was sheer reconstruction out of Urban planning. "The city [Paris] is one of the most striking examples of rational urban planning, conducted in the middle of the nineteenth century during the “Second Empire” of Napoleon III to ease congestion in the dense network of medieval streets." [1]
Though, the reason why 1940 - 1970 is so important is because it is post-war and a lot was rebuilt in Europe while at the same time there was a lot of growth in American cities (the baby boom; federal investment in roads, etc..), and both European and American Urban growth and reconstruction were heavily influenced by "Modernism" [2][3]. "European engineers were sent in flocks to the US to learn from the environments in which these revolutionary ideas were playing out, returning with tabula rasa development plans to realise their own modernist dreams." [4]
Modernist Urban planning ideas started in the 1910's and on, but it wasn't until 1940 that there was the mass of opportunity for rebuilding and the funding to implement those ideas. "Modernist principles have shaped city-building since the beginning of the twentieth century. Numerous authors draw a connection between modernist discourse within planning practice and the rise of the Fordist paradigm (Irving 1993; Calthorpe and Fulton 2001; Sandercock 1998). In following these principles, the North American built environment has taken the form of low-density sprawl. This development pattern is characterized by a dominance of single-family housing, a reliance on automobile transportation and a strict separation of land uses." [5]
A key difference is that US civil engineers still are quite influenced by Modernism. For example, US traffic engineers continue to optimize for the throughput of vehicles on city streets rather than the throughput of people [6].
On the other hand, around the 1970s affluent European urban planners pushed back on "Le Corbesier" style planning and "Modernist planning fell into decline. "By the late 1960s and early 1970s, many planners felt that modernism's clean lines and lack of human scale sapped vitality from the community, blaming them for high crime rates and social problems.[59] ... Modernist planning fell into decline in the 1970s when the construction of cheap, uniform tower blocks ended in most countries" [7]
[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130722-revolution-in-pa...
[2] https://www.archdaily.com/604056/north-america-s-radiant-cit...
[3] [How a Controversial European Architect Shaped New York](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-controversial-...)
[4] [Story of cities #36: how Copenhagen rejected 1960s modernist 'utopia'](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/05/story-cities-...)
[5] http://www.etsav.upc.es/personals/iphs2004/pdf/003_p.pdf (page 3)
[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/a-swiss-l...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_urban_planning#Mode... - "Reaction against modernism"
-----------------------
Beyond the above, the more extended exerts below I believe make the same point I made. I would find it interesting where these are patently false and do not support the assertion I made earlier:
> "Modernism: In the 1920s, the ideas of modernism began to surface in urban planning. The influential modernist architect Le Corbusier presented his scheme for a "Contemporary City" for three million inhabitants (Ville Contemporaine) in 1922. The centrepiece of this plan was the group of sixty-story cruciform skyscrapers, steel-framed office buildings encased in huge curtain walls of glass. [....] He segregated pedestrian circulation paths from the roadways and glorified the automobile as a means of transportation. "
> "Reaction against modernism: By the late 1960s and early 1970s, many planners felt that modernism's clean lines and lack of human scale sapped vitality from the community, blaming them for high crime rates and social problems.[59]
> Modernist planning fell into decline in the 1970s when the construction of cheap, uniform tower blocks ended in most countries, such as Britain and France. Since then many have been demolished and replaced by other housing types. Rather than attempting to eliminate all disorder, planning now concentrates on individualism and diversity in society and the economy; this is the post-modernist era.[59]"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_urban_planning#Mode...
"Modernist principles have shaped city-building since the beginning of the twentieth century. Numerous authors draw a connection between modernist discourse within planning practice and the rise of the Fordist paradigm (Irving 1993; Calthorpe and Fulton 2001; Sandercock 1998). In following these principles, the North American built environment has taken the form of low-density sprawl. This development pattern is characterized by a dominance of single-family housing, a reliance on automobile transportation and a strict separation of land uses." (page 3)
"A significant individual embracing these values was the Swiss architect Le Corbusier. Beginning his practice in the late ‘10s, he wanted to correct the ‘chaos’ of the city and create an ideal order. His impact on modernist planning thought is incalculable, and his ideas were widely applied in cities during the 1950s and ‘60s." (Page 4)
"Following a 1926 US Supreme Court decision to safeguard property values from noxious land uses and neighbours, zoning became accepted as the principal planning tool (Hall 1988). The result was the strict separation of work, home, marketplace and social life. This move to create areas dedicated to specific purposes, and to remove uses that conflict produced single-use central business districts, uniform housing tracts, and dispersed shopping centres and recreational facilities." (Page 6)
"Transportation policy during the 1950s and ‘60s focused primarily on increasing vehicle capacity on roads. Analytical tools considered highways and cars only, while ignoring community design and public transit considerations. Instead of deciding where development should go, engineers just looked at projected traffic trends and designed infrastructure in an attempt to accommodate them" (Page 7)
"Inherent in the modernist project was a belief in the ‘tabula rasa.’ As a result, enormous areas were cleared with completely new environments inserted. Again, Le Corbusier led the drive with his unrealized 1925 proposal to demolish historic Paris north of the River Seine (except selected monuments that would be moved), and to replace it with eighteen 700-foot towers (Moe and Wilkie 1997)" (page 12)
http://www.etsav.upc.es/personals/iphs2004/pdf/003_p.pdf
Though, the reason why 1940 - 1970 is so important is because it is post-war and a lot was rebuilt in Europe while at the same time there was a lot of growth in American cities (the baby boom; federal investment in roads, etc..), and both European and American Urban growth and reconstruction were heavily influenced by "Modernism" [2][3]. "European engineers were sent in flocks to the US to learn from the environments in which these revolutionary ideas were playing out, returning with tabula rasa development plans to realise their own modernist dreams." [4]
Modernist Urban planning ideas started in the 1910's and on, but it wasn't until 1940 that there was the mass of opportunity for rebuilding and the funding to implement those ideas. "Modernist principles have shaped city-building since the beginning of the twentieth century. Numerous authors draw a connection between modernist discourse within planning practice and the rise of the Fordist paradigm (Irving 1993; Calthorpe and Fulton 2001; Sandercock 1998). In following these principles, the North American built environment has taken the form of low-density sprawl. This development pattern is characterized by a dominance of single-family housing, a reliance on automobile transportation and a strict separation of land uses." [5]
A key difference is that US civil engineers still are quite influenced by Modernism. For example, US traffic engineers continue to optimize for the throughput of vehicles on city streets rather than the throughput of people [6].
On the other hand, around the 1970s affluent European urban planners pushed back on "Le Corbesier" style planning and "Modernist planning fell into decline. "By the late 1960s and early 1970s, many planners felt that modernism's clean lines and lack of human scale sapped vitality from the community, blaming them for high crime rates and social problems.[59] ... Modernist planning fell into decline in the 1970s when the construction of cheap, uniform tower blocks ended in most countries" [7]
[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130722-revolution-in-pa...
[2] https://www.archdaily.com/604056/north-america-s-radiant-cit...
[3] [How a Controversial European Architect Shaped New York](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-controversial-...)
[4] [Story of cities #36: how Copenhagen rejected 1960s modernist 'utopia'](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/05/story-cities-...)
[5] http://www.etsav.upc.es/personals/iphs2004/pdf/003_p.pdf (page 3)
[6] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-30/a-swiss-l...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_urban_planning#Mode... - "Reaction against modernism"
-----------------------
Beyond the above, the more extended exerts below I believe make the same point I made. I would find it interesting where these are patently false and do not support the assertion I made earlier:
> "Modernism: In the 1920s, the ideas of modernism began to surface in urban planning. The influential modernist architect Le Corbusier presented his scheme for a "Contemporary City" for three million inhabitants (Ville Contemporaine) in 1922. The centrepiece of this plan was the group of sixty-story cruciform skyscrapers, steel-framed office buildings encased in huge curtain walls of glass. [....] He segregated pedestrian circulation paths from the roadways and glorified the automobile as a means of transportation. "
> "Reaction against modernism: By the late 1960s and early 1970s, many planners felt that modernism's clean lines and lack of human scale sapped vitality from the community, blaming them for high crime rates and social problems.[59]
> Modernist planning fell into decline in the 1970s when the construction of cheap, uniform tower blocks ended in most countries, such as Britain and France. Since then many have been demolished and replaced by other housing types. Rather than attempting to eliminate all disorder, planning now concentrates on individualism and diversity in society and the economy; this is the post-modernist era.[59]"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_urban_planning#Mode...
"Modernist principles have shaped city-building since the beginning of the twentieth century. Numerous authors draw a connection between modernist discourse within planning practice and the rise of the Fordist paradigm (Irving 1993; Calthorpe and Fulton 2001; Sandercock 1998). In following these principles, the North American built environment has taken the form of low-density sprawl. This development pattern is characterized by a dominance of single-family housing, a reliance on automobile transportation and a strict separation of land uses." (page 3)
"A significant individual embracing these values was the Swiss architect Le Corbusier. Beginning his practice in the late ‘10s, he wanted to correct the ‘chaos’ of the city and create an ideal order. His impact on modernist planning thought is incalculable, and his ideas were widely applied in cities during the 1950s and ‘60s." (Page 4)
"Following a 1926 US Supreme Court decision to safeguard property values from noxious land uses and neighbours, zoning became accepted as the principal planning tool (Hall 1988). The result was the strict separation of work, home, marketplace and social life. This move to create areas dedicated to specific purposes, and to remove uses that conflict produced single-use central business districts, uniform housing tracts, and dispersed shopping centres and recreational facilities." (Page 6)
"Transportation policy during the 1950s and ‘60s focused primarily on increasing vehicle capacity on roads. Analytical tools considered highways and cars only, while ignoring community design and public transit considerations. Instead of deciding where development should go, engineers just looked at projected traffic trends and designed infrastructure in an attempt to accommodate them" (Page 7)
"Inherent in the modernist project was a belief in the ‘tabula rasa.’ As a result, enormous areas were cleared with completely new environments inserted. Again, Le Corbusier led the drive with his unrealized 1925 proposal to demolish historic Paris north of the River Seine (except selected monuments that would be moved), and to replace it with eighteen 700-foot towers (Moe and Wilkie 1997)" (page 12)
http://www.etsav.upc.es/personals/iphs2004/pdf/003_p.pdf
> Yet, there are still quibbles around this as many European cities were rebuilt many times.
Thats not correct. Some noticeable percentage of German cities and some cities of the war-affected regions were rebuilt. And most partially. The re-architecting of Paris does not have any relevance to cars since it happened in 19th century.
> Beyond the above, the more extended exerts below I believe make the same point I made
They actually invalidate your argument - including the earlier excerpts: Modernist architects adopting car-centric ideas and high rises does not mean that they got to implement what they wanted to do in Europe. There is no such case of large-scale reconstruction of any European city around cars except the war-affected ones (and most partially), and all your excerpts just confirm that. They talk about how (the part of) a generation of European architects adopted modernist car-centric ideas - not them actually getting around to implement them. Its Le Corbusier proposing to demolish part of Paris in a furtive attempt, or him planning a high rise somewhere and whatnot.
Aside from that the excerpts explicitly demonstrate that car-centric cities were a US phenomenon. Not European.
Normally so. Because even the mere act of buying any zone in an average European city to demolish it would cost !enormous! amounts of money that nobody would be willing to spend. Leave aside the reconstruction. This is why the 19th century reconstruction of parts of Paris is the sole incident of this.
All of this, before the fact that most European cities do not have space - nobody can imagine demolishing an entire city to rebuild it with less density so that more cars could be used in sparse urbanization. Europe does not have that much space.
Thats not correct. Some noticeable percentage of German cities and some cities of the war-affected regions were rebuilt. And most partially. The re-architecting of Paris does not have any relevance to cars since it happened in 19th century.
> Beyond the above, the more extended exerts below I believe make the same point I made
They actually invalidate your argument - including the earlier excerpts: Modernist architects adopting car-centric ideas and high rises does not mean that they got to implement what they wanted to do in Europe. There is no such case of large-scale reconstruction of any European city around cars except the war-affected ones (and most partially), and all your excerpts just confirm that. They talk about how (the part of) a generation of European architects adopted modernist car-centric ideas - not them actually getting around to implement them. Its Le Corbusier proposing to demolish part of Paris in a furtive attempt, or him planning a high rise somewhere and whatnot.
Aside from that the excerpts explicitly demonstrate that car-centric cities were a US phenomenon. Not European.
Normally so. Because even the mere act of buying any zone in an average European city to demolish it would cost !enormous! amounts of money that nobody would be willing to spend. Leave aside the reconstruction. This is why the 19th century reconstruction of parts of Paris is the sole incident of this.
All of this, before the fact that most European cities do not have space - nobody can imagine demolishing an entire city to rebuild it with less density so that more cars could be used in sparse urbanization. Europe does not have that much space.
>> Yet, there are still quibbles around this as many European cities were rebuilt many times.
> Thats not correct. Some noticeable percentage of German cities and some cities of the war-affected regions were rebuilt. And most partially. The re-architecting of Paris does not have any relevance to cars since it happened in 19th century.
You stated that there was not a lot of urban planning in most European cities as they grew organically. My point is that many (over their _entire_) history were rebuilt many times, and in some of those instances with explicit urban planning. The example of Paris is to simply demonstrate this, not only was the city rebuilt several times, but once for the sheer sake of urban planning. This contradicts your statement: "There was and is scarce 'city planning' in Europe because there is scarce planning that can be done", Paris is _one_ (extremely prominent) counter-example.
>> Beyond the above, the more extended exerts below I believe make the same point I made
> They actually invalidate your argument - including the earlier excerpts: Modernist architects adopting car-centric ideas and high rises does not mean that they got to implement what they wanted to do in Europe.
I don't think that is correct, and hence it does not at all invalidate the argument. I'm not sure if you read all of the important quotes and the references. With the benefit of the doubt, I think proof by contradiction can demonstrate this. If modernist urban planners had no sway, and were not at all influential, then these quotes would make no sense (these are referring to Europe & North America):
- "Modernist principles have shaped city-building since the beginning of the twentieth century."
- "Modernist planning fell into decline in the 1970s when the construction of cheap, uniform tower blocks ended in most countries, such as Britain and France. Since then many have been demolished and replaced by other housing types. "
To further explore this point, (and this article I really encourage you to read in its entirety): https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/05/story-cities-...
> “There were these big freeway people, and then there were the counter streams that happened between 1960 and 1970 ... One group was pushing cars out of the city, while others were trying to push them in.”
If Copenhagen was _not_ built as a modernist, car centric city (during the 1950's-1960's), then why would there be a group pushing back against car centricism in the 1960's at all? What would they have been pushing back against? Were they pushing back against how cities were built an ocean away in North America? No.. they were pushing back against how Copenhagen was rebuilt with car-centric, modernist urban planning. I mean, the title of the article is: "how Copenhagen rejected 1960s modernist 'utopia'"
> Aside from that the excerpts explicitly demonstrate that car-centric cities were a US phenomenon. Not European.
Not quite, the excerpts show that there was a lot of influence back and forth. European city planners went to the US and were influenced, and vice versa. Corbusier even designed several blocks of NYC, and the influence was reciprocal, see quote:
- "European engineers were sent in flocks to the US to learn from the environments in which these revolutionary ideas were playing out, returning with tabula rasa development plans to realise their own modernist dreams."
> Some noticeable percentage of German cities and some cities of the war-affected regions were rebuilt. And most partially.
Considering the war effected huge regions of Europe.. that would have been: nearly all of Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, a third of France, and countless more as large areas were flattened several times over. Practically every German city alone was carpet and fire bombed many times. Hence, these are very, very large reconstructions, all at a time when Modernist urban planning was the dominant style of urban planning.
> Because even the mere act of buying any zone in an average European city to demolish it would cost !enormous! amounts of money that nobody would be willing to spend.
I agree... to some extent. That is why the post-WWII reconstruction is so significant. Further, there _was_ also significant outward expansion during this time as well. Here is a quick example that Paris saw large expansions: "These large housing projects, known as the "Grand Ensembles," were constructed by the French government from the 1950s through the 1980s to help ease the housing problems that were prevalent throughout the country. Many of these high-rise buildings and communities still exist today" [1]
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/high-rises-of-the-parisian-s....
In sum: - It's a straw argument to suggest what I'm saying is that every city was rebuilt in a modernist way.
- Though, WWII presented an opportunity for incredibly large reconstruction
- Post-WWII, there was also a lot of new construction for outward expansion
- During this time, the late 1940s to late 1960s, the dominant urban planning style of both NA and Europe was modernist car-centric (and so these constructions were similar from that perspective).
To refute, please give citations of what the dominant Urban planning style was for post-war Europe. I would love specific citations around this, as I have given you to support my claims (and even most of what I have wrote are direct quotes and references)
> Thats not correct. Some noticeable percentage of German cities and some cities of the war-affected regions were rebuilt. And most partially. The re-architecting of Paris does not have any relevance to cars since it happened in 19th century.
You stated that there was not a lot of urban planning in most European cities as they grew organically. My point is that many (over their _entire_) history were rebuilt many times, and in some of those instances with explicit urban planning. The example of Paris is to simply demonstrate this, not only was the city rebuilt several times, but once for the sheer sake of urban planning. This contradicts your statement: "There was and is scarce 'city planning' in Europe because there is scarce planning that can be done", Paris is _one_ (extremely prominent) counter-example.
>> Beyond the above, the more extended exerts below I believe make the same point I made
> They actually invalidate your argument - including the earlier excerpts: Modernist architects adopting car-centric ideas and high rises does not mean that they got to implement what they wanted to do in Europe.
I don't think that is correct, and hence it does not at all invalidate the argument. I'm not sure if you read all of the important quotes and the references. With the benefit of the doubt, I think proof by contradiction can demonstrate this. If modernist urban planners had no sway, and were not at all influential, then these quotes would make no sense (these are referring to Europe & North America):
- "Modernist principles have shaped city-building since the beginning of the twentieth century."
- "Modernist planning fell into decline in the 1970s when the construction of cheap, uniform tower blocks ended in most countries, such as Britain and France. Since then many have been demolished and replaced by other housing types. "
To further explore this point, (and this article I really encourage you to read in its entirety): https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/05/story-cities-...
> “There were these big freeway people, and then there were the counter streams that happened between 1960 and 1970 ... One group was pushing cars out of the city, while others were trying to push them in.”
If Copenhagen was _not_ built as a modernist, car centric city (during the 1950's-1960's), then why would there be a group pushing back against car centricism in the 1960's at all? What would they have been pushing back against? Were they pushing back against how cities were built an ocean away in North America? No.. they were pushing back against how Copenhagen was rebuilt with car-centric, modernist urban planning. I mean, the title of the article is: "how Copenhagen rejected 1960s modernist 'utopia'"
> Aside from that the excerpts explicitly demonstrate that car-centric cities were a US phenomenon. Not European.
Not quite, the excerpts show that there was a lot of influence back and forth. European city planners went to the US and were influenced, and vice versa. Corbusier even designed several blocks of NYC, and the influence was reciprocal, see quote:
- "European engineers were sent in flocks to the US to learn from the environments in which these revolutionary ideas were playing out, returning with tabula rasa development plans to realise their own modernist dreams."
> Some noticeable percentage of German cities and some cities of the war-affected regions were rebuilt. And most partially.
Considering the war effected huge regions of Europe.. that would have been: nearly all of Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, a third of France, and countless more as large areas were flattened several times over. Practically every German city alone was carpet and fire bombed many times. Hence, these are very, very large reconstructions, all at a time when Modernist urban planning was the dominant style of urban planning.
> Because even the mere act of buying any zone in an average European city to demolish it would cost !enormous! amounts of money that nobody would be willing to spend.
I agree... to some extent. That is why the post-WWII reconstruction is so significant. Further, there _was_ also significant outward expansion during this time as well. Here is a quick example that Paris saw large expansions: "These large housing projects, known as the "Grand Ensembles," were constructed by the French government from the 1950s through the 1980s to help ease the housing problems that were prevalent throughout the country. Many of these high-rise buildings and communities still exist today" [1]
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/high-rises-of-the-parisian-s....
In sum: - It's a straw argument to suggest what I'm saying is that every city was rebuilt in a modernist way.
- Though, WWII presented an opportunity for incredibly large reconstruction
- Post-WWII, there was also a lot of new construction for outward expansion
- During this time, the late 1940s to late 1960s, the dominant urban planning style of both NA and Europe was modernist car-centric (and so these constructions were similar from that perspective).
To refute, please give citations of what the dominant Urban planning style was for post-war Europe. I would love specific citations around this, as I have given you to support my claims (and even most of what I have wrote are direct quotes and references)
@unity, my original statement was this:
"My knowledge is that European urban planning was very similar and car centric until the late 60s."
I think the citations quoted above from multiple sources generously support this. Again, that is not at all saying that all of Europe was rebuilt in the 1950s-1960s willingly and entirely to be car centric. But, the _planning_ of new construction/reconstruction were similar during that period in both the USA & Europe (and Europe by-and-large stopped their new constructions in that style around the early 1970s while the USA by and large did not). There is even a mention in one of the quotes of a lot of that construction having been torn down.
I'd say Warsaw, Prague and Paris are all great examples. Warsaw was completely rebuilt and downtown is car centric (looks very much like an American city). Prague was somewhat unscathed and has a very historic layout, Paris is a mix of reconstruction and historic urban planning. The point remains that there was a pretty specific car-centric urban planning style that dominated in Europe in the late 1940's-1960s.
All that is to say - European urban planning was also, at one time somewhat recently, largely car centric. It is really notable that stopped being the case and is an example for US cities - that they can also transform away from being fully car-centric.
I think the citations quoted above from multiple sources generously support this. Again, that is not at all saying that all of Europe was rebuilt in the 1950s-1960s willingly and entirely to be car centric. But, the _planning_ of new construction/reconstruction were similar during that period in both the USA & Europe (and Europe by-and-large stopped their new constructions in that style around the early 1970s while the USA by and large did not). There is even a mention in one of the quotes of a lot of that construction having been torn down.
I'd say Warsaw, Prague and Paris are all great examples. Warsaw was completely rebuilt and downtown is car centric (looks very much like an American city). Prague was somewhat unscathed and has a very historic layout, Paris is a mix of reconstruction and historic urban planning. The point remains that there was a pretty specific car-centric urban planning style that dominated in Europe in the late 1940's-1960s.
All that is to say - European urban planning was also, at one time somewhat recently, largely car centric. It is really notable that stopped being the case and is an example for US cities - that they can also transform away from being fully car-centric.
> But, the _planning_ of new construction/reconstruction were similar during that period in both the USA & Europ
That's where you go wrong. There isnt 'urban planning' in Europe because there isnt any space to plan anything. What could be called 'urban planning' in Europe is laying out subway tracks, maybe demolishing a run-down shanty neighborhood to build apartments. Thats it. Naturally there is no way to plan anything around cars. The most you can do is to eat up a little sidewalk in the biggest avenues in the biggest cities to make one more lane for the main street. And that's what was done for ~80 years.
> I think the citations quoted above from multiple sources generously support this
They dont. You moved on to 'urban planning was like that' argument from 'built like that'.
> European urban planning was also, at one time somewhat recently, largely car centric
Repeating it wont make it so. It wasnt, and still isnt. Aside from some part of Germany that rebuilt its destroyed cities and built autobahns, entire Europe was about tiny cars and tiny streets, leave aside any phenomenon like suburbs.
You cannot extrapolate from 'Le Corbusier and his friends liked cars and wanted to demolish cities' to 'city planning was like that'. If city planning was really like that (if it actually existed that is), then Le Corbusier and his friends would get their way and entire cities would have been rebuilt.
That's where you go wrong. There isnt 'urban planning' in Europe because there isnt any space to plan anything. What could be called 'urban planning' in Europe is laying out subway tracks, maybe demolishing a run-down shanty neighborhood to build apartments. Thats it. Naturally there is no way to plan anything around cars. The most you can do is to eat up a little sidewalk in the biggest avenues in the biggest cities to make one more lane for the main street. And that's what was done for ~80 years.
> I think the citations quoted above from multiple sources generously support this
They dont. You moved on to 'urban planning was like that' argument from 'built like that'.
> European urban planning was also, at one time somewhat recently, largely car centric
Repeating it wont make it so. It wasnt, and still isnt. Aside from some part of Germany that rebuilt its destroyed cities and built autobahns, entire Europe was about tiny cars and tiny streets, leave aside any phenomenon like suburbs.
You cannot extrapolate from 'Le Corbusier and his friends liked cars and wanted to demolish cities' to 'city planning was like that'. If city planning was really like that (if it actually existed that is), then Le Corbusier and his friends would get their way and entire cities would have been rebuilt.
Wouldn’t that be a positive feedback loop that we feel negative about?
European cities are much less affordable than US cities. Just look at the data, compare average household income to average rent or purchase price.
It blows my mind that people here put Europe as some kind of affordable walkable alternative. Some places are indeed walkable, but affordability is utterly atrocious by US standard.
It blows my mind that people here put Europe as some kind of affordable walkable alternative. Some places are indeed walkable, but affordability is utterly atrocious by US standard.
I think a part of this is that American incomes are high compared to many other developed countries.
You might consider getting a velomobile. Slower than a car, but a lot faster than a regular bike. Eg I am currently considering a job that is about 50km away from here, one way times are: public transport 1h50m, car 50m, velomobile 1h to 1h30m depending on effort.
There is the 'extra 300 euro/month' bit. Which can be even more in the long run with not paying for car maintenance, insurance etc.
> So I think we will see a shift in where people settle, where they will no longer base their lives around owning multiple cars.
Not if real estate in cities remains as expensive as it is now. That's one of the main reasons why so many people move out and choose to spend so much time commuting.
Cars are just a means to an end, which is not living in a one-bedroom apartment as a family.
Not if real estate in cities remains as expensive as it is now. That's one of the main reasons why so many people move out and choose to spend so much time commuting.
Cars are just a means to an end, which is not living in a one-bedroom apartment as a family.
Ah that's a bit of a false dichotomy though. In between a rustic rural house on several acres down a dirt unpaved road unsuitable for bicycles, and a tiny, loud, one-bedroom downtown apartment condo in a highrise, or worse - one bedroom in a shared flat, in a superurban locale,
say Hong Kong, right above the nightlife or red light district, trying to raise a family of three or four; somewhere between the two extremes is a livable medium. Maybe a three-bedroom condo with a shared yard and pool raise a family in. A nestled away cute 2-bedroom cottage with a tiny yard at the edge of the city, but still within subway distance.
Now, I'll concede that most cities in the US aren't designed this way. I'll go further and say that most cities in the US lack the density to deserve being called cities, they're just large swaths of adjacent suburbia with a tiny downtown district that most people drive to in order to access, which has huge implications on traffic and parking.
What recent changes in society has enabled us to see is just how much we were sold a crock of shit while on our way to buying 5-bedroom McMansions with expansive yards for hosting dinner parties. If the cost is a one hour each way commute, people are starting to see it's not actually worth it.
So I agree/you're right - real estate prices have to fall dramatically in order for things to be accessible to the non-rich households who aren't on dual tech worker salaries, and who can't afford a reasonably sized (2+ bedroom) urban apartment. But for better or worse, HN skews affluent, so there are undoubtedly readers here able to afford a 4-bedroom apartment in one of the nicer neighborhoods of San Francisco where you'd want to raise a family. Pretending otherwise does no body any favors. The only question is how do we get from where we are today, which is that it's unaffordable to all but the upper-middle and upper class, to a place where is affordable on a single wage earners salary? The only answer to that is to build more housing. Stopgap measures like rent control don't work. It may be anathema to some, but part of that may include the government stepping in to make that happen.
Ebikes allow us to get from here to there, as an ebike allows a slightly more sprawling city design, due to the added range enabled by an ebike vs walking+non-existent public transportation, which means we can get a lot of mileage by repainting and modifying existing roads to add bike-safe infrastructure without ripping out and replacing buildings, which is basically impossible.
Now, I'll concede that most cities in the US aren't designed this way. I'll go further and say that most cities in the US lack the density to deserve being called cities, they're just large swaths of adjacent suburbia with a tiny downtown district that most people drive to in order to access, which has huge implications on traffic and parking.
What recent changes in society has enabled us to see is just how much we were sold a crock of shit while on our way to buying 5-bedroom McMansions with expansive yards for hosting dinner parties. If the cost is a one hour each way commute, people are starting to see it's not actually worth it.
So I agree/you're right - real estate prices have to fall dramatically in order for things to be accessible to the non-rich households who aren't on dual tech worker salaries, and who can't afford a reasonably sized (2+ bedroom) urban apartment. But for better or worse, HN skews affluent, so there are undoubtedly readers here able to afford a 4-bedroom apartment in one of the nicer neighborhoods of San Francisco where you'd want to raise a family. Pretending otherwise does no body any favors. The only question is how do we get from where we are today, which is that it's unaffordable to all but the upper-middle and upper class, to a place where is affordable on a single wage earners salary? The only answer to that is to build more housing. Stopgap measures like rent control don't work. It may be anathema to some, but part of that may include the government stepping in to make that happen.
Ebikes allow us to get from here to there, as an ebike allows a slightly more sprawling city design, due to the added range enabled by an ebike vs walking+non-existent public transportation, which means we can get a lot of mileage by repainting and modifying existing roads to add bike-safe infrastructure without ripping out and replacing buildings, which is basically impossible.
Sadly this rings somewhat true, I'm trying to make the maths work on moving from my house in the horrible Irish countryside (horrible if you don't like profound isolation and car-dependency, that is) and move to Utrecht or Houten, or Freiburg, and it is challenging, to say the least.
I like profound isolation... what's the bandwidth like? (The other thing that ties a lot of us to cities).
Good luck - I have a friend in Utrecht and he's happy there but IIRC he's renting and will do so for the remainder of his life.
I was priced out of the city where I grew up, so going somewhere more expensive is out of the question.
I was priced out of the city where I grew up, so going somewhere more expensive is out of the question.
I'd rather rent somewhere I can walk to the pub then live in my current paid-off house where I'm just lonely all the time. It's beautiful but that only goes so far.
The Netherlands at least has functional health service, among other things. Ireland does not.
Ireland is horrible at everything. The health service is in collapse, the immigration bureau is incompetent, crime is legal (the garda told me not to vote Green... now remember they're the ones enforcing environmental laws), transport is a joke, the bike infrastructure is 30 years behind the continent, and for all that the taxes are quite high if you make anything resembling a decent salary. But if you DO have the gall to earn gasp over 50,000 a year, you're a fat cat with "notions". And imagine you build a house and at some point need to rent it out? You're a monster landlord scumbag - might as well be from the plantations and evicting those poor poor people who trash your house and don't pay rent for months on end!
I posted this after being told it would take me six months to get my 3 year old to a pediatrician. https://np.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/11luo2b/how_can_i_s... - when she stopped growing.
This country is unacceptably bad. I look forward to leaving.
I posted this after being told it would take me six months to get my 3 year old to a pediatrician. https://np.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/11luo2b/how_can_i_s... - when she stopped growing.
This country is unacceptably bad. I look forward to leaving.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems very much like we're heading the opposite direction. People largely congregated in cities because of proximity to work, but as remote work increases that's becoming less of a factor. As people try to find cheaper property and more land, they're going to end up in places where bikes are a whole lot less practical.
Even if proximity to work were to be completely irrelevant for everyone, a lot of people (most?) would want to be close to something, be it their hobbies, hospitals, restaurants or at the very least shops. If your hobby is growing groceries and something outdoorsy (including road/gravel/mountain cycling!) and don't mind doing big shops/having to drive when you open a drawer and you realize that you ran out of oregano, then living in an isolated area is a valid choice (despite it increasing your individualized carbon footprint; if you fly more than once a year then that will dwarf almost any other lifestyle choice you make on that front).
I live in a city despite working remotely since the pandemic started, not because of proximity to the offices I might have to go back to, but rather because I can walk a block to buy groceries. I know people that live <.5 mile away from a Safeway in the peninsula that drive there because the streets are not very pedestrian or cyclist friendly.
I live in a city despite working remotely since the pandemic started, not because of proximity to the offices I might have to go back to, but rather because I can walk a block to buy groceries. I know people that live <.5 mile away from a Safeway in the peninsula that drive there because the streets are not very pedestrian or cyclist friendly.
I mean the reality of it is that cars are damned convenient and it's way easier to drive, even for three minutes, than walk for 15 minutes, especially if there's a suburban parking lot at the other end. Getting people out of that habit is an uphill battle, and I'd be lying if I said I've never driven those three minutes to Safeway vs walk. Especially if I'm grabbing a months worth of groceries for the whole house.
What's different now is ebikes/related which allows those three minutes to be done via bike. Dean Kamen claimed that cities would be redesigned around the Segway. He was too early, and only half right, but I think his claim was more prescient than we give him credit for. Ebikes, as we're hearing about here in London, really are enabling a new kind of city design that takes advantage of this semi-new technology.
What's different now is ebikes/related which allows those three minutes to be done via bike. Dean Kamen claimed that cities would be redesigned around the Segway. He was too early, and only half right, but I think his claim was more prescient than we give him credit for. Ebikes, as we're hearing about here in London, really are enabling a new kind of city design that takes advantage of this semi-new technology.
> bikes are a whole lot less practical
I'm sure you meant as daily transportation. As a non-daily, I bike several times per week even if I drive daily.
If I had my choice, I'd rather ride horses every day.
If I had my choice, I'd rather ride horses every day.
That's my plan should the EU ever mandate a 30km/h speed limit in cities.
If I'm gonna move slowly, might as well do it in style.
If I'm gonna move slowly, might as well do it in style.
bikes are great in small towns with decent infrastructure. the range from 20k to 100k people is kind of perfect for biking because they are a bunch smaller than big cities. in actually rural and suburbia they aren't as good but small towns are perfect.
I’ve had a bicycle as my main mode of transportation for years in a 1M people city.
There's a middle-ground between suburban sprawl and one-bedroom-apartments in highrises. Dense old-fashioned streetcar suburbs that predate the invention of driveways do a great job of being cyclist and transit friendly despite the fact that every home is a detached SFH.
Yeah, the american streetcar suburb truly is a gem, doesn't really exist on that scale in Europe. Lush, spacious, and verdant, but also walkable, with city feel and city amenities. Always great architecture. Mix of home sizes makes them naturally mixed income. Commercial corridors often preserved their function. So awesome, if only more newer suburbs were like that.
> Mix of home sizes makes them naturally mixed income.
Sadly, I don't think this will last if current trends continue. The town next to mine has a ton of duplexes but it's all zoned single-family now, so you couldn't build those today if you had to.
Sadly, I don't think this will last if current trends continue. The town next to mine has a ton of duplexes but it's all zoned single-family now, so you couldn't build those today if you had to.
I know, because I grew up in what I consider the pinnacle of urbanism - the humble commie block.
Unfortunately even commie blocks nowadays are either becoming too expensive or get "densified" - new blocks are built in between them, often without much of a plan.
This appears to be due to induced demand - especially now that so many apartments are bought as investments and never rented out.
This bothers me because I'm in the market for an apartment and it's becoming a race against time due to rising prices.
Unfortunately even commie blocks nowadays are either becoming too expensive or get "densified" - new blocks are built in between them, often without much of a plan.
This appears to be due to induced demand - especially now that so many apartments are bought as investments and never rented out.
This bothers me because I'm in the market for an apartment and it's becoming a race against time due to rising prices.
Hah, yeah. We're in a terrible housing crisis here in Ontario (houses around Toronto are now worth over a million) and tent-cities are cropping up everywhere, and "commie blocks" are what anti-urbanists point to when they complain about the new housing going in to meet demand, and all I can think is that I'll take Khrushchyovkas over tent-cities any day of the week.
> This appears to be due to induced demand - especially now that so many apartments are bought as investments and never rented out.
This is always the question. If even half of them are getting rented out, then at least new units are adding to the market and helping to battle rent... but it seems like governments are so crippled in their ability to know for certain how many people live in how many units.
> This appears to be due to induced demand - especially now that so many apartments are bought as investments and never rented out.
This is always the question. If even half of them are getting rented out, then at least new units are adding to the market and helping to battle rent... but it seems like governments are so crippled in their ability to know for certain how many people live in how many units.
This sounds like Yogi Berra's complaint of "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."
Real estate in cities being expensive is evidence that people really want to live in environments like that.
Will be interesting to see if other municipalities try to build similar housing and work environments (more walkable, less parking lots) to attract the people looking for a city life style.
Real estate in cities being expensive is evidence that people really want to live in environments like that.
Will be interesting to see if other municipalities try to build similar housing and work environments (more walkable, less parking lots) to attract the people looking for a city life style.
Schools inner city are (typically) terrible.
That's _very_ american assumption. All good schools are "inner" city in my country.
A bit of refinement on that thought. In America, inner-city schools are mixed bag. If you live in someplace like Cambridge, schools tend to be good. Boston is a mixed bag. Same is true for other adjacent cities. However if you go to places like Westford, Newton, Wellesley which are very high earner high value properties, the schools tend to be consistently very good. Then you start moving into more rural places in Massachusetts like Pepperell, Townsend, Athol and again the schools are more like inner-city schools, underfunded and not very good quality.
I think the best way to judge the quality of schools by the opportunities the student's have as a result of going through the schools. The Westford, Newton, Wellesley schools are for winners of the birth lottery. Leominster, Townsend, Athol are for us birth lottery losers.
I think the best way to judge the quality of schools by the opportunities the student's have as a result of going through the schools. The Westford, Newton, Wellesley schools are for winners of the birth lottery. Leominster, Townsend, Athol are for us birth lottery losers.
>A bit of refinement on that thought. In America, inner-city schools are mixed bag. If you live in someplace like Cambridge, schools tend to be good. Boston is a mixed bag. Same is true for other adjacent cities. However if you go to places like Westford, Newton, Wellesley which are very high earner high value properties, the schools tend to be consistently very good. Then you start moving into more rural places in Massachusetts like Pepperell, Townsend, Athol and again the schools are more like inner-city schools, underfunded and not very good quality.
How much of that is the quality of the schools and how much of that is just richer parents who can/will pick up the slack in the event that the school system doesn't do the job as well as they want it done?
If stats on median and per capita income are to be believed then the kid from Wellsley has a huge leg up on the kid from Athol even if you assume they get the same education.
How much of that is the quality of the schools and how much of that is just richer parents who can/will pick up the slack in the event that the school system doesn't do the job as well as they want it done?
If stats on median and per capita income are to be believed then the kid from Wellsley has a huge leg up on the kid from Athol even if you assume they get the same education.
For better or worse the quality of public schools depends far more on crime rates and income levels of the surrounding community than on school funding levels. There's very little that schools can do to to help pupils who are growing up in a difficult environment. By all means let's fund schools appropriately, but that's only going to make a marginal difference in outcomes.
A lot of American school districts depend on property tax values for funding. You get natural class-based school segregation as a result.
Parents with kids move to the suburbs for schooling, parents that are mobile and move for schooling bring to the suburbs things that make schools better (taxes / school meddling etc) which makes parents with kids move to the suburbs for schooling which ...
I like in the UK, and find any suggestion that I have even a thought in common with Americans offensive.
The term "inner city" is very American loaded, so I apologise for this slight.
As a parent myself who has always had a car but has aspired at times to go car-free, I think the whole "semi-frequent short term car rental" thing only really gets realistic when the kids are old enough to just need those tiny Mifold booster seats / seatbelt adjusters.
Conventional UAS-attached car seats are just too bulky and troublesome to be installing and uninstalling all the time in cars you only rent for a few hours at a time.
Conventional UAS-attached car seats are just too bulky and troublesome to be installing and uninstalling all the time in cars you only rent for a few hours at a time.
I think the key there is "all the time" - when we lived in the middle of a European city we used car-share, and the car seat was a bit annoying but since we were using it maybe once or twice a month tops it just wasn't that big a deal. Though we were using the seatbelt mount, and not ISOfix.
They even have inflatable ones you can easily fit in a backpack - I have one sitting in my garage from years ago when my tots needed them.
But yeah, if your kid is too small, it's a hassle to to carry around that bulky infant seat.
But yeah, if your kid is too small, it's a hassle to to carry around that bulky infant seat.
I guess if renting was big enough there could be option to rent a car with those pre-installed
I looked into carseat rentals about ten years ago, and it sounded like it's only really common at the agencies located around airports. Overall, I got the sense that there's a lot of fear and liability tied up in it— that giving someone the wrong seat or installing it incorrectly or not cleaning it adequately were all potential landmines waiting to happen.
That's generally an option, but it's not exactly cheap!
You live in a city bubble. I have three kids and live in a suburban town about 40km away from the nearest big city.
No way i can live without a car. I do have bikes and use them often to bring kids to school. But many friends and family are scattered arround the country. Many places i go to with my kids can only visited by car. And i find a car often very useful during a period of reconstruction of my house or garden. Or when i pick up big stuff from somewhere. Nah i couldnt live with out it
Yes I am, but you're similarly in a suburbian bubble, where you get the benefits of living remotely (silence, big house, lawn etc), but also expect to get easy access to everything by driving everywhere. The latter of great cost to society both in dollars and other external factors.
All your usecases could be served with a rental. Where I live I can rent cars on hour basis with an app. Need to haul something big? Rent a van for a few hours. Want to visit family in a remote city? Rent a sedan for a day or two. Need to get a cat to the vet? Rent a small city car for two hours.
All your usecases could be served with a rental. Where I live I can rent cars on hour basis with an app. Need to haul something big? Rent a van for a few hours. Want to visit family in a remote city? Rent a sedan for a day or two. Need to get a cat to the vet? Rent a small city car for two hours.
This is why cities are better for the environment. I don't think rural car usage has nearly as much negative impact as driving in a big city though, so this shouldn't be a strong policy focus. Awesome that the kids can ride to school!
I think the rural/city better for the environment is a bit of cherry picking of statistics. It's important however to respect what's good for each of us. For me, living in the city meant shitty health outcomes, spending way too much money on rent and food, way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment etc.
For me a good life means dark skies, green trees, a chance of dying every time I go for a hike, and a garden in my backyard.
If you are a city person, that's great, fantastic and I hope that you can stay there but if you have to move out to suburban/rural spaces, don't bring the city with you. Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city.
For me a good life means dark skies, green trees, a chance of dying every time I go for a hike, and a garden in my backyard.
If you are a city person, that's great, fantastic and I hope that you can stay there but if you have to move out to suburban/rural spaces, don't bring the city with you. Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city.
> Leave the light pollution, the noise, and all those urban attributes in the city.
"The noise"... are you advocating for a rural setting without cars here? Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.
"The noise"... are you advocating for a rural setting without cars here? Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.
> Most of light pollution and noise in the cities comes from cars and car infrastructure.
While I love cities, I think that's not really the story. Cities would light up their streets with or without cars. Could you imagine if New York, somehow sans cars, with pitch black streets at night? The crime fear is way overdone - cities are very safe these says. But I think I still prefer streetlights.
While I love cities, I think that's not really the story. Cities would light up their streets with or without cars. Could you imagine if New York, somehow sans cars, with pitch black streets at night? The crime fear is way overdone - cities are very safe these says. But I think I still prefer streetlights.
> way too many people trying to stick a hand in my pocket for entertainment
What does that refer to?
What does that refer to?
Trouble is, wild areas are being destroyed to make room for suburbia.
> a chance of dying every time I go for a hike
Sold where did you go
Sold where did you go
> You live in a city bubble
Or relatively, you live in a suburban bubble? Different lifestyles, different modes of transport.
Or relatively, you live in a suburban bubble? Different lifestyles, different modes of transport.
There is no bubble, only a lack of desire to seek out knowledge about other lifestyles. The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet.
> The problems with car culture were not surfaced until the rise and dominance of the internet.
I'm pretty sure it was discussed long before the Internet.
I'm pretty sure it was discussed long before the Internet.
When people are accused of living in a bubble, it's usually because they show a strong universalist desire to expand their lifestyles to others, without consideration for the others' preferences. The opposite of humanist liberalism that was foundational for Western liberal democracies, or 'live and let live'.
If we taxed suburbs what they actually cost us as a society, no one would want to live in suburbs. The land use is abysmal compared to cities. Suburbs are effectively subsidized by the cities they are near, and those living in suburbs get off way too easy. That's a good thing if you have an extractivist, individualist mindset, but if we are to continue functioning as a whole society, something needs to give.
We love our farmers. Keep the fields going. But this business with allocating half-acre lots per 4 people (lots which are empty for literally 1/3 of the day) has got to end, or else local utilities should stop servicing those far-flung places. You want to be without the burdens of living in a society -- fine! Figure out water and power for yourself. It's easier than ever and there's still federal- and state-level rebate programs for renewables.
We love our farmers. Keep the fields going. But this business with allocating half-acre lots per 4 people (lots which are empty for literally 1/3 of the day) has got to end, or else local utilities should stop servicing those far-flung places. You want to be without the burdens of living in a society -- fine! Figure out water and power for yourself. It's easier than ever and there's still federal- and state-level rebate programs for renewables.
If we actually tax them, it would be a negative tax.
So many people don't seem to realize that without suburbs you don't have farms.
Suburbs and farms produce all the things that cities rely on. You don't see heavy industry in the middle of a city.
So we actually wanted to do your plan then cities should cough up way more money than they currently do.
So many people don't seem to realize that without suburbs you don't have farms.
Suburbs and farms produce all the things that cities rely on. You don't see heavy industry in the middle of a city.
So we actually wanted to do your plan then cities should cough up way more money than they currently do.
Farmlands and suburbs are completely different things, especially in the context of urban development.
Industrial zones are also a completely different category entirely.
Living in Germany, most German cities do not have anything that is comparable to a U.S. "suburb". Building codes demand a quite high density, even for single family homes for new developments and older developments have the tendency to get denser as the demand for housing in a city rises.
German planning law specifically aims to concentrate development as much as possible, to limit encroachment on agricultural lands and nature. Doesn't always work out, but we have very little of the "urban sprawl" that is so characteristic of U.S. urban planning.
Industrial zones are also a completely different category entirely.
Living in Germany, most German cities do not have anything that is comparable to a U.S. "suburb". Building codes demand a quite high density, even for single family homes for new developments and older developments have the tendency to get denser as the demand for housing in a city rises.
German planning law specifically aims to concentrate development as much as possible, to limit encroachment on agricultural lands and nature. Doesn't always work out, but we have very little of the "urban sprawl" that is so characteristic of U.S. urban planning.
And Germany is tiny compared to the US.
A farm in Germany is how far of a drive from the nearest city?
In the US you could drive 10 hours from a farm to get to the nearest large city. Suburbs and tiny cities are what farms need to survive.
A farm in Germany is how far of a drive from the nearest city?
In the US you could drive 10 hours from a farm to get to the nearest large city. Suburbs and tiny cities are what farms need to survive.
Yes, farms need market access. But that market does not have to be a sprawling suburb, it can be a decently dense town or city. Also, market access is relative depending on product. Farmers concentrating on crops like wheat and corn don't care about the distance to cities, as their product is traded globally. For fresh produce, distance is a real concern, but on the other hand you don't need a lot of land to fulfill the need of even large cities. You could conceivably provide most fresh produce from inside city limits if urban planning would see this as necessary. Production/acre for something like tomatoes is really huge, depending on the methods used.
I get your point about small cities, but suburbs? They are attached to larger cities, so they may take the drive down from 10 hours to maybe 9.5. How does that make that much of a difference?
Tiny overstates it. I think ~30% of the size.
Except that in most German towns outside the tiny center where almost everything closes between 4 and 6 pm with exception of supermarkets, everything else seems to require a car or at least 30 minute cycling, with most buses ending at 8pm.
Nonsense. Farms obviously predate suburbs, for one thing: nothing resembling the modern suburb could exist without steam power or something newer than that. There's never really been heavy industry in the suburbs: the modern suburb exists because people didn't want to live near the heavy industry in the cities.
The North American suburb, which is what we're discussing here unless I misunderstand, more or less came about in the post-war era. It would really be an extraordinary claim that farms and heavy industry couldn't exist in North America until the 1950s...
The North American suburb, which is what we're discussing here unless I misunderstand, more or less came about in the post-war era. It would really be an extraordinary claim that farms and heavy industry couldn't exist in North America until the 1950s...
The poorer denser city centers (in America) subsidise the wealthier, less dense suburbs. "Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math [ST07]" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
I knew before watching it that it was Strong Towns propaganda.
They keep ignoring that without those suburbs you won't have rural farms. Without those suburbs those "productive" cities will have nothing to eat, and nothing to buy.
They measure productivity in terms of dollars - but all cities do is services, they don't produce goods. That's left to those places Strong Towns hates.
If people actually implemented what Strong Towns wants, people would starve.
Try the math again, but completely exclude services and let's see where you end up.
They keep ignoring that without those suburbs you won't have rural farms. Without those suburbs those "productive" cities will have nothing to eat, and nothing to buy.
They measure productivity in terms of dollars - but all cities do is services, they don't produce goods. That's left to those places Strong Towns hates.
If people actually implemented what Strong Towns wants, people would starve.
Try the math again, but completely exclude services and let's see where you end up.
The video points out cities which aren't bankrupt, do you think the people in them are starving and the farms near them are gone?
The video says that Canada has laws which stop cities paying more than 25% of revenue on debt payments, so they are much less bakrupt than USA cities. Do you think all Canadian cities have starving people with nothing to buy, and failed farms?
What about European cities which aren't suburban car dependent sprawl and still have food?
What about the explanations in the video (and the related ones on the channel) on why the suburbs are so expensive - you can't handwave away thirty six billion dollars of due road maintenance in a single city with "rural farms need it", even if true it's unsustainable.
> "all cities do is services, they don't produce goods."
All that needs is one counterexample: London has the largest diesel engine manufacturing site in the world - [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London#Manufacturin...
Yes, fintech nonsense has eaten London, and services are its most profitable sectors these days, but that's not /because it's a city/, it was a major manufacturing center and a city.
The video says that Canada has laws which stop cities paying more than 25% of revenue on debt payments, so they are much less bakrupt than USA cities. Do you think all Canadian cities have starving people with nothing to buy, and failed farms?
What about European cities which aren't suburban car dependent sprawl and still have food?
What about the explanations in the video (and the related ones on the channel) on why the suburbs are so expensive - you can't handwave away thirty six billion dollars of due road maintenance in a single city with "rural farms need it", even if true it's unsustainable.
> "all cities do is services, they don't produce goods."
All that needs is one counterexample: London has the largest diesel engine manufacturing site in the world - [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_London#Manufacturin...
Yes, fintech nonsense has eaten London, and services are its most profitable sectors these days, but that's not /because it's a city/, it was a major manufacturing center and a city.
Suburbs are the places where what used to be productive farms are paved over with asphalt. Few cities rely on them for anything except maybe cheap labour.
> anything except maybe cheap labour.
Hmmmmm. And that labor does?
Please think about this a big more - cities do not have industry or agriculture in them. They need those suburbs to provide that. You can't just dismiss it as "cheap labor" - what exactly do you plan to eat or buy?
Hmmmmm. And that labor does?
Please think about this a big more - cities do not have industry or agriculture in them. They need those suburbs to provide that. You can't just dismiss it as "cheap labor" - what exactly do you plan to eat or buy?
Farms aren't sub-urbs, farms are rural. Suburbia "lesser-urban" is housing estates. Nothing productive happens there.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suburbia - "the outer parts of a town, where there are houses, but no large shops, places of work, or places of entertainment"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suburbia - "the outer parts of a town, where there are houses, but no large shops, places of work, or places of entertainment"
People live there. And they create business nearby.
And those business are closer to the rural areas than the cities are.
And also, there aren't really any places with just houses and no places of work, that doesn't really exist.
And those business are closer to the rural areas than the cities are.
And also, there aren't really any places with just houses and no places of work, that doesn't really exist.
> So many people don't seem to realize that without suburbs you don't have farms.
This strikes me as a bizarre take. What do you consider a "suburb"?
This strikes me as a bizarre take. What do you consider a "suburb"?
Why is it illegal to build almost anything but suburbia?
Although you didn't imply a preference one way or the other, this made me think: if policy that is driven by suburbanite lifestyles leads to the destruction of the planet, is it truly "live and let live"? A more accurate description of the US ideology as someone who has lived in both ultra-rural and urban environments in the midwest and west coast is: "I want to do whatever I want/believe is best, regardless of the impact it has on people outside of my circle."
I mean, no one is arguing to replace all cars with bikes. Just where appropriate and if you want to. Enjoy your suburban paradise.
Similarly, someone on the moon would find a spacecraft useful as well.
no-one is arguing you should cycle 40 km - but that doesn't mean we live in a bubble.
That distance is more than the radius of the largest city in Europe -> it's 25km from Heathrow airport to the Buckingham palace.
I don't think having a car is a big problem, I think we could hand out free e-bikes to every family and reduce amount of cars of the roads, because for ~50% of journeys, they make sence.
That distance is more than the radius of the largest city in Europe -> it's 25km from Heathrow airport to the Buckingham palace.
I don't think having a car is a big problem, I think we could hand out free e-bikes to every family and reduce amount of cars of the roads, because for ~50% of journeys, they make sence.
We're not all not arguing that though. On an ebike powered to 30km/hr, that's an 80 minute ride. If their small town supplies most of their needs and they go into the big city once a month, that's quite feasible... lots of people do a 90+ minute drive once a month for something or other. 1-2 hour rides aren't exhausting or requiring special fitness on an e-bike, and can be very pleasant (if they had nice routes).
Now if they mean they go 40km to take the kids to school every day, that's a different matter.
Now if they mean they go 40km to take the kids to school every day, that's a different matter.
Does your large suburban home improvement shop not offer delivery or rent out work trucks/vans for hauling your DIY catch of the week?
Consider the cost of ownership with maintenance, depreciation, loan interest (if applicable), and insurance compared to renting. Depending on the frequency and distance of your long trips you may actually save money by renting.
Consider the cost of ownership with maintenance, depreciation, loan interest (if applicable), and insurance compared to renting. Depending on the frequency and distance of your long trips you may actually save money by renting.
[deleted]
They said "for many families", not for all families, so there is nothing to refute here...
40km from the nearest city should still provide lots of public transport options.
> You can no longer expect to move out of the city and still get a short way to everything by using your car
E-bikes could actually improve rural life as well (the example I read about was Spain). If you live 10km outside a village and can do your normal shopping by bike instead of car, that can really make an impact. Won't work in really sparse areas of course.
E-bikes could actually improve rural life as well (the example I read about was Spain). If you live 10km outside a village and can do your normal shopping by bike instead of car, that can really make an impact. Won't work in really sparse areas of course.
Unfortunately the big front-loaded cargo bikes are, well, big. Almost as long as a car, if not as wide. You need to park them somewhere and they're definitely too big and heavy to carry up any stairs. They're also expensive, like mid 4 figures USD. This starts to look like a similar problem to car ownership and parking. (I say this all as an avid cyclist -- my household has four bikes and one car.) Rentals seem like a good fit for some users so I'm happy to see someone trying it as a business model.
I own a bike with a big box in the front and parking has absolutely not been an issue for me. In the last six months I rode > 2600km in and around one of the densest European cities and parked in many different places. I have yet to find a place where I cannot park the bike . You can use regular car parking, but you will always find a dead corner, bike rack, big sidewalk, etc where you can leave the bike. And to be clear, I don't block the sidewalks or otherwise selfishly get in the way of other city dwellers.
My bike is an urban arrow, so one of the bigger two wheelers. ~7500€ new with all possible add-ons and a €150 annual insurance that covers the bike in full if ever stolen or damaged in an accident, so I also feel safe parking in rough areas with it.
My bike is an urban arrow, so one of the bigger two wheelers. ~7500€ new with all possible add-ons and a €150 annual insurance that covers the bike in full if ever stolen or damaged in an accident, so I also feel safe parking in rough areas with it.
Not easy at home in London. Our flat would not allow a cargo bike (1st floor) and there is no where outside to lock it safe and dry.
60,000 people on a 4 year waiting list for on street bike parking:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cyclists-bike-...
60,000 people on a 4 year waiting list for on street bike parking:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-cyclists-bike-...
In your case, a Tern HSD/GSD longtail may be a better option. It’s not quite as convenient as a long John, but much more compact and parks upright, so it fits even a small apartment.
Transport capacity is still great and the bigger version can seat two passengers, but the kids need to be old enough to sit and hold on themselves.
Transport capacity is still great and the bigger version can seat two passengers, but the kids need to be old enough to sit and hold on themselves.
I got an e-Muli, which is a sorta “short john” but where the front basket folds and handlebars pivot 90° so parking it is a bit more slim, more or less the footprint of a normal bike. It’s amazing — a little heavy so probably not luggable up stairs, but small enough when basket is folded that I prefer it even on errands where I don’t need the cargo space, just cause it’s electric (nice to throw a backpack in the front basket and close it, too. A little pricey since it’s made in Germany, but absolutely worth it:
https://muli-cycles.de/en
London core requires a special solution -> bikes with folding handlebar stem, folding pedals, possibly a longtail if you need to transport two kids.
All of this stuff exists but the bike industry can't put 2 and 2 together.
Here is a link to a folding handlebar stem that is sometimes in stock: https://flatbike.com/product/thinstem/
All of this stuff exists but the bike industry can't put 2 and 2 together.
Here is a link to a folding handlebar stem that is sometimes in stock: https://flatbike.com/product/thinstem/
I cannot speak for the safe part, but here in Belgium plenty of people leave their Urban Arrows outside (with a rain cover).
ive seen recently a new model of cargo bike that can be folded and it takes much less space. Myabe this helps
Glad to hear it. The biggest barrier for me is parking it at home. I don't have an indoor space big enough for a cargo bike and don't want to leave a $8-10,000 bike exposed to the elements and thieves (regardless of insurance).
A coworker of mine has a cargo bike from a company called Tern. I thought that is was the GSD but looking at their website it's different than the one he rides. Nevertheless, a neat feature is you can kick the bike backwards onto its own cargo rack, and the bike stands on its own vertically. He rides it to work and it fits in his comically small office; the footprint is about the same as a vertical filing cabinet. I'm told several of the newer cargo bikes have this feature.
It’s probably a HSD, the GSD’s bigger sibling. I know folks that bought it exactly for that feature and are very happy with it.
A bakfiets is nowhere near the size of a car. Come on now.
I feel it is useful to provide actual numbers on conversations like this.
On some brand I quickly googled[1], the bounding box that covers all of their models for electric bakfiet's size is 253cm x 95cm (with no individual bike being both that long and wide). Comparing them with a Fiat 500 and a RAM truck[2] (just for kicks), that bounding box is 1 meter shorter in both dimensions than the Fiat. And their classic model is 228cm x 63cm.
[1]: https://www.bakfiets.com/bestanden/documenten/618-22bakfiets...
[2]: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/abarth-500-2008-3-d...
On some brand I quickly googled[1], the bounding box that covers all of their models for electric bakfiet's size is 253cm x 95cm (with no individual bike being both that long and wide). Comparing them with a Fiat 500 and a RAM truck[2] (just for kicks), that bounding box is 1 meter shorter in both dimensions than the Fiat. And their classic model is 228cm x 63cm.
[1]: https://www.bakfiets.com/bestanden/documenten/618-22bakfiets...
[2]: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/abarth-500-2008-3-d...
Long tail cargo bikes like the Tern GSD avoid those issues of the bakfiets style ‘wheelbarrow’ bikes. They’ll take two passengers, and there’s plenty of less expensive options as well.
They are quite large, but not any where near as long or wide as a car.
I agree, I think they're an interim solution for not-very-bike-safe societies. (And bike-safe societies for people who are actually carrying cargo and have to use a big vehicle one way or another).
I've read that in the Netherlands, they aren't as common as you'd expect, because kids just ride their own bikes almost as soon as they're able to walk, because school, sport etc is nearby and on a safe separated bike path network. While younger babies are carried in those little seats that mount on the handlebars or racks of regular bikes.
I don't think ability to be carried up stairs easily is a good criteria for the practicality of any bike though, or it rules out many ebikes too. Just need secure parking at the ground level.
I've read that in the Netherlands, they aren't as common as you'd expect, because kids just ride their own bikes almost as soon as they're able to walk, because school, sport etc is nearby and on a safe separated bike path network. While younger babies are carried in those little seats that mount on the handlebars or racks of regular bikes.
I don't think ability to be carried up stairs easily is a good criteria for the practicality of any bike though, or it rules out many ebikes too. Just need secure parking at the ground level.
I had my mind blown about Dutch-style cargo ebikes, bakfietsen. The cool thing is that you can use the bikes to haul cargo, or put three kids in the front in special harnesses when you need to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
Most Dutch parents don't bother with harnesses in cargo bikes. Or with helmets on normal bikes.
If they don't have to deal with cars, perhaps it's ok - but yikes. Helmets for everyone because even at 20kph someone could get a nasty/fatal head injury when they're yeeted out of the cargo area.
It's all in a combination of infrastructure and riding style. If you're forced to ride with car traffic you have to go fast, which predisposes you to an aggressive road biking style. But if you do that then you also have trouble with stops and starts, which creates additional risk.
If you can go slower like a Dutch commuter, then you can also ride like them, using a step-through frame and a lower saddle. That keeps your center of gravity down and allows scooting starts. All of this adds up to a substantially smaller risk of going head-first in a fall.
If you can go slower like a Dutch commuter, then you can also ride like them, using a step-through frame and a lower saddle. That keeps your center of gravity down and allows scooting starts. All of this adds up to a substantially smaller risk of going head-first in a fall.
Try to count the number of helmets you can spot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8
In Amsterdam if we see adult cyclists with a helmet we'd guess it's probably a tourist or new expat. For children most parents only bother with helmets until they're six years or so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwMN3Z9Og8
In Amsterdam if we see adult cyclists with a helmet we'd guess it's probably a tourist or new expat. For children most parents only bother with helmets until they're six years or so.
"Why I stopped wearing a bike helmet" by former editor-in-chief of Bicycling, the world’s largest cycling magazine - https://www.cyclingtips.com/2018/11/commentary-why-i-stopped...
(Although he does still say kids should wear them).
(Although he does still say kids should wear them).
The cargo area in mine has seatbelts sized for small children.
We live in a very small town and I built a cargo bike from scratch to drive my (disabled) son to school. Excellent experience, despite not having motor assist. We still own a car, but we can easily make do with that one car now, where we would likely have had to buy a second one without the cargo bike. And having built it myself, it cost below 1,000€, including the welder I used to construct it.
My sister lives in Berlin, has a very young child and just bought an electrified cargo bike. She is not a bike rider, never has been, but loves it. Great alternative not only to a car in a crowded city, but also to crowded public transport if you are transporting a small human.
My sister lives in Berlin, has a very young child and just bought an electrified cargo bike. She is not a bike rider, never has been, but loves it. Great alternative not only to a car in a crowded city, but also to crowded public transport if you are transporting a small human.
You can also just put seats on a normal bike. I have two kids seats on my bike, front and back, and take my 3 and 6yo to kindergarten that way. It's cheaper than a cargo bike, and much less likely to get stolen.
I am dismayed but not surprised at just how much money people will spend on e-bikes to avoid exercise.
There are literally millions of decent analog bike frames bouncing around in various corners of <your city here>. Getting one up and running, and strapping a seat to the front and back as you have done, would be about 10% the cost of a new e-bike, and maintenance would be negligible.
Plus, you get to eat whatever you want guilt-free!
There are literally millions of decent analog bike frames bouncing around in various corners of <your city here>. Getting one up and running, and strapping a seat to the front and back as you have done, would be about 10% the cost of a new e-bike, and maintenance would be negligible.
Plus, you get to eat whatever you want guilt-free!
> I am dismayed but not surprised at just how much money people will spend on e-bikes to avoid exercise.
I am dismayed at how much people spend on plastic coffee pods just to avoid making a proper coffee!
Before I got an ebike, I didn't have confidence of riding on the road proper- > now I know I won't be slowing down to 5 MPH on an uphill, with someone behind me honking incessantly or overtaking dangerously.
I installed nice bright lights powered from the central battery, mirrors and a horn. This makes a world of difference.
I am dismayed at how much people spend on plastic coffee pods just to avoid making a proper coffee!
Before I got an ebike, I didn't have confidence of riding on the road proper- > now I know I won't be slowing down to 5 MPH on an uphill, with someone behind me honking incessantly or overtaking dangerously.
I installed nice bright lights powered from the central battery, mirrors and a horn. This makes a world of difference.
There is a lot to be said for shitty bike infrastructure causing confrontations like this. Yet somehow I've never been hit except once in a right hook, so I'm sure you can pull it off too if you dedicate yourself to it.
I'd like to point out that the carbon footprint of a used bike is a negative number and the out-of-pocket cost is laughably low. I love when people can reduce their emissions by replacing a car with something with much less impact like an e-bike, but those are the exceptions statistically speaking, and it also doesn't delete that car from existence but rather brings about more demand for mining and materials. Buying used e-bikes is also a fine option.
I'd like to point out that the carbon footprint of a used bike is a negative number and the out-of-pocket cost is laughably low. I love when people can reduce their emissions by replacing a car with something with much less impact like an e-bike, but those are the exceptions statistically speaking, and it also doesn't delete that car from existence but rather brings about more demand for mining and materials. Buying used e-bikes is also a fine option.
Actually this is not accurate and somewhat bad advice. A normal bicycle frame is designed for... normal use.
No need for ebikes but child seats should be used on reenforced frames such as what the Dutch call "Moederfiets", you can also use a 'Transportfiets' frame.
You are adding an extra 5 Kg to your front steering tube and another 20 kilos to your back cargo loader. That is not what most frames were designed for.
Secondly things like double leg kickstands and steering stem lock are really important to load kids in and out of seats safely, which again don't exist in 'normal' bikes.
My point is you don't need an ebike but you should definitely not be using an off the shelf thin frame to carry kids around everyday.
No need for ebikes but child seats should be used on reenforced frames such as what the Dutch call "Moederfiets", you can also use a 'Transportfiets' frame.
You are adding an extra 5 Kg to your front steering tube and another 20 kilos to your back cargo loader. That is not what most frames were designed for.
Secondly things like double leg kickstands and steering stem lock are really important to load kids in and out of seats safely, which again don't exist in 'normal' bikes.
My point is you don't need an ebike but you should definitely not be using an off the shelf thin frame to carry kids around everyday.
I regularly load 40kg+ on a steel touring frame (a remarkably "normal" bike by all accounts) and it's lasted 12 years so far.
Yes, you shouldn't use a department store bike. I (mistakenly?) assumed this is obvious to this reading crowd.
You sound like you have never worked on a bike before. It is not difficult to add different kinds of kickstands to existing frames. I believe you are quite under-informed on bicycle capacities.
Yes, you shouldn't use a department store bike. I (mistakenly?) assumed this is obvious to this reading crowd.
You sound like you have never worked on a bike before. It is not difficult to add different kinds of kickstands to existing frames. I believe you are quite under-informed on bicycle capacities.
Your regularly sounds like something that happens on the weekends. My regular is taking 2 kids to school everyday and leaving my bike parked out in the rain year round. Not all bikes have enough trail room to fit a double legged kickstand and I have never seen a stem lock fitted on anything other than a moederfiets/transportfiets (not a lock smith 'key and lock' but a 'twist' lock to lock the stem to take your kid out of the front seat without the front wheel spinning around on you).
My point is just that if you're planning on replacing a car with a bycicle there are already solved problems for kids transportation.
My point is just that if you're planning on replacing a car with a bycicle there are already solved problems for kids transportation.
Exactly. Weight distribution makes a big difference to how the bike handles. If you put a lot of weight on the back without balancing it with weight at the front you'll lose grip on the front wheel easily, which can be dangerous. Front wheel skids are almost impossible to control.
That would be a good example of something we call "user error". I am also not surprised that the first instinct of the risk-averse is "make it heavier", but look where that's got us with cars?
It's true that you'll get more exercise if you do the same trip on a regular bicycle. But according to [1], e-cyclists cycles more and longer than regular cyclists. End result is that they exercise about as much.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259019821...
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259019821...
I loved biking into work when I lived close enough (7mi) but honestly I would never have done it if I didn't also have shower access (was a small company but the business park had a shared shower).
Doubly so if you're doing any hills with a passenger on board.
Sweat/stink is what they're avoiding.
Doubly so if you're doing any hills with a passenger on board.
Sweat/stink is what they're avoiding.
pretty narrow to view ebikes solely as a means to avoid exercise. The list of benefits is long and proven. Regardless, suggesting someone simply dredge up a used bicycle and strap their child to it after a bit of maintenance is unrealistic
> The newer style of cargo bikes can for many families replace a car
This very much feels like "in addition to" rather than replacing a car, at least in the US. My wife and I (without kids) tried living without a car in one of the largest, most walkable cities in the US and it was doable, but it's just soooo much nicer to have a car. Coordinating rentals or even ride shares are a lot more tedious than jumping in a car and driving, and even if ride shares are cheaper than car ownership, I would often find myself not doing things because of the cost of ride share / car rental / etc. Further, I would have occasional ride share drivers blow me off when I really needed to be punctual, and I also had some fraudulent experiences with car share companies (upcharging me for services that I've explicitly declined and not correcting it via customer support channels).
There's also public transit, but that takes wayyyy longer to get around and it's also really dirty, crime-y, and otherwise uncomfortable at least in the cities I've traveled around in.
Lastly, cycling is probably always going to be less safe than getting around by car (we can and should improve cycling safety, but I don't know that we're ever going to get to parity with driving) and I don't know that very many people are going to want to subject their kids to that risk as their primary form of transit. I probably wouldn't, realistically.
This very much feels like "in addition to" rather than replacing a car, at least in the US. My wife and I (without kids) tried living without a car in one of the largest, most walkable cities in the US and it was doable, but it's just soooo much nicer to have a car. Coordinating rentals or even ride shares are a lot more tedious than jumping in a car and driving, and even if ride shares are cheaper than car ownership, I would often find myself not doing things because of the cost of ride share / car rental / etc. Further, I would have occasional ride share drivers blow me off when I really needed to be punctual, and I also had some fraudulent experiences with car share companies (upcharging me for services that I've explicitly declined and not correcting it via customer support channels).
There's also public transit, but that takes wayyyy longer to get around and it's also really dirty, crime-y, and otherwise uncomfortable at least in the cities I've traveled around in.
Lastly, cycling is probably always going to be less safe than getting around by car (we can and should improve cycling safety, but I don't know that we're ever going to get to parity with driving) and I don't know that very many people are going to want to subject their kids to that risk as their primary form of transit. I probably wouldn't, realistically.
> Lastly, cycling is probably always going to be less safe than getting around by car (we can and should improve cycling safety, but I don't know that we're ever going to get to parity with driving)
I think you're biased towards where you live. Where I live, cycling is definitely not considered risky, there are plenty of bike paths, and many people do indeed let their children bicycle as their primary means of transportation. One of the benefits is that the children can get around on their own and be more independent.
And yes, 30 years ago there were far fewer bike paths here. So things can change.
I think you're biased towards where you live. Where I live, cycling is definitely not considered risky, there are plenty of bike paths, and many people do indeed let their children bicycle as their primary means of transportation. One of the benefits is that the children can get around on their own and be more independent.
And yes, 30 years ago there were far fewer bike paths here. So things can change.
I’m not biased by where I live, cycling is riskier statistically than driving pretty much anywhere, including bike-friendly Netherlands:
something like 70% of total distance traveled is by car (https://www.statista.com/statistics/449436/netherlands-modal...) and yet there are fewer annual motorist fatalities than bicycle fatalities (207 cyclist fatalities versus 175 motorist fatalities in 2021: https://www.statista.com/statistics/523310/netherlands-numbe...).
EDIT: cycling in the netherlands is about 685% more dangerous than driving per https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2020/31/decline-in-road-fatali.... Of course, this isn’t a like-for-like comparison since the distance traveled by car skews more toward the more dangerous highway miles while cycling skews heavily toward the much safer local/city streets—if you account for that, the difference becomes even more pronounced.
something like 70% of total distance traveled is by car (https://www.statista.com/statistics/449436/netherlands-modal...) and yet there are fewer annual motorist fatalities than bicycle fatalities (207 cyclist fatalities versus 175 motorist fatalities in 2021: https://www.statista.com/statistics/523310/netherlands-numbe...).
EDIT: cycling in the netherlands is about 685% more dangerous than driving per https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2020/31/decline-in-road-fatali.... Of course, this isn’t a like-for-like comparison since the distance traveled by car skews more toward the more dangerous highway miles while cycling skews heavily toward the much safer local/city streets—if you account for that, the difference becomes even more pronounced.
> The newer style of cargo bikes can for many families replace a car.
Absolutely! My wife and I have a 6yo, and we take him everywhere on the back of our Kona Minute.
He's big for his age (65lbs) so we're looking to move to a ebike sometime this year, but up to now it's been great! Literally the only time we need to use a car is when we go out of town.
Absolutely! My wife and I have a 6yo, and we take him everywhere on the back of our Kona Minute.
He's big for his age (65lbs) so we're looking to move to a ebike sometime this year, but up to now it's been great! Literally the only time we need to use a car is when we go out of town.
I used a bike trailer and child seat when my twins were young, I could drop all 3 kids off at nursery, unhitch the trailer and leave it at the nursery, cycle on to work from there. On the way back I would hitch the trailer up and go in and collect them and cycle home. Trailer was around £150 and I only had to tow it when necessary.
Why is no one talking about the safety of hauling kids on a bike? It's incredibly dangerous compared to a car.
In my city, it's not if but when you'll get hit by a car on a bike. Yet I see parents increasingly think it's okay to haul their children on their bikes.
In my city, it's not if but when you'll get hit by a car on a bike. Yet I see parents increasingly think it's okay to haul their children on their bikes.
Because it should be okay, and it's a societal failing that it currently isn't as safe as it should be. Cars are always safer for their occupants, but using them puts vulnerable road users at greater risk of serious injury or death. In my city I love to see more people on the road with their kids on e-bikes. It shouldn't be a moral failing on part of the parent to be doing that. OTOH, just this morning one of the A*Hole parents back her SUV out of a parking space in a day care parking lot while on the phone and holding the phone to her ear. When I motioned for her to get off her phone in the DAYCARE PARKING LOT she shrugged and sped off.
[deleted]
> Because it should be okay
But it isn't. End of story.
Happy to support people who want to make biking safer. Happy to support politicians who want to build protected bike lanes.
But you can't just make up a fairy tale land and pretend it's safe. Bring yourself back to real life, and your children are in danger.
But it isn't. End of story.
Happy to support people who want to make biking safer. Happy to support politicians who want to build protected bike lanes.
But you can't just make up a fairy tale land and pretend it's safe. Bring yourself back to real life, and your children are in danger.
I hope this is meant ironically.
Cars regularly mount pavements/sidewalks as well, and kill pedestrians who are not even in the road.
The correct response to "cars make cities unsafe for everyone" is of course to ban all but the most essential cars from cities. It is not to suggest that the _other_ forms of transport (including walking on the pavement/sidewalk!) are so unsafe as to be irresponsible, in the presence of cars.
Cars regularly mount pavements/sidewalks as well, and kill pedestrians who are not even in the road.
The correct response to "cars make cities unsafe for everyone" is of course to ban all but the most essential cars from cities. It is not to suggest that the _other_ forms of transport (including walking on the pavement/sidewalk!) are so unsafe as to be irresponsible, in the presence of cars.
Great. But that doesn't help today. And today people are having their kids ride with them on their bikes.
So it’s not the bikes that are dangerous but the cars around them. Shouldn’t the solution be about how to keep cars away from bikes, not ditch bikes and drive cars?
Yes that's the solution. How does that help today, as I see parents carry their children on their bikes around dangerous cars?
In Japan I once saw a woman bike to the grocery store with 4 children on a regular mama-chari. One seat in the front and back, and one child strapped each on her front and back. The most bad-ass mom I ever saw.
what do people do that have kids between the "too big for cargo bike" and "too young to drive their own car" category?
I used to take my kids all the time on my e-bike with a burley bike trailer. Now I have a 13 year old and a 10 year old. I'm pretty sure the middle schooler would get made fun of if his friends saw him showing up to school or soccer practice in the cargo bucket of my bike.
For people that have hit that milestone before me, what do you guys do for your older kids?
I used to take my kids all the time on my e-bike with a burley bike trailer. Now I have a 13 year old and a 10 year old. I'm pretty sure the middle schooler would get made fun of if his friends saw him showing up to school or soccer practice in the cargo bucket of my bike.
For people that have hit that milestone before me, what do you guys do for your older kids?
Sounds like it's time for them to get their own bike to ride to school?
You can ride with them on a few practice runs on a weekend and then continue to do so on a weekdays. Once you're both comfortable with the route and their ability to navigate it safely you can cut back on how much of the route you do together or just let them run it on their own. That last bit is a call to be made based on a lot of factors including your kids desire to ride with you.
You can ride with them on a few practice runs on a weekend and then continue to do so on a weekdays. Once you're both comfortable with the route and their ability to navigate it safely you can cut back on how much of the route you do together or just let them run it on their own. That last bit is a call to be made based on a lot of factors including your kids desire to ride with you.
Our 9 year old has an electric scooter. I didn’t really want to get it for him, because I’m an old school analog bike guy myself, but I have to admit it is convenient. It has around a 15 mile range and keeps up with a comfortable cycling pace, so my wife and I ride our commuter bikes and he cruises along next to us.
He also has a bike and he’s a pretty strong rider for a kid, but it’s still a bit much for him to keep up on longer trips, so the scooter helps there. I expect in a couple of years or so it will break or he will outgrow it, but by then he should have no trouble keeping up on his own bike.
He also has a bike and he’s a pretty strong rider for a kid, but it’s still a bit much for him to keep up on longer trips, so the scooter helps there. I expect in a couple of years or so it will break or he will outgrow it, but by then he should have no trouble keeping up on his own bike.
My children ride their own bike to school at age 6. I bought light-weight bikes (like Frogbikes or Woom, they keep a great resale value), and accepted that it takes a bit more time.
There's a certain joy in being propelled by your own muscles. But of course it depends on the distance.
There's a certain joy in being propelled by your own muscles. But of course it depends on the distance.
My 11 and 13yo happily ride on the back of my cargo bike (Extracycle). Some of their braver, bike riding friends, do ask "Why don't you ride by yourself?"
I used to have a burley before the cargo. I think the cargo upright position makes it feel a bit more grown up. Plus, it is so fun.
The highschooler absolutely refuses to ride the back of the cargo, and insists on being driven by car. It takes so much longer with all the traffic, but he is willing to suffer to avoid looking uncool.
I used to have a burley before the cargo. I think the cargo upright position makes it feel a bit more grown up. Plus, it is so fun.
The highschooler absolutely refuses to ride the back of the cargo, and insists on being driven by car. It takes so much longer with all the traffic, but he is willing to suffer to avoid looking uncool.
Why can't he simply ride his own bike rather than forcing you to be stuck in traffic?
Also, do you really consider 11 and 13 year olds brave for riding a bike? I'd say that is a pretty normal thing to do at that age.
Also, do you really consider 11 and 13 year olds brave for riding a bike? I'd say that is a pretty normal thing to do at that age.
It sounds like you think the infrastructure is too unsafe for them to bike on their own?
My nephew (12) cycles himself to school, but the infrastructure supports him doing so.
My nephew (12) cycles himself to school, but the infrastructure supports him doing so.
When I was in middle school my friends who lived close to school used their own bikes
My kid is 7 and rides his own bike to school with me. (2.5km) At 13 I'm pretty sure they'd be good to go without you even.
My commute in Jr. high was 7.7 km each way, I started doing that when I was 11.
10 is plenty old to cycle a bike themselves?
There's also fairly cheap trailers that you can attach to any bike, and they work quite well.
> So I think we will see a shift in where people settle,
Let's hope not all will want to live above the supermarket they work at: https://3pod.bandcamp.com/track/triangle-of-happiness
Let's hope not all will want to live above the supermarket they work at: https://3pod.bandcamp.com/track/triangle-of-happiness
This is the case in Hong Kong when I visited my extended family who live there a decade ago.
Powered walkways/escalators/elevators everywhere, metro came every 2-3m, shopping/city offices/food courts connected to it all and you did a LOT of walking.
That was the closest to Trantor I'll ever be in my life. Sigh.
Powered walkways/escalators/elevators everywhere, metro came every 2-3m, shopping/city offices/food courts connected to it all and you did a LOT of walking.
That was the closest to Trantor I'll ever be in my life. Sigh.
Brompton lets you try before you buy.
Can't understate the temporal dimension to owning a car. When dropping and picking up a kid at daycare, you want to move fast, if you work for a living.
I was recently obliged for the first time to drop my son off at school by car. It took 50% longer than cycling. I can't understate the temporal dimension of using a car. When dropping and picking up a kid at school...etc etc
You're not representative of how this usually works, and you know it.
You mean the long rows of cars queueing one constantly see outside US schools aren't representative? I'd say it takes far longer to pick someone up in a car than a bike..
Only if you live that close by. And I've never seen a long queue.
If you're in the US, it's likely that you either don't drive by schools when they're letting out, or you live in a place that has the right combination of density and poor kids to limit the driver pick-ups. None of the 5 places across 4 states where I've lived in the last 10 years have avoided the pickup line phenomenon.
You seem to have missed that this comment chain focused on daycare to begin with, not school. There's no bus for that.
Daycares vary in size. You can opt for institutions that watch after 30 kids at a time, or ones run out of houses, but one way or another if both you and your spouse work for a living, you need someone to watch your kid, and it will probably require daycare and by extension commuting. If you live in the suburbs, you drive.
Daycares vary in size. You can opt for institutions that watch after 30 kids at a time, or ones run out of houses, but one way or another if both you and your spouse work for a living, you need someone to watch your kid, and it will probably require daycare and by extension commuting. If you live in the suburbs, you drive.
This depends very much on local circumstances. In our local daycare in Amsterdam, probably 3/4 of dropping and picking up was done by bike. Even at that level, using a car is often slower due to tightness of parking space.
Eh. For all my kids' daycare career I dropped them off by bike. Given the distance and route it was faster than driving. It really depends on the distances involved, road layout, cycling infrastructure, geography, weather, etc... Not many universals here.
A kid goes to daycare for what 3 years? If you have 2-3 kids and you don't wait 10 years in between these are just 10 years of your life.
Meaning what, it's not worth owning a vehicle for a 10 year span? Be serious.
Meaning this is a moot point for most of your life.
10 years does not make a moot point.
About not killing someone if you ride after drinking, Obviously it is ver difficult for a bike to directly kill someone other than the rider (as opposed to a car, where this is very easy), but a drunk cyclist can still hurt other people directly or indirectly (causing a bigger accident by forcing someone to avoid them).
Even on a city free of private cars, you’d still share the road with pedestrians, other cyclists, and public transportation.
And even if you really don’t hurt someone else, it’s terribly hard on a bus driver if they kill someone, even when it wasn’t their fault (my wife saw this first hand when someone committed suicide by throwing themselves under a bus).
So no, if you drink, just walk, take public transportation, or get someone else to take you home, but don’t ride a bike.
(edit: typos)
Even on a city free of private cars, you’d still share the road with pedestrians, other cyclists, and public transportation.
And even if you really don’t hurt someone else, it’s terribly hard on a bus driver if they kill someone, even when it wasn’t their fault (my wife saw this first hand when someone committed suicide by throwing themselves under a bus).
So no, if you drink, just walk, take public transportation, or get someone else to take you home, but don’t ride a bike.
(edit: typos)
I see lots of folks in the comments assuming what would happen when you bike drunk, seemingly not ever having done so themselves or seen it.
I live in a student city in the Netherlands (Groningen), where most students go out on the town by bike. It's really not much more dangerous than walking drunk. And it's very much preferable to driving drunk.
Thousands of students park their bikes in the city's central underground bike parking spots every weekend. I have never heard of someone dying because biking drunk. The biggest danger for any bike, drunk or not, remains the car. This is also reflected in the enforcement of laws by the police. Although driving drunk, and being drunk in public is not allowed, fining cyclists for this is rarely enforced. Partially because the consequences are not too bad, and partially to make sure people don't drive home drunk instead to avoid a fine.
According to the Dutch central bureau of statistics in 2021, out of all deaths of cyclists 34% are due to losing consciousness, getting a foot stuck in the wheels, making a wrong movement, or due to bad road conditions and slipperiness. Out of this 34%, 72 % is over the age of 70. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2022/37/meer-fietsdoden-na-e...
I live in a student city in the Netherlands (Groningen), where most students go out on the town by bike. It's really not much more dangerous than walking drunk. And it's very much preferable to driving drunk.
Thousands of students park their bikes in the city's central underground bike parking spots every weekend. I have never heard of someone dying because biking drunk. The biggest danger for any bike, drunk or not, remains the car. This is also reflected in the enforcement of laws by the police. Although driving drunk, and being drunk in public is not allowed, fining cyclists for this is rarely enforced. Partially because the consequences are not too bad, and partially to make sure people don't drive home drunk instead to avoid a fine.
According to the Dutch central bureau of statistics in 2021, out of all deaths of cyclists 34% are due to losing consciousness, getting a foot stuck in the wheels, making a wrong movement, or due to bad road conditions and slipperiness. Out of this 34%, 72 % is over the age of 70. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2022/37/meer-fietsdoden-na-e...
I once heard somebody describe cycling after a few drinks as the closest thing humans can get to flying.
Hitting a pedestrian when riding a bike at 25 km/h has life threatening consequences for the pedestrian. Pedestrians do die when hit by bikers. Especially elderly which have worse awareness around them and are more fragile.
Where do you think cyclists are going 25 km/h while interacting with pedestrians? If it's on a shared pathway they should be going more slowly, if someone fails to do that that's as much their failure as if they hit someone with a car. And if they're on a road/cycle lane and they fail to respect a ped crossing, that's again the same.
If everybody would do everything by the book we wouldn't have this discussion about drunken cyclist.
Not even being snarky but if hitting a pedestrian at 25kmh with a bicycle is so bad, how much worse would it be with a car/truck/bus?
I'm sure flying a plane with 300 people on board while being drunk is worse than driving a car drunk. But that doesn't mean it's now OK to drive under influence, because there is something even worse out there you could do while being drunk.
cool. that was not even my intent by asking the question. i was wondering how lethal it is being hit by a car at 25kmh.
It depends on how you get hit and how do you land. Cars builders have pedestrian safety in mind as they get NCAP ratings for it. If you are lucky, maybe not that much damage. On the other hand full frontal collision with a bus is probably not good for you as there is nowhere for you slide or bounce off to lose some of the energy. Bike is similar to bus as there is no way for you to 'gently' (no 'soft' metal to bend or curves to steer you off it) lose some of the energy.
People here (northern Europe) don’t bike at 25 km/h while drunk, if at all (unless racing/exercising), so it’s not really an issue.
Then I hope you'll never get hit or worse, you hitting somebody else while intoxicated on a bicycle, even if you think is of no consequence.
A friend of mine in college drove down a (very) long flight of stairs with his bike while being (very) drunk. He was severely injured and I very much doubt based on his recollection of what happened that he would a) have injured himself at all if he was on foot and b) even if he had fell on those stairs, he would have had much less serious injuries.
Sure, but you are comparing statistics for an entire country to a specific incident. Of course there's a non-0 risk, but when it's about traffic and safety it's about acceptable, not complete elimination of risk.
It's still illegal in the Netherlands to bike drunk. I'm sure this would be aggressively enforced in cities like Groningen if statistically there were major safety issues Thursdays and Friday nights with drunk cyclists, but this is not the case.
Not to say that your friend shouldn't have walked instead though. Drunkness is also a sliding scale. Luckily with cyclists the chances are way lower of murdering others.
It's still illegal in the Netherlands to bike drunk. I'm sure this would be aggressively enforced in cities like Groningen if statistically there were major safety issues Thursdays and Friday nights with drunk cyclists, but this is not the case.
Not to say that your friend shouldn't have walked instead though. Drunkness is also a sliding scale. Luckily with cyclists the chances are way lower of murdering others.
Nice suggestion, but drunk-cycling is self-limiting in a way that drunk-cycling is not. Drunk-driving you are seated, and only need to be barely conscious. for drunk-cycling, you still must be sufficiently functional to balance on a bike, which puts a bit of a floor on the level of perceptual and cognitive function available, in addition to the far lower bike vs car ceiling on available momentum to do damage.
Not recommended, but cycling is a very substantially less-worse choice, absent getting another ride.
Not recommended, but cycling is a very substantially less-worse choice, absent getting another ride.
> which puts a bit of a floor on the level of perceptual and cognitive function available
Absolutely. I cannot believe people are actually equivocating on this. A drunk driver is hundreds of times more dangerous than a drunk cyclist, it's a categorical difference.
Absolutely. I cannot believe people are actually equivocating on this. A drunk driver is hundreds of times more dangerous than a drunk cyclist, it's a categorical difference.
True, I remember watching a guy "cycling" drunk, and he was just walking with a bike between his legs.
That's correct. Drunk drivers are frequently completely unconscious by the time they crash a car, and can have been for quite a distance down the road. Can't happen on a bike.
One could envision that last beer or shot not having taken full hold when the cyclist gets on the bike. One could also envision balance being sufficient but reaction time not.
Have I crashed my bike at the bottom of a hill while drunk? Yes, yes I have.
Have I crashed my bike at the bottom of a hill while drunk? Yes, yes I have.
The important part, for public safety, is “How many people did you kill/maim?”
Injuring yourself due to alcohol is bad. Hurting others is inexcusable.
Injuring yourself due to alcohol is bad. Hurting others is inexcusable.
I think "self-limiting" is a key point here. People who are moderately drunk are not very dangerous, and people who are very drunk are just not capable of cycling - it requires a certain degree of coordination.
Don't most of you points also apply to drunk walking?
The damage is a function of mass and speed. Obviously walking < e-bike << car
I cannot believe this is getting downvoted. The reasons cars are inherently dangerous is 99% because they are heavy and fast. Everything we build around that (traffic rules, dedicated lanes, buffer spaces, ...) is purely to deal with this fundamental physical reality.
With great power comes great responsibility. Whether you take that perspective in Joules, Watts, Newtons, kg.m/s, the conclusions are roughly the same. Drivers needs to be hundreds of times more responsible than cyclists or walkers.
With great power comes great responsibility. Whether you take that perspective in Joules, Watts, Newtons, kg.m/s, the conclusions are roughly the same. Drivers needs to be hundreds of times more responsible than cyclists or walkers.
To quickly do the calculations:
Walking: 5 km/h * 70kg = 97 kgm/s
e-bike: 20 km/h * 90 kg = 500 kgm/s
car: 50 km/h * 2000kg = 28,000 kgm/s
Walking: 5 km/h * 70kg = 97 kgm/s
e-bike: 20 km/h * 90 kg = 500 kgm/s
car: 50 km/h * 2000kg = 28,000 kgm/s
Energy is proportionate to the square of velocity. So it's:
Walking: 5 km/h * 70kg => 875 (although this is a very slow estimate for a walker) (please ignore the non-canonical units)
e-bike: 20 km/h * 90 kg => 18,000 (I think your estimate for ebike mass might be on the low side at 20kg, but whatever)
car: 50 km/h * 2000kg => 2,500,000 (and that's a fairly low speed for cars! Drunk drivers often drive faster than is wise.)
Everything else is a rounding error compared to the energy of a car.
Walking: 5 km/h * 70kg => 875 (although this is a very slow estimate for a walker) (please ignore the non-canonical units)
e-bike: 20 km/h * 90 kg => 18,000 (I think your estimate for ebike mass might be on the low side at 20kg, but whatever)
car: 50 km/h * 2000kg => 2,500,000 (and that's a fairly low speed for cars! Drunk drivers often drive faster than is wise.)
Everything else is a rounding error compared to the energy of a car.
Realistic estimates:
Walking: 6kph, 70kg => 100J (0.02% of car)
Analog bike: 18kph, 80kg => 2kJ (0.36% of car)
E-bike: 25kph, 100kg => 4.6kJ (0.82% of car)
Car: 50kph, 2000kg => 560kJ (100% of car)
Walking: 6kph, 70kg => 100J (0.02% of car)
Analog bike: 18kph, 80kg => 2kJ (0.36% of car)
E-bike: 25kph, 100kg => 4.6kJ (0.82% of car)
Car: 50kph, 2000kg => 560kJ (100% of car)
Thanks. Just for the sake of fleshing out the speeding angle:
Car, 64 kph => 164% of car at 50 kph
Car, 110 kph => 480% of car at 50 kph
Car, 64 kph => 164% of car at 50 kph
Car, 110 kph => 480% of car at 50 kph
> Walking: 5 km/h * 70kg => 875 (although this is a very slow estimate for a walker)
In the context of this thread (a walker who’s drunk), I don’t think it’s very slow.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_walking_speed:
“The preferred walking speed is the speed at which humans or animals choose to walk. Many people tend to walk at about 1.42 metres per second (5.1 km/h; 3.2 mph; 4.7 ft/s).”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209575641...:
“The results show teenagers walk at an average speed of 1.45 m/s, young adults walk at an average speed of 1.55 m/s, middle age pedestrians walk at a speed of 1.45 m/s, older pedestrians walk at speed of 1.09 m/s, and elderly or physically disabled pedestrians walk at a speed of 1.04 m/s.”
5km/hour is about 1.4m/s; the fastest of these speeds is 5.6 km/hour.
In the context of this thread (a walker who’s drunk), I don’t think it’s very slow.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_walking_speed:
“The preferred walking speed is the speed at which humans or animals choose to walk. Many people tend to walk at about 1.42 metres per second (5.1 km/h; 3.2 mph; 4.7 ft/s).”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209575641...:
“The results show teenagers walk at an average speed of 1.45 m/s, young adults walk at an average speed of 1.55 m/s, middle age pedestrians walk at a speed of 1.45 m/s, older pedestrians walk at speed of 1.09 m/s, and elderly or physically disabled pedestrians walk at a speed of 1.04 m/s.”
5km/hour is about 1.4m/s; the fastest of these speeds is 5.6 km/hour.
Initial kinetic energy is not the right physical quantity to look at. Most of that kinetic energy will remain in the car/bike/…, i.e. it doesn't tell you much about how much energy will get transferred to the victim – it merely gives you a bound from above.
More details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35233887
More details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35233887
Wouldn’t joules be more indicative of damage caused?
No. The kinetic energy of the car/bike/… doesn't tell you anything because you don't know how much energy gets transferred to the victim until you have applied momentum conservation to the elastic/inelastic problem. So, the right approach would be (in this order): Calculate momenta, calculate how much momentum gets transferred to the victim via momentum conservation, deduce the resulting change (increase) in kinetic energy of the victim. This kinetic energy will be converted into heat (= damage/injuries) in one way or another, so it's the relevant physical quantity for our considerations.
Finally, in case of an inelastic problem (likely with cars, not so likely with bikes or people), you also need to consider the energy loss during momentum transfer. Once again, this energy will become heat (= do damage), so it adds to the aforementioned increase in kinetic energy when we're interested in how much damage will be done.
Finally, in case of an inelastic problem (likely with cars, not so likely with bikes or people), you also need to consider the energy loss during momentum transfer. Once again, this energy will become heat (= do damage), so it adds to the aforementioned increase in kinetic energy when we're interested in how much damage will be done.
Just as there is the law of conservation of energy, there is also the law of conservation of momentum. Both explain it equally well IMO.
How can mv and mv² explain the damage "equally well", when one is linear and the other is quadratic with respect to velocity?
The point is the extreme magnitude of difference between a car and a bike/person. This shows it just fine.
Momentum is always conserved. Energy is partially conserved. If it squishes, it will be more like MV, if it bounces, it's more like 1/2 mv^2.
This is awesome, thank you (and ditto for this whole chain of replies).
it's worth noting that most collisions don't happen at full speed (and combination of velocity matters a lot).
The argument above was that you can still hurt a bus driver psychologically by having them kill you. So it doesn't really matter that an ebike is heavier than walking.
The argument above was that you can still hurt a bus driver psychologically by having them kill you. So it doesn't really matter that an ebike is heavier.
Literally just being drunk enough can end up in you being dead or maimed.
From a harm reduction perspective, Drunk Driving -> Drunk Bicycling feels like it reduces the capacity for damage roughly proportionally to Drunk Bicycling -> Drunk Walking. At a critical level, the speeds you can comfortably achieve are reduced at each step, thereby increasing the amount of reaction time available to avoid an incident, reducing the ramifications of an error, and reducing the amount of damage your body has the capacity to do (by nature of the amount of kinetic energy you are attempting to control).
From a harm reduction perspective, Drunk Driving -> Drunk Bicycling feels like it reduces the capacity for damage roughly proportionally to Drunk Bicycling -> Drunk Walking. At a critical level, the speeds you can comfortably achieve are reduced at each step, thereby increasing the amount of reaction time available to avoid an incident, reducing the ramifications of an error, and reducing the amount of damage your body has the capacity to do (by nature of the amount of kinetic energy you are attempting to control).
one major difference is that someone who is incredibly drunk can still drive a car at 100kmph, but they can't balance well enough to ride their bike.
Not sure if this is an example of anti-fragility, but it made me think of that. there's def something diff about bikes for this. Get too drunk as a cyclist and you remove yourself from the situation in relatively safe way, just by not being able to stay in control :)
You have to be really plastered to not ride a bike any more. Like a lot, a lot.
That's true, but most fatal car crashes happen for people who are very drunk https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... reports that in the US, of the 2019 crashes of drivers who had a BAC above .01, 68% had BACs of .15 or higher (and about half were .20 or higher). That's a group that would have a pretty hard time riding a bike at high enough speed to do much damage. None of this is to say that biking while drunk is a good idea. It probably at least triples your likelyhood of being hit and killed by a car. Defensive riding is one of the things I would expect to be significantly impaired by relatively little alcohol, and it's probably dark out which makes everything riskier.
[deleted]
The risks you're concerned about are not statistically relevant.
Cool thanks for letting me know. Time to down a 40 and start doing wheelies through high traffic crosswalks.
[deleted]
Safer than doing the same with burnouts in a parking lot.
Don't drink and ride.
We a friend do this, they didn't hurt anyone but themselves, and not too badly. And they did hit their head when they fell off , but were wearing a helmet (thus becoming a advocate for helmets..). Still pretty scraped up.
We a friend do this, they didn't hurt anyone but themselves, and not too badly. And they did hit their head when they fell off , but were wearing a helmet (thus becoming a advocate for helmets..). Still pretty scraped up.
I am on board with this. You can do someone a serious injury while cycling.
Also, you might kill yourself by drunk cycling. And that is likely to have a huge effect on lots of people you care about.
It's just a bad idea all round...
Also, you might kill yourself by drunk cycling. And that is likely to have a huge effect on lots of people you care about.
It's just a bad idea all round...
It's a bad idea, but orders of magnitude less of a bad idea than drunk driving. People ditching cars means less drunk driving (even if it means more drunk cycling), as well as less road deaths in general. That can only be a good thing.
If you kill yourself while cycling then you were almost certainly hit by a car, which is probably more likely if you are drunk cycling. But this is also the fault of bad cycling infrastructure and arguably the driver who cannot avoid another road user.
Pretty sure it’s illegal to operate any kind of vehicle on a public street while over the limit in the US. No different than a car. Except, if you get in a wreck you’re almost surely dead.
I once had an office in an only somewhat renovated area of mill buildings in an old mill town in New England. One building always had a number of down at the heels looking bicycles parked outside. Eventually I found out it was an addiction rehab.
There was no public transport in the area. I'd rather have them getting to rehab on a bike than not going at all.
There was no public transport in the area. I'd rather have them getting to rehab on a bike than not going at all.
It's also very illegal to bike when drunk where I live in Germany
Correction: it's illegal to bike when very drunk. In the moderately drunk range, German law is surprisingly reasonable in acknowledging that drunk driving would have been much worse.
Where I live the amount of alcohol allowed in the blood is less than is allowed for driving in the UK
Germany has a BAC threshold where acting stupid while being slightly tipsy is considered worse than acting stupid while being perfectly sober and that is indeed quite low (0.3). This entry level threshold does not distinguish between car and bike at all (pedestrians are fine). That level basically means "go for it, but at your own risk, and if someone else fucks up, you are partially responsible because might very well have have saved them if you had not been drinking".
But the "folk wisdom" of drivers completely ignores that threshold and only considers the next stage relevant (BAC 0.5+, used to be 0.8) and this only applies to motor vehicles. For cyclists, the next threshold does not happen before BAC 1.6. I suppose that wouldn't exactly be allowed in the UK either?
But the "folk wisdom" of drivers completely ignores that threshold and only considers the next stage relevant (BAC 0.5+, used to be 0.8) and this only applies to motor vehicles. For cyclists, the next threshold does not happen before BAC 1.6. I suppose that wouldn't exactly be allowed in the UK either?
In the UK there are not these thresholds. If you have too much BAC, it's immediately really bad.
Not in Sweden and we have less accidents than Germany.
You are not allowed to be driving anything while drunk in Sweden.
> Not in Sweden and we have less accidents than Germany.
I don't think you got the memo where everyone seems to think getting blind drunk and then getting on an electric scooter is totally ok "in Sweden".
I've had a few near-misses myself with crazy drunk riders on pedestrian streets in central Stockholm; I once interviewed a job-candidate with a cut-up face who laughingly told us he'd crashed a scooter with two(!) friends on the back after a drink night; a friend of mine smashed their hip after a night drinking and then jumping on a scooter.
The rules may be there. The actual reality is different.
I don't think you got the memo where everyone seems to think getting blind drunk and then getting on an electric scooter is totally ok "in Sweden".
I've had a few near-misses myself with crazy drunk riders on pedestrian streets in central Stockholm; I once interviewed a job-candidate with a cut-up face who laughingly told us he'd crashed a scooter with two(!) friends on the back after a drink night; a friend of mine smashed their hip after a night drinking and then jumping on a scooter.
The rules may be there. The actual reality is different.
You can not be convicted for drunk cycling, but you can still be stopped for recklesness in traffic. Same goes for e-scooters. As long as you do not cause problems there is no legal or social taboo.
You can hit a pedestrian
However, there's a good incentive to not hit pedestrians. In collisions with pedestrians, cyclists often get more injured and surprisingly, pedestrians are more likely to be to blame for the collision (e.g. stepping into a road or cycle lane without looking).
> but don’t ride a bike.
I'm drunk biking and thought about if I should stop.
But I have never hear about anyone having an accident related to drunk biking. In theory I could run head first into oncoming biker. But I never felt being that drunk in a way that would lose control. That would also make it illegal where I live.
I'm drunk biking and thought about if I should stop.
But I have never hear about anyone having an accident related to drunk biking. In theory I could run head first into oncoming biker. But I never felt being that drunk in a way that would lose control. That would also make it illegal where I live.
Very similar impressions after years of biking (and having switched to an E-bike about 2 years ago).
I bike year-round in Warsaw, Poland, even though most people consider winter to be "off-season". Don't really understand why — they do go skiing after all, so cold must not be the problem? The only days I don't bike is when it's raining heavily or when it's really slippery (lots of snow, freshly frozen sleet, etc).
There are days when I don't ride a bike, and on these days I can really tell the difference: I feel much worse.
I found that what I miss when switching to a car is the sense of freedom: on a bike, you can stop pretty much anywhere, while in a car you need to follow the road in the traffic and are generally stuck. No way to stop quickly, take a phone call, or admire the pretty passers-by.
Also, switching to an E-bike was a great idea: it doesn't take away the exercise (as most people tend to think), it just makes biking more pleasant and extends the max distance I can go. And in summertime I can set the assist to max and not worry about arriving all sweaty.
If you live in a city, I'd highly recommend getting a city E-bike. Not a mountain bike. A city bike with proper mudguards, upright posture, and a large basket in front. Don't be that guy in lycra pants on a mountain bike, with a backpack on his (sweaty) back, taking the full additional weight of the backpack on the narrow seat, and with a mud stripe on his back. Enjoy life!
I bike year-round in Warsaw, Poland, even though most people consider winter to be "off-season". Don't really understand why — they do go skiing after all, so cold must not be the problem? The only days I don't bike is when it's raining heavily or when it's really slippery (lots of snow, freshly frozen sleet, etc).
There are days when I don't ride a bike, and on these days I can really tell the difference: I feel much worse.
I found that what I miss when switching to a car is the sense of freedom: on a bike, you can stop pretty much anywhere, while in a car you need to follow the road in the traffic and are generally stuck. No way to stop quickly, take a phone call, or admire the pretty passers-by.
Also, switching to an E-bike was a great idea: it doesn't take away the exercise (as most people tend to think), it just makes biking more pleasant and extends the max distance I can go. And in summertime I can set the assist to max and not worry about arriving all sweaty.
If you live in a city, I'd highly recommend getting a city E-bike. Not a mountain bike. A city bike with proper mudguards, upright posture, and a large basket in front. Don't be that guy in lycra pants on a mountain bike, with a backpack on his (sweaty) back, taking the full additional weight of the backpack on the narrow seat, and with a mud stripe on his back. Enjoy life!
Apart from the air quality, Warsaw is great for cycling. It ain't hilly and there's enough bike lanes. Also Veturilo is pretty good with its dense network, especially in Spring before the bikes start breaking :)
Agreed about terrible air quality in winter. As to "great for cycling", I think it has a long way to go — there aren't that many bike lanes and there are parts of the city which are split by huge car-only high-traffic moats. But it isn't terrible either!
> - weather might make the ride unpleasant;
As the Dutch like to say: there is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling clothes.
I would strongly recommond a pair of water/wind proof trousers to go over your regular trousers, if you don't already have some. This has lead to a much more pleasant riding experience, especially in winter. They aren't very practical on a regular bike as they make you uncomfortably hot, but on an e-bike, it's much less of a worry.
As the Dutch like to say: there is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling clothes.
I would strongly recommond a pair of water/wind proof trousers to go over your regular trousers, if you don't already have some. This has lead to a much more pleasant riding experience, especially in winter. They aren't very practical on a regular bike as they make you uncomfortably hot, but on an e-bike, it's much less of a worry.
>> As the Dutch like to say: there is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling clothes.
Easy to say in a country famously flat, small, and with a relatively narrow weather window. I welcome any Dutch person to attempt a 15+km commute during a rocky mountain winter. I know of driveways in US/Canada with more vertical than any Dutch commute.
Easy to say in a country famously flat, small, and with a relatively narrow weather window. I welcome any Dutch person to attempt a 15+km commute during a rocky mountain winter. I know of driveways in US/Canada with more vertical than any Dutch commute.
The trick is to build your towns and cities such that 15km is longer than most people would need to commute by bike, except perhaps as part of a bike->transit mixed-mode commute.
There are places with wintry weather that are good for biking! Oulu comes to mind
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-64354089
And as explored in this video, if the weather is too bad to bike safely in, it's probably too bad to drive safely in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFkI3eglT1M
There are places with wintry weather that are good for biking! Oulu comes to mind
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-64354089
And as explored in this video, if the weather is too bad to bike safely in, it's probably too bad to drive safely in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFkI3eglT1M
> if the weather is too bad to bike safely in, it's probably too bad to drive safely in.
I am sceptical of this assertion. For starters, if you have poor traction in a car you can always slow down, and the risk you face is sliding. In a bike, you need to have a minimum speed to actually bike, otherwise you can't stay upright. And your failure case is no longer sliding, but it's toppling over.
To say nothing of what happens if you throw wind into the mix.
I am sceptical of this assertion. For starters, if you have poor traction in a car you can always slow down, and the risk you face is sliding. In a bike, you need to have a minimum speed to actually bike, otherwise you can't stay upright. And your failure case is no longer sliding, but it's toppling over.
To say nothing of what happens if you throw wind into the mix.
"the risk you face is sliding"
Yes, including sliding over my child who is riding her bike to school, and killing her.
"your failure case is no longer sliding, but it's toppling over."
In which case the primary injury will be to your dignity.
Yes, including sliding over my child who is riding her bike to school, and killing her.
"your failure case is no longer sliding, but it's toppling over."
In which case the primary injury will be to your dignity.
> In which case the primary injury will be to your dignity.
I just came flying off my bike two months ago after hitting some nasty patch of ice.
Broken hand, a good dent in my helmet, many bruises. If it wasn't for the helmet, I might have been taken away in an ambulance.
I've been cycling regularly for 12 years, so this isn't some noob error.
I just came flying off my bike two months ago after hitting some nasty patch of ice.
Broken hand, a good dent in my helmet, many bruises. If it wasn't for the helmet, I might have been taken away in an ambulance.
I've been cycling regularly for 12 years, so this isn't some noob error.
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you heal well. I was referencing the point about going so slow you can't stay upright.
You can calculate the approximate speed a vehicle will start aquaplaning at based the vehicles tire pressure (V = 10.35*sqrt(psi) ) [1]. A car tire is usually inflated to around 30-35 psi, which give an aquaplaning speed of about 61mph.
A road bike tire is inflated to 80-120psi which give an aquaplaning speed of about 92mph.
A hybrid tire is inflated to 40-70psi, which gives an aquaplaning speed of about 65mph.
Bikes aren't know for traveling above 60mph, so wet roads don't pose much of a problem for bikes. Their tire pressure is so high compared to their normal speeds, that an unassisted human would really struggle to make a bike aquaplane. Additionally bikes can easily be ridden stably at walking speed. Unless you're riding on ice, going slower simply doesn't pose a problem.
As a result slipping on bike, because you can't cycle slow enough, just isn't a concern. In the only situations where it might be a problem, simply walking would be challenging, and driving would be idiotic.
[1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19640000612
A road bike tire is inflated to 80-120psi which give an aquaplaning speed of about 92mph.
A hybrid tire is inflated to 40-70psi, which gives an aquaplaning speed of about 65mph.
Bikes aren't know for traveling above 60mph, so wet roads don't pose much of a problem for bikes. Their tire pressure is so high compared to their normal speeds, that an unassisted human would really struggle to make a bike aquaplane. Additionally bikes can easily be ridden stably at walking speed. Unless you're riding on ice, going slower simply doesn't pose a problem.
As a result slipping on bike, because you can't cycle slow enough, just isn't a concern. In the only situations where it might be a problem, simply walking would be challenging, and driving would be idiotic.
[1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19640000612
While interesting, this is almost completely irrelevant to bikes: The problem is not primarily water but wet ice or fresh snow.
Wet ice is especially dangerous because it can be pretty much invisible and you can transition directly from normal road surface to essentialy ZERO steering ability (and immediate crash if you initiate a turn or anything). There is pretty much no avoiding occasional crashes from this, the only way is to leave the bike at home when conditions are wet and close to freezing.
Wet ice is especially dangerous because it can be pretty much invisible and you can transition directly from normal road surface to essentialy ZERO steering ability (and immediate crash if you initiate a turn or anything). There is pretty much no avoiding occasional crashes from this, the only way is to leave the bike at home when conditions are wet and close to freezing.
Ok, fine. But the argument above it that somehow these issues affect bikes, but not cars. Last I checked black-ice is just as much of a problem for cars.
That is not my argument at all.
My point is that these issues have a bigger impact on the safety of the bike rider than on the car driver.
My point is that these issues have a bigger impact on the safety of the bike rider than on the car driver.
And what about everyone else? Going sliding on a bike isn’t great, but it’s unlikely your bikes gonna put it self through the front of a shop and kill someone.
Your car on the other hand, you lose control of that, and bystanders are in real trouble. Not to mention there’s plenty of incidents everyday of people loosing control of their car because they’re not driving to the condition (presumably because the big metal box makes them feel much safer than they should) and killing themselves and others.
Much less likely that a bike rider is going to ignore the prevailing conditions and injure themselves or others, and if they do, the impact is substantially lower. Adding more mass and speed to an out of control situation never improves the outcomes.
Your car on the other hand, you lose control of that, and bystanders are in real trouble. Not to mention there’s plenty of incidents everyday of people loosing control of their car because they’re not driving to the condition (presumably because the big metal box makes them feel much safer than they should) and killing themselves and others.
Much less likely that a bike rider is going to ignore the prevailing conditions and injure themselves or others, and if they do, the impact is substantially lower. Adding more mass and speed to an out of control situation never improves the outcomes.
I cycle in areas with ice and snow have done so all my life, all I do is lower my speed and my saddle. That means when there is ice I can always use my feets. This is more stable than walking, in wintertime I will stop and help pedestrians over vast swaths of ice.
I have managed to skid out once and that was with studded tires.
I have managed to skid out once and that was with studded tires.
I’ve fallen off my bike in ice. I’ve also skidded in a car on ice.
While the fall on the bike hurt me more, I can easily see how much more dangerous the situation in my car was. Blind luck saved me (and the car in front) that day.
While the fall on the bike hurt me more, I can easily see how much more dangerous the situation in my car was. Blind luck saved me (and the car in front) that day.
>> it's probably too bad to drive safely in.
Ya, well one still has to get to work. "Safe driving" is slow but unless the roads are actually closed then most of us still have to get to work.
Ya, well one still has to get to work. "Safe driving" is slow but unless the roads are actually closed then most of us still have to get to work.
The worst weather when riding a bike is the wind (trust me: I live in the Arctic circle, we have snow or black ice on the road half the year and it’s routinely -25ºC; bikes handle both fine).
The Netherlands has more wind than anywhere on land. It can be literally impossible to bike against the wind without the local training when it’s strong enough. If they can do that, I doubt a mountain pass would scare them.
And it rains, a lot. Which is fine if it’s vertical and you have a rain coat, but Dutch people made windmills, the Netherlands and horizontal rain. No coat can protect you from that.
The weather band is indeed narrow, but half of that band is terrible.
And it rains, a lot. Which is fine if it’s vertical and you have a rain coat, but Dutch people made windmills, the Netherlands and horizontal rain. No coat can protect you from that.
The weather band is indeed narrow, but half of that band is terrible.
I did a fair amount of winter biking in Boston. Good clothes really help. For me wool socks really help.
You do tend to warm up when riding a bike (pedal assist bikes might take longer). For me the issue is fingers, but with good gloves and a less than 45 minutes ride for me it was be ok. Ice and wind are issues too. But taking it slow and my glasses help a bit. The snow when plowed makes the roads narrower which can be an issue.
I always wondered why there were so many outdoor stores in the City.
You do tend to warm up when riding a bike (pedal assist bikes might take longer). For me the issue is fingers, but with good gloves and a less than 45 minutes ride for me it was be ok. Ice and wind are issues too. But taking it slow and my glasses help a bit. The snow when plowed makes the roads narrower which can be an issue.
I always wondered why there were so many outdoor stores in the City.
Completely agree for a push bike, but with an e-bike it's a different ball game.
Also in the US the max ebike power is 850W! More than enough to carry you up the steepest hills.
Also in the US the max ebike power is 850W! More than enough to carry you up the steepest hills.
That famed flatness brings along with it less famed strong winds.
Having cycled on some of those windy days, it was more challenging than most of the hilly cities I've lived in.
Having cycled on some of those windy days, it was more challenging than most of the hilly cities I've lived in.
Minneapolis is one of the top US cities for cycling mode share. You can bike in snow+ice with proper studded tires. With a fat bike, you'll do better than any car or truck in deep snow.
It's implied, but to be clear: ebikes make it comfortable to ride with 4+ inch tires for absurd distances. An ebike with studded fat tires will make you feel like Legolas in LoTR.
Luckily there is already a video about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
The quick takeaways are that there are cities in Finland that are colder than any Canadian city where 50% of the kids rides bikes to school. Also, a test project in Montreal gave a bike path a dedicated snow removal budget and ridership was up 30% in one year.
The quick takeaways are that there are cities in Finland that are colder than any Canadian city where 50% of the kids rides bikes to school. Also, a test project in Montreal gave a bike path a dedicated snow removal budget and ridership was up 30% in one year.
I'm not from Netherlands. What I have learned biking in snow blizzard is that it is good to have gloves and glasses. Everything else is just getting used to things.
I have a close friend who lives in Edinburgh (Scotland) who has an electric cargo bike. Edinburgh is full of very steep roads, lots of them cobbles rather than tarmac. It's also cold and wet in the winter (although nowhere near as snowy as the rockies).
The electric cargo bike works well there - the hills make electric an absolute necessity, but once you've done that it works very well.
The electric cargo bike works well there - the hills make electric an absolute necessity, but once you've done that it works very well.
It would be easy to say but that's not a common Dutch saying at all. It's a bastardised version of a Swedish/Norwegian saying.
Je bent niet van suiker...
Different meaning. More like "this sucks but you'll live".
How many people live in the Rockies though? And how many live in relatively flat cities. You're not wrong I just think that this is akin to saying EVs aren't practical in the US because of Alaskan winters.
How many? Me. Much of my family. The place i used to work. The rockies, and coastal mountains, cover a huge swath of north america.
On a grand scale, sure, but even those places aren't necessarily super hilly. There's a reason towns and cities exist mostly on relatively flat terrain.
[deleted]
I would add boots that are high enough that there is no gap between the rain pants and the shoe. An old pair of "hiking" boots did the job for me. Riding through a puddle and getting your socks even mildly wet feels terrible.
> As the Dutch like to say: there is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling clothes.
The Dutch also like to drive, with 588 cars per 1000 people, higher than Denmark, Ireland, Sweden etc, and more miles per person than France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and 14% higher than the EU average
The Dutch also like to drive, with 588 cars per 1000 people, higher than Denmark, Ireland, Sweden etc, and more miles per person than France, Spain, Italy, Poland, and 14% higher than the EU average
Not sure where your stats are from, but they probably include Dutch people driving abroad: they can easily take the train and bike anywhere in their own country, so I suspect most of their driving is to go on holiday in Europe. They are famous for being a small country with surprisingly large number of caravans near every beach in Europe.
That makes sense, the excellent infrastructure in the Netherlands makes it a very pleasant place to drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
> there is no such thing as bad cycling weather
Wet snow being blown into the face? Compared to 20°C inside a car, commuting between two underground garages? That's going to be a hard to sell.
In the summer bike is fun, but from November, where I live it's just masochism.
Wet snow being blown into the face? Compared to 20°C inside a car, commuting between two underground garages? That's going to be a hard to sell.
In the summer bike is fun, but from November, where I live it's just masochism.
>As the Dutch like to say: there is no such thing as bad cycling weather, only bad cycling clothes.
What kind of cycling clothes will mitigate a 40 C / 70% humidity afternoon in Memphis?
What kind of cycling clothes will mitigate a 40 C / 70% humidity afternoon in Memphis?
Trees for example. City highways make everything hotter.
Memphis is full of underutilized 4 lane roads--remove 2 lanes and add a bike path + trees. The difficulty is that unless there is a bike network, it will get limited utilization. Need to build out a way to get places and people will use it.
New Orleans is trying this and facing a lot of pushback.
Trees and an ebike.
How often does it snow in the Netherlands?
Meet Oulu, the winter cycling capital of the world. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-... https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/what-on-earth-winter-biking-...
The fact that this is newsworthy kind of reinforces the point that cycling in extreme weather is not a particularly easy or convenient thing to do.
It’s easy enough that children can do it. Cycling on hard-packed snow is not particularly hard, less so than sand, I’d say comparable to gravel. Ice is a problem.
Convenience is relative. Sure, cycling in winter requires a good pair of mittens, and a warm hat, but all in all, it seems that a lot of people prefer it in Oulu over driving.
And the thing here is that it’s not the weather that’s stopping people from cycling. It’s shitty maintenance of the cycling network. Slush and ice, being forced into the same space as cars.
And that’s the newsworthy part - how does Oulu manage to maintain a cycling network in winter where most other cities fail. The answers include things such as priorities, dedication, investment. Oulu dedicates resources to the problem. Most towns don’t because “no one cycles in winter” - which then becomes a self-reinforcing prophecy.
Convenience is relative. Sure, cycling in winter requires a good pair of mittens, and a warm hat, but all in all, it seems that a lot of people prefer it in Oulu over driving.
And the thing here is that it’s not the weather that’s stopping people from cycling. It’s shitty maintenance of the cycling network. Slush and ice, being forced into the same space as cars.
And that’s the newsworthy part - how does Oulu manage to maintain a cycling network in winter where most other cities fail. The answers include things such as priorities, dedication, investment. Oulu dedicates resources to the problem. Most towns don’t because “no one cycles in winter” - which then becomes a self-reinforcing prophecy.
It's fine as long as bike paths are physically separated from cars and are maintained to the same standard as roads. My college had a network of pedestrian/bike paths that they plowed in the winter, and I and many others had no problem biking year-round.
Fascinating
How do Europeans keep ice off bike lanes? Salt?
How do Europeans keep ice off bike lanes? Salt?
Tractors and snowplows. Salt kills the bicycles and salty slush is much worse to drive in. Hard packed snow is actually the best to ride on.
Interestingly Oulu bike roads clearing contract states the company doing the snowplowing can do inspections only on bicycles, not cars :)
Interestingly Oulu bike roads clearing contract states the company doing the snowplowing can do inspections only on bicycles, not cars :)
Maybe hard packed snow is a strategy for only flat cities
Seattle infamously tried the hard packed snow strategy about a decade ago, and it turned it into a dangerous (hilly) ice rink
Seattle infamously tried the hard packed snow strategy about a decade ago, and it turned it into a dangerous (hilly) ice rink
There's a difference between riding on hard pack with a bike, and driving a car over it. I have no idea why you think an experiment with hard-pack snow on automotive roads is in anyway indicative of what works on cycle lanes.
Hard pack on a hill doesn't seem to make sense for bicycles either
In Reykjavik they used sand at first because pedestrians prefer that but that is pretty dangerous for cycling so they use salt on designated cycling paths and sand everywhere else.
It depends.
Salt only works until ten below zero. After that it only makes things worse.
When it works the result can be magical if combined with sweeping. Trashes the drivetrain real bad though.
There's a nice big picture how Oulu does it, halfway down the article.
Salt only works until ten below zero. After that it only makes things worse.
When it works the result can be magical if combined with sweeping. Trashes the drivetrain real bad though.
There's a nice big picture how Oulu does it, halfway down the article.
It depends.. salt works down to -18C on cycle paths as long as you maintain it snow free and do not have big puddles of water. Brushing the snow away down to the asphalt is my preferred surface condition for cycling.
This video is a great explainer https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU
Amazingly, there is a city almost as dominated by cyclists in Finland (don't remember how it's called atm). The city is plowing and de-icing all the bike paths on regular basis. They're also well-lit, as people's commutes during winter months are often in the dark.
You are thinking of Oulu.
It’s not just Oulu, though: any city with students in the North has a lot of bikes, Umeå in Sweden has 40k students almost all on bikes; Vaasa (opposite Umeå, in Finland) also has a lot of bikes. Uppsala, Stockholm, Malmö, Göteborg, Eppo, all have a lot of bikes—and just as many in winter and summer.
It’s not just Oulu, though: any city with students in the North has a lot of bikes, Umeå in Sweden has 40k students almost all on bikes; Vaasa (opposite Umeå, in Finland) also has a lot of bikes. Uppsala, Stockholm, Malmö, Göteborg, Eppo, all have a lot of bikes—and just as many in winter and summer.
Another interesting fact is that at least some of the cycle lane markings are projected rather than painted because otherwise they would be covered by the snow.
Google says snowing on 20-30 days a year in Amsterdam: https://thingstodoinamsterdam.com/blog/snow-winter-amsterdam...
Not that often anymore (most winters there's at most one or two weeks with snow cover), but when it does, in many municipalities cycling paths get priority for snow removal.
The Dutch have passable weather for most of the year, of course that it’s easy for them to say that.
Have you ever been to the Netherlands? I can tell you haven't. It rains a lot, winds are strong.
Don't have to worry about theft?! Wow, Europe must be so different than North America. I'm much more worried about my biker being stolen (has happened about a dozen times in my life) than my car. If the former happens you get absolutely zero support, while if the latter happens the police will actually try to do something.
I have a nice ebike I use daily in Europe, and I'm also much more worried about getting it robbed than my car.
I only park it in fairly secure locations if it's for more than a few hours (ie. not in the street), and I put 2 of the most secure bike locks I could find, 1 wheel lock, secure bolts on wheels and saddle, and light locks on big accessories like the child seat. Plus an Airtag hidden somewhere.
I only park it in fairly secure locations if it's for more than a few hours (ie. not in the street), and I put 2 of the most secure bike locks I could find, 1 wheel lock, secure bolts on wheels and saddle, and light locks on big accessories like the child seat. Plus an Airtag hidden somewhere.
This stood out to me too. I'm pretty sure that every nice e-bike left outside gets stolen within minutes in my city.
Indeed. Though to be fair, having a bike is so much cheaper than a car that even if it did get stolen it'd still be cheaper to replace it than run a car.
Having a bicycle stolen is actually a frequentl reason people stop cycling. Getting a new bike sucks.
A year of public transit in my city costs $1200, which is commensurate with the most I've spent on a commuter bike. I've had 7 bikes stolen in a quarter century of commuting, and I feel like I'm getting a pretty great deal when it comes to transport costs.
bike thefts happen in the Netherland (once I saw a 50+ year old guy walking around inspecting bikes in a student neighbourhood + multiple bike thefts in that area). Also in Bulgaria where I am from :) but I can't say where it happens more or what the chances are.
Not really. I've never had one of mine stolen, despite usually using a fairly crappy lock.
The trick is to have a bike which stands out. If you can recognize your individual bike from across the street, people won't steal it. Bonus points if it looks crappy despite being well-maintained. Beyond that it is mainly a matter of parking in bike garages with cameras where possible, and using a chain lock to fix it to an immovable object otherwise.
The trick is to have a bike which stands out. If you can recognize your individual bike from across the street, people won't steal it. Bonus points if it looks crappy despite being well-maintained. Beyond that it is mainly a matter of parking in bike garages with cameras where possible, and using a chain lock to fix it to an immovable object otherwise.
> If the former happens you get absolutely zero support, while if the latter happens the police will actually try to do something.
The sad thing here is that it's not even triaging by property damage. Your €1000 fifth hand car will get more police attention if stolen than a €3000 ebike.
The sad thing here is that it's not even triaging by property damage. Your €1000 fifth hand car will get more police attention if stolen than a €3000 ebike.
It was most likely a typo, there is hardly any European country where bycicles don't get stolen.
A dozen times? Damn, where do you live if you don’t mind me asking?
Probably Amsterdam, where 80.000 bikes are stolen per year [1] - at 821k inhabitants, one in ten will statistically have a bike stolen each year.
The country is on its best way to become Europe's head narco state.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
The country is on its best way to become Europe's head narco state.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Vancouver, Canada
lol yeah. I live in a city where practically nobody bikes, and bikes get stolen frequently. Nowhere near as bad though than European city.
Bike theft is so rampant. It's just so easy, throw it in a truck, or pedal away with it. Since I live in a redneck place, I ride a step-through woman bike in pastel color now, after two previous ones got stolen, and that genuinely helps. People may make snarky comments, but the bike has remained untouched for a decade now.
Bike theft is so rampant. It's just so easy, throw it in a truck, or pedal away with it. Since I live in a redneck place, I ride a step-through woman bike in pastel color now, after two previous ones got stolen, and that genuinely helps. People may make snarky comments, but the bike has remained untouched for a decade now.
Bike theft is a big problem at least here in Finland, especially for expensive bikes.
Some time ago I was surprised how fast these e-bikes are compared to my motorcycle. In Belgium we have plenty of roads where bikes can go but not cars & motorcycles.
One morning I overtook a colleague on an e-bike (max 45km/h) with my motorcycle. A few streets later I overtook him again, since he took a shortcut that I was not allowed to take.
A bit later I overtook him again, since I had a red light and he again took a shortcut.
We arrived at the same time at work. Impressive!
One morning I overtook a colleague on an e-bike (max 45km/h) with my motorcycle. A few streets later I overtook him again, since he took a shortcut that I was not allowed to take.
A bit later I overtook him again, since I had a red light and he again took a shortcut.
We arrived at the same time at work. Impressive!
Are you sure your friend was actually allowed to take that shortcut with an e-bike going 45 km/h?
AFAIK, these are considered "light motorbikes" (or something) and require the same paperwork (aside from an "easier" license) and gear as regular motorbikes.
More importantly, they are specifically not bikes and aren't allowed to ride on bike lanes any more than a fat liter+ bike is.
AFAIK, these are considered "light motorbikes" (or something) and require the same paperwork (aside from an "easier" license) and gear as regular motorbikes.
More importantly, they are specifically not bikes and aren't allowed to ride on bike lanes any more than a fat liter+ bike is.
You are correct, but for those shortcuts it was allowed.
There is however a grey zone when going on bicycle lanes next to the rivers, because you can go max 30km/h there. But when nobody is there, I'm sure most e-bikes just go max speed.
There is however a grey zone when going on bicycle lanes next to the rivers, because you can go max 30km/h there. But when nobody is there, I'm sure most e-bikes just go max speed.
Are you sure your friend was actually allowed to take that shortcut with an e-bike going 45 km/h?
If it looks like a bike and you ride it like a bike, you're not going to have any problems riding it where bikes are allowed. It sounds like you envision this person riding at absolutely maximum possible speed at all times.
If it looks like a bike and you ride it like a bike, you're not going to have any problems riding it where bikes are allowed. It sounds like you envision this person riding at absolutely maximum possible speed at all times.
Until you hit someone with that bike, in which case you will be found 100% guilty and in massive legal trouble.
How many times have you hit someone while riding a bicycle? I never have.
How much harm do you suppose it would do, leading to "massive legal trouble"?
Incidentally, 45kmh is 28mph, which I was just barely able to maintain on level ground on my road bicycle when I was fit. The "speed pedelecs" laws seem a bit silly rather than simply enforcing speed limits and penalizing reckless behavior.
How much harm do you suppose it would do, leading to "massive legal trouble"?
Incidentally, 45kmh is 28mph, which I was just barely able to maintain on level ground on my road bicycle when I was fit. The "speed pedelecs" laws seem a bit silly rather than simply enforcing speed limits and penalizing reckless behavior.
>>How many times have you hit someone while riding a bicycle? I never have.
I suppose I should stop paying for car insurance then, since I never had an accident either. Or maybe more accurate example is that I shouldn't worry about the safety of my car, since I never actually hit anyone with it.
>>How much harm do you suppose it would do, leading to "massive legal trouble"?
There was a cyclist in london recently who ran into a woman on his modified bicycle, she tripped, hit her head on the pavement and died - he was subsequently found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to prison for many years.
You could run into someone at 5mph, they could hit their head on something and die. There is another case exactly like this going on where a person hit their head on a bollard and left him permanently disabled for life.
The entire point is that if you are on a path specifically forbidden for cycles, and an accident happens while you are cycling, you will be found guilty and will have to face consequences, most likely much harsher than if you weren't doing something forbidden.
I suppose I should stop paying for car insurance then, since I never had an accident either. Or maybe more accurate example is that I shouldn't worry about the safety of my car, since I never actually hit anyone with it.
>>How much harm do you suppose it would do, leading to "massive legal trouble"?
There was a cyclist in london recently who ran into a woman on his modified bicycle, she tripped, hit her head on the pavement and died - he was subsequently found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to prison for many years.
You could run into someone at 5mph, they could hit their head on something and die. There is another case exactly like this going on where a person hit their head on a bollard and left him permanently disabled for life.
The entire point is that if you are on a path specifically forbidden for cycles, and an accident happens while you are cycling, you will be found guilty and will have to face consequences, most likely much harsher than if you weren't doing something forbidden.
I suppose I should stop paying for car insurance then, since I never had an accident either.
Ah, yes, because cars and bikes represent totally comparable risks to others.
Now you can go cite some more wildly improbable anecdotes, notable entirely because of how exceptional they are, as a response. I'll be over here looking at the 1.3 million people who die in car accidents around the world and not caring about e-bikes at all.
Ah, yes, because cars and bikes represent totally comparable risks to others.
Now you can go cite some more wildly improbable anecdotes, notable entirely because of how exceptional they are, as a response. I'll be over here looking at the 1.3 million people who die in car accidents around the world and not caring about e-bikes at all.
>>Ah, yes, because cars and bikes represent totally comparable risks to others.
The point is that "I don't see a point in doing X because X has never happened to me" is not a good argument.
Let's try a better comparison then - maybe I should cancel my cycling liability insurance, because I never hit anyone with my bike then?
>>I'll be over here looking at the 1.3 million people who die in car accidents around the world and not caring about e-bikes at all.
I don't see how that's relevant to what I said - you will be punished more harshly if you cycle where you shouldn't. The number of people who die in car accidents bears no relation.
The point is that "I don't see a point in doing X because X has never happened to me" is not a good argument.
Let's try a better comparison then - maybe I should cancel my cycling liability insurance, because I never hit anyone with my bike then?
>>I'll be over here looking at the 1.3 million people who die in car accidents around the world and not caring about e-bikes at all.
I don't see how that's relevant to what I said - you will be punished more harshly if you cycle where you shouldn't. The number of people who die in car accidents bears no relation.
Even with minor infringements with e-bikes in Belgium they punish pretty severely.
For example: bike not properly licensed: Lose your car license for 15 days and pay 800 euros.
For example: bike not properly licensed: Lose your car license for 15 days and pay 800 euros.
In most of EU, are in serious trouble when they catch you riding such a speed pedilec without license and/or license plate.
Cops already had mobile stations to check the max speed of scooters, and they now just added those ebikes to the checks.
Cops already had mobile stations to check the max speed of scooters, and they now just added those ebikes to the checks.
I've seen someone on one of those e-scooters going like 40km/h. It looked terrifying. I'd be worried doing that much on bicycle but on tiny scooter wheels anything bad and you're catapulted into pavement.
I have some experience with these and 40km/h (just under 25mph) is roughly half what some will do [0][1] and with full-suspension you wouldn't necessary be catapulted with a small bump.
But when going above bicycle speeds, I do tend to wear increased safety gear. My biggest concern is always being t-boned by a car.
[0] https://varlascooter.com/products/varla-eagle-one-dual-motor... [1] https://fluidfreeride.com/pages/nami-burn-e
But when going above bicycle speeds, I do tend to wear increased safety gear. My biggest concern is always being t-boned by a car.
[0] https://varlascooter.com/products/varla-eagle-one-dual-motor... [1] https://fluidfreeride.com/pages/nami-burn-e
1 car/household is still entirely feasible with children (and the norm for many lower-class in Europe).
We live with 1 child and no car and it's been working fine thus far. You have to be careful about where you live and work though, but I'd say the added quality of life of living car-free (in a car-free city) is all worth it.
We live with 1 child and no car and it's been working fine thus far. You have to be careful about where you live and work though, but I'd say the added quality of life of living car-free (in a car-free city) is all worth it.
I live in London. We have three kids, no car and an electric cargo bike which they can all fit in. It's brilliant and all we need for getting around London. I've also used it for picking up furniture and building materials - such a versatile vehicle and much more enjoyable to use than a car.
Aren't you wary that the bike doesn't offer almost any protection at all when an accident happens? Something that causes minor or no damage when inside a car can easily cause serious injury on even death when on a bike.
I greatly minimise the risks in several ways:
- Planning routes that avoid particularly risky roads or junctions and take advantage of separated bike lanes where possible. This is trivial in a city as there's hundreds of possible routes between two places.
- A cargo bike itself is a much larger and more visible presence on the road than a regular bike. That combined with the visible children on board usually means motorists do a better job of staying clear than they do when I'm on a regular bike.
- Staying well clear of HGVs in ALL circumstances. Once you start cycling in a way where you treat any HGV as imminent death on wheels, you notice how many potentially dangerous situations you avoid.
More generally, I find cycling in London feels quite safe. This is because drivers in London are mostly used to cyclists and generally act appropriately around them. Also traffic speeds are generally 20mph or less.
- Planning routes that avoid particularly risky roads or junctions and take advantage of separated bike lanes where possible. This is trivial in a city as there's hundreds of possible routes between two places.
- A cargo bike itself is a much larger and more visible presence on the road than a regular bike. That combined with the visible children on board usually means motorists do a better job of staying clear than they do when I'm on a regular bike.
- Staying well clear of HGVs in ALL circumstances. Once you start cycling in a way where you treat any HGV as imminent death on wheels, you notice how many potentially dangerous situations you avoid.
More generally, I find cycling in London feels quite safe. This is because drivers in London are mostly used to cyclists and generally act appropriately around them. Also traffic speeds are generally 20mph or less.
That's a local minimum. Serious injuries or deaths only occur when a bike gets hit by a car. Bike-on-bike accidents are pretty much a non-issue.
This is solved by better bike infrastructure, and by holding drivers accountable for the accidents. The more people cycle, the safer it becomes.
This is solved by better bike infrastructure, and by holding drivers accountable for the accidents. The more people cycle, the safer it becomes.
The problem is not what happens to a bike or a car in a comparable accident. The problem is that some car drivers somehow believe that bikes don’t belong on the road.
They display two very distinct and easy to notice behaviour:
1. They deny bike presence on the road: They refuse to yield, don’t check their mirror, and run them over as if the bike is not there. When you point out the discrepancy, they just affirm that cyclists have to yield to more important traffic no matter what the condition.
Another symptom of that is drivers thinking that bikes should not be on the road and harassing them with honks, and revving their engine. When they pass them, or on-line, they loudly claim that bikes are not allowed on the road or have a (non-existent) obligation to move away of a far more important car drivers threatens them. In that process, they speed (which is illegal), pass dangerously (also illegal) and threaten people with bodily harm (again, illegal). Retraining, license ban and jail sentences are easy ways to get dangerous people like that to not put people’s lives in danger.
A third symptom is that they claim that “no one” is using bike infrastructure (in spite of evidence like what we see in London) because they refuse to see it. They see no issue with routinely parking on bike lanes or blocking bike-only passages. This complete denial of another humanity is hard to imagine if you haven’t witnessed it, but it’s very common.
2. They have a cop-out of thinking that bikes are “dangerous” because they project their own dangerous and unhealthy driving habits as “normal” and impossible to modify——denying that those habits mean they break the law in several ways. Crash don’t just happen: drivers choose to not pay attention. Actually supportive drivers are not pretending they care: they are enthusiastic about cycling because when they are around bikes, drivers don’t honk, threaten or put cyclists’ lives in danger. And they can’t imagine that anyone would.
It’s very simple for cyclists to be safe: drivers should look at them and thing “This is a human, going from somewhere to somewhere else, like me. I should not kill them.” If they don’t, the cyclist is not the one in danger: the driver is.
They display two very distinct and easy to notice behaviour:
1. They deny bike presence on the road: They refuse to yield, don’t check their mirror, and run them over as if the bike is not there. When you point out the discrepancy, they just affirm that cyclists have to yield to more important traffic no matter what the condition.
Another symptom of that is drivers thinking that bikes should not be on the road and harassing them with honks, and revving their engine. When they pass them, or on-line, they loudly claim that bikes are not allowed on the road or have a (non-existent) obligation to move away of a far more important car drivers threatens them. In that process, they speed (which is illegal), pass dangerously (also illegal) and threaten people with bodily harm (again, illegal). Retraining, license ban and jail sentences are easy ways to get dangerous people like that to not put people’s lives in danger.
A third symptom is that they claim that “no one” is using bike infrastructure (in spite of evidence like what we see in London) because they refuse to see it. They see no issue with routinely parking on bike lanes or blocking bike-only passages. This complete denial of another humanity is hard to imagine if you haven’t witnessed it, but it’s very common.
2. They have a cop-out of thinking that bikes are “dangerous” because they project their own dangerous and unhealthy driving habits as “normal” and impossible to modify——denying that those habits mean they break the law in several ways. Crash don’t just happen: drivers choose to not pay attention. Actually supportive drivers are not pretending they care: they are enthusiastic about cycling because when they are around bikes, drivers don’t honk, threaten or put cyclists’ lives in danger. And they can’t imagine that anyone would.
It’s very simple for cyclists to be safe: drivers should look at them and thing “This is a human, going from somewhere to somewhere else, like me. I should not kill them.” If they don’t, the cyclist is not the one in danger: the driver is.
The ”safer” your car is, the more dangerous it is for everyone else in traffic usually.
Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that given current reality the safety of moving in a car is higher than when using a bike. How it could and should be is a different matter.
This thinking seems self-defeating to me and only serves to uphold the status quo or - sadly - make things worse.
How is looking at reality and making choices that based on that analysis are best for the safety of you and your family self-defeating? You're putting activism into the mix and if you're willing to put more risk on yourself and/or your family to prove a point then it is your choice to do so.
It's not "activism" or "proving a point", it's the prisoner's dilemma. You maximize the global reward (fewest accidents) by putting yourself on the most risky position.
As I state in a sibling above this is not the case it is just how we think as humans. You do a lot more harm to you kids and family by driving them in a car.
I think that is literally the meaning of activism
It's only safer on a per mile basis. Per hour and per trip, driving is more dangerous.
No so clear cut. I almost every city in the world cycling rather than driving will increase your life expectancy. Even when factoring in risks associated with not moving around inside a 1 ton metal box.
Actually being in a car is statiscally more dangerous than doing your commute on a bike, because of health reasons. Accidents are not that important.
If you live within London transport zone 1, it's quite likely to be a zero-car household, simply because of the difficulty in keeping the car somewhere.
That doesn't quite make sense, "it's difficult to avoid having a car because you can't store it"? Can you elaborate? I'm interested what life is like in these cities that charge drivers so as to reduce cars in the road.
I think you misread GP: he's saying that in inner London it's difficult to have a car, not to avoid having one, mostly because parking space is very limited.
What exactly are you interested in, about life such cities? I live in Amsterdam, haven't owned a car for over a decade (which doesn't mean that I never drive one), and haven't really missed it (even with a primary school aged child).
What exactly are you interested in, about life such cities? I live in Amsterdam, haven't owned a car for over a decade (which doesn't mean that I never drive one), and haven't really missed it (even with a primary school aged child).
Sorry, just saw this. I do some sports that are 50 miles from the city, and there's no public transportation, not even any private transportation. Skiing is one such activity, but hiking and camping in the summer time. I do recognize that I'm using energy to do these things. I'd love to take a bus. Actually in my west coast city, during the summer they have bus service to a number of area hiking trails, within 10 miles of the city. But these other farther away activities are out of that reach.
It's expensive to have a car in central London because of the cost of parking. It has basically been unbundled from housing; garages sell for upwards of £100k, guaranteed parking spaces somewhat less, on-street parking is either banned, charged for, or very heavily competed over.
As a resident you get a 90% discount on the congestion charge, so driving it will cost you £1.50 per day. I'm not quite sure whether that applies to parked cars as well.
As a resident you get a 90% discount on the congestion charge, so driving it will cost you £1.50 per day. I'm not quite sure whether that applies to parked cars as well.
Car parking for residents is heavily subsidised by London councils, a policy which encourages car ownership. Residential parking permits are very cheap (often as little as £100 or so for a YEAR of parking), where as outsiders coming in to park will be charged a small fortune. [1]
This system discourages schemes that could reduce car ownership, like car sharing, car rentals, etc, because residential parking permits must be linked to a particular plate number.
[1] It's true that some newer housing developments have been approved on a "no parking" basis, which means if you live in that building you can't apply for a parking permit. But these developments are still the exception, not the rule.
This system discourages schemes that could reduce car ownership, like car sharing, car rentals, etc, because residential parking permits must be linked to a particular plate number.
[1] It's true that some newer housing developments have been approved on a "no parking" basis, which means if you live in that building you can't apply for a parking permit. But these developments are still the exception, not the rule.
Congestion charge makes car ownership easier in that area it is pretty cash anyways. The land is so valuable that you rather fit other things than cars there, e.g. apparments with even more people.
Most councils bave residents only parking bays for this exact reason. I live in zone 1 and the permit costs somewhere between 150-200 GBP per year.
I find it a bit funny you mention "lower-class" here. Of the seven first software engineers with kids I thought of, six have one car and one has none.
From my limited knowledge and viewpoint, there is a generational divide, a regional divide, and a class divide. When everything is averaged though, the household income is still the strongest indicator of how many cars you own, and most national statistics prove it.
True, class divide is a real factor: The upper class doesn't own cats (aside from "fun" cars for collecting) but leases them.
Somewhat more serious: Especially here in Germany there is a strong incentive to give cars as a job benefit instead of a pay rises as there is less social insurance to be paid. Thus there is a strong motivation for anybody in a well paying job to get a car. This directly leads to that class divide.
Somewhat more serious: Especially here in Germany there is a strong incentive to give cars as a job benefit instead of a pay rises as there is less social insurance to be paid. Thus there is a strong motivation for anybody in a well paying job to get a car. This directly leads to that class divide.
Here, no one owns cats.
The cats have servants.
The cats have servants.
Growing up my family was mostly a one-car family. I was homeschooled so that made it a lot easier since nobody had to pick me up at school, and my mom was stay-at-home. I totally understand why a public schooled family where both parents work might need two cars though. It would be a pain to drop your kids off at school, drop your spouse off at work, THEN head on to work and then pick them all up at the end of the day when traffic is clogged.
It depends pretty heavily on family situations and all
It depends pretty heavily on family situations and all
Cars are a poor mans choice in Europe you only have to have a car if you are really poor. Europe is more mixed economicaly so this isn't true everywhere. Sure if you are rich you are also more likely to make life choices that make car ownership "a must", when you can buy cars like toothpicks it does not really matter.
I’ve had 5 bikes stolen and no cars stolen, so have to disagree about worrying about theft.
Well, my bike is insured, and I bought a recently released angle grinder-resistant lock [1].
My workspace is also fairly well located so that also helps.
[1] https://eu.litelok.com/products/litelok-x1
My workspace is also fairly well located so that also helps.
[1] https://eu.litelok.com/products/litelok-x1
Are you locking your bike to something angle grinder resistant when out and about?
The last bike I had stolen was from an underground bike store, behind two armoured locked doors and locked to a permanent bike-rack embedded in concrete. Thieves didn't cut a single lock, instead they cut all the bike-racks and emptied the place.
The last bike I had stolen was from an underground bike store, behind two armoured locked doors and locked to a permanent bike-rack embedded in concrete. Thieves didn't cut a single lock, instead they cut all the bike-racks and emptied the place.
As with nearly all security, nothing is perfect. You are just raising the bar high enough to lower risk to an acceptable level. Cutting an entire row of racks and hauling off all the bikes is a bigger, noisier, longer job, requiring more coordination, than taking one. It presents more risk to the thieves themselves, which means there are going to be fewer thieves willing or able to take it on.
The concern I have (in NYC FWIW) is that someone will see they can’t steal the bike and will instead just trash the thing while it’s still locked. Maybe I’m too pessimistic.
That's pretty much my experience in the city where I used to live. I'd regularly pass bikes securly locked to some post or other but with the front wheel stoved in and bent. I always assumed a would-be thief had done it in a fit of pique, after failing to get the lock open.
Drunk assholes smash random stuff all the time without first trying to steal it.
Bicycle wheels are unfortunately easily bent by kicks from the side.
Bicycle wheels are unfortunately easily bent by kicks from the side.
These days it seems worth it to get a folding bike. I am currently trying to get one myself so I don't have to worry about it getting stolen OR trashed. I just fold it up and take it inside where nobody will touch it
Insurance won’t get you to work.
And if you don’t need it to get to work you don’t need a car in the first place, so I wouldnt see a point in comparing.
And if you don’t need it to get to work you don’t need a car in the first place, so I wouldnt see a point in comparing.
Most bike insurance include covering the cost of paying for a taxi or other transport alternative on the day of your bike theft.
You can take a cab on the one day you're without a bike.
My car is insured, and I'm not sure how you would steal it given that when I lost my key to a cheap car from the 1990s about 15 years ago it cost a fortune to get a new key made which would actually start the engine thanks to the immobilizer. The majority of car thefts are stealing the keys.
This is the same company that creates the touted highly secure LiteLok Gold that LPL cuts in 16s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-On0DGcDlc
I'm skeptical of any bike lock's security that is not reviewed by LPL.
I'm skeptical of any bike lock's security that is not reviewed by LPL.
>I bought a recently released angle grinder-resistant lock [1]....
Then you don't need this lock for your bike. - Cptn Obvious
Not neccessarily, it depends on the environment. In some places even bikes in the sub 160€ range are at danger of being stolen.
I think you'd want a tetanus shot just by looking at my girlfriends bike with too much insistence.
We still lock it with a chain but I guess that is a good deterrent as there is always a nicer bike that looks more worth the effort on the same rack.
We still lock it with a chain but I guess that is a good deterrent as there is always a nicer bike that looks more worth the effort on the same rack.
Yeah mine goes from my apartment to my work's underground parking so little risk here. Would be way more wary if I had to park it on the street
Yeah I agree with the general sentiment of the comment but that point I think is wrong.
It absolutely amazes me that places like Amsterdam, London, etc build so much safe bike infrastructure when the weather is so dreary. And despite the weather, of course people will use it because it feels great and is so fast!
And yet, here we have California (especially LA) with the best cycling weather but barely any safe cycling routes. LA is laughably bad with tons of "bike routes" that are just the rightmost car lane shared with bicycles.
And yet, here we have California (especially LA) with the best cycling weather but barely any safe cycling routes. LA is laughably bad with tons of "bike routes" that are just the rightmost car lane shared with bicycles.
In Scandinavia the attitude is "there's no bad weather, only bad clothing" and going outside and feeling the seasons change is awesome. I find it kind of funny when people in Florida or California will have all this great weather but then end up spending so much time in indoor climate controlled environments from their house to their car to their office.
The weather in the Northern Europe really doesn't stop you from being outside any more than the weather elsewhere does (counting forest fires and hurricanes as things that'll keep you indoors).
The weather in the Northern Europe really doesn't stop you from being outside any more than the weather elsewhere does (counting forest fires and hurricanes as things that'll keep you indoors).
it's one of our greatest tragedies in the U.S. that the region most suited for walking/cycling/"active transit" is also the region completely obsessed with appearances and specifically with appearing like you just stepped out of the makeup trailer and onto the set for each scene. I honestly think that the social faux paux of looking like you might have been exercising, or exposed to wind, or the hair and clothing style limitations imposed by arriving via bicycle are major factors for SoCal, moreso than in many other parts of the country and world.
For ~6 years my wife and I lived in Santa Barbara without owning a car. We'd occasionally rent one to get out of town - there were a couple times I left my bike locked up at the airport for a long weekend.
I used to fantasize about making a documentary called "the disappearing bike" where you would video somebody cycling around town but every time the bike lane disappeared and then reappeared a quarter mile later, you'd show them just gliding across the street without their bicycle.
Even in SB, which has a much more chill attitude on the roads than anything south of Thousand Oaks (as you head into the LA metro area), some drivers would be bizarrely unsympathetic to the fact that you were traversing a short strip with no bike line in order to connect two bike lanes, with reactions ranging from honking, yelling, revving the engine to loudly pass, "buzzing" you by passing much too close, ... but I think it generally follows that rule that most of us are kind and some small constant percentage (5? 10%?) of the world is jerks.
For ~6 years my wife and I lived in Santa Barbara without owning a car. We'd occasionally rent one to get out of town - there were a couple times I left my bike locked up at the airport for a long weekend.
I used to fantasize about making a documentary called "the disappearing bike" where you would video somebody cycling around town but every time the bike lane disappeared and then reappeared a quarter mile later, you'd show them just gliding across the street without their bicycle.
Even in SB, which has a much more chill attitude on the roads than anything south of Thousand Oaks (as you head into the LA metro area), some drivers would be bizarrely unsympathetic to the fact that you were traversing a short strip with no bike line in order to connect two bike lanes, with reactions ranging from honking, yelling, revving the engine to loudly pass, "buzzing" you by passing much too close, ... but I think it generally follows that rule that most of us are kind and some small constant percentage (5? 10%?) of the world is jerks.
I live in big-ish EU city (Warsaw, Hamburg/Glasgow level of population) and have been cycling for 10+ years, moved to car for various unrelated reasons.
But car commute is still faster. I can get from home to work in ~35 minutes at lower traffic (say 10AM, blessed be flexible work hours) and in MAX hour in more of a rush traffic. Best time by bicycle is around 1h10m. I do park at work building so that's 5-10 minutes of looking for parking saved there. Technically I can get there by 50 min if I get with bike to metro but that's pretty much possible only on off hours.
It's definitely pretty nice way to keep in shape, now with more remote work I just use the time saved to do some cycling. Did it pretty much "from when it stopped snowing to when it started", 20km a day (I went via metro in the morning, came back cycling, just didn't wanted to do all the mess with arriving sweaty and having shower at work every day), including few in pouring rain at near-zero 0C which was.. experience and I have now learned to stop shivering by force of will alone.
Thought I'd get less fat but it didn't work, tho I did get more healthy overall. Diet is the key in the end.
> - somewhat dangerous when the infrastructure is lacking.
Yeah I try to not share any road with cars as much as I could. For 10 years I don't think I had a day where I didn't saw some car doing something sketchy or just driver not paying attention. Not that cyclists were holy here just... much less potential for damage.
> - you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
please just don't
But car commute is still faster. I can get from home to work in ~35 minutes at lower traffic (say 10AM, blessed be flexible work hours) and in MAX hour in more of a rush traffic. Best time by bicycle is around 1h10m. I do park at work building so that's 5-10 minutes of looking for parking saved there. Technically I can get there by 50 min if I get with bike to metro but that's pretty much possible only on off hours.
It's definitely pretty nice way to keep in shape, now with more remote work I just use the time saved to do some cycling. Did it pretty much "from when it stopped snowing to when it started", 20km a day (I went via metro in the morning, came back cycling, just didn't wanted to do all the mess with arriving sweaty and having shower at work every day), including few in pouring rain at near-zero 0C which was.. experience and I have now learned to stop shivering by force of will alone.
Thought I'd get less fat but it didn't work, tho I did get more healthy overall. Diet is the key in the end.
> - somewhat dangerous when the infrastructure is lacking.
Yeah I try to not share any road with cars as much as I could. For 10 years I don't think I had a day where I didn't saw some car doing something sketchy or just driver not paying attention. Not that cyclists were holy here just... much less potential for damage.
> - you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
please just don't
1:10h on bike in Warsaw is like 20km, it's pretty much whole city in straight line length: https://i.imgur.com/21GFPI1.png
You just live very far from your job.
You just live very far from your job.
It takes longer than continuous biking in a city would make one think, for the same reason driving does: you have to stop at red lights, yield, wait in traffic.
Living in a small city (or large town may be a more accurate way to put it) with lots of greenways, I feel like I get the best of both worlds. Before my office re-located I could go 6 miles (~9.5 km) to/from work on a bike in between or around corporate campuses and subdivisions and only deal with a few intersections, while in a car I'd have to deal with traffic and traffic lights regularly most of the way.
My average was 18-20km/h, but half the journey was on the Vistula river bank which makes lights irrelevant. https://um.warszawa.pl/documents/61166/6599671/08102017_Bulw...
Still, would assume 16-18km/h is minimum reasonable speed unless you ride like a pensioner.
Still, would assume 16-18km/h is minimum reasonable speed unless you ride like a pensioner.
> might be impossible depending ... children
Bakfiets[1][2] FTW!! I lived with my two young (under 10) children in Amsterdam for one year without car relying 90% on Bakfiets and occasional Uber rides. After a brief period of teething issues it worked out perfect, even in winters/rains. I used the non-e-bike version as I didn't want to splurge on Urbanarrow about which I kept hearing raving reviews.
[1] https://www.bakfiets.com
[2] https://urbanarrow.com
Bakfiets[1][2] FTW!! I lived with my two young (under 10) children in Amsterdam for one year without car relying 90% on Bakfiets and occasional Uber rides. After a brief period of teething issues it worked out perfect, even in winters/rains. I used the non-e-bike version as I didn't want to splurge on Urbanarrow about which I kept hearing raving reviews.
[1] https://www.bakfiets.com
[2] https://urbanarrow.com
I live in Berlin, within the Ring (for those familiar with the city). I don't own a car, I have multiple carsharing subscriptions and I have two children, 1 and 4. We have a cargo bike to move them around and do groceries, almost in any weather (as long as it doesn't rain), otherwise we have public transport as a backup.
Where do you live for those of us unfamiliar with the city? Paris?
More on topic - Bikes make a lot of sense in the city but if you add kids to the equation the safety risk just becomes too high to stomach IMO.
More on topic - Bikes make a lot of sense in the city but if you add kids to the equation the safety risk just becomes too high to stomach IMO.
> the safety risk just becomes too high to stomach
Check out chart 2:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
Check out chart 2:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
To share with everyone else, chart 2 shows 12x more fatalities per mile traveled for bikes compared to cars.
On the other hand, is shows that pedestrians and cyclists have the same rate of fatalities per mile traveled.
So better to not walk or cycle and just stick to your car /s
So better to not walk or cycle and just stick to your car /s
It absolutely is more safe to put a child in a car in a car seat than to put them on your bike. I wouldn’t even do that outside a city, on a quiet paved bike path.
Reference is the s-bahn ring:
https://oxyi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/map-of-berlin-co...
https://oxyi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/map-of-berlin-co...
The Berlin S-Bahn Ring is a looping railway around the city center. It excludes some higher density areas in the north of the city and includes some less populated areas in the south of the city, but being inside the ring is the most accepted benchmark of living in the city core.
it says right at the beginning "I live in Berlin".
Biking and drinking (in excess) — probably not the world’s best combo in general, but on the bright side it is just your own life at risk, and there’s a built-in coordination challenge, so I guess it isn’t possible to get going while truly hammered!
Eh what? You can definitely kill someone with your bike. Also if you kill yourself in traffic you will raise the risk of traffic related deaths for the responders. Many places in the world riding a bike drunk is as illegal as driving a car drunk.
> Many places in the world riding a bike drunk is as illegal as driving a car drunk.
Even if you assume the the risks outlined in your comment as relatively high likelihood (which I don't), it still makes 0 sense to think it's anywhere near as serious as driving drunk.
Even if you assume the the risks outlined in your comment as relatively high likelihood (which I don't), it still makes 0 sense to think it's anywhere near as serious as driving drunk.
Riding a bike drunk is asocial and a danger to yourself and others. You might like to think of it as less serious, just like people thought of drunk driving as okay if you were careful. It's a judgment call you make, but it is objectively more dangerous than when you are sober.
All motion is more dangerous while drunk, but how drunk you are matters, how fast you're going matters, and how dense traffic is matters. I'm not convinced of how much more dangerous biking is while mildly drunk than walking, or biking very slowly while very drunk, especially at night when almost no one is walking.
So is walking anywhere
It‘s definitely possible and happens regularly. But statistically speaking, it‘s a freak accident compared to car vs. pedestrian. It‘s orders of magnitude less likely.
That's besides the point. People sometimes die when bikes run into them - simple as.
What is your point then, if not “cycling drunk is as likely to kill somebody else as driving drunk?” If it is “it’s technically possible to kill somebody cycling drunk” - then yes, I concede the point. But it’s not a useful point in this discussion.
People sometimes die due to collisions pedestrians.
Should it be illegal for people to walk around drunk as well?
Should it be illegal for people to walk around drunk as well?
[deleted]
In the Netherlands driving a bike under influence is technically illegal. But nobody gets caught for it, and it's the much preferred alternative to drinking & driving.
Did you put theft under the wrong heading?
I've had many bikes stolen and everyone I know who rides has at least one bike stolen.
I've never had anything stolen from my car and no issues with car theft, and I don't know anyone who has had their car stolen.
I've met two people in my life who have had items stolen from their car, and in both cases they left their car unlocked.
I've had many bikes stolen and everyone I know who rides has at least one bike stolen.
I've never had anything stolen from my car and no issues with car theft, and I don't know anyone who has had their car stolen.
I've met two people in my life who have had items stolen from their car, and in both cases they left their car unlocked.
I was thinking the same thing when they talked about "theft".
Looks like they live in Belgium
Maybe there's less bike theft there?
Looks like they live in Belgium
Maybe there's less bike theft there?
I live in NYC and love being car free. But with two kids that within a few years will be attending two different schools the pull of car ownership gets stronger and stronger. It’s depressing, especially as there is so much the city could do to encourage bikers but never does.
For being America's flagship city it's insane how car-choked and human-hostile NYC is.
It's weird dissonance, here in rural village I cycled a lot to school during reasonable weather (from like age of 8, around ~10km), and outside of that school bus. Of course not really a option in unsafe spaces or younger kids.
> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
A pedestrian I know was seriously injured (brain damage, years of therapy) by a cyclist who was going the wrong way down a one-way street.
To be fair, the cyclist wasn't drunk, ... so maybe the drinking bit is completely irrelevant. Carry on then.
A pedestrian I know was seriously injured (brain damage, years of therapy) by a cyclist who was going the wrong way down a one-way street.
To be fair, the cyclist wasn't drunk, ... so maybe the drinking bit is completely irrelevant. Carry on then.
> Pros:
I'd add to your list: No stress of driving in traffic. Imagine your ride home is pleasant personal time and exercise in the fresh air, not cars honking in a standstill in traffic. You feel better after riding.
I've had bike shops apologize for a $20 charge. :D They are thinking in a different context; I'm comparing that to my alternative, a car and its repair bills.
> significantly faster if parking is taken into account for most trips. The bike is faster for any < 10 km / 7 mi trip;
I don't think many people realize it: It's far more practical and efficient to ride. When you start doing it, driving (those distances) becomes frustrating and tedious, an odd choice given one that's faster, cheaper, and much better in all the other ways you listed.
At an easy pace, a bicycle goes ~16 km/hr (10 mi/hr). Especially in a dense city, think what's within 5-10 miles of you. Imagine very little traffic and then parking for free, without looking for a spot, within probably 20m of the door (depending on the city and bike parking rules).
> about €300/month in additional disposable income
And how about the cost of the bicycle? $250-600 for a good one, used or new. I own several for different purposes, guests, etc. That would be pretty expensive if it was a car.
And if it's stolen or damaged, buy another.
> Cons:
Also, not an option for those without the coordination to ride safely or durability to fall safely. Everyone falls. Elderly people can easily break bones.
I'd add to your list: No stress of driving in traffic. Imagine your ride home is pleasant personal time and exercise in the fresh air, not cars honking in a standstill in traffic. You feel better after riding.
I've had bike shops apologize for a $20 charge. :D They are thinking in a different context; I'm comparing that to my alternative, a car and its repair bills.
> significantly faster if parking is taken into account for most trips. The bike is faster for any < 10 km / 7 mi trip;
I don't think many people realize it: It's far more practical and efficient to ride. When you start doing it, driving (those distances) becomes frustrating and tedious, an odd choice given one that's faster, cheaper, and much better in all the other ways you listed.
At an easy pace, a bicycle goes ~16 km/hr (10 mi/hr). Especially in a dense city, think what's within 5-10 miles of you. Imagine very little traffic and then parking for free, without looking for a spot, within probably 20m of the door (depending on the city and bike parking rules).
> about €300/month in additional disposable income
And how about the cost of the bicycle? $250-600 for a good one, used or new. I own several for different purposes, guests, etc. That would be pretty expensive if it was a car.
And if it's stolen or damaged, buy another.
> Cons:
Also, not an option for those without the coordination to ride safely or durability to fall safely. Everyone falls. Elderly people can easily break bones.
> I'd add to your list: No stress of driving in traffic. Imagine your ride home is pleasant personal time and exercise in the fresh air, not cars honking in a standstill in traffic. You feel better after riding.
I imagine you have never cycled across London during peak hours, depending on the day some of the most nerve shredding cycling you can imagine; some of the angriest motorists in the world running people off the road (even squeezing me into the curb in a cycle lane, before threatening to kill me after I knocked on the back of his van) in their metal boxes completely oblivious to safe driving around cyclists and how defensive you have to be to be seen and yes sometimes get in the way of vehicles. Once some moron on the Kings road swings the door of his Lexus into the road (only cars exist right?) and I career into the opposite lane managing to just about stay on my bike and avoid the on rushing car beeping his horn at me as if I was cycling on the wrong side of the road deliberately. A near death experience I'd say.
But yes cycling can be relaxing on occasion, just not on the roads motorists use and not in London during rush hour.
I have to say having cycled across France the motorists there are absolutely amazing and give you loads of space when overtaking.
I imagine you have never cycled across London during peak hours, depending on the day some of the most nerve shredding cycling you can imagine; some of the angriest motorists in the world running people off the road (even squeezing me into the curb in a cycle lane, before threatening to kill me after I knocked on the back of his van) in their metal boxes completely oblivious to safe driving around cyclists and how defensive you have to be to be seen and yes sometimes get in the way of vehicles. Once some moron on the Kings road swings the door of his Lexus into the road (only cars exist right?) and I career into the opposite lane managing to just about stay on my bike and avoid the on rushing car beeping his horn at me as if I was cycling on the wrong side of the road deliberately. A near death experience I'd say.
But yes cycling can be relaxing on occasion, just not on the roads motorists use and not in London during rush hour.
I have to say having cycled across France the motorists there are absolutely amazing and give you loads of space when overtaking.
Sorry, good point. I generally don't ride in traffic (defined as multiple lanes with lots of cars moving quickly); I almost always find other routes without much problem. Do you need to ride in traffic in London? See this post for what I mean:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35241049
And I have done the sort of thing you describe - it's still better than driving. :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35241049
And I have done the sort of thing you describe - it's still better than driving. :)
Sometimes these types of routes are very inconvenient and/or cars are already using them to try to avoid the main blocked roads.
> - might be impossible depending on work or children;
For the latter, perhaps see "The Car-Replacement Bicycle (the bakfiets)":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
> - weather might make the ride unpleasant;
I live in Toronto, Canada, and in the Before Times I cycled everday between ~April and December, rain or shine. The simplest solution is to just always have bad weather gear: it's like and doesn't take up much volume. Having it in a pannier means you always have it and don't have to think about it. The simplest solution for rain is a poncho, though I went with jackets and rain pants.
I found the threat of rain is more of an obstacle that actual rain. If your commute is <40 minutes, odds are pretty good it won't actually rain during your ride. It's the possibility of it that tends discourage people, in which case some gear works to counter it.
That said, if you ride >80% of the time when the weather isn't too bad that's still a good improvement over not riding at all.
For the latter, perhaps see "The Car-Replacement Bicycle (the bakfiets)":
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQhzEnWCgHA
> - weather might make the ride unpleasant;
I live in Toronto, Canada, and in the Before Times I cycled everday between ~April and December, rain or shine. The simplest solution is to just always have bad weather gear: it's like and doesn't take up much volume. Having it in a pannier means you always have it and don't have to think about it. The simplest solution for rain is a poncho, though I went with jackets and rain pants.
I found the threat of rain is more of an obstacle that actual rain. If your commute is <40 minutes, odds are pretty good it won't actually rain during your ride. It's the possibility of it that tends discourage people, in which case some gear works to counter it.
That said, if you ride >80% of the time when the weather isn't too bad that's still a good improvement over not riding at all.
> - do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;
While significantly less of a hassle than car maintenance, if you are riding a bike daily, you do now need to consider bike maintenance. And theft remains an issue in many cities for bikes as well.
While significantly less of a hassle than car maintenance, if you are riding a bike daily, you do now need to consider bike maintenance. And theft remains an issue in many cities for bikes as well.
I used to cycle daily and as far as maintenance went, it was mostly: bike tyres once a year, valves, chain lubricant, bike repair toolbox (purchase once), drum brake maintenance. All in all it would be about £100 per year on average and I'm being generous.
I've never owned a car, but the cost of replacing a lost bike (mine cost around £600) plus its maintenance (let's say £200 per year to be generous) sounds cheaper than what I'd pay for car insurance, petrol, and maintenance per year in UK/Europe. I also live in London where public transportation, even with its aging infrastructure, is wonderful.
I'd definitely get a car if I was living outside of a big relatively city, especially if it isn't planned for walking and cycling.
I've never owned a car, but the cost of replacing a lost bike (mine cost around £600) plus its maintenance (let's say £200 per year to be generous) sounds cheaper than what I'd pay for car insurance, petrol, and maintenance per year in UK/Europe. I also live in London where public transportation, even with its aging infrastructure, is wonderful.
I'd definitely get a car if I was living outside of a big relatively city, especially if it isn't planned for walking and cycling.
>>- you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
Please don't take that attitude ...
I have a work colleague who basically had an ankle tendon sliced by just such a person.
The very likely outcome now is that they will never walk or run normally ever again.
Please don't take that attitude ...
I have a work colleague who basically had an ankle tendon sliced by just such a person.
The very likely outcome now is that they will never walk or run normally ever again.
Interesting.
I genuinely couldn't give af about points on these kind of websites, but I've noticed the count on this comment vary up and down.
What kind of @sshole would disagree with the sentiment?
I do worry about those who walk among us.
I genuinely couldn't give af about points on these kind of websites, but I've noticed the count on this comment vary up and down.
What kind of @sshole would disagree with the sentiment?
I do worry about those who walk among us.
You can absolutely kill a pedestrian or another cyclist when on an e-bike, do not drink and ride
> - do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;
You are concerned about car theft but not about e-bike theft. How come? Stealing e-bike is so much easier.
You are concerned about car theft but not about e-bike theft. How come? Stealing e-bike is so much easier.
How many e-bikes would need to be stolen to reach average car price tho?
You could have one stolen every year and still end up cheaper than owning a car.
Hell, just price of petrol+insurance for a year is more expensive
You could have one stolen every year and still end up cheaper than owning a car.
Hell, just price of petrol+insurance for a year is more expensive
One big con you missed is "where do you keep it?" Cargo bikes big enough for (say) one adult plus two large children basically take up the space of a small car. I have room for bikes (and cycle to work myself) and a car in London (and I need my car for journeys outside London) but no way I would have room for a cargo bike as well.
> - might be impossible depending on work or children;
I can only speak for Austria and Germany, two countries that have the Pendlerpauschale, a tax rebate for those with a long commute and motorists far too much from this, it's even worse in Austria where high-income earner profit more from this than lower-income earners. Would that be dropped people would finally move closer to work (or work closer to them) and a lot of traffic into the city I live could be avoided (which would possibly lead to city residents using their car more often...)
> - significantly faster if parking is taken into account for most trips.
Fun fact about this: If a city reduces free/cheap over-ground parking and builds a few more parking houses, traffic can increase because straight driving to a parking house makes parking easier because they stop bothering looking for the few remaining overground parking spots.
I can only speak for Austria and Germany, two countries that have the Pendlerpauschale, a tax rebate for those with a long commute and motorists far too much from this, it's even worse in Austria where high-income earner profit more from this than lower-income earners. Would that be dropped people would finally move closer to work (or work closer to them) and a lot of traffic into the city I live could be avoided (which would possibly lead to city residents using their car more often...)
> - significantly faster if parking is taken into account for most trips.
Fun fact about this: If a city reduces free/cheap over-ground parking and builds a few more parking houses, traffic can increase because straight driving to a parking house makes parking easier because they stop bothering looking for the few remaining overground parking spots.
In most places, not only do parents with children need to use something other than a bicycle for transportation because of inconvenience, but many have to quit using them because the children depend on them and they shouldn't be taking unnecessary risks with their lives.
Cons:
>- might be impossible depending on >work or children; > >- weather might make the ride >unpleasant; > >- somewhat dangerous when the >infrastructure is lacking.
None of those things are so bad once you get used to them, except perhaps the 3rd.
I've used a bike for commuting for years.
Since having kids I now have a seat on the back and one on the front to drop them to childcare.
The city I live in rains a lot! And it is quite hilly, and this is a normal bike, not an ebike.
But I still prefer it much more than driving, I just have the waterproof gear at hand.
The infrastructure and weather was a lot better for cycling in the city I just moved from, but I think even without good cycling lanes etc, if you are vigilant, signal well, and be assertive when needed it can still be fine.
>- might be impossible depending on >work or children; > >- weather might make the ride >unpleasant; > >- somewhat dangerous when the >infrastructure is lacking.
None of those things are so bad once you get used to them, except perhaps the 3rd.
I've used a bike for commuting for years.
Since having kids I now have a seat on the back and one on the front to drop them to childcare.
The city I live in rains a lot! And it is quite hilly, and this is a normal bike, not an ebike.
But I still prefer it much more than driving, I just have the waterproof gear at hand.
The infrastructure and weather was a lot better for cycling in the city I just moved from, but I think even without good cycling lanes etc, if you are vigilant, signal well, and be assertive when needed it can still be fine.
>- might be impossible depending on work or children
The public (media) conversation has largely focused on whether people give up cars entirely, but at least in America, the norm is for most families to have two cars, if not more. Walking that back to one car would meaningfully reduce the design constraints on medium-density housing — you can build a neighborhood of small houses with only street parking, for example, which is basically impossible when people need two cars — and therefore it would also reduce housing costs in urban neighborhoods.
Ebikes could significantly help with that even if they don't lead to the car-free future envisioned by some techno-urbanists. For example, your girlfriend has a car.
The public (media) conversation has largely focused on whether people give up cars entirely, but at least in America, the norm is for most families to have two cars, if not more. Walking that back to one car would meaningfully reduce the design constraints on medium-density housing — you can build a neighborhood of small houses with only street parking, for example, which is basically impossible when people need two cars — and therefore it would also reduce housing costs in urban neighborhoods.
Ebikes could significantly help with that even if they don't lead to the car-free future envisioned by some techno-urbanists. For example, your girlfriend has a car.
[deleted]
> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
Wow. After a family member of mine being injured by a cyclist crashing into them, reading something like this is quite infuriating.
If you drink, don't drive, even if it's a bicycle.
Wow. After a family member of mine being injured by a cyclist crashing into them, reading something like this is quite infuriating.
If you drink, don't drive, even if it's a bicycle.
Yeah, that's one of the big problems with bikes. People want all the benefits of using them everywhere (pedestrian only pathways, on roads, on bike lanes), but none of the responsibilities (don't drink and drive, right of way, traffic lights, traffic rules in general). People just don't see them as a serious thing, so they use bikes without any rules, getting themselves and others in danger, minimising the risks.
Not to mention, you could easily kill yourself. If you're biking on the roads (especially in the UK where they're extremely narrow), you better recognize you're partaking in a dangerous activity and take it seriously. At least wear a helmet.
Also, cycling drunk is illegal in many jurisdictions and can get you a DUI in the same way as drunk driving a car. If you're on an e-bike, it's almost certainly illegal, since you're driving a motorized vehicle.
Also, cycling drunk is illegal in many jurisdictions and can get you a DUI in the same way as drunk driving a car. If you're on an e-bike, it's almost certainly illegal, since you're driving a motorized vehicle.
I drink and bike.
I'm debating with myself how safe it is. Currently I'm still on "it's fine" side of things. I'm open the change though.
I'm debating with myself how safe it is. Currently I'm still on "it's fine" side of things. I'm open the change though.
Theft is the major reason I haven't invested in a utility e-bike (or use my expensive road bike) to do local shopping.
I live in a place with fantastic bike-ability, but don't shop because of theft concerns.
Is that different in London?
I live in a place with fantastic bike-ability, but don't shop because of theft concerns.
Is that different in London?
>you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
You may, especially that ebikes are hella fast. Dont ride after alcohol.
In my country you would lose car license if they caught you driving a bike while drunk
You may, especially that ebikes are hella fast. Dont ride after alcohol.
In my country you would lose car license if they caught you driving a bike while drunk
Also noting on drinking and riding, in Switzerland, it's possible to lose your drivers license if caught doing it, I kinda think thats unfair and not very sensible at all as a policy.
What if you just don't have a drivers license?
I'm not sure, I was under the impression that you won't be able to get one for the period it would be suspended, but can't find a source.
At least in Australia, you get the fine, and your ability to get a license is suspended same as if you had one.
Bikes are also good for economy.
The amount of expensive add-ons I see on the bikers and their bikes suggest to me it's good business. Helmets, clothing, and electronic add-ons are likely adding around £1,000 per annum to the cost of ownership.
Bikes prices are a bit silly though. Expensive bikes (those in the £3,000 range) are ~25% of the price of a new Dacia Sandero.
Bike theft is rampant in London, so the insurance premiums are high, too. It can cost £300 per year.
Cons? Not all offices are equipped with showers.
The amount of expensive add-ons I see on the bikers and their bikes suggest to me it's good business. Helmets, clothing, and electronic add-ons are likely adding around £1,000 per annum to the cost of ownership.
Bikes prices are a bit silly though. Expensive bikes (those in the £3,000 range) are ~25% of the price of a new Dacia Sandero.
Bike theft is rampant in London, so the insurance premiums are high, too. It can cost £300 per year.
Cons? Not all offices are equipped with showers.
I assume you can store your e-bike somewhere safe when commuting. Imo theft and complete unwillingness shown almost universally shown by police to do anything about it is a major obstacle in wider bike/e-bike adoption. If it wasn't for theft I would do 0 trips with my car within a city. As it is I can't even go shopping to the supermarket as my bike will be gone sooner or later.
> - do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;
I'm glad you're in a city you don't have to worry about theft, but this is one of my biggest issues with bike ownership. You basically need to get a shitty bike to not worry about it being stolen or hope there's something adequate to firmly lock it to at the destination in my city.
I'm glad you're in a city you don't have to worry about theft, but this is one of my biggest issues with bike ownership. You basically need to get a shitty bike to not worry about it being stolen or hope there's something adequate to firmly lock it to at the destination in my city.
I always hear people make the argument that cost savings is the biggest benefit of ditching a car and living in a city with good public transportation.
Then I look at NYC and it's $5k to rent a 1 bedroom and everything as soon as you walk out the door is 30-50% more expensive than most other cities.
No one is saving money not having a car in NYC when everything else is so much more expensive.
Then I look at NYC and it's $5k to rent a 1 bedroom and everything as soon as you walk out the door is 30-50% more expensive than most other cities.
No one is saving money not having a car in NYC when everything else is so much more expensive.
You can get paid 1000% depending on your job, so YMMV.
>- Immediately stopped having insomnia. Better feel overall;
It's interesting you mention that. When I took up cycling to work in Manchester, I started struggling to fall fully asleep because I'd have short pseudo-dreams about the POV of cycling on wet, dark, busy roads & jerk awake, scared that I was falling asleep at the handlebars.
It's interesting you mention that. When I took up cycling to work in Manchester, I started struggling to fall fully asleep because I'd have short pseudo-dreams about the POV of cycling on wet, dark, busy roads & jerk awake, scared that I was falling asleep at the handlebars.
> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
You definitely can still kill someone.
In at least some countries an 'e-bike', depending of exactly which type it is, may be motor vehicle that falls into the exact same laws as drink driving a car. If not it may still be illegal to ride a bike on the road while drunk.
You definitely can still kill someone.
In at least some countries an 'e-bike', depending of exactly which type it is, may be motor vehicle that falls into the exact same laws as drink driving a car. If not it may still be illegal to ride a bike on the road while drunk.
"might be impossible depending on work or children"
I'll note that getting rid of a lot of cars would be nice for safety and pollution reasons, but many proponents underestimate how difficult the kid situation becomes, especially after having more than one. People tend to move their families to the suburbs for a reason.
I'll note that getting rid of a lot of cars would be nice for safety and pollution reasons, but many proponents underestimate how difficult the kid situation becomes, especially after having more than one. People tend to move their families to the suburbs for a reason.
significantly faster if parking is taken into account for most trips
This sounds unlikely for the average cycling commuter if parking alone is making the difference- cyclists (as motorcyclists) need to change (at each side) and shower etc; I think that is often forgotten in these calculations.
This sounds unlikely for the average cycling commuter if parking alone is making the difference- cyclists (as motorcyclists) need to change (at each side) and shower etc; I think that is often forgotten in these calculations.
I could probably count the number of times I've changed or showered after cycling on one hand, and cycling has been my main mode of transit for 10 years.
When your trip is like 3km you don't even have time to work up a sweat, especially if you're limited to just going at the speed of traffic. (Yes, on my own I could probably ride faster, but I'm limited by car/infrastructure speed)
When your trip is like 3km you don't even have time to work up a sweat, especially if you're limited to just going at the speed of traffic. (Yes, on my own I could probably ride faster, but I'm limited by car/infrastructure speed)
When your trip is 3km you can easily walk. Bicycle commuting is very hard in warmer climates, because you will get sweaty. But motorcycles solve that problem at least. Then you have those cold climates with awful weather, where bicycle commuting is pure misery, compared to riding a car or bus. So it is all very location dependent.
Bike commuting during winter is fine as long as you have the right clothes. I have commuted in a -55F wind chill in perfect comfort. I will concede that it takes a few weeks to calibrate clothing if you're not used to it, but it's not some huge barrier if it's something you're interested in
Snow cover can make it impossible. Frozen rain means you need somewhere to store your wet clothes, and they will not be nice to put on when going back. Somebody who isn't a huge biking freak will prefer the car.
Sure, there are always going to be anecdotal exceptions ("parking isn't an issue for me, I just park on site"), but I think fans on either side can have quite rose-tinted views when assessing the pros and cons; I was just pointing out an omission in one of the examples.
I live in the highest density cycling city in North America (Montreal) and this is not anecdotal. A huge portion of my office cycle-commutes to work, and the vast majority do not shower. This was doubly-true before I worked at my current company, where there weren't showers, and still most people used bikes to commute.
At what point do anecdotes from people who actually live this experience day to day become more useful to listen to than theories from people who don't?
At what point do anecdotes from people who actually live this experience day to day become more useful to listen to than theories from people who don't?
I used to commute by bike myself (and would still if logistics allowed), so you should probably not presume.
The fact is, short of linking to professional analysis and reporting we are all here relating anecdotes - and that's ok.
The fact is, short of linking to professional analysis and reporting we are all here relating anecdotes - and that's ok.
Do a google image search for 'Dutch on bicycles'. None of those people in the pictures need to change or shower after their ride. Same thing were I live. We only wear special cycling clothes if we go out cycling on a road bike or mountain bike in the weekend. And of course then you need to shower afterwards.
I have to shower at least once a day anyways, so it doesn't really make a difference if I do that before or after my commute. In fact when I drive to work I usually spend the first couple minutes in the shower just staring at the wall waking up- when I bike to work I'm much more efficient.
The only downside is that on warmer days if I have something going on in the evening I'll sometimes need to shower again when I get home, but IMO it's still worth it considering that my roundtrip commute is maybe 60 minutes by bike vs 50 minutes by car, and if I commute by car I don't get the free workout
The only downside is that on warmer days if I have something going on in the evening I'll sometimes need to shower again when I get home, but IMO it's still worth it considering that my roundtrip commute is maybe 60 minutes by bike vs 50 minutes by car, and if I commute by car I don't get the free workout
>cyclists (as motorcyclists) need to change (at each side) and shower etc;
Excuse me? I have literally never done that in my life. I just bike in my normal clothes. It's light exercise, you don't have to shower afterwards.
Excuse me? I have literally never done that in my life. I just bike in my normal clothes. It's light exercise, you don't have to shower afterwards.
My guess is that even if you drive to work, you shower at home in the morning. I instead shower at the office when biking. So same amount of time use.
"Bicycles deliver the freedom that auto ads promise"
https://twitter.com/tomflood1/status/1609976864897916930
I have an eBike but rarely use it. My main concern is theft. However, I frequently use Lyft eBikes to get around town (SF) but I don’t have the same concern for my car getting stolen if on the street for an hour (or all day at our offices in a locked room).
> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
It actually depends, but chances are better.
> do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;
Isn't bicycle theft wider than car theft in Europe? Bycicle is easier to steal and easier to sell to black market resellers.
It actually depends, but chances are better.
> do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;
Isn't bicycle theft wider than car theft in Europe? Bycicle is easier to steal and easier to sell to black market resellers.
> not worry about theft
How do you protect your bike? Isn't it more likely to get your bike wheels stolen than to get your car stolen?
Also, 10eur for just one lunch?? 8D
How do you protect your bike? Isn't it more likely to get your bike wheels stolen than to get your car stolen?
Also, 10eur for just one lunch?? 8D
> might be impossible depending on work or children
a dog it's even worse in this regard. I don't think any taxi will refuse a child.
a dog it's even worse in this regard. I don't think any taxi will refuse a child.
Well, it does happen sometimes.
In any city I lived in in the last 10 years ebike would be stolen or at least the battery would be, in minutes.
> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking
You might however end up at the hospital doing that, or worse.
You might however end up at the hospital doing that, or worse.
> - you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
You might kill yourself though.
You might kill yourself though.
- if you ride after a night drinking
I was at my local bar here in Ontario and a gang of older fellows (boomer/Gen X) roll up on electric stand-up scooters.
Some drunk zoomers started laughing and giving them shit and flexing their trucks but they just ignored them, had their 3-4 beers and said they were going to <fancy uptown bar> which would have been at least 45 minutes to walk.
I was at my local bar here in Ontario and a gang of older fellows (boomer/Gen X) roll up on electric stand-up scooters.
Some drunk zoomers started laughing and giving them shit and flexing their trucks but they just ignored them, had their 3-4 beers and said they were going to <fancy uptown bar> which would have been at least 45 minutes to walk.
Do you worry about ebike theft? If not, how do you lock it in public?
With a chain and a good lock.
> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking
(other than yourself)
(other than yourself)
Worth noting that most car drivers have insurance. If you carelessly run over a child, you'll feel bad, but the insurance will pay for all the court cases.
If you run over a child on a bicycle, most cyclists don't have insurance, and there is a reasonable chance you'll have to sell your house to pay compensation to a child who is now in a wheelchair for life.
If you run over a child on a bicycle, most cyclists don't have insurance, and there is a reasonable chance you'll have to sell your house to pay compensation to a child who is now in a wheelchair for life.
Car insurance liability limits will be insufficient if you kill someone, and you’ll be on the hook for the remainder. Umbrella will cover you in both scenarios.
In the US.
While much more rare than with cars, biciclysts still sometimes fatally hit pedestrians.
Some numbers from 2021 in the UK:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
> Chart 4 shows that, again, in terms of absolute numbers, cars are the vehicle type most often involved in fatal collisions when others are killed, followed by HGVs and Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs). Very few other road users are killed in collisions with pedal cyclists or pedestrians (5 and 6 respectively in 2021).
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...
> Chart 4 shows that, again, in terms of absolute numbers, cars are the vehicle type most often involved in fatal collisions when others are killed, followed by HGVs and Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs). Very few other road users are killed in collisions with pedal cyclists or pedestrians (5 and 6 respectively in 2021).
I wonder if "road accident" includes incidents on the pavement? Not clear from that document.
Cyclists on the pavement make me so angry. (Also, "pavement" means "sidewalk," for the Americans reading.)
Why be angry about it; they are just scared of cars like the rest of us, I live in a neighborhood where the cyclepath just merges into the pavement. The cyclepath actually continues on the pavement if you look at the papers. My point is that we have pretty heavy traffic of inexperienced cyclists, and I never have an issue with them.
As a cyclist I avoid pavements, the are very seldom the best route anyways. I do understand the fear that make them seem like the best options.
As a cyclist I avoid pavements, the are very seldom the best route anyways. I do understand the fear that make them seem like the best options.
I use the pavements to walk on, and I don't fear cars, they tend to keep on the road. In the UK it is a criminal offence to ride a bike on the pavement, and with reason: the elderly, small children should have some safe means of getting from A to B. If these selfish criminal cyclists are so scared of cars then they should get off their bikes and push them along the pavement.
Indeed. Still better though.
docmars(1)
I really dislike cars in cities, but equally I dislike cyclists and cycling myself for the following reasons:
> do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;
Not sure where bicycle theft is not a thing, I've not encountered this, even in Vienna, one of the safest cities in the world. You still need to lock your bicycle safely.
> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
In London I see plenty of irresponsible cyclists badly harming pedestrians.
> amazing when the weather is great;
Or you end up drenched in sweat wherever you go. Personally I hate cycling for that reason as a way of commute in the city.
Other reasons why I hate cycling and cyclists:
- Uneven roads, pot holes, getting splashed by cars who drive through puddles
- Inflexibility. You go somewhere, meet someone or your group of friends now spontaneously decide to move on to a different place and you'll be the loner who has to split from the group and meet them later again or you have to abandon your bicycle and get back the next day to pick it up. Sod that.
- Helmets. I can't stand helmet hair. Also how fucking annoying is it to have to carry your helmet everywhere even after parking your bicycle.
- Dirty clothes. You always end up with muddy splashes on your trousers. If you cycle then better not wear nice shoes or light trousers, which again limits where/when you can effectively use a bicycle as a way of commute.
- Male genitalia. Cyclists completely kill off their male reproductive parts. If you cycle your whole life for daily commuting to places then you'll certainly end up with fertility issues and probably require assistance to get erected in older age. No thank you lol.
Cycling is hugely overrated and I can't find anything nice about it to be honest. I rather have cities be transformed into amazing public transport systems so that I can go to places without a stupid castration apparatus.
> do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;
Not sure where bicycle theft is not a thing, I've not encountered this, even in Vienna, one of the safest cities in the world. You still need to lock your bicycle safely.
> you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
In London I see plenty of irresponsible cyclists badly harming pedestrians.
> amazing when the weather is great;
Or you end up drenched in sweat wherever you go. Personally I hate cycling for that reason as a way of commute in the city.
Other reasons why I hate cycling and cyclists:
- Uneven roads, pot holes, getting splashed by cars who drive through puddles
- Inflexibility. You go somewhere, meet someone or your group of friends now spontaneously decide to move on to a different place and you'll be the loner who has to split from the group and meet them later again or you have to abandon your bicycle and get back the next day to pick it up. Sod that.
- Helmets. I can't stand helmet hair. Also how fucking annoying is it to have to carry your helmet everywhere even after parking your bicycle.
- Dirty clothes. You always end up with muddy splashes on your trousers. If you cycle then better not wear nice shoes or light trousers, which again limits where/when you can effectively use a bicycle as a way of commute.
- Male genitalia. Cyclists completely kill off their male reproductive parts. If you cycle your whole life for daily commuting to places then you'll certainly end up with fertility issues and probably require assistance to get erected in older age. No thank you lol.
Cycling is hugely overrated and I can't find anything nice about it to be honest. I rather have cities be transformed into amazing public transport systems so that I can go to places without a stupid castration apparatus.
> Male genitalia. Cyclists completely kill off their male reproductive parts. If you cycle your whole life for daily commuting to places then you'll certainly end up with fertility issues and probably require assistance to get erected in older age. No thank you lol.
This is mostly an urban legend. I am a amateur cyclist and during my testicles checkup I asked to my andrologist if it's better to stop while I am looking for a son. He replied that there is no any scientific evidence about damage on testicles by bike and that I can continue without worrying about them. Other factors like smoke are a lot more risky
This is mostly an urban legend. I am a amateur cyclist and during my testicles checkup I asked to my andrologist if it's better to stop while I am looking for a son. He replied that there is no any scientific evidence about damage on testicles by bike and that I can continue without worrying about them. Other factors like smoke are a lot more risky
> You always end up with muddy splashes on your trousers. If you cycle then better not wear nice shoes or light trousers, which again limits where/when you can effectively use a bicycle as a way of commute.
Does your bike not have fenders?
Does your bike not have fenders?
Note that the "City of London" is not the whole of the London built-up area, but just the financial services district, slightly more than one square mile in area. Still, it's a remarkable statistic even then.
If anyone non-UK types are interested in this weird entity — technically dates back to Roman days, and predates the United Kingdom by hundreds of years — this podcast episode is quite funny and informative.
Just an example of what a weird anomalous zone it is: the King (or Queen) of England is not legally allowed to enter without explicit permission from the mayor — not the mayor of London, the Lord Mayor of this square mile. It's like if Wall Street could tell the President of the US to take a hike.
https://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/e/unlocked-britainolo...
Just an example of what a weird anomalous zone it is: the King (or Queen) of England is not legally allowed to enter without explicit permission from the mayor — not the mayor of London, the Lord Mayor of this square mile. It's like if Wall Street could tell the President of the US to take a hike.
https://trashfuturepodcast.podbean.com/e/unlocked-britainolo...
CGP Grey also had a great video on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
He also had a video on the mayor of The City of London
https://youtu.be/z1ROpIKZe-c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc
He also had a video on the mayor of The City of London
https://youtu.be/z1ROpIKZe-c
> It's like if Wall Street could tell the President of the US to take a hike
An alternative take:
If it turns out, by some legislative fluke, that a particular square mile of the US is not bound by all of its laws, it won't be long until Wall St companies start moving their headquarters!
An alternative take:
If it turns out, by some legislative fluke, that a particular square mile of the US is not bound by all of its laws, it won't be long until Wall St companies start moving their headquarters!
This is kind of what happens in Las Vegas, but to a lesser extent than the City of London. Most of what we think of as "Las Vegas" is actually the unincorporated territory known as "Paradise."
That's pretty common, though? It's the whole reason the census has the concept of metro statistical areas. Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, all have this same effect to varying degrees.
But none of them have a rule saying the POTUS cannot visit with the Mayor approving, so there's that. And "City of London" is tiny compared to the rest of the London metro.
But none of them have a rule saying the POTUS cannot visit with the Mayor approving, so there's that. And "City of London" is tiny compared to the rest of the London metro.
In the western US, this is common. On the east coast, it's unheard of.
I started digging and noticed there are lots of little fiefdoms in plain sight in the US.
Its... amusing.
Either a little unincorporated hamlet to escape taxes, or a little incorporated hamlet to collect taxes from some warehouses.
Its... amusing.
Either a little unincorporated hamlet to escape taxes, or a little incorporated hamlet to collect taxes from some warehouses.
Aka Delaware.
I think most of the commenters missed this.
It should also be taken in the context of the city not being an area many people drive to anyway. Many of these cyclists will have switched from the tube, and many of them will have taken a train to a terminal station and biked from there.
For non-UK people, particularly American readers, the City of London, and inner London in general has zero public parking. It feels like even saying 'zero' is being pretty generous. Every street is restricted in some way (no parking, or exorbitant parking meters), and there are decreasingly few car parks/parking lots.
Does the London tube have good facilities for carrying bikes?
No. Non folding bikes are not allowed on most tube services in central london. The lines that do allow it don't allow it during rush hour.
So how do all the bikes get into central London?
While there are certainly some areas like the City of London which are almost exclusively commercial/office, most of London, even the central parts, is a mashup of different land uses including residential. Not everyone commutes in from the suburbs.
Lots of stations have large cycle racks. They just go from office to station and back again.
You can take them on overground trains, though that's kind of restricted at rush hour. I imagine people mostly either cycle from their homes or leave the bike near a station.
Not sure I understand your question. I think people cycle them in…
Folding bikes are sometimes not allowed
No, but folding bikes are pretty common in London. Those can be taken on trains at any time whereas normal hikes are technically only allowed on off-peak trains.
Nope, they are not allowed on the underground network unless they are folding bikes.
Outside peak hours they are allowed on the sub-surface lines (Circle etc) as those have larger trains and simpler emergency evacuation.
It's still not something you'd want to do very often. I think I did it once with a new bicycle that I'd bought from the other side of London, where the route home would have been long and completely new to me.
Map of allowed lines: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/cycles-on-public-transport.pdf
It's still not something you'd want to do very often. I think I did it once with a new bicycle that I'd bought from the other side of London, where the route home would have been long and completely new to me.
Map of allowed lines: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/cycles-on-public-transport.pdf
>it's a remarkable statistic
If you consider levying a $20-30/day tax to every driver,[1] plus another $12/day if your car is too old,[2] plus $200-600/year to park on public roads,[3] causing people to stop driving as remarkable, then sure.
Edit: why the downvotes?
[1]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10279911/Sadiq-Khan... [2]https://www.carthrottle.com/post/youll-now-be-charged-extra-... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty
If you consider levying a $20-30/day tax to every driver,[1] plus another $12/day if your car is too old,[2] plus $200-600/year to park on public roads,[3] causing people to stop driving as remarkable, then sure.
Edit: why the downvotes?
[1]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10279911/Sadiq-Khan... [2]https://www.carthrottle.com/post/youll-now-be-charged-extra-... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty
VED is to drive on public roads.
Parking is about £7/hour during work times, although it would be optimistic to expect to find an on-street spot every day. The maximum time is 4 hours anyway.
Apart from the mistake, you are probably downvoted for posting a hysterical Daily Mail article. Note the "up to".
Parking is about £7/hour during work times, although it would be optimistic to expect to find an on-street spot every day. The maximum time is 4 hours anyway.
Apart from the mistake, you are probably downvoted for posting a hysterical Daily Mail article. Note the "up to".
[deleted]
The stuff you mention isn't that relevant - I speak as a car owner in central London. (I don't pay [1] and [2] and everyone has to pay [3]). Parking is the real problem.
Also driving in central London rush hour is kind of tedious - I prefer rail etc.
Also driving in central London rush hour is kind of tedious - I prefer rail etc.
It also has the best cycling infrastructure in Greater London.
One of the big problems London has is that each borough decides how much to invest in cycling infrastructure, and a commute is only as good as its worst section. My commute from northern Camden to the City is a pleasure, a commute from west London through Kensington will be more of a pain.
IMO TfL should force the creation of good grade-separate cycle lanes in all of the major streets in London, just like they force standardised bus stops. Currently one single borough is screwing over a quarter of the city.
One of the big problems London has is that each borough decides how much to invest in cycling infrastructure, and a commute is only as good as its worst section. My commute from northern Camden to the City is a pleasure, a commute from west London through Kensington will be more of a pain.
IMO TfL should force the creation of good grade-separate cycle lanes in all of the major streets in London, just like they force standardised bus stops. Currently one single borough is screwing over a quarter of the city.
It absolutely does NOT have the best cycling infrastructure in Greater London! In fact, with the exception of TfL's Cycleway routes route along its southern and western fringes, I'd argue it has hardly any real cycle infrastructure at all. All this has happened despite the City of London being quite hostile to cycling!
Examples:
- Cycle-hostile layout changes on Bishopsgate. While I strongly support the number of car lanes being reduced and footpaths being widened, this has been done in a way that is hostile to cyclists - if not downright dangerous. There is no room for cyclists to overtake cars (and vice-versa) and dangerous sharp kerbs that come out of nowhere at a near 90 degree angle to the carriageway. Very poor design.
- Removal of segregated cycle lane on Cannon Street, a street which for much of it's length is much wider than it needs to be for the volumes of traffic it gets. The cycle lane was well-used and really improved conditions for cyclists.
- Removal of the zero-emissions scheme on Beech Street, which restricted the area through and around the Barbican tunnel to pedestrians, cyclists, and zero-emissions vehicles. This was previously very pleasant to cycle through, thanks to reduced traffic volumes and cleaner air. But the change resulted in a rapid return to illegal level of air pollution in the tunnel. The cycle lanes in the tunnel are also in poor condition (potholes, crumbling poorly maintained paving, etc) which besides the stinking air, makes it even more unpleasant to cycle through.
Finally, there has been talk of a proper east-west cycle way across the city of London for many years (in addition to the existing C3), but nothing ever seems to happen with it. TfL's busy C2 (Cycle Superhighway 2) cycle route simply stops at Algate East on the City of London's boundary. After all these years, why hasn't it been extended westwards through the city?
Examples:
- Cycle-hostile layout changes on Bishopsgate. While I strongly support the number of car lanes being reduced and footpaths being widened, this has been done in a way that is hostile to cyclists - if not downright dangerous. There is no room for cyclists to overtake cars (and vice-versa) and dangerous sharp kerbs that come out of nowhere at a near 90 degree angle to the carriageway. Very poor design.
- Removal of segregated cycle lane on Cannon Street, a street which for much of it's length is much wider than it needs to be for the volumes of traffic it gets. The cycle lane was well-used and really improved conditions for cyclists.
- Removal of the zero-emissions scheme on Beech Street, which restricted the area through and around the Barbican tunnel to pedestrians, cyclists, and zero-emissions vehicles. This was previously very pleasant to cycle through, thanks to reduced traffic volumes and cleaner air. But the change resulted in a rapid return to illegal level of air pollution in the tunnel. The cycle lanes in the tunnel are also in poor condition (potholes, crumbling poorly maintained paving, etc) which besides the stinking air, makes it even more unpleasant to cycle through.
Finally, there has been talk of a proper east-west cycle way across the city of London for many years (in addition to the existing C3), but nothing ever seems to happen with it. TfL's busy C2 (Cycle Superhighway 2) cycle route simply stops at Algate East on the City of London's boundary. After all these years, why hasn't it been extended westwards through the city?
Yes the City of London is also referred to as "the square mile" - a self explanatory title.
Also worth noting they broke up all other forms of transport i.e cars, buses, vans, etc. So it's more like cyclists make up 25% of road traffic against powered vehicles in a very small area of London, at particular times of day.
I do 40+ miles a day on road across London and would be really surprised if these figures hold up in general.
Also worth noting they broke up all other forms of transport i.e cars, buses, vans, etc. So it's more like cyclists make up 25% of road traffic against powered vehicles in a very small area of London, at particular times of day.
I do 40+ miles a day on road across London and would be really surprised if these figures hold up in general.
Ah, that clarifies things. I've seen many photos of the traffic in the streets of London, and was wondering how such a bicycle-hostile environment would manage to get so many cyclists.
I thought that maybe the metric they were using ("the single largest vehicular mode counted during peak times on City streets”) meant they were measuring how many vehicles of a certain type were passing by. And since in gridlock bicycles travel faster than cars, you'd have more bicycles passing by than cars.
I thought that maybe the metric they were using ("the single largest vehicular mode counted during peak times on City streets”) meant they were measuring how many vehicles of a certain type were passing by. And since in gridlock bicycles travel faster than cars, you'd have more bicycles passing by than cars.
There's also the slight quirk of geography that it's next to the Thames, so therefore at the bottom of a hill, almost completely flat.
TfL had the good fortune and opportunity to repurpose two lanes of Upper Thames St. and Victoria Embankment (one single road) into cycle lanes, and also Southwark Bridge.
Without that last part, there's pretty much no other major 'through' routes that could be made safe for cyclists in the City. If there aren't any protected bike no one uses them. The vast majority of journeys into the City are along that new cycle 'superhighway'.
TfL had the good fortune and opportunity to repurpose two lanes of Upper Thames St. and Victoria Embankment (one single road) into cycle lanes, and also Southwark Bridge.
Without that last part, there's pretty much no other major 'through' routes that could be made safe for cyclists in the City. If there aren't any protected bike no one uses them. The vast majority of journeys into the City are along that new cycle 'superhighway'.
Also note that this is Cyclists > cars+PHV, not that Bike > cars+PHV+taxi+Van+Bus+Lorries
During one of the lockdowns in 2020 when almost all the hotels were closed I was staying near Blackfriars and traveling to the West End on my brompton. It was great, there was barely any traffic on the roads - very few buses, taxis, vans or lorries. It was only about 2 miles, but it was the most relaxed commute I've had in years.
Tried it again recently, not a nice thing at all, mainly because of the buses.
During one of the lockdowns in 2020 when almost all the hotels were closed I was staying near Blackfriars and traveling to the West End on my brompton. It was great, there was barely any traffic on the roads - very few buses, taxis, vans or lorries. It was only about 2 miles, but it was the most relaxed commute I've had in years.
Tried it again recently, not a nice thing at all, mainly because of the buses.
There's a great video by CGP Grey about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc, and a follow up about how they elect their government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1ROpIKZe-c&t=3s
As someone who works in the City this isn't really that surprising. A lot of the roads around there are pretty much empty save for buses, cyclists and the occasional taxi. Congestion charge, lack of parking and excellent public transport links all contribute to that I guess. In other areas of London it's a very different story.
The City is unusual in many ways well-covered elsewhere.
It’s worth highlighting that this milestone is part of a long and well-planned strategy.
North Americans especially might be surprised at how aggressively they are removing motor vehicles from the district (Down over 50% since 1999). New developments are very pedestrian and cycle friendly- eg my large workplace build five—odd years ago had 500+ bike spaces, desks for 5,000 and a single digit number of car parking spaces (for VVIPs and disabled staff only) - they are also converting many streets back to vehicle-free open spaces. This is all quite popular and mostly uncontroversial.
North Americans especially might be surprised at how aggressively they are removing motor vehicles from the district (Down over 50% since 1999). New developments are very pedestrian and cycle friendly- eg my large workplace build five—odd years ago had 500+ bike spaces, desks for 5,000 and a single digit number of car parking spaces (for VVIPs and disabled staff only) - they are also converting many streets back to vehicle-free open spaces. This is all quite popular and mostly uncontroversial.
not even all the financial district(s) fit inside the City these days
I've marked them in the map, roughly: https://i.imgur.com/GieyqDm.png
I've marked them in the map, roughly: https://i.imgur.com/GieyqDm.png
Also funnily, (Greater) London is not even a proper city. It's a town and a county consisting of City of London, City of Westminster and all the other boroughs.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense than the ridiculousness of the proposition if meant across the rest of London, as it's clearly not the case, sadly.
The City of London is notable for allowing businesses to vote because so few people live there. There is one residential district inside the City in the Barbican estate, the rest is commercial.
The City of London allows corporations to vote because its existence as local authority predates anything else that exists in the UK. Mentions of The City of London's special rights exist in the Magna Carta, and it was never included in any of the local authority voting reforms the occurred since its creation.
The local population number have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of corporate votes in The City of London. It's not even the smallest local authority by population, the Isles of Scilly are, and corporations have no votes there.
The local population number have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of corporate votes in The City of London. It's not even the smallest local authority by population, the Isles of Scilly are, and corporations have no votes there.
Sure but if the City had turned out to be full of people, those ancient rights would have been modified to suit the requirements of modern democracy. The City’s unique form of governance is only possible because it is predominantly a commercial district.
No I don’t think it would have. The City is fairly exempt from being fiddled with by parliament due to its direct relationship with The Crown. I don’t see any reason why the The City would give up its rights without a substantial fight.
Given its small area, I doubt anybody would ever be interested enough in fighting with The City to revoke its ancient rights, and independence from the broader UK government. Past monarchs and leaders have attempted to strip The City of its rights, all of them ultimately decided it wasn’t worth it.
Given its small area, I doubt anybody would ever be interested enough in fighting with The City to revoke its ancient rights, and independence from the broader UK government. Past monarchs and leaders have attempted to strip The City of its rights, all of them ultimately decided it wasn’t worth it.
There's also the Golden Lane estate, and various other individual residential buildings.
This news literally makes me so happy. I can't wait to see it propagating around the world ! Riding a bike it better for your health, for the environment, makes cities much safer places, better for your mood as well & even better for your wallet. For people who have the chance to work reasonably close to their work, it's THE perfect solution.
I bike to work every day since 4/5 years, in Switzerland. Since roughly 18 months, I have seen a huge change in the behavior of car drivers: they are much much nicer to interact with. Before COVID, I had dangerous interaction with drivers several time a week, and had to be in constant vigilance for them not considering me as part of the traffic. Now, it has been reduced to maybe once a month. Sometimes I don't even believe how well people respect us now, considering how it was just 3 years ago. And most of the time when I confront people that did something dangerous, they are sorry and feel bad about it (it really wasn't like this a few years ago...)
I bike to work every day since 4/5 years, in Switzerland. Since roughly 18 months, I have seen a huge change in the behavior of car drivers: they are much much nicer to interact with. Before COVID, I had dangerous interaction with drivers several time a week, and had to be in constant vigilance for them not considering me as part of the traffic. Now, it has been reduced to maybe once a month. Sometimes I don't even believe how well people respect us now, considering how it was just 3 years ago. And most of the time when I confront people that did something dangerous, they are sorry and feel bad about it (it really wasn't like this a few years ago...)
I ride an e-bike and I'm very fond of it, but it's a transitionary solution. What will propagate in cities within twenty years is almost all EV's with covered roads (no poisonous gases) and 'cars' that take up a half of a current lane and can carry three people at most. The car market will split between 'long distance' similar to today's cars and 'city cars' that are tiny compared to today. This will happen because EV's can happily scale to a much smaller size than ICE cars can and consequently will be much more practical.
>EVs can happily scale to a much smaller size than ICE cars can
No, they cannot; in fact, small size is their primary weakness. Compact car-sized EVs currently get about 200-250km of range at best- they're physically unable to carry enough battery power to make them viable. Gas-powered subcompact cars get 2-3 times the range of the comparable electric and have a significantly smaller TCO. They aren't an upgrade, and will never be an upgrade.
Where EVs shine is in the inherently energy-wasteful lifted station wagon (SUV/crossover) market segment that's overwhelmingly popular today (to the point where a significant number of manufacturers have abandoned standard cars entirely), mainly because those vehicles are big enough to hold the number of batteries needed to get a somewhat-competitive range with their similarly-sized gas counterparts. Yes, this means we burn even more natural gas at night to charge those land yachts up to the point it's kicking out more emissions than encouraging subcompact gas cars would, but out of sight, out of mind, right?
No, they cannot; in fact, small size is their primary weakness. Compact car-sized EVs currently get about 200-250km of range at best- they're physically unable to carry enough battery power to make them viable. Gas-powered subcompact cars get 2-3 times the range of the comparable electric and have a significantly smaller TCO. They aren't an upgrade, and will never be an upgrade.
Where EVs shine is in the inherently energy-wasteful lifted station wagon (SUV/crossover) market segment that's overwhelmingly popular today (to the point where a significant number of manufacturers have abandoned standard cars entirely), mainly because those vehicles are big enough to hold the number of batteries needed to get a somewhat-competitive range with their similarly-sized gas counterparts. Yes, this means we burn even more natural gas at night to charge those land yachts up to the point it's kicking out more emissions than encouraging subcompact gas cars would, but out of sight, out of mind, right?
> Compact car-sized EVs currently get about 200-250km
What qualifies as compact? A Chevy Bolt will comfortably go 400km. More if it were strictly used at city speeds.
What qualifies as compact? A Chevy Bolt will comfortably go 400km. More if it were strictly used at city speeds.
[deleted]
I noticed that as well. I guess many people took up cycling as a leisure activity when COVID hit and suddenly noticed how dangerous cars are for them on their bicycles.
Critical mass is an important factor. Previously, I've been biking almost alone in the winter here in Norway. The later years we're multiple cyclists at every intersection. So I used to be the "edge case" drivers forgot about, to being one of many the drivers now have to constantly be aware of. It also feels a lot safer biking in a train of 5 people than alone.
Interestingly I recently visited Seattle and rented a car there. I did what I always do—yielding to bikes when turning right—and the bicyclists actively thanked me for yielding and avoiding cutting in front of them. I was a bit dumbfounded as to how this behavior isn't common enough.
Amazing news! More cyclists (and fewer motorists) on the streets creates a safer, less polluted city environment for everyone.
Quieter too. When wandering Tokyo I started asking myself, why does it feel so quiet when there are so many people and so much advertising? Then you hit one of the roads with cars, and you realise just how much road noise impacts a space. It is obvious in theory but I bet most of us in car-centric cities have learned to live with it so much, that it doesn't cross our minds as the source of discomfort.
I go on long rides on my bicycle between San Jose and San Francisco listening to audiobooks for background entertainment. I could listen to these at the same volume I listen to at home while taking it easy, unless there is a motor vehicle passing by, then sometimes no volume is loud enough to make the audio intelligible until the vehicle has gone far enough away.
I for a long time was also wondering because so many of the streets look so much more charming. I only understood why once I read that there is almost no street parking in Japan. Once I knew that, it became obvious that that's at least part of the reason.
"Cities aren't loud, cars are loud."
Said someone that has never lived across the street from a elevated subway, on a street with a streetcar or near a bus stop.
Please don't cross into personal attack. You can make your substantive points about transportation infrastructure without that.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Depends on the quality of the infrastructure. I live in a metropolitan area with elevated metros, suburban and long distance trains, cargo trains, trams (streetcars in american), etc. and it vastly differs. Paris line 6 makes a lot of noise due to the rubber tires and frequent turns (it's a semicircle line), meanwhile modern trams and modernised suburban rail (RER A) are barely audible even next to the tracks, let alone in buildings nearby.
I lived next to a freight line, never again. The corner was in my backyard. My comment is mostly about daily life outside of the house, and in a city center. So those moments on foot when you're out of the car.
For life in the city, it's much more pleasant to be in a foot only or mixed traffic street, even with a train nearby. There's the inherent danger of fast cars operated by non-professionals that you perceive on foot as well as the noise, neither you really need to worry about for trains. In many cities trams can run through pedestrian areas with no barricades or grade separation because they are slower and predictable. You can run cars with no separation too if you slow them down enough, but more often they are set to incompatible speeds and as a pedestrian you have all the downsides of the cars as they pass through what should really be a pedestrian space in most city centers.
For life in the city, it's much more pleasant to be in a foot only or mixed traffic street, even with a train nearby. There's the inherent danger of fast cars operated by non-professionals that you perceive on foot as well as the noise, neither you really need to worry about for trains. In many cities trams can run through pedestrian areas with no barricades or grade separation because they are slower and predictable. You can run cars with no separation too if you slow them down enough, but more often they are set to incompatible speeds and as a pedestrian you have all the downsides of the cars as they pass through what should really be a pedestrian space in most city centers.
What is louder: 1 subway train, or 200 cars?
More like 500-800 cars, given that one car carries 1.3 people on average.
It's a different kind of sound. Tire noise is white noise (or at least, similar). My experience working in close proximity to a light rail line was 1) the train shakes the ground as it goes by, and 2) if you're near a corner, the squeaking is pretty loud. We have water sprayers in those areas to try and cut down on the howling, but it's not a panacea.
That's just bad design. There very quiet tram and railway designs available - they just cost a bit more money than the cheap 19th century designs that are still in place.
Where I live in Germany the passenger trains (not even the tracks) got upgraded a few years ago and all those click-clack and screeching sounds are gone. What is left is a wooshing sound of the wind being pushed aside and the not-so-loud grinding sound of the thingy (collector?) that hits the power cable.
Where I live in Germany the passenger trains (not even the tracks) got upgraded a few years ago and all those click-clack and screeching sounds are gone. What is left is a wooshing sound of the wind being pushed aside and the not-so-loud grinding sound of the thingy (collector?) that hits the power cable.
1 subway train.
In real tests done in NYC, the mean dbA for subway platforms was 81.1 vs. 76.0 for buses (which, by definition, run on the roads)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2707461/
In real tests done in NYC, the mean dbA for subway platforms was 81.1 vs. 76.0 for buses (which, by definition, run on the roads)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2707461/
And Bart makes the NYC subway sound quiet
The saying isn't "only cars are loud" smartass.
And I've lived across from from an elevated transit line in an otherwise carless city center and it was quieter than any north american subwayless city I've lived in so this isn't even true lol.
And I've lived across from from an elevated transit line in an otherwise carless city center and it was quieter than any north american subwayless city I've lived in so this isn't even true lol.
dsfyu404ed(2)
Or a cargo rail line.
Or my favorite: historical buildings with equally historical distances between them. You could go deaf just from clapping your hands there.
Or my favorite: historical buildings with equally historical distances between them. You could go deaf just from clapping your hands there.
Even in the middle of the country you can hear cars. I lived in the country and you could see the road about a mile away, and when I put my ear to the ground I could still hear the cars when one would pass by every once in a while
It really is fantastic news.
The more that pedestrians and cyclists dominate, the faster the shift from ugly, dirty roads to a pleasant human centred urban environment.
The more that pedestrians and cyclists dominate, the faster the shift from ugly, dirty roads to a pleasant human centred urban environment.
The urban core should be pedestrian only. Bicyclists can stop at the edge and lock the bike and then walk. Then outside the bike zone there could be a car zone as it gets more suburban.
It should do but I am worried it won't. Just look on social media when a cyclist posts something about dangerous driving and they are hit by a combination of:
* Indifference from the Police most of the time * Extreme vitriol from motorists who seem to literally believe that all harm is caused by cyclists * Illogical city planning where cyclists are constantly being moved from safe spaces directly into busy traffic.
We have a sick motor-centric society in the UK and along with the rest of climate problems that are ignored/underplayed, I don't know how long until we can say that we are a cycle-friendly country.
* Indifference from the Police most of the time * Extreme vitriol from motorists who seem to literally believe that all harm is caused by cyclists * Illogical city planning where cyclists are constantly being moved from safe spaces directly into busy traffic.
We have a sick motor-centric society in the UK and along with the rest of climate problems that are ignored/underplayed, I don't know how long until we can say that we are a cycle-friendly country.
According to the article, the number of cyclists have not increased that much. (They mentioned it is at 102% of pre-pandemic levels.) What they are seeing is a decline in motor vehicles. The cyclists are simply an interesting way to benchmark that decline!
It is still good news. People need to find better modes of transportation for both the environment and for society. It is just that the title doesn't mean what it suggests.
It is still good news. People need to find better modes of transportation for both the environment and for society. It is just that the title doesn't mean what it suggests.
So are more people taking public transit, walking or maybe stopped commuting entirely during the pandemic?
Many people working remotely, or commonly three days a week in town (incidentally it’s a buyer’s market for office space now).
Train ridership is also down for similar reasons.
Whilst I'm overall in favour of promoting cycling as a way of getting around, in preference to motor vehicles, I'm not sure I entirely agree with "safer".
I live in Cambridge and have lost count of the number of times I've had to contend with cyclists blowing through pedestrian crossings on a red light (or zebra crossings at any time) when I'm trying to walk over them, or cycling the wrong way down a one-way street - or on the wrong side of the road - or had to dodge people cycling on the pavement.
When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists. Examples include: one leapt off of the pavement out of nowhere in front of me, one blew through a red light at traffic lights with a restricted view, and one was cycling the wrong way around a roundabout. The first two of these aren't one-off scenarios. Fortunately on all occasions I was paying attention so managed to take evasive action. Similar incidents have occurred when I've been on my motorcyle, most of which have been near misses, but on one especially ridiculous occasion a cyclist ran into the back of me at a set of traffic lights.
What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others (the same way drink-driving has become, not just legislated against, but enforced against and socially unacceptable). However, unfortunately, it's not at the moment so I'm not sure that safety - particularly for pedestrians or, indeed, cyclists - is a given.
Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety.
I live in Cambridge and have lost count of the number of times I've had to contend with cyclists blowing through pedestrian crossings on a red light (or zebra crossings at any time) when I'm trying to walk over them, or cycling the wrong way down a one-way street - or on the wrong side of the road - or had to dodge people cycling on the pavement.
When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists. Examples include: one leapt off of the pavement out of nowhere in front of me, one blew through a red light at traffic lights with a restricted view, and one was cycling the wrong way around a roundabout. The first two of these aren't one-off scenarios. Fortunately on all occasions I was paying attention so managed to take evasive action. Similar incidents have occurred when I've been on my motorcyle, most of which have been near misses, but on one especially ridiculous occasion a cyclist ran into the back of me at a set of traffic lights.
What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others (the same way drink-driving has become, not just legislated against, but enforced against and socially unacceptable). However, unfortunately, it's not at the moment so I'm not sure that safety - particularly for pedestrians or, indeed, cyclists - is a given.
Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety.
> What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware).
Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? But the major difference is that a car turns a dickhead into a mortal danger for other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike, while a bike doesn‘t.
Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? But the major difference is that a car turns a dickhead into a mortal danger for other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike, while a bike doesn‘t.
I'd love to see fewer cars and more bicycles. That said, at least in the US and in SF in particular, I've encountered way more blatant violations off traffic laws by bicyclists. There were so many times I had to jump back from an intersection where I had a green light as a pedestrian because a bicyclist decided to race through at full speed. They probably thought it was safe, but I certainly felled endangered.
In the defense of bicyclists, I think a lot of this happens because the laws and roads aren't properly taking bicyclists into account. Stuff like bicycle lanes at the end of the block also becoming turn lanes for cars should just be unacceptable and provokes conflict between drivers and bicyclists.
In the defense of bicyclists, I think a lot of this happens because the laws and roads aren't properly taking bicyclists into account. Stuff like bicycle lanes at the end of the block also becoming turn lanes for cars should just be unacceptable and provokes conflict between drivers and bicyclists.
We're all primed to see conflicts more frequently when we use a mode more frequently. A lot of folks who don't bike only really encounter cyclists when they're pedestrians walking around, and so feel this fear then. In the US cyclists break rules at roughly a similar [1] rate to drivers according to an FDOT study. FWIW cyclists interact with drivers much more frequently which is why so many cyclists feel animosity toward drivers.
[1]: https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/lib/63000/63700/...
[1]: https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/lib/63000/63700/...
>Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers?
Yes. Completely.
Even before you get into discussions of selfishness/malice there are people who are just shitty at understanding how traffic works and how the different classes of traffic interact with each other. These people create problems wherever they go whether they go their on foot, two wheels or four.
In online discussions they're usually the ones screeching loudly about "rules" that get ignored contextually because they don't understand the context(s).
Yes. Completely.
Even before you get into discussions of selfishness/malice there are people who are just shitty at understanding how traffic works and how the different classes of traffic interact with each other. These people create problems wherever they go whether they go their on foot, two wheels or four.
In online discussions they're usually the ones screeching loudly about "rules" that get ignored contextually because they don't understand the context(s).
> Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers?
In theory I agree with you, but in practice the behavioural differences are noticeable, at least in Cambridge.
One example (admittedly anecdata from somebody who spends a lot of time on the road using different modes of transport, including foot): lots of cyclists blow through red lights, (relatively speaking) very few car drivers do so. Of course, the stakes of a car driver blowing through a red light are arguably higher, so it's still not great.
What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety. That's not what I see because of cultural issues (behaviour) surrouding cycling in this area. Possibly the accidents would be less severe, but there would still be plenty of accidents if everybody was cycling.
OTOH, and again it's small numbers/anecdata so take with a pinch of salt, but over 20 years in Cambridge I know more people who've been injured in cycling accidents that haven't involved motor vehicles, as those who've been injured in cycling accidents where motor vehicles have been involved. A couple of those people have blacked out even though wearing helmets because, e.g., their head hit the pavement. Causes of accidents are a bit of a mixed bag: road conditions aren't great around here (potholes, gravel on road, etc.)[0], one clipped by another cyclist on a cycle path (other cyclist didn't stop), etc.
I'm very pro-cycling but, as I say, from an empirical standpoint I'm not convinced it's necessarily that much safer. I'm sure there's data that, in some area or other, would prove me "wrong". But so much of it is down to cultural and behavioural issues, as well as cycling infrastructure and road quality, that I don't think it's valid to just forklift figures from one area and say, well, if everybody in Cambridge cycled we'd see X% fewer injuries from collisions on our roads. Unless other factors are taken into account it's very faulty reasoning.
[0] On the road conditions point, you're much more vulnerable on a bike than you would be in a car. If you're a driver and you hit a big pothole, you might damage your car, but you'll probably be OK. If you do the same on a bike you are much more likely to fall off and injure yourself.
In theory I agree with you, but in practice the behavioural differences are noticeable, at least in Cambridge.
One example (admittedly anecdata from somebody who spends a lot of time on the road using different modes of transport, including foot): lots of cyclists blow through red lights, (relatively speaking) very few car drivers do so. Of course, the stakes of a car driver blowing through a red light are arguably higher, so it's still not great.
What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety. That's not what I see because of cultural issues (behaviour) surrouding cycling in this area. Possibly the accidents would be less severe, but there would still be plenty of accidents if everybody was cycling.
OTOH, and again it's small numbers/anecdata so take with a pinch of salt, but over 20 years in Cambridge I know more people who've been injured in cycling accidents that haven't involved motor vehicles, as those who've been injured in cycling accidents where motor vehicles have been involved. A couple of those people have blacked out even though wearing helmets because, e.g., their head hit the pavement. Causes of accidents are a bit of a mixed bag: road conditions aren't great around here (potholes, gravel on road, etc.)[0], one clipped by another cyclist on a cycle path (other cyclist didn't stop), etc.
I'm very pro-cycling but, as I say, from an empirical standpoint I'm not convinced it's necessarily that much safer. I'm sure there's data that, in some area or other, would prove me "wrong". But so much of it is down to cultural and behavioural issues, as well as cycling infrastructure and road quality, that I don't think it's valid to just forklift figures from one area and say, well, if everybody in Cambridge cycled we'd see X% fewer injuries from collisions on our roads. Unless other factors are taken into account it's very faulty reasoning.
[0] On the road conditions point, you're much more vulnerable on a bike than you would be in a car. If you're a driver and you hit a big pothole, you might damage your car, but you'll probably be OK. If you do the same on a bike you are much more likely to fall off and injure yourself.
> What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety.
The Netherlands has a massive cycling uptake and has some of the safest roads in Europe. What you say simply doesn’t hold water. Cyclists are simply not killing in the numbers that car drivers are.
The Netherlands has a massive cycling uptake and has some of the safest roads in Europe. What you say simply doesn’t hold water. Cyclists are simply not killing in the numbers that car drivers are.
Yeah, but The Netherlands isn't Cambridge, UK.
For one, The Netherlands has great cycling infrastructure, at least places where I've been: Cambridge, UK doesn't.
Again, from what I've seen, cyclists in The Netherlands tend to behave quite a bit better than they do here in the UK (drivers too, for that matter).
Moreover, what condition is the infrastructure in? I don't know about The Netherlands but I can tell you that in Cambridge, UK, it's littered with potholes, and often to some extent multi-modal.
You can't just forklift an insight about cycling in The Netherlands and expect things to work the same somewhere else without making a whole load of stuff happen beyond just encouraging lots more people to cycle if you want to actually make it safer. In Cambridge, UK, we need both solid investment and cultural change (both cyclists and, yes, motorists too) for cycling to become a safer option.
Am I being clear enough for you now?
For one, The Netherlands has great cycling infrastructure, at least places where I've been: Cambridge, UK doesn't.
Again, from what I've seen, cyclists in The Netherlands tend to behave quite a bit better than they do here in the UK (drivers too, for that matter).
Moreover, what condition is the infrastructure in? I don't know about The Netherlands but I can tell you that in Cambridge, UK, it's littered with potholes, and often to some extent multi-modal.
You can't just forklift an insight about cycling in The Netherlands and expect things to work the same somewhere else without making a whole load of stuff happen beyond just encouraging lots more people to cycle if you want to actually make it safer. In Cambridge, UK, we need both solid investment and cultural change (both cyclists and, yes, motorists too) for cycling to become a safer option.
Am I being clear enough for you now?
Cyclists behaving better in the Netherlands than in Cambridge is likely true, but at the same time a statistical bias: In places with bad road conditions, only the die-hards cycle. Those tend to contain a larger share of assertive or aggressive cyclists. Bad road conditions also force cyclists into pedestrian spaces, onto pavements etc. I can observe that here in Berlin as well - places with good infrastructure see little to no conflict, but there are some spaces with frankly brain-dead planning where almost every cyclist cuts through the pedestrian space.
And that‘s where the Netherlands differ: Everyone cycles. You get a better cross-section of the population, kids, families. The infrastructure is much better, all around. It’s designed to reduce conflicts. And it‘s very likely that you‘d see similar effects in Cambridge as well. Build safe infrastructure and the normal people will show up.
And that‘s where the Netherlands differ: Everyone cycles. You get a better cross-section of the population, kids, families. The infrastructure is much better, all around. It’s designed to reduce conflicts. And it‘s very likely that you‘d see similar effects in Cambridge as well. Build safe infrastructure and the normal people will show up.
That’s partially true but you said “cycling isn’t safer” when the available evidence is that it is. Even in the UK, you’re more likely to be killed on the pavement by a car than by a bike. Say what you like about numbers but cars aren’t supposed to be there. That fact alone should tell you something about the difference in danger.
I'm also in Cambridge. Many car drivers are also dickheads, at least they think that using the indicator is optional when leaving a roundabout. This mostly annoys me when I'm on foot and try to cross the street near a roundabout. I found traffic in Cambridge to be very hostile to pedestrians.
> Many car drivers are also dickheads
Yes.
I know.
If you actually read what I said carefully you'll note that I said some portion of the population: a very general statement which is inclusive of both cyclists and motorists. I am an equal opportunities disparager.
Yes.
I know.
If you actually read what I said carefully you'll note that I said some portion of the population: a very general statement which is inclusive of both cyclists and motorists. I am an equal opportunities disparager.
People who dick around like that in a car find themselves in jail really quickly. People who do it on a bike wave self-righteously at the police while flagrantly violating the law, and get away with it.
Bollocks they do. People dick about in cars ALL the time. YouTube is full of people acting like knobheads in cars and getting away with it.
I know Cambridge really well and I know people that regularly race their cars on the A14 at night.
Do you really think all the people buying tuning kits are doing so because they like sticking to the speed limit?
When it comes to obeying traffic lights you won't be waiting long to see cars tailgating through amber. That happens every time.
Finally I'd point to the number of drivers still on the road with more than 12 points on their licence. They just plead extenuating circumstances in court and get away with it. They almost never find themselves in gaol. The real kicker is that those that do end up in prison on a Dangerous Driving charge never permanently loose their licenses.
I know Cambridge really well and I know people that regularly race their cars on the A14 at night.
Do you really think all the people buying tuning kits are doing so because they like sticking to the speed limit?
When it comes to obeying traffic lights you won't be waiting long to see cars tailgating through amber. That happens every time.
Finally I'd point to the number of drivers still on the road with more than 12 points on their licence. They just plead extenuating circumstances in court and get away with it. They almost never find themselves in gaol. The real kicker is that those that do end up in prison on a Dangerous Driving charge never permanently loose their licenses.
I watched a car drive straight into someone yesterday. The police refused to come out.
I don’t see how that squares with your statement at all.
I don’t see how that squares with your statement at all.
I have video proof of a car ramming me when pushing into my lane. Police declined to investigate because there “no proof of deliberate action.”
That's because an accident and a traffic violation are different. Minor accidents are usually handled without police intervention, and this is by design.
See my other comment: he pulled out without looking because he was in the middle of cutting up other road users (me in this case). That’s driving without due care and attention which is a traffic violation in the U.K.
The police don’t care. What mechanism will put him in jail?
The police don’t care. What mechanism will put him in jail?
"Driving without due care and attention" sounds like a statute that has a much more specific interpretation than you think, and the police probably aren't the ones who misinterpreted that here. "Careless driving" and "reckless driving" are against the law in many states in the US, but both actually have very specific interpretations that are not entirely contained in the text of the statute. This is the joy of living in a common law country.
Things like running red lights, not stopping at stop signs, and speeding are much easier for laypeople to judge, and it sounds like none of that was happening here.
Things like running red lights, not stopping at stop signs, and speeding are much easier for laypeople to judge, and it sounds like none of that was happening here.
So just to be clear “drivers who fuck around go to jail” is not true. But it’s cyclists that are the problem in this discussion.
Don't you hate it when one side just paints the other as being all of the problem? That's very frustrating.
One side kills and maims 5 people a day in the U.K. The other side doesn’t even come close to that.
If you’re going to call for regulation and enforcement, where would you spend money and effort?
If you’re going to call for regulation and enforcement, where would you spend money and effort?
Yes, drivers who blow through red lights and stop signs like the bad actor cyclists do will find themselves in jail (on reckless driving charges, incidentally) pretty fast. You're trying to compare apples and oranges here: a driver who happened to not see someone while driving (because they were driving more aggressively than you liked) vs. people who regularly flout traffic laws.
One group kills and maims five people a day (drivers) and your problem is with the group that doesn’t. In fact, you’ll fight tooth and nail to defend the driving that put a man in hospital by choosing not to look for hazards.
This isn’t “more aggressively than I like,” this is a man put in hospital because a driver chose to ignore the UK official guidance on how to drive. Official guidance, I might add, that you must learn as part of your driving course.
Attitudes like that are exactly my point.
This isn’t “more aggressively than I like,” this is a man put in hospital because a driver chose to ignore the UK official guidance on how to drive. Official guidance, I might add, that you must learn as part of your driving course.
Attitudes like that are exactly my point.
Cars are a mortal danger to non-car users (pedestrians, (motor?)cyclists), but at city speeds, they wouldn't be a mortal danger for other car users.
These people killed by a dickhead driver would probably disagree https://slate.com/business/2023/03/dc-car-crash-tickets-rock...
It is really tempting when on a bicycle to think of yourself as being able to pick and choose rules to follow, magically switching from “more like a car” to “more like a pedestrian” as needed.
The rule that I personally follow: always behave like a car (albeit one that rides far over to the side of the road most of the time), and if I really feel an overwhelming urge to act as a pedestrian, time to fully dismount and walk the bike for a bit.
The rule that I personally follow: always behave like a car (albeit one that rides far over to the side of the road most of the time), and if I really feel an overwhelming urge to act as a pedestrian, time to fully dismount and walk the bike for a bit.
> It is really tempting when on a bicycle to think of yourself as being able to pick and choose rules to follow, magically switching from “more like a car” to “more like a pedestrian” as needed.
As someone who walks a lot, I find this very frustrating, as a lot of cyclists think it's okay to ride on the sidewalk at road speeds. My ideal world would have the urban core be restricted to pedestrians only. Or at the very least speed restricted to 5 mph. Cyclists could stop, lock up the bike and walk. Or walk the bike.
As someone who walks a lot, I find this very frustrating, as a lot of cyclists think it's okay to ride on the sidewalk at road speeds. My ideal world would have the urban core be restricted to pedestrians only. Or at the very least speed restricted to 5 mph. Cyclists could stop, lock up the bike and walk. Or walk the bike.
Not sure where you are from — in the US at least, most urban cores already have a bunch of space wasted on roads. If we just cut those out and split the recovered space, it should be fine. Bikes only need a couple yards or meters of width devoted to them.
As this is a UK based article, I'm assuming you mean the Cambridge in England. I happen to live in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the while cyclists can be reckless, the drivers pose a 1000x greater threat to safety than cyclists.
As a tip for dealing with cyclists: continue your movement as a pedestrian: they'll go around you. Most pedestrians have headphones in/little awareness of their surroundings, and as a cyclist I always assume I'm invisible to them and to cars.
As a tip for dealing with cyclists: continue your movement as a pedestrian: they'll go around you. Most pedestrians have headphones in/little awareness of their surroundings, and as a cyclist I always assume I'm invisible to them and to cars.
>As a tip for dealing with cyclists: continue your movement as a pedestrian: they'll go around you. Most pedestrians have headphones in/little awareness of their surroundings, and as a cyclist I always assume I'm invisible to them and to cars...
But much worse were the ones who'd wake up enough to spot you at the last minute and then suddenly jump to the side --usually the side I was just about to swerve round them on.
Just keep on walking in your own oblivious bubble. I saw you about 1/2km ago and have already planned to my route round you!
You could just about rewrite this and substitute car for bike and bike for pedestrian, and have it still be true. It's like there is a hierarchy based on speed, and everyone thinks the level below them is a bunch of twats ruining their commute.
I was going to reply and say "You wouldn't see a cyclist riding down the road with headphones on, blissfully unaware of what's around them..." but then I thought back to my cycle commuting days and remembered a fair few examples of seeing just that. And anoher one in similar vein; the cyclist who swerves out into the road to avoid a puddle at the kerbside --without so much as a rearwards glance to see if any cars are coming up behind.
No. Pedestrians don't have a monopoly on obvlivion. But neither do cyclists. Some of the things I saw people doing behind the wheel of their cars or lorries, as I cycled past them would put you off going out on a bike for life.
No. Pedestrians don't have a monopoly on obvlivion. But neither do cyclists. Some of the things I saw people doing behind the wheel of their cars or lorries, as I cycled past them would put you off going out on a bike for life.
> As a tip for dealing with cyclists: continue your movement as a pedestrian
As a pedestrian (I am not wearing headphones) please ring your bell if you are passing me on a shared path.
It is very frightening to have a cyclist suddenly appear in your field of vision, from behind, terrifying.
As a pedestrian (I am not wearing headphones) please ring your bell if you are passing me on a shared path.
It is very frightening to have a cyclist suddenly appear in your field of vision, from behind, terrifying.
The problem is that a lot of people will jump to a random side if you ring. Another large fraction will yell at you.
Something that worked comparatively well for me it so shout “I’ll pass on your (left/right)”
Something that worked comparatively well for me it so shout “I’ll pass on your (left/right)”
Yep, I’ve been yelled at for:
- Ringing the bell
- Asking nicely too quietly
- Asking nicely too loud
- Just passing
You can’t win.
Ultimately people just don’t want you to cycle. This is very much a cultural thing. Anyone cycling past age 15 or so is either poor or dangerously counter cultural. One of the most interesting things about the Netherlands is that is very little bike culture! You don’t see people signalling with messenger bags, cycling caps, bike brand stickers etc. because choosing to cycle is not unusual.
- Ringing the bell
- Asking nicely too quietly
- Asking nicely too loud
- Just passing
You can’t win.
Ultimately people just don’t want you to cycle. This is very much a cultural thing. Anyone cycling past age 15 or so is either poor or dangerously counter cultural. One of the most interesting things about the Netherlands is that is very little bike culture! You don’t see people signalling with messenger bags, cycling caps, bike brand stickers etc. because choosing to cycle is not unusual.
>.... so shout “I’ll pass on your (left/right)”
That will do.
That will do.
> continue your movement as a pedestrian: they'll go around you.
Please, please tell that to my local cyclists. Especially the commuters. The norm here is "ON YOUR LEFT!" about 1.5 seconds before blowing by at 25 mph with two feet of clearance.
How about when you're going to pass a pedestrian, you give them a lot of space and slow down to 5 mph.
Please, please tell that to my local cyclists. Especially the commuters. The norm here is "ON YOUR LEFT!" about 1.5 seconds before blowing by at 25 mph with two feet of clearance.
How about when you're going to pass a pedestrian, you give them a lot of space and slow down to 5 mph.
Yes: Cambridge, UK.
I live in Newcastle and the VAST majority of dangerous road usage I see comes from drivers. Just yesterday I watched a driver pull out of a junction straight into a cyclist because he wanted to rush out instead of checking.
When cyclists kill or maim 5 people per day, I’ll be the first calling for regulation. Until that day comes, the focus needs to be on the most dangerous mode of transport: private cars.
When cyclists kill or maim 5 people per day, I’ll be the first calling for regulation. Until that day comes, the focus needs to be on the most dangerous mode of transport: private cars.
I don't disbelieve you but I'll bet you any amount of money that the number of cyclists per capita is far higher in Cambridge than it is in Newcastle.
That disparity in itself will change the behaviour of motorists: I'm used to checking every single direction for cyclists before I make a move, even as a pedestrian, because there are just so many of them everywhere.
It's also why you see "Think Bike!" signs along routes popular with motorcyclists. Lots of places in the country there just aren't that many of us compared with car drivers, so people become unused to looking out for us, with sadly predictable consequences.
That's not to excuse drivers in Newcastle, by the way. It's just to point out that you probably see more drivers behaving badly compared with cyclists because of the differences [apologies, my bet on the differences] in the numbers (which I did do a search for but couldn't find anything useful or authoritative).
That disparity in itself will change the behaviour of motorists: I'm used to checking every single direction for cyclists before I make a move, even as a pedestrian, because there are just so many of them everywhere.
It's also why you see "Think Bike!" signs along routes popular with motorcyclists. Lots of places in the country there just aren't that many of us compared with car drivers, so people become unused to looking out for us, with sadly predictable consequences.
That's not to excuse drivers in Newcastle, by the way. It's just to point out that you probably see more drivers behaving badly compared with cyclists because of the differences [apologies, my bet on the differences] in the numbers (which I did do a search for but couldn't find anything useful or authoritative).
There are more bikes than cars in London and a peruse of Cycling Mikey’s Twitter and YouTube will disabuse you of the notion that this is a numbers thing. It’s a culture issue within the UK that makes sure good infrastructure isn’t provided and cyclist and pedestrian safety isn’t prioritised (either at the infrastructure or day to day driving level).
Half of road deaths worldwide are pedestrians. The number killed by cyclists is so small it is under the significant digits of the total.
Cyclists violating traffic rules is frequently cited in anti-cycling astroturf, of which you can find current examples and a deep archive at StreetsBlog.
This "Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety." just screams "I'm a dickhead driver likely to hurt someone and I want a defense."
Cyclists violating traffic rules is frequently cited in anti-cycling astroturf, of which you can find current examples and a deep archive at StreetsBlog.
This "Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety." just screams "I'm a dickhead driver likely to hurt someone and I want a defense."
You're about 100 times as likely to be killed by a car while walking on a pavement than you are to be killed by a bike.
https://www.roadpeace.org/pedestrian-pavement-deaths-2/
> This "Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety." just screams "I'm a dickhead driver likely to hurt someone and I want a defense."
You didn't twig with "When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists"
https://www.roadpeace.org/pedestrian-pavement-deaths-2/
> This "Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety." just screams "I'm a dickhead driver likely to hurt someone and I want a defense."
You didn't twig with "When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists"
The statistics suggest that you're much, much more likely to get KSI'd as a pedestrian by a motorist than a cyclist.
We've been indoctrinated into motonormative thinking because most of us have lived our entire lives surrounded by cars.
We've been indoctrinated into motonormative thinking because most of us have lived our entire lives surrounded by cars.
> "[whatabout cyclists who break the law]"
I can stand at my local crossing on Old Kent Road and there'll be non-zero cars jumping the red light (often accelerating from a good ways back) or entering the junction without a safe exit blocking the crossing, a bus lane, and another junction (in peak time this will often get into double figures). Multiply that by all the crossings and you'll absolutely dwarf the amount of cyclists doing similar (and in my 20+yrs experience as a pedestrian + cyclist in London, it's not nearly as bad as motor vehicles.)
> It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others
Let's start with the heavy motor vehicles first, eh.
I can stand at my local crossing on Old Kent Road and there'll be non-zero cars jumping the red light (often accelerating from a good ways back) or entering the junction without a safe exit blocking the crossing, a bus lane, and another junction (in peak time this will often get into double figures). Multiply that by all the crossings and you'll absolutely dwarf the amount of cyclists doing similar (and in my 20+yrs experience as a pedestrian + cyclist in London, it's not nearly as bad as motor vehicles.)
> It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others
Let's start with the heavy motor vehicles first, eh.
Or, you know, we can do both at the same time?
Also, once police are no longer occupied ticketing motorists, I hope cyclists are prepared for actually being held accountable to laws. The police budget isn't going to refill itself.
Also, once police are no longer occupied ticketing motorists, I hope cyclists are prepared for actually being held accountable to laws. The police budget isn't going to refill itself.
> Or, you know, we can do both at the same time?
Or maybe we prioritise the class of vehicles responsible for almost 5 fatalities and 75 serious injuries a day[1]?
For comparison, [2] says that 30 pedestrians were killed and 1093 serious injuries involved cyclists in eight (8) years. In 416 weeks, that's less than one (1) week of car deaths (0.2% ratio) and two (2) weeks of serious injuries (0.4% ratio).
Anyone that says "we should prioritise X and 416*X the same" is either not arguing in good faith or should be nowhere near decision making.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... - 1760 fatalities, 28044 serious injuries.
[2] https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-kill...
Or maybe we prioritise the class of vehicles responsible for almost 5 fatalities and 75 serious injuries a day[1]?
For comparison, [2] says that 30 pedestrians were killed and 1093 serious injuries involved cyclists in eight (8) years. In 416 weeks, that's less than one (1) week of car deaths (0.2% ratio) and two (2) weeks of serious injuries (0.4% ratio).
Anyone that says "we should prioritise X and 416*X the same" is either not arguing in good faith or should be nowhere near decision making.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua... - 1760 fatalities, 28044 serious injuries.
[2] https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/pedestrians-kill...
phpisthebest(2)
> I hope cyclists are prepared for actually being held accountable to laws
What percentage of cyclist do you think are breaking the law?
> The police budget isn't going to refill itself.
Ticketing is not the main source of revenue for policing (thank goodness)
What percentage of cyclist do you think are breaking the law?
> The police budget isn't going to refill itself.
Ticketing is not the main source of revenue for policing (thank goodness)
> Let's start with the heavy motor vehicles
So SUVs, Trucks and Electric Vehicles?
So SUVs, Trucks and Electric Vehicles?
> > "[whatabout cyclists who break the law]"
Your attempt to classify my post as whataboutism is in incredibly poor faith.
I'm very pro-cycling, but it would be foolish to ignore the very real and observable safety concerns that occur because of factors such as poor behaviour (and also, although I didn't mention them originally, issues like infrastructure and quality of road surfaces).
You cannot simply assume that within a particular context or location that more peope cycling equates to greater safety. There are too many other factors at play, and those need to be addressed in order to ensure that cycling is a safer option for everybody.
Your attempt to classify my post as whataboutism is in incredibly poor faith.
I'm very pro-cycling, but it would be foolish to ignore the very real and observable safety concerns that occur because of factors such as poor behaviour (and also, although I didn't mention them originally, issues like infrastructure and quality of road surfaces).
You cannot simply assume that within a particular context or location that more peope cycling equates to greater safety. There are too many other factors at play, and those need to be addressed in order to ensure that cycling is a safer option for everybody.
> I'm very pro-cycling, but it would be foolish to ignore the very real and observable safety concerns that occur because of factors such as poor behaviour
You'll no doubt be able to point to the statistics that back up these very real safety concerns.
You could start with the number of KSI caused by cyclists compared with motor vehicles
You'll no doubt be able to point to the statistics that back up these very real safety concerns.
You could start with the number of KSI caused by cyclists compared with motor vehicles
> You could start with the number of KSI caused by cyclists compared with motor vehicles
Cyclist involved KSIs, 2013-2020: 1123 (30 + 1093)
All road KSIs, 2020: 24989 (1460 + 23529) (and this was a quieter than normal year on the roads)
I make that a factor of 8 * (24989 / 1123) or 178x difference.
Cyclist involved KSIs, 2013-2020: 1123 (30 + 1093)
All road KSIs, 2020: 24989 (1460 + 23529) (and this was a quieter than normal year on the roads)
I make that a factor of 8 * (24989 / 1123) or 178x difference.
And quieter and better for small shops.
opless(1)
> The 24-hour traffic count was conducted on a wet and windy November day last year.
Presumably that means on a nice summers day the numbers are even higher.
This is of course countered by the fact the City of London is becoming increasingly hard to navigate in a motor vehicle. There's a proliferation of camera-enforced road closures and turning restrictions which, along with the congestion charge and very high parking charges make driving anywhere near the City only really possible for the very rich. It's long been the case that the majority of vehicles in the City (or anywhere in central London really) are taxis and commercial vehicles. It's great that cycling is increasing, but it's probably at the expense of train travel rather than driving - I don't think I've ever met anyone who works in central London who drives to work regularly.
One peculiarity of the way the City of London is managed is that it has its own local government. Maybe with this evidence that cycling is important they'll finally invest some money into their cycle infrastructure - you can essentially see the dividing line between the City and Islington just by looking at the quality of the road surface.
Presumably that means on a nice summers day the numbers are even higher.
This is of course countered by the fact the City of London is becoming increasingly hard to navigate in a motor vehicle. There's a proliferation of camera-enforced road closures and turning restrictions which, along with the congestion charge and very high parking charges make driving anywhere near the City only really possible for the very rich. It's long been the case that the majority of vehicles in the City (or anywhere in central London really) are taxis and commercial vehicles. It's great that cycling is increasing, but it's probably at the expense of train travel rather than driving - I don't think I've ever met anyone who works in central London who drives to work regularly.
One peculiarity of the way the City of London is managed is that it has its own local government. Maybe with this evidence that cycling is important they'll finally invest some money into their cycle infrastructure - you can essentially see the dividing line between the City and Islington just by looking at the quality of the road surface.
Peak driving time in the City is also probably more like after 8/9pm when the big banks start offering car service for their employees to get home anyway.
November 2020 I ordered a Swytch e-bike kit and fitted it to my bike. It replaced the car for many things (weekly grocery shops, city centre trips).
I moved to London last year and this turned out to be a fortune timing.
My car, a Honda Civic 2007 diesel, is not ULEZ compliant and I will have to pay £12.50/day to drive it from August 2023 due to the low emission zone expansion. I plan to sell it in July.
Guess what? I've been using my Swytch e-bike happily here in London to get around the suburbs. There are even some Amsterdam style bike lanes to get further into the city.
Pros when I get rid of the car:
* no insurance, tax, ULEZ charge, fuel, trip to fuel station, servicing charges, worries about people scratching it...
* Uber for when I really need a car (eg. I have a group with me)
* able to take short-cuts and bypass unpleasant town centers/sometimes
* feeling of getting fresh air and exercise
* helping a cleaner environment for next generation
Cons:
* weather has a big factor when riding and planning trips, all you really need though is gloves, a waterproof jacket - maybe waterproof over-trousers for when there is heavy rain.
* cold weather waters my eyes and hits me in the face
* have to unlock & lock the bike and carry a D-lock
I doubt I will ever own a car after August 2023.
I moved to London last year and this turned out to be a fortune timing.
My car, a Honda Civic 2007 diesel, is not ULEZ compliant and I will have to pay £12.50/day to drive it from August 2023 due to the low emission zone expansion. I plan to sell it in July.
Guess what? I've been using my Swytch e-bike happily here in London to get around the suburbs. There are even some Amsterdam style bike lanes to get further into the city.
Pros when I get rid of the car:
* no insurance, tax, ULEZ charge, fuel, trip to fuel station, servicing charges, worries about people scratching it...
* Uber for when I really need a car (eg. I have a group with me)
* able to take short-cuts and bypass unpleasant town centers/sometimes
* feeling of getting fresh air and exercise
* helping a cleaner environment for next generation
Cons:
* weather has a big factor when riding and planning trips, all you really need though is gloves, a waterproof jacket - maybe waterproof over-trousers for when there is heavy rain.
* cold weather waters my eyes and hits me in the face
* have to unlock & lock the bike and carry a D-lock
I doubt I will ever own a car after August 2023.
So the reason more people are cycling in the area is that the government made cars extremely expensive, almost certainly more than the externalities created by those cars. If they instead instituted a carbon tax and congestion pricing, I doubt your daily expenses would exceed £12.50/day.
London's had congestion pricing for 20 years. The ULEZ is a tax on high NO2 emissions, not carbon. It's caused a significant reduction on the externalities of bad air quality, which was the goal.
I was finding it difficult to stick to cycling.
Hearing my plight, an avid cyclist friend of mine suggested me to try a trick:-
The biggest tower of babel I have achieved so far is this:-
A barge carried my car accross a river. I was sitting in the car with my Brompton next to me.
Hearing my plight, an avid cyclist friend of mine suggested me to try a trick:-
Get a 3 way folding cycle such as the Brompton. Now, play around with hybrid modes of transport.
The biggest tower of babel I have achieved so far is this:-
A barge carried my car accross a river. I was sitting in the car with my Brompton next to me.
Last mile is a hack. I use a skateboard which is even easier to tote around, albeit might not be so easy for commuting unless you know how to skateboard already or want to learn. Any walk time estimates on google maps are cut down in half or more.
Lol! Yeah I've carried my bike to the edge of another urban area before, parked in a garage, then used my bike to get around the urban area, because the US largely has no intercity public transit.
I have an electric Brompton. If they were lighter they’d be a dream. At the moment they’re very limiting.
You need to do mediation. You think too much about abstractions. And is not able to focus on what is real.
Here is a free one month trial.
You can try other apps as well but waking up app was the one I found best.
https://dynamic.wakingup.com/shareOpenAccess/SCB2E2075
Here is a free one month trial.
You can try other apps as well but waking up app was the one I found best.
https://dynamic.wakingup.com/shareOpenAccess/SCB2E2075
I've a 24 km commute in Dublin in Ireland. It's most consistent by ebike.
Driving can take anywhere from 35 minutes to over an hour depending on traffic.
Public transport takes 90 minutes and there is only a direct bus a couple of times a day, otherwise it will take closer to two hours.
On my bike it consistently takes an hour. I can take various green ways through parks and try to minimise my exposure to aggressive drivers and get some good exercise even on an ebike. The only issue is picking up a puncture which has been an issue with my new tyres lately. It's important to invest in good equipment if you can.
On my bike it consistently takes an hour. I can take various green ways through parks and try to minimise my exposure to aggressive drivers and get some good exercise even on an ebike. The only issue is picking up a puncture which has been an issue with my new tyres lately. It's important to invest in good equipment if you can.
I have run schwalbe marathon pros on a variety of bikes & have never gotten a fast puncture on one despite thousands of miles. They are a touch heavy to be fair, but seems easily worth it.
schwalbe marathon is by far my most successful anti puncture tyre.
Predictability is an important factor, and yes, bikes are better at that. By the way, try a vinyl liner between the tube and the tire for puncture protection. Since I started doing this, my puncture rate has fallen easily by 90%.
I think I just need to get the same puncture resistant tyres I had on it previously which were excellent. The current ones where whatever the LBS had in stock.
I'm worried about riding my bike in the city. A friend of mine died on her bike when hit by a truck in Seattle a few years ago and since then I just don't feel okay biking alongside cars any more, especially with kids.
I know this is fundamentally born of emotion rather than rationalism, but still, it does seem like riding a bike is much more dangerous than driving. Bicycles are somewhere from 3x to 11x more dangerous than cars.
https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/
When I visited Amsterdam I liked how they often had separated bike lanes, not like in the US where cars can and do just drive through the bike lanes, like an actual physical barrier preventing cars from driving through bike lanes. Maybe that would be a lot safer, but, I won't hold my breath on that coming to the US.
I know this is fundamentally born of emotion rather than rationalism, but still, it does seem like riding a bike is much more dangerous than driving. Bicycles are somewhere from 3x to 11x more dangerous than cars.
https://bicycleuniverse.com/bicycle-safety-almanac/
When I visited Amsterdam I liked how they often had separated bike lanes, not like in the US where cars can and do just drive through the bike lanes, like an actual physical barrier preventing cars from driving through bike lanes. Maybe that would be a lot safer, but, I won't hold my breath on that coming to the US.
"Painted bicycle gutters" is the derogatory term for what many North American cities call "biking infrastructure". There have even been some studies that suggest they have worse effects than nothing, because they give a false sense of security to cyclists without providing any protection against drivers. Especially when coupled with total lack of general planning (e.g. bike planes splattered from random place A to random place B, finishing in the middle of an intersection).
Everyone deserves better biking infrastructure, cyclists and car drivers alike (more bikes => less cars => less traffic => happier drivers and happier cyclists).
Everyone deserves better biking infrastructure, cyclists and car drivers alike (more bikes => less cars => less traffic => happier drivers and happier cyclists).
Yeah, I can believe that. I remember one spot off the 280 there are some bicycle lanes that go right over highway off ramps. Drivers are just constantly zooming through at near-highway speeds. Yeah, they're painted green, so what? It's like a particle accelerator encouraging bicycles to smash themselves.
> Bicycles are somewhere from 3x to 11x more dangerous than cars.
In the US, where there is effectively no bicycle infrastructure. In the Netherlands it seems to be about 1.18x (or 1.1x if you include trucks) [0].
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/523310/netherlands-numbe...
In the US, where there is effectively no bicycle infrastructure. In the Netherlands it seems to be about 1.18x (or 1.1x if you include trucks) [0].
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/523310/netherlands-numbe...
The important metric is fatalities per distance traveled, not absolute numbers. In the Netherlands, bicycles have 11 fatalities per billion kilometers traveled. Cars have 1.6.
I'm not sure that makes much sense as a safety metric, bicycles obviously travel less distance on average per instance used, so the 'rate of death' would not have the same scaling as distance traveled
Well, when I'm considering biking or driving my car, the destination is fixed. I can drive 2 miles to the store or I can bike 2 miles to the store. I'm not choosing between, should I take an average bicycle trip right now, or should I take an average car trip right now. So the danger per mile does seem like the relevant metric there.
You are correct in your consideration, but above 15 kilometers bicycling is not an option while using a car is, so the cars have a hugely larger average drive distance which skews the metric making it effectively useless.
By that metric, walking is the most dangerous mode of transport. Somehow seems illogical.
The comparison is valid because people in this thread are saying that bikes should substitute for many car trips. If they were saying the same thing about walking then I’d make the point about waking safety. But walking can’t substitute for many car trips so it’s a non-issue.
Cars have disadvantages and externalities, but they are much safer than bicycles. This is true even in the most bike-friendly countries on earth.
Cars have disadvantages and externalities, but they are much safer than bicycles. This is true even in the most bike-friendly countries on earth.
They are a replacement for cities not for all road travel, same way trucks aren't going to be replaced by scooter, it's a different mode of transportation better suited for shorter distances. The comparison could be valid if you filter the car travel for <15km of planned route.
The original argument did not involve which trips can be replaced by walking or cycling, merely that per distance driven cars are safer. This makes driving a car much safer than walking, which should give us pause and make us reconsider if it makes sense. It doesn't -- merely having and regularly using a car makes people travel greater distances. Without a car they wouldn't do it, and increased car dependance results in worse traffic safety. If the US had the same per capita death rate as the Netherlands, there would be around 12k deaths. Instead there are over 40k.
The additional kicker is that most of the pedestrians and cyclists killed die after a collision with a car. As it is, roughly two million people in the world die in traffic per year, almost all of it involving cars. So much for safety.
The additional kicker is that most of the pedestrians and cyclists killed die after a collision with a car. As it is, roughly two million people in the world die in traffic per year, almost all of it involving cars. So much for safety.
Well let’s make cycling safer with proper infrastructure then.
I have this feeling that part of the high case of bike fatalities is a lack of education or really good intentions of a lot of bike riders I see. I take my lane and follow the laws of traffic on a bike. It results in pretty safe passage even if there isn't bike infrastructure, since cars now have to change lanes if they want to find room to get around me, and I am generally more visible to turning traffic and am outside as many blindspots as possible. They still honk and yell "fuck you" either way, but now they give me room instead of ramming me into the gutter or into a door, and they actually see me.
On the other hand, no one is taught how to safely ride a bike after they figure out how to pedal one the first dozen feet, unlike cars where you have to pass exams or have classes. I hardly see anyone taking a lane when biking. I hardly see anyone with lights. I hardly see any signalling. I see a lot of people riding against the flow of traffic even. I see people riding without helmets. I even see people who are clearly intoxicated on something or another swerving over a 5 lane road. If these people sorts of bikers I see anecdotally are any way representative to your average bike rider, then I'm surprised the number is only 3x higher.
On the other hand, no one is taught how to safely ride a bike after they figure out how to pedal one the first dozen feet, unlike cars where you have to pass exams or have classes. I hardly see anyone taking a lane when biking. I hardly see anyone with lights. I hardly see any signalling. I see a lot of people riding against the flow of traffic even. I see people riding without helmets. I even see people who are clearly intoxicated on something or another swerving over a 5 lane road. If these people sorts of bikers I see anecdotally are any way representative to your average bike rider, then I'm surprised the number is only 3x higher.
I think the sensible model is to eventually get rid of most car traffic in city centres, and concentrate the parking spots in suburbs, with adequate public transport to denser areas.
Personally I couldn't live without a car. Not because I need it much in the city right now, but because I need it to reach my relatives and meaningful places in the countryside, far away from any public transport. Cost of living is also something to consider, not everyone can afford a proper house within reach of public transport, and living in a flat sucks.
Personally I couldn't live without a car. Not because I need it much in the city right now, but because I need it to reach my relatives and meaningful places in the countryside, far away from any public transport. Cost of living is also something to consider, not everyone can afford a proper house within reach of public transport, and living in a flat sucks.
Its fascinating, that even such a entrenched industry such as the car industry, can be banned from urban centers. There is hope for change yet.
It's amazing to see. The last ten years, the galvanizing project of every european city has been calming cars. I didn't really realize it until I was there the last few summers on vacation, and the difference is night&day with 10 years ago (Brussels, Paris big examples, many smaller ones too). Unreal, a truly positive transformation. It's one of those things, you just can "feel", although maybe hard to explain, I certainly couldn't imagine "the feel" about 10-15 years ago. Hope US cities can marshal that same gumption eventually. This takes top-down courage. It can never resolve bottom up, especially with how fearful and short-sighted americans can be.
I wonder, why there is not dealds between land speculation and public transportation. One party buys fields from farmers, the other creates a privately financed railroad/subway out in the "new suburbs", shooting the areas value through the roof. Then build denser, better citycore, connected to the old citycore.
From what I gather, there used to be, the "streetcar suburb" was exactly that. It no longer exists, at all. best you may get is some new urbanist toy town in the exurbs. They're great because they're better than a regular suburb, providing local walkability, but they're still isolated pods.
A start for that would be investors legislating for building codes to be suspended in a new development area completely, allowing for mixed development. Then make a investment into public transport towards the area taxfree.
This is absolutely a thing.
The British pioneered it with the Metropolitan line and swathes of suburban London with developed this way; they called it ‘Metro-land’.
Japan ran hard with the idea too.
A recent example would be Crossrail being partly funded by Canary Wharf, Heathrow Airport, and a large UK Housebuilder.
Japan ran hard with the idea too.
A recent example would be Crossrail being partly funded by Canary Wharf, Heathrow Airport, and a large UK Housebuilder.
Then why does it not work in the us?
Somewhat important detail to note: The City of London's (AKA "The Square Mile") geographical area is 1.12 square miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
This is great news.
This is great news.
In Australia this area would be referred to as the CBD (Central Business District) although I'm not sure this term is globally used. My American friend had no idea what I was talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_business_district
We are the cyclists, the intermediate stage between humans and pure energy.
https://youtu.be/1s0XsulDXtk
https://youtu.be/1s0XsulDXtk
Bicycles are the best machine from the industrial revolution. Quiet, healthy, efficient, harmonious with our sensibilities. I think it is precisely these aspirational qualities that is enraging the morlocks in their cars (speaking for US only now, it's better in other countries). A bicycle is a shameful reminder of the virtuous path not taken.
Remember back in the 1970s; if you ever saw anything on the news about China, it would feature rank upon rank of cyclists pouring through Peking's great thoroughfares, with nary a motor vehicle in sight. We all laughed at how backward they were.
Now we'd view a similar scene from any major city in the world as signs of a great environmental advance.
Funny how times change, isn't it?
Now we'd view a similar scene from any major city in the world as signs of a great environmental advance.
Funny how times change, isn't it?
Sadly china embraced 'modernity' and they literally just used the single worst ideas from urban design and traffic engineering.
They went with single use superblocks connected by highways. A terrible system in so many ways.
Thankfully they protected some of the old city centers and those still have the beautiful chinese urbanism.
Thankfully, leadership in China has realized that they really fucked up. Sometimes when building the 5 ring road highway that is clogged you start to rethink the problem. Funny enough by turning to Western New Urbanism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqldZhxl86I
https://www.efchina.org/Reports-en/report-lccp-20171214-en
The book is really interesting, a great set of guidelines for city building. I don't agree with everything but its pretty fantastic.
They went with single use superblocks connected by highways. A terrible system in so many ways.
Thankfully they protected some of the old city centers and those still have the beautiful chinese urbanism.
Thankfully, leadership in China has realized that they really fucked up. Sometimes when building the 5 ring road highway that is clogged you start to rethink the problem. Funny enough by turning to Western New Urbanism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqldZhxl86I
https://www.efchina.org/Reports-en/report-lccp-20171214-en
The book is really interesting, a great set of guidelines for city building. I don't agree with everything but its pretty fantastic.
Single use superblocks? Most Korean/Chinese apartment block regions feature multi-use (without industrial) and do it very well, incorporating commercial slots surrounded by a throng of greenery and apartment blocks for residents, with nearby lower-density, medium-density housing.
Got any examples of China? Because Koreans follow density principles extremely well.
Got any examples of China? Because Koreans follow density principles extremely well.
The talk I linked goes into detail.
Many Chinese superblocks are not walkable and have no commercial and offices are also in a different place. But its not everywhere.
I don't know about Korea, no comment on that.
Many Chinese superblocks are not walkable and have no commercial and offices are also in a different place. But its not everywhere.
I don't know about Korea, no comment on that.
Interesting. I've seen some videos of the empty apartment blocks with small empty commercial areas below them.
Actually, now that I think about it. Korea is actually migrating towards a more Chinese vibe (I call it Americanisation of their planning) where they build the buildings super far apart and make it all way less walkable but still bikeable.
The city I refer to that recently disappointed me and is brand new in Korea is Dongtan, take a look if you get a chance. I think Korea has slipped down the slippery slope unfortunately. Either that or they just haven't filled in the lines yet, but I doubt that. It's just more car-centric.
Things built 5-10 years ago weren't like this, but then neither was the car status symbol race.
Actually, now that I think about it. Korea is actually migrating towards a more Chinese vibe (I call it Americanisation of their planning) where they build the buildings super far apart and make it all way less walkable but still bikeable.
The city I refer to that recently disappointed me and is brand new in Korea is Dongtan, take a look if you get a chance. I think Korea has slipped down the slippery slope unfortunately. Either that or they just haven't filled in the lines yet, but I doubt that. It's just more car-centric.
Things built 5-10 years ago weren't like this, but then neither was the car status symbol race.
Yes! Can't believe we thought car-clogged city streets were actually aspirational. Truly mass delusion.
100%, but you missed FUN.
On another note, Ran Prieur has some interesting thoughts on bikes as a mode of transport.
https://www.ranprieur.com/tech/trans.html
On another note, Ran Prieur has some interesting thoughts on bikes as a mode of transport.
https://www.ranprieur.com/tech/trans.html
Thanks for the link! Looking forward to dive into it.
>Bicycles are the best machine from the industrial revolution. Quiet, healthy, efficient, harmonious with our sensibilities. I think it is precisely these aspirational qualities that is enraging the morlocks in their cars (speaking for US only now, it's better in other countries). A bicycle is a shameful reminder of the virtuous path not taken.
The power loom?
The electrical generator?
The steam engine?
The telegraph?
The bicycle is a "nice to have" latecomer that can only exist in a world which is already somewhat industrialized.
The power loom?
The electrical generator?
The steam engine?
The telegraph?
The bicycle is a "nice to have" latecomer that can only exist in a world which is already somewhat industrialized.
lol way to miss the point. Hyperbole is a rhetorical device to emphasize a point.
I'm so tired of the internet.
Anyway, yes, let me revise, bicycles are the best invention, of ALL TIME!
Power loom: ushered in capitalist mode of production, alienating us from our labor. Electrical generator: it's cool I guess. Steam engine: start of the fetishization of the engineering aesthetic. Awful. Only redeeming quality is that it gave us steam punk fiction 200 years later. Telegraph: instant communication is way overrated.
Sorry for piling on. Long weekend.
I'm so tired of the internet.
Anyway, yes, let me revise, bicycles are the best invention, of ALL TIME!
Power loom: ushered in capitalist mode of production, alienating us from our labor. Electrical generator: it's cool I guess. Steam engine: start of the fetishization of the engineering aesthetic. Awful. Only redeeming quality is that it gave us steam punk fiction 200 years later. Telegraph: instant communication is way overrated.
Sorry for piling on. Long weekend.
> lol way to miss the point. Hyperbole is a rhetorical device to emphasize a point.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/738/025/db0...
Your "hyperbole" was solidly within the fat part of the bell curve of "what people of your bent say unironically". You don't get to say you were just pretending when it's called out for being absurd.
Also, poe's law is very relevant here.
>ower loom: ushered in capitalist mode of production, alienating us from our labor. Electrical generator: it's cool I guess. Steam engine: start of the fetishization of the engineering aesthetic. Awful. Only redeeming quality is that it gave us steam punk fiction 200 years later. Telegraph: instant communication is way overrated.
Once again, it's not whimsical hyperbole when there's no shortage of people saying more or less exactly the same thing unironically.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/738/025/db0...
Your "hyperbole" was solidly within the fat part of the bell curve of "what people of your bent say unironically". You don't get to say you were just pretending when it's called out for being absurd.
Also, poe's law is very relevant here.
>ower loom: ushered in capitalist mode of production, alienating us from our labor. Electrical generator: it's cool I guess. Steam engine: start of the fetishization of the engineering aesthetic. Awful. Only redeeming quality is that it gave us steam punk fiction 200 years later. Telegraph: instant communication is way overrated.
Once again, it's not whimsical hyperbole when there's no shortage of people saying more or less exactly the same thing unironically.
> what people of your bent say unironically"
Fair enough. I am certainly of that bent, and proud (ie. smug if you prefer) about it.
I don't see irony and hyperbole as equivalent though. I am serious that bicycles are an excellent invention, certainly in the context of personal mobility, most certainly contrasted with horrid technology like cars. So unironic in that sense. But certainly hyperbole, as in, "best" invention, that's hard to determine. There's millions of axes on which to judge inventions, can't really put them all on a single line, and find "good, better, best".
> no shortage of people saying more or less exactly the same thing unironically
I was joking, doubling down on the original premise of exaggeration, I thought that was obvious.
Fair enough. I am certainly of that bent, and proud (ie. smug if you prefer) about it.
I don't see irony and hyperbole as equivalent though. I am serious that bicycles are an excellent invention, certainly in the context of personal mobility, most certainly contrasted with horrid technology like cars. So unironic in that sense. But certainly hyperbole, as in, "best" invention, that's hard to determine. There's millions of axes on which to judge inventions, can't really put them all on a single line, and find "good, better, best".
> no shortage of people saying more or less exactly the same thing unironically
I was joking, doubling down on the original premise of exaggeration, I thought that was obvious.
Monkey Dust is the most underrated tv-show I've ever watched
imagine how much of a shit show it would be if every single one of these people tried to commute in one day in their own individual vehicle instead of a bicycle.
It's the space efficiency of the bicycle that allows London to function at this point.
It's the space efficiency of the bicycle that allows London to function at this point.
My main transportation vehicle for anything under 15km is a bicycle. I go through rain, ice, snow — doesn't make a difference to me, I'll be cycling. Yes, I've cycled through storms, can't see what the fuss is about really.
I would still never cycle in London. It doesn't have proper cycle infrastructure, just some painted lines on roads designed for cars. You're taking your life in your hands there.
The car drivers are absolutely entitled to be pissed off with the city. Where I live (Netherlands) they made cycling the obvious choice, because it's cheaper, faster, and more fun than anything else. In London, it's more like it's being smashed down everyone's throats by force. Cycling isn't _better_ there, it's just the only economically viable option after the greedy money grab that is the "punish all drivers" policy for the last 20 years.
I would still never cycle in London. It doesn't have proper cycle infrastructure, just some painted lines on roads designed for cars. You're taking your life in your hands there.
The car drivers are absolutely entitled to be pissed off with the city. Where I live (Netherlands) they made cycling the obvious choice, because it's cheaper, faster, and more fun than anything else. In London, it's more like it's being smashed down everyone's throats by force. Cycling isn't _better_ there, it's just the only economically viable option after the greedy money grab that is the "punish all drivers" policy for the last 20 years.
This isn't about London. This is about the City of London, which is about 2 square km in the heart of London (and a separate city). The City of London is incredibly driver-hostile and pedestrian-friendly, so I was personally surprised that this hadn't happened already.
The City of London couldn't have changed that much since the last time I was there, about 5 years ago. It's where all the banks and that are, right? Seemed very much a no-go in the same way to me.
Ice scares me. Rain and snow are not a problem.
But I usually bike in areas with shared infrastructure with cars. I wonder if I would be less worried about ice if slipping and falling wouldn’t mean I will potentially get driven over by a car.
But I usually bike in areas with shared infrastructure with cars. I wonder if I would be less worried about ice if slipping and falling wouldn’t mean I will potentially get driven over by a car.
Get studded tyres, they work incredibly well.
It would be interesting to see how road space is also allocated between these 2 modes.
I don’t know much about the City of London (I do know that it’s not the same thing as the city of London), so I’m curious if others with more knowledge can share some information.
I don’t know much about the City of London (I do know that it’s not the same thing as the city of London), so I’m curious if others with more knowledge can share some information.
In CoL, a few cycle lanes but mainly it's just very quite roads. It works in CoL because motor traffic is so heavily restricted the roads are fairly quiet.
Which is why it's pretty much the safest area to cycle because motorists are primed to expect cyclists on the roads but you only have to travel 2 minutes east and traffic becomes much heavier and more chaotic pretty quickly
What are the per-mile statistics? What percentage of total miles traveled occur via bike? If every trip counts equally, pedestrians should outnumber everyone. (Most every cyclist or driver becomes a pedestrian at some point during the day.)
The article points out that walkers do outnumber everyone.
Great.
Hopefully this will make the introduction of stricter regulations on motorists easier, particularly safety and noise.
Hopefully this will make the introduction of stricter regulations on motorists easier, particularly safety and noise.
I have been a daily bike commuter for over a decade.
I recently got an e-bike, and I would not want a non-e-bike aftger this.
I have an Orbea Rise and I love it. It is heavy though, and the tires are too wide for some of the bus bike racks...
Also, WRT to lighting - I highly recommend getting these, instead of the expensive lights they sell in places like mikes bikes...
I have these on my bikes - they are awwesome because they are weather-proof, solar charged, motion sensing activation and give a wide throw of light. I have one on the front of my bike and on on the back. They automatically turn on at night and go bright when the bike starts moving.
https://www.amazon.com/Otdair-310-Lighting-Waterproof-Securi...
I recently got an e-bike, and I would not want a non-e-bike aftger this.
I have an Orbea Rise and I love it. It is heavy though, and the tires are too wide for some of the bus bike racks...
Also, WRT to lighting - I highly recommend getting these, instead of the expensive lights they sell in places like mikes bikes...
I have these on my bikes - they are awwesome because they are weather-proof, solar charged, motion sensing activation and give a wide throw of light. I have one on the front of my bike and on on the back. They automatically turn on at night and go bright when the bike starts moving.
https://www.amazon.com/Otdair-310-Lighting-Waterproof-Securi...
I haven't done my research but from what I've gathered from news over the years hasn't London had very high car tax, tolls, super expensive gas, and just outright closing streets and eliminating parking?
So with a big enough stick and very little carrot anything is possible? Is that a win? Aren't we hearing that actual residents really don't like these "15 minute" cities?
So with a big enough stick and very little carrot anything is possible? Is that a win? Aren't we hearing that actual residents really don't like these "15 minute" cities?
> with a big enough stick and very little carrot anything is possible
Yep, so all those complaining that nothing is being done or can be done about climate change are wrong. There are tools, they just need to be used.
> Aren't we hearing that actual residents really don't like these "15 minute" cities?
We're also hearing that Zuckerberg is a lizard and the Earth is flat, so fucking what? London is a major metropolis, rather dense, and with very relaxed and mixed zoning (you can have a 13th century "Church of X Girls School" next to a Tesco store in a glass skyscraper. It already does everything a "15th minute city" is about, apart from being "15 minutes big" - commute times are usually bigger, and somewhat concentrated to City and Canary Wharf, but there's work, leisure, shopping, housing to be found all around. Idiots who rage against a concept they couldn't begin to comprehend because toilet paper quality "journalists" make money that way aren't concerned residents of London, they have nothing to do with the city, and their opinion is best ignored.
Yep, so all those complaining that nothing is being done or can be done about climate change are wrong. There are tools, they just need to be used.
> Aren't we hearing that actual residents really don't like these "15 minute" cities?
We're also hearing that Zuckerberg is a lizard and the Earth is flat, so fucking what? London is a major metropolis, rather dense, and with very relaxed and mixed zoning (you can have a 13th century "Church of X Girls School" next to a Tesco store in a glass skyscraper. It already does everything a "15th minute city" is about, apart from being "15 minutes big" - commute times are usually bigger, and somewhat concentrated to City and Canary Wharf, but there's work, leisure, shopping, housing to be found all around. Idiots who rage against a concept they couldn't begin to comprehend because toilet paper quality "journalists" make money that way aren't concerned residents of London, they have nothing to do with the city, and their opinion is best ignored.
Do you live there? In a utopian ideal it seems kind of nice having "everything you need" close by. Thinking about it critically I currently live in a 15 minute city, but there is a car involved. I'm kind of confused about how people living in mass transit even get groceries, can you take your own cart on the train?
As someone who lived in London for nearly a decade, getting groceries was 100x easier than when I lived somewhere you had to drive for 15-30 minutes (traffic) to get to a large hypermarket.
A rucksack will easily carry around 5-6 days of food. Other than that, I would simply pop by the shop on my commute home from work. It would be a 5-10 minute detour max.
Remember that the shops in such cities are directly accessible (no need to walk through a massive shopping centre), there's no time wasted on finding a parking space, there's so many shops that it's extremely likely that there's at least one between your home and the bus/tube stop and they're mostly exclusively filled with food so you're not walking past dozens of aisles filled with non-groceries.
The big bonus of course is that if you wake up in the morning and realise you're out of milk, it's a usually a <5min walk to the closest shop to pick some up and no one will bat an eyelid if you're still wearing your bathing gown. :)
There's also generally less food waste (as you shop for fewer days and can plan better) and you can opt into buying your fruit, veg, meat and fish fresh every day instead of having to hope that your 'big shop' at the megastore will still be fresh at the end of the week.
A rucksack will easily carry around 5-6 days of food. Other than that, I would simply pop by the shop on my commute home from work. It would be a 5-10 minute detour max.
Remember that the shops in such cities are directly accessible (no need to walk through a massive shopping centre), there's no time wasted on finding a parking space, there's so many shops that it's extremely likely that there's at least one between your home and the bus/tube stop and they're mostly exclusively filled with food so you're not walking past dozens of aisles filled with non-groceries.
The big bonus of course is that if you wake up in the morning and realise you're out of milk, it's a usually a <5min walk to the closest shop to pick some up and no one will bat an eyelid if you're still wearing your bathing gown. :)
There's also generally less food waste (as you shop for fewer days and can plan better) and you can opt into buying your fruit, veg, meat and fish fresh every day instead of having to hope that your 'big shop' at the megastore will still be fresh at the end of the week.
OK, that sounds decent. I can see myself doing that.
"but how do you get groceries???" is such a common bad objection it's become something of a meme to make fun of it. don't want to pick on you but getting food is really not that hard to do. you just do smaller shopping trips more often.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk
what self-proclaimed "15 minute city" are you living in where this is hard? genuinely curious. wondering if the phrase is getting diluted for marketing reasons. I've lived in totally ordinary neighbourhoods of English cities where all this was possible and easy, I never heard them flaunting their "15 minute city"ness, even though they met and exceeded the technical definition.
like I'm just confused that people are calling "utopian" the rather unremarkable reality I've lived for 25+ years. it makes me suspect ppl are using the same words to mean very different things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk
what self-proclaimed "15 minute city" are you living in where this is hard? genuinely curious. wondering if the phrase is getting diluted for marketing reasons. I've lived in totally ordinary neighbourhoods of English cities where all this was possible and easy, I never heard them flaunting their "15 minute city"ness, even though they met and exceeded the technical definition.
like I'm just confused that people are calling "utopian" the rather unremarkable reality I've lived for 25+ years. it makes me suspect ppl are using the same words to mean very different things.
As I noted above it's probably healthier for fruits/veg to shop more than once a week but I just don't like the hassle of grocery shopping that often. If it was along the way from mass trans to my flat maybe, but one stop away definitely not.
Yeah that's the thing, you're not meant to need "mass transit" to get groceries. It shouldn't even be a single "stop" away, it should be even closer. Are you saying you don't have a single decent grocery shop within a 5-10 minute walk of your house? A 15 minute city is meant to have that. And not just one shop ... you're meant to have lots and lots of them.
In the last place I lived, there were at least six I could walk to conveniently. And that wasn't a big bustling world-class metropolis either, it was a fairly unspectacular inner suburb of Sheffield[1], a city of 550,000, solidly middle of the pack on most social/economic rankings compared to other UK cities. The closest to "mass transit" was a tram that came three times an hour, but I never took the tram to get food.
I've linked the Streetview of the main high street[2] near where I lived, don't want to dox my exact address but I lived somewhere within a 1 km radius of this point[3]. I could get 98% of my monthly needs from this one street. You can explore the different directions on Streetview to see what I'm talking about. Look at the amenities nearby: cafes, coffee shops, greengrocers, hairdressers, newsagents, liquor shops, nurseries, daycare, schools, a gym, churches, pubs, a bus station, furniture shops, banks, a park, a dentist, pharmacies, several GP practices, a supermarket, hardware store, drycleaners, fast food, probably more that I've forgot, all within a short walk of this point. There's even the start of a pleasant walking trail through the Rivelin valley a bit further to the southwest (a godsend during the lockdowns). And this kind of high street isn't unique, there are plenty such high streets dotted around in the adjoining neighbourhoods: Middlewood, Crookes, Kelham Island, the lot. Most people in the city can walk to one. In fairness it may not meet the "15 minute city" definition since most workplaces are in the city centre so a walking commute takes more than 15 minutes. But hey, the tram is about that quick, and biking doesn't take much longer, 20 minutes maybe. And of course you can drive too; plenty of cars about.
Another example: when I was a student my house was in a 1 km radius of this point[4]. It's clearly suburban, but look at all the amenities. Easy, no "mass transit" needed to buy milk. And now I live within 1 km of this[5] point, exact same thing. It's not even the only such high street I can walk to; there's another about the same distance in the opposite direction from my house. British high streets have overlapping walking-distance radii that jointly cover almost all the suburban parts of a city, on top of the big central shopping district of the city-proper.
Having lots of groceries in walking distance is not a high a bar to clear. The examples I gave are all second- or third-rate cities, unimpressive in most respects; they're not the ones urbanists always talk about like Amsterdam or Copenhagen or Tokyo or anything fancy like that. It takes no particular conscious government policy to make this happen, it just happens on its own, because there's more than enough market demand. Look at the houses, they're almost all 2 storeys, only a few apartments in the 3-4 storey range, and hardly anything taller than that; the places I showed are not very densely populated, yet they support all this business. If your city is big and dense enough to have "mass transit" (I'm assuming a subway or high-frequency surface rail?), it ought to have grocery shops even more densely distributed than where I've lived. If not, it sounds like something has gone very wrong! That just shouldn't happen. What land-use regulations/laws are preventing it?
This is what I meant when I said people use the same words to mean different things ... all kinds of confusion. Best to use Streetview and give examples.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough,_Sheffield
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Street
[3] https://goo.gl/maps/6h6qSdFcn2thifM9A
[4] https://goo.gl/maps/HQy3Lens5nqv54fY8
[5] https://goo.gl/maps/5DphPFeKdcJVkNyb8
In the last place I lived, there were at least six I could walk to conveniently. And that wasn't a big bustling world-class metropolis either, it was a fairly unspectacular inner suburb of Sheffield[1], a city of 550,000, solidly middle of the pack on most social/economic rankings compared to other UK cities. The closest to "mass transit" was a tram that came three times an hour, but I never took the tram to get food.
I've linked the Streetview of the main high street[2] near where I lived, don't want to dox my exact address but I lived somewhere within a 1 km radius of this point[3]. I could get 98% of my monthly needs from this one street. You can explore the different directions on Streetview to see what I'm talking about. Look at the amenities nearby: cafes, coffee shops, greengrocers, hairdressers, newsagents, liquor shops, nurseries, daycare, schools, a gym, churches, pubs, a bus station, furniture shops, banks, a park, a dentist, pharmacies, several GP practices, a supermarket, hardware store, drycleaners, fast food, probably more that I've forgot, all within a short walk of this point. There's even the start of a pleasant walking trail through the Rivelin valley a bit further to the southwest (a godsend during the lockdowns). And this kind of high street isn't unique, there are plenty such high streets dotted around in the adjoining neighbourhoods: Middlewood, Crookes, Kelham Island, the lot. Most people in the city can walk to one. In fairness it may not meet the "15 minute city" definition since most workplaces are in the city centre so a walking commute takes more than 15 minutes. But hey, the tram is about that quick, and biking doesn't take much longer, 20 minutes maybe. And of course you can drive too; plenty of cars about.
Another example: when I was a student my house was in a 1 km radius of this point[4]. It's clearly suburban, but look at all the amenities. Easy, no "mass transit" needed to buy milk. And now I live within 1 km of this[5] point, exact same thing. It's not even the only such high street I can walk to; there's another about the same distance in the opposite direction from my house. British high streets have overlapping walking-distance radii that jointly cover almost all the suburban parts of a city, on top of the big central shopping district of the city-proper.
Having lots of groceries in walking distance is not a high a bar to clear. The examples I gave are all second- or third-rate cities, unimpressive in most respects; they're not the ones urbanists always talk about like Amsterdam or Copenhagen or Tokyo or anything fancy like that. It takes no particular conscious government policy to make this happen, it just happens on its own, because there's more than enough market demand. Look at the houses, they're almost all 2 storeys, only a few apartments in the 3-4 storey range, and hardly anything taller than that; the places I showed are not very densely populated, yet they support all this business. If your city is big and dense enough to have "mass transit" (I'm assuming a subway or high-frequency surface rail?), it ought to have grocery shops even more densely distributed than where I've lived. If not, it sounds like something has gone very wrong! That just shouldn't happen. What land-use regulations/laws are preventing it?
This is what I meant when I said people use the same words to mean different things ... all kinds of confusion. Best to use Streetview and give examples.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough,_Sheffield
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Street
[3] https://goo.gl/maps/6h6qSdFcn2thifM9A
[4] https://goo.gl/maps/HQy3Lens5nqv54fY8
[5] https://goo.gl/maps/5DphPFeKdcJVkNyb8
Myself personally it's a 36 or 40 minute one way walk to two grocery stores by me. No sidewalks 90%. I'm not sure the big busy intersection even has ped cross walk buttons. <5 min drive, never any traffic. Own a house and decent land, not on top of neighbors. Just can't imagine why people would want to live in a city like that but it sounds like the place is in transition from rural like I am to full on city from too many people there.
I live in what would be called a 15 minute city, but we don't really call it that.
I just bring a bag or two and ride my bike to the store. Or if I'm downtown, which is a 10 minute train ride away, I'll stop by the grocery store next to the station before hopping on the train and just carry my groceries in a bag or put em in my backpack.
The only times I choose to drive are when I want to get a large quantity of something lightweight, like toilet paper or paper towels.
I typically don't buy a lot at once, I'll plan my meals for the next few days and only buy what I know will definitely get eaten to reduce waste.
I just bring a bag or two and ride my bike to the store. Or if I'm downtown, which is a 10 minute train ride away, I'll stop by the grocery store next to the station before hopping on the train and just carry my groceries in a bag or put em in my backpack.
The only times I choose to drive are when I want to get a large quantity of something lightweight, like toilet paper or paper towels.
I typically don't buy a lot at once, I'll plan my meals for the next few days and only buy what I know will definitely get eaten to reduce waste.
That's probably healthier for fruit/veg, but I find myself a weekly shopper. Even for just myself the rucksack guy above you might be pushing the limits.
If you're in the US, weekly shopping is very common because it is such a chore to get to and from grocery stores. They tend to be very large and relatively far away from where people live, so it's quite an inconvenience to shop there.
Smaller stores within neighborhoods allow for quick trips without much hassle.
Smaller stores within neighborhoods allow for quick trips without much hassle.
I get my shopping delivered. Costs me $2 on average, they drive it in a refrigerated small truck and often drop off several deliveries to the same building/street in one trip. And then for stuff I want right now, I just walk to the supermarket with one bag. Since I go out for a walk every day after work, I just head to the supermarket along the way which is about 700m away.
How is delivery any less impact on traffic from driving your own? It would save on parking space though.
It is mildly because it does multiple deliveries in one trip with I assume a routing and scheduling system which does it efficiently.
But the main benefit is it enables me to not own a car, if I couldn’t get things delivered I might buy a car and then use it for other things I don’t strictly have to but since I’m paying for one anyway.
But the main benefit is it enables me to not own a car, if I couldn’t get things delivered I might buy a car and then use it for other things I don’t strictly have to but since I’m paying for one anyway.
Typically you carry your groceries in a bag. Some people have wheeled bags for bigger trips.
In neighborhoods with a traditional urban form (or "15 minute cities"), you wouldn't usually take mass transit to the grocery store, it's within a short walking distance. With groceries close by, it's natural to make frequent, smaller trips.
In neighborhoods with a traditional urban form (or "15 minute cities"), you wouldn't usually take mass transit to the grocery store, it's within a short walking distance. With groceries close by, it's natural to make frequent, smaller trips.
When I lived in a condo with a shopping center ten minute walk away I still found myself driving it. Sometimes I carried stuff back but it felt like it was more of getting some exercise rather than convenience.
First, the City of London hardly has any residents; almost all traffic demand comes from outside. I imagine the few residents it has welcomes these measures, since they suffer the bad effects of commuter traffic, while generating little of it themselves.
Second, how else are cities meant to do this? The fundamental problem is that there is a huge and rising level of driving demand[1], and limited supply. There is a scarcity of road space in London and you can't really add more. Basic economics tells you that you can manage that scarcity through some combination of prices, queues, and lotteries. Throughout most of the 20th century, we defaulted to queues, in the form of traffic jams. You can use the road at zero cost, but you'll have to wait a long time. But that became increasingly untenable as car ownership rose -- the number of cars in Britain has doubled over the last few decades. And traffic jams are themselves unpleasant: they're noisy, ugly, emit pollution, etc. So now cities are using prices too, in the form of congestion charges, taxes, and so on. That's not some punitive "stick" done for its own sake, it's just a tool used to cope with an inescapable economic reality. When you have more cars and the same amount of road, you need to deter an increasing fraction of those cars from using those roads. The "carrot" is providing alternate, more space-efficient ways to get around: bike infrastructure, public transport.
[1] "driving demand" is itself a weaselly, meaningless phrase, because "demand" only makes sense in reference to a specific price level. motorists have been conditioned by a century of car-friendly policy to expect to drive and park for free, but there's no real justification for that. just because the roads are publicly owned doesn't give them the right to use them for free, any more than state-owned railways should have free fares.
Second, how else are cities meant to do this? The fundamental problem is that there is a huge and rising level of driving demand[1], and limited supply. There is a scarcity of road space in London and you can't really add more. Basic economics tells you that you can manage that scarcity through some combination of prices, queues, and lotteries. Throughout most of the 20th century, we defaulted to queues, in the form of traffic jams. You can use the road at zero cost, but you'll have to wait a long time. But that became increasingly untenable as car ownership rose -- the number of cars in Britain has doubled over the last few decades. And traffic jams are themselves unpleasant: they're noisy, ugly, emit pollution, etc. So now cities are using prices too, in the form of congestion charges, taxes, and so on. That's not some punitive "stick" done for its own sake, it's just a tool used to cope with an inescapable economic reality. When you have more cars and the same amount of road, you need to deter an increasing fraction of those cars from using those roads. The "carrot" is providing alternate, more space-efficient ways to get around: bike infrastructure, public transport.
[1] "driving demand" is itself a weaselly, meaningless phrase, because "demand" only makes sense in reference to a specific price level. motorists have been conditioned by a century of car-friendly policy to expect to drive and park for free, but there's no real justification for that. just because the roads are publicly owned doesn't give them the right to use them for free, any more than state-owned railways should have free fares.
Where's the carrot? Other than beating drivers over the head what is being done to help the situation? Better mass trans, bikes etc? They are doing that stuff right?
Most (or at least, a plurality of) people who cycle or take the tube in London also drive a car sometimes; it's not like you have to be wedded to one particular transport mode. Drivers aren't drivers 100% of the time.
Reducing motor traffic makes for safer, more aesthetically pleasant streets. You can expand the pavement, have flowers, landscaping, public art, outdoor dining, etc. The air quality is better, the surroundings are quieter, people don't get run over and maimed in collisions.
And when you really want or need to drive, there's less traffic around. Nobody likes sitting in traffic jams! See this video for how these kinds of policies benefit drivers directly[1].
The carrot is having a more pleasant city. Everyone wins from that.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
Reducing motor traffic makes for safer, more aesthetically pleasant streets. You can expand the pavement, have flowers, landscaping, public art, outdoor dining, etc. The air quality is better, the surroundings are quieter, people don't get run over and maimed in collisions.
And when you really want or need to drive, there's less traffic around. Nobody likes sitting in traffic jams! See this video for how these kinds of policies benefit drivers directly[1].
The carrot is having a more pleasant city. Everyone wins from that.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k
This probably won't resonate with you but; 15 minute city litmus test; what do they install first, new parks/scenery, better transport, and up to date amenities.... or the cameras, barriers and restrictions? That's the answer to what purpose they serve.
they tend to happen concurrently in my experience. here for example: https://www.greytogreen.org.uk/background
barriers/bollards: they're meant to stop cars from hitting people or driving in bike lanes or parking where they shouldn't. I like having them around. as for cameras, they're to catch people speeding, they mostly wouldn't be necessary if people didn't speed. and people speed mostly because the design of the road doesn't match the legal speed limit. see e.g. this[1]. so if you don't like cameras, you should welcome these redesigns.
but more importantly than any of that, could you please think about the other side of the ledger for a minute? "restrictions" on mobility are novel or hypothetical to you, but they're not for me.
traffic calming, restricted access roads, low-traffic neighourhoods, you think of these small things as restrictions on you because you can't go places quite as fast or quite as directly as you want, but for me they're lifelines. they let me get some places reliably and safely at all. on a road with 40+mph traffic, I can't use it unless there's a protected bike lane, and junctions designed with cyclists in mind (i.e. some degree of physical separation). and if that road is the only connection between A and B, then I can't get from A to B! pedestrians need barriers and refuges and controlled crossings and slowed vehicle speeds to safely get across busy roads. these things aren't luxuries, they're necessities for people who do not drive.
I've told you about getting around without a car in my city is fairly doable, because the local council has improved the infrastructure quite a bit recently. but that doesn't yet extend outside of the city's boundaries, even though there's no practical reason why it couldn't. so here's a story about those difficulties:
the city next to mine is close enough that cycling to it would be, in theory, a completely reasonable journey. a direct-ish route would take about 40 minutes; perfectly doable as a commute. but it's impossible because there is no such route. trust me, I've looked high and low for one, it simply doesn't exist. I've spent hours scouring Google Maps and Streetview, even doing reconnaissance trips to gauge the safety of certain parts myself, taking photographs, testing whether traffic lights detect me, etc. every route has many absolute showstopper segments where I'm exposed to high speed traffic with no physical protection whatsoever, and/or have to risk my life at enormous junctions whose design is completely hostile to my presence. I managed to get all the way there once, on a tangled indirect mess of side streets and unpaved tracks, taking over 3x longer than it had any right to. it was like finding the Northwest Passage. getting there by bus or rail is not quite as hard, but still far more awkward and unpredictable than it should be.
then I heard about govt proposals to alter one of the several motorway routes between the two cities: of the five lanes, make one into a protected bidirectional bikeway, and two others into a dedicated bus lanes. this isn't expensive, it's just paint and concrete barriers, and some alterations to the traffic lights and signage. but predictably, the comments on the news article were full of uproar about this imposition, a "war on motorists", it would supposedly increase congestion, and my favourite, "why would you build a bike lane? who even cycles there anyway?".
pity the poor motorist! I doubt any of them have ever agonized for hours over whether a trip of less than ten miles between two cities was even practically possible. such a failure of transport connectivity would be inconceivable in a modern Western country. yet situations like this are considered normal for non-drivers. we're expected to put up with not being able to practically reach places nearby, and be grateful for the smallest improvements, while billions are spent on motorways each year. and then I see conspiracizing about 15-minute cities, "restrictions on movement", "geofencing" and so on, and I just have to laugh. I've been de-facto "geofenced" by car-first planning for years, and so has everyone else who can't or doesn't drive (and there are a lot of us).
so if you want to halt these reforms, or think things should go back to how they were, what that really means is, you're happy with people like me living with harsh and pointless restrictions on mobility, far worse than cameras and bollards and congestion pricing are for motorists. for my part, I think motorists have simply gotten used to an unwarranted level of convenience, public subsidy, and politician's attention. the mild restrictions for motorists are enormously liberating for everyone else. and they are mild. you might have to take a slightly longer route, or walk the last hundred yards instead of parking exactly at your destination, or pay to use scarce road space that a huge number of other people want to use ... it's not that big a deal. a fairer balance between drivers' convenience and the welfare of other road users shouldn't feel like an attack on you.
[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/7/18/how-street-des...
barriers/bollards: they're meant to stop cars from hitting people or driving in bike lanes or parking where they shouldn't. I like having them around. as for cameras, they're to catch people speeding, they mostly wouldn't be necessary if people didn't speed. and people speed mostly because the design of the road doesn't match the legal speed limit. see e.g. this[1]. so if you don't like cameras, you should welcome these redesigns.
but more importantly than any of that, could you please think about the other side of the ledger for a minute? "restrictions" on mobility are novel or hypothetical to you, but they're not for me.
traffic calming, restricted access roads, low-traffic neighourhoods, you think of these small things as restrictions on you because you can't go places quite as fast or quite as directly as you want, but for me they're lifelines. they let me get some places reliably and safely at all. on a road with 40+mph traffic, I can't use it unless there's a protected bike lane, and junctions designed with cyclists in mind (i.e. some degree of physical separation). and if that road is the only connection between A and B, then I can't get from A to B! pedestrians need barriers and refuges and controlled crossings and slowed vehicle speeds to safely get across busy roads. these things aren't luxuries, they're necessities for people who do not drive.
I've told you about getting around without a car in my city is fairly doable, because the local council has improved the infrastructure quite a bit recently. but that doesn't yet extend outside of the city's boundaries, even though there's no practical reason why it couldn't. so here's a story about those difficulties:
the city next to mine is close enough that cycling to it would be, in theory, a completely reasonable journey. a direct-ish route would take about 40 minutes; perfectly doable as a commute. but it's impossible because there is no such route. trust me, I've looked high and low for one, it simply doesn't exist. I've spent hours scouring Google Maps and Streetview, even doing reconnaissance trips to gauge the safety of certain parts myself, taking photographs, testing whether traffic lights detect me, etc. every route has many absolute showstopper segments where I'm exposed to high speed traffic with no physical protection whatsoever, and/or have to risk my life at enormous junctions whose design is completely hostile to my presence. I managed to get all the way there once, on a tangled indirect mess of side streets and unpaved tracks, taking over 3x longer than it had any right to. it was like finding the Northwest Passage. getting there by bus or rail is not quite as hard, but still far more awkward and unpredictable than it should be.
then I heard about govt proposals to alter one of the several motorway routes between the two cities: of the five lanes, make one into a protected bidirectional bikeway, and two others into a dedicated bus lanes. this isn't expensive, it's just paint and concrete barriers, and some alterations to the traffic lights and signage. but predictably, the comments on the news article were full of uproar about this imposition, a "war on motorists", it would supposedly increase congestion, and my favourite, "why would you build a bike lane? who even cycles there anyway?".
pity the poor motorist! I doubt any of them have ever agonized for hours over whether a trip of less than ten miles between two cities was even practically possible. such a failure of transport connectivity would be inconceivable in a modern Western country. yet situations like this are considered normal for non-drivers. we're expected to put up with not being able to practically reach places nearby, and be grateful for the smallest improvements, while billions are spent on motorways each year. and then I see conspiracizing about 15-minute cities, "restrictions on movement", "geofencing" and so on, and I just have to laugh. I've been de-facto "geofenced" by car-first planning for years, and so has everyone else who can't or doesn't drive (and there are a lot of us).
so if you want to halt these reforms, or think things should go back to how they were, what that really means is, you're happy with people like me living with harsh and pointless restrictions on mobility, far worse than cameras and bollards and congestion pricing are for motorists. for my part, I think motorists have simply gotten used to an unwarranted level of convenience, public subsidy, and politician's attention. the mild restrictions for motorists are enormously liberating for everyone else. and they are mild. you might have to take a slightly longer route, or walk the last hundred yards instead of parking exactly at your destination, or pay to use scarce road space that a huge number of other people want to use ... it's not that big a deal. a fairer balance between drivers' convenience and the welfare of other road users shouldn't feel like an attack on you.
[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2022/7/18/how-street-des...
We are hearing from trolls and astroturf bots that 15 minute cities are a deep state plot.
[deleted]
How much of this is because London is a great place to bike and how much of this is because they tax you so darn much to drive in the City?
Curious how much of this was the £15 daily "congestion charge" you have to pay to get a vehicle into the area.
For people who don’t know, the City of London is a tiny part of London that is already an expensive and hellish place to drive in as it is due to congestion charging, exorbitant parking, one-way roads with numerous yellow box junctions, red route clearways, one-way systems, even police stops.
If you are going to get into cycling i recommend finding a geometry that works good for you, like something general from a major brand, and then have a titainium frame builder in china make a frame with those dimentions. For 1250 you can have a frameset that lasts forever, doesn't rust, cleans well. Rim brakes are the way to go as they are lighter and cheaper to maintain. Disc brakes weigh more and only offer performace improvements in the wet and other more intense situations. There is a push to move people to disc for product design uniformity so the industry as a whole can keep costs down... you know.. hedge funds n stuff.
I love only having a bike in the city. So convenient and helps keeping my energy up. Worst part of living in Stockholm is that it is completely inconvenient in most cases if you actually wanna go to the city.
This is a great success which I hope is replicated in the United States.
Let's not forget that the "City of London" is a small enclave located in a small area of London proper with very very expensive parking and a lot of other restrictions for car traffic so the bankers can be leisurely driven by their chauffeurs in their Blenteys and Rolls without being importuned by the petit bourgeoise that works for them and their patetic Range Rovers, BMWs and gasp Fords.
Indeed. And they're as (or even more) dangerous for pedestrians as cars since they think traffic rules do not apply to them. Source: I work there.
Looking at the chart, it appears that "motorists" is separate from "taxis". I wonder which bucket Uber falls into.
Taxi in London for road purposes usually means the London black cabs, which may drive in bus lanes. Ubers are like normal cars.
PHV which stands for "Private Hire Vehicle"
The main issue with bikes in big cities is the blatant bike-theft problem and the near-impunity that thieves seem to enjoy.
What is a constructive way to respond to cyclist hate? I used to commute to work quite a bit and got a lot of flack both on the road and off (people giving their opinion).
I don't really understand the hate first of all, but more importantly how do you respond to it appropriately and maturely? Is there another way than just ignoring it?
I don't really understand the hate first of all, but more importantly how do you respond to it appropriately and maturely? Is there another way than just ignoring it?
Keep cycling until they join you (or die because they're old boomers anyway).
I didn't see any mention of this in the article, but I wonder what percentage is commuting vs. delivery. I was in NYC before and after the pandemic and, just from a casual outside perspective, it seemed that the number of delivery cyclist has risen significantly while commuters has dropped or just stayed the same.
NYC has enough delivery riders that storage and fire risk from overnight charging is significant. I'm sure the same risks apply everywhere but sheer numbers in NYC make it a headline issue. I rode blue bikes while visiting, and I had different observations riding and walking: While walking it seemed like delivery riders where everywhere. While riding, I noticed a lot more leisure and commuting riders, probably because I was riding where they ride, not to some random delivery location.
That's a great point about just being where certain types of riders are. This probably speaks volumes about the infrastructure for cycling, or lack of in NYC. I'm a cyclist and advocate for more bikes, but there is something about putting motorized transportation (e-bikes, scooters, etc.) even closer to pedestrians that seems wrong to me. Getting hit by a car is no fun, but getting hit by an e-bike going 20+ mph can't be fun either. The number of people to potentially suffer an injury also doubles.
I never felt unsafe walking or riding where delivery riders were delivering. The safety problems I encountered were all due to cars.
Delivery riders have a tough life. They buy their own gear and pay to keep it in the city. Things like UL-listed batteries are important. But so is expansion of bike infrastructure for all kinds of cyclists.
I don't own one, but I know e-bikes popularize cycling. In some places they are the only practical daily use bike. More would be better.
Delivery riders have a tough life. They buy their own gear and pay to keep it in the city. Things like UL-listed batteries are important. But so is expansion of bike infrastructure for all kinds of cyclists.
I don't own one, but I know e-bikes popularize cycling. In some places they are the only practical daily use bike. More would be better.
[deleted]
hopefully this will contribute to a tipping point on infrastructure investments around low traffic neighbourhoods.
I would personally bike more often to more places if only there was some way to securely park my bike at the destination (grocery stores, restaurants, etc.).
The only place I can reliably bike to at the moment is my office which has a secured bike parking.
The only place I can reliably bike to at the moment is my office which has a secured bike parking.
[deleted]
Nice, I wonder if they are back using internal hubs (like old 3 speeds) or derailleurs ?
The internal hubs like they used 50+ years ago were a better design for rainy weather than derailleurs.
With that said, I can guess most are using single speed. Hopefully not fixed :)
The internal hubs like they used 50+ years ago were a better design for rainy weather than derailleurs.
With that said, I can guess most are using single speed. Hopefully not fixed :)
As an occasional work cyclist in Edinburgh and previously Cambridge: it doesn't make that much difference. It's nicer to have more gears to get a decent speed, but not being able to slip off is an advantage to 3-speeds.
Overall bike design makes more difference. Dutch bike >> MTB with comfort fittings > regular MTB > racing bike. By "comfort fittings" I mean things like chain guards and mudguards and a suitable saddle.
These days quite a lot will be e-bikes too.
Overall bike design makes more difference. Dutch bike >> MTB with comfort fittings > regular MTB > racing bike. By "comfort fittings" I mean things like chain guards and mudguards and a suitable saddle.
These days quite a lot will be e-bikes too.
> Dutch bike >> MTB with comfort fittings > regular MTB > racing bike
I feel like you're missing one type, the 80s touring bike. The one that looks like a racing bike but with a longer wheelbase, mudguards, racks and thicker tyres.
It is more comfortable in the city than a racing bike, but also IMO better than a mountain bike with curved handlebars, thinner tyres and a lighter frame. They're also dirt cheap.
I feel like you're missing one type, the 80s touring bike. The one that looks like a racing bike but with a longer wheelbase, mudguards, racks and thicker tyres.
It is more comfortable in the city than a racing bike, but also IMO better than a mountain bike with curved handlebars, thinner tyres and a lighter frame. They're also dirt cheap.
Interestingly, Bromptons[0] using Sturmey Archer internal hubs, and I believe you can buy an upgrade that puts a derailleur on the front, to double the number of gears.
[0] https://www.brompton.com
[0] https://www.brompton.com
The owner of a bike shop I used to frequent had a Moulton (one of the old space-frame ones) with a 5-speed hub and a derailleur on the back and three rings on the front. He said he wanted to see just how many gears he could actually get on one bike.
>With that said, I can guess most are using single speed. Hopefully not fixed :)
I'm more curious as to the makeup of electric-assisted vs human-powered.
Ebikes have also shaken up the drivetrain landscape a bit. Motors can be in the middle of the bike, and those bikes are often being paired with internally geared hubs in the rear. Mid-drive bikes can incorporate a gearbox in the motor, and are built with nothing but a belt drive and a single cog on the rear wheel.
I love pedaling, but I'd have to be blind to not see how ebikes have widened cycling's userbase in my area, and I'm very curious if that's the case everywhere.
I'm more curious as to the makeup of electric-assisted vs human-powered.
Ebikes have also shaken up the drivetrain landscape a bit. Motors can be in the middle of the bike, and those bikes are often being paired with internally geared hubs in the rear. Mid-drive bikes can incorporate a gearbox in the motor, and are built with nothing but a belt drive and a single cog on the rear wheel.
I love pedaling, but I'd have to be blind to not see how ebikes have widened cycling's userbase in my area, and I'm very curious if that's the case everywhere.
A good number of bikes in London are folding Bromptons with 3-speed hub gears or similar.
>internal hubs like the used 50 years ago
Their invention is closer to 150 years ago than 50.
Their invention is closer to 150 years ago than 50.
In Berlin most newish city oriented bikes I see have internal hubs
And the total time it's taken a load of goods to cross the city still hasn't changed in 700 years :)
(I believe that this is Neil Gaiman's joke, but it could also be Pratchett, or older)
(I believe that this is Neil Gaiman's joke, but it could also be Pratchett, or older)
This article is about the City of London, not London the well-known capital city.
I think the joke works in both cases, really... despite the fact that the city of london is what, half a mile wide?
This is mostly not for the right reasons of benefits and incentives but cost of public transport, unreliability of public transport (we've had strikes all year so far) and absolutely terrible traffic (urban planning is non existent).
They simply gentrify car ownership in the city due to different taxes and it ends up being something that is only for the wealthier segments.
Everything seems to be about profit in London, while trying to coat it with a nice messaging about environment or some other thing most of us agree on but the implementations usually are simply money making or money saving schemes that very gladly screw over those less socioeconomically able.
They simply gentrify car ownership in the city due to different taxes and it ends up being something that is only for the wealthier segments.
Everything seems to be about profit in London, while trying to coat it with a nice messaging about environment or some other thing most of us agree on but the implementations usually are simply money making or money saving schemes that very gladly screw over those less socioeconomically able.
Make sure you charge your ebike battery outside and/or in a steel ammunition box to mitigate fire risk.
What's driving the battery fires with e-bikes and scooters?
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/11/1162732820/e-bike-scooter-lit...
The problems seem to be more with low end Chinese ebikes.
Hopefully LEVA will produce some standards as Light Electric Vehicles are very unregulated right now.
https://levassociation.com/
What's driving the battery fires with e-bikes and scooters?
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/11/1162732820/e-bike-scooter-lit...
The problems seem to be more with low end Chinese ebikes.
Hopefully LEVA will produce some standards as Light Electric Vehicles are very unregulated right now.
https://levassociation.com/
Love to see it, I cycle a lot for exercise.
Weather has been very rainy, hoping to bike more for short trips around town. Thought about a cheap e-bike for grocery shopping, etc.
Weather has been very rainy, hoping to bike more for short trips around town. Thought about a cheap e-bike for grocery shopping, etc.
[deleted]
I don't live in London, but I'm interested in acquiring a stationary bike to do cardio at home. Does anyone have recommendations?
One good option is to turn your bike into a stationary bike so you can use it for both purposes. Options range from cheap to crazy expensive, like everything else with bikes. https://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/indoor-bike-trainers...
I'm a big fan of the Schwinn recumbent I bought pre-pandemic. It was <$250 and has seen a lot of use.
Not the nicest bike by a long shot, but it gets daily use.
Not the nicest bike by a long shot, but it gets daily use.
Get a Peloton with a financing deal, hope either they or the underwriter collapse shortly after.
Free bike.
Free bike.
> hope either they or the underwriter collapse shortly after
Has this ever worked? Surely the administrator would just sell the debt at a discount (for them, not you).
Has this ever worked? Surely the administrator would just sell the debt at a discount (for them, not you).
If Peloton collapse, they would stop providing their cloud product and you presumably wouldn't be on the hook to keep paying them, and they might not ask for the bikes back. If you only want the physical equipment, this might work out for you.
Only a quibble, but "Bicycles outnumber motor vehicles" might be more accurate. It's a vehicle count, not a person count.
both equally horrible, from the perspective of a pedestrian. the only two people i have ever punched with intent in my life were these witless nincompoops that drive around the city and into you - if you don't work there, you have no idea how dangerous these assholes are.
easy solution: compulsory lisencing and insurance
easy solution: compulsory lisencing and insurance
Commuting to work on my bike through London was one of my highlights living there. So much fun and danger.
But, also tfl trying to build more and more cycle lanes ignoring the importance of the pedestrians.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/18/sadiq-khan-cycli...
TFL care a great deal about pedestrians which is why many planned cycle lanes were not built and turned into wider pavement space.
Also please keep in mind that The Telegraph is not a neutral actor with regards to Khan. They recently blamed him for the national strikes, which was totally non sensical.
Also please keep in mind that The Telegraph is not a neutral actor with regards to Khan. They recently blamed him for the national strikes, which was totally non sensical.
[deleted]
Works well when you don't have 3-4 months of snow and ice. This is probably my biggest gripe with the whole "change roads to bicycle paths" push that is happening in most big cities (emulating this and using it as a guiding example). That infrastructure is essentially useless for 1/3 of the year.
And cars work so well on snow and ice? Some cities in Finland have lots of people cycling in the winter and last I heard they get lots of snow and ice. You can get snow tires for bikes just like you can for cars. You can also plow bike lanes like you can plow the roads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
> Works well when you don't have 3-4 months of snow and ice.
Should work just fine IF there is biking infrastructure.
You plow the bike roads just like you do with car roads.
Should work just fine IF there is biking infrastructure.
You plow the bike roads just like you do with car roads.
Just for reference:
City of London is not greater London. It’s a small part of London.
City of London is not greater London. It’s a small part of London.
Didn’t they ban cars in the city center recently?
NB. This is in the City of London, which is a 1 sq. mile area in the center of London. This is definitely not representative of London as a whole.
The City or London as a whole?
I remember New York mayor Michael Bloomberg taking a trip to London around a year after they implemented their congestion charge, since he wanted to do that too. Their mayor told him something like, “Everyone’s going to be protesting literally up to the morning it goes into effect, and then a week later everyone will be saying, ‘Why didn’t we do this ages ago?’”
Great!
Now fix London's massive crime issues, thanks.
Now fix London's massive crime issues, thanks.
What a coincidence that crime in London became an issue the day a non-christian Mayor got elected, and the issue is of utmost concern on US-centric social media.
Didn't they make it very, very expensive to drive in the City of London?
Space is expensive in city centers. Cars take up lots of space.
£15/day. So more expensive than public transport but less than if you took an uber.
As a data point, going two ways between zones 3 and 1 by tube is 8.7 pounds a day, and it will go up soon. If you include 2 people in the family, the convenience of dropping off the kids at their schools, etc 15 pounds doesn't sound that bad for the car, if you have where to park.
That's probably excluding parking. I would expect the day rate for that to be quite steep.
Isn't it full of very, very expensive people?
It is not any more expensive than anywhere else in central London. Electric cars can drive in the city for free at any time. For other cars, between 7am and 6pm you have to pay a £15 congestion charge to drive in the centre. You might have to pay another £12.50 ULEZ charge if you drive an older car.
You should be made to pay extra healthcare taxes for driving an ICE car in an inner city area since you are the primary contributor to a lot of extra cancer cases.
don't drink and bike, it's dangerous.
biking is great except for ball cancer due to sitting postion
Source? It doesn't look like a direct causal relationship has been proven thus far- the current (inconclusive) state of research is summed up here:
https://blog.dana-farber.org/insight/2015/12/does-cycling-in...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2890221/
Sure, here are some studies that have investigated the possible association between cycling and the risk of testicular or prostate cancer:
A 2014 study published in the Journal of Men's Health found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of testicular cancer in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.
A 2015 study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of erectile dysfunction and decreased libido in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.
A 2017 study published in the Journal of Urology found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.
Sure, here are some studies that have investigated the possible association between cycling and the risk of testicular or prostate cancer:
A 2014 study published in the Journal of Men's Health found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of testicular cancer in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.
A 2015 study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of erectile dysfunction and decreased libido in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.
A 2017 study published in the Journal of Urology found that cycling was associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer in men who cycled frequently or for long periods of time.
Your first link refutes your thesis:
> Conclusion: The lack of internal consistency of the findings within the current study and of findings among prior studies, suggests that PA contributes little, if any, to the risk of TGCC.
Since you didn't link to the others, I can't respond to them, but I would note that the article I linked to noted that cyclists are more likely to be more health conscious, and thus would see a doctor more regularly and naturally be more likely to be diagnosed, among other potentially-confounding factors.
> Conclusion: The lack of internal consistency of the findings within the current study and of findings among prior studies, suggests that PA contributes little, if any, to the risk of TGCC.
Since you didn't link to the others, I can't respond to them, but I would note that the article I linked to noted that cyclists are more likely to be more health conscious, and thus would see a doctor more regularly and naturally be more likely to be diagnosed, among other potentially-confounding factors.
you sit in a car as well
Not quite the same. The problem with a bike seat is the bike seat cuts off circulation in point where a lot of blood vessels pass through, riding has been linked to cancer.
Along with the more common city riding hazards like car passangers opening doors, falling over and you breaking bones, getting run over, or even directly breathing in exhaust fumes from trucks.
> the bike seat cuts off circulation in point where a lot of blood vessels pass through, riding has been linked to cancer
Even if this is true (I'm skeptical without seeing a source), you're more than free to mount whatever style of seat you want on your bike. No one's stopping you.
> Along with the more common city riding hazards like car passangers opening doors, falling over and you breaking bones, getting run over, or even directly breathing in exhaust fumes from trucks.
Great point. Those are all excellent reasons for further reducing the numbers of cars on our streets in lieu of bikes and walking.
Even if this is true (I'm skeptical without seeing a source), you're more than free to mount whatever style of seat you want on your bike. No one's stopping you.
> Along with the more common city riding hazards like car passangers opening doors, falling over and you breaking bones, getting run over, or even directly breathing in exhaust fumes from trucks.
Great point. Those are all excellent reasons for further reducing the numbers of cars on our streets in lieu of bikes and walking.
I remember watching 60 minutes, and watching streets in China filled with people riding bikes everywhere. Fast forward to now, and clearly even communists prefer cars. The reasons are endless why a car is superior way to travel, 99% of the time for most people.
However, I have nothing against bikes. I rode one my first year of university, daily; rain and snow. I was a poor student. It had its benefits, but it sucked in many ways.
Separated Bike paths is both a safer and nicer experience. No need to try and get rid of cars.
Because biking in cities is dangerous, I wouldn't go around telling people to do it.
However, I have nothing against bikes. I rode one my first year of university, daily; rain and snow. I was a poor student. It had its benefits, but it sucked in many ways.
Separated Bike paths is both a safer and nicer experience. No need to try and get rid of cars.
Because biking in cities is dangerous, I wouldn't go around telling people to do it.
There is a proven correlation between prostitution and poverty. Are we observing a similar effect?
I would celebrate if this happened naturally, but this seems more a case of if you punish driving enough you get less drivers.
When I was in London over a decade ago they already had restrictions on car traffic into certain parts of the city and additional fees to go there. Tax on a new car is 20% and lots of regulations on their characteristics. Large taxes on petrol which is already much more expensive than in the US.
When I was in London over a decade ago they already had restrictions on car traffic into certain parts of the city and additional fees to go there. Tax on a new car is 20% and lots of regulations on their characteristics. Large taxes on petrol which is already much more expensive than in the US.
Nothing about traffic allocation is „naturally“. Building roads is a decision. Allocating space for cars, bicycles, pedestrians is a decision. Making driving a car cheap is a decision. Discouraging driving by increasing costs is a decision. Reducing car traffic by restricting use is a decision.
It’s decisions all the way down. The question is „What is the outcome we want and what‘s the road to get there.“
It’s decisions all the way down. The question is „What is the outcome we want and what‘s the road to get there.“
People have lived in the area now known as London for over 6000 years, and London has been a city for nearly 2000 years. It has grown very naturally.
Cars are the recent addition, and they are being restricted because they were causing issues. The alternative is bulldozing the city for some highways, which does not really sound very natural to me.
Cars are the recent addition, and they are being restricted because they were causing issues. The alternative is bulldozing the city for some highways, which does not really sound very natural to me.
> Large taxes on petrol which is already much more expensive than in the US.
Oil is the most subsidised industry in America. Oil is more expensive pretty much everywhere but Saudi Arabia where you can get it by kicking about the sand.
Despite all the restrictions London has placed, it is still the most gridlocked city in the planet, with the lowest traffic movement. London has too many people, and too many cars despite its incredible public transport options.
On of the main reasons is that it is not a very tall city, low density means sprawl, means lots of cars. Replace a lot of the Zone 1 2 floor flats with a garden for a 10 story multi family house and suddenly car useage would plummet.
Oil is the most subsidised industry in America. Oil is more expensive pretty much everywhere but Saudi Arabia where you can get it by kicking about the sand.
Despite all the restrictions London has placed, it is still the most gridlocked city in the planet, with the lowest traffic movement. London has too many people, and too many cars despite its incredible public transport options.
On of the main reasons is that it is not a very tall city, low density means sprawl, means lots of cars. Replace a lot of the Zone 1 2 floor flats with a garden for a 10 story multi family house and suddenly car useage would plummet.
There's nothing natural about cars, nor the many negative externalities that are associated with them.
I used to walk everywhere in the middle of the road but then they started punishing me for it :(
What's natural about the provision of tens of thousands of parking spaces, dedicated carriageways, tunnels, bridges, signalling infrastructure etc.?
I live in the Boston exurbs. There used to be two passenger rail stations on a Boston & Maine RR line back when the town consisted almost entirely of farms.
Cars killed those services. Nothing about that was "natural." Cars need to be contained to uses where they are strictly needed in order for such services to come back.
With work-at-home as a new norm there is much less need for commuting. With delivery there is much less need to drive from store to store on shopping trips. The American "geography of nowhere" is a blight to be eradicated.
Cars killed those services. Nothing about that was "natural." Cars need to be contained to uses where they are strictly needed in order for such services to come back.
With work-at-home as a new norm there is much less need for commuting. With delivery there is much less need to drive from store to store on shopping trips. The American "geography of nowhere" is a blight to be eradicated.
You could certainly view car-centric infrastructure as punishing cyclists if you wanted to.
"Tax on a new car is 20%"
UK sales tax IS 20 for almost all goods! Why is this a reason? Can't think what other "regulations" there are in their characteristics other than emmissions?
UK sales tax IS 20 for almost all goods! Why is this a reason? Can't think what other "regulations" there are in their characteristics other than emmissions?
You say "punish driving," I say "make drivers pay for the externalities they cause."
If you don't, you get the tragedy of the commons.
If you don't, you get the tragedy of the commons.
Surprisingly, it hasn't been that hard (my GF kept her car, and I have a car-sharing subscription):
Pros:
- Immediately stopped having insomnia. Better feel overall;
- about €300/month in additional disposable income. That's basically a free lunch everyday!
- significantly faster if parking is taken into account for most trips. The bike is faster for any < 10 km / 7 mi trip;
- do not have to worry about car maintenance, parking tickets or theft;
- you will not kill someone if you ride after a night drinking;
- amazing when the weather is great;
- (almost) no emission.
Cons:
- might be impossible depending on work or children;
- weather might make the ride unpleasant;
- somewhat dangerous when the infrastructure is lacking.
I'm pretty sure I'll never own a car, unless absolutely required by work. Improving the infra and the car-sharing network would be awesome.