Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Sumaso 3580 days ago
I used to read a lot of these articles, but the assumptions were just too silly for me.

there is no assumption about amount of extra time it takes to ride the bike. Somehow riding a bike gains you money, when in fact its the cost of driving the car that should increase instead, and the riding of the bike should be some trivial number per mile (cost of bike maintenance). etc...

The argument might be valid but its presentation is just silly.

3 comments

The extra time it takes to ride a bicycle can be minimal. When I drive to work, it takes about 20 minutes; when I cycle it takes about 30. In urban traffic a car tavels only about twice as fast as a bicycle on average, and bicycles are easier to launch and park. I find that trips of 2 miles are less are faster by bicycle, and that's the most common kind of trip.

Most people who insist on riding bicycles for commutes organize their lives around that: living in a place close to work, for example. The author is a person who took up cycling and never stopped; in that case, bike commutability is something he probably planned for when choosing a home, work, and career. People who have organized their lives around driving everywhere have different considerations.

What his argument boils down to is that bicycles have similar or lower accident risk, much lower operating costs, and traveling by bicycle improves your health—and health is extremely valuable.

My problem with bike commuting is sweat. So when I used to commute (7mi), I showered after arriving at work, and after my ride back.

It really made my day, but seriously it added non-negligible time to my commute. Showering @ home is easier, showers at work can be occupied, and the 2nd shower after coming back was an extra 15m too.

I only have the sweat problem in July and August where I live, and it's easily fixed for me by simply wiping off my arms and face with a damp towel when I come in. It's quick and works surprisingly well.

Everyone's situation is different of course. Bicycle commuting is frequently oversold; The sweet spot for cycling is 2 miles or less or 2-5 miles, which accounts for a lot of trips, but lots of people live farther than that from work.

Riding a bike in dense urban areas is not much (or at all) slower if you are reasonably fit. Traffic lights will take away a lot of the advantage that cars have.
Traffic lights stop bicycles too. And pedestrians.
If traffic lights stopped bicyclists, I wouldn't think they are such a nuisance.

Transportation in Manhattan used to be a solved problem with walking + subways. I applaud someone getting exercise, but I wish that during their recreation they wouldn't plow into pedestrians who actually need to get somewhere.

</rant>

Yes, but it's often the case that a cyclist will catch back up to a car that hits a red light.
Most cyclists in my area (a significant portion of the transient population is college students) tend to forget that bikes must also follow the rules of the road. My small city is seeing a huge increase in bike paths between the downtown parks, the universities, and other cultural landmarks, closeby.

From what I've seen (which is, of course, anecdotal) it's done pretty much nothing. Cyclists still ride on the road next to the bike lanes and still ignore most traffic signals. I'm all for less pollution and staying in shape, but I can't really get behind building infrastructure for a community who are making the road significantly more dangerous. Not to mention the... interesting(?) conversations you'll have if you ever try to argue against specific[+] dedicated bike lanes or mention that cyclists compulsively break the law under the guise of "safety."

[+] as in, "Since Smith is 2 lanes each direction with a dedicated turn lane and is parallel to and has the same speed limit as Mimosa, while Mimosa cuts through several residential neighborhoods, has the same speed limit but is one lane each way with no dedicated turn lane: Why not Smith St. instead of Mimosa Ln.?" perhaps they have a problem with my runons, not my ideas :P

I often see complaints along these lines - and of course, there are scofflaw cyclists, undeniably. But how many motorists do you see in a day do something illegal? 1? 10? 50? I suspect the percentages of cyclists doing illegal things are similar to those of motorists, but there are (depending on your location) 10X to 100X as many motorists. And physics is on their side - motorists are far more dangerous to themselves, and everyone else, than cyclists are.
It may be the area I'm in, but the proportion of cyclists I see: - run a red light, riding past stopped traffic (often, cutting into the crosswalk as if that makes it any safer or more defensible...) - not stop at stop signs - ignore emergency vehicles - commit road rage is closer to 2 in 3 or 3 in 4. So much so that in my experience, I see far more cyclist "crimes" in a week than I do motorist ones. I've also, in my few years living in this city, seen far more accidents involving bikes than cars. (Now that I think about it, I haven't seen either in a few month. So, maybe the bike lanes are helping and I'm just not seeing how...)

You are completely right about physics being on their side though. I'm not afraid a cyclist is going to kill me by T-Boning me running a stop sign, but I am afraid my SO will get PTSD if they T-Bone a cyclist running a stop sign. (I am also worried about a phantom collision [Florida's term for an accident caused by a vehicle that was not damaged] being caused by my reaction(s) to a criminal biker. I do concede that I could do my part trying to find some course that teaches me defensive driving against cyclists.)

From what I can tell cyclists tend to ignore the rules more often in an attempt to conserve that all-important momentum. Particularly in downtown areas where traffic lights are very close together.
>Since Smith is 2 lanes each direction with a dedicated turn lane and is parallel to and has the same speed limit as Mimosa, while Mimosa cuts through several residential neighborhoods, has the same speed limit but is one lane each way with no dedicated turn lane: Why not Smith St. instead of Mimosa Ln.?

I'm not sure which side you were arguing for in this case, but Mimosa seems like a good candidate for a bike lane. Look at Berkeley's bicycle boulevards if you want to see an example of how driving-unfriendly roads are a great place to put bicycles.

I'm against making already cramped roads smaller, especially when the cyclists are going to ride in the middle of the road, regardless. I will definitely look into it though, any good write ups or should I just check the city's webpage?
Yes, some cyclists don't follow the rules, just like car drivers. But no one generalizes the rule breaking of drivers to all drivers as they do to cyclists.

I think driver's ed classes should cover cycling, both to give drivers empathy for cyclists, and so they know the rules apply to cycling.

Also, cyclists are not obligated to use the bike lane. It is often filled with debris, or located right next to parked cars which would be dangerous to ride next to.

Agreed, this author plays fast and loose with the stats. I absolutely think almost everyone should be biking, and that it is far safer than people think it is, but this article would not convince me of that. :-)
I'm all for biking, but please inform my clients (and potential clients) that I will be arriving at their offices covered in sweat, my suit horribly wrinkled, and after two hours during which I was unable to hold a conversation over the phone. If they are ok with that, then I'll use a bike.

For below:

It was 27* last week. I had to travel 10km (as the crow flies) to a potential client's location for a private meeting with their CEO. And we have hills. The concept of me and my suit getting there by bike in acceptable shape is laughable. It might be acceptable for a coder or social media expert to arrive dishevelled, but people expect more from lawyers. I wouldn't win clients.

If you are serious you can avoid all of these issues. Just ride a little bit slower. Biking can be less strenuous than walking if you pace yourself. The wind noise drops considerably, you won't sweat at all and you can hold a conversation.
Not with hills as he said, he would have to walk, and with that would take way too much time. Maybe on the days he did not have client meetings.

Posted by someone who commutes to work on a road bike 20 miles per day round trip M-F.