[CloudYeller]

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

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

[village-idiot]

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

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

[cgoecknerwald]

I have some hope for the movement that installs a bike path along a restored LA River! [1]

[1] https://www.railstotrails.org/trailblog/2017/october/02/bike...

Edit:

The webpage for the LA River project: http://lariver.org/

The webpage for the LA River Trail: https://www.traillink.com/trail/los-angeles-river-trail/

[bluGill]

I don't know LA enough to comment on that project, but my experience with similar projects is the bike trails created like that are a beautiful ride to nowhere. A great trip to take on a nice Saturday, but nobody will use them to get anywhere. (other than the bars that happen to be near the trail)

[ams6110]

That's my experience as well. My town converted an abandoned rail line to a biking/walking trail. It does run through downtown, but beyond that it basically goes noplace very desirable. It gets recreational use by a small subset of the community, but it's not a big difference-maker in making cycling practical.

[Spivak]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[unethical_ban]

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

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

[village-idiot]

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

[Spivak]

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

[village-idiot]

It’s all BS because the people who are saying “this is fine” know they’ll never face the risks personally. It’s a psychopathic way of running a community, and anyone who advocates this way is incredibly suspicious to me.

Anyone that says “someone else should face high risk and cost for my convenience” is not to be trusted.

[Spivak]

It seems weird to argue this when your average driver has a much much higher risk of death than the pedestrian even in the worst case. It's not so much drivers offloading risk to someone else but recognizing that when human life is involved our estimation of risk is blown out of proportion.

[gascan]

Not to mention the drivers who are offended by the simple act of spending a dollar on someone who is not them.

[village-idiot]

Cars kinda make people act like sociopaths.

[mc32]

There’s more to it than that. China was a cycling nation for most of the 20th century. They went from safe cycling nation, to now, where the most populous cities with good mass transit are clogged by cars and some motorcycles.

Affluence is a factor. Later on post-affluence may permit a social signal to again take up biking becuase it’s a choice of the upper middle class and become aspirational..

[z2]

Agree--there's a sweet spot in distance and terrain as well. I bike to work every day because the round trip is a smooth 6 miles on dedicated bike paths. If this were any longer, or on the city streets with traffic lights every block, I'd think twice. Perhaps part of China's situation wasn't just the prestige of owning cars, but that most people's commute ranges expanded alongside the economy, beyond practical range for (pedal) bikes?

[mc32]

Yes, lengthening of commute distances, I’d venture are a factor. Weather might also factor in, depending on weather conditions (temps, precip, etc).

[CloudYeller]

Yeah, I too wouldn't want to cycle in that level of air pollution. There's a sweet spot to hit for level of comfort & safety while cycling. I just think safety is the bigger issue, because even if the surrounding environment is comfortable and the terrain is flat and the weather is nice, if cars are making it unsafe to cycle, you're not going to cycle. And further, if we solve safety, that might actually help the environmental side of things too- less air pollution.

[miketuritzin]

This aligns with my experience. I would bike (in SF and now NYC) but I don't because it feels too stressful and dangerous.

It annoys me how entrenched car culture is and how defensive some people get about it (and the amount of anger that is directed toward cyclists, many of whom legitimately fear for their lives on a daily basis).

[dkhenry]

Almost all the big cities I have been to in America have gotten way better with biking infrastructure in the past 10 years. When I went to school in philadelphia I can't remember a single bike lane or any form of infrastructure. Now in philadelpha there are over 200miles of bike lanes and other bike paths ( including buffered bike lanes !!!! https://bicyclecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bike...), and its easier to get around the city on bike then any other form of transportation.

[Johnny555]

There are so many vehicles on the road because everyone knows it's dangerous to cycle

I think it's deeper than that -- many people still view bikes as a kid's toy. Children bike, adults drive.

[arayh]

Agreed. It can be complicated and expensive, but there are a lot of viable proposals for how to approach bicycle-friendly road design ( such as this https://bikeeastbay.org/news/lafayette-commission-approves-c... )

[rjbwork]

I bought an e-bike. Because I can keep up with car traffic on most roads within the city, I am usually in the far right lane of the road and haven't had any problems really. You do have to be extra careful when changing lanes though.

[tonyedgecombe]

The only problem I find is drivers don't expect you to be going so fast, especially up hill. I actually had a police car pull out right in front of me yesterday.

[prophesi]

Yep. I either walk or hope that public transport's schedule aligns with mine.