4 ms·

I'm a cyclist and I love the idea of making cities more bike friendly, but this group of designers has missed a major point. Cities are for PEOPLE. Not for cars

by Kluny 11y ago

I'm a cyclist and I love the idea of making cities more bike friendly, but this group of designers has missed a major point. Cities are for PEOPLE. Not for cars, not for bikes, but for humans. Space for people to live and exist in should be the highest priority, and anytime you start cutting into living space to make more room for vehicles, you're making the city less human friendly. That's what these guys seem to be doing. They're saying, "cars aren't important, bikes are!" But neither bikes nor cars are important. People are. I'd even suggest that a major reason why cars have supremacy at the moment is that they are more inclusive of people than bikes are. I prefer using my bike any time I possibly can, but I am young, fit, childless and live within 2 minutes of my job. Cars are inclusive of people who have more than one kid, live across an interstate from their job, and may have mobility issues - and bikes are not. This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old and single.

_delirium 11y ago
That's very cultural I think, not really inherent. My impression from living in Copenhagen from some years is that bikes in that context are somewhat more inclusive than cars, though neither is perfect. (I personally mostly used a mixture of walking + transit.) Families with two kids use bikes all the time [1], and the median bicyclist is a middle-aged office commuter, not a 25-year-old single person. Mobility scooters are also permitted in bike lanes (and you see them fairly often), which further expands the inclusiveness of bicycle infrastructure. [1] These are popular among families: http://livingcph.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/christiania.jpg http://livingcph.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/christiania.j...
drsim 11y ago
It's extreme for sure, but it's a concept. 'Concept cars' are produced as a visionary direction a car manufacturer may take their range. This should be read the same. I live in Copenhagen and can't observe any way in which cars here are more inclusive than bikes. A high percentage of bikes have a child seat, there are cargo bikes for multi-child families and the rail network is geared up to take bikes for commuters. Older people cycle well past retirement, so their lifelong mobility keeps them healthily mobile too. The big, fast metal box of a car dehumanises people by isolating them from slower and more vulnerable road users. Bikes mix much better with pedestrians when they need too than a looming car.
TulliusCicero 11y ago
> I'd even suggest that a major reason why cars have supremacy at the moment is that they are more inclusive of people than bikes are. This is mostly true because >>we make it true<<. You see plenty of older people, people with kids, kids themselves, etc. biking around in the Netherlands or Denmark. This is because they have good support for biking, such that people 8 - 80 can bike around town. Plus, it's not like cars universally win at inclusiveness: They're less inclusive of the poor, for example, because they're vastly more expensive to own and operate than a bike. The poor who need a car because there's no good transit or biking options have to spend a huge % of their income on transportation. > This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old and single. Honestly, it sounds like you just haven't been to any city with a high (15%+) bike modal share, because then you'd see how your assumptions are wrong. If you live in America, that's understandable, because we don't have any major cities like that. But they do exist, elsewhere in the world. Visiting Amsterdam or Copenhagen could be eye-opening.
- Kluny 11y ago
  > Honestly, it sounds like you just haven't been to any city with a high (15%+) bike modal share, because then you'd see how your assumptions are wrong. If you live in America, that's understandable, because we don't have any major cities like that. But they do exist, elsewhere in the world. Visiting Amsterdam or Copenhagen could be eye-opening. I believe you, for sure, I just don't think the concept in this article does it correctly. You're right that I've never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam, but honestly, do they have roofs that slope to the ground so they can be bike ramps, and extra wide hallways to permit bike riding indoors, with pedestrians marginalized to the side of the corridor even inside their own homes? A more bike friendly city is definitely more inclusive. But prioritizing bikes at the expense of pedestrians isn't correct either.
  - TulliusCicero 11y ago
    Oh, I agree that these particular concepts are over the top. I was just taking issue with the idea that bikes aren't inclusive. This is a common misconception in the states, because indeed, here we are used to cyclists being mostly young, fit and male, because our bike lane networks are so shoddy that no one else is brave/crazy enough to risk their lives just to move around the city. Funnily enough, at Google, their bike commute rate in the Mountain View/Sunnyvale area for people who live within 9 miles of work is 21%, which is obviously extremely high for the states. It's helped along by a reasonably high number of painted bike lanes in the area, a few good bike/ped trails, and the fact that car traffic going to those areas is really, really horrible during rush hour.
emergentcypher 11y ago
> This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old and single. Those privileged scum can live out in the suburbs so that us hipsters can live in peace.
superuser2 11y ago
Cars are not particularly inclusive of people older than 5 and younger than 16, people too old to drive safely (okay, they are, but they shouldn't be), people who don't have several hundred dollars per month for a payment + insurance + gas + maintenance, people whose apartments don't have parking spaces (seriously, why drive if the nearest parking space to your home is sometimes further than the nearest train station?), etc. Cars are inclusive of the most powerful demographic in America (middle-aged wealthy adults living the American Dream in the suburbs) but leave plenty of others behind.

by Kluny 11y ago

_delirium 11y ago

That's very cultural I think, not really inherent. My impression from living in Copenhagen from some years is that bikes in that context are somewhat more inclusive than cars, though neither is perfect. (I personally mostly used a mixture of walking + transit.) Families with two kids use bikes all the time [1], and the median bicyclist is a middle-aged office commuter, not a 25-year-old single person. Mobility scooters are also permitted in bike lanes (and you see them fairly often), which further expands the inclusiveness of bicycle infrastructure. [1] These are popular among families: http://livingcph.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/christiania.jpg http://livingcph.dk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/christiania.j...

drsim 11y ago

It's extreme for sure, but it's a concept. 'Concept cars' are produced as a visionary direction a car manufacturer may take their range. This should be read the same. I live in Copenhagen and can't observe any way in which cars here are more inclusive than bikes. A high percentage of bikes have a child seat, there are cargo bikes for multi-child families and the rail network is geared up to take bikes for commuters. Older people cycle well past retirement, so their lifelong mobility keeps them healthily mobile too. The big, fast metal box of a car dehumanises people by isolating them from slower and more vulnerable road users. Bikes mix much better with pedestrians when they need too than a looming car.

TulliusCicero 11y ago

> I'd even suggest that a major reason why cars have supremacy at the moment is that they are more inclusive of people than bikes are. This is mostly true because >>we make it true<<. You see plenty of older people, people with kids, kids themselves, etc. biking around in the Netherlands or Denmark. This is because they have good support for biking, such that people 8 - 80 can bike around town. Plus, it's not like cars universally win at inclusiveness: They're less inclusive of the poor, for example, because they're vastly more expensive to own and operate than a bike. The poor who need a car because there's no good transit or biking options have to spend a huge % of their income on transportation. > This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old and single. Honestly, it sounds like you just haven't been to any city with a high (15%+) bike modal share, because then you'd see how your assumptions are wrong. If you live in America, that's understandable, because we don't have any major cities like that. But they do exist, elsewhere in the world. Visiting Amsterdam or Copenhagen could be eye-opening.

Kluny 11y ago
> Honestly, it sounds like you just haven't been to any city with a high (15%+) bike modal share, because then you'd see how your assumptions are wrong. If you live in America, that's understandable, because we don't have any major cities like that. But they do exist, elsewhere in the world. Visiting Amsterdam or Copenhagen could be eye-opening. I believe you, for sure, I just don't think the concept in this article does it correctly. You're right that I've never been to Copenhagen or Amsterdam, but honestly, do they have roofs that slope to the ground so they can be bike ramps, and extra wide hallways to permit bike riding indoors, with pedestrians marginalized to the side of the corridor even inside their own homes? A more bike friendly city is definitely more inclusive. But prioritizing bikes at the expense of pedestrians isn't correct either.
- TulliusCicero 11y ago
  Oh, I agree that these particular concepts are over the top. I was just taking issue with the idea that bikes aren't inclusive. This is a common misconception in the states, because indeed, here we are used to cyclists being mostly young, fit and male, because our bike lane networks are so shoddy that no one else is brave/crazy enough to risk their lives just to move around the city. Funnily enough, at Google, their bike commute rate in the Mountain View/Sunnyvale area for people who live within 9 miles of work is 21%, which is obviously extremely high for the states. It's helped along by a reasonably high number of painted bike lanes in the area, a few good bike/ped trails, and the fact that car traffic going to those areas is really, really horrible during rush hour.

emergentcypher 11y ago

> This redesigned city needs to make room for people who aren't 25 years old and single. Those privileged scum can live out in the suburbs so that us hipsters can live in peace.

superuser2 11y ago

Cars are not particularly inclusive of people older than 5 and younger than 16, people too old to drive safely (okay, they are, but they shouldn't be), people who don't have several hundred dollars per month for a payment + insurance + gas + maintenance, people whose apartments don't have parking spaces (seriously, why drive if the nearest parking space to your home is sometimes further than the nearest train station?), etc. Cars are inclusive of the most powerful demographic in America (middle-aged wealthy adults living the American Dream in the suburbs) but leave plenty of others behind.