9 ms·

human powered transport like walking or cycling works great in dense cities, it's more space efficient so it scales better too.

wowzap 8y ago
Is there actually proof that it "works great"? Asking for myself every time I try to cross the street in downtown Manhattan and have to look for a cyclist on the sidewalk, going against traffic, blowing through a red light, or fighting with another cyclist.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  A city that was never designed for bikes is hell for bikes, so you end up with only the most reckless bikers on the road. I commute with a bike every day in Paris, France. The infrastructure isn't great but it's OK, and it's improving. The thing is: I'm a big, strong guy who can legally outrun most cars and motorbikes in such a big, dense city. I can fight my way in traffic, mostly because the law authorizes bikes to go both ways in most streets, to run red lights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop, to ride between traffic lanes, etc. Most people are terrified to ride here so you only have the most reckless persons on bikes, including me. Although I'm respect the law (which does not make riding safe because no one wants to be anywhere near a big bus/truck, or between vehicles, or stuck in a diesel tailpipe…), I end up riding dangerously making people think that biking is only for reckless guys. The worst is that, the more I respect the law, the more drivers get angry at me for taking to much space or slowing traffic down. So you move as quick and close as possible to vehicles and pedestrians. That's absurd but that how it is. It's an infrastructure problem. The more you give space to bikes, the more reckless bikers can finally ride prudently, or prudent people dare to ride (making reckless bikers a tiny minority). It's the same with cars: what would happen if the infrastructure made car driving dangerous? You would only have road hogs and people would just hate cars.
  - justinator 8y ago
    I think I rode a taxi in Paris once or twice, but never a private car - and none of our friends had private cars, either. I assumed parking was a nightmare, and expensive. The narrow medieval roads didn't help, either. Many of the streets around our apartment were closed to cars (at least on Sunday). Being a cyclist, I thought I found a slice of heaven. I thought about being an urban planner when I got back to the States.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
      >I assumed parking was a nightmare, and expensive. I've been a car driver and a cyclist there for ~10 years now. Believe me, being the former is much easier than the latter. If you're on a bike, many assume you're just having a good time (either on vacation or unemployed, as many people says) so the politicians/police/media won't care about your well being and focus instead of the transportation means of "serious people", i.e cars and motorbikes. It's insulting, because I do have a car (and a parking spot) but everything pushes me to drive it instead of riding my vélo (which makes no noise, does not emit anything, takes very little space, doesn't damage the road, is far less dangerous to others, makes me fit and save health insurance costs...). Go figure.
  - stupidcar 8y ago
    I definitely agree about the last part. I live in London, don’t drive, and cycling would definitely be preferable to relying entirely on the Tube and taxis. But when I see the hell cyclists here have to contend with, and how aggressive they need to be, I know there’s no way I am a skilled or confident enough rider to do the same. But if the infrastructure and vehicle congestion ever improved to the point where cyclists were adequately protected, I would definitely start cycling.
    - Reason077 8y ago
      Compared to many cities, London is actually pretty good for cycling now days, at least in central areas. We’re no Amsterdam, but there are some high-quality dedicated cycling routes and plenty of quiet side streets to use. Traffic speeds are relatively low and the vast majority of drivers are considerate and cycle-aware (occasional white-van idiots aside...)
twelvechairs 8y ago
Plus it provides health benefits! Its not for everyone in every big city but certainly the Dutch model of transitioning cities from cars to transit and pedestrian/cycle focus is probably the clearest model for sustainable and healthy tansport out there.
- medoed 8y ago
  I live in the Netherlands and I can confirm that. In just a couple of decades they transformed all their car friendly cities and made cars second rate citizens Cycling infrastructure is amazing. It is almost always faster to travel by bike than by car. They did it so long ago and the world still hasn’t caught up. I’m very sad about that. Also somehow the amount of cars per capita is still very high in NL.
  - SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
    How big of a problem is bike theft in the Netherlands? I live in the UK and I probably wouldn't consider getting a bike again, simply because I know it would be nicked within a month.
    - rixed 8y ago
      Not so bigi would say. Lived ~3 years in Amsterdam with an average bike always loosely locked in the street and it has never been stolen. But to be honest, poverty in NL is also a problem that's been managed quite well ; which does not mean there is no crime (I've had 3 burglary attempts) but maybe crimes that paya bit more than stealing average bikes in the street.
    - medoed 8y ago
      Pretty common in big cities. That's why everyone in Amsterdam rides cheap old omafietsen ("granny bikes") with huge locks that often cost more than the bike itself. I personally had 4 bikes stolen in 5 years.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    > Also somehow the amount of cars per capita is still very high in NL. That's OK. We can keep up the consumerist "Everybody needs a car" mentality as long as the amount of driving per capita stays low.
rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
Oh yes. As a Parisian and a big supporter of the electrification of all terrestrial transportation, I want as few EVs as city as possible. Cars simply don't make sense in dense cities (bikes do).
- justinator 8y ago
  I lived in Paris for a spell, and one of the great things about the city is that it is so bike-able. It's not a large place! And it's dense. Lots of traffic, but the French seem to understand that bikes belong. We almost never used the Métro, what was the point? Saved money and no one ever stole my wallet!
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    I take my vélo at least twice a day (to commute) and I still find it far more distressing than taking the bus/métro. No wonder why so few people rides bikes, expect on the week-ends: with all the big petrol cars and aggresive motorbikes, it is still pretty dangerous to ride and not (yet) agreeable. But things are improving so I'm optimist and resigned.
trhway 8y ago
cycling isn't space efficient and doesn't really scales that good. It is a luxury ttransportation mode for low/mid density US cities not capable/not willing to build true mass transit modes. Look at the packed subway in say Moscow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCZKXHsZo68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCZKXHsZo68) and compare to the best possible bicycle situation - mid-80s China http://www.theurbancountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/83.jpg http://www.theurbancountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/83... - around 10 times density difference :) Take that photo, cut 1/5th in height (2-3 abreast) and put large distance between very enthusiastic riders (incl. speeding electrics) - such modern bike lane shows very low efficiency of space utilization/bandwidth and very insufficient capacity to move any significant number of commuting bodies.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Cycling is at least four times the space efficiency of cars, unless all the cars are Smart Fourtwo or equivalent. And that’s when parked, the multiplier goes up with speed. Additionally, low density US cities are one of the worst places I’ve seen for cycling, because not only is everything spread out, but also the multi-lane roads everywhere make it much more dangerous than equivalently populated towns and cities in Europe. Despite having cycled through central London (UK) and just over 1,000 km along the Rhine, there’s no way you’d see me cycling around Salt Lake City or Sacramento. I’ve cycled around Davis (CA), but Davis has better than US average cycling infrastructure — almost as good as the average level in the UK.
  - rienbdj 8y ago
    wow, I was using London as an example of how NOT to do cycle infrastructure.
    - Reason077 8y ago
      London is getting there, slowly! There are some excellent examples of well-designed, well-used cycle infrastructure such as the new(ish) Cycle Superhighway along the Thames Embankment. This will hopefully serve as a model for future infrastructure. In general, traffic speeds are low in London and there are lots of quiet side routes that are well suited to cycling. We’re no Amsterdam, but cycling is certainly much more popular and visible than it was 5-10 years ago.
astrostl 8y ago
Related to the OP, I anecdotally have an acquaintance that is a bike messenger in the UK, who second-hand anecdotally reports that everyone who does it is an ostensible model of fitness until they 1) get hit by a car or 2) die at 50 of lung disease. There's a chicken/egg thing with regard to non-vehicle transport in that you're more directly exposed to exhaust, and aspirating it more quickly because of exercise. Which exacerbates the negative impact of pollution, which puts you back in a vehicle, which increases pollution :-/

wowzap 8y ago

Is there actually proof that it "works great"? Asking for myself every time I try to cross the street in downtown Manhattan and have to look for a cyclist on the sidewalk, going against traffic, blowing through a red light, or fighting with another cyclist.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
A city that was never designed for bikes is hell for bikes, so you end up with only the most reckless bikers on the road. I commute with a bike every day in Paris, France. The infrastructure isn't great but it's OK, and it's improving. The thing is: I'm a big, strong guy who can legally outrun most cars and motorbikes in such a big, dense city. I can fight my way in traffic, mostly because the law authorizes bikes to go both ways in most streets, to run red lights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop, to ride between traffic lanes, etc. Most people are terrified to ride here so you only have the most reckless persons on bikes, including me. Although I'm respect the law (which does not make riding safe because no one wants to be anywhere near a big bus/truck, or between vehicles, or stuck in a diesel tailpipe…), I end up riding dangerously making people think that biking is only for reckless guys. The worst is that, the more I respect the law, the more drivers get angry at me for taking to much space or slowing traffic down. So you move as quick and close as possible to vehicles and pedestrians. That's absurd but that how it is. It's an infrastructure problem. The more you give space to bikes, the more reckless bikers can finally ride prudently, or prudent people dare to ride (making reckless bikers a tiny minority). It's the same with cars: what would happen if the infrastructure made car driving dangerous? You would only have road hogs and people would just hate cars.
- justinator 8y ago
  I think I rode a taxi in Paris once or twice, but never a private car - and none of our friends had private cars, either. I assumed parking was a nightmare, and expensive. The narrow medieval roads didn't help, either. Many of the streets around our apartment were closed to cars (at least on Sunday). Being a cyclist, I thought I found a slice of heaven. I thought about being an urban planner when I got back to the States.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
    >I assumed parking was a nightmare, and expensive. I've been a car driver and a cyclist there for ~10 years now. Believe me, being the former is much easier than the latter. If you're on a bike, many assume you're just having a good time (either on vacation or unemployed, as many people says) so the politicians/police/media won't care about your well being and focus instead of the transportation means of "serious people", i.e cars and motorbikes. It's insulting, because I do have a car (and a parking spot) but everything pushes me to drive it instead of riding my vélo (which makes no noise, does not emit anything, takes very little space, doesn't damage the road, is far less dangerous to others, makes me fit and save health insurance costs...). Go figure.
- stupidcar 8y ago
  I definitely agree about the last part. I live in London, don’t drive, and cycling would definitely be preferable to relying entirely on the Tube and taxis. But when I see the hell cyclists here have to contend with, and how aggressive they need to be, I know there’s no way I am a skilled or confident enough rider to do the same. But if the infrastructure and vehicle congestion ever improved to the point where cyclists were adequately protected, I would definitely start cycling.
  - Reason077 8y ago
    Compared to many cities, London is actually pretty good for cycling now days, at least in central areas. We’re no Amsterdam, but there are some high-quality dedicated cycling routes and plenty of quiet side streets to use. Traffic speeds are relatively low and the vast majority of drivers are considerate and cycle-aware (occasional white-van idiots aside...)

twelvechairs 8y ago

Plus it provides health benefits! Its not for everyone in every big city but certainly the Dutch model of transitioning cities from cars to transit and pedestrian/cycle focus is probably the clearest model for sustainable and healthy tansport out there.

medoed 8y ago
I live in the Netherlands and I can confirm that. In just a couple of decades they transformed all their car friendly cities and made cars second rate citizens Cycling infrastructure is amazing. It is almost always faster to travel by bike than by car. They did it so long ago and the world still hasn’t caught up. I’m very sad about that. Also somehow the amount of cars per capita is still very high in NL.
- SuddsMcDuff 8y ago
  How big of a problem is bike theft in the Netherlands? I live in the UK and I probably wouldn't consider getting a bike again, simply because I know it would be nicked within a month.
  - rixed 8y ago
    Not so bigi would say. Lived ~3 years in Amsterdam with an average bike always loosely locked in the street and it has never been stolen. But to be honest, poverty in NL is also a problem that's been managed quite well ; which does not mean there is no crime (I've had 3 burglary attempts) but maybe crimes that paya bit more than stealing average bikes in the street.
  - medoed 8y ago
    Pretty common in big cities. That's why everyone in Amsterdam rides cheap old omafietsen ("granny bikes") with huge locks that often cost more than the bike itself. I personally had 4 bikes stolen in 5 years.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  > Also somehow the amount of cars per capita is still very high in NL. That's OK. We can keep up the consumerist "Everybody needs a car" mentality as long as the amount of driving per capita stays low.

rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago

Oh yes. As a Parisian and a big supporter of the electrification of all terrestrial transportation, I want as few EVs as city as possible. Cars simply don't make sense in dense cities (bikes do).

justinator 8y ago
I lived in Paris for a spell, and one of the great things about the city is that it is so bike-able. It's not a large place! And it's dense. Lots of traffic, but the French seem to understand that bikes belong. We almost never used the Métro, what was the point? Saved money and no one ever stole my wallet!
- rcMgD2BwE72F 8y ago
  I take my vélo at least twice a day (to commute) and I still find it far more distressing than taking the bus/métro. No wonder why so few people rides bikes, expect on the week-ends: with all the big petrol cars and aggresive motorbikes, it is still pretty dangerous to ride and not (yet) agreeable. But things are improving so I'm optimist and resigned.

trhway 8y ago

cycling isn't space efficient and doesn't really scales that good. It is a luxury ttransportation mode for low/mid density US cities not capable/not willing to build true mass transit modes. Look at the packed subway in say Moscow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCZKXHsZo68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCZKXHsZo68) and compare to the best possible bicycle situation - mid-80s China http://www.theurbancountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/83.jpg http://www.theurbancountry.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/83... - around 10 times density difference :) Take that photo, cut 1/5th in height (2-3 abreast) and put large distance between very enthusiastic riders (incl. speeding electrics) - such modern bike lane shows very low efficiency of space utilization/bandwidth and very insufficient capacity to move any significant number of commuting bodies.

ben_w 8y ago
Cycling is at least four times the space efficiency of cars, unless all the cars are Smart Fourtwo or equivalent. And that’s when parked, the multiplier goes up with speed. Additionally, low density US cities are one of the worst places I’ve seen for cycling, because not only is everything spread out, but also the multi-lane roads everywhere make it much more dangerous than equivalently populated towns and cities in Europe. Despite having cycled through central London (UK) and just over 1,000 km along the Rhine, there’s no way you’d see me cycling around Salt Lake City or Sacramento. I’ve cycled around Davis (CA), but Davis has better than US average cycling infrastructure — almost as good as the average level in the UK.
- rienbdj 8y ago
  wow, I was using London as an example of how NOT to do cycle infrastructure.
  - Reason077 8y ago
    London is getting there, slowly! There are some excellent examples of well-designed, well-used cycle infrastructure such as the new(ish) Cycle Superhighway along the Thames Embankment. This will hopefully serve as a model for future infrastructure. In general, traffic speeds are low in London and there are lots of quiet side routes that are well suited to cycling. We’re no Amsterdam, but cycling is certainly much more popular and visible than it was 5-10 years ago.

astrostl 8y ago

Related to the OP, I anecdotally have an acquaintance that is a bike messenger in the UK, who second-hand anecdotally reports that everyone who does it is an ostensible model of fitness until they 1) get hit by a car or 2) die at 50 of lung disease. There's a chicken/egg thing with regard to non-vehicle transport in that you're more directly exposed to exhaust, and aspirating it more quickly because of exercise. Which exacerbates the negative impact of pollution, which puts you back in a vehicle, which increases pollution :-/