6 ms·

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first

Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance. Where I’m from (Colorado) the idea of bike-first is something we roll our eyes at, and generally rightly assume that the loudest advocates live somewhere else, don’t have families, and only go back and forth to work. That’s really not the whole country, no matter how much a minority of SV’ers want it to be. Parts of the country are really spread out, parts are brutally cold, windy, and rainy, and yes some parts are lovely and sunny and packed to the gills. The problem is that evangelists for Bike Jesus never seem to accept that, and there’s always one or two who claim to live in Antarctica with a family of 6, and all while only riding a bike.

amalcon 8y ago
I've always thought cities with a snowy season would be great candidates for bike lanes. Bicycling drops dramatically in the winter, so the bike lanes sit mostly unused. This makes them a good place to deposit excess snow.
- selectodude 8y ago
  That’s essentially how it works in Chicago.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    That doesn't seem to be the case on major bike lake they get used year round
- zachwood 8y ago
  Ever consider that cycling drops because the bike lanes are where snow is either not cleared, or is used to deposit snow from auto lanes?
  - amalcon 8y ago
    It still drops if snow is cleared, or if the bike lane doesn't exist in the first place. Freezing temperatures and 4PM twilight will do that.
runarberg 8y ago
Cars do just fine in snowy places. I don’t see a reason why bikes shouldn’t. Just throw in the same effort that you do to keep car lanes open, and you’ll be fine. You can even put on pegged tires if the bikelanes tend to stay icy (like they do in Reykjavík), however be prepared to spend like 5x the effort when riding on pegged tires.
- analog31 8y ago
  Studded tires aren't all that bad. Mine go on in December, and just came off last week. My normally 20 minute commute takes about 30 minutes during the winter, and I suspect it's not just the tires, but also the cold air and heavy clothing. I also spend a few more minutes gearing up before leaving the house.
- ip26 8y ago
  I bike all winter and even I'll admit two wheel vehicles are not as stable on ice & slush as three or more.
  - ken 8y ago
    But it's easier to change to winter tires, and you never have to scrape the windows. There's pros and cons to both. I've done many cold winters with a bicycle, and with a car, and there's no clear winner. For me it comes down to how far I'm going, what I need to carry with me, the quality of the roads and drivers, whether there's a bus route, and availability of bicycle storage versus car parking. I've never found traction to be a serious issue. If it's bad enough to avoid the bike, it's bad enough to avoid the car, too, and I'll walk or take the (chained) bus.
  - frabbit 8y ago
    I too bike all winter (on 4.6" studded tires), but I am not worried about falling: it is falling and having some dolt who cannot stop run over me that worries me. Still, the feeling of well-being that comes from moderate exercise and the joy of seeing the world in another way makes up for it. Most drivers are smart enough and courteous enough that I would recommend it to anyone.
- 8y ago
ikawe 8y ago
Minneapolis is consistenly ranked one of the most bikeable cities in the states. Denver winters got nothing on them. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/these-are-the-most-bikeable-cities-in-america https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/these-are-the-most-bikeable...
- analog31 8y ago
  Madison WI is also a great city for getting around by bike. Things have improved a lot since I moved here a couple decades ago. The winter does deter people, simply as evidenced by seeing fewer fellow cyclists during my commute. One nice perk is that the city clears the bike paths quite promptly.
SECProto 8y ago
> Parts of the country are really spread out, parts are brutally cold, windy, and rainy, and yes some parts are lovely and sunny and packed to the gills. Strongly agree on the spread out part, though that is (in part) a symptom of widely used planning doctrine in North America (parking minimums, maximum lot coverage, and very wide minimum lane widths). Cold, wind, and rain are all issues, but they can be overcome (and have been in some jurisdictions) - not for everyone, but if a few percentage do it it's better for everyone. Most cycling activism I see focuses as much on advantages for drivers as anything. The North American population has been urbanizing at a high rate - for a few decades, that was accommodated with suburbs and car based transportation. Many cities are now at the point where key corridors are congested for hours morning and evening (and expanding these corridors, at great cost, would only buy a few years or a decade of congestion relief). Cycling (and transit) are both low capital cost methods to relieve congestion - get an extra 5% commuting by bike and another 10% going by bus, and you have a lot of growth room available for cars. But both these need density to be reasonable: if you have density to begin with (European and Asian cities), mass transit and cycling are obvious/sensible responses. If you're starting with a low density area, it takes incentives to get past some inflection point of density. (Or stop growing, but not many cities are doing that, and none willingly) > The problem is that evangelists for Bike Jesus never seem to accept that, and there’s always one or two who claim to live in Antarctica with a family of 6, and all while only riding a bike. Flamebaiting exaggerations like this really do no one any good, and are against the intention of this website. Check out the comment guidelines. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
screye 8y ago
> Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance I would say the opposite. Apart from the weather (which is a big part, but still), they are perfectly poised for biking. North eastern cities dense, relatively flat and have no way of building more roads or accommodating new cars / parking spaces. Cycles also work very well in tandem with public transport ( when allowed on it). On the other hand, I think SF and SV are not suited for bikes at all. Apart from last mile connectivity, everyone is still dependent on cars for every other task.
- samcheng 8y ago
  SF/SV are actually incredibly well-suited for biking. Beyond the weather, Caltrain is unusually bike-friendly rail, with ~100 bike racks per train (on multiple special bike cars per train). Palo Alto boasts an 87 'bike score' (higher than Minneapolis or Portland) and a network of bike boulevards that discourage through car traffic. San Francisco is investing heavily in rearranging streets for protected bike lanes, and there are plenty of SF city dwellers without cars.
jdietrich 8y ago
The EU country with the highest rate of cycling is The Netherlands, followed by Denmark and Finland. The EU country with the lowest rate of cycling is Malta, followed by Cyprus and Spain. Finland is sparsely populated and almost entirely subarctic. Malta and Cyprus are tiny islands with year-round sunshine. You might think that bad weather and low population density are insurmountable obstacles to the widespread adoption of cycling, but you'd be objectively wrong. The key factor isn't climate or density or hills or infrastructure, it's culture. https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-levels-in-european-countries https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-le...
- gotocake 8y ago
  Well Cyprus is hot and muggy as hell in the summer, I wonder if that’s a factor? Malta is lovely and sunny, hot in the summer, and has torrential rains in fall. It’s famously hot and dry in summer, and when the rains do come they’re so brutal they tend to wash out to sea... it’s a real problem. So maybe it’s culture, or maybe it’s easy to dismiss something as “cultural” when we don’t actually understand the practical reasons on the ground. Let’s look at the other end of the scale, Denmark. Average summer day is 68F, which is terrific for a bike ride. The average winter high is 32F, which is freezing, but not terrible. Denmark’s wettest month is June with an average of 80mm of rain, contrasted with Malta which has three drenching month’s averaging between 97mm and 108mm.

amalcon 8y ago

I've always thought cities with a snowy season would be great candidates for bike lanes. Bicycling drops dramatically in the winter, so the bike lanes sit mostly unused. This makes them a good place to deposit excess snow.

selectodude 8y ago
That’s essentially how it works in Chicago.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  That doesn't seem to be the case on major bike lake they get used year round
zachwood 8y ago
Ever consider that cycling drops because the bike lanes are where snow is either not cleared, or is used to deposit snow from auto lanes?
- amalcon 8y ago
  It still drops if snow is cleared, or if the bike lane doesn't exist in the first place. Freezing temperatures and 4PM twilight will do that.

runarberg 8y ago

Cars do just fine in snowy places. I don’t see a reason why bikes shouldn’t. Just throw in the same effort that you do to keep car lanes open, and you’ll be fine. You can even put on pegged tires if the bikelanes tend to stay icy (like they do in Reykjavík), however be prepared to spend like 5x the effort when riding on pegged tires.

analog31 8y ago
Studded tires aren't all that bad. Mine go on in December, and just came off last week. My normally 20 minute commute takes about 30 minutes during the winter, and I suspect it's not just the tires, but also the cold air and heavy clothing. I also spend a few more minutes gearing up before leaving the house.
ip26 8y ago
I bike all winter and even I'll admit two wheel vehicles are not as stable on ice & slush as three or more.
- ken 8y ago
  But it's easier to change to winter tires, and you never have to scrape the windows. There's pros and cons to both. I've done many cold winters with a bicycle, and with a car, and there's no clear winner. For me it comes down to how far I'm going, what I need to carry with me, the quality of the roads and drivers, whether there's a bus route, and availability of bicycle storage versus car parking. I've never found traction to be a serious issue. If it's bad enough to avoid the bike, it's bad enough to avoid the car, too, and I'll walk or take the (chained) bus.
- frabbit 8y ago
  I too bike all winter (on 4.6" studded tires), but I am not worried about falling: it is falling and having some dolt who cannot stop run over me that worries me. Still, the feeling of well-being that comes from moderate exercise and the joy of seeing the world in another way makes up for it. Most drivers are smart enough and courteous enough that I would recommend it to anyone.
8y ago

ikawe 8y ago

Minneapolis is consistenly ranked one of the most bikeable cities in the states. Denver winters got nothing on them. https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/these-are-the-most-bikeable-cities-in-america https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/these-are-the-most-bikeable...

analog31 8y ago
Madison WI is also a great city for getting around by bike. Things have improved a lot since I moved here a couple decades ago. The winter does deter people, simply as evidenced by seeing fewer fellow cyclists during my commute. One nice perk is that the city clears the bike paths quite promptly.

SECProto 8y ago

> Parts of the country are really spread out, parts are brutally cold, windy, and rainy, and yes some parts are lovely and sunny and packed to the gills. Strongly agree on the spread out part, though that is (in part) a symptom of widely used planning doctrine in North America (parking minimums, maximum lot coverage, and very wide minimum lane widths). Cold, wind, and rain are all issues, but they can be overcome (and have been in some jurisdictions) - not for everyone, but if a few percentage do it it's better for everyone. Most cycling activism I see focuses as much on advantages for drivers as anything. The North American population has been urbanizing at a high rate - for a few decades, that was accommodated with suburbs and car based transportation. Many cities are now at the point where key corridors are congested for hours morning and evening (and expanding these corridors, at great cost, would only buy a few years or a decade of congestion relief). Cycling (and transit) are both low capital cost methods to relieve congestion - get an extra 5% commuting by bike and another 10% going by bus, and you have a lot of growth room available for cars. But both these need density to be reasonable: if you have density to begin with (European and Asian cities), mass transit and cycling are obvious/sensible responses. If you're starting with a low density area, it takes incentives to get past some inflection point of density. (Or stop growing, but not many cities are doing that, and none willingly) > The problem is that evangelists for Bike Jesus never seem to accept that, and there’s always one or two who claim to live in Antarctica with a family of 6, and all while only riding a bike. Flamebaiting exaggerations like this really do no one any good, and are against the intention of this website. Check out the comment guidelines. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

screye 8y ago

> Of course places such as the Northeast (USA) are also the worst candidates for the SF dream of bike dominance I would say the opposite. Apart from the weather (which is a big part, but still), they are perfectly poised for biking. North eastern cities dense, relatively flat and have no way of building more roads or accommodating new cars / parking spaces. Cycles also work very well in tandem with public transport ( when allowed on it). On the other hand, I think SF and SV are not suited for bikes at all. Apart from last mile connectivity, everyone is still dependent on cars for every other task.

samcheng 8y ago
SF/SV are actually incredibly well-suited for biking. Beyond the weather, Caltrain is unusually bike-friendly rail, with ~100 bike racks per train (on multiple special bike cars per train). Palo Alto boasts an 87 'bike score' (higher than Minneapolis or Portland) and a network of bike boulevards that discourage through car traffic. San Francisco is investing heavily in rearranging streets for protected bike lanes, and there are plenty of SF city dwellers without cars.

jdietrich 8y ago

The EU country with the highest rate of cycling is The Netherlands, followed by Denmark and Finland. The EU country with the lowest rate of cycling is Malta, followed by Cyprus and Spain. Finland is sparsely populated and almost entirely subarctic. Malta and Cyprus are tiny islands with year-round sunshine. You might think that bad weather and low population density are insurmountable obstacles to the widespread adoption of cycling, but you'd be objectively wrong. The key factor isn't climate or density or hills or infrastructure, it's culture. https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-levels-in-european-countries https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/campaigns-guide/cycling-le...

gotocake 8y ago
Well Cyprus is hot and muggy as hell in the summer, I wonder if that’s a factor? Malta is lovely and sunny, hot in the summer, and has torrential rains in fall. It’s famously hot and dry in summer, and when the rains do come they’re so brutal they tend to wash out to sea... it’s a real problem. So maybe it’s culture, or maybe it’s easy to dismiss something as “cultural” when we don’t actually understand the practical reasons on the ground. Let’s look at the other end of the scale, Denmark. Average summer day is 68F, which is terrific for a bike ride. The average winter high is 32F, which is freezing, but not terrible. Denmark’s wettest month is June with an average of 80mm of rain, contrasted with Malta which has three drenching month’s averaging between 97mm and 108mm.