8 ms·

The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. In places where cycling dominates people only ride as fast as a quick jogger (10 mph is a 6 minute

The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. In places where cycling dominates people only ride as fast as a quick jogger (10 mph is a 6 minute mile). The correct model for cycling isn’t space on the road, it’s an extra sidewalk with an accommodating turning radius. This is what you actually see in The Netherlands. People think of public spaces as roads and as roads as places for cars to drive and park, so they get hung up on “sharing the road,” but really the thing to do is shrinking the road and enhancing places for people.

linuxftw 8y ago
Yes, this makes sense. Nobody is arguing to ride a bike 17 inches from a train (and the train can't swerve into you!), why would you want to do it with cars? Separate places for bikes and people make the most sense.
CydeWeys 8y ago
I was just in Amsterdam this past autumn. It was awesome how most streets have bike lanes that are at-grade with the sidewalk instead of at-grade with the street, and that everyone respects as being for cyclists and does not block. You're underestimating some of the speeds involved though. People will bike at speeds that feel safe to them. There's bike lanes there that are long, straight, and that have people going much faster on them than anyone can run. Amsterdam is full of life-long cyclists; some of them go pretty fast when it's safe to do so. It was quite impressive seeing some of the people on the city-style bikes hauling ass, especially when they didn't look like you'd expect them to. I do that here in NYC too; no sense in making my commute take any longer than necessary. Although I'm generally on a road bike when doing so, not a city bike!
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. It's way faster for me to cycle to the supermarket, the gym and the kids daycare compared to driving. It beats being lazy in a car and I'm very thankful that the infrastructure here in NL supports it.
  - antisthenes 8y ago
    > I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. This makes no sense. You can pedal an electric bike at least as fast if not faster than a regular bike. Some e-bikes are speed limited to cut out the assist at a certain speed, but it doesn't mean it also removes your ability to pedal hard and achieve the same speed.
    - snazz 8y ago
      You could, but most e-bikers choose not to go too fast. Additionally, they often have thicker tires and enourage poor aerodynamic body positions which mean that they decelerate faster.
      - radicalbyte 8y ago
        Most are either 60+ or are leisure cyclists. So they just doodle along at their 25km/h. Proper road racing enthusiasts can average 35km/h including stops (the joys of a flat country).
    - unilynx 8y ago
      They generally reduce their assist and completely cut out at 28 to 30km/hour, so to actually cycle 30km/hour takes as much effort as it would on a normal bicycle. Most Dutch cycle at about 25km/hour (whether or not electric) - those cyclists that easily do 30 on normal city bikes are probably the last generation that will switch to e-bikes.
    - CydeWeys 8y ago
      The electric assist on e-Citibikes here in NYC diminishes with speed and cuts out completely at around 15 mph. Above that speed they're just a heavier normal Citibike. I know because I've enjoyed pushing these things to their limits. There are many different types of e-bikes, and you're probably thinking of what are effective electric mopeds, with big batteries and engines and a throttle control. Those certainly go very fast. They're also not legal in many places, including here in NYC, and aren't necessarily what people mean when they're talking about e-bikes; that's usually referring to pedal-assist.
prolepunk 8y ago
Mixing cyclists and pedestrians causes a whole set of different problems (and injuries). Some people ride slow, and some ride fast, and it's facetious to conclude that average biking speed is slow. Also as a jogger, I wouldn't every try running on a busy sidewalk somewhere downtown, but I will need to bike home in rush hour.
- asdff 8y ago
  Much easier to bike in rush hour as well. Lane splitting lets you beat traffic, and it's of course way easier to dodge a 5mph car in a lane versus a pedestrian wandering all over the sidewalk with zero situational awareness on their phone with headphones.
  - prolepunk 8y ago
    Nah, I find this to be is suicidal. Not to mention, that even when I get away with this kind of behaviour, the drivers stuck in traffic will be irritated by it and might not be as considerate to the next cyclist passing by. I'd rather stay on the right, if traffic is too bad I would get off the bicycle and walk the intersection until traffic clears.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Lane splitting at more than a walking speed is quite dangerous and illegal where I live.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - JohnFen 8y ago
      Yes, lane splitting is illegal where I live as well. And I think that's appropriate.
- u801e 8y ago
  > Mixing cyclists and pedestrians causes a whole set of different problems (and injuries). The other issue is that pedestrians do not typically follow traffic rules while walking. That is, they won't keep to one side of the path, they won't signal their intention to change direction in advance, etc. This makes it much more difficult to ride among them compared to riding in traffic where drivers do generally follow the rules.
hnaccy 8y ago
>The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. What does this mean? Why not slow motorcycles? Cycling at 10mph at all times would feel pretty slow.
zymhan 8y ago
You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. It is almost always the car drivers who don't want to sacrifice the single lane required to make a two way, protected bike lane. Case in point, Peachtree St in Atlanta ~3 years ago. https://www.ajc.com/news/traffic/bike-lane-plan-for-peachtree-road-hits-dead-end/vPZiz5EQrgdwDpcuyTK4cK/ https://www.ajc.com/news/traffic/bike-lane-plan-for-peachtre... https://www.ajc.com/news/local/bike-lanes-peachtree-road-for-the-percent-wheels/SqL6Q0veuNzA7JlCPTSL2H/ https://www.ajc.com/news/local/bike-lanes-peachtree-road-for...
- btrettel 8y ago
  > You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. "Vehicular cyclists" are opposed to bike lanes and are not uncommon. See elsewhere in this thread for discussion of them. I consider myself roughly 1/2 vehicular, 1/2 infrastructural. Both camps have good points.
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    I've seen vehicular cyclists have good points in theory, but in practice their results seem to be awful. Are there places practicing 'vehicular cycling' that have high rates of cycling and good levels of safety? Infrastructural cyclists can point to the obvious success in the Netherlands and some other bike-friendly cities/countries, at least.
    - btrettel 8y ago
      > but in practice their results seem to be awful Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion? I don't think there are rigorous scientific studies into vehicular or infrastructural cycling. If the infrastructural approach is more popular it's probably because many people seem to accept the infrastructural arguments uncritically. The vehicular camp makes excellent points that I believe have greatly improved my own safety. One point that vehicular cyclists make is that many people seem to assume that certain practices are safer, but reality is more complicated. For example, riding on the sidewalk is generally considered to be considerably less safe than riding on the road, even by many infrastructural cyclists. But it seems that most people assume that it's more safe. As a point in favor of vehicular cycling, it seems to me that vehicular cyclists are indeed safer riders than infrastructural. Some might say this is due to experience, but that seems to be a lot of what vehicular cycling is about so I'm not sure that's an argument against vehicular cycling. Also, I don't think vehicular cyclists are very interested in increasing the number of cyclists. I think there are major benefits to increasing the number of cyclists, and I think the "safety in numbers" effect is the biggest benefit to an infrastructural approach. In terms of policy, it's a lot easier to build some infrastructure than it is to train drivers and cyclists. So any apparent success of the infrastructure approach may be due solely to that. Also, as I've pointed out on HN here before, not all infrastructure is the same. Most that I see in the US is awful and I would not be surprised if they made cyclists less safe. It seems that infrastructure in some European cities fixes the problems I have. Ultimately I think both the infrastructural and vehicular camps have good points, and the best policy is a hybrid of the two.
justinator 8y ago
This is what you actually see in The Netherlands. Huh? In the city center, speeds are greatly reduced for cars and bikes, but getting between metropolitan areas, both speeds can climb. You do know there's a whole bike highway system in the Netherlands, right? I think the, "bikes as fast pedestrians" model is a bit outdated. I don't want to be seen as a very fast person on foot, while on my bike. I can hit 30+mph in a sprint, and go many hundreds of miles in a week.
- gatherhunterer 8y ago
  I think the comparison was about personal safety in the event of a collision, not a slight at your cycling ability.
  - tomjakubowski 8y ago
    A cyclist, particularly on a heavy bike, going even 10-15 mph is pretty dangerous for an unaware pedestrian. When people collide on foot at walking pace, it's not too bad.
asdff 8y ago
I think average is closer to 12mph, at least according to google maps. I definitely could haul ass and go nearly twice that fast, but when I'm riding to go someplace and not to burn calories, the last thing I want to do is ride at a pace that's going to make me sweaty.
rconti 8y ago
and it's so much less ugly than these protective barriers
u801e 8y ago
> The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. My commute while I take the kids to the daycare in a trailer takes me about 20 minutes one way. My ride to work takes me another 6 minutes. If I walked the same route, it would take me over an hour to get to daycare and another 30 minutes to get to work from there. Bicyclists are not fast pedestrians. They're riding on vehicles that have similar dynamics to any other 2 wheeled vehicle like a moped or motorcycle. The only difference is that they're slower, but when going downhill, they can easily match motorized traffic speeds with little effort (I've managed to get up to 35 mph going down some steep grades). Infrastructure designed for pedestrian speeds is not really suited for cyclists who ride for transportation.
mjevans 8y ago
How about elevating those public spaces up two floors and leaving all of the level beneath to motorized transport (preferably electric only)? The safest engineering solution is to separate heavy motorized vehicles from human scale things.
- novok 8y ago
  Cars crashing into supporting pillars might create a disaster for the people above. And it's also a lot more expensive.
  - mjevans 8y ago
    Crashes in to and over 'barriers' can already happen. If you want to provide safety against that you really should have pedestrian only paths. The way to get THAT inside of major cities involves lots of adapter IO at the edge of the city, and a much more (Azimov's) Cave of Steel like transit infrastructure inside.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
asavadatti 8y ago
It's not though. 10mph is on the slow side for a bike. Also a 6 minute mile is an accomplishment not a quick jog.
JohnFen 8y ago
Interesting. In my town, it's illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk. And on a straightaway, most bikes are going substantially faster than people can walk. I just checked my bike computer, and it tells me that my average speed is around 10 MPH, which means that roughly half the time I'm going faster than that.

linuxftw 8y ago

Yes, this makes sense. Nobody is arguing to ride a bike 17 inches from a train (and the train can't swerve into you!), why would you want to do it with cars? Separate places for bikes and people make the most sense.

CydeWeys 8y ago

I was just in Amsterdam this past autumn. It was awesome how most streets have bike lanes that are at-grade with the sidewalk instead of at-grade with the street, and that everyone respects as being for cyclists and does not block. You're underestimating some of the speeds involved though. People will bike at speeds that feel safe to them. There's bike lanes there that are long, straight, and that have people going much faster on them than anyone can run. Amsterdam is full of life-long cyclists; some of them go pretty fast when it's safe to do so. It was quite impressive seeing some of the people on the city-style bikes hauling ass, especially when they didn't look like you'd expect them to. I do that here in NYC too; no sense in making my commute take any longer than necessary. Although I'm generally on a road bike when doing so, not a city bike!

radicalbyte 8y ago
I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. It's way faster for me to cycle to the supermarket, the gym and the kids daycare compared to driving. It beats being lazy in a car and I'm very thankful that the infrastructure here in NL supports it.
- antisthenes 8y ago
  > I cycle somewhere between 20 and 35 km/hour; that's faster than scooters and most electric bikes. This makes no sense. You can pedal an electric bike at least as fast if not faster than a regular bike. Some e-bikes are speed limited to cut out the assist at a certain speed, but it doesn't mean it also removes your ability to pedal hard and achieve the same speed.
  - snazz 8y ago
    You could, but most e-bikers choose not to go too fast. Additionally, they often have thicker tires and enourage poor aerodynamic body positions which mean that they decelerate faster.
    - radicalbyte 8y ago
      Most are either 60+ or are leisure cyclists. So they just doodle along at their 25km/h. Proper road racing enthusiasts can average 35km/h including stops (the joys of a flat country).
  - unilynx 8y ago
    They generally reduce their assist and completely cut out at 28 to 30km/hour, so to actually cycle 30km/hour takes as much effort as it would on a normal bicycle. Most Dutch cycle at about 25km/hour (whether or not electric) - those cyclists that easily do 30 on normal city bikes are probably the last generation that will switch to e-bikes.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    The electric assist on e-Citibikes here in NYC diminishes with speed and cuts out completely at around 15 mph. Above that speed they're just a heavier normal Citibike. I know because I've enjoyed pushing these things to their limits. There are many different types of e-bikes, and you're probably thinking of what are effective electric mopeds, with big batteries and engines and a throttle control. Those certainly go very fast. They're also not legal in many places, including here in NYC, and aren't necessarily what people mean when they're talking about e-bikes; that's usually referring to pedal-assist.

prolepunk 8y ago

Mixing cyclists and pedestrians causes a whole set of different problems (and injuries). Some people ride slow, and some ride fast, and it's facetious to conclude that average biking speed is slow. Also as a jogger, I wouldn't every try running on a busy sidewalk somewhere downtown, but I will need to bike home in rush hour.

asdff 8y ago
Much easier to bike in rush hour as well. Lane splitting lets you beat traffic, and it's of course way easier to dodge a 5mph car in a lane versus a pedestrian wandering all over the sidewalk with zero situational awareness on their phone with headphones.
- prolepunk 8y ago
  Nah, I find this to be is suicidal. Not to mention, that even when I get away with this kind of behaviour, the drivers stuck in traffic will be irritated by it and might not be as considerate to the next cyclist passing by. I'd rather stay on the right, if traffic is too bad I would get off the bicycle and walk the intersection until traffic clears.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Lane splitting at more than a walking speed is quite dangerous and illegal where I live.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - JohnFen 8y ago
    Yes, lane splitting is illegal where I live as well. And I think that's appropriate.
u801e 8y ago
> Mixing cyclists and pedestrians causes a whole set of different problems (and injuries). The other issue is that pedestrians do not typically follow traffic rules while walking. That is, they won't keep to one side of the path, they won't signal their intention to change direction in advance, etc. This makes it much more difficult to ride among them compared to riding in traffic where drivers do generally follow the rules.

hnaccy 8y ago

>The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. What does this mean? Why not slow motorcycles? Cycling at 10mph at all times would feel pretty slow.

zymhan 8y ago

You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. It is almost always the car drivers who don't want to sacrifice the single lane required to make a two way, protected bike lane. Case in point, Peachtree St in Atlanta ~3 years ago. https://www.ajc.com/news/traffic/bike-lane-plan-for-peachtree-road-hits-dead-end/vPZiz5EQrgdwDpcuyTK4cK/ https://www.ajc.com/news/traffic/bike-lane-plan-for-peachtre... https://www.ajc.com/news/local/bike-lanes-peachtree-road-for-the-percent-wheels/SqL6Q0veuNzA7JlCPTSL2H/ https://www.ajc.com/news/local/bike-lanes-peachtree-road-for...

btrettel 8y ago
> You won't find a cyclist who opposes dedicated, protected lanes that are separate from roads and sidewalks. "Vehicular cyclists" are opposed to bike lanes and are not uncommon. See elsewhere in this thread for discussion of them. I consider myself roughly 1/2 vehicular, 1/2 infrastructural. Both camps have good points.
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  I've seen vehicular cyclists have good points in theory, but in practice their results seem to be awful. Are there places practicing 'vehicular cycling' that have high rates of cycling and good levels of safety? Infrastructural cyclists can point to the obvious success in the Netherlands and some other bike-friendly cities/countries, at least.
  - btrettel 8y ago
    > but in practice their results seem to be awful Do you have evidence for this or is it just an assertion? I don't think there are rigorous scientific studies into vehicular or infrastructural cycling. If the infrastructural approach is more popular it's probably because many people seem to accept the infrastructural arguments uncritically. The vehicular camp makes excellent points that I believe have greatly improved my own safety. One point that vehicular cyclists make is that many people seem to assume that certain practices are safer, but reality is more complicated. For example, riding on the sidewalk is generally considered to be considerably less safe than riding on the road, even by many infrastructural cyclists. But it seems that most people assume that it's more safe. As a point in favor of vehicular cycling, it seems to me that vehicular cyclists are indeed safer riders than infrastructural. Some might say this is due to experience, but that seems to be a lot of what vehicular cycling is about so I'm not sure that's an argument against vehicular cycling. Also, I don't think vehicular cyclists are very interested in increasing the number of cyclists. I think there are major benefits to increasing the number of cyclists, and I think the "safety in numbers" effect is the biggest benefit to an infrastructural approach. In terms of policy, it's a lot easier to build some infrastructure than it is to train drivers and cyclists. So any apparent success of the infrastructure approach may be due solely to that. Also, as I've pointed out on HN here before, not all infrastructure is the same. Most that I see in the US is awful and I would not be surprised if they made cyclists less safe. It seems that infrastructure in some European cities fixes the problems I have. Ultimately I think both the infrastructural and vehicular camps have good points, and the best policy is a hybrid of the two.

justinator 8y ago

This is what you actually see in The Netherlands. Huh? In the city center, speeds are greatly reduced for cars and bikes, but getting between metropolitan areas, both speeds can climb. You do know there's a whole bike highway system in the Netherlands, right? I think the, "bikes as fast pedestrians" model is a bit outdated. I don't want to be seen as a very fast person on foot, while on my bike. I can hit 30+mph in a sprint, and go many hundreds of miles in a week.

gatherhunterer 8y ago
I think the comparison was about personal safety in the event of a collision, not a slight at your cycling ability.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  A cyclist, particularly on a heavy bike, going even 10-15 mph is pretty dangerous for an unaware pedestrian. When people collide on foot at walking pace, it's not too bad.

asdff 8y ago

I think average is closer to 12mph, at least according to google maps. I definitely could haul ass and go nearly twice that fast, but when I'm riding to go someplace and not to burn calories, the last thing I want to do is ride at a pace that's going to make me sweaty.

rconti 8y ago

and it's so much less ugly than these protective barriers

u801e 8y ago

> The thing about cycling is that it’s basically fast walking. My commute while I take the kids to the daycare in a trailer takes me about 20 minutes one way. My ride to work takes me another 6 minutes. If I walked the same route, it would take me over an hour to get to daycare and another 30 minutes to get to work from there. Bicyclists are not fast pedestrians. They're riding on vehicles that have similar dynamics to any other 2 wheeled vehicle like a moped or motorcycle. The only difference is that they're slower, but when going downhill, they can easily match motorized traffic speeds with little effort (I've managed to get up to 35 mph going down some steep grades). Infrastructure designed for pedestrian speeds is not really suited for cyclists who ride for transportation.

mjevans 8y ago

How about elevating those public spaces up two floors and leaving all of the level beneath to motorized transport (preferably electric only)? The safest engineering solution is to separate heavy motorized vehicles from human scale things.

novok 8y ago
Cars crashing into supporting pillars might create a disaster for the people above. And it's also a lot more expensive.
- mjevans 8y ago
  Crashes in to and over 'barriers' can already happen. If you want to provide safety against that you really should have pedestrian only paths. The way to get THAT inside of major cities involves lots of adapter IO at the edge of the city, and a much more (Azimov's) Cave of Steel like transit infrastructure inside.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

asavadatti 8y ago

It's not though. 10mph is on the slow side for a bike. Also a 6 minute mile is an accomplishment not a quick jog.

JohnFen 8y ago

Interesting. In my town, it's illegal to ride your bike on the sidewalk. And on a straightaway, most bikes are going substantially faster than people can walk. I just checked my bike computer, and it tells me that my average speed is around 10 MPH, which means that roughly half the time I'm going faster than that.