6 ms·

There is a tough spot especially in light suburban where it is very very hard to walk. Nothing is setup for it. So you'd have to be kinda crazy to walk (sidewal

There is a tough spot especially in light suburban where it is very very hard to walk. Nothing is setup for it. So you'd have to be kinda crazy to walk (sidewalks nonexistent, road crossings not really available etc). Once you get really rural - you can go hiking more easily unless its hunting etc season

derefr 7y ago
Cycling still works to commute between most suburbs and small town centres. (I should know; I used to live on unincorporated land half-way between two towns of ~12k people.) For really rural areas where there is no “town center”—perhaps just intentionally park your car a good distance from wherever you’re going so that you have to walk the last bit of the way? (Sort of like the campaign a number of MTAs have going where they encourage you to get off one subway stop early and walk from there to your destination.)
- jcims 7y ago
  >Cycling still works to commute between most suburbs and small town centres. You'd be borderline suicidal to do that regularly in the US.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    Agreed. I have two main paths between my home in city A and work 11 miles away in city B. Neither has bicycle paths, and only the longer one (about 18 miles) has shoulders worth mentioning. I've almost hit bicyclists because I couldn't see them (their fault; black clothing with no reflectors) on both of those routes. You coudln't pay me enough to bike to work.
    - CalRobert 7y ago
      It is not their responsibility to ensure you drive at a pace such that you can stop before striking an obstacle that was hard to see. Should we require pedestrians using the road (like the one without shoulders) to dress in bright colors as well?
      - falcolas 7y ago
        Frankly, yes. To paraphrase from a meme - the biker in black has to be lucky every time. A car only has to be unlucky once. In a vehicle-bicycle/pedestrian incident at the posted speed limit, no matter who is at fault, it's the bicyclist/pedestrian who will be dead. If someone wants to be alive, as well as correct, they'd do well to make themselves as visible as possible. But that's too practical a view to hold here on HN, I realize that. EDIT - I just realized this is likely in response to 'their fault' in my original message. I stand by it though. Riding a bike at night on an unlit 50mph rural road with no reflectors while wearing black is, as the GP said, suicide by car.
        SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        You didn't mention night in your first message. You'd still be criminally at fault, and if you can't stop in time for a cyclist you're over-driving your headlights, but the cyclists would be well served by buying a back light for visibility. Keep in mind that wild animals can't, and they'll have roughly the same visibility as the cyclist.
        falcolas 7y ago
        Yup, and there are thousands of animal strikes every year in my state alone. Every three days or so there's fresh roadkill on the side of the road when I drive into work. Night, day, twilight - a bicyclist can only increase their likelyhood of surviving their trip by adding reflectors and wearing bright clothing.
        lostapathy 7y ago
        In a lot of states, a cyclist riding at night without a rear light is also breaking the law and at fault.
        jschwartzi 7y ago
        Yep, and I've still managed to avoid hitting all of those I've encountered by driving slower at night in places where I can't see as far ahead of my vehicle.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > I've almost hit bicyclists because I couldn't see them This is absolutely your fault. You're driving too fast for the conditions. You're the one who can't see what's ahead; you're the one who has to drive slower.
  - LorenPechtel 7y ago
    Seconded. I used to bike frequently when I lived in a small town. Now that I live in the suburbs of a big city my bike sits unused--there is exactly one place that I normally go to where I would feel safe biking and I drive past it enough that there's no reason to bike there.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    I live in a smallish town (~14k in the limits). For the most part, cycling on major highways is merely unpleasant, there's a nice wide shoulder. Less important highways have less shoulder and less traffic. There's parts of the highway that I avoid, and parts where I won't go, but those are the parts with parallel streets in town, not the parts between towns. It's also not so uncommon for their to be a trail with similar connectivity to the highway (lots of rail trails do this). I can ride to the next town/village over with about ¼ mile of actual highway riding. That's pretty recent, what with a casino paying for lots of trail and a new bridge being built on the US route, but there you go.
  - okmokmz 7y ago
    Before I started working remotely there were 5-10 people who biked to work daily
    - jcims 7y ago
      This is the key part >commute between most suburbs and small town centres I commuted to work on a bike every day in Mountain View. If I tried that from where I live now it wouldn't work in my favor.
      - okmokmz 7y ago
        They commute into a major city on a bike
  - screye 7y ago
    I cycle regularly in Cambridge, MA which is the most bike friendly city in the US. It is still extremely risky, whenever I need to drive with cars on the same road. American drivers simply aren't accustomed to accounting for bikes on the road. I fear for anyone who bikes in a city without the infrastructure for it in the US.
  - ska 7y ago
    > You'd be borderline suicidal to do that regularly in the US. That is very much location dependent. You are right that some locations are extremely poorly designed for this. The cost/benefit of improving the designs isn't always obvious.
    - jcims 7y ago
      Totally agree, I should have italicized between most suburbs and small town centres in the quote. Biking to work in Mountain View was a pleasure and seemingly very safe. I'm now in a rural area with unmarked roads that barely fit two cars. The state highway between me and the nearest town has a paved shoulder that might be a foot wide. If I ride on it I commit the mortal sin of riding against traffic because I have a wife and kids and need to make eye contact with everyone coming my way before I even think of trusting them.
pdpi 7y ago
It's an improvement, but hiking is still walking-as-an-activity, instead of walking-as-transportation, meaning that you're not increasing that baseline energy consumption.
SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Depends on the type of rural - it doesn't feel like "hiking" to be wandering around your neighbours fields, or walking along the side of a gravel road.
astrodust 7y ago
It's not that you can go walking in a rural environment but that in an urban environment with no car you have to go walking. There's a baseline amount of exercise you're going to get regardless.

derefr 7y ago

Cycling still works to commute between most suburbs and small town centres. (I should know; I used to live on unincorporated land half-way between two towns of ~12k people.) For really rural areas where there is no “town center”—perhaps just intentionally park your car a good distance from wherever you’re going so that you have to walk the last bit of the way? (Sort of like the campaign a number of MTAs have going where they encourage you to get off one subway stop early and walk from there to your destination.)

jcims 7y ago
>Cycling still works to commute between most suburbs and small town centres. You'd be borderline suicidal to do that regularly in the US.
- falcolas 7y ago
  Agreed. I have two main paths between my home in city A and work 11 miles away in city B. Neither has bicycle paths, and only the longer one (about 18 miles) has shoulders worth mentioning. I've almost hit bicyclists because I couldn't see them (their fault; black clothing with no reflectors) on both of those routes. You coudln't pay me enough to bike to work.
  - CalRobert 7y ago
    It is not their responsibility to ensure you drive at a pace such that you can stop before striking an obstacle that was hard to see. Should we require pedestrians using the road (like the one without shoulders) to dress in bright colors as well?
    - falcolas 7y ago
      Frankly, yes. To paraphrase from a meme - the biker in black has to be lucky every time. A car only has to be unlucky once. In a vehicle-bicycle/pedestrian incident at the posted speed limit, no matter who is at fault, it's the bicyclist/pedestrian who will be dead. If someone wants to be alive, as well as correct, they'd do well to make themselves as visible as possible. But that's too practical a view to hold here on HN, I realize that. EDIT - I just realized this is likely in response to 'their fault' in my original message. I stand by it though. Riding a bike at night on an unlit 50mph rural road with no reflectors while wearing black is, as the GP said, suicide by car.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        You didn't mention night in your first message. You'd still be criminally at fault, and if you can't stop in time for a cyclist you're over-driving your headlights, but the cyclists would be well served by buying a back light for visibility. Keep in mind that wild animals can't, and they'll have roughly the same visibility as the cyclist.
        falcolas 7y ago
        Yup, and there are thousands of animal strikes every year in my state alone. Every three days or so there's fresh roadkill on the side of the road when I drive into work. Night, day, twilight - a bicyclist can only increase their likelyhood of surviving their trip by adding reflectors and wearing bright clothing.
        lostapathy 7y ago
        In a lot of states, a cyclist riding at night without a rear light is also breaking the law and at fault.
        jschwartzi 7y ago
        Yep, and I've still managed to avoid hitting all of those I've encountered by driving slower at night in places where I can't see as far ahead of my vehicle.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > I've almost hit bicyclists because I couldn't see them This is absolutely your fault. You're driving too fast for the conditions. You're the one who can't see what's ahead; you're the one who has to drive slower.
- LorenPechtel 7y ago
  Seconded. I used to bike frequently when I lived in a small town. Now that I live in the suburbs of a big city my bike sits unused--there is exactly one place that I normally go to where I would feel safe biking and I drive past it enough that there's no reason to bike there.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  I live in a smallish town (~14k in the limits). For the most part, cycling on major highways is merely unpleasant, there's a nice wide shoulder. Less important highways have less shoulder and less traffic. There's parts of the highway that I avoid, and parts where I won't go, but those are the parts with parallel streets in town, not the parts between towns. It's also not so uncommon for their to be a trail with similar connectivity to the highway (lots of rail trails do this). I can ride to the next town/village over with about ¼ mile of actual highway riding. That's pretty recent, what with a casino paying for lots of trail and a new bridge being built on the US route, but there you go.
- okmokmz 7y ago
  Before I started working remotely there were 5-10 people who biked to work daily
  - jcims 7y ago
    This is the key part >commute between most suburbs and small town centres I commuted to work on a bike every day in Mountain View. If I tried that from where I live now it wouldn't work in my favor.
    - okmokmz 7y ago
      They commute into a major city on a bike
- screye 7y ago
  I cycle regularly in Cambridge, MA which is the most bike friendly city in the US. It is still extremely risky, whenever I need to drive with cars on the same road. American drivers simply aren't accustomed to accounting for bikes on the road. I fear for anyone who bikes in a city without the infrastructure for it in the US.
- ska 7y ago
  > You'd be borderline suicidal to do that regularly in the US. That is very much location dependent. You are right that some locations are extremely poorly designed for this. The cost/benefit of improving the designs isn't always obvious.
  - jcims 7y ago
    Totally agree, I should have italicized between most suburbs and small town centres in the quote. Biking to work in Mountain View was a pleasure and seemingly very safe. I'm now in a rural area with unmarked roads that barely fit two cars. The state highway between me and the nearest town has a paved shoulder that might be a foot wide. If I ride on it I commit the mortal sin of riding against traffic because I have a wife and kids and need to make eye contact with everyone coming my way before I even think of trusting them.

pdpi 7y ago

It's an improvement, but hiking is still walking-as-an-activity, instead of walking-as-transportation, meaning that you're not increasing that baseline energy consumption.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

Depends on the type of rural - it doesn't feel like "hiking" to be wandering around your neighbours fields, or walking along the side of a gravel road.

astrodust 7y ago

It's not that you can go walking in a rural environment but that in an urban environment with no car you have to go walking. There's a baseline amount of exercise you're going to get regardless.