3 ms·

Agreed, the streets are dangerous for bicyclists. Is the train and walking serviceable for your commute?

by RhysU 7y ago

CydeWeys 7y ago
No. It'd take MUCH longer. Cycling, and other micro-mobility solutions like e-scooters, really are an excellent choice for many people's commutes. We just need to take away some of the street space that's been devoted for vehicles (which don't scale properly to a city of this density anyway) in order to enable more of these commutes. And once we get a lot of vehicles off the roads and replaced with much smaller bikes and such, safety will be increased for everyone, including those doing walking commutes (which necessarily includes transit users too). The fewer large motorized vehicles on the road, the less likely you are to die in a crash.
- RhysU 7y ago
  It sounds like you are trading time for safety, you are uncomfortable with your choice, and you now wish to make your tradeoffs someone else's problem.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    It's the city's responsibility (and in its best interests) to create a safe, effective transportation network that moves as many people as efficiently as possible. The better the transportation network of a city runs, the better that city will be, as less time is wasted in transit and jobs are performed more efficiently, and more taxes are paid and more businesses and people move in. It is simply physically impossible to service even a fraction of the transportation needs of New York City using full-size single-occupancy motor vehicles. The city is way too dense and there isn't nearly enough space for that many vehicles, not even if you ripped out entire blocks and laid down ten-lane highways through Manhattan. So the city must support more efficient transportation methods that can scale to the density of the city, and these include trains, buses, and last mile micro-mobility solutions like bikes, bike share, scooters, etc. So in this context, what exactly is your argument? Are you saying that it's OK for it to be rampantly unsafe for people to use the kinds of scaleable options that are necessary to efficiently scale transportation in this city? Because I can tell you the city certainly doesn't think so, and is putting in dozens of miles of new protected bike lanes each year as part of the long-running Vision Zero initiative. And yes, we're even starting to deprioritize vehicles, as you've seen with the 14th St busway recently.
    - steelframe 7y ago
      > is putting in dozens of miles of new protected bike lanes each year as part of the long-running Vision Zero initiative. "Protected bike lanes"... aren't. Because they share intersections with motor vehicles, left-hooks and right-hooks still happen, which together constitute the majority of bicyclist-motorist collisions. A transition to a better transportation system can't happen a few bike lanes at a time. Society will need to stop thinking in terms of millions of dollars and start thinking about billions of dollars.
      - CydeWeys 7y ago
        I agree with you that there's much, much more we could be doing, and that we should be prioritizing the completion of a maximally-protected bike network across NYC vs the patchwork that we have now. But we're still at least doing something, more than any other city in the US, and it's a clearly stated priority of the city government. So, in that context, and in the context of the person I was replying to, it's absurd to blame someone for taking the government at its word and using the kinds of scaleable, non-polluting, lower negative externality transportation options whose use is explicitly being encouraged by the city. When someone chooses to bike instead of drive, that's better for everyone around them, including drivers. You aren't contributing to worsening traffic, you aren't emitting particulate pollution that messes up people's lungs, and you're much less likely to seriously harm or kill someone on a bike than in a car. What rankles me is the guy who's saying it's OK if things are set up to discourage that choice.
      - xxpor 7y ago
        >"Protected bike lanes"... aren't. Because they share intersections with motor vehicles, left-hooks and right-hooks still happen, which together constitute the majority of bicyclist-motorist collisions. Part of installing protected bike lanes should be installing arrows and bike signals so there's a separate phase to make a turn. See 2nd Ave in Seattle: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6074569,-122.3372911,3a,42.9y,139.78h,86.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stsHgG3B-vnXsO86gZ70h9A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6074569,-122.3372911,3a,42.9...
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  > We just need to take away some of the street space that's been devoted for vehicles (which don't scale properly to a city of this density anyway Don't get me wrong I prefer them to cars, but bikes and especially e- anything are vehicles too and are dangerous and annoying to the pedestrians who are far and away the most efficient users of space.

Agreed, the streets are dangerous for bicyclists. Is the train and walking serviceable for your commute?

by RhysU 7y ago

Agreed, the streets are dangerous for bicyclists. Is the train and walking serviceable for your commute?

No. It'd take MUCH longer. Cycling, and other micro-mobility solutions like e-scooters, really are an excellent choice for many people's commutes. We just need to take away some of the street space that's been devoted for vehicles (which don't scale properly to a city of this density anyway) in order to enable more of these commutes. And once we get a lot of vehicles off the roads and replaced with much smaller bikes and such, safety will be increased for everyone, including those doing walking commutes (which necessarily includes transit users too). The fewer large motorized vehicles on the road, the less likely you are to die in a crash.

RhysU 7y ago
It sounds like you are trading time for safety, you are uncomfortable with your choice, and you now wish to make your tradeoffs someone else's problem.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  It's the city's responsibility (and in its best interests) to create a safe, effective transportation network that moves as many people as efficiently as possible. The better the transportation network of a city runs, the better that city will be, as less time is wasted in transit and jobs are performed more efficiently, and more taxes are paid and more businesses and people move in. It is simply physically impossible to service even a fraction of the transportation needs of New York City using full-size single-occupancy motor vehicles. The city is way too dense and there isn't nearly enough space for that many vehicles, not even if you ripped out entire blocks and laid down ten-lane highways through Manhattan. So the city must support more efficient transportation methods that can scale to the density of the city, and these include trains, buses, and last mile micro-mobility solutions like bikes, bike share, scooters, etc. So in this context, what exactly is your argument? Are you saying that it's OK for it to be rampantly unsafe for people to use the kinds of scaleable options that are necessary to efficiently scale transportation in this city? Because I can tell you the city certainly doesn't think so, and is putting in dozens of miles of new protected bike lanes each year as part of the long-running Vision Zero initiative. And yes, we're even starting to deprioritize vehicles, as you've seen with the 14th St busway recently.
  - steelframe 7y ago
    > is putting in dozens of miles of new protected bike lanes each year as part of the long-running Vision Zero initiative. "Protected bike lanes"... aren't. Because they share intersections with motor vehicles, left-hooks and right-hooks still happen, which together constitute the majority of bicyclist-motorist collisions. A transition to a better transportation system can't happen a few bike lanes at a time. Society will need to stop thinking in terms of millions of dollars and start thinking about billions of dollars.
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      I agree with you that there's much, much more we could be doing, and that we should be prioritizing the completion of a maximally-protected bike network across NYC vs the patchwork that we have now. But we're still at least doing something, more than any other city in the US, and it's a clearly stated priority of the city government. So, in that context, and in the context of the person I was replying to, it's absurd to blame someone for taking the government at its word and using the kinds of scaleable, non-polluting, lower negative externality transportation options whose use is explicitly being encouraged by the city. When someone chooses to bike instead of drive, that's better for everyone around them, including drivers. You aren't contributing to worsening traffic, you aren't emitting particulate pollution that messes up people's lungs, and you're much less likely to seriously harm or kill someone on a bike than in a car. What rankles me is the guy who's saying it's OK if things are set up to discourage that choice.
    - xxpor 7y ago
      >"Protected bike lanes"... aren't. Because they share intersections with motor vehicles, left-hooks and right-hooks still happen, which together constitute the majority of bicyclist-motorist collisions. Part of installing protected bike lanes should be installing arrows and bike signals so there's a separate phase to make a turn. See 2nd Ave in Seattle: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6074569,-122.3372911,3a,42.9y,139.78h,86.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stsHgG3B-vnXsO86gZ70h9A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6074569,-122.3372911,3a,42.9...
bradleyjg 7y ago
> We just need to take away some of the street space that's been devoted for vehicles (which don't scale properly to a city of this density anyway Don't get me wrong I prefer them to cars, but bikes and especially e- anything are vehicles too and are dangerous and annoying to the pedestrians who are far and away the most efficient users of space.