4 ms·

Having not been to Ireland but relating to this a lot in the US, my guess is it’s about biking not generally being safe. Kids can’t drive, but in the US at leas

Having not been to Ireland but relating to this a lot in the US, my guess is it’s about biking not generally being safe. Kids can’t drive, but in the US at least we’ve built a ton of places where you basically have to drive to get around, so parents end up shuttling their kids around to wherever they want to go.

Tade0 4y ago
I've looked at a few random points in Irish cities and they don't seem to be any different than your typical European urban landscape. There are narrow streets, low-speed zones, even bike paths. Where's the horrible part?
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  I’m looking around street view in Dublin and it looks similar to my own city (Philadelphia) in a lot of ways. Narrow side streets yes, but it seems where there are bike lanes they’re extremely unprotected/not even buffered, and there are plenty of wide streets without bike infrastructure of any sort. And ultimately you do usually need to be on a main road some of the time when going to many places. (In Dublin’s case I notice there’s a river running through town that only the larger streets seem to cross.) Compared to Utrecht (which was the initial point of comparison here), it looks awful for cycling.
- CalRobert 4y ago
  The main thing is that Ireland has far more suburban sprawl and the bike infrastructure is almost entirely unprotected. Though I admit my standards are high - I think most European urbanity isn't at the stage where I'd like an 8 year old ride a bike to school.
  - Tade0 4y ago
    I see. Why bike though? Plenty of places in Europe where children can walk to school.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      Cycling increases your reasonable travel radius substantially. In a dense city with good transit this might be less of a big deal, but outside of cities in sprawling suburbs it’s more important. School isn’t the only place a kid might want to go; their friends might live further away, there might be a park that would take quite a while to walk to but is an easy bike ride, etc.
      - Tade0 4y ago
        Perhaps it's my commie block upbringing talking, but as a child I never saw bike paths as necessary to get around. Sure, I cycled, but for leisure, not transport.
        ryukafalz 4y ago
        As I said it depends on the area. Where I live right now (Philadelphia) you can get by on foot and via transit pretty easily. Although I do wish it were more bikeable; I could get to my local hackerspace in about 20 minutes by bike vs. 40 minutes by transit. I’m about to move somewhere slightly less dense though, with no local transit to speak of. From my house to the local high school is 27 min on foot vs. 7 by bike. From the high school to the neighboring town is 41 minutes on foot vs. 12 by bike. From there back home is again 41 minutes on foot or 12 by bike. You can probably see how this might make an after-school trip possible that wouldn’t be otherwise.
        Tade0 4y ago
        To me those estimates seem to assume a slow walker or a really fast cyclist. How long is that in kilometres?
        ryukafalz 4y ago
        1.93 for the first distance, 3.06 for the other two. So probably would be a fast cyclist given that’d be an average of 15 km/h. That speed is totally doable on a bike, but there’s some time taken up at intersections so top speed would need to be higher to make up. (Although the main roads on these routes don’t have many signaled intersections, so maybe not too much faster.)

Tade0 4y ago

I've looked at a few random points in Irish cities and they don't seem to be any different than your typical European urban landscape. There are narrow streets, low-speed zones, even bike paths. Where's the horrible part?

ryukafalz 4y ago
I’m looking around street view in Dublin and it looks similar to my own city (Philadelphia) in a lot of ways. Narrow side streets yes, but it seems where there are bike lanes they’re extremely unprotected/not even buffered, and there are plenty of wide streets without bike infrastructure of any sort. And ultimately you do usually need to be on a main road some of the time when going to many places. (In Dublin’s case I notice there’s a river running through town that only the larger streets seem to cross.) Compared to Utrecht (which was the initial point of comparison here), it looks awful for cycling.
CalRobert 4y ago
The main thing is that Ireland has far more suburban sprawl and the bike infrastructure is almost entirely unprotected. Though I admit my standards are high - I think most European urbanity isn't at the stage where I'd like an 8 year old ride a bike to school.
- Tade0 4y ago
  I see. Why bike though? Plenty of places in Europe where children can walk to school.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    Cycling increases your reasonable travel radius substantially. In a dense city with good transit this might be less of a big deal, but outside of cities in sprawling suburbs it’s more important. School isn’t the only place a kid might want to go; their friends might live further away, there might be a park that would take quite a while to walk to but is an easy bike ride, etc.
    - Tade0 4y ago
      Perhaps it's my commie block upbringing talking, but as a child I never saw bike paths as necessary to get around. Sure, I cycled, but for leisure, not transport.
      - ryukafalz 4y ago
        As I said it depends on the area. Where I live right now (Philadelphia) you can get by on foot and via transit pretty easily. Although I do wish it were more bikeable; I could get to my local hackerspace in about 20 minutes by bike vs. 40 minutes by transit. I’m about to move somewhere slightly less dense though, with no local transit to speak of. From my house to the local high school is 27 min on foot vs. 7 by bike. From the high school to the neighboring town is 41 minutes on foot vs. 12 by bike. From there back home is again 41 minutes on foot or 12 by bike. You can probably see how this might make an after-school trip possible that wouldn’t be otherwise.
        Tade0 4y ago
        To me those estimates seem to assume a slow walker or a really fast cyclist. How long is that in kilometres?
        ryukafalz 4y ago
        1.93 for the first distance, 3.06 for the other two. So probably would be a fast cyclist given that’d be an average of 15 km/h. That speed is totally doable on a bike, but there’s some time taken up at intersections so top speed would need to be higher to make up. (Although the main roads on these routes don’t have many signaled intersections, so maybe not too much faster.)