4 ms·

We come back to urban design not vehicle design. This is a fine vehicle I am sure, and fits in similar category to eBikes etc. Small, designed for town and ci

We come back to urban design not vehicle design. This is a fine vehicle I am sure, and fits in similar category to eBikes etc. Small, designed for town and city, can be lugged up and down steps so kept in non-car spaces. But vulnerable to a ton of fast moving metal. We have to bite the bullet and redesign urban environments away from the car. - seperate lanes and roads for "vulnerable vehicles", for manual vs motor powered. - license all powered and manual vehicles - treat them all the same. (this most importantly includes insurance. I am a bike rider hit by a car and still not seen a penny. But if I had a giant bureaucratic insurance company on my side it would have been sorted already. And the externality priced in better. - All the other arguments on StrongTowns, 15 minute cities etc. It's too late for Houston but maybe we can save other towns.

Shank 4y ago
> We have to bite the bullet and redesign urban environments away from the car. I agree with you philosophically but how would this work in practice? Most US cities that could benefit from urban planning and redesign are that way because they're densely packed car-centric areas. It's like, if a giant earthquake flattened LA sure, that would be a great excuse to redesign the entire city. But the vast majority of the infra isn't going anywhere, and nobody is gonna float redesigning a city with the level of NIMBY-goodness here. Practically speaking, a "50cc-rated EV moped" is a great way to, at minimum, start to get people thinking less about cars, in my opinion. It's a necessary bridge to a future that's probably decades away.
- toyg 4y ago
  > Most US cities that could benefit from urban planning and redesign are that way because they're densely packed car-centric areas. I mean, in Europe we've largely repurposed medieval towns to car usage, with much worse constraints in terms of preservation of historical buildings. US cities can be much more radical and much more easily, if they really want to.
- Fradow 4y ago
  It's much more complicated in practice, but in theory, it's pretty simple: convert existing car lanes to bike lanes. Chaos will ensue as the construction work and reduced road throughput inevitably generate huge jams. That chaos is a feature, not a bug. It's meant to discourage people from using their car. If you keep car usage convenient, people will continue to use their car. Any measure that makes using a car inconvenient is a good thing. Low road throughput, high parking cost, low number of parking spots etc... I've seen it played out in Paris, which was very much a car city two decades ago, and can now be described as a bike-friendly city: it's far from being on-par with Netherlands standard, but good enough that lots of people chose a bike over other methods of transportation, and cars are generally one of the slowest form of transportation in a city (behind public transit, bikes or other 2-wheelers).
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  People are going to be angry, and you have to ignore them. Take something like Santa Monica Boulevard (which doesn't even look like it goes through any useful parts of the city, aside from housing, so there could be better places to do so), which is, seemingly, a mix of 3x3 lanes, and 2x2 at times with enough space to slide in a whole bus in the middle. Remove all these lanes. Drop a tramway in the middle, with regular passages (one every 2-5 minutes is a standard in Europe). This serves both for tramways and emergency vehicles, grant them the right to drive here. Couple it with a bike lane on both sides, alongside that tramway line. Leave a single lane, usable for cars (which you really don't want to take anymore since it's become a single lane. Over time, car traffic reduces) and buses (which shouldn't pass by there too much, since you already have a tramway. Not along the whole length, at least, just portions. Congratulations, you've removed the need for a car for anyone alongside that road, going anywhere in a 10 minute radius around it. Now, that's not much, and that's not all. Other plans have to include considering a small tactical nuke to clear out massive parking spaces for people coming from outside the city, at the extremities of these tramway lines. You really want them to drop that car outside. Then do it again. Start criss crossing. San Vincente Blvd, Western Ave., wherever. Just have the transit system befitting a major city, in a major first world country. Now, yes, this also takes 30 years to finish, but that's the only way it's ever worked in car centric cities that transformed into tolerable, walkable places.
gambiting 4y ago
>>I am a bike rider hit by a car and still not seen a penny. But if I had a giant bureaucratic insurance company on my side it would have been sorted already. ....cyclist insurance is a thing though? You could have bought one if this is an important consideration for you. And either way, if you have personal liability coverage on your home policy then it covers that kind of thing - so you most likely already have a "giant insurance company" on your side. Also as much as I agree with you, we need to put up as few barriers to cycling as possible so that people actually cycle. Like, to give a different example - I think that helmets while cycling should be absolutely mandatory, and they have saved my life at least once. But the Dutch have figured out that making helmets mandatory puts people off cycling enough that it's a net disadvantage - so I'm willing to trust the data on this.
- Raed667 4y ago
  My rule of thumb about helmets: - Is my ride 100% in segregated bike lane: no need for helmet unless you want to be extra safe. - Is there a chance I'm crossing paths with a car: helmet (I'm lucky enough to live in a city that has bike lanes that cover most my needs)
  - porbelm 4y ago
    Use a helmet all the time anyway. Something might happen and you fly over the handlebars, like when my front splash guard broke off, jammed between the wheel and the fork, and sent me flying at 20mph. Glad I wore a helmet.
    - Raed667 4y ago
      Yes, but that means having a helmet on yourself all the time, which will limit how much you take a bike. (Majority of my biking is done through shared bikes) Also in the city center it is very rare that you'd go faster than 12/15 mph.
      - lstodd 4y ago
        I rode original 2T internal combustion scooters half of my life, all the way from '72 Vespa and up to ~20hp tuned Italjets. And the other half I rode motorcycles. The saying goes - you ride for a season, you fall at least once, no exceptions. I can't understand people whooshing about at 15, well, 10 mph without any sort of protective gear on 4-inch wheels. This is dangerous as hell, it's basically guaranteed hospitalization if you hit so much as a pile of pigeon shit, not to mention a pothole.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
With the same reasoning we could require pedestrian insurance :) Where do you draw the line? Personally I'd keep this one optional, so that cycling can remain an accessible option.
willsmith72 4y ago
I'd rather not have to pay insurance for my bike. In fact, that would be a huge blocker to me in even getting one. As is my bike is cheap enough that I don't have to worry about someone stealing it. No insurance policy could justify the cost. As for being hit by a car, medical insurance would cover all costs.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  In NL, bikes rarely have insurance - maybe theft insurance if they're new and/or expensive. That said, if you get hit by a car, even if it's your own fault, the car driver is held liable; they drive the heavier vehicle, they've had formal training (getting a driver's license here involves 25-50 hours of practical driving lessons with a licensed trainer, a theoretical and a practical exam), and all cars (and most motorized vehicles) are required by law to have a liability insurance in case they cause an accident. Just as well, even minor fender benders can cost hundreds of euros these days.
- harambae 4y ago
  > In fact, that would be a huge blocker to me in even getting one. I have minimum-legal insurance on my (gas, 1000cc) motorcycle. It costs $99/yr through Geico. If you really wanted, I bet you could get down to $75 with an off-brand insurance supplier and probably lower with a moped. A mild annoyance, but still less than a blue check mark.
_Wintermute 4y ago
> if I had a giant bureaucratic insurance company on my side Then get insurance? You don't a national registration system to get cycle insurance - it's widely popular and extremely cheap.
goethes_kind 4y ago
Exactly what I came here to say. I am a huge proponent of tiny personal transportation (on both two and four wheels). What we need is legislation that makes the roads safe again.
dncornholio 4y ago
"We have to bite the bullet" This. It's not a matter of money, work or anything material. NA needs to realize it's because of culture. Too much focus on cars. One thing that really helped all cyclers is that they are protected by law. So if you hit a cycler in your car, you are mostly always in the wrong. It's never too late. Will it cost a lot of money and effort? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely.
LatteLazy 4y ago
Requiring licenses and insurance seems like a great way to STOP people cycling places...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Shank 4y ago

> We have to bite the bullet and redesign urban environments away from the car. I agree with you philosophically but how would this work in practice? Most US cities that could benefit from urban planning and redesign are that way because they're densely packed car-centric areas. It's like, if a giant earthquake flattened LA sure, that would be a great excuse to redesign the entire city. But the vast majority of the infra isn't going anywhere, and nobody is gonna float redesigning a city with the level of NIMBY-goodness here. Practically speaking, a "50cc-rated EV moped" is a great way to, at minimum, start to get people thinking less about cars, in my opinion. It's a necessary bridge to a future that's probably decades away.

toyg 4y ago
> Most US cities that could benefit from urban planning and redesign are that way because they're densely packed car-centric areas. I mean, in Europe we've largely repurposed medieval towns to car usage, with much worse constraints in terms of preservation of historical buildings. US cities can be much more radical and much more easily, if they really want to.
Fradow 4y ago
It's much more complicated in practice, but in theory, it's pretty simple: convert existing car lanes to bike lanes. Chaos will ensue as the construction work and reduced road throughput inevitably generate huge jams. That chaos is a feature, not a bug. It's meant to discourage people from using their car. If you keep car usage convenient, people will continue to use their car. Any measure that makes using a car inconvenient is a good thing. Low road throughput, high parking cost, low number of parking spots etc... I've seen it played out in Paris, which was very much a car city two decades ago, and can now be described as a bike-friendly city: it's far from being on-par with Netherlands standard, but good enough that lots of people chose a bike over other methods of transportation, and cars are generally one of the slowest form of transportation in a city (behind public transit, bikes or other 2-wheelers).
ohgodplsno 4y ago
People are going to be angry, and you have to ignore them. Take something like Santa Monica Boulevard (which doesn't even look like it goes through any useful parts of the city, aside from housing, so there could be better places to do so), which is, seemingly, a mix of 3x3 lanes, and 2x2 at times with enough space to slide in a whole bus in the middle. Remove all these lanes. Drop a tramway in the middle, with regular passages (one every 2-5 minutes is a standard in Europe). This serves both for tramways and emergency vehicles, grant them the right to drive here. Couple it with a bike lane on both sides, alongside that tramway line. Leave a single lane, usable for cars (which you really don't want to take anymore since it's become a single lane. Over time, car traffic reduces) and buses (which shouldn't pass by there too much, since you already have a tramway. Not along the whole length, at least, just portions. Congratulations, you've removed the need for a car for anyone alongside that road, going anywhere in a 10 minute radius around it. Now, that's not much, and that's not all. Other plans have to include considering a small tactical nuke to clear out massive parking spaces for people coming from outside the city, at the extremities of these tramway lines. You really want them to drop that car outside. Then do it again. Start criss crossing. San Vincente Blvd, Western Ave., wherever. Just have the transit system befitting a major city, in a major first world country. Now, yes, this also takes 30 years to finish, but that's the only way it's ever worked in car centric cities that transformed into tolerable, walkable places.

gambiting 4y ago

>>I am a bike rider hit by a car and still not seen a penny. But if I had a giant bureaucratic insurance company on my side it would have been sorted already. ....cyclist insurance is a thing though? You could have bought one if this is an important consideration for you. And either way, if you have personal liability coverage on your home policy then it covers that kind of thing - so you most likely already have a "giant insurance company" on your side. Also as much as I agree with you, we need to put up as few barriers to cycling as possible so that people actually cycle. Like, to give a different example - I think that helmets while cycling should be absolutely mandatory, and they have saved my life at least once. But the Dutch have figured out that making helmets mandatory puts people off cycling enough that it's a net disadvantage - so I'm willing to trust the data on this.

Raed667 4y ago
My rule of thumb about helmets: - Is my ride 100% in segregated bike lane: no need for helmet unless you want to be extra safe. - Is there a chance I'm crossing paths with a car: helmet (I'm lucky enough to live in a city that has bike lanes that cover most my needs)
- porbelm 4y ago
  Use a helmet all the time anyway. Something might happen and you fly over the handlebars, like when my front splash guard broke off, jammed between the wheel and the fork, and sent me flying at 20mph. Glad I wore a helmet.
  - Raed667 4y ago
    Yes, but that means having a helmet on yourself all the time, which will limit how much you take a bike. (Majority of my biking is done through shared bikes) Also in the city center it is very rare that you'd go faster than 12/15 mph.
    - lstodd 4y ago
      I rode original 2T internal combustion scooters half of my life, all the way from '72 Vespa and up to ~20hp tuned Italjets. And the other half I rode motorcycles. The saying goes - you ride for a season, you fall at least once, no exceptions. I can't understand people whooshing about at 15, well, 10 mph without any sort of protective gear on 4-inch wheels. This is dangerous as hell, it's basically guaranteed hospitalization if you hit so much as a pile of pigeon shit, not to mention a pothole.

GekkePrutser 4y ago

With the same reasoning we could require pedestrian insurance :) Where do you draw the line? Personally I'd keep this one optional, so that cycling can remain an accessible option.

willsmith72 4y ago

I'd rather not have to pay insurance for my bike. In fact, that would be a huge blocker to me in even getting one. As is my bike is cheap enough that I don't have to worry about someone stealing it. No insurance policy could justify the cost. As for being hit by a car, medical insurance would cover all costs.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
In NL, bikes rarely have insurance - maybe theft insurance if they're new and/or expensive. That said, if you get hit by a car, even if it's your own fault, the car driver is held liable; they drive the heavier vehicle, they've had formal training (getting a driver's license here involves 25-50 hours of practical driving lessons with a licensed trainer, a theoretical and a practical exam), and all cars (and most motorized vehicles) are required by law to have a liability insurance in case they cause an accident. Just as well, even minor fender benders can cost hundreds of euros these days.
harambae 4y ago
> In fact, that would be a huge blocker to me in even getting one. I have minimum-legal insurance on my (gas, 1000cc) motorcycle. It costs $99/yr through Geico. If you really wanted, I bet you could get down to $75 with an off-brand insurance supplier and probably lower with a moped. A mild annoyance, but still less than a blue check mark.

_Wintermute 4y ago

> if I had a giant bureaucratic insurance company on my side Then get insurance? You don't a national registration system to get cycle insurance - it's widely popular and extremely cheap.

goethes_kind 4y ago

Exactly what I came here to say. I am a huge proponent of tiny personal transportation (on both two and four wheels). What we need is legislation that makes the roads safe again.

dncornholio 4y ago

"We have to bite the bullet" This. It's not a matter of money, work or anything material. NA needs to realize it's because of culture. Too much focus on cars. One thing that really helped all cyclers is that they are protected by law. So if you hit a cycler in your car, you are mostly always in the wrong. It's never too late. Will it cost a lot of money and effort? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely.

LatteLazy 4y ago

Requiring licenses and insurance seems like a great way to STOP people cycling places...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]