10 ms·

Amazing news! More cyclists (and fewer motorists) on the streets creates a safer, less polluted city environment for everyone.

opless 4y ago
[flagged]
- hardlianotion 4y ago
  Hm. Sarcasm and an implied argument that fails a smell test.
  - opless 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      Cars kill way more people than bicycles do though. Regardless of your perceptions here, this mode shift is overall safer.
      - opless 4y ago
        Yes, and looking at the number of flags my comments have, quite a lot of you wonderful cyclists really don't have a steady grasp on reality either! But again, I already knew this
ehnto 4y ago
Quieter too. When wandering Tokyo I started asking myself, why does it feel so quiet when there are so many people and so much advertising? Then you hit one of the roads with cars, and you realise just how much road noise impacts a space. It is obvious in theory but I bet most of us in car-centric cities have learned to live with it so much, that it doesn't cross our minds as the source of discomfort.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  I for a long time was also wondering because so many of the streets look so much more charming. I only understood why once I read that there is almost no street parking in Japan. Once I knew that, it became obvious that that's at least part of the reason.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  "Cities aren't loud, cars are loud."
  - yourusername 4y ago
    Said someone that has never lived across the street from a elevated subway, on a street with a streetcar or near a bus stop.
    - ehnto 4y ago
      I lived next to a freight line, never again. The corner was in my backyard. My comment is mostly about daily life outside of the house, and in a city center. So those moments on foot when you're out of the car. For life in the city, it's much more pleasant to be in a foot only or mixed traffic street, even with a train nearby. There's the inherent danger of fast cars operated by non-professionals that you perceive on foot as well as the noise, neither you really need to worry about for trains. In many cities trams can run through pedestrian areas with no barricades or grade separation because they are slower and predictable. You can run cars with no separation too if you slow them down enough, but more often they are set to incompatible speeds and as a pedestrian you have all the downsides of the cars as they pass through what should really be a pedestrian space in most city centers.
    - Tade0 4y ago
      Or a cargo rail line. Or my favorite: historical buildings with equally historical distances between them. You could go deaf just from clapping your hands there.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
barnabee 4y ago
It really is fantastic news. The more that pedestrians and cyclists dominate, the faster the shift from ugly, dirty roads to a pleasant human centred urban environment.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  The urban core should be pedestrian only. Bicyclists can stop at the edge and lock the bike and then walk. Then outside the bike zone there could be a car zone as it gets more suburban.
bartread 4y ago
Whilst I'm overall in favour of promoting cycling as a way of getting around, in preference to motor vehicles, I'm not sure I entirely agree with "safer". I live in Cambridge and have lost count of the number of times I've had to contend with cyclists blowing through pedestrian crossings on a red light (or zebra crossings at any time) when I'm trying to walk over them, or cycling the wrong way down a one-way street - or on the wrong side of the road - or had to dodge people cycling on the pavement. When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists. Examples include: one leapt off of the pavement out of nowhere in front of me, one blew through a red light at traffic lights with a restricted view, and one was cycling the wrong way around a roundabout. The first two of these aren't one-off scenarios. Fortunately on all occasions I was paying attention so managed to take evasive action. Similar incidents have occurred when I've been on my motorcyle, most of which have been near misses, but on one especially ridiculous occasion a cyclist ran into the back of me at a set of traffic lights. What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others (the same way drink-driving has become, not just legislated against, but enforced against and socially unacceptable). However, unfortunately, it's not at the moment so I'm not sure that safety - particularly for pedestrians or, indeed, cyclists - is a given. Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  > What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? But the major difference is that a car turns a dickhead into a mortal danger for other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike, while a bike doesn‘t.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Cars are a mortal danger to non-car users (pedestrians, (motor?)cyclists), but at city speeds, they wouldn't be a mortal danger for other car users.
II2II 4y ago
According to the article, the number of cyclists have not increased that much. (They mentioned it is at 102% of pre-pandemic levels.) What they are seeing is a decline in motor vehicles. The cyclists are simply an interesting way to benchmark that decline! It is still good news. People need to find better modes of transportation for both the environment and for society. It is just that the title doesn't mean what it suggests.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  So are more people taking public transit, walking or maybe stopped commuting entirely during the pandemic?
  - andylynch 4y ago
    Many people working remotely, or commonly three days a week in town (incidentally it’s a buyer’s market for office space now). Train ridership is also down for similar reasons.
lbriner 4y ago
It should do but I am worried it won't. Just look on social media when a cyclist posts something about dangerous driving and they are hit by a combination of: * Indifference from the Police most of the time * Extreme vitriol from motorists who seem to literally believe that all harm is caused by cyclists * Illogical city planning where cyclists are constantly being moved from safe spaces directly into busy traffic. We have a sick motor-centric society in the UK and along with the rest of climate problems that are ignored/underplayed, I don't know how long until we can say that we are a cycle-friendly country.
xutopia 4y ago
And quieter and better for small shops.

opless 4y ago

[flagged]

hardlianotion 4y ago
Hm. Sarcasm and an implied argument that fails a smell test.
- opless 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    Cars kill way more people than bicycles do though. Regardless of your perceptions here, this mode shift is overall safer.
    - opless 4y ago
      Yes, and looking at the number of flags my comments have, quite a lot of you wonderful cyclists really don't have a steady grasp on reality either! But again, I already knew this

ehnto 4y ago

Quieter too. When wandering Tokyo I started asking myself, why does it feel so quiet when there are so many people and so much advertising? Then you hit one of the roads with cars, and you realise just how much road noise impacts a space. It is obvious in theory but I bet most of us in car-centric cities have learned to live with it so much, that it doesn't cross our minds as the source of discomfort.

ajmurmann 4y ago
I for a long time was also wondering because so many of the streets look so much more charming. I only understood why once I read that there is almost no street parking in Japan. Once I knew that, it became obvious that that's at least part of the reason.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
"Cities aren't loud, cars are loud."
- yourusername 4y ago
  Said someone that has never lived across the street from a elevated subway, on a street with a streetcar or near a bus stop.
  - ehnto 4y ago
    I lived next to a freight line, never again. The corner was in my backyard. My comment is mostly about daily life outside of the house, and in a city center. So those moments on foot when you're out of the car. For life in the city, it's much more pleasant to be in a foot only or mixed traffic street, even with a train nearby. There's the inherent danger of fast cars operated by non-professionals that you perceive on foot as well as the noise, neither you really need to worry about for trains. In many cities trams can run through pedestrian areas with no barricades or grade separation because they are slower and predictable. You can run cars with no separation too if you slow them down enough, but more often they are set to incompatible speeds and as a pedestrian you have all the downsides of the cars as they pass through what should really be a pedestrian space in most city centers.
  - Tade0 4y ago
    Or a cargo rail line. Or my favorite: historical buildings with equally historical distances between them. You could go deaf just from clapping your hands there.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago

barnabee 4y ago

It really is fantastic news. The more that pedestrians and cyclists dominate, the faster the shift from ugly, dirty roads to a pleasant human centred urban environment.

rootusrootus 4y ago
The urban core should be pedestrian only. Bicyclists can stop at the edge and lock the bike and then walk. Then outside the bike zone there could be a car zone as it gets more suburban.

bartread 4y ago

Whilst I'm overall in favour of promoting cycling as a way of getting around, in preference to motor vehicles, I'm not sure I entirely agree with "safer". I live in Cambridge and have lost count of the number of times I've had to contend with cyclists blowing through pedestrian crossings on a red light (or zebra crossings at any time) when I'm trying to walk over them, or cycling the wrong way down a one-way street - or on the wrong side of the road - or had to dodge people cycling on the pavement. When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists. Examples include: one leapt off of the pavement out of nowhere in front of me, one blew through a red light at traffic lights with a restricted view, and one was cycling the wrong way around a roundabout. The first two of these aren't one-off scenarios. Fortunately on all occasions I was paying attention so managed to take evasive action. Similar incidents have occurred when I've been on my motorcyle, most of which have been near misses, but on one especially ridiculous occasion a cyclist ran into the back of me at a set of traffic lights. What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others (the same way drink-driving has become, not just legislated against, but enforced against and socially unacceptable). However, unfortunately, it's not at the moment so I'm not sure that safety - particularly for pedestrians or, indeed, cyclists - is a given. Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety.

Xylakant 4y ago
> What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? But the major difference is that a car turns a dickhead into a mortal danger for other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike, while a bike doesn‘t.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Cars are a mortal danger to non-car users (pedestrians, (motor?)cyclists), but at city speeds, they wouldn't be a mortal danger for other car users.

II2II 4y ago

According to the article, the number of cyclists have not increased that much. (They mentioned it is at 102% of pre-pandemic levels.) What they are seeing is a decline in motor vehicles. The cyclists are simply an interesting way to benchmark that decline! It is still good news. People need to find better modes of transportation for both the environment and for society. It is just that the title doesn't mean what it suggests.

ajmurmann 4y ago
So are more people taking public transit, walking or maybe stopped commuting entirely during the pandemic?
- andylynch 4y ago
  Many people working remotely, or commonly three days a week in town (incidentally it’s a buyer’s market for office space now). Train ridership is also down for similar reasons.

lbriner 4y ago

It should do but I am worried it won't. Just look on social media when a cyclist posts something about dangerous driving and they are hit by a combination of: * Indifference from the Police most of the time * Extreme vitriol from motorists who seem to literally believe that all harm is caused by cyclists * Illogical city planning where cyclists are constantly being moved from safe spaces directly into busy traffic. We have a sick motor-centric society in the UK and along with the rest of climate problems that are ignored/underplayed, I don't know how long until we can say that we are a cycle-friendly country.

xutopia 4y ago

And quieter and better for small shops.