4 ms·

It’s not just that it’s a big spend, but it’s a big spend on something 75% of people don’t use even if you did it. The enduring popularity of these articles on

It’s not just that it’s a big spend, but it’s a big spend on something 75% of people don’t use even if you did it. The enduring popularity of these articles on hacker news just shows a demographic bias. Sure if you are young and live in San Francisco or New York City, this might seem reasonable. But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries, or live somewhere not dense enough to really get anywhere this way, or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it (which is almost all but the biggest of them) we’ll still take our cars thank you. Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way, so let’s just electrify them and build lots of new clean energy and stop trying to make everyone ride a bike.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
> The enduring popularity of these articles on hacker news just shows a demographic bias. Sure if you are young and live in San Francisco or New York City, this might seem reasonable. But for the other 80% of America, And this sort of comment shows demographic ignorance. Do you know what percentage of the US population lives in rural areas? Fourteen percent. Not even 1/5th of the US population. The rest live in urbanized areas. The percentage of the population over 60? About 17%. Pre-pandemic, in the Boston area, the regional transit system handled around 2 million trips a day. > Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way, so let’s just electrify them and build lots of new clean energy and stop trying to make everyone ride a bike. 60% of all car trips in the US are less than three miles, electric cars don't solve congestion and land use waste nor all the injuries and deaths, and last but not least: nobody is "trying to make everyone ride a bike." Stop straw-manning.
- silisili 4y ago
  I feel like this is a bit misleading in the other direction, as it's lumping suburban in with urban. Which makes sense in some contexts, but probably not this one. Suburban sprawl is a huge problem wrt infrastructure. > According to data HUD and Census collected in the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), 52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural.
- frumper 4y ago
  Urbanized areas isn't what you think. I looked up several small town around me and they are all known for being agriculture towns, and they all qualify as urbanized areas. Some of them don't have proper grocery stores. These towns are miles away from the next town. They are in that 80% of urbanized America. America is huge. Page 3 details how the definition is arrived at. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/acs/acsgeo-1.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
- cfeduke 4y ago
  It's less about rural population and more about smaller metro populations. Places where there aren't bike lanes - where people on mopeds are really risking their lives trying to go twelve miles. The rural population quote of 17% are legitimately rural counties where population density below a certain point exists. Most smaller metro counties have rural infrastructure supporting a higher population density and simply are not safe for bikes, and a large number of people who are classified as urban are the people making up the population in metro counties. The US Census classifies as rural and urban so it's really hard to know exactly what, but assuming that anyone living in an urban area who is physically capable of doing so could ride a bike is incorrect.
  - sleepybrett 4y ago
    I spent ~six months of the pandemic in my family's mountain cabin, very rural. Nearest major grocery store about 20mi, closest convince store 5mi. I did most of the trips to both on an e-bike that I borrowed from a neighbor, which spurred me to buy my own when i returned to seattle. The two lane highway with it's shoulder painted bike lane that was the only way to traverse either trip was a bit sketchy and nerve wracking, especially on the weekends. The speed limit is 40mph, but when it's not ski season it's not ever that busy and so people speed on it constantly. But even given the longer 20mi trip I'd often look forward to it even though it was about an hour each way.
    - frumper 4y ago
      That sounds like a fun route to pull a trailer with my 2 kids in to go grocery shopping. Add in that I wouldn't be able to load up as much and I'd probably need to make that trip more often. I'd rather drive and spend that time playing with my kids in the back yard.
      - dghlsakjg 4y ago
        Nobody is asking you to switch over to bicycles exclusively, they are just saying that it would be nice if there was better non car infrastructure. That way, there will be less traffic for people like you who choose to live in a way where a car is necessary, and more options for others who don’t want to travel in traffic with cars.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Do you know what percentage of the US population lives in rural areas? > Fourteen percent. Not even 1/5th of the US population. The rest live in urbanized areas. Not-rural is not the same as being in a city though. Maybe only 14% live in rural areas, but most people don't live in cities either. Most people live in the wide suburban type areas that cover everything between city and rural.
m463 4y ago
I basically agree with you, but it would be nice if we could incrementally make cities less hostile to bikes. Also, there has to be some sort of health risk/reward ratio where riding a bike increases your health enough to offset the risk of falling. Sure anyone can die on a bike, but active exercise can also extend life.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  If falling is really a worry for you there are options. Recumbents (both bicycles and tricycles) certainly get you a lot close to the ground, but also tricycles like this one: https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radtrike-electric-tricycle https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radtrike-electric-tri... which keeps you up and easy to see (in seattle every year or two it seems like some poor sod get's run over by a car that can't see them on a recumbent).
Johnny555 4y ago
Sure if you are young and live in San Francisco or New York City, this might seem reasonable. But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries I’m in my late 50’s and ride 15 miles to work most days in the Pacific Northwest, rain or shine. I’d think that the vast majority of people of working age could ride a bike safely. But I’m lucky to live in an area that has a separated bike path for 90% of my commute. My commute would only be 12 miles if I stuck to the most direct path on roads, but the bike path is safer and much more relaxing, I look forward to my commute. When I was young and living in San Francisco, I commuted by bus most of the time since it was super convenient - walk 2 blocks from my apartment to the bus stop and the bus stopped literally at the front door to my office. For about a year I did bike commute over the bridge to Sausalito, that was by far my favorite bike commute.
- mattmaroon 4y ago
  Again, I’m sure you do, and I’m sure a lot of people who read hacker news do. And it’s easy for those of us who live in bubbles to fail to see outside of them.
  - Johnny555 4y ago
    I completely believe that many, probably most people, don’t want to ride a bike, but I don’t believe that 80% of people in the USA can’t ride a bike because they are old and/or don’t live in a major city and are at exceptional risk of injury.
iknowstuff 4y ago
I have for you a video titled "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo > There is a large group of people in the Netherlands who also benefit from the well-designed cycling infrastructure: people with disabilities. They can use hand-operated bicycles or tricycles or mobility scooters to get from A to B. The cycle tracks offer them good protection from motorized traffic and thus a freedom to independently move around. Also kids. Look how much freedom this infrastructure provides to Dutch kids. Car dependency is NOT good for the disabled. Not every disabled parson is even capable of safely driving a car.
pg314 4y ago
> It’s not just that it’s a big spend, but it’s a big spend on something 75% of people don’t use even if you did it. Are we to take your word that 75% of the people won't use it? Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark show that if you build bike infrastructure, people will use it. And the health and environmental benefits are enormous. And even if only 25% of the people use it, shouldn't they get 25% of the spend? > Sure if you are young and live in San Francisco or New York City, this might seem reasonable. But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries, or live somewhere not dense enough to really get anywhere this way, or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it (which is almost all but the biggest of them) 80% of the population in the US lives in cities. The median age is 39. So, no way 80% of the population fit your description. In cycling countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, even 80-year-olds cycle. > or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it Ask the Finnish how they do. They have no problem to cycle in the snow. You can change the way your city manages the snow. > Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way, 1.3 million people get killed worldwide by cars every year. A multiple of that get maimed. I wouldn't call that basically great. If you count the time spent in traffic, you are wasting millions of lives more each year. Electrifying has huge environmental costs. E.g. the Polestar 2 has a lifecycle cost (over 200.000kms) of 50 tons of CO2e compared to 58 tons for a Volvo XC40 ICE [1]. [1] https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1630409045-polestarlcarapportprintkorr11210831.pdf https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1630409045-polest...
reddog 4y ago
I agree and have always wondered how people with these extreme views think modern society would function without roads. You can't build (or maintain) a house, a hospital, a factory, a school or an office building without roads to accommodate the trucks pouring the foundation, deliverying the lumber and shingles. How do I get food, funiture and appliances to my apartment with only bike paths? What if I need an ambulance or police, do they roll up on electric bikes? Nothing is going to get build and everyday life is not possible without real roads that accomadate vehicles doing real work. And if you have that already why not use then for real personal vehicles that can be used by everyone and not just young, healthy hacker news subscribers.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  Straw man. Literally no-one thinks we're going to do away with all motor infrastructure. What we want are a portion of that infrastructure to be reallocated for smaller, slower bicycle (and bicycle-like) traffic. On your 'young and healthy' hyperbole... I'm 50 this year and not in great shape (though because of the bike it's improving). I live in a somewhat quiet part of a major metro area (specifically Ballard, in Seattle) I have a cargo-style ebike that I use for almost everything that's within 5miles of my house rain or shine. If I need to go buy something that won't fit on my bike I use a car-share or borrow from a friend who is car-enabled. Given how hilly Seattle is, I've always shied away from biking here, but after having the use of an ebike for a few months during the pandemic (outside the city) I got hooked. I can ride it fine without pedal assist (if I run out of juice), I can use pedal assist when I get tired, and there is a throttle and gearing to help me conquer most of the hills I'm likely to attempt.
rndmize 4y ago
> It’s not just that it’s a big spend, but it’s a big spend on something 75% of people don’t use even if you did it. Improving infrastructure for bikes in a serious, not-just-paint-on-a-road kind of way would result in higher density, which is also better for walking, scooters, public transport - basically _all_ forms of transport aside from cars. It would likely _reduce_ costs on infra in the long run, by virtue of having less paved area that has to be maintained. > But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries, Encouraging greater mobility through walking or biking would likely result is lower obesity and better health for people in general. I have two uncles that bike heavily, both 65+. Neither has ever mentioned serious injuries from biking, but both have had incidents due to having to share the road with large personal vehicles. > live somewhere not dense enough to really get anywhere this way That's... the issue in a nutshell and the reason to make serious adjustments to infrastructure? > or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it (which is almost all but the biggest of them) we’ll still take our cars thank you. Does investing in biking infra mean people are going to be required to bike year-around or something? Is snow even a serious consideration for the majority of the country? I'm not really understanding your point here. (Heck, I did some googling and the nordic countries do 10% of trips by bike to the US at 1%, so it seems like even countries with a lot of snow can make this work.) > Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way, so let’s just electrify them and build lots of new clean energy and stop trying to make everyone ride a bike. No, they aren't great in every other way. They encourage terrible urban design that works against every other common mode of transportation. They require parking, which has always been a tremendous waste of space, especially in urban cores or downtown areas. They are safer only for the people inside them, and more dangerous for everyone around that chooses to bike, walk, etc., and this goes double for the ever-larger designs rolled out in the US. Human-powered transport effectively requires reasonable limits on distance - no one is going to be making a 3 or 4 hour commute walking or biking, and yet this isn't even uncommon for places people can get to by car. Cars may be great on the individual scale, taken in isolation; their effects in volume are bad at best.
JambalayaJim 4y ago
>Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way They're not - they take up an inordinate amount of space.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

> The enduring popularity of these articles on hacker news just shows a demographic bias. Sure if you are young and live in San Francisco or New York City, this might seem reasonable. But for the other 80% of America, And this sort of comment shows demographic ignorance. Do you know what percentage of the US population lives in rural areas? Fourteen percent. Not even 1/5th of the US population. The rest live in urbanized areas. The percentage of the population over 60? About 17%. Pre-pandemic, in the Boston area, the regional transit system handled around 2 million trips a day. > Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way, so let’s just electrify them and build lots of new clean energy and stop trying to make everyone ride a bike. 60% of all car trips in the US are less than three miles, electric cars don't solve congestion and land use waste nor all the injuries and deaths, and last but not least: nobody is "trying to make everyone ride a bike." Stop straw-manning.

silisili 4y ago
I feel like this is a bit misleading in the other direction, as it's lumping suburban in with urban. Which makes sense in some contexts, but probably not this one. Suburban sprawl is a huge problem wrt infrastructure. > According to data HUD and Census collected in the 2017 American Housing Survey (AHS), 52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural.
frumper 4y ago
Urbanized areas isn't what you think. I looked up several small town around me and they are all known for being agriculture towns, and they all qualify as urbanized areas. Some of them don't have proper grocery stores. These towns are miles away from the next town. They are in that 80% of urbanized America. America is huge. Page 3 details how the definition is arrived at. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/acs/acsgeo-1.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
cfeduke 4y ago
It's less about rural population and more about smaller metro populations. Places where there aren't bike lanes - where people on mopeds are really risking their lives trying to go twelve miles. The rural population quote of 17% are legitimately rural counties where population density below a certain point exists. Most smaller metro counties have rural infrastructure supporting a higher population density and simply are not safe for bikes, and a large number of people who are classified as urban are the people making up the population in metro counties. The US Census classifies as rural and urban so it's really hard to know exactly what, but assuming that anyone living in an urban area who is physically capable of doing so could ride a bike is incorrect.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  I spent ~six months of the pandemic in my family's mountain cabin, very rural. Nearest major grocery store about 20mi, closest convince store 5mi. I did most of the trips to both on an e-bike that I borrowed from a neighbor, which spurred me to buy my own when i returned to seattle. The two lane highway with it's shoulder painted bike lane that was the only way to traverse either trip was a bit sketchy and nerve wracking, especially on the weekends. The speed limit is 40mph, but when it's not ski season it's not ever that busy and so people speed on it constantly. But even given the longer 20mi trip I'd often look forward to it even though it was about an hour each way.
  - frumper 4y ago
    That sounds like a fun route to pull a trailer with my 2 kids in to go grocery shopping. Add in that I wouldn't be able to load up as much and I'd probably need to make that trip more often. I'd rather drive and spend that time playing with my kids in the back yard.
    - dghlsakjg 4y ago
      Nobody is asking you to switch over to bicycles exclusively, they are just saying that it would be nice if there was better non car infrastructure. That way, there will be less traffic for people like you who choose to live in a way where a car is necessary, and more options for others who don’t want to travel in traffic with cars.
jjav 4y ago
> Do you know what percentage of the US population lives in rural areas? > Fourteen percent. Not even 1/5th of the US population. The rest live in urbanized areas. Not-rural is not the same as being in a city though. Maybe only 14% live in rural areas, but most people don't live in cities either. Most people live in the wide suburban type areas that cover everything between city and rural.

m463 4y ago

I basically agree with you, but it would be nice if we could incrementally make cities less hostile to bikes. Also, there has to be some sort of health risk/reward ratio where riding a bike increases your health enough to offset the risk of falling. Sure anyone can die on a bike, but active exercise can also extend life.

sleepybrett 4y ago
If falling is really a worry for you there are options. Recumbents (both bicycles and tricycles) certainly get you a lot close to the ground, but also tricycles like this one: https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radtrike-electric-tricycle https://www.radpowerbikes.com/products/radtrike-electric-tri... which keeps you up and easy to see (in seattle every year or two it seems like some poor sod get's run over by a car that can't see them on a recumbent).

Johnny555 4y ago

Sure if you are young and live in San Francisco or New York City, this might seem reasonable. But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries I’m in my late 50’s and ride 15 miles to work most days in the Pacific Northwest, rain or shine. I’d think that the vast majority of people of working age could ride a bike safely. But I’m lucky to live in an area that has a separated bike path for 90% of my commute. My commute would only be 12 miles if I stuck to the most direct path on roads, but the bike path is safer and much more relaxing, I look forward to my commute. When I was young and living in San Francisco, I commuted by bus most of the time since it was super convenient - walk 2 blocks from my apartment to the bus stop and the bus stopped literally at the front door to my office. For about a year I did bike commute over the bridge to Sausalito, that was by far my favorite bike commute.

mattmaroon 4y ago
Again, I’m sure you do, and I’m sure a lot of people who read hacker news do. And it’s easy for those of us who live in bubbles to fail to see outside of them.
- Johnny555 4y ago
  I completely believe that many, probably most people, don’t want to ride a bike, but I don’t believe that 80% of people in the USA can’t ride a bike because they are old and/or don’t live in a major city and are at exceptional risk of injury.

iknowstuff 4y ago

I have for you a video titled "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo > There is a large group of people in the Netherlands who also benefit from the well-designed cycling infrastructure: people with disabilities. They can use hand-operated bicycles or tricycles or mobility scooters to get from A to B. The cycle tracks offer them good protection from motorized traffic and thus a freedom to independently move around. Also kids. Look how much freedom this infrastructure provides to Dutch kids. Car dependency is NOT good for the disabled. Not every disabled parson is even capable of safely driving a car.

pg314 4y ago

> It’s not just that it’s a big spend, but it’s a big spend on something 75% of people don’t use even if you did it. Are we to take your word that 75% of the people won't use it? Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark show that if you build bike infrastructure, people will use it. And the health and environmental benefits are enormous. And even if only 25% of the people use it, shouldn't they get 25% of the spend? > Sure if you are young and live in San Francisco or New York City, this might seem reasonable. But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries, or live somewhere not dense enough to really get anywhere this way, or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it (which is almost all but the biggest of them) 80% of the population in the US lives in cities. The median age is 39. So, no way 80% of the population fit your description. In cycling countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, even 80-year-olds cycle. > or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it Ask the Finnish how they do. They have no problem to cycle in the snow. You can change the way your city manages the snow. > Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way, 1.3 million people get killed worldwide by cars every year. A multiple of that get maimed. I wouldn't call that basically great. If you count the time spent in traffic, you are wasting millions of lives more each year. Electrifying has huge environmental costs. E.g. the Polestar 2 has a lifecycle cost (over 200.000kms) of 50 tons of CO2e compared to 58 tons for a Volvo XC40 ICE [1]. [1] https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1630409045-polestarlcarapportprintkorr11210831.pdf https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1630409045-polest...

reddog 4y ago

I agree and have always wondered how people with these extreme views think modern society would function without roads. You can't build (or maintain) a house, a hospital, a factory, a school or an office building without roads to accommodate the trucks pouring the foundation, deliverying the lumber and shingles. How do I get food, funiture and appliances to my apartment with only bike paths? What if I need an ambulance or police, do they roll up on electric bikes? Nothing is going to get build and everyday life is not possible without real roads that accomadate vehicles doing real work. And if you have that already why not use then for real personal vehicles that can be used by everyone and not just young, healthy hacker news subscribers.

sleepybrett 4y ago
Straw man. Literally no-one thinks we're going to do away with all motor infrastructure. What we want are a portion of that infrastructure to be reallocated for smaller, slower bicycle (and bicycle-like) traffic. On your 'young and healthy' hyperbole... I'm 50 this year and not in great shape (though because of the bike it's improving). I live in a somewhat quiet part of a major metro area (specifically Ballard, in Seattle) I have a cargo-style ebike that I use for almost everything that's within 5miles of my house rain or shine. If I need to go buy something that won't fit on my bike I use a car-share or borrow from a friend who is car-enabled. Given how hilly Seattle is, I've always shied away from biking here, but after having the use of an ebike for a few months during the pandemic (outside the city) I got hooked. I can ride it fine without pedal assist (if I run out of juice), I can use pedal assist when I get tired, and there is a throttle and gearing to help me conquer most of the hills I'm likely to attempt.

rndmize 4y ago

> It’s not just that it’s a big spend, but it’s a big spend on something 75% of people don’t use even if you did it. Improving infrastructure for bikes in a serious, not-just-paint-on-a-road kind of way would result in higher density, which is also better for walking, scooters, public transport - basically _all_ forms of transport aside from cars. It would likely _reduce_ costs on infra in the long run, by virtue of having less paved area that has to be maintained. > But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries, Encouraging greater mobility through walking or biking would likely result is lower obesity and better health for people in general. I have two uncles that bike heavily, both 65+. Neither has ever mentioned serious injuries from biking, but both have had incidents due to having to share the road with large personal vehicles. > live somewhere not dense enough to really get anywhere this way That's... the issue in a nutshell and the reason to make serious adjustments to infrastructure? > or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it (which is almost all but the biggest of them) we’ll still take our cars thank you. Does investing in biking infra mean people are going to be required to bike year-around or something? Is snow even a serious consideration for the majority of the country? I'm not really understanding your point here. (Heck, I did some googling and the nordic countries do 10% of trips by bike to the US at 1%, so it seems like even countries with a lot of snow can make this work.) > Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way, so let’s just electrify them and build lots of new clean energy and stop trying to make everyone ride a bike. No, they aren't great in every other way. They encourage terrible urban design that works against every other common mode of transportation. They require parking, which has always been a tremendous waste of space, especially in urban cores or downtown areas. They are safer only for the people inside them, and more dangerous for everyone around that chooses to bike, walk, etc., and this goes double for the ever-larger designs rolled out in the US. Human-powered transport effectively requires reasonable limits on distance - no one is going to be making a 3 or 4 hour commute walking or biking, and yet this isn't even uncommon for places people can get to by car. Cars may be great on the individual scale, taken in isolation; their effects in volume are bad at best.

JambalayaJim 4y ago

>Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way They're not - they take up an inordinate amount of space.