4 ms·

Yes walking and bicycles is what's going to make your commute shorter. If you've ever seen a well used bicycle lane you can run a small experiment. You stand on

Yes walking and bicycles is what's going to make your commute shorter. If you've ever seen a well used bicycle lane you can run a small experiment. You stand on it, and you count the people going through. Then you go on a well used car lane, and you do the same The throughput of a single cycle lane is insane You'll quickly figure out that if they just took one lane away from cars to give it to the bikes, and did so all over your city, that'd equate in throughput 3+ car lanes magically getting added to every road in your city (by removing cars that you wouldn't get stuck behind, and wouldn't occupy your parking spaces) And you don't even need to add lanes, you just build concrete separators and take lanes from cars The best thing you can do if you want to drive is to enable others to not drive And that includes sharing the road and not being a NIMBY about the damn bike lanes.

graemep 2y ago
Throughput of cycles lanes is potentially high but often is not. I have lived in multiple places in the UK that have lots of cycle lanes that are hardly used. Its not magic that will work everywhere for everyone. On the other hand the throughput of public transport is good almost everywhere I have lived is reasonable, and in many places very high, especially at peak times. One bus carries as many people as a very large number of cars, one train carries far more. yes, sometimes they run empty, but not at the times the roads are congested.
- aaomidi 2y ago
  Bike lanes aren’t magical. They need to be practically everywhere, not just a few roads. They need repair stations on the lane. They need to actually be safe and separate from the car traffic, preferably you shouldn’t be interacting with cars at all in a bike lane. They also need to be relatively shady with trees. They also need to be maintained throughout the year. Most places only do a few of these.
  - sebstefan 2y ago
    I live in a cycling capital of the world and we have repair stations, they're nice but they're a gimmick We don't care about shading either, and we'll happily bike in the snow There's 3 things that matter; safety, what mode of transport is the fastest to get me to my destination (where I live, that's mostly cycling), and cost (of owning & using the mode of transport) You just focus on making as many cycle lanes as you can first, and make sure they're good so that they're used. Cycling should always have the more direct itinerary available. Separate them from cars with bollards and pay attention to how the dutch handle intersections and you'll get 95% of the way there without planting trees for shade or building repair stations
    - aaomidi 2y ago
      Yes. I really believe the main thing is the density of cycling networks and their separation from traffic. Bike trails in the US that are fully separate from traffic are very commonly used. Trails that do road sharing at some parts are not.
    - graemep 2y ago
      Has anywhere emulated this though? It is very difficult to fit into existing urban areas. If you narrow streets but the alternative does not work, then you worsen pollution by increasing congestion. Effort matters too - cycling is more viable somewhere flat. I live off a main road into a town with a wide cycle path separated from cars. The town has slow moving traffic and seems a reasonable place to cycle. The cycle lane is still lightly used. I usually walk into town. I only use the car for shopping or longer journeys (I do less than 3k miles/year). For me cycling has a very narrow potential use case - if its too far to walk, and close enough to cycle, and I do not need the luggage space of a car.
      - sebstefan 2y ago
        Adding more lanes didn't decrease congestion so, for once, giving people an alternative to driving sure isn't going to increase it. It's just one lane. Not even a lane if the lane size is currently oversized with respect to the speed limit (which it is on most roads in the united states) >I live off a main road into a town with a wide cycle path separated from cars. The town has slow moving traffic and seems a reasonable place to cycle. The cycle lane is still lightly used. I'd have to see a streetview of it but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a lone bikelane with no real network around it to support its use It's not enough to have just one lane that's safe, people won't bike unless they can find a whole itinerary where they don't risk getting flattened by an F-150 >Effort matters too - cycling is more viable somewhere flat. And somewhere sunny, and somewhere dry, the fact is, people cycle in Finland yet they don't in Canada because it's not safe We have electric bikes now so slopes are even less of an issue than they were previously >For me cycling has a very narrow potential use case - if its too far to walk, and close enough to cycle, and I do not need the luggage space of a car. Tell that to all those people in Amsterdam who don't even bother to get a driving license
RhysU 2y ago
> The throughput of a single cycle lane is insane. Both the latency and the throughput of motorcycling with lane splitting is far better. And, notice, it requires no infrastructure changes. Nor does it take existing lanes away from anyone. And motorcycles work in any weather that bicycles work. We have the technology and the infrastructure but not the widespread policy. Silly cagers.
- soared 2y ago
  Motorcycles are like 30x more dangerous than driving though
  - sebstefan 2y ago
    Because of cars Motorcycle lanes next...? Back to square 1
    - RhysU 2y ago
      A fun thought experiment... Put motorcycles in bicycle lanes! That's crazy though, because motorcycles and bicycles are very different beasts. But wait! We put bicycles in car lanes all the time. So clearly mixing bicycles and internal combustion engines in the same lane of travel is acceptable despite massive speed and weight differences. If separating two-wheeled vehicles from cars is safer and more convenient and therefore societally compelling, do it for all 2-wheeled vehicles.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  I don’t really understand the theory behind lane splitting. Legally and practically, cars are allowed to drive to the very edge of their lane. If both cars in adjacent lanes do this, there is no room for a motorcycle. If there is no room for a motorcycle and a motorcycle is there, there will be a collision. It seems like lane splitting practically forces everyone to drive in the middle of the lane (which again is not legally required anywhere AFAIK), or to watch constantly for motorcycles behind them, or it accepts a certain rate of motorcycle on car collisions even when everyone is following the rules perfectly. If there is a collision whose fault is it? The motorcyclist for not reading the mind of the driver? The driver for not shoulder checking before they move within the lane? It doesn’t seem scalable for this reason, and it just drops a useful property of driving seemingly without giving it much thought (i.e. that no one else will be in your lane unless they are violating a rule).
dexen 2y ago
The article is about latency, the GP is about latency, you instead pivoted to throughput. Of course throughput can be made arbitrarily high when you don't measure latency. Doesn't help your case at all, quite the opposite. I am in the happy medium where I can just as well bike or drive to work. It takes 2x to 3x as long (latency) to bicycle than to drive. Aside of slower speed, numerous latencies add up along the way - I can't time bicycling to hit green wave; I require brief but measurable time to dress into bicycling clothes and then to change at the destination, to park & lock the bicycle - nowhere near as quick as clicking the car's remote!. I know both modes, and while bicycling is better for my health and likely has higher throughput along my route, it certainly has higher latency. Which is the OG subject. Lastly there's matter of variability: between occasional flat tire, the rare drained headlight battery, and other uncommon issues, my bicycle is significantly less reliable than my car. And that's in spite of heavy, and ongoing, investment into the bicycle - including well known puncture-resistant tires. This unreliability adds non-trivial variability to the latency.
- sebstefan 2y ago
  I'll just get the point out there that latency isn't increasing because people are living further from their destination. Latency is increasing because there's traffic (not that you made that point) Throughput fixes traffic Plus your point stands for "adding lanes for buses" as well! How would that fix latency? People only started living further from their destination because they gained the ability to travel faster. In transit, the invariant is how much time people are willing to spend commuting on average If you increase throughput you will, in time, decrease latency Looking at your post, * I live in a very bikeable city in Europe and I've never worn "bicycle clothes" * Variability in cars are entirely dependent on traffic. I've never been stuck in traffic on a bicycle. Bikes are much more reliable than cars and you can get one for $80 on craigslist literally overnight, meaning you'll never care about getting a spare. Flat tires almost never happen, and bike maintenance is a gimmie. Let's flip. What happens to your day when your car breaks down? * The "green wave" is an infrastructure problem that can be fixed with infrastructure solutions Then for the point of speed, cycling is only faster in dense areas and it'll mostly save you time in traffic & parking If you live 7km away from your workplace, go through suburbs and large roads with single story buildings, the only people who'll benefit from cycling will be the people who are already living close to the center But that's good for you, because you won't need to fight them for parking nor stand behind them in traffic Once you have bike lanes though you can densify your city a bit more easily

graemep 2y ago

Throughput of cycles lanes is potentially high but often is not. I have lived in multiple places in the UK that have lots of cycle lanes that are hardly used. Its not magic that will work everywhere for everyone. On the other hand the throughput of public transport is good almost everywhere I have lived is reasonable, and in many places very high, especially at peak times. One bus carries as many people as a very large number of cars, one train carries far more. yes, sometimes they run empty, but not at the times the roads are congested.

aaomidi 2y ago
Bike lanes aren’t magical. They need to be practically everywhere, not just a few roads. They need repair stations on the lane. They need to actually be safe and separate from the car traffic, preferably you shouldn’t be interacting with cars at all in a bike lane. They also need to be relatively shady with trees. They also need to be maintained throughout the year. Most places only do a few of these.
- sebstefan 2y ago
  I live in a cycling capital of the world and we have repair stations, they're nice but they're a gimmick We don't care about shading either, and we'll happily bike in the snow There's 3 things that matter; safety, what mode of transport is the fastest to get me to my destination (where I live, that's mostly cycling), and cost (of owning & using the mode of transport) You just focus on making as many cycle lanes as you can first, and make sure they're good so that they're used. Cycling should always have the more direct itinerary available. Separate them from cars with bollards and pay attention to how the dutch handle intersections and you'll get 95% of the way there without planting trees for shade or building repair stations
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    Yes. I really believe the main thing is the density of cycling networks and their separation from traffic. Bike trails in the US that are fully separate from traffic are very commonly used. Trails that do road sharing at some parts are not.
  - graemep 2y ago
    Has anywhere emulated this though? It is very difficult to fit into existing urban areas. If you narrow streets but the alternative does not work, then you worsen pollution by increasing congestion. Effort matters too - cycling is more viable somewhere flat. I live off a main road into a town with a wide cycle path separated from cars. The town has slow moving traffic and seems a reasonable place to cycle. The cycle lane is still lightly used. I usually walk into town. I only use the car for shopping or longer journeys (I do less than 3k miles/year). For me cycling has a very narrow potential use case - if its too far to walk, and close enough to cycle, and I do not need the luggage space of a car.
    - sebstefan 2y ago
      Adding more lanes didn't decrease congestion so, for once, giving people an alternative to driving sure isn't going to increase it. It's just one lane. Not even a lane if the lane size is currently oversized with respect to the speed limit (which it is on most roads in the united states) >I live off a main road into a town with a wide cycle path separated from cars. The town has slow moving traffic and seems a reasonable place to cycle. The cycle lane is still lightly used. I'd have to see a streetview of it but I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a lone bikelane with no real network around it to support its use It's not enough to have just one lane that's safe, people won't bike unless they can find a whole itinerary where they don't risk getting flattened by an F-150 >Effort matters too - cycling is more viable somewhere flat. And somewhere sunny, and somewhere dry, the fact is, people cycle in Finland yet they don't in Canada because it's not safe We have electric bikes now so slopes are even less of an issue than they were previously >For me cycling has a very narrow potential use case - if its too far to walk, and close enough to cycle, and I do not need the luggage space of a car. Tell that to all those people in Amsterdam who don't even bother to get a driving license

RhysU 2y ago

> The throughput of a single cycle lane is insane. Both the latency and the throughput of motorcycling with lane splitting is far better. And, notice, it requires no infrastructure changes. Nor does it take existing lanes away from anyone. And motorcycles work in any weather that bicycles work. We have the technology and the infrastructure but not the widespread policy. Silly cagers.

soared 2y ago
Motorcycles are like 30x more dangerous than driving though
- sebstefan 2y ago
  Because of cars Motorcycle lanes next...? Back to square 1
  - RhysU 2y ago
    A fun thought experiment... Put motorcycles in bicycle lanes! That's crazy though, because motorcycles and bicycles are very different beasts. But wait! We put bicycles in car lanes all the time. So clearly mixing bicycles and internal combustion engines in the same lane of travel is acceptable despite massive speed and weight differences. If separating two-wheeled vehicles from cars is safer and more convenient and therefore societally compelling, do it for all 2-wheeled vehicles.
pfannkuchen 2y ago
I don’t really understand the theory behind lane splitting. Legally and practically, cars are allowed to drive to the very edge of their lane. If both cars in adjacent lanes do this, there is no room for a motorcycle. If there is no room for a motorcycle and a motorcycle is there, there will be a collision. It seems like lane splitting practically forces everyone to drive in the middle of the lane (which again is not legally required anywhere AFAIK), or to watch constantly for motorcycles behind them, or it accepts a certain rate of motorcycle on car collisions even when everyone is following the rules perfectly. If there is a collision whose fault is it? The motorcyclist for not reading the mind of the driver? The driver for not shoulder checking before they move within the lane? It doesn’t seem scalable for this reason, and it just drops a useful property of driving seemingly without giving it much thought (i.e. that no one else will be in your lane unless they are violating a rule).

dexen 2y ago

The article is about latency, the GP is about latency, you instead pivoted to throughput. Of course throughput can be made arbitrarily high when you don't measure latency. Doesn't help your case at all, quite the opposite. I am in the happy medium where I can just as well bike or drive to work. It takes 2x to 3x as long (latency) to bicycle than to drive. Aside of slower speed, numerous latencies add up along the way - I can't time bicycling to hit green wave; I require brief but measurable time to dress into bicycling clothes and then to change at the destination, to park & lock the bicycle - nowhere near as quick as clicking the car's remote!. I know both modes, and while bicycling is better for my health and likely has higher throughput along my route, it certainly has higher latency. Which is the OG subject. Lastly there's matter of variability: between occasional flat tire, the rare drained headlight battery, and other uncommon issues, my bicycle is significantly less reliable than my car. And that's in spite of heavy, and ongoing, investment into the bicycle - including well known puncture-resistant tires. This unreliability adds non-trivial variability to the latency.

sebstefan 2y ago
I'll just get the point out there that latency isn't increasing because people are living further from their destination. Latency is increasing because there's traffic (not that you made that point) Throughput fixes traffic Plus your point stands for "adding lanes for buses" as well! How would that fix latency? People only started living further from their destination because they gained the ability to travel faster. In transit, the invariant is how much time people are willing to spend commuting on average If you increase throughput you will, in time, decrease latency Looking at your post, * I live in a very bikeable city in Europe and I've never worn "bicycle clothes" * Variability in cars are entirely dependent on traffic. I've never been stuck in traffic on a bicycle. Bikes are much more reliable than cars and you can get one for $80 on craigslist literally overnight, meaning you'll never care about getting a spare. Flat tires almost never happen, and bike maintenance is a gimmie. Let's flip. What happens to your day when your car breaks down? * The "green wave" is an infrastructure problem that can be fixed with infrastructure solutions Then for the point of speed, cycling is only faster in dense areas and it'll mostly save you time in traffic & parking If you live 7km away from your workplace, go through suburbs and large roads with single story buildings, the only people who'll benefit from cycling will be the people who are already living close to the center But that's good for you, because you won't need to fight them for parking nor stand behind them in traffic Once you have bike lanes though you can densify your city a bit more easily