4 ms·

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a mod

Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner. That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast. 9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

yodsanklai 1y ago
Cars are slow but you're less likely to get mugged (unlike pedestrians) or hit by cars (unlike cyclists). Also, bikes get stolen. These things happen rarely, but in the long run, the risk isn't negligible. I avoid cars as much as I can and commute by bike in my European city. I used to live in NYC: I've been mugged there, and I've seen cyclists injured by cars. I don't want to cycle there and I do take cabs in the evenings or nights. TLDR; speed isn't the only factor
- tiltowait 1y ago
  Cars also let you carry stuff over distances that would be awkward/uncomfortable/impossible walking or cycling. They’re also more comfortable, particularly in inclement weather. I’d absolutely love if I could get away with having no car. I can’t. My life would be markedly, instantly, and demonstrably worse. I feel like a lot of people in the “no cars” camp neglect these issues.
- abdullahkhalids 1y ago
  Indeed safety is a very important consideration. But safety in different types of vehicles is determined by which type of infrastructure is emphasized. If you design your city to be more pedestrian and biking friendly, there are more people walking and biking compared to cars, which naturally reduces the amount of mugging and car-bike accidents. For example, as number of cars on the road go down, police can invest resources into stopping muggings, instead of investing resources into catching car traffic violations.
sjducb 1y ago
It’s amazing how slow cars are in cities. I was recently beaten by a pedestrian over a 20 minute drive.
munificent 1y ago
I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions. * Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around. * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones. I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle. (The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- gpm 1y ago
  > * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones. > (The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.) While true that injuries exist, halving your chance of early death is a pretty remarkable statistic, and would make me say that you are (if you are a statistically average person) much safer bike commuting than commuting by car: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/12/18/18-year-study-of-82297-adults-finds-cycle-commuting-halves-chance-of-early-death/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/12/18/18-year-...
AtlasBarfed 1y ago
I wonder in NYC if elevated bike trails could be built economically that separate bikes from cars, or at least provide a "superhighway" for them. Maybe even a suspension scheme of sorts. With e-bikes and e-scooter, I would actually argue that New York City should build underground tunnels, well, the overall goal of being able to enable these types of very efficient compact transportation to get from various parts of the major boroughs at an average speed of about 15 mph I believe this will provide enormous livability benefits. Or you elevate the entire tunnel.
- Mawr 1y ago
  Super expensive and not very convenient if you have to go up/downhill all the time just to get anywhere.

yodsanklai 1y ago

Cars are slow but you're less likely to get mugged (unlike pedestrians) or hit by cars (unlike cyclists). Also, bikes get stolen. These things happen rarely, but in the long run, the risk isn't negligible. I avoid cars as much as I can and commute by bike in my European city. I used to live in NYC: I've been mugged there, and I've seen cyclists injured by cars. I don't want to cycle there and I do take cabs in the evenings or nights. TLDR; speed isn't the only factor

tiltowait 1y ago
Cars also let you carry stuff over distances that would be awkward/uncomfortable/impossible walking or cycling. They’re also more comfortable, particularly in inclement weather. I’d absolutely love if I could get away with having no car. I can’t. My life would be markedly, instantly, and demonstrably worse. I feel like a lot of people in the “no cars” camp neglect these issues.
abdullahkhalids 1y ago
Indeed safety is a very important consideration. But safety in different types of vehicles is determined by which type of infrastructure is emphasized. If you design your city to be more pedestrian and biking friendly, there are more people walking and biking compared to cars, which naturally reduces the amount of mugging and car-bike accidents. For example, as number of cars on the road go down, police can invest resources into stopping muggings, instead of investing resources into catching car traffic violations.

sjducb 1y ago

It’s amazing how slow cars are in cities. I was recently beaten by a pedestrian over a 20 minute drive.

munificent 1y ago

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions. * Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around. * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones. I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle. (The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
gpm 1y ago
> * You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones. > (The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.) While true that injuries exist, halving your chance of early death is a pretty remarkable statistic, and would make me say that you are (if you are a statistically average person) much safer bike commuting than commuting by car: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/12/18/18-year-study-of-82297-adults-finds-cycle-commuting-halves-chance-of-early-death/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/12/18/18-year-...

AtlasBarfed 1y ago

I wonder in NYC if elevated bike trails could be built economically that separate bikes from cars, or at least provide a "superhighway" for them. Maybe even a suspension scheme of sorts. With e-bikes and e-scooter, I would actually argue that New York City should build underground tunnels, well, the overall goal of being able to enable these types of very efficient compact transportation to get from various parts of the major boroughs at an average speed of about 15 mph I believe this will provide enormous livability benefits. Or you elevate the entire tunnel.

Mawr 1y ago
Super expensive and not very convenient if you have to go up/downhill all the time just to get anywhere.