4 ms·

If you live in San Francisco, you might consider getting a bike and/or using public transportation instead of ride-sharing services. Either of them are better

by birken 12y ago

If you live in San Francisco, you might consider getting a bike and/or using public transportation instead of ride-sharing services. Either of them are better for the city by reducing congestion and pollution, and biking in particular is surprisingly fast and convenient. If you are interested in getting introduced to biking, there are a bunch of free classes by the SF Bicycle Coalition that I highly recommend you look into: https://www.sfbike.org/resources/urban-bicycling-workshops/ https://www.sfbike.org/resources/urban-bicycling-workshops/ For public transportation, here are a couple of "far too specific" guides for different types of public transit: Light Rail: http://fartoospecific.tumblr.com/post/63733141599/fartoospecific-guide-san-francisco-public-transit http://fartoospecific.tumblr.com/post/63733141599/fartoospec... BART: http://fartoospecific.tumblr.com/post/100628937344/fartoospecific-guide-bart-bay-area-rapid-transit http://fartoospecific.tumblr.com/post/100628937344/fartoospe...

codezero 12y ago
I just started biking to/from caltrain and in the first week, I've already had someone try to steal my bike off the train and have nearly been hit by several cars in completely un-extraordinary circumstances. I'm sticking with it, but it doesn't paint a great picture for biking over other forms of convenient, readily available transport. Also the initial cost of biking, even when going for a super cheap bike and gear was ~$400, which will only pay for itself after ~6 months assuming I don't need to buy more gear (I already know I will, to deal with rain, and repairs). My alternative was paying $50 for monthly parking at the caltrain station. My cost estimate includes the price of gas to get to and from the caltrain station.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  I was going to say that $400 is going to pay for itself in dramatically less than six months if you're paying City prices for parking. $50/mo for CalTrain is a steal -- if you're parking _in_ SF anywhere near downtown or SOMA / South Park, that's a couple of day's charges, possibly a week's worth if you're walking a few blocks. I'd factor in a few other points on cycling in that you're getting exercise, replacing at least some of a gym or other cost. And your bike will almost certainly last more than six months. A decent bike will last a lifetime, or at least a good ten years. You'll want to factor in service and parts but if you're spending more than $100-$200/year, you're likely using it for more than just casual commuting. That's a few tanks of gasoline for a car.
  - codezero 12y ago
    You're right. I definitely would have done this even if the cost didn't make too much sense. The exercise is one reason, another is that the caltrain lot fills up before about 7:45 am, so even if I'm catching an 8:15 train, I need to be there early. With a bike, I can ride for 10-15 minutes and get there on time. My bike won't last a year, or a lifetime, it's not decent, I've had to do a bunch of bolt tightening even after a few weeks, but that's OK, I didn't pay a lot.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      Bolt-tightening (especially on a recently-purchased bike) is hardly unexpected. On a new bike, there's a lot of general stretching and breaking-in of components over the first few days/weeks of use. A used $400 bike _should_ last you a long time, if you've selected properly. Though replacing components is fairly typical -- chain and freewheel, cables, tires, wheels. I've gone through a number of other components as well over various bikes under heavy use, though I've still got two frames that I've had for decades.
      - codezero 12y ago
        I bought a new $350 bike so my expectations are low. I'm ok with that. I wasn't sure the bike commute would stick so I didn't want to go all in right away.
        dredmorbius 12y ago
        Sunk cost, so, well, roll with it. But a used purchase in this case is almost always going to be more appropriate. There's a serious inflection point at the lower end of the bike market where you get very low-quality kit. I've not bought new for such a long time I'm not sure where it is any more, but ~$400 - $800 is likely around the range for a basic city bike (e.g., "mountain bike" type stance but geared for city streets). Figure paying half that for a lightly used model, of which there are generally many to choose from for numerous reasons.
- birken 12y ago
  City biking does have a bit of a learning curve, and I do highly recommend you look into those classes that I linked to above (or find similar ones in your area). You will get better with experience though, and the better you get the more you'll be able to understand how to bike defensively and reduce any sort of close calls.
  - stanleydrew 12y ago
    I wish more people would take your advice and learn how to ride defensively. I really feel like most people who get in accidents on their bicycles probably aren't paying attention to what's going on around them.
    - codezero 12y ago
      This sounds like victim shaming. Possibly the drivers of the cars are not paying attention, maybe both, but to assume that people are somehow doing something wrong (many may be) just because they are in an accident seems overly presumptuous. You can advocate for learning more about defensive riding without making it seem like those who are in accidents are just ignorant or unaware. My first two car accidents were completely unavoidable and unrelated to my awareness. I would have hated to have someone tell me these accidents could have been avoided with further training, knowing nothing else about the accident except that I had one. edit: I see your other comment in this thread, it has more information, thanks for that, all the same, it definitely seems to ignore a lot of complex factors and use anecdotal evidence (4 years of that, though, is pretty reasonable). My main gripe with any car/bike interactions are that they are orders of magnitude different. A car slams on its brakes to respond to something in the road, or swerves, and they can do that an order of magnitude faster and more powerful than a person on a bike can. As long as bikers share the road with cars, there will be an imbalance of power which is unavoidable, so they should feel a bit of indignation.
    - dirktheman 12y ago
      You're right! I come from a very bike-dense country (The Netherlands, we have more bicycles than inhabitants.) My son is 4 and he rides his bike to school. I'll cycle next to him, but he does know all the rules and basics about defensive riding. I bicycled in and around NYC last year and it was crazy. Car drivers didn't really pay attention to bikers, but that was actually much less dangerous than I anticipated. The cyclists however were flipping mad! No rules, no courtesy, aggresive riding, running red lights, cutting off cars... Madness! Not all,of them, of course, but considerably more than you would see in, say, Amsterdam. The bike lanes is NYC were fantastic, though. NYC seems perfect for bike transportation, I never got why you don't see more cyclists. SFO with all those hills (like I said, I'm dutch, no hills here...) and cable cars seems more challenging!
- rhizome 12y ago
  which will only pay for itself after ~6 months It can also replace a gym membership.
sinak 12y ago
So I cycle around SF, but am considering stopping. The data varies depending on which source you use, but it seems like cycling is about 3 times less dangerous than motorbiking, and considerably (at least ~5-10x) more dangerous than driving. Most people who've lived in SF have plenty of anecdotal evidence of friends who've been hurt, often seriously, by bike accidents. I'd love to be proven wrong about this: I love cycling and particularly like getting built-in exercise in my routine. And I'll continue to donate to the SF bicycle coalition, and vote for improving infrastructure to support cyclists. It just seems most rational to stop actually cycling.
- ihaveajob 12y ago
  It has been shown that the biggest factor in bike safety is the number of cyclists on the road. The more bikes, the more aware drivers are of our presence. In SF, Critical Mass had (I've learned) a huge impact in breaking ground for bike infrastructure. Currently, the Bay Area Bike Share has become a strong factor. If we stop biking now until it's safer, it might never be so.
  - fixedd 12y ago
    There's also been shown to be an inverse correlation between wearing a helmet and safety. It seems that motorists correlate "having a helmet on" with being safe, and so are more aggressive around those who are wearing.
    - codezero 12y ago
      Where has this been shown? Since I bike daily, I'm really curious about studies about helmet safety.
      - gst 12y ago
        This sounds related: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208....
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by birken 12y ago

codezero 12y ago

I just started biking to/from caltrain and in the first week, I've already had someone try to steal my bike off the train and have nearly been hit by several cars in completely un-extraordinary circumstances. I'm sticking with it, but it doesn't paint a great picture for biking over other forms of convenient, readily available transport. Also the initial cost of biking, even when going for a super cheap bike and gear was ~$400, which will only pay for itself after ~6 months assuming I don't need to buy more gear (I already know I will, to deal with rain, and repairs). My alternative was paying $50 for monthly parking at the caltrain station. My cost estimate includes the price of gas to get to and from the caltrain station.

dredmorbius 12y ago
I was going to say that $400 is going to pay for itself in dramatically less than six months if you're paying City prices for parking. $50/mo for CalTrain is a steal -- if you're parking _in_ SF anywhere near downtown or SOMA / South Park, that's a couple of day's charges, possibly a week's worth if you're walking a few blocks. I'd factor in a few other points on cycling in that you're getting exercise, replacing at least some of a gym or other cost. And your bike will almost certainly last more than six months. A decent bike will last a lifetime, or at least a good ten years. You'll want to factor in service and parts but if you're spending more than $100-$200/year, you're likely using it for more than just casual commuting. That's a few tanks of gasoline for a car.
- codezero 12y ago
  You're right. I definitely would have done this even if the cost didn't make too much sense. The exercise is one reason, another is that the caltrain lot fills up before about 7:45 am, so even if I'm catching an 8:15 train, I need to be there early. With a bike, I can ride for 10-15 minutes and get there on time. My bike won't last a year, or a lifetime, it's not decent, I've had to do a bunch of bolt tightening even after a few weeks, but that's OK, I didn't pay a lot.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Bolt-tightening (especially on a recently-purchased bike) is hardly unexpected. On a new bike, there's a lot of general stretching and breaking-in of components over the first few days/weeks of use. A used $400 bike _should_ last you a long time, if you've selected properly. Though replacing components is fairly typical -- chain and freewheel, cables, tires, wheels. I've gone through a number of other components as well over various bikes under heavy use, though I've still got two frames that I've had for decades.
    - codezero 12y ago
      I bought a new $350 bike so my expectations are low. I'm ok with that. I wasn't sure the bike commute would stick so I didn't want to go all in right away.
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        Sunk cost, so, well, roll with it. But a used purchase in this case is almost always going to be more appropriate. There's a serious inflection point at the lower end of the bike market where you get very low-quality kit. I've not bought new for such a long time I'm not sure where it is any more, but ~$400 - $800 is likely around the range for a basic city bike (e.g., "mountain bike" type stance but geared for city streets). Figure paying half that for a lightly used model, of which there are generally many to choose from for numerous reasons.
birken 12y ago
City biking does have a bit of a learning curve, and I do highly recommend you look into those classes that I linked to above (or find similar ones in your area). You will get better with experience though, and the better you get the more you'll be able to understand how to bike defensively and reduce any sort of close calls.
- stanleydrew 12y ago
  I wish more people would take your advice and learn how to ride defensively. I really feel like most people who get in accidents on their bicycles probably aren't paying attention to what's going on around them.
  - codezero 12y ago
    This sounds like victim shaming. Possibly the drivers of the cars are not paying attention, maybe both, but to assume that people are somehow doing something wrong (many may be) just because they are in an accident seems overly presumptuous. You can advocate for learning more about defensive riding without making it seem like those who are in accidents are just ignorant or unaware. My first two car accidents were completely unavoidable and unrelated to my awareness. I would have hated to have someone tell me these accidents could have been avoided with further training, knowing nothing else about the accident except that I had one. edit: I see your other comment in this thread, it has more information, thanks for that, all the same, it definitely seems to ignore a lot of complex factors and use anecdotal evidence (4 years of that, though, is pretty reasonable). My main gripe with any car/bike interactions are that they are orders of magnitude different. A car slams on its brakes to respond to something in the road, or swerves, and they can do that an order of magnitude faster and more powerful than a person on a bike can. As long as bikers share the road with cars, there will be an imbalance of power which is unavoidable, so they should feel a bit of indignation.
  - dirktheman 12y ago
    You're right! I come from a very bike-dense country (The Netherlands, we have more bicycles than inhabitants.) My son is 4 and he rides his bike to school. I'll cycle next to him, but he does know all the rules and basics about defensive riding. I bicycled in and around NYC last year and it was crazy. Car drivers didn't really pay attention to bikers, but that was actually much less dangerous than I anticipated. The cyclists however were flipping mad! No rules, no courtesy, aggresive riding, running red lights, cutting off cars... Madness! Not all,of them, of course, but considerably more than you would see in, say, Amsterdam. The bike lanes is NYC were fantastic, though. NYC seems perfect for bike transportation, I never got why you don't see more cyclists. SFO with all those hills (like I said, I'm dutch, no hills here...) and cable cars seems more challenging!
rhizome 12y ago
which will only pay for itself after ~6 months It can also replace a gym membership.

sinak 12y ago

So I cycle around SF, but am considering stopping. The data varies depending on which source you use, but it seems like cycling is about 3 times less dangerous than motorbiking, and considerably (at least ~5-10x) more dangerous than driving. Most people who've lived in SF have plenty of anecdotal evidence of friends who've been hurt, often seriously, by bike accidents. I'd love to be proven wrong about this: I love cycling and particularly like getting built-in exercise in my routine. And I'll continue to donate to the SF bicycle coalition, and vote for improving infrastructure to support cyclists. It just seems most rational to stop actually cycling.

ihaveajob 12y ago
It has been shown that the biggest factor in bike safety is the number of cyclists on the road. The more bikes, the more aware drivers are of our presence. In SF, Critical Mass had (I've learned) a huge impact in breaking ground for bike infrastructure. Currently, the Bay Area Bike Share has become a strong factor. If we stop biking now until it's safer, it might never be so.
- fixedd 12y ago
  There's also been shown to be an inverse correlation between wearing a helmet and safety. It seems that motorists correlate "having a helmet on" with being safe, and so are more aggressive around those who are wearing.
  - codezero 12y ago
    Where has this been shown? Since I bike daily, I'm really curious about studies about helmet safety.
    - gst 12y ago
      This sounds related: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208....

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]