In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?_r=2&em
15 comments
Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at fault.
Sorry, but doesn't anyone have an issue with this? Why is there an expectation that cyclists cannot possibly be held responsible for their actions?
By this logic, if my mini hits a bus, I shouldn't be responsible, even if I ran a red light.
I tend to agree with most of the other points, but this one is ridiculous.
Sorry, but doesn't anyone have an issue with this? Why is there an expectation that cyclists cannot possibly be held responsible for their actions?
By this logic, if my mini hits a bus, I shouldn't be responsible, even if I ran a red light.
I tend to agree with most of the other points, but this one is ridiculous.
Biking by itself is not that dangerous. Biking near cars is dangerous. If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it.
Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident. If a car and a bike get in a wreck, the person driving has almost no risk of injury where the person on bike is at risk of dying or getting seriously injured, depending on the situation. This law gives people driving a little more reason to be more careful.
Also, keep in mind in the US, if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver's insurance always pays no matter whose at fault.
Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident. If a car and a bike get in a wreck, the person driving has almost no risk of injury where the person on bike is at risk of dying or getting seriously injured, depending on the situation. This law gives people driving a little more reason to be more careful.
Also, keep in mind in the US, if a car hits a pedestrian, the driver's insurance always pays no matter whose at fault.
Biking by itself is not that dangerous
It is if you are a pedestrian. This is also typical of a cyclist's attitude that their vehicle is the only one that matters; impossible to do any harm - it is most certainly possible for a cyclist to cause an accident between two other vehicles that is caused by their lack of due care. (e.g. car A hits car B instead of hitting cyclist C that is running a red.)
You're suggesting C walks as if nothing happened, I'm suggesting that it is an irresponsible law that allows this.
If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it.
I'm not suggesting that a car driver should not be at fault. I'm suggesting that all individuals on the road be held to the same standard.
Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident.
I realize this, which is why I provided my example, specifically. Do you not agree that the same imbalance exists for the driver of the mini?
It is if you are a pedestrian. This is also typical of a cyclist's attitude that their vehicle is the only one that matters; impossible to do any harm - it is most certainly possible for a cyclist to cause an accident between two other vehicles that is caused by their lack of due care. (e.g. car A hits car B instead of hitting cyclist C that is running a red.)
You're suggesting C walks as if nothing happened, I'm suggesting that it is an irresponsible law that allows this.
If you want to drive around in a 2 ton vehicle with the power to kill, you better damn be responsible for it.
I'm not suggesting that a car driver should not be at fault. I'm suggesting that all individuals on the road be held to the same standard.
Also, there is an imbalance in incentives to not get in an accident.
I realize this, which is why I provided my example, specifically. Do you not agree that the same imbalance exists for the driver of the mini?
I'm not suggesting that a car driver should not be at fault. I'm suggesting that all individuals on the road be held to the same standard.
This is a way of holding drivers to the same high standards of care and attention that cyclists have to hold for their own self interest. The same standard is not enough when the power balance is so skewed and defaults towards cars.
This is a way of holding drivers to the same high standards of care and attention that cyclists have to hold for their own self interest. The same standard is not enough when the power balance is so skewed and defaults towards cars.
This is a way of holding drivers to the same high standards of care and attention that cyclists have to hold for their own self interest.
This is precisely the type of attitude I take issue with. One would think that cyclists would behave like the vulnerable vehicles they are, yet a 15 minute observation of the typical cyclist will no doubt show numerous traffic offences, inclusive of some that most motor vehicle operators would never think of committing. This is common knowledge to all who use the roads we are supposed to share.
Cyclists are no better - or worse, to be fair - when it comes obeying the rules of the road than any other participant, be they pedestrian or motor vehicle operator.
I think you actually encourage bad behaviour by removing or lessening liability for a class of road user dependent on their ease of injury. Road safety starts with personal responsibility: understanding that you are doing an inherently dangerous thing with a fast moving vehicle that could result in your death and the death of others.
Asking others to shoulder this responsibility for you because of your vehicle choice is irresponsible, and in my mind contrary to a fair and just law.
This is precisely the type of attitude I take issue with. One would think that cyclists would behave like the vulnerable vehicles they are, yet a 15 minute observation of the typical cyclist will no doubt show numerous traffic offences, inclusive of some that most motor vehicle operators would never think of committing. This is common knowledge to all who use the roads we are supposed to share.
Cyclists are no better - or worse, to be fair - when it comes obeying the rules of the road than any other participant, be they pedestrian or motor vehicle operator.
I think you actually encourage bad behaviour by removing or lessening liability for a class of road user dependent on their ease of injury. Road safety starts with personal responsibility: understanding that you are doing an inherently dangerous thing with a fast moving vehicle that could result in your death and the death of others.
Asking others to shoulder this responsibility for you because of your vehicle choice is irresponsible, and in my mind contrary to a fair and just law.
This is precisely the type of attitude I take issue with. One would think that cyclists would behave like the vulnerable vehicles they are, yet a 15 minute observation of the typical cyclist will no doubt show numerous traffic offences, inclusive of some that most motor vehicle operators would never think of committing. This is common knowledge to all who use the roads we are supposed to share.
I don't have any data to support or desupport this claim that a 'typical' cyclist will show 'numerous' traffic offenses in any given 15 minute observation. Anecdotally, today I saw a car stopped in a no-stop zone, a car pulling off a roundabout without indicating, cars pulling onto a pavement and two cyclists crossing at a crossing onto a cycle path and one cyclist pulling over to let cars past.
I take issue with this:
I think you actually encourage bad behaviour by removing or lessening liability for a class of road user dependent on their ease of injury. Road safety starts with personal responsibility
Because you are suggesting that cyclists don't care about being injured, but only whether it will cost them money or not, as if a broken leg and a week off work is fine as long as it's free.
understanding that you are doing an inherently dangerous thing with a fast moving vehicle that could result in your death and the death of others.
Road safety is about this - an understanding that you are involved in traffic and what you do matters. It's just that what motorists do matters more because it is amplified by their machinery.
A cyclist cuts up a car and they swerve to avoid it and hit another car. Any traffic going at a speed where a cyclist could cut them up is slow enough that the cars would crunch a bit. A car cuts up a cyclist and the cyclist swerves into something, and the cyclist gets hurt.
For the sake of their own safety, cyclists should be as careful as they can be. For the sake of avoiding causing accidents cyclists should be careful. But for the sake of protecting cyclists as a class of society, car drivers should be held to a higher standard. That doesn't say cyclists should be held to no standard, it says people whose actions are amplified should have to be more careful than people whose actions are not.
I don't have any data to support or desupport this claim that a 'typical' cyclist will show 'numerous' traffic offenses in any given 15 minute observation. Anecdotally, today I saw a car stopped in a no-stop zone, a car pulling off a roundabout without indicating, cars pulling onto a pavement and two cyclists crossing at a crossing onto a cycle path and one cyclist pulling over to let cars past.
I take issue with this:
I think you actually encourage bad behaviour by removing or lessening liability for a class of road user dependent on their ease of injury. Road safety starts with personal responsibility
Because you are suggesting that cyclists don't care about being injured, but only whether it will cost them money or not, as if a broken leg and a week off work is fine as long as it's free.
understanding that you are doing an inherently dangerous thing with a fast moving vehicle that could result in your death and the death of others.
Road safety is about this - an understanding that you are involved in traffic and what you do matters. It's just that what motorists do matters more because it is amplified by their machinery.
A cyclist cuts up a car and they swerve to avoid it and hit another car. Any traffic going at a speed where a cyclist could cut them up is slow enough that the cars would crunch a bit. A car cuts up a cyclist and the cyclist swerves into something, and the cyclist gets hurt.
For the sake of their own safety, cyclists should be as careful as they can be. For the sake of avoiding causing accidents cyclists should be careful. But for the sake of protecting cyclists as a class of society, car drivers should be held to a higher standard. That doesn't say cyclists should be held to no standard, it says people whose actions are amplified should have to be more careful than people whose actions are not.
I always find it interesting when drivers expect all bikers to follow every 'rule of the road' - meanwhile special laws grant cars the unique ability to pass a biker in otherwise no passing zones: one way single lane, double yellow, etc. Either understand that the two modes of transportation are different and deserve different laws, or don't expect special case laws for either mode.
In your somewhat contrived example the cyclist could certainly be cited for reckless behavior.
but, the car drivers would pay the increased premium as if they drove their car into a wall. I have a problem with that.
From a legal and personal responsibility standpoint, the law is lopsided, but it may act as a deterrent to driving in the first place, thereby encouraging bike use. I think that's what the OP of this thread was trying to get at.
I don't think encouraging behaviour of any sort should trump personal responsibility and (more importantly)
legal liability.
The law is more complex than I perhaps made it seem. The car's insurer can for example sue the bicyclist afterwards to get some money back if they think they can prove something (but they have to pay first, that's the default). There's also a provision that it doesn't apply for knowingly getting into a dangerous situation (but, on the other hand, if a bicyclist runs a red light thinking it's safe, this provision wouldn't be triggered).
I haven't heard anyone call it ridiculous before, so it's probably down to me not explaining it very well or not knowing all the details.
It's also not a law tailor-made for bicyclists, it applies to all 'vulnerable road users', i.e. pedestrians, skaters, also passengers in cars...
I haven't heard anyone call it ridiculous before, so it's probably down to me not explaining it very well or not knowing all the details.
It's also not a law tailor-made for bicyclists, it applies to all 'vulnerable road users', i.e. pedestrians, skaters, also passengers in cars...
Thanks, that addresses some of the things in my response.
Well, there's a huge asymmetry between a car hitting a bike and vice-versa. So I'd guess it's not that the bike can't be held responsible, but that the potential downside for a biker is death, while the car would likely just suffer some dents.
Whether or not that causes reckless behavior on the biker's part, I don't know. But I can imagine the argument.
Whether or not that causes reckless behavior on the biker's part, I don't know. But I can imagine the argument.
I'm not seeing a huge difference between that and the state of vehicle laws in my home state (Michigan).
Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does, you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency.
I have a friend who actually did get a ticket for hitting a car that ran a red light. Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.
Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does, you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency.
I have a friend who actually did get a ticket for hitting a car that ran a red light. Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.
> Here, if you strike another car, you're at fault. Regardless of what another vehicle does [...]
That's not true. Recently, I was a passenger in a car that stopped very quickly and made a turn into a restaurant. We were hit from behind and the driver of our car received a ticket because it was an erratic, unsafe maneuver.
> you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency
It's possible to do this and still hit the car in front of you. I hit someone in front of me trying to make an illegal U-turn. I tried to avoid it but still hit them. They received a ticket.
> Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.
I don't know the specifics but your friend probably got the ticket because it was determined by the cop after hearing both sides of the story that it was reasonable for him to see the other car coming. He may have been determined at fault in the context traffic laws but not in terms of who pays for it because Michigan is a no-fault insurance state.
I don't see how this is anything like Michigan.
That's not true. Recently, I was a passenger in a car that stopped very quickly and made a turn into a restaurant. We were hit from behind and the driver of our car received a ticket because it was an erratic, unsafe maneuver.
> you're expected to maintain safe stopping distance and an 'exit' if your lane needs to be vacated in an emergency
It's possible to do this and still hit the car in front of you. I hit someone in front of me trying to make an illegal U-turn. I tried to avoid it but still hit them. They received a ticket.
> Granted, the car running the light got a ticket for breaking the law, but 'fault' for the collision was assigned to my friend.
I don't know the specifics but your friend probably got the ticket because it was determined by the cop after hearing both sides of the story that it was reasonable for him to see the other car coming. He may have been determined at fault in the context traffic laws but not in terms of who pays for it because Michigan is a no-fault insurance state.
I don't see how this is anything like Michigan.
Red light accidents are tricky and each one is assessed on its particulars. Usually, regardless of the other vehicle's actions, if you are judged to be able to avoid an accident, and you don't, you are being careless, hence at fault.
A lot of jurisdictions have "no-fault" legislation however that gets in the way with regards to insurance.
A lot of jurisdictions have "no-fault" legislation however that gets in the way with regards to insurance.
Contrast that with cycling in the states where you're derided and people throw stuff at you from passing cars (beer cans seem to be a favourite projectile).
In the cities it's still somewhat doable but outside it's simply impossible. No separate lanes, cars passing you within inches, risking you being clipped by a mirror.
In the cities it's still somewhat doable but outside it's simply impossible. No separate lanes, cars passing you within inches, risking you being clipped by a mirror.
That happens most often when you are on a road you really don't belong on. Are you familiar with Highway 9? (for those who don't know, twisty steep 2-lane mountain road, very popular with bicyclists who ride in the middle of the lane and later complain about all the cars) Though they love it to death, that road was not built for cyclists, and it's far too expensive to expand it to give the cyclists their own lane.
Except those bicyclists pay taxes too, and have the exact same legal right to use the road. Riding in the "middle" of the road is a necessary technique to prevent being passed danngerously closely.
Neither of those things justifies being assaulted.
As a side note, it appears that SR-9 near Silicon Valley existed long before automobiles, and thus was not built for automobiles either. It was probably "built for" horse wagons and pedestrians, and used by bicyclists years before any motorist.
Neither of those things justifies being assaulted.
As a side note, it appears that SR-9 near Silicon Valley existed long before automobiles, and thus was not built for automobiles either. It was probably "built for" horse wagons and pedestrians, and used by bicyclists years before any motorist.
That is true, but whether their actions are 100% legal or not, the road is not designed to properly accommodate both cars and cyclists. Thus they piss of drivers, and hence the frustration towards cyclists, which is what I was explaining.
Of course they don't deserve to be assaulted, I never said that they did. I personally try to treat them as kindly as possible.
For reference, I say 'no business being on' because they know they will be putting themselves in a compromised position, legal or not. They can shake their fist at drivers and such, but they know it is unsafe going in. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea.
Of course they don't deserve to be assaulted, I never said that they did. I personally try to treat them as kindly as possible.
For reference, I say 'no business being on' because they know they will be putting themselves in a compromised position, legal or not. They can shake their fist at drivers and such, but they know it is unsafe going in. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea.
To be fair, I'm sure that the cyclists find the cars on highway 9 to be equally frustrating, especially when they're being treated like they don't belong there.
> Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a smart idea.
I think that goes for the whole fixed-gear story as well, even where it's legal it isn't very smart. As a bicyclist you're already vulnerable enough, no point in adding more factors to increase that vulnerability.
I think that goes for the whole fixed-gear story as well, even where it's legal it isn't very smart. As a bicyclist you're already vulnerable enough, no point in adding more factors to increase that vulnerability.
I've biked all over the western United States, and I've never had actual beer cans thrown at me. That said I have been on the receiving end of a certain amount of aggressive driving and general idiocy but the prevalence is pretty much the same city or country.
Luc, can you describe your wife's employers bicycle policy? I'm trying to set one up at my company as well, and haven't found the ideal plan yet. Suggestions welcome!
I don't have access to the exact agreement at the moment.
My wife's employer, funnily enough, is a petroleum company. I think the bike policies of the company are those set out by Collective Bargaining Agreement (negotiations between employer and employee organisations) for the whole petroleum sector, but I can't find a good English language article.
Colruyt, a supermarket company in Belgium, is well known as having a successful bicycle policy. E.g.
- company-owned bicycles placed at the train station closest to the HQ so people can use the train to commute
- free bicycles for employees who use them at least 3 times a week for their commute
- 0.15 eurocent per kilometer compensation
This is just the bicycle part of it though. They also have programs to facilitate and encourage car-pooling, or to encourage use of scooters instead of cars. Their trucks must be >95% full before delivering, they use rail as much as possible etc. (Some of this is from memory, don't shoot me if I'm off by a few cent or percent).
Coincidentally Colruyt is also the most profitable and fastest growing supermarket chain in Belgium.
One more thing - a lot of this is backed by laws or measures in the tax code. E.g. the 'compensation per km' is tax-free to the employee and there are likewise tax reductions on the employer's side. So these things may be harder to implement in a different country.
My wife's employer, funnily enough, is a petroleum company. I think the bike policies of the company are those set out by Collective Bargaining Agreement (negotiations between employer and employee organisations) for the whole petroleum sector, but I can't find a good English language article.
Colruyt, a supermarket company in Belgium, is well known as having a successful bicycle policy. E.g.
- company-owned bicycles placed at the train station closest to the HQ so people can use the train to commute
- free bicycles for employees who use them at least 3 times a week for their commute
- 0.15 eurocent per kilometer compensation
This is just the bicycle part of it though. They also have programs to facilitate and encourage car-pooling, or to encourage use of scooters instead of cars. Their trucks must be >95% full before delivering, they use rail as much as possible etc. (Some of this is from memory, don't shoot me if I'm off by a few cent or percent).
Coincidentally Colruyt is also the most profitable and fastest growing supermarket chain in Belgium.
One more thing - a lot of this is backed by laws or measures in the tax code. E.g. the 'compensation per km' is tax-free to the employee and there are likewise tax reductions on the employer's side. So these things may be harder to implement in a different country.
I lived in Münster, Germany for a few years. Münster is THE bike town in germany. Statistically every citizen has 1.8 bikes. And i begann to love biking there. A lot is done in that city to make biking the #1 way of transportation. Now I am living in Cologne, Germany and see the difference. I miss the good bike lanes but I kept biking in cologne.
Nothing is better for your head than biking a few miles home after a hard day of work.
Nothing is better for your head than biking a few miles home after a hard day of work.
I lived in Frankfurt for many years when I was young and just took for granted the fact that I could bike just about anywhere without tangling with cars. Paths through the forest, farm roads, bike paths through towns, one could just ride forever.
When I returned to the USA where I was born, I noticed that every American had a gaggle of dusty, low quality bikes in their garages that never got used. There were no bike paths anywhere and riding on the roads looked like suicide. I once asked someone why they even had the bikes; where do you ride them? He answered without hesitation that you could load the bikes in the car and drive across town to where there was a park with a bike trail. I though it was a quick witted joke (load the bikes in the car and drive to ride them).
It was not.
When I returned to the USA where I was born, I noticed that every American had a gaggle of dusty, low quality bikes in their garages that never got used. There were no bike paths anywhere and riding on the roads looked like suicide. I once asked someone why they even had the bikes; where do you ride them? He answered without hesitation that you could load the bikes in the car and drive across town to where there was a park with a bike trail. I though it was a quick witted joke (load the bikes in the car and drive to ride them).
It was not.
Yes absolutely. I used to live in a suburb of Stuttgart, and that was around the first time I really tried biking. It was definitely worth it, the well maintained bike lanes, the free burning of the fat, lovely relaxing scenery and off course a few extra bucks saved per day.
Biking lanes, is in my book a top investment a city can make, wonder why not many keep it high on their priorities.
Boulder, CO in USA has done a LOT for putting in bike lanes. Very bike-friendly city. Up there with Portland, OR and Austin, TX
I've lived for two years in Austin, now in Amsterdam (the one in Europe). Amsterdam (and actually, most of Europe) is infinitely better for biking than Austin. Actually I almost never rode my bike in Austin. Always cars passing at high speed right next to you. I think USA cities have still a lot more to do to be real bike-friendly.
Hipsters in Austin ride their fixies off car bumpers. Having a death wish is trendy these days. Greenbelt is also BA. (badass) I admire them for staying fit on their bikes. Helps to counteract their main foods of Lone Star beer and clove cigs
Fixies (fixed gear bicycles) are illegal in traffic in almost all places and are intended for track use only.
I'm not exactly sure that is true. If they have a brake mount and at least one brake, they are street legal. Do you have a source for your assertion?
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20090630-20291.html
http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fi...
Indeed, mounting at least one brake seems to satisfy that particular judge.
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/10251/Riding_Cool_fi...
So, yes, again, you can mount 'a brake' and be legal in some places but not everywhere, the whole thrill here seems to come from not having all that 'stuff' on the bike.
If you've ever done any serious bicycling then you realise that the fixed wheel bike has no other place than the track.
In traffic you'd have to be an artist to safely ride one and the problem with them being in traffic is not just that you'd have to be an artist but also that circumstances can determine what is safe and what is not.
Brakes are used for normal reduction in speed, in such cases a fixed gear will do, after all, all you're doing is removing energy from the 'system' (bike + rider) in the same way you put it in, through your leg muscles.
But brakes have a second function as well, which is to react to traffic conditions, things outside of your control. And you may find that you need to remove energy from the 'system' a lot quicker than you originally put it in.
For a bike with a fixed gear (one without a freewheel) this will mandate you to continue to make pedalling motions while you are using that other brake. If the reason why you need to brake stops you from doing that you are now in deep trouble because you will find two nice sized hammers roughly where your pedals used to be that are pounding the crap out of your legs, which can easily cause you to completely lose control of your bike. If you happen to be unbalanced a pedal can strike the road with incredible force and if your foot happens to be between the pedal and the road that's really bad.
So, where-ever the legislation hasn't caught up yet with fixed gear bikes being outlawed because of the 'trend' will sooner or later do so because they're simply not as safe as bikes that have freewheels.
It's a pity for the few people that started this trend and that know their stuff and are only endangering themselves, but now that the masses are flooding in and are copying the couriers legislation seems to be the answer taken by the authorities.
In the Netherlands, bicycle country #2 after China I believe they've been illegal since 1950 or so.
http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fi...
Indeed, mounting at least one brake seems to satisfy that particular judge.
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/10251/Riding_Cool_fi...
So, yes, again, you can mount 'a brake' and be legal in some places but not everywhere, the whole thrill here seems to come from not having all that 'stuff' on the bike.
If you've ever done any serious bicycling then you realise that the fixed wheel bike has no other place than the track.
In traffic you'd have to be an artist to safely ride one and the problem with them being in traffic is not just that you'd have to be an artist but also that circumstances can determine what is safe and what is not.
Brakes are used for normal reduction in speed, in such cases a fixed gear will do, after all, all you're doing is removing energy from the 'system' (bike + rider) in the same way you put it in, through your leg muscles.
But brakes have a second function as well, which is to react to traffic conditions, things outside of your control. And you may find that you need to remove energy from the 'system' a lot quicker than you originally put it in.
For a bike with a fixed gear (one without a freewheel) this will mandate you to continue to make pedalling motions while you are using that other brake. If the reason why you need to brake stops you from doing that you are now in deep trouble because you will find two nice sized hammers roughly where your pedals used to be that are pounding the crap out of your legs, which can easily cause you to completely lose control of your bike. If you happen to be unbalanced a pedal can strike the road with incredible force and if your foot happens to be between the pedal and the road that's really bad.
So, where-ever the legislation hasn't caught up yet with fixed gear bikes being outlawed because of the 'trend' will sooner or later do so because they're simply not as safe as bikes that have freewheels.
It's a pity for the few people that started this trend and that know their stuff and are only endangering themselves, but now that the masses are flooding in and are copying the couriers legislation seems to be the answer taken by the authorities.
In the Netherlands, bicycle country #2 after China I believe they've been illegal since 1950 or so.
I've ridden a fixed gear bike exclusively for the past 15 years. (alright, that's not exactly true... I have a dutch bike for groceries and recently bought a Brompton for traveling) It was built for me by the patron saint of internet cyclists, Sheldon Brown (RIP).
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html
You just need a front brake to dump speed, and ride a gearing suitable for your environment. For instance, in NYC this is about 42/16.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixed.html
You just need a front brake to dump speed, and ride a gearing suitable for your environment. For instance, in NYC this is about 42/16.
Going fast and having just a front brake can easily cause you to do a forward flip. 80% of your stopping power is in the front brake, but if you're going very fast engaging the front brake for an emergency stop can make a bad situation worse.
That's a pretty sad story there, I read a bit on his site and he seems to have been a very nice and knowledgeable guy. I'm pretty sure he would have smiled at the way you characterised him, there are worse things that people could say about you after you die.
For an analogue, you can drive in traffic with a car and never touch the brakes, if you're a really good driver and you plan ahead. So, in theory you could remove your brakes and still be safe.
So, now for the obligatory 'think of the children' argument, but it could just as easy be the think of other people in traffic that do unexpected stuff or the mistakes that you yourself might make (nobody is infallible):
Until the day that that toddler walks out in front of you. And then, whether you're in a car or on a bike doing a good clip you're going to be very happy that you have all the stopping power that you could possibly want.
Now a clever counter argument would be that a freewheel cycle with discs on front and rear wheels would offer less stopping power than a fixed gear cycle similarly equipped.
As for bike styles, I have a recumbent (a Zephyr) for fast touring on bike trails but I'd never ever take it in to traffic with vehicles around me (too low), also it has a very large bell on it (and I don't care if people think it's gay), because people are simply not used to bikes doing that sort of speed.
That's a pretty sad story there, I read a bit on his site and he seems to have been a very nice and knowledgeable guy. I'm pretty sure he would have smiled at the way you characterised him, there are worse things that people could say about you after you die.
For an analogue, you can drive in traffic with a car and never touch the brakes, if you're a really good driver and you plan ahead. So, in theory you could remove your brakes and still be safe.
So, now for the obligatory 'think of the children' argument, but it could just as easy be the think of other people in traffic that do unexpected stuff or the mistakes that you yourself might make (nobody is infallible):
Until the day that that toddler walks out in front of you. And then, whether you're in a car or on a bike doing a good clip you're going to be very happy that you have all the stopping power that you could possibly want.
Now a clever counter argument would be that a freewheel cycle with discs on front and rear wheels would offer less stopping power than a fixed gear cycle similarly equipped.
As for bike styles, I have a recumbent (a Zephyr) for fast touring on bike trails but I'd never ever take it in to traffic with vehicles around me (too low), also it has a very large bell on it (and I don't care if people think it's gay), because people are simply not used to bikes doing that sort of speed.
I've never bought the front brake argument. As a bicyclist, motorcyclist, and physicist, I know that 100% of your stopping power is on the front brake, exactly because (as you say) the front brake can make you do a forward flip. This means that all your weight is on the front wheel, and the only thing you can do with your rear brake is make the rear wheel lose traction, and that will indeed make a bad situation worse.
The answer is to become proficient in the use of your front brake and commit the proper brake pressure to muscle memory so that you do not grab at it and skip the front wheel before weight has shifted, or do a "stoppie". Practice maximum braking from speed, it could save your life!
There is one counter-argument to this: In situations with poor traction (on snow, ice, sand, etc.) you don't have enough traction to shift all your weight to the front. In those cases, the optimal case is judicious use of both brakes. But if you bike on such surfaces, you have much more to learn anyway...
Second lesson: People rely too much on brakes. In most high-speed situations, swerving is a better action. (Due to the way braking distance vs turning distance scales with speed.) Practice change direction quickly to avoid obstacles in your path!
Sorry for the long post, but it was fresh in my mind: My wife got side swiped by a car turning right yesterday. She's fine, but we had a long discussion about bicycle proficiency and the futility of being "dead right".
The answer is to become proficient in the use of your front brake and commit the proper brake pressure to muscle memory so that you do not grab at it and skip the front wheel before weight has shifted, or do a "stoppie". Practice maximum braking from speed, it could save your life!
There is one counter-argument to this: In situations with poor traction (on snow, ice, sand, etc.) you don't have enough traction to shift all your weight to the front. In those cases, the optimal case is judicious use of both brakes. But if you bike on such surfaces, you have much more to learn anyway...
Second lesson: People rely too much on brakes. In most high-speed situations, swerving is a better action. (Due to the way braking distance vs turning distance scales with speed.) Practice change direction quickly to avoid obstacles in your path!
Sorry for the long post, but it was fresh in my mind: My wife got side swiped by a car turning right yesterday. She's fine, but we had a long discussion about bicycle proficiency and the futility of being "dead right".
I went ass-over-teakettle once on a tenspeed in Amsterdam traffic, I was very much in a hurry (trying to catch the train to work) and rode faster than the car traffic, a guy turned right into my 'lane' and I hit the front brake in a reflex. Too hard, I flipped right over and bounced off the pavement after doing a salto. Bad scrapes everywhere, fortunately nothing more serious than that (I used to be made of elastic, if I tried that today I'd be dead). I never realised that you could do that until it happened.
I was 'right' too, but since swerving wasn't an option and my front brake worked a bit better than expected I wonder if there would have been a better way to handle this (sliding sideways for instance). Accidents lurk in remarkably small corners. My nightmare scenario for a fixed gear cycle would be downhill at a good speed with a sudden obstruction. That would be the 'perfect storm'.
Glad to hear your wife is fine, bicyclists are on the bad side of any close encounters of the third kind with other traffic.
I was 'right' too, but since swerving wasn't an option and my front brake worked a bit better than expected I wonder if there would have been a better way to handle this (sliding sideways for instance). Accidents lurk in remarkably small corners. My nightmare scenario for a fixed gear cycle would be downhill at a good speed with a sudden obstruction. That would be the 'perfect storm'.
Glad to hear your wife is fine, bicyclists are on the bad side of any close encounters of the third kind with other traffic.
It's easy to get tossed on any bike with an aggressive geometry if you are going fast and slam the front brake. Personally, I do not think the most popular bike styles in the USA have the right geometry for commuting in the city. The default accident for stopping abruptly should not be flying over the handlebars, which is what happens on road/track frames and MTB frames. My bikes are set up more like dutch bikes or beach cruisers, which have a very upright geometry with my bodyweight over the back wheel.
I believe Obama outlawed "clove cigs".
Please, think of the children.
Children are now only allowed clove cigars.
Please, think of the children.
Children are now only allowed clove cigars.
I'm sure US cities have a relatively long way to go, but biking in Austin is feasible and safe. I don't own a car (and neither do many of my friends) and it's great.
Just live in Austin (the actual city) and not Round Rock, Pflugerville et al. Leave a few minutes early and take roads meant to accommodate bikers.
It can be challenging when it's 100+ degrees, but you learn to adjust. And with the new car sharing program (Car2Go) you can always drive if the need arises.
Just live in Austin (the actual city) and not Round Rock, Pflugerville et al. Leave a few minutes early and take roads meant to accommodate bikers.
It can be challenging when it's 100+ degrees, but you learn to adjust. And with the new car sharing program (Car2Go) you can always drive if the need arises.
I lived in Austin itself, and I would consider many of the roads seriously dangerous. There are no really roads meant to accommodate bikers, only roads for cars (Anderson Mill Road and Parmer Lane come to mind). The stupid thing, from a biker point of view, is that even if you try to bike on smaller roads, at some point you are forced to join a big road. Also, since urban planning didn't take into account alternative modes of transportation, the distance to bike is ironically much longer than if you take your car(in Europe it's usually the contrary since you can bike on all roads, so it reduces the distance). So, I really see biking as transportation strongly discouraged there. Big up to Austinites who ride their bike though!
Both Parmer and Anderson Mill have bike lanes on some stretches now, but when most people talk about Austin being bikeable, we're talking about central Austin. Anderson Mill is barely Austin.
You're definitely right about many of the safe routes being a little convoluted.
You're definitely right about many of the safe routes being a little convoluted.
Car2Go and and biking (and an office with a shower) are an awesome combination. The only things we really need are better, more frequent transit and a bike sharing program so you can get to and from bus stops from a further distance without needing to take your bike on the bus, which often have full bike racks.
Which Suburb?
I now live in Munich, which also calls itself a bike town. Although there are a lot of people riding their bikes, the streets are not at all as bike friendly as the ones in Münster. Each trip is somewhere between a suicide mission and a pleasant journey depending on where you want to go.
I'm in Munich too; compared to the UK it feels like a cyclist's paradise, especially with the ubahn as a backup in case the heavens really open.
What's the U-Bahn's policy on taking along bikes?
Not during rush hour (6-9am, 4-6pm), and your bike needs a ticket (€2.50/day). http://www.muenchen.de/verticals/Mobilitaet/Fahrrad/Rad_U_S_...
That’s not very friendly, I wouldn’t use that except in emergencies. That’s probably why you don’t see bikes on the U-Bahn.
That’s not very friendly, I wouldn’t use that except in emergencies. That’s probably why you don’t see bikes on the U-Bahn.
In Freiburg, you can only take them along in trains, not buses or tramways, and it costs an unreduced adult ticket most of the time on most of the lines. You can't even buy your bike its own monthly pass. So while the city itself is bike-friendly, its public transportation is at most bike-tolerant.
Here in Hamburg you don't need a ticket for the bicycle. Busses also may transport them. Ferries are free, too.
Sure, compared to towns like Münster, Freiburg or Amsterdam, Munich could offer better bike support, but there are still lots of bike lanes and you are rarely forced to use car lanes, so I would still consider it quite bike friendly.
Cambridge, UK, also has lots of bikers. There could be more bike lanes etc, but the car drivers are quite forgiving.
Nice to see another Köln-resident here. Meet up at some point?
21st Century, that anybody can argue against (in this thread or elsewhere) that going by bike to work is way better, healthier, more humanly fulfilling, than by car leaves me speechless. Vote for mayors pro bike roads or ask for showers at work, there is always a solution.
I'm not going to say that we should all be in cars, but I used to ride my bicycle everywhere-
I ride motorcycles now, and I still get a lot of the upsides- open to the environment, a physical activity (though more mild than biking at a hard pace), and my stress levels are lower.
But it has one more huge upside; back when I bicycled all the time, I'd always arrive everywhere hot and sweaty. Workplaces can install showers, but what about the supermarket? The library? Classrooms? Your girlfriend's house? (which of course has showers, but back then her parents would NOT have approved)
If you're going to build a city with all of those things a few blocks away, then it's an easy ride and no big deal, but that's a pretty major overhaul. I don't see it working in existing cities. Plus, besides problems with showers, the time commitment in existing cities is pretty big. I live rather close to my job, and it would still take me 1-2 hours to get there by bicycle.
Once again, not that I love cars everywhere all the time, but it's a pretty darn big feat to switch to bicycles in many American cities.
disclaimer: I do love my bikes, I'm kind of a petrol head.
I ride motorcycles now, and I still get a lot of the upsides- open to the environment, a physical activity (though more mild than biking at a hard pace), and my stress levels are lower.
But it has one more huge upside; back when I bicycled all the time, I'd always arrive everywhere hot and sweaty. Workplaces can install showers, but what about the supermarket? The library? Classrooms? Your girlfriend's house? (which of course has showers, but back then her parents would NOT have approved)
If you're going to build a city with all of those things a few blocks away, then it's an easy ride and no big deal, but that's a pretty major overhaul. I don't see it working in existing cities. Plus, besides problems with showers, the time commitment in existing cities is pretty big. I live rather close to my job, and it would still take me 1-2 hours to get there by bicycle.
Once again, not that I love cars everywhere all the time, but it's a pretty darn big feat to switch to bicycles in many American cities.
disclaimer: I do love my bikes, I'm kind of a petrol head.
I don't think it's fair to class riding a motorcycle as a physical activity, if riding a motorcycle is then so is riding a car. Yes, I've done my bit of biking and yes, it's more of a 'workout' (if that's even an appropriate term) compared to riding a car but it's nowhere near the exercise you get on a bike, either by duration or by distance travelled.
Also, most of the memories I've got from riding motorcycles long distance are that you arrive stiff as a board from not moving for that long.
Also, most of the memories I've got from riding motorcycles long distance are that you arrive stiff as a board from not moving for that long.
Oh, of course, unless you're racing it's nothing close to bicycles. It's just more than cars, and I feel like that makes a bit of a difference
If you're doing it right, you are stiff as a board from using the same muscles to hold proper posture constantly.
If you're doing it right, you are stiff as a board from using the same muscles to hold proper posture constantly.
1-2 hours away by bicycle is not "rather close", it's downright far.
Why not find a place where you can cycle to work in 10-15 minutes? I did it and it works great. It gives you lots of free time (short commute) and money (no car ownership). So much so that I started a freelance shop on the side.
Why not find a place where you can cycle to work in 10-15 minutes? I did it and it works great. It gives you lots of free time (short commute) and money (no car ownership). So much so that I started a freelance shop on the side.
Well, it's only 15-20 minutes by motorcycle, but I live in mountainous terrain and I'm not one of those crazy bicyclists who can maintain 20mph up a hill. If it was 15-20 minutes away because of stoplights and traffic it'd be bicyclable, but it's 15-20 minutes of highway through the hills.
I can't exactly just pick any 'ol other job; I'm in school and that is extremely limiting.
Also, if I suddenly had more money, I'd spend at least some of it on (motor)bikes because that's my hobby, so "you'll save money on transportation" doesn't work.
I can't exactly just pick any 'ol other job; I'm in school and that is extremely limiting.
Also, if I suddenly had more money, I'd spend at least some of it on (motor)bikes because that's my hobby, so "you'll save money on transportation" doesn't work.
15 mins ride is barely enough to get warmed up, you might as well run to get some exercise. 10-20 miles from work is a nice distance for cycling.
[Somewhat off-topic from bicycles in cities; my apologies.]
Do you not get sweaty on motorcycles? Even with a fully mesh jacket, I arrive everywhere _drenched_. In the height of the summer, I put on an athletic shirt and keep my real shirt in a bag to change into when I get to my destination.
If anything, I'd say bicycles are better because it's difficult to go fast enough to require the safety gear that a motorcycle does.
Disclaimer: new motorcyclist, used to race bicycles at a high level; I'm kind of a pedal head.
Do you not get sweaty on motorcycles? Even with a fully mesh jacket, I arrive everywhere _drenched_. In the height of the summer, I put on an athletic shirt and keep my real shirt in a bag to change into when I get to my destination.
If anything, I'd say bicycles are better because it's difficult to go fast enough to require the safety gear that a motorcycle does.
Disclaimer: new motorcyclist, used to race bicycles at a high level; I'm kind of a pedal head.
It depends. When it's really really hot, yes, but at those temperatures it doesn't matter what I use to travel, I'll be sweating anyway.
Admittedly, I'm really quite good at my lowering my heart rate and by extension body temperature at stop lights, and my commuter bike has a fully upright riding stance with no wind protection. I get plenty of ventilation; on a night that would be temperate on my sport bike, I'd be freezing on my commuter bike.
P.S. have you bicycled recently? I feel so ridiculously exposed, out of control and vulnerable now that I'm used to armor, and I really do prefer the armor.
Admittedly, I'm really quite good at my lowering my heart rate and by extension body temperature at stop lights, and my commuter bike has a fully upright riding stance with no wind protection. I get plenty of ventilation; on a night that would be temperate on my sport bike, I'd be freezing on my commuter bike.
P.S. have you bicycled recently? I feel so ridiculously exposed, out of control and vulnerable now that I'm used to armor, and I really do prefer the armor.
> I live rather close to my job, and it would still take
> me 1-2 hours to get there by bicycle.
Funny, I live as far as is bearable from my job, and it would take me a bit more than 1 hour to get there by bicycle (and 35 to 45 minutes by car). How your scales can be stretched by motor vehicles :)
Funny, I live as far as is bearable from my job, and it would take me a bit more than 1 hour to get there by bicycle (and 35 to 45 minutes by car). How your scales can be stretched by motor vehicles :)
Better is the word I'm going to hit on in your comment. I'd love to bike to work. I've even considered it actually, this in spite of the following:
- I live in Vancouver. It rains 5 months of the year.
- I have a 30km commute, my car is faster (By a longshot, not by a few minutes).
- My car does not require I have a shower after getting to work.
- My car is more adaptable: I can carry extra work home, I can stop for a coffee, I can schedule a meeting in the morning or afternoon and then hit the office.
There are many ways in which my car is "better". Healthier? No. More humanly fulfilling? Well, that depends. Is it more humanly fulfilling to spend the time commuting on my bike or with my kids? -
- I live in Vancouver. It rains 5 months of the year.
- I have a 30km commute, my car is faster (By a longshot, not by a few minutes).
- My car does not require I have a shower after getting to work.
- My car is more adaptable: I can carry extra work home, I can stop for a coffee, I can schedule a meeting in the morning or afternoon and then hit the office.
There are many ways in which my car is "better". Healthier? No. More humanly fulfilling? Well, that depends. Is it more humanly fulfilling to spend the time commuting on my bike or with my kids? -
I upvoted you, but I found myself wondering why you have a 30km commute. You mention that you would be more humanly fulfilled if you spent more time with your kids; why are you fine with wasting an hour commuting every day?
I've been paying more attention lately to perceived requirements. So often we assume that we have to continue living or working where we currently are, and that we have to build our lives around that. The truth is contrary to that: almost everything in your life can be changed, and it's often much easier than you think.
I've been paying more attention lately to perceived requirements. So often we assume that we have to continue living or working where we currently are, and that we have to build our lives around that. The truth is contrary to that: almost everything in your life can be changed, and it's often much easier than you think.
why you have a 30km commute.
Because, if you understand Vancouver, you realize that if you want a house, and don't have millions, you need to live in the burbs. It's just too damn expensive here.
That said, I see it as an issue to be corrected, however that takes time. Sorry, but I'm not raising a family of 4 in a condo, based on the experience of raising a family of 3 in a condo.
Because, if you understand Vancouver, you realize that if you want a house, and don't have millions, you need to live in the burbs. It's just too damn expensive here.
That said, I see it as an issue to be corrected, however that takes time. Sorry, but I'm not raising a family of 4 in a condo, based on the experience of raising a family of 3 in a condo.
Pittsburgh has lots of cheap houses in an urban environment. I walk to work most days, but considering getting a bike to save time.
So, anyone looking to raise a family in nice sized house while still living in a city, should consider Pittsburgh. You can also Google previous HN discussions of the tech/startup scene in Pittsburgh.
So, anyone looking to raise a family in nice sized house while still living in a city, should consider Pittsburgh. You can also Google previous HN discussions of the tech/startup scene in Pittsburgh.
Neither here nor there, but Vancouver is in Canada, and working somewhere that you are not a citizen is still a lot harder than it needs to be. Of course the grandparent could still consider Waterloo.
I'd rather move to Pittsburgh! :-P
What particular problems did you run into while raising a family of three in a condo? It's not a common occurrence around here, but I've concluded that more of it would be a good thing, so your input would be helpful.
1. Space
2. Noise, specifically, boom boom boom on a Friday night...
3. No yard (inline with space, but slightly different.)
Fair enough. I'm glad to hear that you have it in your mind to correct the issue. Good luck!
Sure, if you live 30km from where you work, you probably aren't going to ride a bike (or walk, or take transit). If you lived <5km, you'd waste less time commuting.
re: rain - sounds like rain gear is important. So are fenders.
re: showering - i've found that simply biking at a more relaxed pace avoids the whole sweat issue (besides in the morning, it's not the hottest time of the day. Biking home might be more of a problem, but then there is a shower at the end.) Plus even if you have some hills, you get in shape and will barely notice the exercise.
re: carrying extra work - what exactly are you carrying? I find i can haul a laptop and a lot of junk with a pair of panniers. Also good for picking up groceries.
Also, besides the environmental issues mentioned - i'm always amazed that drivers don't love cyclists. Every bike on the road means less traffic and one more parking space.
re: rain - sounds like rain gear is important. So are fenders.
re: showering - i've found that simply biking at a more relaxed pace avoids the whole sweat issue (besides in the morning, it's not the hottest time of the day. Biking home might be more of a problem, but then there is a shower at the end.) Plus even if you have some hills, you get in shape and will barely notice the exercise.
re: carrying extra work - what exactly are you carrying? I find i can haul a laptop and a lot of junk with a pair of panniers. Also good for picking up groceries.
Also, besides the environmental issues mentioned - i'm always amazed that drivers don't love cyclists. Every bike on the road means less traffic and one more parking space.
Some of us live in cities where it rains pretty frequently. Today would be lovely on a bike. Yesterday in the rain - not so much.
In Sweden (average 164 days/year with rain), there's a saying typically used by parents when their kids complain about the weather.
It goes, translated very verbatim: "there is no bad weather, only bad clothes". It's far snappier in Swedish where it rhymes, but I guess the point comes across, still.
Update: after reading a few more comments, I guess this doesn't address the other end of the spectrum, that it can be too warm/humid to go by bike. Score one for cultural bias.
It goes, translated very verbatim: "there is no bad weather, only bad clothes". It's far snappier in Swedish where it rhymes, but I guess the point comes across, still.
Update: after reading a few more comments, I guess this doesn't address the other end of the spectrum, that it can be too warm/humid to go by bike. Score one for cultural bias.
Interesting, we have that saying in Germany too. At least amongst sailors from northern Germany. It does not rhyme though but is a direct translation. My wild guess would be that sailors brought it here from Sweden. Heh!
Heh, the highest temperature ever recorded in Sweden is 100F/38C. Looks like in most parts the average winter temperature is warmer than Chicago. Sounds like you guys have it pretty easy.
Det finns inget dåligt väder, bara dåliga kläder. :-)
I've always thought that it was a common saying in Britain, notorious for its bad weather. IIRC the world's rainiest place is some island off the coast of Scotland.
No - not even close for total amount of precipitation.
However, the Scottish Highlands do excel in miserable drizzle that falls continuously for days, weeks and probably months ("dreich").
And yes, I am Scottish and have spent a lot of time outdoors!
However, the Scottish Highlands do excel in miserable drizzle that falls continuously for days, weeks and probably months ("dreich").
And yes, I am Scottish and have spent a lot of time outdoors!
By "rainiest" I did mean "highest number of rainy days" rather than "highest amount of precipitation".
That's the same reason Seattle has it's rainy reputation even though it gets fewer inches of rain than most East Coast cities.
I remember watching Billy Connolly doing a stand-up show years ago where he went on a massive rant about people complaining about the weather.
He rounded of his rant with the statement: "There's no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes."
To this day I consider that quote to be one of my all-time favourites as it really helps me smile whilst most people are depressed over the fact that it's cold and wet.
He rounded of his rant with the statement: "There's no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes."
To this day I consider that quote to be one of my all-time favourites as it really helps me smile whilst most people are depressed over the fact that it's cold and wet.
Presumably the "Where dae ye think ye are? Benidorm?" rant :-)
I grew up in Florida and lived in Sweden for a couple years. Even as a kid I disliked Florida because you quickly run out of clothes to take off. Even in a bathing suit it's sweltering. While I don't find winter weather pleasant, I just put on more clothes until it's bearable.
Netherlands is a really rainy country. Still, bikes are extremely popular, like the average is 2 bikes per person.
The typical commute scheme is (1) bike to the station, then (2) train (trains are good, really good), then (3) another bike to work.
To illustrate the "humanely fulfilling": while students in Rotterdam, we had to ride our bikes back 5km from a pub... it just started raining, but while biking the sky literaly fell on us. We arrived soaking wet, drenched. Among us, this remains one of our best memories.
Funny how that works. I have had many many occasions of traveling while soaking wet for miles, and they always make great stories, and weren't all that bad.
Now, on the other hand I've had times where it's just downright miserable, and I was pretty sure my fingers were on the verge of serious frostbite, and that was NOT fun and never will be. But, that's not too common.
Now, on the other hand I've had times where it's just downright miserable, and I was pretty sure my fingers were on the verge of serious frostbite, and that was NOT fun and never will be. But, that's not too common.
The difference is probably mostly due to the windspeed, not due to the amount of water that fell on you.
Well, it was windspeed combined with enough water falling on me, but you're right- that's a given.
I hear you. I remember when I lived in Manhattan on the Upper East Side coming back from a party somewhere in deepest darkest Queens, getting off the subway and biking up the path along the East River. Middle of the night and bucketing with rain. My roomie and I were riding mountain bikes and played all the way home, jumping off every little bump in sight and charging through all the puddles. We got back to our apartment soaking wet, grinning from ear to ear like little boys.
And yup, it's one of my favourite memories from living in Manhattan.
That is awesome -- it's almost unfathomable to your average commuter that the journey itself can be even better than what awaits one at the destination.
Getting soaked on the way to work can be a pain, but if one just carries a rain suit in his/her bag then this will never be an issue.
Getting soaked on the way to work can be a pain, but if one just carries a rain suit in his/her bag then this will never be an issue.
I've had some amazing experiences getting drenched too.
But I'm not sure that it would be that amazing on my way into work. (Likely carrying a laptop).
I live without a car in a rainy area. I've showed up at work a handful of times simply drenched. Not fun, but it actually happens a lot less than I thought it would. It doesn't bother me particularly in other situations, like on the way home from work or when going shopping. But, yeah, showing up at work drenched kind of sucks. Of course, as others have mentioned, how you dress matters so with planning this can be ameliorated if you travel by foot or bike regularly -- which seems to be an alien concept to folks who are very dependent on their cars.
There are plenty of high-quality waterproof bags you might carry a laptop in.
True. But with public transport and an umbrella 0 I can use a normal laptop bag.
Speaking of the Netherlands, one of their contributions to cycling are the Rainmates overtrousers: http://www.rainmates.nl/?ln=en
I've got a pair of those and they are really convenient: I can put them on quickly, even while wearing shoes, and my legs don't get as sweaty because the rainmates are open in the rear side.
I've got a pair of those and they are really convenient: I can put them on quickly, even while wearing shoes, and my legs don't get as sweaty because the rainmates are open in the rear side.
Muenster is one of the cities with the most raining days in germany. Still nearly everyone drives by bike. There is no such thing as bad weather. Only bad choice in clothing :).
If you have a decent waterproof jacket, sensible shoes and maybe waterproof overtrousers for when it gets really wet then even walking in the pouring rain is fairly comfortable.
I understand, I just said "argue against", not "evbdy has to".
I was arguing against the "better". For the record - I catch the train. But even when I lived close enough to ride - I caught the tram or train -- more protection from weather and much less sweat.
well, here is one argument that you may not have heard :)
as per http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894 Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding "could threaten our personal freedoms"
as per http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894 Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding "could threaten our personal freedoms"
Especially the handicapped and elderly like bikes (or not). A good train system (such in Japan) is much better). That way even children and elderly can travel long distances.
Where do you live?
Does it reach 95 degress F with almost 100% humidity in the summer and -50 degrees F in the winter? Does it ever snow 12 inches+ at a time? Is there every freezing rain followed by inches of snow covering it?
My point is, what works in California doesn't work in Fargo or Minneapolis. Even driving a diesel automobile. They gel up bad. Same with electric cars, the temperature (hot and cold) kills batteries.
If I lived in Santa Barbara, yeah, biking to work would be awesome.
Does it reach 95 degress F with almost 100% humidity in the summer and -50 degrees F in the winter? Does it ever snow 12 inches+ at a time? Is there every freezing rain followed by inches of snow covering it?
My point is, what works in California doesn't work in Fargo or Minneapolis. Even driving a diesel automobile. They gel up bad. Same with electric cars, the temperature (hot and cold) kills batteries.
If I lived in Santa Barbara, yeah, biking to work would be awesome.
Have you ever been to Minneapolis? Minneapolis has an incredible network of bikeways and is a place where bike commuting is very popular. Most folks don't do it all winter, but it's doable:
http://www.civiacycles.com/whattowear/
And personal experience as a Milwaueean on my part says biking in the cold feels awesome. You get that great warm-on-the-inside, crisp-on-the-outside feeling. The downside is that it can be sketchy on ill-designed roads.
And personal experience as a Milwaueean on my part says biking in the cold feels awesome. You get that great warm-on-the-inside, crisp-on-the-outside feeling. The downside is that it can be sketchy on ill-designed roads.
Minneapolis? The #1 Bike City in the country? http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike-city-m...
Minneapolis not good for bikes? Tell that to Black Label.
I get the point - and I support the development of car-free suburbs for people who want them. Streets safe for children, people saying hello instead of staring from behind closed windows, etc. Less local pollution, more friendly streets, less accidents : all pluses.
I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one.
Further, not everywhere is suitable. Someone riding around cities near me have got high humidity and steep hills to deal with : you don't ride a bike without some serious fitness. Those cruisy bikes you see in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Cambridge are of no use.
What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no laws saying you should do it. Entirely personal choice all round.
For my part I have a large car but work from home, so it gets driven maybe once per fortnight. There's no way I would part with it : it's my ticket to freedom when I do choose to get out and about. And I enjoy it thoroughly when I do.
I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one.
Further, not everywhere is suitable. Someone riding around cities near me have got high humidity and steep hills to deal with : you don't ride a bike without some serious fitness. Those cruisy bikes you see in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Cambridge are of no use.
What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no laws saying you should do it. Entirely personal choice all round.
For my part I have a large car but work from home, so it gets driven maybe once per fortnight. There's no way I would part with it : it's my ticket to freedom when I do choose to get out and about. And I enjoy it thoroughly when I do.
"I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one."
In the US, it's basically illegal to build any kind of development that doesn't require a car or two. Some exceptions, like Kentlands in MD, or Stapleton in Denver, require developers to prepare plans in advance, lobby for variances to zoning and parking requirements. It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects. All this means that unless you're building a standard subdivision, an office park, or a strip mall, you're at a competitive disadvantage and incur higher costs and risks.
Let there be no illusion that the "market" provided the built environment we have.
In the US, it's basically illegal to build any kind of development that doesn't require a car or two. Some exceptions, like Kentlands in MD, or Stapleton in Denver, require developers to prepare plans in advance, lobby for variances to zoning and parking requirements. It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects. All this means that unless you're building a standard subdivision, an office park, or a strip mall, you're at a competitive disadvantage and incur higher costs and risks.
Let there be no illusion that the "market" provided the built environment we have.
I am saddened that I can only give this comment one upvote.
In fact, in most US cities, it is illegal to build high density development like the kind that already exists in those cities.
In fact, in most US cities, it is illegal to build high density development like the kind that already exists in those cities.
> It's also harder to get financing for non-standard projects.
That's the market speaking.
That's the market speaking.
I spent ten years as a real estate broker and developer. The market wants improvement to zoning codes to reflect current (post 1955) sensibilities. Unfortuneately archaic zoning codes and change-fearing planning and zoning commissions prevent most progressive projects from ever getting off the ground.
There are always exceptions to the rule in some localities...but as a nation... the U.S. is being held back by laws written 50 years ago. Mandatory setbacks (20 ft between buildings, mandatory front and rear yards, minimum number of parking spaces...all practices counterintuitive to effective land use.
There are always exceptions to the rule in some localities...but as a nation... the U.S. is being held back by laws written 50 years ago. Mandatory setbacks (20 ft between buildings, mandatory front and rear yards, minimum number of parking spaces...all practices counterintuitive to effective land use.
> Mandatory setbacks (20 ft between buildings, mandatory front and rear yards, minimum number of parking spaces...all practices counterintuitive to effective land use.
It depends on your definition of "effective". Folks pay more for houses with 20 ft set backs than they're willing to pay for 10 ft set backs. Folks pay more for single-family detached than they're willing to pay for townhouses. And so on.
It depends on your definition of "effective". Folks pay more for houses with 20 ft set backs than they're willing to pay for 10 ft set backs. Folks pay more for single-family detached than they're willing to pay for townhouses. And so on.
I don't think so. A "standard" project is one that complies with zoning regulations and keeps the nutty neighbors happy (which often requires concessions far beyond zoning limits). So we're not talking about market control, we're talking about government policy. Governments set zoning rules. Not markets. Just because markets are involved, doesn't mean that a phenomena is fundamentally a product of a free market.
We're only talking about govt wrt zoning.
A "non-standard project" that is seeking funding by definition meets the relevant zoning because no one borrows money to build something that zoning forbids.
When a lender says offers different terms for different zoning-legal projects, that's the market.
A "non-standard project" that is seeking funding by definition meets the relevant zoning because no one borrows money to build something that zoning forbids.
When a lender says offers different terms for different zoning-legal projects, that's the market.
A "non-standard project" that is seeking funding by definition meets the relevant zoning because no one borrows money to build something that zoning forbids.
This is incorrect. Developers seek variances for various zoning restrictions all the time. And doing so effects financing decisions because a project that requires variances may face substantial delays.
This is incorrect. Developers seek variances for various zoning restrictions all the time. And doing so effects financing decisions because a project that requires variances may face substantial delays.
> This is incorrect. Developers seek variances for various zoning restrictions all the time.
Variances are part of the zoning process.
> And doing so effects financing decisions because a project that requires variances may face substantial delays.
No one lends construction money before zoning is satisfied, regardless of how it's satisfied.
You seem to disagree, so how about an example of a lender providing construction money before there was good reason to believe that construction would be allowed.
Yes, lenders may think that some projects are more likely to be approved and the reasons for approval may be political, but that just means that lenders consider the outcome of political processes, not that they're making decisions for political reasons.
Absent something like CRA, lending decisions are based on predicted return on investment. Can the borrowers make the payments? The greater the risk, the higher the interest rate.
Variances are part of the zoning process.
> And doing so effects financing decisions because a project that requires variances may face substantial delays.
No one lends construction money before zoning is satisfied, regardless of how it's satisfied.
You seem to disagree, so how about an example of a lender providing construction money before there was good reason to believe that construction would be allowed.
Yes, lenders may think that some projects are more likely to be approved and the reasons for approval may be political, but that just means that lenders consider the outcome of political processes, not that they're making decisions for political reasons.
Absent something like CRA, lending decisions are based on predicted return on investment. Can the borrowers make the payments? The greater the risk, the higher the interest rate.
People like like Cool Town Studios (http://www.cooltownstudios.com/) are trying to make financing for non-standard financings easier. But at this point it's like trying to get money for a startup pre-YC, or even pre-VC.
It's a broken, overly conservative market dominated by huge scale investors that want to invest tens of millions at a time. Imagine if instead of dealing with VCs, you had to go straight to LPs and have them give you money for a project.
It's a broken, overly conservative market dominated by huge scale investors that want to invest tens of millions at a time. Imagine if instead of dealing with VCs, you had to go straight to LPs and have them give you money for a project.
> It's a broken, overly conservative market dominated by huge scale investors that want to invest tens of millions at a time. Imagine if instead of dealing with VCs, you had to go straight to LPs and have them give you money for a project.
Interestingly enough, most "venture funding" is not through VCs - it's direct from "the money".
In any event, banks serve many of the same functions as VCs. Both "borrow" money from one set of people and based on agreed-upon criteria, "lend" it to others.
Interestingly enough, most "venture funding" is not through VCs - it's direct from "the money".
In any event, banks serve many of the same functions as VCs. Both "borrow" money from one set of people and based on agreed-upon criteria, "lend" it to others.
> I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car, and that I am some sort of evil person for having one.
Not everybody thinks about you when choosing the people they want to live with. You argue like a conservative asshole berating a bunch of hippies for choosing their own way of life.
> What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no laws saying you should do it. Entirely personal choice all round.
That is entirely upto the people living in those subuebs. If they decide that you should drive your car around rather than through their suburb, then I don't see how it violates your personal freedom. Next you will be bitching about congestion charges.
Not everybody thinks about you when choosing the people they want to live with. You argue like a conservative asshole berating a bunch of hippies for choosing their own way of life.
> What I'm saying : there should be no laws against this type of thing, and no laws saying you should do it. Entirely personal choice all round.
That is entirely upto the people living in those subuebs. If they decide that you should drive your car around rather than through their suburb, then I don't see how it violates your personal freedom. Next you will be bitching about congestion charges.
You missed my point.
If you read my comment, I think it's a good idea. I just don't want legislation either for or against the idea. If people want to live in car-less suburbs, I support that. I don't support being forced to live in a car-less suburb, that's all.
If you read my comment, I think it's a good idea. I just don't want legislation either for or against the idea. If people want to live in car-less suburbs, I support that. I don't support being forced to live in a car-less suburb, that's all.
> I just don't want to see some zealot telling me I can't have a car,
> and that I am some sort of evil person for having one.
I'm hoping for legislation that will ban private persons from buying cars. No one (...) needs half a ton of metal and 70PS to move his 70kg ass.
I'm paraphrasing Jay Leno who was being interviewed on a car show, so take this with the appropriate number of grains of salt, but ...
I'd like to see cars go the way of the horse. Horses used to be used for transportation, everybody had one, and they were abused to a huge degree. Then cars came along, and now horses are kept just by enthusiasts who care for them a great deal and go riding for fun every once in a while.
I think the best of both worlds would be for [insert your car alternative of choice here] to develop enough to replace the car for commuting and errands, with just a few thousand cars for people who like to drive them around tracks or through the countryside every once in a while.
I'd like to see cars go the way of the horse. Horses used to be used for transportation, everybody had one, and they were abused to a huge degree. Then cars came along, and now horses are kept just by enthusiasts who care for them a great deal and go riding for fun every once in a while.
I think the best of both worlds would be for [insert your car alternative of choice here] to develop enough to replace the car for commuting and errands, with just a few thousand cars for people who like to drive them around tracks or through the countryside every once in a while.
It sounds like Jay Leno would like people like Jay Leno to continue to be able to drive without all those other drivers.
I find lots of strange laws (or just rules / contracts) much more acceptable locally, where you can choose to live in this community or not --- than would be acceptable on a larger scale like a nation.
Ever notice that in much of Europe bikes get used for work as well as general transportation/play?
In EU: postman, grocery getting/delivery, common commute vehicle, etc etc
In USA: NYC bike couriers.
In EU: postman, grocery getting/delivery, common commute vehicle, etc etc
In USA: NYC bike couriers.
I have met quite a few Americans who think of biking as a sport first and as a means of transport second which is exactly opposite to how I perceive biking (I’m from Germany). That might have something to do with city planning (many places where you would want to go are actually realistically reachable by bike), it might (and I’m quite fond of that hypothesis) also have something to do with driving age. 16 in the USA, 18 in Germany.
It's considered sport first, because transportation by bike is usually impractical in the US. (Outside of maybe a half-dozen cities and some one-off "I work a mile from home" anecdotes, it's almost entirely impractical)
The average commute (one-way) is about 25km. There will be no bike lanes. The drivers on the road will generally have no clue how they should deal with you, if they even notice you. The sidewalks (where US bikers sometimes find refuge, as no-one walks in America either) are sporadic, at best. Your destination probably won't have so much as a simple bike rack, let alone a shower.
Because of this, when adults in America think of biking, they (generally) think of putting their bikes on the car and driving to a place that was designed to have decent/sane space for biking. (usually parks)
Children can effectively bike around subdivisions, mostly because they have nowhere to go aside from their friends houses and the corner store.
So biking is seen by adults as either being sport, or --frankly-- a whimsical sort of transport. Because to bike in most the US you have to be, in some sense, not serious about trying to get anywhere.
The average commute (one-way) is about 25km. There will be no bike lanes. The drivers on the road will generally have no clue how they should deal with you, if they even notice you. The sidewalks (where US bikers sometimes find refuge, as no-one walks in America either) are sporadic, at best. Your destination probably won't have so much as a simple bike rack, let alone a shower.
Because of this, when adults in America think of biking, they (generally) think of putting their bikes on the car and driving to a place that was designed to have decent/sane space for biking. (usually parks)
Children can effectively bike around subdivisions, mostly because they have nowhere to go aside from their friends houses and the corner store.
So biking is seen by adults as either being sport, or --frankly-- a whimsical sort of transport. Because to bike in most the US you have to be, in some sense, not serious about trying to get anywhere.
Driving age is definitely a big factor, but also public transportation. The village I lived during my childhood had literally no public transportation. Therefore the only option to get anywhere was the bike.
I would buy an Xtracycle or other cargo bicycle if it didn't cost more than the cars some of my friends drive :(. Perhaps they're cheaper in Europe.
Xtracycle add-on model isn't that expensive. Last I knew - like $169.
I have friends that use trailers from http://bikesatwork.com/
Very inexpensive. Easily attached, and you can use your bike regularly whenever you want.
I have friends that use trailers from http://bikesatwork.com/
Very inexpensive. Easily attached, and you can use your bike regularly whenever you want.
In other words, I should come into work completely drenched in sweat? In many parts of the USA, it is very humid and temperatures can easily reach 90 and above. How do you expect people to bike in such conditions? In addition, many people commute long distances to work, which may take up to an hour just by car.
Bikes are great, but not very practical.
Bikes are great, but not very practical.
I often bike to work, which for me is about 26 miles each direction. I take a shower right before I leave, and when I get there I just have to rinse down and change out of my cycling jersey. The theory behind the pre-ride shower is that body odor is caused by bacteria on your skin, and showering temporarily knocks out enough of your bacteria that it won't cause significant odor during your ride. (I'm not aware of actual science on this topic, but I've asked a trusted coworker whether I smell after riding into work, and he says I don't. So there's your anecdotal data point...) So for me the bike is extremely practical even living in an area that wasn't designed with bicycles in mind.
As for humidity, this is in south Florida—if we can manage it here, then we can handle the humidity pretty much anywhere in the US.
Now I'm not saying everyone can or should bike a 52-mile round trip to work. But the point of this article is that this little experimental suburb has 5,500 people within a single square mile; biking or walking is a perfectly reasonable way to traverse such a small area at nearly any level of fitness, especially when you don't have to worry about automotive traffic, and for the few people who can't manage that there's the public transport option. Even on our hottest days here in south Florida, one can easily bike a mile, fully dressed, without breaking a sweat.
As for humidity, this is in south Florida—if we can manage it here, then we can handle the humidity pretty much anywhere in the US.
Now I'm not saying everyone can or should bike a 52-mile round trip to work. But the point of this article is that this little experimental suburb has 5,500 people within a single square mile; biking or walking is a perfectly reasonable way to traverse such a small area at nearly any level of fitness, especially when you don't have to worry about automotive traffic, and for the few people who can't manage that there's the public transport option. Even on our hottest days here in south Florida, one can easily bike a mile, fully dressed, without breaking a sweat.
> Even on our hottest days here in south Florida, one can easily bike a mile, fully dressed, without breaking a sweat.
Perhaps we're different, but I break a sweat in a couple minutes simply going outside in FL this time of year. Add riding a bike and I'm drenched.
Perhaps we're different, but I break a sweat in a couple minutes simply going outside in FL this time of year. Add riding a bike and I'm drenched.
Riding somewhere on a bicycle can keep you cooler than if you were just standing or walking outside, provided you're riding at a leisurely pace on a bicycle designed for road use (and not some horrific retail store contraption with useless knobby tires). At say 14 mph on a road bike, you aren't doing enough work to heat up, yet you're moving fast enough to get a good breeze that keeps you cooler than if you were standing still.
When I'm just cycling through the town (rather than exercising), the only time I really feel the heat is when I'm stopped at a light.
When I'm just cycling through the town (rather than exercising), the only time I really feel the heat is when I'm stopped at a light.
> In other words, I should come into work completely drenched in sweat?
With enough training (build up the habit) and if you don't exert yourself too much (it's not like you have to go 20mph all the way), you shouldn't sweat too much. Add in a pair of showers on work site and you're golden.
> In addition, many people commute long distances to work, which may take up to an hour just by car.
That's an issue of brain-dead urban planning and stupid personal housing considerations, not of bikes.
> Bikes are great, but not very practical.
The article, and all of Amsterdam or Münster, already prove you wrong. Why do you make declamations which are already disproven before they even get out your mouth?
With enough training (build up the habit) and if you don't exert yourself too much (it's not like you have to go 20mph all the way), you shouldn't sweat too much. Add in a pair of showers on work site and you're golden.
> In addition, many people commute long distances to work, which may take up to an hour just by car.
That's an issue of brain-dead urban planning and stupid personal housing considerations, not of bikes.
> Bikes are great, but not very practical.
The article, and all of Amsterdam or Münster, already prove you wrong. Why do you make declamations which are already disproven before they even get out your mouth?
If you choose to live 50+ miles from work and commute everyday...you're making a compromise for a reason (spouse, slow real estate market, etc). But likely...you're doing it wrong.
I am seeing an emergence of physically aware programmers who realize sitting in a chair all day isn't an healthy environment. Biking to and from work gives some great exercise and time to clear your head.
pg gets ideas in the shower. I get them cruising on the bike. Same effect.
pg gets ideas in the shower. I get them cruising on the bike. Same effect.
OMG, there's another trending topic right now "Exercise Boosts Your Brain - Here's How" http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1580236
I believe that post will also feed hungry trolls
I believe that post will also feed hungry trolls
Fine but some of you biking zealots (bikees? bikees) need to realize that some people can't or don't want to ride a bike to work. The article wasn't completely about bikes, you're forgetting that there are options other than cars and bikes. The task for new developments is to build up a good system of public transportation. I think we should see that long before we see everyone biking to work.
(Btw I actually run to work.)
(Btw I actually run to work.)
All great solutions, but the infrastructure just isn't there (as already mentioned).
Blame it in "brain-dead urban planning", or "stupid housing considerations", but that doesn't change the fact that biking to work is simply not possible for most people.
If you live in the suburbs of New York, biking to Manhattan to work just isn't practical. If you live in the middle of the country, biking to work can be a nightmare. If you live down South, again, very difficult. If you live in San Francisco, hope that your job is downhill.
Let's build a better infrastructure, and not accuse people of being inconsiderate or stupid.
Blame it in "brain-dead urban planning", or "stupid housing considerations", but that doesn't change the fact that biking to work is simply not possible for most people.
If you live in the suburbs of New York, biking to Manhattan to work just isn't practical. If you live in the middle of the country, biking to work can be a nightmare. If you live down South, again, very difficult. If you live in San Francisco, hope that your job is downhill.
Let's build a better infrastructure, and not accuse people of being inconsiderate or stupid.
You hit the real root of it there. Detroit auto bought out the passenger rail system in LA in the late 40s, then shut it down (true story).
Oil drives concrete & consumption. Crack in a US sidewalk? Break it up and pour a new pad. Euro sidewalk? All pavers. Pull 'em up, fix a sewer line or whatever and put the same ones back down.
Oil drives concrete & consumption. Crack in a US sidewalk? Break it up and pour a new pad. Euro sidewalk? All pavers. Pull 'em up, fix a sewer line or whatever and put the same ones back down.
What do you want to tell with the tale about the sidewalks? We also have some concrete sidewalks in Europe. And pouring new concrete isn't too bad. You can even re-use the old broken down concrete for some things.
The trend even seems to be to make Autobahnen out of concrete. (Although that's not very relevant I guess, because Autobahnen are rarely digged up.)
The trend even seems to be to make Autobahnen out of concrete. (Although that's not very relevant I guess, because Autobahnen are rarely digged up.)
> The trend even seems to be to make Autobahnen out of concrete.
It's not exactly a trend, I've seen concrete autobahnen more than 15 years ago, and the early ones were concrete as well.
It's not exactly a trend, I've seen concrete autobahnen more than 15 years ago, and the early ones were concrete as well.
Yes. I should have said, people have figured out how to make good Autobahnen out of concrete.
The GDR also had streets paved with concrete---but they had tar in the gaps and sticking out of the gaps. You can imagine what a bumpy ride that was.
The GDR also had streets paved with concrete---but they had tar in the gaps and sticking out of the gaps. You can imagine what a bumpy ride that was.
There are also some concrete highways when entering Paris (after the highway gets under Paris's own supervision). They suck. They're bumpy and extremely noisy, a far cry from the smooth and silent flying over the good asphalt of most french highways.
So don't live in the middle of the country or the suburbs of New York? Move near your job.
I live in Hamburg, Germany. I always tried to use the bicycle for any regular work route under 20km.
I use to use my bicycle for a job where I lived outside and the company was in some inner part in Hamburg. 18km.
I also used it when I lived in some inner part and was working in some part of the harbour. 16km. There was a Fitness center near the office, I was a member of that chain of fitness centers. I was using the bicycle to get to that fitness center and have a shower there. Then I walked to the office.
I would expect that it is important to take a shower before walking into office. It's just a matter of planning. Really good companies have showers for their employees. For example many of the larger companies have some kind of sports facilities.
Additional to taking a shower, one also needs some fresh clothes. Also you need a save place for the bicycle.
It takes some planning and organization, but once you use your bicycle three or more times per week to get to work and back it pays back.
The excellent fitness is what you get in return.
Currently I live in a suburb. The whole area is reduced to 30km/h for cars. I use my bicycle a lot. Bus station is 50 meters away. The bus comes every 20 minutes. The bus takes me in 5 or 10 minutes to two local city centers. The next local train is 15 minutes walking or 5 minutes by bus. That local train gets you in 18 minutes into Hamburg City. So, public transport is sufficient for me. Though there is also a Autobahn nearby. Generally connectivity is great.
In the inner city of Hamburg one can now rent bicycles and a lot of planning is now done to improve the whole bicycle co system. Even the port authority of the Hamburg port, one of the largest in the world, thinks about using bicycles - they are working on a 'master plan' for using bicycles in the harbour region: http://www.hamburg-port-authority.de/presse-und-aktuelles/ne...
I use to use my bicycle for a job where I lived outside and the company was in some inner part in Hamburg. 18km.
I also used it when I lived in some inner part and was working in some part of the harbour. 16km. There was a Fitness center near the office, I was a member of that chain of fitness centers. I was using the bicycle to get to that fitness center and have a shower there. Then I walked to the office.
I would expect that it is important to take a shower before walking into office. It's just a matter of planning. Really good companies have showers for their employees. For example many of the larger companies have some kind of sports facilities.
Additional to taking a shower, one also needs some fresh clothes. Also you need a save place for the bicycle.
It takes some planning and organization, but once you use your bicycle three or more times per week to get to work and back it pays back.
The excellent fitness is what you get in return.
Currently I live in a suburb. The whole area is reduced to 30km/h for cars. I use my bicycle a lot. Bus station is 50 meters away. The bus comes every 20 minutes. The bus takes me in 5 or 10 minutes to two local city centers. The next local train is 15 minutes walking or 5 minutes by bus. That local train gets you in 18 minutes into Hamburg City. So, public transport is sufficient for me. Though there is also a Autobahn nearby. Generally connectivity is great.
In the inner city of Hamburg one can now rent bicycles and a lot of planning is now done to improve the whole bicycle co system. Even the port authority of the Hamburg port, one of the largest in the world, thinks about using bicycles - they are working on a 'master plan' for using bicycles in the harbour region: http://www.hamburg-port-authority.de/presse-und-aktuelles/ne...
I knew a guy who biked 50 Miles to work and showered at work. Everything is doable :) .
A few friends of me bike in spain during the summer. You see, it can be done. All that's needed is a small shower at work and you are even fresher than by driving with your car. And sweating in the rush hour.
If you drive more than 20 Miles you can't go by bike, yes, but you can drive shopping or to your friend by bike. Try to use it to go to the nearest pub on weekends.
Just try it :) .
A few friends of me bike in spain during the summer. You see, it can be done. All that's needed is a small shower at work and you are even fresher than by driving with your car. And sweating in the rush hour.
If you drive more than 20 Miles you can't go by bike, yes, but you can drive shopping or to your friend by bike. Try to use it to go to the nearest pub on weekends.
Just try it :) .
[deleted]
If this argument was in favor of cars, for me it would be the same: Where am I supposed to park? You expect me to pay $400 a month just to park a car at home and another $400 to park it at the office? Cars are fun, but not very practical.
It all depends on the environment you are in, which is not a static unchangeable monolith. You have choices. Maybe living somewhere where biking is practical would involve making choices that go against your priorities, but those are your priorities.
It all depends on the environment you are in, which is not a static unchangeable monolith. You have choices. Maybe living somewhere where biking is practical would involve making choices that go against your priorities, but those are your priorities.
Bikes are great, but not very practical … if the infrastructure isn’t there. You know, city planning and stuff. I think the goal is not to get people to drive 50 miles to work, the goal is to make it possible for them to live so close to work (or appropriate public transport infrastructure) that they can bike there (or use public transport).
You are right, bikes wouldn’t work in every case but sometimes they can replace cars just fine.
You are right, bikes wouldn’t work in every case but sometimes they can replace cars just fine.
Bikes already have the infrastructure, they are called "roads".
It’s mot as simple as that. It’s also not as simple as just adding some bike lines. The city for example needs to be fairly compact to be bike friendly — which means sprawl should be avoided. And sprawl is something you can’t just remove once it’s there. You also want to make sure that there are several big supermarkets at one end of the city and nothing much elsewhere. And so on. Those are all tricky problems.
Roads would be great if it weren't for all the cars on them. Around here, if you're not a car, the roads aren't a safe place for you to be, ever.
Perhaps people would be better off not living in these places where it's impossible to survive without a climate-controlled bubble-environment :)
It gets humid in Europe, too. They survive.
Most of Europe is far drier than the US. I don't know of any place in Europe which would be similar to Japan or Florida (consistent high heat and very high humidity during months on end in Summer), though they might very well exist.
Europe:
http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Humidity.aspx?region=europ
USA:
http://www.intellicast.com/Global/Humidity.aspx?region=namer
Wow, that's the most I've ever seen anyone upvoted for completely inaccurate and misrepresented information. First, that's a real time view of each of the two regions. You don't think that the values may have been different during the day for Europe and the night for the US? More than that, you can't establish a viable trend from a single data point.
Even if you did have the average high summer humidity index for Europe and the US (personally, after having lived in the swamp that is Maryland & Virginia, I'd take a look at them), you still need to overlay the temperature index. 100 relative humidity in Oslo doesn't mean a whole lot when it's a balmy 21C, right?
Even if you did have the average high summer humidity index for Europe and the US (personally, after having lived in the swamp that is Maryland & Virginia, I'd take a look at them), you still need to overlay the temperature index. 100 relative humidity in Oslo doesn't mean a whole lot when it's a balmy 21C, right?
I completely agree. I posted quickly before realising these weren't daily averages (and even then, that wouldn't necessarily prove anything). I should have modified the link when I realised my mistake but unfortunately I was busy.
Thank you for managing to express what I couldn't put into words. You have my gratitude.
What's your point exactly? I bicycle to work in the heat and humidity you are describing, every day. As someone else said, if you just cruise at a conservative pace, you don't even sweat very much.
> What's your point exactly?
That davidu is not exactly fair in his declaration.
> As someone else said, if you just cruise at a conservative pace, you don't even sweat very much.
I'm the one who said that...
That davidu is not exactly fair in his declaration.
> As someone else said, if you just cruise at a conservative pace, you don't even sweat very much.
I'm the one who said that...
In Europe there are good public transport in each city, so you don't need car at all.
I use to commute 35 miles each way without owning car, it was taking quite a lot of time, so I moved closer to work, but I still don't own car.
I use to commute 35 miles each way without owning car, it was taking quite a lot of time, so I moved closer to work, but I still don't own car.
As well as what others have suggested (shower at work, don't try hard, etc) there are electric bicycles available that would address this issue. I've not tried one myself, but they seem to have a following.
As for the long distances, I've known people to drive some of the way, stop where it's easy to park and ride the last bit (generally the bit with the most traffic congestion, so it can work quite well).
As for the long distances, I've known people to drive some of the way, stop where it's easy to park and ride the last bit (generally the bit with the most traffic congestion, so it can work quite well).
Just wear lycra. People don't wear it because of how it looks. It's fast wicking. Even in mid 30s celsius I get to work far less sweaty than taking public transport.
Most people who complain about sweat are trying to cycle in cotton. Just change when you get to work.
Most people who complain about sweat are trying to cycle in cotton. Just change when you get to work.
Do you realize that millions of people bike to work everyday right here in the good ol USA?
[deleted]
All problems can be overcome, @bobbyflanders, if you just let the light of Jesus flood into your life! :)
(sorry, I meant 'bikes', not Jesus).
EDIT: I knew this would get down-voted. No sense of humour these bicyclists ;)
I my case, I have a short commute, but mostly drive it, because cycling is much more effort, and much less comfortable than driving. Sorry to have an incorrect opinion.
(sorry, I meant 'bikes', not Jesus).
EDIT: I knew this would get down-voted. No sense of humour these bicyclists ;)
I my case, I have a short commute, but mostly drive it, because cycling is much more effort, and much less comfortable than driving. Sorry to have an incorrect opinion.
Okay, okay. I'll cycle to work, next time it isn't raining.
One of the great things about riding your bike into downtown (or into town) is that parking for bikes is easier to find and closer to your destination than that for cars. For years, the only way I'd go to the Alamo Drafthouse in downtown Austin was by bike.
Reminds me of this lovely movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDqUKj1GwJY&feature=relat...
Makes me miss living in Berlin!
Makes me miss living in Berlin!
I guess you have to have lived through a car phase to discover that you can do without and be better off.
Here in Brazil people are currently enamoured by their new wealth and I see cars getting bigger and bigger.
Here in Brazil people are currently enamoured by their new wealth and I see cars getting bigger and bigger.
I like this article, because it's really about noncomformity. Hackers aren't afraid of social and cultural norms. To be truly excellent, you can't follow the crowd.
98% of zoning laws in the US are about maintaining the status quo. The status quo is sort of meh.
Hackers, bikers, entrepreneurs, and other daring souls mix it up. And the world is a better place for it.
Mix it up.
98% of zoning laws in the US are about maintaining the status quo. The status quo is sort of meh.
Hackers, bikers, entrepreneurs, and other daring souls mix it up. And the world is a better place for it.
Mix it up.
Isn't this a simple function of population density? Can we just say that and be done with this stupid argument?
If the US had the population density of Japan or parts of Europe, yes we could all bike and have super fast broadband. That's not the case.
If the US had the population density of Japan or parts of Europe, yes we could all bike and have super fast broadband. That's not the case.
The US doesn't have the population density of Japan or Europe because of our zoning laws. The barriers to even try these kinds of developments in the US are massive. The barriers to build yet-another cul-de-sac subdivision of mcmansions that are proven to increase congestion, travel-time, stress, infrastructure cost, individual waste and municipal waste are non-existent.
Zoning laws dictate density. We have sprawl because our laws engineered it and we were lucky enough to have the wealth and space to allow such frivolous waste to continue for so long.
Zoning laws dictate density. We have sprawl because our laws engineered it and we were lucky enough to have the wealth and space to allow such frivolous waste to continue for so long.
I don't think this argument works. For starters, parts of the US are very high density: density in NYC or Boston or SFO exceeds that of many European cities. And yet we don't have super fast broadband for super low prices in those places in general, even though though the density is high enough to support it. It seems a little ridiculous that people in extremely high density environments in the US have much worse broadband options that people living in rural Sweden.
Most American cities and streetcar suburbs are built at a density where it is very practical to bike. Even many new suburbs are built at a bikable density, though the non-grid/non-connecting infrastructure is often such that trips are twice as long as they should be, and in high-speed traffic.
My office building is finally going to install showers. :-) But someone stole my bike. :-(
check out my tangentially related project: http://abogo.cnt.org/ tells you how much the average household in your neighborhood spends on transportation. Let me know what you think!
In Vauban, near the French and Swiss borders, streets are completely “car-free” — except the main thoroughfare headed to Freiburg
But being the NY Times, are we sure they didn't just jump the gun again and it's all misrepresented? MAYBE THEY RIDE MOPEDS.
Mopeds aren't cars
Here in Belgium, when a car hits a bicyclist, the car driver's insurance will always pay for bodily damage of the bicyclist, even if the bicyclist is at fault.
Most streets where I live (in the center of Antwerp) are one-way for cars, but two-way for bicycles. And cars are limited to 30 km/h.
My wife goes to work on her bicycle and gets paid for it (per km) by her employer, enough to buy a new bike every year.
At busy crossings with stop lights, bicycles get a designated space in front of the cars. That way when the light turns green the bicyclists can get going first, safely turn etc.
I just saw 2 policemen on bicycles pass in front of my window...
Measures like these help make bicycling something accepted by society, not something only crazy lycra-clad hipsters do.