In German Suburb, Life Goes On Without Cars (2009)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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 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...
Whether or not that causes reckless behavior on the biker's part, I don't know. But I can imagine the argument.
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.
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.
A lot of jurisdictions have "no-fault" legislation however that gets in the way with regards to insurance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nothing is better for your head than biking a few miles home after a hard day of work.
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.
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://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.
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.
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 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.
Please, think of the children.
Children are now only allowed clove cigars.
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.
You're definitely right about many of the safe routes being a little convoluted.
Now I live in Corvallis and it's a great bike town as well.
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.
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.
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.
If you're doing it right, you are stiff as a board from using the same muscles to hold proper posture constantly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
- 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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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 fact, in most US cities, it is illegal to build high density development like the kind that already exists in those cities.
That's the market speaking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
In EU: postman, grocery getting/delivery, common commute vehicle, etc etc
In USA: NYC bike couriers.
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.
I have friends that use trailers from http://bikesatwork.com/
Very inexpensive. Easily attached, and you can use your bike regularly whenever you want.
Bikes are great, but not very practical.
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.
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.
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.
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?
pg gets ideas in the shower. I get them cruising on the bike. Same effect.
I believe that post will also feed hungry trolls
(Btw I actually run to work.)
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.
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.
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.)
It's not exactly a trend, I've seen concrete autobahnen more than 15 years ago, and the early ones were concrete as well.
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.
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...
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 :) .
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.
You are right, bikes wouldn’t work in every case but sometimes they can replace cars just fine.
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?
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...
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 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).
Most people who complain about sweat are trying to cycle in cotton. Just change when you get to work.
(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.
Makes me miss living in Berlin!
Here in Brazil people are currently enamoured by their new wealth and I see cars getting bigger and bigger.
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.
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.
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.