Why Can’t Riding Bikes in America Just Be Normal? | Hacker News Reader

Why Can’t Riding Bikes in America Just Be Normal?

outsideonline.com

41 pointsjseliger84 comments

Because Brooklyn and Manhattan are nothing like most of the other cities in the US?

Also, what the hell is this author talking about? People are looking at your bike because they think its interesting. It IS interesting, because it looks very different than most bikes people have seen, even people who are "in" to bikes (like bike messengers, that he mentions).

Also this:

>“How do you steer that thing?”

>“With the handlebars”

Oh man you sure showed him, author! The guy outside of the supermarket is clearly showing interest in your unique, interesting bicycle. You don't have to be a jerk about it.

People in the US largely don't have the time to ride bikes. We work from 8:00am to 5:00pm, and it's too expensive for many people to live near where their office is. If you pad an hour on each side of that work schedule for commuting, that leaves 13 hours of non-work-related time per day, 8 of which has to be dedicated to sleeping, leaving 5 hours to "live" each day. If you take 30 minutes to get ready in the morning, and 30 minutes to wind down before bed, that brings you down to 4 hours.

People want to reclaim as much time as they can for living. Cars give them the ability to do that. It would be great if we all lived a mile from where we work, and could all ride funky unique bikes to our jobs, then post self-righteous blogs on a website called "bike snob" about how annoyed we are that people notice our weird bike.

But we don't, and blogs like this only serve to further the distance between cyclists and non-cyclists.

On a semi-related note: my city recently got a BUNCH of dockless bike share bikes. They're EVERYWHERE now. Pretty much any bar, any grocery store, any restaurant, shopping center, etc. all have a few bike shares parked outside of them now. It's AWESOME.

And yet every bike-group I'm a part of is complaining about them.

So I don't know cyclists, maybe you should turn that "bike snob" lens towards yourself and ask why more people aren't ditching their cars for bikes.

Car commuting isn't instantaneous. I have a short 10 minute bike commute today, which is faster than the car commute since I can take a shortcut through a train station, and I don't have to park in a lot 2 blocks away from the office.

When I had a longer 12 mile bike commute, it took me about 50 minutes by bike, vs 30 minutes by car in the morning, and 45 - 60 minutes by car in the evening due to traffic.

But since the bike route was mostly on dedicated bike trails without stops, my biking time was very consistent, within +/- 5 minutes. While an accident on the freeway could easily add 15 - 30 minutes to the bike commute. So getting to work in time for a 9am meeting meant I needed to leave an hour ahead of time.

So biking added around 20 minutes/day to my total commute time, but also saved me hours each week in the gym since I was getting in a 24 mile ride every day.

It takes some planning to have a bike-friendly commute, but it needn't be a huge waste of time... and my ride home is always my favorite time of day - biking is a great stress reliever, in summer when it stays light later, I'll often take the long route home. But you can't buy a house in a suburb 40 miles away from work and expect to bike to work (unless you're near bike-friendly transit, I did a 30 mile commute for a while where most of that distance was on a train)

Google gives me 30-45 minutes via bike. Chunks of that are through areas without bike lanes, and aside from about a mile through a bike path, it's all right next to the cars going 50-60mph.

My car commute is 12-20 minutes, maybe going up to 30 if multiple stoplights are out (which happens a couple times a year).

I've considered biking, but I'm never going to. I see how people drive here, and I've seen too many coworkers get all gung-ho about biking for a few months, then drop it because of the safety issues. I can't help but see it as an unnecessary risk to my life.

That's what I meant by "it takes planning to..."

If bike commuting is important to you, then look for a home (and/or job) in an area that's bike friendly. I didn't end up with a 10 minute bike commute by accident, though it did take some compromises. Instead of a 2000 sq ft 3 bedroom house in the next county, I ended up in a 1000 sq ft 2 bedroom condo close to work. The condo was a bit more expensive, but I'm saving more money overall by not paying for an expensive car (~$700/month average [1]).

It's within easy biking and/or walking distance of 2 train stations, as well as schools, restaurants, grocery store, etc. And due to the proximity of the train station, several transit oriented developments are being built nearby so the area is becoming even more walkable.

Bike infrastructure is woefully in adequate in this country, so the onus is on individuals to make it work, since housing in many areas is so bike-unfriendly that it may never be made bikeable.

[1] http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/annual-cost-operate-vehicle-...

The issue with biking as a commute option is land use. America, more so than other countries, completely overhauled it to suit cars. In 1900 apartments or hotels on top of stores and businesses on small lots was the norm in most American towns and cities. In 2018 it is pretty much illegal to build that kind of development except for a few areas in major cities, and even then the mixed-use structures of today are monolithic, curated shopping mall experiences that are bad at encouraging the kind of convenience that exists in New York, because you get bored of it. And on top of that most cities in America ended up gutting their walkable cores with highways and parking lots in the name of progress.

The fact that it is hard to bike is a symptom of how far things apart are in America. But how far things apart are in America is a symptom of blind faith in new technologies.

Have you used the shared bikes? They are usually expensive, heavy, not ergonomic and take up valuable parking space. Amsterdam recently went on a collecting spree, outlawed many of them and reclaimed a few thousand parking spaces.

“People don’t have time to ride bikes” - this is exactly what the article is about: using bikes for normal tasks, like taking kids to school, going to the grocery store, commuting to work. Not for recreation in your off time, or as a sport.

Journeys up to 6-7km are absolutely normal, you don’t have to live next door to the office to cycle. What else is stopping you?

> Journeys up to 6-7km are absolutely normal, you don’t have to live next door to the office to cycle. What else is stopping you?

Work: Close to double the distance, fast roads, aggressive drivers, and lack of bike lanes on some parts of the route.

School: Wife takes the kid, and she hasn't ridden since her childhood. Similar safety issues.

Groceries: It's possible to be out and back in the car in the time that it would take just to get there on the bike. The car can carry a week's groceries. Long hill on the way back, when already laden with food.

In all the cases, there isn't a culture of cycling in the area, aside from packs of dozens of lycra-clad people on the weekends. Cyclists are seen as an annoyance, and the minority of drivers that are dangerous and unpredictable to other cars are worse to cyclists. That's the biggest thing stopping me (although time and laziness are certainly factors, too).

Two words: Chicago Winter

In most US cities your commute will be much more than 6-7 km though. The cities have been planned for cars for decades, so driving to downtown from your suburb will likely be a 20-30 min. drive by car. Not many people are willing to cycle that distance on a daily basis.

> Have you used the shared bikes?

Yes! It was GREAT! Take the train into the city, hop on a HubWay, bike from South Station to the Seaport, work, reverse. Really, really nice.

> People want to reclaim as much time as they can for living. Cars give them the ability to do that.

So do public transports though (actually even more so since you can kinda continue to "live" while being in them); and they're also less stress-inducing, better environmentaly, and more socially inclusive.

Though I believe they've never been a priority in the US, sadly; and as a result if they're available they tend to suck.

Normal and snobbery seem to be, by their very definitions, mutually exclusive. I guess the author has accomplished his goal in that we are paying attention to him - it certainly isn't to bring normal and curious onlookers into his exclusive world.

> it's too expensive for many people to live near where their office is

On the contrary, a major recommendation from early retirement folks is to ditch your car and instead ride a bike to save money on net:

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/07/what-do-you-mean-y...

You might need to change where you live to make a bike commute possible, but at least where I live (Austin, TX) I find that living close to my work and riding a bike seems isn't any more expensive than living farther away and driving. Some of my work friends complain about the cost of parking, gas, car repairs, etc., yet I make the same amount they do and I have no money problems. I don't know their precise expenses, but I get the impression that I put a lot more money into savings than they do.

I can't find it right now, but I recall a journalist once crunched the numbers for several US cities and found that living downtown without a car was about as expensive as driving in from the suburbs. You don't need to live downtown, too, saving more money. Living in a reasonably cheap area that's also close works too.

Admittedly, living close and cycling in won't work in every case. Particularly given that many if not most places in the US are very car dependent. But most people pick where they live based on their driving commute, so if one prioritizes cycling they should at least give the same consideration to a cycling commute. It's not uncommon for people to avoid particular cities because the driving commute would be bad, so when choosing where to live it should not be unusual to pick a city based on a hypothetical cycling commute. So far in my life I've been able to pick jobs and where to live such that cycling is not just possible, but desirable.

> People want to reclaim as much time as they can for living. Cars give them the ability to do that.

You can find a lot of discussion among transportation cyclists about the concept of "effective speed". Cars might high absolute speeds, but that doesn't mean you save time from using them. The effective speed is defined as the distance traveled divided by the marginal time needed to travel that distance. Most obviously you need to factor in time spent parking (usually much longer for driving than cycling). Less obvious is the amount of time you need to work to pay for the vehicle and its use. Depending on the price of gas the effective speed of driving could be a lot lower. I've seen people argue that it's slower than cycling when gas prices are high.

I've had people tell me that they'll work the same amount of time either way, so the gas price isn't really a factor. This is fair, but not relevant for me. The money I save allows me to retire earlier.

> some people peer at me through their car windows like I’m serving my children water from the toilet.

otherwise known as "ar-tush-anal water"

The average commute is 15 miles and the average cycling speed is 9mph which gives you an average of 3 hours per day commuting via bicycle. Can't imagine why riding bikes isn't normal!

9 mph is awfully slow. Most cyclists who ride on a regular basis would be able to average around 15 mph. An hour each way is still a little long, but not terrible considering it doubles as a workout and obviates the need to visit a gym.

People who use a bike to commute and run errands are different than people who use the bike for exercise.

In the Netherlands, the average biking speed in Amsterdam is 14.9 km/h. "In the popular cycling regions Drenthe and Overijssel the average speed is highest: 15.8 km/h." - http://www.holland-cycling.com/blog/260-amsterdam-has-slowes... [1]

9 mph = 14.5 kph, so nearly 1/2 of the cyclists in Amsterdam cycle "awfully slow" by your scale. The point is, they do bike. Though the average trip length was a bit over 5km, not 24m.

[1] This was by 55,000 cyclists who voluntarily participated in National Bike Counting Week, so may not reflect the general population.

I love cycling but a two-hour cycling commute is going to be impractical for even people who like to go to the gym.

And if we're talking average American commutes, a lot of them involve routes where you might have only freeways between you and your destination.

if you're driving the bike mentioned in the article, I bet you aren't averaging 15mph

NY is basically flat, so there is no problem averaging 15 mph with that. In general the most time in a bike commute in a city like NY is taken up with stopping at every intersection, and for cargo bikes, not being able to filter past gridlocked cars.

...and crash into cars or trees .

Cycling to work is in no way a replacement for proper full body workout.

It does not obviate the need to visit a gym.

Is a "full body" workout necessary for most people? Obviously you won't have much in the way of upper body strength, say, if all you do is bike commute. But my understanding is that the amount of exercise required to be healthy is much less than what most fitness enthusiasts are committed to. It wouldn't surprise me if simply biking to work were sufficient to net most of the vital benefits of exercise for most people. (And even if it weren't, I'd still doubt that a gym membership is necessary.)

Full body workout becomes much more important as you get older, otherwise you lose mobility much sooner in life.

Most people in the US get little or no exercise. __Any__ exercise would be a big improvement over none.

Does help though, you can get away with way less workouts per week if you cycle every day. Most people barely workout anyway so it would definitely be an improvement.

Seems debatable to me. Since the 1960s, Ken Cooper has advocated for workouts based primarily or exclusively on cardiovascular exercise like cycling. In his book "Aerobics" he had an example comparing a cycling commuter to a dedicated weightlifter and (as I recall) he didn't think the weightlifter was improving their fitness in the ways that matter.

Personally I also don't think weightlifting is really the best way to achieve fitness these days either, it is simply the most straight forward for people and the easiest to understand. After lifting weights for over a decade I moved on to calisthenics focused training, which I feel is superior but more complicated to learn at more advanced levels.

If I recall correctly Cooper had a similar problem with calisthenics and discussed it in the book. That training doesn't help your cardiovascular capacity as much as he wants, which is what's most important for your health and longevity. (I don't think calisthenics was given any points in his system.)

He probably would also disagree about what's most straightforward. I recall him recommending running in the book because it doesn't require any special equipment or training, in contrast to cycling, weight lifting, swimming, calisthenics, etc.

To be clear, I do think strength training is important as you age to avoid sarcopenia. But I suspect that running or cycling would provide enough resistance to slow sarcopenia for your lower body, making other exercise more important for your upper body and core.

You don't need to visit a gym to get a workout, a set of free weights is a good (and inexpensive) way to tone up at home -- you really don't need machines. Take the money you would have spent on a gym and spend it on a periodic visit from a personal trainer.

Yea you don't really need a gym, but I'd bet most people simply don't have the space to do many workouts in their home comfortably these days if the stories I read are accurate.

It really doesn't take much room for basic fitness at home - especially if you get your cardio exercise outside -- I have a set of dumbbells, some stretch bands, and a wobble board under the bed and do everything in a 3 foot wide space at the foot of the bed. And in reality, it doesn't take any equipment at all, since there are plenty of good exercises that use your own body weight as resistance:

https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/features/no-gym-requi...

The question should be why a 15 mile commute is normal!

Typically because families in the latter half of the 1900's wanted to move out of the crowded cities to raise their children, forming suburbs. We're left with that infrastructure with no real money to change it.

A lot of the regulatory changes were explicitly racist. By “crowded” what many really meant was “full of those people” (and especially after Brown v. Board “my kids might have to go to school with those kids”). And regulations were intended to prevent poor racial minorities from following. (Starting with explicit rejection of minorities, but when that was found illegal switching to regulations that deliberately made suburban life more exclusive or expensive.)

Edit: For the downvoters, this is not a controversial summary. Start with e.g. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-federal-governmen... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_segregation_in_the... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_zoning

There are ways we can start changing it though: change the zoning laws, change the tax laws, etc. Changes to the built infrastructure will slowly respond over the coming decades.

I won't dispute that race and class may very well have had influence on zoning laws. However, it's a rather fundamental human desire to own your property which drew people capable of making the move out to the suburbs - especially since it was affordable on a scale unseen before (good middle class wages, large houses selling for next to nothing, cheap transportation).

Hell, my dad was only a telephone lineman for Ma' Bell, and he could afford 5 acres of land and a house in (our city's version of) the burbs.

Regardless of future changes to zoning laws, not everybody wants to live in big cities. There's a strong appeal to live in a house of your own, where your children can play in the grass with their house pet. Where they can go to school with a class size where they have a chance to actually know everybody in their class.

If you really want to increase the density of cities even more, people will either require a) no choice but to move to the big cities, or b) a fundamental shift in thinking about owning their homes and raising their families.

And please remember that you will be working against eons of human nature when attempting to create that fundamental shift.

Speaking as a former child of the suburbs (one of the livelier and more walkable ones, with several nearby colleges), car-centric suburbs are awful for children, especially for those aged ~10–18: there’s nothing to do, and it’s impossible to get places independently. Parents end up constantly on the hook as chauffeurs, and kids end up with very constrained freedom of movement and very regimented schedules. People are so spread out there’s huge overhead meeting up. Kids with niche interests can’t find anyone local to interact with.

Kids in a denser neighborhood with easy access to public transit have much better quality of life on average. Parents who move to the suburbs for the benefit of their children might just be projecting their own desires.

As for “aeons of human nature”: for most of prehistory and then most of history, most people were either living in isolated tribes in the forest, or as rural peasant farmers. Not sure how either of those is relevant to considering parking requirements, building height limits, etc.

There’s no inherent reason for class sizes to be different between urban and suburban schools. Often suburban schools have more resources because the USA spends more money on public services in cities with wealthier residents. That’s unjust public policy, but nothing directly related to population density.

Lol, I don't think blackophobia is the primary driver for suburbs. Look at Billings, MT. .7% black and it is almost all suburb.

Lots of people just like having a little privacy and a domain of their own.

Montana is 600 miles by 250 miles and has almost no people living in it. It’s entirely unsurprising that people who choose to move or stay there want to take up lots of space. As for racial makeup: Montana was largely settled by people given free land in return for moving there, and then in the late 19th century a mining boom; during that era local laws were quite discriminatory. It hasn’t recently had any booming industry that might attract a wide variety of immigrants.

Billings is the largest city and has only 160k people. Billings is spread out along a federally funded interstate highway, and has plenty of available land. It’s a place with harsh winters that would be rather unfriendly to pedestrians/cyclists anyway. 95% of households own a car, and on average there are about 2 cars per household. (For contrast, in NYC there are about 0.6 cars per household.) As far as I can tell buses are the only public transit in town.

Small FYI - that mining boom meant that laws against races, religions, or otherwise meant remarkably little. The Copper Barons ran the cities, and all they were interested in was your labor, either in the mines or in support of the miners. Of course, this was also a time when the color of your skin mattered less than your place of birth. Irish and Chinese were held in equal contempt.

Even today, some of those mining towns are bigger melting pots of various races, religions, and cultures than the port cities.

We're left with that infrastructure with no real money to change it.

And with no money maintain it. Also with an "infrastructure of corruption" that soaks up whatever money is spent to change the situation. America has painted itself into a bad corner today.

The average commute in cities with more cycling isn’t 3 hours. People just live closer to work.

The big problem the USA has is that its zoning laws and urban planning are completely screwed up, making it impossible in most places to build bike- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. (Minimum lot sizes, low units per lot, low height limits, large setbacks, wide streets, massive numbers of car parking spaces required everywhere, few mixed-use areas, neighborhoods cut off by highways, lots of disconnected dead-end streets, very high urban speed limits, ...)

The road + trees, plus walking path is x. So carving out a 10-12 feet bike lane (two ways) is a challenge.

If traffic constrains you to 9 mph, you car isn't going to be much faster than 20 - 25mph. Though where I live, a 15 mile car commute is going to be at least 2 hours/day, unless you have enough flexibility to drive outside of typical commute hours.

When I had a city commute (in SF), I was doing around 12mph average to get downtown, and biking was faster than the train (driving wasn't an option due to parking availability, both at home and work).

When I had a longer bike commute mostly on bike trails, I averaged 15mph at a moderate pace - I could go faster if I pushed harder.

Hills used to be an issue for a bike commute, they could really kill your average speed, but with the advent of electric bikes, hills are much less of an issue - electric assist can get you over the hill quickly and without much effort.

9 mph is super fast in NYC. Here is the Mobility Report from 2016:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/mobility-report-20...

A bus will be 4-6 mph, a taxi at great expense averages 8-9 mph. Sure, if you're not doing all 15 miles in city center but come in from outside, you can do moderately better than that, but for connections inside the city taking a bike is already the fastest transportation, even if you can only do 9 mph (and most people, in a flat city like NY, can do a lot more).

When I biked to work, I lived close to the downtown of a mid-sized city in the US - with traffic, I often wound up getting to work faster via bike than car.

Guy with very unusual bike riding through NYC wonders why he can't just be seen as "normal" and not get comments. No one would have looked twice if we riding a normal bike, but he is riding a VERY unusual (really neat, though) bike, so yeah, you're going to get comments. Most of them were positive, too, by the sounds of the article.

You need to pay more attention to biking in NYC. Drivers HATE bikers to an incredibly unreasonable extent.

As a pedestrian in NYC I wasn't fond of them either. At least once a month I'd have a near miss due to a cyclist barrelling through a red light at full speed. I know it's a only a minority that does things like that, but it unavoidably creates a bad impression.

I guess traffic will always elicit emotional reactions in people. I bike through a tourist-laden, relatively narrow, street on my way to and from work and, my god, the amount of people just wandering around aimlessly seemingly having no sense of their surroundings is astonishing.

I get that, but he's ESPECIALLY noticeable here. It's basically the Dave Chapelle "Wearing the uniform" joke.

They're super common in NL and BE. So I guess the inferred question is why can't they be common in NYC?

From the Article:

> As it happens, as a male cyclist I have indeed experienced that same line of questioning, but only while carrying children on my bike, and only from women who were concerned for their safety.

I would not want to ride a bakfiets in traffic in the US with children riding along. I would be concerned for their safety as well.

I mean, they can be, they just aren't now. For it to be common, it has to fit more people's use cases. Clearly, that's more likely to happen in somewhere like NYC than in Memphis, but I would think that most people, even people inclined to use bikes like that, would use it only on shopping days, and a more traditional two-wheeler for their commute.

As for other hypothetical reasons they are not normal now (hypothetical because I know very little about NL / BE / wherever):

* Are people in those places using them for work or leisure? I suspect that if they're that common, people are using them for work in jobs like delivering market goods (e.g., similarly to how we use bike messengers, but for larger 'messages')

* I've seen them used in Netherlands for carrying children and such, while it seems that predominately, more Americans are dual income families, with children being cared for in daycare / school during the days.

As for all things that aren't "normal", there's the chicken and the egg problem. There's nothing wrong with being anormative, but right or wrong, if you're deviating from the norm, you should expect people to ask questions. If you'd like to help normalize what you're doing, then answering their questions (where possible) seems like a fine way to start. Without getting into a meta-debate about vaping, I was an early vaper because I liked the idea of saving money, and they seemed healthier than cigarettes. If your first experience to vaping is by a guy who sneers at your questions, acts better than you, and then blows huge clouds in small rooms, you're probably going to be put off to it. If your first experience is with me, who vapes outside, is usually happy to answer any questions, etc., you're less likely to be.

Obviously, no one's beholden to take time out of their day to answer other people's questions, but the vibe I got from the author was that they were stupid for asking them, that he couldn't be bothered, and that overall, he didn't seem like a pretty good ambassador to the cause.

> * Are people in those places using them for work or leisure?

It's just a way of getting around. Bring the kids to school, pick up some groceries on the way back.

> * I've seen them used in Netherlands for carrying children and such, while it seems that predominately, more Americans are dual income families, with children being cared for in daycare / school during the days.

Same thing in the Netherlands and Belgium.

Children in Belgium start school at 2.5 years old, so... yea. Same thing in BE.

Cargo bikes are not as unusual as you think in NYC

Here in the rust belt, if you're on a bicycle and over the age of 25 or so, the stigma is "I don't have a drivers license because of multiple DUI's"

That said, the guys that ride bikes are tough. They do it in in the rain, through the cold and snow, in the dark with no lights. Pedaling miles going along picking up cans, riding back home with plastic grocery bags full of 40oz beer bottles to enjoy the rest of their day.

"having things thrown at me from car windows (this has happened to every cyclist)"...I am genuinely shocked. I would not expect that from a third world banana republic, not a fact-of-life in the USA.

I've had drivers intentionally swerve into me because I'm an "asshole" for taking up some of the right side of the lane. A lot of people are jerks to bicyclists. Even had a guy yell, "pay registration like the rest of us." To which I yelled back, "I do!"

In LA it was common to give extra room to lane splitting motorcyclists, and they'd give you a wave to show their appreciation. Rarely do I ever experience the kind of courtesy afforded to motorcyclists I observed while living in LA as to bicyclists in the city I live now. I did have a gentleman with a bike rack on his car move over for me while stopped at a light to give me some room, but of course, he understood as a fellow cyclist.

My out-there suggestion is to force any able bodied citizen to ride a bicycle on the road prior to getting a drivers license so they at least know what it's like.

Or best of all, cities should model their bicycle infrastructure like Portland, as I can't even recall an incident between myself and a vehicle while living there because of how they designed and implemented bike lanes.

This is absolutely not a "fact of life" in the USA. At various points in my life, I have spent a lot of time riding my bike on the streets. I have never had anybody throw anything at me.

Although this is probably because I am courteous and acknowledge that my bike going 15 mph is essentially an obstacle to all of the cars which are going 45 mph.

Thanks. It did seem to be an offhand mention to me, something like "well, that's just how life is: water is wet and cyclists get pelted with trash." Glad to hear this is not universal.

I don't appreciate your victim-blaming.

"A lot of time" is probably not enough. I've spent enough time riding to have had at least 3 objects thrown at me, including a beer bottle, a wet wad of something, and some unknown object. On all three occasions these were juveniles having "fun", not someone angry about my cycling courtesy.

I like to ride my bike. I have had beer bottles and garbage thrown at me before.

Oh and people yelling get off the road...

I have had a phone book thrown at me (among other things) while cycling and this is in California, USA.

Lot of angry people live in this country; when they are driving cars it really comes out.

Of all the places I've lived, California was the absolute worst as far as anti-cycling sentiment is concerned. While riding to work, I'd regularly have people roll down their windows to yell abuse at me. This was outside Sacramento; I can't speak to the rest of the state. Where I live now, I occasionally get yelled at, and I've had people roll coal on me, but it's less frequent.

I rode a bike back when riding a bike wasn't very popular. People who owned "10speeds" only had them so they could take them out on the weekend and show their friends they had a "10-speed".

I rode shoulders and shared dangerous roads --no shoulder a bike could ride on alongside a 40/45mph road.

I never had things thrown at me. Now, I never intentionally tried pissing drivers off, that's for sure. Or maybe I was lucky, or those drivers were especially nice. Possibly as well, since I was only the odd bike, it wasn't irritating drivers.

On the other hand, I do recall a few other odd cyclists "advising me" to keep some D-cells with me in case I had to hurl one at a car. I never carried one.

That said, people thought it was peculiar that I would ride a bike and not own a car. Basically, I just could not afford one at that time.

I moved to the US for grad school (in the south). Biking to school, I remember people yelling at me, and people driving pickup trucks feigning to run into me and honking very loudly. Very confused as to the thought process going on in the mind of those people.

They’re just being assholes. No seriously - this is all you need to know about their thought processes, because this is all they know about their thought processes.

Some people think cyclists don't belong on the road.

I've been riding a bike to work on and off for several years, and I pretty much also think cyclists don't belong on the road. The road is dangerous, far better to ride on sidewalks.

In the Northern Virginia suburbs where I live, there aren't a lot of people on the sidewalks. When I do pass a pedestrian, I slow down and give them a wide berth so they aren't startled. Sometimes I'll even ride into the street to give them more room, especially if they're walking a dog. And then, I get back on the sidewalk where my life isn't in the hands of aggressive or distracted drivers.

The issue with riding sidewalks, outside of pedestrians and it being outright illegal in most states, is driveways and curb cuts. At any reasonable cycling speed drivers will not see or react to you in time, because they're almost always focused on the road looking for passing auto traffic.

Far better in some cases, but far more illegal in others.

Since sidewalks in many places are rarely used by actual pedestrians it'd probably be better, and cheaper, to install paved bike paths instead.

Never had anything thrown at me, but I have been close passed and sworn at more times than I would like to count.

It happens pretty regularly in the Midwest although I haven't had anything thrown at me in a long time. I pretty regularly get honked at, yelled at, cutoff, or buzzed by passing cars. I have thought about using a camera but I am already bad enough about keeping things charged.

The title of this blog - "Bike Snob" - answers its own question.

I found it to be self deprecating, in a humorous way.

Inclimate weather is why. Bikes are well and fine when it's not too hot, not too cold, and not raining, and if you're in shape and not suffering from any serious medical problems.

Otherwise, its the car.

In the case of the US, it's really an infrastructure issue. Attitudes follow from that.

I grew up in the US and live in Europe now, and I bike or walk everywhere. The difference is of course staggering.

Here, biking is just something ordinary people do to get around, and it doesn't require any special equipment or make any kind of statement. In the US, biking is primarily associated with recreation and a specific subculture.

In the US case, changing infrastructure priorities and urban planning practices will go a long way toward alleviating the problem.

+1 for the Yuba Supermarche. That cargo bike is super fun to ride. The steering takes a minute to get used to, it has a 4:3 ratio. For every degree you turn the handlebars, the front wheel turns 1.33 times more. It handles speeds up to 30mph suprisingly well.

I made a quick video when we got one in the shop last summer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l_M6UrHY5k

You can also add electric assist to cargo bikes such as these, making them even easier to use.

I made a bike[1] very similar to the authors about 10 years ago and have used it as my main vehicle ever since.

It's been extremely useful for getting groceries and hauling packages.

My experience has been similar to the author's, with people curious about it and often taking pictures of it as they drive past.

[1]-https://photos.app.goo.gl/Bc7bvq1ipqznTImR2

That bike would fit right in in Portland. Would still probably get some comments, but cargo bikes are not uncommon.

> For that matter I’ve also never had anyone of any gender implore me to be careful when loading my children into a car, which statistically speaking is far more warranted.

This would be extremely surprising to me. Citation needed.

I also just read and submitted "We’re witnessing the fastest decline in Arctic sea ice in at least 1,500 years" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16414695"and cannot help wondering about the connection between the two.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com