Hacker News Reader

Comment by AmericanChopper | Hacker News Reader

Your argument is based on a major logical fallacy. There’s lots of reasons why cycling is far better for society than driving cars. But none of them matter because people do not want to cycle. There are no cases in the world where cycling infrastructure has been successful in having a measurable impact on congestion.

You’re also falling for the same fallacy that cycling advocates fall for by obscuring the impact of cycling spending. It doesn’t matter if hundreds of people want to cycle to work, or if cycling adoption is up 10% if all you’ve done is gone from 3% of commuters to 3.4% of commuters (which is where I believe SF is at after all of the billions they’ve invested in it). It’s the same as the startup that says they’re growing faster than google because they managed to go from 50 customers to 100. We all know it’s bullshit, it’s just a popular self-delusion that people enjoy.

View on HN

> But none of them matter because people do not want to cycle.

Wrong. Vancouver, for example, built a network of protected bike lanes in a few years, and saw bike rates skyrocket. Bike commute mode share is now 10%, despite having much less than 10% of available road space, making bikes highly land-efficient.

> There are no cases in the world where cycling infrastructure has been successful in having a measurable impact on congestion.

That's because the number of cars increases to fill the amount of road space. But if you look at Amsterdam or Copenhagen, plenty of people are willing to bike when there's good bike lanes and paths for doing so.

In contrast, cities like SF or Seattle have a bare handful of protected bike lanes, a smattering of walk/bike trails, and they hardly connect to each other. It's hardly a surprise that most people don't want to bike in those conditions.

> which is where I believe SF is at after all of the billions they’ve invested in it

If SF had spent "billions" the city would be covered in protected bike lanes. Needless to say, it isn't. This is a made-up figure.

There’s a very small number of cities in the world where cycling is popular, and their success comes down almost entirely to geography and climate. These cities also tend to devote very little infrastructure to cycling-only roadways.

There’s a lot of examples of cities spending huge sums of money on cycling (SF has spent far more than a billion on it), and none of them have been successful in drivingcycling adoption.

Also the only studies that show road building as ineffective are looking at cities that have many years of population growth where road spending didn’t even remotely keep up. People don’t materialize out of thin air to fill up new roads. You’re using neglect of infrastructure to justify further neglect of infrastructure.

> There’s a very small number of cities in the world where cycling is popular, and their success comes down almost entirely to geography and climate.

This is wrong.

Biking is popular in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, it's popular in Munich, it's recently gained popularity in Vancouver, it's popular in Davis, CA, it's popular in Tokyo. Believe it or not, those cities don't all have the same climate.

Geography is more of an issue, but it's becoming less and less of one over time thanks to the steadily increasing popularity -- and steadily decreasing cost -- of ebikes.

Also, you claimed SF spent many billions on bike infrastructure. Where's the source?

While I agree with your analysis in general, you cannot ignore geography and weather. Copenhagen and Amsterdam are pretty optimal for biking since they are basically completely flat and the weather never really gets warm or cold. From what I remember of Seattle at least the entire downtown is on a very steep hill.

The Netherlands also gets a lot of wind, which is not optimal for biking. And even when it rains or snows there, people keep biking.

Hills are becoming less of an issue due to ebikes (and electric bikeshare). The other possible solution is installing bike lifts, but, well, most cities still treat biking as a toy, and are unwilling to spend significant sums on it.

<raises hand> I would absolutely cycle the 3 miles to my office if it felt safe. Not in a crime sense but in an "I'm going to get mangled by an automobile driver who thinks saving a fraction of a second on a 45 min commute is more important than strict adherence to those pesky traffic laws that protect my fragile body from his two tons of 30mph (where the speed limit is 20mph) metal" sense.

What would make me feel confident enough to cycle to work? Protected bike lanes and/or a massive shift in attitude among the drivers I encounter as a pedestrian and watch through the bus window.

While I love reading about logical fallacies, I don't see how I've committed one.

I never said building infrastructure would convince everyone to bike. Rather, the government can (and often does) move society as a whole in one direction using money as a lever. Do taxes on gas or alcohol prevent everyone from driving or drinking? No, but they move the needle, just like building cycling infrastructure does.

And I never cited the "10% increase" as an important metric for the success of cycling infrastructure, you did. None of my arguments is about the absolute number of people cycling, although others have pointed out that biking is likely underfunded relative to the number of people who use the infrastructure. I just cited the increasing number of people on bikes as a counterpoint to your claim that "no matter what people say, they don't want to cycle to work".

I would love to cycle almost everywhere, and in the past I've run a large fraction of my errands on bikes. On the majority of roads, though, I do not feel safe doing so, because I have to mix with fast moving cars piloted by drivers that I would barely feel safe driving near, because they're honestly pretty terrible at driving. I know many others who feel the same way - they want to bike more but not feeling safe keeps them from doing it as much as they'd like.

And I can't see how SF could have invested nearly what you claim in biking infrastructure. Their cycling infrastructure is not particularly good compared to most "bike friendly" cities.

That's demonstrably false. Look to cities in northern Europe like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where bicycle use has caused a massive decrease in automobile traffic.

Can you cite any of those figures?

Add Beijing to the list. However the success of cycling in those cities comes down entirely to geography. Cycling has been popular in those places for a very long time. They also prove that cycling adoption doesn’t come down to infrastructure spending, a city is either geographically suited to it (very flat with minimal sprawl), or it isn’t, no matter how much money you pour down the drain to build cycle ways.

Amsterdam hasn't been big on cycling for a "very long time". It was a very car heavy city for a while and is now on a better track thanks to changes in policy.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...

As a Dutch person, it was great reading this, because I always assumed that the Netherlands had cycling ingrained in its culture. This would of course make the cycling success of Dutch cities hard to replicate elsewhere. To see that activism and political will played a large role in creating the current cycling climate makes me hopeful it can be replicated elsewhere!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com