Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by microtonal | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why don't more people bike? Because the entire biking community, culture, and market is built around making it hard and dangerous.

No, it is because in most countries road infrastructure is built for cars, not bikes. To make life even more dangerous for cyclists, the laws do not protect them enough.

Here in The Netherlands we have many separate bike likes, inside and outside cities, so-called bike highways, etc. Some city centers are even largely car-free (e.g. Groningen). E.g. from home to my office (~3-4km) roughly 70% of the stretch is on dedicated bike roads.

On average, Dutch citizens [1] make 250-300 bike rides per year, cycling 880km on average. Most people I know cycle to work, do groceries by bike, etc.

We do not have automatic emergency braking, turn signals, regenerative breaking, anti-theft tracking (though it becomes more common with e-biks), rear radar, etc.

First you have to make cycling safe by providing separate bike lanes where possible (preferably physically separated). Secondly, you have to change the culture. Most people in other countries do not even consider cycling to work as an option. Emphasize the health benefits, etc. You also need to educate drivers on how drive safely around cyclists (this is less of a problem here, since most car drivers are also cyclists, and tend to be aware).

[1] https://www.fietsersbond.nl/ons-werk/mobiliteit/fietsen-cijf...

The simpler answer is probably that biking requires physical effort and exposure to elements, before one ever encounters issues of road traffic, or gear optimization for safety. No doubt some combination of all these factors are at play. Neither of you are wrong about identifying issues, but presuming that a materially greater portion of the population would start biking if we could only solve this one aspect of law or gear seems to ignore the broader trend of people also disfavoring exercise and the need to be looking good at work (not sweaty or looking like the dog the cat dragged in).

Specifically all the issues I raised apply in an American city that is relatively good for biking. The bike lanes are still on the road, and drivers still swerve into them, so I want heads up on that.

Its also physically difficult to get comfortable biking if you're not used to it. That's fine, but when the roads are like mad max post-COVID, you don't want to be wobbling when you're trying to signal.

Yes, the roads need to have bike lanes, but at least in portland, there's a stunning lack of reflection on why more people aren't taking advantage of them.

E-bikes probably help with the appearance part. It is just weird seeing a market where the entire culture is so hostile to innovation or improvement. The biking community should really be trying to remove all the barriers and not just saying it will get better when every road has a bike lane, because it won't.

Heck, even trying to find a class to learn how to bike is a massive pain. Each town and city has a different standard for hand signals (which I think refutes the claim that drivers would be completely unable to recognize or understand a turn signal on a bike) and the laws are different everywhere around things like lights and bells.

> The biking community should really be trying to remove all the barriers and not just saying it will get better when every road has a bike lane, because it won't.

I think it's easy to confuse the cycling community fighting for bike lanes with them believing it's the optimal solution. The truth is, it's hard enough to get this bare minimum that it becomes the thing we fight over most often. But of course, the dream is separate bike infrastructure.

> Each town and city has a different standard for hand signals (which I think refutes the claim that drivers would be completely unable to recognize or understand a turn signal on a bike) and the laws are different everywhere around things like lights and bells.

I think you may be overthinking this part? Hand signals couldn't be more simple, and I can't imagine them changing much between cities. If you don't like letting go of the bars in traffic, that's another issue, and I agree turn signals could be helpful. Lights and bells ... I'd just get a bike with a bell and a dynamo light system from the factory. I can't imagine ending up on the wrong side of the law that way.

Your overall experience is super interesting to me, just want to say that, as someone deeply interested in cycling and the barriers to adoption.

> The simpler answer is probably that biking requires physical effort and exposure to elements

If this were the primary factor, the top cities for cycling would be places with mild climates and active-oriented population. That is not the reality as I see it.

> No doubt some combination of all these factors are at play

The primary factor is unambiguously the infrastructure. Among top cycling cities, the only common trait is good bike infrastructure.

> presuming that a materially greater portion of the population would start biking if we could only solve this one aspect of law or gear

No presumption needed, that is what literally happened in the Netherlands. They created good infrastructure, and went from basically zero cyclists in the 70s to the hefty majority they have today. The top cities for cycling (by ridership) in Europe are in northern climes with good cycling infrastructure. People in these cities are exposed to cold rain and snow.

see: https://copenhagenizeindex.eu/ , no correlation between climate and ridership.

Speaking to your broader point that people are getting lazier - I believe that humans are exceedingly adaptable above all else. If it is fast and convenient to get from A to B in a city by bike, people will ride bikes. That is what happened in the Netherlands and other top cycling cities.

While we're discussing it, does anyone know where to get road-standard rear lights for a bicycle? For riding at nights on streets with cars, I want the bicycle to look like a motorcycle: a pair of yellow flashing 'hazard lights' (because the bike is much slower than the cars), red light(s) that brighten when I brake (actually connected to my breaks - doesn't seem technically hard), maybe functioning turn signals.

It's visible, drivers understand it perfectly, and it's a very mature, well-tested road safety technology (unlike much bike lighting). It seems obvious to me, but I haven't seen it anywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com