Hacker News Reader

I think you are totally off. Never lived in Paris but I lived in Barcelona for many years, during the transformation to be more car-hostile and bikes and pedestrians friendly. I spent there my 20s-30s and left when I had a family but due to (public) school scarcity in our neighborhood and rent prices. But mobility was not the issue at all. It was actually a pleasure bring my daughter to her kindergarten by bike and then go to the office.

And I think Paris and Barcelona share a lot in that respect (the mayors - Hidalgo and Colau - met a lot to discuss exactly those topics and share experiences).

Barcelona is in Spain, on the Mediterranean, where the weather is fair all year long. It's not the case in many parts of the world. Bicycles are a rather dangerous mode of transportation, and I wouldn't use it with kids, especially in a city.

People in Germany and the Netherlands must extra hardened I guess, since everyone bikes around there, even with their kids in tow.

I would never go with my kids on a bike on any road that's shared with cars. The risk, as small as it is, is still unacceptable to me.

Don't know about Germany, but in Netherlands it's solved with having proper cycling infrastructure. It's the right approach, but it is still more of an exception. Where I am at they just painted cycle paths on existing roads and then tried to make it safer by cutting speed limit in half and eliminating lots of street parking. And now it's a mess that doesn't work well for anyone. Next elections are in a year, will be interesting to see how that will go.

Yet there is Oulu (city in middle of Finland with year long, studded tyres on snow and ice cycling culture), hilly Oslo, rainy Copenhagen, windy Amsterdam and now fair but unpredictable London and Paris are joining the mix.

Bicycle commuting is extremely safe if cyclists are accounted for by the infrastructure designers. It’s a statistical fact that’s true across the world, even the USA. BTW, check what’s the leading cause of children death in the States.

Dangerous why? Because of all the cars?

Dangerous because a city provides many ways for a cyclist to fall or hit something or someone. In France, data shows that 2/3 of cyclists' "serious accidents" don't involve another road user. https://www.cerema.fr/system/files/documents/2024/05/3._2024...

In other words, you want them to invest more money into building safer cyclist infrastructure?

An obstacle isn't going to magically pop into existence the moment you mount a bicycle. Car-centric road design can indeed be dangerous to cyclists, but that says more about the road design than it does about the concept of cycling. Build better roads and cycling isn't dangerous!

Do you live in a world where money is infinite? I'd rather have very good public transport, which is accessible to everyone, safe and can give physical workers so rest and a quiet time after work, than bike lanes everywhere.

And the problem with removing cars from the city center is that many users still need cars, either because they have families, or because they work and need a motorized vehicle (e.g a plumber).

Why do you think a plumber requires a car and not, say, an electric cargo bicycle?

Because a plumber needs to carry heavy things, such as a water heater tank, and possibly more as he will intervene on multiple places during his day? And that he may need to get back to the shop/depot in the suburb during the day to get additional parts, if needed? Do you live in a magical word where things teleport by themselves?

I've never worked with a plumber that has anything they need in their van / truck. They always need to go buy something. This departure generally doubles the cost of whatever plumbing is happening.

The data you present does not say that:

> 35% des cyclistes tués, 63% des cyclistes blessés gravement le sont dans un accident sans autre véhicule impliqué.

35% of cyclist deaths, and 63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved.

Another graph in that report shows that a vast majority of cyclist deaths occur while cycling for leisure. I would hazard that most cycling in cities is utilitarian.

Yes, this will be the road racer guys (it is mostly guys) screwing up while descending an Alp or Pyrenee. Split-second safety margins and if you get it wrong on a 60kph descent - or someone else gets it wrong, or you suffer a mechanical failure - you're likely dead.

A city is a much more dangerous environment. You have bollards, stupid pedestrians who keep on trying to circulate on YOUR sidewalk, potholes, dogs, and so on.

It's really not, because speeds are so much lower - and injury is, by and large, related to kinetic energy which is the _square_ of speed.

OK, cycling at 50km/h in a city is dangerous and stupid (if you're even physically capable of doing so, which few are?). 30km/h in suburbs / 20km/h in the centre is mostly fine, and 10 for busy complicated spaces.

30km/h is slow enough to prevent the vast majority of crashes being fatal, and 20km/h will avoid most serious injuries.

Kinetic power is lower, that said you can still hurt yourself pretty bad depending on how you fall. A wrist doesn't need a lot of force to break, nor a skull needs to fall from high to cause trauma. A cyclist on a sidewalk going at 20km/h can cripple a child for life (not that the cyclist cares, but just for the example).

I broke my wrist by falling from my bike when I was younger, almost while stopped (my wheel got blocked in a tram rail).

And yet if you look at the public health statistics for the things _actually_ crippling children for life, "other people on bikes" are a very long way down the list - at least in most places; I don't know if Paris has a specific problem there. You can hurt yourself pretty bad in the home, after all - the major causes here seem to be cars and dogs.

(Before we even consider that - at population level and in developed Western countries - lack of physical activity, and an environment which actively suppresses it through sheer indifference if not outright hostility - is likely inflicting a far greater burden on childrens' health and wellbeing than trauma).

The statistics are low because many places banned cyclists from sidewalks? Purely speed-wise, being hit by a car at 50kmh while riding a bike at 25kmh is similar to being hit by a cyclist going at 25kmh while being static on a sidewalk. Why are cyclists concerned about cars but I should just think "trust the stats bro" when the 5th cyclist going at full speed came past me on a narrow sidewalk? France banned shared e-scooters after many scathing accidents, including deaths and people being crippled. I remember a professional pianist who get her hand broken this way and had to stop her career.[0]

But I guess she's just a statistic, right? Pedestrians, out of the way!

[0] https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/blessee-par-une-trottinett...

I don't disagree that commuting by bicycle can be hazardous, but the major risks to cyclist safety are cars, trucks and other cyclists (mainly e-bikes). Pedestrians, potholes, bollards, etc. are no worse than an inconvenience most of the time. You just don't build up enough speed to cause that much damage in a busy city due to a fall or colliding with a pedestrian. OTOH, even the mildest collision between a bike and a car is generally a Bad Time for the cyclist.

Source: me, who commutes by bike daily through a capital city.

The problem arises when cyclists want to use the space reserved for pedestrians (sidewalks), or ignore red lights, when pedestrians use the crosswalk. I am not against bicycle lanes, when it is doable, but cyclists should go on the road when there is none. And have insurance + numbered bikes if electrical.

"63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved" Is exactly what I said, as 63% is roughly 2/3.

It really matters what kind of cycling is being done with no other party involved. I injured myself only when I was doing "leisure cycling". I did get almost ran over by a dumb college student once during a commute ride, though.

I'm a huge supporter of public transit, but cyclists are a common enemy for everyone: cars, pedestrians, public transit-takers, other cyclists.

I remember seeing another study here on HN a couple of years ago that showed that actually, the all cause mortality of cyclists comunter was actually lower, because the higher risk of road accident was largely compensated by the benefits of exercise. But I can't find the article anymore.

It really depends on the city/quarter where you live. I live in the center of Barcelona and had no problems with two small kids at all. Supermarkets, real farmer's markets, hospitals, pharmacies, schools, etc are all within 10min walking distance. I work from home, but I could walk to the office it I wanted to. I don't have to leave the city at all.

Eventually I gave in and bought a car, not because it was necessary but rather to leave the city on weekends and get closer to nature.

Yeah, if you live in the most expensive part of the town, which is often the epicenter, it may be ok. However, not everyone can afford this, or justify the expense, especially since you are pitted against childless couples that don't have to support children financially. Also, the presence of bikes on the sidewalk makes it hostile for vulnerable pedestrians, and generally turn a pleasant experience (walking in a city) into a stressful one.

Yes, gentrification is a thing around here too, but I also lived in the outskirts of the city and you don't need a car there either. They also have all the essentials. The fancy restaurants and theaters are 30min metro/bus away, but otherwise it is fine too. A car is a luxury in those quarters too.

Completely agree that the presence of bikes and scooters on the sidewalk is annoying and dangerous. The city changed the rules a few months ago and now there is a 500€ fine if you use them on the sidewalk. That fixed the problem. They have to use the street or one of the many bike lanes.

No idea how it is in Paris, but there are places where living happily in a city without owning a car is perfectly possible, even if you have small kids.

If bikes (not cars) are making a city "hostile to vulnerable pedestrians", that seems like a very good problem to have compared to the average car-centric city.

Bikes and cars. But cars have their own space (the road) and rules (red lights, crosswalks...), whereas cyclists ride at full speed on the pedestrian's space (the sidewalk).

The argument that cyclists (implied: all cyclists) ride at full speed on pavement at all times is akin to arguing that cars (implied: all cars) go over the speed limit at all times. It’s daft at best, and utterly outlandish.

You should stop and have coffee in a street shared only by pedestrians and cyclists, and observe the behaviour of cyclists. I have observed it to be mostly slow, controlled, courteous and respectful of pedestrians.

I picked up my son today at the kindergarten, and we walked for 25 minutes back home. Here in Riga most cyclists go on the sidewalks, I'd say that 2/3 of them don't respect a minimum 1.5 meter safety distance, and about the same amount go as fast as they can. I stopped and scolded a food courrier (who is incentivized to go as fast as he can) who was slaloming between pedestrians as if it was a game.

No, I don't feel safe at all, and my son can't walk freely either. In Paris it's the same (my wife, who was pregnant then, got hit at a crosswalk by a cyclist who seemed to believe that red lights were for cars only). Even Le Monde published an piece about it!

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/our-times/article/2024/11/17/anti-...

It’s false that cyclists routinely ride on the sidewalk in Paris, let alone at full speed. They ride on the road (car and bus lanes) and in bike lanes. It’s true, however, that on some very popular bike routes (rue de Rivoli, boulevard Saint-Michel/Sébastopol), there are enough cyclists that don’t stop at lights that pedestrians can’t easily safely cross. This is a solvable issue that’s independent from the modal share or infrastructure.

I live in the 19th district of Paris—probably the cheapest district within city bounds, with the 20th, and not in the center—and I have no issue living with an under 2-year-old. Hell I even decide to go all the way to the 14th for his pediatrician appointments, on the subway. I can walk to something like 5 supermarkets and bodega-like markets, take the subway to a bunch more including specialized, I can walk to see a generalist, we walk to his daycare, etc. all < 10 minutes. I can’t imagine what you can’t do honestly.

Childless couples aren't competing for 4 bedroom apartments. The problem is that cities forbid construction of those.

Neither do families, as that's out of reach financially. In a dense city centre a three bedroom apartment is already a sign of wealth.

Everyone is competing for space. I don't see how cities prevent building larger apartments. European cities are mostly built out anyway, and the tendency is rather more to split large apartments to cater to the childless crowd.

Cities prevent larger apartments through onerous zoning codes. It's so expensive to build because of the permits and the risk that only a narrow type of structure has a chance of profit.

> mostly built out

Look at rent in Asia. They actually build towers over there and they build large apartments for families as well as small apartments for couples. There's enough building that the housing market is diverse.

Architectural preservation. Which may not be all a negative thing, but central Paris is low-rise compared to Manhattan, Berlin or even central London.

Central Paris is denser than Manhattan. At some point the bottleneck is not the amount of people you can cram into a m2 of land, but the underlying infrastructures.

> Eventually I gave in and bought a car, not because it was necessary but rather to leave the city on weekends and get closer to nature.

How much does parking for that cost the rest of the week? How much is your car payment + insurance + fuel? Presumably you did the math and it's cheaper to have bought one, including a nominal amount for your time to rent one on Friday and return it Sunday night. So I'm just curious.

What you’re describing is perfectly possible without a car.

I live in Amsterdam and have a young family. We own an electric cargo bike that we use for groceries and to cart around our daughter. You can use it with an infant car seat and for larger kids.

When we need a car we use a car sharing app. There are around 10 cars within walking distance of our flat.

Many people in cities _want_ a car but don’t need one.

Cargo bikes are dangerous for children, there is little protection in case of an accident (not necessarily with a car, a bollard is enough) and well once you have one child in, you can't really have groceries. You can't use it when it's freezing. What you describe is typical of a one-child family in Netherland, but doesn't fit the reality of most of European cities. Also Netherland has a rather high amount of cars per head, so not everyone thinks like you ;-)

> Also Netherland has a rather high amount of cars per head, so not everyone thinks like you ;-)

You can bet all those car users also ride bikes though. It's just very common in the NL to live in one city and work in another, things like that. I know people who have cars they use to go to work and back and then take all other journies via foot, bike or public transport.

In short it's not an either/or thing.

Lol sounds very car-centric to me, commuting to work by car. ;-)

Peter Jacobsen (2003) analyzed multiple datasets and found that the risk per cyclist decreased as the total number of cyclists increased. He observed this pattern across intersections, cities, and time periods.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10574383_Safety_in_...

Yes, if you focus on one see fragment alone then I'm actually saying the opposite of that I said.

But being car centric or not doesn't even matter here. The argument that car owners don't think like cyclists doesn't apply to car owners who spend a significant portion of their week on bicycles.

I’m not saying that everyone in the Netherlands agrees with me. I’m just illustrating that it’s perfectly possible to live in a city like Paris or Amsterdam with a family and without a car.

Impossible to go to a store, buy groceries for a week with two kids on a bike. And at some point the cargo bike gets as big as a small car.

that's exactly my situation and many of my friends and no problem at all :)

Where do you put the toilet paper? The diapers? I can fill a 400 L boot easily with weekly groceries for a family of 4. Most cargo bikes have max 300L space, you have no space left for children.

So go twice a week? I'm not sure what to call people when they can't solve problems that easy There may be issues with my solution, but if that solution is so obvious, maybe you could have used more words in your comment.

Twice a week doesn't solve the problem that you can have groceries + kids in a cargo bike. And we aren't all retired or in a cosy 30h job that allows back and forth all week.

oh so you're lazy, got it.

Are they very dangerous for children? Are there statistics?

It doesn’t really freeze in Paris anymore so it's a moot point, but you can ride bikes when it does (you need different tires, just like cars, and a city that clears the roads, just like for cars).

A bike going at full speed on the sidewalk is dangerous to children, yes. It is why many cities banned cyclists there, which as a result led to a decrease in accidents. Pedestrians don't go at the same pace and can be particularly vulnerable, so I don't see why you need a statistic to understand this basic fact.

The article says that families are leaving because of high rent.

I personally love it when my kids have freedom of movement. Every family we know is the same way. Carting them around all day and then sitting and waiting at various activities just plain sucks.

Fourth paragraph:

"Her war on motorists, who last year were hit with a double whammy of speed cuts on the capital’s ring road and the tripling of parking fees for heavy vehicles, such as SUVs, has also sparked fury among families."

Right now in Paris, when you have a newborn, the only mobility solution is to take an Uber if you need to go somewhere >1km from where you leave. Buses are very slow and crowded, the subway doesn't have elevators for strollers, cars are just inaccessible financially due to the war on surface parking space.

> Right now in Paris, when you have a newborn, the only mobility solution is to take an Uber if you need to go somewhere >1km from where you leave. Buses are very slow and crowded, the subway doesn't have elevators for strollers, cars are just inaccessible financially due to the war on surface parking space.

This is simply false. I just mapped it from place des Fêtes to place de la Catalogne and selected only wheelchair-accessible options (note that this trip is _not_ easy to do because it goes from one end of Paris to the other). Driving it's 15 km, 45 minutes, using the ring road; public transportation takes 47 minutes (48, RER B, 59/88). You’ll notice the same pattern for, e.g. Parc Monceau to Place d’Italie, a 9 km trip (30 minute drive at 11:47am on a weekday, 45 minutes on public transportation).

Buses are slow _because of cars_. Fewer cars means faster buses. The subway is inaccessible except for line 14, but RER A and B, all tramways, and of course buses are all accessible. You can also use a baby carrier.

That just says people are mad about parking fees.

And I don't know why you need an SUV in Paris. Seems like an unnecessary luxury that most people wouldn't care for.

https://www.paris.fr/pages/tarifs-suv-modalites-de-controle-...

Because they target heavy vehicles, SUVs have no proper definition. But many decent family-friendly cars for 3 children with a large boot are in this category. In general, the city has greatly reduced surface parking, which creates a lot of problems for trade workers who need to intervene in the city and need a car.

In New York we had to suffer all these same arguments about low income trade workers with 9 kids that all need to be in different places at the same time etc etc etc. But congestion pricing passed any and it has been an incredible success. None of these arguments about parking hold up.

Who doesn't like a good regressive tax? Anyway, Manhattan isn't really a family-friendly place, so the issue is different.

Not Paris, but I lived in an even larger metropolis (Beijing) for 6 years, with two young children, without a car. We took public transport and/or rode bikes most of the time, and took taxis when neither of those were possible/convenient. Even with the taxi fares it was much cheaper than owning a car.

> Another negative aspect is that cyclists do not use public transportation,

For short trips maybe, but as a cyclist myself, I'd say cyclists are among those most likely to use public transportation for any trips that are beyond their cycling radius, or where cycling isn't feasible, instead of a car.

I'm seeing a similar trend in my country where even the culture in city centres is not conducive to having a large family, or a family at all even.

All the parents of 3+ children that I know live in the suburbs or even in the middle of nowhere in the case of one family totalling 7 at the moment, as their firstborn already moved out.

Personally I was priced out of the city where I grew up, so I moved to one that's half the size and live on the outskirts with my family, but in the 13 apartments connected to our staircase we're one of three families and the only ones not renting.

As someone with a family and a car, can't you use public transport for that? You can walk to local parks and have a doctor that is relatively nearby, but Paris has very extensive transport network and it is perfectly fine to move around without a car.

No one is arguing you should take your sick kid on a bike for one hour ride.

- Paris' subway doesn't have elevators, impossible with a stroller.

- Buses are crowded, very slow, and being blocked for >1h because of protests or roadworks with a sick newborn is a rather unpleasant experience. I did it already. And in general, public transportation in Paris has degraded a lot. Who wants to explain to his 3-year-old son what this fine gentleman is doing while heating crack in the back of the train car?

There’s a reason why most Parisian families use a Yoyo stroller or another lightweight, foldable model: you can easily take them on the subway, and if you need help with the stairs, people are always willing to help (I’ve never seen anyone refuse).

Buses can be slow during peak hours because of traffic congestion, but during the day they’re fairly reliable and have plenty of space for strollers.

The Paris Metro is extensive, but I think you’re making very broad generalizations. It’s extremely rare (though unpleasant) to come across a drug addict, and I’ve never seen one during the day.

(Disclaimer: I live in central Paris with a newborn.)

I live in outer Paris (19th) and have the exact same experience. I’ve taken strollers on the subway without an issue and people are eager to help you (it should be easier, of course, but it’s doable). I've also taken the bus, the tramway, the RER. These days I’ll carry my son (almost 2) or take a baby carrier to go faster on the subway.

Bus are slow because of cars.

I’ve never seen a drug addict on the subway (you do see homeless people though certainly).

Yeah, so how do you fold a Yoyo with a newborn in the arms? You can't really, and some stations have a lot of stairs. Regarding drug addicts, I saw many, it really depends on where you live. My son was born in Paris, and we left as soon as we could because it felt really stupid to endure all of this. Buying a car felt like I discovered a time travel machine.

You can leave the newborn in the stroller and lower the whole thing yourself or with someone’s help. You can hold the newborn and ask someone to fold the stroller. You can take the bus or the tramway if you really want to avoid the subway.

Tramway doesn't go into Paris, and asking someone to fold a stroller multiple times a day- no, just no.

I doubt it. Navigating the Paris Metro (or the London Underground) with a _suitcase_ is a shit show - even in relatively new stations. Whoever decided to put stairs in St Pancras with only a lift as an alternative should be condemned to step on lego every day of the rest of their lives.

There are loads of factors at play, to lay the blame of this demographic trend solely on bike-centric policy is, if I’m being very very generous, lazy. Since it’s the telegraph, about a foreign city, I would assume it’s disingenuous.

The article doesn’t even call out bike centric policies:

> “It is the result of a quarter-century of policies that have made life harder for families and the middle class. Construction work, difficult access to nurseries, skyrocketing rents, and social housing shortages have pushed Parisians to the suburbs or provinces.”

The “worst” callout in the article is triple parking fees for SUVs.

Oh.

Anyway.

It looks like there are loads of factors at play and I wouldn’t trust assigning blame to just one, especially when your supporting article only kinda sorta touches on that factor.

My message starts with "it's a reason among others".

And bike-centric policies have led the city to invest in bike lanes, rather than in the aging public transport and to remove surface parking, making it almost impossible to own a car if you have a family. All of this is in the article that I linked.

An unexpected casualty of this is that it's now complex to get trade workers to come to Paris for construction jobs, and, funnily enough, public works to build bike lanes are more costly as trucks and workers spend a lot of time in the traffic now.

If you had a source for those claims, it might be interesting.

https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2024/07/12/paris_ra2023-circulati...

First chart shows that average speed for cars have decreased steadily. For surface parking a simple google search will help you find it.

The part that I don’t see is how this is actually a significant causal factor driving families out.

i haven't made that experience at all, as i've got kids and pretty much never used the car for inner city trips. trips are daily kindergarden, doctor, visiting friends - we do all those with either bikes plus a kids trailer or public transport (i'd say roughly 50/50).

for the kindergarden commute we've used the car two or three times in almost 5 years, when we had to transport birthday party stuff (i.e. cake), but then we stopped even doing because using it was too much of a hassle.

You do realize that (i) "zones" are just restaurants / cafes / museums that have minimum age requirements and not some demarcated city blocks where children are banned and young adults party all day and (ii) this occurs semi-frequently in the west as well.

Why should a cafe be a "no kid zone"? How do you think you'd feel as a parent ? Or if there were "No Koreans zone"?

"The West" is a rather large part of the world.