Want a Healthier City? Prescribe Biking | Hacker News Reader

Want a Healthier City? Prescribe Biking

theatlanticcities.com

51 pointslelf62 comments

The hashtag #ReplaceBikeWithCar is currently trending on Twitter. It is statements bicyclists often hear, turned around for cars. I find them funny.

My favorites so far: "Absolutely no more car infrastructure should be built anywhere until every single car driver follows all traffic laws. #ReplaceBikeWithCar"

"Cars who aren't covered in high viz deserve to be crashed into."

"Why don't you lot stick to driving round and round a race track!"

Edit: link https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ReplaceBikeWithCar&src=tren

"Deerfoot Trail gets you close enough to your destination. Why do you expect door to door service?"

From the Netherlands where we all (should) cycle; it does take quite of a change to get into it to make it not as dangerous. It's no fun with helmets and when you feel unsafe, so things need to be adjusted to cyclist as 1500-.... kilos of metal are not very forgiving so you cannot assume that will work well. In 40 years the only people I knew who died from cycling were semi-professional cyclists. I have seen horrible accidents ending in mutilation which were all due to the cyclist thinking 'I am right' (in Dutch law, the pedestrian and cyclist are always right) and just crossing without looking. Outside that, nothing happened. But that takes, I believe, a lot of years of motor vehicle drivers to actually really pay attention all the time as a small lap is not a dented bumper but much worse. That is not something most people just pick up although drivers licenses should've taught them that.

I love cycling in the Netherlands - where ironically the worst traffic annoyances, for the cyclist, happen to be pedestrians (especially tourists in the central district).

Yes! :) I am a die-hard pedestrian and in my home country cyclists are just better catered for. There are worse things... But seriously, it's very ingrained here and everyone has to do it, at least about 15 years of their lives.

Also scooters (mopeds).

Its the attitude that is most annoying.

Most people would not dream of walking over a road without looking for incoming traffic, but they feel perfectly safe walking over a bicycle road without even bother taking a look.

It's more than merely annoying, it's f-ing dangerous to the cyclists. You hit a pedestrian on your bike, the pedestrian will may get a few cuts and bruises, but it's the cyclist who get's launched off their bike that usually gets off much worse.

I generally dislike urban tourists that walk around living cities like they're in Disneyland and getting in everybody's way, but in Amsterdam they are a dangerous menace.

No, pedestrians hit by a bike at speed may be seriously injured, same as anyone involved not wearing a helmet.

At the very least, autonomous braking should be mandatory in cars and trucks. Bicycles should carry transponders that work with autonomous braking to keep cars 6 feet away.

Queue comments from fat drivers about how dangerous cycling is... inconsiderate cyclists and drivers complaining that bicycles and cars are annoying... bicycle evangelists claiming everyone should be cycling... practical people pointing out that infrastructure is the solution to whatever problem... Fastidious people insisting everyone should be following the rules of the road...

I'm sure I'm missing some.

You missed mine:

Why don't people just walk more ? It's even more health promoting than cycling and it requires no investment/gear/tech. It's also really meditative and enjoyable.

Walking is slow and requires a lot of patience and extra time.

Replace 'walking' with 'cycling' and you have a drivers response to cycling.

Except they would be wrong. In cities, cycling is almost always provably faster than driving or public transport because traffic becomes a non-issue and you can start immediately when a light turns green instead of waiting for the 5 vehicles in front of you to start moving or turning out of your way.

>> "you can start immediately when a light turns green instead of waiting for the 5 vehicles in front of you to start moving or turning out of your way."

It sounds like to do this you would need to be side-by-side in the same lane with a car. Sounds quite reckless and dangerous. I'm all for cycling and walking in cities but that kind of behaviour is why cyclists get injured/killed. I read a few stories recently in the news about cyclists getting killed and one major repeating problem was that they came up the inside of another vehicle (in the same lane) which didn't see them a moved over into them.

I thought I would see comments from Americans about how they can't use bicycles because they live in sprawlville and it's 40 km to the nearest mall and 80 km to their workplace.

In Atlanta, even if you observe all the rules, wear a helmet, use bike lights, wear reflecting clothing, you are more likely to get hit by a car than not; or atleast you might know someone who has been through it. I'm basing my assumptions that Boston is like Atlanta (aka terrible public transit, everything is far away, college campuses are in the middle of the city).

On college campuses (like Georgia Tech) a lot of bikers who are college students ignored traffic stops, rules of the road and signals. So it is likely that people from poor households are also equally or more likely to ignore traffic laws.

Also, lots of roads don't have bike lanes, and riding in the middle of the street is going to get you a lot of honking, stuff thrown at you by rude drivers over-taking you, etc (from personal experience).

On another note, London, a city whose mayor is a vocal proponent of making London bike friendly, has had many fatalities that were bike riders following the rules so this risk for fatality is a very real problem.

>On another note, London… has had many fatalities…, so this risk for fatality is a very real problem.

It's a very visible problem, but it caused only 14 deaths in 2013.

In that same year I estimate 32 Londoners were scalded to death by their hot water (126 death/year in England, and London has 26% of the population).

I rode in New York. Many streets didn't have bike lanes. I'd often be right in traffic. I was hit once (although the car was only going about 10 mph.) And there were a lot of rude assholes, sure.

Did the risk deter me? Not really. 5.8 micromorts for 100km of biking, according to the article. Inactivity or a long commute (stress, disinclination to exercise) are more dangerous. There's always a lot of press when someone dies after a marathon (the risk exists, but it's comparable to skydiving-- very small) but marathons actually reduce total deaths due to fewer traffic accidents (road closings).

Especially when the costs/risks of inactivity are included, roadside running and biking are a no-brainer winner, even in the US. Obviously, it'd be better if streets were laid out to be safer and urban speed limits were lower (in NYC, it's 30 mph, which is too high) but even as things are, it's still worth going out there.

I think Bostonians would take issue with your assumption:

- Boston has one of the best public transportation systems in the country (ranked #4 by Us news) [1]

- Boston and the surrounding area is very densely populated making things generally not far away. In fact, Boston is about 4x as dense as Atlanta and the surrounding cites of Cambridge and Somerville are more dense still. [2,3,4,5]

- Boston is pretty much covered in college campuses. They're in the middle of the city, edges of the city, and outskirts of the city.

[1] http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/the-10-best-cities-for...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge,_Massachusetts

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerville,_Massachusetts

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta

When Bloomberg ran the show in NYC, he "prescribed biking" [1]. Despite the focus on cyclists, here's one filmmaker's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/on-eve-of-bike-sh...

For the general population, cycling is a reasonable option only for trips of 5 km and under. Mind you that is a good proportion of trips.

For 5km and under it should be the option. Would fix a lot of issues.

I think that's underestimating what the 'general population' is capable of.

Here in Holland most normal bike commutes are often quite a bit longer than 5 km, and everyone from businessmen to pregnant women seem to manage fine...

it's worth remembering that Holland is quite mild compared to a lot of the US. Looking at wikipedia the Netherlands' average high is lower that Austin's average low during the summer.

Even with the heat, central Austinities bike at decent rates: https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Public_Wor...

In the summer, I end up carrying around a towel and an extra shirt. It's not so bad.

In addition, the Netherlands is very flat, and I've found this makes a huge difference. The steepest "hills" I've encountered while biking around cities there are the bridges over canals. Cycling is extremely efficient on flat roads and doesn't take much energy if you're not trying to go too fast. But as soon as you get to a slight incline you notice the difference (especially in the summer when you're concerned about sweating). I consider myself fairly/very athletic and I definitely noticed the difference (how easy it was) when I biked around there.

Obviously, these aren't the only reasons cycling isn't as popular in the US. There are certainly US cities which are just as flat and mild.

For the general population, cycling is a reasonable option only for trips of 5 km and under.

Perhaps I'm severely overestimating the shape people are in, but I had a job where I commuted 15km by bike. You can ride 15kph without breaking a sweat, so that's an hour at a relaxed pace and probably 30-40 minutes at an athletic pace.

I'd guess that the median American can ride 10km (6.2 miles) with no issues. I could be wrong, though.

We cannot even ride motorcycles most of the year up in the north land much less bicycles.

Technically it's no problem at all. There exists good enough clothing for you and good tires for the bike, making it very feasible. I see people commuting by bike all year around here in my town in Norway.

The problem is that bike lanes are often not maintained during winter. Luckily they are in my town, at least to some degree.

It is not a problem in Minneapolis either.

Its a problem in North Dakota and I get the feeling that you in Minneapolis weren't biking all winter with the extreme chills and snow. If you were, then fine but a normal bike rider would be killed.

My particulars aren't very interesting, but having lived in northern Minnesota near Fargo and Minneapolis, and having spent three weeks in Minneapolis in December (I live in sunny Boulder), running outside each night during that damn cold snap, I've got some experience dealing with cold. It's no fun and requires the right equipment but it's both survivable and enjoyable. But I'm hardly alone: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/01/29/why-would-you-bike-c...

Cold can be a problem, but it's also a problem for drivers. Rain can be a problem. Heat can be a problem. But all of these can be overcome, and these are just some of the problems with getting more people to stop driving to work (I personally think proximity to work and perceptions of being seen biking to work are bigger problems in the USA, but I haven't studied the problem much).

Quite many people bicycle around the year in Oulu which is quite far north. http://www.ibikeoulu.com/

Some key thing are that it's very flat and there are bike roads which are snow plowed consistently. And there are lots of students.

The temperatures there are very similar to Minneapolis. I guess distance from the ocean makes up for a lot of the difference in latitude.

Winter biking in Minneapolis is real. I bike 5 miles to work most days. This was a cold and snowy winter, but it was better than last year because there was more snow and less ice.

[In Minneapolis, nothing stops bicyclists — not even winter](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-minneapolis-winter-bikin...)

[Biking is up, even — and especially — in cold weather](http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/236827801.html)

[Twin Cities winter bike community feels the pinch](http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/247300181.html)

[Why would you bike commute in the winter](http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/01/29/why-would-you-bike-c...)

[Ride on in Winter (2011)](http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/114216374.html)

There is no way the average person is going to bike to work in a 40mph wind in -10F weather. It isn't safe. You can keep pointing to people, but for most people it just isn't an option because of distance and safety.

Seriously. Biking in -10F (-23C) is just a matter of clothing. People do this all the time during winter, me included, with absolutely no issues. And I'm definitely not athletic. Although 40mph headwind might make it rather hot & sweaty business...

Actually, if you are healthy, 10km or under is still very reasonable, as travel time will probably be under 30 minutes.

I'm 30, not athletic at all and daily ride my bike uphill 6 km to work in 22 minutes.

The ride home must be fun!

Not so much when it's cold.

I live in Brazil. Where I am, it gets colder in the winter, but never less then 10°C in the morning.

This isn't a fixed variable. If people start cycling, they will rapidly gain the fitness required to cycle for longer distances.

The variable can go both ways. If I were to start cycling, I'd soon lose the remaining function in my left knee ... not even sure if that could be repaired with a replacement, which I would loathe to have to do in the first place.

I can walk (no problems there and I like walking) or drive, for me there's no in between.

Sorry to hear that. Cycling is usually considered good for the knees provided they are kept in warmth.

Very good initiative; it will hopefully emulate the benefits reaped by the more active cycling cities (e.g. Amsterdam).

However, it should be noted that the program's widespread nature (large city + seemingly non-stringent requisites) has the potential to lead to a black market for discounted membership based on rent-seeking behaviour.

Let's call it "cycling" instead.

Why not biking?

Then the people doing it are "bikers" ;-)

Google "biker" and click on Images.

Although, to be fair, neither "biking" (Mountain bikes) nor "cycling" (racing bikes) shows appropriate images.

For appropriate images, you want "fietsen" or, better:

  site: bicycledutch.wordpress.com

in the United States and Canada, bicyclists are more at risk for fatality per mile traveled than people in automobiles

So we have to kill people to make them healthier, I get it.

You're committing a fallacy. MORE risk than driving doesn't mean you're in worse health if you cycle. The health benefits may outweigh the increased risk of life loss.

Such risks also aren't set in stone. The Netherlands has much lower risks. Encouraging more cycling here could lower the odds of danger.

Snark is fun, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

I think the poster understood what you said, but has a moral outlook where even positive expected value interventions can be immoral. I don't really understand that viewpoint, but it is a very common one. Usually it is expressed in terms like "how Would you explain all this stuff about averages to the daughter of the man whose bike got ran over by a truck "

Wow, that position actually exists? Presumably, you explain it the same way you'd explain it to the daughter of the man who was killed in a car accident while driving his car.

> how Would you explain all this stuff about averages to the daughter of the man whose bike got ran over by a truck

The greatly increased chances of seeing any grandchildren I may end up having is way more important, to me anyway, than the tiny increase in risk that I may not see my children reach adulthood (or even their teenage years).

Those are not your only options. You can get exercise, and improve your health, in ways other than commuting by bike. Ways that reduce risk, not increase them, even.

But cars do a lot of miles on freeways/motorways with relatively low accidents per mile and these are the sorts of journeys that would be impractical by bicycle anyway. You would have to compare trip for trip.

Accidents per mile != fatalities per mile. I'm guessing fatalities per accident on freeways/motorways are much higher than in residential districts.

But I agree you have to compare trip for trip.

That's true, but I was thinking more of back roads with lots of blind corners and speeds high enough to be dangerous. It would also be interesting to compare day and night, because cycling in the dark is probably much more dangerous even with high visibility clothing.

I'd like to see such a statistic broken down between athletic versus utilitarian cycling (or choose whatever terms are appropriate). Is racing more dangerous than commuting, or vice versa?

I don't know the true mean, median, or mode, but in my experience, even carless cyclists don't travel an average of 15,000 per year. "Risk for fatality per mile traveled" is not the only way the two activities should be compared.

Some numbers[0] show that cycling is about 6 times more dangerous per mile than car travel. If those numbers are correct, it's approximately equally dangerous per minute to be in a car on a highway as it is to be a cyclist on surface streets.

Of course, there are other considerations as well. For example, if exercise improves health, does cycling add more risk of death/injury than it removes?

[0] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com