How to get a city cycling | Hacker News Reader

How to get a city cycling

bbc.com

> The number of cyclist deaths per 100 million kilometres cycled is 5.8 in the United States and 3.6 in the UK. In contrast, a cycling-happy country like Germany has a rate of just 1.7 deaths; and in Denmark it's 1.5 – four times safer than in the US and twice as safe as in the UK. And cycling is even safer in the Netherlands, with just 1.1 deaths per 100 million kilometres on the road. It appears that the more cycling is encouraged and taken up, the safer it becomes[2]

This conclusion is specious and these statistics are misleading as they do not account for vehicle exposure. If you travel 1,000 kilometers on a bike and never pass a car, obviously you can't get killed by one. I'm aware of no studies that account for vehicle exposure. Anyone who has been to the countries with low cycle death rates will know that vehicle exposure is far less than is typical in any American city.

EDIT: I don't understand why I'm receiving so many downvotes for this comment... HN has gotten bad lately.

I would expect causation to flow the other way, actually: make cycling safer and more people will be willing to do it.

Also, the implications of GP, if true, seem to be obvious to me: reduce the number of cars on the road to make cycling safer. Seems like a win-win to me.

No downvote from me, but couldn't it be argued that the more cycling is taken up, the likelihood is that fewer people would be driving so there'd naturally be less exposure? So then it would be true that the more cycling is taken up, the safer it becomes -- because there are fewer cars driving about.

As you mentioned, there's less vehicle exposure in countries where there are low cycle death rate -- lower car usage is presumably a big factor here, though well-designed road sharing and separate cycle paths etc. would presumably also help a lot. (Of course, people can be killed cycling in other ways than being hit by a car, but I'm guessing that's a small minority of cases -- would be interesting to see figures though.)

What you say is true, and another factor is that "there's safety in numbers" -- it's more dangerous when cyclists are rare, and drivers aren't expecting them. If there are crowds of cyclists everywhere, drivers will expect them, and are more likely to know how to deal with them and adapt their behavior accordingly...

I think you're reading too much into the statement. "the more cycling is encouraged and taken up, the safer it becomes" doesn't read to me to be excluding infrastructure changes like you describe, and I think the author would agree that it can go the other way also (the safer it is due to infrastructure support, the more popular it becomes).

I will agree that the paragraph is set up strangely. "Fewer people on cycles, however, doesn’t mean fewer accidents" is an odd statement when you are measuring accidents on a per mileage basis.

I agree that what was said didn't really make logical sense. The writer was probably aware of studies where the environment stayed the same but things seemed to get safer with increased cycling. One theory for why that happens is that drivers learn to look harder when there are more bikes around.

It would of been better with a bland statement about "things shown by studies" followed by the statistics.

I think they do. If you have far more protected bike lanes, then you're going to have far fewer cyclist deaths from cars.

Glaring omission in the article: Traffic laws that protect the weaker participants in traffic.

I do 7000k a year commuting alone, but there will be certain places I will never cycle.

Contrast this onboard video from New Zealand showing a car hitting a cyclist and the police response [1], with a car right hooking 4 cyclists and causing a "bruised knee" in the Netherlands [2].

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEgXQIAyGF8

[2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86pKsw

More cities will have to consider cycling infrastructure if they want to have happy and healthy residents. We're finally seeing changes in major American cities and it's great!

I've learned a lot from these two bike blogs:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/

I used to cycle in Dublin until I got knocked off my bike and constantly aggressed/verbally abused by taxis and busses. There just isn't space on the road for cyclists and motorists to go safely. Pity.

When I lived in Dublin I cycled to commute. Never had any issues real issues except for oblivious people pulling out in front of me or similar. YMMV I suppose.

Here is my beautiful city : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlIBLQkxrbA

And this video isn't even crowded yet : during rush hour we have cross sections with 100+ cyclists per red-green-cycle.

Everybody just watches each other : pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles.

At least in my experience, the Netherlands is by far the best country for cyclists.

Other European cities have inconsistent and often partially blocked bike lanes with people frequently riding on the sidewalk, but in Amsterdam you have clearly defined, reliable bike lanes everywhere. It reduces the amount of stress for everyone, including pedestrians.

Sometimes it is clearly defined, but Shared Space ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space ) is used a lot as well.

I was in the Netherlands for 2 weeks and managed to almost get hit head on by a vehicle that pulled from the 2 lane road onto the separate bike path to overtake a vehicle on the right (on the main road through a village near Hilversum). Looking at imagery of the spot, there was at least 1 meter of separation between the road and path, and I was in the correct lane of the 2 way bike path.

I did quite a bit of other bike riding that all went fine and the amount of infrastructure devoted to it was great, but that incident sort of sticks in my head a bit.

I think it is a matter of experience : we learn to ride bikes at 3yo and are expected to bike to school at 11/12yo on our own.

It sounds like the vehicle overtaking was a situation we would have recognized and adapted to ( the other vehicle probably was taking a left turn ).

As far as I understand, the vehicle had no legal right to be on the path.

"Our country is great for cycling as long as you understand the situations where a vehicle traveling at speed might enter the bike paths." is a little different than "Our country is great for cycling."

I wouldn't even try to argue that the first statement there is in any way fair, but I simply don't understand your response here.

I am not so sure : a bike path with a different color doesn't mean a vehicle is prohibited from entering it. It depends on the line separating the two ( solid vs intermittent ).

There was a physical median. "A separate bike path", not a bike lane. It crossed over using a driveway to a house along the road.

You must be right.

But please understand we are not afraid of our lives every day. Our children are trusted to take part of traffic on their own from about 10/12yo because we trained them about every day. It is about experience in watching eachother. Not about who is right.

I'm warming up to the SF cycle scene - http://butterlap.com/ was a lot of fun last night!

This guy works full time on getting cities cycling http://www.copenhagenize.com/

I would not put nordic countries as an example. They taxed cars to oblivion without providing much alternative. Its freezing cold in there.

Is that a bad thing? In the US, cars take up enormous amounts of space which their users don't pay anything for.

Parking in NY is pretty expensive.

Yes, NY is one of the only places in the US where you're likely to consistently pay for the space your car takes up when it's at rest, which is awesome, and which other cities should emulate. Unfortunately, you still don't have congestion taxes to pay for the space you take up in motion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York...

Each state requires an annual registration fee which varies from state to state.

The state of New York, on the other hand, charges a tax based on the vehicle's weight, rather than on its value, which is charged at the time of registration renewal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_tax#United_States

Sure, but if you drive your vehicle down the highway, you're taking up cheap real estate; if you drive your vehicle into Manhattan, you're using really freaking expensive real estate, and you should pay more for it.

I do not understand the relevance of that quote.

There is a proposal to add more tolls in New York City, including a toll for crossing 60th street (basically the southern end of Central Park): http://pix11.com/2015/02/17/proposal-calls-for-tolls-on-nycs...

And despite most residents not owning cars, most of the infrastructure is devoted to motorists.

Only if you're parking in garages; if you get out of midtown, there is free street parking.

'cept you have to get up early twice a week to move your car for street cleaning.

And it can take you an hour to find an empty spot sufficiently close to your apartment.

And on Sundays, many neighborhood spots are taken (and double-parked) by church-goers.

So what you're saying is, even though it's ridiculously cold, they still found a way to reduce the number of cars on the road, and it was through more taxes on cars?

No, I am saying they force people to cycle outside, when its freezing and dangerous.

And yet it seems like they have less cycling-related deaths than the US.

Does pneumonia count as 'cycling-related'?

Do you have actual numbers for pneumonia caused by cycling?

I don't know. I tried to look this up, and I got a rate of 15.1 per 100k in the US.

I couldn't find the rates for Finland, Norway, Sweden or Denmark; presumably, I'd have to search using Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish or Danish terms.

considering it's a viral or bacterial infection, probably not.

It's not very dangerous; biking lanes tend to be in excellent condition. It's also good for you.

edit: talking about Sweden's 4th largest city

That's nice if you live in temperature optimum, but many places are too hot or too cold to cycle year round.

(Some are also too large)

> That's nice if you live in temperature optimum, but many places are too hot or too cold to cycle year round.

You'd probably be surprised. It does certainly take a bigger amount of dedication than I have, but David Beazley's been cycling through Chicago winters (until he cracked a rib earlier this month: https://twitter.com/dabeaz/status/570348015401050112 kept him off for almost a week: https://twitter.com/dabeaz/status/574891782498041857) as for too hot to ride, it's really a matter of good hydration (and physiology, some people can't handle heat at all, but that's cycling or not so they probably know themselves)

I'd say that it's also very much a matter of whether you have a shower near your place of work.

I would have to ride eight miles, about 45 minutes - which is pretty close to my current commute - but I'd arrive sweaty and in need of a change of clothes at minimum.

Gonna have to join a nearby gym this spring.

I was happy to be able to ride to work in Israel for about a year. Every single day (I think I skipped maybe 3-4 days due to not feeling well or bad weather, but I did use a bike on days where the Israeli streets were flooded so high, that my lower pedals were submerged at times).

Temperature was usually nice - even Winter's a joke and rarely reaches 0 - mostly it's about 8-10 degrees (C). Summer can reach 32, 34 degrees (C) and on those days even early morning rides are a bit taxing.

We had a shower in the office though. Little cabin. Takes ~no~ space. Since I've been there, I think that every office should have one.

I have a commute of about the same length which I do by bike. You do have to change clothes, yes, but provided you wear deodorant, odor isn't likely to be an issue.

Jokingly: check your sweat privilege.

Seriously: I sweat a lot. I might have to apply deodorant all over after riding, and that's definitely not healthy.

> I'd say that it's also very much a matter of whether you have a shower near your place of work.

Yeah I'd agree with that.

"It does certainly take a bigger amount of dedication"

What if I don't want to marry a bike, but I perhaps could ride one?

I already had wife that I'm dedicated to, and she ain't bike.

No, they’re not.

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/11/03/how-to-ride-your-b...

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

Yes they are, unless you're in your own bodily optimum. When you're around 30, sure you can show Amundsen-like effort. What happens when you turn 45? 55? 65? 75? People live that long now.

Anyway, you've never seen clear temperature extremes obviously.

For me the first step is easy:

- Stealing a bike is a capital crime

- Capital crimes are .. punished as such

(Naa.. I'm not seriously suggesting to hang bike thieves, although I have commented about that in the past and certainly wished that this would happen to the persons who stole all my bikes so far. Maybe "Twice as much as for copyright infringements" would be okay? German cinemas try hard to educate the paying customers that you might get up to 5 years in prison for these offenses. So .. what about 'up to 10 years for stealing a bike'?)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com