Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrockway | Hacker News Reader

The difference between Denmark and the US is that the US would never implement cycle infrastructure that could possibly increase travel times for cars. Denmark is willing to reduce the convenience of roads for motor vehicles, and that makes for a vastly better cycling experience. (Actually, cycling is fine in the US, but you have to be brave when you are just starting out. Copenhagen has designed in features that makes the roads very newbie-cyclist-friendly, so people don't get scared off the first time they ride on the street.)

Anyway, if the US ever wants to see cycling adopted by the average person and not only people who have already made the decision to commit, we need to: reduce the speed-limit in city centers to 20mph; have bicycle-only light timings; and start selling bicycles that are useful, not just "cool looking".

My guess is that this will not happen in my lifetime.

View on HN

> cycling is fine in the US

My ER doctor friend says urban cycling is idiotic.

I do it all the time but you're kidding yourself if you don't realize it is extremely dangerous.

The more important issue in the US regarding bikes is the lack of density. It's simply not feasible to bike the kinds of distances most people need to go.

My ER doctor friend says urban cycling is idiotic.

A friend of yours said something, so it must be true...

Most accidents are due to people driving their bicycles unsafely. If you drive safely, urban cycling is not dangerous. If you drive like a maniac and disregard traffic controls (running lights, riding on the sidewalk, going the wrong direction, etc.), then yeah... it's dangerous. Just like it would be as a pedestrian or motorist.

In aggregate, cycling is not significantly more dangerous than any other activity: http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html

(Despite this, I am in favor of laws and regulations that make the roads less dangerous. Cars should not go faster than bicycles in cities. If you need to get somewhere fast, use rapid transit.)

> If you need to get somewhere fast, use rapid transit.

I have a hard time believing anyone in the US (except maybe New York) could say this with a straight face. Where do you live that rapid transit is so rapid?

Chicago. It takes me about 15 minutes to get to work on the train. Driving would probably take a bit longer, and would cost about $40/day. (Not including the cost to get a car and a driver's license; neither of which I have.)

My experience as an urban cyclist is that close calls are inevitable, cyclist never at fault or otherwise.

Dunno. I ride a couple thousand miles a year, and I have not had any close calls.

Quite so. I know several people who live 30 miles away from work. Adding 3-6 hours every day in commute time is not something most people look for.

Well, you don't have to live 30 miles away from work. You choose to.

I agree. Mostly. In this economic environment, you may not have the choice.

Personally, living within a bike-able distance to the office is critical. One employer moved nearly 20 miles from house. I tried doing the commute three times a week, and that extra two hours was just not worth it. Fortunately, the tech sector here is pretty robust, and it didn't take much to find work closer to home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com