Yet another example of how Barcelona feels societally futuristic in some ways. For a couple more - they were way ahead of the curve (at least from an American perceptive) on superblocks[1] and they have centralized vacuum municipal trash collection[2]
Lots of opinions about Barcelona, I see.
Somehow I feel I know the city quite well. I moved here more than 20 years ago and I can compare it to others cities I live in or visited.
Barcelona is relatively safe, although, as it's been mentioned, it had several hot spots (I used to live in some of these, actually).
Crime is in most of the cases about pickpocketing or, sadly but infrequently, with assault. Still, believe me, it's a relatively safe city.
Anyhow, it's not a city to grow your children. Traffic is high, bike lanes are not safe and there are very few parks.
This is the reason people try to move to nearby cities whenever they have kids (my case also).
How bad is pickpocketing these days? Barcelona seemed to have developed an international reputation for it, but I presume that much like all things, it's overblown.
During years not much has been done. The problem is that pickpocketing pays off for people that has nothing or very little to loose.
Much of the problem is in the hands of clans of underages that arrived to Spain with nothing.
The law can't do much to them.
After some years, local police started to do more pressure, mostly trying to dissuade or prevent, rather than to catch them after the fact. Eventually they moved somewhere else (our of the city now) and COVID killed tourism that always was the the main source of targets.
I'd say it's much better now.
Unfortunately, it is a topic that gets easily ignited by political parties counter accusations.
?? I spent 3 months studying there a while back. To me, Barcelona felt safer there than most large American cities that I’ve lived in. One “problem” was petty crime that seemed to mostly target tourists—-vigilance was indeed the solution… but more of “mind your surroundings” than “war zone.”
Every city I’ve ever been to in my entire life is more dangerous for tourists than residents. They’re easy targets, since they usually have expensive gear and don’t understand the area.
I wouldn’t judge a city based on the experience of tourists in it.
I haven't been to Barcelona in something approaching 10 years and I only spent a week there when I did. I had an amazing time and it was one of the most exciting cities I've ever visited.
That said, the amount of criminality on show to your average tourist was surprising. Offers of drugs and being accosted by prostitutes in the street was common place, not to mention lower level crime like graffiti and people selling beers on the street.
I think someone would be forgiven for coming away with the wrong impression of it as a city.
For instance, the "sources" accessible through those keywords put in a google search query.
(Entertaining the question as if my claim was more controversial than any other in this thread, that is, as if Barcelona was not infamous as a crime ridden s hole where visitors are asked to practice war zone vigilance.)
Putting "crime capitals of Europe" into Google gets me multiple lists, only one of which includes Barcelona. The one which includes it places it 26th in Europe, behind a whole lot of cities I've felt totally safe in.
Feeling safe in the street is one thing, but those ranks miss that the big fat crime will try its best to be invisible and unnoticed.
January 2021: "Police in Spain have reported the seizure of 827000 ecstasy pills, 76 Kg of amphetamine, 39.5 kg of crystal methamphetamine, 89 kg of cannabis, and 1.65 kg of cocaine in what they claim to be the biggest drug haul in Europe"
In this sense, yes, has well earned sadly a place among European crime capitals. Indirect analysis as looking for sewage water biomarkers, place Barcelona among the European cities with a biggest abuse of cocaine, slightly bigger than London. This means that 5 millions of citizens in Barcelona consume more cocaine that 9 millions in London, so they almost double the average dose per capita. Antwerp (half a million) is a disaster doubling the London/Barcelona values in a weekend. They could go to Barcelona to detox. Those are recent values taken from here:
Being "safe on the streets" is what this discussion was about. Drug use is irrelevant to what was being discussed, with user "ResearchCode" claiming that Barcelona is a place where people "are asked to practice war zone vigilance", something they've failed to back up with any kind of sources.
With respect to the drug use, I don't buy that measuring use is a valid proxy for measuring abuse or "disasters" - assuming all use is abuse is a severely puritan value judgement. I'd much rather be around an ecstasy or cannabis user than an alcohol user for example.
Again, if there are sources to suggest that the streets of Barcelona justifies calling it one of the "crime capitals of Europe", feel free to supply them rather than presenting unsupported hypotheses about how drug users behave there.
London have had machete fights, and riots, and lots of drug dealers, yet I have in 21 years of living here never been in a dangerous situation. Neither parts of those sentence proves anything about the safety of London, just like your videos proves nothing. Anecdotes are not data. Try again.
I'll note I have no idea if Barcelona is safe or not. It's possible it's a crime-ridden shithole, but nobody in this thread have substantiated that claim with a source, despite the person who originally made the claim suggested it was easy to establish with a search - which turned out to not support their claim at all.
It's perfectly possible there are stats that shows that Barcelona is in fact as dangerous as they claimed. But supporting that claim requires actual sources, not random videos.
I have been in Paris two weeks ago and I am surprised how much Paris changed in the last years. Bike lanes and people who ride bikes and scooters everywhere.
I hope that this is THE change in most European metropolises for the future. Not only in Barcelona.
Been in Paris two weeks ago as well to visit my girlfriend who's been living there for 11 years.
Scooters are in the process of being banned in Paris because they are too dangerous and in Rome, where I come from, they are going yo be heavily regulated (mandatory helmet, reduced speed, designated pick up and drop locations, etc. ) because they caused a +35% increase of brain traumas to teenagers
Not everything that looks cool on first sight it's an actual improvement.
In principle it's a great idea but from the picture it looks like they're monopolizing a shared resource. This isn't fundamentally different than adults parading around during Critical Mass.
In my opinion they certainly bring the fun factor, but regarding efficency they offer no real advantage over electric mopeds, especially when riding them with a passenger.
Electric mopeds are amazing, best way of transporting yourself in a city when the weather allows. It has all the benefits, the only downside is that you can't really use it in rain or snow.
I wonder if they’ll actually enforce the scooter ban on private ones. Because they certainly don’t enforce traffic laws on motos lane splitting constantly anywhere.
I rented a car. This gave me the feeling that it is inofficially tolerated by the police. But driving on the bus lanes is very strictly verboten even for motos and using the bike lanes is frowned upon. I once saw a lorry unloading on a bike lane and a police car stopping by the driver and after some gesticulating the police seemed to admonish the driver like this: okay but get away from here ASAP!
Speculating here because I am not aware of the details, but I guess they will be regulated the same way mopeds are: license plates, helmets and all that stuff.
I've crashed a Lime/Bird at least 3 times, none of them related to cars or other people in any way.
1. Taking a pedestrian bridge off-ramp in the rain at max velocity because I wanted to see if I could take the corner going that fast.
2. Finding a quarter-pipe set up next to a bridge. How can you resist trying to shred it? It went well on run 1 thru 9. Run # 10, not so well.
3. Driving one home drunk at 230am and trying to drive it with only one hand.
My point is that it's pretty easy to fall off if you are pushing the envelope in any way at all. Who the hell falls of a scooter? Hah! Who the hell rides one exactly how you are supposed to? Totally boring.
Have never ridden one, but I assume you could easily crash into a person, car, curb, signpost, other scooterers, hit a rock etc..
Simple instructions don't solve anything, and represent a design flaw. If the design doesn't inherently address the problem you want to solve, then text definitely won't.
Well, I'm saying that because people don't even realize they need to treat the road somewhat like a car driver.
Like, literally, they install the app and get on the scooter and do 20km/h on the opposite side then are surprised that there's people and bikes coming right into them.
A simple "stick to your right" would help a lot of them imo.
And it's really hard to crash one ime, but then again I somehow never fell or crashed a bicycle for half my life.
I honestly can't wait for electric vehicles to become common. No more getting gas attacked when waiting at a traffic stop.
Air pollution is a big deal in my country.
Electric vehicles are plugging up traffic exactly as bad as fossil fueled vehicles.
Now I read a little more about Paris what changed. The mayor Ms Hidalgo introduced the concept of the 15 minute city [0]. It's more important that people can reach all important services within 15 minutes of walking than having Teslas standing in traffic everywhere.
In most of European cities the use of electric scooters have skyrocketed, both private bought and as a service (like Lime).
I don't know how is in France, but in Spain there are new regulation, and new ones halfway, to have a regulation where these vehicles are registered, users have to use helmet, and in a near future, even have civil liability/accident insurance to prevent some kind of problem.
At first, there wasn't nay kind of problem, but more and more people keep buying this scooters, they were driving at high speed in the pavement, there was some accidents with scooters involved, and even there was a couple of pedestrian deaths due to misuse, so the government got serious about that.
It is my experience that two things correlate positively with widespread adoption of biking:
a. Relatively flat city terrain. (Not the case in Prague, for example; a lot of the residential areas are at much higher elevation than the city centre.)
b. Moderate temperatures at both ends of the summer-winter scale. Most people won't bike to work at -20 or +35 Celsius.
I love how people tend to have this impulse to reduce reality to a single variable: Bikes = human power = exercise = good.
Reality is a complex multivariate problem. When you look at more variables you often discover something quite different than the assumption borne out of that single variable fantasy.
Looking at the modal split for Amsterdam and Rotterdam, people still drive cars as much as in other European cities, it's just that cycling has replaced walking and public transport.
I live in Rotterdam and don’t drive my car in the city anymore, only to go out of the city.
We’ve had quite a few changes with reduction in lanes (2 to 1) to allow less traffic in to reduce the air pollution and by doing that bike lanes got bigger which I think is a good thing.
It makes driving a car in the city less attractive and while I have no idea if more people ride bikes now, from my limited perspective it does seem to be the case
Same where I live, and now we have 1 empty bike lane and traffic jam in the remaining with sirens all the time because emergency vehicles can't pass anymore. It seems completely useless, convert a fully functional lane of a road, to an empty lane that's not used, why? And that reasoning is also really strange, just remove roads to force people to drive less? Well you also just removed mobility? Remove busses, subways, remove everything so nobody ever travels anymore, best solution?
There will be as much traffic on a road as there are people willing to put up with it. Urban planners can reduce traffic by introducing alternative transportation methods and either raising costs for cars (congestion pricing, dynamic parking pricing, etc) or making them less convenient (reduce parking, fewer cars lanes, etc). Some transportation options, like buses and bikes, become more attractive when infrastructure prioritizes them over cars (dedicated rights-of-way to avoid getting stuck, separation from cars for safety, bicycle parking, etc).
Infrastructure rightly prioritises the most useful and most efficient modes of transportation, and gives less priority to that which is less useful and efficient. That's rational and correct, no need to change that.
Road space is currently unmetered. Parking space is also often unmetered or underpriced. Should it be the same price for everyone to drive 18-wheelers and RVs and cars and mopeds into the center of a city? Bicycles are the most efficient mode of transportation in terms of energy, except for the densest urban subways.
Cars are a local maximum of utility that doesn't require much coordination or planning. They took advantage of pre-existing public roads and then crowded out all other road users, and subsequent roads were simpler to design and plan for cars than for mixed use with other road users.
Make society less efficient and less convenient? Why? We already have electric cars, and electric 2 wheel mopeds/motorcycles too if you want to complain about "space"
The lane closure (or rather: repurposing) now provides fast access for emergency vehicles. Given that most of the roads they’ve made these changes on are the direct route to the university hospital it’s a good outcome.
For point a, the growing democratization of ebikes really help flatten the terrain.
For point b, the cold in itself is not really a huge deal, if you're dressed appropriately. As for the heat, it really depends on the amount of efforts you have to do.
I see the lack of adequate infrastructure as a much bigger impediment. If you risk getting hurt, you won't cycle, even in the most perfect weather.
Ebikes are more and more common, they already make up half the sales of new bikes in many markets. That's the hills dealt with.
And in regards to cold temperatures, if the only time you daily spend in the cold is the few meters from your house's door to your car's door and then to your work's door, then you just think it is cold because you aren't living it like someone who's active and raises their body temperature in the cold.
Currently I cycle 10km to work and arrive before the sun is barely up, I enjoy those rides, I have good lights on the bike and can use cycling paths on 2/3 of the way. The thing I'm really looking forward to is the snowy days when the world is silenced and cycling though a few centimeters of snow becomes magical.
Here’s a video with more about why biking in the cold and snow isn’t as bad as we make it out to be: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU
The gist is, like usual, biking in the snow is fine when the infrastructure is equipped to make it an effective mode of transportation. It would suck most places in North America because there is next to no dedicated bike infrastructure besides painted gutters. Those obviously don’t get plowed correctly, so it’s terrible. When the major problems like that are handled, it’s fine.
In my experience the number one thing that is positively correlated with biking adoption is infrastructure. If the population can safely use bicycles and they can be easily accessed/stored/rented then they are more willing to work around other inconveniences.
I agree with other replies: infrastructure is the deciding factor (not climate or terrain).
The way to see and understand "infrastructure" is: what if gov't was cycling-centric instead of car-centric. All the "infrastructure" you see around cars? Do that for cycles. There would be safe, separate, well-maintained, direct routes to all points, all year long, 24-7.
My own belief is that this is not possible in the U.S. without a change of culture. We can't even get respect for pedestrians... in winter here, plows will dump snow right over sidewalks (it will take days for them to be cleared if at all in some places). my 2 cents.
I've been in Barcelona during a summer month during a heat wave. People still biked and walked, many of the streets and paths will be shaded at least on one side by the three to five story buildings on most streets except when the sun is directly overhead, and down the middle of some boulevards there are some very generously wide paths and trees providing shade. It's a very different experience from Houston which is pancake flat by comparison to Barcelona, Barcelona actually has hills.
Oulu proves that temperature is a surmountable obstacle. I think the parent comment was right in that biking is very difficult to sell when those circumstances aren't right, even though some cities might overcome anything with sufficient bike culture and good infrastructure.
"Oulu is notable for its transportation network dedicated to non-motor vehicular traffic, including pedestrians and bicycles (termed "light" traffic in Finland). In 2010, the city contained more than 600 kilometres (370 mi) of pathways and more than 100 underpasses and bridges devoted exclusively to light traffic. The network is used year-round. The ratio of light traffic pathways to residents is the highest in Finland and the cycling mode share is 20 percent.[40][41] Oulu is often touted as an excellent city for bicycling."
Many cities have roads and bridges only devoted to light traffic, the real issue is that they are not excellent for biking. In many large cities the biggest problem is distances.
Sub zero temperatures are an issue even for professional bikers at Tour de France.
When the road conditions are not uniform and distances are longer than a few minutes ride they can cause serious problems.
For example imagine going uphill and then down, exposed to the chilling weather and the consequences on a casual bike user.
And the most difficult, practically impossible weather to cycle in, is winter rain. 0-5 degrees celcius and rain, good luck riding your bike. You literally can't dress for it, it's better to even walk because then you can use an umbrella. You have to cover your whole body in specialised clothing that's both warm insulating, and fully waterproof. Your feet, your hands, and even then, your head, your face...
I've driven bikes on -5 while snowing no problem. I've also not driven a bike when the temperature increased to positives because the bike lanes weren't cleared of the snow that fell on previous days.
Then again, raincoats are far more convenient to me than an umbrella, I prefer them when walking as well. That may make me an exception instead of a rule. As for my hands and face, can't say I care if they get wet, but my opinion on that would probably change if I was wearing makeup.
It doesn't matter if you and "plenty of people" don't mind, the important part is that the majority of people do mind, and will not cycle in cold winter rain.
I bike with my kids in -12C. You dress like they're going sledding or skiing. It's fine. If you live in a cold climate, you just have that stuff anyway.
Why, it's much better for the kids to just take the bus, it's more practical and easier, and they don't have the risk of sitting cold and wet in school, what's the point of stubbornly cycling in shitty weather
I also had to cycle my whole childhood to school, and I don't see the point at all, it just felt like some kind of unnecessary punishment and some creepy amish like way of being against technology
The southern us doesn’t even walk, much less bike. The car infrastructure down here seems insane, but you literally do get covered in sweat walking from your car to a building. The southern us is not good for the outdoors due to weather, and because no one bikes/walks the infrastructure is horrible.
(I’m in Tennessee on vacation, walking everywhere. Many sidewalks just end, no crosswalks, etc. biking here would be dangerous)
Knoxville and Nashville have walkable potential in the core, and of course Asheville, NC, but outside of that, the south is as you said very pedestrian unfriendly.
In the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, the city of Richardson is very bike- and pedestrian-friendly. The area around the Univ of Texas at Dallas is especially so.
That depends on your age and cardiovascular health. Overexertion in heat can be deadly.
I am 43, I have no chronic disease, but I would be afraid of more than just sweating if I went on a biking trip in that temperature. Sometimes I feel unwell even when walking in such heat.
It is much easier to ride a bike than to walk in the heat. Because you create your own wind.
If I stay at home and walk around I have troubles breathing when it's over 35°C, I have been several times on the verge of fainting when it lasts a bit too long over that temperature.
But I don't have a problem biking at that temperature or above. I've ridden for hours in temperatures near 40°C with no shade. As long as I get plenty of air, it's OK: it lowers the temperatures and I can breath. I mean, I prefer if it is 15°C lower :-), but it feels much better than walking.
Now in such circumstances you'd better not get caught in a climb, when your speed drop under say, 8 mph, because then you don't get any wind, while being on max effort. That's horrible. It happened to me once in a small mountain pass, on a road which looked like it had been painted black to make things worse. I had to climb down the sharp slope on the road side as I could, to find the shade of the few bushes which were around and stay there a few minutes, because I felt my temperature was rising way too much. Never again.
Then the problem is not the heat, but your fitness level, which regular biking, jogging will improve. It did for me. After about 20 years of no exercise, just sitting in front of a computer, I decided last November to start exercising (jogging. Bad knees make biking a bad idea)
My 1st day out jogging, I could only go 0.5 miles non-stop before I almost passed out. Today I can do 5.5 miles non-stop. My cardiovascular system is in the best shape it has been in a long time. And I'm almost 60.
I have quite a lot of exercise, but I have hard time tolerating high temperatures in general, and it has been getting worse with age. I should have been born somewhere in Siberia.
I simply just want to do other sports and want to have the choice of what I do for exercise, and have maximum freedom to how I spend my (free) time and energy, and not use most of it on commuting.
I think you'd be a little surprised. I have a friend in Chicago who's bike commuted year round now for decades.
That's anecdotal for sure but once you are acclimatized to winter I think the gating criteria is more around a secure place to park your bike during the day.
I have another work buddy in Minneapolis who sends me pictures of the temp guage on his Fat-Bike of like -20F training rides in Jan and Feb... yikes!!!!
The truth is that cycling infrastructure is an unnecessary luxury. It's a "good thing" in principle because it's a way of transportation that's good for the environment and gives people exercise, but it's redundant and expensive, you still need full capacity in public transport, because almost no one cycles when the weather is bad. It would only makes sense really if you could dynamically allocate space between cars/bikes basically on a day-by-day basis, and/or convert bike lanes to bus lanes, but I guess you'd need a full fleet of only self driving cars for that to be feasible. Then you could have the luxury of using a bike on days with nice weather, just because it's fun. Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow. Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment. But then again, we have a million comforts and luxuries at the expense of the environment, and people can generally choose, as long as they're not using absurd amount of energy. Why force cycling specifically, I don't understand, just take the bus if you don't want to drive.
A car in a city center, _that_ is the unnecessary luxury.
> Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow.
Automobiles are the sole reason why general mobility is so poor in cities that are crowded (with cars) and where transport is slow (due to cars).
Please take a look at cities in Denmark or The Netherlands. Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. Not only is it cheap, reliable, healthy and it doesn't take up much space... it's also _faster_ than driving a car.
Yes, cars are practical for rural and long-distance travel, but not for use in city centers.
You should probably tell the Dutch that they don't cycle in the rain. Over 1/3rd of days are rainy in the Netherlands on average and yet they somehow manage to put on their ponchos.
I would love to see the difference in bike use in the Netherlands relative to the weather, I bet only a small fraction will use the bike in bad weather conditions and they will need capacity in public transport to cover for these days.
Actually, it is. It often doesn't rain for hours on end, so people work a bit longer or start a bit earlier to avoid the rain. Otherwise, there's umbrellas, ponchos and plain old acceptance of the fact that you will be a bit wet for an hour. My dad used to say when it was pouring: "You're not made out of sugar, are you?"
And yes, public transport is busier on some days than on others, is that a problem? How is that any different from motorists on roads?
I highly doubt that, it speaks completely against my lifelong experience as a cyclists. The vast majority of all people are fair weathered cyclists and bike lanes are mostly empty half of the year.
You get cold, wet and uncomfortable, and have to be very flexible with time. Even if you can "deal with it", it's still very real negative aspects, and why would you put up with that if you don't have to?
My point is that you have to have full capacity public transport anyway so the bike lanes are really redundant, a "nicety" and as such I think they should have little space and low priority, it makes perfect sense.
Why don't we have skateboarding lanes? Running lanes? Horseback riding lanes? It's fun, it's healthy, it's good for the environment! Because it's impractical, slow and inefficient, just like cycling is.
I think the worse is rain in hot summer. You'll end up soaked whether you cover or not. Winter rain is OK, you just need appropriate clothing. Source: I cycle during the whole year, and sub-zero temperatures are not a problem at all (for a couple of weeks at most in my latitude, but still), even if it rains.
I disagree, it's a very real annoying problem to dress your whole body in both warm and waterproof clothes, and even if you like it, most people don't. And it is objectively, relatively, much less convenient and much less comfortable than the alternatives of a bus/subway.
> much less convenient and much less comfortable than the alternatives of a bus/subway
This is quite subjective... For one, I've commuted by bus+subway for most of my life, in three different European cities (Lisbon, Barcelona and Paris). Two years ago I had a sort of epiphany looking at the bike lane that followed the same path as my crowded bus. I bought a bike, in order to "try" the bike commute, and I've never looked back since. Even some days with hard weather, I prudently walk to the bus stop, and then say "no shit" and walk back home to pick my bike.
Thus I politely disagree with you that it is "much less convenient", at least for everybody.
A bike lane that's only used when the weather is nice, when you already have a subway? No _that_ is unnecessary luxury. Take the subway if you hate cars.
as en expat living in amsterdam i couldnt disagree more. a city with a bike first infrastucture is incomparably safer, quieter and more pleasant for everyone in the city.
when it takes 15 minutes to get anywhere in the city using the bike infrastructure, one would be crazy to pull out the car and look 30 minutes for parking places that cost north of 7 euros an hour.
"people dont bike in bad weather and in winter" is nonsense garbage from people who dont live in biking places. if the infrastructure is there people will bike even in snow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU).
> just take the bus if you don't want to drive
i dont depend on any public transport if i have my bike. it's the exact reason why people choose cars over public transport.
I live in a city center and used to walk/take public transport. which was fine.
biking is alot more convenient. I can only carry about what I would walking, but its not a big deal to go two miles to get something. and I feel much better for the exercise.
if zipcar hadn't been shut down after acquisition, I would still have the option to get something big from 20 miles away once or twice a year.
I don't know why you feel the need to assert that the last 100 years status quo is some statement of natural law...I've always hated getting trapped in those smelly little boxes and now I have a choice!
Not the car, take the bus. The reason cycling is unnecessary is that all use cases are already covered by public transport and/or driving. That's a fact. There's nothing that you specifically need to cycle for. That makes it unnecessary, that's just basic logic.
And most people do not cycle when the weather is bad, that's also just a fact, and I grew up in an extremely bike friendly city and rode my bike all winter in the snow, in bike lanes that were completely empty and I just saw a whole bunch of money down the drain, just to pretend to be environmentally friendly when in reality 95% of people hop on the bus as soon as the weather is even slightly bad.
A lorry is also not strictly necessary if you have a Smart or a wheelbarrow. There is plenty of use cases that are only reasonable thanks to having a bike. I for example went to work by a combination of bike and public transport. Car alone would have been 1h, public transport and walking as well, but bike and public transport was 45 min. (Car and public transport did not work together for lack of parking) By your logic, the bike was unnecessary and that is true but beside the point for the sake of 2*15min a day.
Just because most people are doing something does not mean its sensible. Most people are also overweight, even though everyone knows that that is not healthy.
Yes there are cases when a bike will be faster, because your destination happens to be poorly covered by public transport, but on average it's not, and that's what's really important.
Uh. I doubt cycling infrastructure is even a minute fraction of the cost we put into automobile infrastructure. I have no proof but lol let’s call it a hunch.
> Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment.
It’s better for the environment, it’s cheaper, it’s more efficient(more bikes can occupy less space and move more people), it’s fun, it’s good for your body, it’s safer(if we don’t have to share the road with cars- for instance if the infrastructure for bikes were to actually exist), bikes are easier to maintain, bikes can access a variety of terrain most cars can not. I could probably go on and on.
IMO the only reason bicycles are seen as an unnecessary luxury is cultural. We aren’t all Lycra clad snobs who ignore stop lights, but for some reason this perception persists.
No it's not. People don't like to be very uncomfortable and inconvenient. Cycling year around every day, is very uncomfortable and inconvenient for many many days, so why would you do that if you don't have to?
I can argue exactly the same way for why you should turn off the heat in your house the whole winter, it's great for the environment and you just have to "put on a coat".
People also like to choose whatever they think is fun, if you want to play tennis instead of riding a bike, because you think that's more fun, you should be able to do so.
Your fun is at the expense of other people's mobility, why can't you just use some of the other million ways of getting exercise and having fun, where you don't have to be in other people's way?
It's better to be a driver. It's no fun. You don't get any exercise. It drives up infrastructure costs, kills and maims people, destroys the planet, and takes up even more space on the roads.
Bikes are often used in combination with subways. Bikes can also be used in cities that don't have subways and cycling infrastructure is far cheaper to build.
Bikes solve the problem of the last-mile. Subways are expensive to build and dig, bikes gets you much further and literally anywhere. Add a bike station at your subway station and you have both working together.
Yeah well, in this example and many similar big cities in europe, you have subway and buses that will take you to any street corner. Sure, in a small town in australia or the US, not the case, but I highly doubt bike lanes will be any viable alternative there anyway.
My point is that it's not a good idea to expand bike lanes in big city centers where you already have public transport, especially not in places that doesn't have a bike friendly climate. It's simply not a good use of the space, can't really make any good case for it except some people think it's fun, which is extremely weak. And I don't understand why it makes cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen so much better, people just get randomly happy from the joys of riding a bike, or what? I'd rather have many more practical solutions with tangible results such as actually reducing the time and energy we spend on commuting, not increasing it.
> My point is that it's not a good idea to expand bike lanes in big city centers where you already have public transport
I don't know what is your background, but many cities are doing it and it's not only about enabling bikes but also to disable passenger cars, and the main reason is it makes the places more livable and enjoyable: it's quieter, the air is cleaner, the streets are safer, people actually spend more time outside. So this is a practical solution to a problem people have: noise, pollution, loss of public space to car infrastructure.
Oh and I should add: outside of my house they have blocked one whole lane of the road from cars and designated it for cyclists. There was already a smaller bike lane. This new lane is now mostly empty and the remaining two lanes have traffic jams now with sirens all the time because emergency vehicles can't pass anymore. And I just think it's stupid and annoying. There was already a perfectly fine bike lane. There is also a tram. Why expand that bike lane now and cause traffic jams, I don't understand. Seems like it's just for virtue signalling, oh look how modern we are and such good people, when in practice it's barely used, not needed and cause traffic jams.
"Barely used", citation needed. Even in not-very-friendly cities for bike like Toronto, most bike lanes have higher amount of bike riders than the cars on the street.
My background is that I've cycled my whole life, all of childhood in rain and snow and later I've cycled for a few years in a big city. But I started to use it less and less, and now it's just parked and unused. And the reason is that there's always a better alternative. If the weather is nice, I drive an electric moped, it's not noisy or polluting, and it doesn't take up much space. And it's so so much better than cycling, I arrive much quicker and with more energy anywhere I go, and I can use the whole existing road network. And when the weather is bad, obviously public transport wins. I think the future is electric and self driving vehicles, not cycling, and being forced to propel yourself manually like that for basic transportation has no place in a modern world except for enjoyment, and this can be done in designated areas.
If you just want to avoid cars and have a more leisurely space, why not designate pedestrian zones like traditionally done in city centers, and use the space for cafés, market stands etc.
I'm simply talking about cycling in a big city from a practical point of view, based on facts and my own experience, and pointing out the limitations. As opposed to using cycling as some kind of protest, and people get triggered when I'm challenging the latest virtue signalling trend.
That depends. Not in a crash event. A bike can't match the safety measures that even the dumbest car has today. Hitting an obstacle in a car with seatbelts and airbags, or hitting it in a bike are totally different cases, even at a lower speed.
Yeah it's the least safe mode of transportation, driving, public transport and walking are all safer than cycling. "But it's the fault of the cars", no cyclists have tons of accidents by themselves and amongst each other, that walking and public transport completely avoids.
As a thought experiment, take any American city, remove the bikes, and see if the congestion goes away.
Now, remove the cars that are being used for unnecessary luxury, such as organizing your entire lifestyle and schedule around the availability of unlimited single-occupancy car use and generous parking.
> the ride from start to finish lasts about 25 minutes.
That's about 50 minutes to and fro. That's all the exercise a child needs in a day. Wish they'll succeed in making it every day, instead of just on Fridays.
That, actually, is way more than the minimum recommended. See [1]. It took me about 10 minutes of jogging at least 3-4 times a week over several months before I got to the point where I can now jog 60+ minutes non-stop.
I used to overstate my commuting, as well, but when I compare it to running, you need to at least double the duration for equivalency. Both in numbers and feelz. And you really need to push it (lol) to get your heart working. Not a complete replacement for exercise, otherwise. Luckily, I start hunting on a bike naturally, but lots of people seem to not even break a sweat, or really enjoy sitting on their saddle. Exhaust pollution wise, bike commuting seems to be still beneficial, but it’s definitely putting a counterweight in the bowl, too. Tho, that’s supposed to get better, with fewer (my city started converting whole car lanes into bike lanes <3 ) and electric cars.
Anyway, those children grow up riding bikes will likely continue as adults where getting any exercise is better than nothing. And if you’re used to taking your bike everywhere, you may easily make 20-50km/d, which is something. Biking can be more than a mode of transportation. I often get overwhelmingly happy flowing through the city with a breeze on my skin and people in the same room. I wish that bliss onto everyone.
I’ve noticed there are frequent reposts of the same story or very similar stories when it comes to pro-bike/anti-car/urbanist content. I’ve seen several such posts in the last 24 hours, all on the front page. Reposts are supposed to be buried per the HN FAQ but there isn’t a way to report things as dupes seemingly. @dang is flagging the right approach for handling this?
In my experience emailing is better (using the Contact link in the footer). This is also better for getting the mods' attention, as things like @dang don't trigger any automated notification mechanism.
I don't know how a bike-first city would feel, but biking is a serious bonus in one's life (granted you have safe space or a herd around you). So the more the merrier.
It feels like having a gym membership, you really like the idea of yourself, and you can be smug and get virtue signalling points, but in practice people rarely use it and it's mostly empty except for a short season.
Yep, that's what I mean. They like the idea of being a good person, but when push comes to shove, in reality it's only used/usable when the weather is nice, and people don't use it when the weather is bad.
Ah well I was surprised to keep biking 24/7 after I started in July. I'd even do it 100% of the time if I was living in my own house and if it was safe and easy to park my bike (bike theft is so prevalent). Even soaked in rain, even when cold, even after falling hard.. I kept doing it.
I'm even thinking making a bike club / bike repair shop to motivate other people. The benefits are huge.
You like to do something uncomfortable and impractical, so what, most people don't and it obviously has huge downsides. If you want to use scarce public space you can't really argue that a small minority think it's fun
I am actually volunteering at two repair shops ran by charities, teaching kids and refugees how to fix their own bikes. It's great, though the adults are not very keen on riding everywhere :D
Also, thanks HN for rate limiting me without a notification, you shitheads. 3 comments an hour or so?
Just ban my account and IP, I would honestly appreciate it, no need to play mind games like some other cunty sites.
My brother has been living in Barcelona for one year and visiting yearly for over a decade. He tells me he can feel the city change and become more and more of a bike city. As a dutchie this makes him very happy
This is wonderful to see. It’s sad how such an old technology, that can fix so many urban problems, is overlooked in most of the developed world.
- Childhood obesity (around 30% in some areas of developed nations)
- Independence for children (meet friends, get to school, etc.)
- Time poor “taxi service” parents might save 1hr+ / day
- Congestion (bikes can be even more space efficient than buses)
- Air quality (many developed cities exceed WHO guidelines
- Money saved on car payments for the poorest in society. This is a huge burden.
- Independence for those too old, with a disability or medical condition that prevents driving. Did you know many epileptics are not legally allowed to drive?
- City saves money on road repair etc. Road damage is a power of vehicle weight.
- Local shops favoured over out of town, big box etc.
Similar, in Switzerland they have a "Pedibus", mostly for small kids, but they walk a route accompanied by a few adults, picking up kids on the way till you get these long lines of kids walking to school>
Link (In french) https://pedibus.ch/fr/
This happening organically is way better than any state-sponsored policy down the throats of everyone (which includes policies that end up making most traffic to become by cars instead of smaller vehicles or public transit, of course).
organic is great, now we need more of that for all aspects of life, and hopefully some simple large integration of efforts to keep them stable and efficient (after all we have near free computing to communicate, analyse and organize, so why not)
You just uncovered one of the issues in Barcelona: getting a public school place near where you are living, especially in the Eixample district (the one where this initiative is being done) which is super crowded and with very few real estate available for public buildings.
Makes me think of the Critical Mass movement [1], except that this has more impact because they are kids and is actually serving a purpose of going to school.
I live in Barcelona. We have most of the streets with a proper bicycle lane. Too many people using the lines everyday and I believe the best system is Madrid, when you can go directly on the street on one of the lanes, instead of a small lane.
By choice I use a bicycle exclusively for all my transport needs (with the obvious exceptions like furniture etc.), and I'd like to see more people get up on a bike regularly to help promote the people's collective health, but I can see a problem with how this particular practice is executed. How high is the risk that these children might grow into the reckless assumption that the entire road (especially the middle of the road) is theirs for the taking as soon as they get up on their bikes?
Seemingly low I’d think. On the bike bus they’ve got hundreds of kids and parents around them and a police escort, so it’s not a normal biking situation. Plus parents likely are teaching kids bike safety.
Biking in this bus formation and biking normally are separate enough that it doesn’t seem to be a concern. IMO that’s like asking if kids don’t where seat belts on a normal bus, are they then at risk of not wearing seat belts in normal cars?
"Biking in this bus formation and biking normally are separate enough that it doesn’t seem to be a concern. IMO that’s like asking if kids don’t where seat belts on a normal bus, are they then at risk of not wearing seat belts in normal cars?"
I don't think you put much thought into your reasoning. You're conveniently forgetting that people have a knack for developing bad habits, and children have a knack for picking up everything their parents do and cementing it.
I'm all for reclaiming and equally sharing the roads that all of us paid for, but it can't be done by biking recklessly in the middle of car traffic. It has to achieved politically.
There's nothing reckless in cycling in traffic. If anything, some car drivers can be reckless by driving dangerously close to cyclists. Cycling on the streets is a right that we already have and that cyclists already paid for. The only thing that remains to be achieved is that a vocal minority of motorists accept this fact.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-r...
[2] https://enviropaul.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/all-the-garbage-...