←back to thread

437 points Vinnl | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.506s | source
Show context
ben7799 ◴[] No.43996687[source]
Car speed in the zone.. that graph is really telling, showing that in NYC cars never really travel faster than even the slowest bicyclist, and slower than a modest runner.

That alone tells you this is the right path. All that infrastructure and work for cars to not actually allow anyone to travel fast.

9mph is very very slow even for the weakest/most timid cyclist.

replies(4): >>43997292 #>>43997357 #>>43997524 #>>43999328 #
munificent ◴[] No.43997524[source]
I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking.

* Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive.

* Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain.

* Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions.

* Cars make it much easier to haul stuff around.

* You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. This is something a lot of bike commute advocates sweep under the rug. They talk about how biking is overall safe, but then you ask them if they've ever had an accident and so many have been hit by cars and broken bones.

I fully support more people biking and walking. But I think the optimal solution is multi-modal. Cars aren't bad, they're just one piece of the puzzle.

(The reason I'm not a bike commuter right now is because I slipped in a puddle biking to work and destroyed my ankle. Non-fatal accident statistics for cycle are actually pretty scary when you dig into them. People always point out that overall mortality statistics are better for cyclists, but you can still have a really fucking bad time without dying.)

replies(10): >>43997635 #>>43997655 #>>43997720 #>>43997745 #>>43997799 #>>43997818 #>>43999522 #>>44000220 #>>44000237 #>>44010205 #
cmeacham98 ◴[] No.43997720[source]
> You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car.

The solution to this problem is not to have more cars, it is to have less (and probably stricter standards on obtaining and maintaining a driver's license).

replies(1): >>43998107 #
munificent ◴[] No.43998107[source]
I don't have data, but I'm pretty sure you're even safer in a low speed car-to-car accident than in a low speed bike-to-bike accident.
replies(2): >>44000252 #>>44000271 #
1. tizzy ◴[] No.44000252[source]
The maths says unlikely.

Kinetic energy=0.5mv^2

The two variables are orders of magnitude smaller in one scenario, and the function grows quadratically.

replies(1): >>44000434 #
2. munificent ◴[] No.44000434[source]
Yes the energy is much larger in a car collision, but the fraction of that energy absorbed by the cars is also much larger.

My face doesn't have a few feet of crumple zones on it, just a couple of millimeters of skin over bone.