Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Walkable and bikable cities and suburbs. Increased transit. Reduced working hours so that people don't feel the need to choose between health and survival and stress. Getting the garbage out of our supermarkets. Not subsidizing massive amounts of corn syrup and sugar.

I really could go on.



If you're a cycling enthusiast you'll always find a way. As you develop as a cyclist areas which once intimidated you may feel safer. It is like any other skill in that way.

I know many would prefer bike lanes, but bicycle infrastructure isn't always safer for cyclists. Often city planners have no concept of what actually goes on, so even when token lines are painted on the street - it does nothing to increase cycling.

It may be best to put aside the issues of investment and which top-down solution is the best. There may be a time and place for that, but in the near term individuals with an interest can develop their skills incrementally.

Disclaimer: I am a self admitted cycling extremist


Cities shouldn't be made for cyclists anymore than they should be made for cars.

Most people do not care what form of transportation they take. They do not identify as cyclists, drivers, or anything else. Transportation is an inconvenience in their lives as they travel from A to B. They will do whatever is cheap, fast, and convenient.

Cities need to be built to a human scale and not a car scale. Cities should be designed so that riding a comfortable, durable, upright bicycle is a fast and convenient option for people. That means bicycle paths that are physically separated from other forms of traffic. It means constructing different kinds of buildings and businesses so that bicycle routes are short and convenient.

Most people are never going to risk their lives to ride bicycles on roads where cars, driven by people on their phone, are travelling at speeds exceeding 30 mph. They won't ride their bicycles for an hour over the vast distances that are convenient for cars to travel in a few minutes. And they won't take their bicycle to a big box store with car-parks larger than the store so that they can clumsily chain their bicycle to a street light pole.

If you want normal people to ride bicycles as transportation, you need extensive bicycle infrastructure.


If cycling is abnormal, then by definition 'normal' people will never cycle.

>Most people are never going to risk their lives to ride bicycles on roads where cars, driven by people on their phone, are travelling at speeds exceeding 30 mph

From my admittedly biased or perhaps experienced perspective it really isn't as dangerous as people imagine.

What is clear to me is that no matter what happens, there will always be a contingent of individuals who will never ride a bicycle. Whether that is because of imagined safety reasons or because of infrastructure fantasies, I can't say. I can say with certainty that if you eliminated both of these objections, another excuse would be raised. That's fine. People should choose the lifestyle that suits them and brings them happiness.


But who is going to lobby for any of those things?


20 years ago, who is going to lobby for electrical cars or solar power? They aren't financially profitable.


It's far easier to make technological progress than it is to fight in politics.


We already are. At the national level, there is a High Speed Rail lobby group http://www.ushsr.com/

At the local level, it is up to you. In my city of Pittsburgh, we are removing parking and expanding transit access and bike lane coverage. But there is still a lot to be done, so I am advocating for change by participating in groups and contacting my city councilman.


The so-called "garbage" in our supermarkets is there because people want to buy it. What gives somebody else the right to say that they should not do so?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: