Bicycle Lanes replacing car lanes in Manhattan - a discussion of WHAT IF

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

When people start removing stored carbon from the earth and drinking it so they can burn it to emit CO2 to the atmosphere, adding to the overall total, then we can talk.

Until then, the fast-recycle of planting food, capturing carbon, emitting it as respiration and then planting some more to capture the exhalation will simply not have the same effect as digging up long-stored fossil fuel.

That tractor needs fuel.
The fertilizer needed fuel to produce.
The harvester needs fuel.
The trucks that bring it to market need fuel.

Even though the carbon in the food itself comes from the atmosphere and thus doesn't matter the carbon released by it's production is substantial.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

Instead of waving your hands, provide a link or do the math. And when you do the math, the "food that powers the bicycle" has to be the additional food needed to power the bicycle, not just the normal amount.

I don't see how food can be significantly more carbon intensive than gasoline to produce and deliver. And of course, production and delivery are the ONLY fossil carbon emissions due to food - whereas gasoline emits fossil carbon from production, delivery AND use. Burning a steak and chips doesn't add net CO₂ to the atmosphere; Burning gasoline surely does. Both use trucks, ships, etc. to bring them from source to plate; Both use some energy to produce - but in neither case are production and transportation energy anywhere CLOSE to the amount of energy they give when used.

This whole line of argument stinks.

I have not managed to find what I was reading about bicycles but here's a partial analysis on walking:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/McKenziewalking.html

Walking emits more unless you're driving a guzzler.

Note that this only considers CO2, the biological route also produces a lot more methane.

 

[lpetrich]

...
That tractor needs fuel.
The fertilizer needed fuel to produce.
The harvester needs fuel.
The trucks that bring it to market need fuel.
...

Irrelevant without numbers, since the fuel will be amortized over a lot of foodstuffs.

I'll consider an 18-wheeler truck, a common mode of delivery. It typically has a fuel consumption of 8.5 mpg, a maximum trailer weight of 80,000 lbs, and an empty trailer weight of 10,000 lbs.

That's 3.61 km/liter = 4.83 km/kg = 5.64 km/(kg C)

So for traveling 600 mi ~ 1000 km, that's 177 kg C emitted. For a transcontinental trip of 4000 km with the same distance returning, it's 1.4 tonnes (metric tons, megagrams) of carbon.

Its payload is 70,000 lbs of food or 32 metric tons of food with roughly 8 tonnes of carbon.

I'll compare shopping and driving home with a bag of groceries.

I'll imagine driving 10 miles each way. That's nearly 0.91 gallons or 3.55 liters or 2.66 kg or 2.28 C emitted.

I'll assume 100 kg of groceries. That's for picking up a lot of stuff when one goes shopping. That contains 26 kg C.

So grocery shopping is comparable to long-distance trucking.

 

[lpetrich]

I'll consider fertilizer. Wheat typically requires 2 to 2.5 pounds of nitrogen (N) per bushel (bu) of grain. Winter Wheat Fertilization | Mosaic Crop Nutrition

1 bushel of wheat is 60 lbs. What Does a Bushel of Wheat Mean to Me? | Kansas Wheat

That's about 1 kg of N for each 27 kg of wheat. That seems rather small, unless wheat is mostly starch (CH2O). So I checked Wheat 101: Nutrition Facts and Health Effects
100 grams / 3.5 oz of whole-grain wheat flour:

• Calories: 340
• Water: 11%
• Protein: 13.2 grams
• Carbs: 72 grams
• Sugar: 0.4 grams
• Fiber: 10.7 grams
• Fat: 2.5 grams

The nitrogen-containing part is the protein in it, and protein is about 15% of the mass of the wheat flour. Nitrogen Balance - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics - Proteins are about 16% nitrogen by weight. Combined, the flour is about 2.4% N by weight, and the fertilizer N would be 3.7% by weight. So the numbers work out OK.

Energy and the food system - 32 GJ/t for ammonia, 22 GJ/t for urea, 22 GJ/t for liquid UAN (urea ammonium nitrate). I'll use 32 MJ/kg. So the amount of energy necessary to make the fertilizer is about 1/15 he amount of energy in the food itself.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't see how food can be significantly more carbon intensive than gasoline to produce and deliver. And of course, production and delivery are the ONLY fossil carbon emissions due to food - whereas gasoline emits fossil carbon from production, delivery AND use. Burning a steak and chips doesn't add net CO₂ to the atmosphere; Burning gasoline surely does. Both use trucks, ships, etc. to bring them from source to plate; Both use some energy to produce - but in neither case are production and transportation energy anywhere CLOSE to the amount of energy they give when used.

This whole line of argument stinks.

I have not managed to find what I was reading about bicycles but here's a partial analysis on walking:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/McKenziewalking.html

Walking emits more unless you're driving a guzzler.

Note that this only considers CO2, the biological route also produces a lot more methane.

LOL - that study ignores the fossil fuels used to obtain, transport and transform oil into gasoline, and ignores the fossil fuel use to transport the gasoline to the gas station. it ignores the fossil fuels in transporting and manufacturing the vehicles and the fossil fuels used in transporting the vehicles to the show rooms. It assumes a 40 mpg which was ridiculous in 2013, let alone today - most gas powered vehicles on the road get far less.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't see how food can be significantly more carbon intensive than gasoline to produce and deliver. And of course, production and delivery are the ONLY fossil carbon emissions due to food - whereas gasoline emits fossil carbon from production, delivery AND use. Burning a steak and chips doesn't add net CO₂ to the atmosphere; Burning gasoline surely does. Both use trucks, ships, etc. to bring them from source to plate; Both use some energy to produce - but in neither case are production and transportation energy anywhere CLOSE to the amount of energy they give when used.

This whole line of argument stinks.

I have not managed to find what I was reading about bicycles but here's a partial analysis on walking:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/McKenziewalking.html

Walking emits more unless you're driving a guzzler.

Your article actually supports the conclusion that cycling, if not walking, is more fuel efficient than driving (even as, as laughing dog has pointed out, it ignores the obvious fact that the fuels burnt by the car also have additional expenditure attached to them before they land in your tank). It's bottom line concludes that "walking can be 1.5 to 2 times more polluting than driving (if you use a high mileage car)".

Now obviously, unless you're going up a steep mountain (and if you are, your fuel efficient car won't be making 40 miles a gallon either), cycling is more than twice as efficient as walking, probably closer to 5 times as efficient - you can easily, in any more or less flat environment and on halfway decent surfaces, cycle 4-5 miles in the same time as walking 1 mile, and without being more exhausted when you arrive. So using the numbers in the article, cycling is at least twice as efficient as driving a fuel efficient car.

And that still ignores that most people already consume more calories than they burn, and thus don't necessarily have to eat more to make up for the extra calories burnt - and that most people should be moving more anyway, so even if they do end up eating more than they would have done sitting at home, they don't consume more by cycling to work and skipping a gym session in exchange.

Note that this only considers CO2, the biological route also produces a lot more methane.

That's just plain false - the article talks about methane at length, and in places even reads like it flat out assumes that the extra calories a person will consume to make up for what they burn during there walks is 100% beef steak without side dishes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem with your numbers is you didn't go far enough. All you're looking at is the carbon emitted by the person on the bike--and by that standard bikes are very green. I'm looking at the big picture, though--not just the carbon emitted powering the vehicle, but the carbon emitted in producing and delivering the fuel that powered the vehicle. Food is quite carbon intensive to produce and deliver, far more so than gasoline. Muscle power turns out to be nothing like green.

When people start removing stored carbon from the earth and drinking it so they can burn it to emit CO2 to the atmosphere, adding to the overall total, then we can talk.

Until then, the fast-recycle of planting food, capturing carbon, emitting it as respiration and then planting some more to capture the exhalation will simply not have the same effect as digging up long-stored fossil fuel.

That tractor needs fuel.
The fertilizer needed fuel to produce.
The harvester needs fuel.
The trucks that bring it to market need fuel.

Even though the carbon in the food itself comes from the atmosphere and thus doesn't matter the carbon released by it's production is substantial.

Ginormous! So much that fresh vegatables in the market cost like a couple bucks for a bag of carrots! I can only imagine how much fuel and materials went into that when a bag of carrots costs less than a gallon of gasoline!

 

[ronburgundy]

But it replaces it with people no longer using cars.

Not by very much at all, especially given that the bike lanes are empty many days due to weather.
When it doubles travel times for the cars on the road, emission would be increased unless a daily average of 50% of car drivers switch to biking. Averaged over all days of the year, it's likely less than 1% reduction in cars replaced by bikes (in fact bikes are more likely to replace public transport riders, which I return to below).

In NYC, there are many one-way streets. It seems that one way action would reduce this issue.

Not plausible in Chicago. Chicago's 4 lane 2-way roads occur only every 1/2 mile(very systematic). The small side streets in between are filled with residences and no businesses, and have 4 way stops every 100 yards and speed bumps. Making the roads one way would force drivers to go around a block with a 2 mile perimeter distance (increasing driving distances and congestion), or force them into the residential sidestreets which are slow and full of kids and pedestrians. Plus, one of the more egregious examples I've seen in Chicago is on a one of rare diagonal streets that is very popular b/c it shortens driving distances (only 2 on Northside of city, that are not parallel). There is no way to make that one-way w/o completely eliminating the shorter diagonal route for half of drivers and thus increasing driving distances and congestion.

And when done in city where the weather impedes bike riding 2/3 of the days of the year (snow, cold, heavy rain, or excessive heat), the number of reduced cars due to bikers doesn't come close to making up for the congestion effects of going from 2 to 1 auto lanes.

Is NYC one of these? We live many hours inland of NYC where the weather is both colder and more prone to snow. It is absolutely not accurate to say that 2/3 days are lost. It is more like 1/3 or perhaps 5/12.

It isn't just cold and active snow. Heavy rain and high heat also greatly reduces bike riders. There may be hard core riders who brave lot's of those conditions, but I bet dollars to donuts that more than 50% of days in NYC the weather significantly reducers riders not just for safety reasons but b/c they don't want to show up to work soaked or drenched in sweat. And even when it isn't actively snowing, snow on the ground that often stays around for weeks is a problem for city bike riders. There is nowhere to put that snow, so it's plowed on the side of the street and into bike lanes. Clearing snow from a protected bike lane is a known problem with no easy solution and any solution mean expensive specialized equipment. Then there are many who don't ride at night b/c it's less safe, so that's more hours of the year with reduced ridership.
Also, NYC is not a good example b/c the threshold for whether people ride bikes is determined by car ownership (most New Yorkers don't have one), which is determined by public transportation (NYC is best is US) and whether there is anywhere to park (NYC is worst in US). 75% of households own cars in Chicago and creation of protected bike lanes will do nothing to that number. Outside of NYC, when there are many days where they can't ride bikes and public transportation isn't great, a large % of bike riders have cars and drive. That raises the threshold of the conditions needed for them to choose to bike. In fact, that raises the point that protected bikes lanes increase biking in large part by reduces use of public transportation. It's those who don't have cars and must either use public transport or bike that are most likely to be swayed to bike by protected lanes.

But far worse, b/c it's downright absurd, is a new trend I'm seeing where they remove a right turn lane at an intersection in order to create a protected area for the first 10 feet of crosswalk, so that idiots on their phone who don't watch where they are walking can mindlessly walk into the street without being hit. Not only does this mean that cars back up b/c they cannot turn right on red, which is when there are no pedestrians in the crosswalk of the street they turn onto, but cars going straight or turning left must wait behind cars turning right who now must wait for the pedestrians walking on the green across the street they are turning onto. The result is an intersection where cars took 10 seconds to stop and turn right are now taking 2 minutes or more, b/c often only 1 or 2 cars get through on green due no room to pass the person waiting for oncoming traffic to turn left. Sorry, that's a bit off-topic, but it really grinds my gears (pun intended). It is somewhat related though, b/c it creates similar problems and stems from the same political mindset that pushes for protected bike lanes in contexts where it's destructive.

So you're saying that cars should not have to wait for pedestrians to cross? When would the pedestrians cross, then?

No, I'm saying that morons shouldn't be actively encouraged to go against a don't walk sign and step in front of traffic. These protected crosswalks are at intersections with lights that have walk/don'twalk signs. They install them just in case oblivious pedestrians ignore the don't walk and step in front of cars that have a green light. And even when used at a 4 way stop, these protected crosswalks are a problem. Pedestrians are required by law to act like cars and pause at the curb when there are cars there. But most are oblivious and just walk or jog right off the curb in front of cars that were there before them. This increases congestion, b/c it happens so often that most drivers are gun shy and will sit there and wait if a pedestrian is merely approaching the curb, assuming they won't wait their turn. Protecting the crosswalk area off the curb makes it even worse, b/c now people treat the edge of the protected area as the curb, which not only spooks drivers and makes them unwillingly to go until a rare decent pedestrian waves them through, but against eliminates the space where are second car could pull up to the stop sign and turn right while the car next to them is turning left or going straight. These effects combine to add about 50% to the wait time to get through a 4 way stop.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Loren's nonsense also neglects to factor in the fact that the healthier one is (i.e., someone getting daily exercise from riding their bike) the less greenhouse gasses we emit and the better our diets become (i.e., more fresh fruit and vegetables, less processed meats, which means fewer cow and pig farms, which means less methane, etc., etc., etc), thus radically changing our relationship with the environment on a personal level.

As we've seen with the Trump virus quarantine, just stopping our current human transportation excess for a comparative blink of an eye has had radical, measurable effects on the environment:

Compared with this time last year, levels of pollution in New York have reduced by nearly 50% because of measures to contain the virus.

In China, emissions fell 25% at the start of the year as people were instructed to stay at home, factories shuttered and coal use fell by 40% at China’s six largest power plants since the last quarter of 2019. The proportion of days with “good quality air” was up 11.4% compared with the same time last year in 337 cities across China, according to its Ministry of Ecology and Environment. In Europe, satellite images show nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions fading away over northern Italy. A similar story is playing out in Spain and the UK.

Once we lift the veil, that will all eventually get re-fucked by our forced reliance on gasoline, of course, but that's not the point.

 

[ronburgundy]

Bike lanes are good. Separated, dedicated bike paths and better supporting infrastructure is better. Look at places (mostly in Europe) that have a significant amount of their population that commutes by bike and you can easily see what I mean.

The US is too car centric and self centered to ever go that route though.

Let me address a few of the issues (mostly strawman arguments) by the afore mentioned car-centric USians.

1) Bike lanes cause more traffic/slower traffic. Well, the whole point is get less people to drive and more people to bike. Those drivers need to find alternate routes. So many cities now are so cavalier about saying the same to those of us who commute by bike. Let's see what's easier: going 2-3 miles out of your way when you're biking and have to do all the work, or going 2-3 miles (usually less, since there's so much more car infrastructure) when all you have to do is move your right foot and steer a little? Go ahead, work it out. I'll wait.

2) Some people can't bike due to health issues. Well, if they biked, they might not have those health issues in the first place. Seriously, the people who actually can't legitimately bike is tiny compared to those who are just too fucking lazy to (while fully acknowledging that some jobs and commutes are simply not practical on a bike).

3) Winter/bad weather biking. Get a trike with e-assist and you solve most of those problems with appropriate gear (expensive, but way less so over the long run than a car). For places with bad winter weather, you can go full on velomobile (that's what I did). Based on my experience, by the time it gets bad enough that I can't ride my velo, very few people will be driving either. So it's eminently possible. Also, in some places that actually invest in bicycle infrastructure (like the Netherlands), they use geothermal heating under their bike paths to keep them almost entirely free of snow and ice. So again, it just takes a willingness to invest in the infrastructure.

Driver education is a big part of all of this "infrastructure improvement" as well. The US utterly sucks with regard to maintaining any sort of control over who can or should be allowed to drive.

Europe wasn't coerced into accommodating cycling like cycling dogmatist are attempting in the US. Each country has a biking/auto ratio that emerged organically given it's particular variables and constraints. The vast sparsely US is a major factor in why Americans took the German/French invention and quickly dominated the world in terms of auto ownership/use and thus production. As a result, our cities were designed around the autos that so many people had. In fact US suburbs and all the economic factors that link urban and rural areas are dependent on high levels of auto use. Suburbs with large land plots owned by the middle and upper class who commute either to the city or further out from the city to large bossiness complexes are a largely American thing. And it depends upon auto use. Other than in particular contexts, bike lanes are very limited in their impact on the US bike/auto ratio, b/c the auto prevalence is so interwoven into every aspect of US society and economy, not to mention psyche and culture since it's tied to notions of independence and freedom. European didn't increase cycling by re-engineering their cities away from cars. Their cities existed centuries before cars and thus were designed in ways that are unfriendly to auto traffic. Most US cities were still being developed when the car was becoming popular. So, Europe's cycling/auto ratio has little relevance to what makes sense and what is plausible in the US.

And as for driver education, how about education for the most reckless people on the road, cyclists? In my current major city, most cyclists run stops signs like it's breathing and many run red lights, go the wrong way down narrow one way roads, rarely give hand signals, and often make sudden erratic moves like darting left between oncoming cars. Despite cycling mantras about evil motorists, data show cyclists are at fault half the time during a cycle/auto accidents (which is only 89% of cycling accidents). And that is with many auto drivers avoiding such collisions by anticipating the high probability of reckless cycling behavior. In my city, if a car is already at a 4 way stop and a bike is approaching, most motorists wait to see what the cyclist is going to do, whereas they assume an approaching car is going to stop.

 

[ronburgundy]

I have not managed to find what I was reading about bicycles but here's a partial analysis on walking:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/McKenziewalking.html

Walking emits more unless you're driving a guzzler.

Note that this only considers CO2, the biological route also produces a lot more methane.

Geez Loren, I'm skeptical about what appear to be dogma-driven efforts to increase protected bike lanes in the US, but this is a silly argument for multiple reasons. First, given the obesity of most Americans, most people could cycle more without any increase in calorie intake. In fact, the resulting loss of weight would lead to reduced intake in some people even when they are not cycling. Second, for those who exercise, cycling would take the place of some of their exercise, so it wouldn't increase total exertion or intake needs. Third, if you are going to include the emissions in producing the food, then you have to include all emissions in producing cars and in producing /maintaining the roads, petrol/electricity that cars consume (cars "consume" far more road material and wear and tear than bikes).

My argument is that the benefit/harm ratio of protected bike lanes depends on the level of reduction in the combination of auto miles driven AND congestion (which increases emission independent of miles driven). And the inherent codependence of auto and so much of US infrastructure, population dispersion and other pop dynamics, economics, and personal activities all greatly limit how much reduction in driving and congestion their would be by adding protected bike lanes in most US cities.

 

[Jokodo]

Bike lanes are good. Separated, dedicated bike paths and better supporting infrastructure is better. Look at places (mostly in Europe) that have a significant amount of their population that commutes by bike and you can easily see what I mean.

The US is too car centric and self centered to ever go that route though.

Let me address a few of the issues (mostly strawman arguments) by the afore mentioned car-centric USians.

1) Bike lanes cause more traffic/slower traffic. Well, the whole point is get less people to drive and more people to bike. Those drivers need to find alternate routes. So many cities now are so cavalier about saying the same to those of us who commute by bike. Let's see what's easier: going 2-3 miles out of your way when you're biking and have to do all the work, or going 2-3 miles (usually less, since there's so much more car infrastructure) when all you have to do is move your right foot and steer a little? Go ahead, work it out. I'll wait.

2) Some people can't bike due to health issues. Well, if they biked, they might not have those health issues in the first place. Seriously, the people who actually can't legitimately bike is tiny compared to those who are just too fucking lazy to (while fully acknowledging that some jobs and commutes are simply not practical on a bike).

3) Winter/bad weather biking. Get a trike with e-assist and you solve most of those problems with appropriate gear (expensive, but way less so over the long run than a car). For places with bad winter weather, you can go full on velomobile (that's what I did). Based on my experience, by the time it gets bad enough that I can't ride my velo, very few people will be driving either. So it's eminently possible. Also, in some places that actually invest in bicycle infrastructure (like the Netherlands), they use geothermal heating under their bike paths to keep them almost entirely free of snow and ice. So again, it just takes a willingness to invest in the infrastructure.

Driver education is a big part of all of this "infrastructure improvement" as well. The US utterly sucks with regard to maintaining any sort of control over who can or should be allowed to drive.

Europe wasn't coerced into accommodating cycling like cycling dogmatist are attempting in the US. Each country has a biking/auto ratio that emerged organically given it's particular variables and constraints. The vast sparsely US is a major factor in why Americans took the German/French invention and quickly dominated the world in terms of auto ownership/use and thus production. As a result, our cities were designed around the autos that so many people had. In fact US suburbs and all the economic factors that link urban and rural areas are dependent on high levels of auto use. Suburbs with large land plots owned by the middle and upper class who commute either to the city or further out from the city to large bossiness complexes are a largely American thing. And it depends upon auto use. Other than in particular contexts, bike lanes are very limited in their impact on the US bike/auto ratio, b/c the auto prevalence is so interwoven into every aspect of US society and economy, not to mention psyche and culture since it's tied to notions of independence and freedom. European didn't increase cycling by re-engineering their cities away from cars. Their cities existed centuries before cars and thus were designed in ways that are unfriendly to auto traffic. Most US cities were still being developed when the car was becoming popular. So, Europe's cycling/auto ratio has little relevance to what makes sense and what is plausible in the US.

And as for driver education, how about education for the most reckless people on the road, cyclists? In my current major city, most cyclists run stops signs like it's breathing and many run red lights, go the wrong way down narrow one way roads,

When a lot of motorists pretend not to see cyclists, going the wrong way down a narrow one way road can actually be safer than going the right way. IF there is a collision, of course, the impact will be much harder and more lethal (say 60 km/h relative velocity vs. 30 if the car is going 45 and the bike 15), but since few cyclists have eyes at the back of their head, it gives them a much better chance of avoiding the collision altogether.

rarely give hand signals, and often make sudden erratic moves like darting left between oncoming cars. Despite cycling mantras about evil motorists, data show cyclists are at fault half the time during a cycle/auto accidents (which is only 89% of cycling accidents). And that is with many auto drivers avoiding such collisions by anticipating the high probability of reckless cycling behavior. In my city, if a car is already at a 4 way stop and a bike is approaching, most motorists wait to see what the cyclist is going to do, whereas they assume an approaching car is going to stop.

There's nothing organic about the US car/bike/public transport ratio.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Europe wasn't coerced into accommodating cycling like cycling dogmatist are attempting in the US. Each country has a biking/auto ratio that emerged organically given it's particular variables and constraints. The vast sparsely US is a major factor in why Americans took the German/French invention and quickly dominated the world in terms of auto ownership/use and thus production. As a result, our cities were designed around the autos that so many people had. In fact US suburbs and all the economic factors that link urban and rural areas are dependent on high levels of auto use. Suburbs with large land plots owned by the middle and upper class who commute either to the city or further out from the city to large bossiness complexes are a largely American thing. And it depends upon auto use. Other than in particular contexts, bike lanes are very limited in their impact on the US bike/auto ratio, b/c the auto prevalence is so interwoven into every aspect of US society and economy, not to mention psyche and culture since it's tied to notions of independence and freedom. European didn't increase cycling by re-engineering their cities away from cars. Their cities existed centuries before cars and thus were designed in ways that are unfriendly to auto traffic. Most US cities were still being developed when the car was becoming popular. So, Europe's cycling/auto ratio has little relevance to what makes sense and what is plausible in the US.

And as for driver education, how about education for the most reckless people on the road, cyclists? In my current major city, most cyclists run stops signs like it's breathing and many run red lights, go the wrong way down narrow one way roads, rarely give hand signals, and often make sudden erratic moves like darting left between oncoming cars. Despite cycling mantras about evil motorists, data show cyclists are at fault half the time during a cycle/auto accidents (which is only 89% of cycling accidents). And that is with many auto drivers avoiding such collisions by anticipating the high probability of reckless cycling behavior. In my city, if a car is already at a 4 way stop and a bike is approaching, most motorists wait to see what the cyclist is going to do, whereas they assume an approaching car is going to stop.

I don't think it's the cyclists who are the dogmatists in the US. Just read your posts and you'll see what I mean.

Also, if a bicyclist exhibits dangerous behavior (and I'm not going to deny there are a lot of idiots on bikes, about the same percentage that are driving, but guess what that makes more of?) who will most likely be hurt by the cyclists idiocy? (Hint: it's not the driver that was watching a their cell phone while driving a 4000 lb vehicle at 50 mph.)

You're not part of the solution, you're definitely part of the problem.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Europe wasn't coerced into accommodating cycling like cycling dogmatist are attempting in the US. Each country has a biking/auto ratio that emerged organically given it's particular variables and constraints. The vast sparsely US is a major factor in why Americans took the German/French invention and quickly dominated the world in terms of auto ownership/use and thus production. As a result, our cities were designed around the autos that so many people had. In fact US suburbs and all the economic factors that link urban and rural areas are dependent on high levels of auto use. Suburbs with large land plots owned by the middle and upper class who commute either to the city or further out from the city to large bossiness complexes are a largely American thing. And it depends upon auto use. Other than in particular contexts, bike lanes are very limited in their impact on the US bike/auto ratio, b/c the auto prevalence is so interwoven into every aspect of US society and economy, not to mention psyche and culture since it's tied to notions of independence and freedom. European didn't increase cycling by re-engineering their cities away from cars. Their cities existed centuries before cars and thus were designed in ways that are unfriendly to auto traffic. Most US cities were still being developed when the car was becoming popular. So, Europe's cycling/auto ratio has little relevance to what makes sense and what is plausible in the US.

And as for driver education, how about education for the most reckless people on the road, cyclists? In my current major city, most cyclists run stops signs like it's breathing and many run red lights, go the wrong way down narrow one way roads, rarely give hand signals, and often make sudden erratic moves like darting left between oncoming cars. Despite cycling mantras about evil motorists, data show cyclists are at fault half the time during a cycle/auto accidents (which is only 89% of cycling accidents). And that is with many auto drivers avoiding such collisions by anticipating the high probability of reckless cycling behavior. In my city, if a car is already at a 4 way stop and a bike is approaching, most motorists wait to see what the cyclist is going to do, whereas they assume an approaching car is going to stop.

I don't think it's the cyclists who are the dogmatists in the US. Just read your posts and you'll see what I mean.

Also, if a bicyclist exhibits dangerous behavior (and I'm not going to deny there are a lot of idiots on bikes, about the same percentage that are driving, but guess what that makes more of?) who will most likely be hurt by the cyclists idiocy? (Hint: it's not the driver that was watching a their cell phone while driving a 4000 lb vehicle at 50 mph.)

You're not part of the solution, you're definitely part of the problem.

Bicycling conversations often end up here. I don’t know if it’s concern for the bicyclist’s safety or what. Generally when biking, I’ll slow and attempt to make eye contact with my potential executioner to see if he’s going to let me continue on. Coming to complete stops on a bike sucks. Takes a good bit of energy to get going again. It just not something one wants to do repeatedly if it can be avoided.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Yeah. I put roughly 1.5x as many miles on my bicycles (recumbent bike and velomobile) than I do on my car. I see about the same percentage of stupid behavior from other cyclists as I do from drivers, but that means far more drivers, and they are much more dangerous.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what bikes are allowed, what is 'safer', and similar arguments, plus flat out ignorance, again from both drivers and cyclists, of the actual laws/regulations.

I estimate that I've put close to 200k miles on bicycles over the years (I used to average a bit of 12k miles/year for several years) and the spread of cellphones has been the single worst thing to affect safety in a grossly negative way. But drivers want to keep blaming unprotected cyclists on a 20 lb piece of metal for all their woes.

It cracks me up how much they whine about 'having to slow down' and actually give some consideration to another human being. That slowing down involves what, moving your right foot about 8 inches? Oh noes!! It might even make your drive a whole 20 seconds longer than it might have been otherwise.

Meanwhile, they expect cyclists to miles out of their way and stick to marked roads or MUPs with no thought whatsoever to the extra time and effort that takes.

Amusingly, I regularly do that: riding miles out of my way, when I don't legally have to, to avoid certain roads where the only real way to ride on them is to regularly interfere with traffic. On the flip side, I have no problem whatsoever 'taking the lane' when needed and forcing traffic to slow down for short stretches when there is no other option. Most drivers (around here at least) are actually pretty courteous and don't seem to mind, and I always give them a friendly wave for their consideration. The entitled assholes are always going to be around, but they are luckily pretty few and far between around here.

Some of these are the bicyclists own fault, but if you aren't familiar with the sheer prevalence of road hostility from drivers, have a gander:

https://cycliq.com/videos/?v=7516fd43adaa

 

[Gun Nut]

I am of the opinion that private cars should be banned from manhattan. Only taxi / rideshares, and busses allowed on the streets.
The availability of public (and private -for-hire) transportation in NYC is as dense as imaginable... It's a unique city in that there isn't an inch of Manhattan that is more than a 1 minute walk from the nearest transportation option, apart from the middle of central park.
As for the other 4 boroughs, bike lanes would be nice, but probably very dangerous, as NY'ers are not used to yielding to anything... so there will be many deaths before people learn to drive differently.

 

[ronburgundy]

When a lot of motorists pretend not to see cyclists, going the wrong way down a narrow one way road can actually be safer than going the right way. IF there is a collision, of course, the impact will be much harder and more lethal (say 60 km/h relative velocity vs. 30 if the car is going 45 and the bike 15), but since few cyclists have eyes at the back of their head, it gives them a much better chance of avoiding the collision altogether.

Not only will the collision impact be harder, but the time for the driver to react is cut in half, b/c the approach velocity is double. Plus, it means another cyclist going the correct way creates a situation where there is not sufficient room for the 3 vehicles on the road. Plus, a driver pulling out of a side street, or the curb, or just opening their door is not going to see that cyclist b/c they look in the only direction that vehicles should be coming (and often must keep focus on that direction b/c parked cars create a blind spot).
Also, how is running stop signs and red lights safer?, the former which is done constantly by the vast majority of city cyclists.

rarely give hand signals, and often make sudden erratic moves like darting left between oncoming cars. Despite cycling mantras about evil motorists, data show cyclists are at fault half the time during a cycle/auto accidents (which is only 89% of cycling accidents). And that is with many auto drivers avoiding such collisions by anticipating the high probability of reckless cycling behavior. In my city, if a car is already at a 4 way stop and a bike is approaching, most motorists wait to see what the cyclist is going to do, whereas they assume an approaching car is going to stop.

There's nothing organic about the US car/bike/public transport ratio.

"Organic" in this sense merely means its a byproduct of much larger, historical, geographic factors rather than a direct political agenda explicitly about bikes vs. autos.
It's heavily a byproduct car ownership rates, which is a byproduct of the vast open lands in the US, and that US cities were developed after the automobile, while European cities where well established even before the bicycle, which is why they are so pedestrian friendly. Also, the high cultural value placed on land ownership in the US led to the middle and upper classes preferring to live in the suburbs rather than in the heart of the beautiful ancient cities like in Europe. A byproduct is that in the US those who can most afford cars also had the highest need for one, leading to higher ownership rates.

 

[Elixir]

First, given the obesity of most Americans, most people could cycle more without any increase in calorie intake. In fact, the resulting loss of weight would lead to reduced intake in some people even when they are not cycling.

It would also keep them from burning gasoline going to the doctor for obesity-related ailments or to the pharmacy for diabetic supplies etc....

Second, for those who exercise, cycling would take the place of some of their exercise, so it wouldn't increase total exertion or intake needs.

... and it would save even more gas not having to drive to the gym.

Third, if you are going to include the emissions in producing the food, then you have to include all emissions in producing cars and in producing /maintaining the roads, petrol/electricity that cars consume (cars "consume" far more road material and wear and tear than bikes).

And what about all that food consumed by people on the production lines, the steel workers - ok, forget that, since most cars are plastic these days. We'll think about the oilfield workers' food instead, and all the auto mfrs' subcontractors' employees' food and, and, and ...

Yes, my point is that you can't count every bit of energy indirectly involved in enabling cycling without doing the same for vehicular transport, and consider it a fair comparison.

 

[Jokodo]

Not only will the collision impact be harder, but the time for the driver to react is cut in half, b/c the approach velocity is double.

I've had way too many drivers overtake me with less than half a metre sideways distance, often enough right in front of a red light where I'd catch up with them anyway and skip the line while they're standing (so their recklessness didn't gain them a single second, and they knew it), to trust in drivers reacting to my existence appropriately, or in any way at all. I'm better off when I see whether they've even noticed me, when I'm the one reacting, in the worst case by dropping the bike and jumping between two parked cars.

To clarify, I don't regularly go thre wrong way down I've way roads, I just wanted to point out it's a very poor example of unsafe behaviour.

Plus, it means another cyclist going the correct way creates a situation where there is not sufficient room for the 3 vehicles on the road. Plus, a driver pulling out of a side street, or the curb, or just opening their door is not going to see that cyclist b/c they look in the only direction that vehicles should be coming (and often must keep focus on that direction b/c parked cars create a blind spot).
Also, how is running stop signs and red lights safer?, the former which is done constantly by the vast majority of city cyclists.

There's nothing organic about the US car/bike/public transport ratio.

"Organic" in this sense merely means its a byproduct of much larger, historical, geographic factors rather than a direct political agenda explicitly about bikes vs. autos.
It's heavily a byproduct car ownership rates, which is a byproduct of the vast open lands in the US, and that US cities were developed after the automobile, while European cities where well established even before the bicycle, which is why they are so pedestrian friendly. Also, the high cultural value placed on land ownership in the US led to the middle and upper classes preferring to live in the suburbs rather than in the heart of the beautiful ancient cities like in Europe. A byproduct is that in the US those who can most afford cars also had the highest need for one, leading to higher ownership rates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have not managed to find what I was reading about bicycles but here's a partial analysis on walking:

https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2013/McKenziewalking.html

Walking emits more unless you're driving a guzzler.

Note that this only considers CO2, the biological route also produces a lot more methane.

Geez Loren, I'm skeptical about what appear to be dogma-driven efforts to increase protected bike lanes in the US, but this is a silly argument for multiple reasons. First, given the obesity of most Americans, most people could cycle more without any increase in calorie intake. In fact, the resulting loss of weight would lead to reduced intake in some people even when they are not cycling. Second, for those who exercise, cycling would take the place of some of their exercise, so it wouldn't increase total exertion or intake needs. Third, if you are going to include the emissions in producing the food, then you have to include all emissions in producing cars and in producing /maintaining the roads, petrol/electricity that cars consume (cars "consume" far more road material and wear and tear than bikes).

My argument is that the benefit/harm ratio of protected bike lanes depends on the level of reduction in the combination of auto miles driven AND congestion (which increases emission independent of miles driven). And the inherent codependence of auto and so much of US infrastructure, population dispersion and other pop dynamics, economics, and personal activities all greatly limit how much reduction in driving and congestion their would be by adding protected bike lanes in most US cities.

I am not opposed to bike lanes in situations where they will see enough use--for example, the one I routinely used back at the university. The half-main street had bike lanes all the way to campus, you could make use of them without ever having to bike in an unsafe situation, and a lot of the people in that area were going to campus. They saw heavy use.

Compare that to the bike lanes closest to our house. They're in a big masterplanned community and extend it's width, but when the traffic lanes widen out for turn lanes at the edge they go away. Seeing a bike in them is exceedingly rare. There is no business you can reach with them without having to go at least a short distance in 45 mph traffic, and it's only one corner worth of stores without going a long ways in high speed traffic.

I approve of the former, I disapprove of the latter.