This is a really interesting read for me, as I'm considering the purchase of a cargo bike. Apparently, I fit the stereotype pretty well -- highly-educated urban coffee-drinker (no yoga, no vegetarianism, though). The cargo bike would solve the problem of hauling hardware-store purchases home with kid and sans car. But they're expensive! 1.5 or 2 thousand dollars! So for now we're making do with the bus and the stroller we found with a "free" sign on the side of the road.
It is important to be thoughtful about the roles various types of transportation play for people of different socioeconomic groups in the US. I take the bus and train often in my town, and it's generally a very mixed population. The train/light-rail is becoming a de facto homeless shelter at night, though. At the same time light rail gets criticized for being for the upper class, rather than efficiently serving the poor, because it goes between downtowns/to the airport/to the suburbs/to the sports complexes. Biking, as well, has huge class and race divides. In the US the weekend spandex-wearer is a huge set of the bicycling public. Everyday commuters are a segment too, and then family weekend bikers, and then people who've lost their drivers' licenses due to DUI/DWI or other entanglement with the criminal justice system. How these communities interact and how they use our infrastructure differently is worth considering when planning new investments or thinking about how to encourage bicycling. The weekend warrior wants a nice scenic 45-mile continuous route; I want a seamless path across the city that doesn't involve battling any cars at highway speeds to get into the left-turn lane; neither of us wants to run over a 5-year-old getting the hang of the bike.
If you haven't considered it already, a bike trailer is likely to be a cheaper alternative to a cargo bike. I've had a bike trailer for years. Mine is a Croozer 2. I transported my kids to nursery in it, and did supermarket runs etc. The tradeoff is it is an extra thing you have to worry about. It's much less convenient to park / lock-up than just the bike on its own. Regardless, I'm looking forward to getting it out when we more to a more bike-friendly place in a month.
I have a trailer for grocery store runs. I feel like a total hipster, probably because I am.
But I have so much shit to do and so little time to exercise I have to multitask and game myself into doing things. A good grocery store recently opened up near me and I committed to riding my bike there whenever possible.
It literally takes 5-10m more but in return I get 20-30m of good exercise. Seems like a good trade.
This. I have made it a rule to always use the bike when going around town. With kids and family, this is pretty much all the exercise I get, but it's enough that I haven't gained any weight from 8 years of free food at the office.
FWIW, a good pannier bag will fit a day or two's groceries just fine. I have both a trailer and a pannier, but the pannier is less hassle for small trips.
I have a huge pannier that fit a pair of large groceries bags. I fitted two large holes on the front side for a strap that goes around the saddle pin.
On Saturdays we strap it on our bike, ride to the farmers market and fill the bags up with grossiers for all week for a 3 persons household no problem. Probably some 30kg it can carry with ease. Back at home we take the panniers off so the bike fits in the typical Amsterdam bike shed and fits in the 2 stories bike-racks the train station for daily commutes.
So much more convenient than a Cargo bike that can not be properly stored in 90% of the Amsterdam bike sheds and therefor will need to stay outside all year and take precious sidewalk. At the farmers market it would be quite difficult to find a proper location to park it too. And at train stations even more difficult to find a place to park it.
Taking 30kg on our back in a backpack is not an option for us. Neither is walking through the narrow alleys of a farmers market with a huge backpack.
In the busy pedestrians & bike traffic of Saturday Amsterdam, mounting a canal bridge with an additional 30kg can be quite a feat but not more difficult than a with Cargo bike.
IMHO a large and dismountable pannier is a economic and more convenient alternative for a Cargo bike that can replace it for almost everything except transporting a couple of kids. It's time this means of groceries transport is revived.
I absolutely love the Argo but would caution to make sure your bike plays nicely with it before committing to purchase. Argo claims it should work with Aluminum bikes but I would be very wary of that combination, most AL bikes are near the edge of their engineering parameters and the Argo loads the frame in ways that I'm not 100% comfortable with. If I were to use one - almost bought it but then settled on a 2nd hand Christiania - I'd use it on a steel bike, not an aluminum one. (The bike it was supposed to go on was an aluminum one and that is why we ended up abandoning the Argo.)
I have a trailer for my windsurf. It's a great way to get around and it doesn't affect my bikes handling. I have an electric bike so I don't notice the weight either.
My windsurf is more than three meters long so I am worried about the tail end swinging out when I turn. A rear view mirror would make me more comfortable. The trailer is low so I'm also worried about a car passing behind me driving into it.
Consider putting a flagpole with brightly colored flag on the back of your trailer. I often see these on child trailers and sometimes recumbent bikes - it helps immensely with visibility by putting something in the sight line of drivers.
> The trailer is low so I'm also worried about a car passing behind me driving into it.
I wonder if this concern is really valid. I have a Burley Bee trailer and I've tested out approaching my bike with the trailer attached from behind both in my minivan and sedan vehicles and had no problem seeing the trailer. I've also noticed that vehicles tend to give me more space and are more conservative when passing when I'm riding with the trailer attached, so I don't think they have a problem seeing it. I don't bother using a flag though.
I picked up a portage bag, which is a heavy duty waterproof backpack big enough to hold a dead body, but I use it mostly for groceries and other big hauls on a bike. It's basically just a big bucket you wear on your back. I suppose it's less comfortable than a trailer, but it doesn't require setup time, stores away nicely, and can hold 2 week's worth of groceries for 2.
I'm a hipster who rides a stripped down fixie, I don't want to bolt a bunch of crap onto my bike. Minimalism is my thing.
Really what prompted me to get it was this big sketchbook I have that I wanted to be able to ride around with, and there was no regular bag of any sort capable of holding it except the portage bag.
I've done lots of backcountry hiking so I'm not afraid of carrying a big heavy bag on my back for a few miles.
In general, you shouldn't be putting weight on your perineum (taint) when in the saddle. You should be putting weight on your ischial tuberosities (sit bones) instead. The former can result in blood circulation problems, and possible damage to the nerves and urethra.
They're just giant bags with straps: no frame, no padding. They might be hard to find online but you should be able to find one in pretty much any outdoor shop. Maybe look for a 120L duffel with straps. Love 'em.
A bike trailer has the dangerous property of not being in your peripheral vision. I personally would never transport kids in a bike trailer; I have seen my sister (her daughters) get into hurtful situations and potentially dangerous situations. Whenever you can spend more for a front-load cargobike, I would highly advise to do so.
I'm a long term cyclist, run a cycling business, ride tons of bikes. I can definitely say the bike with a trailer is easier to ride, and is safer by far. Full harness, roll cage, head whiplash protection etc. Just putting this comment out there so other people reading see another perspective and don't dismiss trailers as unsafe. They are great!
This bike trailer of my sister was with all that. My 3 year old niece managed to rip apart a cover and stuck her hands outside. The bike rode near some poles, causing potential hurt. My 4 year old nephew in the same trailer was close in "trying out what happened if I stick my finger there" (the wheel). I had to make a yell to impress him enough to stop. Luckily, I was cycling behind.
Likewise, if your kid gets acute illness (throwing up, dizzy, etc), you're not going to notice it right away.
I would go as far as outright banning these things for transport of living beings, with hefty fines for it. Please stop selling these things for living being transport, you will make the world a better place and have better margins on cargobikes.
I ride with a Burley Bee trailer with my 2 and 5 year old inside to and fron their daycare (3 miles each way). After probably 700 miles of riding with them, I haven't had the problems like you describe. Also, with the handlebar rearview mirror, I have no problem checking up on them while riding.
If you're never going to haul kids, just get a utility trailer. They're much cheaper, probably because they don't have to be designed to protect humans.
yes, they are expensive, but once you have a cargo bike you can carry home a tig welder, alu pipes and all the other stuff to build a cargo bike :D
No seriously, they are expensive but if you look at craigslist and similar, they keep their value if you take care of your bike. and regarding road safety, ride in the right tire-mark left by the cars. you'll be safe from dooring and cars have to slow down and change lanes to overtake you instead of squeezing through.
It's actually better to ride slightly to the left of center (between the center and left tire track). Some cars, will try to squeeze themselves between you and oncoming traffic when you ride in the right tire track. Riding further to the left will make it clear to those behind you that they must change lanes to pass you.
On a motorcycle lane position is very situational... however very very rarely if you are in motion is being in the middle of the lane a good idea. Generally speaking you should only be in the middle of the lane when you are fully stopped at a stop sign or light to keep cars from trying to squeeze by you.
On a normal two lane road (one each direction) you want to stay in the left hand side of the lane. This is so people over taking a car behind you spot you and don't force themselves in putting you in a dangerous spot.
On a four lane road (two lanes each way) you would hold the same position as previously mentioned if you were in the right lane however if you are in the left lane you would want to stay to the right side of that lane... this way again someone merging in from the right lane would see you.
> [riding in the middle of the lane] is often very illegal to do on a bicycle.
Where are you from? In the few major US cities I've lived, this is legal. The road laws here typically treat bicycles the same as other cars (with exceptions).
IME, in urban, US east-coast cities, if you are toward one side of the lane, cars will try and pass you (even on the right... and yes that pushes the cyclist into oncoming traffic). It's a common opinion that you should take the whole lane, and let faster vehicles pass you as they would a slower car.
I would suggest actually looking into the traffic law - MOST - places explicitly state that bicycles should (with very few very specific exceptions) remain to the right side of the lane.
The Cyclist community disagree's with this in most places I've seen it mentioned but that doesn't change what the laws are. I'm not arguing safety I'm simply stating what is written. Obviously this varies from area to area but again suggest looking up what it actually states rather than your impression of it.
As far as cars passing you - if you are to the right side of the lane as most traffic laws require then cars should be able to easily pass you on the left without incident.
In my opinion a cyclist should not be purposely using an entire lane and backing up traffic for faster moving vehicles (forcing them to pass as they would a slower car which can cause issues during high traffic periods) when simply moving to the right is all that is required. Using the entire lane as a matter of principle increases your danger by provoking aggressive driving / road rage.
As someone who has read the law in multiple states, your reading of the law seems to be selective.
You state that there are "very few very specific exceptions", when in California I count 7 exceptions that cover a lot:
1. When the cyclist is going at or near the speed limit.
2. When the cyclist is overtaking or passing.
3. When the cyclist is preparing for a left turn.
4. When the cyclist deems it necessary for safety.
5. When the cyclist is preparing for a right turn.
6. When the cyclist is on a one way road with two or more lanes.
7. When signs and road markings say so.
My own experience as a cyclist suggests that these exceptions apply over 95% of the time, if not over 99%. It seems misleading to me to say there are "very few very specific exceptions" given this.
This is particularly true for the safety exception. Most lanes are simply too narrow to move to the far right as you suggest. That's doubly true if there's parking on the side, as the cyclist wants to avoid the door zone. Add on top of all this all the debris that accumulates to the far right. Etc.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 = all rare (or only valid for brief moments in time).
You seem to be lumping #4 in for all cases which is a subjective view and I would argue isn't at all close to 95 or 99% of the time.
Thus I maintain that "very few very specific exceptions" applies and is not selective reading. I'd further suggest that you're pushing an agenda instead of being pragmatic and honest. It's fine if you don't like the laws as written, it's fine if you think things should be different in terms of how cyclists are treated on the road, however instead of trying to play loop hole games just get the laws changed.
On what basis do you say these are rare? My experience as a cyclist differs strongly with your statements.
Many drivers don't seem to realize that cyclists take very different paths than drivers do. You might be thinking "where I drive, these exceptions usually don't apply" but you should instead be thinking about where cyclists ride. Yes, these paths do intersect, but a cyclist will typically pick lower stress paths.
Let's take my commute as an example, starting at my home:
1. Bike lane until I have to make a left turn. I take the travel lane to make the turn. Note that as far as I'm aware, using the left turn lane (i.e., taking the lane) is required by law, not merely allowed for cyclists. This is because turning left from the far right is obviously dangerous. Do you think left turns are rare? I don't.
2. Short road segment leading to a stop light. I take the lane here because the speed is low.
3. Right turn onto a road with signs and road markings saying that cyclists can take the lane. Despite the signs, I get harassed by road raging drivers here much more frequently than I'd like. (The reason for the signs seems to be a reminder of the previous #4 to drivers. The single lane is perhaps 9 feet wide and there are parked cars on the right. Definitely unsafe to ride far to the right. I've been nearly doored riding in the center of the lane here. But all of this is irrelevant, as I don't need to invoke #4 to ride in the lane center here.)
4. Three stop lights in a row. Again, I take the lane because I'm no slower than anyone else.
5. 15 mph speed limit for about 3/4 of a mile until the destination. I take the lane because I'm usually going faster than that. This path includes both left and right turns.
Often during my commute I'll pass other cyclists who are going slower than I am. It's not uncommon for me to pass motor vehicles too, especially in the 15 mph part.
So my commute includes all of these aside from 4, 5, and 6. I can't be "lumping #4 in for all cases" here.
I don't take the lane for my entire commute. But for the 2/3 of my commute that doesn't have bike lanes, it's easy to legally justify taking the regular travel lane.
And to be clear, here's my agenda: Cycling safely on the road. The main obstacle I see is dangerous drivers, and sometimes the solution is to take the lane. If you don't like that, encourage your fellow drivers to treat cyclists nicer.
This will be my last reply because this isn't a good faith discussion.
You're individual situation is not what I have experienced in a major city. The majority of cyclists are moving much slower than the flow of traffic, rarely over take each other (or other cars), use cycle lanes where available and stay over to the right when they can.
You may be an exception to that - and if so fantastic ... again I'm not saying not to take the lane, stop treating me like an adversary. Again if you're advocating for better safety and better relations between drivers and cyclists that's fantastic -- do it by getting the laws changed. Stop the "easy to legally justify" when you know that what you are doing most of time is pissing people off (rightly or wrongly). Get the laws changed, get them enforced and then culture changes to follow.
> This will be my last reply because this isn't a good faith discussion.
I don't appreciate the accusation. I should remind you of the HN guidelines.
> Get the laws changed, get them enforced and then culture changes to follow.
The laws should change to be even more friendly to cyclists, but strictly speaking, the laws don't need to be changed. You seem to take a pessimistic interpretation of the law, in contrast to case law which tends to side with cyclists based on what I've read. Case law is law, period. Look up Trotwood v. Selz for one famous case. Here's another case where a cyclist was ticketed for riding in the center of a 13.5 ft lane, but beat the ticket:
As the laws in most states are based on the Uniform Vehicle Code, case law in one state is frequently cited in others states.
Unambiguous laws like those in Texas are obviously preferred, but again, are not necessary. And given that people tend not to believe me when I tell them that Texas allows cyclists to ride in any lane less than 14 feet wide, I'm not certain making the law less ambiguous really would help much. It comes down to changing attitudes, which is one thing I'm trying to do here. You believe I don't have the right to take the lane, and I'm trying to show you that the law says I do.
> In my opinion a cyclist should not be purposely using an entire lane and backing up traffic for faster moving vehicles
What is your opinion about drivers of cars lane-splitting when passing cyclists (when, in almost all states, it's illegal for motorcycles to lane-split when passing cars)?
Most states, in the USA, base their vehicle laws on the uniform vehicle code (UVC). Though they state that those riding bicycles at less than the normal speed of traffic must ride as far right as practicable, they will list a number of exceptions for that requirement. One of those exceptions is if the lane is of substandard width which is defined as a lane that is too narrow for a car and cyclist to travel safely side by side [1]
Since a cyclist is about 2.5 feet wide[3] and many states have a 3 feet distance passing lane, the cyclist, even if they're riding further to the right will still need 2 feet to their right, their width, and 3 feet to their left. That adds up to 7 to 7.5 feet. Given that most surface street lanes are 10 feet wide[2] and passenger vehicle are about 6 feet wide[3], then it's not possible for a car and cyclist to safely travel side by side within the lane.
So the lane positioning you describe when driving a motorcycle also applies to bicycles.
Where? In CA a cyclist has as much right to the road as a car. A mistake I often see cyclists make is to allow themselves to be stuck in a very narrow space between the center of the lane and the edge of the road/curb/parked cars.
When the road is too narrow, and there isn’t a safe place for a car to pass you, it’s important to consume the space in a way that makes it obvious to cars that they should not attempt to pass you.
Yes, there are some a-holes this pisses off because they had to slow down and lose 30 seconds of their day, but it’s far safer, and worth being honked at.
"When there isn’t a bicycle lane, try to stay near the right curb. Unless you are moving faster than vehicle traffic, passing another bicycle, or making a left turn, you should typically stay close to the curb or road’s edge."
"The law says that people who ride bikes must ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable except under the following conditions: when passing, preparing for a left turn, avoiding hazards, if the lane is too narrow to share, or if approaching a place where a right turn is authorized."
"If the lane is too narrow to share" can legally be invoked in most cases from what I understand, because most lanes cyclists ride in are narrow enough.
> Bikes can share the same lane with other drivers. If a lane is wide enough to share with another vehicle (about 14 feet), ride three feet to the right of traffic. If the lane is not wide enough to share, “take the lane” by riding in the middle.
In Texas, 14 feet is explicitly written into the law. As a cyclist I frequently point this out to aggressive drivers. From what I understand there's often case law establishing this in states without an explicit law, but as I said, I live in Texas, so I'm not entirely familiar with other states' laws.
> (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
> [...]
> (4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
> (A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
Also, in the US, my understanding is that cyclists can ride whereever they want if they are at or near the speed limit. Still doesn't stop some drivers from almost killing me because they think 20 mph in a 15 mph zone is too slow.
> 21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
> [...]
> (3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
Seems similar to Texas aside from Texas having a more clear definition of when a lane can be shared. To me, it's obvious that a typical 10-11 foot lane can not be safely shared, particularly with 3 foot passing laws in place. I believe that was the motivation behind the 14 foot figure, which came from a court case as I recall. Go measure the width of the lanes you typically drive on and do the math. Also consider parking on the right side of the road (door zone). Knowledgeable cyclists keep a certain distance from doors because few drivers look before opening their doors.
While this appears to be the law, it seems to be unsafe. I bike in Oakland/East Bay and I've never heard of anyone getting cited for riding further over in the lane. I do this basically every day and I'd still suggest it. The only times I've heard of bikes getting in trouble is running red lights which is obviously dangerous and you shouldn't do.
I don't like to suggest going against the laws but if you ride near the curb or parked cars you are going to get doored and people will pass way too close. If you move over a bit they may get annoyed but you'll be safer.
Almost all states have this standard; some states have exceptions for safety or other cases (obvious one being making a left turn). There's a thorough rundown here: http://bicycledriving.org/law/guide-to-improving-laws although it may be out of date.
> "people who ride bikes must ride as close to the right side of the road as practicable except under the following conditions: ... avoiding hazards, if the lane is too narrow to share, ..."
IME in urban cycling on US east-coast cities, if you're on a two-lane road with parking (one each direction), "as close to the right side of the road as practicable" means the center of the lane.
If you stray to the right, you're putting yourself in danger of car doors being opened, or pedestrians deciding to step into the street without looking (it happens a TON more than you'd think)
I have somehow avoided this problem! I got rid of my car almost 15 years ago, and have been on bikes 100% of the time since then. I've had 0 bikes stolen. 9 countries ridden in, so far!
The threat of getting hit by a car is the biggest hurtle of mass adoption of cycling in the US, in my opinion. I don't quite want to open up a discussion on what's going to bring about a sea-change, but having traveled to other countries where cycling is normalized into regular culture (France, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands), I have hopes that it can happen - at least in pockets, in the US. Living in Boulder, I feel I am in such a pocket, but I've still had some pretty close encounters, despite the fairly OK-ish cycling infrastructure, culture, and education.
The city of Berlin currently has an initiative where they refund 33% of the purchase price for cargo bikes, but not more than 500€ for an unmotorised bike or 1000€ for an electric one.
However the number of possible applications for this year has already been exhausted within the first couple of days of the program.
This seems unlikely right now. Most major manufacturers of bicycles are in Taiwan and China (all brands around the world use them), but this is for bicycles built for a single person. Most of the frames are carbon fiber, a mold is built for various sizes and is used 1000's of times. For some reason cargo bikes are a different story and welded together from steel or aluminum (there might be a few carbon fiber ones, but I assume cost of r&d/manufacturing to be prohibitive to be competitive with metal for small lots). Alibaba has lots of generic bicycle frames but no cargo bikes.
At least in the US, the cargo bike market is still tiny. There are very few used cargo bikes to be had and the likely purchaser of one is the type who will ride it for decades until it finally costs more to repair than it was ever worth in the first place.
The main reason cargo bikes are up for sale where I live is either because the kids get too big and have their own bikes or because the cargo bike ends up not being used after a spell of 'green thinking' and then people end up in bad weather or have a near miss with a car. (A near hit, according to Carlin.)
The one I ended up buying needed some tightening up of the main support bearing for the box (the weak point in any cargo bike with three wheels), adjustment of the brakes and shifter cable and it needed new lights. Since then it's seen a year of heavy service and it still rolls along just fine (took it for a 30km spin just today with a lot of gear and two kids in it).
As a Dutch man owning a cargo bike I have no idea how they came to this conclusion.
There are some stange parts of this study. For example: because the website Geenstijl is linking cargo bike owners to the party Groen Links it is suddenly true what Geendtijl says?
It's like saying that electric cars are bad because Top Gear said so.
A cargo bike is just a way to move stuff and kids around in a city. People with low income buy used ones, people with high income buy new ones.
It has nothing to do with status. It's just very convenient.
Does anyone know why dads riding these are called "soft"? I've never ridden a cargo bike, but it takes strong legs & constitution to regularly tow a kid or utility trailer more than a few miles.
Is it just that whole notion that fathers who are involved with their children are not masculine?
It may have to do with not using a car instead. Even here in the Netherlands, a car can be a status symbol in certain circles — particularly among the yuppie office crowd.
There is also the fact that this is a certain subclass of cargo bikes with a bench in the 'cargo hold' that tends to be specifically designed to hold two young children. These bikes are marketed at yuppies (in both price and design); people who can't afford one of these, or who are more pragmatic about it tend to settle for attachable seats (mounted behind the handlebars or behind the saddle on the ubiquitous rear luggage rack above the rear wheel) on a normal bicycle, so riding a special cargo bike just for the few years that the kids can't ride their own bicycle may come across as overly luxurious and soft.
As any hands-on father will tell you, the idea that being actively involved in child care makes you "soft" is quite asinine. It takes a massive amount of physical and mental strength to be fully involved in raising these miniature terrorists we call children.
> but it takes strong legs & constitution to regularly tow a kid or utility trailer more than a few miles.
If you're not going uphill, it's not that much harder than riding without the trailer. But the key is to downshift and maintain a higher pedaling cadence when going up grades or into a headwind rather than relying on mashing down on the pedals.
>Is it just that whole notion that fathers who are involved with their children are not masculine?
I have never heard that. I have heard lots of women gussing over men playing with kids though.
I can maybe think these dads would be called "soft", because they are in a slow, not so powerful bike, whereas others are in strong, big fast cars, but even that is pretty stupid.
I'm an avid cyclist. Every style of bike is accompanied by stereotypes about the rider. Most of the stereotypes are harmless. For instance, one of my bikes is "hipster." To some extent, bike styles are also marketed according to demographics -- like most other consumer products -- so the stereotypes are not unexpected.
> Is it just that whole notion that fathers who are involved with their children are not masculine?
That would seem to be it, based on the rest of the sentence:
>> cargo-bike mothers are described as career-focussed mothers who are assertive and self-confident, while cargo-bike dads are portrayed as ‘soft’ and emancipated fathers
I don't get it really. I live in hilly Piedmont, CA and I'm amazed at the few cargo bikes hauling kids around, either with mom or dad at the pedals. I see a few with motor assist with sounds like a great idea. Some evening it feels like I can barely get myself up the hill biking home from work.
I bike around SF with my kids in a Cargo bike all the time. The bike is freeing in the city, and the kids love it.
As they’ve gotten bigger and older, I had to put a motor on it for the hills. I hate that bikes are controversial in the City, as they are such a great way of increasing mobility around town. eBikes, are also amazing for this aspect of mobility.
With all the new scooters and rental bikes though, it’s stressing our already limited bike lane capacity, pointing toward what’s been set aside as far too shortsighted.
> As they’ve gotten bigger and older, I had to put a motor on it for the hills.
How steep are the ones you have to deal with? I take mine up a short 6% grade in my second to lowest gear without too much difficulty, but I imagine that if the hill was much steeper, I wouldn't be able to make it up without getting a granny gear on my bike's cassette.
it wasn’t really a capability, so much as a speed thing. I didn’t like being so slow compared to the cars when going up hills. With a bionix I we can cruise up minor grades at a much better clip.
Just give it a few years, the rental bikes and scooters will disappear. OBike has gone bankrupt and many more are to follow. Which is a bit sad of course because the whole thing is such a waste of precious resources for shitty bikes.
Rental bikes exist in London and NY for many years now. I'm not sure if the city pays for them or not.
Scooters are also amazingly convenient - see the many articles about them where the author started unconvinced (and don't tell me all of them are submarine). They will survive in one form or another, maybe with subvention by the city.
Here in London the docked bike scheme - currently called Santander Cycles, over their main sponsor - have been going since 2010. Last year 17% of its operating costs came from public funding, but most came from sales and sponsorship.
The bikes compared to Mobike (the only dockless scheme I’ve tried) are a lot more comfortable and easier to ride. The only issue of course is finding somewhere to park it, which at peak times can be difficult.
I have been commuting with my son on a cargo bike to school and to work for the past year. It has a canopy/fairing on the front that keeps him dry and warm in the winter rain so that we can commute year round. We are up to about ~3500 miles.
The major problem with biking in the US, is cyclists are not first class citizens. Having lived in The Netherlands for two years and Portland Oregon (which has a fairly progressive bike culture) for sixteen years, there is no comparison.
There is no political or financial willpower to make the kinds of changes that would make cycling more pervasive and safe for both drivers and cyclists in the US.
It's simply gethering some news articles and saying that the stereotype of cargo bike owners is of liberal upper-middle-class families of a certain stripe, and implying that they are also possibly riding them to signal virtue and status as much as for practical purposes.
ie dressing up a commonly held stereotype in the garb of an academic paper.
Let's say following: all the urban infrastructure is car-centric, period. Even in most developed European cities the car drivers are privileged. Why should we bike riders use side lanes/walks and not main lanes for example? On rare sundays when vehicles traffic is nearly absent in my town, we do really enjoy cycling the main roads - it is much faster to get to any place even if my town is relatively good place for bicyclists - there are many separate cycling-only roads and bridges.
This journal is mainly "based" in the UK (look at the editorial board) and I think they include French & Spanish abstracts as a sort of historical courtesy to colleagues. Then the French & Spanish readers can figure out if it's worth the effort to read/translate the English. Many journals used to publish in several languages (or say they'll publish in English and French) and so require abstracts in all "supported" languages, but the language of international scholarship is increasingly English.
I'm guessing it's an EU thing to make the article easily discoverable for 3 main EU languages (how the English language thing will work after Brexit, no idea. EU may still have English as an official language for cross border communication).
Many academic people speak English well enough to read the article. I'm guessing from my own struggles while Googling stuff in a different language, that is a different art.
True. The strange thing is the site overall has other journal articles with the same English, French, Spanish abstract set up. May be a convention for that site.
I'm guessing that the article itself isn't translated into those other languages due to cost. The site provides paid translation services.
The publishing company hosting the article is headquartered in London. I wondered if the location might have something to do with the languages found in the abstract. The languages are an odd selection. If they were going for penetration, why no Chinese or Hindi? I tried to find guidance on their website if the presented languages were mandatory but could not. Other journal articles had the same 3 languages in the abstract so it appeared to be a convention for that site. I did find translation services, for a cost which explains why the article was not translated into those languages.
Edit: PS had an incredibly slow Sunday obviously :)
I don't. So long as they have helmets in States with helmet laws, the risk isn't any greater than having them on one of those kid sets behind you or in one of the single wheel things you can attach to your bike.
We've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait and ignoring our requests to stop.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended in the future.
It is important to be thoughtful about the roles various types of transportation play for people of different socioeconomic groups in the US. I take the bus and train often in my town, and it's generally a very mixed population. The train/light-rail is becoming a de facto homeless shelter at night, though. At the same time light rail gets criticized for being for the upper class, rather than efficiently serving the poor, because it goes between downtowns/to the airport/to the suburbs/to the sports complexes. Biking, as well, has huge class and race divides. In the US the weekend spandex-wearer is a huge set of the bicycling public. Everyday commuters are a segment too, and then family weekend bikers, and then people who've lost their drivers' licenses due to DUI/DWI or other entanglement with the criminal justice system. How these communities interact and how they use our infrastructure differently is worth considering when planning new investments or thinking about how to encourage bicycling. The weekend warrior wants a nice scenic 45-mile continuous route; I want a seamless path across the city that doesn't involve battling any cars at highway speeds to get into the left-turn lane; neither of us wants to run over a 5-year-old getting the hang of the bike.