The average commuter won't carry huge luggage around. But they might spend the time reading or working out they are sitting in a train/metro compartment. And they exercise when using the bicycle, meaning they will be healthier and have reduced health issues and cost. Bicycles are also much less costly and environmentally friendly, don't pollute, are less likely to have accidents (except with cars), ... But infrastructure is much cheaper and easier to maintain then that for cars. Cars on the other hand block the roads not just for each other, but also for public transport, trucks, emergency vehicles, ... They produce co2 and microparticles, take up valuable space when parked, etc. Overall cars have huge externalities.
So no, cars are not the best means of transport just because you can carry lots of stuff which you usually don't carry...
Have you ever lived outside San Francisco or Portland? Here in DC, during the summer (which lasts six months out of the year), the heat and humidity will have people sweating with even mild exertion. So to the speed of walking or biking, you have to also account for the time to take a shower at either end.
The CO2 and microparticles are definitely a problem. One which can be addressed by banning non-electric cars downtown.
It’s very hard to find definite stats on this, but the ratio tires:brakes seems to be somewhere between 2:1 to 3:1. So the overwhelming majority still remains. The other problem that remains is that microparticles that have settled will be pulled in the air again by passing cars.
Hopefully we'll see some more research on this as time goes on. I strongly suspect that there is a tradeoff between traction and microparticle production. Very grippy racing tires tend not to last long.
If you could have some sort of traction assist device like a rubber block on a piston that hit the ground for emergency braking, you could get away with lower traction on the wheels normally, and modern electronic controls could make the whole thing stable and relatively transparent to the driver.
First we'll have to overcome the slow motion catastrophe that is gasoline direct injection.
> you have to also account for the time to take a shower at either end
No need to shower: I just change _all_ of my clothes when I arrive... Cycling clothes on me, business clothes and dress shoes in a semi-rigid pouch in my panniers. Takes five minutes at each end and the total time is still half of what car or public transportation would take !
I guess that depends on how much if a sweat you work up. Personally, if I work up enough whereby I need to change my clothes at he end I am going to feel disgusting if I don't also shower.
I use my commutes as a way to get some hill repeat intervals in and in the summer that means i’m covered in sweat.
There are no showers at work, so i do a couple of things to keep clean.
* Showering before you leave so that the sweat doesn’t smell.
* Chilling our after the ride for a bit to let your heart rate drop back down. This gets you to a point where you aren’t sweating anymore.
* Towel off the excess sweat and put on fresh clothes.
The only real downside is my helmet messes up my hair.
A small towel is part of the kit. Very short haircut too... But yes, at some point it is a lifestyle choice: I quite happily sartorial sophistication (I forego tie and jacket: my office attire is dress pants, dress shoes and a nice shirt - sufficient social camouflage that packs neatly) but I understand that others might prefer the "delicate princess in an air-conditioned bubble" way of living, even though it is harmful to their health.
It doesn't have to be a lifestyle choice. I bike every day, except when my bike is being serviced. I always dress for the destination, and that's what virtually everyone else in this city does.
Yes, my way is what old timers do (I have been urban cycling for 30 years) but we are a tiny minority and the rest of the commuters just use whatever clothes are their daily standard, with maybe a slight adaptation... Still I don't understand how they are comfortable in any but mild weather conditions: specialized cycling clothing is so much more comfortable in heat, storms, snow and anything in-between - and I most people in the office have no idea I commute by bicycle (though they may suspect it when they contemplate my gorgeous ass)...
Even after changing clothes and toweling off not only would I feel gross all day, I think I would get acne over my body if I did this every day. To each their own.
Where I live it can get so hot in the summer that my AC can't cool the car down if it's been parked outside. Opening the windows doesn't even get all the heat out. Plus I have leather seats so my back fuses to the leather. You can get electric bikes that are assistive, so every pedal you do will feel like you are pedaling downhill even if you are going uphill. Combine that with the sweet breeze lapping at your back, evaporating that back sweat, and I can't imagine a better summer experience.
If you need to wear a suit you are screwed either way. Five minutes standing still outside with a jacket on and you will start getting pit sweat. Just walking out to your car will make you sweat.
> But they might spend the time reading or working out they are sitting in a train/metro compartment.
That's a big "might" that is conditioned on having a seat and space in which to do these things, none if which is a given.
> Bicycles ... are less likely to have accidents (except with cars)
After three years as a pedestrian in NYC I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.
> But infrastructure is much cheaper and easier to maintain then that for cars.
How do you figure? Paved streets are still needed, arguably maintained to slightly higher standards than they are for cars. Signalling is still needed, unless you want a free-for-all of bike traffic (which I don't).
In general, you seem to be comparing the happy cases of bicycles and public transit to the negatives of cars. It's and unfair and disingenuous comparison.
> That's a big "might" that is conditioned on having a seat and space in which to do these things, none if which is a given.
In the past plenty of people read newspapers while standing on trains. Nowadays we have smartphones and podcasts. It’s even easier.
> I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.
Looks like an argument for better cycling infrastructure. Cars don’t really go wild in cities because they have dedicated road which are not shared with larger, more dangerous vehicles driven by people who are actively trying to cause problems to car drivers. If we have the same level of infrastructure for bicycles then maybe cyclists will stop competing with pedestrians for space.
Cycling infrastructure can be cheaper than normal roads because bicycles are lighter than cars. It will also need less maintenance for the same reason. It also takes less space to store bikes than cars.
No, being an asshole is not solved by infrastructure, what you need is education. Cyclists typically don't believe that they are driving a vehicle (which they are). In fact dedicated infrastructure for cyclists only helps keep the myth that bicycles are not vehicles but some kind of toy and that its operators are not responsible adults but kids incapable of learning.
Summary: From 2002-2016 there were 2355 pedestrians killed by bicycle or car in NYC. 2345 of those fatal collisions were car-pedestrian, and only 10 were bicycle-pedestrian.
From mid 2012 to mid 2019, there were 940 reports of a crash with a bike as the primary vehicle and 1+ pedestrians injured. In the same time period, there were 69776 reports of a crash without bicycle as primary vehicle injuring 1+ pedestrians.
Injuries would probably be a better statistic to use, as you much more likely to die being hit by a car than a bicycle. I'd also guess injuries in bicycle on pedestrian collisions are nearly impossible to measure accurately, as most of them are minor and go unreported.
I wonder if the reason for the perception that bicycles are more threatening is because of the sense that they don't respect boundaries. Cars and pedestrians have their separate areas, and I would think accidents in cities happen mostly when they cross paths. But bicycles tend to have to share the path of either cars or pedestrians all the time.
That's deaths. I'm not going to argue that car collisions with pedestrians aren't more likely to kill then. The point was accidents, not fatalities, so I don't see what this statistic demonstrates.
The point is still accidents. Serious accidents. Cars are more likely to kill or seriously injure you. Would you prefer those assholes who almost hit you were driving cars?
I would prefer that no assholes almost hit me while operating anything that can kill or seriously injure me, and the original point was that bicycles are somehow much less likely to do that.
> After three years as a pedestrian in NYC I have almost been run over by assholes on bikes more than I have almost been run over by assholes in cars.
As a pedestrian in Austin, I've been hit by one car and zero bikes. I've been almost hit by many cars; I don't recall any bikes nearly hitting me, but they're less also memorable.
As a cyclist for ~8 years in Austin, I've been hit by two cars (100% their fault) and one bike (100% my fault), and almost hit by many cars and zero bikes that I recall. I've hit zero people/cars and if I come close, it's usually the other person at fault.
Granted, there are a lot more cars to hit me than there are bikes. I'd also say cars are more likely to cause significant damage than bikes when they hit you, though in my case, the 280LB cyclist slamming into me while going downhill got me pretty good. :-)
I think a lot of what makes cycling safe or unsafe is the biking culture. Cyclists are safer when they act like traffic norms matter. I assume they're more likely to do that if the traffic rules are designed in a way that makes sense for them, and when drivers treat them like they belong. (This is, unfortunately, a bit of a catch-22. We might be treated as legitimate users of the road if we acted like it, and we'd act like it more if we were treated that way.)
As a NYC resident and a cyclist - pedestrians are no picnic either.
I mean - NYC has horrible bike infrastructure, street parking(unplanned) and pedestrians that just take over the few bike lanes or wait for the signal in the middle of the damn road.
Bike infrastructure is cheaper to maintain, because bikes don't impact the asphalt as much as cars do. Manhattan's Westside bikeway hasn't been repaved for decades... While most of the roads with similar "body traffic" will deteriorate in 5 years in NYC.
"bikes don't impact the asphalt as much as cars do. Manhattan's Westside bikeway hasn't been repaved for decades... While most of the roads with similar "body traffic" will deteriorate in 5 years in NYC."
You're assuming cars have an impact. Maybe they don't; it may just be heavy trucks.
I don't believe signalling is not needed for bike-only infrastructure. I don't know of any cities that have signals where bikes are separated from cars.
Bike infrastructure is cheaper in other ways. You need a much smaller surface for the same amount of traffic, and paved surfaces degrade at a much slower rate with lighter traffic.
You also don't need the sliproads, the same levels of crash barrier, and so on. It's just not a serious comparison.
> I don't believe signalling is not needed for bike-only infrastructure. I don't know of any cities that have signals where bikes are separated from cars.
Are intersections just a free-for-all then? I find congested pedestrian intersections bad enough to navigate. I would hate to see a congested, uncontrolled bicycle intersection.
> Bike infrastructure is cheaper in other ways. You need a much smaller surface for the same amount of traffic, and paved surfaces degrade at a much slower rate with lighter traffic.
I'll grant that people density is higher and wear is lighter. I don't agree with the "much", though, since bicycles not riding in a coordinated group still need a fair amount of space and, as I said, the road surface needs to be maintained to higher standards.
> You also don't need the sliproads, the same levels of crash barrier, and so on. It's just not a serious comparison.
If I am interpreting "sliproad" correctly, that's only a feature of limited-access roads. Ditto crash barriers. I don't see how that's relevant to cities.
What do you mean "higher standards"? The standards for regular roads are way more than enough for cyclists. Bike paths are not supposed to be racetracks.
You are ignoring heat, cold, rain, etc. A car is a magical piece of insulation from the elements. And depending on where you live that can matter quite a bit during the morning and evening commute.
we are discussing uber here, parking is not generally a consideration here.
as pointed out, the reason that cars being shown to be slower than walking in many cases is moot because cars provide benefits which more than offset.
1. Weather protection
2. Cargo transportation
3. Ease of movement for the disabled
4. Additional safety for those toting along small children
5. Some level of protection/isolation from others
The argument in favor of bicycling in lieu of cars falls prey to the same reasons. There are pro and cons so we must always fairly assess them before standing up and declaring one method worse than another. In fact none ever are all the time
That isn't always true. I commute from a downtown to an office park in a suburb (against traffic when driving). On my bike, it takes about 40 mins (~11-12 miles). The same commute in reverse by car is about 45 mins due to traffic. If I instead lived in the suburb and worked downtown, it would be a tossup travel time wise between my bike and car.
...so cars should this be _slower_ than cars, given these benefits