[1] https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-r...
[2] https://enviropaul.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/all-the-garbage-...
Barcelona is relatively safe, although, as it's been mentioned, it had several hot spots (I used to live in some of these, actually). Crime is in most of the cases about pickpocketing or, sadly but infrequently, with assault. Still, believe me, it's a relatively safe city.
Anyhow, it's not a city to grow your children. Traffic is high, bike lanes are not safe and there are very few parks. This is the reason people try to move to nearby cities whenever they have kids (my case also).
I hope that this is THE change in most European metropolises for the future. Not only in Barcelona.
Scooters are in the process of being banned in Paris because they are too dangerous and in Rome, where I come from, they are going yo be heavily regulated (mandatory helmet, reduced speed, designated pick up and drop locations, etc. ) because they caused a +35% increase of brain traumas to teenagers
Not everything that looks cool on first sight it's an actual improvement.
Really could've been reduced by a lot with a few simple instructions in the app. Stick to the right, don't speed, be careful, etc.
Who the fuck falls off a scooter, anyway.
Now I read a little more about Paris what changed. The mayor Ms Hidalgo introduced the concept of the 15 minute city [0]. It's more important that people can reach all important services within 15 minutes of walking than having Teslas standing in traffic everywhere.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/07/paris-mayor-un...
I don't know how is in France, but in Spain there are new regulation, and new ones halfway, to have a regulation where these vehicles are registered, users have to use helmet, and in a near future, even have civil liability/accident insurance to prevent some kind of problem.
At first, there wasn't nay kind of problem, but more and more people keep buying this scooters, they were driving at high speed in the pavement, there was some accidents with scooters involved, and even there was a couple of pedestrian deaths due to misuse, so the government got serious about that.
a. Relatively flat city terrain. (Not the case in Prague, for example; a lot of the residential areas are at much higher elevation than the city centre.)
b. Moderate temperatures at both ends of the summer-winter scale. Most people won't bike to work at -20 or +35 Celsius.
That's about 50 minutes to and fro. That's all the exercise a child needs in a day. Wish they'll succeed in making it every day, instead of just on Fridays.
More like the minimum recommended amount, but it's a good start
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/well/move/exercise-heart-...
I used to overstate my commuting, as well, but when I compare it to running, you need to at least double the duration for equivalency. Both in numbers and feelz. And you really need to push it (lol) to get your heart working. Not a complete replacement for exercise, otherwise. Luckily, I start hunting on a bike naturally, but lots of people seem to not even break a sweat, or really enjoy sitting on their saddle. Exhaust pollution wise, bike commuting seems to be still beneficial, but it’s definitely putting a counterweight in the bowl, too. Tho, that’s supposed to get better, with fewer (my city started converting whole car lanes into bike lanes <3 ) and electric cars.
Anyway, those children grow up riding bikes will likely continue as adults where getting any exercise is better than nothing. And if you’re used to taking your bike everywhere, you may easily make 20-50km/d, which is something. Biking can be more than a mode of transportation. I often get overwhelmingly happy flowing through the city with a breeze on my skin and people in the same room. I wish that bliss onto everyone.
I don't know how a bike-first city would feel, but biking is a serious bonus in one's life (granted you have safe space or a herd around you). So the more the merrier.
- Childhood obesity (around 30% in some areas of developed nations)
- Independence for children (meet friends, get to school, etc.)
- Time poor “taxi service” parents might save 1hr+ / day
- Congestion (bikes can be even more space efficient than buses)
- Air quality (many developed cities exceed WHO guidelines
- Money saved on car payments for the poorest in society. This is a huge burden.
- Independence for those too old, with a disability or medical condition that prevents driving. Did you know many epileptics are not legally allowed to drive?
- City saves money on road repair etc. Road damage is a power of vehicle weight.
- Local shops favoured over out of town, big box etc.
Biking in this bus formation and biking normally are separate enough that it doesn’t seem to be a concern. IMO that’s like asking if kids don’t where seat belts on a normal bus, are they then at risk of not wearing seat belts in normal cars?
I don't think you put much thought into your reasoning. You're conveniently forgetting that people have a knack for developing bad habits, and children have a knack for picking up everything their parents do and cementing it.
After some years, local police started to do more pressure, mostly trying to dissuade or prevent, rather than to catch them after the fact. Eventually they moved somewhere else (our of the city now) and COVID killed tourism that always was the the main source of targets.
I'd say it's much better now.
Unfortunately, it is a topic that gets easily ignited by political parties counter accusations.
From the article:
"VeiligheidNL estimates that there were actually some 80,000 injuries of which 50,000 were serious."
And, of course, the idea of biking and the reality of it are quite different things:
https://www.bikelaw.com/2019/05/amsterdam-not-cycling-paradi...
I love how people tend to have this impulse to reduce reality to a single variable: Bikes = human power = exercise = good.
Reality is a complex multivariate problem. When you look at more variables you often discover something quite different than the assumption borne out of that single variable fantasy.
For point b, the cold in itself is not really a huge deal, if you're dressed appropriately. As for the heat, it really depends on the amount of efforts you have to do.
I see the lack of adequate infrastructure as a much bigger impediment. If you risk getting hurt, you won't cycle, even in the most perfect weather.
And in regards to cold temperatures, if the only time you daily spend in the cold is the few meters from your house's door to your car's door and then to your work's door, then you just think it is cold because you aren't living it like someone who's active and raises their body temperature in the cold.
Currently I cycle 10km to work and arrive before the sun is barely up, I enjoy those rides, I have good lights on the bike and can use cycling paths on 2/3 of the way. The thing I'm really looking forward to is the snowy days when the world is silenced and cycling though a few centimeters of snow becomes magical.
The gist is, like usual, biking in the snow is fine when the infrastructure is equipped to make it an effective mode of transportation. It would suck most places in North America because there is next to no dedicated bike infrastructure besides painted gutters. Those obviously don’t get plowed correctly, so it’s terrible. When the major problems like that are handled, it’s fine.
The way to see and understand "infrastructure" is: what if gov't was cycling-centric instead of car-centric. All the "infrastructure" you see around cars? Do that for cycles. There would be safe, separate, well-maintained, direct routes to all points, all year long, 24-7.
My own belief is that this is not possible in the U.S. without a change of culture. We can't even get respect for pedestrians... in winter here, plows will dump snow right over sidewalks (it will take days for them to be cleared if at all in some places). my 2 cents.
On the other end of the spectrum, and unanserwed in the article here—Sevilla might be a great place to study the effect of heat.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10/13/best-practices-how-se...
Oulu proves that temperature is a surmountable obstacle. I think the parent comment was right in that biking is very difficult to sell when those circumstances aren't right, even though some cities might overcome anything with sufficient bike culture and good infrastructure.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oulu
"Oulu is notable for its transportation network dedicated to non-motor vehicular traffic, including pedestrians and bicycles (termed "light" traffic in Finland). In 2010, the city contained more than 600 kilometres (370 mi) of pathways and more than 100 underpasses and bridges devoted exclusively to light traffic. The network is used year-round. The ratio of light traffic pathways to residents is the highest in Finland and the cycling mode share is 20 percent.[40][41] Oulu is often touted as an excellent city for bicycling."
seaside resort of 208,939 inhabitants
Many cities have roads and bridges only devoted to light traffic, the real issue is that they are not excellent for biking. In many large cities the biggest problem is distances.
Sub zero temperatures are an issue even for professional bikers at Tour de France.
When the road conditions are not uniform and distances are longer than a few minutes ride they can cause serious problems.
For example imagine going uphill and then down, exposed to the chilling weather and the consequences on a casual bike user.
Then again, raincoats are far more convenient to me than an umbrella, I prefer them when walking as well. That may make me an exception instead of a rule. As for my hands and face, can't say I care if they get wet, but my opinion on that would probably change if I was wearing makeup.
That's anecdotal for sure but once you are acclimatized to winter I think the gating criteria is more around a secure place to park your bike during the day.
I have another work buddy in Minneapolis who sends me pictures of the temp guage on his Fat-Bike of like -20F training rides in Jan and Feb... yikes!!!!
> Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow.
Automobiles are the sole reason why general mobility is so poor in cities that are crowded (with cars) and where transport is slow (due to cars).
Please take a look at cities in Denmark or The Netherlands. Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. Not only is it cheap, reliable, healthy and it doesn't take up much space... it's also _faster_ than driving a car.
Yes, cars are practical for rural and long-distance travel, but not for use in city centers.
as en expat living in amsterdam i couldnt disagree more. a city with a bike first infrastucture is incomparably safer, quieter and more pleasant for everyone in the city.
when it takes 15 minutes to get anywhere in the city using the bike infrastructure, one would be crazy to pull out the car and look 30 minutes for parking places that cost north of 7 euros an hour.
"people dont bike in bad weather and in winter" is nonsense garbage from people who dont live in biking places. if the infrastructure is there people will bike even in snow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU).
> just take the bus if you don't want to drive
i dont depend on any public transport if i have my bike. it's the exact reason why people choose cars over public transport.
> Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment.
It’s better for the environment, it’s cheaper, it’s more efficient(more bikes can occupy less space and move more people), it’s fun, it’s good for your body, it’s safer(if we don’t have to share the road with cars- for instance if the infrastructure for bikes were to actually exist), bikes are easier to maintain, bikes can access a variety of terrain most cars can not. I could probably go on and on.
IMO the only reason bicycles are seen as an unnecessary luxury is cultural. We aren’t all Lycra clad snobs who ignore stop lights, but for some reason this perception persists.
Now, remove the cars that are being used for unnecessary luxury, such as organizing your entire lifestyle and schedule around the availability of unlimited single-occupancy car use and generous parking.
I rented a car. This gave me the feeling that it is inofficially tolerated by the police. But driving on the bus lanes is very strictly verboten even for motos and using the bike lanes is frowned upon. I once saw a lorry unloading on a bike lane and a police car stopping by the driver and after some gesticulating the police seemed to admonish the driver like this: okay but get away from here ASAP!
You do care if your hands get wet when it's +2 degrees, because you will freeze and get sick.
What I'm talking about is cold rain, not dry snow. And if the snow gets heavier, you won't see, you have to wear ski goggles. Literally
Could also be a little bit of the middle class being priced out of driving cars.
Futurism in the Davos sense perhaps. You will own nothing...
I wouldn’t judge a city based on the experience of tourists in it.
(Entertaining the question as if my claim was more controversial than any other in this thread, that is, as if Barcelona was not infamous as a crime ridden s hole where visitors are asked to practice war zone vigilance.)
1. Taking a pedestrian bridge off-ramp in the rain at max velocity because I wanted to see if I could take the corner going that fast.
2. Finding a quarter-pipe set up next to a bridge. How can you resist trying to shred it? It went well on run 1 thru 9. Run # 10, not so well.
3. Driving one home drunk at 230am and trying to drive it with only one hand.
My point is that it's pretty easy to fall off if you are pushing the envelope in any way at all. Who the hell falls of a scooter? Hah! Who the hell rides one exactly how you are supposed to? Totally boring.
The numbers are quite bad
https://www-inmoto-it.translate.goog/news/altre-notizie/cron...
Simple instructions don't solve anything, and represent a design flaw. If the design doesn't inherently address the problem you want to solve, then text definitely won't.
Like, literally, they install the app and get on the scooter and do 20km/h on the opposite side then are surprised that there's people and bikes coming right into them.
A simple "stick to your right" would help a lot of them imo.
And it's really hard to crash one ime, but then again I somehow never fell or crashed a bicycle for half my life.
I'm even thinking making a bike club / bike repair shop to motivate other people. The benefits are huge.
And I love it even more without the scorching heat. I've not felt this good physically in a decade, great free aerobic exercise.
And apparently this city isn't even all that bike friendly compared to others, which is amazing since it seems perfect to me.
> Often a faster biker would pass within millimeters to get by me as I pedaled in an already narrow bike lane.
This is the number one thing I hate about mixing sidewalks with bike paths, but it appears it's also an issue on the latter.
Anyway this figure representing the fraction of trips done by bike in the Netherlands is interesting in context:
https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/focus/future-of-mob...
Looking at the modal split for Amsterdam and Rotterdam, people still drive cars as much as in other European cities, it's just that cycling has replaced walking and public transport.
Frankly I don't see the benefit here.
They are probably more "portable" though.
We were granted a notable exception, which allows us to keep a distance with parked cards in areas where speed limit is 50km/h or less.
That said, the amount of criminality on show to your average tourist was surprising. Offers of drugs and being accosted by prostitutes in the street was common place, not to mention lower level crime like graffiti and people selling beers on the street.
I think someone would be forgiven for coming away with the wrong impression of it as a city.
Well, except for the beers. Americans are very much not okay with public drinking.
(I’m in Tennessee on vacation, walking everywhere. Many sidewalks just end, no crosswalks, etc. biking here would be dangerous)
I am 43, I have no chronic disease, but I would be afraid of more than just sweating if I went on a biking trip in that temperature. Sometimes I feel unwell even when walking in such heat.
If I stay at home and walk around I have troubles breathing when it's over 35°C, I have been several times on the verge of fainting when it lasts a bit too long over that temperature.
But I don't have a problem biking at that temperature or above. I've ridden for hours in temperatures near 40°C with no shade. As long as I get plenty of air, it's OK: it lowers the temperatures and I can breath. I mean, I prefer if it is 15°C lower :-), but it feels much better than walking.
Now in such circumstances you'd better not get caught in a climb, when your speed drop under say, 8 mph, because then you don't get any wind, while being on max effort. That's horrible. It happened to me once in a small mountain pass, on a road which looked like it had been painted black to make things worse. I had to climb down the sharp slope on the road side as I could, to find the shade of the few bushes which were around and stay there a few minutes, because I felt my temperature was rising way too much. Never again.
My 1st day out jogging, I could only go 0.5 miles non-stop before I almost passed out. Today I can do 5.5 miles non-stop. My cardiovascular system is in the best shape it has been in a long time. And I'm almost 60.
biking is alot more convenient. I can only carry about what I would walking, but its not a big deal to go two miles to get something. and I feel much better for the exercise.
if zipcar hadn't been shut down after acquisition, I would still have the option to get something big from 20 miles away once or twice a year.
I don't know why you feel the need to assert that the last 100 years status quo is some statement of natural law...I've always hated getting trapped in those smelly little boxes and now I have a choice!
And most people do not cycle when the weather is bad, that's also just a fact, and I grew up in an extremely bike friendly city and rode my bike all winter in the snow, in bike lanes that were completely empty and I just saw a whole bunch of money down the drain, just to pretend to be environmentally friendly when in reality 95% of people hop on the bus as soon as the weather is even slightly bad.
Just because most people are doing something does not mean its sensible. Most people are also overweight, even though everyone knows that that is not healthy.
Also I don't get the scarce space argument.
Also, thanks HN for rate limiting me without a notification, you shitheads. 3 comments an hour or so?
Just ban my account and IP, I would honestly appreciate it, no need to play mind games like some other cunty sites.
Cars are a local maximum of utility that doesn't require much coordination or planning. They took advantage of pre-existing public roads and then crowded out all other road users, and subsequent roads were simpler to design and plan for cars than for mixed use with other road users.
It's not when there's cold rain in the winter, guarantee it.
You get cold, wet and uncomfortable, and have to be very flexible with time. Even if you can "deal with it", it's still very real negative aspects, and why would you put up with that if you don't have to?
My point is that you have to have full capacity public transport anyway so the bike lanes are really redundant, a "nicety" and as such I think they should have little space and low priority, it makes perfect sense.
Why don't we have skateboarding lanes? Running lanes? Horseback riding lanes? It's fun, it's healthy, it's good for the environment! Because it's impractical, slow and inefficient, just like cycling is.
> Take the subway if you hate cars.
Why do you think that preferring to ride a bike makes one hate cars?
You can be both a cyclists _and_ a motorist. It's not a competition or a cult!
January 2021: "Police in Spain have reported the seizure of 827000 ecstasy pills, 76 Kg of amphetamine, 39.5 kg of crystal methamphetamine, 89 kg of cannabis, and 1.65 kg of cocaine in what they claim to be the biggest drug haul in Europe"
https://www.addictionjournal.org/posts/police-seize-largest-...
Barcelona still has a huge problem with drugs
In this sense, yes, has well earned sadly a place among European crime capitals. Indirect analysis as looking for sewage water biomarkers, place Barcelona among the European cities with a biggest abuse of cocaine, slightly bigger than London. This means that 5 millions of citizens in Barcelona consume more cocaine that 9 millions in London, so they almost double the average dose per capita. Antwerp (half a million) is a disaster doubling the London/Barcelona values in a weekend. They could go to Barcelona to detox. Those are recent values taken from here:
https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/html/pods/waste-wa...
With respect to the drug use, I don't buy that measuring use is a valid proxy for measuring abuse or "disasters" - assuming all use is abuse is a severely puritan value judgement. I'd much rather be around an ecstasy or cannabis user than an alcohol user for example.
We are on hackernews, here it is part of the etiquette to source claims
Please ensure that you do so
This is quite subjective... For one, I've commuted by bus+subway for most of my life, in three different European cities (Lisbon, Barcelona and Paris). Two years ago I had a sort of epiphany looking at the bike lane that followed the same path as my crowded bus. I bought a bike, in order to "try" the bike commute, and I've never looked back since. Even some days with hard weather, I prudently walk to the bus stop, and then say "no shit" and walk back home to pick my bike.
Thus I politely disagree with you that it is "much less convenient", at least for everybody.
I can argue exactly the same way for why you should turn off the heat in your house the whole winter, it's great for the environment and you just have to "put on a coat".
Your fun is at the expense of other people's mobility, why can't you just use some of the other million ways of getting exercise and having fun, where you don't have to be in other people's way?
I can’t believe I have to explain this to you; just because your city did bike infrastructure wrong doesn’t mean it can’t be done the right way.
Honestly, such a weird set of comments, I can’t tell if your a troll or what but, best of luck to you!
That depends. Not in a crash event. A bike can't match the safety measures that even the dumbest car has today. Hitting an obstacle in a car with seatbelts and airbags, or hitting it in a bike are totally different cases, even at a lower speed.
Friends don't let their friends drive while high on ecstasy (specially when there are a lot of children riding pink bikes in the street).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpeQMinhj1M
It feels pretty futuristic to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8C8fLMoTqE
And Yeah, drug users are gentlemen and their bad image is undeserved.
I'll note I have no idea if Barcelona is safe or not. It's possible it's a crime-ridden shithole, but nobody in this thread have substantiated that claim with a source, despite the person who originally made the claim suggested it was easy to establish with a search - which turned out to not support their claim at all.
It's perfectly possible there are stats that shows that Barcelona is in fact as dangerous as they claimed. But supporting that claim requires actual sources, not random videos.
My point is that it's not a good idea to expand bike lanes in big city centers where you already have public transport, especially not in places that doesn't have a bike friendly climate. It's simply not a good use of the space, can't really make any good case for it except some people think it's fun, which is extremely weak. And I don't understand why it makes cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen so much better, people just get randomly happy from the joys of riding a bike, or what? I'd rather have many more practical solutions with tangible results such as actually reducing the time and energy we spend on commuting, not increasing it.
I don't know what is your background, but many cities are doing it and it's not only about enabling bikes but also to disable passenger cars, and the main reason is it makes the places more livable and enjoyable: it's quieter, the air is cleaner, the streets are safer, people actually spend more time outside. So this is a practical solution to a problem people have: noise, pollution, loss of public space to car infrastructure.
If you just want to avoid cars and have a more leisurely space, why not designate pedestrian zones like traditionally done in city centers, and use the space for cafés, market stands etc.