The Most Bike-Friendly Cities in the U.S.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by dktshb

In a city like SF I understand why people have electric bikes as it is necessary to get up the hills (although many do it just fine without). Relatively flat cities I wouldn't justify one. You're just lazy.

Or, just maybe, you're older. Or have some limited capabilities.

[Klippenstein]

^also it extends the distance a person can regularly travel without having to make it into a work out.

[Steely Dan]

Also, flat cities might be flat, but it doesn't mean they're immune to strong winds.

Back when I was a daily bike commuter in chicago, there were certainly days when I'd be biking straight into a 25mph headwind and think to myself "ya know, I wouldn't mind a little electronic assistance right now".

But I've always been a bit of a bicycling purist. I really do appreciate the 100% human power aspect of a conventional bicycle, so I never did get an ebike.

But I'm certainly not above understanding their appeal, even in flat cities.

And I'm generally in support of anything that gets more people outta their damn cars and on a bike (conventional or e-assist).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by dktshb

In a city like SF I understand why people have electric bikes as it is necessary to get up the hills (although many do it just fine without). Relatively flat cities I wouldn't justify one. You're just lazy.

If having an ebike makes you lazy, I can't imagine how bad you must think car and motorbike drivers are. Using any bike makes a person less lazy than 90% of the population.

Using an ebike is substantially cheaper compared to a car, better for the environment, has the parking flexibility of a regular bike, gives a lot more exercise than just sitting on your butt in a car. And it either gets you places faster than a regular bike or equally fast without arriving drenched in sweat. And while not every city has steep hills, there are very few cities that never experience wind. And head winds are often just as great a challenge.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Also, flat cities might be flat, but it doesn't mean they're immune to strong winds.

Back when I was a daily bike commuter in chicago, there were certainly days when I'd be biking straight into a 25mph headwind and think to myself "ya know, I wouldn't mind a little electronic assistance right now".

But I've always been a bit of a bicycling purist. I really do appreciate the 100% human power aspect of a conventional bicycle, so I never did get an ebike.

But I'm certainly not above understanding their appeal, even in flat cities.

And I'm generally in support of anything that gets more people outta their damn cars and on a bike (conventional or e-assist).

It’s also for relatively short stints. I’m in my third year ebiking. The terrain around here is relatively flat. There are nice cycling paths along the old canal pathways around my region. The few really hilly spots are the monteregian mountains that pop up around this plains landscape that like Mount Royal are set far apart from one another; Mont St-Bruno, Mont St-Hilaire, Rougemont and tiny Mont St-Grégoire.

I wouldn’t be able to ride from here to Sherbrooke in a day, least of all come back unless I had 4 batteries with me.

So, e-bikes are a convenient way to experience the environment from a biking perspective with less strain when fighting headwinds First, and hills; second: at least for me.

The other convenience is that I lug around my watercolor kit, collapsible Helinox chair, tripod, easel, materials and water for
miixing. The weight in my two bags is also lessened by the e-factor.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dktshb

In a city like SF I understand why people have electric bikes as it is necessary to get up the hills (although many do it just fine without). Relatively flat cities I wouldn't justify one. You're just lazy.

Just to clarify, I'm not anti e-bike. Just pointing out that they are not bikes. Unfriendly biking terrain should count against an extremely hilly city even with the existence of e-bikes, just the same as weather is counted against other cities in this analysis.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Just to clarify, I'm not anti e-bike. Just pointing out that they are not bikes. Unfriendly biking terrain should count against an extremely hilly city even with the existence of e-bikes, just the same as weather is counted against other cities in this analysis.

I'm pretty sure it was a factor as SF scored lower in terms of bikeabiilty compared to other top bike friendly cities. Either way, I wouldn't focus so much on the individual ranking. Rather, the point is, SF is one of the top bike friendly cities in the US, in spite of its topography.

[samne]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's called Slow Roll:

• Video Link




It's not illegal to bike on sidewalks in Detroit like it is in other cities, so it's not as taboo there.

Very cool. Bunch of packs of 5-10 bikes just cruising around having a good time. Added a nice energy to a summer night.

Sidewalks are generally wide in downtown Detroit and bikers seemed mindful of pedestrians and avoided getting in their way.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If having an ebike makes you lazy, I can't imagine how bad you must think car and motorbike drivers are. Using any bike makes a person less lazy than 90% of the population.

Using an ebike is substantially cheaper compared to a car, better for the environment, has the parking flexibility of a regular bike, gives a lot more exercise than just sitting on your butt in a car. And it either gets you places faster than a regular bike or equally fast without arriving drenched in sweat. And while not every city has steep hills, there are very few cities that never experience wind. And head winds are often just as great a challenge.

All valid points. I stand corrected.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Just to clarify, I'm not anti e-bike. Just pointing out that they are not bikes. Unfriendly biking terrain should count against an extremely hilly city even with the existence of e-bikes, just the same as weather is counted against other cities in this analysis.

If you use your little feet to pedal, then yes, they are bikes.

[Doady]

Big urban area like Detroit not going to be very friendly for cyclists and pedestrians just for being big, and distances being too long Detroit far behind Lansing in that regard, and that stats show it. Reducing distances still important, so much investment and intensification and stopping sprawl still needed in the Detroit area. Transit is the number one competitor to the car in such a large urban area, and getting people onto transit in such as place is the first step toward getting them only the bikes and sidewalks too.

There are some smaller urban areas that have even worse cycling and walking mode share than Detroit. These include Memphis, Kansas City, Fort Wayne, Knoxville, Little Rock, Tulsa, Jackson, Birmingham. These are the much smaller urban areas, so they are the much bigger question marks, so maybe more attention should have been directed at them.

And don't bring weather and topography into this. Hilly places like San Francisco has a lot of cyclists and pedestrians. Same with cold place like Boston and New York. Some of the worst places for cyclists and pedestrians are warm and flat, like Dallas and Oklahoma City.

[cabasse]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

If you use your little feet to pedal, then yes, they are bikes.

would love for this forum to implement some kind of upvote/downvote feature for posts. this one would get a ⬆️ of course

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

If you use your little feet to pedal, then yes, they are bikes.

They aren't bikes if there is a motor attached. Bikes are purely mechanical.

[JManc]

There was an asshole back in Utica yesterday who rode their in the middle of a fairly busy commercial route holding up the flow of traffic. That shouldn't be allowed. Small streets absolutely but bikes have no business on main roads with the most traffic.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They aren't bikes if there is a motor attached. Bikes are purely mechanical.

Except when they aren't.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They aren't bikes if there is a motor attached. Bikes are purely mechanical.

That's not true. There's no official or authoritative demarcation criteria that specifies assist devices are excluded in the term.

When I did a search for "bike definition" just now, these were the first definitions that came up (bold emphasis added by me):

Wikipedia: A bicycle, also called a pedal cycle, bike or cycle, is a human-powered or motor-powered assisted, pedal-driven, single-track vehicle, having two wheels attached to a frame, one behind the other. A bicycle rider is called a cyclist, or bicyclist.

Wordnik.com: A vehicle consisting of a light frame mounted on two wire-spoked wheels one behind the other and having a seat, handlebars for steering, brakes, and two pedals or a small motor by which it is driven.

Dictionary.com: a vehicle with two wheels in tandem, usually propelled by pedals connected to the rear wheel by a chain, and having handlebars for steering and a saddlelike seat.

But of course dictionaries track how words are used rather than determining how they should be used. They regularly add words and update definitions in response to changes in language as all languages and the word definitions within it evolve over time. Not surprisingly the newer, more online-focused sources, include assisted devices on the definitions, while older legacy dictionaries are more likely to just mention pedal power since the popularity of ebikes is a fairly recent phenomenon.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by JManc

There was an asshole back in Utica yesterday who rode their in the middle of a fairly busy commercial route holding up the flow of traffic. That shouldn't be allowed. Small streets absolutely but bikes have no business on main roads with the most traffic.

Did that street have a legal minimum speed in addition to a speed limit? I remember as a child when we drove in driving in rural areas driving on two lane roads we would sometimes get stuck behind farm tractors that couldn't reach highway speed. IIRC, the law in that area was that if you were driving slower than 20km/h below the limit you needed to use 4-way flashers. But the idea that vehicles with a lower than typical top speed should be legally excluded from using public spaces like streets was never a thing. The only time I've seen that was on some limited access expressways in other provinces.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by JManc

There was an asshole back in Utica yesterday who rode their in the middle of a fairly busy commercial route holding up the flow of traffic. That shouldn't be allowed. Small streets absolutely but bikes have no business on main roads with the most traffic.

That bike musta had a mudguard sticker that went "This here bike pertected by Smith and Wesson".

Hee Haw.

[montréaliste]

Delete-o-rama.

[benp]

Originally Posted by JManc

There was an asshole back in Utica yesterday who rode their in the middle of a fairly busy commercial route holding up the flow of traffic. That shouldn't be allowed. Small streets absolutely but bikes have no business on main roads with the most traffic.

How long was traffic held up? A block or two? How much time did drivers "lose" - a minute or two off their trip?

How about the drivers take an alternate route then? An alternate route on a bike takes additional leg power, additional distance, and additional time way way more than a couple minutes delay in a car. And, car drivers can easily make up that time by pushing the accelerator an additional 1/8 inch.

I will bet that some driver tried to side swipe the biker, and the biker just said to hell with it I'm going to protect myself if drivers don't provide me the required right-of-way when passing.

I've experienced 1000x more asshole drivers than bikers, and no biker is hurling two tons at 30+ miles an hour. There are lot of ghost bikes in Houston - I rode there for years before finally encountering too much resistance, and too many asshole drivers ANGERED that I am on a road with them, even if its marked as a bike path, even if there is plenty of room. And, way too many road-rage shootings in the news to put myself in additional risk.

For every new bike path in Houston, there was almost no way to get to the path without first using city streets or sidewalks. And, I ended up purposefully avoiding the labeled bike lanes on Houston roads, and inevitably those were either the least maintained roads, they were ridiculously chosen (NASA 1, for example) or they led to nowhere.