I don't fault OP for this, but it's pretty frustrating to me as someone who's quite attached to his non-folding bike that the main benefit of folding bikes is that, unlike regular bikes, they aren't banned from pretty much all public transport
Full size bikes on public transport doesn’t work well when crowded though. I briefly took a bikee recumbent (really small) on BART and it was great for me but pretty annoying for others for 1 stop (sorry if you went between Ashby and Oakland in 2011!)
Even in the Netherlands you need to pay €8.50 to bring your bike on, perhaps so the trains aren’t overrun.
I think that is a very valid criticism. Equally, in the UK there is a sense of providers having tried nothing and then given up concluding that it hasn't worked. Some services that ban bikes legitimately cannot accommodate them safely, some can. Some services legitimately are too busy at peak times to accommodate bikes, and some ban them anyway because making granular policy is hard. In a similar vein, some of those same services that ban bikes due to how busy they are running eight of a possible 10 carriages because they claim not to need the space.
I think a lot of the rules turn out to be reasonable but the rulemakers should be less gung-ho about restricting bikes when they don't really need to
Yeah, among other things I thought it was odd I've only seen bike racks on buses in the US, but not in Europe (having looked for them in Ireland, the UK, and the Netherlands)
Thankfully uncommon in North America. Growing up in Los Angeles where every bus has racks and every train car has bike spots, I was shocked the first time I visited SF and found I couldn't bring it on Muni trains.
I know DC bans them and Boston/NYC/Toronto have limited hours, but every other city with a metro seems to welcome them.
Chicago started allowing them on the “L” about a decade or so ago, although with limitations during rush hour. But the fact that boarding the “L” usually requires stairs at both ends of the trip makes it less appealing.
Likewise, Metra, the Chicago equivalent of LA’s Metrolink started allowing bikes on its trains at about the same time, but the train cars used are hostile to bikes because you have to climb stairs inside the train and then you end up in a narrow vestibule with sliding doors on each side. The Metrolink cars. meanwhile, have the first level at the same height as the boarding platforms and a nice open area where bikes fit. LA has highly benefited from speccing its transport infrastructure late in the game.
DC does not ban normal bikes. I see them all the time on the metro. I'd say it is becoming less common as they build out more bike parking infrastructure at stations, but it is definitely something people still do.
I do find my brompton a lot more convenient for the train, though.
I remember one time on the bus a commuter had his full sized bike in the bus. This was a full sized with plenty of space bus, so it wasn't really in the way at all. The bike rack was full and it was a summer day. So probably the guy figured he may as well just try bringing it on instead of waiting another hour for a bus and hoping there's space.
Anyway one busybody got all uppity. But the driver and rest of the passengers didn't care. So it was fine.
Yeah, this definitely wouldn't fly in any country where a lot of people bike and use transit. Tokyo metro would be hell if full sized bikes would be allowed.
Many US buses have a bike rack on the front that can hold 2 or 3 bikes which allows for easy bike-bus travel. I don’t think bringing the bike inside the bus is an option anywhere.
The bike is for biking. Of course it is annoying when people bring it on the bus. Or park it in front of my door.
The bike on the metro is not rare because it is annoying. People do simply not have that much tact. It is more rare because people bike those distances and you pay extra on the metro. It is free on the S-Train which also covers longer distances - hence more bikes.
I find bikes annoying in general as well. But that is because they are usually attached to a human.
The point was that it can actually work.
It is not all of nothing. It is an integrated system which actually works.
This was a reply to a comment which claimed that bikes could not work in a large city with a lot of bikes and public transportation.
The same people often argue that bikes cannot work in cold weather.
Granted I live in a smaller town, but I see a lot of bikes on the bus. Given that we don't have a super dense transit system, bike + bus is a practical way for a lot of people to make buses work. The bike solves the "last mile problem."
Both of my kids have jobs that let out after the last buses run at night, so they take the bus to work and ride their bikes home.
I understand the frustration but also bikes take up a lot of space. When someone brings one on the NYC subway at rush hour it’s definitely an inconvenience.
I feel like the failure here is that it gets so packed that there isn't space for a bike. Because it's not just bikes impacted here. If you can't fit a bike, you can't fit a wheelchair, you can't fit a pram, you don't have space for someone who needs to sit down, or someone who can't handle being pressed in at all sides by other passengers.
It's a wrong allocation of resources where we decide everyone can have 4 empty seats to drive to work but we can't fit 1 person and a bike on PT.
Pretty much any decent mass transit system in the world is packed at rush hour. The whole advantage over private vehicles comes from the fact that people take up less space.
I agree it's a fairly common issue but I feel like it's not an impossible issue to solve. A person and a bike is still massively smaller than a person in an SUV. The system is basically designed with just enough capacity to barely work. But I feel like if we really wanted PT to be the obvious best choice it should be provisioned a bit over the least possible capacity.
I mean sure it's not impossible if you are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to tunnel additional subway lines all over the place.
When they were built, these subway systems obviously were provisioned over expected capacity. But obviously, cities grow and nobody has a crystal ball to know what the population of a city will be 50 years from now.
The thing about subways is that adding significantly more capacity on an existing line isn't really possible if you are already running the trains as close as possible together as safety allows, which is often the case at rush hour. It's not like buses where you can just add more to the schedule.
The thing is, everyone can't have 4 empty seats to drive to work in New York City. There's only so much space on the streets and in the bridges and tunnels, and now there's a congestion charge on top of that.
In Berlin you just have some areas in wagons designated as bike areas. They are still cramped but you can be there with your bike. Plus you pay extra for your ticket to bring the bike.
No thank you, i don't watch sports, why should i pay for that crap just so a corrupt judge can get another car or sit on some board of some company when they "retire"
I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm trying to get a handle on whether Spain is on track to de facto spend more than this per resident in lost economic productivity (to say nothing of whatever value we might like to place on sheer inconvenience for residents that doesn't have measurable GDP effects). Like just paying a tiny tax and calling it a day might be less crazy than the current path, which would highlight how nuts this is precisely because that's also nuts.
Ethereum is a great utility token. Smart contracts absolutely have utility in the digital economy. It's just not a cryptocurrency, is all. It had a massive premine, there's no supply cap, it's subject to OFAC censorship, and has effectively demonstrated that just ~4.8% of the total ETH supply can vote to cause rollout and widespread adoption of a fork that reverses transactions.
We need different words for these fundamentally different things, because conflating them causes real confusion, as this very hack demonstrates. People are surprised that an admin can lock transactions precisely because the word "cryptocurrency" led them to assume properties that don't exist in stablecoins.
Where did the 4.8% number come from? Is it based on the validator stake? How does that compare to the number required to fork Bitcoin as a function of it's supply?
There was a vote after the DAO incident to roll back. 87% of those that voted voted yes (for the rollback), but only 5.5% of the total supply voted at all.
To be pedantic: I think the actual story is about V1 drones. They did not have a navigation system as such, they were just aimed in a certain direction and with the right amount of fuel to fall out of the sky over the target.
The British noticed that V1s aimed at London tended to fall a little short. This would have been to the South and East of London since that's the direction they were coming from. They reported more hits on the North West of the city, expecting correctly that Nazi spies in Britain would let the Luftwaffe know about this.
So the range was decremented further, meaning even more hits on the southern and eastern suburbs, but statistically fewer people killed and buildings destroyed as the mean moved to less populated areas.
I'm a little torn on this one. On the one hand, people are bad epistemologists and lots of countries manage with similarly limited jury trials. On the other, we're doing it for cost reasons, which I think is the worst basis imaginable for such a move
I'm not quite clear on the how of it, but Stockfish works pretty well outside the normal bounds of chess. There are toy chess variants on chess.com with "dragons" (knight + bishop) and stockfish can use those very effectively
reply