In Holland they learned the hard way that you have to physically cordon off half of every road for bicycles. But you have to remember that just putting some paint on the pavement is a lot cheaper so that's what the government tries first. The reason why roads were taken back by Dutch cyclists and pedestrians is that they never stopped doing it. At some dark moment in the 1970s the number of children run over by cars…
Uhm, don't the Dutch separate cyclists and motorists only where the speed limit is >30km/h? At ≤30km/h there's no separation at all IIRC. Good news about Milan, though. That'll be such an improvement.
30km/h is very low speed. Majority or roads are faster.
In Holland they learned the hard way that you have to physically cordon off half of every road for bicycles. But you have to remember that just putting some paint on the pavement is a lot cheaper so that's what the government tries first. The reason why roads were taken back by Dutch cyclists and pedestrians is that they never stopped doing it. At some dark moment in the 1970s the number of children run over by cars…
Americans seem really good at ignoring cyclists being run over. Children don't seem to walk/cycle and rely on being driven around by their parents here so they don't die as much (good, obviously people know its not safe) but doesn't promote infrastructure investment for alternative transit (bad).
In America you just get social services called on you if you let/make your child walk or cycle anywhere.
Meanwhile our idiot city (Oxford, UK) is spending £1.2m on "Quickways", which are painted lines on existing roads... guaranteed to keep cyclists 0% safe. This in the face of national Government guidance in favour of physical segregation from cars. (Plans at https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/quickway-cycle-route-oxf... : the promise of "segregation where possible" in reality means about 5% of the network.) It is rea…
> Meanwhile our idiot city (Oxford, UK) is spending £1.2m on "Quickways", which are painted lines on existing roads..
Jason of the Not Just Bikes YT channel calls these bicycle gutters:
In Holland they learned the hard way that you have to physically cordon off half of every road for bicycles. But you have to remember that just putting some paint on the pavement is a lot cheaper so that's what the government tries first. The reason why roads were taken back by Dutch cyclists and pedestrians is that they never stopped doing it. At some dark moment in the 1970s the number of children run over by cars…
In the US far more people have died of COVID-19 than we’ve ever seen of dead bike riders. The bar for the US to change policies because of a “dark moment” is going to be in the millions of deaths, which just isn’t going to happen when bike riding has such a small mode share here.
9/11 was an anomaly and the aftermath was that we are now comfortable with constant surveillance and a region that hasn't known peace in decades.
Those are pictures of a Cambridge roundabout, trying to imitate a Dutch roundabout. However except for very light traffic situations all (as far as I am aware) roundabouts newly constructed in the Netherlands are so called turbo-roundabouts [1]. Other than that, I agree that the standard of roads and infrastructure in the Netherlands is a fair bit higher than anywhere else I know of. Of course there are nice roads in…
> Those are picture of a Cambridge roundabout, I realised it minutes after posting it when I noticed the driving was on the left (as opposed to right in NL) :-). The architecture is very close to those in the NL though which fooled my lazy eyes. Pedestrian islands, enabling free movement of cyclists with clear markings etc.,
How does right of way with this wide separation work though? In my experience (not Dutch) it always goes like this when a car and a cyclist approach a point where their paths cross and the cyclist has right of way: cyclist slows down to be ready for an emergency stop knowing full well that right of way won't be of any help when bones are crushed, driver takes it as an invitation to "slip" through.
The usual cooperative approach of "I have right of way, I can help my peer by accelerating a bit so they don't have to wait so long" seems to only work with participants in roughly the same weight class.
Americans seem really good at ignoring cyclists being run over. Children don't seem to walk/cycle and rely on being driven around by their parents here so they don't die as much (good, obviously people know its not safe) but doesn't promote infrastructure investment for alternative transit (bad).
I was very fortunate to raise kids in low density exurbs. My son completely wore out a bike going to school and visiting friends, often miles away. Dozens to hundreds of serious cyclists visit town on weekends to ride here. We also have people on roller skis and longboards on our roads. It seems really shortsighted to exclude these people in favor of cars.
Are there bike paths, or does he ride on the road alongside cars?
If any of you have been to Milan, the inner circle of the image [1] is more or less the city boundary. That path could be anything between 70 to 100 km according to how they'll design it. I had no problems cycling 100+ km around the city during the second quasi-lockdown of one winter ago. The grey area is what's called "città metropolitana" now, basically the old province of Milan including more than 100 of other cit…
I would have thought that the inner circle would be the Via Santa Sofia-Via Senato circle road. I’ve never been to the city-proper, only the train station, but it seems strange that any of the missing 20% would be in the city center.
If you zoom it enough you can read the text albeit only barely. The second circle goes as far as Assago and Sesto San Giovanni; the third goes as far Rozzano and Rho; the fourth goes as far as Cornaredo and Pioltello. Based on this the first circle should be the circonvallazione esterna (viale Liguria etc.).
> cycling is not practical transportation for most people. It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physical ability to actually cycle. That's… most people. Like I get it, we have an obesity epidemic, but fat people can ride bicycles. It's not unusual. And a lot of them start shedding pounds fast once you get them out of the automated wheeled easy-chairs we call "cars."
For myself cycling takes about twice as long. Assuming a peak physical condition, then driving. Taking the metro is a bit faster than cycling, I consider myself to be an okay shape. I still need to lose about 20 lb to get to where I want to be, and I still don't think I'd be up to the challenge of hopping on a bike for all my commuting needs. If you want to propose something, you have to factor in what people are wil…
This hits on an interesting fundamental that is often skipped when talking about bike infrastructure. Zoning. If you live in a country/area where living, working, recreational activities and shopping all happen in distinct areas, like it does in most cities built for cars, the distances traveled are often too far for the average person. In this case you are kind of right that investing in public transport might be more urgent. To become a true cycling city, municipalities also have to allow for more mixed use development to shorten distances.
In the US far more people have died of COVID-19 than we’ve ever seen of dead bike riders. The bar for the US to change policies because of a “dark moment” is going to be in the millions of deaths, which just isn’t going to happen when bike riding has such a small mode share here.
9/11 was an anomaly and the aftermath was that we are now comfortable with constant surveillance and a region that hasn't known peace in decades.
9/11 policy changes had barely any long-term impact on civilian Americans. Taxes didn’t have to go up. Airports already had security lines, TSA was largely a management change. And the constant surveillance is largely transparent (unless you lived near a government or military installation).
I’m talking about policy changes that require a massive change in daily life. Wearing masks. Street redesigns that reduce parking or slow down cars. European-style gas taxes.
> cycling is not practical transportation for most people. It targets a certain demographic, people who have the physical ability to actually cycle. That's… most people. Like I get it, we have an obesity epidemic, but fat people can ride bicycles. It's not unusual. And a lot of them start shedding pounds fast once you get them out of the automated wheeled easy-chairs we call "cars."
For myself cycling takes about twice as long. Assuming a peak physical condition, then driving. Taking the metro is a bit faster than cycling, I consider myself to be an okay shape. I still need to lose about 20 lb to get to where I want to be, and I still don't think I'd be up to the challenge of hopping on a bike for all my commuting needs. If you want to propose something, you have to factor in what people are wil…
Get an electric bike or scooter. The fact that the government is willing to offer thousands of dollars in subsidies for electric cars, when that amount could buy the best of the best electric bike or scooter is insane.