I live in two (mental) worlds. In the first world, I believe the idea that cyclists fair best when they are integrated with traffic and follow the same rules as automobiles. In the second world, I believe the Dutch argument that proper cycling infrastructure increases actual and subjective safety and attracts cyclists. These are not opposing positions. They are opposing cultural realities.
I’m well aware of the argument that claims separate infrastructure means bicycles are inferior to cars. And in the American context that is often true. In the Dutch context it is false. Bicycles are equal and even superior. David Hembrow’s latest entry demonstrates how. The picture above is from his post and shows that cyclists along this stretch have their own highway, including separate trips for the stop lights. When the bicycle lights are green the automobile lights are red.
Let’s consider what happens when Americans try to create bicycle infrastructure on the cheap, i.e. paint instead of asphalt and modern technology. Commute Orlando discusses what we see in the picture below: the idiotic choices made by those who would rather paint than think. This is what happens in America because we are:
1. Cheap (i.e. tax averse), 2. short-sighted, 3. in love with cars and 4. unwilling to change. There’s a word that covers all four, but I’ll avoid using it because I’m trying to maintain a certain level of politeness.
I agree with the Keri at Commute Orlando that such lanes are dangerous and unethical.
I agree with David Hembrow that to increase cycling as basic transportation we must create appropriate cycling infrastructure of a very particular kind.
Americans will never see a system such as the Dutch have for the reasons I listed above. We will gladly go on paying any price for gas. We will gladly go on making the automobile the only real choice in personal transportation. Will we just as gladly pay the price that’s coming?
Until the day comes that we come to our senses, I’ll ride in traffic as a part of traffic and encourage others to do the same. I’ll stay the hell away from dangerous bicycle lanes. But I’ll keep pushing for bicycle superiority, i.e. our own bicycle highways that have the right of way and a transportation environment in which it is difficult and expensive to drive a car.
Comments 28
I’m curious what the average speeds are for cyclists traveling on urban sidepaths with bicycle signal phases. Speed isn’t an issue if you’re moseying to the store or work and it’s just a mile or two. If your commute is 10-15 miles, the difference between 5mph avg and 15mph becomes significant.
Setting aside the whole Rube Goldberg aspect of it, bicycle compliance with separate signals has proven to be very low in North America, and the segregated system doesn’t work without it. Even on completely separated trails (which I mostly like), stop-sign fatigue becomes a problem if there are a lot of intersection crossings. Three young children lost their mom here last year because of that one little cross-street stop sign she failed to stop at.
One of the European concepts I like for urban areas is “shared space.” In such settings, removing segregation and traffic control devices improves cooperation, safety and average speed, while reducing traffic speed (keeping traffic moving steadily rather than surging also improves fuel economy and emissions).
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 12:57 pm ¶Bicycles are inferior to cars in one way, which I think is the most important reason to have separate infrastructure: Weight. A car weighs tons more than a bike in almost every case. This simple fact alone is the primary reason cars and bicycles should never share infrastructure, especially when you take into consideration the next most important factor (as far as safety is concerned) and that is Acceleration. Those two are the ingredients in physics that will give you force, and force is exactly what you do not want happening between motorists and bicyclists.
Now, when you start to consider the environment, being social, your health etc, bicycles are far superior to cars. But these are two completely different worlds in my view, and you can’t justify one with the other. Bikes being superior to cars with respect to environment (etc) is not a reason bikes should share the road with cars. Bikes should not share the road with cars because cars can kill people and destroy bikes very easily. I feel separate infrastructure is the only way to increase ridership in the US past the point where enthusiasts will ride most of the time. Everyday commuters etc are just too worried about the risks involved, from the people I’ve talked to at least (e.g. most of my family in the Ozarks, friends that live in Springfield, and the rest of my family and friends around the south and midwest) They just won’t get on the street with cars, and I don’t blame them a bit. I would encourage them not to if I wasn’t such an enthusiast and I didn’t ride with cars every day. But it’s a whole different world when people expect you to be on the road vs not.
Anyway, that’s my rant. I don’t think the fact that we’re morally superior to drivers is any reason to share the road with cars. While we can get away with it 99% of the time, it sucks getting nailed by some car, and half the time the drivers don’t even think it’s their fault. Unacceptable, and it shouldn’t even be possible in the first place. Separate but equal is fine by me when it comes to cars and bikes. I’ll wait through an extra red light to feel safe and welcome on the road.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 1:07 pm ¶Good point. Here in the UK too we struggle with poorly designed cycle lanes that have given the whole idea a bad name among cyclists. I struggle with this. On the one hand, I can see that without dutch style cycling provision, the bulk of people simply won’t cycle unless they’ve no alternative. On the other hand, it seems that if we wait for the politicians to see sense and build this infrastructure, it will be too late.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 1:08 pm ¶So what to do? I’d love to know more about how the Dutch consensus was built politically to get them where they are today. Meanwhile, I keep on pedalling…
Keri, Jonno, and disgruntled… Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I hope David Hembrow will drop in on this discussion. And I know he can speak to long-distance commuting. He recently posted a video of a long trip along dedicated lanes.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶If we had bike highways like in that picture, with increased congestion in reduced car lanes, car drivers would be flocking to the bike stores ! Job done. If only. Keep doing it Ron.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 2:31 pm ¶Keri: “I’m curious what the average speeds are for cyclists traveling on urban sidepaths with bicycle signal phases. Speed isn’t an issue if you’re moseying to the store or work and it’s just a mile or two. If your commute is 10-15 miles, the difference between 5mph avg and 15mph becomes significant.”
The Dutch cycle at all speeds on urban (and all other) bike lanes and there’s plenty of room to go around and lots of discipline. Every person on a bike knows they’re not the only one there, there’s always someone going faster, so they act accordingly. Generally, it doesn’t matter if someone bikes to the shops or ‘commutes’ to work, any of those destinations entails variable speeds. Most that ‘wobble’ around at 5 mph are tourists
.
I just got back from a 4 day trip to Copenhagen, cycling around etc and there it’s not much different than Amsterdam. Actually, I think most US bike commuters would have something to chew on trying to keep up with an average CPH’er on a ‘clunky’ utility bike. Yeah…I felt right at home.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 2:46 pm ¶I ask because John Allen noted that his exploration of a Montreal cycle track yielded an average speed of about 4mph. That’s not riding speed, it’s the average speed, including all the time waiting at crossings.
I’ll add that using an ex-urban facility, like a rail trail, definitely doesn’t decrease speed and may increase it by allowing cyclists to escape traffic jams. We have one of those which brings commuters into town, allowing them to avoid arterial roads. There are long distances between crossings and motorists are quite courteous in allowing cyclists to cross the busier roads. But once you get into town and you have blocks that are 100ft long, the constant stopping becomes an impediment to efficient conveyance.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶Jonno wrote:
“Bikes should not share the road with cars because cars can kill people and destroy bikes very easily.”
I’ve been near a very large number of automobiles in my life and have yet to feel that any one of those automobiles was about to kill me or destroy my bicycle. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of drivers who have skill sets so poor that they represent a danger to anyone, not just bicyclists and bicycles.
There is a mentality in the USA to blame inanimate objects, rather than take responsibility for one’s skills and actions. Too many times I have read of dangerous roads, or dangerous intersections, while the real focus is dangerous drivers at certain locations.
Advertisements for automobiles tout how safe the vehicle can be, yet all it means is that when an unskilled driver crashes, he is more likely to survive, with no regard to the rest of the world.
Amsterdize writes:
“Every person on a bike knows they’re not the only one there, there’s always someone going faster, so they act accordingly.”
This is a good example of a societal structure where consideration for everyone works. In the USA, it’s not unusual for someone to say “that bicycle is in my way of going faster” even though the delay might be thirty seconds or less.
I would be willing to bet that those faster people are well aware that others are traveling slower and act accordingly.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 3:07 pm ¶@Keri; ok, I thought you were referring to the Dutch situation, as highlighted in the post.
Your observations are correct, if you want to do bike lanes right, they need to accommodate all, use existing (also inoperative) infrastructure and, in addition, sync with the rest of traffic. I’m very aware of the fact that in North-America bicycles infrastructure is still the stepchild of urban planning, a ‘last thought’, not on par. It’s hard to catch up after all those years of neglect (it took us over 30 years to get where we are), but established bicycle nations and their proven concepts also offer opportunities to take advantage and speed up the process, getting it right from the start.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 3:50 pm ¶@fred_dot_u: “I would be willing to bet that those faster people are well aware that others are traveling slower and act accordingly.”
yup, they either ring a bell in advance or take advantage of the fact that slower riders instinctively hear them coming
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 4:01 pm ¶I think the authorities here are generally in favour of the lick o’ paint option too – though with a few notable exceptions.
What’s worse is their on/off relationship with painted bike lanes. Where it’s easy to paint a line, they do. And where it would narrow the car lane, they don’t. The result is that in areas where they’ve decided to paint these lanes, you get them only where the road is plenty wide enough for both bikes and cars. Where it narrows a little, or would need thinking about (usually at junctions & roundabouts) . . . the bike lane vanishes. In other words, you tend NOT to have bike lanes where novice riders would find them useful.
Quite what someone on a bike is supposed to do when the bike lane disappears is quite beyond me – pretend they’re no-longer there?
Bugs the hell out of me!
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 4:28 pm ¶Karl… I prefer sharrows. But I also like sharrows that include a bold, solid lane painted right down the middle of the road. The sharrow is a reminder. The sharrow/lane combination is a 2×4 upside the head.
I have no problem with lanes running along the road as long as they do not create danger. It’s not the concept of the lane that creates danger, it’s the silly placement of the lane in an inappropriate place.
The anti-lane crowd has an excellent point however: Given costs, political pressure, and expediency, lanes all too often get painted in bad locations. This phenomenon in itself is enough to swear off side lanes.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 4:56 pm ¶@Andy: Never say “Never” !
@Keri: I spent most of my life in the UK, where horrid cycle lanes like the one in the second photo above are quite common. I agree that such things are bad news at least as often as they are good. British cyclists share a lot of attitudes with American cyclists. I used to share a lot of those attitudes too until I came over here and discovered how much I had been missing out on. There was a reason to emigrate, you know !
There is simply no downside to this infrastructure. Relative to the UK, with it’s American style infrastructure, cycling here is more pleasant, it’s more efficient, it’s faster, it’s safer, and what’s more it’s “normal” because no longer am I part of a tiny minority who cycle, but part of the majority as everyone else cycles too.
I stop far less frequently on cycle paths in the Netherlands than ever I did on roads in the UK. There are fewer pot-holes, the paths are almost always smoother than British roads (especially the new ones), there’s no spilt diesel to slip on, the debris from crashed cars isn’t on the cycle path.
An example. Riding from my house to the centre of the city back in Cambridge I would stop at the same four sets of traffic lights that I would stop at if I were driving, and give way to another cycle-unfriendly road feature. Or I could take another route which involved the lights + dismounting to go over a pedestrian bridge. Really slow.
On the other hand, riding from my current home to the centre of Assen I see no traffic lights at all, and don’t have to stop once. If I was to drive here, I’ve have to stop for a minimum of two sets of traffic lights to make the same journey, but they’re not a part of the the cycle route:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/11/not-stopping-at-red-traffic-lights.html
I can usually ride from here to Groningen, 28 km away, without stopping once. Before I leave Assen, there is only one set of traffic lights on the route, and that defaults to green for bikes:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/default-to-green.html
If I was to drive to Groningen I would have four sets of traffic lights to go through before we even got out of Assen.
What’s more, the cycle distances in both these cases are a few km shorter in distance than the driving routes. It’s a real win-win situation.
A problem of low speed is not in any way inherent to segregated cycle paths. Since moving here I’ve actually adjusted the gearing on my touring bike because I needed higher gears to allow the higher sustained speeds that I can use here. And I’m not nearly the quickest here. Some people travel at really serious speeds on cycle paths in this country:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/speed.html
It’s not only Americans who have this misconception about the speed of Dutch cyclists, British cyclists repeatedly try to tell me that Dutch cyclists are slow too. It seems rather illogical to me that people from countries where cycling is such a minority activity and where the average distance travelled per person per year is just a few metres would think that they have a monopoly on speed, but it seems they do.
Take a look at the lists of Tour de France stage winners by country on wikipedia. People are really into cycle sport here, and the result is that while the Netherlands has a population of just 16M people, it has produced 61 stage winners. That’s over double the number that have come from the entire English speaking world put together. The USA has produced 10 stage winners (They’re all champions in my view. I’m not putting down anyone’s efforts):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Tour_de_France_stage_winners
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_Tour_de_France_stage_winners
Cycling every day of your life, as a considerable part of the population does here, pretty much inevitably results in being a fast cyclist. Children here ride anything up to a 40 km round trip each day just to get to school. A few years of that is enough to become really quick.
Cycle paths in this country are designed for speed, directness and comfort (smooth surface) as well as for safety. They have to be good as they are designed as serious infrastructure for use for a large percentage of journeys. More journeys up to 7.5 km are made by bike than by driving a car (35% of them. That’s the national figure – it’s much higher in many of the cities). If they didn’t allow people to make efficient journeys, that would be enough to convince some people to drive instead of cycle, and that’s not what the planners want.
And there’s another thing. Cycling is serious here. The people who design cycling infrastructure here really know what they are doing, and the experts responsible for the overall vision also rarely set a foot wrong. For expertise on cycling, this is the country to look to.
As for “Shared Space”… That is in my view the one serious miss-step. It abandons the previously learnt lessons about what gets people to cycle. While it has gained an amazing amount of positive English language press, mainly because it “gets traffic moving”, there is quite a lot of criticism over here in Dutch from people who live with it, especially from those who cycle through it. I’m in the middle of writing a blog post about this, including translations of some of the Dutch comments about it. I’m sure it works better in some situations than others, but suffice to say that I’ve yet to hear anyone who’s experienced it say anything positive about it.
Shared Space is rare, and it’s only been used in small areas where it can do little harm.
BTW, if you’re interested in speed, note that the (famous) shared space in Haren is on my cycle route to Groningen. It’s the bit where I have to slow down.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 5:35 pm ¶No point comparing apples to oranges.
The primary issues are population density (or lack thereof) and available, convenient, comprehensive public transit (or lack thereof).
The facilities in the Lowlands and Denmark were built as a response (let me say that again… as a response) to existing traffic. So keep digging, because the dividing issue here is deeper.
A quick look at China and India, with cycling volumes that make Amsterdam look like Nome Alaska, but are void of “special cyclo-centric” facilities, speaks more eloquently than the Netherlands experience.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 6:41 pm ¶LBJ… Yes, your “response” point is well-taken. Our car-centric transportation system was a response (among other things) to cheap oil and manipulations by the tire, oil, and automobile industries. And we’ll have to respond again when cheap oil goes away (happening now). The question for us is: How long will we wait to respond? Until it’s too late and anything we do is painful? I think the answer to the latter is, sadly, yes. Those of us who are already making bicycles and our two feet serve as basic transportation are going to have an easier time of it.
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 7:27 pm ¶David… FYI… my blogging software holds anything comment with more than three links. It’s fine to post more links. Thanks!
Posted 11 Nov 2008 at 7:40 pm ¶LBJ, the cycling culture in India and China is indeed very different from that in NL and DK. There are a lot of bikes in those countries, but the people riding them overwhelmingly would prefer to drive cars. The reason for cycling is poverty not choice.
In conditions like in the video at the following link, cycling is not seen as a desirable thing to do, but as something you do only if it is necessary:
http://www.howwedrive.com/2008/11/03/delhi/
On the other hand, the Netherlands has the greatest gulf in the world between affordability of cars and ownership. People in this country are more likely to make a positive choice not to bother with a car than elsewhere because life without one is pleasant here:
http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/10/car-free-living.html
The difference in large part comes down to the low subjective safety of cycling in developing countries relative to somewhere where there is more advanced infrastructure.
Andy, this is a good time to push for cycling facilities. If the government wishes to invest
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 1:00 am ¶in infrastructure projects in order to try to ward off effects of a recession, try to push for those infrastructure projects to be designed for cyclists. Try to send your planners over here to see what is possible. Surely there are enough highways already.
When we compare european cycling infrastructure, we try to make the same rules fit the american topography. I dont see how we can do that. America is so spread out, thanks to the sprawl-builders.
Any bicycling infrastructure will have to be complimented by mass transit. The breed of triathletes and roadies that bike to work find the 15 mile one way every day as an exercize routine. I dont ever want to do that. No normal and regular bicyclist would like it either. Hence I find the argument of 5mph-15mph speed different flawed in its fundamental.
For a country as vast as America with cities being spread out, we must majorly concentrate on building denser neighborhoods. Then on urban trails. Trails that actually start from a populated place and end at a place of interest or business. That needs to be paralled with separated bike paths on the roads to avoid the situation of the silly photograph. Personally, when the bike lane is frequently intersected by right turning car lanes, I leave the bike lane and control the car lane.
I hate to hear about bicycling infrastructure flaws when the flaw originates at a more fundamental level of sprawl and lack of mass transit. Till that is cured, all other solutions and initiatives will be like putting lipstick on a pig.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 6:06 am ¶While I’m in support of building a bicycle infrastructure, I just don’t see it as possible in many areas of the U.S.
The biggest problem here is not that a car is bigger than a bicycle or heavier. Walkers share the street in many cities and most of them are smaller than cars. The problem is sprawl. In many, if not most, U.S. cities bicycles are simply not an option I would argue.
This problem has to be tackled hand in hand by fighting sprawl and altering living patterns.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 7:48 am ¶Shek… What you’ve described is exactly the kind of “translating” I’ve mentioned. We’re not going to be able to build a national system of cycling infrastructure. We must build many smaller units in places where they make immediate sense. And, yes, connect it all with effective public transportation that supports cycling.
Happy… Yep. You see the problems of sprawl in Houston
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 8:26 am ¶Sprawl is both a problem and an opportunity though. Yes, obviously, bike infrastructure should integrate with transit (and if you look at both David Hembrow’s blog and copenhagenize you’ll see tons of examples of how that works in the NL and Denmark). But on the plus side, the US is blessed with wide roads and plenty of room for all – unlike trying to shoe-horn bike lanes into UK cities.
The problem as I see it is this: cyclists want decent bike lanes but they don’t want rubbish ones. That’s kind of a nuanced message to get across to a politician. So either the cyclists start arguing amongst themselves about what they want, and the pols take the opportunity to do nothing, or they actually get bike lanes and then don’t use them because they’re lethal. So our problem is to work out how to fit ‘give us an adequate separate infrastructure that promotes a sense of subjective safety and doesn’t ghetto-ize cyclists but encourages life-long use’ onto a t-shirt.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 8:57 am ¶disgruntled,
That is the reason why cyclists should not be the ones making the decision. Highway adn traffic planners do not take a vote on what the motorists have to say. They study the projected volume and design roads and interstates.
There should be planners in place, like the ones from Portland OR who went to Copehnagen to study their system.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 9:52 am ¶http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/10/portlanders-on-tour.html
Abhishek, the idea that cycle journeys are all short in the Netherlands is a myth. While there are some extremely long regular journeys in the US, average journey lengths are not actually that different from anywhere else.
Some people have long commutes here too. There’s a guy around the corner from me who rides 30 km each way to get to work. My daughters have school friends who ride 20 km each way.
The difference is that even those longer commutes are not actually all that unusual in this country.
It’s often quoted that 35% of journeys under 7.5 km are by bike in this country. But that’s not the whole story. A full 15% of journeys in the 7.5 km – 15 km range are also by bike, and 3% of the over 15 km journeys too.
Yes, a larger proportion of journeys of _over_ 15 km are made by bike in this country than of short journeys in English speaking countries. Here’s a reference:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Cycling%20in%20the%20Netherlands%20VenW.pdf
There is masses of room for growth in the US, and in my home country the UK. Apart from language, the two countries share infrastructure which is hostile to cycling, and an attitude of making excuses instead of getting on with changing the situation !
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 10:43 am ¶BTW, if any of you want your planners to see how things are over here, encourage them to come on one of the tours we organise for exactly this reason. The tours are also open to campaigners:
http://hembrow.eu/cycling/studytour.html
We include in town infrastructure, out of town infrastructure, school routes, commuting routes etc. The things which we have been discussing are not only talked about but demonstrated in action.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 11:04 am ¶David… I’m going to suggest your study tour at the next advocacy committee meeting later this month. I really think Springfield is in a great position to become an American cycling showcase if we can just muster the political will.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 12:39 pm ¶David,
I did not mean to imply that trips in the Netherlands are not long enough. Most of the people I work with have long commutes. They try to justify bicycle as a viable means of transportation in their situations and fail.
My argument is against people trying to shoe-horn a bicycle centric lifestyle in a car centric environment. I have seen videos of your long commutes and then embarked on a 14 mile commute to downtown myself. I see the difference.
I do see bicycling from a point of view of Jacksonville FL. Most cities are spread out like Jacksonville. A good portion of people commute 10+ miles. If all they are provided is bike lanes, then it will not work. The politicians here barely understand why bike lanes are not sufficient.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 2:02 pm ¶Abhishek, I understand what you mean. If the aim is to get people out of cars then integration of modes is also important.
I agree that most people won’t cycle 10 miles each way. However, if they can cycle to a train station or bus stop, and either lock their bike for the day or take a folding bike on the train or bus to use at the other end, many more possibilities arise.
There are an awful lot of people who do just that over here. Assen has a population of just 65000, but the train station has a thousand cycle parking spaces, and they’re nearly all full. Bus stops also always include cycle parking, and that’s well used too.
Note that in this country people who use bikes as well as public transport are not usually counted in the cycling figures, but only in the public transport figures. 40% of train passengers use a bike to get to the station. i.e. the numbers cycling for at least part of their journey are significantly higher than the figures suggest.
You may be interested to know that one of the lowest cycling groups in this country is young fathers precisely because they often have work at a distance away from the family home and so commuting becomes less easy.
Women who stay at home with the children are more likely to keep cycling (that’s why there is a big market for moederfietsen which come from the factory fitted with two child seats and a carrier for a push-chair as well as the usual utility bike accoutrements), and is the reason why this country is the only place where more cycle journeys are made by women than by men.
And this, of course, brings to mind another market for cycling which we’ve not been discussing. Even if long commutes are too difficult for many people, there are lots of other journeys that most families make.
In the Netherlands, cycling accounts for a higher percentage of people’s shopping trips than it does of commuting trips.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 4:02 pm ¶I’m not sure I see the part of opportunity presented by sprawl?
Roads may be wide, but it has encouraged a form of disposable housing development that I think will be a problem in the long-term. These houses by companies such as KB Homes (backed by Martha Stewart and notorious for shoddy construction) are not built to last generations…
James Howard Kunstler (who wrote the geography of nowhere) makes an interesting argument that these sprawled suburbs are the mass ghettos of the future… a huge social problem in the works…
I maintain that infrastructure and sprawl must be tackled hand-in-hand. This has to change through a commitment to by public officials to reverse sprawl… check out the Hammarby Model in Sweden. Once an industrial wasteland claimed by gangs, Hammarby is a sustainable suburb with a biking infrastructure that reduces distances and allows for manageable living.
Sprawl is the key enemy here… it even takes our fresh water reserves and consumes nearly every precious resource we have on this planet.
So I feel that I have completely missed the “opportunity” part of sprawl. And to be clear, I’m not trying to demonize anyone or anything here. Simply I’m saying this is not a rational, sustainable way of living and it is a barrier to bicycle culture as well as community building.
Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 7:30 pm ¶