Comment box Scope: personal reaction Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Like Amsterdam, this is the result of good policy decisions. Paris has not always been a cycling city. For many...
Exemplary
Comment box
Scope: personal reaction
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
Like Amsterdam, this is the result of good policy decisions. Paris has not always been a cycling city. For many years there is no way you would ever see me on a bicycle there. And many areas of Paris are still absolutely overwhelmed by automobiles (Arc de Triomphe is very unpleasant, and Champs-Elysees still has too many cars for my taste). But the mayor's initiatives into dedicated, safe bicycle infrastructure has made a resounding impact on the way people get around. In addition to the city's world-class metro and light rail system, effort has been made to keep the city walkable and pleasant for pedestrians.
Because I currently live in the United States, I am always concerned with American cities. Almost universally, they have pretty poor bicycle infrastructure. In many ways they resemble Paris pre-2015 (ish). The conversation is always "BUT THE CYCLIST WENT THROUGH A RED LIGHT" or "But you can't cycle in the winter!!!1!" This completely neglects the innumerable safety problems associated with automobiles as well as the utterly irreconcilable issue of space-inefficiency, which necessarily causes absurd congestion all times of the day. (In a fairly large city, endless car traffic is a physically impossible problem to solve without either making the transportation system more multi-modal, or de-densifying to such an extent that the city becomes economically unfeasible as a location to live and work.)
I think people who live in or travel through cities ought to appreciate that driving a car should not always be considered the default way to get around in such places. The full-sized automobile is an inefficient, congestion-inducing, dangerous, noisy, and frankly ugly piece of machinery to which there are many better alternatives in even vaguely dense areas. I think Paris is well on its way toward reversing the 20th century's poor decision-making and machine-first thinking. Better to replace that with human-first thinking.
This starts with infrastructure, not manual or even automated enforcement of traffic laws (although that is still useful sometimes). Bicycles need proper, separated lanes; physical protection from automobiles; bike-specific traffic lights; bicycle parking amenities; road diets; curb extensions; and so on. Putting police officers on bikes rather than in cars also encourages enforcement of bike-specific safety issues (issues almost universally caused by car drivers) and can also keep the police force better in touch with the communities they serve. Cities also need to invest the bare minimum of maintenance, like sweeping trash from bike lanes (there are many machines that can do this). All of these factors I mention are things that cities around the world have invested huge sums of money into for automobiles, to such an extent that our society has become poorer, more stratified, and more ecologically destructive. Shifting some of that attention away from automobiles and toward bicycles is not only possible, but one of the environmentally and socially most beneficial things we can do as a species.
Exactly this. My city has a couple of unprotected bike lanes on 40 mph stroads that end up completely covered in a pile of snow because the plows are only concerned with clearing the road for...
Exactly this.
My city has a couple of unprotected bike lanes on 40 mph stroads that end up completely covered in a pile of snow because the plows are only concerned with clearing the road for automobiles.
The city then says they can’t put in protected bike lanes because nobody is using the snow gutters we already have (while also bragging that we have the highest bike commuting numbers in the state).
So many people would happily use bikes to get around if they had proper, safe infrastructure but too many US cities paint some lines on the gutters and then say they’re out of ideas.
Comment box Scope: information, experiences Tone: neutral Opinion: not really Sarcasm/humor: none For the curious, the street sweepers cities can invest in for fully protected bike lanes look like...
Comment box
Scope: information, experiences
Tone: neutral
Opinion: not really
Sarcasm/humor: none
For the curious, the street sweepers cities can invest in for fully protected bike lanes look like this. There are actually a lot of them in the US already, but only in some cities. I think they're pretty cute. They also aren't that expensive as far as public maintenance vehicles go.
The phrase I use when talking about demand for infrastructure is "If you build it, they will come." In a place where a lot of people need to get around, good designs encourage people to change their behavior and switch away from cars -- sometimes or all the time. The hardcore cyclists will bike in any conditions, but so many more people only feel comfortable doing it when there's proper infrastructure. Kids, families, seniors, and plenty of cautious adults want actual infrastructure. Not everyone has to bike, but the benefits of even a few people doing it vastly outweigh the costs to set it up.
Though even when people do use bike lanes, naysayers remain. Someone on my city's council made a ridiculous suggestion to remove one of the most-used bike lanes in the city at a budget hearing last week. I have no idea why. Its installation has reduced car congestion (not increased it), it's used all the time by cyclists, etc. This council person was just speaking from a position of "it's not a car, so it's bad."
My city has a long way to go, but they've at least right-sized a bunch of our 4-lane stroads without a turn lane down to 2-lane roads with a turn lane and bike lanes (gutters). The bike lanes...
My city has a couple of unprotected bike lanes on 40 mph stroads that end up completely covered in a pile of snow because the plows are only concerned with clearing the road for automobiles.
My city has a long way to go, but they've at least right-sized a bunch of our 4-lane stroads without a turn lane down to 2-lane roads with a turn lane and bike lanes (gutters). The bike lanes still feel dangerous to ride on though especially the segments where you're wedged between parallel parked cars and 35 mph speed limit traffic (have to take the whole lane in self-defense), and drivers complain that no one's using them. First off, they're wrong - people are using them. Secondly, a lot more people would be using them if they were given a protected lane that's connected to an entire network of protected lanes throughout the city. The lanes arbitrarily stop in various places even when they're SO CLOSE to connecting with one another. Frustratingly slow evolution, but we're continuing to pressure the city and change is happening.
Connecting is such a big issue with bike lanes. There are a lot of bike lanes in between home and work, but not in the busiest and most dangerous areas to ride in. The sidewalks are also poorly...
Connecting is such a big issue with bike lanes. There are a lot of bike lanes in between home and work, but not in the busiest and most dangerous areas to ride in. The sidewalks are also poorly maintained in those areas, probably because foot traffic isn't high near freeway entrances and other car-dominant areas. So, a bike commute ends up not being viable if I'm risk-averse. A coworker died in a bike accident recently, and the number of ghost bikes I've seen is not encouraging.
A bit off topic. When I visited Paris I was generally surprised at how many activities required tickets, but I found the ticket for the Arc de Triomphe to be especially galling (16 € per adult!)....
Arc de Triomphe is very unpleasant
A bit off topic. When I visited Paris I was generally surprised at how many activities required tickets, but I found the ticket for the Arc de Triomphe to be especially galling (16 € per adult!). It just seemed like a weird thing to gatekeep access to, considering there's no actual barrier besides the five lanes of traffic on the roundabout. Not that the roundabout seemed to prevent trespassing -- I watched people run across the roundabout to access the Arc after the structure "closed" for the evening.
So, uh, I guess my point is, less cars in Paris would translate to better health for its residents, better health for the environment, and easier trespass to the Arc de Triomphe.
Did they change ticketing for the Arc du Triomphe recently? I was there in June and I don’t remember paying for a ticket. You needed a ticket if you wanted to go inside and up the arc, but we took...
Did they change ticketing for the Arc du Triomphe recently? I was there in June and I don’t remember paying for a ticket. You needed a ticket if you wanted to go inside and up the arc, but we took the pedestrian tunnel and walked around the base without paying anything. (I very well might be misremembering though.)
You are correct, you can walk around the base of the arc without a ticket, but you need one to go up to the observation platform, museum and gift shop inside. We went on a whim because when we...
You are correct, you can walk around the base of the arc without a ticket, but you need one to go up to the observation platform, museum and gift shop inside. We went on a whim because when we were visiting the arc, there was basically no line. It's staggeringly huge inside!
I agree with everything you said as a regular bicycle commuter myself. But I do wonder, how do we convince people to start riding bikes who primarily have only driven cars?
I agree with everything you said as a regular bicycle commuter myself. But I do wonder, how do we convince people to start riding bikes who primarily have only driven cars?
Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none That’s pretty location-dependent. Every city/region has its own unique reasons why people aren’t cycling enough....
Comment box
Scope: comment response
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
That’s pretty location-dependent. Every city/region has its own unique reasons why people aren’t cycling enough.
In general:
Protected bicycle infrastructure, and long-term support for that infrastructure, is necessary. Key word “protected.” This strongly encourages people to cycle who would otherwise not consider it. Passive infrastructure won’t make the whole world switch to biking, but it removes barriers.
A real network of bicycle lanes makes it reasonable to cycle many places, rather than just along a couple of corridors. Each new edge/node in a network is a major benefit.
Socially normalizing cycling. You don’t have to convince anyone of anything. But community organizations can run events centered around bikes, especially getting kids and families on bikes, which make this normal. Group rides teach people safe routes and let them make friends. When this becomes a normal way to get around, not just for Lance Armstrong, more people will do it.
Development and progress toward a Vision Zero initiative including but not exclusive to cycling. This means a local plan to reach zero traffic deaths in your region. It involves building infrastructure that slows down automobiles in places where Vulnerable Road Users are present, especially in intersections, and making it structurally hard for drivers to make life-ending “mistakes” with their multi-ton vehicles. Not every street can have a bike lane, but if people feel safe outside of a car in their town, then they will consider cycling to be much more reasonable.
Business buy-in: bike-share services are great, bike racks at important destinations are essential—anywhere you would consider allowing automobile parking, there should be a bike rack, and you can fit at least half a dozen bikes in the same space as one car. This may involve cooperation with many local businesses. Activists can engage in educational campaigns to inform communities of the economic benefits of safer streets, including more cycling—people spend more time and money hanging out in walkable and billable places.
There are also some larger issues like awareness of solutions like cargo bikes, bike trailers, and other attachments that are useful for parents or people hauling things.
Semi-related: cycling activists promote the environmental and traffic benefits of increased cycling, but I think that another benefit that goes undermentioned is that getting around on bike is an...
Semi-related: cycling activists promote the environmental and traffic benefits of increased cycling, but I think that another benefit that goes undermentioned is that getting around on bike is an excellent way for people to get daily exercise: you end up with a fitter, more attractive society. Plus, exercise is good for skin health.
I remember Amsterdam was full of lean, fit people (with glowing complexions) when I lived there. I easily burned 400+ active calories a day biking and walking around the city to get to work, run errands, or see friends. I seriously cannot recall seeing 'love handles' in Amsterdam; I forgot they exist. Until I left and moved back to Chicago after years abroad.
There at O'Hare Airport, I was shell shocked being greeted with the sight of so many overweight, unhealthy-looking Americans. That was the segment of the population that was affluent enough for international air travel too. The shock got worse once I stepped out of the airport.
I would absolutely love mass used public transit in the USA. Unfortunately it’s just not here. People are so fascinated with cars and vehicle independence here on top of the lack of public...
I would absolutely love mass used public transit in the USA. Unfortunately it’s just not here. People are so fascinated with cars and vehicle independence here on top of the lack of public transport infrastructure.
e: Oops! Bicycles and not broader public transit. My bad!
Comment box Scope: comment response, information Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Bicycles are a form of vehicle independence. They are very simple, inexpensive machines which can go...
Exemplary
Comment box
Scope: comment response, information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
Bicycles are a form of vehicle independence. They are very simple, inexpensive machines which can go quite long distances in a day. Their use also doesn't necessarily depend on the price of oil or electricity, or certainly not to the same extent as an automobile. As far as self-sufficiency goes, they offer about as much "independence" as one could possibly ask for beyond your own two feet.
Paris' public transportation system is remarkably good, and that's one reason why going car-free or car-lite in that city is so possible. But I wouldn't say the US is a lost cause. We are inching toward a better built environment. A lot of people choose to live in inaccessible and dangerous (from a pedestrian perspective) suburbs for one reason or another, in large part because they think they need more space than they really do, and because the kinds of dense/walkable neighborhoods that support cycling are illegal to build in most US municipalities -- so the ones that exist are expensive. These things make it hard for Americans to get around with anything other than a car.
There just hasn't been a conversation about pedestrian and bicycle safety for over 75 years, so local towns haven't invested in good designs. To some extent that is because local councils literally do not know what a "good" design is -- they simply have never considered the problem.
But better zoning and housing policy can make it more affordable to live in somewhat more dense areas, and can offer more real "places" instead of strip malls and arterials; better street design can make it safer to make local trips in your town using a bicycle rather than a car; and thoughtful amenities for bicycles can make that more reasonable. Public transit is kind of its own conversation but is certainly related. Modern discourse on "urbanism" (including in small towns) has moved the needle in many respects as it has become much easier to find good examples of good infrastructure.
If you have been to New York City in the past 5 years (as a large city example), you will see that it is moving in the direction Paris is. The bicycle lanes in Manhattan and Brooklyn are relatively extensive and generally pretty good. There's a lot of work to be done, but it isn't an exotic European dream. Plenty of smaller cities have demonstrated remarkable progress on pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as well.
If you are interested in this sort of thing on the local level, I would suggest getting involved with or reading up on the material published by the organization Strong Towns. It is actually not so hard to get a bike lane built in a town or city as long as you know what to ask for and actually make the effort.
I dont know if its mainly about zoning. I really enjoy biking, used to do it a lot as a kid, cycling 40 miles on a Sunday afternoon just for the heck of it. Would love to get a reverse trike for...
I dont know if its mainly about zoning. I really enjoy biking, used to do it a lot as a kid, cycling 40 miles on a Sunday afternoon just for the heck of it. Would love to get a reverse trike for ripping around again.
But then life sets in. I mean cycling is great if you're single. Its not impossible to do it as a couple, but it really gets impractical for anything but leisure if you live in any kind of unhappy weather. Who wants to go out cycling in the rain or the snow? Even a strong wind can make it really cold and unpleasant. And its hard to hold a conversation riding in tandem and side by side is suicidal in most places.
The trickiest part is just the need to bring "stuff" along. I mean I've seen cargo bikes. I had a bike trailer at one point too. But once you're into adult life there just seems to be so many times you need to haul loads that are ungainly if not impractical for a bike. Currently my SUV is full of tools, a ladder and an appliance dolly plus some painting supplies but Im often hauling big awkward things, like a sheet of plywood yesterday and a large cabinet for my wife last week.
So, my conclusion is that the cycling thing may work great for a very specific use case, but its highly impractical for every day life unless you're a single, city dweller with a relatively short commute to work and the grocery store.
ps. My town actually put in bike lanes on key streets, but my observation is that a few people use them fastidiously. Maybe it will grow but they're not very popular.
I'm an avid proponent of cycling for practical reasons (as opposed to hobbyists/sports), but even I don't think that there would be no place for cars. And most people that I talk to that are in...
I'm an avid proponent of cycling for practical reasons (as opposed to hobbyists/sports), but even I don't think that there would be no place for cars. And most people that I talk to that are in favor of moving towards more bike friendly infrastructure are talking about in cities. It simply wouldn't be feasible in rural areas when necessities are so spread out.
But there are lots of times in cities where we really don't need a car that I think a bicycle, hell even a motorcycle or scooter, would work just as well and would free up congestion and land away from parking. Hopefully with the freeing up of land we could build more high density housing and that way more people could live closer to work so that they could bike/walk in.
I think it's tough for many people to view it as viable option because we've become so accustomed to a car-centric culture that it's hard for people to imagine how it would work, but we have always adapted to our situations.
Regarding your post-script, I think it's tough to draw conclusions about how many people are using a cycling lane, especially if you are driving by. Bike lanes don't usually get backed up with traffic, so there is less opportunity to actually see someone in it. Additionally, if it's the standard bike line in many U.S. cities, which is just a line of paint on the ground, it doesn't exactly provide a good sense of safety. I've been forced to get too close to the curb or even jump it a few times due to inattentive/malicious drivers.
I look at it as the inverse - driving is best for specific use cases while cycling is more convenient for everyday default trips. Cars are better (or even necessary) for getting to hiking trails...
I look at it as the inverse - driving is best for specific use cases while cycling is more convenient for everyday default trips.
Cars are better (or even necessary) for getting to hiking trails on the weekends or the occasions when I do need to move a lot of stuff. I live in a place that’s cold, wet, and windy pretty often regardless of the season, so I do commute by car when wind gusts get above about 40 mph.
Other than that, bikes work for me, my wife, and our 3 year old. We commute by bike, take her to and from preschool by bike, pick up groceries by bike, go into town or nearby hikes/beaches by bike, get to friends’ houses by bike…
Our normal daily life doesn’t require a car, but have one we use for the occasions when it’s needed. I realize everyone’s situation is different and it sounds like you need to lug a bunch of stuff with you more often. I’m just pointing out that for many people, thats not the case and traveling by bike would be completely feasible.
So basically, we should use the right tool for the right job.
Also, I think it’s a much more pleasant and invigorating way to get around even in shitty weather. As long as you dress properly.
I was with you up til there :) As someone who detests shitty weather with a passion, I will do anything to stay warm and dry, especially in winter. But I also live in an area that hit -42c last...
Also, I think it’s a much more pleasant and invigorating way to get around even in shitty weather. As long as you dress properly.
I was with you up til there :) As someone who detests shitty weather with a passion, I will do anything to stay warm and dry, especially in winter. But I also live in an area that hit -42c last winter and while you CAN stay warm at that temperature, Id much rather sit beside the woodstove and not risk my life outdoors :)
Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none I would probably not cycle in -42C either. There’s a difference between learning how to wear proper insulating...
Comment box
Scope: comment response
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
I would probably not cycle in -42C either.
There’s a difference between learning how to wear proper insulating layers in a place that gets to, idk, -10C or even -20C (and knowing that you will be warm when you’re moving on the bike), and putting yourself into dangerous situations.
If your life is truly at risk outdoors by virtue of horrid weather, I would question whether humans should live in that place to begin with—sounds like a pretty inefficient use of our rather scarce resources as a society—but I wouldn’t judge anyone in that kind of situation for making a decision to get around in an enclosed vehicle.
I live in a city whose climate doesn’t have any of the problems you describe, so it isn’t really a valid reason not to cycle. Even the coldest days aren’t cold if you wear an actual jacket, or a scarf, or a face covering. People are out walking in the winter all the time anyway. The reason people don’t cycle is because the city won’t bother investing in infrastructure that makes it safe.
Cycling is wonderful and I love it, but its viability is highly dependent on climate and geography. Where I am most days reach 30ºC with high humidity and we are surrounded by slopes.
Cycling is wonderful and I love it, but its viability is highly dependent on climate and geography. Where I am most days reach 30ºC with high humidity and we are surrounded by slopes.
I think a good work around for that, at least for the hills, is investing in an electric bike. Right now I'm in a relatively flat area that regularly gets up to mid 40sºC in the summer and when...
I think a good work around for that, at least for the hills, is investing in an electric bike. Right now I'm in a relatively flat area that regularly gets up to mid 40sºC in the summer and when I'm actually moving the heat doesn't really bother me (granted it's low humidity, but anything over 40ºC is miserable, I don't care what anyone says).
But the hills really are killer. Where I used to live I would bike home from work and it was a gradual incline that would knock me out the first few weeks, and it still wasn't pleasant after I was conditioned towards it. I've heard really good things about e-bikes helping to offload some of that work, and it's something I'm considering doing if the area I move to is hilly.
Electric bikes are only really a thing on the developed world. When you add currency conversion, shipping, and import taxes, in much of the world they're a luxury for the rich. In many places, all...
Electric bikes are only really a thing on the developed world. When you add currency conversion, shipping, and import taxes, in much of the world they're a luxury for the rich.
In many places, all things considered it makes more sense to just get a motorcycle, even more so because the traditional auto industry gives financing conditions that boutique e-bike importers simply cannot compete with.
And I would certainly not spend that much money on a product without official support in my country.
So yeah, e-bikes are not viable in a lot of places. That is, unless you wanna ride a makeshift e-bike that may or may not blow up with you on the saddle.
It's a decade out of date, but the data I can find actually says ebikes are equally as popular in the developing world (and more popular than cars if you compare the number of cars purchased...
It's a decade out of date, but the data I can find actually says ebikes are equally as popular in the developing world (and more popular than cars if you compare the number of cars purchased versus ebikes on a per country basis).
It's not too surprising if you think about the costs of owning and operating a fiddly petrol car versus a simple, clean, and easy-to-store e-bike. It helps that the regulatory requirements are much much lower, and there aren't any tariffs. u/C-Cab, the average e-bike sold in China costs about 10% of the average US sale price.
Thanks for doing the digging! I know that if you do any sort of life time cost analysis that the majority of the time an e-bike will beat a car when you factor in fuel and maintenance, but for...
Thanks for doing the digging! I know that if you do any sort of life time cost analysis that the majority of the time an e-bike will beat a car when you factor in fuel and maintenance, but for some people up front costs can be scary.
I'm certainly speaking from a place of privilege in a developed country. But even then cars themselves (especially good working ones) are a luxury for the rich, if we're speaking globally. All...
I'm certainly speaking from a place of privilege in a developed country. But even then cars themselves (especially good working ones) are a luxury for the rich, if we're speaking globally. All things being equal, I would be more than happy with people, whether in the global north or south, moving towards using motorcycles or scooters more frequently.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the average cost for getting an e-bike might be in a developing country? I know it will vary depending on the country, but if you have any direct experience I would appreciate the trivia.
Comment box Scope: comment response Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none Paris is a major metropolitan city. Most people in major metropolitan cities do not haul large quantities of...
Comment box
Scope: comment response
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
Paris is a major metropolitan city. Most people in major metropolitan cities do not haul large quantities of heavy/bulky materials on a regular basis.
I understand the use-case you describe, but this is an article about a city where, statistically, a huge percentage of people are renters or own units in condos and are therefore not making large-scale home repairs at all. That is easily the biggest quotidian task that requires “tools” which might be hard to transport. Other than that, the next most common fairly universal use-case that cannot be accomplished effectively with a bicycle while wearing a backpack and/or cargo bike is moving large furniture—a legit thing that everyone does, but not very often.
This has been done scientifically, but you can observe it yourself on any day of the week: Most people driving around a city are going to a specific destination under 10 miles away, often under 5 miles, with little or no baggage—not more than a backpack or purse. They aren’t hauling or carrying loads of stuff. And most drivers are alone or have at most one passenger.
There are people for whom cycling doesn’t make sense. But virtually every person commutes in some way, to some thing (job, school, or hobby). Virtually every person buys groceries. In fact those things constitute an enormous portion of trips. If people can substitute some or all of such car trips for those purposes with bike trips… society is so much better off. (And so is their physical health.)
I do not see any incompatibility between taking a bicycle most places and taking the car a couple places where it’s really necessary. Paris is not banning cars. It’s just encouraged people not to drive absolutely everywhere.
And its hard to hold a conversation riding in tandem and side by side is suicidal in most places.
If side-by-side riding is “suicidal” then the infrastructure is not supportive of cycling. Period.
Long-term, a nice cycling network ought to have wide enough bike lanes to allow for side-by-side conversations between two cyclists. There is virtually always enough space in the street to allow this—with some reconfiguration—if it is a priority of the municipality.
I would consider this issue fairly minor, but it is a thing that is thought.
My town actually put in bike lanes on key streets, but my observation is that a few people use them fastidiously. Maybe it will grow but they're not very popular.
If the bike lanes are not protected from automobiles with concrete, it should be obvious why more people do not use them fastidiously! Unprotected bike lanes are unsafe and unpleasant.
If the roads the bike lanes are on have very fast and loud traffic, people may not really want to cycle on them constantly even if the lanes have partial protection. Usually, a concrete barrier puts people enough at ease—but if the speed limit is literally 45mph, it’s just going to be loud, and that’s a disincentive for very casual cyclists.
If there are not enough bike lanes to constitute a “network” actually connecting people to real-world (useful) destinations, the lanes will not see much use. I think people who only drive lack an understanding of how many roads the automobile network has… and therefore that “a couple key streets” is not really a useful network in the same way.
If your town has an extremely small population then you may not see many people in the bike lanes in an absolute sense. Or your town, if it is very car-oriented, may not have enough density for most trips to make sense.
If your town installed these very recently and the weather has not been good, I guess that would be a reason people are not cycling.
More broadly, if your town does not have a cycling culture, it just takes some time for that to develop. It can happen much more quickly if you support community organizations who are interested in teaching cycling (especially to families and kids) and making it fun. Once it gets going, which can be a few years, it tends to stick—as long as there is buy-in from local govt in the form of bike infrastructure.
Cyclist aggression often comes down to poor planning, infrastructure and rules (and that's not including the weirdos who hate everything else on the road). For example, I nearly hit a cyclist the...
Cyclist aggression often comes down to poor planning, infrastructure and rules (and that's not including the weirdos who hate everything else on the road). For example, I nearly hit a cyclist the other day and if I were in an SUV or pickup, it could have been much worse. But the situation was a perfect storm.
Street parking on a popular road was removed for a painted bike lane. Businesses resorted to using the bike lane as drop-off/pickup zones. That creates high risk situations where two car lanes and cyclists all need to coordinate around a massive delivery vehicle at high traffic times. And it wasn't helped when the giant truck, my tiny Toyota and the cyclist all had very different views of the situation and ideas on what needed to happen.
Comment box Scope: comment response, personal anecdotes Tone: neutral Opinion: yes Sarcasm/humor: none That does speak to the necessity for protected bike lanes that people physically can’t park...
Comment box
Scope: comment response, personal anecdotes
Tone: neutral
Opinion: yes
Sarcasm/humor: none
That does speak to the necessity for protected bike lanes that people physically can’t park cars in.
My city has found utility in installing loading zones on the opposite side of the street (one-way street) that the bike lane is on. That way businesses and residents can still unload, and the bike lane won’t be obstructed. Actually it’s a far more constructive use of space than long-term parking… you see like 10 people go in and out for a functional purpose in an hour rather than one single car sitting there for 2 months. Big improvement.
Some of the loading zones become regular parking spots overnight for residents. That also sounds reasonable to me.
My hometown is in the north of germany is bicycle-centered, while my current city is in the south is car-centered. You can see such a difference in behaviour between the car drivers of these two...
My hometown is in the north of germany is bicycle-centered, while my current city is in the south is car-centered.
You can see such a difference in behaviour between the car drivers of these two cities. In my hometown it is very pleasant, because the cars drive much more safely and considerate. In my current city they are more aggressive (driving style and reactions), inconsiderate and frankly just dangerous, often injuring cyclists in the process. You have to drive aggressively yourselves, to protect your safety and the right to be on the street i.e. driving further on the road to have the possibility to sway right when the car overtakes you dangerously close.
Comment box
Like Amsterdam, this is the result of good policy decisions. Paris has not always been a cycling city. For many years there is no way you would ever see me on a bicycle there. And many areas of Paris are still absolutely overwhelmed by automobiles (Arc de Triomphe is very unpleasant, and Champs-Elysees still has too many cars for my taste). But the mayor's initiatives into dedicated, safe bicycle infrastructure has made a resounding impact on the way people get around. In addition to the city's world-class metro and light rail system, effort has been made to keep the city walkable and pleasant for pedestrians.
Because I currently live in the United States, I am always concerned with American cities. Almost universally, they have pretty poor bicycle infrastructure. In many ways they resemble Paris pre-2015 (ish). The conversation is always "BUT THE CYCLIST WENT THROUGH A RED LIGHT" or "But you can't cycle in the winter!!!1!" This completely neglects the innumerable safety problems associated with automobiles as well as the utterly irreconcilable issue of space-inefficiency, which necessarily causes absurd congestion all times of the day. (In a fairly large city, endless car traffic is a physically impossible problem to solve without either making the transportation system more multi-modal, or de-densifying to such an extent that the city becomes economically unfeasible as a location to live and work.)
I think people who live in or travel through cities ought to appreciate that driving a car should not always be considered the default way to get around in such places. The full-sized automobile is an inefficient, congestion-inducing, dangerous, noisy, and frankly ugly piece of machinery to which there are many better alternatives in even vaguely dense areas. I think Paris is well on its way toward reversing the 20th century's poor decision-making and machine-first thinking. Better to replace that with human-first thinking.
This starts with infrastructure, not manual or even automated enforcement of traffic laws (although that is still useful sometimes). Bicycles need proper, separated lanes; physical protection from automobiles; bike-specific traffic lights; bicycle parking amenities; road diets; curb extensions; and so on. Putting police officers on bikes rather than in cars also encourages enforcement of bike-specific safety issues (issues almost universally caused by car drivers) and can also keep the police force better in touch with the communities they serve. Cities also need to invest the bare minimum of maintenance, like sweeping trash from bike lanes (there are many machines that can do this). All of these factors I mention are things that cities around the world have invested huge sums of money into for automobiles, to such an extent that our society has become poorer, more stratified, and more ecologically destructive. Shifting some of that attention away from automobiles and toward bicycles is not only possible, but one of the environmentally and socially most beneficial things we can do as a species.
Exactly this.
My city has a couple of unprotected bike lanes on 40 mph stroads that end up completely covered in a pile of snow because the plows are only concerned with clearing the road for automobiles.
The city then says they can’t put in protected bike lanes because nobody is using the snow gutters we already have (while also bragging that we have the highest bike commuting numbers in the state).
So many people would happily use bikes to get around if they had proper, safe infrastructure but too many US cities paint some lines on the gutters and then say they’re out of ideas.
Comment box
For the curious, the street sweepers cities can invest in for fully protected bike lanes look like this. There are actually a lot of them in the US already, but only in some cities. I think they're pretty cute. They also aren't that expensive as far as public maintenance vehicles go.
The phrase I use when talking about demand for infrastructure is "If you build it, they will come." In a place where a lot of people need to get around, good designs encourage people to change their behavior and switch away from cars -- sometimes or all the time. The hardcore cyclists will bike in any conditions, but so many more people only feel comfortable doing it when there's proper infrastructure. Kids, families, seniors, and plenty of cautious adults want actual infrastructure. Not everyone has to bike, but the benefits of even a few people doing it vastly outweigh the costs to set it up.
Though even when people do use bike lanes, naysayers remain. Someone on my city's council made a ridiculous suggestion to remove one of the most-used bike lanes in the city at a budget hearing last week. I have no idea why. Its installation has reduced car congestion (not increased it), it's used all the time by cyclists, etc. This council person was just speaking from a position of "it's not a car, so it's bad."
Another phrase to consider is "if there's so much demand for a bridge, then why don't I see anyone swimming across?"
My city has a long way to go, but they've at least right-sized a bunch of our 4-lane stroads without a turn lane down to 2-lane roads with a turn lane and bike lanes (gutters). The bike lanes still feel dangerous to ride on though especially the segments where you're wedged between parallel parked cars and 35 mph speed limit traffic (have to take the whole lane in self-defense), and drivers complain that no one's using them. First off, they're wrong - people are using them. Secondly, a lot more people would be using them if they were given a protected lane that's connected to an entire network of protected lanes throughout the city. The lanes arbitrarily stop in various places even when they're SO CLOSE to connecting with one another. Frustratingly slow evolution, but we're continuing to pressure the city and change is happening.
Connecting is such a big issue with bike lanes. There are a lot of bike lanes in between home and work, but not in the busiest and most dangerous areas to ride in. The sidewalks are also poorly maintained in those areas, probably because foot traffic isn't high near freeway entrances and other car-dominant areas. So, a bike commute ends up not being viable if I'm risk-averse. A coworker died in a bike accident recently, and the number of ghost bikes I've seen is not encouraging.
A bit off topic. When I visited Paris I was generally surprised at how many activities required tickets, but I found the ticket for the Arc de Triomphe to be especially galling (16 € per adult!). It just seemed like a weird thing to gatekeep access to, considering there's no actual barrier besides the five lanes of traffic on the roundabout. Not that the roundabout seemed to prevent trespassing -- I watched people run across the roundabout to access the Arc after the structure "closed" for the evening.
So, uh, I guess my point is, less cars in Paris would translate to better health for its residents, better health for the environment, and easier trespass to the Arc de Triomphe.
Did they change ticketing for the Arc du Triomphe recently? I was there in June and I don’t remember paying for a ticket. You needed a ticket if you wanted to go inside and up the arc, but we took the pedestrian tunnel and walked around the base without paying anything. (I very well might be misremembering though.)
You are correct, you can walk around the base of the arc without a ticket, but you need one to go up to the observation platform, museum and gift shop inside. We went on a whim because when we were visiting the arc, there was basically no line. It's staggeringly huge inside!
Ah, that makes much more sense!
I agree with everything you said as a regular bicycle commuter myself. But I do wonder, how do we convince people to start riding bikes who primarily have only driven cars?
Comment box
That’s pretty location-dependent. Every city/region has its own unique reasons why people aren’t cycling enough.
In general:
There are also some larger issues like awareness of solutions like cargo bikes, bike trailers, and other attachments that are useful for parents or people hauling things.
Semi-related: cycling activists promote the environmental and traffic benefits of increased cycling, but I think that another benefit that goes undermentioned is that getting around on bike is an excellent way for people to get daily exercise: you end up with a fitter, more attractive society. Plus, exercise is good for skin health.
I remember Amsterdam was full of lean, fit people (with glowing complexions) when I lived there. I easily burned 400+ active calories a day biking and walking around the city to get to work, run errands, or see friends. I seriously cannot recall seeing 'love handles' in Amsterdam; I forgot they exist. Until I left and moved back to Chicago after years abroad.
There at O'Hare Airport, I was shell shocked being greeted with the sight of so many overweight, unhealthy-looking Americans. That was the segment of the population that was affluent enough for international air travel too. The shock got worse once I stepped out of the airport.
I would absolutely love mass used public transit in the USA. Unfortunately it’s just not here. People are so fascinated with cars and vehicle independence here on top of the lack of public transport infrastructure.
e: Oops! Bicycles and not broader public transit. My bad!
Comment box
Bicycles are a form of vehicle independence. They are very simple, inexpensive machines which can go quite long distances in a day. Their use also doesn't necessarily depend on the price of oil or electricity, or certainly not to the same extent as an automobile. As far as self-sufficiency goes, they offer about as much "independence" as one could possibly ask for beyond your own two feet.
Paris' public transportation system is remarkably good, and that's one reason why going car-free or car-lite in that city is so possible. But I wouldn't say the US is a lost cause. We are inching toward a better built environment. A lot of people choose to live in inaccessible and dangerous (from a pedestrian perspective) suburbs for one reason or another, in large part because they think they need more space than they really do, and because the kinds of dense/walkable neighborhoods that support cycling are illegal to build in most US municipalities -- so the ones that exist are expensive. These things make it hard for Americans to get around with anything other than a car.
There just hasn't been a conversation about pedestrian and bicycle safety for over 75 years, so local towns haven't invested in good designs. To some extent that is because local councils literally do not know what a "good" design is -- they simply have never considered the problem.
But better zoning and housing policy can make it more affordable to live in somewhat more dense areas, and can offer more real "places" instead of strip malls and arterials; better street design can make it safer to make local trips in your town using a bicycle rather than a car; and thoughtful amenities for bicycles can make that more reasonable. Public transit is kind of its own conversation but is certainly related. Modern discourse on "urbanism" (including in small towns) has moved the needle in many respects as it has become much easier to find good examples of good infrastructure.
If you have been to New York City in the past 5 years (as a large city example), you will see that it is moving in the direction Paris is. The bicycle lanes in Manhattan and Brooklyn are relatively extensive and generally pretty good. There's a lot of work to be done, but it isn't an exotic European dream. Plenty of smaller cities have demonstrated remarkable progress on pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure as well.
If you are interested in this sort of thing on the local level, I would suggest getting involved with or reading up on the material published by the organization Strong Towns. It is actually not so hard to get a bike lane built in a town or city as long as you know what to ask for and actually make the effort.
I dont know if its mainly about zoning. I really enjoy biking, used to do it a lot as a kid, cycling 40 miles on a Sunday afternoon just for the heck of it. Would love to get a reverse trike for ripping around again.
But then life sets in. I mean cycling is great if you're single. Its not impossible to do it as a couple, but it really gets impractical for anything but leisure if you live in any kind of unhappy weather. Who wants to go out cycling in the rain or the snow? Even a strong wind can make it really cold and unpleasant. And its hard to hold a conversation riding in tandem and side by side is suicidal in most places.
The trickiest part is just the need to bring "stuff" along. I mean I've seen cargo bikes. I had a bike trailer at one point too. But once you're into adult life there just seems to be so many times you need to haul loads that are ungainly if not impractical for a bike. Currently my SUV is full of tools, a ladder and an appliance dolly plus some painting supplies but Im often hauling big awkward things, like a sheet of plywood yesterday and a large cabinet for my wife last week.
So, my conclusion is that the cycling thing may work great for a very specific use case, but its highly impractical for every day life unless you're a single, city dweller with a relatively short commute to work and the grocery store.
ps. My town actually put in bike lanes on key streets, but my observation is that a few people use them fastidiously. Maybe it will grow but they're not very popular.
I'm an avid proponent of cycling for practical reasons (as opposed to hobbyists/sports), but even I don't think that there would be no place for cars. And most people that I talk to that are in favor of moving towards more bike friendly infrastructure are talking about in cities. It simply wouldn't be feasible in rural areas when necessities are so spread out.
But there are lots of times in cities where we really don't need a car that I think a bicycle, hell even a motorcycle or scooter, would work just as well and would free up congestion and land away from parking. Hopefully with the freeing up of land we could build more high density housing and that way more people could live closer to work so that they could bike/walk in.
I think it's tough for many people to view it as viable option because we've become so accustomed to a car-centric culture that it's hard for people to imagine how it would work, but we have always adapted to our situations.
Regarding your post-script, I think it's tough to draw conclusions about how many people are using a cycling lane, especially if you are driving by. Bike lanes don't usually get backed up with traffic, so there is less opportunity to actually see someone in it. Additionally, if it's the standard bike line in many U.S. cities, which is just a line of paint on the ground, it doesn't exactly provide a good sense of safety. I've been forced to get too close to the curb or even jump it a few times due to inattentive/malicious drivers.
I look at it as the inverse - driving is best for specific use cases while cycling is more convenient for everyday default trips.
Cars are better (or even necessary) for getting to hiking trails on the weekends or the occasions when I do need to move a lot of stuff. I live in a place that’s cold, wet, and windy pretty often regardless of the season, so I do commute by car when wind gusts get above about 40 mph.
Other than that, bikes work for me, my wife, and our 3 year old. We commute by bike, take her to and from preschool by bike, pick up groceries by bike, go into town or nearby hikes/beaches by bike, get to friends’ houses by bike…
Our normal daily life doesn’t require a car, but have one we use for the occasions when it’s needed. I realize everyone’s situation is different and it sounds like you need to lug a bunch of stuff with you more often. I’m just pointing out that for many people, thats not the case and traveling by bike would be completely feasible.
So basically, we should use the right tool for the right job.
Also, I think it’s a much more pleasant and invigorating way to get around even in shitty weather. As long as you dress properly.
I was with you up til there :) As someone who detests shitty weather with a passion, I will do anything to stay warm and dry, especially in winter. But I also live in an area that hit -42c last winter and while you CAN stay warm at that temperature, Id much rather sit beside the woodstove and not risk my life outdoors :)
Comment box
I would probably not cycle in -42C either.
There’s a difference between learning how to wear proper insulating layers in a place that gets to, idk, -10C or even -20C (and knowing that you will be warm when you’re moving on the bike), and putting yourself into dangerous situations.
If your life is truly at risk outdoors by virtue of horrid weather, I would question whether humans should live in that place to begin with—sounds like a pretty inefficient use of our rather scarce resources as a society—but I wouldn’t judge anyone in that kind of situation for making a decision to get around in an enclosed vehicle.
I live in a city whose climate doesn’t have any of the problems you describe, so it isn’t really a valid reason not to cycle. Even the coldest days aren’t cold if you wear an actual jacket, or a scarf, or a face covering. People are out walking in the winter all the time anyway. The reason people don’t cycle is because the city won’t bother investing in infrastructure that makes it safe.
Cycling is wonderful and I love it, but its viability is highly dependent on climate and geography. Where I am most days reach 30ºC with high humidity and we are surrounded by slopes.
I think a good work around for that, at least for the hills, is investing in an electric bike. Right now I'm in a relatively flat area that regularly gets up to mid 40sºC in the summer and when I'm actually moving the heat doesn't really bother me (granted it's low humidity, but anything over 40ºC is miserable, I don't care what anyone says).
But the hills really are killer. Where I used to live I would bike home from work and it was a gradual incline that would knock me out the first few weeks, and it still wasn't pleasant after I was conditioned towards it. I've heard really good things about e-bikes helping to offload some of that work, and it's something I'm considering doing if the area I move to is hilly.
Electric bikes are only really a thing on the developed world. When you add currency conversion, shipping, and import taxes, in much of the world they're a luxury for the rich.
In many places, all things considered it makes more sense to just get a motorcycle, even more so because the traditional auto industry gives financing conditions that boutique e-bike importers simply cannot compete with.
And I would certainly not spend that much money on a product without official support in my country.
So yeah, e-bikes are not viable in a lot of places. That is, unless you wanna ride a makeshift e-bike that may or may not blow up with you on the saddle.
It's a decade out of date, but the data I can find actually says ebikes are equally as popular in the developing world (and more popular than cars if you compare the number of cars purchased versus ebikes on a per country basis).
It's not too surprising if you think about the costs of owning and operating a fiddly petrol car versus a simple, clean, and easy-to-store e-bike. It helps that the regulatory requirements are much much lower, and there aren't any tariffs. u/C-Cab, the average e-bike sold in China costs about 10% of the average US sale price.
Thanks for doing the digging! I know that if you do any sort of life time cost analysis that the majority of the time an e-bike will beat a car when you factor in fuel and maintenance, but for some people up front costs can be scary.
I'm certainly speaking from a place of privilege in a developed country. But even then cars themselves (especially good working ones) are a luxury for the rich, if we're speaking globally. All things being equal, I would be more than happy with people, whether in the global north or south, moving towards using motorcycles or scooters more frequently.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the average cost for getting an e-bike might be in a developing country? I know it will vary depending on the country, but if you have any direct experience I would appreciate the trivia.
Comment box
Paris is a major metropolitan city. Most people in major metropolitan cities do not haul large quantities of heavy/bulky materials on a regular basis.
I understand the use-case you describe, but this is an article about a city where, statistically, a huge percentage of people are renters or own units in condos and are therefore not making large-scale home repairs at all. That is easily the biggest quotidian task that requires “tools” which might be hard to transport. Other than that, the next most common fairly universal use-case that cannot be accomplished effectively with a bicycle while wearing a backpack and/or cargo bike is moving large furniture—a legit thing that everyone does, but not very often.
This has been done scientifically, but you can observe it yourself on any day of the week: Most people driving around a city are going to a specific destination under 10 miles away, often under 5 miles, with little or no baggage—not more than a backpack or purse. They aren’t hauling or carrying loads of stuff. And most drivers are alone or have at most one passenger.
There are people for whom cycling doesn’t make sense. But virtually every person commutes in some way, to some thing (job, school, or hobby). Virtually every person buys groceries. In fact those things constitute an enormous portion of trips. If people can substitute some or all of such car trips for those purposes with bike trips… society is so much better off. (And so is their physical health.)
I do not see any incompatibility between taking a bicycle most places and taking the car a couple places where it’s really necessary. Paris is not banning cars. It’s just encouraged people not to drive absolutely everywhere.
If side-by-side riding is “suicidal” then the infrastructure is not supportive of cycling. Period.
Long-term, a nice cycling network ought to have wide enough bike lanes to allow for side-by-side conversations between two cyclists. There is virtually always enough space in the street to allow this—with some reconfiguration—if it is a priority of the municipality.
I would consider this issue fairly minor, but it is a thing that is thought.
If the bike lanes are not protected from automobiles with concrete, it should be obvious why more people do not use them fastidiously! Unprotected bike lanes are unsafe and unpleasant.
If the roads the bike lanes are on have very fast and loud traffic, people may not really want to cycle on them constantly even if the lanes have partial protection. Usually, a concrete barrier puts people enough at ease—but if the speed limit is literally 45mph, it’s just going to be loud, and that’s a disincentive for very casual cyclists.
If there are not enough bike lanes to constitute a “network” actually connecting people to real-world (useful) destinations, the lanes will not see much use. I think people who only drive lack an understanding of how many roads the automobile network has… and therefore that “a couple key streets” is not really a useful network in the same way.
If your town has an extremely small population then you may not see many people in the bike lanes in an absolute sense. Or your town, if it is very car-oriented, may not have enough density for most trips to make sense.
If your town installed these very recently and the weather has not been good, I guess that would be a reason people are not cycling.
More broadly, if your town does not have a cycling culture, it just takes some time for that to develop. It can happen much more quickly if you support community organizations who are interested in teaching cycling (especially to families and kids) and making it fun. Once it gets going, which can be a few years, it tends to stick—as long as there is buy-in from local govt in the form of bike infrastructure.
As a cyclist, I’d like at the bare minimum for people not to be aggressive towards us. I’ve been yelled at and nearly hit a couple of times.
Cyclist aggression often comes down to poor planning, infrastructure and rules (and that's not including the weirdos who hate everything else on the road). For example, I nearly hit a cyclist the other day and if I were in an SUV or pickup, it could have been much worse. But the situation was a perfect storm.
Street parking on a popular road was removed for a painted bike lane. Businesses resorted to using the bike lane as drop-off/pickup zones. That creates high risk situations where two car lanes and cyclists all need to coordinate around a massive delivery vehicle at high traffic times. And it wasn't helped when the giant truck, my tiny Toyota and the cyclist all had very different views of the situation and ideas on what needed to happen.
Comment box
That does speak to the necessity for protected bike lanes that people physically can’t park cars in.
My city has found utility in installing loading zones on the opposite side of the street (one-way street) that the bike lane is on. That way businesses and residents can still unload, and the bike lane won’t be obstructed. Actually it’s a far more constructive use of space than long-term parking… you see like 10 people go in and out for a functional purpose in an hour rather than one single car sitting there for 2 months. Big improvement.
Some of the loading zones become regular parking spots overnight for residents. That also sounds reasonable to me.
My hometown is in the north of germany is bicycle-centered, while my current city is in the south is car-centered.
You can see such a difference in behaviour between the car drivers of these two cities. In my hometown it is very pleasant, because the cars drive much more safely and considerate. In my current city they are more aggressive (driving style and reactions), inconsiderate and frankly just dangerous, often injuring cyclists in the process. You have to drive aggressively yourselves, to protect your safety and the right to be on the street i.e. driving further on the road to have the possibility to sway right when the car overtakes you dangerously close.
I’d love to ride my bicycle but this is exactly why I don’t. Too risk adverse currently.
Sadly this point doesn't get elaborated further.