3 ms·

Many times I've seen Seattle compared to Amsterdam, particularly on the topic of bikes. One simple distinction between the two most often overlooked is topogra

Many times I've seen Seattle compared to Amsterdam, particularly on the topic of bikes. One simple distinction between the two most often overlooked is topography. Amsterdam is flat; it's proudly engineered out of the lowlands, and it has canals to prove its level. Seattle is quite hilly, and has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle, both overburdened with traffic. Consequently one is nigh perfect for the bicyclist, and the other is at best a significant challenge.

bch 11y ago
> has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle... I'm not sure what this means... are you talking I5 and 99 ? There are underpasses and overpasses for those.
- theophrastus 11y ago
  Of course there are limited means to get around, over, and under, those very large sources and attractors of car traffic; in a notably limited space. So attempting coexistence between those and bicyclists is a challenge. That was my only (apparently) poorly expressed point.
roel_v 11y ago
Please state how any of this relates to the effectiveness of helmets, and the trade-off between a reduction of the magnitude you're claiming and the reduction in overall bike usage.
- theophrastus 11y ago
  Cars and hills and bicyclists, and a history which doesn't include bicycles and cars in close proximity. You see no distinctions between the two cities as regards bicycle safety, and bicycle safety equipment, as a result of this?
  - roel_v 11y ago
    So your point is that Amsterdam is already more safe to ride a bike in, so wearing a helmet doesn't add safety anymore, whereas in Seattle it does? I mean if this is really what you're claiming, then I hope I don't have to spell out the flaws in that argument.
    - chiaro 11y ago
      No need to be curt. He's simply saying that if Amsterdam is a much safer and convenient city for cyclists, one would expect both higher participation and lower incidence of injuries. A comparison of these metrics across these two cities would therefore be dominated by non-helmet-enforcement effects, and therefore it's more difficult to tease out the causal relationships than to simply compare the top level statistics.
dalke 11y ago
Two things make your objection less relevant. First, Amsterdam had similar problems to the US in the post-war era until the 1970s. That is, the cities were being rebuilt for cars, bicycling infrastructure became worse, and traffic deaths rose. The city had to be re-engineered to get where it is now. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3&v=XuBdf9jYj7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3&v=XuBdf9jYj7o for a video. Second, and concerning topology, look to Trondheim, Norway as an example of a bike-friendly city with hills. And from what I've read, Portland, Oregon is also pretty bike friendly, with similar topology to Seattle. So, why can't Seattle be more like Portland in this respect?
Pxtl 11y ago
Montreal can counter almost every complaint about "we can't do that here!" with cycling. Montreal has hellish weather, mountains (it's literally the name of the city) and expressways. They manage to have fantastic cycling as well.

bch 11y ago

> has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle... I'm not sure what this means... are you talking I5 and 99 ? There are underpasses and overpasses for those.

theophrastus 11y ago
Of course there are limited means to get around, over, and under, those very large sources and attractors of car traffic; in a notably limited space. So attempting coexistence between those and bicyclists is a challenge. That was my only (apparently) poorly expressed point.

roel_v 11y ago

Please state how any of this relates to the effectiveness of helmets, and the trade-off between a reduction of the magnitude you're claiming and the reduction in overall bike usage.

theophrastus 11y ago
Cars and hills and bicyclists, and a history which doesn't include bicycles and cars in close proximity. You see no distinctions between the two cities as regards bicycle safety, and bicycle safety equipment, as a result of this?
- roel_v 11y ago
  So your point is that Amsterdam is already more safe to ride a bike in, so wearing a helmet doesn't add safety anymore, whereas in Seattle it does? I mean if this is really what you're claiming, then I hope I don't have to spell out the flaws in that argument.
  - chiaro 11y ago
    No need to be curt. He's simply saying that if Amsterdam is a much safer and convenient city for cyclists, one would expect both higher participation and lower incidence of injuries. A comparison of these metrics across these two cities would therefore be dominated by non-helmet-enforcement effects, and therefore it's more difficult to tease out the causal relationships than to simply compare the top level statistics.

dalke 11y ago

Two things make your objection less relevant. First, Amsterdam had similar problems to the US in the post-war era until the 1970s. That is, the cities were being rebuilt for cars, bicycling infrastructure became worse, and traffic deaths rose. The city had to be re-engineered to get where it is now. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3&v=XuBdf9jYj7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3&v=XuBdf9jYj7o for a video. Second, and concerning topology, look to Trondheim, Norway as an example of a bike-friendly city with hills. And from what I've read, Portland, Oregon is also pretty bike friendly, with similar topology to Seattle. So, why can't Seattle be more like Portland in this respect?

Pxtl 11y ago

Montreal can counter almost every complaint about "we can't do that here!" with cycling. Montreal has hellish weather, mountains (it's literally the name of the city) and expressways. They manage to have fantastic cycling as well.