> Designing cities around people, not a way to transport them, is missing from this approach. Exactly! What a lot of bike activists seem to be missing is that

> Designing cities around people, not a way to transport them, is missing from this approach. Exactly! What a lot of bike activists seem to be missing is that bikes are just one part of this. Bikes are a means to an end. The goal is human friendly cities not bike friendly cities. Facilities for pedestrians are as important as facilities for cyclists. The relationship of cars to bikes is similar to the relationship of bikes to pedestrians. If you look at well designed cities they have a pedestrian focused centre, then around that a bike and car focused area. In Amsterdam you aren't allowed to bike in shopping streets. (I'm using Amsterdam as an example because it's known internationally, but as far as dutch cities go it's not that good, neither for pedestrians nor for cyclists). Beyond that the atmosphere is important. If you want people to spend time walking and biking around cities you need safety yes, but that's just the start. Would you enjoy walking or biking around a city with massively wide and straight streets that go on for kilometers? I don't think so. You need cosy streets with shops and squares with bars with terraces and trees and parks and nice architecture. The livable space of a city shouldn't just be the inside of its buildings, and what's outside is just a way of getting to those buildings. The outside should itself be a livable space.