4 ms·

I think you're looking at this oddly. Lot's of kids cycle, but how many cycle to school? In Bath UK, a city that can be cycled end to end in 25 minutes, it's 1%

by awjr 9y ago

I think you're looking at this oddly. Lot's of kids cycle, but how many cycle to school? In Bath UK, a city that can be cycled end to end in 25 minutes, it's 1%. What this is about is giving people travel choices. You should have good options to walk/cycle/drive/use public transport to get to school/work/shops. I note much of the rhetoric around "war on cars" is done within the context to have the freedom to choose to use your car as you wish. The problem with that argument is that it stands to reason that people should have the freedom to choose to walk and cycle safely but that really is never recognised as equally important as driving. More interesting is the call for a paradigm shift within urban transport policies to recognise the need for healthy efficient roads and to provide good space for walking, cycling, and driving. At the end of the day, the private vehicle is hugely inefficient use of space. That's not to say it should be banned, but people should be able to have the choice not to drive. That is what is lacking.

closeparen 9y ago
I didn't say anything about freedom or choices. I only suggest that the lack of dedicated roadway isn't a very interesting or significant factor holding back bicycling. Particularly, if cycling on shared streets is so dangerous, then why do we accept that risk for our kids but not ourselves? (And we absolutely do accept it for our kids). I reject your implicit claim that a lack of green paint on the road inhibits anyone's freedom to ride a bike. Do it anyway! I certainly do. I think the factors holding people back from cycling are time efficiency, physical exertion, and weather exposure. The preponderance of children bicycling makes the safety argument not very credible, to me anyway. Naturally worsening traffic is tipping the balance in favor of bicycling for time efficiency, at least during peak hours. Also the ability to use trains as "bicycle freeways." If the average speed for cars on a road is <15mph, then a rational person will bike. If it's >25mph, the road might be highly frustrating as a driver, but it's still adding value relative to biking. Electric bikes are cutting down the physical exertion required, which is exciting. On the other hand, electric bikes are just slow motorcycles, so it's not clear why the pent-up demand for ebikes hasn't picked up Vespas. Weather exposure is a matter of wearing the right gear. Cold cities might get more new cyclists by handing out Under Armor than by painting more bike lanes. I don't know anything about Baath. I do know that in my childhood suburb, at least half of students would ride their bikes to school on any day with decent weather. It was a relatively compact suburb, though; bicycling was just a faster alternative to walking and distances were 2-3 miles at worst. No buses. Getting people where they're going without wasting too much of their time or making them too uncomfortable is an entirely appropriate use of space. A great public transit system could do it with less, and I'll happily vote for one. What I won't support is lowering overall utility by i.e. torpedoing driving without building a credible alternative. I don't think dedicated lanes will make that credible alternative materialize. Ebikes might.
- neilparikh 9y ago
  The types of roads children bike on, and the types of roads adults would like to bike on have different risk factors. You've said it directly in your comment: these children are biking on suburban streets. [0] At least from my experience, suburban streets have much less traffic, and what traffic they do have is usually slower. On the other hand, the types of roads adults would need to use to commute have much more traffic, and at higher speeds. [0] - An interesting study to do would be to compare the bicycling rates of children in suburbs vs those in urban/downtown areas. I suspect that the rate in suburbs would be significantly higher.
- 35bge57dtjku 9y ago
  > Particularly, if cycling on shared streets is so dangerous, then why do we accept that risk for our kids but not ourselves? Because our kids aren't cycling to and from our jobs 5 days a week in rush hour traffic. You might as well suggest we get rid of all the crossing guards and 15mph school zones if you're fine with your kids cycling through rush hour traffic.
- awjr 9y ago
  Ok, I think I'm seeing where you are coming from. Vehicular Cycling and the approach of having bikes share the space with other road vehicles is something that has now been pretty much debunked as a way of developing mass cycling. The evidence is out there. London has had a 60%+ increase in the last couple of years on routes with protected cycle infrastructure. 'Normal' people need visible safety. In fact New York City has found that protected cycle lanes (tracks) also reduce pedestrian injuries. https://www.fastcompany.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-bike-lanes-have-actually-sped-up-its-car-traffic https://www.fastcompany.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected... Your final paragraph is also the problem. You are pretty much saying that the road system cannot be compromised to enable people to have the choice to walk and cycle if driving is in some way compromised. You want to get more people out of cars you need to provide good safe alternatives. I really would ask you to stop thinking only in terms of yourself and what you would do on your roads. The US has cities/towns where there are high levels of cycling. They all have one thing in common. Segregation. Remember though that cities are not investing in cycling because it is healthy. They are doing it as it solved congestion. A single 12ft lane can carry 2000 cars or 14,000 bikes or 19,000 pedestrians. Removing one lane or reducing lane width, known as a road diet, and installing cycle lanes can increase road capacity by the equivalent of adding 7 car lanes. It is logical to do this.

by awjr 9y ago

closeparen 9y ago

I didn't say anything about freedom or choices. I only suggest that the lack of dedicated roadway isn't a very interesting or significant factor holding back bicycling. Particularly, if cycling on shared streets is so dangerous, then why do we accept that risk for our kids but not ourselves? (And we absolutely do accept it for our kids). I reject your implicit claim that a lack of green paint on the road inhibits anyone's freedom to ride a bike. Do it anyway! I certainly do. I think the factors holding people back from cycling are time efficiency, physical exertion, and weather exposure. The preponderance of children bicycling makes the safety argument not very credible, to me anyway. Naturally worsening traffic is tipping the balance in favor of bicycling for time efficiency, at least during peak hours. Also the ability to use trains as "bicycle freeways." If the average speed for cars on a road is <15mph, then a rational person will bike. If it's >25mph, the road might be highly frustrating as a driver, but it's still adding value relative to biking. Electric bikes are cutting down the physical exertion required, which is exciting. On the other hand, electric bikes are just slow motorcycles, so it's not clear why the pent-up demand for ebikes hasn't picked up Vespas. Weather exposure is a matter of wearing the right gear. Cold cities might get more new cyclists by handing out Under Armor than by painting more bike lanes. I don't know anything about Baath. I do know that in my childhood suburb, at least half of students would ride their bikes to school on any day with decent weather. It was a relatively compact suburb, though; bicycling was just a faster alternative to walking and distances were 2-3 miles at worst. No buses. Getting people where they're going without wasting too much of their time or making them too uncomfortable is an entirely appropriate use of space. A great public transit system could do it with less, and I'll happily vote for one. What I won't support is lowering overall utility by i.e. torpedoing driving without building a credible alternative. I don't think dedicated lanes will make that credible alternative materialize. Ebikes might.

neilparikh 9y ago
The types of roads children bike on, and the types of roads adults would like to bike on have different risk factors. You've said it directly in your comment: these children are biking on suburban streets. [0] At least from my experience, suburban streets have much less traffic, and what traffic they do have is usually slower. On the other hand, the types of roads adults would need to use to commute have much more traffic, and at higher speeds. [0] - An interesting study to do would be to compare the bicycling rates of children in suburbs vs those in urban/downtown areas. I suspect that the rate in suburbs would be significantly higher.
35bge57dtjku 9y ago
> Particularly, if cycling on shared streets is so dangerous, then why do we accept that risk for our kids but not ourselves? Because our kids aren't cycling to and from our jobs 5 days a week in rush hour traffic. You might as well suggest we get rid of all the crossing guards and 15mph school zones if you're fine with your kids cycling through rush hour traffic.
awjr 9y ago
Ok, I think I'm seeing where you are coming from. Vehicular Cycling and the approach of having bikes share the space with other road vehicles is something that has now been pretty much debunked as a way of developing mass cycling. The evidence is out there. London has had a 60%+ increase in the last couple of years on routes with protected cycle infrastructure. 'Normal' people need visible safety. In fact New York City has found that protected cycle lanes (tracks) also reduce pedestrian injuries. https://www.fastcompany.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-bike-lanes-have-actually-sped-up-its-car-traffic https://www.fastcompany.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected... Your final paragraph is also the problem. You are pretty much saying that the road system cannot be compromised to enable people to have the choice to walk and cycle if driving is in some way compromised. You want to get more people out of cars you need to provide good safe alternatives. I really would ask you to stop thinking only in terms of yourself and what you would do on your roads. The US has cities/towns where there are high levels of cycling. They all have one thing in common. Segregation. Remember though that cities are not investing in cycling because it is healthy. They are doing it as it solved congestion. A single 12ft lane can carry 2000 cars or 14,000 bikes or 19,000 pedestrians. Removing one lane or reducing lane width, known as a road diet, and installing cycle lanes can increase road capacity by the equivalent of adding 7 car lanes. It is logical to do this.