3 ms·

The fact that there are bad bike lanes is not a reason to stop building bike lanes, it's a reason to build better bike lanes. The modal shares of cycling in th

The fact that there are bad bike lanes is not a reason to stop building bike lanes, it's a reason to build better bike lanes. The modal shares of cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark (segregated provision) vs, say, the UK or US (largely no distinct provision) are a pretty clear indicator that segregation gets more people cycling. If the collateral damage is that a few roadies have to slow down and use bike lanes in cities, I'm not uncomfortable with that, even speaking as a confident on-road cyclist myself.

lmm 9y ago
> The fact that there are bad bike lanes is not a reason to stop building bike lanes, it's a reason to build better bike lanes. Perhaps, but I think it's worth recognizing that, counterintuitively, a bad bike lane can be worse than no bike lane. > The modal shares of cycling in the Netherlands or Denmark (segregated provision) vs, say, the UK or US (largely no distinct provision) are a pretty clear indicator that segregation gets more people cycling. Not convinced; there are many differences between these countries. I've heard it argued that e.g. much greater legal liability for drivers who injure or kill cyclists is what makes the difference.