28 ms·

I've been cycling to work for the last ~5years, and the practicality of a commute is a key factor in where I decide to accept a job. I live in Amsterdam and th

I've been cycling to work for the last ~5years, and the practicality of a commute is a key factor in where I decide to accept a job. I live in Amsterdam and the commute is ~6km each way. It might not seem very much, but I ride whatever the weather and whatever time of day/night. It helps enormously having the dedicated cycle path infrastructure. I'm a cyclist at heart and did wonder if the oversaturation of daily biking would alter my view from "enjoyable pastime" to "necessary evil". It's almost done the opposite. Not only has my fitness improved (so I can enjoy longer rides with less effort), but the fresh air and independence (leave and arrive by my own steam, not waiting for a bus or stuck in a traffic jam) really does make each day start better. It's also changed my perception of what can be achieved - even if it's chucking down with rain and a howling wind.... I still have to get on two wheels and pedal to work. If only the government would understand all the benefits having a proper safe cycling infrastructure can bring to the people...

baud147258 8y ago
But if you're cycling, you're not paying fuel-based taxes...
- btrettel 8y ago
  And? Cyclists also can't use many of the most expensive infrastructure projects (e.g., highways) either. They also don't cause anywhere near as much damage to the roads as motor vehicles. Plus, in the US at least, roads are usually paid for through general taxation. The value of the gas tax is small and has only been decreasing. (All of this ignores the massive parking subsidies cyclists have to pay for but can't use too.)
  - baud147258 8y ago
    I should have added sarcasm in my post: I think cycling is a great way to do your commute, I have done for years and I have the chance of living in a country with very good infrasctructure, but also where fuel tax is 60% of price and the parent post is about Holland, where the fuel tax is even higher (but I don't know where it is allocated).
btrettel 8y ago
Infrastructure can be helpful, but poorly done it can hurt a lot as well. In the US I would say infrastructure is often bike safety theater. In Austin there are quite a few segregated lanes that I refuse to use because the intersections are not segregated and drivers far too frequently turn without checking for cyclists. I have had far too many close calls. These lanes probably do increase the number of cyclists, but are they actually safer? Ultimately, what matters more is drivers improving how they interact with cyclists. Having spoken with dozen if not hundreds of drivers I am quite familiar with the "I had no choice [aside from almost running you over]", which is never true in my experience. Drivers always have the choice of waiting, but too many are impatient and literally value saving seconds over someone else's physical safety. I think US drivers as a whole are slowly realizing this. The worst is when a driver nearly runs you over right before a stoplight, which you both sit at for a few minutes. In this case the time saved was zero, and this happens a lot more frequently than I would like. Unfortunately many drivers don't think ahead much or else they would often realize that they'd have to wait anyway, so there's no point in passing.

baud147258 8y ago

But if you're cycling, you're not paying fuel-based taxes...

btrettel 8y ago
And? Cyclists also can't use many of the most expensive infrastructure projects (e.g., highways) either. They also don't cause anywhere near as much damage to the roads as motor vehicles. Plus, in the US at least, roads are usually paid for through general taxation. The value of the gas tax is small and has only been decreasing. (All of this ignores the massive parking subsidies cyclists have to pay for but can't use too.)
- baud147258 8y ago
  I should have added sarcasm in my post: I think cycling is a great way to do your commute, I have done for years and I have the chance of living in a country with very good infrasctructure, but also where fuel tax is 60% of price and the parent post is about Holland, where the fuel tax is even higher (but I don't know where it is allocated).

btrettel 8y ago

Infrastructure can be helpful, but poorly done it can hurt a lot as well. In the US I would say infrastructure is often bike safety theater. In Austin there are quite a few segregated lanes that I refuse to use because the intersections are not segregated and drivers far too frequently turn without checking for cyclists. I have had far too many close calls. These lanes probably do increase the number of cyclists, but are they actually safer? Ultimately, what matters more is drivers improving how they interact with cyclists. Having spoken with dozen if not hundreds of drivers I am quite familiar with the "I had no choice [aside from almost running you over]", which is never true in my experience. Drivers always have the choice of waiting, but too many are impatient and literally value saving seconds over someone else's physical safety. I think US drivers as a whole are slowly realizing this. The worst is when a driver nearly runs you over right before a stoplight, which you both sit at for a few minutes. In this case the time saved was zero, and this happens a lot more frequently than I would like. Unfortunately many drivers don't think ahead much or else they would often realize that they'd have to wait anyway, so there's no point in passing.