5 ms·

It really helps that in neither Denmark nor the Netherlands, helmets are mandatory. Unlike in say Sweden, where casual biking is having a hard time taking off.

by Svip 7y ago

It really helps that in neither Denmark nor the Netherlands, helmets are mandatory. Unlike in say Sweden, where casual biking is having a hard time taking off. But it kind of bothers me that Danes and Dutchmen seem to be rather disinterested in one another's achievements on this front. There is a lot of lessons from both sides, that never seems to be discussed in one another's media, to the point (anecdote alert!) where I've seen people in either country be surprised that there is a similar biking culture in the other country. And people still love their cars in either country, even though I believe it's even more expensive to own a car in the Netherlands (and I thought Denmark was pricey!).

rapnie 7y ago
I haven't been to Denmark so I can't compare, but I agree there is much to be learned by looking at how other countries fare. In the densely populated Netherlands we are facing very serious gridlock problems now with cars clogging the highways and railways at full capacity. We can't keep building new infrastructure (highways) at the pace we did before, because - besides being very expensive - we lack the space for it. New solutions may lie in promoting remote work, carpooling and shortening home/work commute distances. I also suspect that bicycle infra will be developed even further (e.g. with bike highways) as they take less space and are less disruptive to the landscape.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > We can't keep building new infrastructure (highways) at the pace we did before, because - besides being very expensive - we lack the space for it. New solutions may lie in promoting remote work, carpooling and shortening home/work commute distances. You can build highways and rails in 3 dimensions. The bicycle simply cannot replace cars and trains in any meaningful way, despite the rise in numbers of single, childless urbanites.
  - ocschwar 7y ago
    In the Netherlands? You can. But it then sinks into the polders.
mcv 7y ago
I think cycling is inherently more a local thing than cars. Nobody needs interstate or international bicycle paths, because nobody cycles that far. So it makes sense that the interest is more local, and maybe that's also why smaller countries like Denmark and Netherland are more successful at it. Bicycle infrastructure is primarily about towns and cities. So if you want this big push, you have to do it at the city level, but not just a bike path here or there, but redesign the entire city for bicycles. Have bike thoroughfares, make sure bikes are the best way to get around the center, and for any kind of traffic that stays within a town or borough. Cars are only for getting out of the city. Many Dutch towns are increasingly redesigned with that idea in mind, most thoroughly perhaps the town of Houten[0], where the only way to get anywhere by car is to take the ring road, whereas bikes get quick shortcuts through the center. That makes bicycles attractive and keeps the pollution from cars out of the center. Travel within the town will favour the bike because it's easier and quicker than a car, which reduces the amount of car traffic, and reduces congestion and pollution. That's the level at which you need to address this. Well, that and revoking any national helmet laws for bikes, because that's been shown to keep people in cars. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houten
- gbrown 7y ago
  > Nobody needs interstate or international bicycle paths, because nobody cycles that far. IMHO, this is 120% just a chicken and egg problem. Sure, nobody bikes that far to work, but if you build it people can and will travel large distances to visit just to go on bike tours. In my state, we have an annual event which attracts thousands in which people bike hundreds of miles from one side to the other. Rural highways are closed down/protected for bikes, but just for that one week.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    You aren’t wrong from a recreational perspective. But from a practical one meant to alleviate traffic and pollution, long distance intercity biking is less viable in addressing those compared to public transit.

by Svip 7y ago

rapnie 7y ago

I haven't been to Denmark so I can't compare, but I agree there is much to be learned by looking at how other countries fare. In the densely populated Netherlands we are facing very serious gridlock problems now with cars clogging the highways and railways at full capacity. We can't keep building new infrastructure (highways) at the pace we did before, because - besides being very expensive - we lack the space for it. New solutions may lie in promoting remote work, carpooling and shortening home/work commute distances. I also suspect that bicycle infra will be developed even further (e.g. with bike highways) as they take less space and are less disruptive to the landscape.

lazyjones 7y ago
> We can't keep building new infrastructure (highways) at the pace we did before, because - besides being very expensive - we lack the space for it. New solutions may lie in promoting remote work, carpooling and shortening home/work commute distances. You can build highways and rails in 3 dimensions. The bicycle simply cannot replace cars and trains in any meaningful way, despite the rise in numbers of single, childless urbanites.
- ocschwar 7y ago
  In the Netherlands? You can. But it then sinks into the polders.

mcv 7y ago

I think cycling is inherently more a local thing than cars. Nobody needs interstate or international bicycle paths, because nobody cycles that far. So it makes sense that the interest is more local, and maybe that's also why smaller countries like Denmark and Netherland are more successful at it. Bicycle infrastructure is primarily about towns and cities. So if you want this big push, you have to do it at the city level, but not just a bike path here or there, but redesign the entire city for bicycles. Have bike thoroughfares, make sure bikes are the best way to get around the center, and for any kind of traffic that stays within a town or borough. Cars are only for getting out of the city. Many Dutch towns are increasingly redesigned with that idea in mind, most thoroughly perhaps the town of Houten[0], where the only way to get anywhere by car is to take the ring road, whereas bikes get quick shortcuts through the center. That makes bicycles attractive and keeps the pollution from cars out of the center. Travel within the town will favour the bike because it's easier and quicker than a car, which reduces the amount of car traffic, and reduces congestion and pollution. That's the level at which you need to address this. Well, that and revoking any national helmet laws for bikes, because that's been shown to keep people in cars. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houten

gbrown 7y ago
> Nobody needs interstate or international bicycle paths, because nobody cycles that far. IMHO, this is 120% just a chicken and egg problem. Sure, nobody bikes that far to work, but if you build it people can and will travel large distances to visit just to go on bike tours. In my state, we have an annual event which attracts thousands in which people bike hundreds of miles from one side to the other. Rural highways are closed down/protected for bikes, but just for that one week.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  You aren’t wrong from a recreational perspective. But from a practical one meant to alleviate traffic and pollution, long distance intercity biking is less viable in addressing those compared to public transit.