3 ms·

Sure, but I would argue that if the goal is to reduce car dependence (not just for some cycling enthusiasts, but among the general population), separate cycle l

Sure, but I would argue that if the goal is to reduce car dependence (not just for some cycling enthusiasts, but among the general population), separate cycle lanes are a must. After all, to lure drivers out of their cars, cycling must not only be minimally feasible, but actually attractive (i.e. safe and convenient). Consider also the fact that Dutch cycling infrastructure hasn't always existed: it's a result of decades of focused policy. For example, consider this road (in front of busy Den Haag HS railway station) in the '80s vs. now: https://www.denhaagfietst.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/header-image-stationsplein-1440x450.jpg https://www.denhaagfietst.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/head... On the other hand, London compensates for its lack of cycling infrastructure with its excellent transit, which is commendable.

throwaway22032 5y ago
I think this is probably a better top line comment on this thread. I don't think that London is car dependent. Most of the US is, large parts of the UK are including many of our cities. My argument is that London is a happy middle ground where you can cycle, or get the tube, or ride the bus, or use a car, and all of those work and that's fine. If anything the car is probably quite a bit less convenient than the others, mainly due to the geometry issues outlined in the article, and you have to really want to drive for the sake of it. Though it's probably a good way to frame it. Car dependence is bad, having cars is not. My street is full of them yet I also live ten minutes away from a few different tube lines. Best of both worlds and this means I use my car maybe 50-100 times a year instead of 500+. I have another friend. From my house at this time, I can cycle there in ~20 mins, drive in ~25-30, get the bus in ~55, the train in ~45mins or walk in ~1h20min. Most of the time I cycle. So am I cycling dependent then? No, I'm just choosing the best option! It'd be annoying if it was gotten rid of out of some quest just to remove cycling because someone didn't like cycling or whatever.

throwaway22032 5y ago

I think this is probably a better top line comment on this thread. I don't think that London is car dependent. Most of the US is, large parts of the UK are including many of our cities. My argument is that London is a happy middle ground where you can cycle, or get the tube, or ride the bus, or use a car, and all of those work and that's fine. If anything the car is probably quite a bit less convenient than the others, mainly due to the geometry issues outlined in the article, and you have to really want to drive for the sake of it. Though it's probably a good way to frame it. Car dependence is bad, having cars is not. My street is full of them yet I also live ten minutes away from a few different tube lines. Best of both worlds and this means I use my car maybe 50-100 times a year instead of 500+. I have another friend. From my house at this time, I can cycle there in ~20 mins, drive in ~25-30, get the bus in ~55, the train in ~45mins or walk in ~1h20min. Most of the time I cycle. So am I cycling dependent then? No, I'm just choosing the best option! It'd be annoying if it was gotten rid of out of some quest just to remove cycling because someone didn't like cycling or whatever.