4 ms·

Your 4 year old does not need to commute per bicycle and in general should not be riding a bicycle on busy streets. Even on busy bicycle paths small kids can be

• Fnoord 4y ago
  People drive on average 18 km/hour on a bicycle here (flat terrain). That is nowhere _near_ 50 km/hour. Racers drive such speeds, and they are aerodynamic, on a race bike, well maintained bike, etc. Our oldest is now 4, like I said she can barely bicycle as it is. Kids of age 8, 10, 12 they go to elementary school, and many go by bicycle. Sure, some walk too. After age 12 they go to high school, and these are more far away usually so its either public transport or bicycle. Bicycle is cheaper for parents, and the kids get some exercise, plus the bike lanes are reasonably secure (its illegal now to use a smartphone while using bicycle). Now, yes my 4 year old can barely cycle, and she should be on the sideways indeed. However at some point she's gonna be old enough to start cycling to school and such. And you want her to get combined with cars who drive 60 past her school where they are only allowed 30? Its an insane thought, seriously. Open up Google Maps or Apple Maps or whatever and have a look at the Amsterdam center. Look at some of the roads where cars are allowed. Now, yes, the roads where people live in a house/apartment and such, these are generally small and yes the cars gotta drive together with the bicycles. But when you go from one neighborhood to another, the cars are separated. They drive on their own lane, usually easily 50 km/hour, multiple lanes, traffic lights or roundabouts at different larger roads. You really do not want to cross such roads casually, you want to use the zebra crossing. And as a cyclist what you want to do is listen to the traffic lights, and stay on the bicyclist road. This is in a large city. Of course, in a small village or even small town, you can have it more casual. For example you could say the main road which connects to a city is mainly for cars, with separated bike lane, but for the rest cars and cyclists must share the road. And this works, perfectly well. But I grew up in a town of about 80k people, and we had various separated roads. My point being we already make all kind of concessions in The Netherlands: 1) Bicyclists may not use smartphones anymore while using their bicycle because these caused accidents. 2) Sometimes streets and bicycle lane is separated, sometimes the bicycle lane is shared but marked as such (means cars may use the area, but bicyclists have priority), and sometimes they are shared which in practice means cars much adapt to the bicyclists (and they don't like such but if they not allowed 50 km/hour that's OK). It depends on the area, and its decided by local city/province government. 3) Electric bikes are an ongoing issue/debate. Usually the elder drive them, and they cause accidents. I mentioned it because they're a serious problem, but according to local law they're not allowed to drive more quick than 25 km/hour or they fall under different jurisdiction than manual/classic bicyclists. (In your world, the manual/classic bicyclists would be able to easily go twice as quick as the legal limit of electric cyclists. While they can go quicker than 25 km/hour, and racers do indeed regularly, the casual cyclists do not and will not. They will not adapt to the 50 km/hour of the cars. Also, people in The Netherlands often have old bicycles ('barrels') cause they still work, and these won't get stolen. They won't have a new chain, they're made for flat/city terrain, and all too often you have wind not in the back. So its not only 4 year olds who would be in disadvantage; also pre-teens in general, as well as many elder.)
  • Lanolderen 4y ago
    The low speed is precisely my issue. Sure, you can separate cyclists from cars on new roads, but it's not financially reasonable to rebuild the whole city trying to get people to move from cars (comfort) to bicycles (lack of comfort + physical effort + slow). I don't mind cycling focused cities. I've lived in one and it was nice, but it was also rather small so the size allowed for bicycles to make sense. Ain't no one riding a bicycle 20km to work. In my world, provided the separated cycling infrastructure wasn't made in the beginning, it seems way easier and cheaper to incentivise people to move from cars and bicycles to motorcycles since the comfort/cost impact isn't as big in both directions instead of trying to redesign the whole road infrastructure. The example with 50kmh was meant as something of a top speed. if a kid can reach it or close to it on a downhill where their brakes are underpowered and tires undersized/lacking traction while having the incentive to not brake so they don't have to pedal you might as well give them a little mofa. Sure, it raises the average speed but it also removes the issues of wearing gear (I can wear a full textile kit with shoes and gloves and don't sweat at all as long as I'm going 15-20kmh in 30ish degrees C) and removes the disgusting incentive to avoid braking to reduce pedaling. It also gives them the ability to keep up with traffic so drivers aren't inclined to try dangerous overtaking maneuvers.
    • Fnoord 4y ago
      > Sure, you can separate cyclists from cars on new roads, but it's not financially reasonable to rebuild the whole city trying to get people to move from cars (comfort) to bicycles (lack of comfort + physical effort + slow). Well, that depends on a lot of factors. The size of the current roads might be one. If there's room, a bicycle lane might be feasible, but you can also have the cars as guest (which results in the same as you argue: that cars will have to adapt to the speed of the bike). This is the case with the smaller roads in very rural areas. Although I have even seen some roads become one way streets with bicycle lane. You can also combine bicycle lane on the same side which I've seen but then they're guaranteed separated from the main road. 20 km to work is a lot indeed, I don't want to do it, but I have a co employee who goes like 45 km to work (and then takes train back). I appreciate the effort. On electric bikes, 20 km isn't going to be a lot (if you assume 25 km/hour its slightly less than an hour), but we are not living in a world where these are dominant yet (as in the status quo). I've grown up in a rural area, so I know I can go as quick as cars downhill. Even as kid. Its a cool feeling (I've yet to drive an e-bike), but I was glad I was on the bicycle lane I can tell you that. Also, I took risks at traffic lights and crossings. Risks I shouldn't have taken, tho that's what youth do. Now, if you want to make a 30 km zone and want to combine cars with bicycles, I give you a pass. Because I have seen such in action. Although sometimes the cars cannot go 30 km/hour it allows the two types of vehicles to live more in harmony. I live in such a zone, though the delivery men tend to disagree. Its a miracle they don't hurt kids with their buses. There's also these vehicles which look like cars but they can go like 45 km/hour and therefore don't require a drivers license. You can see the elder with them, they're used on the bicycle lane, though they take a lot of space. That's the issue here: space. We only have so much and we want to fairly share it while stimulating the right type of traffic. Cars are inefficient in that sense, therefore its OK if we stimulate other types of transport by making them less attractive (higher fuel costs, higher taxes, less space for them, higher parking costs). These are already happening here as it is. The fuel costs are higher due to war, and certain inefficient fuel types of cars (I don't know the details) aren't allowed in inner circle of city anymore. Parking is expensive. All of which stimulates public transport, bicycle, walking, and electric cars (which are basically only for rich people as it is). Its going very slowly though as those who drive cars are a large amount of votes who also are the ones who vote for certain politicians. These chicken-egg problems as well as lack of popularity of bicycle hamper change.