4 ms·

In a previous lifetime I was a bicycle courier in the US. We rode around the city comfortably with traffic. It was as safe as we wanted to be. One of the unsaf

In a previous lifetime I was a bicycle courier in the US. We rode around the city comfortably with traffic. It was as safe as we wanted to be. One of the unsafe points has always been the dedicated bike lanes. Drivers never expect you at that speed at that place on the road. People coming in or out of megamart parking lots have the wrong expectations or cannot judge speed well. Drivers attempting to make a right on red will overtake and t-bone the cyclist. Next, they added ridiculous fixed orange cones to the bicycle lanes. Now you cannot perform a lane change safely. Similarly, the bike paths have blind corners, people on in-line skates, joggers, women with baby strollers and other hazards. Not to mention the advantages of drafting a mid sized SUV or box truck. Moving with traffic is just better. The typical scenario in the US will have one or two points along a route where the novice cyclist is exposed to a road which makes them uncomfortable. With adequate planning a route can be selected which is appropriate to their skill level. Of course this is far from the ideal world of cycling. But if users were serious about their interests they could start now. Not sure it is reasonable to expect the rest of the world to become Dutch. There's more to say for the Dutch than just the geography (Posters here object to cycling on hills. If they loved cycling they would seek them out.) or the infrastructure. There's also the cultural values of thrift and efficiency. The avoidance of credit. Of the Dutch that I've known, they generally disdain a flashy automobile as a foolish purchase. You won't gain status pushing a bicycle in the US. Maybe for young angsty bicycle couriers there was an appeal in showing the world how indestructible we were. What is left is just empty green posturing... "I would ride a bicycle to work, but the gov. didn't tax and spend enough on my ever changing ideal of a fantasy bicycling experience. Oh btw, I hate pedaling or exerting myself. But yeah, I totally love bicycles. Except when it is raining, snowing or sunny. I love bicycling so much that I know how everyone else should ride..." https://www.moneyonthemind.org/post/the-influence-of-culture-on-conspicuous-consumption#:~:text=And%20in%20the%20Netherlands%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20blowing%20through%20money%20to%20show%20other%20people%20that%20you%20have%20money%20is%20a%20bit%2C%20weird https://www.moneyonthemind.org/post/the-influence-of-culture....

Vinnl 4y ago
I don't know why you're going on about people "loving" bicycling and supposedly being hypocritical. I wouldn't say Dutch people particularly love bicycling, but it's the sensible mode of transport in many places, so people are willing to (not love to) do it. Dutch people aren't meaningfully different - we're all just humans, and work largely the same as other people. There's no reason Dutch people are somehow so unique that they're the only place people would be willing to ride a bicycle. The main thing that is different, though, is that the conditions are different in the Netherlands, in particular infrastructure. (But also keep an eye on other Western European cities. Many are making great strides in terms of infrastructure, and cycling is seeing more uptake.)
- aww_dang 4y ago
  Overall I feel that the dangers are overstated and most people are unwilling to apply themselves. The reasons given are illustrative. Just sharing a road with cars isn't dangerous. Being overtaken by a large truck isn't dangerous. Psychologically intimidating for novices, yes. A sedentary lifestyle, heart disease and diabetes are more dangerous. Having poor awareness of your surroundings is dangerous generally. The social status/conspicuous consumption angle is important. Among other factors, an expensive electric car signals the driver's ideological values in regard to climate and their ability to consume. A bicycle, not so much. People may not want to do thrifty and practical things in public view. Some cultures would view that as demeaning. That's the cultural difference. Another aside, posters here have expressed that they are uncomfortable or socially unable to deal with simple interactions on public transport. They need the isolation of their automobile like a safety blanket. Chance eye contact or casual conversation could be traumatic for them. No amount of infrastructure can address these issues. We might see city councils attempt to emulate bicycle infra of NL, but in practice it may be unusable for transportation purposes. Frequent crossings of traffic at separate bicycle/car intersections would be an example. Sure the bike trail might be designated for cyclists only and off the main road, but you have to stop every block at an intersection where drivers aren't looking. There are too many nuances to cover. Just not practical at all. Usually planned by people who would never do regular rides. Next the locality will ban cyclists from the perfectly usable road, because they spent X dollars on the trail system and bicyclists make drivers 'uncomfortable'. Then a lard-cop will stop you from riding on the road and instruct you as to "how we do it around here". The end result is usually a linear park. That's just my experience with what actually happens when cities and villages start with the high ideals of building cycling infrastructure. Where people are already using bicycles, it is logical to make further concessions to cyclists in a well executed manner. But starting from a standpoint of the title, 700 units of carbon if everyone changed their lifestyle, commute distance, cultural values and addressed their social ineptitude... I'd first like to see some basics, like a willingness to ride to the store for errands.
  - Vinnl 4y ago
    I don't understand. How can you say it's "not practical" when it's literally being practised in the Netherlands? Which also came from a car-centric culture - and yes, does have public transport, and cars as well.

Vinnl 4y ago

I don't know why you're going on about people "loving" bicycling and supposedly being hypocritical. I wouldn't say Dutch people particularly love bicycling, but it's the sensible mode of transport in many places, so people are willing to (not love to) do it. Dutch people aren't meaningfully different - we're all just humans, and work largely the same as other people. There's no reason Dutch people are somehow so unique that they're the only place people would be willing to ride a bicycle. The main thing that is different, though, is that the conditions are different in the Netherlands, in particular infrastructure. (But also keep an eye on other Western European cities. Many are making great strides in terms of infrastructure, and cycling is seeing more uptake.)

aww_dang 4y ago
Overall I feel that the dangers are overstated and most people are unwilling to apply themselves. The reasons given are illustrative. Just sharing a road with cars isn't dangerous. Being overtaken by a large truck isn't dangerous. Psychologically intimidating for novices, yes. A sedentary lifestyle, heart disease and diabetes are more dangerous. Having poor awareness of your surroundings is dangerous generally. The social status/conspicuous consumption angle is important. Among other factors, an expensive electric car signals the driver's ideological values in regard to climate and their ability to consume. A bicycle, not so much. People may not want to do thrifty and practical things in public view. Some cultures would view that as demeaning. That's the cultural difference. Another aside, posters here have expressed that they are uncomfortable or socially unable to deal with simple interactions on public transport. They need the isolation of their automobile like a safety blanket. Chance eye contact or casual conversation could be traumatic for them. No amount of infrastructure can address these issues. We might see city councils attempt to emulate bicycle infra of NL, but in practice it may be unusable for transportation purposes. Frequent crossings of traffic at separate bicycle/car intersections would be an example. Sure the bike trail might be designated for cyclists only and off the main road, but you have to stop every block at an intersection where drivers aren't looking. There are too many nuances to cover. Just not practical at all. Usually planned by people who would never do regular rides. Next the locality will ban cyclists from the perfectly usable road, because they spent X dollars on the trail system and bicyclists make drivers 'uncomfortable'. Then a lard-cop will stop you from riding on the road and instruct you as to "how we do it around here". The end result is usually a linear park. That's just my experience with what actually happens when cities and villages start with the high ideals of building cycling infrastructure. Where people are already using bicycles, it is logical to make further concessions to cyclists in a well executed manner. But starting from a standpoint of the title, 700 units of carbon if everyone changed their lifestyle, commute distance, cultural values and addressed their social ineptitude... I'd first like to see some basics, like a willingness to ride to the store for errands.
- Vinnl 4y ago
  I don't understand. How can you say it's "not practical" when it's literally being practised in the Netherlands? Which also came from a car-centric culture - and yes, does have public transport, and cars as well.