3 ms·

I live in Tokyo. People generally ride bikes on the sidewalks, unless they're riding on the really narrow side roads that have virtually no car traffic. The b

I live in Tokyo. People generally ride bikes on the sidewalks, unless they're riding on the really narrow side roads that have virtually no car traffic. The big roads do have painted bike lanes, but you don't see them used much, definitely not by the mothers riding mamachari; they're all on the sidewalks almost hitting pedestrians. Also, things are really different in different parts of the city. Some parts are newer with much wider sidewalks (and even dedicated bike lanes separate from the road), other parts are not. Some parts are just terrible for cycling, because there's too many pedestrians and the roads are hazardous (like Shinjuku). The place would be a lot better for cycling if they installed more dedicated infrastructure, but it works as-is for many reasons: there aren't that many cars in most places, because parking is rare and expensive, vehicle speeds are rather low, motorized vehicles have most of the liability for accidents with pedestrians or cars (no matter what: if a kid runs out in front of you and you kill him, it's your fault), theft is very rare, and people are extremely non-confrontational so even though many pedestrians hate sharing the sidewalks with cyclists, they just put up with it. Back in the US, I had people screaming at me and trying to start physical fights with me when I rode on sidewalks and there was no one else on the sidewalk except them. Here, people just step aside. Another thing here: cyclists are legally required to carry liability insurance, in case they hit a pedestrian. Anyway, you're not going to replicate Tokyo's success with cycling by simply copying one feature. The whole culture here makes it workable despite the lack of great cycling infrastructure, as well as many other things that are basically impossible elsewhere. Finally, while the infrastructure could be better in many places, things are constantly improving; newer developments (housing, malls, Olympic sports venues, etc.) have bicycle parking as a standard feature, for instance.

lmm 4y ago
> unless they're riding on the really narrow side roads That's most of the cycling that happens, from what I've seen. (I also live here) > The big roads do have painted bike lanes Very ward dependent; some places do, many don't, and even in the places that do they're a recent thing. > Another thing here: cyclists are legally required to carry liability insurance, in case they hit a pedestrian. That's a very recent change - I think it was only last year or the year before. > Anyway, you're not going to replicate Tokyo's success with cycling by simply copying one feature. I suspect you might if that feature was "make street parking illegal", because everything else flows from that - narrow streets become possible, sharing those streets becomes necessary. But my point is mainly that this idea that segregated cycle lanes are the sine qua non is very wrong; Tokyo definitely proves that much.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  It doesn't really prove it at all. Because there's so few segregated cycle lanes (I live in a part of town that has some, but they're only in certain places along wide, higher-speed roads), cyclists just mostly stick to sidewalks. This causes lots of interactions between cyclists and pedestrians, which has led directly to the requirement for liability insurance that I mentioned before, because of so many pedestrian injuries. Basically, cyclists have a choice: take roads and risk getting hit by cars, or take sidewalks and risk running over pedestrians. The risk to the cyclist is FAR lower with the latter, so that's the rational choice to make, and that's what they've done. Getting hit by a car is easily a death sentence; hitting a pedestrian can cause serious injuries, but that's rare, and usually the risk is to the pedestrian. If you really want safety for everyone, you need to separate all 3 modes of traffic. It works ok here much of the time just because people are tolerant and non-confrontational, the car traffic is rather low-speed (unlike America), there's no that much car traffic in the first place (no place to park! So much of it is taxis and delivery trucks), and a lot of the streets are really narrow (also leads to low speed for cars). Personally, I stick to sidewalks unless there's a cycling lane, or the street is so low-traffic and low-speed that I feel safe on it. So little residential back streets are fine, but the big boulevards, forget it. IMO, I think that, at least in my area, they could do better just by painting cycling lanes on the sidewalks, and educating people to use the appropriate lane (cycling lanes for cyclists only; too often I see careless people walking in the clearly-marked cycling lane), and also by widening some of these sidewalks where possible. They could also stand to put some of the roads on diets to make wider sidewalks and cycling lanes. Maybe levy some more parking taxes to pay for it.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > cyclists just mostly stick to sidewalks I really don't think this is it; yes, you see a few cyclists riding on the pavements alongside the main roads, but you see many more making their way along the side/back streets which don't even have a segregated pedestrian pavement - and don't need one. > This causes lots of interactions between cyclists and pedestrians, which has led directly to the requirement for liability insurance that I mentioned before, because of so many pedestrian injuries. It's not "so many", otherwise that would have happened decades ago. It's largely an (IMO over-) reaction to one dramatic case where a cyclist hit an elderly person who then needed a lot of expensive medical care.

lmm 4y ago

> unless they're riding on the really narrow side roads That's most of the cycling that happens, from what I've seen. (I also live here) > The big roads do have painted bike lanes Very ward dependent; some places do, many don't, and even in the places that do they're a recent thing. > Another thing here: cyclists are legally required to carry liability insurance, in case they hit a pedestrian. That's a very recent change - I think it was only last year or the year before. > Anyway, you're not going to replicate Tokyo's success with cycling by simply copying one feature. I suspect you might if that feature was "make street parking illegal", because everything else flows from that - narrow streets become possible, sharing those streets becomes necessary. But my point is mainly that this idea that segregated cycle lanes are the sine qua non is very wrong; Tokyo definitely proves that much.

midoridensha 4y ago
It doesn't really prove it at all. Because there's so few segregated cycle lanes (I live in a part of town that has some, but they're only in certain places along wide, higher-speed roads), cyclists just mostly stick to sidewalks. This causes lots of interactions between cyclists and pedestrians, which has led directly to the requirement for liability insurance that I mentioned before, because of so many pedestrian injuries. Basically, cyclists have a choice: take roads and risk getting hit by cars, or take sidewalks and risk running over pedestrians. The risk to the cyclist is FAR lower with the latter, so that's the rational choice to make, and that's what they've done. Getting hit by a car is easily a death sentence; hitting a pedestrian can cause serious injuries, but that's rare, and usually the risk is to the pedestrian. If you really want safety for everyone, you need to separate all 3 modes of traffic. It works ok here much of the time just because people are tolerant and non-confrontational, the car traffic is rather low-speed (unlike America), there's no that much car traffic in the first place (no place to park! So much of it is taxis and delivery trucks), and a lot of the streets are really narrow (also leads to low speed for cars). Personally, I stick to sidewalks unless there's a cycling lane, or the street is so low-traffic and low-speed that I feel safe on it. So little residential back streets are fine, but the big boulevards, forget it. IMO, I think that, at least in my area, they could do better just by painting cycling lanes on the sidewalks, and educating people to use the appropriate lane (cycling lanes for cyclists only; too often I see careless people walking in the clearly-marked cycling lane), and also by widening some of these sidewalks where possible. They could also stand to put some of the roads on diets to make wider sidewalks and cycling lanes. Maybe levy some more parking taxes to pay for it.
- lmm 4y ago
  > cyclists just mostly stick to sidewalks I really don't think this is it; yes, you see a few cyclists riding on the pavements alongside the main roads, but you see many more making their way along the side/back streets which don't even have a segregated pedestrian pavement - and don't need one. > This causes lots of interactions between cyclists and pedestrians, which has led directly to the requirement for liability insurance that I mentioned before, because of so many pedestrian injuries. It's not "so many", otherwise that would have happened decades ago. It's largely an (IMO over-) reaction to one dramatic case where a cyclist hit an elderly person who then needed a lot of expensive medical care.