3 ms·

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 al

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.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >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. Yes, many parts of Tokyo are like this, with lots of side/back streets that help cyclists avoid even needing to ride along the main boulevards. But not all of Tokyo is like this; it seems like every time I run into someone online who lives here, they completely forget that Ariake/Odaiba exists, or maybe they've never been there. There are a lot of places where you can't really take a side street because the geography prevents it, so cyclists are forced to divert to main streets for some distance (like over bridges) where they then share the sidewalk with pedestrians. >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. It's interesting how societies don't weigh risks rationally when it comes to cars. How many people (esp. pedestrians/cyclists) have gotten seriously injured or killed in car crashes? But that's just considered "unavoidable" for some odd reason, and little to no effort is made to avoid it in the future. But a cyclist hurts a pedestrian (and not even fatally, as is common with crashes involving motor vehicles) and suddenly everyone freaks out and wants to ban or restrict cycling. Why aren't they trying to ban car driving? To be fair, I do see this insurance requirement as not too onerous. It really is possible to seriously injure a pedestrian when you're riding a bicycle at speeds well above those that pedestrians can travel, and we already require motor vehicle drivers to have a lot of insurance coverage. Bicycle insurance here is quite cheap really. Mine was only 3000 yen/year. So I don't feel this particular requirement is really an overreaction. However I do wish they'd be more proactive on the infrastructure side and do more to make cycling safer, and not by painting stupid bike icons on the sides of high-speed, high-traffic boulevards, which to me is an insult.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > not all of Tokyo is like this; it seems like every time I run into someone online who lives here, they completely forget that Ariake/Odaiba exists, or maybe they've never been there. There are a lot of places where you can't really take a side street because the geography prevents it, so cyclists are forced to divert to main streets for some distance (like over bridges) where they then share the sidewalk with pedestrians. Ariake/Odaiba you just can't reasonably cycle at all IMO - e.g. you're simply not allowed to cycle across the Rainbow Bridge or through either of the Tokyo Minato tunnels (neither in the traffic lanes nor on the pavement) so if you're coming from the west you have to go 5-10km out of your way before you even start. I tried to go to the cycling course on Wakasu once and gave up, and I'm a pretty confident/experienced cyclist who can usually handle tangling with road traffic. Rather than it being a success story of cycling on pavements / segregated cycling infrastructure, I would bet that the mode share of cycling in Ariake/Odaiba is just a whole lot worse than Tokyo in general.

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.

midoridensha 4y ago
>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. Yes, many parts of Tokyo are like this, with lots of side/back streets that help cyclists avoid even needing to ride along the main boulevards. But not all of Tokyo is like this; it seems like every time I run into someone online who lives here, they completely forget that Ariake/Odaiba exists, or maybe they've never been there. There are a lot of places where you can't really take a side street because the geography prevents it, so cyclists are forced to divert to main streets for some distance (like over bridges) where they then share the sidewalk with pedestrians. >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. It's interesting how societies don't weigh risks rationally when it comes to cars. How many people (esp. pedestrians/cyclists) have gotten seriously injured or killed in car crashes? But that's just considered "unavoidable" for some odd reason, and little to no effort is made to avoid it in the future. But a cyclist hurts a pedestrian (and not even fatally, as is common with crashes involving motor vehicles) and suddenly everyone freaks out and wants to ban or restrict cycling. Why aren't they trying to ban car driving? To be fair, I do see this insurance requirement as not too onerous. It really is possible to seriously injure a pedestrian when you're riding a bicycle at speeds well above those that pedestrians can travel, and we already require motor vehicle drivers to have a lot of insurance coverage. Bicycle insurance here is quite cheap really. Mine was only 3000 yen/year. So I don't feel this particular requirement is really an overreaction. However I do wish they'd be more proactive on the infrastructure side and do more to make cycling safer, and not by painting stupid bike icons on the sides of high-speed, high-traffic boulevards, which to me is an insult.
- lmm 4y ago
  > not all of Tokyo is like this; it seems like every time I run into someone online who lives here, they completely forget that Ariake/Odaiba exists, or maybe they've never been there. There are a lot of places where you can't really take a side street because the geography prevents it, so cyclists are forced to divert to main streets for some distance (like over bridges) where they then share the sidewalk with pedestrians. Ariake/Odaiba you just can't reasonably cycle at all IMO - e.g. you're simply not allowed to cycle across the Rainbow Bridge or through either of the Tokyo Minato tunnels (neither in the traffic lanes nor on the pavement) so if you're coming from the west you have to go 5-10km out of your way before you even start. I tried to go to the cycling course on Wakasu once and gave up, and I'm a pretty confident/experienced cyclist who can usually handle tangling with road traffic. Rather than it being a success story of cycling on pavements / segregated cycling infrastructure, I would bet that the mode share of cycling in Ariake/Odaiba is just a whole lot worse than Tokyo in general.