4 ms·

Living in a city it doesn't surprise me at all that traffic is better if there are more options to get where you want. Where I live the bicycle is the fastest w

by atoav 2y ago

Living in a city it doesn't surprise me at all that traffic is better if there are more options to get where you want. Where I live the bicycle is the fastest way to get anywhere within a 10 km radius and especially during rush hour. But it is not enough to count the meters of bicycle infrastructure — it is also important to know how far you can go on it without being faced with situations where you have to ride on the street. What also matgers is the quality of the infrastracture, with lanes with a paint seperation and bicycle paths on walkways being the worst and separate infrastructure with hard barriers being the best. I wish anybody would know the joy of cycling in the Netherlands or in Kopenhagen, it is truly a good form of transportation that just requires the infrastructure to be good.

withinboredom 2y ago
Same. Since moving to the Netherlands, I have yet to find a reason to purchase a car. For some things, I will rent a car for a day or two, but mostly, there is no reason to own one here.
k99x55 2y ago
Cycle infrastructure needs to be continuous, feel safe to ride, and exist where people actually go to, not near the riverside. Build them and they will come. Cycle infra is not only cycle lanes. Cycle lanes are needed only where cars move fast (>30kmh). What is even more important is traffic calming in residential streets. LTNs, modal filters etc. Build for people, not cars.
- zolbrek 2y ago
  >Build for people, not cars. Do you mean build for pedestrians and cyclists, not motorists?
  - david-gpu 2y ago
    They mean building infrastructure that is able to sustain more trips per hour while also reducing the risk of deadly collisions, noise and air pollution. By providing convenient and safe infrastructure for people who walk, take transit and bike around we gain safer more pleasant neighborhoods that also allow more people to get around in their neighborhood.
    - zolbrek 2y ago
      The risk of deadly collisions, particularly when most people are going 30-50 km/h in the city and driving modern cars, is already low. Modern cars are also quiet with emissions nothing like the cars of our grandparents. Can you elaborate on what you mean by trips per hour and how one is supposed to conveniently commute outside of one's neighborhood, particularly with small children and shopping?
      - david-gpu 2y ago
        > The risk of deadly collisions, particularly when most people are going 30-50 km/h in the city and driving modern cars, is already low. The probability of a pedestrian being killed when a motorist strikes them with their vehicle depends very strongly on the speed of the vehicle. At 30kph the risk is less nearly 0%, but it rises rapidly to 50% when the impact happens at 50kph[0]. Would you take those odds? I wouldn't. Especially given that motorists tend to interpret speed limits as minimums rather than maximums. > Modern cars are also quiet with emissions nothing like the cars of our grandparents. I live next to seven lanes of traffic. Modern cars are not remotely quiet. Their emissions are not limited to what comes out of their tailpipe, either. You must include the microparticles that are emitted from the tires, the asphalt and the brake pads [1]. > Can you elaborate on what you mean by trips per hour and how one is supposed to conveniently commute outside of one's neighborhood, particularly with small children and shopping? Public transit. Bicycles. Living in a neighborhood with mixed use buildings. I have never had a driving license and my family with two small kids has somehow figured it out with a combination of the above. Many others do the same. It is not rocket science. The first step is ditching the car. [0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_... [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4315878/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4315878/
        zolbrek 2y ago
        How often do collisions with pedestrians occur at 50 km/h? If the pedestrian doesn't literally jump in front of the car from an somewhere he's visually obscured, there's usually time to stomp on the brakes. I've done it multiple times with cyclists riding in the wrong direction on the bicycle lane, over crosswalks where they should be dismounting, or just plain "jaycycling". We clearly have different views on what's quiet and what's not. If I'm on my terrace I can hear cars when they drive past, but not inside my home and it being a 30 zone it doesn't bother me. Were you forced to live next to seven lanes of traffic, where I assume the limit is much higher than 30-50 km/h? I don't have much to say about tire particles and whatnot. Are you just as much against microplastics in food and cosmetics? If you've never gotten a license, it surprises me you're so against something you've never tried. I tried cycling for about a year and a half. I learned I don't like sweating profusely in summer, getting rained on in spring or fall, or riding on snow in winter. I can drive to work and drop my child off at kindergarten in 15 minutes, with a bicycle and a trailer it would take me more than 45 if the weather is good. I don't need to hurry home after grocery shopping and I only need to shop once every week or two, as opposed to two to three times a week if I'm limited to what I can fit into a backpack, and I don't need to drink tap water since I can fit a few crates of mineral water in my trunk. The risk of getting my car stolen is lower than my bicycle getting stolen, which has happened in the past. You're absolutely right, it's not rocket science. Foe me the choice is clear. I still don't know what you mean by trips per hour.
shiroiushi 2y ago
>What also matgers is the quality of the infrastracture, with lanes with a paint seperation and bicycle paths on walkways being the worst and separate infrastructure with hard barriers being the best. I partially disagree: I'd rank lanes with paint separation the very worst, and bicycle paths on walkways as being in the middle. Painted lanes are extremely hazardous and deadly to cyclists, whereas bicycle paths on walkways are only somewhat hazardous to pedestrians. They're not great like the separate lanes with hard barriers as you said, but they're not nearly as horrible as trying to get cyclists to ride alongside fast-moving cars and trucks.
- _benedict 2y ago
  Bicycle paths on walkways are also hazardous to cyclists - and stressful, at least in London where there’s a lot of pedestrians and they uniformly ignore the markings and treat them like any other path. Crashing into a pedestrian is certainly less bad than being crashed into by a car, but most cars do pay attention and try not to hit you (regrettably not enough, admittedly), and you can make good progress. I think I prefer to be on regular unseparated road, at least in busy areas where road users are used to cyclists. Rural or suburban areas are a different matter, the relative speeds of road traffic and number of pedestrians no doubt flips the trade off.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Bicycle paths on walkways are also hazardous to cyclists - and stressful I never said they were great, just better than riding alongside cars. I ride on walkways every single day here in Tokyo, frequently very, very, very close to pedestrians; it IS stressful trying to dodge the chaos of pedestrians and also other cyclists who are all crammed together on narrow sidewalks. It's still better and safer than riding with cars, which is why all the other cyclists here (esp. mothers with children) do it too. >but most cars do pay attention and try not to hit you It doesn't matter: just one car not paying attention will likely kill you, or at least cause lifelong injuries. Running into a pedestrian is not at all likely to cause such trauma: the masses and the speeds are both far, far less.
axpvms 2y ago
I've cycled in both places and enjoyed it. The bicycle infrastructure is top-notch. I would note though that both places have a notoriously flat terrain and that helps.
- david-gpu 2y ago
  The importance of flat terrain minimal since the invention of gears and, more recently, e-bikes. Too hilly? Shift to a lower gear.
okr 2y ago
You know, i enjoy cycling as much as many others. But in the end, it is an illusion. Motorized biking is already making the lanes dangerous. And i have seen bike rage more often than i did in cars. So, in the end, we will just go again the same road, with how we ended up with cars: we want to go from A to B, sometimes as a leisure activity, sometimes regular, sometimes in a rush. Thats why we used cars or motor bikes (And to avoid mass transport in metal boxes, heh). Personal anecdote: I wanted to paint my apartment. It was so hard to get someone to do it. Because no one wanted to come to the city. The effort to find parking nearby was not worth the hassle to just paint my little apartment. We will see where this goes to and how we will change or rebuild the cities. But surely not for bikes only.
- jerojero 2y ago
  Biking is good for your health in ways driving will never be. You can't just look at biking from a purely transportation lens. It's better for your population for other reasons as well, having your people exercise regularly saves you millions in healthcare costs. Not only that, but bikes do factually use less space than cars. Which frees up space for other things in the city. I think public transportation is important to complement bikes, you're not supposed to bike to the other side of the city.
  - okr 2y ago
    But people already use bike lanes with bikes that have a motor. They do not care about health benefits. Thats maybe a reason for us health buffs. And no one argues about the advantages from bikes. But there are arguments for cars too. Or for planes. And for any other mode of transportation. Thats why the exist. :)
    - atoav 2y ago
      That is not necessarily true, I know multiple people who switched to electric bikes. The first effect for them is that they ride the bike more, because they know when they are exhausted or there are nasty hills they can add more of the motor in. So unless people (like delivery people) ride only with the motor, them using the bike more is already a win.

by atoav 2y ago

withinboredom 2y ago

Same. Since moving to the Netherlands, I have yet to find a reason to purchase a car. For some things, I will rent a car for a day or two, but mostly, there is no reason to own one here.

k99x55 2y ago

Cycle infrastructure needs to be continuous, feel safe to ride, and exist where people actually go to, not near the riverside. Build them and they will come. Cycle infra is not only cycle lanes. Cycle lanes are needed only where cars move fast (>30kmh). What is even more important is traffic calming in residential streets. LTNs, modal filters etc. Build for people, not cars.

zolbrek 2y ago
>Build for people, not cars. Do you mean build for pedestrians and cyclists, not motorists?
- david-gpu 2y ago
  They mean building infrastructure that is able to sustain more trips per hour while also reducing the risk of deadly collisions, noise and air pollution. By providing convenient and safe infrastructure for people who walk, take transit and bike around we gain safer more pleasant neighborhoods that also allow more people to get around in their neighborhood.
  - zolbrek 2y ago
    The risk of deadly collisions, particularly when most people are going 30-50 km/h in the city and driving modern cars, is already low. Modern cars are also quiet with emissions nothing like the cars of our grandparents. Can you elaborate on what you mean by trips per hour and how one is supposed to conveniently commute outside of one's neighborhood, particularly with small children and shopping?
    - david-gpu 2y ago
      > The risk of deadly collisions, particularly when most people are going 30-50 km/h in the city and driving modern cars, is already low. The probability of a pedestrian being killed when a motorist strikes them with their vehicle depends very strongly on the speed of the vehicle. At 30kph the risk is less nearly 0%, but it rises rapidly to 50% when the impact happens at 50kph[0]. Would you take those odds? I wouldn't. Especially given that motorists tend to interpret speed limits as minimums rather than maximums. > Modern cars are also quiet with emissions nothing like the cars of our grandparents. I live next to seven lanes of traffic. Modern cars are not remotely quiet. Their emissions are not limited to what comes out of their tailpipe, either. You must include the microparticles that are emitted from the tires, the asphalt and the brake pads [1]. > Can you elaborate on what you mean by trips per hour and how one is supposed to conveniently commute outside of one's neighborhood, particularly with small children and shopping? Public transit. Bicycles. Living in a neighborhood with mixed use buildings. I have never had a driving license and my family with two small kids has somehow figured it out with a combination of the above. Many others do the same. It is not rocket science. The first step is ditching the car. [0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_... [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4315878/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4315878/
      - zolbrek 2y ago
        How often do collisions with pedestrians occur at 50 km/h? If the pedestrian doesn't literally jump in front of the car from an somewhere he's visually obscured, there's usually time to stomp on the brakes. I've done it multiple times with cyclists riding in the wrong direction on the bicycle lane, over crosswalks where they should be dismounting, or just plain "jaycycling". We clearly have different views on what's quiet and what's not. If I'm on my terrace I can hear cars when they drive past, but not inside my home and it being a 30 zone it doesn't bother me. Were you forced to live next to seven lanes of traffic, where I assume the limit is much higher than 30-50 km/h? I don't have much to say about tire particles and whatnot. Are you just as much against microplastics in food and cosmetics? If you've never gotten a license, it surprises me you're so against something you've never tried. I tried cycling for about a year and a half. I learned I don't like sweating profusely in summer, getting rained on in spring or fall, or riding on snow in winter. I can drive to work and drop my child off at kindergarten in 15 minutes, with a bicycle and a trailer it would take me more than 45 if the weather is good. I don't need to hurry home after grocery shopping and I only need to shop once every week or two, as opposed to two to three times a week if I'm limited to what I can fit into a backpack, and I don't need to drink tap water since I can fit a few crates of mineral water in my trunk. The risk of getting my car stolen is lower than my bicycle getting stolen, which has happened in the past. You're absolutely right, it's not rocket science. Foe me the choice is clear. I still don't know what you mean by trips per hour.

shiroiushi 2y ago

>What also matgers is the quality of the infrastracture, with lanes with a paint seperation and bicycle paths on walkways being the worst and separate infrastructure with hard barriers being the best. I partially disagree: I'd rank lanes with paint separation the very worst, and bicycle paths on walkways as being in the middle. Painted lanes are extremely hazardous and deadly to cyclists, whereas bicycle paths on walkways are only somewhat hazardous to pedestrians. They're not great like the separate lanes with hard barriers as you said, but they're not nearly as horrible as trying to get cyclists to ride alongside fast-moving cars and trucks.

_benedict 2y ago
Bicycle paths on walkways are also hazardous to cyclists - and stressful, at least in London where there’s a lot of pedestrians and they uniformly ignore the markings and treat them like any other path. Crashing into a pedestrian is certainly less bad than being crashed into by a car, but most cars do pay attention and try not to hit you (regrettably not enough, admittedly), and you can make good progress. I think I prefer to be on regular unseparated road, at least in busy areas where road users are used to cyclists. Rural or suburban areas are a different matter, the relative speeds of road traffic and number of pedestrians no doubt flips the trade off.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Bicycle paths on walkways are also hazardous to cyclists - and stressful I never said they were great, just better than riding alongside cars. I ride on walkways every single day here in Tokyo, frequently very, very, very close to pedestrians; it IS stressful trying to dodge the chaos of pedestrians and also other cyclists who are all crammed together on narrow sidewalks. It's still better and safer than riding with cars, which is why all the other cyclists here (esp. mothers with children) do it too. >but most cars do pay attention and try not to hit you It doesn't matter: just one car not paying attention will likely kill you, or at least cause lifelong injuries. Running into a pedestrian is not at all likely to cause such trauma: the masses and the speeds are both far, far less.

axpvms 2y ago

I've cycled in both places and enjoyed it. The bicycle infrastructure is top-notch. I would note though that both places have a notoriously flat terrain and that helps.

david-gpu 2y ago
The importance of flat terrain minimal since the invention of gears and, more recently, e-bikes. Too hilly? Shift to a lower gear.

okr 2y ago

You know, i enjoy cycling as much as many others. But in the end, it is an illusion. Motorized biking is already making the lanes dangerous. And i have seen bike rage more often than i did in cars. So, in the end, we will just go again the same road, with how we ended up with cars: we want to go from A to B, sometimes as a leisure activity, sometimes regular, sometimes in a rush. Thats why we used cars or motor bikes (And to avoid mass transport in metal boxes, heh). Personal anecdote: I wanted to paint my apartment. It was so hard to get someone to do it. Because no one wanted to come to the city. The effort to find parking nearby was not worth the hassle to just paint my little apartment. We will see where this goes to and how we will change or rebuild the cities. But surely not for bikes only.

jerojero 2y ago
Biking is good for your health in ways driving will never be. You can't just look at biking from a purely transportation lens. It's better for your population for other reasons as well, having your people exercise regularly saves you millions in healthcare costs. Not only that, but bikes do factually use less space than cars. Which frees up space for other things in the city. I think public transportation is important to complement bikes, you're not supposed to bike to the other side of the city.
- okr 2y ago
  But people already use bike lanes with bikes that have a motor. They do not care about health benefits. Thats maybe a reason for us health buffs. And no one argues about the advantages from bikes. But there are arguments for cars too. Or for planes. And for any other mode of transportation. Thats why the exist. :)
  - atoav 2y ago
    That is not necessarily true, I know multiple people who switched to electric bikes. The first effect for them is that they ride the bike more, because they know when they are exhausted or there are nasty hills they can add more of the motor in. So unless people (like delivery people) ride only with the motor, them using the bike more is already a win.