5 ms·

This is not true! The Netherlands switched back to bikes in the 1970s and 1980s. It was the result of organized activists (with the slogan "Stop the Child Murde

This is not true! The Netherlands switched back to bikes in the 1970s and 1980s. It was the result of organized activists (with the slogan "Stop the Child Murder"). See this: http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-got-their-cycling-infrastructure/ http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-g...

dalke 13y ago
Not only is the previous poster's comment not true, it was even covered in the article, in the section "The 70s velo-rution." Even the comment "one reason: their country is flat" is addressed in the article, with "The famously flat Dutch terrain, combined with densely-populated areas, mean that most journeys are of short duration and not too difficult to complete." That is, urban density is also an important reason. It's quite clear from the article that many factors affect biking in the Netherlands, and not just, or even primarily, its flatness.
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  Here's my position: All those factors are incentives, easier to promote biking but without a mostly flat country it wouldn't work. We could try adding all of the other factors but flatness is obligatory. I'll have a look at Montreal as another poster mentioned it but I have doubts it is on the same scale as the Netherlands if it isn't flat.
  - tripzilch 13y ago
    I think the point is that, there are a lot of cities that are in fact sufficiently flat but do not have a lot of bike usage. Indeed I wouldn't want to bike around in cities with many sloped streets (Brussels comes to mind) without at least having some decent gears to switch (most "grandma bikes" are single-gear, because it's one less part that can break).
  - dalke 13y ago
    Certainly flatness is a big incentive. Our reaction, however, is against the comment "There is only one, and one reason: their country is flat." That's simply not true. As the article points out, the Netherlands, like other countries, had a large decrease in the use of bicycles in favor of the car. It wasn't until political protests of the 70s and 80s that that trend reversed itself. But having hills is not a complete disincentive. I used to live in Gothenburg, Sweden, which has a very extensive cycling network, with many people bike commuting, etc. It also has hills. The key thing is that it's not all hills; the bike paths tend to follow the flat. But I lived near the top of a hill, at about 200 feet above the central part of town, and plenty of people would do that commute every day. (Not that I particularly liked it.) It's of course a very complicated set of interactions. The city also has good public transportation, so if the weather is nasty it's still easy to leave the bike at home and take the trams and buses to work. Or consider Trondheim, Norway. According to one web site, "18% of the population of Trondheim is using their bike as a daily means if[sic] transport to work or school." Trondheim is not a flat city, and certainly Norway is not a "mostly flat country."
    - johnchristopher 13y ago
      >>Certainly flatness is a big incentive. Our reaction, however, is against the comment "There is only one, and one reason: their country is flat." >That's simply not true. As the article points out, the Netherlands, like other countries, had a large decrease in the use of bicycles in favor of the car. It wasn't until political protests of the 70s and 80s that that trend reversed itself. Ah yes, I see. I was too vague and biased, my mistake. I chose the wrong approach. Where I live we are often told "why don't ride like the dutchs ?" and after a while it becomes tiresome to explain why we don't.

dalke 13y ago

Not only is the previous poster's comment not true, it was even covered in the article, in the section "The 70s velo-rution." Even the comment "one reason: their country is flat" is addressed in the article, with "The famously flat Dutch terrain, combined with densely-populated areas, mean that most journeys are of short duration and not too difficult to complete." That is, urban density is also an important reason. It's quite clear from the article that many factors affect biking in the Netherlands, and not just, or even primarily, its flatness.

johnchristopher 13y ago
Here's my position: All those factors are incentives, easier to promote biking but without a mostly flat country it wouldn't work. We could try adding all of the other factors but flatness is obligatory. I'll have a look at Montreal as another poster mentioned it but I have doubts it is on the same scale as the Netherlands if it isn't flat.
- tripzilch 13y ago
  I think the point is that, there are a lot of cities that are in fact sufficiently flat but do not have a lot of bike usage. Indeed I wouldn't want to bike around in cities with many sloped streets (Brussels comes to mind) without at least having some decent gears to switch (most "grandma bikes" are single-gear, because it's one less part that can break).
- dalke 13y ago
  Certainly flatness is a big incentive. Our reaction, however, is against the comment "There is only one, and one reason: their country is flat." That's simply not true. As the article points out, the Netherlands, like other countries, had a large decrease in the use of bicycles in favor of the car. It wasn't until political protests of the 70s and 80s that that trend reversed itself. But having hills is not a complete disincentive. I used to live in Gothenburg, Sweden, which has a very extensive cycling network, with many people bike commuting, etc. It also has hills. The key thing is that it's not all hills; the bike paths tend to follow the flat. But I lived near the top of a hill, at about 200 feet above the central part of town, and plenty of people would do that commute every day. (Not that I particularly liked it.) It's of course a very complicated set of interactions. The city also has good public transportation, so if the weather is nasty it's still easy to leave the bike at home and take the trams and buses to work. Or consider Trondheim, Norway. According to one web site, "18% of the population of Trondheim is using their bike as a daily means if[sic] transport to work or school." Trondheim is not a flat city, and certainly Norway is not a "mostly flat country."
  - johnchristopher 13y ago
    >>Certainly flatness is a big incentive. Our reaction, however, is against the comment "There is only one, and one reason: their country is flat." >That's simply not true. As the article points out, the Netherlands, like other countries, had a large decrease in the use of bicycles in favor of the car. It wasn't until political protests of the 70s and 80s that that trend reversed itself. Ah yes, I see. I was too vague and biased, my mistake. I chose the wrong approach. Where I live we are often told "why don't ride like the dutchs ?" and after a while it becomes tiresome to explain why we don't.