6 ms·

Want a Healthier City? Prescribe Biking

51 points by lelf 13y ago

vertr07 13y ago
Let's call it "cycling" instead.
- wdewind 13y ago
  Why not biking?
  - abrowne 13y ago
    Then the people doing it are "bikers" ;-)
  - Someone 13y ago
    Google "biker" and click on Images. Although, to be fair, neither "biking" (Mountain bikes) nor "cycling" (racing bikes) shows appropriate images. For appropriate images, you want "fietsen" or, better: site: bicycledutch.wordpress.com
ams6110 13y ago
in the United States and Canada, bicyclists are more at risk for fatality per mile traveled than people in automobiles So we have to kill people to make them healthier, I get it.
- graeme 13y ago
  You're committing a fallacy. MORE risk than driving doesn't mean you're in worse health if you cycle. The health benefits may outweigh the increased risk of life loss. Such risks also aren't set in stone. The Netherlands has much lower risks. Encouraging more cycling here could lower the odds of danger. Snark is fun, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
  - QuantumChaos 13y ago
    I think the poster understood what you said, but has a moral outlook where even positive expected value interventions can be immoral. I don't really understand that viewpoint, but it is a very common one. Usually it is expressed in terms like "how Would you explain all this stuff about averages to the daughter of the man whose bike got ran over by a truck "
    - thwarted 13y ago
      Wow, that position actually exists? Presumably, you explain it the same way you'd explain it to the daughter of the man who was killed in a car accident while driving his car.
    - alexkus 13y ago
      > how Would you explain all this stuff about averages to the daughter of the man whose bike got ran over by a truck The greatly increased chances of seeing any grandchildren I may end up having is way more important, to me anyway, than the tiny increase in risk that I may not see my children reach adulthood (or even their teenage years).
      - RogerL 13y ago
        Those are not your only options. You can get exercise, and improve your health, in ways other than commuting by bike. Ways that reduce risk, not increase them, even.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  But cars do a lot of miles on freeways/motorways with relatively low accidents per mile and these are the sorts of journeys that would be impractical by bicycle anyway. You would have to compare trip for trip.
  - asdfologist 13y ago
    Accidents per mile != fatalities per mile. I'm guessing fatalities per accident on freeways/motorways are much higher than in residential districts. But I agree you have to compare trip for trip.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      That's true, but I was thinking more of back roads with lots of blind corners and speeds high enough to be dangerous. It would also be interesting to compare day and night, because cycling in the dark is probably much more dangerous even with high visibility clothing.
- analog31 13y ago
  I'd like to see such a statistic broken down between athletic versus utilitarian cycling (or choose whatever terms are appropriate). Is racing more dangerous than commuting, or vice versa?
- Riseed 13y ago
  I don't know the true mean, median, or mode, but in my experience, even carless cyclists don't travel an average of 15,000 per year. "Risk for fatality per mile traveled" is not the only way the two activities should be compared. Some numbers[0] show that cycling is about 6 times more dangerous per mile than car travel. If those numbers are correct, it's approximately equally dangerous per minute to be in a car on a highway as it is to be a cyclist on surface streets. Of course, there are other considerations as well. For example, if exercise improves health, does cycling add more risk of death/injury than it removes? [0] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...
not_paul_graham 13y ago
In Atlanta, even if you observe all the rules, wear a helmet, use bike lights, wear reflecting clothing, you are more likely to get hit by a car than not; or atleast you might know someone who has been through it. I'm basing my assumptions that Boston is like Atlanta (aka terrible public transit, everything is far away, college campuses are in the middle of the city). On college campuses (like Georgia Tech) a lot of bikers who are college students ignored traffic stops, rules of the road and signals. So it is likely that people from poor households are also equally or more likely to ignore traffic laws. Also, lots of roads don't have bike lanes, and riding in the middle of the street is going to get you a lot of honking, stuff thrown at you by rude drivers over-taking you, etc (from personal experience). On another note, London, a city whose mayor is a vocal proponent of making London bike friendly, has had many fatalities that were bike riders following the rules so this risk for fatality is a very real problem.
- schiffern 13y ago
  >On another note, London… has had many fatalities…, so this risk for fatality is a very real problem. It's a very visible problem, but it caused only 14 deaths in 2013. In that same year I estimate 32 Londoners were scalded to death by their hot water (126 death/year in England, and London has 26% of the population).
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  I rode in New York. Many streets didn't have bike lanes. I'd often be right in traffic. I was hit once (although the car was only going about 10 mph.) And there were a lot of rude assholes, sure. Did the risk deter me? Not really. 5.8 micromorts for 100km of biking, according to the article. Inactivity or a long commute (stress, disinclination to exercise) are more dangerous. There's always a lot of press when someone dies after a marathon (the risk exists, but it's comparable to skydiving-- very small) but marathons actually reduce total deaths due to fewer traffic accidents (road closings). Especially when the costs/risks of inactivity are included, roadside running and biking are a no-brainer winner, even in the US. Obviously, it'd be better if streets were laid out to be safer and urban speed limits were lower (in NYC, it's 30 mph, which is too high) but even as things are, it's still worth going out there.
dreamdu5t 13y ago
Queue comments from fat drivers about how dangerous cycling is... inconsiderate cyclists and drivers complaining that bicycles and cars are annoying... bicycle evangelists claiming everyone should be cycling... practical people pointing out that infrastructure is the solution to whatever problem... Fastidious people insisting everyone should be following the rules of the road... I'm sure I'm missing some.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- asdfologist 13y ago
  Queue meta-comments that don't add anything to the discussion.
- rsync 13y ago
  You missed mine: Why don't people just walk more ? It's even more health promoting than cycling and it requires no investment/gear/tech. It's also really meditative and enjoyable.
  - pearjuice 13y ago
    Walking is slow and requires a lot of patience and extra time.
    - k-mcgrady 13y ago
      Replace 'walking' with 'cycling' and you have a drivers response to cycling.
      - bjeanes 13y ago
        Except they would be wrong. In cities, cycling is almost always provably faster than driving or public transport because traffic becomes a non-issue and you can start immediately when a light turns green instead of waiting for the 5 vehicles in front of you to start moving or turning out of your way.
stackedmidgets 13y ago
Cycling on shared roads is far too dangerous for ordinary people. I bike to work each day. I have been fortunate enough over the years to not be hit by a car. Almost every serious cyclist that I know has been hit by a car to varying degrees of lethality. I have been riding on shared roads (as has my father) for most of my life, and have been fortunate to not be hit. It takes a while to get a good sense of when it is safe to cross a road, and how to anticipate the behavior of drivers (many of whom are distracted and not expecting a cyclist). Bike lanes do not protect cyclists from being struck at an intersection. It is very easy for 'thought leaders' to bleat about how wonderful it would be if everyone were to ride a bicycle to work. It would cut down on road maintenance costs while raising health costs due to injury. Our dippy 'thought leaders' abstract out that the suburban lifestyle makes people obese, and prescribe a ridiculous solution that requires no special thought or changing the urban planning regime fixed in place by Eisenhower through the highway system. It is easier for medical professionals to keep cashing insurance checks and floating impractical health advice without wondering as to why a system that incentivizes reactive care over preventative care seems to produce so many grotesquely unhealthy citizens. Fat people should not be cycling to lose weight or to commute -- if they are physically disabled, they will not be fast enough to react when drivers act unpredictably. Even fit cyclists who participate in races are not always fast enough to react to drivers. Further, cycling at safe commuting speeds is not a good workout. It is a bad workout. It is pleasurable in some cases, and in some states that make room on the shoulder for cyclists, but if you commute at an aerobically active pace, you will be killed at an intersection. That's what killed the former CFO of Amazon, Joy Covey -- certainly an intelligent, accomplished, and fit woman. It is not compassionate to our piggy brothers and sisters to tell them to partake in an activity that will get them killed. This hits all the SWPL high status points: * Biking is high status; low-status fatties should be more like us and bike more. * Liking European things is high status. I can ape other high status people by suggesting copying a European policy without going into the details of why it works. * Academic studies are high status. I will name drop a study without going into detail about what it was about to an audience unqualified to interpret it. Has anyone noticed that 'thought leaders' lead no one but themselves and people who look like them? Perhaps it is time to personally set a better example for the lower class, rather than proposing multi-billion dollar bureaucratic solutions that permit the upper class to hand off their responsibilities to a bureaucracy while they wall themselves off in their Elysian neighborhoods from the lumpenfolk who disgust them.
twrkit 13y ago
When Bloomberg ran the show in NYC, he "prescribed biking" [1]. Despite the focus on cyclists, here's one filmmaker's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/on-eve-of-bike-sharing-debut-watching-for-a-fiasco-or-a-success.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/on-eve-of-bike-sh...
g8oz 13y ago
For the general population, cycling is a reasonable option only for trips of 5 km and under. Mind you that is a good proportion of trips.
- tluyben2 13y ago
  For 5km and under it should be the option. Would fix a lot of issues.
- mercer 13y ago
  I think that's underestimating what the 'general population' is capable of. Here in Holland most normal bike commutes are often quite a bit longer than 5 km, and everyone from businessmen to pregnant women seem to manage fine...
  - Avshalom 13y ago
    it's worth remembering that Holland is quite mild compared to a lot of the US. Looking at wikipedia the Netherlands' average high is lower that Austin's average low during the summer.
    - natrius 13y ago
      Even with the heat, central Austinities bike at decent rates: https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Public_Works/Bicycle/2013-03-20%20Bicycle%20Modal%20Split%202011.pdf https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Public_Wor... In the summer, I end up carrying around a towel and an extra shirt. It's not so bad.
    - swimfar 13y ago
      In addition, the Netherlands is very flat, and I've found this makes a huge difference. The steepest "hills" I've encountered while biking around cities there are the bridges over canals. Cycling is extremely efficient on flat roads and doesn't take much energy if you're not trying to go too fast. But as soon as you get to a slight incline you notice the difference (especially in the summer when you're concerned about sweating). I consider myself fairly/very athletic and I definitely noticed the difference (how easy it was) when I biked around there. Obviously, these aren't the only reasons cycling isn't as popular in the US. There are certainly US cities which are just as flat and mild.
maaaats 13y ago
The hashtag #ReplaceBikeWithCar is currently trending on Twitter. It is statements bicyclists often hear, turned around for cars. I find them funny. My favorites so far: "Absolutely no more car infrastructure should be built anywhere until every single car driver follows all traffic laws. #ReplaceBikeWithCar" "Cars who aren't covered in high viz deserve to be crashed into." "Why don't you lot stick to driving round and round a race track!" Edit: link https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ReplaceBikeWithCar&src=tren https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ReplaceBikeWithCar&src=tren
- mason240 13y ago
  "Deerfoot Trail gets you close enough to your destination. Why do you expect door to door service?"
tluyben2 13y ago
From the Netherlands where we all (should) cycle; it does take quite of a change to get into it to make it not as dangerous. It's no fun with helmets and when you feel unsafe, so things need to be adjusted to cyclist as 1500-.... kilos of metal are not very forgiving so you cannot assume that will work well. In 40 years the only people I knew who died from cycling were semi-professional cyclists. I have seen horrible accidents ending in mutilation which were all due to the cyclist thinking 'I am right' (in Dutch law, the pedestrian and cyclist are always right) and just crossing without looking. Outside that, nothing happened. But that takes, I believe, a lot of years of motor vehicle drivers to actually really pay attention all the time as a small lap is not a dented bumper but much worse. That is not something most people just pick up although drivers licenses should've taught them that.
- marquis 13y ago
  I love cycling in the Netherlands - where ironically the worst traffic annoyances, for the cyclist, happen to be pedestrians (especially tourists in the central district).
  - tluyben2 13y ago
    Yes! :) I am a die-hard pedestrian and in my home country cyclists are just better catered for. There are worse things... But seriously, it's very ingrained here and everyone has to do it, at least about 15 years of their lives.
  - ajarmoniuk 13y ago
    Also scooters (mopeds).
  - belorn 13y ago
    Its the attitude that is most annoying. Most people would not dream of walking over a road without looking for incoming traffic, but they feel perfectly safe walking over a bicycle road without even bother taking a look.
    - 13y ago
sarreph 13y ago
Very good initiative; it will hopefully emulate the benefits reaped by the more active cycling cities (e.g. Amsterdam). However, it should be noted that the program's widespread nature (large city + seemingly non-stringent requisites) has the potential to lead to a black market for discounted membership based on rent-seeking behaviour.

51 points by lelf 13y ago

vertr07 13y ago

Let's call it "cycling" instead.

wdewind 13y ago
Why not biking?
- abrowne 13y ago
  Then the people doing it are "bikers" ;-)
- Someone 13y ago
  Google "biker" and click on Images. Although, to be fair, neither "biking" (Mountain bikes) nor "cycling" (racing bikes) shows appropriate images. For appropriate images, you want "fietsen" or, better: site: bicycledutch.wordpress.com

ams6110 13y ago

in the United States and Canada, bicyclists are more at risk for fatality per mile traveled than people in automobiles So we have to kill people to make them healthier, I get it.

graeme 13y ago
You're committing a fallacy. MORE risk than driving doesn't mean you're in worse health if you cycle. The health benefits may outweigh the increased risk of life loss. Such risks also aren't set in stone. The Netherlands has much lower risks. Encouraging more cycling here could lower the odds of danger. Snark is fun, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.
- QuantumChaos 13y ago
  I think the poster understood what you said, but has a moral outlook where even positive expected value interventions can be immoral. I don't really understand that viewpoint, but it is a very common one. Usually it is expressed in terms like "how Would you explain all this stuff about averages to the daughter of the man whose bike got ran over by a truck "
  - thwarted 13y ago
    Wow, that position actually exists? Presumably, you explain it the same way you'd explain it to the daughter of the man who was killed in a car accident while driving his car.
  - alexkus 13y ago
    > how Would you explain all this stuff about averages to the daughter of the man whose bike got ran over by a truck The greatly increased chances of seeing any grandchildren I may end up having is way more important, to me anyway, than the tiny increase in risk that I may not see my children reach adulthood (or even their teenage years).
    - RogerL 13y ago
      Those are not your only options. You can get exercise, and improve your health, in ways other than commuting by bike. Ways that reduce risk, not increase them, even.
jiggy2011 13y ago
But cars do a lot of miles on freeways/motorways with relatively low accidents per mile and these are the sorts of journeys that would be impractical by bicycle anyway. You would have to compare trip for trip.
- asdfologist 13y ago
  Accidents per mile != fatalities per mile. I'm guessing fatalities per accident on freeways/motorways are much higher than in residential districts. But I agree you have to compare trip for trip.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    That's true, but I was thinking more of back roads with lots of blind corners and speeds high enough to be dangerous. It would also be interesting to compare day and night, because cycling in the dark is probably much more dangerous even with high visibility clothing.
analog31 13y ago
I'd like to see such a statistic broken down between athletic versus utilitarian cycling (or choose whatever terms are appropriate). Is racing more dangerous than commuting, or vice versa?
Riseed 13y ago
I don't know the true mean, median, or mode, but in my experience, even carless cyclists don't travel an average of 15,000 per year. "Risk for fatality per mile traveled" is not the only way the two activities should be compared. Some numbers[0] show that cycling is about 6 times more dangerous per mile than car travel. If those numbers are correct, it's approximately equally dangerous per minute to be in a car on a highway as it is to be a cyclist on surface streets. Of course, there are other considerations as well. For example, if exercise improves health, does cycling add more risk of death/injury than it removes? [0] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe...

not_paul_graham 13y ago

In Atlanta, even if you observe all the rules, wear a helmet, use bike lights, wear reflecting clothing, you are more likely to get hit by a car than not; or atleast you might know someone who has been through it. I'm basing my assumptions that Boston is like Atlanta (aka terrible public transit, everything is far away, college campuses are in the middle of the city). On college campuses (like Georgia Tech) a lot of bikers who are college students ignored traffic stops, rules of the road and signals. So it is likely that people from poor households are also equally or more likely to ignore traffic laws. Also, lots of roads don't have bike lanes, and riding in the middle of the street is going to get you a lot of honking, stuff thrown at you by rude drivers over-taking you, etc (from personal experience). On another note, London, a city whose mayor is a vocal proponent of making London bike friendly, has had many fatalities that were bike riders following the rules so this risk for fatality is a very real problem.

schiffern 13y ago
>On another note, London… has had many fatalities…, so this risk for fatality is a very real problem. It's a very visible problem, but it caused only 14 deaths in 2013. In that same year I estimate 32 Londoners were scalded to death by their hot water (126 death/year in England, and London has 26% of the population).
michaelochurch 13y ago
I rode in New York. Many streets didn't have bike lanes. I'd often be right in traffic. I was hit once (although the car was only going about 10 mph.) And there were a lot of rude assholes, sure. Did the risk deter me? Not really. 5.8 micromorts for 100km of biking, according to the article. Inactivity or a long commute (stress, disinclination to exercise) are more dangerous. There's always a lot of press when someone dies after a marathon (the risk exists, but it's comparable to skydiving-- very small) but marathons actually reduce total deaths due to fewer traffic accidents (road closings). Especially when the costs/risks of inactivity are included, roadside running and biking are a no-brainer winner, even in the US. Obviously, it'd be better if streets were laid out to be safer and urban speed limits were lower (in NYC, it's 30 mph, which is too high) but even as things are, it's still worth going out there.

dreamdu5t 13y ago

Queue comments from fat drivers about how dangerous cycling is... inconsiderate cyclists and drivers complaining that bicycles and cars are annoying... bicycle evangelists claiming everyone should be cycling... practical people pointing out that infrastructure is the solution to whatever problem... Fastidious people insisting everyone should be following the rules of the road... I'm sure I'm missing some.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
asdfologist 13y ago
Queue meta-comments that don't add anything to the discussion.
rsync 13y ago
You missed mine: Why don't people just walk more ? It's even more health promoting than cycling and it requires no investment/gear/tech. It's also really meditative and enjoyable.
- pearjuice 13y ago
  Walking is slow and requires a lot of patience and extra time.
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    Replace 'walking' with 'cycling' and you have a drivers response to cycling.
    - bjeanes 13y ago
      Except they would be wrong. In cities, cycling is almost always provably faster than driving or public transport because traffic becomes a non-issue and you can start immediately when a light turns green instead of waiting for the 5 vehicles in front of you to start moving or turning out of your way.

stackedmidgets 13y ago

Cycling on shared roads is far too dangerous for ordinary people. I bike to work each day. I have been fortunate enough over the years to not be hit by a car. Almost every serious cyclist that I know has been hit by a car to varying degrees of lethality. I have been riding on shared roads (as has my father) for most of my life, and have been fortunate to not be hit. It takes a while to get a good sense of when it is safe to cross a road, and how to anticipate the behavior of drivers (many of whom are distracted and not expecting a cyclist). Bike lanes do not protect cyclists from being struck at an intersection. It is very easy for 'thought leaders' to bleat about how wonderful it would be if everyone were to ride a bicycle to work. It would cut down on road maintenance costs while raising health costs due to injury. Our dippy 'thought leaders' abstract out that the suburban lifestyle makes people obese, and prescribe a ridiculous solution that requires no special thought or changing the urban planning regime fixed in place by Eisenhower through the highway system. It is easier for medical professionals to keep cashing insurance checks and floating impractical health advice without wondering as to why a system that incentivizes reactive care over preventative care seems to produce so many grotesquely unhealthy citizens. Fat people should not be cycling to lose weight or to commute -- if they are physically disabled, they will not be fast enough to react when drivers act unpredictably. Even fit cyclists who participate in races are not always fast enough to react to drivers. Further, cycling at safe commuting speeds is not a good workout. It is a bad workout. It is pleasurable in some cases, and in some states that make room on the shoulder for cyclists, but if you commute at an aerobically active pace, you will be killed at an intersection. That's what killed the former CFO of Amazon, Joy Covey -- certainly an intelligent, accomplished, and fit woman. It is not compassionate to our piggy brothers and sisters to tell them to partake in an activity that will get them killed. This hits all the SWPL high status points: * Biking is high status; low-status fatties should be more like us and bike more. * Liking European things is high status. I can ape other high status people by suggesting copying a European policy without going into the details of why it works. * Academic studies are high status. I will name drop a study without going into detail about what it was about to an audience unqualified to interpret it. Has anyone noticed that 'thought leaders' lead no one but themselves and people who look like them? Perhaps it is time to personally set a better example for the lower class, rather than proposing multi-billion dollar bureaucratic solutions that permit the upper class to hand off their responsibilities to a bureaucracy while they wall themselves off in their Elysian neighborhoods from the lumpenfolk who disgust them.

twrkit 13y ago

When Bloomberg ran the show in NYC, he "prescribed biking" [1]. Despite the focus on cyclists, here's one filmmaker's experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/on-eve-of-bike-sharing-debut-watching-for-a-fiasco-or-a-success.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/on-eve-of-bike-sh...

g8oz 13y ago

For the general population, cycling is a reasonable option only for trips of 5 km and under. Mind you that is a good proportion of trips.

tluyben2 13y ago
For 5km and under it should be the option. Would fix a lot of issues.
mercer 13y ago
I think that's underestimating what the 'general population' is capable of. Here in Holland most normal bike commutes are often quite a bit longer than 5 km, and everyone from businessmen to pregnant women seem to manage fine...
- Avshalom 13y ago
  it's worth remembering that Holland is quite mild compared to a lot of the US. Looking at wikipedia the Netherlands' average high is lower that Austin's average low during the summer.
  - natrius 13y ago
    Even with the heat, central Austinities bike at decent rates: https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Public_Works/Bicycle/2013-03-20%20Bicycle%20Modal%20Split%202011.pdf https://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Public_Wor... In the summer, I end up carrying around a towel and an extra shirt. It's not so bad.
  - swimfar 13y ago
    In addition, the Netherlands is very flat, and I've found this makes a huge difference. The steepest "hills" I've encountered while biking around cities there are the bridges over canals. Cycling is extremely efficient on flat roads and doesn't take much energy if you're not trying to go too fast. But as soon as you get to a slight incline you notice the difference (especially in the summer when you're concerned about sweating). I consider myself fairly/very athletic and I definitely noticed the difference (how easy it was) when I biked around there. Obviously, these aren't the only reasons cycling isn't as popular in the US. There are certainly US cities which are just as flat and mild.

maaaats 13y ago

The hashtag #ReplaceBikeWithCar is currently trending on Twitter. It is statements bicyclists often hear, turned around for cars. I find them funny. My favorites so far: "Absolutely no more car infrastructure should be built anywhere until every single car driver follows all traffic laws. #ReplaceBikeWithCar" "Cars who aren't covered in high viz deserve to be crashed into." "Why don't you lot stick to driving round and round a race track!" Edit: link https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ReplaceBikeWithCar&src=tren https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ReplaceBikeWithCar&src=tren

mason240 13y ago
"Deerfoot Trail gets you close enough to your destination. Why do you expect door to door service?"

tluyben2 13y ago

From the Netherlands where we all (should) cycle; it does take quite of a change to get into it to make it not as dangerous. It's no fun with helmets and when you feel unsafe, so things need to be adjusted to cyclist as 1500-.... kilos of metal are not very forgiving so you cannot assume that will work well. In 40 years the only people I knew who died from cycling were semi-professional cyclists. I have seen horrible accidents ending in mutilation which were all due to the cyclist thinking 'I am right' (in Dutch law, the pedestrian and cyclist are always right) and just crossing without looking. Outside that, nothing happened. But that takes, I believe, a lot of years of motor vehicle drivers to actually really pay attention all the time as a small lap is not a dented bumper but much worse. That is not something most people just pick up although drivers licenses should've taught them that.

marquis 13y ago
I love cycling in the Netherlands - where ironically the worst traffic annoyances, for the cyclist, happen to be pedestrians (especially tourists in the central district).
- tluyben2 13y ago
  Yes! :) I am a die-hard pedestrian and in my home country cyclists are just better catered for. There are worse things... But seriously, it's very ingrained here and everyone has to do it, at least about 15 years of their lives.
- ajarmoniuk 13y ago
  Also scooters (mopeds).
- belorn 13y ago
  Its the attitude that is most annoying. Most people would not dream of walking over a road without looking for incoming traffic, but they feel perfectly safe walking over a bicycle road without even bother taking a look.
  - 13y ago

sarreph 13y ago

Very good initiative; it will hopefully emulate the benefits reaped by the more active cycling cities (e.g. Amsterdam). However, it should be noted that the program's widespread nature (large city + seemingly non-stringent requisites) has the potential to lead to a black market for discounted membership based on rent-seeking behaviour.