degnaw

So I'm just about done spending half a year in Stockholm, so I figured I'd give my impressions of cycling here from the perspective of an American:

Pros:

• Wide, smooth suburban cycle paths separated from pedestrians
• More respectful drivers (in general)
• Pedestrians mindful of cyclists when crossing pathways/separated cycle tracks

Cons:

• Mandatory bike path law
• Narrow (passing impossible) yet mandatory use cycle tracks in city center.
• Winter plowing generally leaves a 1/4" layer of packed snow with a layer of sand on cycle paths, necessitating wide, studded tires and really good fenders.
• Otherwise dangerous cycle track designs (weaving in and out, door zone, etc), generally within the city center.

Demographic notes:

• LOTS of cyclists nowadays, particularly in rush hour
• Helmet use is very high (~80%)
• Winter cycling is very uncommon - unsurprisingly so, given the state of cycle paths in winter.
• High-Vis use is surprisingly high, especially in the winter, during which it seems a good 20% urban/40% suburban wore high-vis vests or jackets. It's seen much less often now that it's warm out.
• About 15% urban/35% suburban cyclists use clipless pedals.

Videos:
A very crowded urban cycle route:

Door zone separated cycle track with no avenues of escape:

An urban cycle track that repeatedly weaves into traffic:

A great suburban cycling facility:

A winter maintenance compilation (taken after a warm front passed):

CB HI

No one looks before they change their line. Just weave left and right and whatever while passing or just riding along.
Good reason for riding so slow.

chasm54

Interesting. Doesn't look too bad, from a UK perspective. How about out of town? last time I visited sweden, which was a long time ago, I thought it had great possibilities for a cycle tour. Assuming one can afford to eat, of course...LOL.

mprelaw

I'm guessing that it's a lot like Finland. Riding in Helsinki is a PITA if you're a serious roadie, but out in the heartland, it's a great place for cycling. My wife and I rode out in the Alajarvi region last summer, and it was a great experience.

Most of the Nordic countries don't use salt on the roads in winter. People pay a lot of Euros for their cars, and using salt accelerates corrosion issues. When it's -30C you really can't wash salt off your undercarriage. They have winter tires. Cyclists use studded tires for commuting.

Pedaleur

Most Scandinavian cities are like that: Copenhagen, Oslo, etc., etc. are not designed for the 'serious roadie'. Many of the OP's 'horrible' paths don't look so bad to me at 'city bike' speeds. Maybe I just drank the kool-aid.

degnaw

Perhaps having paths at "serious roadie" standards isn't too realistic in cities, but I'd like it to at least be at "commuter" (say, ~15mph with room for passing) standards. I'm pretty sure most Copenhagen cycle tracks adhere to that.

CB HI

Maybe OP can post the city portion in real time so you can get a feel for just how slow the cyclist move.

hagen2456

They do, except at the most busy of rush hours. At that time, all parts of a great deal of the streets are just too packed for there to be room for fast cyclists. Cyclists do get through a good deal faster than drivers, though

Edit: In the morning, when riding to work from one end of the city to the other, a distance of c. 6 miles, I can make it in c. 22-23 minutes, but then I'm passing thrugh the central Copenhagen 10 minutes before everything gets ultra-clogged. That's quite good enough for me.

Pedaleur

I'm quite familiar with the speed of commuting in Scandinavian cities.

Juha

So what if other cyclists slow you down? It's called traffic, and you're supposed to adjust to it. Who'd expect to drive a car at 80kph in downtown traffic during rush hour?

I do agree some of the downtown bike lane arrangements in Stockholm seem weird. Same here. We also have the mandatory bike lane use code. The fact that you're required to use it actually provides grounds for demanding proper bike infrastructure. And the other way around, it provides grounds for demanding removal of sub-standard "solutions".

Good bike specific arrangements > no bike specific arrangements >> poorly designed or badly maintained bike specific arrangements, IMO.

CB HI

If they are so well designed and you all love them so much, why do you need a mandatory use law?

If they are that great, EVERYONE would just naturally use them.

hagen2456

We've been over that one before.

What you don't realize is that at times, the sheer volume of cyclists can restrict the speed of the most impatient and fast of riders, and as that is the same time as the streets are very heavily traffic'ed with cars, buses, lorries etc., free roaming riders would give us loads more accidents.

I think one may have to experience rush hour traffic in Amsterdam or Copenhagen to really understand how well the mandatory lane/track use works for the huge majority of cyclists.

Juha

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Having a bike specific piece of infrastructure doesn't automatically mean it's well designed or maintained properly. IF it is, I'll love it. Don't know about everyone else.

I don't think mandatory use laws are necessary. But they provide a bit of leverage, as city planners are required to take bicyclists into account.

hagen2456

As far as I can judge, most of the cycle path that "weaves in and out of traffic" isn't actually that bad, as it seems to weave in and out of the parking lanes, so to say.

There are a couple of places that could do with improvements.

irwin7638

It's nice there is enough bike traffic to warrant the development of infrastructure like that. I think the videos demonstrate the problems we face here in the US with some of the attempts to do the same. I really am glad that I live where there is an emphasis on placing bike lanes contiguous to the normal traffic lane. The lanes provide enough room for people to pass, better visibility than a segregated path and are easier to maintain in the winter. It's a simpler, safer and cheaper solution in my opinion. I have no problem with a law requiring their use where they exist.

Marc

John Forester

The problem of writing a proper far-to-the-right or bike-lane law is insurmountable. The current versions list exceptions that may benefit the cyclist if he knows them and if the police and motorists know them also. However, there is no reasonable way to list all the required exceptions in a way that people can understand them. All they understand is the basic discriminatory principle of keeping cyclists out of the way of traffic; they don't understand the exceptions that allow cyclists to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles instead. The better way is to repeal those discriminatory laws to remove the complications. Then cyclists will simply be required to obey the standard rules of the road. When those rules require the cyclist to operate in the area designated by the bike-lane stripe, then the cyclist will do so. When those rules require the cyclist to operate outside the bike lane, then he will do so. That removes both the undesirable anti-cyclist discrimination and the confusing complexity that results from trying to reduce the dangers produced by that discrimination.

CB HI

So the bike paths are great, but you need mandatory use laws to force cyclist to use them?

What a contradiction.

Who would ever believe cyclist would ever prefer to ride with gridlocked motorist, as hagen claims they do, than on those fantastic bike paths, go figure.

degnaw

I too prefer on-street bike lanes in urban areas - in newer urban areas such as Hammarby Sjöstad (if you feel like searching), on-street bike lanes are used. I'm hoping that's a trend that's continued.

For suburbs, separated paths work better in Sweden, where pedestrians respect cyclists, intersection treatments are done correctly, and drivers do yield when crossing. In the USA, I wouldn't use a roadside MUP except in the most heavily trafficked, high speed situations.

hagen2456

You don't like reality to contradict your VC religion, do you? You really need things to be absolutely clear-cut, with no room for a pragmatical understanding of the way people interact, right?

The thing is, there's absolutely no contradiction involved here. Only the realization that rules are a sort of guide which not least serves to make people aware of the most reasonable way to act. That's the case for the Copenhagen traffic, too, in spite of the occasional bike messenger weaving in and out of car traffic. Were the lanes not mandatory, a good deal more would do that, as it is at times tempting to make a shortcut - and then the predictability, not to speak of the flow, of the traffic would break down. What initially may seem to the few like a shortcut in temporarily gridlocked car traffic, would end up as widespread turbulence once the cars start moving again, and that will usually mean a dramatic increase in accidents. The phenomenon of such effects of the acs of a minority is a variant of what economists call "externalities". As it is, though, things work very nice (and would of course be even more bike friendly if the bike paths were wider. Fortunately, the municipality is working on that). Most cyclists understand very well that they're taking part in a sort of social contract for traffic, and though most of us will occasionally break one or another rule, on the whole those rules are seen as reasonable and to the common good. But it really is a finely tuned balance which would break down, were it not for the "social contract". This is actually immediately seen in my neighborhood, where the number of poor and desperate people is higher than average, and they're really f****** up the traffic at times by seeking too many personal advantages.

hagen2456

I really tried to find those on-street bike paths in Hammarby Sjöstad on Google Street View, but only found either separated bike paths or shared sidewalks. I may not be looking in the right places, of course?

CB HI

You mean the paint and path religion right.

So the socialist model breaks down without side path mandatory use laws, but the cyclist freedom in the USA does not break the system when we ride the roads. Even one of the most socialist leaning states in the USA is smart enough to just ignore the mandatory use BL laws that have been put in place by the socialist.

Juha

People act the way they do for a variety of reasons. Judging by the posts I read, there are people here who would never ride on a bike path, no matter how well designed or maintained. Go figure.

If there is not enough political will to build proper bike specific infrastructure, then I agree, it's better to concentrate on other things. Especially if there's a mandatory use law. Building and designing good infrastructure is not trivial and requires time and resources. But if it's considered a priority, it can work out well.

--J

degnaw

I'm talking about the main road running through (with the tram line):
https://g.co/maps/v9fu5

hagen2456

You know, there is a difference between the hordes of cyclists commuting every day year round in Copenhagen and a few riders here and there in most American cities. I do understand how it may seem very strange to you, but there really would be no other way of having all those cyclists co-exist with our equally high percentage of car commuters (and too high it is, because public transport doesn't work as well here as in most other European cities). In Copenhagen proper, more than 50% of commutes are by bicycle, and in major Copenhagen it's 35%. Such numbers would never, ever be able to navigate in heavy motorized traffic.

What is interesting to consider for you is how many cyclists American cities would be able to "accomodate" without bike infrastructure, given that people started cycling VC style. My guess - but that is admittedly a guess, based only on what I've seen in Scandinavian cities - is that it's around 10%.

Of course, it's only of interest to you if you feel that it's a worthy goal to have many commuters choose the bicycle. And as numerous investigations show, they come only if you implement the infrastructure. THAT one we need not go over once more, I think

Now, what I simply don't get in your post is that you start talking about "socialist model". This has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, liberalism or conservatism. It's purely about common sense and making cities work well for us all. So let's drop the political part of it, okay?

hagen2456

Ah, okay. That bike lane doesn't look particularly "Scandinavian" to me, as it's rather narrow for a street that presumably sees quite heavy traffic at times. I'm not sure I'd let my kids ride it on their own at rush hours.