Advocacy & Safety - Article: US Left in Dust by Global Cycle Book

The Article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008149178_bicycles31.html) is about how other countries have found ways to encourage cycling, they even mention the success of Portland.

I found it interesting, especially the part about Japan.

Gonna paste what I wrote in the other thread, where I referenced a similar (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26478179/) article:

Basically, nearly every bike-friendly country on Earth has figured out the two keys to getting people to ride bicycles: investment in infrastructure and restrictions on automobiles. We can argue over whether or not to follow the path or not, but the longer we spend time trying to reinvent the wheel, the longer we're going to stay pegged at an average of 1% throughout the country. The only city even close to 10% (the minimum percentage I'd consider necessary for a city to be described as bike-friendly) is Portland at 4%, and, unsurprisingly, that's the city that's taken the most steps toward investing in infrastructure, though they're still far behind in tactics and percentages relative to a bike-friendly city.

I do think it's amusing, if tragic, that bicyclists in the US are our own worst enemies with respect to our cause. Creating a bike-friendly city isn't rocket science; it's being done all over the world, and the formula is damned easy to follow. But so many cyclists here refuse to even acknowledge the formula, much less advocate its implementation. I truly believe that many cyclists here (on BF, and in the general commuting community) truly believe that cycling in the US should be reserved for people willing to risk their lives without modifications to the status quo. And the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in the country will never make such a leap is fine with them, as they see nothing wrong with a 1% commuting population.

In the meantime, cyclists in other countries are working with their governments at the city levels to make cycling a safe and therefore viable activity for the general population, and as a result, cities all over the world are going from 1% to 5% to 10% or more. It's amazing to watch us fall backward in comparison to so many other places, and to see how many of us are so eager to ignore reality.

its sad, and a loose conspiracy of elite LCI instructors and EC buffoons stand in the way of greater cycling participation in this country. the 50mph/14ft plan is flawed to the core.

From the article, which is a must-read:

On any given workday, more commuters park their bikes at train and subway stations in Tokyo (704,000) than cycle to work in the entire United States (535,000), according to the Tokyo government and the U.S. census.

Also, something about Portland that I did not know:

... just 15 percent of Portland's streets have bike lanes, they attract half of the city's bike travel.
This does not surprise me - it does not take long to work out routes that are much more bike friendly and these invariably follow roads that typically carry less heavy vehicular traffic and often include something bike specific.

Doesn't Davis, Ca have more bike commuters than Portland?

Another difference between Japan and the United States is the crime rate. I only visited Japan, but I got the impression that I could cable lock my bicycle anywhere to a rack and it would be there when I came back, I don't get that feeling in the U.S. even with multiple locks. Will insurance companies sell us insurance on our bikes? If not, why not?

Most city roads are perfectly ridable right now. A few could use bike lanes. Others could use bike-sensitive traffic sensors. But pretty much anyone willing to bother to learn how to ride in traffic could do so now. Instead, they want nanny-state government to spend millions of dollars to make them feel special before they get on the road. My tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

The article does underline the reality that the US is more about self reliance than most of the rest of the world.

I have no problem with rational bicycle infrastructure. I've just seen almost none. The latest brilliant piece around here is a typical disconnected lane. Goes from no bike lanes to an overpass with wide shoulders and unmarked hazards to no shoulder, no bike lane, and fast traffic coming in, then an intersection and THEN nice bike lanes. Which disappear at the other end. Too often we see the bike infrastructure left out of the hard parts where it's really needed and only put in where it's easy and not nearly as needed. The structure needs to be integrated overall, not tacked on randomly.

If I were retired I'd think about taking on Maryville. Seeing if the downtown, which has a MUP serving it, could be integrated into feeders. As in most little cities, the work and residential population are dispersed, but I'm sure there would be some obvious things to do, such as making it less lethal to get to the shopping areas and providing some safer routes.

Most city roads are perfectly ridable right now. A few could use bike lanes. Others could use bike-sensitive traffic sensors. But pretty much anyone willing to bother to learn how to ride in traffic could do so now. Instead, they want nanny-state government to spend millions of dollars to make them feel special before they get on the road. My tax dollars could be better spent elsewhere.

+1000

It is a shift in attitude, rather than a massive infrastructure project, that is needed. I for one like the idea about the restrictions on motor vehicles, and tax breaks for those who use alternative transportation.

The infrastructure I have seen is completely ass-backwards. As mandovoodoo said, there are a ton of "bike lanes to nowhere", bike lanes where 3/4 of the lane is literally the gutter of the street, and instead of dedicated veloways we get poorly constructed MUPs that also don't go anywhere and service the running/walking crowd more than cyclists. (Unless the cyclists ride at less than 10MPH. I run at 9MPH...)

Existing streets are perfectly OK for cycling. There simply needs to be more incentive (most likely financial) that will give the whiners the proverbial "swift kick in the rear" to get that through their heads.


The article does underline the reality that the US is more about self reliance than most of the rest of the world.

The problem with this is that 90% of the U.S. has twisted the original concept of "individuality and personal freedom" (the reason this country used to be great) into "I get to do whatever I want whenever I want without considering personal and social responsibility, and if anybody says anything against me, they are just un-American!"

why? other countries seeded their bicycling modal share using both infrastructure and auto disincentives.

Works, proven in countries around the globe.


'personal freedoms' :rolleyes: what a line of pablum.... is that part of the cars are the 'american way' pltform?


'self reliance' is a suspect virtue if it impacts others in a negative way... auto centric planning policies are cause of a host of american cultural maladies..

+1000

It is a shift in attitude, rather than a massive infrastructure project, that is needed. I for one like the idea about the restrictions on motor vehicles, and tax breaks for those who use alternative transportation.

The infrastructure I have seen is completely ass-backwards. As mandovoodoo said, there are a ton of "bike lanes to nowhere", bike lanes where 3/4 of the lane is literally the gutter of the street, and instead of dedicated veloways we get poorly constructed MUPs that also don't go anywhere and service the running/walking crowd more than cyclists. (Unless the cyclists ride at less than 10MPH. I run at 9MPH...)

Existing streets are perfectly OK for cycling. There simply needs to be more incentive (most likely financial) that will give the whiners the proverbial "swift kick in the rear" to get that through their heads.



The problem with this is that 90% of the U.S. has twisted the original concept of "individuality and personal freedom" (the reason this country used to be great) into "I get to do whatever I want whenever I want without considering personal and social responsibility, and if anybody says anything against me, they are just un-American!"

I don't get it. How does "individuality and personal freedom" include the government putting restrictions on motor vehicles and giving tax breaks and other financial incentives to cycle? I mean, here we are decrying the so-called Nanny State on the one hand, with it's "hand-holding" of the cyclist by means of bike facilities, while simultaneously asking for tax breaks? That doesn't scream "It's all about me!" to you?

You are correct, however, that if you want to increase cycling's popularity, some directed government action is necessary. This will include _both_ restrictions on cars (either directly through anti-congestion measures or indirectly through high gas prices, for example) AND the development of bike infrastructure. If you build it, they will NOT come, unless you force them to. If you try to force them, they will not figure out where to go, unless you build it for them. The car culture is just too ingrained in American society.

Of course, the correllary is that forcing people to abandon their cars is political suicide in the US, so the best you get is a few token facilities so everyone thinks they're working on it.

Gonna paste what I wrote in the other thread, where I referenced a similar (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26478179/) article:

Basically, nearly every bike-friendly country on Earth has figured out the two keys to getting people to ride bicycles: investment in infrastructure and restrictions on automobiles.

Japan does neither, as the article mentioned. And while they're not bike friendly they do have a lot of bike use.

I don't get it. How does "individuality and personal freedom" include the government putting restrictions on motor vehicles and giving tax breaks and other financial incentives to cycle? I mean, here we are decrying the so-called Nanny State on the one hand, with it's "hand-holding" of the cyclist by means of bike facilities, while simultaneously asking for tax breaks? That doesn't scream "It's all about me!" to you?


Because too much of road construction and maintenance is handled with property tax, income tax, and sales tax we subsidize drivers. In fact, people who drive less subsidize other drivers as well: Many of them businessmen who drive for their jobs (That means they're subsidizing a business).

The tax breaks would be one way to remove that subsidization. Another way would be to reorganize funding of roads to be entirely from gas and wheel taxes (I'd be all for the latter). If consumers saw the cost of driving up front they'd drive less. Exhibit A: Driving went down as gas hit $4 a gallon. It was hardly a matter of inability to afford the gas since they were still eating out and buying silly junk. It was sticker shock and the realization that driving somewhere cost money.

Maybe the other guy is pushing a nanny state though. I just wanted to say there's room for government change related to driving/cycling that's not a nanny state it's actually the removal of a nanny state. Right now the US government wants you to drive. It wants you to buy a house (which pushes more driving as it decreases density). It wants you to put your kid through the public schools. It wants you to give to charity. It might want you to ride the bus a little, but not nearly as much as it wants to make that inconvenient. It wants you to have children. It wants you to go to college.

I don't get it. How does "individuality and personal freedom" include the government putting restrictions on motor vehicles and giving tax breaks and other financial incentives to cycle? I mean, here we are decrying the so-called Nanny State on the one hand, with it's "hand-holding" of the cyclist by means of bike facilities, while simultaneously asking for tax breaks? That doesn't scream "It's all about me!" to you?

You are correct, however, that if you want to increase cycling's popularity, some directed government action is necessary. This will include _both_ restrictions on cars (either directly through anti-congestion measures or indirectly through high gas prices, for example) AND the development of bike infrastructure. If you build it, they will NOT come, unless you force them to. If you try to force them, they will not figure out where to go, unless you build it for them. The car culture is just too ingrained in American society.

Of course, the correllary is that forcing people to abandon their cars is political suicide in the US, so the best you get is a few token facilities so everyone thinks they're working on it.

I understand your point. It is a fine line to walk. But "individuality" does not equate with "do whatever I want, and damn the consequences".

I for one would prefer that the government simply stay out of our personal lives altogether. It worked just fine in the past. But unfortunately the U.S. has followed in the footsteps of the world superpowers before it, and taken the notion of "more government = better nation" to the extreme.

I would be happier if we reverted to the absolute minimum amount of government possible, right away. But, since that is not going to happen within my lifetime, I believe that we have to work with what we've got.

I don't get it. How does "individuality and personal freedom" include the government putting restrictions on motor vehicles and giving tax breaks and other financial incentives to cycle? I mean, here we are decrying the so-called Nanny State on the one hand, with it's "hand-holding" of the cyclist by means of bike facilities, while simultaneously asking for tax breaks? That doesn't scream "It's all about me!" to you?

You are correct, however, that if you want to increase cycling's popularity, some directed government action is necessary. This will include _both_ restrictions on cars (either directly through anti-congestion measures or indirectly through high gas prices, for example) AND the development of bike infrastructure. If you build it, they will NOT come, unless you force them to. If you try to force them, they will not figure out where to go, unless you build it for them. The car culture is just too ingrained in American society.

Of course, the correllary is that forcing people to abandon their cars is political suicide in the US, so the best you get is a few token facilities so everyone thinks they're working on it.


It is not about restrictions on motoring as much as it is a dedication to people, vice cars. So much of our cities are dedicated to the auto that a survey done some time ago showed that over 50% of one major city center was dedicated to the auto. Between streets to everywhere and curbside parking not to mention tax incentives to oil companies, there is a huge commitment to the automobile in this country...

Speaking of tax breaks... from the 6000 pound vehicle tax break to the write offs allowed for fuel, there are incentives to motor. But to suggest the same for cycling... a pollution free means of transit... heck, bikes don't even get the preferential treatment of hybrid cars.

Can I get that book from Amazon.com?

I understand your point. It is a fine line to walk. But "individuality" does not equate with "do whatever I want, and damn the consequences".



This being A&S, I feel this urge to argue, but instead I'll control myself and leave the 'individuality' vs. 'responsibility' debate for P&R.

OK, seriously, I understand your point. We just differ on terminology.


Because too much of road construction and maintenance is handled with property tax, income tax, and sales tax we subsidize drivers. In fact, people who drive less subsidize other drivers as well: Many of them businessmen who drive for their jobs (That means they're subsidizing a business).

The tax breaks would be one way to remove that subsidization. Another way would be to reorganize funding of roads to be entirely from gas and wheel taxes (I'd be all for the latter). If consumers saw the cost of driving up front they'd drive less. Exhibit A: Driving went down as gas hit $4 a gallon. It was hardly a matter of inability to afford the gas since they were still eating out and buying silly junk. It was sticker shock and the realization that driving somewhere cost money.

OK, again, it's all about terminology. I have no problems paying for my use, whether it's directly (gas) or indirectly (higher prices for goods). I live in Denmark, so I actually do, more or less, pay for my use...probably more.


Maybe the other guy is pushing a nanny state though. I just wanted to say there's room for government change related to driving/cycling that's not a nanny state it's actually the removal of a nanny state. Right now the US government wants you to drive. It wants you to buy a house (which pushes more driving as it decreases density). It wants you to put your kid through the public schools. It wants you to give to charity. It might want you to ride the bus a little, but not nearly as much as it wants to make that inconvenient. It wants you to have children. It wants you to go to college.

You misunderstand government. OK, you probably actually have it right, but I still hold to this "by the people" nonsense where instead of the government wanting me to do A,B,C, I see it as everyone wanting help in doing A,B,C and so they elect people who claim they can give them A,B,C, regardless if A,B,C and feasible.

Which gets us back on-topic in that Americans want to drive, and therefore the political will to move away from a car-based infrastructure is non-existent. Denmark, for example, due to economic reasons (late-comer to industrialization, post-war shortages) has a much stronger cycling culture, and the investment in infrastructure and restrictions on autos is as much bottom-up as it is top-down.

..denmark (and some other european countries) embarked on a sea change of their transportation policies during the gas shortages of the 1970's that continues today. america did not.

As gasoline prices passed the $4/gallon mark, many auto-centric Americans began to embrace carpooling, public transit, and even cycling.

There is a tenable middle ground between rabid "VCism" and full segregation, which goes something like this:
1) Traffic-calm local streets and encourage full vehicular integration of bicyclists into the traffic flow, through education of both motorists and cyclists.
2) Admit that certain high-speed free merges and diverges are inherently bicyclist- and pedestrian-hostile, and do something to traffic-calm them or to provide efficient and inviting bypasses.
3) Enforce motor vehicle speed limits on all streets with bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Make this a greater priority than enforcing speed limits on freeways and other segregated highways.

Japan does neither, as the article mentioned. And while they're not bike friendly they do have a lot of bike use.

Read the article again. Japan does both. Infrastructure doesn't just mean bike lanes--it also means the public transportation necessary to make traveling by something other than the automobile a feasible endeavor for the majority of the population. Considering Japan has by far the best rail network on the planet, yes, they do have infrastructure. And that doesn't even get into the best parking systems on the planet, which they also have. And secondly, with regard to automobile restrictions, they've got those too, in the form of high vehicular taxes and fees. And finally, yes, Japan is bike friendly. The fact that Tokyo alone has more daily commuters than every state in the US put together should be a slight indication of the affirmative.


There are other ways to get people on bikes. Japan does not pamper cyclists, but it does provide easy access to mass transit. In greater Tokyo, where 35 million people live in the world's most populous metro area, there are almost no bike lanes. Guided by vague laws about what cyclists can and cannot do, police tend to ignore them -- except for confiscating illegally parked bikes.

Traffic chases most Tokyo cyclists onto sidewalks, where they periodically bump into pedestrians. Mothers are forbidden by law to carry more than one child on a bicycle, but tens of thousands of them do it every day.

"The manners of Tokyo cyclists are very poor and sometime suicidal," said Nobuyuki Tsuchiya, director general of public works in Edogawa, a Tokyo ward with 640,000 people, most of whom ride bikes. As for government transportation officials in Japan, Tsuchiya said it is difficult to find one who doesn't show some "negative thinking about bicycles. We are far behind our counterparts in Europe."

Still, a bicycle is an essential component of life in Tokyo. Impossibly thin women in four-inch heels ride them, as do important-looking men in black suits. Cycling's chaotic ubiquity is a result of several factors: population density, the high cost of driving and arguably the world's best train and subway system.

Commuters ride bikes often but not for very long -- usually less than 15 minutes. Train stations are no more than 1 1/2 miles apart in most of the city. Compared with walking or taking a bus, riding a bike shaves precious minutes off the daily trip to and from a station.

The one bone that some municipal governments have thrown cyclists is bike parking near stations. This year in Edogawa, that bone went high-tech. The ward government spent $67 million to build a cluster of computerized bicycle parking towers that use robotic arms to snatch bikes away from subway-bound commuters.

Pickup is just as easy as drop-off. At the swipe of a magnetic card, the arm finds the bike and returns it to its home-bound owner. The wait is about 10 seconds.

"It is revolutionary," said Minato Karube, 35, a secretary who had pedaled to the parking tower in high heels and a frilly black dress. "The bike comes back instantly."

Since April, when robots went to work parking bicycles at Edogawa's Kasai station, there has been a 20 percent spike in commuting by bike.

Read the article again. Japan does both. Infrastructure doesn't just mean bike lanes--it also means the public transportation necessary to make traveling by something other than the automobile a feasible endeavor for the majority of the population. Considering Japan has by far the best rail network on the planet, yes, they do have infrastructure. And that doesn't even get into the best parking systems on the planet, which they also have. And secondly, with regard to automobile restrictions, they've got those too, in the form of high vehicular taxes and fees. And finally, yes, Japan is bike friendly. The fact that Tokyo alone has more daily commuters than every state in the US put together should be a slight indication of the affirmative.

It also mentions how they give no infrastructure and are quite hostile to bikes on roadways. They sort of allow it, and give them parking within the train system.

Yeah, they've got a long way to go compared to, say, Denmark, but they're a lot farther than we or Canada are. And if the single biggest motivator to accommodating cyclists is having cyclists to accommodate, Japan will likely develop cycling-specific infrastructure long before we do. Over here, we don't have the cyclists, the pubtrans infrastructure, the auto restrictions, or the cycling-specific infrastructure.

The problems in the U.S. are much more basic than transportation related. If states mandated that all new development be built in a grid pattern instead of endles cul-de-sacs that go nowhere, that would be a HUGE step forward.

Lots of these model bike cities are not exactly built to a grid pattern. Used many of these non-grid roads and they never really hindered me from getting anywhere. Maybe a little curvy or winkled is still a grid pattern.

Few cul-de-sacs too. Many of these cul-de-sacs are in practice rideable by having some form of access too narrow for cars going to the next street or then going into housing back yards with their parked cars. In less urban areas they even often go to recreational trails . When commuting I wouldn't really know why one would usually want to ride that way. Especially housing parking spaces I don't know why one would do that even when in practice no one will ever notice or care to complain. In practice these cul-de-sacs are not a hindrance and using any of these shortcuts is extremely slow in any case. Try riding "outside of the road system" to just to go anywhere just a little in a rural area and it's just not possible. I ride bicycles since I'm 4 so I have done this a lot:p

Ok crappy road layout for bicycles . I can imagine how that could happen. The only road out of a neighborhood has no shoulder and has a high speed limit and is illegal to walk and cycle on on???