Vehicular Cycling (VC) - How to 'Copenhagenize' the USofA

this thread is expressly designed to raise the blood pressure of the die-hard vehicular cyclists.

:D

http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/30/want-to-be-like-copenhagen-think-about-vacuum-cleaners-and-raging-bulls/

A few choice quotes:

"...(to) reach usage levels similar to European cities, we need to make it easy, focus on the positives, tame automobiles, and do our research to counter anti-bike sentiment"

“Our relationship to the bicycle in Copenhagen is much like the vacuum cleaner. We don’t have five of them that we keep polished and well-oiled, there are no vacuum cleaner enthusiasts, we don’t go to a specialty shop to buy one or wear special clothes while we vacuum. The bicycle and the vacuum cleaner are just tools. One of them we clean our homes with, the other we use to transport ourselves around the city.”

"...if there is infrastructure in place that makes the bicycle the easiest and fastest tool to get from a to b, then a high rate of bicycle usage will follow."

"In the 1980s, when Copenhagen was experiencing a boom in bicycling, city officials worried that too many people were riding on the busy main streets. “They thought, we’ve got to stop that, it’s not safe.” Their solution was to direct bike traffic to the backstreet by building high-quality cycle tracks through neighborhoods."

"The problem was that the neighborhood routes meant people had to ride 10-15 minutes out of their way to get from a to b. The result? No one used them. “It was a flop. So, the city shrugged and went, ‘fine, we’ll put them on the main streets’”."

"The lesson is that planners should put bicycle infrastructure where people actually want to go, not where engineers think they should go."

"bicycles are too often marketed in a way that makes them seem “dangerous and sweaty”. “These are not unique selling points that are going to get a lot of people to buy this product.”

"A key to making cycling mainstream is to address the dangers of the automobile"

"...if cities really want to attain high levels of bicycle use, they must begin to acknowledge that the cars are causing havoc and their power and dominance on the urban landscape must be reigned in."

"...what took Copenhagen 30 years to achieve could be done today in 5-10 years. This is in part because all the (planning and engineering) mistakes have been made and the case for bicycling is stronger now than it has ever been. He also pointed out that to do that it will take “visionary political decision-making.”"

I saw Mikael Collvile-Anderson speak in Seattle a couple of days ago.

quippy and impactful. his positive spin on possible bike advertising was hilarious and spot on the money.

Thanks. I read the article. I would love to see 'Copenhagen' come to Portland or my city or wherever. I totally embrace the idea of cycling just as transportation... making no big deal about what we ride.

I just think M C-H is totally out of his mind if he thinks this vision can be enforced by bike infrastructure.

Good luck! BTW I've seen videos of cycling in Copenhagen and it would be very annoying for me to have to plod along at 5 mph in huge crowds of other cyclists. But it would be worth it for the great changes it would make to the environment and the health of the citizenry and to end our dependence on foreign oil. To do any 'real' cycling, I guess I could find a velodrome or stick to country roads. :)

In any event, I wish the effort well, but I'm not concerned anything will come of it so I won't have to worry one way or the other. I actually hope I'm wrong in my prediction.

But again I say, this will happen when the cost of motoring goes up by a factor of 5 or 10 and not before, unless somehow the culture changes.

M C-H is correct when he says that cycling will increase when it becomes the fastest and easiest way to get from A to B. If you have a plan for how to accomplish that, I'd like to hear it.

PS blood pressure 119/68 :)

M C-H is correct when he says that cycling will increase when it becomes the fastest and easiest way to get from A to B. If you have a plan for how to accomplish that, I'd like to hear it.

It's called congestion. The best thing about it is we don't have to do anything at all to make it happen.

Paul

:rolleyes:


I just think M C-H is totally out of his mind if he thinks this vision can be enforced by bike infrastructure.......M C-H is correct when he says that cycling will increase when it becomes the fastest and easiest way to get from A to B. If you have a plan for how to accomplish that, I'd like to hear it.

you think he's crazy yet a Copenhagen stands proof positive of infrastructure that built ridership.

Hmm, for Portland he's got a plan, it means more roadway architecture for bicyclists, taming the car, and selling the positive natural side of bicycling.

:rolleyes:



you think he's crazy yet a Copenhagen stands proof positive of infrastructure that built ridership.


Bek, you've totally lost contact with reality Copenhagen was chock full of cyclists before M C-H or you were born and when Portland, OR had less than 1% cycling ridership. Infrastructure did not build ridership. Ridership fostered infrastructure. Also, for decades Copenhagen has had a law requiring cars to yield to bicycles.

You could start your education at http://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/ Just look at the first video, of 1937 Copenhagen.

:rolleyes:



you think he's crazy yet a Copenhagen stands proof positive of infrastructure that built ridership.


Bek, you've totally lost contact with reality Copenhagen was chock full of cyclists before M C-H or you were born and when Portland, OR had less than 1% cycling ridership. Infrastructure did not build ridership. Ridership fostered infrastructure. Also, for decades Copenhagen has had a law requiring cars to yield to bicycles.

You could start your education at http://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/ Just look at the first video, of 1937 Copenhagen.

reality is actually not what you think about either copenhagen or portland and the instrumental impact of infrastructure in both those cities.

Thought I'd share something you anti VC folks might agree with. I have three people recently who, at least in the past, were experienced riders. They wanted to join me for a ride. Great. Each one, independently suggested we meet somewhere for the ride, rather than at someone's house. I didn't get it at first, but each one wanted to take his or her bicycle in his/her car to meet at the start point of the ride.

We all live within easy riding distance of each others' houses and within easy riding distance of the start point of the ride. Rather than ride to the start, they wanted to load their bikes in cars and take them to the site. This seemed natural to them and very odd to me.

To me a bicycle is many things. It's a means of transportation as well as a way to get exercise and a competitive sport. Why would you drive your bike to a place to ride it, instead of just riding from home? I assume it's a mind set, that the bike to them is solely a recreational device and something they never consider as a simple means of transport.

At any rate, this is the culture we live in. I maintain that first we must change the culture, then the roadway will naturally adapt, rather than the other way around.

that's quite rhapsodic.

Copenhagen changed the culture by changing the roadscape.

Changing the culture of american road use should, and likely HAS TO, be influenced by actual physical changes to the roadscape.

Develop better infrastructure enhancements to better facilitate roadway bicycling and more people will ride their bikes, danarnold.

You don't have to be a VC zealot to see that the idea of 'Copenhagenizing' US cities simply through steady addition of Euro-style bike infrastructure is laughably simplistic.

The Danes pay about 2-3 times as much as Americans do for fuel, by their own design, so we'd probably want to start right there if we're serious. And yet, bike advocates don't even go there. Why not? Fuel costs are the single most important factor in 'Copenhagenization.' Even the Danes will tell you that.

Beyond that the culture of traffic in these northern European countries is completely different than it is here. Drivers there have a completely different cultural reaction to bicyclists *on the street,* which makes cycling on the streets a much friendlier experience, in general. Even Dutch and Danish cyclists have to ride the streets. And cars on those streets are restricted by much lower speed limits. Why don't bike advocates here make noise about lower speed limits on city streets if they want to 'Copenhagenize'? Would lower speed limits be less imporant, or harder to achieve, than comprehensive Euro path systems in US cities?

Frankly, I'm all for 'Copenhagenizing' American cities. I believe it would represent a substantial improvement in most cases. But it's pretty ridiculous to think that their bike culture and fuel prices sprang from the path systems, rather than the other way around.

It seems to me that there is a frightening singlemindedness in both the VC-ists and the new-school build-it-and-they-will-come Copenhagen cultists.

You don't have to be a VC zealot to see that the idea of 'Copenhagenizing' US cities simply through steady addition of Euro-style bike infrastructure is laughably simplistic.

The Danes pay about 2-3 times as much as Americans do for fuel, by their own design, so we'd probably want to start right there if we're serious. And yet, bike advocates don't even go there. Why not? Fuel costs are the single most important factor in 'Copenhagenization.' Even the Danes will tell you that.

Beyond that the culture of traffic in these northern European countries is completely different than it is here. Drivers there have a completely different cultural reaction to bicyclists *on the street,* which makes cycling on the streets a much friendlier experience, in general. Even Dutch and Danish cyclists have to ride the streets. And cars on those streets are restricted by much lower speed limits. Why don't bike advocates here make noise about lower speed limits on city streets if they want to 'Copenhagenize'? Would lower speed limits be less imporant, or harder to achieve, than comprehensive Euro path systems in US cities?

Frankly, I'm all for 'Copenhagenizing' American cities. I believe it would represent a substantial improvement in most cases. But it's pretty ridiculous to think that their bike culture and fuel prices sprang from the path systems, rather than the other way around.

:thumb: Precisely! I have long advocated a substantial gasoline tax as the quickest way to achieve the result the anti-car bike advocates want. The problem is that it is political suicide to advocate for such, even if other taxes were reduced to compensate for it. American culture is a car culture. Americans are [irrationally] in love with their private automobiles and are highly resistant to change. Change is possible, but it will be slow.

Let me put the question out there. If gasoline taxes were raised substantially, so that gasoline cost $10 to $20 a gallon, what taxes (in an equal amount) would have to be reduced to get the American public to accept such a drastic change? Would a rebate of say, $1000 for a bicycle do it? I doubt it. But please, suggest something you think Americans would accept in exchange for a substantial hike in gasoline price.

Certainly the effects of the 1970's and the the formation of the OPEC cartel had greater impacts on Europe.

This lent great impetus to much of Europe's repopulation of the bicycle back into the transportation mainstream.

That doesn't discredit the value of AASHTO bikeways planning, complete streets programs or the obvious value in roadway architecture that facilitates bicycling across a community.

Ascribing the build-in of cycling infrastructure as a response to an unsustainable transportation system in cities in Europe is accurate. Cars were rapidly taking over the european landscape after WWII, the response of Germany and The Netherlands and Denmark in concurrence with the 70's oil issues, built in better and developing roadway bike facilities, woonerfs, tempo 30 zones, bike path networks, etc...

There is no reason america cannot take some of the lessons of europe and build in a more bike and pedestrian friendly road and highway system.

make it work for transportation AtoB, restrict the cars, build in infrastructure, make bicycling natural, and people will bicycle was the message of Mikael Colleville Anderson.

The lessons seen in Europe can be applied in communities in america, they just need americanization of them. lets' call bikelanes 'freedom lanes' :D

You don't have to be a VC zealot to see that the idea of 'Copenhagenizing' US cities simply through steady addition of Euro-style bike infrastructure is laughably simplistic.

here's a street film from New York City 2009 by the NYC DOT.

NYC DOT explains bikelanes in the big apple (http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/bike-lanes-in-the-big-apple/)

is there any reason to doubt the efficacy of this americanized 'Copenhagenizing' of New York City? (let's call it 'new amsterdam ;) ) One thing new york city could learn from copenhagen is make the class 1 bike ways much bigger.

Somehow, here's proof positive that the 'steady addition of 'euro-style bike infrastructure' can have effective positive results on rider share and overall roadway dynamics even in a huge metropolis like NEW YORK CITY.

An americanized addition of 'american style bike infrastructure' is laughably simplistic, robert, but it sure is effective :lol: so laugh all you want it sure is simple and effective.

I saw Mikael Collvile-Anderson speak in Seattle a couple of days ago.

quippy and impactful. his positive spin on possible bike advertising was hilarious and spot on the money.

I like the metaphors of wrapping all the china in bubble plastic because of a bull in the china shop... priceless.

Bek, you've totally lost contact with reality Copenhagen was chock full of cyclists before M C-H or you were born and when Portland, OR had less than 1% cycling ridership. Infrastructure did not build ridership. Ridership fostered infrastructure. Also, for decades Copenhagen has had a law requiring cars to yield to bicycles.

You could start your education at http://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/ Just look at the first video, of 1937 Copenhagen.

Sure and what did 1937 America look like? How about 1920s England... Compared to today?

You need to do a bit more research and look into how Copenhagen realized the auto was a problem, and turned things around.

Bicycles became common in Copenhagen in the beginning of the 20th century. The first bicycle path was constructed around 1910.[6] In the 1920s and 1930s the popularity increased even further.


From Wikipedia:
During World War II, petrol was strictly rationed, making cycling even more important as a means of transportation. During the 1940s the first recreational bicycle routes were also developed, through greenspaces in the periphery of the municipality.[7] Later the construction of vicycle paths along major roads and streets set off, and the focus shifted from recreational cycling to commuting, but as car ownership became common, cycling decreaced dramatically. With the energy crisis and the growing environmental movement in the 1970s, cycling got a renaissance. In the mid-80s, Copenhagen Municipaluty developed its first cycling strategy, in a coordinated effort with Frederiksberg Municipality planning for a major system of greenways. From 1995 the City commenced to monitor cycling within the city and cycling has been on the rise ever since, from 1995 to 2004 increasing with 41 %.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen

Thought I'd share something you anti VC folks might agree with. I have three people recently who, at least in the past, were experienced riders. They wanted to join me for a ride. Great. Each one, independently suggested we meet somewhere for the ride, rather than at someone's house. I didn't get it at first, but each one wanted to take his or her bicycle in his/her car to meet at the start point of the ride.

We all live within easy riding distance of each others' houses and within easy riding distance of the start point of the ride. Rather than ride to the start, they wanted to load their bikes in cars and take them to the site. This seemed natural to them and very odd to me.

To me a bicycle is many things. It's a means of transportation as well as a way to get exercise and a competitive sport. Why would you drive your bike to a place to ride it, instead of just riding from home? I assume it's a mind set, that the bike to them is solely a recreational device and something they never consider as a simple means of transport.

At any rate, this is the culture we live in. I maintain that first we must change the culture, then the roadway will naturally adapt, rather than the other way around.

From my perspective... as one who has lived car free for 7 years and done extensive touring of the US and Baja, and has bike commuted for well over 30 years, the issues your experienced friends are expressing are most likely due to the fairly recent "epidemic" of motorist distraction.

I have had more close calls in the last 3-4 years while cycling and commuting on the same local streets, that I have been perusing off road cycling as a way to avoid speeding, distracted, motorists.

Bear in mind that I am well versed in all the VC techniques and have and will ride anywhere... But no cycling technique will spare me from motorists that are just driving blind... be it from cell phones, DVD players, GPS devices, texting or just plain eating in the car... the trends have become progressively worse.

Yes, it is a cultural problem... it's called the car is now the living room (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=598730) and motorists have forgotten they are responsible for the vehicle they are piloting.

You don't have to be a VC zealot to see that the idea of 'Copenhagenizing' US cities simply through steady addition of Euro-style bike infrastructure is laughably simplistic.

The Danes pay about 2-3 times as much as Americans do for fuel, by their own design, so we'd probably want to start right there if we're serious. And yet, bike advocates don't even go there. Why not? Fuel costs are the single most important factor in 'Copenhagenization.' Even the Danes will tell you that.

Beyond that the culture of traffic in these northern European countries is completely different than it is here. Drivers there have a completely different cultural reaction to bicyclists *on the street,* which makes cycling on the streets a much friendlier experience, in general. Even Dutch and Danish cyclists have to ride the streets. And cars on those streets are restricted by much lower speed limits. Why don't bike advocates here make noise about lower speed limits on city streets if they want to 'Copenhagenize'? Would lower speed limits be less imporant, or harder to achieve, than comprehensive Euro path systems in US cities?

Frankly, I'm all for 'Copenhagenizing' American cities. I believe it would represent a substantial improvement in most cases. But it's pretty ridiculous to think that their bike culture and fuel prices sprang from the path systems, rather than the other way around.

Well perhaps the rising cost of gasoline in America will bring about a shift, as well as laws that emphasis vulnerable road users rights.

In certain countries in northern Europe there is more than a "cultural reaction" by motorists, there also laws that protect cyclists in the event of a collision. Here in America there is a long history of bicycles being considered toys and any cyclist using the roadway being considered "taking their own risks." There are known biases in both law enforcement and the press regarding the outcome of cyclist-motor vehicle collisions.

But then I am speaking to the choir here. But I just wanted to make it clear to other readers that it is more than simply a "cultural thing..." it is also a "legal thing."

:thumb: Precisely! I have long advocated a substantial gasoline tax as the quickest way to achieve the result the anti-car bike advocates want. The problem is that it is political suicide to advocate for such, even if other taxes were reduced to compensate for it. American culture is a car culture. Americans are [irrationally] in love with their private automobiles and are highly resistant to change. Change is possible, but it will be slow.

Let me put the question out there. If gasoline taxes were raised substantially, so that gasoline cost $10 to $20 a gallon, what taxes (in an equal amount) would have to be reduced to get the American public to accept such a drastic change? Would a rebate of say, $1000 for a bicycle do it? I doubt it. But please, suggest something you think Americans would accept in exchange for a substantial hike in gasoline price.

Ah, the use of the term "anti-car...;" learning well from John F, eh. :rolleyes:

How about a simple balancing of the scales... Driving has long been subsidized in this country, from the exploration of oil to the low fees attached to the storage of the auto on prime real estate, to the development of roads to even wars fought in "strategic locations." Our addiction to oil is well documented.

Balancing the scales to encourage alternate forms of transportation is not "anti-motoring," it is merely designing cities for people, vice cars.

Remember, ultimately the goal is to move people and goods, not just cars.

Sure and what did 1937 America look like? How about 1920s England... Compared to today?

You need to do a bit more research and look into how Copenhagen realized the auto was a problem, and turned things around.

Bicycles became common in Copenhagen in the beginning of the 20th century. The first bicycle path was constructed around 1910.[6] In the 1920s and 1930s the popularity increased even further.


From Wikipedia:
During World War II, petrol was strictly rationed, making cycling even more important as a means of transportation. During the 1940s the first recreational bicycle routes were also developed, through greenspaces in the periphery of the municipality.[7] Later the construction of vicycle paths along major roads and streets set off, and the focus shifted from recreational cycling to commuting, but as car ownership became common, cycling decreaced dramatically. With the energy crisis and the growing environmental movement in the 1970s, cycling got a renaissance. In the mid-80s, Copenhagen Municipaluty developed its first cycling strategy, in a coordinated effort with Frederiksberg Municipality planning for a major system of greenways. From 1995 the City commenced to monitor cycling within the city and cycling has been on the rise ever since, from 1995 to 2004 increasing with 41 %.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen

"You don't have to be a VC zealot to see that the idea of 'Copenhagenizing' US cities simply through steady addition of Euro-style bike infrastructure is laughably simplistic.

The Danes pay about 2-3 times as much as Americans do for fuel, by their own design, so we'd probably want to start right there if we're serious. And yet, bike advocates don't even go there. Why not? Fuel costs are the single most important factor in 'Copenhagenization.' Even the Danes will tell you that.

Beyond that the culture of traffic in these northern European countries is completely different than it is here. Drivers there have a completely different cultural reaction to bicyclists *on the street,* which makes cycling on the streets a much friendlier experience, in general. Even Dutch and Danish cyclists have to ride the streets. And cars on those streets are restricted by much lower speed limits. Why don't bike advocates here make noise about lower speed limits on city streets if they want to 'Copenhagenize'? Would lower speed limits be less imporant, or harder to achieve, than comprehensive Euro path systems in US cities?

Frankly, I'm all for 'Copenhagenizing' American cities. I believe it would represent a substantial improvement in most cases. But it's pretty ridiculous to think that their bike culture and fuel prices sprang from the path systems, rather than the other way around."

_ Robert Hurst

... But no cycling technique will spare me from motorists that are just driving blind... be it from cell phones, DVD players, GPS devices, texting or just plain eating in the car... the trends have become progressively worse.

Yes, it is a cultural problem... it's called the car is now the living room (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=598730) and motorists have forgotten they are responsible for the vehicle they are piloting.

I agree with your observations to a degree. Certainly the cell phone distracted driver and texting (for gawd's sake!) are issues that have made things worse. I don't think that's why my friends and others don't cycle much, and only think of the bike as a fitness device.

I also agree I'd like to see stricter enforcement of negligent driving laws and laws that make texting, reading, cell phone use per se negligent driving. But the culture must change the laws. It's rarely effective to try to get the law to change the culture.

We've made drug possession a felony; treated a medical problem my criminalizing it. What have we accomplished? We have not changed the drug culture, except to move people from cocaine to meth and to raise property crime rates and raise the costs of the criminal justice system.

It's been great for lawyers, cops, and prison guards, but the drug problem has gotten worse, because the culture has not changed for the better via the law.

Hey! you're not Robert Hurst!

Robert just said that.


Did you see the video of the americanized "Copenhagenization" (Let's call it New Amsterdam ;) ) of New York City Danarnold?

comments about the copenhagenization of new york, the new new amsterdam american plan danarnold?

Facilitating bike traffic on public roads is laughably simplistic, effective and works. Sure, lowering speed limits on cyclist friendly routes (can't slow all the traffic expecting 12 mph bicyclists to slow down 50 mph arterial traffic in narrow lanes now should we?) is key to establishing a bicycle- friendly community. absolutely.

you've heard of "complete streets"? Danarnold, ask your friends, these cyclists, if they had better bike lanes and route networks if they'd ride across podunk to go bicycling.

....

How about a simple balancing of the scales... Driving has long been subsidized in this country, from the exploration of oil to the low fees attached to the storage of the auto on prime real estate, to the development of roads to even wars fought in "strategic locations." Our addiction to oil is well documented.

Balancing the scales to encourage alternate forms of transportation is not "anti-motoring," it is merely designing cities for people, vice cars.

Remember, ultimately the goal is to move people and goods, not just cars.

I'm in favor of the balancing you suggest. It's irrelevant to me if you want to call it 'anti-motoring' or not.

It's also irrelevant to me whether you call it 'balancing' or whatever. The question is how to do it in a way that is politically feasible. I asked a specific question and you responded with essentially agreeing with the goal, but not addressing the question. I guess you were distracted by your desire to go on an anti-Forester rant.

My question again:

If gasoline taxes were raised substantially, so that gasoline cost $10 to $20 a gallon, what taxes (in an equal amount) would have to be reduced to get the American public to accept such a drastic change? Would a rebate of say, $1000 for a bicycle do it? I doubt it. But please, suggest something you think Americans would accept in exchange for a substantial hike in gasoline price.

let the car restrict itself, cities and planners are realizing they cannot build our way out of congestion. global warming and the strict imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is likely to move a quantum shift thru the existing transportation model in the coming decade (my prediction american car use will be notably different in 10 years from upcoming greenhouse gas emission requirements)

planning for active transportation can exist independent of restrictions or taxation on automobiles.

changes in operating infrastructure to favor safer pedestrians and bicyclists can operate independently of taxes and fee schedules surrounding gasoline use and motor vehicle ownership.


combine the two, even better. add more strict licensing and safety education of motorists, even better.

the talk of how to copenhagenize the USA recognizes the positive reinforcement cycle of bicycling in Copenhagen. sure it can happen here, danarnold - it's happening right now! :roflmao: did you watch the video of new amsterdam in new york city yet?

This issue has been discussed almost totally as using bikeways to produce a large change from motoring to bicycling, with an assist from increasing the cost of fuel. The issue that has been largely ignored is that of urban pattern. The modern American urban pattern is unsuited to mass transit, has distances too great for walking transportation, has distances in the upper range for bicycling transportation, and is most suited to motor transportation. As a result, the pattern of travel in these cities has developed in ways that are most suited to motor transportation.

Any changeover from motoring to bicycling will incur very large costs (costs being considered in the most general way) resulting from disruption of the existing travel patterns. This is why I consider that such a change cannot be produced through a bikeway program. It is also why I predict that intensive efforts will be exerted to preserve the present urban pattern in the face of such things as increased cost of fuel.

ah, the refreshingly paralyzed outlook :rolleyes: of the status quotian.

I agree with your observations to a degree. Certainly the cell phone distracted driver and texting (for gawd's sake!) are issues that have made things worse. I don't think that's why my friends and others don't cycle much, and only think of the bike as a fitness device.

I also agree I'd like to see stricter enforcement of negligent driving laws and laws that make texting, reading, cell phone use per se negligent driving. But the culture must change the laws. It's rarely effective to try to get the law to change the culture.

We've made drug possession a felony; treated a medical problem my criminalizing it. What have we accomplished? We have not changed the drug culture, except to move people from cocaine to meth and to raise property crime rates and raise the costs of the criminal justice system.

It's been great for lawyers, cops, and prison guards, but the drug problem has gotten worse, because the culture has not changed for the better via the law.

What we have done is make driving too easy and then failed to prosecute when an "accident" occurs that is not really an accident, but a failure by the "pilot" to control their vehicle. We have bent over backwards to encourage poor motoring skills and lack of motoring responsibility, coupled with loads of subsidies that further encourage motoring.

If we "attacked" the problem of 40,000 deaths annually in any sort of responsible manner, perhaps we might have real solutions. But instead we hear "oh that is anti-motoring..." :rolleyes:

I'm in favor of the balancing you suggest. It's irrelevant to me if you want to call it 'anti-motoring' or not.

It's also irrelevant to me whether you call it 'balancing' or whatever. The question is how to do it in a way that is politically feasible. I asked a specific question and you responded with essentially agreeing with the goal, but not addressing the question. I guess you were distracted by your desire to go on an anti-Forester rant.

My question again:

If gasoline taxes were raised substantially, so that gasoline cost $10 to $20 a gallon, what taxes (in an equal amount) would have to be reduced to get the American public to accept such a drastic change? Would a rebate of say, $1000 for a bicycle do it? I doubt it. But please, suggest something you think Americans would accept in exchange for a substantial hike in gasoline price.

It is not about taxing gas... it is about simply charging for gas without providing substantial tax incentives to oil exploration. It is about charging for parking what the standard rate for inner city square footage really costs.

See you want one simple solution. The reality is really a whole lot of little solutions.

It is about devoting a certain percent of the general fund to other than highways.

It is about DMVs that pay for themselves through user fees.

It is about zoning and development that includes public transit, bike access and walking as part of the whole picture, not as an afterthought.

Do you get the picture now?

As far as gas tax goes, simply make it a percent charge vice a flat rate, then as the price goes up, more tax revenue is collected.

It is also about teaching cycling as well as driving in public schools as both are life long activities as important as the 3Rs.

It is not just one thing. But it is not "anti-motoring." A term both you and John Forester toss around. :rolleyes:

Get it now?

If gasoline taxes were raised substantially, so that gasoline cost $10 to $20 a gallon, what taxes (in an equal amount) would have to be reduced to get the American public to accept such a drastic change? Would a rebate of say, $1000 for a bicycle do it? I doubt it. But please, suggest something you think Americans would accept in exchange for a substantial hike in gasoline price.

Maybe the answer is a revenue-neutral tax. Wouldn't be as extreme as 10 or 20, maybe a buck or two to start. Take taxes at the pump (maybe goods delivery and other heavy vehicles of commerce get a pass) then divide them equally and basically send a check back to each household. Those who use little fuel would get a substantial amount of 'free' money from the program. Those who consume the average amount would pay nothing extra in the end, heavy fuel-users would pay extra. Would that work?

It is not about taxing gas... it is about simply charging for gas without providing substantial tax incentives to oil exploration. It is about charging for parking what the standard rate for inner city square footage really costs.

See you want one simple solution. The reality is really a whole lot of little solutions.

It is about devoting a certain percent of the general fund to other than highways.

It is about DMVs that pay for themselves through user fees.

It is about zoning and development that includes public transit, bike access and walking as part of the whole picture, not as an afterthought.

Do you get the picture now?

As far as gas tax goes, simply make it a percent charge vice a flat rate, then as the price goes up, more tax revenue is collected.

It is also about teaching cycling as well as driving in public schools as both are life long activities as important as the 3Rs.

It is not just one thing. But it is not "anti-motoring." A term both you and John Forester toss around. :rolleyes:

Get it now?

You make good points that I agree with. It should take many small solutions and making people pay the true cost of what they do is advisable. Then you ruin your argument by making it personal and adding (twice) the sophomoric 'Get it now,' as if you are the parent talking to his young children.

You've said nothing new, nothing controversial, then you act as if you are bestowing the wisdom of the ages on some third world child.

Maybe the answer is a revenue-neutral tax. Wouldn't be as extreme as 10 or 20, maybe a buck or two to start. Take taxes at the pump (maybe goods delivery and other heavy vehicles of commerce get a pass) then divide them equally and basically send a check back to each household. Those who use little fuel would get a substantial amount of 'free' money from the program. Those who consume the average amount would pay nothing extra in the end, heavy fuel-users would pay extra. Would that work?

Makes sense to me, and it's much more feasible politically than a substantial gas tax increase. Although...
I believe to make a rapid increase in cycling with a reduction in driving, I can't think of anything short of drastic increase in cost of motoring, which as I've said is not politically realistic.

As Genec points out there are many little things that could be done. To his list, I'd add subsidized locking bike racks and business incentives to create cycling friendly work places.

You make good points that I agree with. It should take many small solutions and making people pay the true cost of what they do is advisable. Then you ruin your argument by making it personal and adding (twice) the sophomoric 'Get it now,' as if you are the parent talking to his young children.

You've said nothing new, nothing controversial, then you act as if you are bestowing the wisdom of the ages on some third world child.

OK sorry for the sophomoric bent... But I have repeated myself so much at various times that it does feel like I am talking to children... children who have been irresponsible and now have to change their ways.

Think of it more like "tough love."

OK sorry for the sophomoric bent... But I have repeated myself so much at various times that it does feel like I am talking to children... children who have been irresponsible and now have to change their ways.

Think of it more like "tough love."

:) I know Daddy loves me when he cares enough to spank me. :)

Not really joking. Many years ago I worked at a correctional institution for children. Naturally we were not allowed to use corporal punishment, but I noticed the kids really respected fair, but firm discipline. I even saw kids smile sometimes when they realized they could rely on boundaries.

:) I know Daddy loves me when he cares enough to spank me. :)

Not really joking. Many years ago I worked at a correctional institution for children. Naturally we were not allowed to use corporal punishment, but I noticed the kids really respected fair, but firm discipline. I even saw kids smile sometimes when they realized they could rely on boundaries.

psst... you need a comma or a couple of dashes in that "not really" to make it work. :innocent:

What we have done is make driving too easy and then failed to prosecute when an "accident" occurs that is not really an accident, but a failure by the "pilot" to control their vehicle. We have bent over backwards to encourage poor motoring skills and lack of motoring responsibility, coupled with loads of subsidies that further encourage motoring.

If we "attacked" the problem of 40,000 deaths annually in any sort of responsible manner, perhaps we might have real solutions. But instead we hear "oh that is anti-motoring..." :rolleyes:

Don't be silly, Genec. I know of no one on this list who considers better motorist training to be anti-motoring. And I know of no one on this list who considers safer motoring facilities to be anti-motoring, either.

Anti-motoring, as used on this list, is the advocacy of harm to cyclists for the purpose of decreasing motoring.

It seems to me that there is a frightening singlemindedness in both the VC-ists and the new-school build-it-and-they-will-come Copenhagen cultists.

personally I'm not a fan of either approach; IMO, the US needs some sort of hybrid system, as VC is tenuous at best for increasing ridership, and widespread use of the Danish and Dutch cycle track/intensive infrastructure approach is probably unachievable from cost, engineering and political standpoints, even in cities like Portland.

Let me put the question out there. If gasoline taxes were raised substantially, so that gasoline cost $10 to $20 a gallon, what taxes (in an equal amount) would have to be reduced to get the American public to accept such a drastic change? Would a rebate of say, $1000 for a bicycle do it? I doubt it. But please, suggest something you think Americans would accept in exchange for a substantial hike in gasoline price.

it doesn't necessarily need to be done through a gas price increase or tax, it could be done through congestion pricing, tolls for road use or other road user fees, or hefty increases in the cost to store your vehicle in a parking space or a parking structure.

I like the metaphors of wrapping all the china in bubble plastic because of a bull in the china shop... priceless.

that's the helmet debate in a nutshell...

:lol:

From my perspective... as one who has lived car free for 7 years and done extensive touring of the US and Baja, and has bike commuted for well over 30 years, the issues your experienced friends are expressing are most likely due to the fairly recent "epidemic" of motorist distraction.

I have had more close calls in the last 3-4 years while cycling and commuting on the same local streets, that I have been perusing off road cycling as a way to avoid speeding, distracted, motorists.

Bear in mind that I am well versed in all the VC techniques and have and will ride anywhere... But no cycling technique will spare me from motorists that are just driving blind... be it from cell phones, DVD players, GPS devices, texting or just plain eating in the car... the trends have become progressively worse.

Yes, it is a cultural problem... it's called the car is now the living room (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=598730) and motorists have forgotten they are responsible for the vehicle they are piloting.
I actually think there is some benefit to motorists believing that cyclists are unpredictable scofflaws, because it makes them drive more carefully around cyclists.

;)

I actually think there is some benefit to motorists believing that cyclists are unpredictable scofflaws, because it makes them drive more carefully around cyclists.

;)

And, of course, it strengthens their motivation to keep cyclists behind bars of paint and concrete.

"wrapping all the china in bubble plastic because of a bull in the china shop."


that's the helmet debate in a nutshell...

:lol:

Exactly

Don't be silly, Genec. I know of no one on this list who considers better motorist training to be anti-motoring. And I know of no one on this list who considers safer motoring facilities to be anti-motoring, either.

Anti-motoring, as used on this list, is the advocacy of harm to cyclists for the purpose of decreasing motoring.

John, if more people are cycling, they will be driving less. There is no way to get around that equation.

Promotion of more people cycling is NOT anti-motoring.

it doesn't necessarily need to be done through a gas price increase or tax, it could be done through congestion pricing, tolls for road use or other road user fees, or hefty increases in the cost to store your vehicle in a parking space or a parking structure.

Yes it can be done in many ways and combinations. The trick is to find methods that are politically realistic.

Our culture has to be changed first. Assuming the government even has the will to get more people cycling as an alternative to motoring, they can take baby steps, but nothing dramatic can take place until public attitude and demand changes.

I'd like to see a private car free day. Well publicized in advance, so people knew they had to take public transportation, walk or cycle to their destination. Once they saw an example of it, who knows?

Pipe dream of course. Years ago when I was living on a steep hill on the West side of Queen Anne hill in Seattle, we had a great snow storm. Suddenly everyone was walking. There was hardly a car in sight, and the few that were out were moving mighty slowly. It was beautiful. No bikes either. :(

John, if more people are cycling, they will be driving less. There is no way to get around that equation.
....

Sure there is. Many people cycle for fitness or recreation. They do not drive one whit less. They do not cycle as an alternative to driving, but as an entirely separate activity.

Certainly, a few people who take up cycling for fitness or recreation, may start riding instead of driving. Whether they do that on an occasional errand, or more is dependent on a host of factors.

Frequently I go no where on the weekends. Just stay at home and relax. When I took up cycling that changed and I rode my bike for fun and fitness. The amount of driving I did during weekends was unaffected.

... at least at first. Now I'm more likely to run errands by bike instead of motorcycle or car, but I expect this is unusual. I'm meeting a friend to go riding this morning. He's younger and more fit, an all around athlete and generally fearless. But he's afraid to ride if there's much traffic, which is why we're going at 8 am on a Sunday morning. It's taken months of suggestions to even get him this far. I don't expect he'll be riding instead of driving anywhere.

Sure there is. Many people cycle for fitness or recreation. They do not drive one whit less. They do not cycle as an alternative to driving, but as an entirely separate activity.

Certainly, a few people who take up cycling for fitness or recreation, may start riding instead of driving. Whether they do that on an occasional errand, or more is dependent on a host of factors.

Frequently I go no where on the weekends. Just stay at home and relax. When I took up cycling that changed and I rode my bike for fun and fitness. The amount of driving I did during weekends was unaffected.

... at least at first. Now I'm more likely to run errands by bike instead of motorcycle or car, but I expect this is unusual. I'm meeting a friend to go riding this morning. He's younger and more fit, an all around athlete and generally fearless. But he's afraid to ride if there's much traffic, which is why we're going at 8 am on a Sunday morning. It's taken months of suggestions to even get him this far. I don't expect he'll be riding instead of driving anywhere.

But if he does ride for transportation, then he won't be driving that same distance for that same need... just as you discovered. Therefore if more people take up cycling, there is a greater possibility they will be driving less.

Sure my statement is simplistic in nature, just as this statement is also simplistic in nature: "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles."

And, of course, it strengthens their motivation to keep cyclists behind bars of paint and concrete.

:roflmao:

sorry, but the driving force behind the demands for bike lanes and cycle tracks is not coming from motorists; in fact most motorists don't want to give up road space to cyclists in any shape, manner or form.

yes the desire to make public roads and highways more bikeable by more of the public is coming existing bicyclists, AND families AND people who want to bicycle on the roads, AND a huge assortment of organizations and groups that recognize planning for bikes in the transportation mix helps mitigate a wide variety of social ills like obesity, mobility for the elderly, health and the environment, people for livable communities.....not to mention bring more bicyclists to the roads and reducing accidents thru the intervention of simply raising the modal share..

to copenhagenize the USA: make it easy, make it natural, build in infrastructure, restrict the car for the pig that it is, and people will bike.

this thread is expressly designed to raise the blood pressure of the die-hard vehicular cyclists.

:D

http://bikeportland.org/2009/10/30/want-to-be-like-copenhagen-think-about-vacuum-cleaners-and-raging-bulls/

A few choice quotes:

"...(to) reach usage levels similar to European cities, we need to make it easy, focus on the positives, tame automobiles, and do our research to counter anti-bike sentiment"

“Our relationship to the bicycle in Copenhagen is much like the vacuum cleaner. We don’t have five of them that we keep polished and well-oiled, there are no vacuum cleaner enthusiasts, we don’t go to a specialty shop to buy one or wear special clothes while we vacuum. The bicycle and the vacuum cleaner are just tools. One of them we clean our homes with, the other we use to transport ourselves around the city.”

"...if there is infrastructure in place that makes the bicycle the easiest and fastest tool to get from a to b, then a high rate of bicycle usage will follow."

"In the 1980s, when Copenhagen was experiencing a boom in bicycling, city officials worried that too many people were riding on the busy main streets. “They thought, we’ve got to stop that, it’s not safe.” Their solution was to direct bike traffic to the backstreet by building high-quality cycle tracks through neighborhoods."

"The problem was that the neighborhood routes meant people had to ride 10-15 minutes out of their way to get from a to b. The result? No one used them. “It was a flop. So, the city shrugged and went, ‘fine, we’ll put them on the main streets’”."

"The lesson is that planners should put bicycle infrastructure where people actually want to go, not where engineers think they should go."

"bicycles are too often marketed in a way that makes them seem “dangerous and sweaty”. “These are not unique selling points that are going to get a lot of people to buy this product.”

"A key to making cycling mainstream is to address the dangers of the automobile"

"...if cities really want to attain high levels of bicycle use, they must begin to acknowledge that the cars are causing havoc and their power and dominance on the urban landscape must be reigned in."

"...what took Copenhagen 30 years to achieve could be done today in 5-10 years. This is in part because all the (planning and engineering) mistakes have been made and the case for bicycling is stronger now than it has ever been. He also pointed out that to do that it will take “visionary political decision-making.”"

If you want the bicycle to be as popular in the US as it is in Europe, it's dead simple, just increase the taxes on Gasoline to have European style prices. In Europe you will pay about double what you do in the US, this would severely curtail the amount of driving. It would also mean that people would want to buy, much smaller cars, with higher fuel efficiency for the driving they would do.

A lot of people would want bicycles, although it doesn't resolve the problem of living 30 miles from work, 20 miles from shopping, and 40 miles from church.