Foreign cycling infrastructure

[le brad]

I know that not all self described vehicular cyclists hate cycling specific infrastructure and I'm not trying to start some kind of bike lane/no bike lane thing. I'm just wondering what the VC elite think about all the great bike specific lanes, streets, etc in non U.S. cities, like Amsterdam for example.

[John Forester]

I know that not all self described vehicular cyclists hate cycling specific infrastructure and I'm not trying to start some kind of bike lane/no bike lane thing. I'm just wondering what the VC elite think about all the great bike specific lanes, streets, etc in non U.S. cities, like Amsterdam for example.

I suppose, with some reason, that you are asking for a reply from me. You mention Amsterdam, obviously because this is the most famous of the installations, but there are many others of similar nature. So consider these remarks as referring most strongly to the old city of Amsterdam. The authorities were faced with what they recognized would be an enormous increase in automobile motoring on a street system that had not been designed for any motoring at all, and was being used by large amounts of pedestrian, bicycle, motor delivery truck, and, at least in recent memory, horse-drawn vehicles (I remember seeing horse-drawn vehicles on British city streets in the 1930s). The authorities desired to accommodate this foreseen automobile traffic, and they decided that they would separate pedestrian and bicycle traffic from motor traffic. Nowadays, many people assert that the purpose of the separation was to protect the bicycle traffic, but the more reasonable explanation is that the purpose of the separation was to allow more free passage of the motor traffic through the slower mix on narrow streets. So they produced bikeways in whatever form could be squeezed in, some being lanes, some being sidepaths, with very little appreciation for the implications of these facilities. They found, for instance, that their sidepaths were very dangerous unless they installed more traffic signals with three separate phase systems, one each for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, which delayed everybody more than would a system with only two phase systems.

The Amsterdam system is highly praised by bicycle advocates because a large fraction of the pre-motoring bicycle transportation has been preserved, at a low rate of fatal accidents. There are several reasons for being suspicious of this claim. The first is that there is no method of determining what would have occurred had the bikeways not been installed but that the streets had been improved for cycling instead. An equally important reason is that both motoring and cycling are horribly inconvenient in Amsterdam, but motorists are far more inconvenienced than are cyclists. Motoring is slow, parking is extremely inconvenient, distances are short. Under these circumstances any mode that is just a bit faster than walking has an enormous competitive advantage, and that is the place of bicycle transportation in Amsterdam.

The argument is being frequently made that we would achieve similar mode mix if we adopted the Amsterdam bikeways system. That's nonsense. In Amsterdam, cycling competes against walking, to its advantage. Here, cycling has to compete against motoring, in which competition it has only a niche place. Furthermore, the Amsterdam system is used at speeds only a little more than walking, with many delays. If most American cyclists were limited to such slow travel, extremely few of the present cyclists would use bicycle transportation.

[invisiblehand]

I know that not all self described vehicular cyclists hate cycling specific infrastructure and I'm not trying to start some kind of bike lane/no bike lane thing. I'm just wondering what the VC elite think about all the great bike specific lanes, streets, etc in non U.S. cities, like Amsterdam for example.

Do you really think that they are great? Just curious. I have never been there and, obviously, never rode a bicycle there.

You can get some interesting critiques here regarding facilities here.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/index.htm
http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Do you really think that they are great? Just curious. I have never been there and, obviously, never rode a bicycle there.

You can get some interesting critiques here regarding facilities here.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/index.htm
http://www.truewheelers.org/cases/vassarst/index.htm

I've been there, many times during the ten years I lived in Europe. Yes it is great and not just Amsterdam but in the numerous other Dutch cities. I liked the cycling conditions almost as well in Germany where I lived and visited.

You find John Allen's critiques of more interest than I. Of course, I view Mr. Allen, with his sloppy use of "crash rates" to prove vehicular cycling effectiveness and "dangers" of bike lanes as John Forester's Number One Protégé/Disciple.

[sbhikes]

Never been to Europe.

Pictures I have seen of Amsterdam and Copenhagen show cycling as a totally different beast than around here. People wear normal clothes, dresses, suits with coats. They bikes have little guards to prevent your clothes from getting caught in the spokes and stuff like that. People ride bikes to go out on dates, to run errands and everything. It's not like it's a separate aspect to society like it is here.

So their facilities makes sense to the way cycling is integrated into their daily lives. The facilities actually facilitate the cycling they do.

The problem with all the bickering around here is that the facilities facilitate the riding that many people do around these parts, but not the type of riding that a lot of the anti-facilities people prefer.

[le brad]

Places like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rwwxrWHBB8
seem more fun/safe (ie. great) than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUa3uxKHJBc

[John Forester]

Never been to Europe.

Pictures I have seen of Amsterdam and Copenhagen show cycling as a totally different beast than around here. People wear normal clothes, dresses, suits with coats. They bikes have little guards to prevent your clothes from getting caught in the spokes and stuff like that. People ride bikes to go out on dates, to run errands and everything. It's not like it's a separate aspect to society like it is here.

So their facilities makes sense to the way cycling is integrated into their daily lives. The facilities actually facilitate the cycling they do.

The problem with all the bickering around here is that the facilities facilitate the riding that many people do around these parts, but not the type of riding that a lot of the anti-facilities people prefer.

The Amsterdam facilities do not "facilitate" the cycling done there. That is the superstition believed by some in America. The cycling being done in Amsterdam would be done in the same way, by the same people, wearing the same clothes, were there no bikeways. That is because the urban pattern in Amsterdam facilitates that kind of cycling. The characteristics of that city make slow, short-distance cycling useful, because it is slightly faster than walking, which would be the competitor.

[genec]

Places like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rwwxrWHBB8
seem more fun/safe (ie. great) than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUa3uxKHJBc

The coolest things in the first video were the 33% of all trips by bike even in cold Copenhagen... and in the Neatherlands... the instruction system at the elementary school that used a painted traffic circle for kids to practice on in the school yard. I loved that!!! What a brilliant idea for teaching kids how to ride bikes in a traffic system... Make it a playground game. Dammit, why can't we do that here in the US?

Integrated transportation system... bikes and walkers can get directly to where they need to go, but autos have to take a round about method to get there... what a great humanizing way to make a city.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Never been to Europe.

Pictures I have seen of Amsterdam and Copenhagen show cycling as a totally different beast than around here. People wear normal clothes, dresses, suits with coats. They bikes have little guards to prevent your clothes from getting caught in the spokes and stuff like that. People ride bikes to go out on dates, to run errands and everything. It's not like it's a separate aspect to society like it is here.

So their facilities makes sense to the way cycling is integrated into their daily lives. The facilities actually facilitate the cycling they do.

The problem with all the bickering around here is that the facilities facilitate the riding that many people do around these parts, but not the type of riding that a lot of the anti-facilities people prefer.

SB, You are right on with your comments about North European urban cycling.

Some of the anti-facilities types are more interested in preserving their rights to paceline on their training rides from any imaginary threat, than for advocating for any cycling that they don't consider "Serious." Or their chief concern when determining how cyclists "fare best" is the need for maximum speed.

[gcl8a]

The Amsterdam facilities do not "facilitate" the cycling done there. That is the superstition believed by some in America. The cycling being done in Amsterdam would be done in the same way, by the same people, wearing the same clothes, were there no bikeways. That is because the urban pattern in Amsterdam facilitates that kind of cycling. The characteristics of that city make slow, short-distance cycling useful, because it is slightly faster than walking, which would be the competitor.

I've never been to Amsterdam, but I have ridden a lot in Odense and Copenhagen. I find that I can average 20-25kmh, including waiting at lights, which usually* don't slow me down more than they would a car. That is way faster than walking. In Odense, it is quite easy to get around by car, though parking is not always easy. Yet a large percentage bike to work, etc. Maybe they ride slower in Amsterdam, but here, cycling is an alternative to both walking and driving.

In fact, in my test case from this thread: (http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=241073), I was limited more by not wanting to sweat more than anything else. I find it hard to believe that I could go much faster with no cars on the road what-so-ever. I averaged 20kmh, starting in the heart of town and going out tot he university.

Also in that thread is a link to a 'ride report' of my old commute. In it one can see the common styles of bike facilities: from open, separate paths to a thin slice of asphalt hacked out of a narrow street. There is so much difference in culture and city design, it is impossible to compare to the US, but Odense has built a lot of infrastructure for bikes, and it has a significantly higher percentage of commuters than other comparably sized Danish cities. There is a report here: http://www.cykelby.dk/pdf/cykel_inet.pdf, with a summary in English. The short version: ridership is up 20%, accident rates are down 20%**, or thereabouts over a multi-year campaign at the turn of the millenium.

*there are a few three-way light cycles here

**Interesting that they only mention 'multi-vehicle' accidents in the report. My only two crashes _ever_ were when I caught the stupid raised edge of a couple of bike lanes when I was distracted -- a 'single-vehicle' accident.

[UmneyDurak]

Speaking of Amsterdam, picture from last week.

[LittleBigMan]

Some of the anti-facilities types are more interested in preserving their rights to paceline on their training rides from any imaginary threat, than for advocating for any cycling that they don't consider "Serious." Or their chief concern when determining how cyclists "fare best" is the need for maximum speed.

First, I have to say that if ILTB likes cycling in Amsterdam, more power to him. That's really none of my business, besides, I've never even been there. So his point about those kinds of bike facilities being suitable for the people there is a point I can't take issue with, nor do I desire to. I have no more right to tell somebody else what they should prefer any more than they have the right to tell me what I should prefer.

As to ILTB's comments above, that's a stereotype. Pacelines while commuting? I ride alone, and "need for speed" cyclists would see me as a slow-moving Fred who rides a funny bike, wears ugly clothes, and stops unnecessarily at stop signs. I just can't wear the garment ILTB is displaying.

I prefer not to use particular bicycle facilities because they are so frustratingly inferior to the roads I've become accustomed to. Yes, it is my preference not to have to stop at "toy stop signs" posted next to driveways, cross intersections in crosswalks (motorists often don't pay any attention to that zebra-striped zone, they often roll into it as if it's not even there) or cross against traffic on the left side of the street, battle for space with bus patrons at bus stops, etc. I like a relatively uninterrupted ride on the street, similar to when I drive my car, same right-of-way rules.

But if "the need for maximum speed" means getting to work or home again in an hour instead of two hours, then I guess I fall into that category. (The trip home isn't as much of a problem, I sometimes take intentional detours to take in a longer ride, but I still use the road.)

[genec]

First, I have to say that if ILTB likes cycling in Amsterdam, more power to him. That's really none of my business, besides, I've never even been there. So his point about those kinds of bike facilities being suitable for the people there is a point I can't take issue with, nor do I desire to. I have no more right to tell somebody else what they should prefer any more than they have the right to tell me what I should prefer.

As to ILTB's comments above, that's a stereotype. Pacelines while commuting? I ride alone, and "need for speed" cyclists would see me as a slow-moving Fred who rides a funny bike, wears ugly clothes, and stops unnecessarily at stop signs. I just can't wear the garment ILTB is displaying.

I prefer not to use particular bicycle facilities because they are so frustratingly inferior to the roads I've become accustomed to. Yes, it is my preference not to have to stop at "toy stop signs" posted next to driveways, cross intersections in crosswalks (motorists often don't pay any attention to that zebra-striped zone, they often roll into it as if it's not even there) or cross against traffic on the left side of the street, battle for space with bus patrons at bus stops, etc. I like a relatively uninterrupted ride on the street, similar to when I drive my car, same right-of-way rules.

But if "the need for maximum speed" means getting to work or home again in an hour instead of two hours, then I guess I fall into that category. (The trip home isn't as much of a problem, I sometimes take intentional detours to take in a longer ride, but I still use the road.)

What ILTB is alluding to is that both Forester and HH mention the need for speed in their quest for use of the roads. Forester particularly mentions it in his piece to the ADC, where he states:

Since one of the joys of cycling is the pleasure of moving along as fast as one wants, cyclists choose routes that allow them to maintain their desired speeds with few delays.

HH has stated that speed is clearly an issue for his weekend peloton rides.

Now while speed is indeed enjoyable on a bike (can't fault Forester for that) commuting routes are often not chosen for their cycling speed, but their utility to allow the cyclist to arrive safely at the office. The actual riding speed of many commuters is not the key to their trip. In fact I personally find I become somewhat careless with traffic when I focus on speed vice safety in my commute. Speed is best left to roads with minimal motor traffic.

ILTB is simply pointing out that practical cycling does not mean cycling fast, nor is that a key to practical cycling... most commuters in places like China or Amsterdam are riding in their work clothes... and would hardly want to arrive at work all covered in sweat from pushing their ride to their highest possible speed. With this in mind, suitable routes that are not geared for high speed probably serve just fine... much the "path" that Forester found so unsuitable in his past "testing."

[invisiblehand]

Never been to Europe.

Pictures I have seen of Amsterdam and Copenhagen show cycling as a totally different beast than around here. People wear normal clothes, dresses, suits with coats. They bikes have little guards to prevent your clothes from getting caught in the spokes and stuff like that. People ride bikes to go out on dates, to run errands and everything. It's not like it's a separate aspect to society like it is here.

So their facilities makes sense to the way cycling is integrated into their daily lives. The facilities actually facilitate the cycling they do.

The problem with all the bickering around here is that the facilities facilitate the riding that many people do around these parts, but not the type of riding that a lot of the anti-facilities people prefer.

I agree, completely from second-hand stories from foreign buds, that it works for them. It would be nice to "diddy" around by bike.

I think that it is obvious that most cyclists--measured by the person not by mile--here are not wearing the tight shorts and clipless shoes (although I sense that a growing percentage are wearing helmets). But given that the underlying city structure and lifestyle is different, I suspect that the corresponding optimal strategy will be different as well.

[invisiblehand]

You find John Allen's critiques of more interest than I. Of course, I view Mr. Allen, with his sloppy use of "crash rates" to prove vehicular cycling effectiveness and "dangers" of bike lanes as John Forester's Number One Protégé/Disciple.

Here in the Beltway, one sees stuff like this all of the time. And you see people use prove/proof in far too many instances when an analysis is more descriptive. But whether you agree or not with the analysis, ideas, conclusions, or font size, writing down an opinion along with supporting statistics is a big step forward. It forms a basis for a discussion and a starting point for one's own thoughts. Moreover, sometimes reading an alternative opinion keeps things fresh and, perhaps, forces one to re-evaluate conclusions.

This is probably the reason why things are so stale at Chainguard. There is little to no dissenting opinion. Hence why there are so many more posts here.

Regarding the thread about "maximum" speed ...

I recall references to cycling at speed or at the same speed as on the neighboring road (when cycling on a bike path), but there are a few interpretations of "maximum" speed that are probably inappropriate with respect to the VC position as I understand it.

If maximum speed means as fast as I would travel while on the road following traffic laws with the corresponding level of safety, then I think it is accurate.

... running off to a meeting.

-G

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Here in the Beltway, one sees stuff like this all of the time. And you see people use prove/proof in far too many instances when an analysis is more descriptive.

When a salesman claims that the product he is promoting/selling has reduced accidents (and presumably risk) by an incredible 80% for its previous customers, and will do so for future customers, I like to see real proof or at least credible evidence of this success, not hare brained analysis of cherry picked factoids and fabrications, manipulated to create a false picture of success.

[gcl8a]

...most commuters in places like China or Amsterdam are riding in their work clothes... and would hardly want to arrive at work all covered in sweat from pushing their ride to their highest possible speed...

See UmneyDurak's picture above. I guarantee those people are going as fast as they want to.

[LittleBigMan]

What ILTB is alluding to is that both Forester and HH mention the need for speed in their quest for use of the roads. Forester particularly mentions it in his piece to the ADC, where he states:
HH has stated that speed is clearly an issue for his weekend peloton rides.

I won't argue that.

My point was that ILTB was stereotyping, painting everyone the same color, as if life really existed that way. It doesn't. I am a unique individual, just as you are, and just as ILTB is, and want to be recognized as such.

But unique individuals don't fit convenient stereotypes when arguing political issues.

If he would like to assume that we are all like John Forester or Helmet Head (as if they are also identical, which he has repeatedly claimed of all "VC acolytes/discples,") he may, but I can't swallow it. Who could, except those who also desire a convenient stereotype?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I won't argue that.

My point was that ILTB was stereotyping, painting everyone the same color,

Your point was in error. I am merely noting the current threads where JF and his disciple/worshiper HH, drone on about JF's legal accomplishments in battling his enemies who want to pass laws that might somehow really hurt cyclists -namely somehow affect their precious right to paceline and race on public roads. And now, funnier yet, protect cyclists from police harassment over the depth of their tire threads. Nobody is stereotyping you; unless you behave like HH, and parrot and electronically high five every silly statement and claim of JF. JF's previous proclamations about the chief priorities for Real Cyclists (like his asociates) being speed, and its close relative, efficiency are numerous and can be dredged up if really necessary.

[sbhikes]

Here's what I know. At my last job I worked with a guy who lived in Schiphol. I asked him if he rides his bike to get around. He said, "of course." I asked him, what if you go on a date with a girl, do you ride your bike then? He looked at me with amusement and said, "of course." Silly question.

What they have in Holland facilitates this lifestyle. John Forester may not see it that way, but his opinion isn't based upon observation.

Holland has an urban environment filled with cycling facilities. They have an urban environment that was not designed around the automobile. As a result, they have an urban environment filled with bicyclists.

We in the US have an urban environment lacking in cycling facilities in many places, and lacking in decent ones in many others. It was designed around the automobile. So we have an urban environment filled with motorists.

What they don't have in Holland are strident Vehicluar Cyclist spouting nonsense about how "we don't need no stinkin' bike paths" and cyclist making a statement by "taking the lane" and riding in critical mass rides to protest "our rights" as vehicles on the roads.

What are you going to believe? What you can see with your own eyes? Or what a small group of discredited cyclists take as a matter of faith with little real life, real world evidence to back up their claims?

[LittleBigMan]

Your point was in error.

I have re-read your post and note that you said, "...some of the anti-facility types..."

I stand corrected. But I'm still a little gun-shy from all the labeling and mass generalizations you have made in the past. Many of your posts still carry a tone that suggests you lump "VC idealogues" into the same stereotype.

By your labeling, you seem to suggest that anyone who claims any association with "VC'ists" is guilty of complete ignorance.

[John Forester]

What ILTB is alluding to is that both Forester and HH mention the need for speed in their quest for use of the roads. Forester particularly mentions it in his piece to the ADC, where he states:
HH has stated that speed is clearly an issue for his weekend peloton rides.

Now while speed is indeed enjoyable on a bike (can't fault Forester for that) commuting routes are often not chosen for their cycling speed, but their utility to allow the cyclist to arrive safely at the office. The actual riding speed of many commuters is not the key to their trip. In fact I personally find I become somewhat careless with traffic when I focus on speed vice safety in my commute. Speed is best left to roads with minimal motor traffic.

ILTB is simply pointing out that practical cycling does not mean cycling fast, nor is that a key to practical cycling... most commuters in places like China or Amsterdam are riding in their work clothes... and would hardly want to arrive at work all covered in sweat from pushing their ride to their highest possible speed. With this in mind, suitable routes that are not geared for high speed probably serve just fine... much the "path" that Forester found so unsuitable in his past "testing."

Note carefully what I wrote: "Since one of the joys of cycling is the pleasure of moving along as fast as one wants, cyclists choose routes that allow them to maintain their desired speeds with few delays." I specifically stated "as fast as one wants". So stop misinterpreting what I have written to suit your antagonism.

Now inject a bit of commonsense into this discussion, painful though you might find it. A facility that is suitable for fast cycling is also suitable for slow cycling, but the converse is false. One should not design a facility that is unsuitable for the faster cyclists, partly because if you do, they will motor instead.

Now consider another effect, that of climate. One can ride quite reasonably in Holland without working up a sweat, but the same level of exertion in most parts of the USA for much of the year would leave you dripping wet.

Now consider another extremely important effect, that of urban pattern. Slow cycling for short distances is useful in places such as Amsterdam. There's no need for a lengthy discussion of life styles; it just happens to be so. However, in the USA we have different conditions, one of which is the much longer distances to be traveled. One's primary resource in this life is time; we live only so long, and we should get as much satisfaction out of our time as is reasonably possible. When discussion bicycle transportation, that means that if the trip will take too much time any person is likely to switch to a quicker mode. So, to maximize the amount of bicycle transportation that will be chosen, one needs to have the ability to travel as fast as one wants with as few delays as practical.

The antagonism to fast cycling, and its complementary advocacy of slow cycling, is directly contrary to the interests of cyclists, and, strange to say, contrary to the interests of those who argue for those positions. As always in bicycling affairs, there is so much illogicality in the arguments of the bicycle advocates that some explanation needs to be discovered.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

By your labeling, you seem to suggest that anyone who claims any association with "VC'ists" is guilty of complete ignorance.

Nope, just those who blithely parrot Forester's so-called scientific basis and psycho babble as great truths or "best evidence", and proselytize for the programs evolved from that body of work from that piece of work.

[John Forester]

Here's what I know. At my last job I worked with a guy who lived in Schiphol. I asked him if he rides his bike to get around. He said, "of course." I asked him, what if you go on a date with a girl, do you ride your bike then? He looked at me with amusement and said, "of course." Silly question.

What they have in Holland facilitates this lifestyle. John Forester may not see it that way, but his opinion isn't based upon observation.

Holland has an urban environment filled with cycling facilities. They have an urban environment that was not designed around the automobile. As a result, they have an urban environment filled with bicyclists.

We in the US have an urban environment lacking in cycling facilities in many places, and lacking in decent ones in many others. It was designed around the automobile. So we have an urban environment filled with motorists.

What they don't have in Holland are strident Vehicluar Cyclist spouting nonsense about how "we don't need no stinkin' bike paths" and cyclist making a statement by "taking the lane" and riding in critical mass rides to protest "our rights" as vehicles on the roads.

What are you going to believe? What you can see with your own eyes? Or what a small group of discredited cyclists take as a matter of faith with little real life, real world evidence to back up their claims?

sbhikes, you obviously cannot understand what I write in such a literate manner. Why you cannot is your problem, not ours.

You wrote: "Holland has an urban environment filled with cycling facilities. They have an urban environment that was not designed around the automobile. As a result, they have an urban environment filled with bicyclists. We in the US have an urban environment lacking in cycling facilities in many places, and lacking in decent ones in many others. It was designed around the automobile. So we have an urban environment filled with motorists. What they have in Holland facilitates [their] lifestyle. John Forester may not see it that way, but his opinion isn't based upon observation."

Your observations, except your blindness about me, are exactly correct. That is the whole point of what I have been writing for decades and also right in this discussion group. Slow bicycle transportation works in Holland because of the urban structure, which goes back to medieval and renaissance times, and the social pattern which had developed to suit that structure. Slow bicycle transportation is not very useful in America because American cities have developed to suit the automobile, as have our social patterns. If you want to participate usefully in this discussion, then read what is written.

[Brian Ratliff]

Mr. Forester talks of autocentric cities in the US as a given. For those of us who are not so old, this doesn't have to be the given that Mr. Forester assumes it is. I see two things that bicycling advocacy needs to accomplish. 1) it needs to teach cyclists to ride within the constraints of the present day city. 2) it needs to work with urban planners to make cities more liveable. Note that this doesn't mean that streets necessarily need to be dug up or buildings moved. It is primarily an exercise in zoning and street/traffic flow design. Moreover, it is already happening in some cities.