randya

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



https://bikeportland.org/2009/10/30/w...-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.”"

Bekologist

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.

danarnold

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.

danarnold

PS blood pressure 119/68

PaulH

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

Paul

Bekologist

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.

danarnold

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 https://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/ Just look at the first video, of 1937 Copenhagen.

danarnold

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 https://www.slowbicyclemovement.org/ Just look at the first video, of 1937 Copenhagen.

Bekologist

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

danarnold

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.

Bekologist

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.

RobertHurst

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.

RobertHurst

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.

danarnold

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.

Bekologist

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'

Bekologist

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

NYC DOT explains bikelanes 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 so laugh all you want it sure is simple and effective.

genec

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

genec

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]

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

genec

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 and motorists have forgotten they are responsible for the vehicle they are piloting.

genec

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."

genec

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

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.

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."

_ Robert Hurst

danarnold

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.

Bekologist

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.

danarnold

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.