Liability in the Netherlands

The Economist has an online article explaining the liability situation for motorists vs. bicyclists in the Netherlands:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...cycling-v-cars

Many North American bike promoters ignore cultural and legal differences such as these They also ignore plus things like fuel expenses, differences in city density, differences in climate and terrain, taxes on auto purchases, and various other anti-car policies, etc. They tend to attribute all the bicycling to the presence of facilities. That's extremely simple minded, at best.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:55:26 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The Economist has an online article explaining the liability situation
for motorists vs. bicyclists in the Netherlands:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...cycling-v-cars

Many North American bike promoters ignore cultural and legal differences
such as these They also ignore plus things like fuel expenses,
differences in city density, differences in climate and terrain, taxes
on auto purchases, and various other anti-car policies, etc. They tend
to attribute all the bicycling to the presence of facilities. That's
extremely simple minded, at best.

- Frank Krygowski

The question of population density differences is the easiest to refute.

Amsterdam's population density is: 9080/mi2.

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

Here's a list of places in the US with population densities of over
10,000/mi2

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

They comprise more than 19.6 million people. Included in the list a
New York; San Francisco; Boston; Chicago; Philadelphia and Miami. There
are also major pockets within the LA sprawl: Santa Monica; Santa Ana; El
Monte; Norwalk and Redondo Beach.

If we look at that other european cycling mecca: Copenhagen, the central
city population density is: 19,000/m2. However the metropolitan density
is only 1670/mi2

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

There are many localities with population densities greater than 2000/
mi2. Every state has at least one locality with a population density
greater than that.

Stephen Bauman

On 11/18/2013 6:20 AM, Stephen Bauman wrote:
The question of population density differences is the easiest to refute.

snip

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

There are many localities with population densities greater than 2000/
mi2. Every state has at least one locality with a population density
greater than that.

It's a big mistake to attribute the emergence of a bicycle culture to a
population density that makes it too difficult to drive. There are so
many other factors. To create a bicycle culture you first need to invest
heavily in bicycle facilities and this is especially true in the U.S.
where you have to overcome the fact that driving is relatively inexpensive.

In one way, high population density works against bicycles as we've seen
in China. In the big cities, the government has invested in massive
subway projects so it's less necessary to use a bicycle so the extensive
system of separated bicycle facilities is not used nearly as much as it
was in the past. I was in China in the 1980's and 1990's and went again
in 2012. Bicycle usage is way down because the subways are so pervasive
and so cheap. It was wonderful to be able to get around Shanghai and
Beijing so quickly without the use of a taxi or bus but I missed
cycling, and there are no more bicycle rental places. This was the first
time I took my family to China and I was insistent that we not go on an
organized tour. It was really easy to do this. People still want cars of
course, but they really can't use them for commuting because the traffic
is too heavy and parking is so limited.

In the Netherlands the re-emergence of the bicycle as a transportational
device didn't happen until the 1970's oil embargos. They were successful
because of the decision to invest in facilities
http://vimeo.com/29401217. They made it all seamless. Bicycle specific
infrastructure made it all happen. You see the same thing in the U.S..
The cities that invest in bicycle specific infrastructure see a huge
increase in cycling. In my area that is Palo Alto, Davis, and San
Francisco. San Francisco is rather surprising considering the hills. Now
that there's infrastructure for bicycles, rental programs have started
and are becoming popular (though the Bay Area program is so
time-restrictive (to protect recreational bicycle rental companies) that
it's pretty useless).

That list of cities was interesting. I lived in one of them, Daly City,
CA, and I can't think of a worse place to cycle. The houses are packed
close together and the streets are jammed with parked cars with doors
constantly being opened. It's very hilly. It's cold and foggy much of
the year. Malvina Reynolds wrote a song about Daly City
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FIs7X819K4.

On Monday, November 18, 2013 9:20:33 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:55:26 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The Economist has an online article explaining the liability situation
for motorists vs. bicyclists in the Netherlands:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...cycling-v-cars

Many North American bike promoters ignore cultural and legal differences
such as these They also ignore plus things like fuel expenses,
differences in city density, differences in climate and terrain, taxes
on auto purchases, and various other anti-car policies, etc. They tend
to attribute all the bicycling to the presence of facilities. That's
extremely simple minded, at best.

The question of population density differences is the easiest to refute.

Amsterdam's population density is: 9080/mi2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam

Here's a list of places in the US with population densities of over
10,000/mi2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

They comprise more than 19.6 million people. Included in the list a
New York; San Francisco; Boston; Chicago; Philadelphia and Miami. There
are also major pockets within the LA sprawl: Santa Monica; Santa Ana; El
Monte; Norwalk and Redondo Beach.

If we look at that other european cycling mecca: Copenhagen, the central
city population density is: 19,000/m2. However the metropolitan density
is only 1670/mi2

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

There are many localities with population densities greater than 2000/
mi2. Every state has at least one locality with a population density
greater than that.

What is your point? That if those U.S. cities - comprising only a very small percentage of the U.S. - were to otherwise mimic Copenhagen, that they would get a bicycle mode share similar to Copenhagen?

If so, and if that's what's desired, someone needs to get to work on tremendously raising fuel expenses, flattening terrain, improving the climate, tremendously raising taxes on motor vehicle purchases, making parking much more expensive and inconvenient, making a driver's license much harder to obtain, tremendously improving the mass transit availability, and retroactively installing a long history of bicycle transportation. Oh, and changing liability laws, I suppose.

I'm all in favor of more bicycling in the U.S. And I might be in favor of many of those changes. But please, let's be realistic. Green paint isn't going to make us Copenhagen.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:03:22 -0800, sms wrote:

On 11/18/2013 6:20 AM, Stephen Bauman wrote:
The question of population density differences is the easiest to
refute.

snip

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

There are many localities with population densities greater than
2000/ mi2. Every state has at least one locality with a population
density greater than that.

It's a big mistake to attribute the emergence of a bicycle culture to a
population density that makes it too difficult to drive. There are so
many other factors. To create a bicycle culture you first need to invest
heavily in bicycle facilities and this is especially true in the U.S.
where you have to overcome the fact that driving is relatively
inexpensive.

I'm sorry, it appears I wasn't clear. The original post listed a number
of factors why road democracy as practiced in the Netherlands will not
occur in the US. Density was one of the stated reasons. I supposed that
meant that European cities are compact compared to the sprawl practiced
here. I was simply comparing the population density in Amsterdam with
places of comparable or greater population density over here.

Investment in bicycle facilities does not have to be expensive or require
long lead times. NYC's outgoing Transportation Commissioner proved that.
She turned parts of streets into bike lanes and public squares with
paint, planters chairs and tables. They popped up overnight according to
her critics although all had been vetted through NYC's cumbersome
community boards. If the facilities proved popular, then concrete would
follow to make them permanent.

Bike facilities popped up even faster for the April 1980 NYC subway
strike. The strike was called at 4am and a class I bike lanes below 60th
St were in place by 6am. Traffic cones were used as demarcation and tow
trucks kept all vehicles out.


In one way, high population density works against bicycles as we've seen
in China. In the big cities, the government has invested in massive
subway projects so it's less necessary to use a bicycle so the extensive
system of separated bicycle facilities is not used nearly as much as it
was in the past. I was in China in the 1980's and 1990's and went again
in 2012. Bicycle usage is way down because the subways are so pervasive
and so cheap. It was wonderful to be able to get around Shanghai and
Beijing so quickly without the use of a taxi or bus but I missed
cycling, and there are no more bicycle rental places. This was the first
time I took my family to China and I was insistent that we not go on an
organized tour. It was really easy to do this. People still want cars of
course, but they really can't use them for commuting because the traffic
is too heavy and parking is so limited.

I was part of the first western bike group to visit China in January
1981. We brought our own bikes. We had entourage that included newspaper
reporters and a TV crew. We also had 3 formal banquets. It was a blast.
Shortly after we left there reports of a beer shortage.


In the Netherlands the re-emergence of the bicycle as a transportational
device didn't happen until the 1970's oil embargos. They were successful
because of the decision to invest in facilities
http://vimeo.com/29401217. They made it all seamless. Bicycle specific
infrastructure made it all happen. You see the same thing in the U.S..
The cities that invest in bicycle specific infrastructure see a huge
increase in cycling. In my area that is Palo Alto, Davis, and San
Francisco. San Francisco is rather surprising considering the hills. Now
that there's infrastructure for bicycles, rental programs have started
and are becoming popular (though the Bay Area program is so
time-restrictive (to protect recreational bicycle rental companies) that
it's pretty useless).


I think the recent resurgence of cycling in NYC, Boston, Washington and
Chicago and the decline in China show that the impediments are political.
The infrastructure is cheap. It's lack of political will that's the
impediment.

NYC just reported its 5,000,000 bike share ride since its inauguration on
May 27th.

Stephen Bauman

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:38:17 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 18, 2013 9:20:33 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:55:26 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The Economist has an online article explaining the liability
situation for motorists vs. bicyclists in the Netherlands:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../11/cycling-v-
cars

Many North American bike promoters ignore cultural and legal
differences such as these They also ignore plus things like fuel
expenses, differences in city density, differences in climate and
terrain, taxes on auto purchases, and various other anti-car
policies, etc. They tend to attribute all the bicycling to the
presence of facilities. That's extremely simple minded, at best.

The question of population density differences is the easiest to
refute.

Amsterdam's population density is: 9080/mi2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam

Here's a list of places in the US with population densities of over
10,000/mi2

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

They comprise more than 19.6 million people. Included in the list a
New York; San Francisco; Boston; Chicago; Philadelphia and Miami. There
are also major pockets within the LA sprawl: Santa Monica; Santa Ana;
El Monte; Norwalk and Redondo Beach.

If we look at that other european cycling mecca: Copenhagen, the
central city population density is: 19,000/m2. However the metropolitan
density is only 1670/mi2

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

There are many localities with population densities greater than 2000/
mi2. Every state has at least one locality with a population density
greater than that.

What is your point? That if those U.S. cities - comprising only a very
small percentage of the U.S. - were to otherwise mimic Copenhagen, that
they would get a bicycle mode share similar to Copenhagen?

One reason you gave why the Netherlands democracy for cyclists vs.
drivers would not take root in the US was population density. My point
was that not everyone lives a mile away from his nearest neighbor. I
showed there were 19.5 million people living in cities whose population
densities were greater than central Amsterdam. I also stated that the
population density for metropolitan Copenhagen was significantly lower.
One could confidently expect that many more Americans would be in areas
with suitable population densities. 78 out of 3139 counties have
population densities greater than metropolitan Copenhagen's 1670,
according to the 2010 census. There are 75.6 million people living in
these counties and they account for 24.5% of the population. That's no
longer a very small percentage.


If so, and if that's what's desired, someone needs to get to work on
tremendously raising fuel expenses, flattening terrain, improving the
climate, tremendously raising taxes on motor vehicle purchases, making
parking much more expensive and inconvenient, making a driver's license
much harder to obtain, tremendously improving the mass transit
availability, and retroactively installing a long history of bicycle
transportation. Oh, and changing liability laws, I suppose.


My remarks were concerned with only one of your points. I'll be happy to
refute the others, if nobody else comes forward.

The question of liability laws is tangential to the utter reluctance of
police and prosecutors to crack down on dangerous driving. Pedestrians
have more to fear, even on their safe haven of sidewalks. One recent
example that got a lot of publicity was when a cab jumped the curb and
pinned a British tourist on the sidewalk. The result was that her leg was
amputated. This link shows what the cab driver's penalty was:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/explainer-...didnt-charge/?
utm_source=sharedUrl&utm_media=metatag&utm_campaig n=sharedUrl

The cab driver walked away without any criminal prosecution nor any
driving infraction. The tourist's chance of getting damages in a civil
suit are limited because the police did not issue any ticket.

The reason DA's are reluctant to prosecute drivers for reckless
endangerment, where proof of intent is not required, is that juries don't
convict drivers. Jurors identify with the driver. They don't identify
with cyclists because they don't know any. This will change, if you get
10% of the population riding bikes. Enough jury members will be or know
people who regularly use bikes. The need to change liability laws will
cease to exist.

I was present when NYC's first bike lane was officially opened in 1980.
It was a lane defined by a couple of stripes. The then Transportation
Commissioner rode up 6th Ave for 1 1/4 miles, from Jefferson Market to
Herald Square. Along the way he was cut off at intersections twice and
was cursed out by cab drivers. It was an education for him. He wasn't a
cyclist and expected civility from drivers. He went out of his way to
attend to cyclists' needs for the rest of his term.

I'm all in favor of more bicycling in the U.S. And I might be in favor
of many of those changes. But please, let's be realistic. Green paint
isn't going to make us Copenhagen.


There's got to be a first step. That first step has to be cheap and
visible. What's your suggestion?

Stephen Bauman

Frank Krygowski writes:

The Economist has an online article explaining the liability situation for motorists vs. bicyclists in the Netherlands:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...cycling-v-cars


Outstanding article.

Many North American bike promoters ignore cultural and legal differences such as these


There are some (well, one, at least) who *recognize* these things and
fault the victims anyway.

They also ignore plus things like fuel expenses, differences in city density, differences in climate and terrain, taxes on auto purchases, and various other anti-car policies, etc.


I won't speak for everyone, but I don't think it's fair to make a
sweeping statement like they *ignore* them. I think nearly everyone
interested in road bicycling is painfully aware of them.

"Climate and terrain"? Give me a break!

They tend to attribute all the bicycling to the presence of facilities.

I don't think that's true. I think they are doing what they can.
I think facilites are feasible, proven to increase participation,
and that increased participation is the catalyst for cultural and
legal change.

That's extremely simple minded, at best.


Indeed. I can't help but notice who articulated it.

On Monday, November 18, 2013 7:46:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:38:17 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 18, 2013 9:20:33 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:

If we look at that other european cycling mecca: Copenhagen, the
central city population density is: 19,000/m2. However the metropolitan
density is only 1670/mi2

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

There are many localities with population densities greater than 2000/
mi2. Every state has at least one locality with a population density
greater than that.

What is your point? That if those U.S. cities - comprising only a very
small percentage of the U.S. - were to otherwise mimic Copenhagen, that
they would get a bicycle mode share similar to Copenhagen?

One reason you gave why the Netherlands democracy for cyclists vs.
drivers would not take root in the US was population density. My point
was that not everyone lives a mile away from his nearest neighbor. I
showed there were 19.5 million people living in cities whose population
densities were greater than central Amsterdam. I also stated that the
population density for metropolitan Copenhagen was significantly lower.
One could confidently expect that many more Americans would be in areas
with suitable population densities. 78 out of 3139 counties have
population densities greater than metropolitan Copenhagen's 1670,
according to the 2010 census. There are 75.6 million people living in
these counties and they account for 24.5% of the population. That's no
longer a very small percentage.

I think the 19,000 per square mile for central Copenhagen is probably more important than the entire Copenhagen metro area's lower density. ISTM you need a core that will, in effect, seed the bike fashion. You're much more likely to get that if people can ride short distances to reach their destinations.

If so, and if that's what's desired, someone needs to get to work on
tremendously raising fuel expenses, flattening terrain, improving the
climate, tremendously raising taxes on motor vehicle purchases, making
parking much more expensive and inconvenient, making a driver's license
much harder to obtain, tremendously improving the mass transit
availability, and retroactively installing a long history of bicycle
transportation. Oh, and changing liability laws, I suppose.

My remarks were concerned with only one of your points. I'll be happy to
refute the others, if nobody else comes forward.

Well, have at it! Care to start with the historic culture of cycling in those countries?

There was a YouTube video (unfortunately, since taken down for copyright reasons) of a 1937 newsreel of Copenhagen showing a far greater bicycle mode share than the present. There were no special facilities. People of all descriptions were riding everywhere, negotiating comfortably with motor vehicle operators. It was part of their culture, now part of their long history of cycling. There were other places in Europe that were similar. AFAIK, no place in the U.S. has such a history of cycling.

And again, that's only one of a long list of important differences. Facility fans point to the green paint or cycle tracks, as if those are all it takes to get everyone on bikes. But places like Milton Keynes and Stevenage in the UK certainly prove that one can have amazing facilities with near-zero ridership.

The real key seems to be this: One _must_ make it much less convenient to use a car than to use a bike, if you want bikes to dominate mode share. That's an absolute prerequisite.

Even Portland, Oregon has stalled out on bike share - no increase in three years, despite increases in bike facilities, even "Innovative!!!" bike facilities. And from what I read (and have seen firsthand) one doesn't have to get very far out of central downtown Portland to see much, much lower bike mode share than what's shown in carefully edited promotional videos.

The question of liability laws is tangential to the utter reluctance of
police and prosecutors to crack down on dangerous driving. Pedestrians
have more to fear, even on their safe haven of sidewalks. One recent
example that got a lot of publicity was when a cab jumped the curb and
pinned a British tourist on the sidewalk. The result was that her leg was
amputated. This link shows what the cab driver's penalty was:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/explainer-...didnt-charge/?
utm_source=sharedUrl&utm_media=metatag&utm_campaig n=sharedUrl

The cab driver walked away without any criminal prosecution nor any
driving infraction. The tourist's chance of getting damages in a civil
suit are limited because the police did not issue any ticket.

The reason DA's are reluctant to prosecute drivers for reckless
endangerment, where proof of intent is not required, is that juries don't
convict drivers. Jurors identify with the driver. They don't identify
with cyclists because they don't know any. This will change, if you get
10% of the population riding bikes. Enough jury members will be or know
people who regularly use bikes. The need to change liability laws will
cease to exist.

I agree that situation is heinous. But if it's going to take 10% bike mode share to fix it, I think you might as well give up. Again:
http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/30/c...agnation-96367
If you intend to fix that problem - which I'd love - you need a different strategy.

I'm all in favor of more bicycling in the U.S. And I might be in favor
of many of those changes. But please, let's be realistic. Green paint
isn't going to make us Copenhagen.

There's got to be a first step. That first step has to be cheap and
visible. What's your suggestion?

My first suggestion is reasonable objectives. Forget the watercolor sketches by landscape architects, or the carefully edited videos from StreetFilms showing only maximum biking densities on sunny days. Don't tell people you can turn NYC into Copenhagen. That's just dishonest.

If you want something cheap and visible, I'd suggest using our media (all of it) to educate the public - motorists, cops, prosecutors, judges, juries, parents, kids - about our existing rights to the road, and about how they should treat cyclists. Simultaneously, educate everyone about how motorists and bicyclists should behave according to existing traffic laws. These laws already work. The problem is, very few people (even dedicated cyclists) appreciate them, and relatively few follow them.

Going just a little further: Stop the "Bicycling is Dangerous!" crap. It's become epidemic to overstate the tiny dangers of bicycling, and never mention its large benefits. And the facility fans are at least as guilty as anyone else! Even promising a bike lane to be a "Safe place to ride" implies that riding in other places is _not_ safe, which is hogwash.

Going further: We teach kids to play dodge ball. Instead, why not teach kids the rules of the road for bicycles? They'd gain far more long-term good from those. We send kids home with pamphlets on "stranger danger." Why not send the parents pamphlets on how their kid should ride, AND how to drive around cyclists? It would do far more good for society.

I'm a big fan of education. I think it can be far more effective than the typical poorly-conceived "Innovative!!!" bike ghetto.

There's more that can be done. Really, putting in weird "Innovative!" bike facilities that violate simple traffic interactions should be down at the bottom of the list. Or better yet, completely off the list.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Monday, November 18, 2013 7:46:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 08:38:17 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 18, 2013 9:20:33 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:

If we look at that other european cycling mecca: Copenhagen, the
central city population density is: 19,000/m2. However the metropolitan
density is only 1670/mi2

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

There are many localities with population densities greater than 2000/
mi2. Every state has at least one locality with a population density
greater than that.

What is your point? That if those U.S. cities - comprising only a very
small percentage of the U.S. - were to otherwise mimic Copenhagen, that
they would get a bicycle mode share similar to Copenhagen?

One reason you gave why the Netherlands democracy for cyclists vs.
drivers would not take root in the US was population density. My point
was that not everyone lives a mile away from his nearest neighbor. I
showed there were 19.5 million people living in cities whose population
densities were greater than central Amsterdam. I also stated that the
population density for metropolitan Copenhagen was significantly lower.
One could confidently expect that many more Americans would be in areas
with suitable population densities. 78 out of 3139 counties have
population densities greater than metropolitan Copenhagen's 1670,
according to the 2010 census. There are 75.6 million people living in
these counties and they account for 24.5% of the population. That's no
longer a very small percentage.

I think the 19,000 per square mile for central Copenhagen is probably more important than the entire Copenhagen metro area's lower density. ISTM you need a core that will, in effect, seed the bike fashion. You're much more likely to get that if people can ride short distances to reach their destinations.


You've got it backward. That's the Stevenege approach. The
pretty watercolor designs approach.

What you need is butts on bikes, and that's not so hard to
"seed". Riding bikes is fun! People *know* they need more
exercise. They hate paying for gas and parking. They hate
stewing in traffic. *Then* businesses will have an impetus
to locate in cores and livable spaces.

But they're afraid to ride a bike in traffic; and *you* are
making the case here with this, "We're not like the sensible
societies. Get used to it. We can't beat them, so join them."

If so, and if that's what's desired, someone needs to get to work on
tremendously raising fuel expenses, flattening terrain, improving the
climate, tremendously raising taxes on motor vehicle purchases, making
parking much more expensive and inconvenient, making a driver's license
much harder to obtain, tremendously improving the mass transit
availability, and retroactively installing a long history of bicycle
transportation. Oh, and changing liability laws, I suppose.

My remarks were concerned with only one of your points. I'll be happy to
refute the others, if nobody else comes forward.

Well, have at it! Care to start with the historic culture of cycling in those countries?


We're not them! But we can be a better us.


The real key seems to be this: One _must_ make it much less convenient to use a car than to use a bike, if you want bikes to dominate mode share. That's an absolute prerequisite.


Yes, but what do you espouse? Making bicycling *less* convenient
by acting like a car!

Even Portland, Oregon has stalled out on bike share - no increase in three years, despite increases in bike facilities, even "Innovative!!!" bike facilities. And from what I read (and have seen firsthand) one doesn't have to get very far out of central downtown Portland to see much, much lower bike mode share than what's shown in carefully edited promotional videos.


Are you saying Bike City, USA is a sham?

See Corvallis and Eugene and Medford and Bend and...

snip


... if you get
10% of the population riding bikes. Enough jury members will be or know
people who regularly use bikes. The need to change liability laws will
cease to exist.

I agree that situation is heinous. But if it's going to take 10% bike mode share to fix it, I think you might as well give up.


Some bike advocate you are.

snip


I'm all in favor of more bicycling in the U.S. And I might be in favor
of many of those changes. But please, let's be realistic. Green paint
isn't going to make us Copenhagen.

There's got to be a first step. That first step has to be cheap and
visible. What's your suggestion?

My first suggestion is reasonable objectives.

Sure - awesome. Please be realistic. (Isn't that what you
said?) Why throw in the towel if 50% seems impossible? Why
throw in the towel because roadblocks impede the trajectory
to 10%? Look for the roadblocks and work on them.

Why not just shoot for ~continuous shift away from automobiles
to better alternatives including bikes.

Forget the watercolor sketches by landscape architects, or the carefully edited videos from StreetFilms showing only maximum biking densities on sunny days. Don't tell people you can turn NYC into Copenhagen. That's just dishonest.


Hey, it's okay to dream; it enhances where we take reality.

If you want something cheap and visible, I'd suggest using our media (all of it) to educate the public - motorists, cops, prosecutors, judges, juries, parents, kids - about our existing rights to the road, and about how they should treat cyclists.


Portland does this. Of course, they have butts on bikes, a
vision, and an action plan. Media isn't going to get Nervous
Ned and Nellie pedaling on the road. Not going to happen.

Simultaneously, educate everyone about how motorists and bicyclists should behave according to existing traffic laws. These laws already work. The problem is, very few people (even dedicated cyclists) appreciate them, and relatively few follow them.


Kind of goes without saying, doesn't it?

Going just a little further: Stop the "Bicycling is Dangerous!" crap. It's become epidemic to overstate the tiny dangers of bicycling, and never mention its large benefits. And the facility fans are at least as guilty as anyone else! Even promising a bike lane to be a "Safe place to ride" implies that riding in other places is _not_ safe, which is hogwash.


You are the one telling us we're not like the civilized
societies so we should just give up!

Going further: We teach kids to play dodge ball. Instead, why not teach kids the rules of the road for bicycles? They'd gain far more long-term good from those. We send kids home with pamphlets on "stranger danger." Why not send the parents pamphlets on how their kid should ride, AND how to drive around cyclists? It would do far more good for society.


Without butts on bikes this will be viewed as an absurd waste
of already strapped educational resources.

With a nice, wide, separated bike path network, though, the
kids' parents might let them take the bikes out of the garage
on school days even.

I'm a big fan of education. I think it can be far more effective than the typical poorly-conceived "Innovative!!!" bike ghetto.


It has its place in the vision - I've said as much. But people
are too scared to get on the road with cars - and rightly, if
inordinately, so. People who want to ride are *clamoring* for
facilities. What's it going to hurt? It will, indeed, make it
more difficult for cars if more infrastructure priorities are
dedicated to bikes.

There's more that can be done. Really, putting in weird "Innovative!" bike facilities that violate simple traffic interactions should be down at the bottom of the list.


Facilites are feasible. Look, if you can get all that stuff
on TV and the radio and in the schools and everything - great!

Or better yet, completely off the list.


And *there* we have your real driving agenda.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:56:23 AM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

You've got it backward. That's the Stevenege approach. The
pretty watercolor designs approach.

What you need is butts on bikes, and that's not so hard to
"seed".

Dan, the towns of Stevenege and Milton Keynes in Britain were designed from the ground up to have wonderful, completely separate bike facilities. It's like a separate set of bike freeways, with underpasses for major roads so bikes don't have to even wait for green lights. It's the kind of system that can't be put into place in almost any existing city. Instead, Stevenege was designed around it, at great expense. And _still_ the bike mode share is very low!

You're proposing to shoehorn much less thorough bike facilities into existing American cities and transform the country? When even Portland has a commuting mode share of just a few percent, counted as charitably as possible? (Some polls for Portland have been calculated _only_ based on residents within the city - IOW, pretending that the millions of people who clog the inbound freeways and highways somehow don't exist!)

America's national bike commute share is far lower than 1%. How much investment in weird facilities would you estimate is needed to get it to, say, even 2%? Got a figure with any realistic explanation?


[FK:] The real key seems to be this: One _must_ make it much less convenient to use a car than to use a bike, if you want bikes to dominate mode share. That's an absolute prerequisite.

Yes, but what do you espouse? Making bicycling *less* convenient
by acting like a car!

I see no significant inconvenience in riding according to the usual rules of the road for vehicle operators. Yes, I (gasp!) stop for red lights. I don't zip onto and off of sidewalks. I don't do wheelies through intersections. I do use lights at night.

But I've got this transportation network that allows me to get anywhere within 20 miles of my house. I don't have the inconvenience of wondering "Where can I find a separate path, so I don't have to worry about cars?" I don't have to stop frequently (as I have in some other cities) and wonder "Where the heck am I supposed to ride when I cross that street? Did they funnel the bike path through that parking lot, or where the heck _did_ they put it??"

I know how to get where I'm going, I know I have a right to every non-freeway road or street, I know how to behave when I'm riding on those roads and streets, and I have no trouble. The people I ride with have the same experience. That's NOT inconvenient. It's just riding competently in the real world.

- Frank Krygowski