The truth is that cycling infrastructure is an unnecessary luxury. It's a "good thing" in principle because it's a way of transportation that's good for the environment and gives people exercise, but it's redundant and expensive, you still need full capacity in public transport, because almost no one cycles when the weather is bad. It would only makes sense really if you could dynamically allocate space between cars/bikes basically on a day-by-day basis, and/or convert bike lanes to bus lanes, but I guess you'd need a full fleet of only self driving cars for that to be feasible. Then you could have the luxury of using a bike on days with nice weather, just because it's fun. Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow. Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment. But then again, we have a million comforts and luxuries at the expense of the environment, and people can generally choose, as long as they're not using absurd amount of energy. Why force cycling specifically, I don't understand, just take the bus if you don't want to drive.
A car in a city center, _that_ is the unnecessary luxury.
> Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow.
Automobiles are the sole reason why general mobility is so poor in cities that are crowded (with cars) and where transport is slow (due to cars).
Please take a look at cities in Denmark or The Netherlands. Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. Not only is it cheap, reliable, healthy and it doesn't take up much space... it's also _faster_ than driving a car.
Yes, cars are practical for rural and long-distance travel, but not for use in city centers.
You should probably tell the Dutch that they don't cycle in the rain. Over 1/3rd of days are rainy in the Netherlands on average and yet they somehow manage to put on their ponchos.
I would love to see the difference in bike use in the Netherlands relative to the weather, I bet only a small fraction will use the bike in bad weather conditions and they will need capacity in public transport to cover for these days.
Actually, it is. It often doesn't rain for hours on end, so people work a bit longer or start a bit earlier to avoid the rain. Otherwise, there's umbrellas, ponchos and plain old acceptance of the fact that you will be a bit wet for an hour. My dad used to say when it was pouring: "You're not made out of sugar, are you?"
And yes, public transport is busier on some days than on others, is that a problem? How is that any different from motorists on roads?
I highly doubt that, it speaks completely against my lifelong experience as a cyclists. The vast majority of all people are fair weathered cyclists and bike lanes are mostly empty half of the year.
You get cold, wet and uncomfortable, and have to be very flexible with time. Even if you can "deal with it", it's still very real negative aspects, and why would you put up with that if you don't have to?
My point is that you have to have full capacity public transport anyway so the bike lanes are really redundant, a "nicety" and as such I think they should have little space and low priority, it makes perfect sense.
Why don't we have skateboarding lanes? Running lanes? Horseback riding lanes? It's fun, it's healthy, it's good for the environment! Because it's impractical, slow and inefficient, just like cycling is.
I think the worse is rain in hot summer. You'll end up soaked whether you cover or not. Winter rain is OK, you just need appropriate clothing. Source: I cycle during the whole year, and sub-zero temperatures are not a problem at all (for a couple of weeks at most in my latitude, but still), even if it rains.
I disagree, it's a very real annoying problem to dress your whole body in both warm and waterproof clothes, and even if you like it, most people don't. And it is objectively, relatively, much less convenient and much less comfortable than the alternatives of a bus/subway.
> much less convenient and much less comfortable than the alternatives of a bus/subway
This is quite subjective... For one, I've commuted by bus+subway for most of my life, in three different European cities (Lisbon, Barcelona and Paris). Two years ago I had a sort of epiphany looking at the bike lane that followed the same path as my crowded bus. I bought a bike, in order to "try" the bike commute, and I've never looked back since. Even some days with hard weather, I prudently walk to the bus stop, and then say "no shit" and walk back home to pick my bike.
Thus I politely disagree with you that it is "much less convenient", at least for everybody.
A bike lane that's only used when the weather is nice, when you already have a subway? No _that_ is unnecessary luxury. Take the subway if you hate cars.
as en expat living in amsterdam i couldnt disagree more. a city with a bike first infrastucture is incomparably safer, quieter and more pleasant for everyone in the city.
when it takes 15 minutes to get anywhere in the city using the bike infrastructure, one would be crazy to pull out the car and look 30 minutes for parking places that cost north of 7 euros an hour.
"people dont bike in bad weather and in winter" is nonsense garbage from people who dont live in biking places. if the infrastructure is there people will bike even in snow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU).
> just take the bus if you don't want to drive
i dont depend on any public transport if i have my bike. it's the exact reason why people choose cars over public transport.
I live in a city center and used to walk/take public transport. which was fine.
biking is alot more convenient. I can only carry about what I would walking, but its not a big deal to go two miles to get something. and I feel much better for the exercise.
if zipcar hadn't been shut down after acquisition, I would still have the option to get something big from 20 miles away once or twice a year.
I don't know why you feel the need to assert that the last 100 years status quo is some statement of natural law...I've always hated getting trapped in those smelly little boxes and now I have a choice!
Not the car, take the bus. The reason cycling is unnecessary is that all use cases are already covered by public transport and/or driving. That's a fact. There's nothing that you specifically need to cycle for. That makes it unnecessary, that's just basic logic.
And most people do not cycle when the weather is bad, that's also just a fact, and I grew up in an extremely bike friendly city and rode my bike all winter in the snow, in bike lanes that were completely empty and I just saw a whole bunch of money down the drain, just to pretend to be environmentally friendly when in reality 95% of people hop on the bus as soon as the weather is even slightly bad.
A lorry is also not strictly necessary if you have a Smart or a wheelbarrow. There is plenty of use cases that are only reasonable thanks to having a bike. I for example went to work by a combination of bike and public transport. Car alone would have been 1h, public transport and walking as well, but bike and public transport was 45 min. (Car and public transport did not work together for lack of parking) By your logic, the bike was unnecessary and that is true but beside the point for the sake of 2*15min a day.
Just because most people are doing something does not mean its sensible. Most people are also overweight, even though everyone knows that that is not healthy.
Yes there are cases when a bike will be faster, because your destination happens to be poorly covered by public transport, but on average it's not, and that's what's really important.
Uh. I doubt cycling infrastructure is even a minute fraction of the cost we put into automobile infrastructure. I have no proof but lol let’s call it a hunch.
> Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment.
It’s better for the environment, it’s cheaper, it’s more efficient(more bikes can occupy less space and move more people), it’s fun, it’s good for your body, it’s safer(if we don’t have to share the road with cars- for instance if the infrastructure for bikes were to actually exist), bikes are easier to maintain, bikes can access a variety of terrain most cars can not. I could probably go on and on.
IMO the only reason bicycles are seen as an unnecessary luxury is cultural. We aren’t all Lycra clad snobs who ignore stop lights, but for some reason this perception persists.
No it's not. People don't like to be very uncomfortable and inconvenient. Cycling year around every day, is very uncomfortable and inconvenient for many many days, so why would you do that if you don't have to?
I can argue exactly the same way for why you should turn off the heat in your house the whole winter, it's great for the environment and you just have to "put on a coat".
People also like to choose whatever they think is fun, if you want to play tennis instead of riding a bike, because you think that's more fun, you should be able to do so.
Your fun is at the expense of other people's mobility, why can't you just use some of the other million ways of getting exercise and having fun, where you don't have to be in other people's way?
It's better to be a driver. It's no fun. You don't get any exercise. It drives up infrastructure costs, kills and maims people, destroys the planet, and takes up even more space on the roads.
Bikes are often used in combination with subways. Bikes can also be used in cities that don't have subways and cycling infrastructure is far cheaper to build.
Bikes solve the problem of the last-mile. Subways are expensive to build and dig, bikes gets you much further and literally anywhere. Add a bike station at your subway station and you have both working together.
Yeah well, in this example and many similar big cities in europe, you have subway and buses that will take you to any street corner. Sure, in a small town in australia or the US, not the case, but I highly doubt bike lanes will be any viable alternative there anyway.
My point is that it's not a good idea to expand bike lanes in big city centers where you already have public transport, especially not in places that doesn't have a bike friendly climate. It's simply not a good use of the space, can't really make any good case for it except some people think it's fun, which is extremely weak. And I don't understand why it makes cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen so much better, people just get randomly happy from the joys of riding a bike, or what? I'd rather have many more practical solutions with tangible results such as actually reducing the time and energy we spend on commuting, not increasing it.
> My point is that it's not a good idea to expand bike lanes in big city centers where you already have public transport
I don't know what is your background, but many cities are doing it and it's not only about enabling bikes but also to disable passenger cars, and the main reason is it makes the places more livable and enjoyable: it's quieter, the air is cleaner, the streets are safer, people actually spend more time outside. So this is a practical solution to a problem people have: noise, pollution, loss of public space to car infrastructure.
Oh and I should add: outside of my house they have blocked one whole lane of the road from cars and designated it for cyclists. There was already a smaller bike lane. This new lane is now mostly empty and the remaining two lanes have traffic jams now with sirens all the time because emergency vehicles can't pass anymore. And I just think it's stupid and annoying. There was already a perfectly fine bike lane. There is also a tram. Why expand that bike lane now and cause traffic jams, I don't understand. Seems like it's just for virtue signalling, oh look how modern we are and such good people, when in practice it's barely used, not needed and cause traffic jams.
"Barely used", citation needed. Even in not-very-friendly cities for bike like Toronto, most bike lanes have higher amount of bike riders than the cars on the street.
My background is that I've cycled my whole life, all of childhood in rain and snow and later I've cycled for a few years in a big city. But I started to use it less and less, and now it's just parked and unused. And the reason is that there's always a better alternative. If the weather is nice, I drive an electric moped, it's not noisy or polluting, and it doesn't take up much space. And it's so so much better than cycling, I arrive much quicker and with more energy anywhere I go, and I can use the whole existing road network. And when the weather is bad, obviously public transport wins. I think the future is electric and self driving vehicles, not cycling, and being forced to propel yourself manually like that for basic transportation has no place in a modern world except for enjoyment, and this can be done in designated areas.
If you just want to avoid cars and have a more leisurely space, why not designate pedestrian zones like traditionally done in city centers, and use the space for cafés, market stands etc.
I'm simply talking about cycling in a big city from a practical point of view, based on facts and my own experience, and pointing out the limitations. As opposed to using cycling as some kind of protest, and people get triggered when I'm challenging the latest virtue signalling trend.
That depends. Not in a crash event. A bike can't match the safety measures that even the dumbest car has today. Hitting an obstacle in a car with seatbelts and airbags, or hitting it in a bike are totally different cases, even at a lower speed.
Yeah it's the least safe mode of transportation, driving, public transport and walking are all safer than cycling. "But it's the fault of the cars", no cyclists have tons of accidents by themselves and amongst each other, that walking and public transport completely avoids.
As a thought experiment, take any American city, remove the bikes, and see if the congestion goes away.
Now, remove the cars that are being used for unnecessary luxury, such as organizing your entire lifestyle and schedule around the availability of unlimited single-occupancy car use and generous parking.
