How to Make Biking Mainstream: Lessons from the Dutch

from YES! Magazine:





How to Make Biking Mainstream: Lessons from the Dutch
What will it take to transform biking from a recreational pastime to an integral part of our transportation system?

by Jay Walljasper
posted Sep 29, 2010


Last spring, public officials from Madison, Wisconsin, returned home from a tour of the Netherlands, and within three weeks were implementing what they learned there about promoting bicycling on the streets of their own city.

This month, I joined a similar group of latter-day explorers on a quest to discover what American communities can learn from the Dutch about transforming bicycling in the U.S. from a largely recreational pastime to an integral part of our transportation system.

My fellow explorers on this journey included elected officials, traffic engineers, and business leaders from the San Francisco Bay Area, all in search of what Patrick Seidler, vice chairman of the Bikes Belong Foundation, sponsor of this fact-finding mission, called our own “27 percent solution” (in the Netherlands, 27 percent of all daily trips are made by bicycle, with enormous health, environmental, economic, and community benefits).

The Netherlands resembles the United States in many ways: It is a prosperous, technologically advanced nation where a huge share of the population owns automobiles. The difference is that the Dutch don’t drive every time they leave home. Their 27 percent rate dwarfs not only the measly 1 percent of trips taken by bicycle in the U.S., but also the rates of many, much bike-friendlier nations (12 percent of trips in Germany are by bike; in Denmark, it's 18 percent). ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/how-to-make-biking-mainstream-lessons-from-the-dutch

Step two - require a driver's license to operate a bicycle (as any other vehicle) on public roads

Step three - provide bike lanes

Step four - enforce the rules of the road on cyclists and the vehicles they operate on public roads

That is discriminatory against many homeless people and the poor. Our drivers' license in FL is not only pricey but it requires REAL ID documentation, which is a hardship on transient and poor people.

a driver's license for a bicycle???? so no biking before 16?????

also it is safer for me to run a red light just before it goes green if no cars are coming than it it to wait for the green and get hit by assholes turing right without looking.

Didn't need drivers license.But bikes had to be tagged and inspected.IIRC ,was like $2 /YR. Heck of a lot of money for an 8 yr. old back then.

Thanks, but I don't need to be "tamed" by a lazy motorist who can't be bothered to look around for bikes between munching on McDonalds and sending text messages.

Do you really not understand the discrepancy in size and momentum between a bike and car?

that is causing so many problems.

And if you think it isn't someone talking on a cell phone / eating their McMeal / otherwise drunk or distracted, every time, then you're not seeing the truth.

bicycles, and riding 3 abreast on small roads and streets, and acting invincible, then we have something to talk about.

Why aren't ANY of you working to fund efforts at more bike lanes, huh?

Being careless and suicidal and blaming it on others is LAME.

That has happened more than once. And I've seen cyclists yakking on their phones too while riding.

Bikes have as much right to be on the road as me, but they also have to OBEY the same traffic laws.

One-handed biking is the norm. The other hand may be carrying flowers, an umbrella, balancing something on the handlebars or the rear carrier. In a rural area, I added "carrying a cattle prod" to the list--it's how some Dutch cowboys get their cattle back to the barn at milking time.

Amsterdam is probably the only place on earth where bikers pick up hitchikers. See a friend who flags you down, stop, friend sits side-saddle with arm around the rider, and off you go.

The car might get a dented fender, but the driver is usually unharmed.

When a distracted motorist hits a cyclist, however, the cyclist usually winds up in the hospital -- or worse.

Step two: change the vehicular laws to recognize that in a conflict between a bicycle and a car, the car always wins. Bicycles (and other slow moving wheeled vehicles like Segways) deserve a different set of rules.

some idiot bimbo or bimbette on a cell phone can PLOW down a cyclist WAYYYY too easy.

Step Five - Increase driver awareness of cyclists.

and damn near creamed one of these...



Freaking bikers... Oh look at me! Im a car! (except when I'm not)

We don't have "Drivers Ed" in UK schools. However RoSPA conducted safe bike riding exercises for older aged primary school aged children - I took part and passed my test! I think it was free, so there was no cost barrier but I had to know the Highway Code.

Instead of having drivers licenses, maybe have 5th graders go through a safe bikeriding course instead? Get their parents to bring in their bikes. It will encourage the kids to get a bike if they don't have one (and also their parents) ... for those who can't afford one, get loaner bikes for the program (so no-one is left out). Hopefully what they'll be asking for Christmas won't be for the latest videogame, it'll be for a bike.

Mark.

K&R

that "Oklahoma" is an old Native American word for "Land Without Sidewalks."

I saw plenty of sidewalks in Tulsa, but here in Oklahoma City's neighborhoods they're scarce...although rapidly improving, thanks to Gov. Henry. And though he's a repug, Mayor Cornett is pushing for new sidewalks and bike routes, too.

Riding a bike on the sidewalk isn't safe for pedestrians, either. While our NE FL area has made *some* improvements wrt pedestrians/bikers in building/improving roads, I swear to God they are determined to keep everyone but the cagers at home.

you have to drive to get to them. :(

When you start paying taxes,tag fee,and title on your bike (that probably cost more than than my car)I'll be more than happy to give a lane or right of way. Don't get me wrong- got over $3000 of bikes downstairs. Mainly competition. I refuse to ride on public highways.

There is too great of a dependence upon cars for transportation and all new roads should have at minimum, bike lanes and a pedestrian walk.

to make lanes - then maybe we can talk.

I pay taxes and gasoline tax every single week. My taxes go to pay for roads that shut out many taxpayers who don't drive. How is that fair to them?

don't pay a fraction of the real environmental and social cost of your car ownership. Do you have any idea the trillions of dollars of prime real estate devoted to car culture in the US- locked up in highways, major arterials, parking lots and garages? In some cities, it's estimated at 30-40% of the land. That's land that used to belong to "we the people" and now, apparently according to you, belongs only to "we the people who can afford cars."

Most people who own cars drive them for less than an hour an day. They spend the rest of the time sitting uselessly on slabs of concrete where there used to be trees, grass, streams... forcing houses to be bigger, forcing sprawl, forcing people farther away from things they need like fresh food, parks, schools, hospitals, etc.

Bicycles don't create pollution. They don't use up rapidly diminishing unrenewable resources that can only be acquired through risky deepwater drilling or wars overseas. They don't require massive impermeable surfaces for driving and parking, causing problems for stormwater management like erosion and water pollution.

Frankly, you're getting off damn cheap for your automobile driving since the vast majority of the real costs are born by taxpayers (including those cyclists you don't want to share the road with) and future generations.

That's the biggest barrier for me...in Oklahoma City it's either wayyyy too hot, too damn cold, or so windy you have to get off and push.

you can bike against winds gusting to 50 or 60 mph, that adds fun to it all! plus dutch people ride bikes in the snow, i saw that in amsterdam last february

subzero wind chills is another.

I used to live where there was tons of snow, and gladly biked in the winter. When it's so cold, any exposed flesh freezes, then no thank you.

Also, how fast can you go against a 50 or 60 mph head-wind? I tried that. It's far easier (and faster) to walk.

Edit: I want to make it clear that the suggestion in the OP is a great idea...I'm not against it at all! It's just that it would be impossible for some, just starting with people with physical handicaps and/or health issues. I don't think such a program would be practical in places like San Francisco or Phoenix.

but i go riding for sport so for me riding against our "mistral" (wind with gusts over 70 mph) is fun just like riding up a mountain, you go up or against the strong wind for an hour then go down or with the wind for 15 minutes....some of the more powerful gusts do nearly stop me in my tracks but that is all part of the fun for me.

I bike commute in a hot western city like yours where it is routinely in the 100s in the summer. Get up early, and commute in when it's nice and cool.

You chose to live in OKC. Deal with it.

My 24 speeds (and bike helmet) marked me as a tourist for sure.

Second, make the entire USA as cool as the Netherlands in Summer and as warm in Winter.

Third, make the entire USA the size of the Netherlands.

Last and probably the hardest, teach Americans how to drive like the Dutch.

Seriously, did anyone miss the recent story about the Green party Senate candidate getting killed by a SUV and her bicycle dragged four miles underneath it?

What does that have to do with localized biking?

A good rider could ride across the Netherlands in a day..

I guess the way I should have put it is make the entire USA as infrastructure dense as the Netherlands.

is riding across the country to go to work or school? If you're too lazy to bike, just say it and forget the silly excuses.

But I'm not quite suicidal enough to ride on the main roads where I live..

No bike lane, no sidewalk and often enough no shoulder with a thirty or so foot dropoff as soon as you get off the pavement.

Steep hills you have to crawl up in the first of 21 gears while drivers who are totally unused to seeing bikes on the road text on their phones while they whizz by at sixty miles an your twelve inches from your left elbow.

to drive a car when 50000 people die each year on the highways?

Funny how the lazy option wins over the option that requires some physical exertion when the danger seems at least equal.

My motorized vehicle is a motorcycle, not a car..

A motorcycle is more dangerous than a car but considerably less dangerous than a bicycle for every day commuting in my area.

The reason being that on a motorcycle I'm blending into and becoming part of the traffic stream, on a bicycle I'm separate and moving much slower then the surrounding traffic.

I wouldn't ride a motorcycle either if I could go no faster than a bicycle, it's not the effort, it's the exposure to vehicles moving a great deal faster coming from a direction where you can't really keep an eye on them.

My Schwinn has slow and pedal harder!

"I guess the way I should have put it is make the entire USA as infrastructure dense as the Netherlands..."

If and only if a cyclist is prompted to pedal across the the width of the U.S. everyday.

A lot less pedaling on average to get where you're going.

A great deal of America is really spread out, it's a long way from one place to another compared to the distances in the Netherlands.

wouldn't cover 1/3 of Southern California,I would say localization would have a lot to do with it.

Nobody rides across the Netherlands to go to work or school. Or across S. Cal.

Funny how people assume that if they can't ride from NYC to Phila., then they can't make their 5 mile commute either. Laziness.

And unfortunately much of America outside of major cities is one giant, disconnected suburb after another. If each of these areas was connected by even light rail that would be a step towards pushing more mobility via biking/walking/scooters/etc.

It would be a truly massive infrastructure investment to make most of America a safe and comfortable place to ride a bike as a common mode of transportation.

Puhlease. Most of the infrastructure is already in place. It would just need small adjustment and retasking to accomplish. The cost would be seriously minimal.

Take a look at Portland. Typical city with typical infrastructure and yet they have systematically developed a bike culture over the past 20 or 30 years. It takes time but it is very accomplishable.

When going cross country, then ride on the other end. And if they have a regular commute, they'll buy what friends called a 20 guilder bike (I don't know if they use the term now with the euro) and keep it locked at the train station on the other end: bike - train - bike.

:thumbsup:

Hell, I'd invite the Dutch to cycle through West Virginia in January, provided their life insurance policies are paid up.

Peddling a bike in West(BY GOD)Virginia can only be described as either pure FUN or PURE HELL!!!!!

that we are not Holland, and that our existing city layouts and much, much lower population density make the emulation of Holland a rather silly endeavor.

If it's hard or requires some physical exertion, just forget it. It's the American way.

I'll venture I'm one of the fitter posters here, and no stranger to physical exertion.

subjective view of your own physical prowess have to do with bike commuting?

... and moving toward cycling may just help the process along.

Honestly - look forward.

on a single thread.


:rofl:

I think the OP is a great idea! Making it universal? Dream on...

as "What a perfectly silly notion; no thanks."

including most liberals, are a remarkably lazy and selfish lot. Discussing bike commuting brings out the worst in people. I think the contempt that people have for bikers (see #2 above) stems from guilt. They know, as they sit idling their car in traffic, that they are (1) polluting the earth (2) maintaining our dependence on foreign oil and (3) making themselves less healthy.

There's also remarkable agreement among libs and conservatives in hating bikers. It's amazing that in 2010 you can't advocate bike commuting on a very liberal website without the typical lazy American (TM) chiming in about how it's too hot, or too cold, or it's too unsafe.

I consider it a risky mode of transportation in the U.S., where car vs. bike invariably means bad things for the bike. Without bike paths, you are taking your life in your own hands every time you ride. (And yes, every one of my bike-riding friends wore a helmet. And ended up in the E.R. anyway, with either major fractures or concussions.)

"taking your life into your own hands."

As if it's like base-jumping or something.

50,000 people die in cars each year. What's your point?

Leaving your house might be dangerous. Best to stay under the covers.

She came riding down a hill, hit a frost heave, and tumbled to the pavement. Wearing a helmet and all the latest protective gear. Med-evac flew her out, but by then her pupils were already fixed and dilated.

It's not melodrama when I personally am acquainted with THREE athletic, safety-conscious adults who ended up in the E.R. Sharing roads with autos is dangerous. I'm all in favor of bike paths (I've biked in Holland and felt perfectly safe.) But here in the U.S., you'll never convince me it's a safe activity.

you'll stop driving when you see a crash or speak to a few people who have been in a crash, right?

I posted below. In the U.S., it appears that per mile traveled, bike riding is between 3.4 - 11 times more dangerous than driving. And with bike riding, if the other guy makes a mistake (a car) you are truly defenseless.

And the statistics don't even show how many unreported cases of head trauma result among bicyclists -- because those aren't fatalities, they may not be reported. Even if they do result in lifelong disability.

I biked on the narrow, crowded roads of the Portland (ME)peninsula for many years. It can be done safely if both drivers and cyclists are paying attention to the road.

Here in Northern California I can cycle for months without a close encounter of the jerk driver kind. The main reasons are bicycle lanes on most major roads (and drivers are therefore reminding to watch for bicycles) and the fact that I use routing to minimize riding on roads that aren't bike friendly. Above all though, I ride defensively.

Want federal funds? Include those extra paths to ensure that ALL taxpayers get to use it.

Yes - if we design the building codes for it, it will happen naturally and with minimal cost when upgrading or replacement happens on a maintenance schedule anyway.

It's not hard or expensive.

& thought the widespread use of bicycles was awesome. There's even several "Bike & Ride" parking lots along the metro system, where people can bike to the station, secure their bike, then pick up the metro into town. All of the bikes lined up at traffic lights, waiting for the light to turn green (what a shock: bike riders following the rules of the road!), the number of bikes on the streets out-numbering the cars. Loved it!

dg

In major population centers, though, bike theft is a serious problem. An old joke goes that if you need a bike in Amsterdam, go to one of the bike traffic signals and holler "Hey! That's my bike!" Then choose from one of the ones that gets abandoned after people drop them and run away.

but yes, bike theft is quite high in Amsterdam. What I thought was cool was watching traffic stopped at traffic lights, with all the bikers lined up, ready to go when the light turned green.

dg

You can see some of their excuses already, upthread.

Like I said above, you'll find no difference between conservatives and so-called liberals on this issue.

"You'll take my car when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."

Biking is extremely less expensive than owning a car, and you get in shape while you're doing it. No wonder Americans won't do it.

I had no idea it was true but it is.

Jesus, even our anti-biking city (Jacksonville, FL) has basic bike racks on the front of all their buses.

Huge changes in the percentage of people cycling to work have happened in places like Portland, Oregon and Minneapolis, Minnesota, as well as many smaller cities around the country. This has been done with very minimal structural changes. If we ever begin to create more cyclist/pedestrian only "roads," this advancement could make actual headway.

:shrug:

I don't have a car, so I walk or take the bus. I'd consider riding a bike if I could afford a bike that was specifically built for someone my size, but the few of them that are out there are ridiculously expensive. I tried an ordinary "wide seat", but even *it* put far too much pressure on my rear end and inner thighs, and even though I had professional assurance that the bike was the correct size for my height/leg length, I STILL felt dangerously top-heavy and unsteady while riding it. Frankly, there's no WAY I'd be able to ride something like that every day. It felt unsafe, and it hurt.

Build affordable bikes that are designed to ride closer to the ground, with comfortable seats for larger bodies, and you'll see a lot more Americans riding bikes. After all--the majority of the people here are overweight. If you want them to ride bikes, then provide bikes that they CAN ride. Not all of us have bodies that are suited to the "typical" bike design. Make an affordable, mass-produced version of the following bike, and I know that *I* would certainly be interested.

There is really no good way to integrate bikes of any kind onto American roadways. If we had dedicated (i.e. protected by a concrete divider) bike lanes as they do in Amsterdam, then a recumbent bike, as pictured above, would be an excellent choice.

I have a Bike E recumbent like this one.

My main bike is a Surly X-Check steel "utility" bike set up similar to this one (not my bike though):

We've been thinking of getting a couple of Long Haul Truckers, though the Cross Check may actually be the more practical choice.

I got the Cross Check because my frame size on a LHT rides on 26" tires, and I was set on 700c. Both are excellent bikes. The Cross Check is a bit more nimble (not by much), and I suspect the LHT is a bit more comfy.

One safety upgrade I would highly recommend if you go with either bike in a "complete" setup is better brakes!!! The supplied brakes and pads are pretty mediocre, imo.

Fortunately we are both tall so we would get the 700's by default. Thanks for the tip on the brakes, we tend to carry a hefty load frequently while riding so decent brakes are a must.

I have this recumbent

http://www.sunbicycles.com/product_detail.php?short_code=EZ-1+SX+Recumbent&cl1=RECUMBENT

And I had this one (a trike) with a single wheel trailer attached that I hauled small stuff in. I gave it away recently to an old high school friend who needed something stable for physical therapy.

http://www.sunbicycles.com/product_detail.php?short_code=EZ-3+SX+Trike&cl1=RECUMBENT

Flags for visibility on the bikes and trailer, mirrors to see motorists coming from behind. I ride on county roads, and have not had even one close call in five years.

Really, there are ways to make recumbent bikes very visible, and combined with intense driver-education to increase awareness and perception, I think that the problem of visibility could be solved.

They are dropping in price, though still pricier than the regular kind.

TARP - transportation assisted re-exercise program.

I'd love to but I'd be killed.

We need large, dedicated bike lanes. Then, I'd do it.

people die, on average, each year in vehicle crashes. Why don't you have the same apprehension about cars?

From a cycling safety website, cycling is somewhere between 3 - 11 times more dangerous than driving:

How many cyclists die
Risk of death from cycling compared to driving. This is difficult to calculate because we don't know the number of bicycle miles traveled in the U.S. annually, because the sources disagree so strongly:

150 billion
Consumer Product Safety Commission "Bicycle Study (PDF)" (doc. #344), 1991. States 67M cyclists riding 15B hours. Frankly, this figure is not very believable.

6 to 21 billion
U.S. Dept. of Trans. / Fed. Hwy Admin. "The Environmental Benefits of Bicycling and Walking", 1993

6.2 billion
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Household Travel Survey, 2001

So we'll compare risk at both the 6.2 billion and 21 billion miles traveled levels.
784 cyclists died in 2005 (p. 86). That would make the death rate 0.37 to 1.26 deaths per 10 million miles.

33,041 motorists/passengers died (p. 86) from 3 trillion miles traveled (p. 15), making their death rate 0.11 per 10 million miles traveled.

So cyclists are either 3.4x or 11.5x as likely to die as motorists, per passenger mile. Neither conclusion is very happy.

However, all these figures include people who ride dangerously, such as against traffic, at night without lights, on sidewalks, or through red lights/stop signs without adequately checking cross-traffic. A study in Washington State found that 11% cycling fatalities involved wrong-way riding. Subtracting out 11% of the nationwide deaths, we find that cyclists who don't ride against traffic are 3x to 10.2x more likely to get killed than motorists.

More than 80% of fatalities for child bicyclists 14 and under were caused by unsafe riding (riding the wrong way, running signs, etc.), However, I can't subtract out those fatalities, because then I'd be counting some wrong-way fatalities twice, since I already subtracted out wrong-way riding for all cyclists above.

I would like to subtract out fatalities where the cyclist was riding at night without lights, or riding on the sidewalk, or ran a traffic signal, but I can't find the data. If you can find the percent of fatalities (not crashes) caused by these things, please share!

(All figures from NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2005 (PDF) except where otherwise linked. The BTS gives a slightly different figure for car passenger miles, 2.7 trillion. )

The Risks of Cycling. Ken Kifer has a huge page with lots of stats and analysis. His conclusion is that cycling is not dangerous. Ironically, he was later killed while riding his bike.

I see that all the time on side roads. Why do serious cyclists do that? I've almost hit a few by accident.

In a car, you don't notice that stopping and starting requires a lot more energy than simply maintaining a constant speed.

When your legs are providing the energy, however, you notice it very quickly. Stopping and starting wears a cyclist out. Not defending cyclists who do it, but that's the main reason why - because they're tired or trying to conserve energy so that they don't get tired later.

I'm talking about local roads where a bicycle would travel.

I have apprehension about a fender bender but not being killed in my car on local roads. However, if I'm on a bike and a car going 35 hits me then I very well could die.

Bike Boulevards
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2006/08/22/boulevards-and-dutch-bikes-a-perfect-fit/

Bike Lanes are a second step, but should be considered a mostly temporary step. Biker/skater/scooter/walker dedicated routes must be built, if we are to make cycling a true option for a serious portion of the population.

Bike boulevards. Nice.

The best way to get more people on bicycles is to give them dedicated bikeways that are car free.

First, they're talking about making bicycling "an integral part" of the transportation system. For about, oh, I'd say the last 100 years, our transportation system has been geared specifically and nearly exclusively toward use by motor vehicles, i.e. personal automobiles. Apparently the resultant car-centric nature of our transportation system surprises many otherwise canny people.

Second, take a look at what the article says and doesn't say: "The Dutch don't drive every time they leave home." Apparently, they do indeed drive, and many of them probably drive nearly every time. But with a transportation system that values bicycles as well as automobiles, it's a better integrated system that doesn't require a cyclist to take his or her life in hand by venturing out on the street. The Dutch use their bicycles about 27% of the time, leaving 73% of their trips to be made by car. It doesn't specifically mention commuting, but if a person were to bicycle to work once a week or even once every two weeks, that would cut gas consumption by 10% or more (this posits that most of us do most of our driving for our daily commute, which I don't think is unreasonable).

Third, the cost. As it is, license fees, gas taxes and other motorist-paid revenues don't cover anywhere near 100% of the cost of roadways. Car transportation is one of the most heavily subsidized activities in the country, with the cost hidden in the price of consumer goods and just about anywhere else one might look. The cost to lay and maintain a multi-use (bike and pedestrian) path is a pittance compared to the cost of even a two-lane blacktop dedicated to motor vehicle traffic. Also, every cyclist I know also drives a car, because it isn't practical to bicycle everywhere. So the cyclists are contributing their share to road maintenance and upkeep, too. They're just inflicting less wear and tear on the road.

Finally, the eternal struggle between cyclists and motorists. There's plenty of assholery to go around on each side of the divide. But as someone who bicycle-commuted 500 miles this month, I can say that I rarely clash with motorists, mostly because I keep my head on a swivel, always aware of what's going on around me, and I give ample warning of my intention to turn. Motorists around me know where I am because I wear a reflective vest, I keep to the right side of the lane, if I am in the lane, they can tell what I'm going to do because I signal my turns and stops, and I don't dart in and out of traffic. I move predictably and deliberately. That doesn't mean I don't occasionally run into the asshole trying to run me off the road, but it comes with being on the public roads, whether you're in a car or on a bike.

friendly.

ride across the country to go to work? Who commutes 500 miles to work?

:hide:

Seattle is (finally) starting to put in bike boxes. If you've not been here, Seattle is one hilly town, but there are tons of bikers (hipsters on fixies, serious commuters in full neon gear) and some good bike paths, but the main streets are still dangerous. But the mayor bikes to work, and hopefully more changes are coming this way. It can be done, I think, it just takes local commitment.

Get to Republican-ass Bay Village on the way to the beach . . . SORRY. I guess if BV put bike lanes in, the Russkies/Ay-rabs/Terrsts win . . . or something. "Why accommodate an act that can be done perfectly well in a Pathfinder, thank you very much?"

I was in Amsterdam recently, and it's true there are bicycles everywhere. It's a beautiful city. I drove through a fair amount of the Netherlands outside Amsterdam, and there seemed to be a lot fewer bikes as the settlements became more thinly spread. But I don't know-- this is just my personal observation.

--you'd have seen most of the rural bikers on dedicated paths that are not connected to the main highways in any way. It's impossible to get lost, as there are "mushrooms" at every crossing with direction arrows pointing the way and the distance to nearby villages. On Sunday we were slowed down by people in their 80s and 90s wearing full old-fashioned Sunday best clothing riding to church, but they always caught up to us when we stopped to read the next "mushroom."

To be blunt:
The bicycle-loving males here have no clue about women's clothing nor what they must contend with monthly.
They have no clue about women's safety fears, left open and vulnerable on a bike. Maybe Dutch men aren't as psychopathic as American men.
They have no clue about distances in American suburbia for women to bike to grocery stores, as opposed to smaller shops in Dutch villages. Or to cart their kids hither and yon.

Maybe the Dutch women ride bikes more, but they also ride trams, buses, and trains more, too. Where's the thread for these modes?

P.S. I still ride my bike around my development, and I'm sixty. I LOVE bicycles. I try also to be a bit realistic.

Still, I see many, many women biking all over town, here in Portland.

it's a question of the dire necessity of the US to change the way people live and get around before the cost of redesigning our cities to be less car-centric become unbearable (most experts on climate change suggest that in about 10 years time the cost of updating transport systems to hold emissions at non-catastrophic levels will become too great a percent of the GDP to ever actually happen. Basically, we can spend 1% of the GDP to make this happen now, or in 10 years we can spend 25% of the GDP dealing with the consequences.)

I'm female. I'm 34 and have never owned a car. I pay more rent then I have to and live in a smaller place than I could afford so that I don't need a car. It's a question of priorities. And honestly, I'm probably saving money paying an extra $300/month to live near the city center after you factor in the cost of car, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc.

Most new bike paths are designed to be in well-lit and surveilled environments (wiki CPTED if you're interested.)

Why do you think those grocery stores are so far away in the US? I'll give you a hint. The answer has three letters, starts with a "c" and ends with an "r".

Cars created the urban sprawl which you are using as a justification for not biking. And they are the main reason that those other modes haven't been developed in the US.

We have to start making progress on this issue somewhere. And labeling other people "smug" to justify not changing a behavior and a lifestyle which *must* change before the entire planet literally burns out and dies is not a constructive place to start.

Please. There is no comparison whatsoever.

(I've been to the Netherlands several times, including Amsterdam proper at least five.)

I first read the title as:

How to Make Biking Mainstream: Lessons from the Ditch

Which is exactly where I would end up should I try riding a bike again.

/levity

Carry on. :hi:

It was 17 miles one way. Driving distance was actually about 12 miles, but to follow safe bike paths, he had to go about 5 miles out of his way, south then north, instead of just heading northward if he was in a car.

Nevertheless, he was struck by cars twice, by people not even looking where they were turning. One time he he was struck by a guy who ran a stop sign. Fortunately, he "only" suffered a broken collarbone. He got a $25,000 injury settlement from that guy's insurance company.

The main threat to bicyclists are the car drivers who don't even look.