Electric cars

[Berkut]

Yep. The Netherlands vs UK is particularly interesting. Go back to the 50s and the situation was totally the opposite with the UK being a very cycling friendly place with loads of great bike infrastructure whilst the Netherlands was the car filled smelly shit hole.
Then the UK caught the American disease and the Dutch woke up.


I'm sure we've all seen this before.



Berkuts reply doesn't make sense.

That picture doesnt make sense.

It does not account for time. Absent congestion, the cars are going to inhabit their space in the picture for a small fraction of the time the bikes will.

If you factor IN congestion, then an equivalent number of bikes will have the same problem of not being able to move easily.

I think there is probably some kind of curve here, where as an urban area gets more dense and needs to be able to move more people further distances, cars become the optimal means. But it reaches a point where they become inadequate, and probably end up making the problem worse - which is where the actual solution is probably more public transportation.

In more spread out urban areas, like what we mostly have in the USA, the entire argument is moot in 95% of the places it is relevant. You are not going to get any significant number of people biking back and forth to work every day if it is a 20 mile trip each way.

I don't have any dog in this fight. I have no problem with bikes. But I have never seen an actual argument from a non-bike enthusiast that bikes are actually a viable means of getting a lot of people around in most scenarios.

[crazy canuck]

Yep. The Netherlands vs UK is particularly interesting. Go back to the 50s and the situation was totally the opposite with the UK being a very cycling friendly place with loads of great bike infrastructure whilst the Netherlands was the car filled smelly shit hole.
Then the UK caught the American disease and the Dutch woke up.


I'm sure we've all seen this before.



Berkuts reply doesn't make sense.

That picture doesnt make sense.

It does not account for time. Absent congestion, the cars are going to inhabit their space in the picture for a small fraction of the time the bikes will.

If you factor IN congestion, then an equivalent number of bikes will have the same problem of not being able to move easily.

From these comments I can only assume you have spent no time riding a bike in a city that has a bike culture.

[Josquius]

That picture doesnt make sense.

It does not account for time. Absent congestion, the cars are going to inhabit their space in the picture for a small fraction of the time the bikes will.

If you factor IN congestion, then an equivalent number of bikes will have the same problem of not being able to move easily.

Congestion is part of it clearly.
What cc says here.
In Amsterdam and other bike heavy places it's rare I saw traffic jams of bikes. And then they rarely had people stuck in them for more than a minute or two. And note this is without them controlling the roads, using considerably smaller spaces than cars.

I don't think your maths add up on this.
It doesn't matter if a bike takes longer in a given space if everyone else is going slow too. It's a mix of speeds that can cause congestion, not merely going a bit slower.
Also note bikes take up far less space than cars and it's pretty easy to get off and walk them around obstacles unlike with cars. You'll never see someone holding up a line of traffic parking a bike.

I think there is probably some kind of curve here, where as an urban area gets more dense and needs to be able to move more people further distances, cars become the optimal means. But it reaches a point where they become inadequate, and probably end up making the problem worse - which is where the actual solution is probably more public transportation.

Ideally its a combination imo. Public transport for longer distances but for short trips bikes are a lot more convenient.

In more spread out urban areas, like what we mostly have in the USA, the entire argument is moot in 95% of the places it is relevant. You are not going to get any significant number of people biking back and forth to work every day if it is a 20 mile trip each way.

Beware of falling into the trap of thinking that because this is all you know it's the natural state of affairs and must be accommodated.
This in itself is a key part of the problem to be fixed.
Lest we forget even in americas history this is a fairly recent deviation from the norm.

I don't have any dog in this fight. I have no problem with bikes. But I have never seen an actual argument from a non-bike enthusiast that bikes are actually a viable means of getting a lot of people around in most scenarios.

Really?
I see it all the time.

[Maladict]

Yep. The Netherlands vs UK is particularly interesting. Go back to the 50s and the situation was totally the opposite with the UK being a very cycling friendly place with loads of great bike infrastructure whilst the Netherlands was the car filled smelly shit hole.
Then the UK caught the American disease and the Dutch woke up.


I'm sure we've all seen this before.



Berkuts reply doesn't make sense.

That picture doesnt make sense.

It does not account for time. Absent congestion, the cars are going to inhabit their space in the picture for a small fraction of the time the bikes will.

If you factor IN congestion, then an equivalent number of bikes will have the same problem of not being able to move easily.

From these comments I can only assume you have spent no time riding a bike in a city that has a bike culture.

Yeah, look at the stress and chaos just a few cars can create in an otherwise smooth flow of traffic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8

[Tamas]

Its funny how bicycles were the vehicles in widespread use before cars. Yet here we are. I wonder what caused entire societies to choose the more inconvenient option.

[Sheilbh]

Its funny how bicycles were the vehicles in widespread use before cars. Yet here we are. I wonder what caused entire societies to choose the more inconvenient option.

It varies - in Europe a huge part was the war. And in the 1950s the car was the future, it was modernity. It's not a million miles away from the reason that so many cities all around the world have similar brutalist blocks from a similar era - the utopian views/ideals of urban planners and architects.

Needless to say, like brutalist blocks, that car-centric urban infrastructure has fallen out of favour now in many cities - the ones who were best able to escape the urban highway projects are now often the ones that are doing the best. Big infrastructure projects do not happen because of market forces alone (at least in the 20th century) - they happen because what government funds which is based on what government (and the expert committees of Robert Moses and chums) think is best. Now I love a brutalist block, obviously, but the fact that everyone built them for a while doesn't tell us much (same with indentikit international regeneration projects now).

Truth is I think after the 20th century experiments I feel like the things that make urban life work well are probably the opposite things you need for cars.

[crazy canuck]

Its funny how bicycles were the vehicles in widespread use before cars. Yet here we are. I wonder what caused entire societies to choose the more inconvenient option.

Never properly pricing the cost of the energy needed to fuel them?

[Josquius]

Its funny how bicycles were the vehicles in widespread use before cars. Yet here we are. I wonder what caused entire societies to choose the more inconvenient option.

A person is smart.
People are stupid.

Plus the whole great street car scandal and other related crap from the car companies and misguided governments and urban planners.

[Jacob]

Transportation networks are heavily dependent on the network effect. One shitty bike path (or stretch of road, or busline, or railroad track, any other form of transportation) that goes from nowhere to nowhere is going to be shitty in terms of efficiency. For any given piece of transport infrastructure to be worthwhile it needs to be connected to a large network that can get people conveniently to and from places they actually want to go.

Looking at one stretch of road and a bike path and judging the volume of people going across that one specific line is not a very useful for judging the overall efficacy of either system. The volume of traffic that flows through (and that needs to flow through) depends very heavily on what they're connected to.

Also, changing traffic infrastructure and patterns is something that takes years if not decades, so something that may seem kind of silly now may turn out to be important and useful as a large plan unfolds (i.e. if more bike routes are going to flow through the spot it makes sense to have a dedicated bike path there, especially if the roadway is less critical for the cars).

That's not to say that there can't be poor decisions made on how to build bike infrastructure (or car infrastructure), but typically when it comes to overall efficiency that's something that should be looked in a larger context.

[Jacob]

I don't have any dog in this fight. I have no problem with bikes. But I have never seen an actual argument from a non-bike enthusiast that bikes are actually a viable means of getting a lot of people around in most scenarios.

In Copenhagen, fully 62% of commutes are by bike.

Seems a pretty viable argument to me.

Though, to be fair, it's not in "most scenarios". It's in one specific scenario, where political (and infrastructure and economical) decisions have been made to support that. But I think that's sufficient. When we're discussing bike lanes in a particular place, we probably shouldn't be deciding whether they're good or bad based on whether "it's viable in most scenarios" merely whether it's viable in that particular scenario.

And I think it's been shown that biking as a means of mass transport can be absolutely viable in a reasonable number of places, if those places commit to it. But to be fair, that commitment is probably not just about "building bike routes".

[Sheilbh]

Yep - in London we are getting better but it is still too much a thing for enthusiasts and MAMILs with rage issues.

I actually think the key is making it more diverse/accessible - so getting older people to cycle, more women, more kids and parents etc. Those groups in opinion polls and focus groups on cycling are most afraid of just being on the road/want separate cycle infrastructure. But I think they are the key from turning it from a minority purssuit of the confident to something social.

[garbon]

Is there much interest among London residents to take up cycling? I'll admit I never hear the topic come up except among cycling enthusiasts.

[Josquius]

This is a mindset problem that's pretty common amongst people who never cycle. They see a divide between cyclists and non cyclists.
In places where cycling is a common way to get around like Amsterdam they don't look at it that way. You don't ride a bike because you're a cyclist, you do it purely because it's the most convenient way to get to where you're going.
I'd look at it as less are people keen to take up cycling and more do people want a more accessible, convenient, safer and pollution free city.

[Sheilbh]

Is there much interest among London residents to take up cycling? I'll admit I never hear the topic come up except among cycling enthusiasts.

Yeah definitely. People want to cycle - there's regular TfL/Mayor reports on cycling and there's generaly quite a lot of people who would like to do it. It may not be for every trip or become a lifestyle choice as it is with enthusiasts but there's lots of desire to be able to cycle into work.

The overwhelming reason people (with over two thirds saying it's the big issue) is that they feel the roads are too dangerous for cyclists. That's why every time there's new cycle infrastructure there tends to be quite a big increase in use. It's definitely something I've had - I cycled during lockdowns, I cycled to work during holiday seasons when the roads are too busy but I find the rest of the year too stressful/scary as non-enthusiast.

[garbon]

This is a mindset problem that's pretty common amongst people who never cycle. They see a divide between cyclists and non cyclists.
In places where cycling is a common way to get around like Amsterdam they don't look at it that way. You don't ride a bike because you're a cyclist, you do it purely because it's the most convenient way to get to where you're going.
I'd look at it as less are people keen to take up cycling and more do people want a more accessible, convenient, safer and pollution free city.

I wouldn't. I'd prefer less cars in London but also have no desire to cycle. It wouldn't be more convenient for me as someone who doesn't live centre city.