This is all fine, but we already have perfectly good cycling infrastructure. What this video seems to be suggesting is that we create an entirely new and expensive set of infrastructure simply because we are unwilling to integrate cyclists onto our roads.
Even if we start doing this, the harsh truth is that the vast majority of cycling is done on roads - with traffic. If people can't or won't cycle on the road, there is little point in building segregated facilities for them.
I can already do all the riding on my bicycle I want by using these things called "roads". They were built for all vehicles. No special costly, segregated bicycle facilities required. And I can go where I want, not just where the facilities go.
These roads you speak of were not built for "all vehicles". Roads in the US have been designed primarily for automobiles with little to no thought of accommodating other modes of transportation, especially not cycling and walking.
That's the first time I've heard of bike facilities being described as 'costly'. How would they compare with a road, when all the healthcare and social costs have been added up?
Besides, as others have said, people don't like cycling on roads because they are more dangerous. I recently heard it said that of y clild or an 80 year-old can't use a bike path or road, it's not a bike-friendly route, and needs to change
@Korschtal In every study I've seen, roads have been shown to be LESS dangerous than segregated facilities. That may sound unintuitive, but it's true. Bike paths and lanes make timid cyclists 'feel' safer, but they are actually more dangerous. They pull cyclists out of the roadway, making them less visible to motorists, then they increase turning conflicts at intersections. Urban planners know this, but they feel that it's worth it to kill a few more cyclists in order to get more people on bikes
@michaelbohler What percentage of trips are undertaken by bike on the roads?
Do you have cycling rates of over 30%, IE 30% of trips by everyone are by bike?
Look, I ride my bike on the road, when there is no place for bikes, but many people will not. I say, don't copy the places where few people ride a bike. Copy the places where many people ride a bike. These places are The Netherlands, and Denmark, and they have PROPPER bike lanes.
This is all fine, but we already have perfectly good cycling infrastructure. What this video seems to be suggesting is that we create an entirely new and expensive set of infrastructure simply because we are unwilling to integrate cyclists onto our roads.
Even if we start doing this, the harsh truth is that the vast majority of cycling is done on roads - with traffic. If people can't or won't cycle on the road, there is little point in building segregated facilities for them.
BeeryUSA 9 months ago
I like this. Is the music Russian? I like it too.
ookamilu 2 years ago
Nice video. Enjoyed the music, who is it?
mrlunch 3 years ago
I can already do all the riding on my bicycle I want by using these things called "roads". They were built for all vehicles. No special costly, segregated bicycle facilities required. And I can go where I want, not just where the facilities go.
michaelbohler 4 years ago
Yes, but how many cyclists do you see using these roads? Do you regularly see children or elders riding on these roads?
cclarkjones 4 years ago
These roads you speak of were not built for "all vehicles". Roads in the US have been designed primarily for automobiles with little to no thought of accommodating other modes of transportation, especially not cycling and walking.
moorepants 3 years ago
That's the first time I've heard of bike facilities being described as 'costly'. How would they compare with a road, when all the healthcare and social costs have been added up?
Besides, as others have said, people don't like cycling on roads because they are more dangerous. I recently heard it said that of y clild or an 80 year-old can't use a bike path or road, it's not a bike-friendly route, and needs to change
Korschtal 3 years ago
@Korschtal In every study I've seen, roads have been shown to be LESS dangerous than segregated facilities. That may sound unintuitive, but it's true. Bike paths and lanes make timid cyclists 'feel' safer, but they are actually more dangerous. They pull cyclists out of the roadway, making them less visible to motorists, then they increase turning conflicts at intersections. Urban planners know this, but they feel that it's worth it to kill a few more cyclists in order to get more people on bikes
BeeryUSA 9 months ago
@michaelbohler What percentage of trips are undertaken by bike on the roads?
Do you have cycling rates of over 30%, IE 30% of trips by everyone are by bike?
Look, I ride my bike on the road, when there is no place for bikes, but many people will not. I say, don't copy the places where few people ride a bike. Copy the places where many people ride a bike. These places are The Netherlands, and Denmark, and they have PROPPER bike lanes.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
Well done, fun music
cardemclark 4 years ago
Excellent slide show!
lfreedman500 4 years ago
Very interesting. in wich town and for which group was edited?
fernandodare 4 years ago