How the Dutch got their cycle paths

The obsession with helmets in many countries is born of an idea that violence on the roads is inevitable. It's a bit like responding to knife or gun crime by saying everyone should wear kevlar vests, problem solved! Rather than insisting that knives and guns are not used in public spaces. Some people have real problems grasping this. Cars are seen as inherently dangerous, pedestrians and everyone else should (ideally) stay off the roads, and nobody should challenge our "right" to drive where and when we like. But driving is still a choice, albeit coerced since there are so few alternatives, and that choice has profound implications for others. Why should I wear protective clothing because you choose to drive a vehicle which puts me in danger? In the Netherlands, to respond to your point, they have largely eliminated motoring-related danger for cyclists. If anyone is interested in the development of Dutch cycling infrastructure, this is an excellent video: [this video] (How the Dutch got their cycle paths, 6m 29s) David Hembrow has an informative blog about all things cycling in Holland: [link]

Yes, definitely a big problem in the UK too. Although I think support for cycling is perhaps more cross-party than in the US, at least in the political elite. Both the Conservative PM and Mayor of London are nominally pro-bike, also The Times (centre-right paper for those from outside the UK) ran a major campaign on cycle safety, after one of their journalists was killed: [link] Although certainly their freedom to do something serious about the issue is restricted by the anti-metropolitan, anti-liberal vroom vroom demographic. > If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task. On that topic, this mini-documentary is worthwhile looking at: [this video]

I encourage you to watch [this video.]( [this video] ) No one believed they had enough space in the Netherlands either. Turns out they did, with some creative engineering, time, money, and sheer force of will. It's not easy. It takes a long time. But with a steady hand and the ability to cut through lobby interests, it can be done. Note that they didn't need to knock down many buildings in the NL. They did things like reducing 3-4 lanes to 2; making roads and footpaths narrower; reclaiming roads and re-routing vehicle traffic elsewhere; and of course better utilising a lot of wasted curbside land. Plus lots of redrawing of city plans to ensure future building and renovations incorporated the vision.

True story: I moved from southern California to Holland in no small part because of how amenable the country is to cycling. People like to think that cycling is popular here naturally because the country is flat and densely populated. However, it's easy to forget that during the postwar boom years, a major shift toward cars happened and it took a concerted effort of willful resistance and politically non-expedient measures to bring back the bike paths ( [this video] ). Clearly, 1897 was not the last chance the Dutch had to fix their transit system, and with the groundwork they've laid over the years, it now costs only €30 per person in funding annually! ( [link] ) Yet I see very little chance of this happening in California, not because cyclists lack a voice, but because we need to create more dis incentives to driving. This obviously is a political no-go considering that motorists are by far the majority demographic. It's saddening, though, that there is so much willful ignorance (or apathy) with regard to how we've externalized the true cost of driving, whether it's in the form of: - damage to the environment - subsidy to cheap gas prices by the DoD budget (and body count) for controlling the world's oil flow - casualties from motor vehicle accidents - health problems resulting from sedentary lifestyles - zoning rules that require abundant free parking to be available in communities. We'd probably have to see gas hit $10/gallon and parking lots charge $50/day before Americans st

Two things make your objection less relevant. First, Amsterdam had similar problems to the US in the post-war era until the 1970s. That is, the cities were being rebuilt for cars, bicycling infrastructure became worse, and traffic deaths rose. The city had to be re-engineered to get where it is now. See [this video] for a video. Second, and concerning topology, look to Trondheim, Norway as an example of a bike-friendly city with hills. And from what I've read, Portland, Oregon is also pretty bike friendly, with similar topology to Seattle. So, why can't Seattle be more like Portland in this respect?

To the best of my knowledge, you are correct that every US city is horrible in this regard. This was not by accident. To your comment "If we know it works how come no one has done it? " - 1) We have done it. Amsterdam fought like hell for it [this video] . Now they have one of the finest cities in the world in which to move about. Copenhagen at rush hour handles loads of people well because they have built systems that move people efficiently and safely. And pleasantly. Even driving there is nice, paradoxically. [link] 2) People fight it because they believe they should be able to drive anywhere they like, for free, and without interruption - and then even store their car for free as well! The ideal situation is to be the only driver, but of course that only works if driving is very expensive (something I support). In LA people are so furious at the idea of not being able to drive everywhere they shout down (almost) anything resembling progress. Things like Elon's tunnel are used as ammunition in these fights. After all, why should we build bike lanes when we're getting these kickass tunnels!?? This is part of why I left LA. As for your latter point - yes, it is very much my concern. We have similar views regarding Facebook and Co. but given that Elon's tunnels are unlikely to actually make life better (note my earlier comment regarding induced demand) this is taking resources from actual solutions we could do right now, cheaply, and that we know work.

Yes, ultimately infrastructure is the real solution here. Take the Netherlands for example. We interviewed folks from nearly every country on this, and the response in the Netherlands was heartwarming: Every person we talked to had never even heard of someone being hit by a car while riding a bike (or walking). And after the interview, they interviewed a bunch of their friends/family/etc. and came back to us with those results: Still the same, not a single story of an accident. And this all goes back to the way the Dutch design infrastructure. A ton has been written/filmed/etc about this, but here's an example: [this video]