It's been a while, mostly because I'm working on some bigger things lately, but I wanted to get something out there this weekend.
Thanks JohnDuh (if you're still around) for the motivation.
mk, you mentioned you didn't see this infographic I made when we met. Forgot to link it to you until now!
There are substantial impediments to adoption, unfortunately. I ride maybe ~50 miles a week in one of the most bike-hostile cities in America: Los Angeles. Even here, the mayor set forth to make 1700 miles of bike paths in 2011. The problem: Those bike paths eliminate parking, in most cases, or retail space in others. The Netherlands incorporated bicycles as they advanced. Thus, super-excellent bike infrastructure. Most of America incorporated after automobiles: as such, a car infrastructure is all it's ever known. And while I've discovered I can get into Hollywood quicker on two human-powered wheels than I can on two gas-powered wheels (and a good 20 minutes faster than I can by car), it's a virtually impossible task without Google whispering in your ear and telling you which surface-street-you've-never-heard-of to turn up next. It's a 14-mile trip - essentially crossing all of San Francisco on this map: Which, if I'm not mistaken, would pretty much take you from one end of Amsterdam to the other with plenty of room to spare. in order to meet someone for lunch. I'd ride to work if I could, despite the fact that it's 26 miles. The problem is this little bit of geography: Which must be crossed on roads that look like this. Don't get me wrong: I'm a big fan of anything that makes it safer, anything that makes it better. I got broadsided by an AT&T truck last month because my "bike lane" happened to cross the onramp for the Pacific Coast Highway. But I simply don't see a "dutch style" solution to the problem where I live.
True. America is maybe one of the most car-centered nations in the world. LA in particular has a terrible type of density: too dense to have enough room for highways, but too sprawling for transit / bike infrastructure to work really well. There isn't one cookie cutter solution that works everywhere, which is why I tried to keep the ideas on the conceptual level. I do think it's possible: most of LA is flat (unless you're a rich mofo) and bike paths could be a great feeder for the subway stations. But it requires policy and forward-thinking investments, something that's easier said then done.There are substantial impediments to adoption, unfortunately.
FTFY. In all seriousness, more solutions are mo betta. And hey, wonders may never cease. We now have subways that actually don't suck and even go some useful places. We are getting more bike lanes, even if they are of the "play in traffic" variety. And my commute was lightning quick yesterday for the simple reason that most people were at home watching football. No, not that kind, that kind is called handegg. The kind the rest of the world watches. I guess that's what happens when you sign Beckham.LA in particular is terrible
I love the idea of separated bike lanes, but as a cyclist in Texas I've seen a lot of people in the cycling community voice concerns that it fosters the already overwhelming motorist attitude that "bikes do not belong on the road." I don't know if this is true or not. If a city committed to a comprehensive network of separated bike lanes by x year, I would think cyclists would find it worthy of enduring some years of even worse animosity when they're forced to share the road with cars or "take the lane." In many cities, no such plan is anywhere on the horizon. In cities like mine, Houston, sprawling and car-worshipping and full of hatred toward cyclists, it feels like a pipe dream.
There's a subtle difference here that's important to note. I don't think bikes belong on the road, but I do think bikes deserve roadspace. Saying "bikes do not belong on the road" could just as well mean "I don't want to sacrifice my car space for bike space". That being said, I think the hatred for bikes by motorists mainly exists because bikes are a liability to them. "These bikes infiltrate my road space!". With segregated lanes, it doesn't look like they use the road at all, and there's no direct threat to motorists. Who would be angry at bicyclists if you hardly even noticed them? Imagine pedestrians not having a sidewalk, and being forced to walk on the road between the cars. They shouldn't be on the road for obvious reasons. If you treat bikes simply as faster pedestrians, doesn't it make sense to also exclude them from the road? I've written about bikes before. There's more work to be done than just infrastructure: proper policies can do a lot to improve the hostile relation between cars and bikes.
Also, veen, I wonder if people are less likely to wear helmets when the lanes are more separated? -Just a curiosity but my guess is they are. What's the helmet situation in NL like?cars do not belong on the road."
-Do you mean bikes do not belong on the road?
Nobody wears helmets, except maybe small children who fall over as much as they bike. Biking here is very safe, so people don't see it as dangerous at all. Wearing helmets here has been shown to actually increase the risk, as people with helmets tend to overestimate how protected they are, and thus bike more reckless.
Portland tried adding these things called bike green boxes at the most dangerous intersections. They are large areas at the front of dangerous intersections painted green in which only bikes are allowed to be on a red light. So far it hasn't worked out so well. City Finds Bike Boxes May Actually Increase Crashes Personally I won't ride my bike in areas that need things like bike boxes to stay safe. I commute 2 days a week on my bike for a total of twenty miles mostly in moderate to low traffic areas.