But that can be thin end of the wedge Dirk.
First they make you wish for separation.
Then it is ‘suggested’ that it is the best thing.
Then it becomes mandatory in a few places.
Then mandatory everywhere.
And suddenly you have lost you ‘right’ to go where you please and a whole lot of the country becomes inaccessible by bike.
I prefer to have the ability to ride where I like and leave it that I’m only banned from Motorways [Freeway(US), Autobahn (DE)].
Much better if metal box drivers ONLY allowed on Motorways – a much better solution 🙂
You’re right – but (almost) no one will hear that here…
And even if it should be only an exception – madatory separation is the most common way in our cities…
Mandatory separation, a law that was passed ahead of the 1936 Olympics to show to foreigners how “modern” the reich was and that cars could be ridden on every street (not only the autobahn) unfaced by annoying cyclists. Freedom dies with security.
Making cycling lanes mandatory is mainly a cover for terrible design. They may or may not be technically mandatory in Copenhagen (I don’t know), but no one cares, they are the best way to get around. The North American approach historically though, is to make terrible “multi-use” park paths that go nowhere and intersect badly with streets. And then couple that with mandatory-use bylaws. It’s like helmets, the second you make it mandatory you turn a good thing into a tragedy.
An example of what Jay says can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmdrHwpN59I
Many cops do not understand bikes and Velomobiles least of all.
What people do not understand they are afraid of so they attack.
This idea is behind many movie storylines…
The biggest problem with separated or “protected” bike lanes is they’re designed by non-cyclists with little or no input by transportation cyclists. Thus riders are presented with such horrors as counter-flow painted lanes, dead-end routes that lead riders to impassible obstacles, mandatory use of routes that go nowhere anyone needs to go, and winding multi-use “recreational” paths to share with pedestrians, rollerbladers, and dog-walkers.
The mindset of these designers relegates bicycles to toy- or at best recreational- status. Their goal is not rider safety but keeping automobile usage unencumbered by road sharing while allowing drivers to carry on -as always- in their steel cocoons.
There’s no need for a special cycling infrastructure. It would be quite sufficient if car-drivers would accept bicycles on “their” roads.
Especially in city traffic, no one will be slowed down by a bicycle, because at the next trafic light, everybody will meet again…
That’s true Dirk. ‘Top Gear’ had a race across rush hour London.
Bicycle, car, public transport and a high power speed boat.
The cyclist was an easy winner!
The proper keyword here is “infrastructure”. Everyone wants to have it (as seen from Europe). Should be thankful to the kickstand authors to make the constructive counterpoint clear and obvious: All traffic is a social experience first of all, not a technical one. The first question is then about an appropriate balance of rights. Being able to share the road is a kind competence. Separation kills this competence.
To each and everyone of the so-called progressives, who claim bicycle use and by this is lobbying just for INFRASTRUCTURE (you hear nothing else but this over here) it should be made clear, that they are killing cycling in the longer term. When they esteem themselves progressives. they are just stupid opportunists (e.g. look in Germany at left and at green parties, schizophreny at its best.)
Now I’m all for bicycles, and safe riding infrastructure – BUT – I always have to laugh when bicyclists complain about having to share a “MUP” with pedestrians. Its the exact same way car drivers feel about bicyclists!
It’s true Zorba. When modes of transport mix in a high-density corridor, the *only* safe and effective way is for everyone to slow down to the slowest mode. Which, of course, can be extremely frustrating for the faster modes -whether that’s cyclists or drivers. This has worked well in some European downtowns where throughput isn’t actually important, and slowing everything down actually benefits the local economy.
When it comes to busy arterial routes, good separation by speed (the Copenhagen model), allows each mode to flow smoothly. The trick, of course, is that 90% of the engineering effort needs to go into resolving conflict points -i.e., intersections. Again, something that is completely neglected elsewhere.
Very interesting discussion on this one. I had always just accepted MUP’s as “the best thing” for cyclists, but now see another side of it. I haven’t seen the downsides of them where I live, I actually prefer them. The only bike lanes designated on our city’s roads are treated as turning lanes or wide shoulders for cars – no thank you. I’ll stick to the sidewalk there (hardly used by pedestrians anyway).
I loved the comment about sharing MUP’s with pedestrians – I totaled a bike when one cut me off, so I understand the feeling. Like a driver getting ticked off when a cyclist blows through a controlled intersection without regard to traffic laws. Shared use of roads or separate paths requires respect from all.
I heard about the German “Bicycle Autobahn” or RS1 and it poses yet more arguments for separate paths for each user (cars, bicycles and pedestrians) – pedestrians are separated from cyclists. It focuses heavily on the use of bicycles as alternatives to car traffic congestion, reduced carbon emissions, improved health and revitalization of the German Rust Belt. When bike paths receive the same amount of attention to planning, engineering and funding (proportionally) as roads for automobiles, I can’t see any detriment to them. Purpose built bike paths rather than “build a path because we’re building a new highway and are required to.” The latter results in the problems mentioned above. But even in Germany it’s hard to get funding for projects like the former.
Maybe small steps are better?
Here in Germany, they pray for separation instead for beeing accepted on the road!
But that can be thin end of the wedge Dirk.
First they make you wish for separation.
Then it is ‘suggested’ that it is the best thing.
Then it becomes mandatory in a few places.
Then mandatory everywhere.
And suddenly you have lost you ‘right’ to go where you please and a whole lot of the country becomes inaccessible by bike.
I prefer to have the ability to ride where I like and leave it that I’m only banned from Motorways [Freeway(US), Autobahn (DE)].
Much better if metal box drivers ONLY allowed on Motorways – a much better solution 🙂
You’re right – but (almost) no one will hear that here…
And even if it should be only an exception – madatory separation is the most common way in our cities…
Mandatory separation, a law that was passed ahead of the 1936 Olympics to show to foreigners how “modern” the reich was and that cars could be ridden on every street (not only the autobahn) unfaced by annoying cyclists. Freedom dies with security.
Making cycling lanes mandatory is mainly a cover for terrible design. They may or may not be technically mandatory in Copenhagen (I don’t know), but no one cares, they are the best way to get around. The North American approach historically though, is to make terrible “multi-use” park paths that go nowhere and intersect badly with streets. And then couple that with mandatory-use bylaws. It’s like helmets, the second you make it mandatory you turn a good thing into a tragedy.
An example of what Jay says can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmdrHwpN59I
Many cops do not understand bikes and Velomobiles least of all.
What people do not understand they are afraid of so they attack.
This idea is behind many movie storylines…
The biggest problem with separated or “protected” bike lanes is they’re designed by non-cyclists with little or no input by transportation cyclists. Thus riders are presented with such horrors as counter-flow painted lanes, dead-end routes that lead riders to impassible obstacles, mandatory use of routes that go nowhere anyone needs to go, and winding multi-use “recreational” paths to share with pedestrians, rollerbladers, and dog-walkers.
The mindset of these designers relegates bicycles to toy- or at best recreational- status. Their goal is not rider safety but keeping automobile usage unencumbered by road sharing while allowing drivers to carry on -as always- in their steel cocoons.
Change only happens when people stand up for it and fight for it. That is how The Netherlands got proper cycling infrastructure. See:
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/how-the-dutch-got-their-cycling-infrastructure/
That is how Jim Crow was overthrown in the US South. People have to put their bodies on the line and fight for change.
There’s no need for a special cycling infrastructure. It would be quite sufficient if car-drivers would accept bicycles on “their” roads.
Especially in city traffic, no one will be slowed down by a bicycle, because at the next trafic light, everybody will meet again…
That’s true Dirk. ‘Top Gear’ had a race across rush hour London.
Bicycle, car, public transport and a high power speed boat.
The cyclist was an easy winner!
Oddly enough, this discussion in unheard of in Japan, where most riders do it for practicality. And they don’t have dedicated cycle paths, AFAIK.
The proper keyword here is “infrastructure”. Everyone wants to have it (as seen from Europe). Should be thankful to the kickstand authors to make the constructive counterpoint clear and obvious: All traffic is a social experience first of all, not a technical one. The first question is then about an appropriate balance of rights. Being able to share the road is a kind competence. Separation kills this competence.
To each and everyone of the so-called progressives, who claim bicycle use and by this is lobbying just for INFRASTRUCTURE (you hear nothing else but this over here) it should be made clear, that they are killing cycling in the longer term. When they esteem themselves progressives. they are just stupid opportunists (e.g. look in Germany at left and at green parties, schizophreny at its best.)
Now I’m all for bicycles, and safe riding infrastructure – BUT – I always have to laugh when bicyclists complain about having to share a “MUP” with pedestrians. Its the exact same way car drivers feel about bicyclists!
Well said Zorba!
It’s true Zorba. When modes of transport mix in a high-density corridor, the *only* safe and effective way is for everyone to slow down to the slowest mode. Which, of course, can be extremely frustrating for the faster modes -whether that’s cyclists or drivers. This has worked well in some European downtowns where throughput isn’t actually important, and slowing everything down actually benefits the local economy.
When it comes to busy arterial routes, good separation by speed (the Copenhagen model), allows each mode to flow smoothly. The trick, of course, is that 90% of the engineering effort needs to go into resolving conflict points -i.e., intersections. Again, something that is completely neglected elsewhere.
Very interesting discussion on this one. I had always just accepted MUP’s as “the best thing” for cyclists, but now see another side of it. I haven’t seen the downsides of them where I live, I actually prefer them. The only bike lanes designated on our city’s roads are treated as turning lanes or wide shoulders for cars – no thank you. I’ll stick to the sidewalk there (hardly used by pedestrians anyway).
I loved the comment about sharing MUP’s with pedestrians – I totaled a bike when one cut me off, so I understand the feeling. Like a driver getting ticked off when a cyclist blows through a controlled intersection without regard to traffic laws. Shared use of roads or separate paths requires respect from all.
I heard about the German “Bicycle Autobahn” or RS1 and it poses yet more arguments for separate paths for each user (cars, bicycles and pedestrians) – pedestrians are separated from cyclists. It focuses heavily on the use of bicycles as alternatives to car traffic congestion, reduced carbon emissions, improved health and revitalization of the German Rust Belt. When bike paths receive the same amount of attention to planning, engineering and funding (proportionally) as roads for automobiles, I can’t see any detriment to them. Purpose built bike paths rather than “build a path because we’re building a new highway and are required to.” The latter results in the problems mentioned above. But even in Germany it’s hard to get funding for projects like the former.
http://m.dw.com/en/germanys-bicycle-autobahn-pedaling-nowhere/a-19155674