Myths and Rebuttals

[Ian Cooper]

Comment: Your right to the road won't mean much if a lorry is bearing down on you.

Rebuttal: The same applies to you.

The comment assumes that motorists are invincible, whereas studies show that in practice they are no safer than cyclists on the road. In fact, the data suggests that over a lifetime, cycling is nearly twice as safe as driving.

 

[Manifietso]

Myth: "You should be in the cycle lane!"

Rebuttal: No, its your choice as to whether or not to use a cycle lane.

I would reply "you should be in the Netherlands" - where it is indeed law to use the cycle lane if there is one, and where indeed there is no need to consider doing otherwise!

 

[downfader]

I would reply "you should be in the Netherlands" - where it is indeed law to use the cycle lane if there is one, and where indeed there is no need to consider doing otherwise!

citation needed...

 

[BentMikey]

Yeah, Manifietso is wrong on that one.

 

[Manifietso]

citation needed...

Best I can do is refer you to Wikipedia reference, but I'm afraid that page too is asking for a citation. Have seen claim made several times by Dutch commentators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

With regards to "no need", that is a simple opinion based on observations on the standard of cycle facilities in a number of Dutch cities. The widely quoted figure is that 27% of journeys in the Netherlands are made by bike. I spent two days in the Netherlands in March and did not observe any cyclists using anything other than the correct facilities - ie no pavement riding, no riding on the roads when a cycle lane existed.

Sorry I can't be more specific, but I think both these claims are reasonably well accepted.

 

[downfader]

Best I can do is refer you to Wikipedia reference, but I'm afraid that page too is asking for a citation. Have seen claim made several times by Dutch commentators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands

With regards to "no need", that is a simple opinion based on observations on the standard of cycle facilities in a number of Dutch cities. The widely quoted figure is that 27% of journeys in the Netherlands are made by bike. I spent two days in the Netherlands in March and did not observe any cyclists using anything other than the correct facilities - ie no pavement riding, no riding on the roads when a cycle lane existed.

Sorry I can't be more specific, but I think both these claims are reasonably well accepted.

Karl (of Karl On Sea blog and tweeter) did have some corrospondence from the Dutch cycling body that dealt with the pro riders out there that seemed to suggest there is still a right to the road.

I thought there was no right myself a few years back, but was given short shrift from a Dutchman on another forum.

 

[Manifietso]

I only heard it recently from a different Dutchman in a different forum and then read the Wikipedia article. As we all know, strange men in forums and Wikipedia references are not always accurate, so I am happy to stand corrected in the absense of a definitive answer from the Dutch government!

 

[BentMikey]

If your bike is wider than 75cm then you definitely don't have to use the path in the Netherlands.

 

[Manifietso]

Well they also allow scooters (30mph tops?), something I found a little off-putting when over there, but I imagine you would get used to them fairly quickly. There must be some good discussion on why this is (presumably it is a lot safer for the scooters), but I would see it as a small price to pay if everything else was up to their standards.

 

[Ian Cooper]

I was also under the impression that bike facility use was mandatory (where such facilities exist) in NL. This site says use is mandatory:

http://amsterdam.angloinfo.com/information/37/cycling.asp

"Rules for Cyclists
Cycling paths: cyclists must use the cycling path if there is one. Cycling paths that are marked with rectangular blue signs, marked fietspad are not compulsory. Where there is no cycling path, cyclists may cycle on the road along with cars."

Thankfully, even in the NL, bike facilities are still not ubiquitous. Most of the cycling space in the NL is roads - and long may it be so.

 

[BentMikey]

I used to quite regularly see club rides done on roads that had cycle paths alongside.

 

[Manifietso]

Thankfully, even in the NL, bike facilities are still not ubiquitous. Most of the cycling space in the NL is roads - and long may it be so.

It isn't a question of most or of them being ubiquitous. What matters is that you can make a safe journey from A to B without having to mix with dangerous traffic. In the Netherlands, you will find an alternative option to almost all heavily trafficked highways, and in the newer towns you will also see cycle tracks running parallel to most of the through roads. In Amsterdam, where space is tighter, sharing of the roads is more common.

The argument about usage of these facilities being compulsory does not seem to be a big deal if the facilities are provided and if they are of a good enough quality for cyclists to be happy to use them. From my brief observations, the road bikers, whilst rare, were happy to use the parallel lanes too.

 

[BentMikey]

Better try a bit harder then.

 

[Ian Cooper]

What matters is that you can make a safe journey from A to B without having to mix with dangerous traffic.

I don't see traffic as 'dangerous' any more than I see stairs or electricity as 'dangerous'. Sure, these things can kill, but I've negotiated all of them without accident for over 40 years. I'm not about to avoid roads simply because some timid cyclists see them as deadly - and I'm certainly not going to sit quietly while some government tries to force me off the road (which we in the UK and the US use by right).

In the Netherlands, you will find an alternative option to almost all heavily trafficked highways...

You assume I want an alternative option. I don't. I'm a grown-up - I can handle the road just fine. I commute on a six-lane highway every weekday - I'm perfectly comfortable handling complicated lane-changes on such roads on a regular basis..

From my brief observations, the road bikers, whilst rare, were happy to use the parallel lanes too.

I'm sure many are - I'd say most cyclists have been gulled into being happy to use such 'apartheid' facilities - the equivalent of a 'blacks only' drinking water fountain, such as could be found in South Africa until quite recently. Many sincerely believe that bike facilities are built for the convenience of cyclists. I don't feel that way. I've cycled a good thousand miles in the Netherlands, and I can assure you, I was not 'happy to use the parallel lanes' - the parallel lanes were slow, dangerously narrow and had a surface which was generally of poorer quality compared to the road. Dutch roads are perfectly good - so if I prefer the road, why should I be forced to use the bike lane?

Segregation, whether race-based or vehicle-based, is founded in bigotry. It cannot serve the needs of the group it subjugates. Sadly, there are plenty of 'Uncle Tom' cyclists who are glad to cowtow to 'Massa' and stay off the roads.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

You assume I want an alternative option. I don't. I'm a grown-up - I can handle the road just fine. I commute on a six-lane highway every weekday - I'm perfectly comfortable handling complicated lane-changes on such roads on a regular basis.

I'm a chicken: if you don't want the alternative, motor traffic free route, give me it, I'll take it gladly