Netherlands

[User169]

A further problem is that most of the roads in British towns and cities date from medieval times and were designed for pack horses and horse-drawn wagons. Look at the typical medieval bridge - it has refuges built into the tops of the cutwaters so that pedestrians didn't get pushed over the parapet by fast-moving widely-loaded pack horses, which were the equivalents of juggernauts before infernal combustion. It is not possible to widen our streets to create space for construction of cycle lanes in the way it's done in the Netherlands.

Streets don’t get widenened. Space is taken away from motorists to make room for bike lanes. I can think of a few roads which were dual carriageways, but are now single lanes with bike lanes alongside.

Ed: typo

 

[Johnno260]

Tell me the name of that town or city and I'll move there! I'm afraid the cyclists who frequent web fora are in a tiny minority amongst cyclists generally and even tinier amongst road users. The general public views cyclists as, at best, a lawless nuisance and at worst, the scum of the Earth fit only to be pushed off the road.

Pretty much this, all my work mates think I’m crazy and a complete nuisance.

My last two bike rides in UK weren't enjoyable in the slightest, one almost ended in a fight after I had a can of drink thrown at me and the kids in the car hurling abuse, the last one again kids with a P plate and a coke bottle with what looked like urine thrown at me.

 

[swansonj]

We have things like contraflow cycling, dead end streets with cycle cut throughs, parking and road space being taken off motor vehicles and handed over to cyclists and pedestrians. Good examples that cycling is taken seriously in the city - and now the wider county.

I had cause to both drive and cycle in Oxford last week. Oxford also has quite a few cycling contraflows, cut throughs etc. But what I really felt was the changed culture on the roads that comes from the sheer number of cyclists (something I felt produced a similarity to Amsterdam). Because there are just so many cyclists, motorists seem to accept that there are quite likely to be cyclists in front of them or behind them or appearing out of nowhere beside them - and they modify their behaviour accordingly, to be more careful, much more likely to give space, much more likely to accommodate cyclists doing silly things, much less likely to get impatient - even on roads that don't have cycling-specific infrastructure. Clearly the two things go hand in hand - infrastructure and numbers - but I really felt that the one thing that tips the balance in cyclists' favour is more cyclists. The Netherlands have cracked that and it has become self-sustaining.

 

[tribanjules]

Th
[QUOTE 5282010, member: 45"]This is a fantastic development in Birmingham. There's no low-traffic route into the centre from the south, apart from the Rea Valley and canal routes which are slow and long, and this fixes the problem. I'll be interested to see how they get bikes on and off the path seeing as it's in the middle of a busy road.[/QUOTE]

The route along Bristol road used to be the tramway up to lickey.
I happily cycle from B13 into town along the Rea route.
Prefer Netherlands tho.
Amsterdam around vondelpark is a scream

 

[confusedcyclist]

It's nothing to do with population density, it's to do with the flatness of the land and even the stupidest Dutch citizen understanding that it's quicker, cheaper, healthier and more convenient on a bicycle. Unfortunately quite large parts of the UK are hilly so only a tiny tiny minority enjoys cycling and does it mostly for fun.

Total tosh. The are hilly parts (south--east for examples) of Netherlands where normal people take normal trips on cycles, it's about transport policy. People have become fat and lazy as a result of their cars, I agree. But it's really more about the prioritisation of the motor vehicle over all other forms of transportation, and the total lack of safe infrastructure forcing vulnerable road users into the path of lethal steel killing machines, it's obviously a recipe for disaster if making cycling attractive to the masses is a priority, of course which is hasn't been since before the war.

Before things got really bad in the 60s, 70s and into present day, notice the ratio of cars to bicycles...

 

[Crankarm]

Before any local council in the UK decides to put in a cycle path. They should put the planners on a cheap day return to Denmark on Ryanair. The planners here really know what they are doing. There is no begging or pleading with councils to put cycle paths in. I think all the planners must cycle to work. Cycle paths spring up out of nowhere. But in places that they are needed. They are made well and often have very subtle floor lighting that cannot be seen from the road.

This place Denmark, is it on planet earth?

 

[Globalti]

Bicycles were fine up to the 50s when people began to acquire cars because they didn't have the expectation of travelling outside their own town. If nowadays people shopped in the high street, went to watch their local team, attended school and worked within a few miles of home, bicycles would continue to be used, I'm sure. But they don't; people nowadays will think nothing of jumping into a car and undertaking a journey that in the 50s would have been done only once a year for the annual summer holiday and would have been by bus or by train.

It's only the determined few purists who still shop by bike and even they risk having their bicycle stolen from outside the out-of-town supermarket.

There is also a question of education; when I worked in Paris in the 80s I lived about two miles from my office yet every day I drove there and back because it never occurred to me to buy a bike and enjoy a few minutes of gentle exercise on flat leafy boulevards. My office colleagues would have derided me as well, in fact some would have told me I was not behaving "comme il faut" for a sales manager.

 

[confusedcyclist]

It's only the determined few purists who still shop by bike and even they risk having their bicycle stolen from outside the out-of-town supermarket.

I agreed with everything up to this point, but there is a dynamic you haven't covered. Actually, if you ask joe public, would he prefer to be stuck in traffic, pay the monthly payment on the car, insurance premiums, mechanics fees, MOT, new tyres, etc etc, OR live in a deliberately planned town that makes walking, cycling and other forms of shared public transport practical, get their groceries from the town market rather than the mega-super-fantastico (rip off) supermarket, they would be quite likely to opt for the latter. But they don't have the choice, because motorcars dominate the high street of every village and town in the country, thanks to government policy.

We have a great deal more agency about where we live, work and where we get our groceries than we think, but there are limits and constraints placed on us by the motorcar. You may need one to remain competitive in the workplace and lead a 'normal' life. But did anyone stop to consider that 'normal' isn't necessarily the best way to live. There are winners and losers of all policy decisions, no doubt that disabled or elderly people benefit greatly in terms of mobility as a result of the motorcar, but at what cost to society? Kids can't play outside their own front doors, and you can't walk to the shop without inhaling illegal levels of PM2.5.

This is why looking at the alternative models presented by other nation states is crucial to breaking free of our own mental chains. Note that places like the Netherlands or Denmark don't make motor transport impossible, one can still undertake intercity travel in car. However it makes more sense to use the alternatives for most people for most journeys, they have the choice about where to live, be it closer to work and amenities they frequent. My own grandparents are Dutch and live in the capital, they drive everywhere, because they are too old to cycle, or so they think, but a least they have the option. There is a way the two modes can coexist, but current governments don't get it. The government is the last person I would Trust to educate the public on the benefits of cycling, they have failed up to now for a reason.

We have backed ourselves into an all mighty corner with the motorcar as the supreme form of local transport, it's an easy corner to get out of, but there are powerful lobbying interests who want to protect the "freedoms" (actually chains) provided to the proletariat by their cars. You only have to look at the faux freedom presented to the consumer in car advertisements to see what we're getting at here.

 

[ColinJ]

The Netherlands had to make a decision to support cycling the way that they now do. Things were going horribly wrong there until they decided to do something about it!

How the Dutch got their cycle paths

I lived in the small West Yorkshire town of Hebden Bridge for 29 years. The town centre has narrow, crowded streets which used to get snarled up with traffic but there were still loud protests when the council decided to create a small pedestrianised area. It would kill trade in the town!!! Every shop window had banners saying things like "Save our roads!", "Protect Hebden Bridge's little shops!" The council actually had the courage of their convictions and went ahead with the scheme regardless and the town is more popular than ever! Those anxious shopkeepers and residents now love it.

Here's a photo that I took of the town during the annual Easter 'Duck Race'. Does that look like a town that has put off visitors?

We had the same thing when the council decided to lower the speed limits through the town from 30 mph to 20 mph. It hadn't been safe to drive at 30 mph for years on steep, twisty, narrow streets, narrowed further by parked cars, but drivers still demanded their 'right' to speed along.

Sometimes, politicians have to do what is right rather than what the loudest voices are calling for/shouting against!

 

[Drago]

And I bet all the fat, unfit, bone idle lazy so and so's drove their cars to complain about a potential speed limit drop.

 

[confusedcyclist]

And I bet all the fat, unfit, bone idle lazy so and so's drove their cars to complain about a potential speed limit drop.

Nah, too fat/lazy/bone idle, they just flaunt the limits.

 

[Drago]

When someone comes speeding up my arriss in the car, I slow right down and keep the speed low until I've lowered their average speed back under the limit. Another public service from Drago Enterprises.

 

[LeetleGreyCells]

When someone comes speeding up my arriss in the car, I slow right down and keep the speed low until I've lowered their average speed back under the limit. Another public service from Drago Enterprises.

Me too.

 

[ColinJ]

We had the same thing when the council decided to lower the speed limits through the town from 30 mph to 20 mph. It hadn't been safe to drive at 30 mph for years on steep, twisty, narrow streets, narrowed further by parked cars, but drivers still demanded their 'right' to speed along.

This is what the road looks like on a GOOD day. There are often cars parked all the way up there and a lot more traffic ... 30 mph limit? I think NOT!

I don't know how to get the message across to people who refuse to listen, even when the message is clearly the right one!

 

[Serge]

I agreed with everything up to this point, but there is a dynamic you haven't covered. Actually, if you ask joe public, would he prefer to be stuck in traffic, pay the monthly payment on the car, insurance premiums, mechanics fees, MOT, new tyres, etc etc, OR live in a deliberately planned town that makes walking, cycling and other forms of shared public transport practical, get their groceries from the town market rather than the mega-super-fantastico (rip off) supermarket, they would be quite likely to opt for the latter. But they don't have the choice, because motorcars dominate the high street of every village and town in the country, thanks to government policy.

We have a great deal more agency about where we live, work and where we get our groceries than we think, but there are limits and constraints placed on us by the motorcar. You may need one to remain competitive in the workplace and lead a 'normal' life. But did anyone stop to consider that 'normal' isn't necessarily the best way to live. There are winners and losers of all policy decisions, no doubt that disabled or elderly people benefit greatly in terms of mobility as a result of the motorcar, but at what cost to society? Kids can't play outside their own front doors, and you can't walk to the shop without inhaling illegal levels of PM2.5.

This is why looking at the alternative models presented by other nation states is crucial to breaking free of our own mental chains. Note that places like the Netherlands or Denmark don't make motor transport impossible, one can still undertake intercity travel in car. However it makes more sense to use the alternatives for most people for most journeys, they have the choice about where to live, be it closer to work and amenities they frequent. My own grandparents are Dutch and live in the capital, they drive everywhere, because they are too old to cycle, or so they think, but a least they have the option. There is a way the two modes can coexist, but current governments don't get it. The government is the last person I would Trust to educate the public on the benefits of cycling, they have failed up to now for a reason.

We have backed ourselves into an all mighty corner with the motorcar as the supreme form of local transport, it's an easy corner to get out of, but there are powerful lobbying interests who want to protect the "freedoms" (actually chains) provided to the proletariat by their cars. You only have to look at the faux freedom presented to the consumer in car advertisements to see what we're getting at here.

Very, very well put.