Her point is that the hogging of public space by bicyclists is a problem, and that the cause is bicyclists ignoring rules and not thinking about others. That is a universal problem. Here in Seattle, bicyclists think they're beyond reproach. You can't run red lights and hit pedestrians without backlash.
That is not my takeaway at all. And I feel like the only way you could think that were if you were already predisposed against bicyclists.
The problem the author is talking about is that there is mostly no problem at all, and therefore many people don’t think about how they can share space (because they generally don’t have to).
> All these conversations abroad made people reinterpret the street for what it truly is: the remaining space between houses, with all sorts of uses and purposes worthy of discussion. Public space does not necessarily exist to facilitate fast traffic.
The author is basically saying that drivers get angry because bikes are slower than cars, and that separating bike and car infrastructure 90% of the time makes drivers see bikes as an intrusion in the shared 10% of the infrastructure, because they're used to their particular speed profile being catered to.
I'd think the reason is simple - car runs red light, you risk getting a ticket and fine and increases to your insurance premium. Hit someone while you're doing it? Now you're guilty of manslaughter.
Bike runs a red light? No one (including cops) cares enough to do anything aside from people swearing at you or giving you the finger. A car hits you while you're running the red light? Odds are it's still more likely to be considered the car driver's fault, and many cyclists seem to think they are invincible until they actually get injured so they don't think twice about the risk.
I will admit I am guilty of intentionally running red lights on a bicycle. But I've never intentionally run a red light while driving - again, because of the aforementioned disincentives.
I love biking now - but I'm just wondering at what age a normal biker gets too old to bike everywhere daily.
The question is a little ridiculous to me to begin with: you are too old once you can’t get the pedals round. If you can move a bike forwards you can participate in Dutch cycling traffic. There is no distinction between the two.
EDIT - But just to clarify: many people cycle well into retirement. We’re talking 60-70+ stopping ages over here, easily.
EDIT 2 - Here, have some governmental data: https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/repo.... It doesn’t say anything on bicycle use in older age, but it does show you that average speed goes down by age. Average trip length does not however. In general it’s just an interesting read though.
Elderly cyclists are a point of concern because three quarters of the cyclists dying in traffic accidents are over 60 years old, a quarter over 80 (https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/11/elderly-cyclists-more-...)
That partly is because of the huge success in making cycling safer for kids and partly because of population aging, but also is seen as not catering enough for this group. Many of bicycle accidents involving the elderly are one-sided.
As an anecdote, my father has trouble walking nowadays - I think getting him to walk one km is ambitious. He does still use an electric bicycle though.