Cycling Lessons Learned from Amsterdam
slowstreets.wordpress.com
slowstreets.wordpress.com
- NYC in theory is ideal for traversing by bicycle. Congested yet flat, much like (old) Amsterdam
- It's not so much the lack of bike lanes in the city, it's more the ignorance of drivers that poses a threat. I can't tell you how many times I was cut off, simply because the driver didn't see me or didn't expect a cyclist.
- On the other hand, fellow cyclists were behaving like mad men. I can totally see why people are having issues with cyclists. Running red lights, taking sidewalks, zooming in front of cars, that doesn't get you a lot of understanding.
- Cycling in Central Park is somewhat annoying: joggers use the bike lane because they're faster than normal pedestrians. I've been given a stink eye more than once because I wanted to overtake a jogger. How dare I use a bicycle on a bike lane...
- The Manhattan Waterfront Greenway is fantastic! Except for the parts where it suddenly stops and you're forced to cycle through heavy traffic to get around the UN building (taking 1st or 2nd Avenue). I get that this is an ongoing project, but can they at least alert drivers that they're sharing the road with cyclists at that point?
- I did wear a bike helmet while cycling in NYC, but I wouldn't think of it at home. Cycling is relatively safe here because of the minimal speed difference when you share the road. This is backed up by numbers: there are currently 19 million bicycles and 8 million cars on 16 million inhabitants. About 25% of all movements is made by bicycle. Last year, 212 people died in a car crash, and 112 people died in bicycle accidents. The vast majority in these cases were one-sided accidents by elderly people. In perspective: only 2 children died in bike accidents.
what's really hilarious are the justifications cyclists give for this kind of behavior.
Likewise, many city cyclists still practice the lawless messenger/madman style that was necessary to survive in a city with no bike lanes and no traffic law enforcement, and others revert back to it after being cut off by turning cars and riding past 10 blocks of a bike lane being blocked by cabs and cops and ...
We're making steady progress in NYC, but we're not there yet. It seems like we're making a dent, with some actual enforcement of speed laws taking place, and widespread media concern about dangerous driving and people being killed in crashes. CitiBike bikeshare is a normal part of the city transit system, and now has competent management that are fixing its software and investing in its expansion.
As you note, there's a gap in the East Side bike path due to the UN Headquarters. It's being filled, but since the UN Headquarters is sovereign territory, it's a very complex process.
With better infrastructure comes a greater proportion of everyday types - students riding to university, people slowly riding to work, families, etc.
This change is happening slowly where I live too.
Many cyclists get the jump at red lights to get into a safe, visible position ahead of cars. Many ride outside available (but narrow) bike lanes because they don't want to be within range of a suddenly opening car door.
Re: cycling routes separated from main traffic: In most parts of the Netherlands this actually is the case. In Amsterdam though, as you can see from the pictures, there's simply not enough room for extra lanes (unless they get rid of the canals). There's barely room for a sidewalk, and those are barely walkable because of the parked bicycles. There's plenty of space (and space used) in North America, on the other hand - in fact the sprawl is the reason why people use cars all the time.
That's also why businesses in Amsterdam have no problems with having bike lanes - they know that only very few cars are physically able to park in front of their store, and that their customers either generally live close by, or are tourists walking through town.
Re: Parking, yes it is available everywhere, but Amsterdam has one of the highest parking costs of any city in the Netherlands - also again to reduce the amount of cars in the city center and discourage their use.
Bike lanes don't prevent crucial business deliveries because said trucks will just park on the bike lanes, street, or sidewalk - cyclists are agile, they can go around.
And, of course, most post-WWII commercial development is either malls, strip malls, or big boxes.
Plus, I personally recall separated bike lanes being converted to shared lanes.
That said, I'm not 100% certain.
This is not a surprise, the whole country is flat anyway.
However, this makes such a big difference! In a city with several hills like Paris, cycling can be anything from lazy (going downhill) to utterly exhausting (going uphill).
* * *
There is a corollary to this, because going uphill not only requires more energy, it also makes cycling slower.
In Paris, almost all bus lanes are shared with bicycles. The only bus lanes forbidden to bicycles are the ones that go steeply uphill — because bicycles would be too slow and hold up bus traffic.
* * *
Source: currently living in Paris, I spent about 2 years in Amsterdam.
Obviously, you're not traveling at top speed, but it keeps you at a constant pace and you're not wobbling all over the place.
There is a tiny corner of it that has some smallish hills.
The Amstel Gold professional bike race manages to climb something like 4000 meters by hitting a lot of those small hills in quick succession - and using some multiple times.
It's interesting, for sure. I usually get to work drenched in sweat, and drivers in America are still pretty ridiculously hostile. Pittsburgh has a lot of promise, though, and a bike-friendly mayor who's putting bike lanes everywhere (so much he's getting quite a bit of backlash).
What I'm saying is, even if the culture and landscape seem to be unforgiving, with the right infrastructure bikers find a way.
The pictures from the article show not a single person wearing a helmet... there is a lesson here I'd like the Australian regulaors to learn.
Whereas in Amsterdam, people want to leave their heads free because its mostly pretty cold, and you want to wear a proper head covering - like a beany or scarf - and this isn't always compatible with bike helments.
However, I've observed many times over people wearing helmets in Amsterdam. Its not a generalized circumstance that Amsterdam bike riders don't wear helmets - its just in this selection of pictures. Also, the average distances and speeds of the bike riders in Amsterdam are likely to be a lot smaller than those of Australia, where you have all the space in the world. A lot of people in Amsterdam don't ride much more than a kilometer or so, and at much reduced speeds than you would find on your average Australian road.
Biking in Amsterdam is pretty safe. But this is mostly because of the infrastructure, and more importantly because dutch drivers are used to cyclers on the roads. Most bike accidents in Amsterdam are caused by foreign drivers that are not used to looking out for bikes. I imagine this the number one reason biking is less safe in American cities.
Also many tourists and a lot of expats! I also see more and more kids riding on the front / back of bikes wearing helmets, their parents usually going helmetless.
1) https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/bikeuse_PB... 2) https://www.google.com/search?q=amsterdam+cyclist&espv=2&tbm...
Join me on my bike commute in Sydney sometime. This town of 5 million is crammed into hills and bays, there's a traffic light every 100 meters for most of the way, the roads are jammed during rush hour and there are zero dedicated bike lanes along my route: either you dodge cars on the road, or you dodge pedestrians on shared pedestrian/bike sidewalks.
Thankfully, Clover Moore put in cycleways with kerbs in the CBD - Sydney drivers unfortunately have a somewhat deserved reputation for being notoriously ill-mannered.
And now the State government wants to tear up the cycleways to make room for....more car lanes...sigh...
Sydney taxi drivers are the worst though...
A quick bike helmet image search produce a multitude of helmets that looks aimed at either high speed or off-road riding.
There is nothing wrong with wearing a helmet - I've come off my bike before and its made a potentially very bad situation painful rather than life-threatening - and really look, on the list of worries of cyclist, having to wear a helmet is the least of our worries.
(The law about "not riding on a footpath" is probably more annoying - occasionally, you need to, when its the only safe option).
However, what is an issue in Australia with cyclist is attitude particularly with car drivers. Until that changes, it will always discourage potential cyclists.
Whether it's cars who will literally chase you down and scream about how they "deserve to be on the road and you don't", or people who open doors into the bike lane without checking for cyclist etc.
Ironically, I find it actually tends to be the lower socio-economic areas that find the concept of cycling most puzzling.
In the more expensive areas, cycling seems to be more of a thing - sadly, road cycling is a rich man's hobby here - when you have groups of Cervelo and Bianchi's out on weekends, those people often tend to be a bit more considerate when you're on the road yourself during the week.
I do wish cycling was more mainstream, or at least car drivers better educated - but I don't think that removing helmets is the way to do that.
I haven't fallen off since I was a teenager, messing around. I trip over while walking more often, and have been a passenger in two car accidents. People in many countries don't feel unsafe cycling, so don't wear a helmet. I think the statistics back them up, in countries like the Netherlands.
New hydraulic disc brakes (Avid Codes, I think), happened to brake on the front a little too hard, and not enough on the rear.
I suppose it really depends on how much you ride - if you ride a lot, eventually you're going to have a scrape (hopefully minor). You can't predict everything that's going to happen on the road.
only on giving people the choice: feel safer with one, wear one, if you don't don't.
Sure, you can argue that it's a bit nanny-state (and I know in certain countries, that's not a very popular stance), but it's also a bit of public health/safety.
Yes, sure, it's not as convenient wearing a seatbelt all the time, or wearing a helmet all the time, but over here, where we have government healthcare, it would probably cost them additional money if they had to cover potentially preventable accidents.
Also, I don't disagree that head accidents aren't the most common bike injury.
However, think about it - you graze your knees, or you break your arm - they're painful but not usually life threatening.
You hit your head, get a concussion, suffer some kind of brain damage - you are very much screwed.
Guy at my church, his brother in law is a cyclist. He got attacked by magpies, fell off and suffered a head injury. He can't work at the moment, and is in rehab at home.
Sure, the chance may be low, but do you really want to take it?
I would glad take a grazed knee over a head injury any day of the year. Hence why helmets are mandatory here, and not say, knee guards.
And if the government if funding your healthcare, you can bet it costs them a pretty dime to care for you for the rest of your life, if you were to suffer a disability from a head injury.
I'm all for wearing helmets and encouraging their use, but it's more complicated than "Helmets are safe, they should be mandatory".
Permitting riding on footpaths where appropriate was one of our recommendations.
Riding without a helmet, perhaps in the CBD or in conjunction with an improved bike hire scheme, was one of my proposals that didn't win consensus with the group.
We made about 30ish recommendations all up, and almost all were endorsed by the Premier for trial.
The whole process was very eye-opening. I drive to work, but I would ride if it were safer. I hope we'll gradually see improved infrastructure here in Adelaide, at least by the time my children are at riding age.
(I've had... about three serious bike accidents - fell on my head once (ow), broke my arm (ow), and drove into a rock I didn't see, causing a cut on my arm (pain. And plenty of blood).
But, three accidents, of which only one would've warranted a helmet, none of which happened in the past 15 years, are not nearly enough reason for me to wear a helmet on my bicycle. And that's how everyone else feels, too. Statistics will back me up (tens of millions of bike rides a year, only a handful of fatal head-injuries)
Just as not all roads have cycling lanes, not all roads are accessible to cyclists. It's usually only smaller streets with low speeds that encourage cyclists.
To be honest, Amsterdam is really cramped when it comes to traffic. It is an old city amended with all the new stuff like cycling lanes, bus stops and no space to unload cargo.
One point they are missing: The safest bike is the one that looks most worn down and has a lock more expensive than the bike. It should also be attached to a fixed object.
I think it comes down to distance/time on the bike, for some, but others probably think they have to wear it if they're cycling. But that annoyance goes beyond commuters.
The challenge is convincing folks that they are applicable to their street. Most people here are so attached to the car as the only viable form of transportation that they do not see bikes or transit as complete transportation alternatives, despite the best formed arguments.
Polk Street in SF could have been the coolest public space in the region if they'd simply had the balls to say "Cars dominate every other street within a mile of here. We're going to make Polk into an open-air promenade that you're welcome to walk or casually bike through." They could have even razed a building within a couple blocks of there and put it ample parking if that's what it took to make progress. Our commercial districts should be destinations, not thoroughfares, and Polk was so close to becoming that before they caved to a propaganda war by some frightened old-timers.
On a completely separate note, if you're interested in cycling policy and working with stubborn merchants like those on Polk, chat with Gary Fisher. He's a smart guy who's spent a lot of time thinking about how to work collaboratively with people who are nervous about changing street priorities. He also is pretty easy to bump into if you hang out with cyclists in SF or Marin.
I would like to see the City create some sort of financial incentive (like a tax credit) to bring them on board when it comes to safety improvements. In the long run, it would pay for itself.
I've worked with Gary in the past but thanks for the bringing him up, I'm going to reach to him and have a beer!
All in all going by bike is much faster. That's why this is working in Amsterdam and other Dutch cities.
The real challenge is outside of the dense urban areas, where most people biking are the poor or the undocumented. It's going to require a cultural shift.
We can't do anything about these geographic bottlenecks though and the fact is that people are biking more and more, despite the hills. Better transit is probably the key, but I have a tough time seeing cars as a long-term solution.
For example, you're going to have a hell of a time getting me to depend on my local bus network, which takes an hour to get me to work- a whole 6 miles away- and I still have to walk one mile. That's not complete.
I'm lucky to live in a bike friendly city with more public transit ambition than many other places, but people can't about-face tomorrow and depend on the public transit or bicycle infrastructure that isn't there, which I think you'll find informs policy.
- tram
- bike
- pedestrian
- car
If you are driving and arrive at a T- junction for example, you need to give way to pedestrians and bicycles on the primary route, and then check for other vehicles.
Coming from the UK, this was a shock to the system. We were used to pedestrians giving way to us, unless there was a proper zebra style crossing, and even then that was somewhat voluntary. This switch around of priority is important in calming traffic and subscribes to the moto of "go at the pace of the slowest". It works rather well in my opinion.
Oh, ONLY 50%? Compare that to America, where, including protected bike lanes and bike trails, it's probably what, 5%, tops?
This is pointing out that view is wrong.
The reason why these treatments aren't front and center is because people are being hurt and killed on high-speed arterials, where the best choice is protected bike lanes. Different tools for different problems.
Neighborhood greenways are a somewhat similar idea, although it looks like the level of calming is a lot higher in the Netherlands relative to its implementation in parts of the US like Portland.
And, actually, I agree with this. I really don't think bicycles and cars can share the road. It's simply too easy to do things like "door" a bicycle unintentionally.
When bike lanes are not separated they are only not separated because of a cost or space issue in Amsterdam. Not by design. I spend most of my days in Amsterdam, others in The Hague, and when I cycle I prefer to cycle on a bike lane. Drivers still tend to push you aside when there are no specific lanes.
The article, and many foreigners find the dutch system amazingly impressive, but for me, dutch, I still see a lot of room for improvement. Cars inside the city still annoy, cycling lanes are still ignored by parking cars.
The other thing that the author glosses over is that pedestrians and bikes don't share space either, and that pedestrians are equally deferential to cyclists. If you walk in the bike lane, you'll get a good shouting at.
That's something that shows extremely poorly here in the USA by comparison, after you've grown accustomed to it. Anywhere in the US there's a separate "bike path", it's really a multi-use path for bikers, rollerbladers, walkers (usually two or three abreast), kids on Razor scooters, horseback riding, you name it. Dutch bike paths are for BIKING (Ok, and for 50cc motor scooters).
IMO, the main problem to changing traffic behavior in the US is the utter lack of respect for other types of traffic, enforced not just by culture but by law.
It's so weird to me that in a country where the majority supports "responsible gun ownership" people are perfectly okay with the notion that when driving a big hunk of metal you don't have any kind of responsibility not to hit cyclists or pedestrians.
Example for a popular home to work commute: http://cycleroute.org/?slat=41.061029&slng=29.00681199999996...