Seen a few "Cyclists need to pay a road tax if they want bike lanes" in the comments. Please watch this video... Should We Tax Cyclists? -> ruclips.net/video/Wjv8WQu92c0/видео.htmlsi=OfRJRaX-Qub1LnZ1
I really can't stand the collective bullying of cycling. Seriously, understand that you who drive are not stuck in traffic, you ARE the traffic, and we who cycles don't do it for exercise, we're doing it as transport and often to bypass the congestions.
Americans be like: "Instead of making crossing roads possible we just gotta make them carry flags and wave them above their head" "Every road must be a highway" "must make it a 30+ minute drive both ways to do anything at all including buying groceries" "let's all drive murder machines and never walk, becoming human bowling balls" "let's make self-driving cars that get stuck in traffic instead of public transport" Wonder how long it will take for public transport and cycling to catch up in the US (Public transport can be way faster than cars as well as they aren't limited on speed nearly as much)
Car-dependent suburbs are self-perpetuating, because their lower density makes public transit (other than terrible bus service) uneconomic. That and zoning and mandatory parking space laws.
@@jamesheartney9546 in defense of some suburbs, they are changing - they are getting denser and some are even adding transit but the problem took 50yrs to get this bad and will take at least a generation to change for the better...assume the will persists...
A point not mentioned is: what about the people who are not allowed, or cannot afford to drive a car? The disabled, the elderly, the young, and the poor also have a right to safe infrastructure and freedom to move. In the Netherlands the road manager is required by law to provide a safe traffic infrastructure to EVERYBODY! To "prove" in court of laws that the road manager complied to this law, the road designs from the CROW manuals are used by the road manager in 99% of the cases (which also explains why the "look and feel" of the traffic infrastruture is very consistent throughout the country). The designs from the CROW manuals are based on scientific research and the "Sustainable Safety" philosophy, and are still evolving based on new research and insights.
Exactly! So much more people are self-sufficient when it comes to mobility in places with extensive bike infrastructure. The classical complaint of the older generations: "this young generation is just sitting at home..." Well, can they (safely) get out and do something on their own?
Being someone that frequently uses the CROW manuals, I'd also like to add that they are very accessible! It's full of easy-to-understand diagrams, and isn't just an endless flood of useless text.
"One more lane will fix it!" "Only in America!" To those commenters, come visit the Netherlands, see how it works, you will forever be cured of your stupid ideas and embrace the bicycle path! Besides, it be against the law for politicians to suggest it, and would create a public outcry and anger that would likely see that party and politician get shot or worse. In the end, roads are meant to transport people. In some city's in the Netherlands there are bicycle paths that carry upwards of 60.000 people a day every day of the week. You cannot get that kind of throughput traffic in the middle of a city if you're using cars. And it's doing so without accidents, without pollution, without noise. And kids of all ages are among them. Ever seen a 3 or 4 year old cycling in Downtown Toronto? Come to the middle of Utrecht, happens every day all day.
Er is wel een verschil denk ik. In Manchester (Engeland) leggen ze gewoon fietsstroken naast enorme wegen. In NL bestaat dat niet bij autowegen, en hier is het ook niet lekker fietsen. Scholen, huizen en kantoren blijven ook amper bereikbaar omdat zijstraatjes zijn overgegeven aan parkeerruimte. Zomaar ergens fietsstroken aanleggen helpt dan niks. Ik denk dat dit in Canada en de VS ook zo wordt gedaan.
Well...currently there are plans to widen highway A27 to the east of Utrecht, because 'they' think 'just one more lane' will solve the traffic-congestion on the A27...
@@borchen0 sometimes car lanes aren't that bad. Cars make sense in a lot of cases and no country can function without cars and highways.. The important thing is having valid alternative options to driving. That makes driving better as well for people that need to or really want to drive for some reason. Every person in a train, walking or on a bike is 1 less car on the road. And solving traffic is most effectivly done by having less cars on the road.
Haha so true. Just recently some American dude told me: "we need all the guns to protect innocent people". Hilarious. Sad how people fall for all that propaganda nonsense. But that's not limited to the US.
This was such a well-thought-out breakdown, Nic! I like the way you connected bike lanes to everything from traffic to public health and local businesses. It’s amazing (and frustrating) how short-sighted car-centric policies can be.
Unfortunately such shortsightedness isn't limited to urban infrastructure. It is something that pervades a lot of North America on many issues, like spending cuts on a wide variety of things without regard for why the money is being spent in the first place. It is a world of vested interests and corporate lobbying that have eroded the interests of the common citizen to an insane degree, regardless of the country.
It's quite sad you need to make this case. In the US you have two transport modes: Drive or fly. In Europe we have five: Walk, bike, drive/public transport and fly. Each mode is suitable for a particular range of distances. In the US the shorter range modes have been taken over by the car. There are many factors that caused this, but a major one of them is probably the low prices for cars and fuel. Driving is heavily subsidized and promoted in the US whereas it is somewhat penalized in Europe, especially for shorter distances.
Bike Lanes actually *MAKE ROOM* for cars: a bike takes up less than 10% of the space that a car uses, and every biker is one less car on the road. Result: *MORE SPACE FOR CARS* . And another thing: Bike infrastructure is only a fraction of the cost of the (ridiculously expensive) infrastructure for the car, so bike infrastructure *SAVES THE TAX PAYER MONEY* So you would be crazy to remove bikelanes. .
I'm proud to say I've never owned a car my whole life in the US. By riding a bike in my city, that's one less car on my block that needs to be stored on the street 24/7. When I go somewhere, that's one less car taking up parking for someone else who needs it. Whenever I pass cars on streets with no bike lanes, it's not the bikes holding them up, it's other cars.
@@Wildcard71 Sorry, The numbers that I am referring to are from actual data here in the Netherlands. Of course a bike can hold only one person. But the *average* number of people in a car in the US is only 1.5... So if a bike takes up only 10% of the space that is still an average saving of more than 65%. And actually it is even worse for the car, because not only is the bike much smaller in seize, weight and surface area, but because the bike moves much slower and is less dangerous, bikes also need much less space in front and behind of them (space that cars need for braking distance). So in reality the savings by bike use are even bigger.
@@Wildcard71 has anyone told the Dutch that a bike can only carry one person? if we're talking about kids. you can have a seat on the back and one at the steering wheel, so one mother can carry 2 children with her on her bike. and adults can sit on the back of most bikes, or on the beam that cracks men's parts. so one normal bike can carry either one adult + 2 children, or two adults. without any problems. and then we have the bakfiets or the daycare bikes that have a big area in the front where you can put 6 > 8 kids.
Why kids don't go out anymore? Because if their parents can't go with them, than they will be sued for letting their kids go alone to anywhere. (I don't remember what was the charge)
In Florida they just passed a law, charging parents for the crimes of there kids, for not properly educating them in social norms. Both child and parents are charged.
@@justcommenting4981 For some reason kids are not hit in every corner by traffic here in Europe, so you can allow your kids to go to their friends, to school or shopping alone. Anyway, the kid in the case I tried to refer to were like 11-12 years old, they should be able to watch out for traffic. Of course that does not help if you live in a car centric place.
this is not really a thing... only if they are too young/immature to realistically be out doing anything (like 6-9 yr olds) vs older kids like 10-12 yr olds which can have some self-sufficiency. A parent will not be charged if they let a 12 yr old go to the store and some driver hits them out of negligence... or lets them go play at the park on their own unless there are explicit reasons for why it would be unsafe for that specific 12 yr old to do so.. like a learning disability.
It seems to me that this politician would benefit the most of creating more bike lanes and taking his car away. He would lose quite some weight, become healthier and may develop some more healthy ideas. Just a thought for the next elections.
I’m glad you mentioned autonomy for children. I moved to Montreal a few years ago and it’s remarkable how common it is to see children on bikes on the protected bike routes and on quiet streets and ruelles.
Yer, they are so safe! I love to bike that so often. And easily to stop by cafe or local shops as car had to find parking first. Bike rack are already there.
Yeah, as a Dutchman I’m often surprised by how congested car traffic can be elsewhere. Gridlock is almost unheard of here, and most traffic jams seem to be caused by construction work on the road. And because cars and bicycles are often separated, it makes it more comfortable for drivers. Seeing footage of New York, with endless traffic jams, cyclists zooming between cars, it just seems miserable for everyone. A good bicycle network can make it so much better for all parties.
But please restrict blue license scooters on the CYCLE paths. They go too fast and could be on the road. They make biking on the cycle path feel dangerous.
No, our cycling city Davis in California is superior. We have places for cyclists to move with no refugees. It's better than Europe if you have job skills. If you are a fool Europe has better welfare that's it.
How hard is it to remember that streets are older than cars? And "Share the Road" is a car centric policy! To get more freedom from cycling- practice equity over equality.
My favorite leap of logic from my city is people complaining that on roads with one wide lane in each direction, if you paint bike lane on the side, it will make congestion worse. Like, you get virtually the same space for cars before and after but some of the drivers can opt to ride a bike. And this makes traffic congestion worse?
As someone who rarely gets on a bike I want more bike lanes. More dedicated lanes for bikes the less there are in lanes for cars. And more people on bikes the less cars there will be.
Great video! Two things: 1) road lanes don't cause congestion, it's the intersections. Removing bike lanes on roads won't do anything. 2) Our citied inner population is going up roughly 2.5% compounded. Doesn't sound like much, but as real/large infrastructure improvements take decades, we should be planning for a 50% population increase, and keeping the current car-focused environment won't work.
People just don't get induced demand; in 1982 they built a bridge across the River Orwell in Ipswich - immediately led to a reduction in traffic through the town. Now, any time the bridge is shut (extreme winds, maintenance, accidents) the town is completely grid-locked. Why is this, when it was never grid-locked _before_ the bridge was built? Busy, yes; grid-locked, no. It's because the bridge increased vehicle use so now there are way more cars going through town than before. Mooted solution? Let's build another bridge LOL. Needless to say, virtually no pedestrians or cyclists use the bridge - there is a footway, but nobody wants to walk alongside what is little short of a motorway. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone cycle across it; legal? Yes; Pleasant? No way.
Every time I pass cars on streets with no bike lanes, it's because they're held up by other cars, and yet I still get people yelling at me to get off the road.
Most people in the USA and Canada born after about 1965 or maybe 1975 grew up never having ridden a bike or being physically active or having unsupervised outdoors childhood adventures. Even what in schools used to be called physical training (PT), later called physical education (Phys Ed), has been pared way back or eliminated entirely. "Normal" is how things were when they were growing up. Naturally, as adults, they cannot even begin to imagine participating in active transportation.
Carmel indiana got rid of all the traffic light intersection and i mean all 150 and replaced them with roundabouts that have a much higher. They were able to reduce the number of travel lane from 3 to 2 or 2 to 1 ln most major streets. More then double the population too.
That American Fietser guy's video of his ride around Carmel wasn't really selling it for cyclists or pedestrians though, their idea of a bike lane was just the sidewalk.
@@finnblackburn9583 While I haven’t seen that particular video, I’ll take a widened sidewalk/multi-use path separated from the road over an unprotected glorified shoulder “bike lane” any day.
@@kellir.747 It wasn't a MUP, it was your standard American issue narrow sidewalk that wasn't designed for bike traffic that their council just told cyclists to ride on. Besides the roundabouts it looked like your standard issue anti bike city with terrible bike infrastructure except for one fancy MUP
The funny part is they could point to dutch cities and say 'see they are removing bikelanes' since that is happening to make them all 30km/h, red and cars are guests... A missed PR moment for them 'follow the dutch remove bikelanes!' hehe.
Yes, we are in fact removing bikelanes. In the Netherlands. However, you have to realize that 60 years ago those were car lanes. Then we added bicycle lanes, and now that we have properly trained the public for the past 60 years, we're removing the cycling lanes because the streets are designed in ways that car traffic is virtually non existent in those places. Through traffic is no longer possible, all car traffic on such roads is destination based traffic. Furthermore, there are speed bumps everywhere, the street is painted red, the street is actively discouraging high speed traffic due to the vibration and noise the road produces inside the car and the cyclists don't give a f*** about the car drivers. It also helps that the law presumes the car owner is guilty if a accident were to happen. Without the possibility of defense whilst 100% of the costs are put on the car owner.
The Dutch are not removing bike lanes, they’re converting car lanes/roads to shared roads with preference to bikes, I.e. cars are guests with 30km speed limit. In most of these examples there weren’t bike lanes but one direction roads with bike lanes on the sides
@@grumpybear6331 it was states as a semi joke but there are roads in utrecht where they removed paths and turned it into a shared road because the amount of bikes was just too much. It is true that these are exceptions and its mostly converting since if there are already separated paths taking them away doesn't make too much sense.
@@MarijnRoorda yup its only possible in some areas because all people on the road accept and have been trained in the new design from color, bumps, speed, middle rumble and other tricks. I life in Utrecht and bike about 50km/day in the city. My remark was semi serious since its always funny to say 'we are taking some away again' before explaining how/why. Having lived and driven/biked in Utrecht from the 1970's on its been a interesting transformation.
The part about induced demand that I think people get wrong is that people are "attracted" to drive. I would argue that people are *forced* to drive. All those people who would have used micromobility in protected lanes are now forced to own and drive a car. That's where the extra demand comes from.
Thank you for that bike stress graph. That will help me articulate to level 2 riders why bike infrastructure is good. I am a veteran of Boston streets in the late 80s Where I was and still am a level 4 rider. I learned how to ride from a 80s cycliing movie. Hopping curbs weaving in and out of cars. Absolutely insane that I have never been hit or crashed. I have learned how loud my voice can be here in Cleveland advocating for change in infrastructure for other methods besides cars. Hell I am even a transit advocate. Great wook on this video I loved it.
The 'reduction in car lanes increased my time' always cracks me up. It's proven this is not true by default, this requires bad choices by people, not the existence of a bike lane. People sure love their 700 dollar monthly bill on their car don't they?
As one of those 1% level 4 stress cyclists I have at times been ignorant with regards to infrastructure as I have literally found myself cycling on 70mph dual carriageways. I live in quite a bikeable city that often blames the bike lanes and LTNs but when I started running this winter you really see how much space is sacrificed and it's not like I can hop onto the road like I can with a bicycle.
I can't believe that people would support not only stopping the building of more bike lanes but actually wasting money to get rid of the ones that already exist. That part I think is crazy.
I'm somewhere around a level 3 to 4 rider. if all of the bike lanes were removed, honestly I'd probably be fine, as my route is on a shared path. but I'd never ever venture further than my commute, no way a trip to the city other than uni, and if the shared paths were gone, no way to cycling.
If we can reduce the speed and number of cars on the road to the point where it's perfectly save to ride a bike on the road: yes, let's get rid of bike lanes! OK, I live in Amsterdam. And that is actually where we're heading.
The important thing to keep in mind when encountering people who demand bike lanes be removed, or who oppose their construction in the first place, is that literally by definition, a full half of the population is of below average intelligence, education, and wisdom, and a goodly proportion of the other half still doesn't have enough intelligence, education, and wisdom to be considered functionally competent. Induced demand is a counterintuitive concept that most people simply cannot grasp; they cannot understand that they are not "stuck in traffic", they *are* the traffic, because they are self-centered and short-sighted.
Intersections suck. throughput on roads comes to a halt when they hit really bad intersections. The Netherlands has great bike infrastructure, but it requires commitment.
What "doubles your car time" are changes in the traffic pattern like parked cars for two blocks and then no parked cars for a block where traffic spreads out and then has to recombine when the street narrows again combined with anyone using this on-street parking disrupting the flow even more. Vehicles are hopefully never merging out of and back into separated bike lanes so the conversation between drivers and traffic engineers should never be travel lane VS bike lane, the conversation, if you are a driver, should always be about banning on-street parking and converting that space to a bus lane or a bike lane to clear obstructions in traffic flow. It's faster to drive at a continuous flowing pace than to speed ahead then stop dead, then speed ahead, then stop to let someone merge in front of you, etc. etc.
Make bike lines on parallel routes and make the parallel route cars only for local traffic (stop it being a through fare for cars). So get them out of each others crosshairs.
There need to be more bike lanes... at least on every road that has a speed limit over 30 mph so bike riders can ride safely instead of having to impede traffic
I am glad to live in Germany. In most cities here, we have well-developed bike paths or bike lanes on the streets. And between villages and cities, there are so-called country roads, which always have bike paths that are easy to use. But we have the same problem with some car people that think the road ist their property.
All of this is empirically provable and undeniably true, but won't make any impression of the average Trumpy American suburbanite. The entire idea that there's other ways to organize urban areas than the car-dependent suburb is just not on their radar, and they don't have time or energy to absorb contrary info because they are too busy with their long commutes and second jobs that they need in order to pay for vehicle expenses (at least two per household), medical debt, student loans, and health insurance premiums (assuming they are lucky enough to have health insurance).
Don’t forget the maintenance costs. Each car that passes causes like a thousand times more wear and tear to the roads than a passing bike. The more bikes instead of cars, the more years the tarmac will last and the more taxes for maintaining roads you will save. That should appeal to all those people so worried about road tax and infrastructure costs
I live in Cambridge, which has some of the best bike infrastructure in the US. The neighborhood I live in, the street with the worst traffic has no bike lane.
Vancouver, where I live has really embraced bicycle lanes. I don't cycle any more but think they are / can be, a great idea. We also have a number of streets that are designated bicycle routes for cyclists where they get special treatment. But, why don't more cyclists use the damn things. In my neighbourhood, I watch cyclists ride along the sidewalk, where it's illegal to ride, when there is a cycle lane just a few meters away. And now we have more an more electric powered 2 wheels vehicles in various configurations and that is making much of this car / cycle / pedestrian dynamic even more tenuous. I wish I could be more pro cyclist but until more of them get off of their holier than thou attitudes and show the respect for sidewalks, red lights, and stop signs, I'll hold back a bit of my enthusiasm.
Our UK city has built in two cycle lanes a distance of four miles reducing the car lanes to one either way. Now the bus/car lanes are clogged all the way into town turning what used to be a fifteen minute trip into a thirty minute torture run with the green party complaining about the levels of pollution on the route.
Great video, great comments. Unforunalely for all videos like this is you're preaching to the choir. How do we in the cycling world who get it, convince the majority who are non-cyclists, or worse, who are very pro car-centric that bikes benefit all?
That is the golden question isn't it. I was discussing this with @Bendurham . I think his recent video on the specific situation in Toronto takes that approach and was done very well. However I was reminded that this issue (unfortunately) is a culture war issue. It is nearly impossible to convince someone of your point no matter how many facts you bring. Recently watched this video by Veritasium. It was eye opening for sure. ruclips.net/video/zB_OApdxcno/видео.htmlsi=Z_9U-Hc8rWkIuKdK
Well supported POV Nic! I have some associates that need to see this vid. As for Doug Ford...don't get me started!!! On a side note, put the mic on a stand or, better yet, loose it and use a lav. You don't need an SM7 for us to hear you.
One problem I see is the lack of education on the part of drivers. You renew your driver's license every 4 years, but how much of the test actually is devoted to educating the driver on bike safety & rules? If we are to have bike lanes, then they should be PROTECTED bike lanes (a 20 lb bike is no match for a 6000 lb car). Also, a driver doesn't look to the left or right to read the signs on the side of the street, like "SHARE THE ROAD" - they only see what is directly in front of them, so, of course, they aren't going to notice bikes riding in the "bike lanes". Maybe the solution (other than to ban cars altogether) is to place the signs overhead, in big, bold letters, to get their attention. We cyclists can do only so much.
That hit on LA at the end was historically accurate, but it is no longer the case IMO. They are investing in public transit and bike lanes to the tune of something like 40B over the next 10yrs and they recently passed a ballot measure to force the City to implement their Bike Master plan for a few years ago as part of any road improvement project. I believe they are in the process of actually updating their minimum standards for reflect this requirement and so over time their RoWs will improve drastically as they are redone at the end of life (10-15yrs) How many major metro areas that aren't called Toronto is doing that right now? And when Doug Ford passes that bill, we can see TO take a beating on that comparison pretty good.
In the end, focussing on forcefully building bike infrastructure isn't going to magicly solve things. There needs to be a real shift in thinking about mobility and the courage to start limiting cars in a meaningful way as well.
@@rogerk6180 possibly, but i feel you have to create the alternatives first - otherwise it's just tax on unavoidable usage. After all, the people who can avoid the usage taxes will do so by shifting how, where, and when they work, but the people serving out and food, picking up trash, fixing and building homes, treating us when we are sick, teaching us when we are young, etc cannot change when and where they work. Basically, we need the carrot and stick but the carrot coming first helps for when the stick starts swinging... Which is why the congestion pricing in NYC is popular with the residents of the City itself - they have the carrot of usable transit infrastructure (and bikeways they have recently built out) to entice a shift in behavior with that stick...the ones doing all the complaining are the ones who don't want to use the carrot...so now they fear the stick..but having said carrot makes their arguments less valid IMO
@@nicthedoor I am not saying it's great yet... currently it is still miles behind places like NYC or TO but I am confident it will get there in my life time for sure just off the back of the current and planned future investments...
Stupid people are stupid and intelligent people have been made stupid or made themselves stupid. People don't or won't understand there's such a thing as counterintuitive results and no such thing as common sense as they know it (basically "what I'm accustomed to must be right"). They can't conceive of empirical evidence or long term thinking. Infantile- pushed by bloated bullies like the Fords with an obsession with social hierarchy, domination, authoritarian normalcy, tyranny of the majority, money, etc...
Yep...car traffic will just get worse. If you want to make traffic better, eliminate stroads and limit zoning to either streets (focused on foot and bike traffic, with minimal, low-speed auto traffic) or a road (focused on high-speed traffic). Sharing spaces like stroads with a bike lane is not helping revitalize small, downtown business because nobody wants to stop or park on a high-speed road UNLESS you are on foot or bike. It doesn't do justice to either cars or bikes when they have to share a space.
Sadly it’s not just America it’s all over the world except for Netherlands because every time I make a post about improving my city 90% of the comments are against it and I live in Europe
Ford is playing on people's emotional response to traffic... it sucks and there are about 10 things off the top of my head that could be done to alleviate congestion on the city streets but the only one that emotionally impacts people is to remove bike lanes in favor of more lanes... so he is going with that. Please, ask me to rattle off a list of them... I contract with engineering firms around the globe. I am not an engineer but let's say I deal with data.
@@nicthedoor Some people in the Kyiv city government claimed that cycling in the bus lane is less dangerous than cycling in the ordinary lane. So they didn't build any bike infrasctructure from 2015 to 2018 when the new road designing standards made obligatory to add infrastructure for cyclists. Despite having alike average speed on the surface, overtaking the stopped buses is dangerous and slowing down buses to the bike speed makes buses slower but it's compensated by the fact that only a few people are willing to cycle in the bus lane. Personally, I don't count the bus lanes as a bike infrastructure. Nowadays, the 2-way bike (2 m+ wide) and the multi-use paths (2.5 m+ wide) are typically built alongside that types of road in Kyiv. The overall length ob bike infrastructure (including sharrows [30 km/h bike streets], bike lanes [1.5 m wide], bike and multi-use paths) is more than 200 km (the population is 3 mln people) but the connectivity is pretty much bad now. Recently, the carbrains were outraged that the square near the main train station has become more pedestrianised and has got much more order and lost some of the road parking spaces to the protected bike lane and the bus lane. Before, it was a car-infested place with no place for cyclists. The sidewalk was used by merchants. These people claimed that who in the right mind would cycle (with the luggage) to the main train station of the country? I contested them and said that there are restaurants where the delivery cycles to and some of the passengers take bikes onto the suburban and regional trains as the last-mile transport.
Seems I'm a stress level 4 cyclist. Even with no bike infrastructure I get less stress and more joy riding a bike than driving a car. Also, I like riding a motorbike more than driving a car. These and a high entry cost (i.e. the cost of buying a car) are why I don't have a car.
The problem isn't bike lanes, it's the never ending road construction. Everywhere you drive there is road construction that takes decades to complete so it never gets better
Here is a thought: all your American(continent) cities are bassicly grids so just make all roads one way. How easy are the intersections going to be! Then everystreet can have a cycling lane and there is room for parking cars.
Torontonian here. I disagree with you on some points. I'm not sure that there would be an immediate improvement in congestion. While level 4's may represent 1% of riders, they and the food couriers likely account for a disproportionate share of ridership in terms of distances covered. These hardy few, myself included, will disrupt a full car lane, rather than the partial space associated to a bike lane. Cars are legally required to provide a 1 metre clearance to riders. There isn't a car small enough to pass a bike legally and still stay within the lane. As a result, the cars will have to more into the next lane, disrupting that lane as well, and potentially increasing the risk of vehicular collisions. This will create a greater headache for drivers. Furthermore, there's this false idea that 4 lanes is faster than 3 lanes. With 3 lanes, you can have two smoothly flowing lanes with a dedicated left turn lane plus bike lanes. With the traditional 4 lanes, the inner two lanes will be disrupted by left turning cars, which are held back by the heavy opposing traffic on the other side. Add to that, the level 4 riders disrupting the curb side lane, the car drivers have no smooth flowing lanes with 4 lanes versus 3 car lanes + 2 bike lanes. The bike lane haters claim 'common sense' but it's their math skills that are lacking.
Don't talk nonsense, I live in the west of Scotland, it is cold and rainy pretty much all year round and at this time of year we get fewer than 8 hours of daylight. yet many people on bikes are undeterred by the weather. At least have the honesty to admit that you're choosing to wear a car as a rain jacket.
… how much cars can go on a highway per second? About 1 a second on 2 lanes so about 2… if you would fill both lanes with bikes how much? about 5 lanes and also about 1 per second… pedestrians 20 per second?.. when you make bike lanes and walks normal size i guess they are still about 2 per second it could handle So there should be a strong incentive to keep them because more pass through per space used… The problem is.. when the structure is flailing so that the bike lanes do interfere with other ways of transportation.. that also reduces the people that want to ride the bike.. who wants a bike lane where every 100m they need to cross an intersection…
Nic, I would argue that traffic wont ever get better removing sidewalks and bike lanes. Bike lanes in most cases in the US and Canada are smaller than car lanes.. Therefore no traffic reduction. You make the assumption that bike lanes and car lanes are the same size. People would just switch to cars.
I really hope some of those are just trolls. As for bicycles like I just don't have really good balance, Even when I was a child I would constantly have to 'relearn' to balance every year that spring would arrive. But you know I don't understand anybody who thinks that way. I think there should always be different options. Sometimes I think in some ways it's harder to put good urbanism in an urban area. Because you're competing despite the fact that there is more money allocated to funding something like bicycle lanes. Rural areas don't fill the need because well they don't really have the traffic concerns but I think if they had the means and I doubt that you would have opposition because you wouldn't have to take lanes. And this is one of the things that really bothers me about. We're still emphasizing increasing more Lanes because it's much harder to take away Lanes once you add them. Because even if let's say the urban area was in decline of population (like the Midwest) people will still think they need it.
I decided to separate this into a separate comment. Let me say something. I don't get the fact that bicycle lanes are only focused in urban areas, possible in suburban areas. To be in order to make my point, it would be like if you thought only roads for cars are necessary in an urban environment. Then hardly no one would be able to drive anywhere. They would still be riding horse and buggy. So rural areas are forgotten about.
1:00 Considering his size, that Mr. Ford (nice name) hasn't seen a bike in 70 years, let alone ridden one, I think he got a big bag of money from a car manufacturer (I think I already know which manufacturer😉)
Are we humans designed to discriminate based on minor differences? I mostly move by bike in LA, and some of my close friends asked me why bike riders ignore traffic laws. I do not know if bikers have a higher percentage of violations than drivers, but I have experiences plenty of driver's violations that endangered me and others.
Stop building bike lanes in cities... slow car traffic down to max out at 30 km/h and then bikes and cars can co-exist... also get rid of on street parking... we will need the capacity to support all the new bike riders. Keep building bike lanes in rural areas, those places suck to bike on the road.
The audacious arrogance of North America means that it's impossible for them to look to those European countries which have changed cities from car centric to many cyclist and pedestrian centric spaces. Just look to the before and after of many of the spaces in those countries. Doug Ford- eeeya.
“The reduction in streets width” yeah cause a bike lane is as wide as a car lane, if you don’t have the intellect to see one is not as wide as the other you shouldn’t be allowed to drive
Let the opponents of cycle paths come to our Netherlands......they will have a heart attack. accept and adapt, it is not that difficult in a carcentric North America
Shitty drivers and car traffic abound, but... somehow *bike lanes* are the "problem" This is just "car-brain" refusing to come to terms with the mess *it created*, thereby scapegoating someone else for their failures to properly 'deal with' or 'confront' traffic. 🤣 "Let's get rid of the BIKE LANES! That'll fix our traffic problems!" lmao
People are selfish. If they don't cycle, they hate bike lanes. Everywhere where a bike lane takes space from car traffic is just must be bad for them. But make a calculation of the time their car trips (including parking) take and compare that with cycling to the same destinations. Also compare the cost.
@@marinusvos True. There are streets, bridges and lanes in my town of Helmond that are dedicated to bikes, pedestrians and disableds. Green, quiet, walkable. You wouldn't believe the amount of traffic and leisure they support.
Seen a few "Cyclists need to pay a road tax if they want bike lanes" in the comments. Please watch this video... Should We Tax Cyclists? -> ruclips.net/video/Wjv8WQu92c0/видео.htmlsi=OfRJRaX-Qub1LnZ1
lol, we pay taxes. And taxes and taxes.
I really can't stand the collective bullying of cycling. Seriously, understand that you who drive are not stuck in traffic, you ARE the traffic, and we who cycles don't do it for exercise, we're doing it as transport and often to bypass the congestions.
Americans be like: "Instead of making crossing roads possible we just gotta make them carry flags and wave them above their head"
"Every road must be a highway" "must make it a 30+ minute drive both ways to do anything at all including buying groceries" "let's all drive murder machines and never walk, becoming human bowling balls" "let's make self-driving cars that get stuck in traffic instead of public transport"
Wonder how long it will take for public transport and cycling to catch up in the US
(Public transport can be way faster than cars as well as they aren't limited on speed nearly as much)
It's going to take a long time, but I see progress.
Public Transit in the States was once world class, it is not on par with a developing country.
Car-dependent suburbs are self-perpetuating, because their lower density makes public transit (other than terrible bus service) uneconomic. That and zoning and mandatory parking space laws.
@@jamesheartney9546 in defense of some suburbs, they are changing - they are getting denser and some are even adding transit but the problem took 50yrs to get this bad and will take at least a generation to change for the better...assume the will persists...
@@triaxe-mmb You're right that it'll take a while to change, but the problem is it's not even on most folks' radar.
A point not mentioned is: what about the people who are not allowed, or cannot afford to drive a car? The disabled, the elderly, the young, and the poor also have a right to safe infrastructure and freedom to move. In the Netherlands the road manager is required by law to provide a safe traffic infrastructure to EVERYBODY! To "prove" in court of laws that the road manager complied to this law, the road designs from the CROW manuals are used by the road manager in 99% of the cases (which also explains why the "look and feel" of the traffic infrastruture is very consistent throughout the country). The designs from the CROW manuals are based on scientific research and the "Sustainable Safety" philosophy, and are still evolving based on new research and insights.
It shouldn't be this dangerous
Exactly! So much more people are self-sufficient when it comes to mobility in places with extensive bike infrastructure.
The classical complaint of the older generations: "this young generation is just sitting at home..."
Well, can they (safely) get out and do something on their own?
In general, in America, if you don't have enough money to buy a car, you don't have enough money to lobby and your opinions don't matter.
Being someone that frequently uses the CROW manuals, I'd also like to add that they are very accessible! It's full of easy-to-understand diagrams, and isn't just an endless flood of useless text.
"One more lane will fix it!" "Only in America!" To those commenters, come visit the Netherlands, see how it works, you will forever be cured of your stupid ideas and embrace the bicycle path! Besides, it be against the law for politicians to suggest it, and would create a public outcry and anger that would likely see that party and politician get shot or worse. In the end, roads are meant to transport people. In some city's in the Netherlands there are bicycle paths that carry upwards of 60.000 people a day every day of the week. You cannot get that kind of throughput traffic in the middle of a city if you're using cars. And it's doing so without accidents, without pollution, without noise. And kids of all ages are among them. Ever seen a 3 or 4 year old cycling in Downtown Toronto? Come to the middle of Utrecht, happens every day all day.
Zo is het maar net. Ze moeten nog veel leren daar.
Er is wel een verschil denk ik. In Manchester (Engeland) leggen ze gewoon fietsstroken naast enorme wegen. In NL bestaat dat niet bij autowegen, en hier is het ook niet lekker fietsen. Scholen, huizen en kantoren blijven ook amper bereikbaar omdat zijstraatjes zijn overgegeven aan parkeerruimte. Zomaar ergens fietsstroken aanleggen helpt dan niks. Ik denk dat dit in Canada en de VS ook zo wordt gedaan.
Well...currently there are plans to widen highway A27 to the east of Utrecht, because 'they' think 'just one more lane' will solve the traffic-congestion on the A27...
@@borchen0 sometimes car lanes aren't that bad. Cars make sense in a lot of cases and no country can function without cars and highways..
The important thing is having valid alternative options to driving. That makes driving better as well for people that need to or really want to drive for some reason.
Every person in a train, walking or on a bike is 1 less car on the road. And solving traffic is most effectivly done by having less cars on the road.
@@rogerk6180 Tiny ones can.
I'm thankful every day to be born in Europe and not in North America. Common sense seems to have left that continent.
Yeah
It's not all bad. There are some nice cities to cycle in, Madison WI being one.
Hit the nail on the head on that one.
Haha so true. Just recently some American dude told me: "we need all the guns to protect innocent people". Hilarious.
Sad how people fall for all that propaganda nonsense. But that's not limited to the US.
Davis in California has better cycling infrastructure than Holland and no refugees stinking everything up. America has better cycling overall
One hilarious thing about the street view time travel at 2:18 is how clearly it illustrates "2x car lanes = 2x the car traffic"
Two lanes wouldn't even give twice the capacity. It's only about 40 to 60% more. Because of lane changes and intersections.
@@paxundpeace9970 With dense grids even fewer.
This was such a well-thought-out breakdown, Nic! I like the way you connected bike lanes to everything from traffic to public health and local businesses. It’s amazing (and frustrating) how short-sighted car-centric policies can be.
Unfortunately such shortsightedness isn't limited to urban infrastructure. It is something that pervades a lot of North America on many issues, like spending cuts on a wide variety of things without regard for why the money is being spent in the first place. It is a world of vested interests and corporate lobbying that have eroded the interests of the common citizen to an insane degree, regardless of the country.
It's quite sad you need to make this case. In the US you have two transport modes: Drive or fly. In Europe we have five: Walk, bike, drive/public transport and fly. Each mode is suitable for a particular range of distances. In the US the shorter range modes have been taken over by the car. There are many factors that caused this, but a major one of them is probably the low prices for cars and fuel. Driving is heavily subsidized and promoted in the US whereas it is somewhat penalized in Europe, especially for shorter distances.
Arguably flying is also public transport ;)
Bike Lanes actually *MAKE ROOM* for cars: a bike takes up less than 10% of the space that a car uses, and every biker is one less car on the road. Result: *MORE SPACE FOR CARS* . And another thing: Bike infrastructure is only a fraction of the cost of the (ridiculously expensive) infrastructure for the car, so bike infrastructure *SAVES THE TAX PAYER MONEY* So you would be crazy to remove bikelanes. .
I'm proud to say I've never owned a car my whole life in the US. By riding a bike in my city, that's one less car on my block that needs to be stored on the street 24/7. When I go somewhere, that's one less car taking up parking for someone else who needs it.
Whenever I pass cars on streets with no bike lanes, it's not the bikes holding them up, it's other cars.
You miss that every passenger needs an extra bike. So the formula doesn't really work.
Well, this isn't the point here.
@@Wildcard71 Sorry, The numbers that I am referring to are from actual data here in the Netherlands. Of course a bike can hold only one person. But the *average* number of people in a car in the US is only 1.5... So if a bike takes up only 10% of the space that is still an average saving of more than 65%. And actually it is even worse for the car, because not only is the bike much smaller in seize, weight and surface area, but because the bike moves much slower and is less dangerous, bikes also need much less space in front and behind of them (space that cars need for braking distance). So in reality the savings by bike use are even bigger.
@@Wildcard71 has anyone told the Dutch that a bike can only carry one person?
if we're talking about kids. you can have a seat on the back and one at the steering wheel, so one mother can carry 2 children with her on her bike.
and adults can sit on the back of most bikes, or on the beam that cracks men's parts.
so one normal bike can carry either one adult + 2 children, or two adults. without any problems.
and then we have the bakfiets or the daycare bikes that have a big area in the front where you can put 6 > 8 kids.
As a Dutch person who lives in an actual society all I can do is laugh.
Same
what is an actual society? and what are you laughing at?
100%
@tomreingold4024 one not based on living in the movie Cars.
Can't wait to visit again next summer 🇳🇱
Why kids don't go out anymore? Because if their parents can't go with them, than they will be sued for letting their kids go alone to anywhere. (I don't remember what was the charge)
In Florida they just passed a law, charging parents for the crimes of there kids, for not properly educating them in social norms. Both child and parents are charged.
Kids get hit by traffic out alone.
@@justcommenting4981 For some reason kids are not hit in every corner by traffic here in Europe, so you can allow your kids to go to their friends, to school or shopping alone.
Anyway, the kid in the case I tried to refer to were like 11-12 years old, they should be able to watch out for traffic. Of course that does not help if you live in a car centric place.
this is not really a thing... only if they are too young/immature to realistically be out doing anything (like 6-9 yr olds) vs older kids like 10-12 yr olds which can have some self-sufficiency. A parent will not be charged if they let a 12 yr old go to the store and some driver hits them out of negligence... or lets them go play at the park on their own unless there are explicit reasons for why it would be unsafe for that specific 12 yr old to do so.. like a learning disability.
It seems to me that this politician would benefit the most of creating more bike lanes and taking his car away. He would lose quite some weight, become healthier and may develop some more healthy ideas. Just a thought for the next elections.
Cant go through the drive thru without a car so you already know hes not gonna switch
I’m glad you mentioned autonomy for children. I moved to Montreal a few years ago and it’s remarkable how common it is to see children on bikes on the protected bike routes and on quiet streets and ruelles.
Yer, they are so safe! I love to bike that so often. And easily to stop by cafe or local shops as car had to find parking first. Bike rack are already there.
Come to the Netherlands to see how bike lanes are done and how it benefits all traffic participants and improves overall safety.
Yeah, as a Dutchman I’m often surprised by how congested car traffic can be elsewhere. Gridlock is almost unheard of here, and most traffic jams seem to be caused by construction work on the road. And because cars and bicycles are often separated, it makes it more comfortable for drivers. Seeing footage of New York, with endless traffic jams, cyclists zooming between cars, it just seems miserable for everyone. A good bicycle network can make it so much better for all parties.
But please restrict blue license scooters on the CYCLE paths. They go too fast and could be on the road. They make biking on the cycle path feel dangerous.
No, our cycling city Davis in California is superior. We have places for cyclists to move with no refugees. It's better than Europe if you have job skills. If you are a fool Europe has better welfare that's it.
How hard is it to remember that streets are older than cars?
And "Share the Road" is a car centric policy!
To get more freedom from cycling- practice equity over equality.
"Share the road" is OK for speeds below 20 mph.
Not only that, but well before cars, early bicyclists advocated for paved roads.
I hate that politicians are allowed to be as uneducated as the population
Especially the US POTUS elect.
My favorite leap of logic from my city is people complaining that on roads with one wide lane in each direction, if you paint bike lane on the side, it will make congestion worse.
Like, you get virtually the same space for cars before and after but some of the drivers can opt to ride a bike. And this makes traffic congestion worse?
As someone who rarely gets on a bike I want more bike lanes. More dedicated lanes for bikes the less there are in lanes for cars. And more people on bikes the less cars there will be.
My favourite part of this, how over politicized this debate is, as if riding a bike has to do anything with it.
Great video! Two things: 1) road lanes don't cause congestion, it's the intersections. Removing bike lanes on roads won't do anything. 2) Our citied inner population is going up roughly 2.5% compounded. Doesn't sound like much, but as real/large infrastructure improvements take decades, we should be planning for a 50% population increase, and keeping the current car-focused environment won't work.
People just don't get induced demand; in 1982 they built a bridge across the River Orwell in Ipswich - immediately led to a reduction in traffic through the town. Now, any time the bridge is shut (extreme winds, maintenance, accidents) the town is completely grid-locked. Why is this, when it was never grid-locked _before_ the bridge was built? Busy, yes; grid-locked, no. It's because the bridge increased vehicle use so now there are way more cars going through town than before. Mooted solution? Let's build another bridge LOL.
Needless to say, virtually no pedestrians or cyclists use the bridge - there is a footway, but nobody wants to walk alongside what is little short of a motorway. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone cycle across it; legal? Yes; Pleasant? No way.
Every time I pass cars on streets with no bike lanes, it's because they're held up by other cars, and yet I still get people yelling at me to get off the road.
@@AB-wf8ek because it hurts their ego... they wish they were driving as smooth as you, but alas... they are in fact driving, instead of biking.
Most people in the USA and Canada born after about 1965 or maybe 1975 grew up never having ridden a bike or being physically active or having unsupervised outdoors childhood adventures. Even what in schools used to be called physical training (PT), later called physical education (Phys Ed), has been pared way back or eliminated entirely. "Normal" is how things were when they were growing up. Naturally, as adults, they cannot even begin to imagine participating in active transportation.
Carmel indiana got rid of all the traffic light intersection and i mean all 150 and replaced them with roundabouts that have a much higher. They were able to reduce the number of travel lane from 3 to 2 or 2 to 1 ln most major streets.
More then double the population too.
Road Guy Rob video!
That American Fietser guy's video of his ride around Carmel wasn't really selling it for cyclists or pedestrians though, their idea of a bike lane was just the sidewalk.
@@finnblackburn9583 While I haven’t seen that particular video, I’ll take a widened sidewalk/multi-use path separated from the road over an unprotected glorified shoulder “bike lane” any day.
@@kellir.747 It wasn't a MUP, it was your standard American issue narrow sidewalk that wasn't designed for bike traffic that their council just told cyclists to ride on. Besides the roundabouts it looked like your standard issue anti bike city with terrible bike infrastructure except for one fancy MUP
The funny part is they could point to dutch cities and say 'see they are removing bikelanes' since that is happening to make them all 30km/h, red and cars are guests... A missed PR moment for them 'follow the dutch remove bikelanes!' hehe.
Yes, we are in fact removing bikelanes. In the Netherlands. However, you have to realize that 60 years ago those were car lanes. Then we added bicycle lanes, and now that we have properly trained the public for the past 60 years, we're removing the cycling lanes because the streets are designed in ways that car traffic is virtually non existent in those places. Through traffic is no longer possible, all car traffic on such roads is destination based traffic. Furthermore, there are speed bumps everywhere, the street is painted red, the street is actively discouraging high speed traffic due to the vibration and noise the road produces inside the car and the cyclists don't give a f*** about the car drivers. It also helps that the law presumes the car owner is guilty if a accident were to happen. Without the possibility of defense whilst 100% of the costs are put on the car owner.
The Dutch are not removing bike lanes, they’re converting car lanes/roads to shared roads with preference to bikes, I.e. cars are guests with 30km speed limit. In most of these examples there weren’t bike lanes but one direction roads with bike lanes on the sides
@@grumpybear6331 it was states as a semi joke but there are roads in utrecht where they removed paths and turned it into a shared road because the amount of bikes was just too much. It is true that these are exceptions and its mostly converting since if there are already separated paths taking them away doesn't make too much sense.
@@MarijnRoorda yup its only possible in some areas because all people on the road accept and have been trained in the new design from color, bumps, speed, middle rumble and other tricks. I life in Utrecht and bike about 50km/day in the city. My remark was semi serious since its always funny to say 'we are taking some away again' before explaining how/why. Having lived and driven/biked in Utrecht from the 1970's on its been a interesting transformation.
The part about induced demand that I think people get wrong is that people are "attracted" to drive. I would argue that people are *forced* to drive.
All those people who would have used micromobility in protected lanes are now forced to own and drive a car. That's where the extra demand comes from.
you will live in a pod
you will eat the grease
you will drive the car
and you will like it mentality
Thank you for that bike stress graph. That will help me articulate to level 2 riders why bike infrastructure is good. I am a veteran of Boston streets in the late 80s Where I was and still am a level 4 rider. I learned how to ride from a 80s cycliing movie. Hopping curbs weaving in and out of cars. Absolutely insane that I have never been hit or crashed. I have learned how loud my voice can be here in Cleveland advocating for change in infrastructure for other methods besides cars. Hell I am even a transit advocate. Great wook on this video I loved it.
Thanks 🙏
Big fan of traffic stress theory. Used to be a L4, firmly L3 as i have gotten older for sure. Keep up the advocacy!
The 'reduction in car lanes increased my time' always cracks me up. It's proven this is not true by default, this requires bad choices by people, not the existence of a bike lane.
People sure love their 700 dollar monthly bill on their car don't they?
What if we get rid of big American cars? Oh then we have space for everything.
As one of those 1% level 4 stress cyclists I have at times been ignorant with regards to infrastructure as I have literally found myself cycling on 70mph dual carriageways. I live in quite a bikeable city that often blames the bike lanes and LTNs but when I started running this winter you really see how much space is sacrificed and it's not like I can hop onto the road like I can with a bicycle.
Blaming congestion on bikes instead of cars truly is a 200 IQ take
I can't believe that people would support not only stopping the building of more bike lanes but actually wasting money to get rid of the ones that already exist. That part I think is crazy.
I'm somewhere around a level 3 to 4 rider. if all of the bike lanes were removed, honestly I'd probably be fine, as my route is on a shared path.
but I'd never ever venture further than my commute, no way a trip to the city other than uni, and if the shared paths were gone, no way to cycling.
not only you need more road but also more space once the car gets to its destination...
If we can reduce the speed and number of cars on the road to the point where it's perfectly save to ride a bike on the road: yes, let's get rid of bike lanes!
OK, I live in Amsterdam. And that is actually where we're heading.
The important thing to keep in mind when encountering people who demand bike lanes be removed, or who oppose their construction in the first place, is that literally by definition, a full half of the population is of below average intelligence, education, and wisdom, and a goodly proportion of the other half still doesn't have enough intelligence, education, and wisdom to be considered functionally competent. Induced demand is a counterintuitive concept that most people simply cannot grasp; they cannot understand that they are not "stuck in traffic", they *are* the traffic, because they are self-centered and short-sighted.
The biggest people against bike lanes are ones with money in cars
There, a break-in might be worthwhile.
Intersections suck. throughput on roads comes to a halt when they hit really bad intersections. The Netherlands has great bike infrastructure, but it requires commitment.
What "doubles your car time" are changes in the traffic pattern like parked cars for two blocks and then no parked cars for a block where traffic spreads out and then has to recombine when the street narrows again combined with anyone using this on-street parking disrupting the flow even more. Vehicles are hopefully never merging out of and back into separated bike lanes so the conversation between drivers and traffic engineers should never be travel lane VS bike lane, the conversation, if you are a driver, should always be about banning on-street parking and converting that space to a bus lane or a bike lane to clear obstructions in traffic flow. It's faster to drive at a continuous flowing pace than to speed ahead then stop dead, then speed ahead, then stop to let someone merge in front of you, etc. etc.
Make bike lines on parallel routes and make the parallel route cars only for local traffic (stop it being a through fare for cars). So get them out of each others crosshairs.
This is kinda how we do it(NL?), but their cities can exist with just oneway roads apart from highways around the city.
Stupidity is infinite
There need to be more bike lanes... at least on every road that has a speed limit over 30 mph so bike riders can ride safely instead of having to impede traffic
How exactly are bike lanes (that are more often than not part of the now wider sidewalk) impeding traffic? Make it make sense, please.
I am glad to live in Germany. In most cities here, we have well-developed bike paths or bike lanes on the streets. And between villages and cities, there are so-called country roads, which always have bike paths that are easy to use. But we have the same problem with some car people that think the road ist their property.
Thank fuck that I live in the netherlands
So do I enjoying riding my bike.
All of this is empirically provable and undeniably true, but won't make any impression of the average Trumpy American suburbanite. The entire idea that there's other ways to organize urban areas than the car-dependent suburb is just not on their radar, and they don't have time or energy to absorb contrary info because they are too busy with their long commutes and second jobs that they need in order to pay for vehicle expenses (at least two per household), medical debt, student loans, and health insurance premiums (assuming they are lucky enough to have health insurance).
Don’t forget the maintenance costs. Each car that passes causes like a thousand times more wear and tear to the roads than a passing bike. The more bikes instead of cars, the more years the tarmac will last and the more taxes for maintaining roads you will save.
That should appeal to all those people so worried about road tax and infrastructure costs
I live in Cambridge, which has some of the best bike infrastructure in the US. The neighborhood I live in, the street with the worst traffic has no bike lane.
Vancouver, where I live has really embraced bicycle lanes. I don't cycle any more but think they are / can be, a great idea. We also have a number of streets that are designated bicycle routes for cyclists where they get special treatment. But, why don't more cyclists use the damn things. In my neighbourhood, I watch cyclists ride along the sidewalk, where it's illegal to ride, when there is a cycle lane just a few meters away. And now we have more an more electric powered 2 wheels vehicles in various configurations and that is making much of this car / cycle / pedestrian dynamic even more tenuous. I wish I could be more pro cyclist but until more of them get off of their holier than thou attitudes and show the respect for sidewalks, red lights, and stop signs, I'll hold back a bit of my enthusiasm.
Our UK city has built in two cycle lanes a distance of four miles reducing the car lanes to one either way.
Now the bus/car lanes are clogged all the way into town turning what used to be a fifteen minute trip into a thirty minute torture run with the green party complaining about the levels of pollution on the route.
"One more lane will fix it".
And all of a sudden you end up with that Texan monstrosity, the Katy Freeway, still stuck in soul-crushing traffic jams.
Great video, great comments. Unforunalely for all videos like this is you're preaching to the choir. How do we in the cycling world who get it, convince the majority who are non-cyclists, or worse, who are very pro car-centric that bikes benefit all?
That is the golden question isn't it. I was discussing this with @Bendurham . I think his recent video on the specific situation in Toronto takes that approach and was done very well.
However I was reminded that this issue (unfortunately) is a culture war issue. It is nearly impossible to convince someone of your point no matter how many facts you bring.
Recently watched this video by Veritasium. It was eye opening for sure. ruclips.net/video/zB_OApdxcno/видео.htmlsi=Z_9U-Hc8rWkIuKdK
another great video, Nic!!!
Well supported POV Nic! I have some associates that need to see this vid. As for Doug Ford...don't get me started!!!
On a side note, put the mic on a stand or, better yet, loose it and use a lav. You don't need an SM7 for us to hear you.
He doesn’t look like he can ride a bike.
Your part about Dutch highways is a bit misleading since the Netherlands has some of the worst congestion in Europe, mostly due to its high density.
Well said
One problem I see is the lack of education on the part of drivers. You renew your driver's license every 4 years, but how much of the test actually is devoted to educating the driver on bike safety & rules? If we are to have bike lanes, then they should be PROTECTED bike lanes (a 20 lb bike is no match for a 6000 lb car). Also, a driver doesn't look to the left or right to read the signs on the side of the street, like "SHARE THE ROAD" - they only see what is directly in front of them, so, of course, they aren't going to notice bikes riding in the "bike lanes". Maybe the solution (other than to ban cars altogether) is to place the signs overhead, in big, bold letters, to get their attention. We cyclists can do only so much.
I have a similarly good idea to solving traffic congestion: Just ban all vehicles that I am not in and that aren't directly serving my needs.
That hit on LA at the end was historically accurate, but it is no longer the case IMO. They are investing in public transit and bike lanes to the tune of something like 40B over the next 10yrs and they recently passed a ballot measure to force the City to implement their Bike Master plan for a few years ago as part of any road improvement project. I believe they are in the process of actually updating their minimum standards for reflect this requirement and so over time their RoWs will improve drastically as they are redone at the end of life (10-15yrs)
How many major metro areas that aren't called Toronto is doing that right now? And when Doug Ford passes that bill, we can see TO take a beating on that comparison pretty good.
That is fair. LA has been taking huge strides. Especially with the safe streets measures. I plan on visiting next year to check it out.
In the end, focussing on forcefully building bike infrastructure isn't going to magicly solve things. There needs to be a real shift in thinking about mobility and the courage to start limiting cars in a meaningful way as well.
@@rogerk6180 possibly, but i feel you have to create the alternatives first - otherwise it's just tax on unavoidable usage. After all, the people who can avoid the usage taxes will do so by shifting how, where, and when they work, but the people serving out and food, picking up trash, fixing and building homes, treating us when we are sick, teaching us when we are young, etc cannot change when and where they work. Basically, we need the carrot and stick but the carrot coming first helps for when the stick starts swinging...
Which is why the congestion pricing in NYC is popular with the residents of the City itself - they have the carrot of usable transit infrastructure (and bikeways they have recently built out) to entice a shift in behavior with that stick...the ones doing all the complaining are the ones who don't want to use the carrot...so now they fear the stick..but having said carrot makes their arguments less valid IMO
@@nicthedoor I am not saying it's great yet... currently it is still miles behind places like NYC or TO but I am confident it will get there in my life time for sure just off the back of the current and planned future investments...
How Induced Demand is a "little known" problem at this late date is a total mystery to me.
Stupid people are stupid and intelligent people have been made stupid or made themselves stupid. People don't or won't understand there's such a thing as counterintuitive results and no such thing as common sense as they know it (basically "what I'm accustomed to must be right"). They can't conceive of empirical evidence or long term thinking. Infantile- pushed by bloated bullies like the Fords with an obsession with social hierarchy, domination, authoritarian normalcy, tyranny of the majority, money, etc...
Yep...car traffic will just get worse. If you want to make traffic better, eliminate stroads and limit zoning to either streets (focused on foot and bike traffic, with minimal, low-speed auto traffic) or a road (focused on high-speed traffic). Sharing spaces like stroads with a bike lane is not helping revitalize small, downtown business because nobody wants to stop or park on a high-speed road UNLESS you are on foot or bike. It doesn't do justice to either cars or bikes when they have to share a space.
Imagine the FREEDOM.
Sadly it’s not just America it’s all over the world except for Netherlands because every time I make a post about improving my city 90% of the comments are against it and I live in Europe
I will never understand the average person's desire to try and kill me because I'm riding 2 wheels instead of 4.
Ford is playing on people's emotional response to traffic... it sucks and there are about 10 things off the top of my head that could be done to alleviate congestion on the city streets but the only one that emotionally impacts people is to remove bike lanes in favor of more lanes... so he is going with that. Please, ask me to rattle off a list of them... I contract with engineering firms around the globe. I am not an engineer but let's say I deal with data.
Conversely, adding bike lanes will induce more cyclists to the infrastructure alleviating traffic congestion.
2:45 This was filmed in Kyiv, Ukraine. The right lanes are the bus lanes where cycling was allowed as an experiment in 2015.
You are correct! Well spotted.
@@nicthedoor Some people in the Kyiv city government claimed that cycling in the bus lane is less dangerous than cycling in the ordinary lane. So they didn't build any bike infrasctructure from 2015 to 2018 when the new road designing standards made obligatory to add infrastructure for cyclists.
Despite having alike average speed on the surface, overtaking the stopped buses is dangerous and slowing down buses to the bike speed makes buses slower but it's compensated by the fact that only a few people are willing to cycle in the bus lane.
Personally, I don't count the bus lanes as a bike infrastructure.
Nowadays, the 2-way bike (2 m+ wide) and the multi-use paths (2.5 m+ wide) are typically built alongside that types of road in Kyiv. The overall length ob bike infrastructure (including sharrows [30 km/h bike streets], bike lanes [1.5 m wide], bike and multi-use paths) is more than 200 km (the population is 3 mln people) but the connectivity is pretty much bad now.
Recently, the carbrains were outraged that the square near the main train station has become more pedestrianised and has got much more order and lost some of the road parking spaces to the protected bike lane and the bus lane.
Before, it was a car-infested place with no place for cyclists. The sidewalk was used by merchants.
These people claimed that who in the right mind would cycle (with the luggage) to the main train station of the country? I contested them and said that there are restaurants where the delivery cycles to and some of the passengers take bikes onto the suburban and regional trains as the last-mile transport.
Excellent video sir!
Could've made the argument shorter and to the point: bike infrastructure reduces the number of cars. But it wouldn't hurt to back that up with data.
Bike lanes appear empty because everyone on a bicycle has already gotten to their destination 😂😂
ban car lanes
Seems I'm a stress level 4 cyclist. Even with no bike infrastructure I get less stress and more joy riding a bike than driving a car.
Also, I like riding a motorbike more than driving a car. These and a high entry cost (i.e. the cost of buying a car) are why I don't have a car.
The problem isn't bike lanes, it's the never ending road construction. Everywhere you drive there is road construction that takes decades to complete so it never gets better
Here is a thought: all your American(continent) cities are bassicly grids so just make all roads one way. How easy are the intersections going to be! Then everystreet can have a cycling lane and there is room for parking cars.
That's actually fairly common in downtown areas. Would make more sense to have gridwide though
great video!
What if we banned calling 2 lines of paint on a road bike lanes and built real bike infrastructure instead, like they have in the Netherlands?
I commute 150 miles a week in Los Angeles on bike and don't use bike lanes. Go ahead and take them away I'd rather give drivers a headache
Torontonian here. I disagree with you on some points. I'm not sure that there would be an immediate improvement in congestion. While level 4's may represent 1% of riders, they and the food couriers likely account for a disproportionate share of ridership in terms of distances covered. These hardy few, myself included, will disrupt a full car lane, rather than the partial space associated to a bike lane. Cars are legally required to provide a 1 metre clearance to riders. There isn't a car small enough to pass a bike legally and still stay within the lane. As a result, the cars will have to more into the next lane, disrupting that lane as well, and potentially increasing the risk of vehicular collisions. This will create a greater headache for drivers.
Furthermore, there's this false idea that 4 lanes is faster than 3 lanes. With 3 lanes, you can have two smoothly flowing lanes with a dedicated left turn lane plus bike lanes. With the traditional 4 lanes, the inner two lanes will be disrupted by left turning cars, which are held back by the heavy opposing traffic on the other side. Add to that, the level 4 riders disrupting the curb side lane, the car drivers have no smooth flowing lanes with 4 lanes versus 3 car lanes + 2 bike lanes.
The bike lane haters claim 'common sense' but it's their math skills that are lacking.
People in Canada and USA seem to like paying taxes for road maintenance, and they really like bad health :D.
In my country, half of the year is to cold/rainy/snowy to go anywhere by bike.... so, for what then bike line are needed ?
Don't talk nonsense, I live in the west of Scotland, it is cold and rainy pretty much all year round and at this time of year we get fewer than 8 hours of daylight. yet many people on bikes are undeterred by the weather. At least have the honesty to admit that you're choosing to wear a car as a rain jacket.
Try Finland, they have the bike lanes plowed. Are you a cyclist?
… how much cars can go on a highway per second? About 1 a second on 2 lanes so about 2… if you would fill both lanes with bikes how much? about 5 lanes and also about 1 per second… pedestrians 20 per second?.. when you make bike lanes and walks normal size i guess they are still about 2 per second it could handle
So there should be a strong incentive to keep them because more pass through per space used…
The problem is.. when the structure is flailing so that the bike lanes do interfere with other ways of transportation.. that also reduces the people that want to ride the bike.. who wants a bike lane where every 100m they need to cross an intersection…
Nic, I would argue that traffic wont ever get better removing sidewalks and bike lanes. Bike lanes in most cases in the US and Canada are smaller than car lanes.. Therefore no traffic reduction. You make the assumption that bike lanes and car lanes are the same size. People would just switch to cars.
I really hope some of those are just trolls. As for bicycles like I just don't have really good balance, Even when I was a child I would constantly have to 'relearn' to balance every year that spring would arrive.
But you know I don't understand anybody who thinks that way. I think there should always be different options.
Sometimes I think in some ways it's harder to put good urbanism in an urban area. Because you're competing despite the fact that there is more money allocated to funding something like bicycle lanes.
Rural areas don't fill the need because well they don't really have the traffic concerns but I think if they had the means and I doubt that you would have opposition because you wouldn't have to take lanes.
And this is one of the things that really bothers me about. We're still emphasizing increasing more Lanes because it's much harder to take away Lanes once you add them. Because even if let's say the urban area was in decline of population (like the Midwest) people will still think they need it.
I decided to separate this into a separate comment.
Let me say something. I don't get the fact that bicycle lanes are only focused in urban areas, possible in suburban areas.
To be in order to make my point, it would be like if you thought only roads for cars are necessary in an urban environment. Then hardly no one would be able to drive anywhere. They would still be riding horse and buggy.
So rural areas are forgotten about.
I ride on bikes all the time and avoid them whenever I can.
1:00 Considering his size, that Mr. Ford (nice name) hasn't seen a bike in 70 years, let alone ridden one, I think he got a big bag of money from a car manufacturer (I think I already know which manufacturer😉)
The more bike lanes there are the better the world will be.
Are you insane??? How do you think you can get across a city without a bike lane????
Was also my first question.
Very American. Ban bike lanes. Ban walkways. Get fat. Vote Republican.
Are we humans designed to discriminate based on minor differences? I mostly move by bike in LA, and some of my close friends asked me why bike riders ignore traffic laws. I do not know if bikers have a higher percentage of violations than drivers, but I have experiences plenty of driver's violations that endangered me and others.
what if we got rid of individual cars in cities?
true.
all of it.
Stop building bike lanes in cities... slow car traffic down to max out at 30 km/h and then bikes and cars can co-exist... also get rid of on street parking... we will need the capacity to support all the new bike riders.
Keep building bike lanes in rural areas, those places suck to bike on the road.
The audacious arrogance of North America means that it's impossible for them to look to those European countries which have changed cities from car centric to many cyclist and pedestrian centric spaces. Just look to the before and after of many of the spaces in those countries.
Doug Ford- eeeya.
“The reduction in streets width” yeah cause a bike lane is as wide as a car lane, if you don’t have the intellect to see one is not as wide as the other you shouldn’t be allowed to drive
yup yup yup
Let the opponents of cycle paths come to our Netherlands......they will have a heart attack. accept and adapt, it is not that difficult in a carcentric North America
Sadly Doug Ford visited Houston instead and thought "Yeah, this is how we should build Toronto"
@@nicthedoor unfortunately yes, don't look further than his big belly
Shitty drivers and car traffic abound, but... somehow *bike lanes* are the "problem"
This is just "car-brain" refusing to come to terms with the mess *it created*, thereby scapegoating someone else for their failures to properly 'deal with' or 'confront' traffic. 🤣
"Let's get rid of the BIKE LANES! That'll fix our traffic problems!" lmao
People are selfish. If they don't cycle, they hate bike lanes. Everywhere where a bike lane takes space from car traffic is just must be bad for them. But make a calculation of the time their car trips (including parking) take and compare that with cycling to the same destinations. Also compare the cost.
Time to ban cars!
In Amsterdam, Some streets don’t have car lanes anymore. Makes life very nice.
@@JaNouWatIkVind Not just Amsterdam, the entire country.
@@marinusvos True. There are streets, bridges and lanes in my town of Helmond that are dedicated to bikes, pedestrians and disableds. Green, quiet, walkable. You wouldn't believe the amount of traffic and leisure they support.
Bikelanes 👍👍👍👍👍👍
👍