3 Myths of Cycling Debunked!
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- Presented on 4 December 2020 to IGLUS iglus.org/
Connect with Urban Cycling Institute:
Website - urbancyclinginstitute.com
Twitter - / fietsprofessor
Facebook - / urbancyclinginstitute
Linkedin - / urbancyclinginstitute
Coursera - www.coursera.org/learn/unrave...
Anyone loving this should check the Not Just Bikes channel to see many concepts of this talk in action.
Yes, it's the best channel where a foreigner shows his insights on the Dutch infrastructure compared to other countries. I love that channel.
I love your pfp I have the same one on my Instagram 😊
Just follow this and that channel. Plus City Beautiful, Dutch Cyling Embassy, Propel & Streetfilms. And BicycleDutch, of course!
I enjoy your presentations very much. Just one note, the picture shown at 19:01, that shows demolished house in the Nieuwmarkt area, should not be there. Since you are talking about city renewal in the 60's and 70's building for cars. In this particular picture you see the building of the first metro line, going from Amsterdam Central Station to Amsterdam Zuid-Oost or Bijlmer. So the houses there were demolished for the construction of the metro line, not for the creation of a highway, like correctly shown on the previous picture of Wibautstraat.
Thanks for the correction!
There is no 'Amsterdam together with Copenhagen'. There is Amsterdam ... and then there is Copenhagen as a distant second in terms of national capitals. And when it comes to cycling infrastrucure The Netherlands as a country is not only superior but in a different league entirely as Denmark from the start. Denmark basically only has Copenhagen as their experiment. The Netherlands started much earlier and has moved lightyears ahead of Denmark in every way imaginable. The Netherlands is the only country in the world that has a non-stop network of cycling infrastructure througout the nation. Compared to Amsterdam or any other Dutch city, village or in between, Copenhagen is basically mideval in terms of cycling infrastructure. Denmark as a country does not even deserve to be part of the conversation at all when it comes to setting a standard for cycling infrastructure. There is only The Netherlands.
Yes, I agree, he thinks in one city! Amsterdam is not the bicycle city of the Netherlands for example. He must know better. Utrecht, Groningen, even Rotterdam is a better way to go around on your bicycle. Amsterdam centre is crazy, with all those tourist. Dangerous to ride your bicyle there.
I live in Denmark and your wrong! Denmark has good cycling infrastructure. its not better than the netherlands but still denmark isn't as trash as you think outside of copenhagen
@@Mgameing123 : He wasn't saying Denmark's cycling infra is trash. He was saying there is no comparison. Compared to the rest of the world Denmark has a fine cycling infrastructure, except for the Netherlands which is on an entirely different level (by necessity, by mindset and by geographic advantage).
@Deus Vult It should be part of the conversation in the sense that in the very least the people at Copenhagenize are so full of shit it's not even funny.
But looking at many countries they can achieve quite fast the level of Denmark if they put things in work. But the Netherlands is indeed a few levels higher. And out of reach for now for many countries. Just come to the level of Denmark and we can be happy. And then see how we can achieve better.
Find it funny Dutch had oil issues in 70’s. One of largest oil company’s ‘Shell’
That's politics. The Middle East wanted to get back at Europe, so they boycotted Rotterdam. As the biggest port in Europe, that totally F'd the availability of gasoline in all of Europe. That crisis basically showed that the OPEC had a lot of power, and the prices of oil have never been the same ever again.
9:04 might be Amsterdam suburbs, but it's also typical big poldertown.
I also want to say, I recently found my papers for what I should have studied in the Netherlands and on top was 'verkeerskunde'. Traffic Planning. I chose the second one on the list, 'cause multiple interests and such. But since then I follow channels like these and it turns out I am indeed, and have been interested in this field.
Lounging at caffees, trendy shopping, I rarely do ever.
There was a reduction in 90’s in inner city of Amsterdam to outline areas, which later filled. Wonder if this was from the changes.
In the beginning you mentioned pay for ride. I have been living in Singapore for 8+ years and I haven't noticed much difference other than paying more dollars for 100 meters to reach my apartment.
The government argues that they can create leasure cycling infrastructure, but there is no room for more.
What nonsense. When I was working outside central district, they were building a new area, but small as it was, there had to be 4 lanes and 3 exits. One was already granted traffic lights.
What a waste of space.
That was excellent, thank you.
Nl has done great leaps in 30 years!
NL also has one of the highest density.
Hey mom I’ll be home for thanks giving but imma need 2 weeks off to bike in New England November
George, how well do you think the idea of mixing modes where possible translates to countries where the relationship between people who cycle and people who don't is (to be charitable in my wording) strained? For example should the UK push for a larger amount of segregation than NL based on people outside the strong and confident minority of potential utility cyclists not finding mixing with cars in many situations attractive, given some drivers will go out of their way to make cycling among them dangerous and many more don't understand how and when to overtake safely?
To what degree does traffic calming temper the frustrations and antagonism drivers feel towards, and nuisance perceived from, people on bikes?
Anecdotally I feel widely spaced speed humps and occasional one off chicanes (the UK's calming methods of choice) aren't sufficient calming on roads where bikes are expected to share space with cars - so does calming methodology matter more in these more antagonistic cultures?
I guess it changes the parameters of "where possible" to partially answer my own question.
I think you're right that you can't just skip ahead to where the Dutch are now. The reason we can get away with messy lively traffic calmed environments that don't have too much separation or infrastructure now is because we have a critical mass of cyclists. Separated infrastructure really helped us get there and you might need to take that step first.
Although I agree that there is more 'strain' between cyclists and drivers than in the UK, the accident statistics show that cycling safety in the UK isn't markedly different to NL.The problem therefore is more that non-cyclists perceive that cycling is more dangerous in the UK and therefore certainly segregated cycle infrastructure helps encourage people to start cycling. A lot of UK cycle infrastructure, particularly shared use paths which are really just pavements with some added paint, are actually more hazardous than the roads they run alongside, as shown through accident statistics. They are also usually much slower to use as priority is lost at junctions and cycling speed is reduced by the potential hazards. For this reason many new cyclists use the cycle infrastructure for a short period, but then realise they would actually make more rapid progress and be safer on the road. The purpose of segregated cycle infrastructure is therefore to convert non-cyclists into cyclists, but is often abandoned by cyclists once they've gained some experience. The exception is child cyclists that cycle at lower speeds and are less able to cope with the hazards on a road.
On the roads, cycling safety improves as the number of cyclists increases. If the probability of a driver encountering a cyclist on a particular road is low, then a driver is less likely to drive allowing for a cyclist being around every corner. That changes once tere is a high probability that there will be a cyclist around every corner. There is therefore a critical mass that needs to be reached before cycling on the road in the UK becomes as safe as the Netherlands. That has only been reached on a minority of roads so far.
Nice idea for planners to keep checking & changing lans. Also would like to see planners open houses, from an information dump & here is what you are going to get & you better like, and to pretend we are listening, we’ll let you pick the flower planters or Colors.
All of these 'pricing policies' reduce down to taking money and limiting options for poorer people. The rich will still not have to consider the cost to such an extent that it would change their choices, but just like petrol hikes, they DO for poor people. Rich and poor will be impacted by traffic jams and make changes according to that.....and traffic jams will always be a feature, unless you ban all cars completely. Stop building more roads and the current ones will fill up, then slowly ease.
Richer people drive cars (in germany) 7times more often then pourer people. This argument is bogus. Poorer people driving can have some govermant aid.
okay, three minutes within your first 'debunking' I see a fallacy. Yes, there are different percentages of bicycle, car and public transport use in one city (Asterdam) alone. So you argue that 'if all Amsterdam is built with exactly the same bicycle infrastructure, these percentages would be the same. Ergo: 'built them and they will come' is clearly a myth because this piece of Amsterdam has only 32 percent of all trips made by bicycle and in the touristy centre is has a whopping 62 percent!'
However, different parts of the city has different uses. There are parts that are the banking district, or the industrial district or the touristy district or the suburban district where people actually live, and all have a different percentage of cycling infrastructure and public transport structure, all tailormade to different needs. OF COURSE, the touristy city center, with all the canals, musea, restaurants and 17th century houses has more pedestrianised bits and is pushing cycling infra more! They WANT to cater to the tourists and if there was NO cycling infra, and NO pedestrianisation, the city center would be extremely unpleasant to traverse. Never mind that the tourists themselves don't drive cars there. So OF COURSE the very pedestrianised city center has far less car traffic.
And OF COURSE the bits of the city that has the new metro system will have more people opting to go to work by public transport. Etc. etc...
If you were to look at the percentage of CAR use, that is pretty much the same in the 'old bits' of the city (around a third of all trips, and even less in the very pedestrianised, touristy bit). The two newer developments have just under half of all trips by car. Now, it's interesting to find out the kind of car trips we are talking about. Is this the use of the residents for their daily shopping, or is the commute to and from those areas? Are we talking about delivery vans and cement trucks delivering building materials? These are areas that are constantly building new offices, new residential building, new shopping areas to cater to the new residential buildings, etc.
Secondly, according to Wikipedia, the rates of car ownership between the Netherlands and the UK has the Netherlands slightly higher up the list: in the Netherlands, it's 487 cars per 1000 inhabitants versus 471 cars per 1000 inhabitants in the UK. And yet, if you go to cyclinguk dot org, you will find that the percentage of trips made by bicycle in the city of London and indeed the entirity of Great Britain is only ONE percent. They also state that cycling has seen an upsurge in London these past ten years. Boris' crappy smurf 'cycling highways' might be next to worthless, but at least it was SOMETHING! And yet, before WWII, bicycle use in the UK would have been as ubiquetous as in the Netherlands. And then, in the Fifties, car ownership was pushed, roads to accomodate them were build and by the Seventies, bicycles were firmly replaced. Yet in the Netherlands, where the same push for car infra was pushed in the Seventies, there was a pushback and several municipalities tried to build more cycling infra and hey presto! Now even the WORSE percentages of cycling use in Amsterdam is better than anything in any English speaking nation.
In short, while there might be a slight difference iin bicycle percentage in different areas of a city, there must be a reason why the population of a country with less cars per capita has only ONE percent of cycling use while the country with more cars per capita has cycling numbers where 22 percent is considered 'awfully low' and 62 percent is considered high. On average, it's about a THIRD OF ALL TRIPS. Thirty five frikkin' percent versus ONE percent. Now, why would that be? Could that possibly be because it EASIER to cycle and that one very, VERY huge reason why it's easier is because the Dutch actually BUILD THE CYCLING INFRA?!!
Oh dear, Canyon Overlook, I suppose you are one person who really likes to take a car without even thinking where you want or NEED to go, right? However you might want to look what you are actually are traveling on. Roads aren't free for all places, they always come at a cost. Why would you build a complicated network of roads just for the sake of one tiny area. Those little towns most people seem to avoid because 'there is nothing interesting to do and all I can do is flee to the nearest interesting one' seems to be the modus operandi of every American.
Just keep dreaming that costly dream, infrastructure for people should be mainstream. Americans have this idea zoning is good. It might have been in the bygone era, sadly that is why you little towns die off. There isn't an incentive to keep people there.
Ah well, you are welcome to live in a car infested world. It is just not my idea of where I want to live.
I don't want a car infested world. I hate cars. I wish I didn't have to drive a car. I like the older small and medium-sized towns that were thriving before cars took over.
I agree we had more walkable or bikeable cities before the car, but now it is so spread out it would be very hard to convert most areas built after WWII to how it was built before.
If we built new cities, we could do those properly, but I still think bikes won't be as big a part of it as they are in the Netherlands because of extreme weather. Mass transit and walking would be the most used forms of getting about.
They have to be built well enough that people don't have to own a car because once people have a car they will use it because it is already paid for.
@@canyonoverlook9937 the weather has almost nothing to do with cycling. Look at Oulu. And Oulu is the richest bigger city in snow. www.euronews.com/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-loving-finnish-city-that-keeps-pedalling-even-in-the-snow
17:50 yeah the Randstad (which is shown on the map) is indeed very well served. Go outside that area and suddenly it’s a different story. Perhaps better than some other countries, but still not a great alternative for the car.
Depends really, but mostly it still is separated in the villages or car traffic is low.
You really should change your audio setup. Made me not watch to the end.
At first I thought, "it's not that bad" but after a while it really was grating, especially since it's not an edited video so it takes quite a long time to make any interesting points. Lots of hemming and hawing. Presenter, you should look up and article called "High Quality Audio Makes You Sound Smarter" by Thomas McKinlay (it's about how to get better sound as well). I skipped around though to find the correct version of each myth and that was interesting though. Some good points I hadn't considered.
I'm totally pro cycling, but I cringe at the idea of government policing our cars with electronic gadgets. The potential of misuse, in some form is enormous! Besides I don't want that stuff in my classic car!
At a certain certain point in the near future mass transport isn't viable. 30 miles trips to go shopping is a no-no, yet most Americans do that on a regular basis. It is bonkers.
100 years ago the first automobile was invented? Let's see...1886 to 2020...yep, exactly 100 years!
Constant popping noise is annoying #badAudioPandemic
100 years ago was 1921. The automobile was invented half a century before that.
Was not popularised that early
@@Moses_VII Come on. The Model T ran from. 1908 to 1927. A hundred years ago it was nearing the end of its life cycle.
@@raleedy depending on country too.
@@martijnvangammeren1868 No.
@@raleedy Cars in the Netherlands really took off after WW2 in the 60's. So yes cars existed way before that but it was not the main means of transportation. Europe only elite and high class citizens had the use of a car, not the everyday worker. Also if you look back at older USA cities they also had better infrastructure for people walking, cycling, public transport. Than they choose to give way for the car and use zones in their urban planning which is not going well.
Not all Dutch people live in 7'5km of a trainstation. That are probably the numbers for Amsterdam or an other big city. There are enough places where there is no trainstation ad all!
It is all nice, but most countries, especially countries like the USA, wil never switch. Their car is to important. They loose everything, but they will never sell their car.
He never said that all people in the Netherlands live 7,5 km or less than from a trainstation. He said 81% of the Dutch population does that. There will always be people who need to live in more remote places, and a car is probably justified for these people, but that the car is justified for people living remotely does not mean owning a car is justified for people living in a city.
I think you are looking at the situation backwards for the US. You say people keep a car even if the loose everything, so the people of the US will not give up their cars, but what if you built infrastructure in the US so that people can safely let go of a car when they are down on their luck? What if people arn't keeping their cars because they love cars, but because if they do get rid of the car they have lost every attachment in a society that is purposely built to be impossible to be part of if you do not have a car.
"Not all Dutch people live in 7'5km of a trainstation" --> You are 100% right! That's why he said about 80% of the population does...
@@kattkatt744 people keep their car to live in, but yes outside the city they need one as they live far away from every one. But not always.
But what does it matter, jyst get an other credit card to pay the debts on the other ones.
People's opinion and options can change. What are Americans going to do when baby boomers get too old to drive? Grew up in rural US, learned to drive a tractor at the age of 7, got my licence the day I turned 16, could not have imagined ever giving up a car. When I got a job in Korea, my apartment was 500 meters from my job, everything I needed was within two km, even a good fishing spot. A car was just an expense. Now, I can't imagine not living near public transportation and having most I need are easy biking distance. When I bought an apartment I paid a more to to have less of a commute. I wasted so much time driving to places. I will never own a car again, because actually a car keeps a person in debt and stress.
I have seen figures that say 85% of the population live within 7.5Km of 2.3 train stations on average.
The Netherlands is a really small country so it is very hard to find anywhere that is 7.5Km from a trainstation.
Spent time in NL in early 90’s nov & dec. saw virtually no cycling going on & road traffic was crazy.
I lived in Utrecht at that time, a busy cycling center. So it all depends on where you lived and how far from work. Inner cities bikes were then still growing, yet could be busy. In between cities, cars ruled. Check the CZcams channel Not Just Bikes and you'll be astounded how much it changed since then for the better even.
@@KootFloris in the 90s NL was not bike friendly.
@@mohamedaminekoubaa5231 In the 90's already way more than other countries and that was when we really started working on it. Though different cities had different provisions. I lived in Leeuwarden (not so much) and Utrecht (one of the headliners).
Check his other replies.
Don't feed the troll.
The isn't big bud it still depends on where you are.
What ever the arguments for cycling let us remain free to choose to drive the automobile and airplane when we need it.
That's a strange request. "Whatever the arguments"? Really? Why would your wish to drive a car everywhere trump *all* other arguments why that is not a great idea for some areas?
Times are changing... whether you want it or not.
Trains get faster, more convenient, and bring you from city center to city center.
So the need to travel by car gets less.
You've always had the freedom to choose when to drive, walk, take public transit, hire private transit or cycle. Like everything else, your choice is limited by the infrastructure available.
Exactly that s what we want. Freedom to drive, walk and cycle. This freedom can only be achieved if sheets are planned well
What ever the arguments for cars, let us remain free to choose the mode of transport that works best for our individual needs, instead of buldoozing everything to make colossal parking lots and multi lane stroads.
The average apartment size in Amsterdam is only 527 square feet which is much smaller than US housing. The US has much more space so we don't build walkable areas.
Biking won't work for most areas of the US. The weather is too extreme in many places and our metro areas are too spread out to have a high use of bikes. I would rather drive a mile or 2 to the suburban train station in the Chicago area or NYC area than ride a bike. Of course, most people don't work downtown Chicago or even in Manhattan in the NY area.
I don't know how we reduce car driving because our cities are mostly single-family homes.
I think central cities will be less important as more and more office workers work from home. If we keep just adding more houses to metro areas and spread things out we will always have to drive. I hate driving but I would rather drive than be inconvenienced and ride a bike in terrible weather,
These are pretty poor arguments
1) Amsterdam is not a model for the rest of the Netherlands. Two thirds of the population of the Netherlands is housed in single family homes (source: CBS 2013)
2) In the US, before the proliferation of cars, people were able to get about just fine. Many cities, even the smaller ones, used to have a dense and well serviced public transit network.
3) With a well designed cycling network, short distance trips are as quick or even quicker than using a car, when you include the time to park, etc.
4) Where cycling is a viable mode of transport, it's used even if the weather is poor.
5) Poorly designed urban areas are not a given and can be improved!
Look up Oulu, Finland. It's arctic as hell, sparsely populated, and very car friendly. Yet they still have Dutch levels of cycling because they built the infrastructure. America is out of excuses. And it's not like the Netherlands doesn't get bad weather either: it's one of the windiest countries in the world, it used to snow and freeze a lot, and it rains just as much as in London or Seattle.
Ooh! I just got Bingo on my bicycle bullshit excuses card!
When offered a car ride during heavy rain, my sister's neighbour's kid said "no thank you. I'd be depending on others to drive me around. I hate waiting for them to show up. I'd rather put on my rain gear, hop onto my bike and be independant. I like to chose my own departure time and I like to deviate from my path whenever I feel like it." So he bikes to school, which is about 10km = 6 miles. We're not made of sugar. czcams.com/video/5JQr8cm-6X4/video.html
Canyon Overlook Thank you for sharing your opinion. I had a good laugh! The idea I come away with most after reading your 'arguments' is that ignorant people like you literally need to be forced into a changing way of life and infrastrucure otherwise it will never happen.
You talk too much