City Cycling


Bicyclists wait to cross a canal bridge, which has rotated to allow a boat through.

In the Netherlands, bicyclist safety and comfort is developed through a series of low-stress bicycle routes which separate bicyclists from vehicular traffic on arterials or mix bicyclists with traffic on low speed, low volume roads where vehicles are treated as the "guest". These design choices are implemented to make bicycling appealing and comfortable for all potential bicyclists, including the old and the young. And indeed, some cities that have implemented such designs have achieved cycling mode shares of over 25%. I like the picture above because it demonstrates the sheer quantity of how many people use the bike facilities in the Netherlands. Here, bicyclists wait on a dedicated cycle track to cross a canal bridge which has rotated to let a boat pass through. The grey pavers to the right indicate the presence of a pedestrian walkway. Vehicles may also use the bridge. However, only one vehicle was waiting at the time this photo was taken...compare that to the number of bicyclists!

Cycling comprises a much lower percentage of mode share in the US. It is also more dangerous: the fatality rate per mile of biking in the US is several times higher than it is in the Netherlands. In the US, low-stress bicycling routes are generally few and far between. Bike lanes provided on busy arterials where vehicle speeds exceed 30 mph are considered "good" bicycling accommodations. Bicycle sharrows, also considered "good", direct mixing between bicyclists and vehicle traffic in one lane where bicyclists are considered the "guest". While these treatments denote awareness that bicyclists should be provided for in the transportation system, they come nowhere near the level of design considered acceptable practice in the Netherlands. 

Why are US cities so far behind the Netherlands in terms of bicycling infrastructure? One aspect is the influence of "vehicular cycling" philosophy on US design practice. Vehicular cycling gained traction in the 1970s, championed by bicycling advocate John Forester. Forester proclaimed that "cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". Persons who follow the vehicular cycling philosophy believe that separating bicyclists from motorists actually leads to more dangerous outcomes and constitutes "an attack on cyclists' right to ride in the road"[1]. Under this philosophy, one typically believes that the presence of bike lanes makes bicycling more dangerous because it forces bicyclists out of the areas motorists pay most attention to. The philosophy encourages a bicyclist to skillfully change positions within a shared lane to detract from the probability of a right-hook crash, a crash where a right-turning vehicle fails to yield right-of-way to a through-moving bicyclist. In short, vehicular cycling places safety responsibility on the skill of the rider to avoid conflicts; not facility design. While it is important for both riders and motorists to act with awareness of each other, the vehicular cycling philosophy ignores the success of European design practices in promoting cycling, engineering countermeasures designed to address safety concerns, and bicycling safety research which challenges its claims.

As US transportation practitioners increasingly turn towards European design practices to encourage bicycling adoption in US cities, the influence of vehicular cycling on American bicycle design policy weakens. Still, its touch remains. One finds current websites dedicated to furthering the vehicular cycling philosophy, websites which suggest that separated bike lanes are inconvenient for all users and unsafe. These websites ignore research to the contrary. Montreal and New York City, for example, have both installed separated bike lanes and observed a reduction in conflicts. Further, many cities who have installed separated bike lanes have observed increases in the number of persons choosing to cycle, as in the Netherlands. Peter Furth argues in City Cycling, "if the measures used to make Dutch bikeways safe are so inconvenient, why do so many people use them?" I can say that as a bicyclist who hovers somewhere between "enthused and confident" and "interested but concerned" on Roger Geller's "Four Types of Cyclists" typology in the US, I am fully "enthused and confident" in the Netherlands. 

[1] Bicycling Infrastructure for Mass Cycling: A Transatlantic Comparison, Peter Furth, Chapter 6, in City Cycling, by Pucher and Buehler.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

First Impressions

Final Reflections

"How the Dutch got their cycle paths" (BicycleDutch): A Video Review