social.outsourcedmath.com


"You are not stuck in traffic, you are traffic"
Cities For People: How Paris & Barcelona Learned Urban Planning From Gronigen
https://youtu.be/RYuGWOjm26E

Happy in your bubble?
Well, my final comment in the original thread was "Feel free to ignore and do whatever you like", it got deleted, too. My impression is that both of you are only interested in approval, but not in criticism or even in a discussion of urban planning and transport policies.

(Just asking, not going to repeat what I wrote there.)
That would explain why what you've written on this post so far is gibberish to me. You don't know me and I don't know you, and this is the Internet. And I still don't get what you're on about.
That would explain why what you’ve written on this post so far is gibberish to me.
Does it? Anyway, sorry about that. Should I have enriched my rather dry remarks with plenty of swearing words from the realm of filthy language, like Rodrigo Mesa did? I'm not a native speaker, so I'm not well versed in that area.
You don’t know me and I don’t know you, and this is the Internet.
Indeed it is.
Nothing would help except explaining WTF you're talking about. Start there.
Earlier you wrote
That would explain why what you’ve written on this post so far is gibberish to me.
To me, this and comments in the original thread suggested that you've had read my now deleted comments in the original thread. Now you wrote in that thread that you haven't. A misunderstanding, sorry about that.

It is long past midnight in this timezone and I'm too tired to recreate my comments about what is wrong with the traffic concepts this video is trying to sell, especially wrt. cycling. Perhaps tomorrow.

May I ask a question? The OP again and again wrote "fuck bicycling". While I understand the verbatim meaning, I fail to understand what he is talking about or getting to. He wrote that he indeed owns and uses a bicycle.
I reshared this article right after only a couple of comments were posted, none of which were yours. My understanding of the "fuck bicycling" comment was that bicycling takes too long to get to places that aren't close to home, which is why I made my MPH comment, which still stands: the more M you have to cover, you need to cover it in fewer H. That's what makes bicycling suck. The objective of the article was to discuss how city layout & features could facilitate transit, mass transit included.
The objective of the linked youtube video is to sell the Dutch way of downgrading the bicycle to a slow vehicle on flat ground within a cities, and does a good job wrt. marketing. "Learned Urban Planning From Groningen" is a joke - leaving Groningen and getting out to the land by bike starting at the center needs less time than one usually has to wait for the bus on average in my home town, which has reasonably good mass transit, about fifteen minutes.

The Netherlands are a tiny, flat country at the North Sea coast. The first question to as is whether the Dutch model is applicable to cities which aren't on flat and surrounded mostly by water. The fact that essentially all cities presented in these campaigns are either small cities near water, like Groningen, or just the centers (we call them Fußgängerzone, pedestrian area, around here) of large cities should raise doubts. Unfortunately, of depending on how you view at it, fortunately, many, if not most cities either are located in or near hilly areas or where one isn't trapped by a coast on one side an a tangle of Autobahn/freeways on the other side.

The second question to as is whether that propaganda doesn't confuse cause and effect. Certainly you'll notice many more cyclists when walking around in Dutch towns and cities than when walking around, say, Springfield, Vermont. Six kilometres on flat ground certainly is easier than twice as much uphill. Dutch bicycles ("Hollandrad", clumsy, but robust cycles made for slow riding on sandy roads in salty climate) are the way the are for a reason. Don't expect the Dutch planning (and that way of cycling and urban planning) work for, say, getting to work when living in Springfield and working somewhere outside that town.

Consider, perhaps, riding this route each and every day. 12.5 km (7.8 miles), 93 m uphill, cumulative. Would Dutch type urban plannig in Springfield, Vermont? Do you expect a mass transit to cover that route in the forseeable future? Google tells me 14 Minutes by car on a non congested road, or 43/36 minutes (up/down( by bicycle, which is reasonable, if somewhat on the slow side for a reasonable bike and rider.

Too many miles and to much time lost sucks, that's for sure. But that isn't a valid reason to slow down cycling even more, by forcing cycling traffic on ways planned for pedestrians. Most people can ride a bicycle and are able to learn to do it properly, but there are of course limits.

Personally, I have'nt lost a single hour voluntarily in stinking gyms with weight-stemming or stomping on an ergometer, simply by just riding a distance similar to the example above (12.5 km, 120 up cumulative, mostly at rush hour in dense traffic) to work, for the major part of my working life. It kept me fit enough to gradually learn, after retirement, how to tackle distances of 110 km with 1400 meters of altitude by bicycle.

Anyone who values hours on the bike solely as lost time is doing it wrong. Anyone who does urban planning by just looking at downtown and pedestrian areas as a role model for cycling is doing it wrong by making fast cycling more awkward that it has to be. If freeways would be planned and cars be designed by looking at the most common distances driven, people would buy cars with a maximum range of 15 miles and accept a speed limits of 30 mph.

TL;DR bicycling doesn't suck if you don't make it suck.
Interesting and quite valid points--from which we may conclude that "one size doesn't fit all". Since the original post was for the purpose of sparking discussion, I have no problem with actually discussing stuff. And if you like your bike you should be able to keep using it.

I'd stop short in calling a promotion "propaganda", though. It's just a pitch that focuses on all the perceived advantages for the people who have found it advantageous, and it's no surprise that what some people find to be advantages aren't advantages for other people. The fair thing to conclude is that municipalities should put in place that which offers the most advantages for each of different circumstances for the most people while accommodating people who remain that are most disadvantaged.
I think we can leave it at that, as long as we can also agree to the notion that neither municipalities nor state wide laws should prohibit bicycling on public roads for the benefit of those who can't or, more often than not, don't want to use a bicycle for anything but very short distances. I call marketing like the referenced YT strip propaganda, because groups producing that stuff, while talking about cycling a lot, systematically ignore bicyclists and their interests, who actually do use bicycles as a means of transport for distances usually done by car. They do it against better knowledge, IMO.

My opinion and experience, of course, YMMV.
My experience has been that bikes sharing the road with motor vehicles if they don't have dedicated bike lanes is a significant public safety issue, as they are if they share sidewalks with pedestrians. I can't picture bicycle rights on the Autobahn, for instance. Things are quite different in the U.S. which can't be compared to Southeast Asia where bicycles reign supreme. As I said at the outset, the objective of considering the OP is to weigh benefits as touted as applied to scenarios different from what's presumed to see if any of it is actually usable in other contexts.
My experience has been that bikes sharing the road with motor vehicles if they don’t have dedicated bike lanes is a significant public safety issue
My extensive experience and my knowledge after looking at data instead of opinions is contrary to that belief. This is not the place to discuss it at length, so just one simple argument about one reason why this is so.

Most cyclists who get injured or even killed don't get harmed by getting hit from behind, but while crossing traffic. Separation significantly increases the number of places where the paths of motor vehicle traffic and bicycle traffic inevitably intersect. Inexperienced cyclists in particular, who feel safe on their paths, fall victim to this. Separation is done and enforced mostly for the convenience of motorists.

"Bicycle on the Autobahn" is a red herring. Fun fact: part of my commute was on the Autobahn, for a while. I hope you don't think a railing can reliably stop a skidding truck.
Scientists have established that transit fatalities happen when there's a great difference in speed of the vehicles, so there's that. Unless and until there are zero fatalities, the cyclist remains a statistic upon which one gambles with one's own life. In the scenario when there are 90% successes and 10% fatalities, when you set out you still don't know if you're going to wind up in the 90% or the 10% just prior to arrival at destination. Those who are prone to roll the dice will roll the dice, and I for one don't mourn the self-inflicted.
Scientists have established that transit fatalities happen when there’s a great difference in speed of the vehicles, so there’s that.
Citation required. Moreover, that doesn't contradict what wrote.
Unless and until there are zero fatalities, the cyclist remains a statistic upon which one gambles with one’s own life
Bullshit. For example, we tolerate motorcycle accidents causing more than an order of magnitude more deaths, compared to deaths from cyling accidents, in Germany and AFIK most of Europe. We neither ban motorcycles from using the roads nor do we blame each and every motorcyclist to gamble with his or her life.

Btw., against common belief of motorists, most cycling happens on ordinary roads, not on bike paths, around here. This belief is easily explainable by looking at the bicycle usage patterns of motorists.

Cycling is one of the healthiest activities known, also useful and available to everyone. An hour spent on a bike gives you an average of twenty hours more life expectancy.
In the scenario when there are 90% successes and 10% fatalities, when you set out you still don’t know if you’re going to wind up in the 90% or the 10% just prior to arrival at destination.
So you believe an average bicylist has an one to ten chance of dying in an single trip? I'm speechless. This is so far removed from the actual quotient that it would not help if I calculated an estimate of the actual value for Germany. We should stop here, it's no use.
Indeed; I make reference to U.S. traffic studies of which there are too many to cite. What's bullshit to you actually rules in the U.S.
The objective of transit is to get you from point A to point B, and if you're on a schedule, it's to get from point A to point B without wasting time in transit. What you do for your own health is, of course, your business and nobody gets to enforce their own business into other people's business.

Anyone who bets that they'll live through any given experience or outing based on the odds of surviving is gambling their lives on the odds--it's obvious. Any time someone says that there's a better chance than...that person is betting on odds. Relativeism fails when you absolutely need to get back home alive after any given outing,and that's absolute, not relative. ;)
Indeed; I make reference to U.S. traffic studies of which there are too many to cite.
So you've noticed your mistake, good. Now it's "traffic studies" you can't or won't cite. You believe an average bicylist having a one to ten chance of dying in a single trip, and so on and so on. This is getting ridiculous.

You fish for reasons not to ride a bike. I'm happy with it! You're probably better off not doing it, and we, who can certainly do it fast and safely, are probably better off doing it when you're not cycling. But please, just spare us the fear mongering.
Relativeism fails when you absolutely need to get back home alive after any given outing,and that’s absolute, not relative. ;)
Quoting Reader's Digest?
I made no mistake, hon. Your mistake was that you kept your study focus too narrow, so the error is yours...and that's what has gotten ridiculous. Your other mistake was claiming that I was fishing. I'm a cyclist. Your third error was inserting Reader's Digest as a diversion. Desperate, aren't you.
That's not even argument clinic style.
Desperate, aren’t you.
Not in any way. Just a little disappointed when someone plays a cyclist on the internet.

A few days ago I cycled out of town towards the Eifel, to the highest mountain in the Ahrgebirge (Ahr hills) and back, a very enjoyable 138 kilometres by bike. Where do you ride, up and down your driveway?
My thread, my rules, and I am what I say I am and you're out of line calling me a liar about myself. And I don't read German. You ARE desperate for a fight. You're not gonna get one. Suck it.
My thread, my rules,
What specific rule are you talking about?
And I don’t read German.
Your name, most probably a pseudonym, sounds like German, so I assumed at least a little bit of understanding - which isn't even necessary to understand the visualization (map, data, pictures etc.) and the point I made. I even linked to two English Wikipedia pages describing the locations, for your convenience and our enjoyment. You're a cyclist, I expected a fellow cyclist to be interested to read about where other cyclists ride. Talking about my commute would rather be boring ...

And sorry about the joke.
and you’re out of line calling me a liar about myself.
I have? Where? Again, you dread even a single short bike ride on a regular road, citing a 10% risk of death for it. I wouldn't call that a lie, it's not even an error, it might just plain nonsense to start a fight I'm so far try to avoid.
The joke's on you, son. I'm a cyclist and I am not obligated to prove anything when you make demands. Achtung! Mein name ist nicht fur aught but satire, dummkopf.
The joke’s on you, son
So you even own a time machine? "Curiouser and curiouser!"' cried Alice.
Dang. I was going to congratulate you for still cycling at an age of 90, mom.
Your mom isn't going to get that message.

This website uses cookies to recognize revisiting and logged in users. You accept the usage of these cookies by continue browsing this website.