"People make choices on how to get around based on the infrastructure available to them." I've never heard the law of induced demand explained so succinctly! Really terrific work!
My town has never really had any cycling infrastructure, but it's also small enough that traffic congestion is usual light enough that sharing the road with cars wasn't that bad. The main reason I personally don't cycle as much as I used to is a lack of any place to go. We used to have lots of shopping destinations in town, but now most of them have either closed or relocated to the edge of town and the busier roads that aren't safe to cycle on.
Let me ask you a question. Say I live 40 miles away from work because that's the only place I can afford to live. Also assume that there is no feasible public transportation to get to work. This situation is much more common than a lot of people seem to understand. So when you make it more difficult for motorists, a lot of people suffer as a result of your privileged position where you can afford to live close to work, or The place that you live has public transportation. Even many places that do have public transportation don't have routes That correspond in any way to a person's work schedule or as in my case, it would take 4 and 1/2 hours to get to work and 4 and 1/2 hours back home. Except on the two days a week where I work past 8:00 p.m. and then there is no public transportation at all.
@@helenwheels3270 either rip the band-aid off now, or let current trends continue, until someone without a license or unable to drive finds themselves _eighty_ miles from their work. It's your choice, but I'm not going to stop you from being a dick.
My grandmother is heavily opposed to new bicycle infrastructure being built because she thinks that it's a waste of money and "no one really rides bikes anyways". Where she lives however (fake London) she can't get around because her neighbourhood is completely unwalkable and she gave up her car a year ago. Now she's completely reliant on my mum and dad to do everything for her because to lose your car in fake London means losing your independence.
@@ThePixel1983 not too long ago I adopted an admittedly shitty faux cockney accent so I could pretend to be from the real London. That didn't go over too well...
Same as the cycle lanes near me in Nth London. When the authorities built the lanes they put in plastic bollards to separate the bike lanes from the road but they put them about 4 car lengths apart!
@@rotyler2177 Are you serious? I hate when drivers just decide to park in bike lanes too but aren't you worried about getting caught? Someone could chase you down or worse? I'm an American so there's always the potential for violence.
I think some cities raise the bike lines a few inches above the street. I'd like to see that plus concrete barriers aside them. Im comfortable riding in traffic, in bike lanes, whatever but I know so many more people who would ride to work in everything but rain if they were reasonably sure they can't be harmed or killed on the whim of some careless whacko.
More on number 4. Vancouver planner Brent Toderian is fond of saying, you cannot justify a bridge by counting the number of people who currently swim across the river. You can't or shouldn't be removing sidewalks from the suburbs when there are hardly any pedestrians there. The same goes for accessibility for disabled people.
I mean... the reason there aren't many people walking is probably that they don't have a good sidewalk. So, they remove the sidewalk, making fewer people walk, making the city remove more sidewalks, and soon you have a city with no sidewalks and is choked in traffic everywhere.
This applies to public-transit as well. I rarely ride the bus because the transit commission in my city is garbage and it's a waste of time and money to try to get anywhere. That said, at the start of the pandemic when the buses were free because they had to cordon off the drivers and had to do rear-boarding, I used the bus more in a few months than I had the previous few years. _If you build it, they will come._
About the second point: i was arguing with a guy against less car centric cities and he actually said something like : how are the elderly, the blind or the disabled going to ride a bike? I was like: how are they supposed to drive a car???
You might want to show them this video by BicycleDutch: th-cam.com/video/xSGx3HSjKDo/w-d-xo.html Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure [231]
@@peterslegers6121 I couldn’t share links sadly… the weirdest thing is that he was claiming that front lawns are freedom in the comments of a video about the missing middle. And he wasn’t just commenting, he was answering my comment.
@@unemilifleur Oh my... Front lawns are freedom. Here in the UK, we don't have front lawns: what is supposed to be a tiny front garden is instead turned into a driveway or parking space for cars, as we turn our garages into other types of rooms. We just use the back garden.
@@unemilifleur That sounds like the freedom to shut down your mind, ignore the world around your lot, and simply do what you do every saturday: mow the lawn! That's a pretty limited kind of freedom. I know some older folks who enjoy it. They're not that talkative.
@@موسى_7 i fully agree with you guys. I actively do not want a house with a front lawn. It’s useless and you still have to pay for it and maintain it. If I end up with a house that has one (which is the case for the majority of houses here) I’ll use it as a big garden or something. Don’t they try to tell me that I can’t.
"bike lanes wouldn't help disabled people" excuse me an uninterupted and safe route to get to destinations on flat ground is EXACTLY what wheelchair users need thank you for this video!
Many disabled can use pedal vehicles, it's that the utilitarian pedal vehicles need to to be designed to better accommodate more needs such as better weather-protected cargo bikes. Disabilities are defined by more than the presence of a wheelchair...
it's also great for the blind to have a consistent and upkept flat pathway where they don't have to worry about anything they don't expect being in the way
Number 5 is fatally flawed from the beginning in the US. I don't know what Canada does, but in the US local streets are paid for from property taxes, and bicycle riders pay the exact same taxes as people driving cars. The difference is that cars are heavily subsidized while bicycles rarely get anything for their money. If the people on bikes are paying the same property taxes they should have the same level of service.
Not Just Bikes also said suburbs and building more and so many roads for cars are subsidized and incur debt. Suburbs are also related to building a car dependent culture and roads cause suburbs are not walkable or bikeable to businesses. Nor do they always have public transportation.
Not everyone can cycle, but safe bike paths are also great for people in mobility scooters, wheelchairs, handcycles and microcars. What space on the road is allocated for old and/or disabled people in car-centric cities exactly?
Indeed well provided that the local legislation allows for such usage. But I think I'd be quite comfortable with permitting other light vehicles in bike lanes. I'd think that allowing single occupancy vehicles up to a max kerb weight of 350-400 kg and a maximum speed around 40-50 km/h to use bike lanes would be fairly reasonable. This would presumably include most of those various mobility appliances and I guess small engine powered cycles like mopeds too. But the weight and max speed limits would still exclude larger cars and motorcycles, vans, trucks, etc that really do belong on highways. If anything the bike lane is probably a more suitable place for these light fairly slow vehicles as they get a bit too heavy and/or fast for pedestrian traffic but are still too light or slow to really be safe on highways with cars etc.
Additionally, more people biking would reduce the total traffic and congestion on the road which would ultimately HELP those that have no other choice but to drive.
Hi frisianmouve, you forget about tricycles that can use the cyclepaths as well. An excellent solution for people with balance issues. Hey frisianmouve, u vergeet de driewielers welke ook het fietspad mogen gebruiken. Die zijn ideaal voor mensen met problemen met het houden van balans.
@@roberts1677 blind can drive? People who have slight limb control issues can drive? People without arms can drive? Your 80 year old grandpa with slow reflexes and bad eyesight still drives? Than I don't want to go anywhere near your homeland because thet is inharently dangerous
Edit: *good* bike lanes. Dangerous bike lanes don't get used, with good reason, and some drivers feel all the more entitled to bully people for not using them. But yes your point is otherwise valid.
@The Stammering Dunce There’s dog people like this too, who get personally offended that you don’t like their unleashed animal getting in your space. It means to them you hate dogs and are heartless or stupid and scared and a threat to them and their identity. Have a neighbor like this and she couldn’t fathom why I’d be upset to come home at night to her dog on our porch blocking the front door and trying to get at the things in my hand while I unlock it and trying to get inside to where my cats are. Clearly I’m just scared and need to the dog forced on me so I can be educated and warm up to the dog, and am awful for wanting it leashed and off my porch.
I'm 100% in favour of better bike infrastructure even though I don't bike much, its mutually beneficial that cars and bicycle are kept separate from each other.
I agree. The problem is , in Waterloo Region, anyway. They just place them everywhere without any thought or planing. Start and stop in the middle of no where without warning!
The best thing is that the more people choose to take a bike or public transport, the more room I have to drive around in my car. I honestly can't believe how people are unable to see that proper infrastructure for all modes of transport is a win/win situation for everyone except perhaps the car manufacturers and oil companies.
> its mutually beneficial that cars and bicycle are kept separate from each other. Yes, absolutely. That's the problem, in North America, they put sidewalks and bikepaths right beside the car so that pedestrians and cyclists have to go deaf from the all the noise and get lung-cancer from inhaling all that smoke. And then they expect them to THANK them for the "favor". 🙄 In places that _aren't_ garbage, they build bike-paths and sidewalks AWAY from the road. In a Not Just Bikes video, Jason explained that they put the sidewalks and bike-paths in Amsterdam away from the road which not only benefits from less noise and pollution, but makes the trips shorter too!
As someone that have made the choise not to even get a driving licens and live in a subartic region, the worst argument I have ever heard why I should get a car instead was from a neighbour, he said that it just took to long for me to get home from work. I biked for approximately at most 19 minutes in one direction (during winters). The same distance took 11 minutes by car. So I asked him, how many minutes per day did he exercise and how many minutes should I work just to finance a car. I prefer a healthy lifestyle, where I don't spend time working just to pollute the planet.
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c Or how much time on getting into and out of the road and parking. It all adds up, it's not just the actual time on the road itself. Depending on the source and destination, there might also be a walk from the parking to the door which might be bikeable instead.
Lol I don't touch those, I just stick to the left side of the right lane and expect drivers to use that space to pass me because they can survive getting a staple in their tire while I can't
I usually take up a whole lane so drivers have to switch lanes to pass me. Interestingly, I’ve never received a honk or complaint. (I ride fast though, around 30km/h)
@@dot6441 It’s not a dick move since it’s actually safer, and so much safer that it could be argued to be a necessity. To commute between my school and work and my apartment, I have to ride on a poorly lit road with a speed limit of 50mph. There are a few “share the road” signs on the road but assholes will try to force cyclists onto the rocky, uneven, muddy, littered with glass and metal and who-knows-what-else ground alongside the road. Despite having read about how “owning” a lane is safer I feel weird doing it so I don’t always do it. However, all my close calls have been when I am not taking up the middle of the lane. Recently, I had a bus not check their blind spot and nearly hit me when changing into the right lane. Another recent incident a car in the left lane tried to force a car in the right lane into me, not realizing I was there.
For argument #4 and the picture showing the bike lane "not in use", it can also be showing a super efficient bike lane where users breeze through and disappear and only in comparison to gridlocked cars visibly taking up massive amounts of space does the bike lane seem unutilized.
Interestingly, the "not in use" argument applies even more effectively in reverse. I think City Beautiful (or could it have been someone else? Pretty sure it wasn't NJB, because this was in California) had a video documenting that the endless seas of parking lots malls are mandated to have around them are excessively big as they don't fill up even on Black Friday. If the parking lots are oversized even for the biggest shopping day of the year, what use case are they then designed around?
Plus, you need 4 bikes to "look" like 1 car, so if you put the entire number of people using each option per day side by side in pure numbers, they'd look similar or have a small difference (for good bike infrastructure), whereas if you compared it with a bike-to-car picture graph, the cycling numbers would look ridiculously small, even if they outnumbered the cars 2-1 due to the sizing
Yeah, even if something is "fact", people can twist it by taking a small sample size or in a certain place at a certain time. Also, "people won't use it" seems like gaslighting people who ask for it and do want to use it. I doubt many of those people who say "people won't use it" look at polls or listen to people saying they want that infrastructure for non-car transportation. Like just watching Not Just Bikes.
@@HallsofAsgard96 Ignorant is the proper word. It just means unaware of information. If you have people who use ignorant in place of words like stupid, tell them how ignorant they are for it. :P
@@Rafael_Fuchs bruh being unaware of information is called being uninformed. Being ignorant means the specific entity has chosen to ignore about something. So ignorant is not the right word to use in the original comment.
Dutch guy here. Had to laugh on 6 out of 7 arguments against good bicycle infra. A dogma is NOT an argument. If anything it is a reason to think again on what you are saying.
@@jolandafrijlink6103 If that was true, car traffic would be made impossible, but it isn't! A good bicycle infrastructure, and a good car infrastructure, and room for kids to be safe, can all be combined, one doesn't exclude the other. In Canada and the USA it is always for or against, never peaceful coexistence, never improving both. Egocentric thinking to the top, and two of the few in this world that think this way.
@@dutchman7623 ehhh...ik BEN nederlands....dus ik begrijp je argument niet...wij hebben veel gedaan aan veiligheid en in amerika zien ze fietsers niet als een prioriteit.
@@jolandafrijlink6103 Klopt! Maar het een sluit het ander niet uit. We hebben in Nederland de beste auto infra, maar ook de beste fiets infra, én de gelukkigste en veiligste kinderen. Kinderveiligheid is niet ten koste gegaan van de auto, maar kunnen samen gaan als je de leefomgeving goed inricht. Dus niet óf/óf maar én/én.
"Not everyone can ride a bike" So those who can, should be hindered in doing so, because a few can't? I know someone who can't drive a car, so by that logic, all roads made for cars, should be removed.
@@MrWhite-pn7ui firstly i wasn't saying anything about the channel, I was commenting on your comment to another comment. And roads are paid by cyclists too.
@@MrWhite-pn7ui Asphalt deteriorates when heavy vehicles pass through it, on the other hand, a bike/pedestrian path, barely need any maintenance. Also, the more people cycle, the less cars will be on the road which makes the traffic for car lovers like you lighter, so you actually should be thankful if there are more bike lanes. Regarding taxes, cyclists also work and buy stuff and all those things have taxes attached to them.
From my perspective, the majority of arguments against improving cycling infrastructure boil down to "we shouldn't spend the money because the existing cycling infrastructure isn't used." The flaw being that they never ask why is that infrastructure going unused.
Yup, I've seen that exact sentence spewed in the letters-to-the-editor of my town's newspaper _many_ times, always by anal-fissures who have never been on a bike in their lives. 🙄
While I don't cycle, I use my longboard to get around and so having bike lanes in my city makes me happy. It's so nice and smooth, unlike the sidewalk which is full of bumps and cracks. It makes me feel safer when riding, and it makes the city feel overall more modern and people-friendly
I use my longboard get to church in a car-centric city. It’s an okay ride, but going under the underpass is a nightmare on a longboard. I always dream of a bike lane that can get me there safely.
Longboards are cool! My city uses chip-seal on roads making it very bumpy & vibration inducing, making long trips tough. Sidewalks are smoother but with cracks, uneven gaps, etc. I found footbikes (large wheel kick scooter or scooter-bike) works for me to deal with both. Front wheel 26" and back wheel 16" or 20".
It's frustrating seeing how a car centric mindset affects people in North America today considering that we've lived without cars for thousands of years and cars are a recent invention that has brought more costs than benefits in the form of pollution, road deaths, and congestion. Cycling and public transit is more efficient in cost and time and it's arguably better for the climate as well.
@@theuncalledfor not to mention all the wetlands, forests, and other wildlife habitats that are torn up to make way for motorways, carparks, and low density housing. All that asphalt used for car infrastracture also leads to an increase in the urban heat island effect, which makes already warming cities feel even hotter.
@@Lafv i reckon that the personal car is the worst invention of all time. Obviously not all motor vehicles are bad since ambulances, delivery vans, fire department vehicles etc provide some value to society but allowing/forcing people to get their own car was one of the worst mistakes of all time.
@@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102 yes, Tesla electric and full self-driving doesn't adress that! It adresses sustainability and independence, but not that! Electric cars, and all cars, should be for rural people who live away from cities (mostly)!
YES! I especially love the point that "if cycling is inherently a dangerous way to get round in your city then you're basically asking for only risk-taking and adventurous people to engage in it." I've been making that point for years! So when drivers complain about all these cyclists engaging in risky riding and breaking laws, this is the main reason why! There's also the fact that experienced cyclists get accustomed to the risks, and thus, what may seem safe to an experienced cyclist can seem completely reckless to a driver that is always safely ensconced in tons of steel. I really loved riding in Montreal! Lots of biking infrastructure and lots of everyday riders. I've ridden in the Netherlands, and I have to say that I actually felt uncomfortable with the sheer number of cyclists, because so many were obviously comfortable riding in that congestion, and I was on a borrowed Dutch bike that I was uncomfortable riding when I've ridden road bikes almost exclusively for many years. Of course, the bike infrastructure was both excellent and nearly ubiquitous.
#7 deserves way more attention. This is the very soul of the problem with most bike infrastructure in Metro Vancouver (outside the downtown core I mean). If you are going for a ride greater than 15 km to get from one end of the city to the other, you quickly discover most bike paths are clearly designed with hobbyists and families in mind and to have a hope of actually reaching your destination, you will be forced to either take a massive time penalty or brave the car traffic on arterial roads.
So much yes to young people being able to get around without relaying on their parents!! I grew up on the countryside where I had to ask my parents to drive me every time I wanted to go somewhere. It's super isolating in a way that's really hard to describe.
Also some parents are unable to drive their kids all the time. So idk why parents wouldn't be for giving kids more freedom. Some parents even guilt their kids by say gas is expensive. That's needlessly guilting kids for nothing. If only the city design and law didn't rob people of just walking. North American law forbids certain houses be built near businesses. There's too many people complaining about gas being expensive, or families arguing about it. Some kids need to go to lessons, practice, jobs, volunteer work, or explore.
I prefer to use healthcare rather than education when talking about this. Reason being that I can then hit them with the bombshell that health insurance is basically them paying for other people's healthcare anyway, since at its core insurance is a co-op (albeit one that's bee severely twisted and corrupted into something completely different).
Sorry but if you don't pay road taxes then you shouldn't be able to use the roads, the car drivers are basically the ones who own the roads and they can set the rules they like, and we do not want your bikes on the road or at the very least you should not be catered towards. If someone doesn't have kids then they should not be forced to pay for your kids education, pay for it yourself unless you believe in theft.
@@voluntarism335 I think roads and schools are different. At the very least we shouldn't bar people from transportation. Especially the most basic one which is walking. Or bar people from participating in society if they can't afford a car or driving. Like getting a job. Some Americans just tell people to get a job, but support destroying the poor's ability to walk to search for jobs. That also doesn't sound like rags to riches that Americans like to advertise themselves as such. You say you don't want to provide paid roads for bikers (or non-car users) but in America, often they don't even just leave the natural dirt roads for non-car users. They like to pave so many places. Especially where people live and are and businesses are. Do you liken walkers to sidewalks to bikers? That people shouldn't be free to walk either if "they don't pay taxes for roads"? Not Just Bikes talked about that suburbs and having to build too many roads for cars is what's subsidized and incurs debt. Cars also cause more road damage. Beyond the budget that cites can fix too. That Dutch style walkable cities is what generates more wealth. What about the past when there were roads but no cars? You're never going to or able to get people to stop walking, biking, or using public transportation. Such as poor people, or kids. So why not provide protection for them? Transportation is daily life so it's very important.
St. John’s, NL is currently going through a walker vs cyclists battle as the city is trying to implement a cycling transportation network but plans on repurposing existing walking trail infrastructure. Walkers and drivers are extremely anti biking here. So I really appreciate these videos that have a canadian context👏
I been there . There are a number small narrow streets in downtown St Johns because they weren't designed for cars because they were built before the invention of the automobile . Then the city officials use the it too much snow in winter argument. St Johns usually gets a few big storms but the snow doesn't last all winter because weather is moderated by the close proximity of the ocean . People bike all winter long in northern countries like Norway and Finland so the snow argument is weak .
I live in Belgium and in more rural area, people love to say they build bike infrastructure by just putting a sign saying the sidewalk is accessible to bikers. Of course pedestrians aren't happy, bikes don't like it because it's not smooth, too narrow and has no protected intersection, and so they go on the road, pissing off drivers doing so. Nobody's happy
Hi guys. Some random swiss fellow here. The big algorythm just threw your video at me and for some strange reason I decided to have a look at it. In exchange you get my 5 cents in return: As a car driver, passionate motor- AND "move by your own power" kind of cyclist I naturally endorse the existance of bike lanes. It bemuses me though that the whole issue sometimes seems to be presented as a kind of "cyclist vs motorist" kind of thing - which is outright silly in my opinion. Bike lanes not only help cyclists but motorists too to ease the flow of traffic - if they are propperly implemented that is! Unfortunately, they often really come as a cheap excuse rather than a propperly thought out concept. One sad example to me is Berlin in Germany. City authorities there answered the call for bike lanes by just splitting sidewalks in one half for pedestrians and the other for cyclists. This results in frequent emergency braking and other close calls between the two groups. Cyclists with electric bikes or sportive cyclists that otherwise would easily be able to travel at an average speed above 30 kph are forced to switch into granny gear and sqeek along barely faster than walking pace evading texting bystanders, chatty housewifes and window-shoppers left and right. If they decide to hit the road and go along with cars instead they get exposed to all sorts of road rage because "Oy - there's a bike lane over there maaaan!!". So I am all for bike lanes, but they must be done propperly and be attractive for all kind of cyclists - not only those travelling at 15kph average - and they should not be used as a cheap substitute to ban cyclists from roads. If that can't be established, I prefer staying on the roads and go along with cars - which usually aren't going much faster within city limits anyway.
Some police officer and a council member wanted to abolish the new bike lanes in my city because "it would be unfair to motorcyclist and they will demand lanes for motorcycle". Bike to work was disallowed few days ago because "it would be unfair to bike to sport".
@@TommyJonesProductions criminals use lane filtering as a way to smash someone's window, steal their belongings and then ride away (can do that from the front or behind, or if it is centered in the lane). Legalizing lane filtering wojld only make this type of robbery easier to pull off.
“They don’t pay taxes”. Since we are in a country with Universal health care, car drivers should pay higher taxes as they have will have more health problems (cardiovascular, diabetes etc) from sitting in traffic as opposed to having a healthy lifestyle which utilizes active mobility.
I mean, let's be real here. Drivers who oppose bikelanes are very selfish. The idea that cars should need to have 2 to 4 lanes to get around each direction. While bikes shouldn't be allowed half a lane per direction, seems very petty.
often (especially in the USA and Canada) the cars wouldn't even need to give up lanes because the lanes are so wide bike paths can easily be added by making the lanes normal sized. (4 lane road -> 4*3m = 12m. Change that to 4*2,5m and there is space left for a 1m bike path on both sides or the middle lanes could be made even narrower to make the outer lanes a bit wider so it's easier for big trucks)
@@Robbedem not everywhere my guy, from the US California. bike lanes are often incomplete and awkwardly placed in my experience. Like, half of the bike lane is just the street gutter so the ground isn’t even level. There is lots I’d like to improve with street design. :) I’ll just stick to the sidewalk until then
@@mrkraffbs9583 Yeah, my town does have a 'bike lane' that goes somewhat through town but it's a terribly disjointed mess of bike paths, bike lanes, side walks, and sometimes outright on the road itself. I suppose I can't really blame em too much for that though as they were only added in the last decade, so they had to work with what space was available, and it was mostly made with school kids in mind, so they only really loop around between the schools
As a pedestrian I'd also rather by next to a bike lane than by a heavy road. Being right by cars feels unsafe as they're large, fast and powerful and I'm just a flimsy human.
Bike lanes that actually aren’t are a severe problem. The hawthorn bridge in Portland Oregon has most of the bike traffic, but the “bike lane” that suddenly ends on the off ramp from the bridge so that an exit for cars can happen is a real danger. As were the water grates that were parallel to the traffic and wider than most bike tires. That has been fixed, but the right turn off ramp is still a problem. There is an alternative now that lets bikes off the ramp for cyclists heading north or south but going east is still terrifying
in my area, there is a bike lane that abruptly stops at an intersection and if you continue the intersection, you see "bike" signs all around... with no bike lane in sight what does the "bike" sign mean? go on the foot path or go on the road?
Same problem in my city, which actually is quite bike-friendly compared to many others. Wide, separated cycling lanes stretch for many kilometers in some cases, then you get to a big intersection, and the bike lanes just end, to resume on the other side. Fortunately, there are pedestrian crossings, but it feels like a major cop-out on the part of the traffic engineers. "Yes, we have bike lanes coming into the intersection, but we can't figure out how cyclists are supposed to get through it, so we'll have to make them pedestrians for a bit". Of course, it's illegal to bike faster than walking speed on the sidewalk, and illegal to bike across a pedestrian crossing, so off the bike you go. These interruptions technically aren't unsafe, but they are frustrating and make people less likely to choose a bike for their commute.
I know what you're talking about. You had better shoulder check when crossing that off ramp. I get annoyed getting downtown from the bridge and the bike lane disappears. Wouldn't be a big deal if you didn't have to go uphill.
3. Those people are the type of person that demands that cyclist should pay a road tax or aren't allowed on the street at all. Vehicle tax don't pay enough for streets to maintain them and aren't a qualification to use them.
The amount of vehicle-related taxes is less than the amount of tax reductions for vehicle usage. This means that the usage of motor vehicles is already subsidized (by non-users and persons of low income). The costs for construction and maintenance of roads are not even included.
A Flemish study into costs and benefits of cycling, in comparison to other modes of transport, concluded that every cycling km has a societal gain of more than 40 €urocents, that's a gain of more than 60 cents Canadian Dollar per kilometer. (Fietsbeleid brengt op, juli 2018, Fietsberaad Vlaanderen en Transport & Mobility Leuven) They looked a.o. into costs of infrastructure, sound, accidents, emissions, congestion. These figures might be conservative, when you see that one factor, the health benefits, are calculated 15 €ct higher in the Netherlands. But Dutch roads are indeed safer.
@@موسى_7 That's mostly a subsidy to increase EV adoption. Electric vehicles have their societal benefits, but the current tax system doesn't favour them enough to make them economically attractive on their own.
I don't know how to ride a bike. Learned half a decade ago and never used it again, so that skill has LONG since atrophied. But I would learn if I could go places by bicycle. I'd love having that freedom.
If you want to re learn the fastest way is to take the pedals off of a bike and push off with your feet. TLDR: Learn to balance before learning to pedal
"Bike lanes cause pollution" is just so wrong. It assumes that ever person that is currently driving is going to keep driving and that every trip will continue to be made with cars. That is just illogical, if you driving becomes a option and not a necessity then some people will choose to not drive or choose to not use their car for certain trips. For example going to school. Let's ignore the fact that most Americans will still choose to bring their children to school, because Americans have a exaggerated view on how dangerous it is for kids to be alone, because that's a totally different subject that deserves it's own in depth look. For going to school, there is just no reason that every child needs to be driven to school every single day, children aren't going to school with 10 bags worth of groceries, so you don't need the space that the car provides. Most kids live within a easily bike-able distance from their school, so there is no reason that the kids can't go to school on bikes along with their parents. Parents bike to the school with their children, the children get to school park their bikes and then parent turns around and goes back home and can then get in their car for their much longer drive to work.
Why would you need your parents around while cycling to school? That's creapy and insane, if you have propper bicycle infrastructure. Not Just Bikes made a great video about it th-cam.com/video/ul_xzyCDT98/w-d-xo.html Why We Won't Raise Our Kids in Suburbia (and moved to the Netherlands instead)
@@peterslegers6121 Because Americans have a overblown belief on how likely it is that their child is going to get kidnapped. So they would want to be with their child in order to prevent them from being kidnapped.
Plus the added, if there is good bicycle infrastructure and there is lots of congestion then people will be incentivised to make their trip a bike trip if they can.
I agree with you. I went to school that was about nine miles away and had a taxi take me. however, if my school was in town, which is only 3 miles away from where I live I could cycle there really easily. This was actually the way people traveled a lot to school years ago by bicycle or walked long miles.
My city is working on repaving 4 lane collector roads as 3 lane roads with unprotected/exposed bike lanes in a hope to create a large enough network to encourage biking. They are also turning 6 lane roads into 3 lane roads with exposed bike lanes and parking. This is a step in the right direction, but the problem is that only a small percentage of the bike infrastructure are buffered lanes/shared use paths/cycle tracks. The city also considers sharrows and signed shared roads a part of their cycling infrastructure system, which I find concerning. Edit: The 6 lane roads actually don't get parking, and are 5 lanes instead of 3.
The thing with bicycle lanes is, they're the easy part of bicycle infrastructure. You set aside some space next to the road, maybe use some bollards or a fence, and boom, bike lane. Easy-peasy. The problem is when you get to intersections, ensuring that there is a proper and safe way for bikes to cross. I don't believe many cyclists are run over when cycling in their own lane next to traffic along a straight road, but when traffic intersects, and there's nowhere for bicyclists to go, that's where dangerous situations happen. And that's also where traffic engineers give up in many cases. In my hometown, there are several places where proper, separated bike lanes end right before big intersections, then continue on the other side, as if the traffic engineers just skipped over the difficult part of the road design and let the cyclists figure it out for themselves. The "correct" solution is apparently to get off your bike, become a pedestrian for a while, use the pedestrian crossing and get back on your bike when the bike path resumes. That's not really a way to facilitate the use of bikes for commuting, is it? People then choose other transport options, because a commute by bike is so full of (sometimes quite dangerous) interruptions, and then politicians claim nobody is using the bicycle infrastructure. It's like setting up a bus route where passengers have to get off at one stop, walk for a kilometer, then get back on the bus at a different stop. Of course people wouldn't use it. It has to be a continuous system to be attractive.
@@Codraroll Yes! Where I live, most of the time the bike lane just merges/becomes the right-turn lane. The city is starting to make interesting waiting locations that sit between the right-turn lane and the straight on lane, but I question their safety. Good analogy!
@@elijaha773 Actually screw those merging right turn lanes for bikes man. It’s so wack. I tried using them once and while I waited in the lane at the red light this person was honking at me because they wanted to get in the turn lane when there was *plenty* of room for them to pass. I don’t trust city traffic at all. The sad fact is that most if not all modern cities were designed for cars only and the bike lanes are just a small side note that often isn’t looked at, which is very sad, because a car has never been a necessity unless your work is literally ~30+ miles away.
Just discovered your channel and I love it. You guys have a level-headed approach to life in the big city (and surrounding area) with a sharp sense of humour to match. As a cyclist, I'm particularly fond of the way you capture in words the myriad frustrations (and plain old bureaucratic bs) I have had to put up with, over the years. Kindly keep up the good work.
Having recently moved to Ottawa I couldn't agree more with your point at the end of the video. You can bike all over the place but all the routes take you nowhere you would want to go other than for a recreational bike ride.
So glad you showed all the Canadian deathtrap bike lanes. I'm in Ottawa and I go on side streets as much as possible and avoid maybe half the bike infrastructure. I've almost gotten ploughed over more times in the bike lane than on any other surface.
As another resident of Ottawa, I agree. The existing (non-recreational) bike lanes are sparse and inconsistent. I don't think bikes or pedestrians should have to cross in front of traffic coming down an off-ramp from the highway, or the on-ramps to Bronson ave. In my own opinion, poorly designed bike lanes like the ones in Ottawa are likely to cause more harm since they give an illusion of effective infrastructure when, in practice, they are completely unsafe.
The main argument of course is that more cyclists will improve congestion, and thus benefit the people who still have to drive a car. Bike lanes have a much much higher capacity than car lanes, and in my experience good cycling infrastructure drastically improves road congestion. When I have to drive, I'm always happy for people cycling, because that's another car less on the road.
"If it's an attack on drivers to take space away from them, why isn't it an attack on cyclists to not give them any space in the first place." That is perfect. May I steal this? This cuts right to the heart of the issue.
'The idea that roads are for cars is nonsensical; roads aren't inherently for any particular mode' -- those utterly awful STROADS, on the other hand...
@@johnwashburn7423 or, we could just change the tax system so that our income taxes cover infrastructure rather than rely on a gas tax, and then everyone pays for the roads. I drive an electric car, so I pay no gas tax at all right now, but I still use the roads. As electric cars and biking become more prevalent, infrastructure funding will need to be rethought since the gas tax, which is already inadequate to cover costs, will no longer be workable
But they do cost so I wNt bikes to pay their share. They are not special people because they do not pollute...on the road anyway. In this dis ussion we don't know if their other life includes private aircraft, boats or multiple or excessively large homes...you know, like Al Gore has
@@bechela1 absolutely agree as long as the tax is not progressive. I have no fondness for the wealthy but if they drive a Prius no reason CV to tax them more than the less wealthy driving a gas guzzling pickup truck
@@johnwashburn7423 Lots of us do pay user fees. If I'm on my bicycle, it means my two cars and motorcycle are sitting not using the roads, despite the fact that I pay road tax on all three of them.
For sure. The difficulty is that many people dismiss those places as too "different" (culturally, geographically, etc) to be relevant, which is why we try to highlight cycling successes from North America in our videos too, even if they're more modest.
"But those countries are so densely populated! The US has a population density of three and is a bajillion miles big! It can't be done here!" Meanwhile, New Jersey is actually *more* densely populated than the Netherlands (470 people/sq.km vs 423). Denmark has around 137 people/sq.km, that's less than New Jersey (470), Rhode Island (394), Massachusetts (336), Connecticut (286), Maryland (238), Delaware (187), New York (162), and Florida (145), plus for that matter all the overseas territories except (barely) the Northern Mariana Islands. Finland has walkable cities with good bicycle infrastructure too, and its population density (16/sq.km) is lower than all but 10 US states. It's roughly on par with Oregon. If Oulu can have great bicycle infrastructure, so can Eugene.
@@OhTheUrbanity If you dive into the history of cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam they where als car centered till the early 1970. After that things slowly changed.
5:10 - Goodness me, I'd not use that sorry excuse for a 'bike lane', either. Just LOOK at that stroad! 😱 Where's the adequate width? The addition of street trees & furniture to encourage slower driving speeds (&, thus, safer cycling)? For a good example of how to de-stroadify a stroad, complete with good bike lanes, compare this mess to West Rosedale Street in Fort Worth (get on Street View just west of 6th Ave for a good vantage point) & look at how it looked in 2013, to how it looks now (as of this comment, most recent SV is May 2021). I would, & in fact do, use that bike lane. 🙂 ~ Mesyn
After living in Japan and using a bike as my primary means of transport for 8 years, coming back to Toronto was quite disappointing. It's gotten a bit better in the 3 years since I've been back, but I still can't regularly bike to get groceries etc like I did in Japan. And the closest supermarket isn't even that far, it's just too dangerous to dare. :(
Since you guys cover Montreal and are strong advocates for bike lanes, I figured you should be aware of this news. Montreal's mayoral election is taking place in November. And ex-mayor Denis Coderre, who's running again this year, and seems to have an anti-bike lane agenda. He recently promised that he would remove half of the bike lane on Bellechasse Street, to replace it with street parking for cars. Might be worth making a video about, if you guys want to keep using Montreal's bike lanes.
@@davethibault6734 that sucks to hear. Thanks for the summary I don’t have a direct stake as a native of Indiana, USA but I love Montreal. The anti-bike rhetoric needs to be quickly slapped aside so Coderre can’t foster doubt
@@davethibault6734 Wow really? I don't live in Montreal so this doesn't concern me direcly, but it's sad that Quebec in general has a pretty strong conservative movement at the moment(Excluding the complete disdain for every religion, that's not very conservative).
I actually legit one time had someone who drives an electric car, a Nissan Leaf, tell me that bicyclists shouldn't be allowed to ride in the street because we don't pay the gas tax that helps maintain roads. I simply asked her if she caught the irony in her statement.
Since the addition of many bike lanes across Toronto, I've been converted to an advocate. I used to think that reducing traffic to a single lane would be a traffic disaster, but this has been proven false. As far as I can tell congestion hasn't changed, but driving is generally less stressful because you no longer have to share lanes with bikes (or parked cars).
When I'm in traffic is seems really apparent that going from 1 lane to 2 is the same speed because people start changing lanes back and forth, cutting each other off, then driving in the wrong lane most of the way only to slow down and try to merge back in to turn, and all this shuffling around just slows down the whole system. If you have one lane with turning lanes and minimal distractions everyone forms a train and it seems to move much more smoothly.
There is a synergy with walking, cycling, and mass transit that optimizes a good land use pattern. I have heard all of these as a cycle commuter, which by the way, took less time than driving.
#2 😂 Im epileptic, have a fractured back, bum knees and bad lungs. I bike everywhere 😂 On top of that, at least roads get winter maintenance. Bikers and what few lanes we have are an afterthought.
I bike everywhere in my city in the Netherlands for as long as i can remember (accept when the weather is really bad, or if i'm lazy ) But i wouldn't use my bike in most of the 'bike lanes' i see in this video. Just a few lines between speeding cars seems both dangerous and a good way to inhale exhaust fumes..no thanks .
I feel the same way! I just moved to Toronto, but spent some time in mtl beforehand, so seeing the differences being noted on this channel is really cool. It's making me feel a lot more relaxed about starting to ride here. Haven't tried as of yet, but I'm hoping to very soon after I watch some more videos - essentially doing my 'homework'.
As someone in a wheelchair I can't drive a car (at this moment) but I do have a handbike. Without bike infrastructure I need a taxi for everything but with my handbike I can do everything within a 5km rage comfortable
Added content for #5 - Tax A car owner will NEVER pay enough tax on its vehicle to maintain any infrastructure. Tax is paid by everyone through VAT, income tax, council tax, etc etc... ALL the money that goes into treasure is distributed back to public service and infrasturcture. A cyclist who is shopping, work and simply... exist pay money that the goverment spend to create logistical infrasturcure so lorries and emergency services reach its destination. Doesnt matter how expensive your fuel or emission tax is, it is a miniscule contribution to the treasury in the big picture. The same way as a fully healthy person pays to treat the drug addict or the surgery accident anyone have a cyclist contributes to the road what a car is using. But if we want to go the other side: Who is damaging the road more creating potholes? A few ton heavy vehicle or a 15-35kg bicycle?
except the lorry driver is paying all those same taxes as you, and road taxes on top of that. and to go to the other side, I pay an estimated $1000.00 a year in specific road taxes. is it really too much to ask a cyclist to toss a tenner in the hat in exchange for a road of his very own?
@@kenbrown2808 I'm a cyclist opposed to bike lanes. I don't want a road of my very own. I also own three ICE vehicles and pay plenty of tax on those. I have the renewal notice for my Jaguar sitting on my desk right now. It's $150 a year, and I only drive that car a couple thousand miles a year. If I'm on my bicycle, that means an all-up weight of about 200 pounds causing very little wear and tear on the road compared to what I could be doing with my 4000 pound car.
@@roberts1677 then you;ll be fine with maintaining a 60 MPH cruising speed on that bicycle so I don't have to be stuck behind your ass burning twice as much fuel and time, creating twice as much pollution, and developing a deep burning hatred for cyclists; while you impede traffic?
I have been a bike commuter for 7 years now, and I have watched my community grow exponentially but not cycling. Many drivers don't believe we should share the road. We bike riders should just go on the sidewalks. Many major roads here in O-Town, do have bike lanes, but the vehicle traffic is unbelievably fast to bike safely. Many ride on the sidewalk just to keep away from the onslaught of degrading remarks by drivers. I subscribed to your channel..Thank you for your cycling informative report .
Great video content, that just kinda...ended. When an ad started playing, I had to go back to see what happened, but it was really the end of the video.
Great points! So happy to think that I have come from the perspective of those arguments when I lived in a gated exurban community to now being a recreational and functional cyclist 100% of the time.
2 notes on this. In regard to "bike lanes are empty", the other point is that they aren't. They are just more efficient, people on bikes take up much less space then a car, so the bike lane though it's smaller moves people smoother & is less likely to get congested. Pictures of "empty" bike lanes next to "busy" roads often show more people in the bike lane then the car lane. Then onto rule breaking cyclsits, it depends what study you look at as to what specific result you get, but they typically all show cyclists break the rules either less or the same amount as drivers, not more, and that when they do, they do it typically to improve their safety, and don't pose a risk or cause crashes as occurs when drivers do.
Sometimes the argument against bike infrastructure is the bike infrastructure itself. Sometimes the infrastructure somehow manage to check all the wrong boxes. No cyclists ends up using it, advocates would rather it not be built at all, and motorists point at it as a reason to why those kind of infrastructures are useless.
Yeah, if you execute the concept badly enough, nobody will use it, and then some opportunist politician can use the botched execution as an argument against the concept itself. It's like building a bus route that doesn't stop downtown, then complaining that no commuters use the bus, so the concept of bus routes must be inherently unsuitable for the city.
@@Codraroll Or when they don't create any seperate bus/tram lanes nor give them priority on or at least seperate phases on busy intersections, causing them to get stuck in traffic and be perpetually late. Of course the bus/tram sucks if it's allowed to get stuck in the same traffic as the cars!
On a country road, I slowed looked both ways and continued on at a stop sign. About 500 meters away a car saw me do it. The driver came along side and proceeded to chew me out for not stopping. You should have seen his face when I said, "My license is suspended for doing that in cars. What makes you think I'm going to stop on my bike?"
The "People don't use bike lanes" argument is one that particularly annoys me. I've heard it so many times from so many drivers, and if I actually try to explain why people aren't using the lanes, they get annoyed with me and try to end the conversation. Where I live has pretty decent cycling infrastructure, but most of the segregated bike lanes are specifically built around schools. So if you're not actively going to a school, the lanes don't connect to anything and aren't that useful.
People dont use bike lanes here because of the rampant theft. You cant ride downtown if you have to separate from your bike, because it will be stolen in minutes. And it dosent matter how expensive your lock is, if they want it, they will take it. I would gladly do without bike lanes, if they would put that money towards several places downtown that you could place your bike and get a ticket, with surveillance and a security guard . I can ride any stretch of mud, gravel, or pavement, freeway included, I couldn't give a shit about "bike lanes". I want to ride downtown and shop, or go to a movie, with the reassurance that my bike will be there to ride home.....Yes, if you ride a junk bike, it probably wont get stolen, but I dont ride junk. My bike is worth $5,450.00, and I'm not losing this one. We really need security for our bikes, PERIOD !.....I have no problem with riding inches away from traffic, been doing it for 25yrs.
Shout out from the streets of Montréal which we see in the video. We replaced our service business truck fleet with cargo bikes and trailers. We'll never go back!
The "bike lanes cause pollution" one is my favourite. It's so disingenuous. If they really cared about pollution, they wouldn't drive cars, would they?
In the Netherlands all ages do bike. Most people start when they are 3 or 4 years old. As long nothing is wrong with your legs, you can bike. Until her eighties my mom went each week to her sister on bike, a distance of 20 kilometers. She had a car, but preferred biking. And she wasn’t exceptional. Nowadays with e bikes more older people goes biking.
I love my truck. Love to take it on road trips and camping. That being said, I live 4 miles from my work. If it was safe I'd ride my bike 80% of the time to work. Unfortunately, I'd probably die on the first trip. The road I take is a "stroad" and is very dangerous for walkers and bikers.
If you convince a large proportion of people to cycle then it will make driving better for those who want to do it since the roads will be less congested. Bikes are far more efficient in terms of the space requirements to move large numbers of people than cars, so adding (good) bike lanes, even at the expense of car lanes, will normally increase the capacity of a road.
There is also the fact that increasing lanes of traffic doesn't do anything to reduce traffic in the first place, as shown by a plurality of studies and the existence of Houston, Texas.
Thanks for this video. It gives me plenty of great points to refute the asinine arguments that one of our mayoral candidates is using to keep in place the car-based transit system in Rochester, MN. The candidate I'm speaking of says that the bike lanes in town get limited use and that the "bending of government policy to serve a small part of the population" isn't innovation or improvement. The reason the bike lanes are not massively used in Rochester is because they are mostly not connected to anything out of the downtown core, or they are not safe for most cyclists to comfortably use. Exactly what you said in the video. Thanks again!
Glad to see another Ottawa-based channel! -Ogilvie Road is indeed bad for cycling. -I often commute with my e-bike between Kanata and St.Laurent. The only direct "bike" route is the pathway along the river. Other direct routes such as Carling, Somerset/Wellington/Richmond, and Baseline seriously lack cycling infrastructure and are unpleasant and dangerous to use. -Definitely agree that cycling is considered more of a hobby in Ottawa. Sometimes on my commute I want to make stops and run errands. But the pathways do not connect to them!
If the day is nice then the 'grey brigade' on their bikes (often electrically assisted these days) comes out in the Netherlands these people aged 60 and over wouldn't do outdoor activities in most places but here they love to just cruise around the country at a slow pace enjoying the scenery while talking with whomever they are riding and keeping the heart pumping. Saves a bundle on healthcare and all those cups of coffee with pie consumed are a boon for restaurants etc.
On #4: I used to live in Calgary, a city that has lots of recreational paths for cycling/walking, and relatively few for practical use. While out on a ride once, I got hopelessly lost and actually ended up on one of the major roadways (can't remember which, just that it went past the old stadium, lol) and I actually found myself on a dedicated bike path! Marked out, separated from road traffic by a concrete divider, even had a lane for both cycling directions. As someone who had been run off the road, and almost into a streetlight, by a motorist the month prior, the bike lane was a godsend. While I was biking back into downtown, I was passed by a half dozen other cyclists, on the road, not the bike path. I was deeply confused... like, here is one of the few lanes on a major thoroughfare that's ideal for safe, fast travel across large swaths of city, and you're on the road anyways?
0:50 most people don’t know but cycling infrastructure is incredibly useful for wheelchair users. Sidewalks can be difficult to traverse (through bad design or temporary blockages), which means a separated cycling path can be a safe alternative. Handbikes (a wheelchair attachment that allows the user to bike using armstrength) also make use of cycling infrastructure and because you are lower in a wheelchair than a cyclist, you are much harder to spot by cars, meaning separation iscreases safety by a lot. Handbiking can be a solution when a lot of public transport is not fully accessible and walking or taxis are often not an option either. People can get adapted cars, and for many wheelchair users it gives them a lot of freedom, but these adaptations are very expensive.
Tiny brain: No bike lanes Average brain: stick bike lanes on existing roads Galaxy brain: utilize available space to make dedicated bike paths so that you don't need bike lanes on existing roads except where building dedicated paths is impossible.
Clear and well balanced. Great job. I cycle in London (the UK one, not Ontario) and I also drive occasionally, using a car club where you pay hourly for using a vehicle. I've definitely noticed an increase in cycling uptake as infrastructure has improved, especially where they are trying to improve safety. No doubt the current plague situation has also played a factor in moving people off trains and onto bikes. It's probably also moved people from public transport into cars, so Covid giveth and Covid taketh away. I would also take a proportionate road tax in a heartbeat if it was matched by dedicated and properly maintained public facilities.
A very good Video to get started with the topic. Really glad that I found it. If you have anyone in your social circal who stated any of those arguements, don't hesitate to show them this Video.
Top notch video - thanks for making this! I live in Abbotsford, BC and unfortunately these bad arguments seem to be the backbone of popular opinion about bikes around here.
Let's remove all car roads cause not everybody can drive a car!!! Great logic... I live in the Netherlands and am flabbergasted that people actually use these "reasons" seriously. Cycling is just for recreation, fine then cars aren't obviously so we don't use them anymore for recreation. I mean it's obviously impossible te use a means of transportation for both. God people are stupid...
i haaaate the "not everyone can bike" argument SO much because it goes two ways. not everyone can drive! I cannot drive due to disabilities and i have lived my teenage/young adult life in a small rural town (Bolton, Ontario) and I always had to rely on my mom to take me anywhere. I never thought i would be independent and would have to live with her all my life. it truly messed me up. It wasn't until i moved to a walkable city with public transportation (St. Catharines) that i realized that i was actually able to be on my own and not completely rely on others. I still have yet to get a bike because of money and crappy bike infrastructure, thus a lot of anxiety around driving around cars, but if the city ever improves in that way then you KNOW im gonna be biking everywhere i can :D
3:30 AAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I genuinely was confused when you mentioned that there was a bike lane in the photo. I thought maybe it was a joke, that there really wasn't. But apparently car dependent suburbanites think this is actual infrastructure rather than an insult! As someone who lives in the graph from 2:00 I can confidently, and more importantly; honestly, say that there's no bike infrastructure in that photo. Take it from someone living in a country where people bike for their commute ages 8 to 80 (or more closer to 4 to 80+ ). Finally, how do car groups not realize this simple fact; Right now, with incidental exceptions, everybody drives a car. Now assume that a ridiculously low percentage like 20% of the population, would take a bike if it was a genuine option. As long as you accommodate those bikers by taking away less than 20% of your car capacity you have effectively increased your car capacity. Or in other words; in a normal healthy society, only those that truly must take the car and those that like taking the car, would take the car. But in nearly every city on the NA continent you now have not only those 2 groups, but also those that would like to take the bike. And those that would like to walk. And those that would like to take the bus. And those that would like to take the train. You're actively making driving a worse experience by not only having the car lovers, but * [everyone gif from Leon the Professional] * on the road!
I always hear that people on bikes don't pay road tax. But cars would have less cars to deal with on the roads if safe bike routes were in place. I love bike paths because if done right you can keep moving and not have to stop and go like cars.
honestly those stroads should end up being a benefit afterall because you could add in 2 way bike lanes on either side without even taking a single lane away from the cars lol
Bicycle infrastructure is usually so poor that it is not well used, but more than that; the practicalities of introducing really high quality bicycle infrastructure into existing networks is usually very difficult to achieve. Therefore the government will spend a nominal amount which is actually insufficient because to ensure good uptake a 'ground up' highway redesign is often required in urban settings. The cost prohibits good cycle infrastructure and perpetuates the idea that cycling is a niche transport option by virtue of low usership.
"People make choices on how to get around based on the infrastructure available to them." I've never heard the law of induced demand explained so succinctly! Really terrific work!
I've been looking for a couple lines of prose to put it very plainly and that fits the bill perfectly.
My town has never really had any cycling infrastructure, but it's also small enough that traffic congestion is usual light enough that sharing the road with cars wasn't that bad.
The main reason I personally don't cycle as much as I used to is a lack of any place to go. We used to have lots of shopping destinations in town, but now most of them have either closed or relocated to the edge of town and the busier roads that aren't safe to cycle on.
Let me ask you a question. Say I live 40 miles away from work because that's the only place I can afford to live. Also assume that there is no feasible public transportation to get to work. This situation is much more common than a lot of people seem to understand. So when you make it more difficult for motorists, a lot of people suffer as a result of your privileged position where you can afford to live close to work, or The place that you live has public transportation. Even many places that do have public transportation don't have routes That correspond in any way to a person's work schedule or as in my case, it would take 4 and 1/2 hours to get to work and 4 and 1/2 hours back home. Except on the two days a week where I work past 8:00 p.m. and then there is no public transportation at all.
@@helenwheels3270 40 miles? lucky. 120 kilometers one way. Granted, I don't have to do it everyday.
@@helenwheels3270 either rip the band-aid off now, or let current trends continue, until someone without a license or unable to drive finds themselves _eighty_ miles from their work. It's your choice, but I'm not going to stop you from being a dick.
My grandmother is heavily opposed to new bicycle infrastructure being built because she thinks that it's a waste of money and "no one really rides bikes anyways". Where she lives however (fake London) she can't get around because her neighbourhood is completely unwalkable and she gave up her car a year ago. Now she's completely reliant on my mum and dad to do everything for her because to lose your car in fake London means losing your independence.
Let Your Grandma have a look at the TH-cam Channels - Not Just Bikes or BicycleDutch - She might change her opinion.
@@nidopi68 Yes absolutely
@Gabriel Terrero what can I say? He's from my crappy hometown and he loves to rip on the city as much as I do.
Ah, someone from shitty London!
@@ThePixel1983 not too long ago I adopted an admittedly shitty faux cockney accent so I could pretend to be from the real London. That didn't go over too well...
The bike lanes are never empty in this part of town. They're always full of parked cars.
Same as the cycle lanes near me in Nth London. When the authorities built the lanes they put in plastic bollards to separate the bike lanes from the road but they put them about 4 car lengths apart!
@@tilerman Thats why I carry 2-3 wheel clamps for cars in my backpack. Only weighs 48kg and great for douchebag drivers!
Phillipines 😂😂😂
@@rotyler2177 Are you serious? I hate when drivers just decide to park in bike lanes too but aren't you worried about getting caught? Someone could chase you down or worse? I'm an American so there's always the potential for violence.
I think some cities raise the bike lines a few inches above the street. I'd like to see that plus concrete barriers aside them. Im comfortable riding in traffic, in bike lanes, whatever but I know so many more people who would ride to work in everything but rain if they were reasonably sure they can't be harmed or killed on the whim of some careless whacko.
More on number 4.
Vancouver planner Brent Toderian is fond of saying, you cannot justify a bridge by counting the number of people who currently swim across the river.
You can't or shouldn't be removing sidewalks from the suburbs when there are hardly any pedestrians there. The same goes for accessibility for disabled people.
I mean... the reason there aren't many people walking is probably that they don't have a good sidewalk. So, they remove the sidewalk, making fewer people walk, making the city remove more sidewalks, and soon you have a city with no sidewalks and is choked in traffic everywhere.
@@williamhuang8309 "We removed all the bridges, and now people aren't crossing the river. Turns out there wasn't a need for the bridges at alll!"
You shouldn't be removing sidewalks: suburban Calgary has entered the chat
This line is ingenious!
This applies to public-transit as well. I rarely ride the bus because the transit commission in my city is garbage and it's a waste of time and money to try to get anywhere. That said, at the start of the pandemic when the buses were free because they had to cordon off the drivers and had to do rear-boarding, I used the bus more in a few months than I had the previous few years. _If you build it, they will come._
About the second point: i was arguing with a guy against less car centric cities and he actually said something like : how are the elderly, the blind or the disabled going to ride a bike?
I was like: how are they supposed to drive a car???
You might want to show them this video by BicycleDutch:
th-cam.com/video/xSGx3HSjKDo/w-d-xo.html Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure [231]
@@peterslegers6121 I couldn’t share links sadly… the weirdest thing is that he was claiming that front lawns are freedom in the comments of a video about the missing middle. And he wasn’t just commenting, he was answering my comment.
@@unemilifleur Oh my...
Front lawns are freedom.
Here in the UK, we don't have front lawns: what is supposed to be a tiny front garden is instead turned into a driveway or parking space for cars, as we turn our garages into other types of rooms.
We just use the back garden.
@@unemilifleur That sounds like the freedom to shut down your mind, ignore the world around your lot, and simply do what you do every saturday: mow the lawn! That's a pretty limited kind of freedom. I know some older folks who enjoy it. They're not that talkative.
@@موسى_7 i fully agree with you guys. I actively do not want a house with a front lawn. It’s useless and you still have to pay for it and maintain it. If I end up with a house that has one (which is the case for the majority of houses here) I’ll use it as a big garden or something. Don’t they try to tell me that I can’t.
"bike lanes wouldn't help disabled people" excuse me an uninterupted and safe route to get to destinations on flat ground is EXACTLY what wheelchair users need
thank you for this video!
Many disabled can use pedal vehicles, it's that the utilitarian pedal vehicles need to to be designed to better accommodate more needs such as better weather-protected cargo bikes.
Disabilities are defined by more than the presence of a wheelchair...
it's also great for the blind to have a consistent and upkept flat pathway where they don't have to worry about anything they don't expect being in the way
Number 5 is fatally flawed from the beginning in the US.
I don't know what Canada does, but in the US local streets are paid for from property taxes, and bicycle riders pay the exact same taxes as people driving cars.
The difference is that cars are heavily subsidized while bicycles rarely get anything for their money. If the people on bikes are paying the same property taxes they should have the same level of service.
Not Just Bikes also said suburbs and building more and so many roads for cars are subsidized and incur debt. Suburbs are also related to building a car dependent culture and roads cause suburbs are not walkable or bikeable to businesses. Nor do they always have public transportation.
Not everyone can cycle, but safe bike paths are also great for people in mobility scooters, wheelchairs, handcycles and microcars. What space on the road is allocated for old and/or disabled people in car-centric cities exactly?
Indeed well provided that the local legislation allows for such usage. But I think I'd be quite comfortable with permitting other light vehicles in bike lanes. I'd think that allowing single occupancy vehicles up to a max kerb weight of 350-400 kg and a maximum speed around 40-50 km/h to use bike lanes would be fairly reasonable. This would presumably include most of those various mobility appliances and I guess small engine powered cycles like mopeds too. But the weight and max speed limits would still exclude larger cars and motorcycles, vans, trucks, etc that really do belong on highways. If anything the bike lane is probably a more suitable place for these light fairly slow vehicles as they get a bit too heavy and/or fast for pedestrian traffic but are still too light or slow to really be safe on highways with cars etc.
Additionally, more people biking would reduce the total traffic and congestion on the road which would ultimately HELP those that have no other choice but to drive.
Hi frisianmouve, you forget about tricycles that can use the cyclepaths as well. An excellent solution for people with balance issues.
Hey frisianmouve, u vergeet de driewielers welke ook het fietspad mogen gebruiken. Die zijn ideaal voor mensen met problemen met het houden van balans.
In the US, it's typical for elderly and disabled people to get in their cars and drive to their destination just like everyone else.
@@roberts1677 blind can drive? People who have slight limb control issues can drive? People without arms can drive? Your 80 year old grandpa with slow reflexes and bad eyesight still drives? Than I don't want to go anywhere near your homeland because thet is inharently dangerous
If someone is really adamant about point 3, tell them that bike lanes keep cyclists off the "real road" leaving it free for cars. What's not to love?
Edit: *good* bike lanes. Dangerous bike lanes don't get used, with good reason, and some drivers feel all the more entitled to bully people for not using them.
But yes your point is otherwise valid.
@The Stammering Dunce
There’s dog people like this too, who get personally offended that you don’t like their unleashed animal getting in your space. It means to them you hate dogs and are heartless or stupid and scared and a threat to them and their identity.
Have a neighbor like this and she couldn’t fathom why I’d be upset to come home at night to her dog on our porch blocking the front door and trying to get at the things in my hand while I unlock it and trying to get inside to where my cats are. Clearly I’m just scared and need to the dog forced on me so I can be educated and warm up to the dog, and am awful for wanting it leashed and off my porch.
I'm 100% in favour of better bike infrastructure even though I don't bike much, its mutually beneficial that cars and bicycle are kept separate from each other.
maybe you'll even bike more if the infrastructure around you existed. quite handy for short trips and much easier to park.
I agree.
The problem is , in Waterloo Region, anyway. They just place them everywhere without any thought or planing.
Start and stop in the middle of no where without warning!
The best thing is that the more people choose to take a bike or public transport, the more room I have to drive around in my car. I honestly can't believe how people are unable to see that proper infrastructure for all modes of transport is a win/win situation for everyone except perhaps the car manufacturers and oil companies.
> its mutually beneficial that cars and bicycle are kept separate from each other.
Yes, absolutely. That's the problem, in North America, they put sidewalks and bikepaths right beside the car so that pedestrians and cyclists have to go deaf from the all the noise and get lung-cancer from inhaling all that smoke. And then they expect them to THANK them for the "favor". 🙄
In places that _aren't_ garbage, they build bike-paths and sidewalks AWAY from the road. In a Not Just Bikes video, Jason explained that they put the sidewalks and bike-paths in Amsterdam away from the road which not only benefits from less noise and pollution, but makes the trips shorter too!
@@laupit don't forget big pharma. . . how are they gonna profit off the obese and stressed out people as a result of city design like this
As someone that have made the choise not to even get a driving licens and live in a subartic region, the worst argument I have ever heard why I should get a car instead was from a neighbour, he said that it just took to long for me to get home from work. I biked for approximately at most 19 minutes in one direction (during winters). The same distance took 11 minutes by car. So I asked him, how many minutes per day did he exercise and how many minutes should I work just to finance a car. I prefer a healthy lifestyle, where I don't spend time working just to pollute the planet.
Or how much time stuck in traffic, or having to drive longer distances instead of designing walkable cities.
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c Or how much time on getting into and out of the road and parking. It all adds up, it's not just the actual time on the road itself. Depending on the source and destination, there might also be a walk from the parking to the door which might be bikeable instead.
It’s actually great to think of it as your daily exercise 😮
5:08 Bike lanes like this require a level of braveness that I definitely don't have. Fantastic video!
Lol I don't touch those, I just stick to the left side of the right lane and expect drivers to use that space to pass me because they can survive getting a staple in their tire while I can't
I usually take up a whole lane so drivers have to switch lanes to pass me. Interestingly, I’ve never received a honk or complaint. (I ride fast though, around 30km/h)
bad infrastructure justifies cycling on the sidewalks lol
@@armin1576 now that's a dick move
@@dot6441 It’s not a dick move since it’s actually safer, and so much safer that it could be argued to be a necessity.
To commute between my school and work and my apartment, I have to ride on a poorly lit road with a speed limit of 50mph.
There are a few “share the road” signs on the road but assholes will try to force cyclists onto the rocky, uneven, muddy, littered with glass and metal and who-knows-what-else ground alongside the road.
Despite having read about how “owning” a lane is safer I feel weird doing it so
I don’t always do it.
However, all my close calls have been when I am not taking up the middle of the lane.
Recently, I had a bus not check their blind spot and nearly hit me when changing into the right lane.
Another recent incident a car in the left lane tried to force a car in the right lane into me, not realizing I was there.
For argument #4 and the picture showing the bike lane "not in use", it can also be showing a super efficient bike lane where users breeze through and disappear and only in comparison to gridlocked cars visibly taking up massive amounts of space does the bike lane seem unutilized.
Interestingly, the "not in use" argument applies even more effectively in reverse. I think City Beautiful (or could it have been someone else? Pretty sure it wasn't NJB, because this was in California) had a video documenting that the endless seas of parking lots malls are mandated to have around them are excessively big as they don't fill up even on Black Friday. If the parking lots are oversized even for the biggest shopping day of the year, what use case are they then designed around?
@@Codraroll Ah good point. I've seen that video. It was a City Beautiful video:
th-cam.com/video/-XscydK-3LI/w-d-xo.html
Plus, you need 4 bikes to "look" like 1 car, so if you put the entire number of people using each option per day side by side in pure numbers, they'd look similar or have a small difference (for good bike infrastructure), whereas if you compared it with a bike-to-car picture graph, the cycling numbers would look ridiculously small, even if they outnumbered the cars 2-1 due to the sizing
Yeah, even if something is "fact", people can twist it by taking a small sample size or in a certain place at a certain time. Also, "people won't use it" seems like gaslighting people who ask for it and do want to use it. I doubt many of those people who say "people won't use it" look at polls or listen to people saying they want that infrastructure for non-car transportation. Like just watching Not Just Bikes.
When watching, I think "how obvious", then I remember how ignorant I used to be before watching Not Just Bikes.
Amazing and necessary video.
Maybe ignorant is not the best word perhaps uninformed or naive? Dont b 2 harsh on urself
More like brainwashed by a century worth of lobbyiny by the car industry
@@HallsofAsgard96 Ignorant is the proper word. It just means unaware of information. If you have people who use ignorant in place of words like stupid, tell them how ignorant they are for it. :P
@@Rafael_Fuchs
Thts funny cause I've never realized tht till now. I've only ever heard tht being used to describe racist people and the like. Thnks
@@Rafael_Fuchs bruh being unaware of information is called being uninformed. Being ignorant means the specific entity has chosen to ignore about something. So ignorant is not the right word to use in the original comment.
Dutch guy here. Had to laugh on 6 out of 7 arguments against good bicycle infra. A dogma is NOT an argument. If anything it is a reason to think again on what you are saying.
People are stupid....we have been improving our infrastructure since the 70's because we valued children's life more then a car.
@@jolandafrijlink6103 If that was true, car traffic would be made impossible, but it isn't!
A good bicycle infrastructure, and a good car infrastructure, and room for kids to be safe, can all be combined, one doesn't exclude the other.
In Canada and the USA it is always for or against, never peaceful coexistence, never improving both.
Egocentric thinking to the top, and two of the few in this world that think this way.
@@dutchman7623 ehhh...ik BEN nederlands....dus ik begrijp je argument niet...wij hebben veel gedaan aan veiligheid en in amerika zien ze fietsers niet als een prioriteit.
@@jolandafrijlink6103 Klopt! Maar het een sluit het ander niet uit. We hebben in Nederland de beste auto infra, maar ook de beste fiets infra, én de gelukkigste en veiligste kinderen.
Kinderveiligheid is niet ten koste gegaan van de auto, maar kunnen samen gaan als je de leefomgeving goed inricht.
Dus niet óf/óf maar én/én.
@@dutchman7623 ik weet❤....daarom vind ik de onzin die ze verspreiden maar raar. Je kunt ze allebei hebben.
"Not everyone can ride a bike"
So those who can, should be hindered in doing so, because a few can't?
I know someone who can't drive a car, so by that logic, all roads made for cars, should be removed.
Where i live people start learning to bike roughly at the same time as they learn to walk, if not even before that.
@@MrWhite-pn7ui where did anyone say that drivers should be punished?
@@MrWhite-pn7ui firstly i wasn't saying anything about the channel, I was commenting on your comment to another comment. And roads are paid by cyclists too.
@@MrWhite-pn7ui Asphalt deteriorates when heavy vehicles pass through it, on the other hand, a bike/pedestrian path, barely need any maintenance. Also, the more people cycle, the less cars will be on the road which makes the traffic for car lovers like you lighter, so you actually should be thankful if there are more bike lanes. Regarding taxes, cyclists also work and buy stuff and all those things have taxes attached to them.
Walking for everybody! Wait, no, scratch that, walking for nobody. I suppose it's just as effective if you can't walk.
From my perspective, the majority of arguments against improving cycling infrastructure boil down to "we shouldn't spend the money because the existing cycling infrastructure isn't used." The flaw being that they never ask why is that infrastructure going unused.
Yup, I've seen that exact sentence spewed in the letters-to-the-editor of my town's newspaper _many_ times, always by anal-fissures who have never been on a bike in their lives. 🙄
While I don't cycle, I use my longboard to get around and so having bike lanes in my city makes me happy. It's so nice and smooth, unlike the sidewalk which is full of bumps and cracks. It makes me feel safer when riding, and it makes the city feel overall more modern and people-friendly
I use my longboard get to church in a car-centric city. It’s an okay ride, but going under the underpass is a nightmare on a longboard. I always dream of a bike lane that can get me there safely.
Longboards are cool! My city uses chip-seal on roads making it very bumpy & vibration inducing, making long trips tough. Sidewalks are smoother but with cracks, uneven gaps, etc. I found footbikes (large wheel kick scooter or scooter-bike) works for me to deal with both. Front wheel 26" and back wheel 16" or 20".
It's frustrating seeing how a car centric mindset affects people in North America today considering that we've lived without cars for thousands of years and cars are a recent invention that has brought more costs than benefits in the form of pollution, road deaths, and congestion. Cycling and public transit is more efficient in cost and time and it's arguably better for the climate as well.
_Inarguably_ better so long as cars still run on combustion and much of the grid still uses fossil fuels.
@@theuncalledfor not to mention all the wetlands, forests, and other wildlife habitats that are torn up to make way for motorways, carparks, and low density housing. All that asphalt used for car infrastracture also leads to an increase in the urban heat island effect, which makes already warming cities feel even hotter.
There are many more costs than that… also urban sprawl, municipal bankruptcy, poor health, isolated “communities”, and the list goes on…
@@Lafv i reckon that the personal car is the worst invention of all time. Obviously not all motor vehicles are bad since ambulances, delivery vans, fire department vehicles etc provide some value to society but allowing/forcing people to get their own car was one of the worst mistakes of all time.
@@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102 yes, Tesla electric and full self-driving doesn't adress that! It adresses sustainability and independence, but not that!
Electric cars, and all cars, should be for rural people who live away from cities (mostly)!
YES! I especially love the point that "if cycling is inherently a dangerous way to get round in your city then you're basically asking for only risk-taking and adventurous people to engage in it." I've been making that point for years! So when drivers complain about all these cyclists engaging in risky riding and breaking laws, this is the main reason why! There's also the fact that experienced cyclists get accustomed to the risks, and thus, what may seem safe to an experienced cyclist can seem completely reckless to a driver that is always safely ensconced in tons of steel.
I really loved riding in Montreal! Lots of biking infrastructure and lots of everyday riders. I've ridden in the Netherlands, and I have to say that I actually felt uncomfortable with the sheer number of cyclists, because so many were obviously comfortable riding in that congestion, and I was on a borrowed Dutch bike that I was uncomfortable riding when I've ridden road bikes almost exclusively for many years. Of course, the bike infrastructure was both excellent and nearly ubiquitous.
#7 deserves way more attention. This is the very soul of the problem with most bike infrastructure in Metro Vancouver (outside the downtown core I mean). If you are going for a ride greater than 15 km to get from one end of the city to the other, you quickly discover most bike paths are clearly designed with hobbyists and families in mind and to have a hope of actually reaching your destination, you will be forced to either take a massive time penalty or brave the car traffic on arterial roads.
I had an argument with someone. He asked:
- Why do you need a continuous bike network.
I asked I return:
- Why do you need a continuous car network?
So much yes to young people being able to get around without relaying on their parents!! I grew up on the countryside where I had to ask my parents to drive me every time I wanted to go somewhere. It's super isolating in a way that's really hard to describe.
Also some parents are unable to drive their kids all the time. So idk why parents wouldn't be for giving kids more freedom. Some parents even guilt their kids by say gas is expensive. That's needlessly guilting kids for nothing. If only the city design and law didn't rob people of just walking. North American law forbids certain houses be built near businesses. There's too many people complaining about gas being expensive, or families arguing about it. Some kids need to go to lessons, practice, jobs, volunteer work, or explore.
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c And they wonder why so many people are lonely these days. 🙄
The "they don't pay taxes" argument is as bad as "I don't have any kids, so why should I pay for education??"
When all infrastructure used by cars should have to be paid by only car owners, there would be none at all.
I prefer to use healthcare rather than education when talking about this. Reason being that I can then hit them with the bombshell that health insurance is basically them paying for other people's healthcare anyway, since at its core insurance is a co-op (albeit one that's bee severely twisted and corrupted into something completely different).
Sorry but if you don't pay road taxes then you shouldn't be able to use the roads, the car drivers are basically the ones who own the roads and they can set the rules they like, and we do not want your bikes on the road or at the very least you should not be catered towards. If someone doesn't have kids then they should not be forced to pay for your kids education, pay for it yourself unless you believe in theft.
@@voluntarism335 Roads are public space, owned by society, not by car drivers.
@@voluntarism335 I think roads and schools are different. At the very least we shouldn't bar people from transportation. Especially the most basic one which is walking. Or bar people from participating in society if they can't afford a car or driving. Like getting a job. Some Americans just tell people to get a job, but support destroying the poor's ability to walk to search for jobs. That also doesn't sound like rags to riches that Americans like to advertise themselves as such.
You say you don't want to provide paid roads for bikers (or non-car users) but in America, often they don't even just leave the natural dirt roads for non-car users. They like to pave so many places. Especially where people live and are and businesses are.
Do you liken walkers to sidewalks to bikers? That people shouldn't be free to walk either if "they don't pay taxes for roads"?
Not Just Bikes talked about that suburbs and having to build too many roads for cars is what's subsidized and incurs debt. Cars also cause more road damage. Beyond the budget that cites can fix too. That Dutch style walkable cities is what generates more wealth.
What about the past when there were roads but no cars?
You're never going to or able to get people to stop walking, biking, or using public transportation. Such as poor people, or kids. So why not provide protection for them? Transportation is daily life so it's very important.
St. John’s, NL is currently going through a walker vs cyclists battle as the city is trying to implement a cycling transportation network but plans on repurposing existing walking trail infrastructure. Walkers and drivers are extremely anti biking here. So I really appreciate these videos that have a canadian context👏
I been there . There are a number small narrow streets in downtown St Johns because they weren't designed for cars because they were built before the invention of the automobile . Then the city officials use the it too much snow in winter argument. St Johns usually gets a few big storms but the snow doesn't last all winter because weather is moderated by the close proximity of the ocean . People bike all winter long in northern countries like Norway and Finland so the snow argument is weak .
I live in Belgium and in more rural area, people love to say they build bike infrastructure by just putting a sign saying the sidewalk is accessible to bikers. Of course pedestrians aren't happy, bikes don't like it because it's not smooth, too narrow and has no protected intersection, and so they go on the road, pissing off drivers doing so. Nobody's happy
''NL'' confused me lol
Btw, NL is the Dutch country code.
@@the11382 yep I’m aware. in North America NL also means Newfoundland and Labrador
Hi guys. Some random swiss fellow here. The big algorythm just threw your video at me and for some strange reason I decided to have a look at it. In exchange you get my 5 cents in return:
As a car driver, passionate motor- AND "move by your own power" kind of cyclist I naturally endorse the existance of bike lanes. It bemuses me though that the whole issue sometimes seems to be presented as a kind of "cyclist vs motorist" kind of thing - which is outright silly in my opinion. Bike lanes not only help cyclists but motorists too to ease the flow of traffic - if they are propperly implemented that is! Unfortunately, they often really come as a cheap excuse rather than a propperly thought out concept. One sad example to me is Berlin in Germany. City authorities there answered the call for bike lanes by just splitting sidewalks in one half for pedestrians and the other for cyclists. This results in frequent emergency braking and other close calls between the two groups. Cyclists with electric bikes or sportive cyclists that otherwise would easily be able to travel at an average speed above 30 kph are forced to switch into granny gear and sqeek along barely faster than walking pace evading texting bystanders, chatty housewifes and window-shoppers left and right. If they decide to hit the road and go along with cars instead they get exposed to all sorts of road rage because "Oy - there's a bike lane over there maaaan!!". So I am all for bike lanes, but they must be done propperly and be attractive for all kind of cyclists - not only those travelling at 15kph average - and they should not be used as a cheap substitute to ban cyclists from roads. If that can't be established, I prefer staying on the roads and go along with cars - which usually aren't going much faster within city limits anyway.
Some police officer and a council member wanted to abolish the new bike lanes in my city because "it would be unfair to motorcyclist and they will demand lanes for motorcycle". Bike to work was disallowed few days ago because "it would be unfair to bike to sport".
The easy solution to that is to simply legalize lane filtering for motorcycles, like most civilized places do.
@@TommyJonesProductions car window smashing robberies??
@@nadie8093 ???
@@TommyJonesProductions criminals use lane filtering as a way to smash someone's window, steal their belongings and then ride away (can do that from the front or behind, or if it is centered in the lane). Legalizing lane filtering wojld only make this type of robbery easier to pull off.
@@nadie8093 thats BS. I shouldn't have to sacrifice my safety just because of your paranoia.
My father had parkinson, diagnosed with about 65. He stopped driving the car with 70. He stopped bicycling with 82 (electric bicycle).
“They don’t pay taxes”. Since we are in a country with Universal health care, car drivers should pay higher taxes as they have will have more health problems (cardiovascular, diabetes etc) from sitting in traffic as opposed to having a healthy lifestyle which utilizes active mobility.
Not to mention all the injuries from crashes or illnesses caused by car exhaust.
I mean, let's be real here. Drivers who oppose bikelanes are very selfish.
The idea that cars should need to have 2 to 4 lanes to get around each direction. While bikes shouldn't be allowed half a lane per direction, seems very petty.
I don't understand why cars need more than 1.5 lanes.
often (especially in the USA and Canada) the cars wouldn't even need to give up lanes because the lanes are so wide bike paths can easily be added by making the lanes normal sized.
(4 lane road -> 4*3m = 12m. Change that to 4*2,5m and there is space left for a 1m bike path on both sides
or the middle lanes could be made even narrower to make the outer lanes a bit wider so it's easier for big trucks)
@@Robbedem not everywhere my guy, from the US California. bike lanes are often incomplete and awkwardly placed in my experience. Like, half of the bike lane is just the street gutter so the ground isn’t even level.
There is lots I’d like to improve with street design. :) I’ll just stick to the sidewalk until then
@@mrkraffbs9583 Yeah, my town does have a 'bike lane' that goes somewhat through town but it's a terribly disjointed mess of bike paths, bike lanes, side walks, and sometimes outright on the road itself. I suppose I can't really blame em too much for that though as they were only added in the last decade, so they had to work with what space was available, and it was mostly made with school kids in mind, so they only really loop around between the schools
The "bike lane" i use all the time literally goes throught turn lanes like what, why would i want to ride in the turn lane?
As a pedestrian I'd also rather by next to a bike lane than by a heavy road. Being right by cars feels unsafe as they're large, fast and powerful and I'm just a flimsy human.
People in urban areas pollute less because everything is in walking distance or easy bus distance
Bike lanes that actually aren’t are a severe problem. The hawthorn bridge in Portland Oregon has most of the bike traffic, but the “bike lane” that suddenly ends on the off ramp from the bridge so that an exit for cars can happen is a real danger. As were the water grates that were parallel to the traffic and wider than most bike tires. That has been fixed, but the right turn off ramp is still a problem. There is an alternative now that lets bikes off the ramp for cyclists heading north or south but going east is still terrifying
in my area, there is a bike lane that abruptly stops at an intersection
and if you continue the intersection, you see "bike" signs all around... with no bike lane in sight
what does the "bike" sign mean?
go on the foot path or go on the road?
Same problem in my city, which actually is quite bike-friendly compared to many others. Wide, separated cycling lanes stretch for many kilometers in some cases, then you get to a big intersection, and the bike lanes just end, to resume on the other side. Fortunately, there are pedestrian crossings, but it feels like a major cop-out on the part of the traffic engineers. "Yes, we have bike lanes coming into the intersection, but we can't figure out how cyclists are supposed to get through it, so we'll have to make them pedestrians for a bit". Of course, it's illegal to bike faster than walking speed on the sidewalk, and illegal to bike across a pedestrian crossing, so off the bike you go. These interruptions technically aren't unsafe, but they are frustrating and make people less likely to choose a bike for their commute.
I know what you're talking about. You had better shoulder check when crossing that off ramp. I get annoyed getting downtown from the bridge and the bike lane disappears. Wouldn't be a big deal if you didn't have to go uphill.
3. Those people are the type of person that demands that cyclist should pay a road tax or aren't allowed on the street at all.
Vehicle tax don't pay enough for streets to maintain them and aren't a qualification to use them.
The amount of vehicle-related taxes is less than the amount of tax reductions for vehicle usage. This means that the usage of motor vehicles is already subsidized (by non-users and persons of low income). The costs for construction and maintenance of roads are not even included.
A Flemish study into costs and benefits of cycling, in comparison to other modes of transport, concluded that every cycling km has a societal gain of more than 40 €urocents, that's a gain of more than 60 cents Canadian Dollar per kilometer. (Fietsbeleid brengt op, juli 2018, Fietsberaad Vlaanderen en Transport & Mobility Leuven) They looked a.o. into costs of infrastructure, sound, accidents, emissions, congestion. These figures might be conservative, when you see that one factor, the health benefits, are calculated 15 €ct higher in the Netherlands. But Dutch roads are indeed safer.
Aren't car taxes just for emissions? Because EVs aren't taxed in the UK.
@@موسى_7 That's mostly a subsidy to increase EV adoption. Electric vehicles have their societal benefits, but the current tax system doesn't favour them enough to make them economically attractive on their own.
@@موسى_7 You could say this. In Germany and EU it is quite the same.
Great compilation of the "Greatest Hits" of your average motorist on social media!
I don't know how to ride a bike. Learned half a decade ago and never used it again, so that skill has LONG since atrophied.
But I would learn if I could go places by bicycle. I'd love having that freedom.
If you want to re learn the fastest way is to take the pedals off of a bike and push off with your feet.
TLDR: Learn to balance before learning to pedal
"Bike lanes cause pollution" is just so wrong. It assumes that ever person that is currently driving is going to keep driving and that every trip will continue to be made with cars. That is just illogical, if you driving becomes a option and not a necessity then some people will choose to not drive or choose to not use their car for certain trips.
For example going to school. Let's ignore the fact that most Americans will still choose to bring their children to school, because Americans have a exaggerated view on how dangerous it is for kids to be alone, because that's a totally different subject that deserves it's own in depth look.
For going to school, there is just no reason that every child needs to be driven to school every single day, children aren't going to school with 10 bags worth of groceries, so you don't need the space that the car provides.
Most kids live within a easily bike-able distance from their school, so there is no reason that the kids can't go to school on bikes along with their parents. Parents bike to the school with their children, the children get to school park their bikes and then parent turns around and goes back home and can then get in their car for their much longer drive to work.
Not to mention that any danger that comes from walking/biking to school alone is only exacerbated by car dependency which curtails safety in numbers.
Why would you need your parents around while cycling to school? That's creapy and insane, if you have propper bicycle infrastructure. Not Just Bikes made a great video about it th-cam.com/video/ul_xzyCDT98/w-d-xo.html Why We Won't Raise Our Kids in Suburbia (and moved to the Netherlands instead)
@@peterslegers6121 Because Americans have a overblown belief on how likely it is that their child is going to get kidnapped. So they would want to be with their child in order to prevent them from being kidnapped.
Plus the added, if there is good bicycle infrastructure and there is lots of congestion then people will be incentivised to make their trip a bike trip if they can.
I agree with you. I went to school that was about nine miles away and had a taxi take me. however, if my school was in town, which is only 3 miles away from where I live I could cycle there really easily. This was actually the way people traveled a lot to school years ago by bicycle or walked long miles.
My city is working on repaving 4 lane collector roads as 3 lane roads with unprotected/exposed bike lanes in a hope to create a large enough network to encourage biking. They are also turning 6 lane roads into 3 lane roads with exposed bike lanes and parking. This is a step in the right direction, but the problem is that only a small percentage of the bike infrastructure are buffered lanes/shared use paths/cycle tracks. The city also considers sharrows and signed shared roads a part of their cycling infrastructure system, which I find concerning.
Edit: The 6 lane roads actually don't get parking, and are 5 lanes instead of 3.
Unsegragated bike lanes next to high speeed traffic… doesn’t sound great to me…
The thing with bicycle lanes is, they're the easy part of bicycle infrastructure. You set aside some space next to the road, maybe use some bollards or a fence, and boom, bike lane. Easy-peasy. The problem is when you get to intersections, ensuring that there is a proper and safe way for bikes to cross. I don't believe many cyclists are run over when cycling in their own lane next to traffic along a straight road, but when traffic intersects, and there's nowhere for bicyclists to go, that's where dangerous situations happen.
And that's also where traffic engineers give up in many cases. In my hometown, there are several places where proper, separated bike lanes end right before big intersections, then continue on the other side, as if the traffic engineers just skipped over the difficult part of the road design and let the cyclists figure it out for themselves. The "correct" solution is apparently to get off your bike, become a pedestrian for a while, use the pedestrian crossing and get back on your bike when the bike path resumes. That's not really a way to facilitate the use of bikes for commuting, is it? People then choose other transport options, because a commute by bike is so full of (sometimes quite dangerous) interruptions, and then politicians claim nobody is using the bicycle infrastructure.
It's like setting up a bus route where passengers have to get off at one stop, walk for a kilometer, then get back on the bus at a different stop. Of course people wouldn't use it. It has to be a continuous system to be attractive.
@@Codraroll Yes! Where I live, most of the time the bike lane just merges/becomes the right-turn lane. The city is starting to make interesting waiting locations that sit between the right-turn lane and the straight on lane, but I question their safety.
Good analogy!
@@elijaha773 Actually screw those merging right turn lanes for bikes man. It’s so wack. I tried using them once and while I waited in the lane at the red light this person was honking at me because they wanted to get in the turn lane when there was *plenty* of room for them to pass. I don’t trust city traffic at all. The sad fact is that most if not all modern cities were designed for cars only and the bike lanes are just a small side note that often isn’t looked at, which is very sad, because a car has never been a necessity unless your work is literally ~30+ miles away.
Just discovered your channel and I love it. You guys have a level-headed approach to life in the big city (and surrounding area) with a sharp sense of humour to match. As a cyclist, I'm particularly fond of the way you capture in words the myriad frustrations (and plain old bureaucratic bs) I have had to put up with, over the years. Kindly keep up the good work.
Having recently moved to Ottawa I couldn't agree more with your point at the end of the video. You can bike all over the place but all the routes take you nowhere you would want to go other than for a recreational bike ride.
So glad you showed all the Canadian deathtrap bike lanes. I'm in Ottawa and I go on side streets as much as possible and avoid maybe half the bike infrastructure. I've almost gotten ploughed over more times in the bike lane than on any other surface.
Indeed. My town (in the US) has some pretty awful bike lanes and I generally just use a different street a block or two over when I'm cycling.
As another resident of Ottawa, I agree. The existing (non-recreational) bike lanes are sparse and inconsistent. I don't think bikes or pedestrians should have to cross in front of traffic coming down an off-ramp from the highway, or the on-ramps to Bronson ave. In my own opinion, poorly designed bike lanes like the ones in Ottawa are likely to cause more harm since they give an illusion of effective infrastructure when, in practice, they are completely unsafe.
I've heard "roads are for cars" before too and I was just speechless. It's so stupid.
The main argument of course is that more cyclists will improve congestion, and thus benefit the people who still have to drive a car. Bike lanes have a much much higher capacity than car lanes, and in my experience good cycling infrastructure drastically improves road congestion. When I have to drive, I'm always happy for people cycling, because that's another car less on the road.
"If it's an attack on drivers to take space away from them, why isn't it an attack on cyclists to not give them any space in the first place." That is perfect. May I steal this? This cuts right to the heart of the issue.
Certainly!
'The idea that roads are for cars is nonsensical; roads aren't inherently for any particular mode' -- those utterly awful STROADS, on the other hand...
Roads are not free to construct or maintain. Reasonable to expect bikers to pay user fees.
@@johnwashburn7423 or, we could just change the tax system so that our income taxes cover infrastructure rather than rely on a gas tax, and then everyone pays for the roads. I drive an electric car, so I pay no gas tax at all right now, but I still use the roads. As electric cars and biking become more prevalent, infrastructure funding will need to be rethought since the gas tax, which is already inadequate to cover costs, will no longer be workable
But they do cost so I wNt bikes to pay their share. They are not special people because they do not pollute...on the road anyway. In this dis ussion we don't know if their other life includes private aircraft, boats or multiple or excessively large homes...you know, like Al Gore has
@@bechela1 absolutely agree as long as the tax is not progressive. I have no fondness for the wealthy but if they drive a Prius no reason CV to tax them more than the less wealthy driving a gas guzzling pickup truck
@@johnwashburn7423 Lots of us do pay user fees. If I'm on my bicycle, it means my two cars and motorcycle are sitting not using the roads, despite the fact that I pay road tax on all three of them.
"Roads are for cars" Sorry folks, the parade is cancelled PERMANENTLY
All of these arguments can be countered by just saying "look at the Netherlands or Denmark"
For sure. The difficulty is that many people dismiss those places as too "different" (culturally, geographically, etc) to be relevant, which is why we try to highlight cycling successes from North America in our videos too, even if they're more modest.
"But those countries are so densely populated! The US has a population density of three and is a bajillion miles big! It can't be done here!"
Meanwhile, New Jersey is actually *more* densely populated than the Netherlands (470 people/sq.km vs 423). Denmark has around 137 people/sq.km, that's less than New Jersey (470), Rhode Island (394), Massachusetts (336), Connecticut (286), Maryland (238), Delaware (187), New York (162), and Florida (145), plus for that matter all the overseas territories except (barely) the Northern Mariana Islands.
Finland has walkable cities with good bicycle infrastructure too, and its population density (16/sq.km) is lower than all but 10 US states. It's roughly on par with Oregon. If Oulu can have great bicycle infrastructure, so can Eugene.
Or the US 100 years ago before the car took over really.
@@Codraroll Also its ignoring WHY the US isn't so dense. It's pretty much a circular argument
@@OhTheUrbanity If you dive into the history of cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam they where als car centered till the early 1970. After that things slowly changed.
OMG so much space at 5:05! You can't make the argument that there's not enough place for a bike path in that particular place!
5:10 - Goodness me, I'd not use that sorry excuse for a 'bike lane', either. Just LOOK at that stroad! 😱
Where's the adequate width? The addition of street trees & furniture to encourage slower driving speeds (&, thus, safer cycling)?
For a good example of how to de-stroadify a stroad, complete with good bike lanes, compare this mess to West Rosedale Street in Fort Worth (get on Street View just west of 6th Ave for a good vantage point) & look at how it looked in 2013, to how it looks now (as of this comment, most recent SV is May 2021). I would, & in fact do, use that bike lane. 🙂
~ Mesyn
Not to mention they have an extremely wide green space that they could put a bike lane through. Easy as that, separated biking infrastructure.
if such a thing was in israel, we'd just call it the wayside (and we'd definitely not have that pathetic excuse for a sidewalk)
That damn thing is so wide they could add 2 more lanes for cars and still have enough room for a bike path
These videos are incredible thank you
Bicycle traffic was on roads before the existence of cars..so the roads are for cars has no historic weight
for example, bike invented @1817 and cars @ 1886
After living in Japan and using a bike as my primary means of transport for 8 years, coming back to Toronto was quite disappointing. It's gotten a bit better in the 3 years since I've been back, but I still can't regularly bike to get groceries etc like I did in Japan. And the closest supermarket isn't even that far, it's just too dangerous to dare. :(
People used to walk. I see even sidewalks going away for extra car lanes.
1:09 i’m finding “Sky, Ottawa” way too funny
Since you guys cover Montreal and are strong advocates for bike lanes, I figured you should be aware of this news.
Montreal's mayoral election is taking place in November. And ex-mayor Denis Coderre, who's running again this year, and seems to have an anti-bike lane agenda. He recently promised that he would remove half of the bike lane on Bellechasse Street, to replace it with street parking for cars.
Might be worth making a video about, if you guys want to keep using Montreal's bike lanes.
Does Coderre have a decent chance of defeating Plante the incumbent?
Best to make sure he doesn’t.
@@eriklakeland3857 Unfortunately yes, the last opinion polls according to 336Canada had him ahead of Plante.
@@davethibault6734 that sucks to hear. Thanks for the summary I don’t have a direct stake as a native of Indiana, USA but I love Montreal. The anti-bike rhetoric needs to be quickly slapped aside so Coderre can’t foster doubt
@@davethibault6734 Wow really? I don't live in Montreal so this doesn't concern me direcly, but it's sad that Quebec in general has a pretty strong conservative movement at the moment(Excluding the complete disdain for every religion, that's not very conservative).
I actually legit one time had someone who drives an electric car, a Nissan Leaf, tell me that bicyclists shouldn't be allowed to ride in the street because we don't pay the gas tax that helps maintain roads. I simply asked her if she caught the irony in her statement.
Since the addition of many bike lanes across Toronto, I've been converted to an advocate. I used to think that reducing traffic to a single lane would be a traffic disaster, but this has been proven false. As far as I can tell congestion hasn't changed, but driving is generally less stressful because you no longer have to share lanes with bikes (or parked cars).
When I'm in traffic is seems really apparent that going from 1 lane to 2 is the same speed because people start changing lanes back and forth, cutting each other off, then driving in the wrong lane most of the way only to slow down and try to merge back in to turn, and all this shuffling around just slows down the whole system. If you have one lane with turning lanes and minimal distractions everyone forms a train and it seems to move much more smoothly.
There is a synergy with walking, cycling, and mass transit that optimizes a good land use pattern.
I have heard all of these as a cycle commuter, which by the way, took less time than driving.
#2 😂 Im epileptic, have a fractured back, bum knees and bad lungs. I bike everywhere 😂
On top of that, at least roads get winter maintenance. Bikers and what few lanes we have are an afterthought.
I bike everywhere in my city in the Netherlands for as long as i can remember (accept when the weather is really bad, or if i'm lazy ) But i wouldn't use my bike in most of the 'bike lanes' i see in this video. Just a few lines between speeding cars seems both dangerous and a good way to inhale exhaust fumes..no thanks .
I recently transported an entire door by bike so bikes can be really useful for transportation of stuff
10 feet of steel pipe easy does it in downtown. I was thinking of you carrying a car door to fight back against getting doored. Modern day jousting!
"sky, Ottawa" love this 😂😂
Love the channel! Its nice to have urban analysis from city I've actually lived in for a change!
I feel the same way! I just moved to Toronto, but spent some time in mtl beforehand, so seeing the differences being noted on this channel is really cool. It's making me feel a lot more relaxed about starting to ride here. Haven't tried as of yet, but I'm hoping to very soon after I watch some more videos - essentially doing my 'homework'.
As someone in a wheelchair I can't drive a car (at this moment) but I do have a handbike. Without bike infrastructure I need a taxi for everything but with my handbike I can do everything within a 5km rage comfortable
Added content for #5 - Tax
A car owner will NEVER pay enough tax on its vehicle to maintain any infrastructure.
Tax is paid by everyone through VAT, income tax, council tax, etc etc...
ALL the money that goes into treasure is distributed back to public service and infrasturcture.
A cyclist who is shopping, work and simply... exist pay money that the goverment spend to create logistical infrasturcure so lorries and emergency services reach its destination.
Doesnt matter how expensive your fuel or emission tax is, it is a miniscule contribution to the treasury in the big picture.
The same way as a fully healthy person pays to treat the drug addict or the surgery accident anyone have
a cyclist contributes to the road what a car is using.
But if we want to go the other side:
Who is damaging the road more creating potholes? A few ton heavy vehicle or a 15-35kg bicycle?
except the lorry driver is paying all those same taxes as you, and road taxes on top of that.
and to go to the other side, I pay an estimated $1000.00 a year in specific road taxes. is it really too much to ask a cyclist to toss a tenner in the hat in exchange for a road of his very own?
@@kenbrown2808 I'm a cyclist opposed to bike lanes. I don't want a road of my very own. I also own three ICE vehicles and pay plenty of tax on those. I have the renewal notice for my Jaguar sitting on my desk right now. It's $150 a year, and I only drive that car a couple thousand miles a year. If I'm on my bicycle, that means an all-up weight of about 200 pounds causing very little wear and tear on the road compared to what I could be doing with my 4000 pound car.
@@roberts1677 then you;ll be fine with maintaining a 60 MPH cruising speed on that bicycle so I don't have to be stuck behind your ass burning twice as much fuel and time, creating twice as much pollution, and developing a deep burning hatred for cyclists; while you impede traffic?
@@kenbrown2808 Properly ridden cycles don't impede traffic. It shouldn't take you more than ten seconds to pass me.
@@roberts1677 so you're saying you're fine with cars crowding past you in the same lane?
I have been a bike commuter for 7 years now, and I have watched my community grow exponentially but not cycling. Many drivers don't believe we should share the road. We bike riders should just go on the sidewalks. Many major roads here in O-Town, do have bike lanes, but the vehicle traffic is unbelievably fast to bike safely. Many ride on the sidewalk just to keep away from the onslaught of degrading remarks by drivers. I subscribed to your channel..Thank you for your cycling informative report .
Or bike on the sidewalks for safety.
Great video content, that just kinda...ended. When an ad started playing, I had to go back to see what happened, but it was really the end of the video.
Fair point
Illustrates what most bike infrastructure does in the UK - just kinda ends
I hate the invasive ads these days.
This was such an excellent excellent video!!! Thank you for putting this together. It’s so clear and nails all the points concisely. 🙏🙏
Great points! So happy to think that I have come from the perspective of those arguments when I lived in a gated exurban community to now being a recreational and functional cyclist 100% of the time.
2 notes on this. In regard to "bike lanes are empty", the other point is that they aren't. They are just more efficient, people on bikes take up much less space then a car, so the bike lane though it's smaller moves people smoother & is less likely to get congested. Pictures of "empty" bike lanes next to "busy" roads often show more people in the bike lane then the car lane. Then onto rule breaking cyclsits, it depends what study you look at as to what specific result you get, but they typically all show cyclists break the rules either less or the same amount as drivers, not more, and that when they do, they do it typically to improve their safety, and don't pose a risk or cause crashes as occurs when drivers do.
Sometimes the argument against bike infrastructure is the bike infrastructure itself. Sometimes the infrastructure somehow manage to check all the wrong boxes. No cyclists ends up using it, advocates would rather it not be built at all, and motorists point at it as a reason to why those kind of infrastructures are useless.
Yeah, if you execute the concept badly enough, nobody will use it, and then some opportunist politician can use the botched execution as an argument against the concept itself. It's like building a bus route that doesn't stop downtown, then complaining that no commuters use the bus, so the concept of bus routes must be inherently unsuitable for the city.
@@Codraroll Or when they don't create any seperate bus/tram lanes nor give them priority on or at least seperate phases on busy intersections, causing them to get stuck in traffic and be perpetually late.
Of course the bus/tram sucks if it's allowed to get stuck in the same traffic as the cars!
On a country road, I slowed looked both ways and continued on at a stop sign. About 500 meters away a car saw me do it. The driver came along side and proceeded to chew me out for not stopping. You should have seen his face when I said, "My license is suspended for doing that in cars. What makes you think I'm going to stop on my bike?"
Drivers have to remember; the enemy of the car is other cars. Bikes are the solution because they take other cars off the road.
The "People don't use bike lanes" argument is one that particularly annoys me. I've heard it so many times from so many drivers, and if I actually try to explain why people aren't using the lanes, they get annoyed with me and try to end the conversation.
Where I live has pretty decent cycling infrastructure, but most of the segregated bike lanes are specifically built around schools. So if you're not actively going to a school, the lanes don't connect to anything and aren't that useful.
People dont use bike lanes here because of the rampant theft. You cant ride downtown if you have to separate from your bike, because it will be stolen in minutes. And it dosent matter how expensive your lock is, if they want it, they will take it. I would gladly do without bike lanes, if they would put that money towards several places downtown that you could place your bike and get a ticket, with surveillance and a security guard . I can ride any stretch of mud, gravel, or pavement, freeway included, I couldn't give a shit about "bike lanes". I want to ride downtown and shop, or go to a movie, with the reassurance that my bike will be there to ride home.....Yes, if you ride a junk bike, it probably wont get stolen, but I dont ride junk. My bike is worth $5,450.00, and I'm not losing this one. We really need security for our bikes, PERIOD !.....I have no problem with riding inches away from traffic, been doing it for 25yrs.
Shout out from the streets of Montréal which we see in the video. We replaced our service business truck fleet with cargo bikes and trailers. We'll never go back!
The "bike lanes cause pollution" one is my favourite. It's so disingenuous. If they really cared about pollution, they wouldn't drive cars, would they?
Or they would use a carbon neutral alternatively fueled car.
In the Netherlands all ages do bike. Most people start when they are 3 or 4 years old. As long nothing is wrong with your legs, you can bike.
Until her eighties my mom went each week to her sister on bike, a distance of 20 kilometers. She had a car, but preferred biking. And she wasn’t exceptional. Nowadays with e bikes more older people goes biking.
Not everyone can ride a bike. Well not everyone can drive a car
I love my truck. Love to take it on road trips and camping. That being said, I live 4 miles from my work. If it was safe I'd ride my bike 80% of the time to work. Unfortunately, I'd probably die on the first trip. The road I take is a "stroad" and is very dangerous for walkers and bikers.
If you convince a large proportion of people to cycle then it will make driving better for those who want to do it since the roads will be less congested. Bikes are far more efficient in terms of the space requirements to move large numbers of people than cars, so adding (good) bike lanes, even at the expense of car lanes, will normally increase the capacity of a road.
@@MrWhite-pn7ui not really and that sounds like a shitty argument, you don’t have to be against bike lanes to be against those things
There is also the fact that increasing lanes of traffic doesn't do anything to reduce traffic in the first place, as shown by a plurality of studies and the existence of Houston, Texas.
I am 60 and ride 140 miles a week
Do you mean 14?
@@tescotrain No I ride 140 miles a week and am working up to around 250 and it is in the hills, not the flats.
Thanks for this video. It gives me plenty of great points to refute the asinine arguments that one of our mayoral candidates is using to keep in place the car-based transit system in Rochester, MN. The candidate I'm speaking of says that the bike lanes in town get limited use and that the "bending of government policy to serve a small part of the population" isn't innovation or improvement. The reason the bike lanes are not massively used in Rochester is because they are mostly not connected to anything out of the downtown core, or they are not safe for most cyclists to comfortably use. Exactly what you said in the video. Thanks again!
Great video as always. Ottawa’s bikes infrastructure looks rough
It is rough. Council thinks paint is infrastructure.
Glad to see another Ottawa-based channel!
-Ogilvie Road is indeed bad for cycling.
-I often commute with my e-bike between Kanata and St.Laurent. The only direct "bike" route is the pathway along the river. Other direct routes such as Carling, Somerset/Wellington/Richmond, and Baseline seriously lack cycling infrastructure and are unpleasant and dangerous to use.
-Definitely agree that cycling is considered more of a hobby in Ottawa. Sometimes on my commute I want to make stops and run errands. But the pathways do not connect to them!
My grandfather is 91 and he rides a bike lol
He's not a sporty guy, either.
If the day is nice then the 'grey brigade' on their bikes (often electrically assisted these days) comes out in the Netherlands these people aged 60 and over wouldn't do outdoor activities in most places but here they love to just cruise around the country at a slow pace enjoying the scenery while talking with whomever they are riding and keeping the heart pumping. Saves a bundle on healthcare and all those cups of coffee with pie consumed are a boon for restaurants etc.
On #4: I used to live in Calgary, a city that has lots of recreational paths for cycling/walking, and relatively few for practical use.
While out on a ride once, I got hopelessly lost and actually ended up on one of the major roadways (can't remember which, just that it went past the old stadium, lol) and I actually found myself on a dedicated bike path!
Marked out, separated from road traffic by a concrete divider, even had a lane for both cycling directions.
As someone who had been run off the road, and almost into a streetlight, by a motorist the month prior, the bike lane was a godsend.
While I was biking back into downtown, I was passed by a half dozen other cyclists, on the road, not the bike path.
I was deeply confused... like, here is one of the few lanes on a major thoroughfare that's ideal for safe, fast travel across large swaths of city, and you're on the road anyways?
0:50 most people don’t know but cycling infrastructure is incredibly useful for wheelchair users. Sidewalks can be difficult to traverse (through bad design or temporary blockages), which means a separated cycling path can be a safe alternative. Handbikes (a wheelchair attachment that allows the user to bike using armstrength) also make use of cycling infrastructure and because you are lower in a wheelchair than a cyclist, you are much harder to spot by cars, meaning separation iscreases safety by a lot. Handbiking can be a solution when a lot of public transport is not fully accessible and walking or taxis are often not an option either. People can get adapted cars, and for many wheelchair users it gives them a lot of freedom, but these adaptations are very expensive.
Tiny brain: No bike lanes
Average brain: stick bike lanes on existing roads
Galaxy brain: utilize available space to make dedicated bike paths so that you don't need bike lanes on existing roads except where building dedicated paths is impossible.
Clear and well balanced. Great job. I cycle in London (the UK one, not Ontario) and I also drive occasionally, using a car club where you pay hourly for using a vehicle. I've definitely noticed an increase in cycling uptake as infrastructure has improved, especially where they are trying to improve safety. No doubt the current plague situation has also played a factor in moving people off trains and onto bikes. It's probably also moved people from public transport into cars, so Covid giveth and Covid taketh away.
I would also take a proportionate road tax in a heartbeat if it was matched by dedicated and properly maintained public facilities.
A very good Video to get started with the topic. Really glad that I found it. If you have anyone in your social circal who stated any of those arguements, don't hesitate to show them this Video.
It’s when watching these videos that I can proudly say: laughs in Dutch bike lanes!
And you're not the only one! 20 million bicycles, and their Dutch owners, join you! 😀
Top notch video - thanks for making this! I live in Abbotsford, BC and unfortunately these bad arguments seem to be the backbone of popular opinion about bikes around here.
Let's remove all car roads cause not everybody can drive a car!!! Great logic... I live in the Netherlands and am flabbergasted that people actually use these "reasons" seriously.
Cycling is just for recreation, fine then cars aren't obviously so we don't use them anymore for recreation. I mean it's obviously impossible te use a means of transportation for both.
God people are stupid...
i haaaate the "not everyone can bike" argument SO much because it goes two ways. not everyone can drive! I cannot drive due to disabilities and i have lived my teenage/young adult life in a small rural town (Bolton, Ontario) and I always had to rely on my mom to take me anywhere. I never thought i would be independent and would have to live with her all my life. it truly messed me up.
It wasn't until i moved to a walkable city with public transportation (St. Catharines) that i realized that i was actually able to be on my own and not completely rely on others.
I still have yet to get a bike because of money and crappy bike infrastructure, thus a lot of anxiety around driving around cars, but if the city ever improves in that way then you KNOW im gonna be biking everywhere i can :D
3:30 AAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I genuinely was confused when you mentioned that there was a bike lane in the photo. I thought maybe it was a joke, that there really wasn't. But apparently car dependent suburbanites think this is actual infrastructure rather than an insult!
As someone who lives in the graph from 2:00 I can confidently, and more importantly; honestly, say that there's no bike infrastructure in that photo. Take it from someone living in a country where people bike for their commute ages 8 to 80 (or more closer to 4 to 80+ ).
Finally, how do car groups not realize this simple fact;
Right now, with incidental exceptions, everybody drives a car.
Now assume that a ridiculously low percentage like 20% of the population, would take a bike if it was a genuine option.
As long as you accommodate those bikers by taking away less than 20% of your car capacity you have effectively increased your car capacity.
Or in other words; in a normal healthy society, only those that truly must take the car and those that like taking the car, would take the car.
But in nearly every city on the NA continent you now have not only those 2 groups, but also those that would like to take the bike. And those that would like to walk. And those that would like to take the bus. And those that would like to take the train. You're actively making driving a worse experience by not only having the car lovers, but * [everyone gif from Leon the Professional] * on the road!
I always hear that people on bikes don't pay road tax. But cars would have less cars to deal with on the roads if safe bike routes were in place. I love bike paths because if done right you can keep moving and not have to stop and go like cars.
honestly those stroads should end up being a benefit afterall because you could add in 2 way bike lanes on either side without even taking a single lane away from the cars lol
Bicycle infrastructure is usually so poor that it is not well used, but more than that; the practicalities of introducing really high quality bicycle infrastructure into existing networks is usually very difficult to achieve. Therefore the government will spend a nominal amount which is actually insufficient because to ensure good uptake a 'ground up' highway redesign is often required in urban settings. The cost prohibits good cycle infrastructure and perpetuates the idea that cycling is a niche transport option by virtue of low usership.