As a Dane we have similar systems for bikes, and even high speed lanes through town only for bikes! And bridges over the Cph. harbor, only for walkers and bikes. Also a rule for car responsibility in case of an accident!
The place that should be following the Netherlands example is Lima, Peru. Not only is it located on a very flat plane, the weather is very mild, the traffic now is horrendous, and the air is very polluted. They are slowly adding rapid transit routes at great expense, but were they to compliment them with bike routes, it would make the city a much more livable place.
Hi Lee, Lima is a big city! But I agree, we should all have more human scaled public spaces. Maybe you also like this video: th-cam.com/video/4UmU1dSe3n0/w-d-xo.html
Very good video with facts. I would like to add that cycling is also a succes, because shops and amenities are close by. So it is easy to cycle to the shops to your groceries, or to the hospital or dentist, bars, restaurants. It comes as no surprise that the majority of Dutch city dwellers do not own a car. From 62 % in Utrecht to 75 % in Amsterdam inhabitants are car free. The Dutch cities had no sprawl into the countryside. So the cities stayed compact. So the destinations stayed under the maximum distance of 10 km/ 6 miles. 10 km is maximum for a straight up Dutch city bike you can cycle, above 10 km other forms of transport become more attractive like public transport, moped, car.
He Bob, that is sad indeed! Thanks for sharing. I will look into it and try to do something about this. To counter this for now I would like to suggest this very nice video about why SUVs are stupid 😁 th-cam.com/video/jN7mSXMruEo/w-d-xo.html
I think the flatness reason is silly. I live in a not flat country (its name literally means land of the Scots, which has nothing to do with hills but there you go) but I'd cycle the Lecht pass without two thoughts about it. I mean, there is a limit but if there's a road then obviously it's traversable. It's not like one would have to cycle over the Aonach Eagach ridge just for a quick commute when you can cycle up the paved Glencoenfar more easily.
Good question 🙋♂️ that I sometimes ask my self. First of all, one bike is far better than no bike. However, I do own 4 bikes 😁 My commuter e-bike is very well equipped to commute about 15 km to work without a sweat but not so very well equipped to carry around stuff or kids. My bakfiets (transporter bike) e-bike is equipped to carry around stuff and kids. For sports I also have a mountainbike and for bike packing I got a bike packing bike equipped for that purpose. Next to that I do share almost all of them with my wife 🤗 So that’s 4 bikes 😄 and the reasons why. I think the one I value most for it’s all round use is the bakfiets. You can go a long way with only that one. Thanks for asking! Do you own a bike? Or are you interested?
E-bike for commute, decent bike for shopping, old bike to visit the city, mountainbike, fieldbike and road bike for recreation and two training bikes indoors.
@@Fietsend well, I'm in north america most of the time. and i have a folding e-bike for commuting the last mile but am covetous of the bakfiets, if only I had the space...the way you have multiple bikes is how the average canadian or american has multiple cars. lol
I live in a Brit city on the Edge of East Anglia, (Fen country) most of our land is only liveable because of Dutch experts at drainage I in my youth learnt to ride a bike (motorcycles followed) but I only took-up pedal cycles again in my 50's as a keep fit thing I soon learned a small incline could @ the end of 4 or 5 hrs cycling meant get off and walk I really would like my Grand-Children to have the fun of walking to school with yer mates
He Brian, having safe streets to walk to school is a great thing to want for your grand children. In the Netherlands we have Mens en Straat, or Streets for All. There goal is to have more attractive and safe streets to walk and play. Maybe there is a similar organisation in GB 🇬🇧: mensenstraat.nl/streetsforall/
Thank you for this addition! Riding E bikes indeed take less effort in non flat areas compared to non assist bikes. This will enable more people to start cycling! 😃 And that’s a good thing 🤩 But, to be able to use a regular bicycle it off course doesn’t have to be flat. I didn’t say that in the video either. It does help. Riding on flat land simply takes less effort. Riding on non flat land is off course possible but takes more effort. Still, I recon flat land is one of the reasons why it is a succes in The Netherlands.
@@h50herman You're not finding a decent ebike for a few hundred dollars. You can put together an old bike for less than $100. Thats why you see kids, college students, and homeless people with them. You can get a beater car for 2 or 3k. Consequently, that would also be the same price to get a "good" starter ebike. I still would be lacking in carry capacity, especially if I have children or don't work conveniently close to home. Not all of us can work cushy office jobs. We might have to travel to all over the metro area, often with little warning and on your own dime while having to haul tools.
@@korcommander an E bike costs about 1800 Euros a littlebit charging and you are ready, A car is much and much more expensive than an E bike, it is not even comparable.
Both cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable to motorised traffic on shared roadways. Ideally therefore transport planners would incorporate separate cycling paths and pedestrian only pavements where possible. When pedestrians and cyclists share paths, cyclists should proceed at a safe speed consistent with the numbers sharing said path. Mutual respect and courtesy goes a long way.
In the US, you'd need cities to build infrastructure on a per area or ward basis. The issue is going to be getting people feom area to area. While public transit can close the gap, the time it would take to just drive is often the same or shorter. I know where I live the public transit isn't ideal but its pretty robust, and even in ideal scenarios (rush hour traffic) public transit (in this case light rail) and biking just takes more time. Then you have the whole issue of hauling things larger than groceries. I wouldn't want to put 200lbs of cement for 2x4s on a cargo bike.
Zoning in the US is the opposite of the 15 min city. Without allowing mixed zoning and higher density it will be impossible to create a 15 min city were biking and walking is a significant part of commuting. People simply need to commute further and therefor require faster transport modes like a car. Trains and metros could be a solution in the more high density areas. But great parts of the US are not high density areas. For instance US suburbia. But off course, the people should decide for them selves what they prefer. If you like current Suburbia than vote for that. If you require hauling cement and other heavy and large things weekly than indeed a car like a mini van is a better solution compared to my transporter bike 😁
@@Fietsend it actually is possible with current zoning laws. I unintentionally live an area where you can get to the grocery store, schools, and a clinics within 15 mins on a bike and its all single family homes and old apartments. I would even make the argument most places are already pretty close to it. We're just missing the pedestrian niceties. Its also completely possible in Houston. They don't have zoning laws. Lmao.
Some things are a matter of choice. You can choose whether to plan for lots of small scale supermarkets and shopping centres, all within walking or cycling distance of where you live, or whether to go for huge out-of-town megastores that are only accessible by car (and so require huge car parks). The UK has gone for the latter. As a result town centres are dying and shopping is a nightmare. The Netherlands is better (and not just because it's flat).
Thanks for naming an absence of hills as the first reason. I've lived in Edinburgh and Manchester, both are more hilly than Nijmegen where I come from. However, roads in Nijmegen were more often hilly: there's hardly any route that doesn't involve tackling going up or down a dike, a bridge or an actual hill. In contrast my commutes across Manchester or Edinburgh hardly featured any hills and I didn't have to fight the wind as much either. Of course I could find very hilly exceptions that would put Nijmegen's steepest roads to shame, but that's not the point. Hills are often quoted as an excuse, a reason not to expect people can ride a bike. That's stupid, but this video might back up such an argument. Pity really.
@@Fietsend kijk ook naar Parijs. Daar dachten ze ook dat de stad te heuvelachtig was. Maar zie, als je infrastructuur als een veilig netwerk bouwt, komen de fietsers ook. Met of zonder heuvels.
The first argument is completely false : it doesn't explain why Belgian people cycle less than Swiss people, while Belgium is more flat than Switzerland... The real big factor is bicylce infrastructure. The better is your bicycle infrastructure, the most cyclists you have. I recommand watching the TH-cam channel NotJustBikes where it is explained better than I do ^^
The size of the country is frequently brought up to explain why the US can't have nice things. It's about 2,500 miles from Los Angeles, California to Savannah, Georgia, or about 4,000 kilometers. But nobody really expects the average person to ride a bicycle from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. Why does the size of the whole country matter when building a train line in California or a bike lane in Jersey City? Most trips only go a few miles from home, so bikes are perfectly usable if there's a safe place to ride them. Although on the other hand, every year people do ride bikes from coast to coast, There is also an ongoing project, the National Bicycle Greenway, to connect bicycle infrastructure in various cities and states to provide a single protected bike route from San Francisco, California to Washington DC, mostly along converted rail lines and some old canal towpaths in the east.
The large country argument does have validity. Alot of the federal and state funding has to be spread thinner just through principle. Thats money a local municipality is not going to have that maybe a prefecture in Japan or subdivision in the UK would have.
@@korcommander But the argument is weaker than it looks, since the infrastructure doesn't have to be spread evenly across the whole country. The people aren't spread evenly, so the bike routes can follow where the people are clustered. Secondly, not much money is needed. Bike infrastructure is far cheaper, both to build and to maintain, than roads are. Standard traffic lanes are normally 10-12 feet across. One lane is wide enough to build a four lane bicycle superhighway. And car lanes have to be built strong enough to withstand the weight of car traffic, including a lot of rather large SUVs. They wear out pretty quick. Bike lanes only have to withstand the weight of bicycles, which don't weigh much even when fully loaded. Wear and tear is minimal.
@@JustClaude13 You forget that the money for bike routes is also in competition for roads, sewers, police, schools among other things. A larger nation in area needs longer arterials, need longer sewers and power lines. The same types of funding issues occur from the US, to Russia, to China. I think europeans often forget how large these countries are. The DFW metroplex is half the size of the entire Netherlands and that's only one of 4 of the major metroplexes in Texas. The state of Texas is larger than almost all European countries.
@@korcommander And yet they never seem to have trouble financing more highway lanes, even though highways only return less than half their cost in total revenues. Bike routes are a net gain, so they can be used to subsidize car lanes. Regardless of how big the country is. By the way, you might be interested to know that sewers don't actually run the whole width of the country. They're local to each community. The problem with them is that large lot R1 zoning means each customer needs a whole lot more sewer than we used to need back when cities were built for people rather than for the benefit of cars.
Unfortunately, in many communities in the United States, the response to “Kinder Mort” is not as calm and measured as in the Netherlands. Americans tend to keep their kids inside or constantly drive them to scheduled activities. To many Americans, government is seen as a negative force instead of a force for positive change. For them, Social Democracy is the path to Soviet Era Communism. It is also hard to develop a sense of community when the average American moves 11.7 times in their lifetime. Things are slowly changing due to different attitudes among the younger generations, but it will likely take much longer than it has in the Netherlands; the United States is much less cohesive.
Thank you for above. Very interesting. It’s a shame and I hope that people one day realise social democracy is a good thing for the general wellbeing of the people.
That map is interesting. In Belgium the network spreads to the Dutch speaking part at almost the same rate and then completely disappears in the French speaking part (there's also nothing in the parts of France we can see). For Germany it get's thinner and thinner the further you move away from the Netherlands - and the dense looking network around Düsseldorf is quite misleading: That area has one of the lowest bike shares in all of Europe.
For Düsseldorf itself the modeshare for bikes is 21% and the Network is rapidly growing…so the Information isn‘t completely Right, it is more likely that the Share is low in the small cities surrounding the metropolises
Small town USA is better suited for cyclists. I have adapted an 80s MTB to be an Omafiet and that works well even in a hilly town. Taller stem, swallowtail handle bars, larger seat, mtb tires, and a 1x8 transmission.
There is much room for improvement regarding bicycling infrastructure in the United States. I think the Netherlands has proven that it is possible to have a good cycling environment even in more densely populated areas.
I believe your explanation about weak traffic participants is not entirily correct. This legislation has a long history, my grandfather who grew up in the 1920's Rotterdam always told that the paint of a cyclist and a tram is expensive. Yes trams were included as weak traffic partricipants. Like cyclists they weren't mandatory insured like motorized traffic is and that was and is key. It was originally about the legally weak, not the fisically weak who were and are protected. The protection includes trains, houses and a host of other things besides cyclists and pedastrians. The confusion might come from the fact that the complete traffic law was renewed in 1994. In spite of the disagreement on the legal details I do think that article 185 of Dutch traffic law plays a key part in the behaviour of drivers in Dutch traffic and contributes to the safety for non drivers in Dutch traffic and it might be relatively easy for other countries to build infrastucture for increased safety for non drivers like we see today in Paris, New York and other places but it might prove difficult to implement similar legislation in other countries than the Netherlands.
Thanks Bart, for your explanation above! My video is short and indeed there is a lot more to it. Still, I based my video on the following please see: zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-25759-3.html The following is stated: ‘Artikel 185 WVW 1994 heeft voornamelijk de strekking ongemotoriseerde verkeersslachtoffers extra bescherming te bieden tegen de gevaren van het gemotoriseerde verkeer.’ Google Translate: ‘Article 185 WVW 1994 is mainly intended to offer extra protection to non-motorized traffic victims against the dangers of motorized traffic’ Also see: nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Kinderen_Voorrang The following is stated: ‘De stichting had zich tot doel gesteld: de samenleving dusdanig te doen inrichten, dat de veiligheid van de jeugdige verkeersdeelnemers gewaarborgd is, alsmede al hetgeen daarmee in de ruimste zin verband houdt.’ Google Translate: ‘The foundation had set itself the following goal: to organize society in such a way that the safety of young road users is guaranteed, as well as everything related to this in the broadest sense.’ Appreciate that you share your understandings! It might indeed also be part of the legislation. I did found a Wikipedia site that indeed describes that trains trams and structures are also seen as ‘niet gemotoriseerd’. Regards, Xander
Nice video. But it doesn't match the stated problem. John climbs the Vaalserberg to the three-country-point every day. At one time it was a four-country-point, but that's not the reason.Walking up the mountain and back is good for your health, but that's also not the reason. At the top, there is a labyrinth, but that's still not the reason. Having reached the top gives the tourist a certain sense of camaraderie, but even that is not the reason. John just happens to work at De Bokkenrijder, restaurant at the top of The Netherlands. Sure, all your facts are nice facts, but they are not the reason The Dutch cycle almost every day.
Thank you for your reaction! Nice to hear you like the video 😁 Your probably right. I can’t scientifically proof my statements in the video. I do think they are at least part of the answer to the:‘why the Dutch cycle almost every day!’. What do you think are the biggest reasons the Dutch cycle almost every day and a for instance US citizen doesn’t?
The sheer number of cyclists is also a factor. Apart from the fact that there's strength in numbers, this also means that nearly all motorists are also cyclists. They have a good understanding of cyclists' need for consideration and respect, and will expect to receive the same consideration when they're out on their bikes. I feel embarrassed, even ashamed, when I see the hostility between motorists and cyclists in English speaking countries.
Don't buy that flat-land argument. First of all most of mankind lives on river or coastal plains. This is even true in countries like Switzerland and Austria. Secondly it has been shown again and again that it is infrastructure that makes people cycle: build it and they will come.
Let’s agree it makes it more likely to ride a bicycle if it costs less effort. Cycling on a flat land takes less effort🤩 But off course this is not a unique feature of the Netherlands. You are absolutely right about that. However combined with the other reasons it makes a strong case for why the Dutch cycle almost everyday I would argue 😁👌
@@HansKeesom Firstly I don’t know what you mean by ‘or tow more’. Secondly the distance to a supermarket or restaurant is easily done by bicycle, just a few kilometers. And the climate in Florida is much better than in The Netherlands, cycling in sunny weather of 25°C is much better than in headwind, rain and 5°C. I don’t think there are any excuses not to cycle in Florida, unless it’s infrastructure.
Presenter are you a Dutch cyclist? I’m a pedestrian in the Netherlands. They are not mentioned in your little story. Pedestrians are the weakest participants in Dutch traffic. The leading participants are public transport and they should get first choice in traffic. They don’t get that, because cyclists get in the way of public transport but that is ok in this country. The next participants are the cyclists because they are aloud to do what is not allowed by law but they do it anyway. They are aloud to skip a red light, they are aloud to ride on the sidewalks, they are aloud to change lanes without signaling. They are aloud to yell at pedestrians when they don’t get aside fast enough in the eyes of the cyclists. The only fun thing a cyclist can do is to ignore the rails of the tram and then with an enormous bang is catapulted to the ground. They can park their bicycle everywhere they want to so for pedestrians there is some kind of zigzag route to their destination. I walk with a walker and now have a bicycle bell on my walking aid. It now is also fun to see the cyclist cycling on the sidewalk ring his bell for pedestrians to move aside and then ringing my bell. They don’t expect this and is a rare sound in their ears. The politicians made rules for cyclists that gave them this power to do what they want in traffic because a lot of cyclists were being killed doing these dangerous manoeuvres. Now they can ride, almost,care free because they are protected by law. All the other traffic participants are not. 😊
Hoi Leny! Thank you for your reaction! I think you do have a point. Walking people and playing kids should indeed be prioritised above people on bicycles. We can indeed also safely say that a lot of people on bicycles in the Netherlands do ignore a lot of traffic laws. People that are walking should not be a victim of this behaviour. I agree. People should behave appropriate and respect each other. We should not only focus on cycling but on having attractive, safe and accessible streets, just like the stichting: ‘Mens en straat’ argues. mensenstraat.nl
@@Fietsend I’m happy with your reaction. Most of the time, I’m not taken serious. Our council, I live in Amsterdam, even though they try are not very good in planning. Every now and then our council send a bus to our shopping center and ask for feedback. That is a good thing. Sometimes I see things and I tell them about it. Then they take action, and I start to laugh or cry because their solutions are the cheapest so not the best. For instance they changed the traffic situation around a round about. This was changed in smaller sideways, better cycling paths and the road stayed the same. Now when I need to go there, I walk on the sidewalk and suddenly there is a streetlight in the middle of my path so I have to step on the cycling path or the grass. With my rollator. So I go round the light and a little further my path stops. Now I have to cross the road and there is a school. So picture this, a crossing, smaller footpath, gates to protect the children on the footpath. Here I come, like I said smaller footpath, with my rollator, footpath filled with children and people on bicycles. Yes parents, teachers and children on bicycles on the footpaths. Now the council took action. They shortened the footpath by lengthening the grass behind the light. 😂
Are you a pedestrian in the Netherlands? Or are you a pedestrian in Amsterdam? As where I live it's not as busy as Amsterdam and because of that there never are such problems between pedestrians and cyclists.
Guess you are one of those 'mooi weer fietsers'. One who mostly takes the car to work unless the weather is nice. There is one reason only: Infrastructure. Flat surroundings has nothing to do with it. Neither has social democracy an influence. Seems to me you change the narrative to suit your reasons.
Hi Paul, Thank you for your ideas about my bicycling/ commuting practices and my reasons for the video 😄 Regarding my practices: Love to cycle in the sun. Do also cycle in the rain though. I do not commute to work by car (simply not possible) But, all of that being sad I am in the lucky position that I am able to commute by bicycle. Some of which are: - I own (great) bikes - I can safely commute to work on my bike because of the great infrastructure (and flat lands 😜) - I have a healthy able body and mind - Own some great rain jacket and trousers from Patagonia (no affiliation, yet) - I like serotonin and dopamine 🤗 - Doesn’t rain that often* (glas is halfvol Paul 😁) I understand that not everyone is in this lucky position. I hope to inspire people to enable them and others to pick up a bike for as far as that is possible. Regarding your comment on the video. Infrastructure is indeed a big part of the story I try to tell (in less than 5 minutes, so it’s not that nuanced) However without social democracy the infrastructure would probably never have been built. I agree, that’s a ‘what if scenario’ and off course we will never know what would have happend without social democracy 🤗 Still, fact is that legislation about traffic participants liability laws and bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands came to being by a social democratic process. Hope this reply on your comment is some what satisfying for you and others. Love your critic views on things! Keeps me sharp. Thank you! 😁 *Regen in Nederland: www.knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/het-regent-niet-vaker-wel-harder
This is about normal people in the Netherlands, , Not soldiers of Sparta . Most people in the Netherlands are ' mooi weet fietsers. .What's wrong with that ? Obviously more people bike in nice weather. and on flat terrain. That's just human nature.
Well done. Thanks for sharing. Cheers! John
Thanks John, I appreciate this and off course your channel! Greetings from the Netherlands!
Great video. Very interesting. Thank you
As a Dane we have similar systems for bikes, and even high speed lanes through town only for bikes! And bridges over the Cph. harbor, only for walkers and bikes. Also a rule for car responsibility in case of an accident!
The place that should be following the Netherlands example is Lima, Peru. Not only is it located on a very flat plane, the weather is very mild, the traffic now is horrendous, and the air is very polluted. They are slowly adding rapid transit routes at great expense, but were they to compliment them with bike routes, it would make the city a much more livable place.
Hi Lee, Lima is a big city! But I agree, we should all have more human scaled public spaces. Maybe you also like this video: th-cam.com/video/4UmU1dSe3n0/w-d-xo.html
Very good video with facts. I would like to add that cycling is also a succes, because shops and amenities are close by. So it is easy to cycle to the shops to your groceries, or to the hospital or dentist, bars, restaurants. It comes as no surprise that the majority of Dutch city dwellers do not own a car. From 62 % in Utrecht to 75 % in Amsterdam inhabitants are car free.
The Dutch cities had no sprawl into the countryside. So the cities stayed compact. So the destinations stayed under the maximum distance of 10 km/ 6 miles. 10 km is maximum for a straight up Dutch city bike you can cycle, above 10 km other forms of transport become more attractive like public transport, moped, car.
Thank you! Great addition!
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that there is a path in the US to anything like what you have in The Netherlands.
@@fvefve12 Thank you Fvefve12. I agree with you.
Sad, but at the end of your video, TH-cam placed an ad for Ford's large SUVs.
He Bob, that is sad indeed! Thanks for sharing. I will look into it and try to do something about this. To counter this for now I would like to suggest this very nice video about why SUVs are stupid 😁
th-cam.com/video/jN7mSXMruEo/w-d-xo.html
@@Fietsend I've already watched that one. On target. A friend describes the oversize front ends as codpieces.
It's honestly surprising they're even legal in most countries
@Bob the algorithm gives you the most suitable options based on your search and watch criteria, nothing to do with the creator of the video 😉
Great video, keep it up!
I think the flatness reason is silly. I live in a not flat country (its name literally means land of the Scots, which has nothing to do with hills but there you go) but I'd cycle the Lecht pass without two thoughts about it. I mean, there is a limit but if there's a road then obviously it's traversable. It's not like one would have to cycle over the Aonach Eagach ridge just for a quick commute when you can cycle up the paved Glencoenfar more easily.
I happen to be far too lazy to look up these places but I am sure you have a point! Keep the cycling up! 😁👍
excellent . 👏👍
who/what are 2nd, 3rd, 4th bikes for?
Good question 🙋♂️ that I sometimes ask my self. First of all, one bike is far better than no bike. However, I do own 4 bikes 😁 My commuter e-bike is very well equipped to commute about 15 km to work without a sweat but not so very well equipped to carry around stuff or kids. My bakfiets (transporter bike) e-bike is equipped to carry around stuff and kids. For sports I also have a mountainbike and for bike packing I got a bike packing bike equipped for that purpose. Next to that I do share almost all of them with my wife 🤗 So that’s 4 bikes 😄 and the reasons why. I think the one I value most for it’s all round use is the bakfiets. You can go a long way with only that one. Thanks for asking! Do you own a bike? Or are you interested?
E-bike for commute, decent bike for shopping, old bike to visit the city, mountainbike, fieldbike and road bike for recreation and two training bikes indoors.
@@Fietsend well, I'm in north america most of the time. and i have a folding e-bike for commuting the last mile but am covetous of the bakfiets, if only I had the space...the way you have multiple bikes is how the average canadian or american has multiple cars. lol
i have 3 bikes, a town bike, a race bike and a MTB bike.
I live in a Brit city on the Edge of East Anglia, (Fen country) most of our land is only liveable because of Dutch experts at drainage I in my youth learnt to ride a bike (motorcycles followed) but I only took-up pedal cycles again in my 50's as a keep fit thing I soon learned a small incline could @ the end of 4 or 5 hrs cycling meant get off and walk I really would like my Grand-Children to have the fun of walking to school with yer mates
He Brian, having safe streets to walk to school is a great thing to want for your grand children. In the Netherlands we have Mens en Straat, or Streets for All. There goal is to have more attractive and safe streets to walk and play. Maybe there is a similar organisation in GB 🇬🇧: mensenstraat.nl/streetsforall/
this will increase with electric bikes. love my bike, leuke video, kom op met je volgende video.
there are E bikes now, so the argument of "it must be flat" does not consist anymore
Thank you for this addition!
Riding E bikes indeed take less effort in non flat areas compared to non assist bikes. This will enable more people to start cycling! 😃 And that’s a good thing 🤩
But, to be able to use a regular bicycle it off course doesn’t have to be flat. I didn’t say that in the video either. It does help.
Riding on flat land simply takes less effort. Riding on non flat land is off course possible but takes more effort.
Still, I recon flat land is one of the reasons why it is a succes in The Netherlands.
It does when an ebike costs several times that of a regular bike.
@@korcommander an E bike costs about 2 times more than a good normal bike and it is an investment for years and years.
@@h50herman You're not finding a decent ebike for a few hundred dollars. You can put together an old bike for less than $100. Thats why you see kids, college students, and homeless people with them. You can get a beater car for 2 or 3k. Consequently, that would also be the same price to get a "good" starter ebike. I still would be lacking in carry capacity, especially if I have children or don't work conveniently close to home. Not all of us can work cushy office jobs. We might have to travel to all over the metro area, often with little warning and on your own dime while having to haul tools.
@@korcommander an E bike costs about 1800 Euros a littlebit charging and you are ready, A car is much and much more expensive than an E bike, it is not even comparable.
Both cyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable to motorised traffic on shared roadways. Ideally therefore transport planners would incorporate separate cycling paths and pedestrian only pavements where possible. When pedestrians and cyclists share paths, cyclists should proceed at a safe speed consistent with the numbers sharing said path. Mutual respect and courtesy goes a long way.
🙌🏼
Nice to see the local roads of delft
In the US, you'd need cities to build infrastructure on a per area or ward basis. The issue is going to be getting people feom area to area. While public transit can close the gap, the time it would take to just drive is often the same or shorter. I know where I live the public transit isn't ideal but its pretty robust, and even in ideal scenarios (rush hour traffic) public transit (in this case light rail) and biking just takes more time.
Then you have the whole issue of hauling things larger than groceries. I wouldn't want to put 200lbs of cement for 2x4s on a cargo bike.
Zoning in the US is the opposite of the 15 min city. Without allowing mixed zoning and higher density it will be impossible to create a 15 min city were biking and walking is a significant part of commuting. People simply need to commute further and therefor require faster transport modes like a car. Trains and metros could be a solution in the more high density areas. But great parts of the US are not high density areas. For instance US suburbia. But off course, the people should decide for them selves what they prefer. If you like current Suburbia than vote for that. If you require hauling cement and other heavy and large things weekly than indeed a car like a mini van is a better solution compared to my transporter bike 😁
@@Fietsend it actually is possible with current zoning laws. I unintentionally live an area where you can get to the grocery store, schools, and a clinics within 15 mins on a bike and its all single family homes and old apartments. I would even make the argument most places are already pretty close to it. We're just missing the pedestrian niceties.
Its also completely possible in Houston. They don't have zoning laws. Lmao.
Some things are a matter of choice. You can choose whether to plan for lots of small scale supermarkets and shopping centres, all within walking or cycling distance of where you live, or whether to go for huge out-of-town megastores that are only accessible by car (and so require huge car parks). The UK has gone for the latter. As a result town centres are dying and shopping is a nightmare. The Netherlands is better (and not just because it's flat).
Indeed 🤗
I want to move to the Netherlands so badly
It's my dream
Were do you live now? Can’t you start a movement to change what you do not like about your current local public spaces?
@Fietsend sadly no, the country is ever nearing a civil war
Wow, I did not expect that one. Take care
I have read thatcthe Nerherlands is one of the few countries where there is not a serious problem with obiesity.
Thanks for naming an absence of hills as the first reason. I've lived in Edinburgh and Manchester, both are more hilly than Nijmegen where I come from. However, roads in Nijmegen were more often hilly: there's hardly any route that doesn't involve tackling going up or down a dike, a bridge or an actual hill. In contrast my commutes across Manchester or Edinburgh hardly featured any hills and I didn't have to fight the wind as much either. Of course I could find very hilly exceptions that would put Nijmegen's steepest roads to shame, but that's not the point. Hills are often quoted as an excuse, a reason not to expect people can ride a bike. That's stupid, but this video might back up such an argument. Pity really.
Interesting views thanks 😊
@@Fietsend kijk ook naar Parijs. Daar dachten ze ook dat de stad te heuvelachtig was. Maar zie, als je infrastructuur als een veilig netwerk bouwt, komen de fietsers ook. Met of zonder heuvels.
th-cam.com/video/NXahyvmbtfA/w-d-xo.html
The first argument is completely false : it doesn't explain why Belgian people cycle less than Swiss people, while Belgium is more flat than Switzerland... The real big factor is bicylce infrastructure. The better is your bicycle infrastructure, the most cyclists you have. I recommand watching the TH-cam channel NotJustBikes where it is explained better than I do ^^
th-cam.com/video/NXahyvmbtfA/w-d-xo.html
The size of the country is frequently brought up to explain why the US can't have nice things. It's about 2,500 miles from Los Angeles, California to Savannah, Georgia, or about 4,000 kilometers.
But nobody really expects the average person to ride a bicycle from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans. Why does the size of the whole country matter when building a train line in California or a bike lane in Jersey City?
Most trips only go a few miles from home, so bikes are perfectly usable if there's a safe place to ride them.
Although on the other hand, every year people do ride bikes from coast to coast, There is also an ongoing project, the National Bicycle Greenway, to connect bicycle infrastructure in various cities and states to provide a single protected bike route from San Francisco, California to Washington DC, mostly along converted rail lines and some old canal towpaths in the east.
Indeed! Let’s protect and enable bike riders and vote for safe public spaces to ride bikes Claude!
The large country argument does have validity. Alot of the federal and state funding has to be spread thinner just through principle. Thats money a local municipality is not going to have that maybe a prefecture in Japan or subdivision in the UK would have.
@@korcommander
But the argument is weaker than it looks, since the infrastructure doesn't have to be spread evenly across the whole country. The people aren't spread evenly, so the bike routes can follow where the people are clustered.
Secondly, not much money is needed. Bike infrastructure is far cheaper, both to build and to maintain, than roads are.
Standard traffic lanes are normally 10-12 feet across. One lane is wide enough to build a four lane bicycle superhighway.
And car lanes have to be built strong enough to withstand the weight of car traffic, including a lot of rather large SUVs. They wear out pretty quick.
Bike lanes only have to withstand the weight of bicycles, which don't weigh much even when fully loaded. Wear and tear is minimal.
@@JustClaude13 You forget that the money for bike routes is also in competition for roads, sewers, police, schools among other things. A larger nation in area needs longer arterials, need longer sewers and power lines. The same types of funding issues occur from the US, to Russia, to China.
I think europeans often forget how large these countries are. The DFW metroplex is half the size of the entire Netherlands and that's only one of 4 of the major metroplexes in Texas. The state of Texas is larger than almost all European countries.
@@korcommander
And yet they never seem to have trouble financing more highway lanes, even though highways only return less than half their cost in total revenues.
Bike routes are a net gain, so they can be used to subsidize car lanes. Regardless of how big the country is.
By the way, you might be interested to know that sewers don't actually run the whole width of the country. They're local to each community.
The problem with them is that large lot R1 zoning means each customer needs a whole lot more sewer than we used to need back when cities were built for people rather than for the benefit of cars.
Unfortunately, in many communities in the United States, the response to “Kinder Mort” is not as calm and measured as in the Netherlands. Americans tend to keep their kids inside or constantly drive them to scheduled activities.
To many Americans, government is seen as a negative force instead of a force for positive change. For them, Social Democracy is the path to Soviet Era Communism. It is also hard to develop a sense of community when the average American moves 11.7 times in their lifetime.
Things are slowly changing due to different attitudes among the younger generations, but it will likely take much longer than it has in the Netherlands; the United States is much less cohesive.
Thank you for above. Very interesting. It’s a shame and I hope that people one day realise social democracy is a good thing for the general wellbeing of the people.
@@Fietsend Thank you. I share your hope. History has not ended.
That map is interesting. In Belgium the network spreads to the Dutch speaking part at almost the same rate and then completely disappears in the French speaking part (there's also nothing in the parts of France we can see). For Germany it get's thinner and thinner the further you move away from the Netherlands - and the dense looking network around Düsseldorf is quite misleading: That area has one of the lowest bike shares in all of Europe.
Interesting indeed! Thanks!
For Düsseldorf itself the modeshare for bikes is 21% and the Network is rapidly growing…so the Information isn‘t completely Right, it is more likely that the Share is low in the small cities surrounding the metropolises
@@Tobias_M_T the major problem is a bit further north, but not named here: Dortmund, Essen and Bochum for example.
Small town USA is better suited for cyclists. I have adapted an 80s MTB to be an Omafiet and that works well even in a hilly town. Taller stem, swallowtail handle bars, larger seat, mtb tires, and a 1x8 transmission.
There is much room for improvement regarding bicycling infrastructure in the United States. I think the Netherlands has proven that it is possible to have a good cycling environment even in more densely populated areas.
Most world cities are flattish. It's a myth that "flat = lots of cycling". Also: pedal-assist
Yes indeed!
th-cam.com/video/NXahyvmbtfA/w-d-xo.html
I believe your explanation about weak traffic participants is not entirily correct. This legislation has a long history, my grandfather who grew up in the 1920's Rotterdam always told that the paint of a cyclist and a tram is expensive. Yes trams were included as weak traffic partricipants. Like cyclists they weren't mandatory insured like motorized traffic is and that was and is key. It was originally about the legally weak, not the fisically weak who were and are protected. The protection includes trains, houses and a host of other things besides cyclists and pedastrians.
The confusion might come from the fact that the complete traffic law was renewed in 1994. In spite of the disagreement on the legal details I do think that article 185 of Dutch traffic law plays a key part in the behaviour of drivers in Dutch traffic and contributes to the safety for non drivers in Dutch traffic and it might be relatively easy for other countries to build infrastucture for increased safety for non drivers like we see today in Paris, New York and other places but it might prove difficult to implement similar legislation in other countries than the Netherlands.
Thanks Bart, for your explanation above! My video is short and indeed there is a lot more to it. Still, I based my video on the following please see:
zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-25759-3.html
The following is stated:
‘Artikel 185 WVW 1994 heeft voornamelijk de strekking ongemotoriseerde verkeersslachtoffers extra bescherming te bieden tegen de gevaren van het gemotoriseerde verkeer.’
Google Translate:
‘Article 185 WVW 1994 is mainly intended to offer extra protection to non-motorized traffic victims against the dangers of motorized traffic’
Also see:
nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Kinderen_Voorrang
The following is stated:
‘De stichting had zich tot doel gesteld: de samenleving dusdanig te doen inrichten, dat de veiligheid van de jeugdige verkeersdeelnemers gewaarborgd is, alsmede al hetgeen daarmee in de ruimste zin verband houdt.’
Google Translate:
‘The foundation had set itself the following goal: to organize society in such a way that the safety of young road users is guaranteed, as well as everything related to this in the broadest sense.’
Appreciate that you share your understandings! It might indeed also be part of the legislation. I did found a Wikipedia site that indeed describes that trains trams and structures are also seen as ‘niet gemotoriseerd’.
Regards,
Xander
Nice video. But it doesn't match the stated problem. John climbs the Vaalserberg to the three-country-point every day. At one time it was a four-country-point, but that's not the reason.Walking up the mountain and back is good for your health, but that's also not the reason. At the top, there is a labyrinth, but that's still not the reason. Having reached the top gives the tourist a certain sense of camaraderie, but even that is not the reason. John just happens to work at De Bokkenrijder, restaurant at the top of The Netherlands. Sure, all your facts are nice facts, but they are not the reason The Dutch cycle almost every day.
Thank you for your reaction! Nice to hear you like the video 😁 Your probably right. I can’t scientifically proof my statements in the video. I do think they are at least part of the answer to the:‘why the Dutch cycle almost every day!’. What do you think are the biggest reasons the Dutch cycle almost every day and a for instance US citizen doesn’t?
Flat land argument debunked video available here: th-cam.com/video/NXahyvmbtfA/w-d-xo.html
The sheer number of cyclists is also a factor. Apart from the fact that there's strength in numbers, this also means that nearly all motorists are also cyclists. They have a good understanding of cyclists' need for consideration and respect, and will expect to receive the same consideration when they're out on their bikes. I feel embarrassed, even ashamed, when I see the hostility between motorists and cyclists in English speaking countries.
🙁 Maybe one day people realise the madness of a car centred living environment.
Don't buy that flat-land argument. First of all most of mankind lives on river or coastal plains. This is even true in countries like Switzerland and Austria.
Secondly it has been shown again and again that it is infrastructure that makes people cycle: build it and they will come.
Let’s agree it makes it more likely to ride a bicycle if it costs less effort. Cycling on a flat land takes less effort🤩 But off course this is not a unique feature of the Netherlands. You are absolutely right about that. However combined with the other reasons it makes a strong case for why the Dutch cycle almost everyday I would argue 😁👌
Ever tried biking in Switzerland? It is not the same as in a polder......
Florida is flatter than The Netherlands and almost no one cycles to work, supermarket or restaurant. So I really don’t buy the flat-land argument.
@@RealConstructor Being flat is only one of the conditions for biking. The distance one has to travel and the climate or two more.
@@HansKeesom Firstly I don’t know what you mean by ‘or tow more’. Secondly the distance to a supermarket or restaurant is easily done by bicycle, just a few kilometers. And the climate in Florida is much better than in The Netherlands, cycling in sunny weather of 25°C is much better than in headwind, rain and 5°C. I don’t think there are any excuses not to cycle in Florida, unless it’s infrastructure.
Presenter are you a Dutch cyclist? I’m a pedestrian in the Netherlands. They are not mentioned in your little story. Pedestrians are the weakest participants in Dutch traffic. The leading participants are public transport and they should get first choice in traffic. They don’t get that, because cyclists get in the way of public transport but that is ok in this country. The next participants are the cyclists because they are aloud to do what is not allowed by law but they do it anyway. They are aloud to skip a red light, they are aloud to ride on the sidewalks, they are aloud to change lanes without signaling. They are aloud to yell at pedestrians when they don’t get aside fast enough in the eyes of the cyclists. The only fun thing a cyclist can do is to ignore the rails of the tram and then with an enormous bang is catapulted to the ground. They can park their bicycle everywhere they want to so for pedestrians there is some kind of zigzag route to their destination. I walk with a walker and now have a bicycle bell on my walking aid. It now is also fun to see the cyclist cycling on the sidewalk ring his bell for pedestrians to move aside and then ringing my bell. They don’t expect this and is a rare sound in their ears. The politicians made rules for cyclists that gave them this power to do what they want in traffic because a lot of cyclists were being killed doing these dangerous manoeuvres. Now they can ride, almost,care free because they are protected by law. All the other traffic participants are not. 😊
Hoi Leny! Thank you for your reaction! I think you do have a point. Walking people and playing kids should indeed be prioritised above people on bicycles. We can indeed also safely say that a lot of people on bicycles in the Netherlands do ignore a lot of traffic laws. People that are walking should not be a victim of this behaviour. I agree. People should behave appropriate and respect each other.
We should not only focus on cycling but on having attractive, safe and accessible streets, just like the stichting: ‘Mens en straat’ argues. mensenstraat.nl
@@Fietsend I’m happy with your reaction. Most of the time, I’m not taken serious. Our council, I live in Amsterdam, even though they try are not very good in planning. Every now and then our council send a bus to our shopping center and ask for feedback. That is a good thing. Sometimes I see things and I tell them about it. Then they take action, and I start to laugh or cry because their solutions are the cheapest so not the best. For instance they changed the traffic situation around a round about. This was changed in smaller sideways, better cycling paths and the road stayed the same. Now when I need to go there, I walk on the sidewalk and suddenly there is a streetlight in the middle of my path so I have to step on the cycling path or the grass. With my rollator. So I go round the light and a little further my path stops. Now I have to cross the road and there is a school. So picture this, a crossing, smaller footpath, gates to protect the children on the footpath. Here I come, like I said smaller footpath, with my rollator, footpath filled with children and people on bicycles. Yes parents, teachers and children on bicycles on the footpaths. Now the council took action. They shortened the footpath by lengthening the grass behind the light. 😂
Are you a pedestrian in the Netherlands? Or are you a pedestrian in Amsterdam? As where I live it's not as busy as Amsterdam and because of that there never are such problems between pedestrians and cyclists.
@@gert-janvanderlee5307 I’m a pedestrian in The Netherlands, because for as I know Amsterdam is a city in the Netherlands!
@@lenybouwman5121 But a completely different situation as it's not as busy in the rest of the country.
Main reason: it's cheap
Cheap to own a bike and cheap infrastructure compared to car dominated infrastructure indeed!
Guess you are one of those 'mooi weer fietsers'. One who mostly takes the car to work unless the weather is nice. There is one reason only: Infrastructure. Flat surroundings has nothing to do with it. Neither has social democracy an influence. Seems to me you change the narrative to suit your reasons.
Hi Paul,
Thank you for your ideas about my bicycling/ commuting practices and my reasons for the video 😄
Regarding my practices: Love to cycle in the sun. Do also cycle in the rain though. I do not commute to work by car (simply not possible)
But, all of that being sad I am in the lucky position that I am able to commute by bicycle. Some of which are:
- I own (great) bikes
- I can safely commute to work on my bike because of the great infrastructure (and flat lands 😜)
- I have a healthy able body and mind
- Own some great rain jacket and trousers from Patagonia (no affiliation, yet)
- I like serotonin and dopamine 🤗
- Doesn’t rain that often* (glas is halfvol Paul 😁)
I understand that not everyone is in this lucky position. I hope to inspire people to enable them and others to pick up a bike for as far as that is possible.
Regarding your comment on the video. Infrastructure is indeed a big part of the story I try to tell (in less than 5 minutes, so it’s not that nuanced)
However without social democracy the infrastructure would probably never have been built. I agree, that’s a ‘what if scenario’ and off course we will never know what would have happend without social democracy 🤗 Still, fact is that legislation about traffic participants liability laws and bicycle infrastructure in the Netherlands came to being by a social democratic process.
Hope this reply on your comment is some what satisfying for you and others. Love your critic views on things! Keeps me sharp. Thank you! 😁
*Regen in Nederland: www.knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/het-regent-niet-vaker-wel-harder
This is about normal people in the Netherlands, , Not soldiers of Sparta . Most people in the Netherlands are ' mooi weet fietsers. .What's wrong with that ? Obviously more people bike in nice weather. and on flat terrain. That's just human nature.
💋 Promo-SM