Living in the US, I often fantasize about living somewhere I can bike freely in the sense the article describes. Somewhere bikes are actually prioritized over cars, not just accommodated. Preferably no cars at all. So far, my search had come up dry.
Portland is probably the best biking city. It’s not perfect but in many neighborhoods it’s very cumbersome to drive and easy to bike. Drivers are also much less hostile in general.
I have heard that bicycle commuting has dropped significantly in Portland since 2020. And I've experienced enough of an increase in broken glass, aggressive driving, tents, and trash in bike lanes in other US cities to be a bit worried about the current state of bicycling in Portland. But I'm also aware that reporting has significant biases, and I haven't been back to Portland since 2019 or so. What's the current situation like?
Hmm, I have been commuting by bike in Portland since the late 80s. The city did achieve some good things during that time, but has lost steam more recently. The pandemic may have shifted people slightly off of public transit and onto bikes, but not as much as it moved desk jockeys like me into remote work. Still, there have been some recent new interesting bike infrastructure projects, there's a bike/ped only bridge over I-84 that opened recently, and a couple years back a new train/bus only bridge over the Willamette river opened with nice bike and ped amenities. Drivers have become a little more reckless and hostile, but I don't find broken glass / tents to be much of an issue on any of the routes I regularly ride (8mi / 13km round trip 4X per week).
Less folks are working downtown, Portland has a very high CRE vacancy rate. I believe they had a net outflow of people last year ( https://www.kptv.com/2023/05/23/portland-is-one-fastest-shri... ). That coupled with the ongoing homelessness crisis, I would not be surprised that their civic budgets are strained.
I disagree actually, I took my bike there and rode around/commuted for about a week from within the city (not downtown). It was mostly just OK, I think its high bike score shows the issues with Bike Score in general. Bike commuters are very organized in Portland which is nice, but I had so many instances of having to ride in traffic. I'm ok with that and used to that biking in Oakland, CA, but it's not really emblematic of what a bike friendly city is to me.
Of the Tier 2 American cities, I think Minneapolis is the best at accommodating bikers, winter climate excepted.
I agree, Portland is making a real effort as are other areas in the Willamette Valley. I actually think the Europe=paradise US=hell storyline is far from any reality I observe. When I go back to Stuttgart Germany, where I grew up I see a lot of bike lanes but I feel just as unsafe on those as on regular bike lanes here in the US. Everything in Germany is so damn narrow that close calls are not a daily but hourly occurrence.
The big difference: outside of urban centers Europe has a lot of paved paths between towns, that's something that spotty in even bike-friendly Oregon.
Much of a city in China I have spent a lot of time in (Hangzhou) has protected bike lanes with their own signals and crossings. They do still interact with traffic at the crossings but the lanes are wide and well protected from vehicles. I really like using them and wish we had something like that where I live in the US.
NYC is honestly great for cycling. Say what you will about Bloomberg (or, allow me: scum), but his transportation secretary Janette Sadik-Khan did so much to turn this into a cycling city. If De Blasio and Adams had followed that lead, our cycling infrastructure would be second only to Amsterdam by now.
I tend to agree with you (on both the infrastructure and your opinion of Bloomberg) -- the city is, overwhelmingly, a far better place to cycle than when I was a kid.
At the same time, it's been my impression that there's been a backslide over the last few years: cyclist deaths are way up (and continue to rise), and I see way more obviously illegal cars (missing plates, defaced plates, etc.) and driving behavior (rolling through reds, turning on reds, etc.) on the streets than I used to. The city badly needs enforcement of these behaviors, both as a matter of public safety and a form of incentive and fine alignment.
There's a lot of speculation that the worst offenders for quality of life and road safety violations are NYPD themselves or connected (see the squadrons of NYPD personal vehicles parked on the sidewalks and in the bike lanes for an block around their precincts).
We had a similar political issue in the UK. Boris Johnson was a polarising figure, yet many people had to admit that what he and his active transport advisor Andrew Gilligan promised to do for cycling and active transport infrastructure and livable neighbourhoods was game changing.
Unfortunately it never completed, because when he went then so did the good work, the funding, and now it's back to being a culture war 'war on drivers' issue.
> In America, a bicyclist is usually not envisioned as being on par with someone who drives a car. They are stereotyped as either a rich hobbyist in spandex or as drunks who lost their driver’s license and have to rely on a lesser form of transport.
So they acknowledge this but expect it to change somehow?
I live in one of those cities, and yes that is the stereotype, with one addition, Bicycles are only really for kids to ride in parks or on the sidewalk.
Right, the upper middle class and above tend to categorize anything they don't do as profoundly unserious, and therefore only done by unserious people with whom something is seriously wrong.
I mean, upper middle class are the people who bike, at least in the coastal cities. I've never met anyone who wasn't a tech worker/realtor/doctor/..., or at least a teacher or a PhD student in something abstract, who commuted by bike.
It is hard to describe the utter freedom I feel from being able to get on my bike and safely go... Anywhere. Even with my kids as passengers. It feels like I've escaped prison. Too bad I had to move to the Netherlands for it. But it's wonderful.
If you add to that the right to camp in private woods, it becomes truly liberating. Here in Finland we call it "jokamiehenoikeus", "every man's right", or "freedom to roam". You can set up tent in any forest, regardless of land ownership.
Huh, that sounds neat but is a foreign concept to my American sensibilities. How far does that right extend? What's the line between a tent and a cabin? How much are you allowed to modify the environment to make it suitable for camping? How long are you allowed to stay before moving on? Are you required to remove your waste? How close can you be to an established dwelling?
Somewhat related: in New Hampshire your rural property taxes go up if you post no trespassing/hunting signs. And if these signs are not posted, others have the right to roam over your land and hunt. I love the concept which I here fly recognizes the social value of land but preserves the right of landowners to pay for exclusivity.
Are there protections to prevent squatting? I admit that this is intriguing, I'm just curious what the rules are. It seems easy to exploit so I assume someone already has.
If someone is spending extended time on land that is otherwise completely unused... I fail to see the problem. In this way, "squatting" is like "jaywalking" -- a perfectly normal thing that we invented a crime for (typically on behalf of wealthier people against poorer ones).
You can, of course, ask someone to leave your land if you need to use it. There's a reason that adverse possession takes years to decades.
I believe it is for movement over land (roaming/hunting), not unrestricted access to set up shop and squat, leave a mess, etc. in that instance I assume the usual legal resolutions apply.
You can pitch a tent. Not build a cabin, nor park a camper. Only temporarily. It looks like motorized transport on land isn't included (I wonder if e-bikes are allowed.) Though you can drive a motor vehicle on frozen lakes, rivers, and the sea, so perhaps you can take your camper out then and do some ice fishing?
> "How much are you allowed to modify the environment to make it suitable for camping?"
Not much: "It’s NOT allowed to… cut down or damage trees … collect moss, lichen, or fallen trees from other people's property … light open campfires without permission, except in an emergency". "In short, leave nothing but footprints behind."
> "How long are you allowed to stay before moving on?"
I can't find it for Finland. For Norway, "Tourists are allowed to stay in one spot for up to two days."
> "Are you required to remove your waste?"
It's forbidden to litter. I can't find what to do with poop - probably the usual burial is okay, depending on where you are. I would expect more notice about needing to carry it all out if that were required.
> " How close can you be to an established dwelling?"
A "reasonable distance from homes." Not "very near homes and other private buildings or through farm fields and nursery plantations which could easily be damaged".
It looks like "200-300 feet" is reasonable, from one site.
Thanks! That all sounds very reasonable, except maybe the poop. I wouldn't want a creek on my land to become popular on Instagram and then have to treat my water supply for the rest of my life. But maybe there are already laws about not leaving human waste in an area that threatens water supply.
That's how I felt after finally ditching car-free lifestyle at 30 (including selling my 2nd bike and letting my main one rot in sheds/parking garages/basements) and starting to drive everywhere ;)
There is a road near my house with a wide, shaded bike lane. It's very nice, I use and enjoy it regularly. But regularly bikers decide, for no discernible reason at all, to use the main road anyway, slowing down traffic. What's the point of investing in bike infrastructure if (some) bikers refuse to use it?
Posted speed limit in that area is 35 mph, faster than the bikers I see there. In practice traffic doesn't slow much because cars just pass the bikes, but I am a new driver and doing so always makes me nervous (especially as the road curves somewhat, so visibility can be limited).
I took driver's education in 2000 so I admit I may be a bit rusty. When I learned to drive the "speed limit" was the upper limit. I don't recall there being a universal right to a minimum speed, that is unique to freeways. Depending on your state the bicyclist may be required to yield if they are delaying some number of other vehicles, but that is likely to vary. Maybe you can educate us on why you believe you have a right to pass these cyclists.
Most states have rules against driving too slowly and impeding normal flow of traffic. Furthermore, most states have specific rules for bicycles and other slow vehicles to drive furthest to the right they can with exceptions allowed for left turns, obstacles etc.
I primarily drive and am often nervous driving around pedestrians and cyclists. The reason for this feeling is that I understand, even if subconsciously, how easy it would be for me to harm them with my vehicle. If I imagine myself being the cyclist it's more worrying that I can't control other vehicles that could easily harm me. I constantly remind myself that the road was made for people and drivers are just one class of person -- the most dangerous one to others on the road at that.
The best piece of advice I could give is to slow down and match the bikers' speed if you don't feel safe passing.
I clipped a bicyclists back tire once. Flipped him over. He was mostly okay.
Probably 95% his fault because he was riding against traffic, on the sidewalk, and ran a red light.
I still felt really bad.
When people come up with reasons why that won't care because logically they'll be in the right if something bad happens. All I can think is either they are sociopath or that they deeply lack life experience.
Well that would require enforcement, which seems to be rarer all the time. Which means changes to infrastructure (protected bike lanes, blocking through traffic on side streets, etc.) are more likely to produce good results.
I'd be interested to see the specific road you are referencing? My gut shot would be that it isn't necessarily obvious that it could be used to avoid some parts of a road? (That is, you almost certainly had to be on the road for other parts of your ride. Not always obvious when there was a path you could do that got you off the road. And, of course, if it is a detour to get to the route...)
This. I don’t understand why the spandex wearing guys want to hold up dozens of people in traffic behind them so they can bike on vacation. It’s a real sense of entitlement that is just beyond me. If someone is riding a bike to get somewhere they need to go, and the road is the only choice then fine. But if you’re leisure riding on a road where the speed limit is 55 and sitting in the middle of the lane you’re an ass.
>I don’t understand why the spandex wearing guys want to hold up dozens of people in traffic behind them so they can bike on vacation.
I can't speak for all spandex wearing cyclists but when I do that it is because I enjoy the scenery and the challenge. Are you equally frustrated with RVs?
> It’s a real sense of entitlement that is just beyond me.
You are the entitled one here. You have no right to a minimum speed on a road that allows cyclists.
> But if you’re leisure riding on a road where the speed limit is 55 and sitting in the middle of the lane you’re an ass.
I do this in all cases. If you can't get your vehicle fully into another lane to pass me then it's not a safe place to pass. If the speed limit is 55 that's a narrow highway and you have no exclusive right as a car. If you want that then stick to the freeways.
This is both a safe assumption and a scary reality. I have had cars deliberately place themselves in a situation where I had to take evasive action on my motorcycle. Think about using a 6000lb object to physically intimidate a 400lb object for the perceived slight of being safely passed. This is on top of all the inattentive drivers.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
It’s not intended to be inflammatory. It’s the reality that many people operating vehicles are not aware of your (bike) presence and that their careless actions could easily result in your death or serious injuries. Often times people fail to follow traffic rules and create situations that pose little danger to them but a lot of danger to pedestrians and bike riders.
I believe you about your intent but we have to moderate these things by effect—or rather by likely effect, based on past experience—and I can tell you from past experience that a comment like "car users are always trying to kill you" is guaranteed to land as inflammatory with a lot of readers. Keep in mind that when you post here, you're broadcasting to thousands of people. Even if most read your intent correctly, that still leaves a lot of people who won't. Therefore the burden is on you to disambiguate your intent. Past explanations in case helpful: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....
Speaking specifically to riding in the center of a lane: if there's not a bike lane or wide shoulder then it's not entitlement, it's a safety issue.
If a cyclist hugs the edge of the road then drivers frequently squeeze between the cyclist and oncoming traffic. If the cyclist stays in the middle of the lane then drivers recognize they need to wait for a clear passing opportunity.
Maybe since you don't understand it, you should quit asserting why they do it, maybe you should talk to them sometime. I'd be happy to talk to you about it.
You and many others seem to be hell bent on the lycra/ spandex outfits. I really don't get it... What's with this? Consider that wearing tight fitting sports attire makes most of your body's surface area into a highly effective radiator.
This is one of those things you might not get unless you've been in the situation yourself- if the shoulder is small or dangerous (e.g. debris), taking the lane is the safer option. If you don't, you end up getting close-passed/buzzed as people trying to squeeze between you and the opposing lane. Some particularly bad humans will even get close on purpose (known as a "punish pass").
This is a bad example because it implies that the bikes aren't observing traffic laws.
A more analogous would be that some cars choose to go off roading, or spend most of their time in driveways or parking lots - or some only drive to car shows. A much more accurate analogy would be cars that only drive in one lane and never use the left lane for passing.
The point is that the bikers that decide to use it are safe. That it can encourage more bikers and take cars off the road. The fact that some bikers so not use it does not invalidate the usefullnes of a bikelane
> But regularly bikers decide, for no discernible reason at all, to use the main road anyway, slowing down traffic.
Bicycles are vehicles. They have the same right to use the road as cars. Cars have no right to a minimum speed on surface streets. Cars have an exclusive right to freeways. High rates of speed are poor etiquette on bicycle routes, in my neighborhood only the fast cyclists ride in the street but at speeds that would be inappropriate on the bike path in that area.
Bicycle infrastructure tends to be an afterthought, even in the best cases. Can you describe this bike lane in more detail? Is it completely isolated from traffic? Is it mixed use with pedestrians?
Here in Seattle the divided bike lanes run parallel to roads with a curb and parking between. This seems good but at intersections bike lanes still cross side streets. That creates an opportunity for (especially right) turning traffic to not see cyclists and turn into them when the bicycle is crossing, even with dedicated bicycle lights. Riding in the street is your best chance to be seen, and on a bicycle being seen is your best chance to stay alive.
There's a stretch of road I ride regularly where I take the car lane despite there being a bike lane for reasons that are probably opaque to drivers:
* It is a long, straight, very slightly downhill segment with long sight lines and no intersections; one of the few safe sprint opportunities on my rides
* The bike lane surface is sloped slightly towards the outside of the road
* The outside half of the bike lane has several storm drains, and often some dry leaves in it
* The car speed limit is 30 mph.
All this combines to make it a fast segment where it really only feels safe to go that fast in the car lane. I'm going the car speed limit so in theory it's not slowing traffic.
In practice drivers perceive the speed limit to be the minimum they are entitled to and I get punish passed all the time there.
Maybe those riders live on that street, or need to use the larger road briefly to access a turn that isn't safe to access via the bike lane? Or maybe they're riding faster than is comfortable on a shared path (kudos to them -- racing is not safe in an environment shared with pedestrians). Bicycles have every right to the road that cars do, so those bikes are perfectly entitled to use that road. Do they really slow down traffic that much? If that stretch of road has traffic lights, it probably doesn't make much of a difference.
A few reasons come to mind, mostly that bike infrastructure often seems designed by people who have never ridden a bike in traffic.
First, those involving cars.
- Turning Left while a bike lane is on a right.
- Cars don't yield to the bike lane before turning right
- Car occupants don't check a bike lane before opening door.
- Car parked ahead in the bike lane.
- Cars squeeze bikes next to the curb because the car can't maintain a lane / 3 foot is a really small distance at 30mph.
Next, those involving infrastructure
- Bike lane is made of segmented concrete; creating a thump and loss of traction every 3 feet, at 30mph.
- Bike lane is the gutter of the street, and street sweepers never come so it has much trash to be dodged
- Bike lane is shared with water infrastructure, where modifications lead to a longitudinal groove that is easy to get a small tire stuck in, get a flat, throw you unexpectedly.
- Bike lane is shared with storm infrastructure, so it is sloping, or has drain grates that cause bumps, loss of traction, potential to throw you -- again at 30mph
- Bike lane is "designed" for "recreation" with curves such that it is less efficient at getting from point a to b as quickly as the road.
In Toronto other reasons cyclists don't use the bike lane and instead use the sidewalk asking pedestrians to get out of their way:
- Need to walk their dog using their bike and don't want their dog in the bike lane.
- Can't be bothered to cross the road to the right side and instead bike on the sidewalk to avoid other cyclists coming head on in the bike line on this side.
- They just feel like it.
100% true story, I had a cyclist yell at me and call me names because I had the audacity to stop walking across the intersection as the cyclist blew through the red like at 30km/h. I suppose stopping to avoid getting hit by them interrupted their "flow" who knows.
A small number of cyclists seem to have all the excuses for bad behaviour, but it doesn't make it ok. We need the infrastructure for cyclists, and bad behaviour by some is not a reason not to build it. But cyclists could definitely do more to be safe around pedestrians and at least try to live with drivers.
Personally, when I cycle I obey all the stop lights and stop signs, I don't bike on the sidewalk, and instead of making a left I go through the intersection and wait for the light to change because my life is worth much more to me than trying to make some political show by blocking traffic in a left turn lane. It's just crazy dangerous doing that, even when there is a dedicated bike area for left turns. Blocking traffic won't make drivers any safer.
That’s one of those comparisons where the goal is to underestimate the greater Chicago area’s population, but it’s not even an accurate statistic.
From 2005 to 2016 Chicago with a population of 2.7 million had between 3 and 8 cycles deaths per year vs 27 to 65 pedestrian deaths and 282 to 487 motorists. https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20... Edit: The closest to 1/3 days I could find was 13 bicycle deaths and 95 pedestrian fatalities totaling to 108 for the region. Which is 1 cyclist death per 28 days out of ~10 million people.
Chicago's metropolitan area has around 10 million people in it. Are you saying that a cyclist killed every third day with that kind of population is considered an acceptable loss?
Edit: for context, NYC alone has a comparable population (versus the entire Chicago MSA) and, despite rising cyclist deaths, still has significantly fewer than ~120 a year[1].
Edit: TFA's source for cycling deaths appears to be incorrect; the actual rate is far below ~120/year. The ~120/year number appears to come from a misreading of total pedestrian and cycling deaths in this report[2].
And also: what's the actual number of cyclists and how much do they travel? It's not close to 10 million, so a comparison with just raw population data doesn't really mean much. I guess there aren't many cyclists and they don't bike as much as the Dutch, making this death statistic even more absurd.
You may have misunderstood, I’m saying the statistic is wrong. The closest I could find from their link was 13 cyclist deaths and 95 pedestrian deaths totaling 108 for the year for the region.
I’m not saying deaths are ok, just that the number is shocking because it’s wrong.
There are 2-3 fatalities in cars per day in Chicago from what I can see. Both are useless stats without more context. A good comparison might be another city. For example there are approx < 10 cycling deaths per year in London which has decent cycling infrastructure these days.
It among other fun things only goes up to 2016 and was published in mid 2018 (thus could not cover 2018). It also says that only 18 bicyclists were killed in 2016.
The streets of the greater Chicago area are full of frustrated drivers in a pointless pissing contest seemingly all on the fringe of a road-rage incident. It's like they're all fighting over scraps and the roads are the arena.
I could write a short novel describing my childhood bmx experiences there through the 80s-90s, and in 2022 I rode an mtb around all summer during an extended visit.
It's just insanity. People there are miserable and angry. It's palpable in how they drive.
Yes, the missing part of all the transportation debate is how existing driving conditions in many areas make motorists miserable even in the absence of cyclists. There are many people who are driving teetering on the edge of explosive rage (or already well beyond it). Their aggressive behavior spreads out and infects others. All road users are affected. Indeed it is actually likely other motorists who numerically suffer the most from this undercurrent of rage. Motorists just happen to be less vulnerable than cyclists and pedestrians so they don't have the same level of terror that these drivers can evoke in the more vulnerable road users.
Unfortunately I don't think these problems can be solved with improved bike infrastructure in most cities (though I'm not opposed to it). I think it has more to do with the continual strain of long commutes and the horrible frustration of driving in traffic. Unless we build a world in which driving long distances is truly optional for the vast majority of citizens, road rage is likely to be pervasive and we will all suffer the consequences.
I think it's far more than just the long commutes and frustration of driving in traffic.
These folks are predisposed to handle those things poorly for myriad reasons, and have established some very dangerous to pedestrians/cyclists driving norms which though illegal, go 100% unpoliced there. It's just very aggressive and driver-prioritized behavior, and it reinforces itself in a positive feedback loop turning many into psychopaths behind the wheel.
You can't even safely walk to your car with groceries in IL, the pedestrians are expected to yield to the drivers. If you get in the path of a car in a parking lot, they'll often threateningly closely follow you to try compel you to move out of their way while walking to/from your car. The drivers behave like they all own the place when behind a wheel, of course that mentality manifests as a car vs. car pissing match in traffic. Cyclists don't stand a chance in such a milieu.
Back when my family visited me in CA after moving ~15 years ago, it took just ONE day of them driving their rental to get a written warning from the police. Something about a cross-walk where they nearly hit a pedestrian after not stopping before entering the crossing zone to turn at an intersection IIRC. Turned out a police car was stopped at the intersection and witnessed it all go down. They were in complete disbelief and felt the pedestrian should have been watching out for cars, that they were in the right. It's batshit insanity in IL, and I suspect much of the US is like that to varying degrees.
CA isn't even that great, but compared to IL I strongly prefer being any of driver/cyclist/pedestrian here than over there. It may seem paradoxical that one wouldn't at least prefer being the driver in driver-prioritized IL but it's unpleasant to drive where everyone you're sharing the road with is being a psychopath.
Notably, Europe doesn't just accommodate bicycles in cities: it's also much more comfortable to bike on rural roads, thanks to lower speed limits, smaller cars, better drivers, and more conscious design when it comes to designating roads vs. streets vs. highways. Bicycle routes (sometimes called byways) are also a hell of a lot better, and are actually viable ways to travel between nearby cities in many cases.
I just spent a month bicycling around the UK. I knew the infrastructure was better than in the USA, but it blew my mind to see how even motorways often had bicycle & pedestrian paths off to the side. And almost all bridges seem to have a sidewalk, often one big enough to comfortably fit bikes and pedestrians. That's something we don't even get in the most pedestrian friendly US cities (citation: the Queensborough bridge in NYC).
And the funniest part? People in the UK complain about their infrastructure constantly, and frequently asked me why I was cycling there instead of the Netherlands, or France, or Spain, or Italy, or any other European country.
Infrastructure in the USA is a nightmare and an absolute embarrassment. I fear for my life every time I walk or bike here in shared space with drivers. I suspect a lot of this stems from the fact that around half of Americans have never left the continent of North America [1]. It's hard to realize just how bad our infrastructure is when you have no point of comparison and all of our infra sucks.
It's so frustrating because it's so simple: I just want to ride my bike and walk around. That requires very little infrastructure. I shouldn't have to wrap up my entire identity up in bicycling and walking just because most of our country doesn't bother with those activities.
>> blew my mind to see how even motorways often had bicycle & pedestrian paths off to the side
Unless something changed recently I don't think this is true of the UK. You can't ride anything under 125CC on a UK motorway and cycling/walking is illegal. Maybe you mean dual carriageways?
Indeed. Sidewalks (and on large roads, cycle/ped shared paths) are incredibly common in the UK. Not everywhere, of course. But considering the fact that even in US city centres you frequently can't find a sidewalk, it's a large difference. Just a lot easier to navigate places on foot, even if it's not always pleasant to be 10 feet from a motorway on a walk.
The simple thing to do would be to look at comparably dense areas of each country. The result will be the same conclusion as OP. Even the densest places in the US have shitty infrastructure.
Lower speed limits? 100km/h on rural roads here in Austria and drivers just don't care enough to keep to those limits. Smaller cars? Thanks to the SUV it has become a nightmare with those massive cars that cause a lot of wind turbulence when they overtake you on your bike.
Cycling in European cities is basically just pure luck and depends far to much on the local legislation and the major. The last local election in Spain has put a lot of conservative and right-wing majors into office, many openly campaigning with turn-backs on all the work Spain has put into creating cycling infrastructure. Here in Austria the neofascists Freedom Party interprets freedom and being able to drive and park everywhere by car, same for the convservative Bundeskanzler who is in a coalition with a toothless Green party.
Being a cycling advocate is a fight for each and every cycling path and even then the local city planners can still mess up and build the worst possible solution.
There is effectively no speed limit in many rural areas in the US as it's unmonitored that far from cities. It's not uncommon to get passed by a pickup, with a grill literally 6 feet in the air, going either 130 km/h or slowing to a near stop right before it passes you and then going as fast as it can and "rolling coal" [1].
omg, that's disturbing. I would have assumed most people pull over and help a turtle finish crossing the road. I can't believe people, especially this many people, purposefully do this.
>Infrastructure in the USA is a nightmare and an absolute embarrassment
And in the US, that will never change. An example from 2023 (yes this year).
The State where I live has a law all road construction/repairs is suppose to allow for what here in the US is called a "Bike Path". That really means a 2 feet (2/3 meter) wide shoulder on each side of the road. It is delimited by white paint that will be allowed to fade. On this "path" is painted a bicycle every so often, that will also fade and never be maintained.
So, a road near where I live, a bridge was replaced. The Plans called for construction of this "path" to accommodate cycling on this road. Construction completed a week ago, no white line was even painted. The plans only mentioned it so construction would be allowed to start. Since it is complete, the excuse is "Oh we forgot".
This is in a State that is pushing Cycling as an alternative to Driving to work. So in the US, do not hold your breath, we will continue with doing all we can to increase the average global temperature until no one will be able to go outside in the deep South during the Summer.
Our roadways are a mess, our healthcare is a mess, our K-12 education is a mess, a lot of our food is unfit for consumption in Europe - what are we doing? As the United States continues to crumble from within its citizens keep thinking it's the best place in the world and refuse to acknowledge there are serious issues needing addressed. It's become quite insane.
>I suspect a lot of this stems from the fact that around half of Americans have never left the continent of North America
Some Americans have this world European fetish and think all Europeans are so well traveled and worldly. 40% of Europeans have never been to another country let alone another continent.
There are places in the UK where you can catch a ferry round-trip to Europe for less than 100 quid. There are places in almost every European country where you can catch a train to another country for less than 100 euro.
Unless you're traveling to Mexico or Canada (which are just not that different from the US in terms of infrastructure), Americans face at least a $500 round-trip plane ticket and around 10 hours of travel each way. More realistically, ~$1000 for a ticket at a reasonable time between reasonable points.
It's just a different order of magnitude of cost to visit places with different infra and culture.
As a commuter cyclist and former member of the 'bicycle industry', I'm going to propose an alternate view. Call this the 'libertarian theory of bike commuting' perhaps.
I love the bicycle situation in the United States. Why? Because freedom.
With increased investment in bicycle infrastructure comes increasing oversight and enforcement. This is something I cannot abide. I love riding a bicycle because I can, with reasonable caution and situational awareness, ride anywhere I choose (almost entirely) unburdened by bureaucratic annoyances such as speed cameras, parking garage gates, signals, signage, pedestrian areas, traffic and lurking police officers.
Appreciate what you have, or else we're all going to have to start wearing running clothes and doing shenanigans like joggers... because you know a properly attired and sweating jogger is ultimate stealth mode. It is just slow and makes you smell even worse + carrying cargo sort of breaks the facade.
113 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadOf the Tier 2 American cities, I think Minneapolis is the best at accommodating bikers, winter climate excepted.
The big difference: outside of urban centers Europe has a lot of paved paths between towns, that's something that spotty in even bike-friendly Oregon.
(and yeah I lived in Portland too)
At the same time, it's been my impression that there's been a backslide over the last few years: cyclist deaths are way up (and continue to rise), and I see way more obviously illegal cars (missing plates, defaced plates, etc.) and driving behavior (rolling through reds, turning on reds, etc.) on the streets than I used to. The city badly needs enforcement of these behaviors, both as a matter of public safety and a form of incentive and fine alignment.
Unfortunately it never completed, because when he went then so did the good work, the funding, and now it's back to being a culture war 'war on drivers' issue.
So they acknowledge this but expect it to change somehow?
You can, of course, ask someone to leave your land if you need to use it. There's a reason that adverse possession takes years to decades.
Here is a Finnish web site on the topic: https://www.visitfinland.com/en/articles/finnish-everyman-ri... . Here is another: https://www.nationalparks.fi/everymansright .
> "What's the line between a tent and a cabin?"
You can pitch a tent. Not build a cabin, nor park a camper. Only temporarily. It looks like motorized transport on land isn't included (I wonder if e-bikes are allowed.) Though you can drive a motor vehicle on frozen lakes, rivers, and the sea, so perhaps you can take your camper out then and do some ice fishing?
> "How much are you allowed to modify the environment to make it suitable for camping?"
Not much: "It’s NOT allowed to… cut down or damage trees … collect moss, lichen, or fallen trees from other people's property … light open campfires without permission, except in an emergency". "In short, leave nothing but footprints behind."
> "How long are you allowed to stay before moving on?"
I can't find it for Finland. For Norway, "Tourists are allowed to stay in one spot for up to two days."
> "Are you required to remove your waste?"
It's forbidden to litter. I can't find what to do with poop - probably the usual burial is okay, depending on where you are. I would expect more notice about needing to carry it all out if that were required.
> " How close can you be to an established dwelling?"
A "reasonable distance from homes." Not "very near homes and other private buildings or through farm fields and nursery plantations which could easily be damaged".
It looks like "200-300 feet" is reasonable, from one site.
I primarily drive and am often nervous driving around pedestrians and cyclists. The reason for this feeling is that I understand, even if subconsciously, how easy it would be for me to harm them with my vehicle. If I imagine myself being the cyclist it's more worrying that I can't control other vehicles that could easily harm me. I constantly remind myself that the road was made for people and drivers are just one class of person -- the most dangerous one to others on the road at that.
The best piece of advice I could give is to slow down and match the bikers' speed if you don't feel safe passing.
I still felt really bad.
When people come up with reasons why that won't care because logically they'll be in the right if something bad happens. All I can think is either they are sociopath or that they deeply lack life experience.
I can't speak for all spandex wearing cyclists but when I do that it is because I enjoy the scenery and the challenge. Are you equally frustrated with RVs?
> It’s a real sense of entitlement that is just beyond me.
You are the entitled one here. You have no right to a minimum speed on a road that allows cyclists.
> But if you’re leisure riding on a road where the speed limit is 55 and sitting in the middle of the lane you’re an ass.
I do this in all cases. If you can't get your vehicle fully into another lane to pass me then it's not a safe place to pass. If the speed limit is 55 that's a narrow highway and you have no exclusive right as a car. If you want that then stick to the freeways.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
If a cyclist hugs the edge of the road then drivers frequently squeeze between the cyclist and oncoming traffic. If the cyclist stays in the middle of the lane then drivers recognize they need to wait for a clear passing opportunity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Try it, you may just like it.
The same reason we might invest in traffic lights or stop signs even though cars regularly ignore them.
A more analogous would be that some cars choose to go off roading, or spend most of their time in driveways or parking lots - or some only drive to car shows. A much more accurate analogy would be cars that only drive in one lane and never use the left lane for passing.
Bicycles are vehicles. They have the same right to use the road as cars. Cars have no right to a minimum speed on surface streets. Cars have an exclusive right to freeways. High rates of speed are poor etiquette on bicycle routes, in my neighborhood only the fast cyclists ride in the street but at speeds that would be inappropriate on the bike path in that area.
Bicycle infrastructure tends to be an afterthought, even in the best cases. Can you describe this bike lane in more detail? Is it completely isolated from traffic? Is it mixed use with pedestrians?
Here in Seattle the divided bike lanes run parallel to roads with a curb and parking between. This seems good but at intersections bike lanes still cross side streets. That creates an opportunity for (especially right) turning traffic to not see cyclists and turn into them when the bicycle is crossing, even with dedicated bicycle lights. Riding in the street is your best chance to be seen, and on a bicycle being seen is your best chance to stay alive.
John Forester's treatise "Effective Cycling" was a huge influence on me when it came to urban cycling.
Generally no one has a right to any specific minimum speed, but most states do have laws against impeding the normal flow of traffic [1].
[1] https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/traffic-tickets/impedin...
* It is a long, straight, very slightly downhill segment with long sight lines and no intersections; one of the few safe sprint opportunities on my rides
* The bike lane surface is sloped slightly towards the outside of the road
* The outside half of the bike lane has several storm drains, and often some dry leaves in it
* The car speed limit is 30 mph.
All this combines to make it a fast segment where it really only feels safe to go that fast in the car lane. I'm going the car speed limit so in theory it's not slowing traffic.
In practice drivers perceive the speed limit to be the minimum they are entitled to and I get punish passed all the time there.
Are you asking? Post the location and I'd be happy to weigh in from a cyclist's point of view.
First, those involving cars.
- Turning Left while a bike lane is on a right.
- Cars don't yield to the bike lane before turning right
- Car occupants don't check a bike lane before opening door.
- Car parked ahead in the bike lane.
- Cars squeeze bikes next to the curb because the car can't maintain a lane / 3 foot is a really small distance at 30mph.
Next, those involving infrastructure
- Bike lane is made of segmented concrete; creating a thump and loss of traction every 3 feet, at 30mph.
- Bike lane is the gutter of the street, and street sweepers never come so it has much trash to be dodged
- Bike lane is shared with water infrastructure, where modifications lead to a longitudinal groove that is easy to get a small tire stuck in, get a flat, throw you unexpectedly.
- Bike lane is shared with storm infrastructure, so it is sloping, or has drain grates that cause bumps, loss of traction, potential to throw you -- again at 30mph
- Bike lane is "designed" for "recreation" with curves such that it is less efficient at getting from point a to b as quickly as the road.
- Need to walk their dog using their bike and don't want their dog in the bike lane.
- Can't be bothered to cross the road to the right side and instead bike on the sidewalk to avoid other cyclists coming head on in the bike line on this side.
- They just feel like it.
100% true story, I had a cyclist yell at me and call me names because I had the audacity to stop walking across the intersection as the cyclist blew through the red like at 30km/h. I suppose stopping to avoid getting hit by them interrupted their "flow" who knows.
A small number of cyclists seem to have all the excuses for bad behaviour, but it doesn't make it ok. We need the infrastructure for cyclists, and bad behaviour by some is not a reason not to build it. But cyclists could definitely do more to be safe around pedestrians and at least try to live with drivers.
Personally, when I cycle I obey all the stop lights and stop signs, I don't bike on the sidewalk, and instead of making a left I go through the intersection and wait for the light to change because my life is worth much more to me than trying to make some political show by blocking traffic in a left turn lane. It's just crazy dangerous doing that, even when there is a dedicated bike area for left turns. Blocking traffic won't make drivers any safer.
Completely insane horrifying stat. The incredible amount of injury and death has been so normalized.
From 2005 to 2016 Chicago with a population of 2.7 million had between 3 and 8 cycles deaths per year vs 27 to 65 pedestrian deaths and 282 to 487 motorists. https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20... Edit: The closest to 1/3 days I could find was 13 bicycle deaths and 95 pedestrian fatalities totaling to 108 for the region. Which is 1 cyclist death per 28 days out of ~10 million people.
Edit: for context, NYC alone has a comparable population (versus the entire Chicago MSA) and, despite rising cyclist deaths, still has significantly fewer than ~120 a year[1].
Edit: TFA's source for cycling deaths appears to be incorrect; the actual rate is far below ~120/year. The ~120/year number appears to come from a misreading of total pedestrian and cycling deaths in this report[2].
[1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/08/07/cyclist-deaths-are-su...
[2]: https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20...
I followed the link and the closest I could find was 13 bicycle deaths and 95 pedestrian fatalities totaling to 108 for the region.
I’m not saying deaths are ok, just that the number is shocking because it’s wrong.
https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20...
It among other fun things only goes up to 2016 and was published in mid 2018 (thus could not cover 2018). It also says that only 18 bicyclists were killed in 2016.
I could write a short novel describing my childhood bmx experiences there through the 80s-90s, and in 2022 I rode an mtb around all summer during an extended visit.
It's just insanity. People there are miserable and angry. It's palpable in how they drive.
Unfortunately I don't think these problems can be solved with improved bike infrastructure in most cities (though I'm not opposed to it). I think it has more to do with the continual strain of long commutes and the horrible frustration of driving in traffic. Unless we build a world in which driving long distances is truly optional for the vast majority of citizens, road rage is likely to be pervasive and we will all suffer the consequences.
These folks are predisposed to handle those things poorly for myriad reasons, and have established some very dangerous to pedestrians/cyclists driving norms which though illegal, go 100% unpoliced there. It's just very aggressive and driver-prioritized behavior, and it reinforces itself in a positive feedback loop turning many into psychopaths behind the wheel.
You can't even safely walk to your car with groceries in IL, the pedestrians are expected to yield to the drivers. If you get in the path of a car in a parking lot, they'll often threateningly closely follow you to try compel you to move out of their way while walking to/from your car. The drivers behave like they all own the place when behind a wheel, of course that mentality manifests as a car vs. car pissing match in traffic. Cyclists don't stand a chance in such a milieu.
Back when my family visited me in CA after moving ~15 years ago, it took just ONE day of them driving their rental to get a written warning from the police. Something about a cross-walk where they nearly hit a pedestrian after not stopping before entering the crossing zone to turn at an intersection IIRC. Turned out a police car was stopped at the intersection and witnessed it all go down. They were in complete disbelief and felt the pedestrian should have been watching out for cars, that they were in the right. It's batshit insanity in IL, and I suspect much of the US is like that to varying degrees.
CA isn't even that great, but compared to IL I strongly prefer being any of driver/cyclist/pedestrian here than over there. It may seem paradoxical that one wouldn't at least prefer being the driver in driver-prioritized IL but it's unpleasant to drive where everyone you're sharing the road with is being a psychopath.
I just spent a month bicycling around the UK. I knew the infrastructure was better than in the USA, but it blew my mind to see how even motorways often had bicycle & pedestrian paths off to the side. And almost all bridges seem to have a sidewalk, often one big enough to comfortably fit bikes and pedestrians. That's something we don't even get in the most pedestrian friendly US cities (citation: the Queensborough bridge in NYC).
And the funniest part? People in the UK complain about their infrastructure constantly, and frequently asked me why I was cycling there instead of the Netherlands, or France, or Spain, or Italy, or any other European country.
Infrastructure in the USA is a nightmare and an absolute embarrassment. I fear for my life every time I walk or bike here in shared space with drivers. I suspect a lot of this stems from the fact that around half of Americans have never left the continent of North America [1]. It's hard to realize just how bad our infrastructure is when you have no point of comparison and all of our infra sucks.
It's so frustrating because it's so simple: I just want to ride my bike and walk around. That requires very little infrastructure. I shouldn't have to wrap up my entire identity up in bicycling and walking just because most of our country doesn't bother with those activities.
[1](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-o...).
Unless something changed recently I don't think this is true of the UK. You can't ride anything under 125CC on a UK motorway and cycling/walking is illegal. Maybe you mean dual carriageways?
It may also have something to do with the UK having almost 10x the population density of the US.
Cycling in European cities is basically just pure luck and depends far to much on the local legislation and the major. The last local election in Spain has put a lot of conservative and right-wing majors into office, many openly campaigning with turn-backs on all the work Spain has put into creating cycling infrastructure. Here in Austria the neofascists Freedom Party interprets freedom and being able to drive and park everywhere by car, same for the convservative Bundeskanzler who is in a coalition with a toothless Green party. Being a cycling advocate is a fight for each and every cycling path and even then the local city planners can still mess up and build the worst possible solution.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
And in the US, that will never change. An example from 2023 (yes this year).
The State where I live has a law all road construction/repairs is suppose to allow for what here in the US is called a "Bike Path". That really means a 2 feet (2/3 meter) wide shoulder on each side of the road. It is delimited by white paint that will be allowed to fade. On this "path" is painted a bicycle every so often, that will also fade and never be maintained.
So, a road near where I live, a bridge was replaced. The Plans called for construction of this "path" to accommodate cycling on this road. Construction completed a week ago, no white line was even painted. The plans only mentioned it so construction would be allowed to start. Since it is complete, the excuse is "Oh we forgot".
This is in a State that is pushing Cycling as an alternative to Driving to work. So in the US, do not hold your breath, we will continue with doing all we can to increase the average global temperature until no one will be able to go outside in the deep South during the Summer.
This is that.
Some Americans have this world European fetish and think all Europeans are so well traveled and worldly. 40% of Europeans have never been to another country let alone another continent.
Unless you're traveling to Mexico or Canada (which are just not that different from the US in terms of infrastructure), Americans face at least a $500 round-trip plane ticket and around 10 hours of travel each way. More realistically, ~$1000 for a ticket at a reasonable time between reasonable points.
It's just a different order of magnitude of cost to visit places with different infra and culture.
As a commuter cyclist and former member of the 'bicycle industry', I'm going to propose an alternate view. Call this the 'libertarian theory of bike commuting' perhaps.
I love the bicycle situation in the United States. Why? Because freedom.
With increased investment in bicycle infrastructure comes increasing oversight and enforcement. This is something I cannot abide. I love riding a bicycle because I can, with reasonable caution and situational awareness, ride anywhere I choose (almost entirely) unburdened by bureaucratic annoyances such as speed cameras, parking garage gates, signals, signage, pedestrian areas, traffic and lurking police officers.
Appreciate what you have, or else we're all going to have to start wearing running clothes and doing shenanigans like joggers... because you know a properly attired and sweating jogger is ultimate stealth mode. It is just slow and makes you smell even worse + carrying cargo sort of breaks the facade.
Keep the USA weird.