Ya' May Like the Pictures, but the Debate Rages On

I can only guess that since noone commented on the last article, each word--as intended--must have been deeply moving genius that warrants little discussion and no debate.  Instead, simple awe must have washed over each of my readers.

Or nobody read it, a much more likely answer to the number 0 beside the comment line.   

Regardless, I want to contextualize the thoughts in that article using a story by Gretchen Reynolds that ran this week in The New York Times. 

This debate about whether to increase the amount of bicycle infrastructure in America, that is, whether to lobby political institutions for increased spending on bicycle facilities, is not a new debate; and it is not a debate that appears to be coming to a close.  

The Times article, in it's full glory, is entitled:

Do More Bicyclists Lead to More Injuries?

Reynolds actually answers "no" to this question when looking at the empirical evidence from European nations.  The simple conclusion?  More riders mean less accidents.  This is the widely accepted view amongst transportation experts and advocates, and it is a conclusion affirmed by loads of studies, some of which are cited by Reynolds.  

Still, why does she toss out this rhetorical question a bit later, a question essentially refuted by evidence presented earlier?  

Reynolds writes:  

“Transportation experts cannot agree, for instance, about whether to segregate bicycle and automobile traffic, using concrete barriers along bike paths or creating separate bikeways.”

This much is true, sure. Advocates do disagree about this, and I would argue that the debate has hindered the efforts at increasing safety for cyclists over the years as it has split the advocacy community into seemingly un-agreeable halves.

But then comes the moot question:

“In the short term, (the segregated bike path) approach should protect cyclists. But if if drivers are not given the opportunity to acclimate to riders, will it actually make it more dangerous for bikers in the long run? No one knows. ‘We need studies; we need data,’ Dr. Willett said.”

Of course we know--Reynolds made the point (if not explicitly) earlier in the article.  This is not an issue we need to study or debate to death. The results are in.  

As she wrote earlier, in places where people cycle often (one third to one half of the mode share), we find segregated bicycle infrastructure as a dominant planning pattern.   In those same places, the number of injuries are far fewer per kilometer cycled.  

What, then, is the debate?  Bike lanes in Denver may be contributing to more injuries, but bike lanes are not the same things as the raised and separated cycle tracks we find in Europe.  

There is a direct link between great numbers of bicyclists, separated bicycle infrastructure, and bicycle safety.  This combination, I think, is the ideal.  

Reynolds is clear towards the conclusion of the article about a city's  inability to control the unpredictable nature of cars.  We can, however, create more places for bicyclists to ride safely out of the way of car traffic. 

Cars and bikes will, of course, still interact at intersections.  But by increasing the number of bicycles on the road through protected bike infrastructure, we can increase the awareness among motorists of bicycles passing through those intersections.

Am I simply building a straw man to burn in this and the previous article?  

I wish...The people forwarding the debate about the potential "problem" with increasing protected bike infrastructure have a deceitful name: "vehicular cyclists."   They even have their own wiki page.  

I call the name deceitful because by arguing against this camp of advocates, one might assume I am arguing against vehicular cycling.  But that would be absurd: I rode my bicycle as a commuter nearly every day for 10 years in Memphis, Tennessee, where nary a piece of "European" bicycle infrastructure exists.  Heck, we got our less than 3 miles of bike lane just this past year!  Lets be clear: vehicular cycling is a necessity in Memphis and countless cities across the United States.  

What I am arguing is this: bicycle advocates should advocate for separated bicycle infrastructure.  Otherwise, what are we saying?  That car signals and streets created for automobiles work well for bicycles too?  

Maybe the true vehicular cyclists among us believe this, but it is clear that few Americans think this way.  Otherwise, why aren't more Americans braving city streets with wide outside lanes? 

Of course, as the vehicular cyclists maintain, we must train cyclists to ride well and predictably (note: in the Netherlands and Denmark children received required bicycle lessons in elementary school), but this is not going to help America get over the seemingly insurmountable "safety barrier;" the barrier of insecurity and discomfort with traffic that keeps Americans from taking the bike.  

A raised bike lane or a concrete wall, however, might do the trick.

"Value DNA"

Recently, this blogger made comments with regards to the state of bicycle advocacy in the U.S.  In the post, I created the following heading:

"America Lacks not for Best Practices (in bicycle planning); We Lack Political Will" 

Among the most important tasks before American bicycle advocates today, in my estimation, is the need to develop a strong base of political support amongst policy makers and money appropriators for increased bicycle infrastructure.  Even a cursory look at the cities where one-third or one-half of the people go by bicycle each day reveals a sophisticated network of protected bicycle infrastructure that was funded by the national government and/or the local municipality.  And conversely, a glance at cities where there are few bicycles in the street and almost no infrastructure reveals a lack of municipal leadership for creating a bike friendly city.  


This is why the bicycle advocacy community will need political will if we intend to increase the number of bicycles in America's roadways. 



I don't think I'm underestimating the challenge when I describe the work ahead of us in this way.  We're talking about some serious social change here, and social change is tricky business.  


So perhaps I should be clear: I'm not saying there is one method or strategy that will lead to the cultivation of a strong bike culture in the U.S.  We'll need infrastructure alongside education, bike lanes and educated cyclists and drivers.  Such educated people are in fact the very folks that can help to develop political will. 



Yet at the end of the day, catalyzing political will is in my opinion the critical component required to make bicycling into a common activity in America.  In response to this claim, and in response to my recent travels, a reader sent me the following comments.     

I just returned from cycle touring in France (Normandy, Seine River Valley, Paris) and England (London and countryside near Manchester).  My observation is that the culture of Denmark, northern Germany and the Netherlands related to transportation, social good, an individual's place in the society, life balance and material goods is considerably different than that of the Anglo-Saxon culture.

The following comments are especially significant, I think: 

 Realistically we in America are not going to experience a culture shift that moves us more than infinitesimally closer to Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany.  It's not about political will, it is about who we are and who we are not. Sorry, but we just don't have the same value dna.

As the reader above states, the individual's place in society, the transportation options available to the individual, and the idea of "social good" are all ways by which to measure a society's values.  

But the *literal value* a society places on each of these things can be measured by municipal investment.  In the case of bike infrastructure in Denmark and the Netherlands, it was the municipality--bolstered by the social movements for increased bike infrastructure organized in the wake of the 1970's oil crisis--that began to put a dollar value on their town's ability to be bike friendly. 

Put simply, while you cannot change your DNA, you can change a society.  

When the municipalities of Copenhagen and Amsterdam began to invest too heavily in car infrastructure in the 1960s, advocacy groups organized demonstrations and mobilized thousands in these medieval city squares.  This is not because the Danes and the Dutch have different value DNA; it's because commuting by bike is more practical than going by a car.  

They organized because they didn't want to see their cities consumed by motor vehicles, pushing the people farther and farther away from their Gothic spires. 

They mobilized because they believed the oil crisis was a warning that an over-reliance on fossil fuels could be politically problematic.  

They did not gather in the thousands in their public squares because they had certain ideas about the individual's place in society; they organized because they wanted bike paths that took them to work more quickly.  

My reader goes on:      

...I think I see in England a changing model that is more akin to what we face in America.  The English (can't speak for the Scots, Irish or Welsh) have a love affair with individual motorized vehicles for personal transport.  As compared to Europe, their cars are bigger, more powerful, more in use and more per capita (with the exception of maybe Germany, Swiss) and their roads are more narrow, winding, and less direct.  There are virtually no separate and safe hard paved cycle paths (although there is a growing route system).  I see the cyclists and motorists in England at a pressure point today.  The cycling community voices the same statements and beliefs of the right to the road, the benefits to individuals and society and the need for action as we do in the US.  The motorists voice the same statements and beliefs of right to the road, safety, taxes paid, and cyclist's behavior that we do in the US.  And although there are more bicyclists using roads in England than in the US, they are moving the culture needle very much.  In London there are a lot of cyclists (certainly not like northern Europe) but they are brave, brave souls in commuting spandex (fenderless road bikes or fold up Bromptons where the rider commutes in bike jersey and riding pants then changes at the place of work rather than commuting in work clothes) who mix with the car, London taxi, bus with trepidation.  There are some bike lanes but mostly it's pedaling between the curb and the vehicle.  And the folks are not just the hardcore bikers, but nurses, administrators, etc.  They are just much more brave than I would be.

In so many ways, I think here we can see the symptoms of a strategy that has not and will not work in America.  

I agree that a "transitioning" bicycle culture might provide a helpful model for the United States (see Australia), but the idea that one needs to be brave to ride a bicycle in a U.S. city--or any city--is a problem.  

Bicyclists are not crazy, and they are not super heroes (complete with their own skin-tight suits!).  They are simply bicyclists.  And it doesn't do anyone any good to remain obsessed with fear. 

I can say this from having ridden both in medieval cities--where buses, motor scooters, taxis, pedestrians and bicycles are competing for very limited space--and in the big American cities, where space is abundant though bicycles are not.  

I didn't necessarily feel "safer" riding in one or the other.  In fact, I was hit by a car for the first time in Amsterdam two weeks ago! (It was a minor crash and it certainly wasn't my fault--but thanks for your concern.)  

In sum, neither bravery nor social values will make America into a strong bicycle culture.  It will instead be advocates who make the good arguments and make better connections.  It will be communities organized around a message of how cycling can bring our communities closer together, people who articulate to political leaders how cycling is good for both the individual and the society.  

Developing political will is hard work, much harder I think than settling with the idea that Western Europeans have different "value DNA" than Americans; but it's good work.  

Perhaps most importantly, I believe this is the work before us in America.    

Notes on Bicycle Advocacy

For some weeks now, I've wanted to make a post with some general observations about the differences between bicycle advocacy where I come from and the the places that I'm traveling through.

Be warned, though: this is not a thoroughly researched, well documented article about the history of bicycle advocacy in America or Europe. Rather, these are a few limited observations made during more than two months spent studying bicycle cultures in Europe.

1. Staying Positive:

Most of the advocacy I have seen in Denmark and the Netherlands has been oriented at *increasing* the positive benefits across the social spectrum which are accrued from more bicycling. One simple example is a statistic from Denmark which the Danish Cycling Federation put together: for every kilometer bicycled in Denmark, the government actually earns one Danish Crown. This is a particularly poignant political argument for fiscal conservatives as it demonstrates the returns on bicycle investment. Sure it costs money to create bicycle infrastructure; in today's world, it costs money to do almost anything! But the returns on bicycle investments are quite good.

2. Name the Goal, not the Step.

I actually read this in a zine I picked up while haunting a local squat here in Amsterdam. It was a zine about computer technology, of all things, but I think it is a good way of positing a solution to a common problem with bicycle advocates. Installing new bike parking is not the goal, it is the step. An increase in bicycle lanes is not the goal, it is the step. A healthier society is the goal. A city that can move its people with increased efficiency and care, that is the goal. The goal, I think, can compel and inspire people to get out on a bike, which is more powerful than arguments for increased spending on blue stripes in the roadway. For effective advocates, the work before us goes beyond the bicycle, and it should be clearly stated that bike advocates are about more than increasing the number of people on bicycles.

I think this point chafes the sensibilities of bicycle enthusiasts because for so many of us, the bicycle in itself is a powerful tool for social and personal liberation. But the time for preaching to the choir has come and gone. Reaching more people requires broadening the message.

3. Eco-guilt and Slim Bodies Won't Cut it

What is the number one reason people bicycle in Denmark? Ease and convenience. In the Netherlands? 7.2 of 10 people say they are satisfied with the network of bicycle tracks throughout the city. This is a pretty good satisfaction rate for bicycle infrastructure.

A well developed, easy to use system of designated paths is critical to making cycling attractive. Public health, eco friendliness and sustainability, I would argue, are the by-products of bicycle cultures built around convenience. This is a point that should not be lost, because providing convenient and efficient transportation to a municipality's citizenry is in many ways as important as providing fire and ambulance services. Vehicular mobility often determines social mobility, and cities with limited vehicular mobility are often cities with limited social mobility as well. Bicycle paths, then, can be seen as a noble service provided to citizens.

4. America Lacks not for Best Practices; We Lack Political Will

The culture wars, I would argue, are one of the reasons bicycling has enjoyed little progress in America. I think advocates and cyclists alike often fail to use the bicycle as a political tool to bridge the divide between social conservatism and social liberalism. I've observed many of the most passionate bicycle lovers are bent on destroying the car culture in the U.S.; or bent on shoveling out the old guard of traffic engineers in favor of newer, hipper, more enlightened engineers.

Let's get real. The car culture will change in coming years, for sure, but the goal of bicycle advocates should not be to promote its demise. The same is true with the field of traffic engineering.

To focus on the ways in which the bicycle is a unifying force, the ways in which it acts as an egalitarian tool to increase the opportunity for all peoples is, to me, a much more politically sensible approach to effective advocacy. As long as an "us (bikes) vs. them (cars and the engineers/politicians/companies that promote them!)" mentality pervades bicycle advocacy, our single speed wheels will continue to spin and want for political traction.

Me? I'm hoping to encourage the car companies--perhaps in an effort to win some nice publicity for a change--to start a small grants program aimed at increasing effective bicycle advocacy. Refreshing but impossible, you say? Keep an open mind. You'd be amazed at what is possible.

So let's discuss. What, in your estimation, has led to the bicycle's trivial role in American society. This list is not exhaustive, and it certainly needs some improvement.

Weigh in!

Bicycle Speed Bumps?

Have you ever seen a bicycle speed bump around your town?
I hadn't either. In fact, it honestly never occurred to me that one would ever need a bicycle speed bump. But lo and behold, here in Amsterdam they've got them.

This one was placed in front of a school house, so I'm guessing they installed the traffic calming device on this bike-only path to decrease the pedestrian/bicycle crashes.

The collisions between children and all kinds of traffic--including bicycles--has steadily improved in the Netherlands.

"Over the past decades, road safety has improved more for children than for the rest of the population. In the mid-1980s, the number of fatalities among children was approximately 120 and in recent years it has been approximately 35."
(source: SWOV Fact sheet © SWOV, Leidschendam, the Netherlands, February 2009)

Horray for the bicycle speed bumps! Not only are they increasing the safety of school children, they are actually kind of fun to ride. Unlike car speed bumps, the bike bumps have a wavering bump that feels a bit like a roller coaster. Safety and fun for the price of one.

The Netherlands

So I've made it to the place most people agree on as the Western world's capital for bicycling: The Netherlands.

After days of dodging thunderstorms and overcoming headwinds (14 days, to be exact) I've just crossed the border from Germany. I'm in a small town just west of the border called Winschoten at a nice little campground complete with wireless internet! The town contains about a half dozen churches alongside another half dozen windmills. And because it is Sunday in Europe, you all know what is happening: absolutely nothing.

I took this (overexposed) picture of myself just before I left my camping place in Germany two days ago. I'll try for a better one soon enough. The camping places in Germany were fantastic: they all had a breakfast option (usually bread and cheese) and they each served beer at the check in desk. I have to say, one of the best things about the tour so far has been rolling into a campsite after 100 kilometers, paying 6 Euro to sleep for a night, and enjoying an icy cold German beverage.

I've seen a lot of cows and pigs and horses on the tour, smelled them mostly, but I also saw this disorderly herd of older folks clamoring about in the center of the bike track. Clamoring or not, how often do you see 30 or more senior citizens rolling down a bicycle path? It was a first for me.

This cat was lying perfectly still in the center of the road for literally an hour before I hunkered down to photograph it. Then it came straight for me, intent on being loved. Just a random tidbit of my world for you.

2 days to Amsterdam. Boy am I excited. For now, enjoy a few fun facts about the Netherlands from the 2009 Bicycle Report which you can find at the European Cycling Federation's Website.

1. The Netherlands is the only European nation that has more bicycles than it has people (18 million bikes, 16 million people.)
   
2. An interesting note about safety: (Directly from the text) "Something that should not be overlooked...Liabilty. In some countries, bicycling is seen as causing danger, which sometimes ends up in anti-cycling policy. The Dutch philosophy is: cyclists are not dangerous; cars and car drivers are. So car drivers should take responsibilty for avoiding collisions with cyclists. This implies that car drivers are almost always liable when a collision with a bicycle occurs and should adapt their speed when they share the road with cyclists." (p. 14)
   
3. The Netherlands has the highest number of people bicycling of any European country, but they also have the lowest fatality rate per kilometer bicycled. More bikes always means more safety.