[Lavery]

There are two other reasons bike lanes don't have the kind of demand induction properties that roads do:

-Bike lanes (and ultimately, bike destinations) have way higher humans-per-square-foot of road / parking lot density than cars lanes. The throttling mechanism on behavior for the car example is ultimately drive time, and new lanes quickly become capacity constrained (first at the interchanges; later at the parking; last in the lanes themselves) in a way that slows ultimate travel back to the indifference equilibrium. The equivalent for bikes tolerates a way higher flow of humans.

-Induced demand for cars is in part a function of the fact that you can (up to a point) drive at any speed, meaning that if roads are added that support commuting in from 30, 40, 60 miles away, that can be a doable commute. There is no amount of development that will create a 60 mile bicycle commute. Here, the demand induction mechanism with travel lanes and housing is reversed: you need convenient housing to drive the demand for bike lanes.

[tobylane]

The Embankment in London (Westminster to Blackfriars) lost one of its four vehicle lanes for a kerb separated two way cycle lane. It carries more traffic than the four vehicle lanes, but looks far emptier, which invited much complaint at first. I’m glad to see TfL are still building more cycle lanes, various types to suit the roads used.

[aix1]

Supporting data: p17 of http://content.tfl.gov.uk/segregated-cycling-infrastructure-...

Though I can't say I fully follow TfL's maths on this one.

[0wis]

It is surely true for the density part. However I have now seen bike lanes that are two years old that would be efficiently « unjammed » by doubling. Another great aspect of bike density is that when you double the lane you allow way more traffic. When you are slow and small, you don’t need much space to overtake a slow electric bike.

[sempron64]

The reason bike lanes do not have demand induction effects is because there is inherently low demand. A majority of the population cannot use bicycles for long trips, and even those who can cannot use them for all trips.

Bike lanes are ableist and classist. Only healthy citizens with an excess of time and energy are able to use them for trips. The elderly, children, those with heart conditions, asthma, or many other health conditions, and anyone needing to transport anything heavier than their own body cannot use the lane. In most cities this represents a minority of the population. Creating exclusionary space for bicycles is the opposite of progressive policy and efficient urban design.

[danhor]

If you look at other countries with a lot of bike infrastructure, you can see that your point doesn't really hold up to reality. First, reducing road usage so only those who can't use a bike (for whatever reason) helps everyone, since it allows more efficient transportation and encourages a denser city (see the linked post). (this partially handles time, in dense city centers bikes can be often faster already)

Most people can use an electric bike (this checks the energy part) and with electrical cargo bikes can transport a lot without a lot of physical exertion.

And, last but not least, for those who truly can't use anything bike-like the fan-favorite netherlands allows the use Canta, very small microcars, on bike lanes. These are way cheaper than cars and need less skills to drive, so elderly can drive them as well.

Way better than requiring everyone to drive couple tons worth tens of thousands of dollars after absolving an expensive and time consuming course on how to use them without injuring anybody or worse.

PS. I don't know many children that can drive a lot on roads without a bicycle. That's a very weird example. I don't think many people advocate removing sidewalks in favor of bike lanes.

[sempron64]

It’s unfair to consider electric bikes as most bike lanes are explicitly not designed for them. They operate at a higher speed than regular pedal bikes and are more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists. We may as well suggest that everyone use electric motorbikes and then car lanes will carry much more traffic.

Also, obviously children are not driving cars. But they still use the road as passengers. It is much less common and mostly not possible to have children too large for a baby seat but too young to travel on their own (4-12 years old or so) using a high traffic bike lane.

[eynsham]

> They operate at a higher speed than regular pedal bikes

They can, but don’t have to. Strange would be the market were bicycles only capable of going at 20mph or 0mph were used.

> We may as well suggest that everyone use electric motorbikes and then car lanes will carry much more traffic.

Good idea!

> It is much less common and mostly not possible to have children too large for a baby seat but too young to travel on their own (4-12 years old or so) using a high traffic bike lane.

There are all sorts of ways around this: e.g. https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/how-transport-children-bik.... And they’re not dangerous when everyone’s on a bike (in a cycle lane): see e.g. Dutch road layouts.

[sempron64]

Most parents are not physically capable of operating such a contraption regularly. I would hate my life if I needed to lug my kids in that contraption when I want to take them to the park, doctor, grocery store, or any life activities. In a bike lane with e-bikes and racing bikes overtaking me constantly

Hmm, maybe it would help if I added an electric motor. But my kids are still at risk of injury if I’m hit by irresponsible cyclist, it will be a horrible tangle of metal and limbs. So maybe we should be in some kind of enclosure…

[sudosysgen]

The idea is that in such a city you don't need to lug around your children unlesd they're quite young. Children as young as 8 are fully capable of going to school, park, etc... on their own.

With some physical aptitude you can easily go 25-30km/h on a bog standard Walmart bike. On my unrestricted ebike I never pass 32 on a bike lane (if I'm going faster I just go into a car lane). So an ebike limited at 32 is no more or less dangerous than a normal bike. No need to build a car.

Anyways cyclist on cyclist injuries are much less severe in general than car on car.

[eynsham]

And when everyone adds enclosures i.e. ends up in a car, you’re at much more risk than you were before and have all the harms of car-centric urban planning.

The physical ability of people is historically specific and if people were to generally cycle most would be able to ‘operat[e] such a contraption’.

It is possible to regulate cycle lanes so that people don’t just zoom around irresponsibly. Curiously you don’t seem to consider equivalent risks from cars (can’t drivers act irresponsibly? is it preferable that they have several orders of magnitude more mass with which to injure people?)

[aqme28]

Look at childhood independence (or childhood mobility) in car-centric cities vs bike+transit cities. The argument that children are more mobile in cars does not hold up to any real-world scrutiny.

[imtringued]

I'm an adult and I am dependent on a car. The idea that adults are more mobile in cars doesn't hold up to any real world scrutiny.

Sure, they might reach more destinations in their car but the humans themselves? They can't reach anything, their mobility was reduced to nothing.

[Broken_Hippo]

It’s unfair to consider electric bikes as most bike lanes are explicitly not designed for them.

Where do you get this information? Sure they can go faster, but most folks here are decent about things and they sure help going uphill. It means more people can use the bike lanes - notably, people without the strength to go uphill.

an 8 year old is not too young to travel on their own to limited places. If your bike lanes are actually safe, it is safe for them. And realistically, most places let actual children ride on the sidewalk.

Kids too large for a baby seat can generally sit in a pull-behind wagon.

[bobthepanda]

In several locations in the US electric bikes are speed-limited to 20-25mph (32-40 km/h). There's no reason you couldn't set the speed governor much lower to match human speeds.

At least where I live (Seattle) if I were to take up biking I'd need a electric assist, since the hills are absolutely massive and steep.

[ygra]

At least in Germany most electric bicycles are limited to about 25 km/h, which is about what normal cyclists manage on straight roads, anyway. It's definitely not unreasonably fast.

There's also the category of electric bicycles limited to 40 km/h, which are handled pretty much identical to motor scooters (require insurance, cannot use normal bike lanes, unless specified, etc.).

[detaro]

In the EU electric-assist bikes (which are the ones allowed in bike lanes) are limited at 25 km/h. Sporty normal bike commuters regularly are faster than people on them.

[sudosysgen]

Electric light motorcycles replacing cars would be an absolute benefit to everyone. The biggest issue for those is range (density) and getting killed by a car.

[pharmakom]

Also imagine how much money it would save for people, particularly those for whom car maintenance is a significant % of income!

[URSpider94]

This is wrong on so many levels. I’ve spent years biking in the Netherlands. People from age 7 up into their 70s ride their bikes regularly and safely - so safely that bike helmets are a total rarity. People ride ebikes and even gas mopeds on the bike lanes, and it all works out just fine. People drive electric mobility scooters in the bike lanes. People in wheelchairs have special adaptors that let them pedal with their hands and use the bike lanes. Your statement that most parents are physically incapable of moving their young children on bikes is proven false by the tens of thousands of Dutch parents who transport their kids in bike seats every day.

Bike travel is about as egalitarian as it gets. You can buy a serviceable bike for a couple hundred dollars, with basically no extra costs - compare that to a car, or even a bus pass, and it’s a screaming deal.

[coyotespike]

I have seen parents in the Netherlands biking through a crowd, and with one hand guided a small child on their own bicycle.

Truly impressive control - but obviously completely viable when the child outgrows the child carrier on the parent's bicycle.

[u801e]

> People from age 7 up into their 70s ride their bikes regularly and safely - so safely that bike helmets are a total rarity.

Bike helmets are designed to provide some degree of protection in simple falls, meaning falls that are caused by lots of control as opposed to a collision with another object like a motor vehicle.

I've heard that older Dutch cyclists are dying due to head injuries that could be mitigated by using a helmet or riding a trike insured of a bike.

[URSpider94]

There have actually been studies done on this. The estimate I’ve seen is that for every year of life that would be prolonged by mandating helmet use in NL, 25 years of life would be lost from the loss of exercise by people who don’t take bike trips because they are put off by helmet wearing. This is a real thing that has to be taken into account.

The other interesting stat is that an hour of bike riding in NL carries approximately the same risk of head injury as an hour in a car in the USA. So, should we make all car passengers wear helmets? It would make them safer…

[darkfirefly]

Would helmets in cars make them safer though? It's a different risk profile; I don't think you tend to fall out of your cars and hit your head?

I can't find any stats of prevalence of various types of injuries in cars, although it does seem to be a thing to get brain injuries in cars (whether that is due to impact or neck/head stopping I don't know)

[u801e]

TBH, I'm not in favor of requiring helmets, but given the fact that balance does tend to decline with age, I think that recommending that older cyclists ride trikes instead of bikes would be a good idea. Falling off of a trike is less likely.

[stefs]

i'm speaking from a european city (400k inhabitants) perspective, where everything is rather crowded compared to the american suburb commute.

> A majority of the population cannot use bicycles for long trips

well, bicycling _in the city_ is usually meant for short trips, but 95% of my trips are short trips of less than 10km.

> Only healthy citizens with an excess of time and energy are able to use them for trips

excess of time: on my commute i'm on average a lot faster by bike - no gridlock, no search for a parking spot

energy: carbs are cheap

healthy: cycling improves your health and fitness follows an S-curve. even if the ride is arduous in the beginning, it quickly gets easier

> The elderly, children

personal experience (biased): compared to driving, a disproportional amount of cyclists are elderly or children

> those with heart conditions, asthma, or many other health conditions

i don't know about that. a bike courier i know uses an asthma inhaler, but i haven't asked him about it.

> and anyone needing to transport anything heavier than their own body

you're right that there's a limit, but i can impose those same arbitrary limits on cars: "what if i need to transport X which doesn't fit in a car?"

> Creating exclusionary space for bicycles is the opposite of progressive policy and efficient urban design.

it's a safe space for cyclists who are not able or willing to ride on the road shared with drivers. i usually don't mind riding on the road, but as soon as i got my toddler in the trailer i tend to get rather touchy about safe cycling infrastructure.

i'm not sure what you're arguing for though. are you arguing for motorized individual transport, because the disabled, elderly, toddlers prefer cars? or public transport?

[sempron64]

Public transit. A bus lane will carry many more people more efficiently. Cargo and emergency vehicles can also use this lane if necessary. Dedicated bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes can generally only be used by bikes and other small vehicles.

[stefs]

bicycling and public transit complement each other (almost) perfectly. i don't see why you're advocating for "dedicated public transport lanes instead of bike lanes" as opposed to "dedicated public transport lanes and bike lanes".

> A bus lane will carry many more people more efficiently.

i think it's close. yes, you can cram more people on a smaller space in a bus, but the bus - and upping the lines frequency if necessary - is comparably expensive.

the big difference is, of course, personalized transport.

[coyotespike]

Yes, this. You bicycle to public transit, then either safely park your bicycle or load it onto public transit.

OP is attempting to find an opposition where none exists. Most people are not so wrongheaded, and where you find an advocate for safe cycling, you'll also find an advocate for public transit.

[analog31]

I'd be very happy to see dedicated bus lanes in my locale, along with bike routes. In my vivid imagination, the buses would be synchronized with the traffic lights, allowing them to move through town quite efficiently, even with stops.

Ours is a mid sized town, and we don't need a lot of dedicated bike lanes. For the most part, the cyclists find routes through neighborhood streets where there is minimal car traffic. Cars use the faster trunk roads. The only dedicated bike infrastructure are longer bike paths built on old rail lines, and in some areas where there is just no convenient low speed bike route such as a narrow artery between two lakes. And the long bike paths are at least partially if not primarily intended for recreation.

[loonster]

For certain bus lines in our city, the driver can press a button that will turn the light green.

[aix1]

This sounds awesome, but I'm guessing can only work if there are few buses? (I live in London and can't imaging such an arrangement being even remotely workable around here.)

[Broken_Hippo]

Bike lanes keep people safe.

Not everyone can drive: We still have roads. And honestly, I've met a few folks that couldn't drive but could bike if it had 3 wheels (physical limitations) and with the electric bicycles, the folks that cannot do it are becoming less and less. In any case, it is nearly impossible to include everyone in everything: Without this, more people are in harms way OR excluded.

Bicycle lanes are great for powered wheelchairs, and folks can go faster than foot traffic then. You can get such things covered for winter (I see it here in town). So long as you maintain them like you do roads, they can be available all year.

Around here, bicycle lanes are generally alongside foot traffic and have shortcuts. Busses are available, though.

[acomjean]

I live next to a urban high school. In the before “school from home” times they installed a bike lane, then immediately had to install a lot more bike racks. These kids can’t drive and if they could there is no parking lot. I think it’s great.

[Broken_Hippo]

I live near an urban elementary here in Norway: So many bikes are lined up at the racks outside the school and it seems the kids have fun afterwards while going home (usually in groups).

Bike racks are an often overlooked part of having bikes and I wish more places had them! If you cannot keep your bike safe while at work or the grocery store, it doesn't work.

[u801e]

> Bike lanes keep people safe.

With the installations they have in the US, they're actually less safe to use compared to riding I the center of the rightmost general purpose lane.

[Broken_Hippo]

I do suppose it really should say, "good, well-designed bike lanes" but as it goes, I'm just now realizing it and it is way too late to change.

The bike infrastructure I've seen in the US has been low or lacking entirely, but I really am never sure how representative it was: I lived in Indiana in small to medium sized cities. In the smaller ones, it really wasn't unsafe to just ride on the road anyway and bike lanes weren't so necessary. At least one city had a walkway/bikeway where railroad tracks used to be and lanes around the river, which made biking decently convenient.

[rjbwork]

Bruh. This is just incorrect. I am fat and asthmatic and commuted by bicycle all during college in Athens, GA and and by e-bike for about a year in Atlanta, GA. Cycling, especially e-bikes, is extremely accessible even for quite unfit populations. With my e-bike, rack, and paniers, I can do weekly shopping trips no problem as well.

Besides that, it gets cars off the road meaning that the disabled/unhealthy population you care so much about will have higher priority access to car infrastructure.

[aix1]

Thank you for sharing this. I just wanted to add that cycling helps improve fitness, and unfit populations could become fitter if they chose to cycle. This brings about multiple benefits and is not the case with other transport modalities (car, bus).

[majormajor]

If the healthy and able population overwhelmingly traveled via bike, alternate forms of transit would gain too because currently they are being CRUSHED by the amount of road traffic in many cities. Busses that move at a crawl. At-grade trains limited by traffic intersections. Taxis and ambulances fighting traffic. Etc.

[Tijdreiziger]

What a weird take. Bike lanes do not take away the possibility for those less able to use a car, they strictly add options. You might as well argue sidewalks are ableist.

[burrows]

> What a weird take.

Agreed, like looking at the case inside out.

> Bike lanes do not take away the possibility for those less able to use a car, they strictly add options.

But, that is true only if the bike lanes are “free to build and maintain”. Otherwise, the city is allocating money toward bike lanes rather than something OP would argue is “less ableist”.

[danhor]

Since bike lanes suffer way less stress due to less weight (to the power of 4!), they are a lot cheaper to build and maintain for the same throughput. But they do take some money, for sure.

[burrows]

(I know basically zero about city planning, although I have lived in cities for a decade)

The “roadway” itself is another fixed resource, I think? So, either the street gets a bike lane or another vehicle lane, but not both because there is only so much space between the two rows of buildings.

[danhor]

(I'm also very much only an interested citizen)

Yeah, that gets into the whole "take the space away from cars" thing.

My opinion is that in cities due to the much higher throughput of bike lanes it can also help reduce congestion, but if the bike lanes don't get used, e.g. due to a fractured network with "high-risk" shared road in-between or very unattractive gutter lanes, that doesn't really do anything. My hope is that cities would be aware of that and that it would only be a temporary thing, but the whole point that initiatives of Strong Towns and others like Not Just Bikes make (among others) is that many cities don't seem to have a clue on how to handle transportation, especially mixed-mode.

[sempron64]

I am specifically considering removing traffic lanes on e.g. a bridge or a main thoroughfare in favor of bikes. This is common in New York where I live.

One particularly egregious example is removing a lane of traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge in favor of bikes. This is in my opinion an oppressive action in favor of the wealthy who live in downtown Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn.

[InitialLastName]

The wealthy (and wasteful) are the people driving into Manhattan every day. Making the Brooklyn Bridge a viable bicycle route (the shared lane is constantly packed with tourists) will open a key route for people who can't afford cars to commute.

Have you seen how crowded the Manhattan bridge bike path gets, especially at rush hour? I don't deign to assume anyone's socioeconomic background, but it's also very clearly a wide swathe of the NYC population (I somehow doubt the folks on delivery bikes are living in the wealthy areas).

[sempron64]

The bridge serves a large swath of NYC (south Brooklyn, Staten island, the Rockaways) and Long Island. Dumbo and downtown manhattan are upscale areas.

Were the city willing to invest in the project in a sane way, such as making a separate bike path like the one on the Manhattan Bridge or another tier, obviously it would add value. But as it is as a lane removal it's a lazy and badly planned move that snarls the middle class in traffic (which is already regularly backed-up onto the collapsing BQE) to allow the upper class to "enjoy" a "scenic" ride next to a bunch of smog blasting trucks. And maybe help a couple of door dash drivers I guess.

[zachkatz]

“A couple of door dash drivers”

There are over 80,000 delivery cyclists in NYC.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/doordash-delivery-workers-d...

[ciabattabread]

Just take the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. Oh, there’s a toll? That’ll be a moot point when congestion pricing happens in 2 years.

[burnished]

You're gonna call riding a bike, instead of a car, ableist and classist? Great, let me just go get an expensive to own, expensive to maintain, expensive to operate vehicle so I can really stick it to the rich.

Can you better explain the ableist remark? It sort of comes off like you're being mocking.

[erik_seaberg]

He means busses can’t use bike lanes, when they could have used the traffic lanes that were removed.

[TheCoelacanth]

Show me one example of a city that is reducing transit in favor of bike lines and I might believe that's a legitimate concern. Almost always, cities that are looking to add bike lines are also looking to expand transit.

[burnished]

Think you're barking at the wrong car, the person you're responding to was clarifying the argument of another person, not endorsing it I think.

[burnished]

Cheers, I appreciate the clarification.

[bobbylarrybobby]

Ah yes, it’s bike lanes that are classist. Not the roads that require at least a $10k investment to participate.

[burrows]

Currently, bus passes in Cleveland, Boston, NYC (cities I’ve lived in) are only ~$100/month.

[micromacrofoot]

In Boston and NYC there are also programs to offer free bikesharing if you're low income.

[imtringued]

>Bike lanes are ableist and classist. ...

I'm sorry but what you are saying is simply wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canta_(vehicle)

[tdeck]

I think the reason more people don't use the kind of bike lanes we see in the United States is that they're not safe. Cycling in the U.S. means riding on roads with vehicles that aren't expecting bikes and that can easily kill you if the driver makes a small mistake. If you're lucky, some parts of that route will include a painted bike lane, and if you're really lucky that bike lane will be separated from deadly traffic by a physical barrier and won't be adjacent to a line of parked cars that may open their door at any moment and hit you. But neither of these "luxuries" are common in the U.S. or in most countries - bikes are simply an afterthought.

In that environment, it's no wonder that only more physically fit people will be likely to cycle, because you need some strength and agility to quickly course-correct and avoid danger. But these things aren't inherent to riding a bike. If sidewalks were a painted lane down the middle of the street people with disabilities wouldn't be safe walking on them (just as they are sometimes at risk on crosswalks), but that doesn't mean pedestrian infrastructure is ableist. As someone with a disability that prevents me from driving, I'm glad I have good pedestrian infrastructure in my city, and what passes in the U.S. for great bicycle infrastructure. But I wish I didn't have to share the road with cars.

[u801e]

> I think the reason more people don't use the kind of bike lanes we see in the United States is that they're not safe. Cycling in the U.S. means riding on roads with vehicles that aren't expecting bikes and that can easily kill you if the driver makes a small mistake.

The problem is that bike lanes are retrofitted on roads that are really not wide enough for another lane. As a result, you get a substandard width bike lane and more narrow general purpose lanes that don't slow down traffic.

This results in close passes and less margin for error.

> if you're really lucky that bike lane will be separated from deadly traffic by a physical barrier

The problem with physical barriers is the fact that they don't continue through intersections. Cyclists are lulled into a false sense of security and don't pay attention to traffic as they approach the intersection. Motorists are likewise not paying attention to cyclists on the barrier separated path. Then both are caught by surprise when their paths cross.

The best option is to just take the lane and follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You get noticed and you don't have conflicts at intersections. You don't need to be physically fit to do it (other than be physically capable of riding a bike).

[tdeck]

> The best option is to just take the lane and follow the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. You get noticed and you don't have conflicts at intersections. You don't need to be physically fit to do it (other than be physically capable of riding a bike).

Most people won't be comfortable doing this for the simple reason that they'll be going slower than surrounding traffic and it will piss of drivers, which is scary when you're on a bike and they have two tons of metal right beside you. If the safest way to do something is mildly terrifying and generally viewed as antagonistic, we can't be surprised that most people will avoid doing that thing.

I've really been inspired lately by watching the videos on this channel about urban design in the Netherlands: https://youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes

I didn't realize how much urban cycling raises my blood pressure until I watched this video that compares a journey in Canada to a journey in the Netherlands, it's hard to imagine cycling being so safe and easy outside a college campus: https://youtu.be/M8F5hXqS-Ac

[u801e]

> Most people won't be comfortable doing this for the simple reason that they'll be going slower than surrounding traffic

People, in general, aren't comfortable engaging in an activity they don't have experience with. A motorist who drives a car for the first time in traffic is not comfortable.

Comfort and confidence come with experience.

> it will piss of drivers

Based on first hand experience riding a bicycle while taking the lane in traffic for more than a decade is that it's a rare occurance. My estimate is that someone shows their frustration maybe once every several years.

On the other hand, riding near the edge or in a substandard width bike lane will result in frequent close passes and frequent close calls with turning traffic (weekly, if not daily).

> which is scary when you're on a bike and they have two tons of metal right beside you

The same rationale could apply to motorcyclists versus motorists in cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks. In fact it can even apply to the latter versus bus drivers, dump trucks and tractor-trailers.

But the way that traffic consisting of vehicles that have different sizes, masses can all share the road is because the drivers follow the same set of rules. It also works for cyclists.

> If the safest way to do something is mildly terrifying and generally viewed as antagonistic

Based on first hand experience, I don't think these assumptions are really valid. If that were the case, then we wouldn't see cyclists on the road at all. But, there are many locations where cyclists ride on the road without bike lanes or separated paths.

> we can't be surprised that most people will avoid doing that thing.

Whether most people will engage in a particular activity should not affect the best practice from a safety and efficiency standpoint. For example, the motorcycle safety foundation focuses on bike handling skills and defensive driving. They're not trying to get more people to use motorcycles for transportation, nor are they trying to get infrastructure built specifically for motorcyclists on existing roads.

Similarly, we should focus on education for cyclists in terms of how to use the existing road network to get to their destinations rather than focus on piecemeal infrastructure that really makes things more dangerous for them by reinforcing bad riding habits that are unsafe.

[stale2002]

Providing a multitude of different options, for different people, is the opposite of ableist, I'd say.

The point of equality is not to force everyone to do the same thing.

Instead, it is to address different people's concerns, differently, so that everyone can get what they want.

[TheCoelacanth]

What nonsense. Bike lanes are the only type of traffic lanes that children can use.

Elderly can ride tricycles, often long after they are capable of driving.