[iknowstuff]

"Why We Won't Raise Our Kids in Suburbia (and moved to the Netherlands instead)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98

"Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo

"Why Great Cities Let You (Easily!) Cycle to IKEA" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgvYgxo6UY8

"8 to 80, people of all ages cycling in the Netherlands" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swqaAIkGtpA

As you can see, you don't need "wide roads". Quite the opposite, in fact. When safe cycling infrastructure is present, traffic shifts to cycling, because it's faster, cheaper and more pleasant. This makes roads less congested for your car trips. Widening roads does not have this effect, as additional lanes simply fill up with more traffic if there is no faster, safe alternative. Also, wide lanes encourage high speeds, and you don't want that around your kids.

[bobthepanda]

> When safe cycling infrastructure is present

This is debatable. Tokyo lacks widespread European-style cycling facilities and still has quite high bike mode share.

Low stress roads can fill much of the same gap, as long as they are well connected.

[dunco]

I'd say this is cultural and you won't ever get the same outcome in the USA(or Australia where I am from). Car drivers think they own the road. In Australia there is outright hostility towards cyclists on the road from the proudly ignorant.

[bobthepanda]

To a degree, it's also because Japanese streets are much, much narrower.

Anglo or Japanese culture, you can't really blaze down this street at 80kph without hitting something. https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9Wu_fv0DMXQ/TEbn2b8Hu4I/AAAAAAAAA...

[ascagnel_]

A few towns in my area have been experimenting with "road diets" -- taking streets originally designed with only car traffic in mind, and reconfiguring them (without building new infrastructure) to reduce the primacy of cars and make other modes of transport more appealing -- with varying degrees of success. In one case, there was an observed impact of trip times _decreasing_ despite losing a lane of traffic in each direction -- the change in configuration reduced congestion at intersections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_diet

[dunco]

interesting. While I'm open minded to this, I have to say I am starting from a place of skepticism. I've come to view bike lanes painted on the road as a dangerous half-measure in most places. Studies show that Women do not take advantage of these types of cycle lanes at all, and many people view them as simply too dangerous to use. still interesting that there can be benefits to car traffic in the right conditions!

[ascagnel_]

The biggest impact were cases where bike lanes were protected -- that is, the view of the road from the outside-in was pedestrian sidewalk, bike lane, car parking, and then lanes of traffic, so cyclists wouldn't have to worry about double-parked cars forcing them into traffic or inattentive drivers drifting into the bike lane. That said, such a change carries its own risks (cyclists need to be aware of passengers exiting cars and vice-versa), and generally requires more thoughtful design of the intersection (since cyclists turning left will have a much longer path to follow).

[lmm]

Segregated infrastructure is missing the point. Putting liability on drivers where it belongs, and giving priority on the shared roads to vulnerable road users, is what makes it work, in the Netherlands or in Tokyo.