[inglor_cz]

It is my experience that two things correlate positively with widespread adoption of biking:

a. Relatively flat city terrain. (Not the case in Prague, for example; a lot of the residential areas are at much higher elevation than the city centre.)

b. Moderate temperatures at both ends of the summer-winter scale. Most people won't bike to work at -20 or +35 Celsius.

[lonelyasacloud]

Climate and terrain aren't that big a deal. Single biggest impediment to cycling is the how likely people are to be maimed or killed by drivers.

[robomartin]

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/09/cycling-injuries-three...

From the article:

"VeiligheidNL estimates that there were actually some 80,000 injuries of which 50,000 were serious."

And, of course, the idea of biking and the reality of it are quite different things:

https://www.bikelaw.com/2019/05/amsterdam-not-cycling-paradi...

I love how people tend to have this impulse to reduce reality to a single variable: Bikes = human power = exercise = good.

Reality is a complex multivariate problem. When you look at more variables you often discover something quite different than the assumption borne out of that single variable fantasy.

[Tade0]

FTA:

> Often a faster biker would pass within millimeters to get by me as I pedaled in an already narrow bike lane.

This is the number one thing I hate about mixing sidewalks with bike paths, but it appears it's also an issue on the latter.

Anyway this figure representing the fraction of trips done by bike in the Netherlands is interesting in context:

https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/focus/future-of-mob...

Looking at the modal split for Amsterdam and Rotterdam, people still drive cars as much as in other European cities, it's just that cycling has replaced walking and public transport.

Frankly I don't see the benefit here.

[sandermvanvliet]

I live in Rotterdam and don’t drive my car in the city anymore, only to go out of the city. We’ve had quite a few changes with reduction in lanes (2 to 1) to allow less traffic in to reduce the air pollution and by doing that bike lanes got bigger which I think is a good thing. It makes driving a car in the city less attractive and while I have no idea if more people ride bikes now, from my limited perspective it does seem to be the case

[jseban]

Same where I live, and now we have 1 empty bike lane and traffic jam in the remaining with sirens all the time because emergency vehicles can't pass anymore. It seems completely useless, convert a fully functional lane of a road, to an empty lane that's not used, why? And that reasoning is also really strange, just remove roads to force people to drive less? Well you also just removed mobility? Remove busses, subways, remove everything so nobody ever travels anymore, best solution?

[maccam94]

There will be as much traffic on a road as there are people willing to put up with it. Urban planners can reduce traffic by introducing alternative transportation methods and either raising costs for cars (congestion pricing, dynamic parking pricing, etc) or making them less convenient (reduce parking, fewer cars lanes, etc). Some transportation options, like buses and bikes, become more attractive when infrastructure prioritizes them over cars (dedicated rights-of-way to avoid getting stuck, separation from cars for safety, bicycle parking, etc).

[sandermvanvliet]

The lane closure (or rather: repurposing) now provides fast access for emergency vehicles. Given that most of the roads they’ve made these changes on are the direct route to the university hospital it’s a good outcome.

[bserge]

Greener, cheaper, healthier. All by a lot.

[lbreakjai]

For point a, the growing democratization of ebikes really help flatten the terrain.

For point b, the cold in itself is not really a huge deal, if you're dressed appropriately. As for the heat, it really depends on the amount of efforts you have to do.

I see the lack of adequate infrastructure as a much bigger impediment. If you risk getting hurt, you won't cycle, even in the most perfect weather.

[TomK32]

Ebikes are more and more common, they already make up half the sales of new bikes in many markets. That's the hills dealt with.

And in regards to cold temperatures, if the only time you daily spend in the cold is the few meters from your house's door to your car's door and then to your work's door, then you just think it is cold because you aren't living it like someone who's active and raises their body temperature in the cold.

Currently I cycle 10km to work and arrive before the sun is barely up, I enjoy those rides, I have good lights on the bike and can use cycling paths on 2/3 of the way. The thing I'm really looking forward to is the snowy days when the world is silenced and cycling though a few centimeters of snow becomes magical.

[noahtallen]

Here’s a video with more about why biking in the cold and snow isn’t as bad as we make it out to be: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU

The gist is, like usual, biking in the snow is fine when the infrastructure is equipped to make it an effective mode of transportation. It would suck most places in North America because there is next to no dedicated bike infrastructure besides painted gutters. Those obviously don’t get plowed correctly, so it’s terrible. When the major problems like that are handled, it’s fine.

[mchaver]

In my experience the number one thing that is positively correlated with biking adoption is infrastructure. If the population can safely use bicycles and they can be easily accessed/stored/rented then they are more willing to work around other inconveniences.

[throw7]

I agree with other replies: infrastructure is the deciding factor (not climate or terrain).

The way to see and understand "infrastructure" is: what if gov't was cycling-centric instead of car-centric. All the "infrastructure" you see around cars? Do that for cycles. There would be safe, separate, well-maintained, direct routes to all points, all year long, 24-7.

My own belief is that this is not possible in the U.S. without a change of culture. We can't even get respect for pedestrians... in winter here, plows will dump snow right over sidewalks (it will take days for them to be cleared if at all in some places). my 2 cents.

[stevenwoo]

I've been in Barcelona during a summer month during a heat wave. People still biked and walked, many of the streets and paths will be shaded at least on one side by the three to five story buildings on most streets except when the sun is directly overhead, and down the middle of some boulevards there are some very generously wide paths and trees providing shade. It's a very different experience from Houston which is pancake flat by comparison to Barcelona, Barcelona actually has hills.

[mucholove]

Someone already linked to Oulu which proves that biking may be unaffected by freezing temps.

On the other end of the spectrum, and unanserwed in the article here—Sevilla might be a great place to study the effect of heat.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/10/13/best-practices-how-se...

[ikurei]

Unaffected? I don't think so.

Oulu proves that temperature is a surmountable obstacle. I think the parent comment was right in that biking is very difficult to sell when those circumstances aren't right, even though some cities might overcome anything with sufficient bike culture and good infrastructure.

[kohlerm]

With regards to b. That seems to be true only partially seehttps://www.euronews.com/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-loving-fin...

[branko_d]

Subzero temperatures don't seem to be that much of a problem, as the Finnish city of Oulu shows us:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oulu

"Oulu is notable for its transportation network dedicated to non-motor vehicular traffic, including pedestrians and bicycles (termed "light" traffic in Finland). In 2010, the city contained more than 600 kilometres (370 mi) of pathways and more than 100 underpasses and bridges devoted exclusively to light traffic. The network is used year-round. The ratio of light traffic pathways to residents is the highest in Finland and the cycling mode share is 20 percent.[40][41] Oulu is often touted as an excellent city for bicycling."

[peoplefromibiza]

> the Finnish city of Oulu

seaside resort of 208,939 inhabitants

Many cities have roads and bridges only devoted to light traffic, the real issue is that they are not excellent for biking. In many large cities the biggest problem is distances.

Sub zero temperatures are an issue even for professional bikers at Tour de France.

When the road conditions are not uniform and distances are longer than a few minutes ride they can cause serious problems.

For example imagine going uphill and then down, exposed to the chilling weather and the consequences on a casual bike user.

[namdnay]

I agree. Luckily (a) is slowly changing thanks to ebikes (you can even get child ebikes now!)

[jseban]

And the most difficult, practically impossible weather to cycle in, is winter rain. 0-5 degrees celcius and rain, good luck riding your bike. You literally can't dress for it, it's better to even walk because then you can use an umbrella. You have to cover your whole body in specialised clothing that's both warm insulating, and fully waterproof. Your feet, your hands, and even then, your head, your face...

[input_sh]

I've driven bikes on -5 while snowing no problem. I've also not driven a bike when the temperature increased to positives because the bike lanes weren't cleared of the snow that fell on previous days.

Then again, raincoats are far more convenient to me than an umbrella, I prefer them when walking as well. That may make me an exception instead of a rule. As for my hands and face, can't say I care if they get wet, but my opinion on that would probably change if I was wearing makeup.

[jseban]

If it's light snow, it doesn't matter because it's dry, so you only have to dress warm, not warm and waterproof.

You do care if your hands get wet when it's +2 degrees, because you will freeze and get sick.

What I'm talking about is cold rain, not dry snow. And if the snow gets heavier, you won't see, you have to wear ski goggles. Literally

[sveme]

That‘s winter in Munich; plenty of people, me included, don‘t mind.

[jseban]

It doesn't matter if you and "plenty of people" don't mind, the important part is that the majority of people do mind, and will not cycle in cold winter rain.

[pvaldes]

Children are much more fragile than adults to cold and hot. It does not matter if a fit adult can do it, you need to adapt it to the weakest link.

[Steltek]

I bike with my kids in -12C. You dress like they're going sledding or skiing. It's fine. If you live in a cold climate, you just have that stuff anyway.

[Tarsul]

it's pretty typical in Germany that kids of all (school) ages bike to and from school, basically every day of the year. I did.

[jseban]

Why, it's much better for the kids to just take the bus, it's more practical and easier, and they don't have the risk of sitting cold and wet in school, what's the point of stubbornly cycling in shitty weather

[pvaldes]

I'm more concerned by heatstrokes in this case.

[jseban]

I also had to cycle my whole childhood to school, and I don't see the point at all, it just felt like some kind of unnecessary punishment and some creepy amish like way of being against technology

[Kafkish]

How many places in the world would you get +35 Celsius (95 F) in the morning?

[retrac]

Not too rare in parts of the southern USA in the summer. But you also have the return bike trip home in the afternoon... and by then it might be 40.

[soared]

The southern us doesn’t even walk, much less bike. The car infrastructure down here seems insane, but you literally do get covered in sweat walking from your car to a building. The southern us is not good for the outdoors due to weather, and because no one bikes/walks the infrastructure is horrible.

(I’m in Tennessee on vacation, walking everywhere. Many sidewalks just end, no crosswalks, etc. biking here would be dangerous)

[toomuchtodo]

Knoxville and Nashville have walkable potential in the core, and of course Asheville, NC, but outside of that, the south is as you said very pedestrian unfriendly.

[Kafkish]

In the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, the city of Richardson is very bike- and pedestrian-friendly. The area around the Univ of Texas at Dallas is especially so.

[soared]

Oddly enough I’m in Chattanooga and going to Knoxville tomorrow. I’ll find out :)

[toomuchtodo]

I highly recommend the UT Gardens, the Sunsphere, Remedy Coffee, and Yassin’s Falafel House if you’re looking for suggestions. Enjoy!

[Kafkish]

Sure, but on the return trip, you'd be heading home, so sweating should be no big deal.

[inglor_cz]

That depends on your age and cardiovascular health. Overexertion in heat can be deadly.

I am 43, I have no chronic disease, but I would be afraid of more than just sweating if I went on a biking trip in that temperature. Sometimes I feel unwell even when walking in such heat.

[wott]

It is much easier to ride a bike than to walk in the heat. Because you create your own wind.

If I stay at home and walk around I have troubles breathing when it's over 35°C, I have been several times on the verge of fainting when it lasts a bit too long over that temperature.

But I don't have a problem biking at that temperature or above. I've ridden for hours in temperatures near 40°C with no shade. As long as I get plenty of air, it's OK: it lowers the temperatures and I can breath. I mean, I prefer if it is 15°C lower :-), but it feels much better than walking.

Now in such circumstances you'd better not get caught in a climb, when your speed drop under say, 8 mph, because then you don't get any wind, while being on max effort. That's horrible. It happened to me once in a small mountain pass, on a road which looked like it had been painted black to make things worse. I had to climb down the sharp slope on the road side as I could, to find the shade of the few bushes which were around and stay there a few minutes, because I felt my temperature was rising way too much. Never again.

[Kafkish]

Then the problem is not the heat, but your fitness level, which regular biking, jogging will improve. It did for me. After about 20 years of no exercise, just sitting in front of a computer, I decided last November to start exercising (jogging. Bad knees make biking a bad idea)

My 1st day out jogging, I could only go 0.5 miles non-stop before I almost passed out. Today I can do 5.5 miles non-stop. My cardiovascular system is in the best shape it has been in a long time. And I'm almost 60.

[inglor_cz]

I have quite a lot of exercise, but I have hard time tolerating high temperatures in general, and it has been getting worse with age. I should have been born somewhere in Siberia.

[kzrdude]

On Arrakis, it's even worse.

[Kafkish]

Arrakis? That's a fictional place, right?

[kzrdude]

Yes!

[rdxm]

I think you'd be a little surprised. I have a friend in Chicago who's bike commuted year round now for decades.

That's anecdotal for sure but once you are acclimatized to winter I think the gating criteria is more around a secure place to park your bike during the day.

I have another work buddy in Minneapolis who sends me pictures of the temp guage on his Fat-Bike of like -20F training rides in Jan and Feb... yikes!!!!

[jseban]

The truth is that cycling infrastructure is an unnecessary luxury. It's a "good thing" in principle because it's a way of transportation that's good for the environment and gives people exercise, but it's redundant and expensive, you still need full capacity in public transport, because almost no one cycles when the weather is bad. It would only makes sense really if you could dynamically allocate space between cars/bikes basically on a day-by-day basis, and/or convert bike lanes to bus lanes, but I guess you'd need a full fleet of only self driving cars for that to be feasible. Then you could have the luxury of using a bike on days with nice weather, just because it's fun. Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow. Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment. But then again, we have a million comforts and luxuries at the expense of the environment, and people can generally choose, as long as they're not using absurd amount of energy. Why force cycling specifically, I don't understand, just take the bus if you don't want to drive.

[unglaublich]

A car in a city center, _that_ is the unnecessary luxury.

> Until then, it's at the expense of general mobility which is a really big downside in cities that are already crowded and transport is slow.

Automobiles are the sole reason why general mobility is so poor in cities that are crowded (with cars) and where transport is slow (due to cars).

Please take a look at cities in Denmark or The Netherlands. Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers. Not only is it cheap, reliable, healthy and it doesn't take up much space... it's also _faster_ than driving a car.

Yes, cars are practical for rural and long-distance travel, but not for use in city centers.

[jseban]

> Cycling is the primary mode of transportation in their city centers.

It's not when there's cold rain in the winter, guarantee it.

[AlotOfReading]

You should probably tell the Dutch that they don't cycle in the rain. Over 1/3rd of days are rainy in the Netherlands on average and yet they somehow manage to put on their ponchos.

[jseban]

I would love to see the difference in bike use in the Netherlands relative to the weather, I bet only a small fraction will use the bike in bad weather conditions and they will need capacity in public transport to cover for these days.

[unglaublich]

Actually, it is. It often doesn't rain for hours on end, so people work a bit longer or start a bit earlier to avoid the rain. Otherwise, there's umbrellas, ponchos and plain old acceptance of the fact that you will be a bit wet for an hour. My dad used to say when it was pouring: "You're not made out of sugar, are you?" And yes, public transport is busier on some days than on others, is that a problem? How is that any different from motorists on roads?

[jseban]

I highly doubt that, it speaks completely against my lifelong experience as a cyclists. The vast majority of all people are fair weathered cyclists and bike lanes are mostly empty half of the year.

You get cold, wet and uncomfortable, and have to be very flexible with time. Even if you can "deal with it", it's still very real negative aspects, and why would you put up with that if you don't have to?

My point is that you have to have full capacity public transport anyway so the bike lanes are really redundant, a "nicety" and as such I think they should have little space and low priority, it makes perfect sense.

Why don't we have skateboarding lanes? Running lanes? Horseback riding lanes? It's fun, it's healthy, it's good for the environment! Because it's impractical, slow and inefficient, just like cycling is.

[enriquto]

I think the worse is rain in hot summer. You'll end up soaked whether you cover or not. Winter rain is OK, you just need appropriate clothing. Source: I cycle during the whole year, and sub-zero temperatures are not a problem at all (for a couple of weeks at most in my latitude, but still), even if it rains.

[jseban]

I disagree, it's a very real annoying problem to dress your whole body in both warm and waterproof clothes, and even if you like it, most people don't. And it is objectively, relatively, much less convenient and much less comfortable than the alternatives of a bus/subway.

[enriquto]

> much less convenient and much less comfortable than the alternatives of a bus/subway

This is quite subjective... For one, I've commuted by bus+subway for most of my life, in three different European cities (Lisbon, Barcelona and Paris). Two years ago I had a sort of epiphany looking at the bike lane that followed the same path as my crowded bus. I bought a bike, in order to "try" the bike commute, and I've never looked back since. Even some days with hard weather, I prudently walk to the bus stop, and then say "no shit" and walk back home to pick my bike.

Thus I politely disagree with you that it is "much less convenient", at least for everybody.

[jseban]

A bike lane that's only used when the weather is nice, when you already have a subway? No _that_ is unnecessary luxury. Take the subway if you hate cars.

[unglaublich]

Why take the car if you already have a subway? What a strange statement.

> Take the subway if you hate cars.

Why do you think that preferring to ride a bike makes one hate cars?

You can be both a cyclists _and_ a motorist. It's not a competition or a cult!

[minusf]

> unnecessary luxury

as en expat living in amsterdam i couldnt disagree more. a city with a bike first infrastucture is incomparably safer, quieter and more pleasant for everyone in the city.

when it takes 15 minutes to get anywhere in the city using the bike infrastructure, one would be crazy to pull out the car and look 30 minutes for parking places that cost north of 7 euros an hour.

"people dont bike in bad weather and in winter" is nonsense garbage from people who dont live in biking places. if the infrastructure is there people will bike even in snow (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU).

> just take the bus if you don't want to drive

i dont depend on any public transport if i have my bike. it's the exact reason why people choose cars over public transport.

[convolvatron]

I live in a city center and used to walk/take public transport. which was fine.

biking is alot more convenient. I can only carry about what I would walking, but its not a big deal to go two miles to get something. and I feel much better for the exercise.

if zipcar hadn't been shut down after acquisition, I would still have the option to get something big from 20 miles away once or twice a year.

I don't know why you feel the need to assert that the last 100 years status quo is some statement of natural law...I've always hated getting trapped in those smelly little boxes and now I have a choice!

[jseban]

Not the car, take the bus. The reason cycling is unnecessary is that all use cases are already covered by public transport and/or driving. That's a fact. There's nothing that you specifically need to cycle for. That makes it unnecessary, that's just basic logic.

And most people do not cycle when the weather is bad, that's also just a fact, and I grew up in an extremely bike friendly city and rode my bike all winter in the snow, in bike lanes that were completely empty and I just saw a whole bunch of money down the drain, just to pretend to be environmentally friendly when in reality 95% of people hop on the bus as soon as the weather is even slightly bad.

[patall]

A lorry is also not strictly necessary if you have a Smart or a wheelbarrow. There is plenty of use cases that are only reasonable thanks to having a bike. I for example went to work by a combination of bike and public transport. Car alone would have been 1h, public transport and walking as well, but bike and public transport was 45 min. (Car and public transport did not work together for lack of parking) By your logic, the bike was unnecessary and that is true but beside the point for the sake of 2*15min a day.

Just because most people are doing something does not mean its sensible. Most people are also overweight, even though everyone knows that that is not healthy.

[jseban]

Yes there are cases when a bike will be faster, because your destination happens to be poorly covered by public transport, but on average it's not, and that's what's really important.

[tjr225]

Uh. I doubt cycling infrastructure is even a minute fraction of the cost we put into automobile infrastructure. I have no proof but lol let’s call it a hunch.

> Why should we cycle more? Only one reason is really valid: save the environment.

It’s better for the environment, it’s cheaper, it’s more efficient(more bikes can occupy less space and move more people), it’s fun, it’s good for your body, it’s safer(if we don’t have to share the road with cars- for instance if the infrastructure for bikes were to actually exist), bikes are easier to maintain, bikes can access a variety of terrain most cars can not. I could probably go on and on.

IMO the only reason bicycles are seen as an unnecessary luxury is cultural. We aren’t all Lycra clad snobs who ignore stop lights, but for some reason this perception persists.

[jseban]

No it's not. People don't like to be very uncomfortable and inconvenient. Cycling year around every day, is very uncomfortable and inconvenient for many many days, so why would you do that if you don't have to?

I can argue exactly the same way for why you should turn off the heat in your house the whole winter, it's great for the environment and you just have to "put on a coat".

[stefan_]

You seem to feel strongly about this topic. So strong you have now replied to the same comment twice. Time to take a break?

[jseban]

People also like to choose whatever they think is fun, if you want to play tennis instead of riding a bike, because you think that's more fun, you should be able to do so.

Your fun is at the expense of other people's mobility, why can't you just use some of the other million ways of getting exercise and having fun, where you don't have to be in other people's way?

[Fricken]

It's better to be a driver. It's no fun. You don't get any exercise. It drives up infrastructure costs, kills and maims people, destroys the planet, and takes up even more space on the roads.

[jseban]

So, just use the subway then and your problems are solved. In a much better way than cycling.

[AlotOfReading]

Bikes are often used in combination with subways. Bikes can also be used in cities that don't have subways and cycling infrastructure is far cheaper to build.

[jeromegv]

Bikes solve the problem of the last-mile. Subways are expensive to build and dig, bikes gets you much further and literally anywhere. Add a bike station at your subway station and you have both working together.

[tpm]

It's solved when you live very close to subway station and it goes everywhere you need. So not a lot of times in many cities.

[tjr225]

I had no fucking idea what you were talking about until I read your other comments about the bike lane in front of your home.

I can’t believe I have to explain this to you; just because your city did bike infrastructure wrong doesn’t mean it can’t be done the right way.

Honestly, such a weird set of comments, I can’t tell if your a troll or what but, best of luck to you!

[jseban]

I'm simply talking about cycling in a big city from a practical point of view, based on facts and my own experience, and pointing out the limitations. As opposed to using cycling as some kind of protest, and people get triggered when I'm challenging the latest virtue signalling trend.

[tjr225]

You are the one virtue signaling, my friend- and based on your own personal anecdotes- hardly what any reasonable person would refer to as “facts.”

[pvaldes]

> it’s safer

That depends. Not in a crash event. A bike can't match the safety measures that even the dumbest car has today. Hitting an obstacle in a car with seatbelts and airbags, or hitting it in a bike are totally different cases, even at a lower speed.

[jseban]

Yeah it's the least safe mode of transportation, driving, public transport and walking are all safer than cycling. "But it's the fault of the cars", no cyclists have tons of accidents by themselves and amongst each other, that walking and public transport completely avoids.

[analog31]

As a thought experiment, take any American city, remove the bikes, and see if the congestion goes away.

Now, remove the cars that are being used for unnecessary luxury, such as organizing your entire lifestyle and schedule around the availability of unlimited single-occupancy car use and generous parking.