[noobker]

> The funny thing though is that, in most urban settings, this is completely untrue. Cyclists actually speed things up by creating less traffic.

Citation please.

> Every cyclist on the road means less cars on the road.

While that part is certainly more true than not, the implications of fewer cars but several bottlenecks added to the traffic system is far from certain and likely relies on so many other factors than just the number of bikes on the road.

[kiliantics]

This kind of information is easy to google and also easy to prove to yourself by just making an honest attempt to get places by bicycle. But here is one example of a study:

https://www.fastcompany.com/1707222/bike-computer-study-prov...

I am not a traffic engineer but I think if you know a few simple numbers like average travel distance, average car size, bike size, etc. you can see how it will be difficult to design any system where cars will beat bicycles. The only conceivable way for this to work is to space everything 20 miles apart with 8 lane highways connecting them and even then you still have last mile problems in such a system that necessarily slows things down. Even the freeways themselves can be bumper to bumper at rush hour, just look at the Katy Freeway in Houston.

Basically, there are already bottlenecks in car traffic systems and there is no way to avoid them because of induced demand. Adding cycling infrastructure will not hurt drivers but would help get more people on bikes.

[pastage]

Not a citation but most intersections are literal chokepoints for traffic. The throughput of those decide the speed of traffic. You can lookup "Cities in Motion fix traffic" on Youtube if ypu want proof. So when you except that throughput is speed, you understand why every car comercial is shot at 3am traffic.