Quieter too. When wandering Tokyo I started asking myself, why does it feel so quiet when there are so many people and so much advertising? Then you hit one of the roads with cars, and you realise just how much road noise impacts a space. It is obvious in theory but I bet most of us in car-centric cities have learned to live with it so much, that it doesn't cross our minds as the source of discomfort.
I go on long rides on my bicycle between San Jose and San Francisco listening to audiobooks for background entertainment. I could listen to these at the same volume I listen to at home while taking it easy, unless there is a motor vehicle passing by, then sometimes no volume is loud enough to make the audio intelligible until the vehicle has gone far enough away.
I for a long time was also wondering because so many of the streets look so much more charming. I only understood why once I read that there is almost no street parking in Japan. Once I knew that, it became obvious that that's at least part of the reason.
Depends on the quality of the infrastructure. I live in a metropolitan area with elevated metros, suburban and long distance trains, cargo trains, trams (streetcars in american), etc. and it vastly differs. Paris line 6 makes a lot of noise due to the rubber tires and frequent turns (it's a semicircle line), meanwhile modern trams and modernised suburban rail (RER A) are barely audible even next to the tracks, let alone in buildings nearby.
I lived next to a freight line, never again. The corner was in my backyard. My comment is mostly about daily life outside of the house, and in a city center. So those moments on foot when you're out of the car.
For life in the city, it's much more pleasant to be in a foot only or mixed traffic street, even with a train nearby. There's the inherent danger of fast cars operated by non-professionals that you perceive on foot as well as the noise, neither you really need to worry about for trains. In many cities trams can run through pedestrian areas with no barricades or grade separation because they are slower and predictable. You can run cars with no separation too if you slow them down enough, but more often they are set to incompatible speeds and as a pedestrian you have all the downsides of the cars as they pass through what should really be a pedestrian space in most city centers.
It's a different kind of sound. Tire noise is white noise (or at least, similar). My experience working in close proximity to a light rail line was 1) the train shakes the ground as it goes by, and 2) if you're near a corner, the squeaking is pretty loud. We have water sprayers in those areas to try and cut down on the howling, but it's not a panacea.
That's just bad design. There very quiet tram and railway designs available - they just cost a bit more money than the cheap 19th century designs that are still in place.
Where I live in Germany the passenger trains (not even the tracks) got upgraded a few years ago and all those click-clack and screeching sounds are gone. What is left is a wooshing sound of the wind being pushed aside and the not-so-loud grinding sound of the thingy (collector?) that hits the power cable.
And I've lived across from from an elevated transit line in an otherwise carless city center and it was quieter than any north american subwayless city I've lived in so this isn't even true lol.
Even in the middle of the country you can hear cars. I lived in the country and you could see the road about a mile away, and when I put my ear to the ground I could still hear the cars when one would pass by every once in a while
The urban core should be pedestrian only. Bicyclists can stop at the edge and lock the bike and then walk. Then outside the bike zone there could be a car zone as it gets more suburban.
It should do but I am worried it won't. Just look on social media when a cyclist posts something about dangerous driving and they are hit by a combination of:
* Indifference from the Police most of the time
* Extreme vitriol from motorists who seem to literally believe that all harm is caused by cyclists
* Illogical city planning where cyclists are constantly being moved from safe spaces directly into busy traffic.
We have a sick motor-centric society in the UK and along with the rest of climate problems that are ignored/underplayed, I don't know how long until we can say that we are a cycle-friendly country.
According to the article, the number of cyclists have not increased that much. (They mentioned it is at 102% of pre-pandemic levels.) What they are seeing is a decline in motor vehicles. The cyclists are simply an interesting way to benchmark that decline!
It is still good news. People need to find better modes of transportation for both the environment and for society. It is just that the title doesn't mean what it suggests.
Many people working remotely, or commonly three days a week in town (incidentally it’s a buyer’s market for office space now).
Train ridership is also down for similar reasons.
Whilst I'm overall in favour of promoting cycling as a way of getting around, in preference to motor vehicles, I'm not sure I entirely agree with "safer".
I live in Cambridge and have lost count of the number of times I've had to contend with cyclists blowing through pedestrian crossings on a red light (or zebra crossings at any time) when I'm trying to walk over them, or cycling the wrong way down a one-way street - or on the wrong side of the road - or had to dodge people cycling on the pavement.
When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists. Examples include: one leapt off of the pavement out of nowhere in front of me, one blew through a red light at traffic lights with a restricted view, and one was cycling the wrong way around a roundabout. The first two of these aren't one-off scenarios. Fortunately on all occasions I was paying attention so managed to take evasive action. Similar incidents have occurred when I've been on my motorcyle, most of which have been near misses, but on one especially ridiculous occasion a cyclist ran into the back of me at a set of traffic lights.
What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware). It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others (the same way drink-driving has become, not just legislated against, but enforced against and socially unacceptable). However, unfortunately, it's not at the moment so I'm not sure that safety - particularly for pedestrians or, indeed, cyclists - is a given.
Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety.
> What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware).
Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? But the major difference is that a car turns a dickhead into a mortal danger for other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike, while a bike doesn‘t.
I'd love to see fewer cars and more bicycles. That said, at least in the US and in SF in particular, I've encountered way more blatant violations off traffic laws by bicyclists. There were so many times I had to jump back from an intersection where I had a green light as a pedestrian because a bicyclist decided to race through at full speed. They probably thought it was safe, but I certainly felled endangered.
In the defense of bicyclists, I think a lot of this happens because the laws and roads aren't properly taking bicyclists into account. Stuff like bicycle lanes at the end of the block also becoming turn lanes for cars should just be unacceptable and provokes conflict between drivers and bicyclists.
We're all primed to see conflicts more frequently when we use a mode more frequently. A lot of folks who don't bike only really encounter cyclists when they're pedestrians walking around, and so feel this fear then. In the US cyclists break rules at roughly a similar [1] rate to drivers according to an FDOT study. FWIW cyclists interact with drivers much more frequently which is why so many cyclists feel animosity toward drivers.
Even before you get into discussions of selfishness/malice there are people who are just shitty at understanding how traffic works and how the different classes of traffic interact with each other. These people create problems wherever they go whether they go their on foot, two wheels or four.
In online discussions they're usually the ones screeching loudly about "rules" that get ignored contextually because they don't understand the context(s).
In theory I agree with you, but in practice the behavioural differences are noticeable, at least in Cambridge.
One example (admittedly anecdata from somebody who spends a lot of time on the road using different modes of transport, including foot): lots of cyclists blow through red lights, (relatively speaking) very few car drivers do so. Of course, the stakes of a car driver blowing through a red light are arguably higher, so it's still not great.
What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety. That's not what I see because of cultural issues (behaviour) surrouding cycling in this area. Possibly the accidents would be less severe, but there would still be plenty of accidents if everybody was cycling.
OTOH, and again it's small numbers/anecdata so take with a pinch of salt, but over 20 years in Cambridge I know more people who've been injured in cycling accidents that haven't involved motor vehicles, as those who've been injured in cycling accidents where motor vehicles have been involved. A couple of those people have blacked out even though wearing helmets because, e.g., their head hit the pavement. Causes of accidents are a bit of a mixed bag: road conditions aren't great around here (potholes, gravel on road, etc.)[0], one clipped by another cyclist on a cycle path (other cyclist didn't stop), etc.
I'm very pro-cycling but, as I say, from an empirical standpoint I'm not convinced it's necessarily that much safer. I'm sure there's data that, in some area or other, would prove me "wrong". But so much of it is down to cultural and behavioural issues, as well as cycling infrastructure and road quality, that I don't think it's valid to just forklift figures from one area and say, well, if everybody in Cambridge cycled we'd see X% fewer injuries from collisions on our roads. Unless other factors are taken into account it's very faulty reasoning.
[0] On the road conditions point, you're much more vulnerable on a bike than you would be in a car. If you're a driver and you hit a big pothole, you might damage your car, but you'll probably be OK. If you do the same on a bike you are much more likely to fall off and injure yourself.
> What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety.
The Netherlands has a massive cycling uptake and has some of the safest roads in Europe. What you say simply doesn’t hold water. Cyclists are simply not killing in the numbers that car drivers are.
For one, The Netherlands has great cycling infrastructure, at least places where I've been: Cambridge, UK doesn't.
Again, from what I've seen, cyclists in The Netherlands tend to behave quite a bit better than they do here in the UK (drivers too, for that matter).
Moreover, what condition is the infrastructure in? I don't know about The Netherlands but I can tell you that in Cambridge, UK, it's littered with potholes, and often to some extent multi-modal.
You can't just forklift an insight about cycling in The Netherlands and expect things to work the same somewhere else without making a whole load of stuff happen beyond just encouraging lots more people to cycle if you want to actually make it safer. In Cambridge, UK, we need both solid investment and cultural change (both cyclists and, yes, motorists too) for cycling to become a safer option.
Cyclists behaving better in the Netherlands than in Cambridge is likely true, but at the same time a statistical bias: In places with bad road conditions, only the die-hards cycle. Those tend to contain a larger share of assertive or aggressive cyclists. Bad road conditions also force cyclists into pedestrian spaces, onto pavements etc. I can observe that here in Berlin as well - places with good infrastructure see little to no conflict, but there are some spaces with frankly brain-dead planning where almost every cyclist cuts through the pedestrian space.
And that‘s where the Netherlands differ: Everyone cycles. You get a better cross-section of the population, kids, families. The infrastructure is much better, all around. It’s designed to reduce conflicts. And it‘s very likely that you‘d see similar effects in Cambridge as well. Build safe infrastructure and the normal people will show up.
That’s partially true but you said “cycling isn’t safer” when the available evidence is that it is. Even in the UK, you’re more likely to be killed on the pavement by a car than by a bike. Say what you like about numbers but cars aren’t supposed to be there. That fact alone should tell you something about the difference in danger.
I'm also in Cambridge. Many car drivers are also dickheads, at least they think that using the indicator is optional when leaving a roundabout. This mostly annoys me when I'm on foot and try to cross the street near a roundabout. I found traffic in Cambridge to be very hostile to pedestrians.
If you actually read what I said carefully you'll note that I said some portion of the population: a very general statement which is inclusive of both cyclists and motorists. I am an equal opportunities disparager.
People who dick around like that in a car find themselves in jail really quickly. People who do it on a bike wave self-righteously at the police while flagrantly violating the law, and get away with it.
Bollocks they do. People dick about in cars ALL the time. YouTube is full of people acting like knobheads in cars and getting away with it.
I know Cambridge really well and I know people that regularly race their cars on the A14 at night.
Do you really think all the people buying tuning kits are doing so because they like sticking to the speed limit?
When it comes to obeying traffic lights you won't be waiting long to see cars tailgating through amber. That happens every time.
Finally I'd point to the number of drivers still on the road with more than 12 points on their licence. They just plead extenuating circumstances in court and get away with it. They almost never find themselves in gaol. The real kicker is that those that do end up in prison on a Dangerous Driving charge never permanently loose their licenses.
That's because an accident and a traffic violation are different. Minor accidents are usually handled without police intervention, and this is by design.
See my other comment: he pulled out without looking because he was in the middle of cutting up other road users (me in this case). That’s driving without due care and attention which is a traffic violation in the U.K.
The police don’t care. What mechanism will put him in jail?
It is really tempting when on a bicycle to think of yourself as being able to pick and choose rules to follow, magically switching from “more like a car” to “more like a pedestrian” as needed.
The rule that I personally follow: always behave like a car (albeit one that rides far over to the side of the road most of the time), and if I really feel an overwhelming urge to act as a pedestrian, time to fully dismount and walk the bike for a bit.
> It is really tempting when on a bicycle to think of yourself as being able to pick and choose rules to follow, magically switching from “more like a car” to “more like a pedestrian” as needed.
As someone who walks a lot, I find this very frustrating, as a lot of cyclists think it's okay to ride on the sidewalk at road speeds. My ideal world would have the urban core be restricted to pedestrians only. Or at the very least speed restricted to 5 mph. Cyclists could stop, lock up the bike and walk. Or walk the bike.
Not sure where you are from — in the US at least, most urban cores already have a bunch of space wasted on roads. If we just cut those out and split the recovered space, it should be fine. Bikes only need a couple yards or meters of width devoted to them.
As this is a UK based article, I'm assuming you mean the Cambridge in England. I happen to live in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the while cyclists can be reckless, the drivers pose a 1000x greater threat to safety than cyclists.
As a tip for dealing with cyclists: continue your movement as a pedestrian: they'll go around you. Most pedestrians have headphones in/little awareness of their surroundings, and as a cyclist I always assume I'm invisible to them and to cars.
>As a tip for dealing with cyclists: continue your movement as a pedestrian: they'll go around you. Most pedestrians have headphones in/little awareness of their surroundings, and as a cyclist I always assume I'm invisible to them and to cars...
This! I used to do a 10 mile commute to work through several areas that were designated as shared cycle lane / footpath. Every trip was a slalom of avoiding pedestrians dawdling along on the cycle lane side of the divide. Always either with headphones on, or their phone clamped to the side of their head. Completely oblivious to the world arund them. So I'd have to swerve round them. And then hear the involuntary gasp of surprise behind me, as I zipped past.
But much worse were the ones who'd wake up enough to spot you at the last minute and then suddenly jump to the side --usually the side I was just about to swerve round them on.
Just keep on walking in your own oblivious bubble. I saw you about 1/2km ago and have already planned to my route round you!
You could just about rewrite this and substitute car for bike and bike for pedestrian, and have it still be true. It's like there is a hierarchy based on speed, and everyone thinks the level below them is a bunch of twats ruining their commute.
I was going to reply and say "You wouldn't see a cyclist riding down the road with headphones on, blissfully unaware of what's around them..." but then I thought back to my cycle commuting days and remembered a fair few examples of seeing just that. And anoher one in similar vein; the cyclist who swerves out into the road to avoid a puddle at the kerbside --without so much as a rearwards glance to see if any cars are coming up behind.
No. Pedestrians don't have a monopoly on obvlivion. But neither do cyclists. Some of the things I saw people doing behind the wheel of their cars or lorries, as I cycled past them would put you off going out on a bike for life.
Ultimately people just don’t want you to cycle. This is very much a cultural thing. Anyone cycling past age 15 or so is either poor or dangerously counter cultural. One of the most interesting things about the Netherlands is that is very little bike culture! You don’t see people signalling with messenger bags, cycling caps, bike brand stickers etc. because choosing to cycle is not unusual.
> continue your movement as a pedestrian: they'll go around you.
Please, please tell that to my local cyclists. Especially the commuters. The norm here is "ON YOUR LEFT!" about 1.5 seconds before blowing by at 25 mph with two feet of clearance.
How about when you're going to pass a pedestrian, you give them a lot of space and slow down to 5 mph.
I live in Newcastle and the VAST majority of dangerous road usage I see comes from drivers. Just yesterday I watched a driver pull out of a junction straight into a cyclist because he wanted to rush out instead of checking.
When cyclists kill or maim 5 people per day, I’ll be the first calling for regulation. Until that day comes, the focus needs to be on the most dangerous mode of transport: private cars.
I don't disbelieve you but I'll bet you any amount of money that the number of cyclists per capita is far higher in Cambridge than it is in Newcastle.
That disparity in itself will change the behaviour of motorists: I'm used to checking every single direction for cyclists before I make a move, even as a pedestrian, because there are just so many of them everywhere.
It's also why you see "Think Bike!" signs along routes popular with motorcyclists. Lots of places in the country there just aren't that many of us compared with car drivers, so people become unused to looking out for us, with sadly predictable consequences.
That's not to excuse drivers in Newcastle, by the way. It's just to point out that you probably see more drivers behaving badly compared with cyclists because of the differences [apologies, my bet on the differences] in the numbers (which I did do a search for but couldn't find anything useful or authoritative).
There are more bikes than cars in London and a peruse of Cycling Mikey’s Twitter and YouTube will disabuse you of the notion that this is a numbers thing. It’s a culture issue within the UK that makes sure good infrastructure isn’t provided and cyclist and pedestrian safety isn’t prioritised (either at the infrastructure or day to day driving level).
Half of road deaths worldwide are pedestrians. The number killed by cyclists is so small it is under the significant digits of the total.
Cyclists violating traffic rules is frequently cited in anti-cycling astroturf, of which you can find current examples and a deep archive at StreetsBlog.
This "Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety." just screams "I'm a dickhead driver likely to hurt someone and I want a defense."
> This "Overall it constantly shocks me how little responsibility cyclists take for their own safety." just screams "I'm a dickhead driver likely to hurt someone and I want a defense."
You didn't twig with "When driving I've nearly hit several cyclists"
I can stand at my local crossing on Old Kent Road and there'll be non-zero cars jumping the red light (often accelerating from a good ways back) or entering the junction without a safe exit blocking the crossing, a bus lane, and another junction (in peak time this will often get into double figures). Multiply that by all the crossings and you'll absolutely dwarf the amount of cyclists doing similar (and in my 20+yrs experience as a pedestrian + cyclist in London, it's not nearly as bad as motor vehicles.)
> It needs to become socially unacceptable to cycle without due care and attention to the safety of others
Let's start with the heavy motor vehicles first, eh.
Also, once police are no longer occupied ticketing motorists, I hope cyclists are prepared for actually being held accountable to laws. The police budget isn't going to refill itself.
Or maybe we prioritise the class of vehicles responsible for almost 5 fatalities and 75 serious injuries a day[1]?
For comparison, [2] says that 30 pedestrians were killed and 1093 serious injuries involved cyclists in eight (8) years. In 416 weeks, that's less than one (1) week of car deaths (0.2% ratio) and two (2) weeks of serious injuries (0.4% ratio).
Anyone that says "we should prioritise X and 416*X the same" is either not arguing in good faith or should be nowhere near decision making.
Your attempt to classify my post as whataboutism is in incredibly poor faith.
I'm very pro-cycling, but it would be foolish to ignore the very real and observable safety concerns that occur because of factors such as poor behaviour (and also, although I didn't mention them originally, issues like infrastructure and quality of road surfaces).
You cannot simply assume that within a particular context or location that more peope cycling equates to greater safety. There are too many other factors at play, and those need to be addressed in order to ensure that cycling is a safer option for everybody.
> I'm very pro-cycling, but it would be foolish to ignore the very real and observable safety concerns that occur because of factors such as poor behaviour
You'll no doubt be able to point to the statistics that back up these very real safety concerns.
You could start with the number of KSI caused by cyclists compared with motor vehicles