Bicycling is not a hobby for me. It's a mode of transportation, after having tried cars for a decade and not being able to handle them. Bicycles are manageable. They are portable even in the other main mode of transportation I use, namely trains.
Inside a small apartment, a good way to store a bicycle is on the ceiling.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he6Qyavic7k[/video]
Unfortunately, the walls of my apartment are more sand than cement. so I cannot fix anything on the walls, much less into the ceiling. Luckily I have a tiny cellar space that is just big enough for two bicycles side by side, but then nothing else fits in the space.
Oddly enough, I only have a barely functioning bike at the moment. I was forced to park it outside at my last place and some asshole(s) managed to take it from a fun repair project into better to just get a new one territory. I'm not sure if they pushed it while its front wheel was in the rack or if they drove a car over or at it but having to bend your bike mostly straight while you're in a hurry is way less fun still than having a flat (because that's an easy fix).
Public transit + walking is mostly time competitive and I believe that walking is better for the body than cycling because it subtly works just about all muscles in your body rather than primarily your legs. Still, the very idea of not having a proper bicycle at my disposal is absurd and on a day like today (public transit strike) borderline indispensable. A car would be utterly useless. Any place that's within about 40 minutes walking distance can be reached faster by not using a car. Plus a car is extremely unhealthy. You're forced to sit still, you're forced to breathe fine particles and other junk, plus you're getting stressed from traffic. It's hard to think of a worse way to get around than by car.
I'm considering to get some kind of mountainbike instead of a citybike because of the lovely cobblestones all over the city. I can handle them just fine by standing up (as opposed to using the seat) but my bike literally falls apart under me, even without any asshole vandals helping the cause.
When spring arrives everybody wants to ride a bicycle. :)
A bicycle is, in first place, a spiritual attitude.
Electric bicycles are the future for city transportation. Much, much faster than regular bicycles unless you are Lance Armstrong.
Spring is the worst time to ride a bike. Insects galore.
Electric bikes apparently only supply augmented power up to 25 km/h, so just when you're starting to get going they cut off, meaning you've just got more weight to lug around. I guess they're better if you're out of shape or something. Someone like Lance Armstrong averages at over 40 km/h.
Any place that's within about 40 minutes walking distance can be reached faster by not using a car. Plus a car is extremely unhealthy. You're forced to sit still, you're forced to breathe fine particles and other junk, plus you're getting stressed from traffic. It's hard to think of a worse way to get around than by car.
All true. And I knew it before I began using cars. However, I had to go through the experiment with cars for various family reasons. And my father, a professional truck driver, never had a single accident throughout his life, so I was interested in seeing if this could be the single thing I possibly inherited from him. It turned out that no, I have inherited absolutely nothing from him.
I'm considering to get some kind of mountainbike instead of a citybike because of the lovely cobblestones all over the city.
I can warmly recommend the hybrid type of bicycles instead. More often people need to ride on asphalt for tens of kilometres than in an outright forest. A hybrid bicycle does both highway and forest reasonably well, even a pure citybike does both types of terrain reasonably well, but a mountainbike is a total waste of nerves on a smooth highway.
The thing pictured in the first video is a hybrid bicycle.
I can warmly recommend the hybrid type of bicycles instead. More often people need to ride on asphalt for tens of kilometres than in an outright forest. A hybrid bicycle does both highway and forest reasonably well, even a pure citybike does both types of terrain reasonably well, but a mountainbike is a total waste of nerves on a smooth highway.
Mountainbikes are also somewhat annoying because of the lack of chainguards. By "hybrid," do you mean the kind advertised as trekking or something else still? I suppose I meant something like that rather than an actual mountainbike, seeing how those overly wide wheels would only give you more rolling resistance in probably all normal scenarios.
As marketed here, a hybrid bicycle is something between a mountainbike and citybike. Perhaps simplest described as a citybike with shock absorbers.
Ah, Wikipedia seems to recognise the term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_bicycle
My bicycle is Merida Crossway, the most popular bicycle in Estonia. It has been working for me for ten years now. Prior to this I had a Soviet citybike.
Perhaps simplest described as a citybike with shock absorbers.
Sounds exactly like what I need. :) However, it looks like it's mostly the forefork that has the desired effect while it seems to me it's the back of my bike that can't stand the shocks.
Also from that page:
A trekking bike is a hybrid with all the accessories necessary for bicycle touring – mudguards, pannier rack, lights etc.
I guess I should just go by the bike shop at the other end of the street some time.
Edit: reading on
Using a sturdy welded chromoly or aluminum frame derived from the mountain bike, the city bike is more capable at handling urban hazards such as deep potholes, drainage grates, and jumps off city curbs.
Boy, American roads must be awful. Deep potholes? What do they think a city is, a warzone? :P
Mudguards, pannier rack, lights etc. are called accessories. It's standard practice here, most likely there too, to change and add some stuff upon purchasing the bicycle. For example, I changed the sporty metallic pedals for city-like rubber pedals, because the sharp teeth on the sporty metallic pedals destroy the soles of ordinary footwear. You cannot pedal properly barefoot on metallic pedals. Then I added mudguards, rack, lights, bell, lock, and helmet, where each thing cost extra.
Mudguards, pannier rack, lights etc. are called accessories. It's standard practice here, most likely there too, to change and add some stuff upon purchasing the bicycle.
Maybe for hybrid bikes, but for a standard citybike I really wouldn't consider that an accessory. An accessory is something like the little computer that can tell you your speed that you always leave at home anyway because otherwise it'd get stolen off your bike. You quickly forget where you even put it. But a bike without lights — that's practically the same as a bike without brakes. A bike without that stuff is roughly the practical equivalent of a two-seater sports car.
But a bike without lights -- that's practically the same as a bike without brakes.
Why? Where I live, it hardly gets dark during the bicycling season, day or night. Maybe you need lights to signal your presence to cars and people around the street corner? I use the bell for that, and my squeaking saddle also does a good job lately.
Instead of actual lights, I have the following thing on my bicycle.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fg01.a.alicdn.com%2Fkf%2FUT8_s9DXbXbXXagOFbX8%2F204938671%2FUT8_s9DXbXbXXagOFbX8.jpg&hash=26082063cb51c1adf50770f82e64241a" rel="cached" data-hash="26082063cb51c1adf50770f82e64241a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://g01.a.alicdn.com/kf/UT8_s9DXbXbXXagOFbX8/204938671/UT8_s9DXbXbXXagOFbX8.jpg)
This is to hold my flashlight, when I need an actual light on my bicycle, but this rarely happens.
Edit: PS. According to traffic code, reflectors are mandatory. Lights are not. I have reflectors as required. Reflectors are routinely added to bicycles upon purchasing, without extra cost, so I forgot to mention them earlier.
Electric bikes apparently only supply augmented power up to 25 km/h, so just when you're starting to get going they cut off, meaning you've just got more weight to lug around.[1] (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2373.msg61923#fn1_0) I guess they're better if you're out of shape or something.[2] (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2373.msg61923#fn2_0) Someone like Lance Armstrong averages at over 40 km/h.
Nope. You go at 25 all the time, that's what makes the difference in terms of average speed.
Of course you live at a billiard table so you don't have such problem, I would like to see you going up to the Castle at 25 just with your legs. :)
So called Dutch Bikes are seen nowhere else in the world, a 30 kg plus trash thing made for 2 meters tall Dutch girls to ride at flat terrain. Forget it if you need/want a decent bike.
Do you have Decathlon at your city? they have the best price/quality ratio at a very complete range of bikes.
So called Dutch Bikes are seen nowhere else in the world, 30 kg plus trash made for 2 meters tall Dutch girls to ride at flat terrain. Forget it if you need/want a decent bike.
What is a decent bike? (apart from something with an electric engine)
It so happens that Estonia is also a flatland, particularly the part where I live. But it's also densely forested, at least used to be, so at times I have to lift my bicycle over fallen trees when I take the forest path. My current bicycle is just right for anywhere I choose to go, even though the roads here, particularly in the cities, are specifically designed to disallow bicycling.
Nope. You go at 25 all the time, that's what makes the difference in terms of average speed.
Of course you live at a billiard table so you don't have such problem, I would like to see you going up to the Castle at 25 just with your legs. :)
Fair enough.
So called Dutch Bikes are seen nowhere else in the world, a 30 kg plus trash thing made for 2 meters tall Dutch girls to ride at flat terrain. Forget it if you need/want a decent bike.
So basically your definition of a "Dutch bike" is one that was first manufactured over a century ago? :) And you can get bikes in all sizes last time I checked. Incidentally, 1911 style Dutch bikes are immensely popular all over the world for some reason, from Indonesia to the Americas. Also, they're apparently actually an 1890s English design (http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/dutchbike/). In any case, a bike without at least a modicum of gears is significantly less useful. When I spoke of attaining 50+ km/h I meant on the fifth and highest gear on a regular citybike; on the 1890s single-gear design that'd never be possible. Similarly, a one-gear bike is impossible to use against strong headwinds — quite a frequent occasion where I grew up.
Do you have Decathlon at your city? they have the best price/quality ratio at a very complete range of bikes.
I imagine so, because among the pile of ads there was one of theirs today. I'm more concerned about matters like location and service though. A quick check suggests they're off in the north somewhere, so utterly impractical.
Why? Where I live, it hardly gets dark during the bicycling season, day or night.
I forgot about the fact that there's barely any night up north. Here it does get dark and there isn't such a thing as bicycling season. But it's true that you're significantly less likely to have to use your lights between April/May and August/September.
Edit: PS. According to traffic code, reflectors are mandatory. I have reflectors as required.
Here lights are mandatory after sunset.
What is a decent bike? (apart from something with an electric engine)
Basically, an instrument of freedom.
You can make around 100km per day if you start riding early in the day. It means you make 700km in a week without anyone even knowing in what direction are you moving. :)
Don't forget to throw yor cellphone away inside some truck going to Germany. Then, ride the oposite direction.
I'd say that a mountain bike frame (not full supension), narrow tires, 9-speed, v-brakes and equipped with a rack and bags it's a very decent machine. That's what I use.
I forgot about the fact that there's barely any night up north. Here it does get dark and there isn't such a thing as bicycling season. But it's true that you're significantly less likely to have to use your lights between April/May and August/September.
You don't have a bicycle season because you don't have proper winter. I don't even try to bicycle in snowdrifts. That's where a mountainbike with chained tires would perhaps work, but such a thing will never be in my plans, because in blizzard it's hard to even walk.
This year I began bicycling in the beginning of March, extraordinarily early. Somewhere along the way we had one more surprising week with subzero temperatures, two snowy days and other irregular weather. To be honest, I had been using an ordinary bicycle light all these years (along with the mandatory reflectors), but in those conditions I decided to upgrade the light significantly, so I bought an overkill tactical flashlight whose strongest mode is as good as a car's headlight. After using it on two occasions I haven't needed it for a month now.
Here lights are mandatory after sunset.
Here cars must have headlights turned on when on the move, anytime all the time. Never bicycles. I must confess I haven't taken a look at our traffic code for about ten years. There was some new traffic law meanwhile, but had this detail been changed, traffic police would have charged me. I see them all the time and that's what they do for living.
I'd say that a mountain bike frame (not full supension), narrow tires, 9-speed, v-brakes and equipped with a rack and bags it's a very decent machine. That's what I use.
Why bags? Because you live on the road? I overnight in the forest sometimes when I feel like it, but always close enough to home, because part of the idea is to have no heavy equipment with me. Just to sleep off some frustrations on plain ground while letting nobody notice that I was away.
You don't have a bicycle season because you don't have proper winter. I don't even try to bicycle in snowdrifts. That's where a mountainbike with chained tires would perhaps work, but such a thing will never be in my plans, because in blizzard it's hard to even walk.
Sure, relatively speaking we don't get that much snow. But for what we do get, the cycling paths are usually salted and plowed just like the roads. And when an excess of snowfall makes it impossible to cycle, typically it almost equally affects other modes of transportation.
I think the most dangerous kind of winter weather (i.e. going a little above freezing during the day and below freezing at night) is something we might even have more of. Simple subzero weather doesn't result in ice forming on the roads, excluding for a second the scenario where it's so cold (-20° or so) that the exhaust from cars can form ice.
Why bags? Because you live on the road?
Bags are for things like grocery shopping. I don't use 'em, but they have definite utility.
Bags are for things like grocery shopping. I don't use 'em, but they have definite utility.
Front basket is for shopping. It of course has the relevant utility, when you go shopping with your bicycle. I try to manage without that basket, because it's girly.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicbikes.com%2Fprodimages%2F800%2F18893_10.jpg&hash=067cd50b88237faab8a831f4d35a6081" rel="cached" data-hash="067cd50b88237faab8a831f4d35a6081" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://publicbikes.com/prodimages/800/18893_10.jpg)
Bags can do the same trick, but are generally for much bigger and whole different purposes than shopping.
Come on, a couple of broccolis and some mushrooms and that basket is full. :P
Why bags?
Do you live in this world? where do you put the money from the bank you've just robbed? :)
I overnight in the forest sometimes when I feel like it, but always close enough to home, because part of the idea is to have no heavy equipment with me. Just to sleep off some frustrations on plain ground while letting nobody notice that I was away.
The idea is to survive, no matter close from home or away from civilization.
Do you live in this world? where do you put the money from the bank you've just robbed?
I live in the kind of world where banks do the robbing.
:lol:
Indeed.
More bicycles than cars in central Copenhagen http://politiken.dk/indland/kobenhavn/ECE3452090/det-cykler-for-koebenhavn/
Currently I am seriously considering putting budded tires on my bicycle to race through the winter on it.
Winter is no easy thing for bicycle riders. You'll need a lot of stamina for conquest the adverse conditions. Everyday morning.
Impossible for Southerners like me, we're just too lazy, but who knows... maybe you can do it. Go for it, Estonian. :)
No space for bicycles in this town, but I will be brave.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ff.pmo.ee%2Ff%2F2016%2F11%2F08%2F6048867t100h9e88.jpg&hash=e2aea95bfbd4ea063f535108642b07da" rel="cached" data-hash="e2aea95bfbd4ea063f535108642b07da" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://f.pmo.ee/f/2016/11/08/6048867t100h9e88.jpg)
No space for bicycles in this town, but I will be brave
I'm certain you'll be.
Forget those highways, the natural place for bicycles are secondary roads. Physical and mental liberty.
Silence while moving, moving "at the speed of silence".
Bicycling in Stockholm right now.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsverigesradio.se%2Fsida%2Fimages%2F103%2F2e4a08d2-5941-4e0a-8304-b7b9c8dc03b3.jpg&hash=724a46999a5bc17929a813e0862ff814" rel="cached" data-hash="724a46999a5bc17929a813e0862ff814" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://sverigesradio.se/sida/images/103/2e4a08d2-5941-4e0a-8304-b7b9c8dc03b3.jpg)
Better to wait for spring.
My current bicycle is 15 years old. I don't mind doing repairs and buying accessories to it, but looks like with my neglect of updating the V-brakes the wheel rims (the part on the wheels that V-brakes contact when braking) have become seriously damaged. These wheels possibly won't survive next winter.
I guess I should buy a whole new bicycle with disk brakes. It does not make sense to replace V-brakes on my current bicycle with disk brakes. And when you need to replace the wheels, better replace the whole bicycle.
I'd say 15 years is a respectable age for a vehicle.
My uncle rides a bicycle that is certainly fifty years old. Actually, it is such a ship of Theseus by now that only the frame and the front fork are original, while everything around, such as the ball rings in the pedalling mechanism, chain, wheels, saddle, etc. have been replaced a few times over, by himself. Then again, he is a repairsman and mechanic, and he is willing to scavenge junkyards for free parts, so it is his natural behaviour, while I am a calcified office rat.
And thinking about disk brakes a bit more: They get disfigured easily when you fall on the bicycle, expensive to replace and very difficult to repair. And I certainly plan to fall several times when it's snowy winter. Perhaps I should just take a better care of V-brakes.
only the frame and the front fork are original
Exactly. ;)
But my newish bicycle from last year is lighter, has better gears, better light, better brakes, better everything than the one I bought used in '04 for not all that much less (especially when adjusted for inflation). And in any case it paid for itself within half a year.
But my newish bicycle from last year is lighter, has better gears, better light, better brakes, better everything...
I was looking at some full-beefed bicycles, e.g. this one (https://www.scott-sports.com/global/en/product/scott-sub-sport-20-men-bike).
(https://www.thebikelist.co.uk/images/models/Scott/2015/sub-sport-20-men/Main.jpg)
Nicely equipped, but I would certainly replace at least the light. I use my own flashlight that beats all other lights out of water in terms of strength (lumens), width of cone, and weatherproofness.
And I have learned to pay attention to
- Pedals: If they are of metal and sharp, better replace them with something rubbery or plastic in order to spare your footwear (and feet, if you are on bicycle barefooted)
- Handlebars: If you have longer highway rides, it is good to be able to have a lower grip; the best handlebar seems to be of the cross/racing type, which is not available on city/hybrid bicycles and must therefore be obtained separately
(https://www.cxmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/sea-otter-2018-easton-gravel-rings-IMG_4551-cxmagazine-ay.jpg)
And in any case it paid for itself within half a year.
How does a bicycle pay for itself? Are public transport tickets so expensive over there? Over here, new bicycles are expensive. Things I would like start at above 400 e, the one pictured above is over 800 e. My current bicycle, Merida Crossway 8300, was less than 400 e and it has a saddlepost shock absorber which the pictured bicycle does not have.
How does a bicycle pay for itself? Are public transport tickets so expensive over there?
Here in Belgium public transit is still reasonably attractive, though they've been working on some pretty big price increases with the excuse that it's still cheaper than in neighboring countries.
There's a tax free cycling compensation of up to 0.23 cents per kilometer. It's up to the employer whether they want to give it to their employees. For me that averaged at about a 100 to 120 per month.
How does a bicycle pay for itself? Are public transport tickets so expensive over there? Over here, new bicycles are expensive. Things I would like start at above 400 e, the one pictured above is over 800 e. My current bicycle, Merida Crossway 8300, was less than 400 e and it has a saddlepost shock absorber which the pictured bicycle does not have.
A bicycle like the Scott pictured above has to live for 10 years or plus with just minor maintenance. That makes 80 euros per year, less than 8 per month to take you anywhere with no gasoline, no transit.
And don't you forget the most important factor you can't price - the pure JOY of riding it. :)
There's a tax free cycling compensation of up to 0.23 cents per kilometer. It's up to the employer...
Oh, so I choose a bicycle and my employer pays for it. Great :idea: Let's try!
A bicycle like the Scott pictured above has to live for 10 years or plus with just minor maintenance. That makes 80 euros per year, less than 8 per month to take you anywhere with no gasoline, no transit.
But for that price (800 e) some people buy cars. At least I could get a brand new quadbike for it.
That makes 80 euros per year, less than 8 per month to take you anywhere with no gasoline, no transit.
True, but then it'd still take some two or three years to pay for itself compared to public transit and up to a year compared to a car. I was talking more literally. :)
Not that an extra 100 a month would be enough to motivate me to cycle some 22 km daily. I would've gone for the bike regardless, and the fact that it paid for itself in about 4-5 months was a nice bonus.
But for that price (800 e) some people buy cars. At least I could get a brand new quadbike for it.
I'd much rather cycle for 40 minutes than be stuck in a car for 30, maybe even up to 40 too. Sure, it'd only be 15 minutes outside of rush hour but that's hardly a relevant metric.
Besides which, just car insurance alone easily costs you over 600 per year and then we haven't even talked about maintenance, gasoline, health, and the fact that driving (during rush hour) just feels like even more work as opposed to being relaxing in any way. It easily takes over 20 minutes to creep up to the tunnel while you nevertheless have to keep paying attention to traffic… no thanks. On the tram you can usually read a book or if desired just zone out, and while cycling you can relax and/or have some fun.
I pay a base price of € 3 / month for the privilege of having a car at my disposal, and I figure about € 20 / month on average for actual car use. That's because I use it about once a month for bigger purchases and a few times a year for medium distance recreational use. If this were the '80s chances are I'd have had a cheap car of some sort for the convenience of it, but as far as that goes it's nice to live in the 2000s.
Electric bicycles are the future for city transportation.
I guess they're better if you're out of shape or something
Electric *kick*bikes seems to be the trend, institutionally supported no less, while electric bicycles are indeed a luxury item for the extra lazies. I hate them both. Bone-and-muscle driven bicycle is the right way, properly environmentally friendly and healthy and all that.
Spanish cities grapple with invasion of electric scooters (https://www.thelocal.es/20181005/spanish-cities-grapple-with-invasion-of-electric-scooters). Waverboards are of course the worst of them all.
Last year I was already surprised at how many of those "electric scooters" I was seeing.
Nice topic you dug up. I'd been thinking about buying a new bike for a few years before I did, but I forgot I'd written down some thoughts in progress. :)
Bone-and-muscle driven bicycle is the right way, properly environmentally friendly and healthy and all that.
I can see one of those "speed pedelecs" being attractive for larger distances though. Since they go up to 45 if I'm not mistaken, it's basically like a medium speed scooter. I'm not sure how much you gain from the leg movement but I figure it's got to be better than holding them still.
I can see one of those "speed pedelecs" being attractive for larger distances though.
I see more attraction in a quadbike or a motoroller for larger distances. Or why not a motorbike or a car. But to make those things electric-driven? Batteries are still an ineffective technology and a hugely wasteful industry. I don't know why it is not evolving despite the billions put into it.
My distances to work and back are fairly large, so I cover them with train+bicycle. Luckily all I need in life is along the railway. The bicycle saves me from having to buy the city public transportation tickets, but I need to have the train tickets. I am somewhat of a celebrity passenger on the trains, as I have been riding trains almost daily since the 80s, but they have not given me the free VIP pass yet.
I see more attraction in a quadbike or a motoroller for larger distances. Or why not a motorbike or a car.
By "larger" I still mean less than 20 km, maybe up to 25-30 km. Time-wise you should about equal out with a car by that point; the question is if it's nicer. And we should also consider that it's more environmentally friendly and still a lot cheaper.
A motorbike requires a different license. You can't just do it tomorrow. Some loonies go at what seems like quite high speeds through traffic jams but that just seems wildly unsafe. On a motorcycle you have to take car routes. But sure, for the 20-60 km range a motorcycle is probably a great choice.
Also you can't run engines through the pedestrian tunnel, the most effective route for many things. Of course local conditions down to the neighborhood and where you work make certain modes of transport more or less attractive.
Not unimportant, in the case of a "speed pedelec" you've got those 23 cents per kilometer going; you won't get that with a means of transport that isn't classified as a bicycle. So if you have to travel 20 km to get to work, you can effectively choose between 200 extra per month or a moped/motoroller/whatever it's called. Unless you have a very strong preference for mopeds, speed pedelec it is. And in any case I strongly suspect the leg movement to be nicer than just sitting still, even if it seems a bit silly. Some of my colleagues were very enthusiastic about their electric bicycles (not speed pedelecs).
A motorbike requires a different license. You can't just do it tomorrow.
My sister did all the driver's licence categories at once, from A to E or whatever it is. Doing just B and then maybe some day considering also A is for weaklings.
This video answers the question: Why are Canadians such wimps when it comes to winter bicycling?
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU[/video]
That channel is excellent at explaining why most deviations from standard post-'70s Dutch infrastructure practices are basically just bad. It's great to see him using Finland as an example too.
Incidentally, this Twitter conversation seems related.
I couldn't tell you. I only know "too snowy" and "too slippery." The coldest I've experienced was something like -11° C to -13° C plus strong wind chill (i.e., a feeling temp of around -20° C). It's possible that you might need to wear a balaclava if it's colder.
With regard to proper bicycle lane maintenance in winter, Antwerp's been doing reasonably well.
Those pictures from Canada are mind boggling.
Edit: The snow & ice plan https://www.antwerpen.be/info/5360b538aaa8a74b328b4660/sneeuw-en-ijzelplan
Look for the PDF documents entitled "Sneeuw- en ijzelbestrijding fietspaden CODE […]" to see which cycling paths are cleared.
With code yellow the cycling paths aren't plowed or brined. In Finnish terms that's similar to the <2 cm definition.
This is done with 12 plows dedicated to the cycling paths. I doubt they could do it every few hours like in Finland, but once or twice a day is usually sufficient except in extreme (for here) circumstances.
Edit 2:
This video is also important background information. It unfortunately applies much less to Antwerp/Belgium (i.e., Antwerp is kinda like the Netherlands in the '70s or '80s; they only really started making an effort the past decade).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1l75QqRR48
Way too extreme. Simple studded tires are good enough for any ice.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_bwKW6V1lw[/video]
Cyclists love trains (https://ecf.com/system/files/Cyclists_love_trains_report_0.pdf) or do they?
According to the study, Estonia's passenger rail is in the tail portion among the 69 European train operators that were evaluated. Estonia's passenger rail operator scored max in the category of bicycle ticket (free!), but not much in any other category.
News: In a week, they will put a ticket on bicycles in trains (https://elron.ee/elronist/uudised/rattapilet-euroopas-tavapraktika), in order to surely score at the absolute bottom.
I've never taken my bike on the train myself but I do know someone who swore by it. I suppose it depends a bit on where you're going. It seems somewhat surprising to see NMBS ranking higher than NS, but as I understand NMBS has started offering more dedicated space and that's a big contributor. I suppose the NS is focused more on not transporting you with your bike and rather having you rent a bike at the station. A quick peek on their website (https://www.ns.nl/deur-tot-deur/ov-fiets/huurlocaties/) shows that they seem to have some available even at most small stations.
I have been on rails almost daily ever since I was about eight years old, and on rails almost daily with a bicycle nearly entire this century/millennium. This behaviour was broken by the arrival of the Era of the Covid and likely won't resume as long as I am able to hold on to remote working.
I work at the office 2 days a week now, probably back up to 3 in the reasonably near future.
This video details probably the main reason we don't live in America. Far from the only reason, but as you might know my wife's American.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxykI30fS54
This video details probably the main reason we don't live in America.
Because of a bad experience on a 800 m walk in Houston?
Even before I had visited USA, I had heard about lack of sidewalks there. Of course the true significance of this hit me on my first actual visit.
In USA there are some accidentally walkable little towns, for example Pitman, NJ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVeSiWTU74s). Granted, if you want to live in such a nice town, you also have to find a train line away from there to a nearby big city where all the livelihood is, shops and schools and jobs etc.
Even some big cities are eminently walkable, such as NYC, particularly now after the redesign of Times Square.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Flandezine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2FTimes-Square-redesign-snohetta-08-300x300.jpg&hash=75ab0cf890109d1af934ed3776b14c65" rel="cached" data-hash="75ab0cf890109d1af934ed3776b14c65" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://landezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Times-Square-redesign-snohetta-08-300x300.jpg)
But NYC is unpleasant in many other ways - overcrowded and expensive, with poverty and luxury side by side in plain sight at every step. Yup, those are negatives, not positives. Moreover, car-centricity in USA has set a bad example that the entire Latin America is eager to emulate, so there is no attractive place to move to there either.
Because of a bad experience on a 800 m walk in Houston?
Houston might be exceptionally bad and I've never been there, but that's basically just how all of America is. For example, in Arlington Heights (Chicagoland) the nearest grocery store wasn't very far, just a kilometer or so, but there didn't realistically seem to be a way to cross the 6 lane stroad. They did seem to have sidewalks everywhere (?) though. The car-centric design felt incredibly oppressive, unpleasant and restricting your liberty in a way even the worst places here in Belgium just don't.
Not to mention the place visually feels like a communist unity sausage dystopia.
Moreover, car-centricity in USA has set a bad example that the entire Latin America is eager to emulate, so there is no attractive place to move to there either.
I understand China's also emulating the bad example.
Due to my experience with people in the area of city planning I have concluded that tolerable cities are roughly 50/50 the result of urban planning and also of non-planning. Often enough a city or neighbourhood remains tolerable when it escapes the visions of urban planners and becomes tolerable when it is left behind in development.
For example in Tallinn the iron goal of the mairie is arrested development. The priorities are:
- service and cargo traffic (e.g. trucks/vans that provide for shops etc., ambulance and fire trucks, road construction and repair machinery,...)
- public transit (the heaviest mass of it being buses)
- pedestrians
(probably in this exact order)
It does not mean that bicyclists are not considered at all. It means that solutions for bicyclists are considered only after the priorities have been fully considered first. As a result, the solutions for bicyclists are half-assed, untested, only intermittently workable. When pressed, the official answer is always, "It's a temporary solution considering the current resources available."
The mairie may print publications and statements called "long-term plan" and "vision" with pretty pictures, but the reality is determined by the yearly budget of the road and transportation department and the particular priorities of the department (as listed). The envisioned kilometrage for bicycle traffic is most handily achieved by paving bicycle roads in parks just outside the city, i.e. by leading bicyclists away to nowhere, rather than enabling them to move in the centre.
Therefore towns that do not have a layer of bureaucrats with any sort of priorities or a budget to enforce priorities have occasionally a better chance to remain relatively car-free in the centre. There may be a few enlightened urban planners in the country, but none of them has swayed the road and transport department of their city. Yet we definitely have plenty of unenlightened urban planners who have managed to screw up formerly decent neighbourhoods.
And also, apart from urban planning (or non-planning), restrictions on car ownership can make a difference. In the 70's and 80's, Estonia was the most car-infested corner of USSR, but that was nothing compared to now, when anybody can own any number of cars, anybody can liberally drive anybody else's car (if the car is not reported as stolen, then no problem), anybody can squeeze out any speed they like (the police can stop and fine you, but not confiscate the car - funny that at the same time wrong parking is punished much harsher), etc. Back in good old days it was easily and safely possible to walk and bicycle on roads, even though the roads were ostensibly designed for cars. The cars were simply not there in too significant numbers because a car cost about a decade's salary and often enough you had to wait in car-purchase queue for a decade (to get your licence to purchase a car), you could buy just one (new) car a lifetime, and for serious infractions such as multiple speeding the car was confiscated.
Just prior to my first visit to USA I looked at the map and thought, "Only a few kilometres from the airport to the bus stop. I can walk." Then I landed and the road from the airport to the bus stop looked like this https://tinyurl.com/8a6bsjm7 (Google Maps). This is truly unwalkable and there's no way around it, unless one is willing to climb a few three-metre fences with luggage. I have examined the area time and again in Google Earth over several years - still no go. To arrive at such a situation has required some careful and thorough urban planning, I'd say.
Back in good old days it was easily and safely possible to walk and bicycle on roads, even though the roads were ostensibly designed for cars. The cars were simply not there in too significant numbers because a car cost about a decade's salary and often enough you had to wait in car-purchase queue for a decade (to get your licence to purchase a car), you could buy just one (new) car a lifetime, and for serious infractions such as multiple speeding the car was confiscated.
That's more or less how it was in the Netherlands in the 1950s. The roads were designed and built for cars but most people didn't own cars yet, so in a sense it was not dissimilar to the situation purposefully designed since the '80s. Most people biked and walked. But since the '30s things had definitely been built around the
dream of the car, and by the late '60s when car ownership skyrocketed it quickly turned into a nightmare. It did so everywhere of course, so I'm not really sure why the Netherlands and Denmark more or less uniquely sought to actually do something about it. And America was a decade ahead of Europe because of the war…
For example, in Arlington Heights (Chicagoland) the nearest grocery store wasn't very far, just a kilometer or so, but there didn't realistically seem to be a way to cross the 6 lane stroad. They did seem to have sidewalks everywhere (?) though.
There, N Vista Rd in Arlington Heights, IL, has no sidewalks https://tinyurl.com/y3zdpjsj
The northmost tip has it but then the sidewalks stop. I ran into situations like this every time when I ventured or was forced to take a longer walk. Everywhere, except NYC.
Oh sure, but I meant next to a stroad like Dundee (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1389919,-87.9733665,3a,75y,253.59h,83.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD7kHRWe7PiXIptFjplBbiw!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?panoid=D7kHRWe7PiXIptFjplBbiw&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&w=203&h=100&yaw=276.04425&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=es).
Le Monde is doing a little series about city traffic https://www.lemonde.fr/un-quart-d-heure-en-ville/
Not particularly insightful, but okay to practise the French of some of you. The bicycle episode mentions a mayor of a smaller city implementing four (4) carrefours à la hollandaise. There are usually big problems with a bits-and-pieces approach when trying to improve cyclability: Okay, you will build four bicycle-friendly crossroads, but what about the way for the bicyclists to get to the crossroads? Are you sure your understanding of carrefours à la hollandaise is not accidentally omitting some vital elements that make it work? And, a question to the nationwide planners: If it is allegedly workable, would it not be workable in a city of any size?
In Tallinn, the mayor says that the currently implemented bicycle infrastructure in the city centre (which consists of some painted gutters with insane sudden breaks every now and then) is perfect according to standards and best practices known to him. And they are getting most of their impressive mileage (quantity) for bicycle infrastructure outside the centre, building bicycle roads in and between suburban parks and towards forests outside the city (basically indicating: Bicyclists, get out!). The city planners have the idea that bicycling is mainly for exercise, not for living the everyday life like going to work, a restaurant, shopping or visiting a friend.
In Soviet times, the so-called car-centred planning was not a problem in Estonia. Despite being the most car-dense corner in the entire USSR, the density of cars was very very far from what it is now. Car-only roads (speedways or motorways) did not exist. They do not exist even now. Despite no special attention given to walkability or cyclability in street/road infrastructure, the result was decent because the density of cars was so low that roads were honestly available for everyone (not at all wheelchair-friendly though).
After USSR collapsed, the density of cars changed by a few orders of magnitude for the worse. As the number of accidents became alarming, city planners began taking special measures to impede bicyclists and pedestrians starting with the most dangerous crossings first. This has resulted in random obstacles here and there along most densely walked routes in the city that are completely unexpected for tourists. Similarly, current modern redesign attempts are equally random and haphazard. There are only rare spotty improvements.
My conclusion is that non-planning is better when it comes to street and road infrastructure. Competent city planners do not exist in this part of the world and overall they are far and few between. Now, I have happened to see really splendid bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly street infrastructure in some West European cities, but the funny thing is that at its very best the result resembles the completely unplanned countryside where I grew up.
There are usually big problems with a bits-and-pieces approach when trying to improve cyclability: Okay, you will build four bicycle-friendly crossroads, but what about the way for the bicyclists to get to the crossroads?
You have to start somewhere, or you'll get nowhere. I think it's okay to update infrastructure as it naturally approaches its end of life. But keep in mind you can do some easy things to existing infrastructure without upending it completely. That does require an actual plan to extend it, of course. I guess you're implying they have the absurd impression that the work is done?
That's how we did it in the Netherlands. In the '70s it was as car infested as anywhere else. When you look at the Netherlands in the 2020s what you see is the result of four decades of mostly naturally improving things as they needed renovations anyway. It didn't happen overnight. As soon as you start, within a decade you'll see massive improvements. The Netherlands that I grew up in in the '90s was somewhat similar to Belgium (or at least Flanders) today in 2022.
is not accidentally omitting some vital elements that make it work?
One thing they are very much omitting in Belgium despite building fairly properly nowadays, perhaps because it's not so much visible as experienced, is that the traffic lights themselves are programmed differently — of course I mean better. Regardless whether you're driving, cycling or walking, it's just significantly more pleasant in the Netherlands. Here they're more stupid timer-based affairs rather than having '80s-level intelligence.
In the Netherlands, the traffic lights will let you go as soon as it makes sense. You rarely feel like you're waiting for nothing. That's particularly true for pedestrians and cyclists compared to many a country that doesn't seem to have given traffic light programming any thought at all, but by car it's also significantly nicer than elsewhere. For some reason people don't seem to realize that when street design is actually given some thought driving is a million times better too.
Btw, the third article is entitled
Comment les piétons investissent les villes. My father likes to tell the anecdote of how back when he did his high school exam in, what was it, '55 I think, one of the assignments was a text about piétons. One of his classmates had written about how if a
python wants to cross the street, first he should look left and right, and so forth.
My conclusion is that non-planning is better when it comes to street and road infrastructure. Competent city planners do not exist in this part of the world and overall they are far and few between. Now, I have happened to see really splendid bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly street infrastructure in some West European cities, but the funny thing is that at its very best the result resembles the completely unplanned countryside where I grew up.
I'm not convinced. The '50s through '80s Belgian infrastructure was borderline unplanned and as far as I'm concerned it's atrocious. Though I suppose it was still more or less planned by the local municipalities rather than by the people living in the street. But those needn't be opposites. The municipality can act as an enabler, like it mostly does in the Netherlands.
Also see this tweet: https://twitter.com/curious_founder/status/1569729070216220673
I guess you're implying they have the absurd impression that the work is done?
Of course they do not want their work (i.e. income stream) to end. But they see their work as consisting in doing what either promises most lucrative rewards or avoids most painful punishment. Bicycling infrastructure will never be done, because they are doing it only very reluctantly.
That's how we did it in the Netherlands. In the '70s it was as car infested as anywhere else. When you look at the Netherlands in the 2020s what you see is the result of four decades of mostly naturally improving things as they needed renovations anyway. It didn't happen overnight. As soon as you start, within a decade you'll see massive improvements. The Netherlands that I grew up in in the '90s was somewhat similar to Belgium (or at least Flanders) today in 2022.
I can hardly relate to a culture that when planners step in, things get better, even if bit by bit. Instead there have been multiple occasions with recent reworkings where things got significantly worse, such as the train station next to my workplace. The train station (a stop really) used to be severely underdeveloped, outright primitive, and it was possible to walk freely in any random direction after stepping off the train. Now some goddamn city planners rebuilt it so that *two trainfuls of people* (it has rails in each direction and in rush hours it happens that arrivals from both directions stop at the same time or close) are directed to a single three metres wide spot to leave the station and then to a sidewalk which is narrowed by a bus stop to a 40 cm wide (!) walkable space. For safety (??) the possible alternative routes that used to be there have been walled off with high fences.
Not just bad planning, but decidedly anti-human planning. There is no way it is unintentional. This is my experience with planners. Life used to be so much better without planners. There was so much more space for walking and bicycling. I'm not saying that this is a universal experience. Just that it is how it is where I live.
In the Netherlands, the traffic lights will let you go as soon as it makes sense. You rarely feel like you're waiting for nothing.
I also feel that in the West (Finland or Sweden) the traffic lights go faster or at least smoother. In Estonia, my instinct is first to look left and right and calculate if I can make it over the road without getting hit by a car. If I cannot, I'll wait for the lights. Traffic lights for pedestrians over here are still not halfway as bad as in USA though. You cannot speedstep over any American city-highway.
Also see this tweet: https://twitter.com/curious_founder/status/1569729070216220673
Well, not a picture that applied to Estonia most of the time last century. There may have been isolated exceptions like Olympics 1980 (the sailing events were held in Tallinn).
Traffic lights for pedestrians over here are still not halfway as bad as in USA though.
Oh yes, in the US they're completely absurd. Here's a video about it, but I've experienced it firsthand. They had a sign saying something like "wait for cars to turn right before crossing." The first time I did that… and never was able to cross. The second time, I stepped in front of the cars as if I was in Italy.
I determined that the made up nonsense of "jaywalking" (what we call "walking") was probably the safest method of crossing the street, because you can simply do it when there are no cars, whereas the traffic light where you're supposed to cross is:
a. horribly far
b. significantly less safe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ByEBjf9ktY