Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure

What you've just said is a common refrain, if you haven't already seen it please take a look at these two videos that attempt to address part of what you're saying. I found them very interesting when I came across them years ago and it changed my view of what's possible or even good! [VIDEO] "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure" (old people, disabled people) [LINK] "Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)" (frozen Finnish winters)

"Why We Won't Raise Our Kids in Suburbia (and moved to the Netherlands instead)" [LINK] "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure" [VIDEO] "Why Great Cities Let You (Easily!) Cycle to IKEA" [LINK] "8 to 80, people of all ages cycling in the Netherlands" [LINK] As you can see, you don't need "wide roads". Quite the opposite, in fact. When safe cycling infrastructure is present, traffic shifts to cycling, because it's faster, cheaper and more pleasant. This makes roads less congested for your car trips. Widening roads does not have this effect, as additional lanes simply fill up with more traffic if there is no faster, safe alternative. Also, wide lanes encourage high speeds, and you don't want that around your kids.

I have for you a video titled "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure": [VIDEO] > There is a large group of people in the Netherlands who also benefit from the well-designed cycling infrastructure: people with disabilities. They can use hand-operated bicycles or tricycles or mobility scooters to get from A to B. The cycle tracks offer them good protection from motorized traffic and thus a freedom to independently move around. Also kids. Look how much freedom this infrastructure provides to Dutch kids. Car dependency is NOT good for the disabled. Not every disabled parson is even capable of safely driving a car.

Cars are the most age discriminatory mode of transport of all: only 18+ and not too old can use it, and most disabled cannot use it. A Bicycles work to all ages, all abilities. In your case an ebike, trike (etrike?) or even mobility scooter might be a much lighter, cheaper, scalable option. Hey why not a self-driving e-scooter? Why does it have to weight 2 tons in the first place? Bike infrastructure is not only for bicycles: its for trikes, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, ebikes. Watch: * Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure: [VIDEO] * 8 to 80, people of all ages cycling in the Netherlands: [LINK]

> Oslo tried to ban cars, but there has been a huge backlash, without the right sort of support some of the most vulnerable (i.e. people with physical disabilities) just cannot live successfully in cities. The backlash is pretty dishonest, though. The car-free area (a small part of downtown) will have more handicap parking spots than it does now, sidewalks are being improved so they're larger and universally accessible, and the disabled benefit from cycling infra too—I see people riding mobility scooters in bike lanes in Oslo, much as in this video, but not so many specialty bikes: [VIDEO] It's generally the Joe Schmoes who cry "but what about the disabled" and "but what about people who NEED to use cars for their work?", blithely ignoring the points above, and the fact that trade and service unions welcome the change because they'll be allowed too, just like in pedestrian streets, and they'll have an easier time of getting around when they're not trapped in car traffic by people who drive through downtown just because they can and they don't want to use the tunnels.

It’s smaller-scale than automobility though, which is what people are used to. I agree it’s not perfect, but I think we need a better designator than “bike lanes” for the type of infrastructure we’re aiming for. It can and should be used by more than just cyclists; cycle tracks can also be great for those using e.g. mobility scooters: [VIDEO] In the Netherlands there are enough cyclists that it works, but here in the US I feel like the term “cyclist” is often used as a pejorative. Making the name more inclusive of varying modes I think might help to counter this.

Providing safe infrastructure for smaller powered (or unpowered) mobility devices means disabled people can get around more effectively too, because wheels work better on pavement than on (often uneven) sidewalks. I posted this in another thread but it’s relevant here too: [VIDEO] Or for a longer look, this interview with Maya Levi who has MS was also really inspiring: [LINK]

> when you dont need to transport people who cannot bicycle See 1:12 in [VIDEO] Or if you just mean children, bakfietsen are great for this. > when social status doesnt matter Build more/better bike infrastructure and people of all classes will ride, not just those who are forced to because they have no other options like now. See: any city that’s built a usable network of good bike infra.