On cycling and North American culture

[RogerWilco]

I am a Dutch guy, and reading the news about GM Cyclone passing away after a cycling accident with a hit and run by a truck, I had to think about the videos from NotJustbikes.

 

As a person living in the Netherlands, I am puzzled by the North American attitude to cycling and infrastructure and city design in general.

 

This one certainly applies:

 

 

I am posting this to educate people that the North American way is not the only way to do things, and for my own curiosity as to what people think.

 

NotJustBikes is able to articulate things in his videos better than I could myself. I cannot recommend his videos enough.

[RogerWilco]

Some more videos about cycling in the Netherlands from another Youtube channel.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2020 by RogerWilco

[Luminara]

8 minutes ago, RogerWilco said:

As a person living in the Netherlands, I am puzzled by the North American attitude to cycling and infrastructure and city design in general.

 

In rural and sparsely populated areas, automobiles allowed people to make journeys in a few hours, or a day, instead of a few days or weeks, without sacrificing the carrying capacity of a wagon, so they could pick up several months of supplies from the general store 100+ miles away, or take the entire immediate family (which could be 8-12, sometimes more) to visit relatives or friends.  In cities, they were seen as cleaner than horses, and less expensive over the lifetime of the vehicle (gasoline was originally considered a waste product from petroleum distillation), and still allowed people to move large quantities of goods/people or travel to distant locations within a short time span.

 

Keep in mind, the U.S. was far less populated in those days, and even in cities, things were more spread out.  Bicycles couldn't carry much, or many people, so they were relegated to leisure and children's activities.  Cities weren't designed with bicycles in mind because the culture was still young enough, and the invention of the automobile still new enough, and the distances to some places still great enough, to be heavily influenced by cars.  Cars fit the needs of the populace, so bicycles were relegated to leisure activities and children's toys, or something only relevant to those too impoverished to afford a car.

 

The recent revival of the bicycle in the U.S. can be attributed to the health consciousness which has come to the forefront in the last few decades, in concert with a relatively high rate of poverty at certain times, the broader availability of goods (more stores on more corners), the way goods are packaged (little plastic or plastic-lined paper envelopes, small cans, shrink-wrapped packages, etc), and the ever increasing density of cities creating more opportunities for bicycles to be more useful.  But cities are still trying to catch up.  Bureaucracies are involved, and nothing is fast when that happens.

 

We'll get there.  Eventually.

 

For what it's worth, the same problems are applicable to people on low-powered two-wheeled vehicles.  Scooters and mopeds.  I know from personal experience that having an engine and keeping up in traffic on city streets is no guarantee of safety... city drivers are horrific, and they'll blindly ignore anything that isn't on four wheels.  I was run off the street multiple times, hit head-on twice (while in my lane) and cut off by someone swerving or turning in front of me more times than I can count.  City riding on any two-wheeled vehicle in the U.S. is risking death.  We need more than bicycle lanes, we need protection and consideration for all two-wheeled riders.

[Apparition]

American cities, and especially American suburbs are designed around automobiles.  You pretty much need one or have access to one in order to get around.  You have to remember that North America is sparsely populated in comparison to Europe, and our cities and infrastructure are much newer, and were designed around the same time automobiles became popular.  The two fed into each other and are pretty much inseparable, despite how hard some people try.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Apparition

[RogerWilco]

18 hours ago, Luminara said:

 

In rural and sparsely populated areas, automobiles allowed people to make journeys in a few hours, or a day, instead of a few days or weeks, without sacrificing the carrying capacity of a wagon, so they could pick up several months of supplies from the general store 100+ miles away, or take the entire immediate family (which could be 8-12, sometimes more) to visit relatives or friends.  In cities, they were seen as cleaner than horses, and less expensive over the lifetime of the vehicle (gasoline was originally considered a waste product from petroleum distillation), and still allowed people to move large quantities of goods/people or travel to distant locations within a short time span.

 

Keep in mind, the U.S. was far less populated in those days, and even in cities, things were more spread out.  Bicycles couldn't carry much, or many people, so they were relegated to leisure and children's activities.  Cities weren't designed with bicycles in mind because the culture was still young enough, and the invention of the automobile still new enough, and the distances to some places still great enough, to be heavily influenced by cars.  Cars fit the needs of the populace, so bicycles were relegated to leisure activities and children's toys, or something only relevant to those too impoverished to afford a car.

 

The recent revival of the bicycle in the U.S. can be attributed to the health consciousness which has come to the forefront in the last few decades, in concert with a relatively high rate of poverty at certain times, the broader availability of goods (more stores on more corners), the way goods are packaged (little plastic or plastic-lined paper envelopes, small cans, shrink-wrapped packages, etc), and the ever increasing density of cities creating more opportunities for bicycles to be more useful.  But cities are still trying to catch up.  Bureaucracies are involved, and nothing is fast when that happens.

 

We'll get there.  Eventually.

 

For what it's worth, the same problems are applicable to people on low-powered two-wheeled vehicles.  Scooters and mopeds.  I know from personal experience that having an engine and keeping up in traffic on city streets is no guarantee of safety... city drivers are horrific, and they'll blindly ignore anything that isn't on four wheels.  I was run off the street multiple times, hit head-on twice (while in my lane) and cut off by someone swerving or turning in front of me more times than I can count.  City riding on any two-wheeled vehicle in the U.S. is risking death.  We need more than bicycle lanes, we need protection and consideration for all two-wheeled riders.

 

18 hours ago, Apparition said:

American cities, and especially American suburbs are designed around automobiles.  You pretty much need one or have access to one in order to get around.  You have to remember that North America is sparsely populated in comparison to Europe, and our cities and infrastructure are much newer, and were designed around the same time automobiles became popular.  The two fed into each other and are pretty much inseparable, despite how hard some people try.

 

Sure, I know and have seen the rural areas in the USA and Canada and you do need to have a car in places like that. But it's not so different from the rural areas in my country.

Still even a lot of small towns an villages could be a lot more friendly to pedestrians, cyclists, scooters, etc.

It does need some political will from local authorities, or a strong intent from a national government. I found the city of Curitiba in Brazil to be an interesting example, where the local government has invested a lot in public transport compared to most cities in the Americas, and they are now quite proud of the results and the services it provides to almost 2 million people.

 

Relatively small towns, like Niagara-on-the-lake in Ontario, or Winslow Arizona, would actually be relatively easy to change. Many small towns have a core from before 1900-1920, and if they didn't grow exponentially after that, their size is quite manageable.

 

Places like Fresno, Las Vegas or Houston are going to be very hard to change. But places like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Montreal, Vancouver do have potential.

 

You also have many cities where more bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure would make a lot of sense.

 

I mainly see two or three big differences in the development of cities between North America and Europe:

1. In North America people seem to have been much more willing to tear down their historical buildings and city centres. The only large city I know that has largely preserved its pre-1900 buildings is Quebec City. Everywhere else seems to have obliterated it's history, except for an occasional church or other landmark. It seems that historical buildings don't hold much value in North America?
2. Before 1970, the development of North American and European cities has a lot of parallels, except for the point above, but after that they diverge a lot more, where North America seems to continue to accelerate on the patterns set in the 1940s/50s, while Europe decides the problems with those ideas need addressing. If anything, I am surprised by the inertia in urban design in North America in the last 50 years. Is this due to decentralization and reduced power of the federal government after the 1960s?
3. A possible third reason, that gets hinted at in videos like the ones below, are racial segregation undertones. I don't know how to judge this, and I don't want to derail this thread. It's just something I noticed being a part of a lot of discussions about suburbs. This might be less unique to North America though, as there are certainly cities in Europe that have similar issues, often related to immigration from former colonies.

---

 

As to the history of cities in North America as I understand it, the pedestrian, horse and street car dominated until the mid-1920s, and only after that did things become very car-centric. The 1930-1970 era was very car-centric in Europe as well, but North America seems to have continued on that path much more after 1970.

 

City Beautiful has some interesting videos about the subject:

 

 

 

What I found interesting is his comment that "Once standards become established, they are very hard to change". I found this interesting, as where I live, standards are seen as something that should always be improved upon. Is that something you recognize, or am I just too distant to observe this very well?

It seems counter to the American spirit.

 

And it's also about things that do affect cars, like traffic lights:

 

In my country we looked at typical 1950s suburbia design, and decided we wanted a better solution, while in North America it seems that people were content with "good enough" and have kept repeating the same patterns over the past 50+ years. I am trying to understand if my observation is correct, and what might cause that difference.

Is it too hard to change things? Has politics changed? Is it so ubiquitous that people just do not think about the drawbacks and problems?

 

In my view, typical NA suburbia isn't such a great thing, and NotJustBikes seems to agree with me:

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by RogerWilco

[Luminara]

57 minutes ago, RogerWilco said:

In North America people seem to have been much more willing to tear down their historical buildings and city centres. The only large city I know that has largely preserved its pre-1900 buildings is Quebec City. Everywhere else seems to have obliterated it's history, except for an occasional church or other landmark. It seems that historical buildings don't hold much value in North America?

 

Natural and man-made disasters have something to do with that.  Earthquakes, floods, fires, tornadoes, molasses and other things have destroyed buildings and landmarks over the last couple of centuries.  Chicago burned, several cities in California have had to be almost completely rebuilt, cities all along the Mississippi and down south, such as New Orleans, have experienced devastating floods, anything in Tornado Alley can be considered impermanent... it's not even safe to build in places where one believes there are no disaster scenarios.  There's a town in Missouri which is almost on top of a massive fault line, New Madrid.  It once caused an earthquake so intense that it reversed the flow of the Mississippi river.  In the northwest, there are volcanoes like Mount Saint Helens, and people have settled relatively close to some of them.

 

Few of the oldest cities in the U.S.A. haven't experienced some kind of disaster which destroyed a significant part of the infrastructure and buildings.  When nature isn't reminding us that what we make isn't going to last forever, we're accidentally torching or demolishing things ourselves.  Humans aren't the most forward-thinking animals, despite our large cranial capacity.

 

1 hour ago, RogerWilco said:

Before 1970, the development of North American and European cities has a lot of parallels, except for the point above, but after that they diverge a lot more, where North America seems to continue to accelerate on the patterns set in the 1940s/50s, while Europe decides the problems with those ideas need addressing. If anything, I am surprised by the inertia in urban design in North America in the last 50 years. Is this due to decentralization and reduced power of the federal government after the 1960s?

 

That was mostly due to the after-effects of the end of the Great Depression and the economic boom after WWII, the move out of cities and into sub-urban neighborhoods and the popularity and general availability of the automobile.  People had money, they had cars and they were happy to live farther away from where they worked, so construction and expansion revolved those things.

 

1 hour ago, RogerWilco said:

A possible third reason, that gets hinted at in videos like the ones below, are racial segregation undertones. I don't know how to judge this, and I don't want to derail this thread. It's just something I noticed being a part of a lot of discussions about suburbs. This might be less unique to North America though, as there are certainly cities in Europe that have similar issues, often related to immigration from former colonies.

 

Urban decay.  Partly racial tensions, partly political policies (and corruption), partly economic issues, partly response to disasters.  People left areas, prices went up, tenancy and occupancy went down.  Buildings and streets fell into disrepair, utility providers neglected their infrastructures.  The longer it went on, the more the decay spread, until entire sections of cities were all but abandoned and falling in on themselves.  No-one wanted to live in these places, work in them or build in them.  As people spread out more, away from the centers of cities or sections of cities, the car was reinforced as the ideal mode of transportation.

 

1 hour ago, RogerWilco said:

As to the history of cities in North America as I understand it, the pedestrian, horse and street car dominated until the mid-1920s, and only after that did things become very car-centric. The 1930-1970 era was very car-centric in Europe as well, but North America seems to have continued on that path much more after 1970.

 

People in the U.S. loved their cars.  They weren't just a mode of transportation, they were an expression of freedom and independence.  Route 66, road trips, vacationing at places like the Grand Canyon, television and film, sub-urban living, a lot of influences catalyzed the image of having and driving a car as the American way.  Cars themselves were not only affordable, but designed to capture the imagination as well as the eye, and they did just that.  A bicycle was a couple of wheels, a frame, a seat and handlebars.  It wasn't stylish or artful or impressive to look at.  A 1959 Cadillac, with those outstanding rocket fins, or the mid- to late-60's Mustangs, however... those were eye-catching and awe-inspiring.  Seeing meant wanting, and with the average income gradually rising, cars like these were affordable to more people.  Someone working at a gas station could own something like that, rather than only someone born into wealth and privilege, and they were eager to buy them.

 

Engine displacement, raw horsepower, were also important points.  Small engines weren't desirable.  Big thirsty 8-cylinder engines with aggressive rumbles and growls, enough torque to burn up the rear tires while doing donuts, they drove car development here.  Even after the gas crisis in the 70's, people wanted the sheer power offered by cars.  They felt good to drive, they sounded mean and some of them looked outstanding (again, Cadillac and Mustang).  They excited the imagination and satisfied a deep urge to tame something almost untamable.  And speed... speed was everything to some people.  The more powerful a car was, the faster it could move, the greater the thrill of driving it.  Drag racing on city streets, cross-country racing... the whole idea of NASCAR came from moonshiners buying cheap cars with the "right" engine, making a few modifications to speed them up and driving at breakneck speeds to outrun the Feds and local police.  Speed and power ruled the road, and average people loved feeling like they were the ruler of all they surveyed.

 

It didn't really matter whether they were driving in cities or across the entire continent, just having and driving a car were what mattered.  They saved time, they were comfortable, they were private and they gave people the sense of... of having their piece of the American pie, of living the American dream.  Somebodies owned and drove cars.  Nobodies rode bikes.

 

The American obsession with cars still hasn't faded.  Smaller, more economical vehicles are becoming more commonplace, but the streets and highways are still primarily the domain of large, powerful vehicles with sleek looks.  The price of gas being less than half of what it was a decade ago, and in some places and at some times, even down to pre-2000 prices, keeps the love affair going.  As long as cheap gas and cheap cars with some grunt behind them are available, people in the U.S. aren't in a hurry to switch to two-wheelers or public transportation, and with so many living on credit, there's a mindset that any necessary change can be dealt with "tomorrow".

 

2 hours ago, RogerWilco said:

What I found interesting is his comment that "Once standards become established, they are very hard to change". I found this interesting, as where I live, standards are seen as something that should always be improved upon. Is that something you recognize, or am I just too distant to observe this very well?

It seems counter to the American spirit.

 

In a newly settled place, it's not uncommon to believe that there's always more room, more resources, more whatever.  If things need to change, they can change "later".  Poverty, corruption and the belief that problems are someone else's problems are also common reasons for things to be left alone, especially these days.  Politicians don't want to stand behind, for example, projects to renovate poor neighborhoods, because they aren't guaranteed to be re-elected by whoever moves into those neighborhoods later.  Poor people don't feel like they have the power to enact change, so they typically don't try.  The bigger the problem, the more likely it will be passed on to the next person in the hot seat, too.

 

When it comes to bicycle lanes, though, it's mostly money, of which there's never enough, and people feeling like it's going to ruin the driving experience in some way, like adding delays to their commute, or changing the way a street is laid out so they have to learn a new route.  We're creatures of habit, and driving is a habitual activity in the U.S.  It's not easy to change that.

 

2 hours ago, RogerWilco said:

In my country we looked at typical 1950s suburbia design, and decided we wanted a better solution, while in North America it seems that people were content with "good enough" and have kept repeating the same patterns over the past 50+ years. I am trying to understand if my observation is correct, and what might cause that difference.

Is it too hard to change things? Has politics changed? Is it so ubiquitous that people just do not think about the drawbacks and problems?

 

All of those.  And more.  Our political structure is very encouraging of bad behavior and corruption, our legal structure makes it difficult to change things like our political structure easily (too much emphasis on the letter of the law, less on the spirit of the law), so bad politicians outnumber good politicians, and good politicians find it very difficult to do anything meaningful or important.  We're also fond of what little "history" we have, since our country is still very new by comparison to Europe, Asia, the Mediterranean area, etc.  A 100 year old building is seen as something to cherish and protect, not to replace.  A street which has dozens of old houses is a landmark, not a potential place to institute change.  Cut down a 40 year old tree on a block and you'll have the entire neighborhood coming out with pitchforks and torches.  The U.S. isn't Rome, it hasn't been around for a couple of thousand years, it's barely out of its infancy, and it's still stuck in the idea that it needs to validate itself by having old things to make it relevant as a culture.  You have to keep in mind that many of the settlers came from places with real history behind them, history stretching back before records, and having to start over, create a new history, also created an almost obsessive need for what history there is to be important.

 

We have no Parthenon, no village which has been in the same place since before the Great Plague, no aqueducts from the pre-Byzantine era, no pyramids, nothing like that.  No roots in the soil of history.  What old things we have aren't very old, but people can point to them and say, "That's the oldest X here" and feel some sense of pride or awe.  This makes them very hesitant to change them, even if they're just 50-75 year old streets or buildings.

 

And yes, Americans tend to be short-sighted.  It's an attitude reinforced by things like Social Security, governments acting like nannies, credit cards and delayed interest loans.  "The problems of today can be resolved tomorrow" is the best summation I can give.  It's wrong, but it's prevalent, and it's going to take time for it to fade.

 

Some progress is being made.  Richmond, VA started adding bicycle lanes several years ago, including on old bridges which couldn't be rebuilt or widened, in "historic" districts and even in the downtown area.  Where money and community desire meet, other cities are doing the same.  It's happening, it's just proceeding slowly.

[Oubliette_Red]

Found an interesting article that touches on many subjects regarding cyclists fatalities.  https://www.safety.com/cyclists-road-safety/

 

In many communities, building to accommodate mass transit is an afterthought, much less pathing for cyclists/pedestrians. As densely built up as many major cities are, shoehorning in dedicated bike lanes is problematic if not next to impossible. Aggressive drivers and aggression towards others on the road is another huge issue with those on 2 wheels (cyclists and motorcyclists) receiving a good deal of it. Heck, drivers fail to see semi's... cyclists are pretty much invisible.

 

Attitude and infrastructure are in need of change.

 

[RogerWilco]

I might at some point muster the courage to respond to @Luminara 's long and thoughtful response. Thank you. Unfortunately I have a lot of other things going on in my life.

 

In the mean time I will just post a few more videos from NotJustBikes, as he keeps making awesome videos about the comparison between Dutch and North American infrastructure.

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers.

Edited July 2, 2021 by RogerWilco

[Glacier Peak]

Wow great thread! I've enjoyed reading both @RogerWilco and @Luminara responses. I'm not much of a cyclist, though I do have a road bike. I usually take the shoelace express, so to speak. Running is my hobby and I try to stay as far away from paved surfaces as I can due to the stress of always watching over my shoulder for a bad driver or even worse, someone intentionally trying to intimidate or even harm me. I've never had the pleasure of running any trails outside of the U.S., but I'm assuming that kind of concern is on anyone's mind who runs paved surfaces.

[RogerWilco]

On 11/11/2020 at 4:23 PM, Oubliette_Red said:

In many communities, building to accommodate mass transit is an afterthought, much less pathing for cyclists/pedestrians. As densely built up as many major cities are, shoehorning in dedicated bike lanes is problematic if not next to impossible. Aggressive drivers and aggression towards others on the road is another huge issue with those on 2 wheels (cyclists and motorcyclists) receiving a good deal of it. Heck, drivers fail to see semi's... cyclists are pretty much invisible.

 

Attitude and infrastructure are in need of change.

 

 

I do not agree that dedicated bike lanes in densely built areas are impossible. I think that they actually help. If you build bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and mass transit, and make it faster than the same distance by car, you will see that densely populated areas are actually perfect for getting people to not use the car. The result is that even for those that do have to use a car, the experience is better than if there was no such infrastructure.

 

NotJustBikes explains it quite well:

 

If driver do not see other road users, your roads are designed incorrectly.

Stop blaming the individuals, start improving the system. It has worked in a lot of industries, most notably the airline industry.

Edited July 2, 2021 by RogerWilco