“I suspect they never had a huge toy-bike culture like we do here.”

Kevin’s comment:
I don’t have any hard facts to back this up, but I suspect that the Dutch toy-bike culture is much larger than in the USA. I saw a lot of racing, off-roading, stunt jumping, cycle tourism, trick riding and non-standard bicycles like unicycles, velomobiles and recumbents that were used purely as toys.

And I have no problems with that. I approve of having fun. I see fun cycling and utility cycling as being two separate but complementary uses. Of course, it is important to emphasise the utility part when doing advocacy.

Interestingly enough, the City of Toronto has separate budgets for utility and recreational cycling. Recreational cycling is funded by Parks and Recreation. Utility cycling is Transportation.

Obviously there is some crossover. Many of the Parks cycle paths are useful commuter routes. But from an advocacy point of view, transportation is where it is at. Toronto didn’t just commit to $70 million in additional capital improvements for us to have fun.

“Even in Holland and Denmark, cyclists don’t go everywhere on segregated facilities. They use roads, too.”

Kevin’s comment:

True, but roads that have been tamed. David Hembrow wrote about it far better than I ever could. See:

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-types-of-safety.html

“In the US, I foresee the fossil-fuel car culture changing to an alternative-fuel car culture long before it changes to a bicycling culture.”

Kevin’s comment:

The only problem is that there does not currently exist an alternative-fuel car technology that is scalable to mass use. This in spite of spending 100′s of billions of dollars on research.

Hydrogen? In spite of billions of dollars sunk into this, the technology flopped. The cost of producing a hydrogen vehicle is completely unaffordable. Hydrogen advocates keep saying “just pump in a few more billions of dollars in research and we’ll find the magic bullet.” I remain skeptical.

Electric cars? In spite of billions of dollars in research, they have limited range and high cost. There may be a niche for low-speed electric vehicles like the Zenn car, or high-cost electric vehicles like the Tesla for the rich. Electric vehicle advocates say that if they only get a truckload of billions of dollars for battery research they can come up with a “magic” battery that is affordable and gives more than the 30 mile (if I never use the A/C) range of the Zenn. I don’t believe in magic.

Biofuels? Even the current small amount of biofuel production took enough food away from people to eat that it caused major problems. Which led to a lot of these programs being dumped. Once again, the advocates say that with untold billions in research some “magic” plant can be developed that will solve all problems. I still don’t believe in magic.

It could be that maybe there is some magic “star trek” technology out there that a few hundreds of billions of dollars in research will discover. But right now, there is no alternative fuel technology that works on a mass scale.

“The 73 oil embargo actually illustrates a huge difference in culture between the US and Europe.”

Kevin’s comment:

In my opinion, this was largely driven by geology. In 1973 the USA imported only 28% of its oil and it was possible for the usual suspects to chant “drill baby, drill” as an alternative to meaningful change.

At that time, Northern Europe imported 100% of its oil, so this was impossible. North Sea oil only dates from six years later in 1979.

Today, US oil imports are almost 2/3 of consumption, rendering the transportation system highly vulnerable.

Keri asked:

“Anticipating a huge increase in fuel prices which would force a change in attitude, an investment in mass transit and a subsequent decrease in motoring, wouldn’t the roads then be even better for us to ride on?”

Kevin’s answer:

Yes.

Keri asked:

“Would we really need to spend billions on separate facilities?”

Kevin’s answer:

Yes. For about three reasons.

First, even when gas prices are unaffordable to ordinary people, there will still be a substantial minority of wealthy people who will be willing to pay for it. Ironically enough, ordinary people will be unwilling to pay billions of dollars to maintain separate car facilities (expressways) which they are no longer able to use. So in many urban areas, car traffic will actually increase on local roads when gasoline is unaffordable to ordinary people. But ordinary people still have to get around. So we will still have separate facilities. Instead of separate car facilities we will have separate bicycle facilities.

Second, rail public transit cannot run to everyone’s home. Even in rail-dense cities like Paris, there is the “one kilometer problem.” This is the issue of getting one kilometer from home to the Paris subway station. Bicycles are ideal for that.

Third, bicycles do not coexist well with busses and streetcars. I would not want my children cycling in a bus lane. Too dangerous.

On this we agree 100%!

Overcoming that mentality is hard enough without the biggest advocacy organizations promoting it. Did European advocates have this obstacle?

“How do you intend to overcome toy-bike syndrome and the bad facility design that comes from lack of cultural respect for cycling, cyclists and the bike as a viable mode of transportation?”

Kevin’s answer:

Although I believe that breakthrough gains will be rapidly achieved in the inevitable short-term future crisis, that doesn’t mean that right now we should not do anything. The gains that cycle advocates are achieving in North America are real and helping get cyclists organized to take advantage of future crisis opportunities.

Let me give some examples from places I’ve been and lived in.

I was born in California. But I have few memories of living there. When I was but a toddler my family moved to Madison, Wisconsin where I grew up. As a young adult I moved to Toronto where I have lived ever since.

There are cities in California, most notably Davis, where Northern Euopean levels of cycling have been achieved. This took a lot of hard work by visionary leaders and cycle advocates.

When I was going to high school there, Madison was not very bike-friendly. Myself and my friends rode our bikes to school every day, but we definitely saw the future for ourselves as car drivers. My father was regarded as somewhat strange for cycling to work.

Today, Madison is totally different. Cultural attitudes have changed, cycling is mainstream and some very limited supportive infrastructure has been put in place. Best of all, the city council (Madison Common Council) has adopted an exciting program of sharp improvement for the future. This includes putting in place the necessary steps for “platinum” certification by the League of American Bicyclists. Details may be found on the city’s official website at:

http://www.cityofmadison.com/trafficEngineering/bicyclingPlatinum.cfm

Similarily, Toronto has undergone a significant rejection of car culture. One big milestone on the way was the huge fight over 26 years from 1945 to June 1971 over whether or not to install an American-style car expressway system. The final decision was made to reject such a system, but to build public transit instead. However, bicycles were not a major part of the outcome in 1971.

What has changed since 1971 is not the steady phasing out of car infrastructure (the City is about to tear down part of the bits of expressway that was built), but seeing the alternative as not only public transit but bicycles as well. There has been excellent bicycle progress in roads, parking, combatting bike theft and many other areas.

There also have been many stumbles along way. Mistakes ranging from bike lanes that are so bad that riding in the middle of the bike lane is the most dangerous position on the road (door zone), to well-meaning but profoundly damaging official propaganda to promote bicycle helmets.

Mistakes is how we learn, and I would put Toronto now about in the middle between Northern European cities and cities in the USA. I now live in the Riding of Toronto Centre. A Riding is the electoral district that elects a Member of Parliament. The population of Toronto Centre is 121,407 and the commuting mode share is:

Transit – 38%
Walking and cycling – 34%
Cars – 26%

For more details about how the City is planning to increase the bike mode share, see:

http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/bikeplan/

One of the most exciting new initiatives is a Paris-style bike sharing program.

Conclusion: There are many examples of successful bicycle promotion in North America, and I have been fortunate enough to live in many of them. These examples, from California to Madison, Wisconsin to Toronto, show ways of moving forward right now.

The 73 oil embargo actually illustrates a huge difference in culture between the US and Europe. We had a president in the 70s who tried to take us in the right direction to reduce our dependency on oil. That president was voted out of office and replaced by one who systematically eliminated all of the forward-thinking policies his predecessor put in place.

More so now than then, the mechanisms for controlling the political process and framing issues to a broad audience are owned by self-interested corporations.

Although ridership was declining in Europe it was still significantly higher than here. Attitudes toward non-motorized transportation were never as hostile as they are here.

I’ve done a fair amount of cycling in Italy (including downtown Rome) where there are very few bike facilities. Motorists there don’t have any where near the sense of exclusive ownership of the road as they do here. Riding on narrow rural roads, I was treated with respect (possibly even reverence)… much different from here, where rural rednecks try to scare us off the road with their 4000 lb vehicles, for no reason other than hatred.

Anticipating a huge increase in fuel prices which would force a change in attitude, an investment in mass transit and a subsequent decrease in motoring, wouldn’t the roads then be even better for us to ride on? Would we really need to spend billions on separate facilities? Maybe it would be better to spend it on rail and other transit systems which would accommodate a larger portion of the population. When you consider the distances we have to travel within our metro areas (look at a map of a typical US metro at the same scale as a map of Amsterdam), there is a significant segment of the population which will be unwilling or unable to travel those distances by bike.

In the US, I foresee the fossil-fuel car culture changing to an alternative-fuel car culture long before it changes to a bicycling culture.

Even in Holland and Denmark, cyclists don’t go everywhere on segregated facilities. They use roads, too. Due to our huge spacial differences and extensive road networks, that would be the case here, even more so.

Building stuff to get cyclist out of the way doesn’t help overcome the destructive thinking associated with the speed-dominant mentality of car-centric culture. It actually reinforces it.

“How ’bout that most American would still drive a car if you built a trail from their house to their office, because it’s climate-controlled and it takes less effort?

How are you going to frame all this?

You do realize you have to completely change cultural attitudes before you can even begin?”

I agree, of course, about the necessity of changing cultural attitudes. But I disagree that the attitudes must change before we can even begin.

To quote former US President Lyndon Baines Johnson:

“When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will inevitably follow.”

Pro-bicycle cultural change didn’t happen in Northern Europe until the 1973 Oil Embargo. Before then, the culture was rather anti-bicycle. To quote from:

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/The%20Dutch%20Bicycle%20Master%20Plan%201999.pdf

From p. 31:

“Until the early 1970’s, attention to bicycle traffic was minimal. The prosperity expectations were such that with the foreseeable future bicycle traffic would decrease, certainly for commuting, to a negligable share compared to car traffic.”

Our present transportation system is incredibly fragile, with any number of events sending US gasoline prices overnight to levels unaffordable by ordinary people. That is if gasoline is even available at all – we can trust governments to make sure than any limited supply goes to their military and other government users first.

That kind of crisis will drive cultural change. The kind of cultural change where driving a car is now “unpatriotic” as well as being selfish and irresponsible.