Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure

Calling everything but cars exclusionary is mildly hilarious. First of all, you're simply forgetting about public transport. That's needed too and pretty much covers all your concerns. However... 1. The disabled? How many of those do you think are disabled in just the right ways to still be able to drive? You know "disabled" doesn't just mean "missing a limb", right? So uh, if the only option is to drive and someone's disabled and therefore can't drive, what do they... do? Anyhow: [1] 2. Kids? How many kids do you see driving cars around? You know 10+ year olds can just... bike on their own, right? Like, to school, etc.? [2] [3] [4] Below that age, just bike them around? [5] ;) > Forcing You know nobody's forcing you to do anything, right? Like, you can still own and use your car, there are some very valid use cases best served by them. For example, around half of the Dutch own a car. They just don't use them as much for really dumb purposes, like driving 5km to a grocery store, because the nearest one is within walking or cycling distance. The problem is that driving has been so heavily subsidized, that we've come to take it for granted and are now truly shocked when asked to pay more to even somewhat offset the real costs. And I'm afraid there's no viable path forward that doesn't involve eventually paying in full. > Forcing people to bike and walk everywhere sounds a lot better if you're in a moderate climate where bad weather means you need to pack a light jacket and wait

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! ▶ this 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)

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: ▶ this video * 8 to 80, people of all ages cycling in the Netherlands: link

Well what do you do when your only option is a car but you can't drive? Cycling infra helps: ▶ this video So does public transport: link , link Quote from a stranger: "I am a disabled individual. I literally cannot operate a motor vehicle in a legal capacity. I cannot live in most US cities because of the lack of public transport and inability to walk places. I WANT THIS TO CHANGE. I am visually impaired, but I want this to change not only for me, but others like me whose disability would not hinder their life nearly as much if the cities they lived in were walkable cities. This would also benefit the mental and physical health of future generations, granting younger people the opportunity to see more of their home town in a safer environment."

> How does it work for those who aren’t fully bodily abled? How does driving work for the many disabled people who can't drive? With cycling infra, their options are much, much better: mobility scooters, tricycles, ebikes, micro cars, all riding on cycle paths. Add public transport and the fact cars still remain an option and it's objectively better. ▶ this video

Or a mobility scooter if even an e-trike is too much. Good cycling infrastructure benefits people of widely varying levels of ability: ▶ this video

> disabled or otherwise mobility impaired persons, etc. all need road vehicle access I appreciate your heart is in the right place, but disabled and mobility impaired persons benefit from bike infrastructure too. Please don't use them as an excuse to continue car hegemony. ▶ this video

I have for you a video titled "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure": ▶ this 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.

A significant portion of society is also not able to drive for similar reasons, but they mostly go ignored in our car-centric society. Nobody's saying that we should completely eliminate the ability to drive, certainly some people will need to, but we need to also provide viable options for those who can't. Additionally, bike infrastructure works great for mobility scooters too: ▶ this video

> when you dont need to transport people who cannot bicycle See 1:12 in ▶ this 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.

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: ▶ this video Or for a longer look, this interview with Maya Levi who has MS was also really inspiring: link

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: ▶ this 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.

"Why We Won't Raise Our Kids in Suburbia (and moved to the Netherlands instead)" link "Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure" ▶ this 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.

> 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: ▶ this 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.