menorman, your heart's in the right place, but your argument falls into the anti-mustachian fallacy of "It's out of my hands, unless we get the government to do something about it!"
I agree that we should be pushing local governments to make streets safer for vulnerable users (bikes, pedestrians, etc), but we can't use lack of bike facilities as an excuse not to ride today.
Like you say, there's no bike-friendly utopia here in the States. I live (and ride) in what might be the closest thing to it: Seattle, in the most bike-friendly state in the USA. Our mayor ran and won on the slogan "Mike Bikes". Even here, the bike commute rate is around 4%. I've been hit by a car, bad. And I'm almost hit on a regular basis. An experienced bike commuter was killed by a semi just last week.
Despite all that, choosing to commute by bike bike is a classic example of the 80/20 rule. When it comes to "things you can control" vs "the government needs to do something about this!", mustachians think 80% of life is under their control and 20% is uncontrollable, and complanypants think it's just the opposite. American cities will grow bike friendly when more people ride their bikes. It's how our free market works, so we can't put the cart before the horse by saying "I'll bike when my town is safer to ride around." Mustachians have more courage than that.
Yes, I agree that Mustachians have to be more courageous. I continue to ride, even though a local cyclist was killed recently while
riding in the bike lane with a helmet, aka he was the model cyclist. The culprit there is undoubtedly the design, not his lack of courage. I went and saw the site myself and there's plenty of space to build a completely separate bicycle path through there. So while you and I are continue to swing a leg over, not many others have that much faith, especially after such an incident. That's because we are already more courageous and adventurous than John Q. Public, starting with MMM himself.
So while we Mustachians all agree that biking is still a splendid idea statistically, it's evident (via actual surveys, not just personal hunches) that John Q. won't participate without significant change in society itself.
MMM is usually issuing the challenges, but I'm going to issue him (and the rest of the community) a challenge: go get involved. And I mean more than just extol the virtues of biking to a neighbor. Go to city council and ask for bike lanes. Go to local businesses and ask for bike parking. Go to local schools, etc. and see about starting a bike train. I do it even though I quite honestly don't really have the time, having missed work several times to show up at regional meetings to provide input and support.
It's not about waiting for or wanting the government to take care of us. It's because at this point in time, the momentum is actually shifting behind this sort of change at the governmental level. The advocacy groups have done a pretty decent job of arming planners of all stripes with data showing how great things are due to bikes. Even businesses are starting to be somewhat partial to the idea of
giving up a parking spot or two. However, the John Q. Public level only sees "their" roads being taken by "lawless" cyclists and raises complaints. (One of the
cities in my area is taken complaints about this very issue tomorrow at their meeting.) Without voices encouraging and thanking them, the improvements could all disappear in short order. They need to know that more than just guys on their $5000 bikes that weigh less than a gallon of water care about this. Putting normal faces, especially young faces, really helps keep the lanes that already exist there and helps more get built.
You're eliding over the fact that the density in the Netherlands is fifteen times higher than that here in the states, and even Denmark is nearly four times as dense. Combined with the lower taxes here in the state, I don't think Netherlands-grade infrastructure is ever going to happen on any significant scale here.
Taxes first. Here in America, driving already
doesn't pay for the cost of upkeep on the roads we already have. Yet, more keep getting built, costing
nearly $100mn/mile. Compare that to the bike network Portland has that cost only $60mn--less than a mile of highway. Adding coherent cycle infrastructure in
with new construction would cost pennies on the dollar next to the cost of roads for cars, yet keep thousands of cars off the roads and undoubtedly extend the life as well. And that's without even considering all the economic benefits of having people bike vs. drive. This being the MMM forum, I don't think I even need to expound on that one. But I'll just add to it that the city of Copenhagen has found cyclists are a net benefit to the city, not a drain on resources.
Ignoring the fact that yes, the
Dutch,
Danes, Swedes, and several
other countries actually do build competent cycle infrastructure well into their countryside and
small towns, there are plenty cities here in America that have populations similar to some of the top cycle cities in the world, making population density of the country as a whole irrelevant. However, a big city doesn't make a bike friendly city. Manila, Bombay, and other notoriously packed cities are all not on the list.
Top 10 from the 2013 list, density figures are per square mile:
Amsterdam (9080)
Copenhagen city/metro (19,000/1670)
Utrecth (8490)
Seville (12,958)
Bordeaux (12,380)
Nantes (11,250)
Antwerp (6300)
Eindhoven (6230)
Malmö urban/metro (9460/680)
Berlin (10,000)
Dublin (11,880)
Now, for 20 somewhat random American cities:
New York City (19,550)
Los Angeles (8092)
Boulder, CO (3947)
Houston (3623)
Portland (4375)
Seattle (7402)
Davis, CA (6600) - was the lone US city on the
2009 listChicago (11,864)
Atlanta city/metro (3188/630)
Louisville, KY (1924)
Las Vegas (4298)
Clinton, IA (765)
Tuscaloosa, AL (1503)
Oshkosh, WI (2582)
Missoula, MT (2427)
Cheyenne, WY (2425)
Myrtle Beach, SC (1356)
St. Louis (5140
San Francisco (17,179)
Washington, DC (10,298)
As we can see, there are representatives from various points of the spectrum on both lists. Just about all of the big American cities have hopped on the bike bandwagon at this point. Chicago has a protected lane, New York the same, and DC just announced a second cycle track. However, a town's size is no excuse. The Swedes have cycle tracks in towns of 7000. Several of the other cities from the 2009 list have densities below 1000/sqare mile, yet their modal share is in the double digits
because their infrastructure includes miles of competent separate infrastructure.
Why don't we advocate for people getting used to riding near cars instead? There's not a good safety reason to avoid it, anecdotes aside.
Are people really that terrified of using a bicycle lane? Seriously?
I see those kinds of comments as just more complainypants whining (aka made up excuses)
Bicycling isn't that dangerous, and it's incredibly unlikely that you'll get clipped by a car coming up behind you- it's one of the rarest accidents.
Not sure what part of people being killed while riding in traffic is "anecdotal" to you, but that does keep most
potential cyclists in the safety of their steel cages. Advocacy campaigns to get people out of their cars onto
the current infrastructure will fall largely on deaf ears as
people do not want to and will not ride their bikes in traffic, regardless of what color they paint the lines and/or lane. Nevertheless, you're right. Statistics do show that riding on the sidewalk is less safe than in the street. But they also show that cycle tracks are even safer than bike lanes. So even using your own safety argument, cycle tracks are the answer.
Here in America, guess where I see 90% of the non-MAMILs riding? Not only are they on the sidewalk, they're on the wrong side of the road--statistically the most dangerous way to be riding. They do such a dangerous thing because they
feel safer that way. They can see what's approaching. But most importantly,
they're separate from the cars and trucks on the road.
I'd consider myself to be in that fearless 2% who'd ride anywhere, so I do. But when I go riding with friends, my riding partners almost always opt for the sidewalks,
even when there's a bike lane available. Despite my
assurances that they're statistically safer in the street and that they could even ride in front of me for added security, they will not do it. They'd rather stay separate from the cars and take their chances on the sidewalk than ride in the statistical
safety right next to them.
This argument is similar to saying that any road we build should be a 4-lane highway. Those are statistically safe, so why wouldn't anyone want one right outside their front door to hop on when they want to go get a gallon of milk? Of course, that approach means that all those who are apprehensive about driving on the highway (I know some people like that) would be stuck with no other means of getting around. Which is exactly what we've done to bikes or anything else that's not a car.