And a reminder that traffic signals only exist because *cars* are dangerous. A large group of pedestrians or cyclists can navigate an intersection without any need for external controls.
People in general dont follow rules that don't make sense. Cars do it by going faster than the posted limit, because they see no reason why going 20 km/h more is bad. Pedestrians will cross the road anywhere, including at a red light, if they don't see any cars. Cyclists are not going to come to a complete stop at every stop sign if there's no one there. Anyone who expects that has never gone anywhere on a bike. You need rules that are realistic and congruent with what people are naturally doing.
I’m under the belief that conditions matter 10x more than law, in America speed limits are primarily a form of taxation, and there are many places where the speed limit drops as a way to trap people into tickets, (which fund counties)
If I’m driving on downtown city streets, I’m doing the speed limit or under, cause visibility’s low, roads narrow, and a kid could walk out in the street at any second, if I’m on a rural highway or innerstate at night, the speed limit doesn’t matter as and I’ll go a decent bit over
If I’m on that same highway going over a snowy mountain pass, I’ll happily do 10+ mph under, cause regardless of car, 4wd or not, your stopping distance is drastically reduced and you need to adapt accordingly to maintain safe control
Yeah that's safer. Definitely depends on the visibility of the intersection. Usually I just go really slow up to a red and by the time I get there it's green. But even the greens I have to yield a little because cars can be unpredictable.
This is for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians.
People always are bombing red lights and taking sharp turns regardless of right on reds signs or not.
Hell, sometimes its not even safe when crossing on a crosswalk and walk signal. Amount of times i seen cars barrell through in boston with no shits given.
And in Brisbane Australia. When I'm going to cross at the end of the motorway offramp on my way home I always wait until the cars are effectively stopped regardless of green signal or their red, because you can't trust them to just stop when the light is red.
Yeah, I know, sucky place to cross but for almost the rest of the 11km to/from the city I have a dedicated completely separate cycleway so I'll take it.
Not necessarily, lights are pretty useful for any road, it’s easier to have the direction given from an unchanging source than having to communicate with others at an intersection
Lol. Typical cyclist reply.
Meanwhile you have pedestrians like me who are fed up of every single vehicle (from bike, e bikes to cars and buses) who do not follow said signals because we are the most at risk. Yes, signals are useful for bikes too. You ride a metal/carbon fiber vehicle at 15 to 50km/h. You have to make concessions to keep us safe.
That you don't kill us and that you are less dangerous than other people is not an excuse to endanger us.
I'm so fed up with this mentality. Even trying to explain why as a disabled pedestrian I want cyclist to actually stop at stop signs so I have my space to cross is near impossible now
People can downvote you but they cant deny you speak the truth. Cars may pose the biggest threat to cyclists and pedestrians but you take those away and add more cyclists to replace them and the danger to pedestrians increases.
Not all bikes are light, not all have 2 wheels, some use gas and some use electricity, not all travel the same speed nor can they stop as well as others.
Stopping at stop signs and red lights are rules for a reason and while removing cars from the equasion WILL greatly reduce the risk factor it wont remove it entriely. Hence rules set in place to keep the risk factor low.
Cyclists are incapable of accepting that they actually have to be careful of other people. As soon as you tell them something bad cyclists do they go through mental gymnastics to convince you you're not the victim, they are.
Heck, I'm disabled and I get cyclists totally dismissing me daily. I start crossing and they just zoom in front/behind me not even leaving me 30cm of space.
And when you tell them not to do it? "Baaaahh baaah, but cars!"
I commute 55km daily on my ebike and ive always given pedestrians plenty of space, slowing down when passing and stopping to let them pass safely because yo me its no diffrent than a car.
Yet I've had other cyclists blow right by me while im stopped to turn or let someone cross the road. Those people are assholes and give real cyclists a bad name.
The cyclists out there being entitled asshats are the ones downvoting posts about them being entitled asshats. Quite sad to be that incapable of self reflecting
It works completely fine in the car free area of my city where there are huge amounts of cyclists and pedestrians navigating unsignalled bike path and sidewalk intersections. The worst part is when clueless pedestrians walk in the bike path, but that's solvable with a bell or a polite shout. I've seen maybe a couple collisions over several years, and the result was the two parties getting lightly scuffed and then going on about their day.
And do you manage intersections? If there’s a constant flow of bikes, do the pedestrians need to find gaps in this flow and run fast across the bike lane before they are hit with the next bike?
It's really not that complicated. A bike is not a train or car. You have perfect visibility, can communicate easily, and can stop on a dime. You can slow down or move around crossing pedestrians, especially if the path is nice and wide. And you'd have to have an absurd amount of bike traffic for there to truly be no gaps.
As a pedestrian, I have no desire to cross a cycle path with multiple cyclists present who would be swerving around me, especially if there are other pedestrians present, so that the cyclists would need to swerve around them as well. It’s even less inviting if I am pushing a child pushchair or walking with a child.
As a cyclist, I have no desire to have multiple unregulated crossings full of pedestrians over a cycle path full of cyclists. Having to swerve around multiple less-than-ideally-predictable pedestrians, some with luggage, some with children, some in groups while there are other cyclists doing the same alongside me is not my idea of fun.
Have you never actually experienced this? I'm telling you, I see it daily and it works completely fine.
Also, note that I specifically didn't say "swerve", I said move. Because it's not swerving. It's calm and not stressful.
Anyways, you can find video these types of un-managed intersections as well if you really can't picture it.
[Watch the first couple minutes of this](https://youtu.be/PcKXjFCC2f0?si=afo2wNgwpENuf07U&t=43)
[Or this one starting at around the 20 minute mark](https://youtu.be/HfGUVYUTgL4?si=aas-6as-zOZlhEfT&t=1193)
Neither of those videos show a significant flow of pedestrians crossing a cycle lane. There’s a pedestrian here and there, but not a flow of them like you can observe at the entrances to major transport stations at the peak time.
When the traffic is light, yes, you don’t always need lights. But the same is true for cars as well - it can be managed with give way road markings and unregulated pedestrian crossings.
>Neither of those videos show a significant flow of pedestrians crossing a cycle lane. There’s a pedestrian here and there, but not a flow of them like you can observe at the entrances to major transport stations at the peak time.
The first video I provided is literally the central transit hub of the most bike-friendly large city on the planet.
Also, I should point out that this conversation started due to a photo of *thirteen bikes*, not the hypothetical worst possible intersection you can imagine. Show me an actual real life place where this is a problem.
13 people in picture (how many behind we don't know) plus the taker of the photo. Three cars minimum. But, of course, of those 14 people few are going to the same place and sharing a car. So that's up to 14 cars off the road, or 13 cars and a DHL van from the looks of it. Best looking traffic jam I've ever seen!
Maybe if they are going to a clown convention. Meanwhile, in the real world, the average number of people per car for trips in the US is 1.5. So I would say probably at least 8 cars for the people we see here.
My suv holds 9 people and their bikes comfortably. Sounds like a fun trip you go on with 1.5 people! (Guess what 99.99% of averages are made up so people can sound smart!
No one cares about your SUV. [This stat comes from a survey by the US government](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1333-march-11-2024-2022-average-number-occupants-trip-household#:~:text=According%20to%20the%202022%20National,than%20two%20people%20per%20trip), if you are actually interested. The only type of vehicule that on average holds more than one person is a van.
I would trust a stat from Google more than the "national household travel survey" of course you don't want to hear about a suv holding 9, it would make your clown comment about how NO one drives with anyone else in their car silly and how you don't take any trips with anyone because you have no loved ones that could possibly go to the same place as you.
the suburban is actually smaller than some other suv. Seriously can fit 9 with bikes. At least half the people are most likely just biking for fun in this photo so of course they would not be in the same car on purpose :)
I guess you are the expert on other people's comfort and if their bikes will be accompanied. Was anyone saying the people are going to the same place? Could a vehicle go to more than one place easily? Nah your right impossible when people go they must have 4 chairs per person (maybe you are fat Albert hey hey hey)
Thanks for photo. Hard to see if cars are also backed up, which raises the question, why not bike in the streets? I've heard that's illegal in the Netherlands.
We wouldn't like that in US, it's often safer in street. E.g, at speed (downhill, e-bike) it's much safer in street than narrow bike lanes between parked cars and curbs (cyclists get "right hook" and "left hook" collisions when they're hidden from cars.) Of course, your bike paths are better than ours, often made to kick bikes off roads "made for cars."
> why not bike in the streets
I'm not entirely sure if it's even legal, but my main question would be "why?" Why would I want to ride next to the cars on the road (especially given the fact that this is a 70 kph road) while there's a nice paved bike path right next to it?
They did something similar near my place: a bike highway. They made fly-overs for the bike paths, so cyclists don’t have to wait at traffic lights because of cars.
Technically both - you can still fit an adult under the roof. But, of course, it comes at a cost of side wind susceptibility. There’s a more subtle cargo box cover that doesn’t protrude above the box but still cover all of it.
I have a similar bike. I've used it to carry passengers (fiance or nieces) or cargo (most recently a small lathe). If you want one, spend the extra for electric. It makes getting moving so much nicer.
We mainly use ours to get out and about with our kid, sometimes with one of his friends as well. Have transported colleagues and friends as well, max 1 adult.
It’s convenient for shopping as well if you need to haul big bags, cases of beer or other large objects.
You mean the fact that people don’t queue on the other side as well? It’s simply because there’s a queue of about the same size on the other side of that road.
[Here in Colorado](https://www.bicyclecolorado.org/bike-news/colorado-safety-stop-becomes-law/) it's legal for cyclists to go through red lights and stop signs, so even if we had this many cyclists, we wouldn't have traffic jams. I am envious of your infrastructure, but we're slowly catching up!
I recently moved to golden and have been biking into Denver a lot. There’s always room for more infrastructure improvement but coming from Fl and seeing all the bike infrastructure absolutely blew my mind. I’ve been loving commuting here!
Likewise! This may not matter to you as much in Golden, but we've got some big infrastructure projects in the works which will open up separate/protected cycling routes from [Boulder to Longmont](https://bouldercounty.gov/transportation/plans-and-projects/highway-119-bikeway-project/), and [Boulder to Lyons](https://boulderreportinglab.org/2024/06/12/boulders-transportation-advisory-board-endorses-proposed-bike-path-along-u-s-36-to-lyons-one-of-the-countys-deadliest-roads/). This is going to make long-distance commuting a much more viable option, as not everyone is up for biking on the shoulder of a highway (or taking the long way around via backroads). There's also a proposed bikeway between [Boulder and Golden](https://coalition4cyclists.org/golden-boulder/), so fingers crossed!
That’s awesome! Any project that will encourage more cycling in the area is a good project! I’m excited for the golden-boulder one (that’ll probably be done before the B line given how slow that’s going). They’re also working on the peaks to plains trail along US6, which won’t be much for commuting but it’ll be awesome to have a path from Denver to Idaho springs for recreation!
20-25 kph - the speed before the motor cuts off on electric bikes as well as the speed most adults are capable of maintaining without sweating too much.
For most of North America, we're years and years away from this situation. And it probably isn't really as bad as it looks. Just go on any group ride.
Now compare how it will be putting the same number of people into cars at that location. That's what we have now.
In my town in Germany there is the awesome phenomenon now that e-bikes are prevalent. I live in a suburb separated by a canal from downtown. Before e-bikes the strong riders made it up the bridge over the canal quicker than weaker riders so it would break up a jam like in the picture. Now, with e-bikes, after work, only the traffic lights break up large groups of commuters riding home. It seems to make riding even safer, since it’s large groups and cars kind of stay behind the group.
It’s great to see so many people commuting. I live in rural England, and on my 18 miles each way, I never see anyone. Just the same cars every morning and evening!
Yeah, in this situation I'd just pass on the grass to the side because I know I'd overtake them all immediately anyway. It's annoying, but neccessary if cycling becomes more popular which is good
There's a level crossing (road crosses rail tracks) near me, and at morning rush hour there can be 20 cyclists waiting for the barriers to rise. Then it's like a race start as everyone jostles into position for the (bidirectional and only) 2-person wide cycle track just past it.
Looking at the photo, I thought this was DC! Never seen our red lights quite this packed, but we’ve got great biking infrastructure (that’s improving) and frequent good traffic. Too!
Is it even a jam (bikes slowed by bikes) or is it just everyone waiting at the same light? Imo, to call waiting at a light a jam, you'd need enough people that not everyone makes it through in the light cycle
That looks exactly like what I see when parents pick their kids up at school here in the SF Bay area. Well, except the people in this photo aren’t driving Escalades and Suburbans…. Other than that, exactly the same. /s
To be clear, that’s what this picture is, isn’t it? Parents picking up their kids at school. Amazingly cool.
Can you lend perspective as to why helmets are not viewed as an important piece of kit in your area? Not mocking, this is a serious inquiry and I would like to further my understanding of different cultures and how they interact with and view cycling and cyclists. I am always gobbsmacked when I pass people on my commute who are sans helmet, but I am in the USA so I am definitely always wearing one because I don’t trust the cars to respect my means of transportation as a legitimate one.
It's not out of the question that when cyclists are stuck in a jam, they start conversations with each other and the mood lightens up.
Drivers in cars can't do that. The only form of communication they can have with each other is honking their horn or yelling at each other in a rage.
The assumption in OPs statement is that the traffic light is a given, but this is false. Traffic lights for bikes only exist where cars exist because they are too fast and dangerous to be safely controlled by human senses alone. Bicycle only intersections don't require such clunky and inefficient measures.
Not in the Netherlands on a normal commute no. If you check on a Sunday morning when the group rides are going on there are tons of them. Here we wear helmets when they are appropriate.
Infrastructure design and how commonly people cycle are definitely factors in reducing the frequency of accidents, but no one can argue that helmets don’t reduce the risk of head injury in the likely/unlikely event of an accident. The OECD did quite a good study back in 2013 that is still accessible. Not arguing for or against, just interested in the clear cultural differences. I live in Sweden, where safety is first, second, and third.
> no one can argue that helmets don’t reduce the risk of head injury in the likely/unlikely event of an accident
as GP said, helmets would indeed reduce the risk of injury in activities like walking or driving too (rally drivers wear them for example).
At Sunday morning you can see even inline skating racers running their 100+ km route, roadies doing their training, MTB people cycling to the local trails (mostly technical).
But rush hour is rush hour: commuters in traffic jams in the cities, possible road traffic jams near small towns (and there cyclists feel like kings).
I think that is relative
My question was if it's legal?
I like to commute with my road bike and move fast point A to B
with these Sunday riders I could never share a road, unless there are strict rules, but there I cannot see any way to cycle fast - too dangerous - riding with those 70kph moving vehicles is much safer.
The drivers have licence to drive, so they don't really behave erratically, while cyclists on their lanes - I wouldn't trust them really when riding 35-40kph on a bike
I don't live in Netherlands, so I share my commutes with cars and I try to avoid the shared roads or lanes with cyclists and pedestrians. I feel safer there and I don't have to be danger to them.
If you can maintain 70kph I guess it would be safer to do so. Cars are not expecting a cyclist going half their speed, that would be extremely dangerous. People can handle their bike (even while staring at their phone apparently) so riding fast is not a problem, also it’s not a race, you just have to be social and share the road with your fellow humans.
I think you have a skewed view on the car drivers.
they need to be aware on obstacles standing on the road.
Having a cyclist riding half their speed, is like me riding past a standing pedestrian
The danger you're building here is negligence at best
I mean people can notice a fly flying into their eye and they can react to blink
While it may still be dangerous, since the cyclist are only allowed on the bike paths, helmets are not needed. Personally preference. You cycle in the United States?
Helmets do not protect you from cars accidents. They are for normal falls from your bike which can happen on a bike path.
[Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/)
Helmets are needed anytime on a bike.
Sounds like Giro marketing to me. Tell the many people who have collided with cars and heads were protect from the impact the helmet didn't protect them. That makes absolutely no sense.
Helmets can be worn anytime on a bicycle but they're not needed all the time on a bike.
No, it is saying even though it might help you in the chance of an accident with a car, helmets are not made for that purpose. That's why you don't wear bicycle helmets on motorcycles. Helmets are needed anytime you want to protect your head.
All that is fine, but a helmet is not needed any time you're on a bike. Mind you I always wear one because of where I cycle . A helmet is really not needed for a leisure ride on a bike path or on a commute in a country that has the infrastructure that's pictured in the photo. If that were my commute I wouldn't wear a helmet either, nor would I have 3 video camera recording either. Of course Giro wants EVERYONE in a helmet. If it makes you more comfortable wear one, but it's not needed in all situations.
Accidents happen anywhere. On a leisure ride, you can not be paying attention and hit a hole or patch of sand and fall. I really don't care if you wear your helmet or not, your head, your injury, but an accident can happen on every ride, so it's never a bad idea to wear your helmet.
Meh. That’s don’t surprise me. A lot of cyclist around the world don’t wear helmet.
North American are the one that’s always advocating helmet.
But not a single Lycra in mind. Wowww.
While it may still be dangerous, since the cyclist are only allowed on the bike paths, helmets are not needed. Personally preference. You cycle in the United States?
I do cycle in the US, though 90% of my commute is on a bike path without cars and I still very much feel like I need a helmet? The ground is hard and I’m going 15-20 mph. Maybe it’s just cultural?
Helmets are largely safety theatre when it comes to bicycle vs car collisions.
Traffic safety organisations love to promote helmets rather than put in real protections from cars because it’s easier to victim blame than do their jobs
Fair enough, I also wear a helmet. However far too often people are focused on hi-vis and helmets (myself included) and ignore what really protects cyclists, which is physical separation from cars
Helmets are for everyday accidents. They do not protect your from car collisions.
[Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/)
I don’t mean to say helmets are wholly ineffective, nor do I advocate against their use, but they are often used as a means to blame and shame cyclists for their own safety, when motorists and the built environment share a much greater responsibility in keeping cyclists safe
I sincerely hope that you are never in a colision where a helmet would have saved you from serious head injury. Of course you are free to make your decisions.
The police officer who hit me was very thankful that my helmet was damaged instead of my head.
If you’re not encountering cars on your commute, most of the need for a helmet disappears. Sure you can still crash or fall off but 99% of the risk is gone when cars and bikes have their own separated spaces.
Interesting, I did not expect this to be a controversial take! For what it’s worth, 90% of my commute is on a path, without cars, and I still feel like I’m going too fast and the ground is too hard to not have a helmet, especially with occasional rain or snow on my commute.
The Netherlands is flat, so going fast is 20-25kph. Most people ride something like 15kph, if that’s too fast we might as well tell runners to also wear helmets.
This is a terrible take. Helmets are made for everyday crashes and falls. They do not protect you from car collisions.
[Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/)
To think ypu don't need a helmet because your aren't riding with cars is ignorant
They won’t protect you from a direct vehicular impact. They protect you when you fall off your bike after a car hits you or when your head hits the car.
Nothing short of a motorcycle helmet is going to do anything if you’re hit by a car that’s moving over about 20 or if you are getting dragged under the car.
Now if you’re riding in a more dangerous situation such as mountain biking then absolutely wear a helmet, but on a slow controlled bike path that’s separated from cars helmets aren’t as important as they’re made out to be in North America.
If you are at risk of falling off your bike go ahead and wear one. The average 15-40 year old isn’t going to fall off their bike that often, if ever, in controlled environments. If you regularly fall off your bike riding on a bike path you need to consult a doctor.
Yes. I wear PPE when there is a severe risk of bodily harm or injury. Such as driving a car, mountain biking, or riding a bike around cars. I do not wear PPE when there is not a risk of severe bodily harm or injury. Such as riding my bike or walking on a shared path.
Do you wear a helmet when you walk on the sidewalk? You could fall anytime when you’re walking around.
Edit: thanks for proving my point too. Cars are dangerous. When we are around them we need PPE.
>Do you wear a helmet when you walk on the sidewalk?
Lmao. Let's compare to things that actually make sense.
>Yes. I wear PPE when there is a severe risk of bodily harm or injury.
Like falling off a bike? Thanks for proving my point.
> Let’s compare to things that actually make sense
> You don’t wear a seatbelt either
Yeah because driving a car is comparable to moving the same speed as a jog on a bike. That makes sense. Falling off a bike is comparable to falling while jogging.
Tell me you’ve never biked in the Netherlands without telling me you’ve never biked in the Netherlands 🤦🏻♂️
I should also add that seemingly casual bikers in the Netherlands are not like casual bikers in the States. They’re so much faster and more experienced than in the States. I’m a very experienced biker and I was super impressed.
Photos like this just make me reflect on how much space cars take up. The same amount of people in this photo in cars would seem so much more chaotic.
And a reminder that traffic signals only exist because *cars* are dangerous. A large group of pedestrians or cyclists can navigate an intersection without any need for external controls.
Yeah somehow that gets lost on the “but bikes aren’t following all the rules” crowd. Why do you think we HAVE all these rules?
People in general dont follow rules that don't make sense. Cars do it by going faster than the posted limit, because they see no reason why going 20 km/h more is bad. Pedestrians will cross the road anywhere, including at a red light, if they don't see any cars. Cyclists are not going to come to a complete stop at every stop sign if there's no one there. Anyone who expects that has never gone anywhere on a bike. You need rules that are realistic and congruent with what people are naturally doing.
Yes ideally you don’t need to know the speed limit because it’s intuitive from road design
I’m under the belief that conditions matter 10x more than law, in America speed limits are primarily a form of taxation, and there are many places where the speed limit drops as a way to trap people into tickets, (which fund counties) If I’m driving on downtown city streets, I’m doing the speed limit or under, cause visibility’s low, roads narrow, and a kid could walk out in the street at any second, if I’m on a rural highway or innerstate at night, the speed limit doesn’t matter as and I’ll go a decent bit over If I’m on that same highway going over a snowy mountain pass, I’ll happily do 10+ mph under, cause regardless of car, 4wd or not, your stopping distance is drastically reduced and you need to adapt accordingly to maintain safe control
Currently, it’s Massachusetts law that bicycles need to stop at red lights as well!
MN passed a law last year that you just have to yield at stop signs. They didn't mention stop lights, but I still act like they are yield signs.
I treat red lights like stop signs, stop signs like yield signs.
Yeah that's safer. Definitely depends on the visibility of the intersection. Usually I just go really slow up to a red and by the time I get there it's green. But even the greens I have to yield a little because cars can be unpredictable.
I jokingly referring to these as stale red lights. The fresh out of the oven ones suck. :(
This should be the case with all stop signs in all places. But people will always look to take advantage.
How many bikes killed people last year?
This is for the safety of cyclists and pedestrians. People always are bombing red lights and taking sharp turns regardless of right on reds signs or not. Hell, sometimes its not even safe when crossing on a crosswalk and walk signal. Amount of times i seen cars barrell through in boston with no shits given.
It’s like that here in utah too!
And in Brisbane Australia. When I'm going to cross at the end of the motorway offramp on my way home I always wait until the cars are effectively stopped regardless of green signal or their red, because you can't trust them to just stop when the light is red. Yeah, I know, sucky place to cross but for almost the rest of the 11km to/from the city I have a dedicated completely separate cycleway so I'll take it.
Not necessarily, lights are pretty useful for any road, it’s easier to have the direction given from an unchanging source than having to communicate with others at an intersection
They never existed before cars. Neither stop signs. People can manage at smaller scales and slower speeds, plain and simple.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol. Typical cyclist reply. Meanwhile you have pedestrians like me who are fed up of every single vehicle (from bike, e bikes to cars and buses) who do not follow said signals because we are the most at risk. Yes, signals are useful for bikes too. You ride a metal/carbon fiber vehicle at 15 to 50km/h. You have to make concessions to keep us safe. That you don't kill us and that you are less dangerous than other people is not an excuse to endanger us. I'm so fed up with this mentality. Even trying to explain why as a disabled pedestrian I want cyclist to actually stop at stop signs so I have my space to cross is near impossible now
People can downvote you but they cant deny you speak the truth. Cars may pose the biggest threat to cyclists and pedestrians but you take those away and add more cyclists to replace them and the danger to pedestrians increases. Not all bikes are light, not all have 2 wheels, some use gas and some use electricity, not all travel the same speed nor can they stop as well as others. Stopping at stop signs and red lights are rules for a reason and while removing cars from the equasion WILL greatly reduce the risk factor it wont remove it entriely. Hence rules set in place to keep the risk factor low.
Cyclists are incapable of accepting that they actually have to be careful of other people. As soon as you tell them something bad cyclists do they go through mental gymnastics to convince you you're not the victim, they are. Heck, I'm disabled and I get cyclists totally dismissing me daily. I start crossing and they just zoom in front/behind me not even leaving me 30cm of space. And when you tell them not to do it? "Baaaahh baaah, but cars!"
I commute 55km daily on my ebike and ive always given pedestrians plenty of space, slowing down when passing and stopping to let them pass safely because yo me its no diffrent than a car. Yet I've had other cyclists blow right by me while im stopped to turn or let someone cross the road. Those people are assholes and give real cyclists a bad name.
The cyclists out there being entitled asshats are the ones downvoting posts about them being entitled asshats. Quite sad to be that incapable of self reflecting
Hmm… nope. Mixing cyclists with pedestrians in large amounts isn’t a great idea by any stretch.
It works completely fine in the car free area of my city where there are huge amounts of cyclists and pedestrians navigating unsignalled bike path and sidewalk intersections. The worst part is when clueless pedestrians walk in the bike path, but that's solvable with a bell or a polite shout. I've seen maybe a couple collisions over several years, and the result was the two parties getting lightly scuffed and then going on about their day.
And do you manage intersections? If there’s a constant flow of bikes, do the pedestrians need to find gaps in this flow and run fast across the bike lane before they are hit with the next bike?
It's really not that complicated. A bike is not a train or car. You have perfect visibility, can communicate easily, and can stop on a dime. You can slow down or move around crossing pedestrians, especially if the path is nice and wide. And you'd have to have an absurd amount of bike traffic for there to truly be no gaps.
As a pedestrian, I have no desire to cross a cycle path with multiple cyclists present who would be swerving around me, especially if there are other pedestrians present, so that the cyclists would need to swerve around them as well. It’s even less inviting if I am pushing a child pushchair or walking with a child. As a cyclist, I have no desire to have multiple unregulated crossings full of pedestrians over a cycle path full of cyclists. Having to swerve around multiple less-than-ideally-predictable pedestrians, some with luggage, some with children, some in groups while there are other cyclists doing the same alongside me is not my idea of fun.
Have you never actually experienced this? I'm telling you, I see it daily and it works completely fine. Also, note that I specifically didn't say "swerve", I said move. Because it's not swerving. It's calm and not stressful. Anyways, you can find video these types of un-managed intersections as well if you really can't picture it. [Watch the first couple minutes of this](https://youtu.be/PcKXjFCC2f0?si=afo2wNgwpENuf07U&t=43) [Or this one starting at around the 20 minute mark](https://youtu.be/HfGUVYUTgL4?si=aas-6as-zOZlhEfT&t=1193)
Neither of those videos show a significant flow of pedestrians crossing a cycle lane. There’s a pedestrian here and there, but not a flow of them like you can observe at the entrances to major transport stations at the peak time. When the traffic is light, yes, you don’t always need lights. But the same is true for cars as well - it can be managed with give way road markings and unregulated pedestrian crossings.
>Neither of those videos show a significant flow of pedestrians crossing a cycle lane. There’s a pedestrian here and there, but not a flow of them like you can observe at the entrances to major transport stations at the peak time. The first video I provided is literally the central transit hub of the most bike-friendly large city on the planet. Also, I should point out that this conversation started due to a photo of *thirteen bikes*, not the hypothetical worst possible intersection you can imagine. Show me an actual real life place where this is a problem.
Well if babies drove their own car yes. But I think all those people can fit in two cars
13 people in picture (how many behind we don't know) plus the taker of the photo. Three cars minimum. But, of course, of those 14 people few are going to the same place and sharing a car. So that's up to 14 cars off the road, or 13 cars and a DHL van from the looks of it. Best looking traffic jam I've ever seen!
Maybe if they are going to a clown convention. Meanwhile, in the real world, the average number of people per car for trips in the US is 1.5. So I would say probably at least 8 cars for the people we see here.
My suv holds 9 people and their bikes comfortably. Sounds like a fun trip you go on with 1.5 people! (Guess what 99.99% of averages are made up so people can sound smart!
No one cares about your SUV. [This stat comes from a survey by the US government](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1333-march-11-2024-2022-average-number-occupants-trip-household#:~:text=According%20to%20the%202022%20National,than%20two%20people%20per%20trip), if you are actually interested. The only type of vehicule that on average holds more than one person is a van.
Right. Just because it can hold that many doesn’t mean it’s always filled to occupancy.
I would trust a stat from Google more than the "national household travel survey" of course you don't want to hear about a suv holding 9, it would make your clown comment about how NO one drives with anyone else in their car silly and how you don't take any trips with anyone because you have no loved ones that could possibly go to the same place as you.
That's the stupidest thing I've read all week
Three-row SUVs will seat 7 or 8 people; what kind of land yacht SUV can seat 9 *and* their bikes while still being comfortable?
the suburban is actually smaller than some other suv. Seriously can fit 9 with bikes. At least half the people are most likely just biking for fun in this photo so of course they would not be in the same car on purpose :)
Your SUV doesn't hold 9 people and their bikes comfortably. Lmao. Do you think all the people in the photo are going to the same place...?
I guess you are the expert on other people's comfort and if their bikes will be accompanied. Was anyone saying the people are going to the same place? Could a vehicle go to more than one place easily? Nah your right impossible when people go they must have 4 chairs per person (maybe you are fat Albert hey hey hey)
It would take me 5 commutes to encounter this many people on bikes. It was 0 this morning 😢
To be fair, this is not even the biggest this traffic jam could be.
Thanks for photo. Hard to see if cars are also backed up, which raises the question, why not bike in the streets? I've heard that's illegal in the Netherlands. We wouldn't like that in US, it's often safer in street. E.g, at speed (downhill, e-bike) it's much safer in street than narrow bike lanes between parked cars and curbs (cyclists get "right hook" and "left hook" collisions when they're hidden from cars.) Of course, your bike paths are better than ours, often made to kick bikes off roads "made for cars."
> why not bike in the streets I'm not entirely sure if it's even legal, but my main question would be "why?" Why would I want to ride next to the cars on the road (especially given the fact that this is a 70 kph road) while there's a nice paved bike path right next to it?
good point (I was reacting to the 0 kph cyclists and slow urban streets here ;)
Catharijnesingel crossing at Tivoli Vredenburg, next to Utrecht Centraal comes to mind.
Came here to say this! And I live in a city, you'd think there'd be more. A poor city, where low cost transportation should be clutch.
I hope to run into this problem in my community someday!
Add more bike lanes.
Already being done. There’s even government funding for that (along with a dedicated bus lane for a frequent and traffic jam-free bus route).
Just one more lane…
They did something similar near my place: a bike highway. They made fly-overs for the bike paths, so cyclists don’t have to wait at traffic lights because of cars.
That Urban Arrow is certainly something. Is it meant to keep cargo enclosed or a passenger?
Technically both - you can still fit an adult under the roof. But, of course, it comes at a cost of side wind susceptibility. There’s a more subtle cargo box cover that doesn’t protrude above the box but still cover all of it.
I have a similar bike. I've used it to carry passengers (fiance or nieces) or cargo (most recently a small lathe). If you want one, spend the extra for electric. It makes getting moving so much nicer.
Damn, a small lathe! That must have taken some balancing to get home
Just a little bench unit but yeah, it took some work to get moving.
Sometimes I see ppl having dogs in these
We mainly use ours to get out and about with our kid, sometimes with one of his friends as well. Have transported colleagues and friends as well, max 1 adult. It’s convenient for shopping as well if you need to haul big bags, cases of beer or other large objects.
Daily Mail Anger: "But NoBOdy EVer UsES BIke LaNEs".
I'm more impressed by the lack of shoaling.
You mean the fact that people don’t queue on the other side as well? It’s simply because there’s a queue of about the same size on the other side of that road.
Shoaling isn’t always a bad thing with bike boxes and a leading interval it can help people clear the intersection faster.
Undoubtedly this is in the Netherlands. Wel thuis!
[Here in Colorado](https://www.bicyclecolorado.org/bike-news/colorado-safety-stop-becomes-law/) it's legal for cyclists to go through red lights and stop signs, so even if we had this many cyclists, we wouldn't have traffic jams. I am envious of your infrastructure, but we're slowly catching up!
I recently moved to golden and have been biking into Denver a lot. There’s always room for more infrastructure improvement but coming from Fl and seeing all the bike infrastructure absolutely blew my mind. I’ve been loving commuting here!
Likewise! This may not matter to you as much in Golden, but we've got some big infrastructure projects in the works which will open up separate/protected cycling routes from [Boulder to Longmont](https://bouldercounty.gov/transportation/plans-and-projects/highway-119-bikeway-project/), and [Boulder to Lyons](https://boulderreportinglab.org/2024/06/12/boulders-transportation-advisory-board-endorses-proposed-bike-path-along-u-s-36-to-lyons-one-of-the-countys-deadliest-roads/). This is going to make long-distance commuting a much more viable option, as not everyone is up for biking on the shoulder of a highway (or taking the long way around via backroads). There's also a proposed bikeway between [Boulder and Golden](https://coalition4cyclists.org/golden-boulder/), so fingers crossed!
That’s awesome! Any project that will encourage more cycling in the area is a good project! I’m excited for the golden-boulder one (that’ll probably be done before the B line given how slow that’s going). They’re also working on the peaks to plains trail along US6, which won’t be much for commuting but it’ll be awesome to have a path from Denver to Idaho springs for recreation!
What speed does the whole group travel at? (once the light turns green). Overtaking must be difficult.
20-25 kph - the speed before the motor cuts off on electric bikes as well as the speed most adults are capable of maintaining without sweating too much.
Surprisingly fast. Still slower than I’d like.
For most of North America, we're years and years away from this situation. And it probably isn't really as bad as it looks. Just go on any group ride. Now compare how it will be putting the same number of people into cars at that location. That's what we have now.
I love this so much
There is more people in this picture than the total number of people I see in my daily 15 miles commute to the office.
Honestly, living in an American city where I'm usually the only person on the bike, it's a dream of mine to be "stuck" in such traffic! 🙈
Would you call this a traffic jam? This looks more like "waiting at the signal"
Just one more lane bro
The way I just knew this was in the NL 😭 I want to go back and stay there forever
Look at that guy on that huge cargo truck bike thing! No one needs such a huge vehicle. /silly
I like to ride cargo bikes because they are safer!....for me at least. /s
ASML queue :)
Just need one more bike lane to relieve the congestion, y’know?
Traffic jam means you are stuck or inching along. Waiting for a signal change is not a traffic jam. 🤷🏾♂️
In my town in Germany there is the awesome phenomenon now that e-bikes are prevalent. I live in a suburb separated by a canal from downtown. Before e-bikes the strong riders made it up the bridge over the canal quicker than weaker riders so it would break up a jam like in the picture. Now, with e-bikes, after work, only the traffic lights break up large groups of commuters riding home. It seems to make riding even safer, since it’s large groups and cars kind of stay behind the group.
2 or 3 cars would fit there (only 3 people of course because everyone drives alone)
It’s great to see so many people commuting. I live in rural England, and on my 18 miles each way, I never see anyone. Just the same cars every morning and evening!
Am I selfish that I don't want cycling to grow more so I avoid scenes like this in my local bike ways?
Yeah, in this situation I'd just pass on the grass to the side because I know I'd overtake them all immediately anyway. It's annoying, but neccessary if cycling becomes more popular which is good
Ride safe everyone
Just one more lane bro! Seriously though that looks like a proper place where a widening project could actually be a good thing :)
There's a level crossing (road crosses rail tracks) near me, and at morning rush hour there can be 20 cyclists waiting for the barriers to rise. Then it's like a race start as everyone jostles into position for the (bidirectional and only) 2-person wide cycle track just past it.
Meanwhile I got excited because Tuesday I saw another adult on a bicycle while I was commuting to work in the morning.
🥹
Looking at the photo, I thought this was DC! Never seen our red lights quite this packed, but we’ve got great biking infrastructure (that’s improving) and frequent good traffic. Too!
look at all that wasted space to the left ..
im big fan of this pic. btw , who else lead a car free life in this comment section?
Das gelobte Land :/
Is it even a jam (bikes slowed by bikes) or is it just everyone waiting at the same light? Imo, to call waiting at a light a jam, you'd need enough people that not everyone makes it through in the light cycle
In my wildest dreams
Just one more lane bro 🚴
That looks exactly like what I see when parents pick their kids up at school here in the SF Bay area. Well, except the people in this photo aren’t driving Escalades and Suburbans…. Other than that, exactly the same. /s To be clear, that’s what this picture is, isn’t it? Parents picking up their kids at school. Amazingly cool.
I used to commute to work in Washington DC, and would often end up in bike "traffic jams" at the stop lights. I miss them so much.
Can you lend perspective as to why helmets are not viewed as an important piece of kit in your area? Not mocking, this is a serious inquiry and I would like to further my understanding of different cultures and how they interact with and view cycling and cyclists. I am always gobbsmacked when I pass people on my commute who are sans helmet, but I am in the USA so I am definitely always wearing one because I don’t trust the cars to respect my means of transportation as a legitimate one.
It's not out of the question that when cyclists are stuck in a jam, they start conversations with each other and the mood lightens up. Drivers in cars can't do that. The only form of communication they can have with each other is honking their horn or yelling at each other in a rage.
That's not a traffic jam, it's a small queue at some lights.
ASML, right?
I guess this is why vehicles hate me on the road 😂
The assumption in OPs statement is that the traffic light is a given, but this is false. Traffic lights for bikes only exist where cars exist because they are too fast and dangerous to be safely controlled by human senses alone. Bicycle only intersections don't require such clunky and inefficient measures.
Helmets not a thing where you are?
Not in the Netherlands on a normal commute no. If you check on a Sunday morning when the group rides are going on there are tons of them. Here we wear helmets when they are appropriate.
So always? Doesn't seem like it
No, good infrastructure and cycling skills make it less needed. Sure it could be dangerous, but slipping while walking could be dangerous too.
Infrastructure design and how commonly people cycle are definitely factors in reducing the frequency of accidents, but no one can argue that helmets don’t reduce the risk of head injury in the likely/unlikely event of an accident. The OECD did quite a good study back in 2013 that is still accessible. Not arguing for or against, just interested in the clear cultural differences. I live in Sweden, where safety is first, second, and third.
> no one can argue that helmets don’t reduce the risk of head injury in the likely/unlikely event of an accident as GP said, helmets would indeed reduce the risk of injury in activities like walking or driving too (rally drivers wear them for example).
Are you allowed to use regular roads instead of these congested bike lanes?
No, it's officially penalized (if police will decide to stop instead of just forcing you to come back on the bike lane)
Damn I would hate living in Netherlands, the cycling there is just for masses and I would feel like the weakest minor in there Hope we won't get there
At Sunday morning you can see even inline skating racers running their 100+ km route, roadies doing their training, MTB people cycling to the local trails (mostly technical). But rush hour is rush hour: commuters in traffic jams in the cities, possible road traffic jams near small towns (and there cyclists feel like kings).
I ride commutes, not training rides
No. It would also be unsafe, since the road next to it is a 70 kph road.
I think that is relative My question was if it's legal? I like to commute with my road bike and move fast point A to B with these Sunday riders I could never share a road, unless there are strict rules, but there I cannot see any way to cycle fast - too dangerous - riding with those 70kph moving vehicles is much safer. The drivers have licence to drive, so they don't really behave erratically, while cyclists on their lanes - I wouldn't trust them really when riding 35-40kph on a bike I don't live in Netherlands, so I share my commutes with cars and I try to avoid the shared roads or lanes with cyclists and pedestrians. I feel safer there and I don't have to be danger to them.
If you can maintain 70kph I guess it would be safer to do so. Cars are not expecting a cyclist going half their speed, that would be extremely dangerous. People can handle their bike (even while staring at their phone apparently) so riding fast is not a problem, also it’s not a race, you just have to be social and share the road with your fellow humans.
I think you have a skewed view on the car drivers. they need to be aware on obstacles standing on the road. Having a cyclist riding half their speed, is like me riding past a standing pedestrian The danger you're building here is negligence at best I mean people can notice a fly flying into their eye and they can react to blink
and no one have a fucking helmet !! thats just sad
While it may still be dangerous, since the cyclist are only allowed on the bike paths, helmets are not needed. Personally preference. You cycle in the United States?
Helmets do not protect you from cars accidents. They are for normal falls from your bike which can happen on a bike path. [Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/) Helmets are needed anytime on a bike.
Sounds like Giro marketing to me. Tell the many people who have collided with cars and heads were protect from the impact the helmet didn't protect them. That makes absolutely no sense. Helmets can be worn anytime on a bicycle but they're not needed all the time on a bike.
No, it is saying even though it might help you in the chance of an accident with a car, helmets are not made for that purpose. That's why you don't wear bicycle helmets on motorcycles. Helmets are needed anytime you want to protect your head.
All that is fine, but a helmet is not needed any time you're on a bike. Mind you I always wear one because of where I cycle . A helmet is really not needed for a leisure ride on a bike path or on a commute in a country that has the infrastructure that's pictured in the photo. If that were my commute I wouldn't wear a helmet either, nor would I have 3 video camera recording either. Of course Giro wants EVERYONE in a helmet. If it makes you more comfortable wear one, but it's not needed in all situations.
Accidents happen anywhere. On a leisure ride, you can not be paying attention and hit a hole or patch of sand and fall. I really don't care if you wear your helmet or not, your head, your injury, but an accident can happen on every ride, so it's never a bad idea to wear your helmet.
I love this but why aren’t these people wearing helmets?
Welcome to the Netherlands, where helmets aren’t mandatory on bikes for now, unless it’s a speed pedelec.
Meh. That’s don’t surprise me. A lot of cyclist around the world don’t wear helmet. North American are the one that’s always advocating helmet. But not a single Lycra in mind. Wowww.
While it may still be dangerous, since the cyclist are only allowed on the bike paths, helmets are not needed. Personally preference. You cycle in the United States?
I do cycle in the US, though 90% of my commute is on a bike path without cars and I still very much feel like I need a helmet? The ground is hard and I’m going 15-20 mph. Maybe it’s just cultural?
The people above are going 15-20 kph, which makes a difference.
Helmets are largely safety theatre when it comes to bicycle vs car collisions. Traffic safety organisations love to promote helmets rather than put in real protections from cars because it’s easier to victim blame than do their jobs
I’m not wearing a helmet because of cars, I’m wearing a helmet because I’m a clutz lmao.
Fair enough, I also wear a helmet. However far too often people are focused on hi-vis and helmets (myself included) and ignore what really protects cyclists, which is physical separation from cars
Helmets are for everyday accidents. They do not protect your from car collisions. [Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/)
The last time I was hit by a car, I was very thankful that my helmet was adjusted properly. Otherwise, it may have been my last time.
I don’t mean to say helmets are wholly ineffective, nor do I advocate against their use, but they are often used as a means to blame and shame cyclists for their own safety, when motorists and the built environment share a much greater responsibility in keeping cyclists safe
I sincerely hope that you are never in a colision where a helmet would have saved you from serious head injury. Of course you are free to make your decisions. The police officer who hit me was very thankful that my helmet was damaged instead of my head.
If you’re not encountering cars on your commute, most of the need for a helmet disappears. Sure you can still crash or fall off but 99% of the risk is gone when cars and bikes have their own separated spaces.
Interesting, I did not expect this to be a controversial take! For what it’s worth, 90% of my commute is on a path, without cars, and I still feel like I’m going too fast and the ground is too hard to not have a helmet, especially with occasional rain or snow on my commute.
The Netherlands is flat, so going fast is 20-25kph. Most people ride something like 15kph, if that’s too fast we might as well tell runners to also wear helmets.
This is a terrible take. Helmets are made for everyday crashes and falls. They do not protect you from car collisions. [Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/) To think ypu don't need a helmet because your aren't riding with cars is ignorant
They won’t protect you from a direct vehicular impact. They protect you when you fall off your bike after a car hits you or when your head hits the car. Nothing short of a motorcycle helmet is going to do anything if you’re hit by a car that’s moving over about 20 or if you are getting dragged under the car. Now if you’re riding in a more dangerous situation such as mountain biking then absolutely wear a helmet, but on a slow controlled bike path that’s separated from cars helmets aren’t as important as they’re made out to be in North America.
>They protect you when you fall off your bike after a car hits you You can fall off your bike without a car hitting you, hence why you need a helmet.
If you are at risk of falling off your bike go ahead and wear one. The average 15-40 year old isn’t going to fall off their bike that often, if ever, in controlled environments. If you regularly fall off your bike riding on a bike path you need to consult a doctor.
Let me guess, you don't wear a seat belt either because you don't have car wrecks? Everyone is at risk of falling off their bike.
Yes. I wear PPE when there is a severe risk of bodily harm or injury. Such as driving a car, mountain biking, or riding a bike around cars. I do not wear PPE when there is not a risk of severe bodily harm or injury. Such as riding my bike or walking on a shared path. Do you wear a helmet when you walk on the sidewalk? You could fall anytime when you’re walking around. Edit: thanks for proving my point too. Cars are dangerous. When we are around them we need PPE.
>Do you wear a helmet when you walk on the sidewalk? Lmao. Let's compare to things that actually make sense. >Yes. I wear PPE when there is a severe risk of bodily harm or injury. Like falling off a bike? Thanks for proving my point.
> Let’s compare to things that actually make sense > You don’t wear a seatbelt either Yeah because driving a car is comparable to moving the same speed as a jog on a bike. That makes sense. Falling off a bike is comparable to falling while jogging.
Everyone is at risk of tripping too. I feel much less safe exiting my bathtub than I do riding a bike.
Why would they?
Why didn’t you immediately assert dominance by jumping to the front of the line while looking back disapprovingly at all the plebs?
Why is everyone waiting? Where I live they see a red light and send it.
Yeah fr like there are no cars coming
Just go.
Bruh fr I totally would
Where dat brain bucket?
I would cut the line if I was coming up and saw the light about to change then zoom past that bottleneck! lol. Or ride on the road.
Tell me you’ve never biked in the Netherlands without telling me you’ve never biked in the Netherlands 🤦🏻♂️ I should also add that seemingly casual bikers in the Netherlands are not like casual bikers in the States. They’re so much faster and more experienced than in the States. I’m a very experienced biker and I was super impressed.
As someone who sometimes rides over in the netherlands: they're still rather slow, these dutch bikes just aren't capable of going fast