> wonder what it would take to get something like it started here in the US.
I've been reading these discussions on the internet for a while and I've been seeing a willingness and perhaps even a desire to excuse the status quo as a large factor. Bring up the stereotypical Copenhagen and Amsterdam and immediately people post reasons why North America can't be like that: the hills and the climate and the distances and so on.
It strikes me as very un-American in a way - challenging land and climate and large distances haven't stopped Americans from expanding into the desert southwest or paving interstate freeways through the Rockies or building air force bases in Alaska tundra but they do apparently stop people from getting around on a bicycle. For every hilly Seattle and San Francisco there's a flat Midwest town (or a flatter route through a hilly city that could benefit from infrastructure even if other routes are not feasible) and for every location with a hot summer and cold winter there's mild northeast and northwest. By some of the criteria advanced, small towns in New England should be bike infrastructure havens, which they are decidedly not.
It's one thing if you consciously don't want bike infrastructure, it's another to throw up your arms and declare it'll never work there without trying.
Well first of all if you try biking through the desert southwest on a hot day you are likely to die. Imagine crossing hundreds of miles of desert in 115 degree heat. Where do you get your water?
Secondly, climbing the Rockies on a bike is beyond most people's level of fitness. I would say only experienced road riders would be able to accomplish that.
Thirdly...crossing the Alaskan tundra on bike would be nearly impossible without specialized gear. Standard bike tires would not be able to cross the snow/ice without sinking. Also the consistent freezing temperatures necessitate specialized clothing which is not conducive to riding.
I can easily see why those three landscapes might "stop people from getting around on a bicycle".
These were examples of what people can do when they set their minds to it.
Of course people won't be commuting to work across hundreds of miles of desert or mountains or tundra. They don't do that in cars either.
There are, however, fairly basic ways of making normal people commutes more bearable on a bicycle: dedicated paths shaded by a tree row, evenly-spaced water fountains, hedge rows for wind-blown snow blocking, reliable snow clearing, perhaps escalator-like systems for climbing up hills along highly popular routes.
I've been reading these discussions on the internet for a while and I've been seeing a willingness and perhaps even a desire to excuse the status quo as a large factor. Bring up the stereotypical Copenhagen and Amsterdam and immediately people post reasons why North America can't be like that: the hills and the climate and the distances and so on.
It strikes me as very un-American in a way - challenging land and climate and large distances haven't stopped Americans from expanding into the desert southwest or paving interstate freeways through the Rockies or building air force bases in Alaska tundra but they do apparently stop people from getting around on a bicycle. For every hilly Seattle and San Francisco there's a flat Midwest town (or a flatter route through a hilly city that could benefit from infrastructure even if other routes are not feasible) and for every location with a hot summer and cold winter there's mild northeast and northwest. By some of the criteria advanced, small towns in New England should be bike infrastructure havens, which they are decidedly not.
It's one thing if you consciously don't want bike infrastructure, it's another to throw up your arms and declare it'll never work there without trying.