The extraordinary efficiency of bicycles, the potential of active modes, and the role of active travel in transport poverty

Last month my eldest daughter ran the Amsterdam marathon. She achieved her aim of running the 26.2 miles (42.2 km) in under her target of four and a half hours. A marathon is something you need to train for. The race was won by the spectacular Eliud Kipchoge, an extraordinary athlete and the world record holder, who has won nearly every race he's ever entered and who finished with a time of just over 2 hour and 5 minutes, but I'm still also very impressed with Eliza's achievement. It takes a lot of effort to run that far without stopping. I certainly couldn't do it.

One of several stops on our route through the countryside. We
weren't in a hurry today.

Twice as fast using a quarter of the energy
Like many people these days Eliza uses an electronic device linked to her mobile phone which monitors heart rate and speed and can calculate her energy usage. To run the marathon required about 2800 kcal.

Two weeks later I went for a bike ride with my daughter. It just so happened that this was also over 42.2 km and as she carries the same device for all exercise we could make a comparison. On the bike ride the energy consumption was just 700 kcal (about the same as one home made pizza). What's more, though we weren't in anything remotely like a hurry (we stopped for refreshments, for coffee, to buy bread from a baker and vegetables from a farm), our time was still several seconds better than Kipchoge's best ever marathon time and remember that Kipchoge's faster time over the marathon distance required him to expend somewhat more energy than Eliza had to.

A sack of onions joined us for the second half of the ride.
Running or even walking 20 km doesn't really work with a load

The difference in efficiency between running and cycling is extraordinary: On a bicycle an average person can easily travel faster than a world champion can run. We can use a quarter of the energy to travel at twice the speed. Because it takes so much less effort to cycle than it does to run we need no special nutrition or training before setting off to travel the same distance as a marathon. There's no expectation of damage to your body from a bicycle ride of marathon length. What's more, we can do all this while carrying far more than it is practical to transport if running or walking.

The potential of walking as a mode of transport

My cargo bike loaded up with parcels full of bicycle parts.
I ride this to the city centre often. If it were not possible to do
this by bicycle then I'd have to use a motor vehicle.

Both walking and cycling, the two really practical active travel modes, should be encouraged. But there is far more potential to cycling than there is to walking. Walking is of course a lot less tiring than running, but this comes at the expense of even lower speed. Speed is not everything, but the distance we can travel by any given mode is dictated more by available time than it is by the distance itself. That's why many everyday distances are are longer than is practical to walk. A relatively fast walking pace is only around 5 km/h (3 mph). This works only for the shortest journeys because the time taken out of the day is just too long if we try to walk for longer journeys. What's more, it's not possible to carry much when walking. All these things limit the potential of walking as a mode of transport. Children who live really near their school can practically walk to it, but even most of those who live within the same suburb as their school will need to use a faster mode of transport. Similarly, people who live in a city centre may be able to reach nearby shops by walking, or those who live in a suburb can reach some local facilities by walking, but it doesn't work over a larger radius.

A successful pedestrianized city centre, accessible to all.
Conflict is avoided by obvious demarcation of where cyclists
should ride by use of different colours and kerbs (forgiving).

The two hours that it took to make the leisurely 40 km recreational ride around the countryside described above are about the same amount of time as it would take us to make a reasonably brisk walk to the city centre and return again. We have done this occasionally, on a Sunday just for the novelty of it, but it's not something that we do on a regular basis. On the other hand, we cycle there almost daily for one reason or another. Cycling to the centre takes less than 10 minutes, which makes cycling a highly competitive mode with driving a car the same distance. Also, by using a bicycle we can transport almost anything and do so with far more ease than by carrying it while walking. So that's how we make those journeys.

Pedestrianization projects in city centres are not generally intended to be used by people who have walked to the city centre because almost no-one does that. They are instead used by people who have travelled by motorized vehicle to reach the city centre. Pedestrianization projects which exclude cyclists actually work against active travel.

Walking and cycling policy need to be different because walking and cycling are different.
If someone runs through a crowded area for pedestrians it's likely be seen as an anti-social act. Yet many places combine cycling and walking policy and even the infrastructure for both modes as if this is reasonable. It's not.

A few weeks ago Judy and I brought home a new floor for
our home by bicycle. Two 10 km round trips were required.
This would not have been possible by walking.

Cycling and walking are not the same. A bicycle allows anyone to travel at twice the speed of a world champion runner, to cover marathon distances without any great difficulty and a bicycle also allows people to transport loads which are well beyond what they can lift, let alone practically carry over a distance of kilometres.

Unfortunately this potential is often not understood. Through a non-cyclist's eye, cycling is often perceived as being much like walking. This is one of the reasons why it is common to hear that it's "not possible" to carry home grocery shopping by bike, that it's "too far" or "too sweaty" to cycle to work or "impossible" to cycle in winter. None of these things are true, of course. They're just the ideas that people have because they've not actually tried and experienced for themselves how easy and convenient it is to do those things by bike.

The objection to shopping by bike can be due to a misunderstanding of how convenient it is to carry items on a well equipped bicycle designed for everyday use. The concerns about commuting are often based on overestimation of average commuting distances combined with perceptions that cycling is no quicker than walking or that it will take as much effort as running and therefore result in sweating a lot. The objection to winter is often due again to a lack of familiarity, or perhaps also to having seen people on less well equipped bicycles struggling.

In this photo my other daughter, Alice, and her dog demonstrate
parallel cycling and walking infrastructure in Groningen.
Pedestrians and cyclists shouldn't be mixed on through routes.

In places where which lack well designed cycling infrastructure, any trip by bike will likely be seen as akin to an extreme sport. Indeed, it may well be both difficult and dangerous if the infrastructure is lacking and that is a good part of what prevents people from even trying to cycle in many parts of the world.

Cycling can be made very inconvenient indeed if cyclists are required to behave as pedestrians or weave through motorized traffic. Indeed where bicycle riders are given a choice of either not taking advantage of the efficiency of the bike or riding in conditions which cause danger, the whole point of the bicycle as a practical and safe means of transport is lost. Not cycling where conditions are poor is in many cases actually quite a rational decision.

The importance of cycling policy

It's of vital importance that we reduce climate changing emissions.
Cycling is the best way to reduce the emissions of transport.

But cycling policy is important, especially now, because bicycles are the most efficient vehicles in existence. Unlike other low or "zero emission" vehicles, bicycles in most cases genuinely have zero emissions. After all, we all need half an hour of exercise a day to be healthy and drivers eat too so in most cases the carbon cost of the "fuel" for cycling is zero. But even if we forget about our actually needing to eat and count the full carbon cost of food, we can eat in such a way that our "emissions" are still less than a tenth of even the most efficient motorized transport modes. Also remember that the embedded energy in even a sophisticated bicycle is unlikely to be greater than 1% of the embedded energy of a car. This wonderful machine avoids the many problems caused by motorized transport while giving us competitive travel times. Cycling is almost always quicker than taking a bus, often quicker than a car within towns. And let's not forget that while other transport modes cause health problems, there are many health benefits to cycling.

Cycling is so obviously a good idea, but it's still being overlooked in most places on the planet. This is something that we really have to change. We are living in a climate emergency. The most efficient transport mode on earth should be getting the highest degree of public support from world governments.

How to make every bicycle efficient
Let's continue with a short piece of advice about making any bicycle efficient. While some bicycles have more potential efficiency than others, all of them, no matter how old, no matter how inexpensive, are amongst the most efficient vehicles on earth. It doesn't cost anything to set up a bicycle for maximum efficiency. That's just a matter of quite simple maintenance:

1. With any bicycle, start by setting the saddle height so that you can extend your legs properly. We pedal with the ball of our feet but can approximate the correct distance from saddle to pedal by straightening our legs so that the heel just rests on the pedal). If the saddle is too low it costs a lot of extra effort.
2. Pump up your tyres to something approaching the maximum recommended pressure written on their sidewall. Note that in most cases bicycle tyres need to be pumped to far higher pressures than car tyres so a car pump isn't ideal. Under-inflated tyres consume a lot more energy from the rider than correctly inflated tyres.
3. Make sure the chain isn't worn or dry. Each link should be exactly half an inch long. 1% wear is enough that you should replace the chain to avoid wearing other components unduly (measure over many links or use a specifically designed measuring device). The chain also needs to be oiled (WD40 falls off, grease is horrible on a chain and thick oils are not ideal, but any thin oil including proprietary bicycle chain oils will work) so that the internal links are wet (the outside need not be). A dirty/rusty chain often makes an unpleasant noise as well as consuming more energy.

Also see my guide to the features of everyday bicycles.

Taking care of those things is enough to optimise the efficiency of any bicycle and any bicycle combined with its rider is more efficient than any other machine that exists.

While many bicycles, especially outside the Netherlands, are sold with no means of transporting cargo, almost all bikes can be fitted with an inexpensive luggage rack which makes transporting goods more easy.

Please note that this is not a complete guide to safe cycling - also ensure such things as that your brakes and gearing work correctly and that you have fitted any equipment that is required to cycle legally in your country (e.g. bells, lights).

I'm a hopeless runner. The furthest I ever ran was just short of a quarter marathon more than 30 years ago and that was more than enough. I can still cycle 200 km in a day without a problem but running any distance at all results in knee pain.

We make our living by selling bicycle components so if you order something we will of course supply it. But to make your bicycle more efficient you need only to follow the steps above. Do that before buying anything else, including from us.

Mass cycling requires sociable side-by-side cycling which requires cyclists to take up space. Why then are cyclists the only road users expected to travel single-file?

Children cycling home from school five-abreast in Assen. Riding on the pavement is not what we encourage, but this is a good illustration of how safe those children feel. Read more about this street, which is particularly well designed.

For ten years on our study tours we've suggested to participants that they should take advantage of the opportunity to cycle side-by-side while they are in the Netherlands. Not only does this keep groups together better than they ride single-file but more importantly it's far more sociable and more efficient. We can talk to each other as we cycle and it takes less time for the group to arrive at each destination than if we are strung out into a single line.

Germany last week: He's in the bushes, we're on the grass.
Sadly, German cycle-paths are often inadequate.

Cyclists from other countries often find this a little difficult to do because they are conditioned to being able only to cycle single-file and it feels as if you're "in the way" if you ride side-by-side. I point out that it is only cyclists who are subjected to this restriction:

Pedestrians expect to walk side-by-side everywhere in the world. No-one would consider advocating that pedestrians should always travel single-file.

Drivers travel side-by-side even when they're alone as in a car they take an empty chair along beside themselves taking up the space that another person might otherwise use. Tandem seating cars are almost unheard of (I know of this) there are no demands are made for drivers without passengers to use motorbikes instead of cars in order that they take up less space.

Sitting four abreast on a bus, we take up nearly as much width
as the five cyclists at the head of the page, but this is normal
and no-one complains.

On buses it's possible to be able to sit four abreast yet there are no calls for buses to be made narrower.

It is cyclists alone who are told they must cycle single-file, or who find that where side-by-side cycling is allowed by law they are regardless put under pressure to ride single-file.

As an example, the UK's highway code states "never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends" which while it sounds quite liberal actually gives lots of scope for telling cyclists not to ride two-abreast. Many roads are narrow or busy and all roads have bends.

Four members of the same family riding together in a sociable manner in Assen city centre. Dad is helping the youngest.

Side-by-side cycling makes cycling safer and more fun
Being able to cycle side-by-side is important because it allows cycling to be sociable. All other forms of transport are sociable and cycling should be too. People carry on conversations as they travel by car by public transport or as they walk, and it should be equally possible while cycling. What's more, side-by-side cycling is also necessary for safety. If you're accompanying a child or accompanying someone who is unfamiliar with your town, cycling side-by-side is a good way to ensure that the other person is travelling in the same direction or has seen the same signs as you have.

Riding two-abreast shouldn't be unusual, it should be the norm. Cyclists are people too, and just like those who choose other forms of transport we should also be able to speak to friends and family as we travel. Infrastructure which doesn't make side-by-side cycling easy to do is inadequate infrastructure.

Cycle-path width is important to enable side-by-side cycling

A cycle-path in the UK. The red stripe supposedly serves as
a bidirectional cycle-path but it's not wide enough for sociable
side-by-side riding even in one direction so we are stretched
out and also using the pedestrian path. An example
of designed-in conflict.

Cycle-paths need to have sufficient width to allow cycling side-by-side. If it is necessary for cyclists to constantly adjust their position relative to each other in order to achieve part-time side-by-side cycling, this consumes a lot of extra effort.

Required widths
Unidirectional cycle-paths between 1.2 and 1.9 metres wide enforce single-file cycling. They also make overtaking of one cyclist by another difficult, resulting in cyclists wishing to use the road. Any width below 1.9 metres may as well be single-track as it's not really usable for side-by-side cycling.

The minimum unidirectional path width for comfortable side-by-side cycling is 2 metres. The extra width of a 2.5 m wide single direction path makes the experience more relaxing and more forgiving of error.

One of the oldest cycle-paths in Assen. It's 2.5 m wide, which
makes it suitable for one cyclist to pass in each direction, but
not wide enough for side-by-side cycling in all conditions.

Bidirectional cycle-paths between 2.5 and 3.2 m wide enforce single-file cycling whenever there are cyclists coming in the opposite direction. If two couples approach each other, both riding side-by-side then it's likely that both will switch to single-file, making any width between 2.5 m and 3.2 no better than the narrower width.

For this reason, the required width for a bidirectional cycle-path is a minimum of about 3.3 m. On such a path it's possible for two groups of cyclists both riding two-abreast to pass each other. Extra width makes the experience more pleasant and makes passing easier.

"Sharing" a path with pedestrians over a bridge in Assen
 results in conflict just as it does anywhere else.

Sharing with pedestrians causes conflict
Shared use paths do not work for efficient cycling because pedestrians are unpredictable and cause extra conflict.

In out of town areas the number of pedestrians may be small enough that a single path suffices, but inside towns it is almost never a good idea to ask cyclists and pedestrians to "share" because they will get in the way of one-another.

A separate path is required for each mode. The two paths together will still require fewer resources and take up less space than is routinely allocated for motor vehicles.

This works because that "road" isn't really a road at all. The
only motor vehicles which use this road are maintenance
vehicles or those which require access to the two domestic
properties visible in the photo.

Traffic levels are important
Cyclists should never be expected to ride on roads which have traffic levels so high that they cause cycling side-by-side to be a problem. In the Netherlands, through motor traffic is excluded from virtually all residential streets and city centre streets. Motor and cycling routes are unravelled from one-another and cyclists are close to 100% segregated from motor traffic.

Example of cycle-path widening to
nearly four metres at a junction.

Efficiency
By allowing two cyclists at a time to pass, and by allowing overtaking, cycle infrastructure which permits side-by-side cycling doubles the throughput of cycle-paths. If you're aim is true mass cycling in which everyone sees a bicycle as an efficient mode of transport for themselves, it's important to keep this efficiency as much as possible. That requires that cycle-paths widen at junctions and through corners.

Example photos

A bicycle road in Assen. Over five metres wide, and used by motor vehicles only for access. A direct route to the city centre along which sociable cycling is enabled and on which children can ride their own bikes in safety.

A 2.5 m wide unidirectional cycle-path from a suburb into the city centre from a different direction. Sociable cycling is enabled here without anyone feeling too cramped.

City centre street. This area allows motor vehicles access at particular times to make deliveries. Otherwise the "road" is a cycle-path through a pedestrianized area.

More of the city centre. Note the disability buggy being used as a bicycle. Also note the lighter coloured stripe of ridged tiles on the left of the photo which provides guidance for blind people.

Children, of course, have independence and can access the city centre area on their own bicycles.

Only the youngest children are transported on their parents' bicycles.

Youngsters in town on their own cycle side-by-side and talk to each other.

Another example of how people with disabilities benefit from good infrastructure. This is the same junction as shown in a small photo above where a unidirectional cycle-path widens to nearly four metres to accommodate cyclists at the junction. It is possible for cyclists to make this left turn while riding side-by-side and with all conflicting motor traffic stopped. The sign on the back of the tricycle indicates that that person has hearing difficulties and perhaps requires some guidance. Riding side by side allows this.

Continuing after they turn the corner. But note that the left bike is slightly over the centre line on this bidirectional cycle path, which is unfortunately only three metres wide and therefore of inadequate width for comfortable cycling in all conditions.

A 2.5 metre wide unidirectional cycle-path. Riding next to a friend is no problem at all here.

2.5 metres wide unidirectional cycle-path - a couple ride together with no difficulty.

A 3.8 metre wide bidirectional cycle-path. On this width, it's possible for two couples to comfortably pass each other while remaining side-by-side. The road on the right has two lanes for motor vehicles, each of 2.8 m in width. This may look like a wide cycle-path but note that the car driver and his passenger are still allocated more space than the cyclists.

In the countryside, a 3.5 metre wide cycle-path allows for cycling at a good speed without the difficulties which we had last week on much narrower cycle-paths in Germany in similar situations (see photo above).

Wide bidirectional cycle-path leading to a medium sized simultaneous green traffic-light junction. Side-by-side cycling is possible through the junction while all motor traffic is stopped. This type of junction is very efficient. Very many cyclists can cross the junction in all directions with one short green phase for cyclists.

The safest design of roundabouts for cycling also easily supports side-by-side riding, which again doubles the capacity of the junction for cyclists vs. how it would be if people had to ride single-file.

Demonstrating a four metre wide recreational cycle-path to a study tour group. No problem with side-by-side cycling here.

To finish, another photo of teenagers "misbehaving" by cycling five-abreast, but doing so in a manner which actually doesn't cause any problem at all. They can do this because this residential street, like almost all residential streets in Assen, is a non-through route for motorists and therefore there are almost never any motor vehicles with which to conflict. Rest assured that the boy on the pedestrian path rode back onto the road before he came close to the woman walking. He's already ahead of the other cyclists in this photo, preparing to make this move.

Two-abreast. Always. Everywhere.
Cyclists are the only group of road users routinely required to travel one-behind-the-other. There is no logic to this. No reason why side-by-side cycling should not always be encouraged. It's a matter of providing infrastructure which accommodates the requirement. Given that people like to pair up, regardless of which mode of transport they choose, the width required for cycling should always be considered to be the width of two people cycling side-by-side.

The cycle-path grid in Assen. Read more about this.

By "everywhere" I really do mean everywhere. There can be no gaps in a real cycling grid. Cyclists need to be able to make their entire journeys in safety.

If mass cycling is truly a target then cyclists must be allowed and even encouraged to ride side-by-side. Make cycling sociable, comfortable, safe and efficient, keep people on bikes well away from motor vehicles, and suddenly cycling becomes attractive.

Mark Treasure also blogged about side-by-side cycling today.

Identifying true mass cycling and achieving true mass cycling

How can we tell if we have true mass cycling ?
If sports clubs used by children after school look like this:


If extra temporary bicycle parking has been constructed but it's still difficult to find anywhere to park your bike when there is a large (non-cycling) event in town:


If thousands of others have already ridden their bicycle to the beach before you get there:


If bicycle ferries sometimes have a long queue on nice summer days:


If school cycle parking is full every day including winter, if railway stations struggle to build extra parking spaces quickly enough to cater for ever increasing bicycle usage, this crisis is reported in newspapers which are critical of more cycle parking not being built more quickly, and if city centres also have this same problem then perhaps you really do have true mass cycling.

One of the first photos of the centre of Assen which I took just after we moved here. It's a normal day and there are hundreds of bikes everywhere. Cycle parking in the centre of the city has been expanded and improved twice in the last six years, as have many things around the city.

If you have all these problems then you have true mass cycling. Assen certainly does have this problem.

Other Dutch cities have all the same problems because similar policies have led to similar results right across the Netherlands. Everyone cycles. Children, students, commuters, older people, slow or fast, women and men, people with disabilities, immigrants. Everyone. That's why cycle-parking is particularly an issue.

Cyclist in London. Wearing a reflective
vest but squashed between a bus and a
pole. Not everyone would do this.

How can we tell if we don't have true mass cycling ?
Cyclists are the coal mine canaries of our towns. If cyclists are few and far between, frequently dress in canary yellow, wear helmets, face masks and other protective equipment, are largely of an identifiable cultural group (often male 20-45 years of age), they're viewed as an out-group, openly hated or picked on by the local press and if you simply don't see bicycles being used in the numbers that you see them in the videos above then you do not yet have true mass cycling.

How can we create true mass cycling ?
If you want mass cycling where you live, you must first identify where future cyclists can come from.

Campaigns aimed at "cyclists" or for "cycling" are unlikely to work because in this case you are campaigning specifically for the hated out-group so this creates limited sympathy amongst the public at large. Those people who already find conditions on your streets to be acceptable for cycling already ride bikes. We can't reach more

There are three sources for more cyclists:

1. Children
2. Non-cycling adults who don't drive
3. Non-cycling adults who do drive.

Children ride their own bikes in the
centre of Assen and they hunt for their
own cycle parking spaces. They would
not be here if this was still a busy
traffic light junction with many cars

Children don't get much choice about how they travel as their choices are made for them by their parents. This applies equally to those children who are allowed to walk, cycle or take public transport independently as it does to those who are not. Every parent cares for their children and every parent tries to do what they see as the best, safest, most convenient, thing. Campaigning for the right of children to be able to make independent journeys by bicycle in safety could benefit a lot of people. We know that there is widespread concern about safety and about health and we know that cycling offers a solution to these problems. We also know that cycle training on its own does not lead to more cycling. Cycling only becomes attractive if it is made safe and convenient.

UNICEF rates Dutch children as having the best well-being in the world and this comes in large part because they have freedom to make their own journeys by bicycle. Shouldn't all children be so lucky ?

People who are dependent on public transport often complain about the problems that they have with their transport. It's expensive. It's indirect. It's time consuming and there are delays. Public transport is not seen as aspirational and is often viewed as second best to owning and driving one's own car. It's difficult to make people choose public transport unless forced by being unable to afford their own transport. Public transport usage is highest in countries where it is more difficult to own and use cars and lowest in countries where cars are most affordable. However, users of public transport can be offered another alternative: the bike. In wealthy countries where cycling has been made accessible and convenient, public transport usage remains at much the same low level expected due to wealth but that bicycles offer a positive choice that people will take instead of using cars.

A cyclist in London. Cyclists wear
these clothes to cycle because even
they don't feel safe in this situation.
Most people would rather drive here.

Non cycling adults who drive are actually in a very similar situation to those non-cycling adults who do not drive. They don't want to take public transport for the reasons listed above and cycling is simply not seen an option for most people in most countries so they are taking what for them is the easiest, safest option. Driving doesn't have to be the only option: wealthy countries which have made cycling accessible and convenient find that while their public transport usage remains at much the same low level expected due to wealth, people will make a positive choice to cycle rather than to drive.

Free parking !

Parking is inexpensive or free in many
places in the Netherlands. It's not
necessary to punish people out of cars
 if the bicycle offers a truly attractive
alternative.

There is an odd idea even amongst cycling campaigners that drivers will only give up driving if it is made too expensive or too inconvenient. This has always struck me as an odd position to take for someone who chooses cycling for him/herself because even that person is making an assumption that driving is a preferable option for anyone who can afford it. The Netherlands does not demonstrate this to be true at all.

Covered car parking places to hire in
Assen city centre. €28 per month, all
in. It's not the price of parking that
makes people cycle here. The price is
so low because demand is low, even
for free parking. Mass cycling brings
benefits for drivers.

Amsterdam is an easier place to drive in than many other large cities. In most places, car parking is neither difficult to find nor expensive. Running costs and fuel are about the same as elsewhere in Europe. Dutch people who have a choice of cycling or driving make a positive choice to cycle because it fits their needs. Cycling is often the easiest option in the Netherlands not because driving is particularly bad but because cycling is particularly good.

I think it's very important to remember that present day drivers in other countries are in exactly the same situation as everyone else. They are taking what appears to them to be the easiest safe option. The main reason why people drive is that because for them this is the least bad way of getting about. We know already that Londoners make the same journeys by car as Dutch people make by bike, but it's not only the distances and purposes which are the same. The motivation to drive in London is exactly the same as the motivation to cycle in the Netherlands. Whether the choice is made to cycle or to drive, that choice is based mostly on what feels safe and is convenient. If cycling was easier than driving and just so safe then this would attract current day drivers to ride bikes instead.

If cycling campaigners as a small out-group confront drivers as if they are the enemy, this can only be counter-productive. It is also completely unnecessary. The Netherlands has achieved the highest cycling modal share in the world without being harsh on drivers. The carrot is stronger than the stick.

The carrot
So what does attract people to cycling ? That's easy to answer - a comprehensive network of very high quality cycling infrastructure which offers shorter faster journeys, fewer stops and on which people feel very safe to cycle. This is what makes cycling attractive and makes cycling into a positive option rather than something which it is a struggle to convince people to do.

This is also exactly what the Netherlands has built. This country has achieved a greater level of success than anywhere else and that is why it makes sense to learn from this Dutch success.

This photo illustrates a "problem"
which keen Dutch cyclists sometimes
complain about. Children riding 20 km
to school, riding in a group and taking
up the entire cycle-path as they do it.
Note that I had to go back to 2009 to
find a photo which showed this.

Apart from a lack of cycle parking, what else do people complain about where there is true mass cycling ?
I went on a recreational ride with some local cyclists this morning and the conversation in a cafe turned to a familiar topic: School children slowing them down.

To me, this is a very nice problem to have. It's a problem which only exists because school children actually do cycle in the Netherlands.

Other common complaints are from older cyclists complaining that sport cyclists go too fast and don't use bells and from sport cyclists complaining that older people riding together go too slowly and don't hear bells when they're rung. There are occasionally small conflicts but these are all minor issues in reality.

We rode 50 km this morning, mostly
quite quickly. At one point we were
held up very briefly by this couple
riding side by side with their dog
in a basket. I'm absolutely not going
to complain about this. Drivers get
stuck in traffic jams far more often
than I have to slow for other people
when cycling.

The one topic almost guaranteed to trigger a response amongst Dutch cyclists is mopeds. In this country, moped riders are an identifiable minority. Mopeds are ridden for a similar small proportion of total journeys as are bicycles in countries such as the UK or USA. Moped riders are an out-group in the Netherlands just as cyclists are an out-group in other nations and many of the same prejudices which are applied to cyclists in other nations are applied to moped riders here. In particular, Dutch people often think that mopeds are exceedingly dangerous when in fact they are not nearly so dangerous as they are commonly thought to be.

Complaints about cycling in the Netherlands can be seen as an examples of "First World Problems". Dutch cyclists have relatively little to complain about in comparison with their counterparts in other countries. If we had to ride with trucks passing centimetres away and deal with cycling infrastructure design which was as poor and inconvenient to use as is often the case in other countries and if society as a whole seemed to be against them as is the case for cyclists elsewhere then these concerns would be of greater importance here than the relatively minor concerns that people see as a problem.

A word about "bike culture"

In the past, I might have tagged a piece like this "bike culture" and thought not too much of it. Unfortunately, I think the term is being misinterpreted.

The Dutch do not cycle simply because they "have cycling in their culture". The "cycling culture" of the Netherlands is the direct result of infrastructure which makes cycling pleasant, convenient and safe.

When Dutch people leave this country and go to live in a place without good cycling infrastructure, they give up on cycling. When people migrate to the Netherlands from places without cycling infrastructure, they start cycling.

The Dutch respond to their built environment much as does anyone else, wherever they were born.

Cycling on a May afternoon

To take items that people have ordered from our shop to the post office, I make the 3 km round trip several times a week on a cargo bike. There are always lots of other people on bikes all around me as I make my journey. Yesterday I took a camera. See below for photos of streets in the suburbs of a typical small Dutch city on a typical May afternoon:

Just around the corner from home, a bridge built to keep cars off the cycle-route

Children ride their own bikes on a route which leads to the city centre. Riding side-by-side is essential with children.

A route used by many secondary school students to ride home to villages South West of Assen. Teenagers always ride side-by-side because it's more sociable.

Bicycle road becomes cycle path

Bicycle road along the canal. Easily enough space here for couples in both directions to ride side-by-side.

All age groups represented

Don't spill your drink while negotiating a safe roundabout in Assen.

These photos illustrate the usual story. Cyclists in this country not only are safe, but they also feel safe. This is a place where everyone can and does cycle. This is possible because cycling in the Netherlands does not look nor feel like an extreme sport, unless you want it to. Being segregated from cars virtually 100% of the time makes this possible.