Before I begin, if you don´t live in Denmark or the Netherlands, you may feel that if only your city was as welcoming to bikes. On the other hand, if you live en many Southern European cities, where the municipality has had enough reason to conclude, that cars ruin the old city center, and have virtually banned cars inside the old city walls, you may not be so envious.
Copenhagen advertises it self as a bike-city, whatever that is, if you are a tourist and understood Danish, you would rightly be confused to notice that on most buildings in the city, small signs advertise the opposite; ”Cykler fjernes uden ansvar” Bikes are removed, no responsibility accepted”. I bet you, more money went into these small signs, than into bike racks in the city. Strange thing is, it is not allowed to remove bikes from public spaces, unless they block fire exits. Even so, it is accepted by police and the city, to advertise this illegal threat.
The Police, which publicly announces it could not care less about peoples bikes getting stolen, also condones getting rid of bikes that annoy you, for whatever (by the letter of the law) unjustified reason. Welcome to the City of bikes!
This has for some time made no sense to me. This last couple of weeks there has been some public debate about a rise in traffic tickets for bicyclists. Of course there is nothing wrong with ticketing traffic offenses, and of course now and again the price of the offense needs to be adjusted to the general pricing and earnings in society, to have any effect. The bicycle association claiming there should be some leeway when offenses did neither harm any victims nor interrupt other commuters in traffic.
In some instances, we al ready have such rules, for example if a bicyclist wants to turn left in a traffic light, you must cross to the opposite side, but does not need to wait for the light to change before completing the turn, as long as you are not interrupting the traffic going straight through the light. This is incidentally the opposite of what we teach children in school, because we are more occupied by keeping them alive, than having them to cross town fast., Which again is why many thinks bicyclists crosses red more often than we do, as most people will ot have noticed that you are completing a left turn, and not just crossing a red.
But why should cyclist not just obey the law, no matter the circumstances? Well, as long as the city is designed for cars and pedestrians, and all bicyclist lanes are tertiary to planning, often remedying solutions after the fact. Because we may call our city a bike city, but we are, and invest primarily in a car city.
· 30 times as much space is allocated for car parking, compared to bike parking.
· 99% of traffic lights are planned for car traffic. How many lights in crossings would we need at all, if it was not for cars. When people frown upon pedestrians or cyclists, who decide to ignore a red, they often forget, the light is there because of cars, not to regulate pedestrians or bikes.
· In not one place do a bike path have right of way, when crossing or being crossed by car traffic, in 100% of all instances cars have right of way.
· To avoid cars killing bikes when turning left, the city hast started to make an extra traffic light for bicyclists, so we have to wait for red, while cars turn right, then we can proceed ten feet to the next light where we can wait again at red, before we can resume following the main road.
· In most cases bike lanes stops 50 feet before a traffic light, to make room for a right-turn lane for cars, a clear policy of the Copenhagen Police to prioritize car mobility and flow of traffic over bicyclist safety.
· Cars turning right are supposed to block the way of bicycles going straight or turning left. This means when the light changes the cars wait for the zebra crossing to clear for pedestrians, then the cars turning right will go, and only then is the road free for biccyles going straight across the light.
· In the Road Authority manuals on designing roads, cyclists are all but non-existent. Roads in Denmark are still designed out of a cars-speed-&-capacity paradigm only, sidewalks are always included from the then later in the planning process or after building the road, bike lanes are added.
· When speed limits are set, the principle is the speed of which 85% of cars will travel by, had there been no speed limit. One might in stead expect primary use of a lethal weapon such as a car, to be considered after evaluating the soft traffic in the street, is it residential, is it primarily children families, is it a school or merchant street or a public transportation hub, what is the total use of the area, what is the intention rather than a car centric evaluation.
· Recently the city council voted to increase investments in parking further, as their analyses showed a lack of parking spaces in residential areas in the Inner city (Østerbro), which is correct if you do not include paid parking. The city assume its services to include whatever volume of free parking, the residents demand.
· Investments in car parking only since 2005 in Copenhagen, exceeds all investments related to bike infrastructure by a factor of 4!
I think much of the reason cyclists tend to break some of the rules in traffic, is that we are the majority group, we are legion, but we are treated as a minority, which the city try to make room for, try!
A fellow bicyle advocate, recently wrote: “The day they put in the first bike path was the day cycling received its mortal wound. It took decades to take effect and it'll probably survive a few more years on life support, but unless cyclists are integrated, the dream is effectively over.”I think he may be quite right, we need to change our paradigm of what city traffic is, and design our streets to the life we want in them, not the cars the Police wants in them.
The other major reason cyclists break the rules in Denmark, is that Danes are rather rude, no matter if we walk, bike, drive a car or a bus. We are unreasonable inconsiderate, and are more occupied about what we think are our rights, rather than to make room for safe travel for everybody. A really sad national characteristic, but its not specific to mode of transportation.

11 thinking out louds:
Dear Michael,
I happen to be in the middle way of too similar, but never in dialogue, epistemologic positions.
One is the marxist autonomism from Austria and France, of Andre Gorzs and Ivan Ilicch, the oil chock of the 1970, energy equity, anti-car, you all know about.
The other one is the marxist autonomismo from Italy, that focus that State, even welfare state, is a form of violence - and even workers union is a form of state. This is leaded mainly by Antonio Negri and Giorgio Agamben, from the standpoint started by Michel Foucault.
Agamben have a strong maxim: the Democratic State is no more than a way to hide the Exception State - they are not even to faces of the same coin. They are the same face, turned round itself as in the Moebius' Band.
Of course, it's more easy to see and feel in countries of low equity and low democratic tradition, such as South Europe (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece - no coincidence they are the eye of the dragon of the crisis in Europe), or Latin American. And I live in the latest state of Brasil to leave behind militar dictatorship: Bahia (it only happened between 2001 and 2006 - 20 years after the rest of the country, even after poorer states of the same region, such as Sergipe, Pernambuco and Ceará).
Maybe you are discovering it now. And yes, of course segregated infrastruture are crucial - but this doesn't mean they have to be the main solution, or ubiquous. Look at Rio de Janeiro: the turning-point is exactly that they don't prioritise segregated infraestructure, but trafic calming, marketing bike, etc. And the efect is visible: one of the most cycle-friendly cities on earth! - and it wasn't until a decade ago (actualy, it was almost civil war there a decade ago).
In one world: the State, the Government, any government, can't "give" Freeedom. Freedom is a practice against the State (and the Capital). And I don't mean to sound neo-liberal with that; on the contrary! If the privatization thru capital isn't good, statization is a form of capital also. And in the place of Welfare State, what I want is the Commonfare: people taking care of themselves and each-other withou a Big Father to Protect and Punish)
(Alas, Agamben again: the State is a teological mithology, as much as God, the Church, and religion itself. I would complement: so is capital, and so is work as employment - work as we know it for 300 hundred years, since the Bourgeois Order took place).
Lucas, -Thanks, really interesting point of view ;-)
“The day they put in the first bike path was the day cycling received its mortal wound.”
"I think he may be quite right, we need to change our paradigm of what city traffic is"
Aha! The light dawns, and at Copenhagenize, of all places.
"In one world: the State, the Government, any government, can't "give" Freeedom. Freedom is a practice against the State (and the Capital). And I don't mean to sound neo-liberal with that; on the contrary! If the privatization thru capital isn't good, statization is a form of capital also. And in the place of Welfare State, what I want is the Commonfare: people taking care of themselves and each-other withou a Big Father to Protect and Punish)"
What a remarkably ultra-conservative, American thing to say.
"A fellow bicyle advocate, recently wrote: “The day they put in the first bike path was the day cycling received its mortal wound. It took decades to take effect and it'll probably survive a few more years on life support, but unless cyclists are integrated, the dream is effectively over.”
"I think he may be quite right."
Not sure what you mean by this? "Integrating" cyclists is generally the problem. That is, asking cyclists to share the road with fast-moving motor vehicles. They don't do it. That is the reason why hardly anybody uses a bike for everyday transport in places like the US and Australia. I thought you Danes had understood that. What exactly are you suggesting?
" . . .asking cyclists to share the road with fast-moving motor vehicles."
So don't do it.
Stop thinking in the box of the automobile, like a motorist, as if all you've known is all that could be. As if the motor car simply is, by some sort of divine act of special creation which it would be a sin to alter, or to impede its "progress."
'Cause it weren't and it ain't.
Nail a manifesto to the bull pen's door, brother.
Edward
Before, during WW2 and for a while after, bikes were the predominant mode of transportation in Copenhagen, like it is today for commuters. Back then, few could afford cars, ans used trams/streetcars or walked. Back then cars needed to fit in between the bicycles, not the other way around.
Today the speed limits are as I mention determined by what motorists perceive to be safe, not what we know to be safe. If speed limits were determined by a risk assesment, the objective with the city and the utility of saving a minute or two in traffic for a minority of the commuters, one might lower speed limits to 30 or 20 km/h like the US military does on military bases -ten miles an hour!.
kfg
Not only it`s not American (but Latin), neither Conservative (but very, very!, left wing) way of thinking - it remarks that the Cons or Neo-Cons don`t want a smaller state, but a bigger state on the punitive side.
What I want is even more social protection, more public politics, etc. (even because I am a public server, in a third-world country, and always been socialist) - without increasing the "Watchover & Punishment" of the state.
Of course Welfare State is better than anything before. But it`s not the chery in top of the cake - it`s just the apetizer.
I am anti-capitalist, but it is still too litle - what I want is much more, much subversive. More radically anti-conservative than you ever can get.
"it`s not American (but Latin), neither Conservative"
And yet it expressed precisely the philosophy of the Roman republic (hence the Latin connection. Brazil is American), George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and . . . Simon Bolivar.
"Left wing" radicals the lot of them.
And how can one get more conservative than espousing the values of one's nation's founders?
kfg,
since when Michel Foucault, Agamben, and others were "Founders of a Nation"?!
And since when Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were anti-capitalists, anarchists and autonomist-marxists?
"And since when Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were anti-capitalists"
Never, that's the point. They were, however, cannon firing revolutionaries who thought that bankers and corporations were to be the ruin of the world and fought to oppose them their whole lives.
Corporatism and Fascism are not Capitalism.
By the way, have you actually gone back and read the bit you wrote that I quoted and sought to understand its meaning? You didn't say anything about Marxism.
It really is a shame that there are still so many things going against people commuting by bikes in Copenhagen. I never got that impression the 2 times I've cycled there, and it was such an enjoyable and amazing time biking around the entire city. But that's also because I'm not even from one of the better cycling cities in the US, which don't compare to Cph.
I guess the Danes have reached a point where it's "good enough" that no one is going to do massive protests again. Few probably think about improvements that should be made and most will just react passively any time a detriment is dealt to cyclists (such as by not cycling or cycling less often).
I'm still, and always will be, impressed by the efforts made in Copenhagen. But I must admit that the Dutch are quite a few steps ahead. If only Denmark would follow suit, perhaps the modal share of cyclist would one day approach that of the Netherlands.
Post a Comment