What Women Want
As “an ‘indicator species’ for bike-friendly cities” – women being more risk averse than men – perhaps planners should consider what women find important.
Until women feel it is safe and easy to jump on a bike and head through town, the North American ratio of men: women cyclists (now 2:1), isn’t going to inch towards Europe’s ratio (1:1) anytime soon. As the lack of women riders generally indicates relative safety, this is a big part of the reason why North American statistics for trips by bicycle are also so poor compared to those of Europe. Less than 2% of trips are by bicycle in North America, while many European cities are well into double digits.
Have a look at this article from Scientific American.
Thanks to a feed via Momentum Magazine for sourcing this article.
Lane envy
From Bicycle Queensland, a posting with an image of a “Copenhagen” style bike lane.
Segregated two way bike lanes are a very safe and efficient way to enhance bicycle travel. Talk about adding to quality of place. Brisbane has a population of almost 2 million and has evolved a great bicycle culture; even a website that reports on bike lane closures and news.
This posting, while having me think wouldn’t it be nice, had me checking out Copenhagenize.com, and they commented on the same post. What a nice feeling of pride…
Also from Copenhagenize.com is a post on
cycling around New York City with some lovely images of bicycle lanes in that city.
Toronto is where I do most of my bicycle commuting. As I think about my ride home tonight, I think it’d be best if quit looking at bike lanes in other cities.
The Hong Kong of Active Communities
A thought provoking post at Freakonomics; really a Q&A on so called “Charter Cities” such as Hong Kong where a special economic, “better” rules zone, attracted economic growth. Can/should this be considered for developing countries?
If the charter specifies good rules (or in our professional jargon, good institutions) millions of people will come together to build a new city.
People will be attracted there because of the benefits of interacting with everyone else.
In addition to the charter city as a special economic zone, why not consider the potential growth in population, quality of life, culture and therefore attraction of investment and economic development of a special environmental zone. One where the “good rules” for the city are built around people instead of automobiles. It would seem many would choose to live, work and invest in a city where the percentage of cars used to commute is the same as bicycles are now: some .5%, and bicycles and other active transportation methods take the current place of cars at some 90%.
The entire design of the charter city would not be auto-centric: much less hard space, roads, highways, bridges, overpasses, parking lots/garages etc. And, the huge city budget dollars going to supporting the auto-infrastructure would be redirected to people. Sounds wonderful, new types of innovation around quality of place for people and better preservation of the environment.
There is a thoughtful quote contained in the article relating to barriers to change:
I think we’d do our jobs better if we just said what’s true without trying to be amateur politicians.
