I don't know why you're going on about people "loving" bicycling and supposedly being hypocritical. I wouldn't say Dutch people particularly love bicycling, but it's the sensible mode of transport in many places, so people are willing to (not love to) do it. Dutch people aren't meaningfully different - we're all just humans, and work largely the same as other people. There's no reason Dutch people are somehow so unique that they're the only place people would be willing to ride a bicycle. The main thing that is different, though, is that the conditions are different in the Netherlands, in particular infrastructure.

(But also keep an eye on other Western European cities. Many are making great strides in terms of infrastructure, and cycling is seeing more uptake.)

Overall I feel that the dangers are overstated and most people are unwilling to apply themselves. The reasons given are illustrative. Just sharing a road with cars isn't dangerous. Being overtaken by a large truck isn't dangerous. Psychologically intimidating for novices, yes. A sedentary lifestyle, heart disease and diabetes are more dangerous. Having poor awareness of your surroundings is dangerous generally.

The social status/conspicuous consumption angle is important. Among other factors, an expensive electric car signals the driver's ideological values in regard to climate and their ability to consume. A bicycle, not so much. People may not want to do thrifty and practical things in public view. Some cultures would view that as demeaning. That's the cultural difference.

Another aside, posters here have expressed that they are uncomfortable or socially unable to deal with simple interactions on public transport. They need the isolation of their automobile like a safety blanket. Chance eye contact or casual conversation could be traumatic for them. No amount of infrastructure can address these issues.

We might see city councils attempt to emulate bicycle infra of NL, but in practice it may be unusable for transportation purposes. Frequent crossings of traffic at separate bicycle/car intersections would be an example. Sure the bike trail might be designated for cyclists only and off the main road, but you have to stop every block at an intersection where drivers aren't looking. There are too many nuances to cover.

Just not practical at all. Usually planned by people who would never do regular rides. Next the locality will ban cyclists from the perfectly usable road, because they spent X dollars on the trail system and bicyclists make drivers 'uncomfortable'. Then a lard-cop will stop you from riding on the road and instruct you as to "how we do it around here".

The end result is usually a linear park. That's just my experience with what actually happens when cities and villages start with the high ideals of building cycling infrastructure.

Where people are already using bicycles, it is logical to make further concessions to cyclists in a well executed manner. But starting from a standpoint of the title, 700 units of carbon if everyone changed their lifestyle, commute distance, cultural values and addressed their social ineptitude...

I'd first like to see some basics, like a willingness to ride to the store for errands.

I don't understand. How can you say it's "not practical" when it's literally being practised in the Netherlands? Which also came from a car-centric culture - and yes, does have public transport, and cars as well.

Not practical as in we cannot expect everyone to adopt those values. Yes, I find bicycles practical. I don't find what is implemented as bike infrastructure practical. Even if we hit the ideal of bike infra, I doubt people would bother to use it.

For every post that says they cannot become a cyclist due to too much rain, or too much sun - re-read the post. They would like to adhere to a green ideal and pay lip service, but they will never ride to the store to buy a liter of milk. If we are being honest, they don't want to ride at all. They just want to say the politically correct thing.

Similarly, they might say they would like to use public transport, but have excuses. What satisfies their preferences is a high end electric vehicle. It signals green values and social status. A bicycle signals poverty. I'm not defending these social norms, but observing the status quo.

I find half-baked bicycling infrastructure worse than just using a road. I find that many people opine for bike infra, but they are just using the lack of infrastructure as an excuse. Much like, "I would quit smoking, but I'd have to wait until next month because I have too much stress this week" These people cannot be appeased.

The result is often impractical infrastructure built by people who see bicycling very differently. The ideal of overpasses for every crossing isn't economically possible for most areas. Instead a linear park is built. The bike trail has crossings at every block, away from the main intersection. The trail itself is clogged with baby strollers or in-line skaters. You'd be better off riding along the road.

The best examples of a bike trail in the US are often found along a river where bridges already exist.

Before spending on infrastructure, it may make more sense to address some of those cultural norms. People may use safety as an excuse, but take that excuse away and they'll find another. The reality is that bicycling on streets isn't unsafe. I'd wager that it is safer than driving cars on highways.

You can centrally plan infrastructure, but culture grows organically. It doesn't mean that bicycles are impractical, but that the top-down approach is hamfisted at best. You cannot take a specific set of circumstances in a single geographic region and extrapolate it onto the world.

> Not practical as in we cannot expect everyone to adopt those values.

But why? Why could we expect that in the Netherlands, and can't we expect it elsewhere? What's different? How did it grow in the Netherlands and why can't that happen elsewhere?