I put my Duolingo to the test and attempted to read the Le Monde article. As far as I could tell it’s mostly just percentages too; the only absolute numbers I could find were these:
Sur l’avenue de Flandre, le boulevard Voltaire et le boulevard Magenta, la moyenne ne dépasse jamais 384 véhicules motorisés à l’heure sur la partie centrale de la chaussée, contre 537 vélos sur les pistes cyclables en septembre et en octobre.
Translation:
On Flanders Avenue, Voltaire Boulevard and Magenta Boulevard, the average never exceeds 384 motor vehicles per hour on the central part of the roadway, compared to 537 bicycles on the bike trail in September and October.
I think that’s discussing a particularly extreme example, but still, if bike traffic is actually exceeding car traffic anywhere that’s pretty damn good!
Good, but not really surprising. The Netherlands is the best case example of what good bike infrastructure means in its “consequences” (no negative connotations). That’s why I get terribly annoyed when I see people constantly argue against it, or wanting to do a couple hundred more feasibility studies and whatnot for every single street, or even just parts of it. It’s exhausting how humankind keeps working against its own self-interest.
I put my Duolingo to the test and attempted to read the Le Monde article. As far as I could tell it’s mostly just percentages too; the only absolute numbers I could find were these:
Translation:
I think that’s discussing a particularly extreme example, but still, if bike traffic is actually exceeding car traffic anywhere that’s pretty damn good!
Good, but not really surprising. The Netherlands is the best case example of what good bike infrastructure means in its “consequences” (no negative connotations). That’s why I get terribly annoyed when I see people constantly argue against it, or wanting to do a couple hundred more feasibility studies and whatnot for every single street, or even just parts of it. It’s exhausting how humankind keeps working against its own self-interest.