Definitely thoughtful. I
Definitely thoughtful. I think two lessons here:
1) It is very hard to see your own culture / circumstances from within it.
- You may accept what exists as a given (was and always will be). So the Dutch may have become complacent about their cycle infrastructure. Or even bored (her point about stagnation). However just as they lost it then regained it cycling may decline or even be lost again.
- You may assume the same situation applies elsewhere. So many Dutch people are not aware just how unique their situation is. Apparently some Dutch people even believe that the likes of Copenhagen may do it better (not true despite the publicity).
- You may simply not be aware that things can be not only different, but better. Or not understand how it is possible to do things differently. This is common in the UK – we accept our vehicle-dominated public infrastructure with a shrug – that’s just how it is.
Of note – the Netherlands still has a car culture – it’s just that it also has a bike culture. The Dutch are still enthusiastic users of the car.
2) If you accept something (e.g. are mostly content with it in this case) it stops being an issue
This is her point about “export: stop thinking”. However I think this is only a “danger” once you’ve made substantial progress in dealing with an issue. It isn’t a danger when only 1-3% of your trips are being made by bike and people being killed by drivers is either the work of villains or “just one of those unfortunate but unavoidable accidents”.
I see this being used as an excuse in the UK. (It’s actually a very common political technique). An example would be that an authority finally puts in some cycle facilities (puts “shared pedestrian and cyclists” signs up) and maybe appoints a “cycling officer”. At which point the discussion shifts to “Look, we have sorted active travel, we need to move on to other priorities.Even in the Netherlands they’re saying it’s about more than bicycle infrastructure – you’re trying to go to far!”