much of the rural infrastructure isn't designed to be bike friendly
Yup, on many rural roads there is barely enough room for two cars to go past one another safely, adding cyclists to the mix usually ends with dead cyclists.
...but that could change.
True, but they cost money and people don't like paying taxes. Plus wider roads still are dangerous to cyclists. What really is needed for safety is dedicated cycle roads or lanes separate from automobile traffic.
You could always subtract the cars from the mix. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
If you don't have oil, where do you get the tar from? What other materials are good for road surfacing?
Possibly Sugar or vegetable oil (links via Wikipedia's Asphalt article). Brick, cobblestone, or cement could also be used, but uneven road joints are a pain to cyclists' joints. Plus they don't do well in freezing/heating environments.
Rural roads are a lot safer for cyclists, from my experience. Frequently there isnt even space for one and a half cars to pass each other, and rural drivers are generally aware that round the next corner there's likely to be sheep/cows/someone on a horse/deer/tractors covered in implements that don't mix with cars. I've known of far more people killed/injured in urban areas than are on Rural roads. Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
From my experiences on rural roads as a cyclist is that drivers in America seem to believe that neither tractors and farm equipment nor bicycles belong on their roads. Farm animals are rarely on the roads at all and deer are roadkill.
Safety of Cycleways | Cycles of all sorts
Direct rear impacts with cyclists are a more prominent collision type in arterial/rural road type situations. When they occur in such circumstances they are also associated with significantly increased risk of fatality. Data collated by the OECD indicates that rural locations account for 35% or more of cycling fatalities in Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, Japan, the Netherlands and Spain. [7] UK police-recorded cycling collision data indicates that at non-junction locations, where a cyclist was struck directly from behind, there was an overall fatality rate of 17%. The risk of fatality increases with speed limit of the road. Where such collisions occurred on 30mph roads a 5% fatality rate was recorded, climbing to 13% at 40mph, 21% at 60mph and a fatality rate of 31% on 70mph roads.
Cycle paths arent safe either.
In Helsinki, research has shown that cyclists are safer cycling on the roads mixed in with the traffic than they are using that city's 800 km of cycle paths See Finnish Research. The Berlin police reputedly came to a similar conclusion in the 1980s. In Berlin 10% of the roads have cycle paths but these produce 75% of the cycling casualties Overview of Berlin situation (in German). In the UK town of Milton Keynes it has been shown that cyclists using the "off-road" cycleway network have, on a per journey basis, a significantly higher rate of fatal car-bicycle collisions than cyclists who simply cycle on the ordinary unsegregated roads Milton Keynes Redway study.
How is that possible, where do the collisions happen?
Anyway, this is another data point for the theory that making roads "safer" actually makes them more dangerous. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I did a run to Milton Keynes a few weeks ago, I can understand how it might not be cycle-helmet paradise. Traffic management is just plain weird compared to most of the UK. It would be useful to get some replication for that research in London and - say - Bristol.
There's also the additional 'road rage' factor of being frustrated by a cyclist you need to overtake and cutting too close to them. Ad astra per aspera
Cars are useful for more than personal transport. The minivan angle is under-appreciated. I regularly do recycling runs which completely fill the car. And I'm taking some prints to a gallery tomorrow. It would be impossible to transport them on a bike, and it would need multiple trips with serious inconvenience and possible glass breakage by public transport. Even a regular shopping run would be a struggle on a bike.
I suppose these are all optional, or the community horse and cart service would be a realistic alternative. Which might be true. But while oil is a very stupid idea, that's not inherently a given for cars. There are non-trivial costs associated with moving some things very slowly, moving them without protection from the weather, or not being able to move them at all.
I'm lucky I was resilient enough to plough on and make the most of everything (a free education at) university offered and more or less made up for it all there without any bloody encouragement from immediate family.
But I'd guess that even with willing and supportive parents, if they just can't provide that kind of access for their children then they lose out big time. Ad astra per aspera
The whole region was designed for people with cars. I think it's a bit more bikeable now, with the addition of new bike trails, but it seems that the bike trails are built around the idea of people cycling long distances for exercise, not to commute from place to place within the community. There's a lot more asphalt dedicated to parking lots than to cycle trails or lanes.
For all of its various faults, that is one thing I have to say about Japanese public schools - they do a really excellent job of offering a comprehensive arts, music, and sports component to school life.
