Re: [CG] Re: [BicycleDriving] passing-from-behind collisions
John Forester
But since you apparently desire to follow where your beliefs indicate, you should devote yourself to advocating that all our two-lane (or less) rural highways be equipped with really adequate street lighting and wide shoulders.
Hello Bruce and All,
There is an old saying in the law that goes something like this: If the facts are not on your side argue the law – and if the law is not on your side – pound on the table.
I think Serge has an excellent argument for pounding on the table: “Any statistics gathered from a population primarily engaged in one type of behavior (edge riding) is useless with respect to evaluating the safety of a fundamentally different behavior (lane control/primary with release/secondary when safe as needed).
So I don't understand why you are interested in such a statistic. It's totally irrelevant to any meaningful evaluation of the safety of lane control.”
This is a clever argument since it rules out most all cyclist data collected since as Serge states the [cyclist] population is primarily engaged in edge riding …… and leaves proponents of center lane riding wiggle room to claim that center lane riding is the best solution to mixing motorist and bicycle traffic by ignoring data collected on larger populations.
Another argument against accepting current and past data on ‘cyclists struck from behind by motorists’ is to claim that the current cyclist death toll is acceptable ………. compared to auto death toll, or compared to gun deaths …. or compared to other kinds of violent deaths ………. in exchange for the utility of riding in the center of the lane.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1250008808
Synthesizing thirty years of research, psychologist and science historian Michael Shermer upends the traditional thinking about how humans form beliefs about the world. Simply put, beliefs come first and explanations for beliefs follow. The brain, Shermer argues, is a belief engine. Using sensory data that flow in through the senses, the brain naturally begins to look for and find patterns, and then infuses those patterns with meaning, forming beliefs. Once beliefs are formed the brain begins to look for and find confirmatory evidence in support of those beliefs, accelerating the process of reinforcing them, and round and round the process goes in a positive-feedback loop.
In The Believing Brain, Shermer provides countless real-world examples of how this process operates, from politics, economics, and religion to conspiracy theories, the supernatural, and the paranormal. And ultimately, he demonstrates why science is the best tool ever devised to determine whether or not our beliefs match reality.
……….. and
In the end, all of us are trying to make sense of the world, and nature has gifted us with a double-edge sword that cuts for and against. On one edge, our brains are the most complex and sophisticated information processing machines in the universe, capable of understanding not only the universe itself but of understanding the process of understanding.
On the other edge, by the very same process of forming beliefs about the universe and ourselves, we are also more capable than any other species of self-deception and illusion, of fooling ourselves while we are trying to avoid being fooled by nature.
There are many sources of data on motorists Non-intersection cyclist crashes for instance:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2008#sec1
Bicyclist deaths by junction type, 2008
Intersection
Non-intersection
Total*
Num
%
Num
%
Num
%
270
38
441
62
714
100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns
Bicyclist deaths by junction type, 2011
Intersection
Non-intersection
Total*
Number
%
Number
%
Number
%
242
36
433
64
675
100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns
Interesting ………… the consistent pattern year to year …..
And as Esther has posted North Carolina data with recommended countermeasures:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat/pdf/summary_bike_types06-10.pdf
Excerpt ….. page 16
Thus, these four motorist overtaking crash types combined accounted for 18% of all of NC’s bicycle-motor vehicle collisions.
Potential Countermeasures
Providing for sufficient sight distance for the speed of traffic, separated space to ride such as wide shoulders or bike lanes (or even separated facilities), and keeping shoulders or lanes clear of debris and well-maintained are countermeasures that can
help to address these crash types.
These crash types can be severe, particularly when motorized speeds are high. If separate space (paved
shoulders, lanes, or path) or adequate sight distance cannot be provided, then it is important to consider whether speed limits should be lower, and to control traffic speeds so that overtaking motorists have sufficient time to react
to any slower vehicles ahead, including bikes. Intermittent passing lanes could also be considered in some situations.
And also:
Here is a reference URL to the Ken Cross US Dept. of Transportation Report that is so often mentioned in bicycle data.
While the Cross study is dated the information is still pertinent compared with and often paralleling current DOT data.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25400/25439/DOT-HS-803-315.pdf
Might I invite your attention to Page 229? – Class D Problems (Cyclist struck from behind by motorist)
“Table 36 lists the problem types and subtypes for Class D and shows the proportion of fatal and non-fatal cases that were classified into each problem type and subtype. It can be seen in Table 36 that Class D accounted for nearly 38% of all fatal cases and that nearly one-fourth of all fatal accidents were classified into Problem Type 13.”
“ ….. it is clear that the likelihood of suffering fatal injuries is far higher for Class D accidents than for any other accident class. The high incidence of fatal injuries is mainly the result of the high speed of the motor vehicle on impact.”
“The distinguishing characteristic of Problem Type 13 is that the operator of the overtaking motor vehicle failed to observe the bicyclist until the vehicles were in such close proximity that successful evasive action was impossible. Fifty percent of the non-fatal accidents and 59% of the fatal accidents of this type occurred in a rural area. About three-fifths of the rural accidents and about one-half of the urban accidents occurred on a narrow, two-lane roadway with no ridable shoulder.”
“The exact position of the bicyclist and motorist at impact was difficult to determine with sufficient precision to know whether the bicyclist was traveling too far to the left or the motorist was traveling too far to the right.”
“The fear of overtaking accidents and the assumption that this type of accident occurs with great frequency are among the main reasons why on-street bicycle lanes have been so appealing to persons concerned with bicycle safety. Judging from the types of locations where on-street bicycle lanes have been constructed in the past, it appears that decisions about the need for bicycle lanes have been based on the assumption that overtaking accidents most often occur on narrow roadways that carry heavy bicycle and motor-vehicle traffic and have many motor vehicles parked along them. “
“The fear of overtaking accidents is well founded since the likelihood of fatal injuries is indeed higher for overtaking accidents than for any other class of accidents revealed by this study.”
“Except for accidents that resulted from the motor vehicle being out of control, it seems reasonable to assume that most Class D accidents would not have occurred if an on-street bicycle lane had been present and the bicyclist had been riding in it. However, the problem in recommending on-street bicycle lanes as a countermeasure stems from the cost-effectiveness of this approach. First, consider that 46% of the fatal and 44% of the non-fatal overtaking accidents occurred in a rural area where bicycle traffic tends to be low and where it would be necessary to widen the paved area in order to accommodate an on-street bicycle lane.”
“In summary, it seems certain that bicycle facilities (on-street bicycle lanes, off-street bicycle lanes, and paved shoulders) have the potential for reducing the incidence of Class D accidents if the facilities are constructed at the types of locations where such accidents occur and if bicyclists can be induced to use the facilities. It is also possible that bicycle facilities would effect a reduction in other types of accidents as well. However, there are many reasons to doubt that it would be cost-effective to construct bicycle facilities at the types of locations where Class D accidents occur.”
Page 245
“In some instances, it may be safer to ride in the center of the traffic lane than to attempt to anticipate an opening motor-vehicle door. However, as was stated earlier, considerable study is required before recommending that bicyclists be taught to ride in the center of the traffic lane.”
Page 269
Some bicycling experts believe that many Class F accidents would not occur if bicyclists were taught to ride in the center of the traffic lane rather than along the right-hand curb. They claim that riding in the center of the traffic lane would increase the likelihood that the bicyclist will be detected by the motorist and would eliminate the right-of-way conflicts with right-turning accidents. As was discussed earlier, a number of critical questions must be answered before recommending that bicyclists be taught to ride in the center of the traffic lane (see discussion of countermeasure approaches for Class E accidents).
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf
The majority of pedalcyclist fatalities in 2009 occurred in urban areas (70%). In respect to vehicle crash location in relation to an intersection, most pedalcyclist fatalities in 2009 occurred at non-intersections. Compared to 2008 these numbers increased by 5 percent.
Almost three-fourths (72%) of the pedalcyclist fatalities were killed during the daytime between the hours of 4 a.m. and 8 p.m., a 6-percent increase from the previous year. The remaining 27 percent were killed during the nighttime hours, a 13-percent decrease from the previous year. Table 2 shows the pedalcyclist fatalities by time of day for 2008 and 2009.
In addition to the above data I think it is relevant to discuss the many limitations of humans driving motor cars and the utility of newer alerting and auto braking systems being introduced to the automobile market.
Currently Infiniti uses a laser based system for auto braking which I have tested and it works very well in sensing other autos and smoothly braking and stopping without human intervention to prevent a crash.
Also systems that sense sleepy drivers are useful:
From Wiki:
Driver Drowsiness Detection is a car safety technology which prevents accidents when the driver is getting drowsy. Various studies have suggested that around 20% of all road accidents are fatigue-related, up to 50% on certain roads.[1]
Some of the current systems learn driver patterns and can detect when a driver is becoming drowsy.
Systems
- Ford::Driver Alert[2]
- Mercedes-Benz: Attention Assist[3] In 2009, Mercedes-Benz unveiled a system called Attention Assist which monitors the driver's fatigue level and drowsiness based on his/her driving inputs. It issues a visual and audible alarm to alert the driver if he or she is too drowsy to continue driving safely.
- Volkswagen: Fatigue detection system[4]
- Volvo Cars: Driver Alert Control[5] In 2007, Volvo Cars launched the world's first Driver Drowsiness Detection system, Driver Alert Control. The system monitors the car's movements and assesses whether the vehicle is being driven in a controlled or uncontrolled way. If the system detects a high risk of the driver being drowsy, the driver is alerted via an audible signal. Also, a text message appears in the car's information display, alerting him or her with a coffee cup symbol to take a break. Additionally, the driver can continuously retrieve driving information from the car's trip computer. The starting-point is five bars. The less consistent the driving, the fewer bars remain.
- Anti Sleep Pilot - Danish device that can be fitted to any vehicle, uses a combination of accelerometers and reaction tests.[6]
I did not test the Infiniti auto braking feature on cyclists or pedestrians but was told by the salesman that he had tried it and sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not …… so it appears more work must be done to make the system function for smaller targets.
Some other autos use multiple radar emitters and receivers ……… a long range radar unit and 2 short range radar units mounted on the forward part of the car.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Neal
-- John Forester, MS, PE Bicycle Transportation Engineer 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306 619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com www.johnforester.com
Neal
Hello John,
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:42:19 PM UTC-7, John Forester wrote:
"Yes, Neal, we are well aware of the psychological principle that beliefs often precede knowledge. But it is rather strange that you present us with that argument, since your work is such a good example of this erroneous principle in operation.
But since you apparently desire to follow where your beliefs indicate, you should devote yourself to advocating that all our two-lane (or less) rural highways be equipped with really adequate street lighting and wide shoulders."
Good to see you in print again and wishing you well.
Yes – you are correct …… I certainly was writing about myself since belief systems are an evolved human condition. I would guess that if a person does not have a belief system they would be either an outlier or non-human …………….. :)
Also I owe Michael Shermer a book plug (The Believing Brain - $11.19 at Amazon) since I sell a product that is a partial cure for the dreaded Shermer’s Neck Syndrome he made famous when doing the RAAM.
I would devote myself to do even more to improving bicycle infrastructure in the countryside as you suggest (and thanks for asking) ……….. but as luck would have it I have ‘Tom Sawyered’ the British House of Commons and the House of Lords to do the heavy lifting for me in Britain ………….. to set a fine example that we here in America will quickly follow and improve upon:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/get_britain_cycling.pdf
The Get Britain Cycling inquiry was an initiative of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG), a cross party body with members in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, with the aim “to enable more people across the UK to take up cycling, cycle more often and cycle more safely by interviewing or receiving written evidence from expert witnesses on the obstacles that must be overcome and suggesting concrete, effective measures to be undertaken by central and local government as well as the wider world of business and the third sector”.
The members of the group who served as the inquiry panel were as follows:
Co-Chairs
Ian Austin MP, Julian Huppert MP
Panel Members
Lord Berkeley, Ben Bradshaw MP, Steve Brine MP, Oliver Colvile MP,
Jeremy Corbyn MP, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Fabian Hamilton MP, Meg Hillier
MP, Lord Hoffmann, Mark Lazarowicz MP, Jason McCartney MP, Lord
Scott, Sarah Wollaston MP
It is essential that the patterns of spending on cycling should be seen as mainstream commitments, with long term continuity
rather than temporary initiatives. While these are welcome, they should be in addition to a much larger sustained base of funding, not in place of it.
Many of the improvements that would benefit cyclists, such as improvements to road quality, creation of segregated cycle tracks and junction changes, will also benefit pedestrians and other road users. They should therefore form part of planned highway maintenance programmes. Money is needed for both capital and revenue budgets. Creating cycle-friendly roads, junctions and cycle facilities will require significant capital spending over many years. In the meantime though, some well-targeted revenue funding for cycle training and other smarter choices measures could help kick-start the process of Getting Britain Cycling with some highly cost-effective quick wins.
(Credits to Ron Richings for posting the above)
As a former Brit you can certainly appreciate the value of the new Getting Britain Cycling programmes.
John Forester
It is obvious that Neal sees government involvement in bicycling transportation as a good thing, and, indeed, he has highlighted the inclusion of segregated cycle tracks in the media notice. That uncritical view fails to understand the extent to which the government's theory of traffic influences the design of the products of the program. The products of the American governments' involvement in bicycle traffic have always been based on the theory of traffic that considers bicyclists to be traffic-incompetent and of lower status than motorists. That's why we, in America, have had forty years of conflict between government and lawful, competent cyclists.
I see no reason to think that the British proposal will be good for lawful, competent cyclists, and some reasons to doubt. In any case, evaluation can start only with some valid information.
Hello John,
Good to see you in print again and wishing you well.
Yes – you are correct …… I certainly was writing about myself since belief systems are an evolved human condition. I would guess that if you do not have one you are an outlier or non-human …………….. J
Also I owe Michael Shermer a book plug (The Believing Brain - $11.19 at Amazon) since I sell a product that is a partial cure for the dreaded Shermer’s Neck Syndrome he made famous when doing the RAAM.
I would devote myself to do even more to improving bicycle infrastructure in the countryside as you suggest (and thanks for asking) ……….. but as luck would have it I have ‘Tom Sawyered’ the British House of Commons and the House of Lords to do the heavy lifting for me in Britain ………….. to set a fine example that we here in America will quickly follow and improve upon:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/get_britain_cycling.pdf
The Get Britain Cycling inquiry was an initiative of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG), a cross party body with members in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, with the aim “to enable more people across the UK to take up cycling, cycle more often and cycle more safely by interviewing or receiving written evidence from expert witnesses on the obstacles that must be overcome and suggesting concrete, effective measures to be undertaken by central and local government as well as the wider world of business and the third sector”.
The members of the group who served as the inquiry panel were as follows:
Co-Chairs
Ian Austin MP, Julian Huppert MP
Panel Members
Lord Berkeley, Ben Bradshaw MP, Steve Brine MP, Oliver Colvile MP,
Jeremy Corbyn MP, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Fabian Hamilton MP, Meg Hillier
MP, Lord Hoffmann, Mark Lazarowicz MP, Jason McCartney MP, Lord
Scott, Sarah Wollaston MP
It is essential that the patterns of spending on cycling should be seen as mainstream commitments, with long term continuity
rather than temporary initiatives. While these are welcome, they should be in addition to a much larger sustained base of funding, not in place of it.
Many of the improvements that would benefit cyclists, such as improvements to road quality, creation of segregated cycle tracks and junction changes, will also benefit pedestrians and other road users. They should therefore form part of planned highway maintenance programmes. Money is needed for both capital and revenue budgets. Creating cycle-friendly roads, junctions and cycle facilities will require significant capital spending over many years. In the meantime though, some well-targeted revenue funding for cycle training and other smarter choices measures could help kick-start the process of Getting Britain Cycling with some highly cost-effective quick wins.
(Credits to Ron Richings for posting the above)
As a former Brit you can certainly appreciate the value of the new Getting Britain Cycling programmes.
Cheers,
John Forester
The cyclist-inferiority view is powered by the fear of same-direction motor traffic. Its theory is that the danger of same-direction motor traffic is so great that it justifies extreme measures for getting cyclists out of its way.
1: Same direction motor traffic is the cause of only a few of the car-bike collisions that occur. It is reasonable to say, as a simplification, that less than 5% of car-bike collisions occur between straight-ahead cyclists and straight-ahead motorists, while more than 95% of car-bike collisions involve turning or crossing movements by one or both parties.
2: The fear of same-direction motor traffic is therefore greatly exaggerated. This exaggerated fear, and the laws and facilities that are based on it, were all created by motordom for the convenience of motorists, at a time when there was no factual evidence to support that fear.
3: When the facts to disprove the validity of the fear of same-direction motor traffic (mentioned in item 1) were discovered, motordom refused to change its anti-cyclist, cyclist-inferiority policies and practices, because that fear served to promote the convenience of motorists.
4: Items one through three are all well-documented facts.
Therefore, the exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic can only be a superstition created and maintained by motordom for the convenience of motorists. It has no factual basis.
The vehicular cycling view is that cyclists should operate in the same way as other drivers of vehicles, with the same rights and duties, making their movements in the same way, cooperating in the organized movement of vehicles so that traffic operates in reasonable safety with reasonable efficiency. In simplified form, cyclists should operate by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV).
5: The fact that the vehicular system works so well is clear evidence that it is based on supporting facts about the characteristics of wheeled, steerable vehicles and the characteristics of the humans who drive them.
6: The failure rate of the vehicular system is something like one collision per million interactions between drivers.
7: Most of the failures are traceable to human failure to obey the RRDV; they are not failures in the design of the system. This is true for both car-car collisions and car-bike collisions.
8: Those who believe in cyclist inferiority claim that cyclists are not capable of obeying the RRDV. This has been disproved by tests of both adults and children, although understanding complex traffic situations does require more maturity than does easy-traffic cycling.
Therefore, the vehicular cycling view cannot be a superstition, because it has such strong factual support.
However, despite the overwhelming evidence that the cyclist-inferiority and bikeways view is a superstition while the vehicular system is based on facts, a large number of people, of whom Neal is one, choose to advocate the cyclist-inferiority and bikeways view as being factually better than the vehicular-cycling view. To do so, they have mined the data for anomalous items. They have found one, the overrepresentation of cyclist fatalities in motorist-overtaking-cyclist car-bike collisions. Such collisions often involve higher speed and therefore more serious injuries than are typical. And, of course, these collisions are caused by the supposed great danger of same-direction motor traffic that is the superstitious excuse for the cyclist-inferiority policy, a bit of fact amplifying the superstition. Presenting arguments that cyclist safety requires reducing this kind of collision by getting cyclists out of the way of same-direction motor traffic strikes the superstitious chord among those who do not know the facts.
9: Only about 2% of car-bike collisions are fatal.
10: These motorist-overtaking-cyclist collisions are concentrated on two-lane narrow rural highways, which are the least likely locations for widening.
11: These motorist-overtaking-cyclist collisions are also concentrated during the hours of darkness, which means that the best countermeasures are better lighting, either ambient from street lights or carried by the cyclist.
In short, the cyclist-inferiority and bikeways advocates who claim that their argument is supported by scientific knowledge are demanding that the whole bicycle transportation program be driven by only a very small fraction of car-bike collisions, less than 1% of them.
Well, why not work on countermeasures for this 1% of car-bike collisions? The trouble is that the countermeasures for this type of car-bike collision create many more problems and dangers in the traffic operating environment. We already have two streams of traffic in urban areas: vehicular and pedestrian. Creating a new stream of traffic, bicycle traffic, complicates all traffic management problems. Simply moving the bicycle traffic to the pedestrian areas creates great dangers for both cyclists and pedestrians unless the cyclists are slowed to pedestrian speed. Having cyclists move at cycling speeds between the vehicular and pedestrian traffics creates great dangers of car-bike collisions because it amplifies the dangers of turning and crossing movements, which, with only the two present traffic streams, already cause 95% of car-bike collisions. Traffic signals placed to prevent all the new conflicting movements produced by the three-stream system are both expensive to install and expensive to operate, in the sense that they increase the delays experienced by all traffic. Cyclists are better off by operating in the present two-stream system, on the roadway in the vehicular manner or on the sidewalk in the pedestrian manner, as each chooses at each moment.
In short, those who advocate the cyclist-inferiority and bikeways program are operating on the basis of superstition piled onto superstition.
Hello John,
�On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 3:42:19 PM UTC-7, John Forester wrote:
"Yes, Neal, we are well aware of the psychological principle that beliefs often precede knowledge. But it is rather strange that you present us with that argument, since your work is such a good example of this erroneous principle in operation.
But since you apparently desire to follow where your beliefs indicate, you should devote yourself to advocating that all our two-lane (or less) rural highways be equipped with really adequate street lighting and wide shoulders."
�
Good to see you in print again and wishing you well.
�
Yes � you are correct �� I certainly was writing about myself since belief systems are an evolved human condition.� I would guess that if a person does not have a belief system they would be either an outlier or non-human �����..� :)
�
Also I owe Michael Shermer a book plug (The Believing Brain - $11.19 at Amazon) since I sell a product that is a partial cure for the dreaded Shermer�s Neck Syndrome he made famous when doing the RAAM.
�
I would devote myself to do even more to improving bicycle infrastructure in the countryside as you suggest (and thanks for asking) ���.. but as luck would have it I have �Tom Sawyered� the British House of Commons and the House of Lords to do the heavy lifting for me in Britain �����.. to set a fine example that we here in America will quickly follow and improve upon:
�
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/get_britain_cycling.pdf
�
The Get Britain Cycling inquiry was an initiative of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG), a cross party body with members in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, with the aim �to enable more people across the UK to take up cycling, cycle more often and cycle more safely by interviewing or receiving written evidence from expert witnesses on the obstacles that must be overcome and suggesting concrete, effective measures to be undertaken by central and local government as well as the wider world of business and the third sector�.
�
The members of the group who served as the inquiry panel were as follows:
�
Co-Chairs
�
Ian Austin MP, Julian Huppert MP
�
Panel Members
�
Lord Berkeley, Ben Bradshaw MP, Steve Brine MP, Oliver Colvile MP,
Jeremy Corbyn MP, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Fabian Hamilton MP, Meg Hillier
MP, Lord Hoffmann, Mark Lazarowicz MP, Jason McCartney MP, Lord
Scott, Sarah Wollaston MP
�
It is essential that the patterns of spending on cycling should be seen as mainstream commitments, with long term continuity
rather than temporary initiatives. While these are welcome, they should be in addition to a much larger sustained base of funding, not in place of it.�
�
Many of the improvements that would benefit cyclists, such as improvements to road quality, creation of segregated cycle tracks and junction changes, will also benefit pedestrians and other road users.� They should therefore form part of planned highway maintenance programmes.� Money is needed for both capital and revenue budgets. Creating cycle-friendly roads, junctions and cycle facilities will require significant capital spending over many years. In the meantime though, some well-targeted revenue funding for cycle training and other smarter choices measures could help kick-start the process of Getting Britain Cycling with some highly cost-effective quick wins.
�
(Credits to Ron Richings for posting the above)
�
As a former Brit you can certainly appreciate the value of the new Getting Britain Cycling programmes.
�
�
Cheers,
�
Neal
�
--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
�
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
�
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
�
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
Trevor Bourget
The elephant in the room is still the wrong-headed "safety" program
led by NHTSA and other federal agencies. "Crash safety" standards
prevent motorists from learning from their own and each others' bad
choices. Fuel economy objectives should suggest that peoplemobiles
should ALL be lightweight and fragile. Cars should disintegrate on
impact with an obstacle, not magically rebound as if the pedestrian's
skull had never hit the windshield. We should be saving lives by
letting people discover first-person the real result of an "accidental
drift" into another lane. Humans are actually pretty smart learners, I
wager we get better drivers in much less than a decade.
>>>
>>> "Yes, Neal, we are well aware of the psychological principle that beliefs
>>> often precede knowledge. But it is rather strange that you present us
>>> with that argument, since your work is such a good example of this
>>> erroneous principle in operation.
>>>
>>> But since you apparently desire to follow where your beliefs indicate,
>>> you should devote yourself to advocating that all our two-lane (or less)
>>> rural highways be equipped with really adequate street lighting and wide
>>> shoulders."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> systems are an evolved human condition. I would guess that if a person
>>
>>
>> Also I owe Michael Shermer a book plug (The Believing Brain - $11.19 at
>> Amazon) since I sell a product that is a partial cure for the dreaded
>>
>>
>> I would devote myself to do even more to improving bicycle infrastructure
>> luck would have it I have ‘Tom Sawyered’ the British House of Commons and
>> the House of Lords to do the heavy lifting for me in Britain ………….. to
>> upon:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The Get Britain Cycling inquiry was an initiative of the All Party
>> Parliamentary Cycling Group (APPCG), a cross party body with members in
>> more safely by interviewing or receiving written evidence from expert
>> witnesses on the obstacles that must be overcome and suggesting concrete,
>> effective measures to be undertaken by central and local government as
>>
>>
>> The members of the group who served as the inquiry panel were as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Austin MP, Julian Huppert MP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lord Berkeley, Ben Bradshaw MP, Steve Brine MP, Oliver Colvile MP,
>>
>> Jeremy Corbyn MP, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Fabian Hamilton MP, Meg Hillier
>>
>> MP, Lord Hoffmann, Mark Lazarowicz MP, Jason McCartney MP, Lord
>>
>> Scott, Sarah Wollaston MP
>>
>>
>>
>> mainstream commitments, with long term continuity
>>
>> rather than temporary initiatives. While these are welcome, they should be
>> in addition to a much larger sustained base of funding, not in place of
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> to road quality, creation of segregated cycle tracks and junction changes,
>> form part of planned highway maintenance programmes. Money is needed for
>> and cycle facilities will require significant capital spending over many
>> years. In the meantime though, some well-targeted revenue funding for
>> cycle training and other smarter choices measures could help kick-start
>> the process of Getting Britain Cycling with some highly cost-effective
>> quick wins.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Britain Cycling programmes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Neal
>>
>>
>> +1 mph Faster
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
>> Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not
>> people)
>>
>> Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
>> Discussion archives:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
>> Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
>> Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
>>
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BicycleDriving" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>
> John Forester, MS, PE
> Bicycle Transportation Engineer
> 7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
> 619-644-5481 fore...@johnforester.com
> www.johnforester.com
>
> --
> To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
> Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
>
> Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
> Discussion archives:
> http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
> Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
> Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links
>
Neal
Hello John and All,
Thanks for your usual prompt, kind, and itemized thoughtful response.
I would like to take a moment to point out that in terms of bicycle infrastructure momentum it was gratifying to see the British Parliament to take up the cause with a plan for funding “many of the improvements that would benefit cyclists, such as improvements to road quality, creation of segregated cycle tracks” and the like ……… following the course set by many cities in the United States (and Europe) to improve cycling safety and the cycling experience.
John, we have done this drill so many times that I am thinking we may want to switch sides in the future – like moot court – just to keep it interesting ……. J …. as sometimes I think I could do a better job defending your VC position …. an ‘all or nothing proposition’.…. weak as it is ….
In your response below I am not sure what you mean by questioning if I have an honest motive – “Whether or not his motive is honest”. Honesty of motive had never occurred to me …… but since you raise the question …. what in your mind is an honest motive when discussing where it is safest to ride a bicycle? Does it relate to substituting opinion for data and facts?
I am answering your point 1. below and hoping you will not take umbrage ….. if in the interest of brevity I dismiss the remainder of your numbered points as filler and balderdash.
“It is apparent that Neal has
inserted the discussion about the conflict between superstition and evidence
because he believes that vehicular cycling is the superstition while
cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways is supported by the evidence. Or, of
course, that he may know better but still chooses to argue for the superstition
surrounding cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. Whether or not his motive
is honest, it is important to analyze the evidence to better determine the
balance between superstition and fact on each side.”
“The cyclist-inferiority view is powered by the fear of same-direction motor
traffic. Its theory is that the danger of same-direction motor traffic is so
great that it justifies extreme measures for getting cyclists out of its way.”
I should note at the outset that in my view as a cyclist in traffic I am inferior to motor vehicles in several respects – for instance in mass (my 18 pound bike and I together have only a fraction of the mass of a motor car or truck), in speed, my pedal bicycle only goes about 18 to 22 mph on the flats no wind and slows to 8 mph on grades (whereas motor cars and trucks are generally much faster) in visibility, my bicycle and I are much smaller than motor cars and trucks and harder to see. Motorcars have crumple zones, air bags, seat belts, and many other features for occupant protection, I have a plastic helmet, a visor, and gloves.
I submit that cyclist-inferiority is not a superstition …….. it is a fact. And while Rules For The Road for drivers, BMUFL signs, and Sharrows are certainly helpful they are of little solace to a cyclist after a bicycle crash with an automobile …..
When on my bicycle I am in effect a pedestrian with wheels. When I ride in motorist traffic lanes I am a pretend motorcar without many of the attributes of a motorcar – mass, speed, visibility, or occupant protection.
That said …. I still ride in motorist lanes when necessary and utilize the rule of the road …. but I am painfully aware of my vulnerability and prefer the better safety of bike lanes and bike trails when available.
Many of us that ride bicycles know someone who has been in a crash with a motorist ….. and while many cyclists survive a low speed crash with a motor car or truck – they may be crippled for the remainder of their life.
We may be talking at cross purposes a bit here – with you putting emphasis on collisions and me with emphasis on fatal crashes:
“1: Same direction motor traffic is the cause of only a few of the car-bike collisions that occur. It is reasonable to say, as a simplification, that less than 5% of car-bike collisions occur between straight-ahead cyclists and straight-ahead motorists, while more than 95% of car-bike collisions involve turning or crossing movements by one or both parties.”
Based on the study http://ocbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/overtakingprobrief.pdf which states:
“Drivers passed closer to the rider the
further out into the road he was.
This is contrary to what many experienced
bicyclists believed should happen.” …….. John, are you reading this?
Motorist overtaking cyclist is the largest class of fatal cyclist crashes and a clear understanding of some of the factors is important to reduce cyclist fatalities.
As noted in the NHTSA Cross/Fisher Study: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/25000/25400/25439/DOT-HS-803-315.pdf
Page 229
CLASS D PROBLEM TYPES:
Class D includes five problem types that occurred when (a) a vehicle overtook and collided with a bicyclist traveling in the same direction, or
(b) the threat of an overtaking motor vehicle caused the bicyclist to collide with an object that obstructed the path he would have taken if the obstruction had not been present. Class D does not include cases in which the bicyclist turned or swerved into the path of an overtaking motor vehicle.
Table 36 lists the problem types and subtypes for Class D and shows the proportion of fatal and non-fatal cases that were classified into each problem type and subtype. It can be seen in Table 36 that Class D accounted for nearly 38% of all fatal cases and that nearly one-fourth of all fatal accidents were classified into Problem Type 13.
NHTSA Cross/Fisher Study Page 242
It was stated earlier that many bicyclists are reluctant to ride too far to the right-hand edge of the roadway during darkness because the front light does not illuminate the path well enough for them to avoid road-surface defects and debris along the extreme edge of the roadway. For this reason, more effective front-lighting equipment may reduce the incidence of nighttime overtaking accidents by enabling bicyclists to ride farther to the right-hand edge of the roadway.
NHTSA 2008
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf
Pedalcyclist fatalities occurred more frequently in urban areas (69%), at non-intersection locations (64%), between the hours of 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. (28%), and during the months of June (9%) and September (12%). 52,000 were injured.
NHTSA 2009
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811386.pdf
The majority of pedalcyclist fatalities in 2009 occurred in urban areas (70%). In respect to vehicle crash location in relation to an intersection, most pedalcyclist fatalities in 2009 occurred at non-intersections. Compared to 2008 these numbers increased by 5 percent.
72% were killed in daytime - 27% in nighttime
2010 NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) Traffic Safety Facts developed from police reports of crashes database. (other years are available also.)
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/QueryTool/QuerySection/SelectCriteria.aspx
This report is a database with query options.
It is easy to query the data base for various statistical breakdowns of fatal motorist/bicycle crashes and submit different variables for Fatal Crash output.
…….for instance using 2010 as a datum year the data base shows the safest place for avoiding a fatal motorist/bicycle crash is to ride is in the bike lane/paved shoulder NOT the travel lane – almost 5 times as safe for the bike lane/paved shoulder for the largest class of fatal accidents - non-intersection crashes.
The data base reports 55 fatal crashes in the bike lane/paved shoulder as opposed to showing 266 fatal crashes in the travel lane for non-intersection crashes.
For intersection crashes the data shows 2 fatal crashes in bike lane/paved shoulder and 37 fatal crashes in the travel lane …. Reporting that it is over 18 times as safe to be in bike lane/paved shoulder rather than the travel lane to avoid intersection crashes.
Also:
- point of Impact
In most of the cases where the cyclist collided with a vehicle, it was possible to determine the point or points of impact. The most common points of impact were the bumper 53% (55 of 104), hood 41% (43 of 104) or windshield 34% (35 of 104); often more than one point of impact was noted.
This pattern suggested that the majority of collisions took place when the driver was attempting to pass the cyclist.
Is it better for the safety of the cyclist to rely on actual lateral separation (bike lane/paved shoulder) from a motorist …… or to rely on the separation provided by motorist perception and driving skills?
Considering the motorist rear-end crash data (33% of all motorist/motorist crashes are rear enders) it appears that cyclists will be safer from a motorist rear-end crash with actual lateral separation (bike lane/paved shoulder) rather than depending on the motorist to detect the cyclist in the center of the travel lane and provide linear separation and utilize appropriate driving skills to avoid a crash ……. NHTSA and Canadian fatal crash data reinforces this conclusion.
A cyclist depending on the motorist for separation is following in the steps of Blanche DuBois – “Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.” From Tennessee Williams Play - A Streetcar Named Desire
Yes, Neal, we are well aware of the psychological principle that beliefs often precede knowledge. But it is rather strange that you present us with that argument, since your work is such a good example of this erroneous principle in operation.
But since you apparently desire to follow where your beliefs indicate, you should devote yourself to advocating that all our two-lane (or less) rural highways be equipped with really adequate street lighting and wide shoulders .............................
John Forester
impossible because it is impossible to squeeze all those types of
facility into our road system, and if it were tried the traffic control
problems would also be insurmountable. If all these types of facility
were not everywhere, then those people with only a reduced range of
preferences would not be able to travel about by bicycle, or only to
those places reachable by the types of facility they like. I also take
issue with Jerry's apparent goal of getting cyclists to ride without
facilities. Does he mean that we are to ride through people's gardens,
or attempt to ride on water as if we were religious devotees?
Furthermore, while Jerry thinks that we are overly concentrating on
differences between bicyclists, I think that we are properly
concentrating on the different types of facility, the operating
procedures for each, and the skills required for each. If a person
intends to get around town by bicycle, that person ought to have either
the roadway skills (vehicular cycling) or the pedestrian skills. If he
has both those sets of skills, then he can choose which set to use at
each point in his trip. Unfortunately, American history has decreed that
cyclists don't need vehicular skills and should not use them. There are
many Americans who still believe this, and who promote various designs
of special bicycle facility that, so they claim, can be operated safely
without vehicular skills and which, therefore, ought to be ideal for
teaching people how to get around town by bicycle. Jerry apparently is
one of these. But none of these promoters of non-vehicular cycling, not
even the motorists who first invented this idea and promoted it for
decades, has ever provided a list of the skills that a cyclist would no
longer need, on a trip around town, if his system were implemented. So
far, when a vehicular skill is eliminated, that function has to be
provided through exercise of the pedestrian skills on a facility similar
to a sidewalk, and with all the traffic disadvantages of that type.
That's the way it is, Jerry. I can't provide a mathematical-type proof
that that is the way that it must be, but there has been a long history
of empirical demonstrations that that is the way it is. Unless you
manage to invent something entirely new that circumvents the known
problems, you will just have to accept that.
However, there is an eminently satisfactory route to training the
veriest beginners into cyclists who can get around town safely.
1: Practice on a level playground to attain reasonable facility in
starting, steering, and stopping your bicycle.
2: Practice on two-lane, low-speed, low-traffic streets to acquire
reasonable facility in making all the normal traffic movements: proper
lateral position, yielding to crossing traffic, right turns, scanning to
the rear, yielding to overtaking traffic when moving laterally, left
turns, overtaking slower traffic. This level of skill probably limits
the cyclist to a small geographical area.
3: Move to a multi-lane street with medium-speed traffic, and practice
all the previously learned skills in this environment. This will greatly
expand the area in which you can cycle.
4: Move to whatever streets are required to make the trips that you
desire, and make those trips.
5: If you really have to make part of a trip on conditions for which you
are not qualified, then ride exactly at the edge of the roadway, or,
preferably, on the sidewalk, and act like a pedestrian.
Those who wish to do something different from the above to encourage
more bicycle transportation are simply encouraging road or roadway-like
operation by cyclists who do not possess the required skills, and are
therefore upsetting the traffic pattern and endangering themselves
through their own incompetence.
If you think that the Dutch have found a way around these problems,
think again. All that the Dutch have produced is a very elaborate way
for cyclists to follow pedestrian rules, with the complications for all
users that that entails.
On 4/26/2013 4:50 AM, Jerry Foster wrote:
> Maybe a good way to look at it is to consider the types of bicyclists and their types of dirt as part of a continuum - sidewalks and paths for kids and novices, carriage lanes, quiet streets and bike lanes/cycle tracks for intermediates, single track and roads for experts, closed courses for racers.
>
> Is there some compelling, achievable outcome that makes us concentrate more on the differences between bicyclists rather than the similarities? I'll respectfully suggest that we can make more progress by growing the numbers of VC bicyclists through encouraging people to ride on facilities first, then want to ride where there are no facilities.
>
> Jerry Foster
Neal
Sorry Mate I Didn’t See You
SMIDSY
Using eye-tracking technology to monitor on-road driver behaviour, a study has found that drivers failed to notice 22 per cent of cyclists on the road, despite being in clear view.
The study was carried out by Bunnyfoot, psychologists and human-computer interface experts. A sample of 100 drivers were tested in August last year in London, Sheffield and Oxford.
The study found that 15 percent of motorcyclists - who also suffer from SMIDSY - went unseen by motorists.
Female drivers who took part in the study spotted fewer cyclists than the male subjects, with 26 per cent of cyclists unseen by women. Younger drivers are the worst of all, failing to spot 31 per cent of cyclists.
“We already know that there is a difference between what people ‘see’ and what they ‘notice’, and all too often drivers fail to ‘notice’ cyclists even when they are squarely in the driver’s field of vision.
The SMIDSY excuse – “Sorry mate I didn’t see you” – does seem more common when drivers hit cyclists and motorcyclists than when they hit pedestrians.
Ride safe .................
Serge Issakov
Patricia Kovacs
From: Trevor Bourget <trevo...@gmail.com>
To: John Forester <fore...@johnforester.com>
Cc: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, April 26, 2013 12:12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [CG] Re: [BicycleDriving] passing-from-behind collisions
Robert Cooper
John Forester
I suppose that Neal's passionate and detailed exposition of the cyclist-inferiority superstition, which motorists have been telling us for seventy years, indicates that his presentation has only the purpose of safety, without being biased with the desire to make bicycle transport popular. If so, then, rather than suspecting him to be a cynical environmental ideologue, we can consider him a true believer in the superstition of cyclist inferiority.
With respect to honesty, Neal asks whether issues of "where it is safest to ride a bicycle" should be answered by opinion or by data and facts. Obviously, one ought to rely on both data and judgment. However, Neal has failed to provide data concerning the issue of where it is safest to ride a bicycle. All he has provided is his own idiosyncratic selection of data items highly biased to support the cyclist-inferiority view, without the data items that would provide a general, and therefore more accurate, view of the safety of any particular facility type. And when judging the issue of safety, one also needs to consider other values, such as utility. After all, the safest cycling facility is one that is never used.
Last, Neal presents his passionate and detailed exposition of the cyclist-inferiority superstition, rather more passionate and detailed than the version we have heard from motorists for seventy years. Well, Neal, do you really consider yourself inferior to the typical American motorist? I suspect that you really do not do so. But that's only a small part of the issue. The large part of the issue is whether you will have safer and better cycling in traffic when you act as if the typical American motorist were your superior, or whether you will have safer and better cycling in traffic when you act as if all (or shall we say most) drivers, including yourself, have equal rights and equal skills? That is the issue, and there is no doubt but that those who have found the equality view have also found that they have many fewer troubles in traffic and, as a group, have a far lower crash rate than those who choose to act inferior.
In your response below I am not sure what you mean by questioning if I have an honest motive � �Whether or not his motive is honest�.� �Honesty of motive had never occurred to me �� but since you raise the question �. what in your mind is an honest motive when discussing where it is safest to ride a bicycle?� Does it relate to substituting opinion for data and facts?
�
I am answering your point 1. below and hoping you will not take umbrage �.. if in the interest of brevity I dismiss the remainder of your numbered points as filler and balderdash.
�
�It is apparent that Neal has inserted the discussion about the conflict between superstition and evidence because he believes that vehicular cycling is the superstition while cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways is supported by the evidence. Or, of course, that he may know better but still chooses to argue for the superstition surrounding cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways. Whether or not his motive is honest, it is important to analyze the evidence to better determine the balance between superstition and fact on each side.�
�The cyclist-inferiority view is powered by the fear of same-direction motor traffic. Its theory is that the danger of same-direction motor traffic is so great that it justifies extreme measures for getting cyclists out of its way.��
I should note at the outset that in my view as a cyclist in traffic I am inferior to motor vehicles in several respects � for instance in mass (my 18 pound bike and I together have only a fraction of the mass of a motor car or truck), in speed, my pedal bicycle only goes about 18 to 22 mph on the flats no wind and slows to 8 mph on grades (whereas motor cars and trucks are generally much faster) in visibility, my bicycle and I are much smaller than motor cars and trucks and harder to see.� �Motorcars have crumple zones, air bags, seat belts, and many other features for occupant protection, I have a plastic helmet, a visor, and gloves.
�
I submit that cyclist-inferiority is not a superstition ��.. it is a fact.� �And while Rules For The Road for drivers, BMUFL signs, and Sharrows are certainly helpful they are of little solace to a cyclist after a bicycle crash with an automobile �..
�
Sara R
Neal
Hello Serge,
Good point.
And be it known that I usually agree with your level headed posts ……. and I want to thank you for all you do for cyclists …………
However ……….. I think we are talking about two different aspects of ‘inferior’…… one with regard to the law and another with regard to the thread title ‘passing-from-behind-collision’.
I agree we cyclists are equal under the motor vehicle code ……. with some exceptions and different requirements such as licensing and so on. Just as ……….. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, (Declaration of Independence) …… however even with that stated you probably would not bring a knife to a gunfight ……………
However as ‘passing-from-behind-collision’ is the subject of this thread I submit that as you posted “I’d rather be the motorist than the bicyclist” is the more accurate meaning and goes to my meaning for ‘inferior’.
I think you posted the correct choice because the cyclist is inferior in a collision with a motor car in my view.
So we will probably need to agree to disagree on this one ……. as the bicyclist is inferior by many significant and practical measures to the motorist in a collision in my view ….. please note that while the cyclist may not be killed immediately in the collision …. the cyclist may sustain crippling injuries to be suffered the remainder of life.
Also with this type of collision studies have found a high percentage of deaths …. for instance the Cross study:
Page 229? – Class D Problems (Cyclist struck from behind by motorist)
“It can be seen in Table 36 that Class D accounted for nearly 38% of all fatal cases and that nearly one-fourth of all fatal accidents were classified into Problem Type 13.”
Also small size means less visibility for the bicycle and as to maneuverability – make a choice – ride the bicycle or drive the motor car – trying to avoid getting hit by the motor car trying to run you down in a large parking lot.
Maneuverability might be defined in the gross by:
Stopping ability: Automobile wins at about 1G Bicycle at about 0.67G (John Forester )
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/bicycles-faq/part5/
“With typical bicycle geometry, a brake application to attempt to produce a deceleration greater than 0.67 g will flip the bicycle. (Those who advocate the cyclist moving his butt off and behind the saddle
to change the weight distribution achieve a very small increase in this.)”
And http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/braking-pitchover.pdf (Joseph S. Riel) who shows on seat braking 0.63G and hanging off behind the saddle gives 0.83G (a sizable gain with this technique) We often see Tour riders on the downhills using this technique.
Acceleration ability Automobile wins
Cornering ability Automobile wins again at about 1G Bicycle is less (estimated)
So I again state my view the cyclists are inferior to motorists in a ‘passing-from-behind-collision’ on the grounds that they are far more likely to be damaged in a significant and practical measure and further that it is likely to hurt like hell, if they survive.
Richard Wharton
Neal
Hello Whareagle and All,
Were you sober when you posted? Do you have a race coming up and are you in a WADA out of competition testing program for steroids?
Starting from the bottom of your personal attack – I am not a moderator on this forum, I think Serge is the moderator and I suggest you address your being banned comments to him.
For my part – if I was a moderator, I would not ban you now unless you conduct was willful and habitual.
We all screw up sometimes ….. some more than others ….. and who knows what struggles are going on in other’s lives.
“Neal, GO TO HELL, you absurd coward.”
I have been to Hell ……. and now I am back.
You called me a coward … unlikely ………… I was on active duty in the US Navy and US Marine Corps for 7 years ….. and in the Reserves for some years after.
My primary MOS was Fighter Pilot. I also flew as a civilian in Vietnam during the war (with my military security clearances and credentials as a US Air Force Officer.)
I submit that my comments here on the forum generally cite academic studies … and as to bringing value to the conversation … that is in the eye of the beholder. I am having fun with creating bicycle products for racing (not related to posting here) …. and until you become a moderator on this forum I can probably keep posting even though the information may be difficult for some to assimilate …. depending on the reader’s world view.
It is not my intent to antagonize you as a gentle reader ……
I do not understand your comments about hierarchy and status on roads …. I view bicycle traffic as an engineering project not a social project …. and believe that social identity comes from the individual human not the mode of transport. I would suggest that a human has the same intrinsic social worth (in America) regardless of whether they are traveling by running, or in a boat, motor car or bicycle.
Neil Armstrong [RIP] (Apollo 11 moon landing – former Naval Aviator) would still be Neil Armstrong if on a bicycle or in a space rocket ….. his social status unchanged.
When flying 747’s (retired now for 20 years) it was my experience that the aircraft traffic control system worked similar to other traffic systems – segregating different types of aircraft by speed and size to avoid collisions. That was also true when I was flying single engine Cessna’s or Lear Jets or Citations ….. (no one I knew ever took it as a slur to their social status to be directed to use a different runway because of aircraft type)
Usually smaller aircraft landed on different runways or at different airports then the 747’s because of speed differences and considerations of wake turbulence – which caused some fatal accidents.
I have had wrestling, boxing, basketball, swimming, track, rifle team, aviation, etc. coaches but that was 50 years ago in high school, college, and in the military and the coaching traits I admired were being level headed under stress and the ability to communicate.
“Not even your coach is impressed with you any longer, and I know him.”
Why did you fabricate the comment about my coach? Who are you pretending to know?
I have been self-coached (for sports) for the last half century ….. and to my knowledge you and I have never met ….. no great loss.
John Forester
1: "I submit that my comments here on the forum generally cite academic studies � and as to bringing value to the conversation � that is in the eye of the beholder. "
2: "I do not understand your comments about hierarchy and status on roads ...� I would suggest that a human has the same intrinsic social worth (in America) regardless of whether they are traveling by running, or in a boat, motor car or bicycle."
3: " I view bicycle traffic as an engineering project not a social project."
1: Neal does generally cite reasonable studies of car-bike collisions. However, he cites only those parts of each of these studies that support his argument, ignoring those parts that would limit the scope of applicability of his argument. The problem with this is that the only type of crash he is interested in is both rare and atypical of crashes to cyclists. It has been demonstrated time after time that restricting the cyclist safety program to this one type of crash increases the other types of crashes, makes cycling less useful, and, if it is to be done properly, incurs great costs in both money and traffic operations. Any cyclist safety program must be designed around the whole mix of crash types, rather only those which are rare and atypical.
2: Neal states that he has been unaware, still is unless he learns from this, that American traffic laws for bicycle traffic make cyclists second-class roadway users with the prime directive of staying out of the way of the legitimate roadway users, the motorists. This inequitable set of laws is always supported by the arguments that Neal presented to us in his peroration of cyclist inferiority. American motordom has managed to make Americans believe that cyclists are inferior to motorists and that safety is attained only by acting inferior. And Neal presents us with his passionately detailed praise of being inferior.
3: Neal's goal of viewing bicycle traffic as an engineering project is admirable. However, Neal's present actions completely deny that he is paying any attention to that goal. I suspect that Neal has a low opinion of air traffic suggestions coming from airline passengers, because they do not know enough about the technology to make useful suggestions. Neal is in that position with respect to cyclist safety; he is the veriest beginner. I won't provide him the excuse of being an amateur, because in the field of bicycle transportation engineering it is the professionals who have screwed everything up, leaving it to the amateurs to develop the proper theory, even though they don't have the political power to implement it. Only when Neal has qualified in the field of bicycle transportation engineering will he be in the position to invent useful improvements.
Neal
Hello Peter and All,
Thanks for posting – interesting study – I added a few others ……..
While noting bike lane safety improvements other documents for NYC state that when traffic is
slow enough bicycles may legally use full traffic lane at their discretion.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf
Peter Rosenfeld posted on another forum:
"If one is interested in "hit from behind" fatalities in urban areas, you can hardly get more urban that New Your City. This report by the city, for 1996-2005, states that 70% of serious injuries to bicyclists happen in intersections and 89% of fatalities!"
Some of the interesting other information from the report:
Summary
This report describes bicyclist fatalities in New York City over a ten-year period, as well as bicyclist serious injuries for an 8-year
period. Several key points emerge from the analysis.
First, nearly all bicyclist deaths were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. In particular, a high proportion of bicyclist fatalities were due to a crash with a large vehicle, such as a truck or a bus.
Second, the vast majority of deaths occurred outside of bicycle lanes and other bicycle facilities. When a fatal bicycle crash with a motor vehicle occurred on a city street with a bicycle lane, the bicyclist was always outside of the lane itself, suggesting that dedicated bicycle paths or lanes may help reduce crashes with a motor vehicle.
Third, human factors on the part of both motorists and bicyclists were the most common type of contributing factor for bicyclist deaths. For motor vehicle drivers, inattention was the most frequent cause of involvement in a fatal bicyclist crash. For bicyclists, disregarding traffic signs or signals at inter-sections was demonstrated to be particularly deadly.
Fourth, most bicyclists who died had head injuries, and nearly all of the bicyclists killed were not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash. Head injuries may not have been the primary cause of death in all cases, but these findings do highlight the head as being particularly vulnerable to injury and a likely major cause of bicyclist fatalities. While the rate of helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low, it was six times higher than the rate among those bicyclists killed. These data suggest that helmet use is a critically important protection for all bicyclists.
Fifth, nearly all bicyclists who died were male. While the majority of bicyclists in NYC may indeed be male, these findings suggest that they are at greater risk for having a fatal accident.
This report also identifies several geographic clusters of bicyclist fatalities and serious injuries. While not adjusted for level of bicycling activity, these clusters could be used to inform programs intended to increase bicyclist safety.
And …..
4. Bicycle lanes and properly used bicycle equipment may reduce the risk of fatalities.
Only one fatal crash with a motor vehicle occurred when a bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane.
Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
Most fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury
Current politics:
Dated today:
On the other hand, polls show New Yorkers like bike lanes--particularly environmentalists, Latinos, young people, and techies, all of whom may play unpredictable roles in the 2013 vote. Independent polls show pretty consistent majorities in almost all categories approving of bike lanes, and an even bigger majority approving of bike share.
When it comes to the number of bike lanes in New York City, a plurality — 44% — thinks the amount is on target. 27% want more bike lanes created while 23% believe the number should be reduced. Six percent are unsure.
Also:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2011-nyc-cycling-risk-indicator.pdf
Note a decrease of 73% in the average risk of a serious injury experienced by cyclists in New York City in period 2000 to 2011.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/bike_lanes_memo.pdf
Excerpts:
255 miles of bike lanes have been added in
the last four years. The City has 6,000
miles of streets.
Bike lanes improve safety. Though cycling
in the city has more than doubled in
the last four years, the number of fatal cycling
crashes and serious injuries has
declined due to the safer bike network.
When protected bike lanes are installed, injury crashes for all road users (drivers,
pedestrians, cyclists), typically drop by
40 percent and by more than 50 percent in
some locations.
From 2001 through 2005, four pedestrians were killed in bike-pedestrian
accidents. From 2006 through 2010, while cycling in the city doubled, three
pedestrians were killed in bike-pedestrian accidents.
66 percent of the bike lanes installed have
had no effects on parking or on the
number of moving lanes.
John Forester
serious injuries as a serious support for his argument.
Neal, you need to recognize that reports such as this, from all around
the nation, are governments justifying their actions. They are as biased
as it is possibly to be without actually telling lies that could be
discovered. The bias is partly from organizational self-justification,
but also because such reports are written by people with biased views.
That is, Neal, people with the same superstitions that you praise.
Neal writes: "While noting bike lane safety improvements other documents
for NYC ... " It appears that Neal assumes that bike lanes reduced the
car-bike collision rate. Neal, despite the fact that bike lanes have
been government policy for forty years, no organization has tested their
effect on collision rates. The defining feature of a bike lane is that
it has a stripe. There has been no test to determine whether the
presence of the bike-lane stripe reduces car-bike collisions. Strange,
Neal, but true. Analysis of the car-bike collision statistics suggests
that the possible reduction is very small, while the traffic
complications introduced by the stripe might well overwhelm that
potential small reduction. Such has been the experience since then.
Neal refers to this report and states: "When a fatal bicycle crash with
bicyclist was always outside of the lane itself, suggesting that
dedicated bicycle paths or lanes may help reduce crashes with a motor
bicyclist was in a marked bicycle lane." That's the kind of
superstitious mendacity that one gets in reports such as this. The
authors know they can't prove their claim, so they offer it as
suggestions that persuade superstitious readers such as Neal. Neal
offers the statement by Peter Rosenfeld about the same report: "This
to remind you, in this period in NYC bike-lane stripes were not marked
through intersections. Therefore, no more than 11% of fatalities could
occur outside of intersections. We don't know the ratio of bike-lane
miles to street miles, and several other bits of useful data, but it
already looks that it would be quite unlikely that fatalities would
occur in the parts of the street system that are now marked by bike-lane
stripes, even if they had not been marked by such stripes. Much the same
type of discussion applies to those cyclists involved in car-bike
collisions in a bike-laned street but outside the bike lane. What was
each of these cyclists doing? It is likely that they were making turning
or crossing movements, which we know are the more dangerous
interactions. The fact that they incurred the collisions while making
such movements demonstrates the danger of those movements but has no
relevance to demonstrating the safety of bike lanes. Or, perhaps, they
were going round a vehicle parked in the bike lane. Well, that's just
another one of these turning or crossing movements, but, more than that,
it is a necessary part of bike-lane design in NYC: the city could not
live without double parking in its bike lanes.
So you see, Neal, the information that you thought was so credible has
only very low credibility. Let that be a lesson to you, and to others in
similar positions, about the importance of reviewing official bicycle
safety information by means of real knowledge of bicycle transportation
engineering.
Sara R
John Forester
Bike lanes are now not good dinner party conversation. So says New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. "Bike lanes, I put that now in the category of things you shouldn't discuss at dinner parties, right? It used to be money and politics and religion. Now in New York you should add bike lanes," the 2013 candidate for Mayor said, chuckling, as a luncheon audience of Broadway and tourism officials chuckled with her.
(For a famous dinner party conversation about bike lanes, read here.)
"Start wherever you want," urged WNYC's Brian Lehrer, who was hosting the event. "But talk about bike lanes, and pedestrian malls, and all things Bloomberg and Sadik-Khan."
More chuckling.
"Bike lanes are clearly controversial," Quinn said. "And one of the problems with bike lanes -- and I'm generally a supporter of bike lanes -- but one of the problems with bike lanes has been not the concept of them, which I support, but the way the Department of Transportation has implemented them without consultation with communities and community boards. "
Sara, your comment about the width of roads is very topical since ‘bike lanes’ have become a verboten topic at New York dinner parties although polling shows about 70% of New Yorkers prefer the bike lanes to motorist parking. The motorists are putting up a good fight though.
It used to be ‘sex, politics, and religion’ as conversation taboos in the military wardroom …….. now …… New Yorkers are substituting money for sex and adding bike lanes ……. which begs the question …… are bike lanes sexy?
Cheers,
Neal
+1 mph Faster
Sara notes:
“It should also be noted that in order for a road to have a bike lane, it has to be wide enough to have one in the first place. Therefore, it can not be assumed that a road without a bike lane is as wide as one with. It has been noted in studies that bike lanes encourage cyclists to ride further away from the curb, and that motorists pass more closely when there is a painted line versus none. (From the footnotes of Tom Vanderbilt's book Traffic) Motorists focus on the line and when it isn't there, they look at the person.”
Neal
Hello Ian, John, Jerry and All,
In reply to a posting about NYC .. ‘The city’s aggressive effort to install new bike lanes – some 260 miles of them have been added since 2006 … accompanied by considerable improvement in bicycle/car crash injuries … John Forester writes:
“Neal now advances the
New York City report on cyclist fatalities and
serious injuries as a serious support for his argument.
Neal, you need to recognize that reports such as this, from all around
the nation, are governments justifying their actions. They are as biased
as it is possibly to be without actually telling lies that could be
discovered. The bias is partly from organizational self-justification,
but also because such reports are written by people with biased views.
That is, Neal, people with the same superstitions that you praise.”
With all due respect John, this reads like we are discussing the Flat Earth society and everyone else is wrong except those that believe in a Flat Earth.
While it is possible that a few government officials and academics may be biased almost to the point of lying as John Forester states (shoot the messenger) …. Is it reasonable to discard all such information, from “all around the nation” in favor of an unsubstantiated opinion?
John is correct in that there are reports from all around America that show bicycle infrastructure – including bicycle lanes – greatly improves the safety of the cyclists from crashes with motorists. Is John correct in discarding this government and academic information with his uninformed opinion by stating that the information is so biased it borders on lying?
Is it reasonable to suspect all government and academic reports for “all around the nation” of being biased to the point of falsifying bicycle safety data?
I respectfully note that it is good to also provide some basis for your statements besides just your opinion – should you have such a basis.
I respectfully submit that the data and documents that governments and academics provide can be useful in a reasoned discussion and it is unreasonable to discount all data that contradicts an opinion held in error.
Also it should be noted that Jerry has some excellent points:
1.
I
believe it's best to recognize the existence of alternate views re safety and
preferred cycling style, even as (especially when) we don't agree with them,
especially in the absence of definitive data. My view of safety is that it's
dangerous to get out of bed every day, and more dangerous to stay there ( i.e.
safety is relative not absolute, and we don't have data sufficient in my view
to determine the strength of safety effects of a range of facility designs in a
range of contexts, positive or negative ).
2. It's best in my view to not question motives but rather to illustrate
effects of actions - you can't know someone's motives unless they tell you what
they are, plus it reflects poorly on the questioner, as if you don't have
confidence in the persuasiveness of the merits of your arguments. It's OK to
have animosity toward a particular design but not in my view toward the
designer, who might benefit from education, such as that provided by relevant
design standards. It might feel good to call someone incompetent, and you could
even be right, but you would be more effective showing them and everyone else
in the room how to improve the design.
3. I believe maintaining a respectful dialogue with others in society with an
interest in the roads is essential, including motorists, other cyclists,
advocates, engineers, public officials, etc. To be effective, I think it's
important to acknowlege the views of others, then point out (as some of the
responses in this thread have done) why a design or law falls short of the
requirements of experienced, competent transportational cyclists, and what
should be done to fix the problem. In my view we can't fix the problem if we
alienate those who can help us fix it (but might choose not to). Exagerating
what others say to logical absurdities is good fun, too, but there's a fine
line in that it's hard to gauge their reaction, if you're not communicating in
person. We only hurt the VC cause if people not involved with the arguments can
see the heat but not the light.
4. We're doing ourselves a disservice by framing the VC arguments solely in
traffic engineering terms, since the audience for those kind of arguments is
very small. “
Ian, please note that I am being respectful with this posting as I note some inaccuracies in your statements below if we believe “that reports such as this, from all around the nation,” show greatly improved cyclist safety with the addition of bike lanes and bicycle infrastructure.
1. Since the overwhelming evidence shows that
riding in the road is far safer than riding on segregated bicycle facilities,
I believe it's best to present strong arguments against alternate views.
2. I believe it is best to question motives of people who continue to support
segregated bicycle facilities despite the available evidence
which overwhelmingly shows such facilities to be less safe than the road.
What do you think?