Cycling Copenhagen through American eyes
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
POLITICAL WILL is lacking. Maybe the sadness comes from the
realization that it'll never happen. But maybe it will... right here
in Miami Beach, almost by accident. The Velib is coming soon, and
1,000 bikes add safety to all. We will see...
(notice these two key concepts: 'DRIVERS CAN BE TAMED' & 'THERE'S
SAFETY IN NUMBERS')
http://www.streetfilms.org/cycling-copenhagen-through-north-american-eyes/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Frank Studt
> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths and
the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its a
lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of cyclists.
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated bicycle
facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists. The
opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt even
a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
If you want to drive save listen to what John Forester is saying:
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/vcvideo.html
Or just search for vehicular cycling
Frank
Jim A
I like the style of those videos, especially the emphasis on being
courteous to other road users. We could do with some similar videos on
cycling in the UK (if we don't have some already).
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>
> > It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>
> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths and
> the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its a
> lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of cyclists.
>
> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
I think two parallel systems are desirable. Few sane people would
allow their kids through the maze created by the automobile.
We saw kids there, didn't we?
Is there a model anywhere in the world where such relaxed cycling is
observed WITHOUT bike facilities?
>
> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated bicycle
> facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists. The
> opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt even
> a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>
> If you want to drive save listen to what John Forester is saying:
>
> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/vcvideo.html
>
> Or just search for vehicular cycling
>
> Frank
So perhaps we can learn from some other model where a good chunk of
the population rides bikes among cars. I'm all ears.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
Anyone can enlighten us on Oxford or Cambridge?
Dieter Britz
the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories wrote:
> It's a hopeful video and also sad. We can make it happen, and yet the
> POLITICAL WILL is lacking. Maybe the sadness comes from the
> realization that it'll never happen. But maybe it will... right here
> in Miami Beach, almost by accident. The Velib is coming soon, and
> 1,000 bikes add safety to all. We will see...
>
> (notice these two key concepts: 'DRIVERS CAN BE TAMED' & 'THERE'S
> SAFETY IN NUMBERS')
>
> http://www.streetfilms.org/cycling-copenhagen-through-north-american-eyes/
This is not just Copenhagen, but every city big or small, all over Denmark.
Copenhagen is just the biggest, and has the densest population, also in
terms of cyclists. I live in Aarhus, and here too there are cycleways almost
everywhere, and car drivers are careful of us cyclists. The same can't be
said of a lot of cyclists wrt cars though.
My daughter lives and cycles in Copenhagen, and tells me that cyclists there
are rough on each other, sometimes actually shouldering one another out of
the way. That must be the density; it doesn't happen here in Aarhus.
--
Dieter Britz (dieterhansbritz<at>gmail.com)
Frank Studt
> On Aug 11, 11:53 am, Frank Studt<frank.st...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>>
>>> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>>
>> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths and
>> the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its a
>> lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
>> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of cyclists.
>>
>> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>
> I think two parallel systems are desirable. Few sane people would
> allow their kids through the maze created by the automobile.
Why wouldn't you let your kids drive on the road like every other
vehicle? I mean you obviously would let kids drive on small cycle lanes
directly alongside "the maze created by the automobile". BTW these
segregated cycle facilities are crossing car traffic all the time and
what kind of person would let his kid drive on the right side of a maybe
right turning vehicle? Accidents with right turning vehicles are the
most common car-bicycle-accidents and its proven that for several
reasons the segregation of cars and bicycles increases them. I gave you
a link above about an up to date study about cycling safety in
Copenhagen. Read first than talk.
>
> We saw kids there, didn't we?
Enough about the kids, yes its saver for them to drive in mixed traffic.
They can be better seen for car users and the safety rules on the road
are much easyer to follow then riding on separated facilities with a
different right of way.
>
> Is there a model anywhere in the world where such relaxed cycling is
> observed WITHOUT bike facilities?
I dont know how much you are cycling but its definitely not very
relaxing being on smallish cycle facilities with that many riders. Some
of them going alongside parking vehicles (doring zone). You might think
you are safer, but studies have proofen the opposite many times. Before
the mass motorization took place in many European citys the bicycle was
the first choice as a means of travel and there where almost no
separated facilities at all. Facilities where created to get that damn
cyclists out of the way, so cars can go faster.
>
>>
>> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated bicycle
>> facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists. The
>> opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
>> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt even
>> a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>>
>> If you want to drive save listen to what John Forester is saying:
>>
>> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/vcvideo.html
>>
>> Or just search for vehicular cycling
>>
>> Frank
>
> So perhaps we can learn from some other model where a good chunk of
> the population rides bikes among cars. I'm all ears.
Actually Forester talks about it in his lecture i have linked above. The
people in DK or NL are not biking cause there are cycle facilities. They
are doing it cause the city structure favor it as a mode of travel and
mass motorization took place very late. Here a picture from the 50s.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16nine/4161144794/#/
No facilities at all!
A 2004 study for NL shows that cycling is decreasing\stagnating, despite
the efforts an money put in cycling infrastructure.
Another study shows that infrastructure is of no relevance for choice of
Transport.
So why dont you take some time, read a little bit of science about
traffic choice, traffic safety, listen to what Forester has to say and
meditate a bit about. Maybe next time you are lucky and right something
useful.
Frank
Tony Raven
>
> I dont know how much you are cycling but its definitely not very
> relaxing being on smallish cycle facilities with that many riders.
> Some of them going alongside parking vehicles (doring zone). You
> might think you are safer, but studies have proofen the opposite many
> times. Before the mass motorization took place in many European citys
> the bicycle was the first choice as a means of travel and there where
> almost no separated facilities at all. Facilities where created to
> get that damn cyclists out of the way, so cars can go faster.
>
Moreover during the main period of cycle facility building in the
Netherlands and Germany during the 80's and early 90's, cycling levels
remained static and tracked cycling levels in other European countries
that didn't build facilities.
If you look at the Dutch Cycle Balance system for auditing cycle
friendliness of Dutch cities, the presence or absence of cycle
facilities other than cycle parking don't feature at all. So clearly
even the Dutch don't consider them an important element of their cycling.
Tony
Frank Studt
> On 08/11/2010 07:53 PM, Frank Studt wrote:
>>
>> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/vcvideo.html
>>
>> Or just search for vehicular cycling
>>
>>
>
>
> I like the style of those videos, especially the emphasis on being
> courteous to other road users. We could do with some similar videos on
> cycling in the UK (if we don't have some already).
>
I dont know about videos, but there is a book out by John Franklin about
vehicular cycling in the UK.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/index.html
Although i think the general principles of vehicular cycling are not
really different, you just have to exchange right for left sometimes.
Here some words by Franklin about Segragation, Vehicular Cycling and
cycling safety.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vehicular.pdf
Frank
Peter Cole
This is a biased interpretation of that study.
Just from the abstract, "tracks" caused an increase of 10% in crashes
and injuries, and a 20% increase in cycling. A significant factor in the
increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
the higher volume of turning motorists. On the whole it was felt that
the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
safety problems.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
>
> Another study shows that infrastructure is of no relevance for choice of
> Transport.
>
>
> So why dont you take some time, read a little bit of science about
> traffic choice, traffic safety, listen to what Forester has to say and
> meditate a bit about. Maybe next time you are lucky and right something
> useful.
>
> Frank
You haven't been listening. I'm encouraging that at least in America
PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE THE LANE. Let the car look for space around you,
not the other way around. If America were to take a project like
Copenhagen, the whole trillion dollars that went into the war go would
down the "black hole" and the resulting product wouldn't work.
What it's totally unsustainable is the STATUS QUO. When some of you
decide we should take the lane under the same flag, you let me know.
The situation here is bound to improve with be Velib program, but the
peripherals roads, I'm afraid, will remain NO MAN'S LAND. I want to
take off and ride around Florida perhaps.
Think of the logo for the flag, but I'm OK with a banana. ;)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
Everybody is selling you a book that says "how to survive in the
jungle." I'm telling you "how to tame the jungle." How can we tame the
SUVs? How can we ban phones? How can we reverse the food chain?
The implications are much more profound.
Frank Studt
> Frank Studt wrote:
>> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>>
>>> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>>
>> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths
>> and the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its
>> a lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
>> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of cyclists.
>>
>> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>>
>> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated
>> bicycle facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists.
>> The opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
>> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt
>> even a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>>
>
>
Not at all.
> Just from the abstract,
did you even read further?
> "tracks" caused an increase of 10% in crashes
> and injuries, and a 20% increase in cycling.
Actually the question what has increased the bicycle traffic mileage
isn't really the question asked in the study. The author didnt even
check for different reasons for the increase in cycling. The core
question of the study asks for the road safety of cyclists before and
after building bicycle facilities and the answer speaks against
separation. Road safety has worsened.
The data used in the study isnt adequate to check for a causal
connection between infrastructure and mileage. Here some important
factors you need to consider if you are testing for such hypothesis (and
the author did not).
- In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.
- General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
uses data from a sample of roads).
- Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
- A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
Copenhagen during sample period.
- The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.
Just to name a few.
> A significant factor in the
> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
> the higher volume of turning motorists.
The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article about
it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues
> On the whole it was felt that
> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
> safety problems.
To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the issue
here. The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove
his speculations.
Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck should
I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective scale when
my individual safety is actually worsened.
Frank
Frank Studt
>
> Everybody is selling you a book that says "how to survive in the
> jungle." I'm telling you "how to tame the jungle."
Actually you have nothing to tell at all. Bye.
Frank
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
Actually I do...
On Aug 12, 7:00 am, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of
> > It's not easy to accomplish a social project in the United Selfish of
> > America.
>
> I know what you mean. After all, it's not like Ike created the
> interstate highway system in the '50s, NYC created a great (but noisy)
> subway system, Gore created the funding enviornment that let the
> internet grow and flourish, there is a great national park system, the
> US government runs a great hospital system that serves many veterans
> well (and all but ignores many coming back from Iraq), there is
> guarenteed income for retired Americans or the US has many great public
> schools (and many that basically throw away children).
>
> Oops, there are great social projects in the US.
>
> Jeff
You are behind the times. The tendency is to privatize. Even the Army
is being privatized as no one wants to sacrifice for nothing. We have
more contractors (aka mercenaries) than soldiers at war. Contractors
are everywhere. They built the worse MIXED PATH in the world around
here. Very fancy but very wasteful and poorly designed (blinding
light, mixing pedestrians, dogs and bikes, etc). Last night, at 11pm,
one more couple besides us, and two security guards keeping the
installation "safe."
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
Bye, but don't you have a suggestion how to deal with these beasts?
'It's a jungle out there. Well, not really: it's worse than a jungle.
It's a stretch of roadway anywhere in America, and in place of the
ravenous tigers and stampeding rhinos and slithery anacondas...
And the enemy is us. Take a ride with "Anne," a 40-year-old mother of
three who would rather we not use her real name, as she steers her 2
1/2-ton black Chevy Suburban out of her driveway on a leafy street in
residential Washington. The clock on the dashboard reads 2:16. She has
14 minutes to make it to her daughter's game. Within a block of her
house she has hit 37 m.p.h., taking stop signs as suggestions rather
than law. She has a lot on her mind. "I'm not even thinking of other
cars," Anne admits cheerfully as she lays on the horn. An oldster in
an econo-box ahead of her has made the near fatal mistake of slowing
at an intersection with no stop sign or traffic light. Anne swears and
peels off around him.'
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987643,00.html
Frank Studt
the Movement of Tantra-Hammock:
> On Aug 12, 9:04 am, Frank Studt<frank.st...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Am 12.08.2010 15:47, schrieb the TibetanMonkey
>>
>>
>>
>>> Everybody is selling you a book that says "how to survive in the
>>> jungle." I'm telling you "how to tame the jungle."
>>
>> Actually you have nothing to tell at all. Bye.
>>
>> Frank
>
> Bye, but don't you have a suggestion how to deal with these beasts?
I already made my point pretty clear, no segregated facilities like bike
lanes or paths. Regarding transport policy, there is a necessity to make
driving cars unattractive. Possible means are taxes (oil), reducing
parking spaces, traffic calming and more speed limits and surveilance of
traffic violations... But I think there have been made big mistakes
especially in the US concerning city structure and town planing. The
distances between home, work, shopping... are often too big for most
people for using bicycles...
Regarding individual behaviour, I suggest avoid cycling facilities, take
the lane use the principles of vehicular cycling and it will be the most
safety you can get.
>
> 'It's a jungle out there. Well, not really: it's worse than a jungle.
> It's a stretch of roadway anywhere in America, and in place of the
> ravenous tigers and stampeding rhinos and slithery anacondas...
I dont like the analogies to the animal kingdom cause we are not
animals. If you increase your visibility in traffic nobody will kill you
on purpose with his SUV even "Anne" wouldnt. Of course there is reckless
driving but driving on separated facilities does not reduce your risk of
getting hit by a car. The opposite is true. Most car-bicycle-accidents
happen on intersections. The best way to reduce this risk is being
visible by driving on the road.
Frank
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
You are not saying anything different than what I say, except that you
don't say HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
The term "beast" is very appropriate because we would have to think of
the driver as evil. We could be evil too but we don't have the power
to kill. They are often STUPID and you slowing him down can only feed
that rage.
Also many people DO need bike paths for recreational activities, or
perhaps as a main bike route the way one main highway serves a city.
Jim A
You're not wrong. Cyclecraft is an excellent book. A bit of a long
read though.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
Sometimes to you can say something in a single paragraph...
"This book opened my eyes and explained that often the safest place
to ride is in the path of cars simply because you are more visible to
motorists. At first I didn’t believe that it would be safer but having
tried
it (and some of the other ideas in the book) I would recommend it."
http://www.cyclecraft.org/book_reviews.html
Beautiful, now HOW DO WE TAKE --AND HOLD-- THE LANE? What kind of
grinding war are you ready to wage? Where is the organization to hold
this effort together and not fall apart one cyclist at a time?
Peter Cole
> Am 12.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>>>
>>>> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>>>
>>> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths
>>> and the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its
>>> a lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
>>> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of
>>> cyclists.
>>>
>>> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>>>
>>> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated
>>> bicycle facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists.
>>> The opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
>>> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt
>>> even a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>>>
>>
>> This is a biased interpretation of that study.
>>
>
> Not at all.
>
>
>> Just from the abstract,
>
> did you even read further?
Yes. I've read this study before.
>
>> "tracks" caused an increase of 10% in crashes
>> and injuries, and a 20% increase in cycling.
>
> Actually the question what has increased the bicycle traffic mileage
> isn't really the question asked in the study.
Apparently it was, explicitly.
The study, according to the author, examined 3 issues: safety, effect on
traffic (motor and bicycle), and cyclist's "perceived risk and
satisfaction". That is stated clearly.
> The author didnt even
> check for different reasons for the increase in cycling. The core
> question of the study asks for the road safety of cyclists before and
> after building bicycle facilities and the answer speaks against
> separation. Road safety has worsened.
Yes, that is clearly stated.
> The data used in the study isnt adequate to check for a causal
> connection between infrastructure and mileage.
So you claim.
> Here some important
> factors you need to consider if you are testing for such hypothesis (and
> the author did not).
> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.
???
> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
> uses data from a sample of roads).
Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?
> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
What's a "big image campaign"?
> - A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
> Copenhagen during sample period.
Causality?
> - The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.
That's possible, I suppose, but in this case there's no indication that
the parking changes were other than removal from on-street on those
streets where lanes and tracks had been added. Whether that was enough
to actually discourage driving is speculation.
> Just to name a few.
You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>> A significant factor in the
>> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
>> the higher volume of turning motorists.
>
> The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
> dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article about
> it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues
I agree with comments in the "discussion" section. The article reads
like a polemic -- an unfortunate and common occurrence in Wikipedia.
>> On the whole it was felt that
>> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
>> safety problems.
>
> To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
> benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the issue
> here.
Why not?
> The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove
> his speculations.
This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.
> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck should
> I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective scale when
> my individual safety is actually worsened.
Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
where mandatory sidepath laws exist. I'm vehemently opposed to those,
myself, but that's a separate issue.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
I agree with you, but I'd further argue that we should do WHATEVER
GETS THE JOB DONE, ie. gets the riders out.
Obviously the status quo is awful for America and other Western
nations, judging by the people who commute by bicycle. One solution
would be to ban/tax cars to a degree or another going to city centers
and let nature take over the void. London did it, and I think it's
coming together with the Velib program, right?
Peter Cole
Yes, but the issues around that are much more complicated than safety. I
remember the feeling I had 15 or so years ago when I dusted off my old
bike boom Raleigh and started riding on the streets again after a
perhaps 15 year hiatus. My first reaction was: Does anyone do this
anymore? Has it become illegal? On my first outing I found myself
squeezed off the road by my own insecurity and indecision.
It wasn't that I was a stranger to "vehicular cycling", I had ridden
thousands of street miles in the 60's and 70's in urban areas, at time
when facilities weren't even a gleam in an urban planner's eye. I was
used to "negotiating" with traffic, dodging hazards (vehicular and
otherwise) and "taking the lane", I was no gutter rider.
The big factor often left out in these debates over facilities is the
degree of (dis)pleasure that various cycling environments create. A lot
of streets may be (arguably) statistically safe, but subjectively
unpleasant. I don't fear motor traffic for the most part, but loathe it
at my elbow. I can safely negotiate it, but it sets my teeth on edge.
When people cite "safety" as a reason for not cycling, my impression is
that it's an umbrella term that encompasses many things other than
strict statistical safety. There's perceived safety, which facility
opponents blithely dismiss as ignorance, but humans, other than perhaps
dyed-in-the wool vehicularists, aren't particularly natural
statisticians. There's social acceptance -- face it, in this country
utility cyclists are taken as eccentric at best. There's the
socio-economic stigma, too, but that's drifting off the subject a bit.
Safety issues aside, when you ride on a facility, there's a sense of
official/societal sanction, which is important to many when they're in a
minority. Physical separation lowers the physical intrusion of motor
traffic. This is not only the threat of collision, but the spray of
water and slush, the stir of dust and debris, the stink of exhaust, the
sonic assault of broken or deliberately loud mufflers and massive
subwoofers, and the summertime wash of heat from oversize engines and
roaring air conditioners. I prefer to be as far away from all that as
possible, and I think most people share that sentiment.
> Obviously the status quo is awful for America and other Western
> nations, judging by the people who commute by bicycle. One solution
> would be to ban/tax cars to a degree or another going to city centers
> and let nature take over the void. London did it, and I think it's
> coming together with the Velib program, right?
Bicycling in the city is kind of the low hanging fruit. It ameliorates
many vexing traffic and congestion problems at a low cost and has
attendant recognized improvements in quality of life. It's a no-brainer,
which is why it's being taken seriously in most major US cities. I think
it makes sense for the cities to lead by example in the US, and they, in
turn, be led by success stories abroad. The biggest obstacles are the
adherents to the car culture and their cycling comrades. Both groups are
basically still living in the Eisenhower administration.
Motor vehicles are indispensable in remote areas, a practical necessity
in most suburbs, but a general misfit in urban areas. There's a huge
effective subsidy, mostly in externalized economic costs. The older the
city, in general, the worse the automobile works. In my view, perhaps
the most important change that can be made in urban districts is to
lower the speeds of cars and restrict trucks. If our culture weren't so
blinded by autocentricism I think these would be obvious.
Frank Studt
>
> I agree with you, but I'd further argue that we should do WHATEVER
> GETS THE JOB DONE, ie. gets the riders out.
>
So you think its ok to worsen the Road Safety of cyclists if measures
are taken that get riders out (BTW there isnt any proof that segregated
bicycle facilities do such a thing). In other words if a few cyclists
get killed or mutilated in the process you think its acceptable? Why
dont we just randomly shoot some car drivers every day? A suppose it
will get the job done too, ie. gets riders out.
Frank
Frank Studt
According to the author they just counted cars and bikes ... This is not
appropriate method to explain travel mode choice. Studies that seriously
deal with travel mode choice use relatively complex models. Again he has
no data to proof the hypothesis that the building of facilities
increases bicycle traffic mileage. BTW. I think you are confusing two
papers of the same author (but they a kind of similar). The one I linked
does not deal with "percived risk...". Here a both links:
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20chp.pdf
>> The author didnt even check for different reasons for the increase in
>> cycling. The core question of the study asks for the road safety of
>> cyclists before and after building bicycle facilities and the answer
>> speaks against separation. Road safety has worsened.
>
> Yes, that is clearly stated.
>
>> The data used in the study isnt adequate to check for a causal
>> connection between infrastructure and mileage.
>
> So you claim.
>
He doesnt use any kind of explanatory model for travel mode choice he
just crosstabs taffic volumes and before/after building of facilities.
He even writes "A considerable amount of these effects were already
visible during the construction period,.....The effects of cycle lanes
are not statistically significant".
>> Here some important factors you need to consider if you are testing
>> for such hypothesis (and the author did not).
>> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
>> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.
>
> ???
You dont believe? You dont understand? Im talking about the relocation
of bicycle traffic and car traffic. Many riders who can choose between
routes with or without facilities will use the one with facilities. But
it has to be said that route choice is not directly connected to travel
mode choice.
>
>> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
>> uses data from a sample of roads).
>
> Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?
What I meant to say is, if cycling is booming in the hole city of
Copenhagen or Denmark its no surprise if the volume of cyclists
increases in the sample of streets the author examined.
>
>
>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>
> What's a "big image campaign"?
>
They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>
>> - A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
>> Copenhagen during sample period.
>
> Causality?
It just has to be considered as a explanatory factor.
>
>> - The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.
>
> That's possible, I suppose, but in this case there's no indication that
> the parking changes were other than removal from on-street on those
> streets where lanes and tracks had been added. Whether that was enough
> to actually discourage driving is speculation.
>
Reducing spaces for car parking reduces driving. Its just a proposal
what kind of factors should be checked if you want to explain the mode
of travel. Of course you have to look at transport policy at a whole for
possible effects.
>> Just to name a few.
>
> You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>
Yes, he didn't even check for weather or oil prices.
>>> A significant factor in the
>>> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
>>> the higher volume of turning motorists.
>>
>> The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
>> dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article
>> about it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues
>
> I agree with comments in the "discussion" section. The article reads
> like a polemic -- an unfortunate and common occurrence in Wikipedia.
>
>
Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up with
a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling facilities.
Maybe you can name a few. BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I
said you can find tons of primary research about the topic.
Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
>>> On the whole it was felt that
>>> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
>>> safety problems.
>>
>> To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
>> benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the
>> issue here.
>
> Why not?
>
I think its more than cynical to let people be killed or mutilated for
the sake of more cyclists. And of course there are better ways to get
more people on bikes than killing cyclists. Best way is to make car use
unattractive and built parking places for bikes.
>> The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove his
>> speculations.
>
> This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.
>
What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
>> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck
>> should I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective
>> scale when my individual safety is actually worsened.
>
> Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
>
Sounds very individual cost to me if you lose a leg or get you head
crushed by a right turning lorry cause the driver didn't see you in his
blind spot. And of course there a ways to increase cycling without
worsening road safety. If they want to push cycling they should do it right.
> In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
> where mandatory sidepath laws exist.
That's BS (pardon my french). First of all what kind of choice do you
have with cycle lanes, they are mandadory by principle. BTW cycle lanes,
they reduce the distance of overtaking cars:
http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ce_journalspr
Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice cycle
path they paid for with hard earned tax money. They are honking,
yelling, overtaking very close and so on. So Im very much effected by
those facilities. Its gone that far that many people (even cyclists)
think cyclist dont belong on the road they are better of on the footpath.
And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
Frank
Jim A
wrote:
>
> "This book opened my eyes and explained that often the safest place
> to ride is in the path of cars simply because you are more visible to
> motorists. At first I didn’t believe that it would be safer but having
> tried
> it (and some of the other ideas in the book) I would recommend it."
>
> http://www.cyclecraft.org/book_reviews.html
>
> Beautiful, now HOW DO WE TAKE --AND HOLD-- THE LANE? What kind of
> grinding war are you ready to wage? Where is the organization to hold
> this effort together and not fall apart one cyclist at a time?
I wouldn't recommend /holding/ the lane - just take it for as long as
you need it then give it back for a bit.
Peter Cole
He said more than that, you should reread it.
>
>
>>> Here some important factors you need to consider if you are testing
>>> for such hypothesis (and the author did not).
>>> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
>>> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.
>>
>> ???
>
> You dont believe? You dont understand? Im talking about the relocation
> of bicycle traffic and car traffic. Many riders who can choose between
> routes with or without facilities will use the one with facilities. But
> it has to be said that route choice is not directly connected to travel
> mode choice.
It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>
>
>
>>
>>> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
>>> uses data from a sample of roads).
>>
>> Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?
>
> What I meant to say is, if cycling is booming in the hole city of
> Copenhagen or Denmark its no surprise if the volume of cyclists
> increases in the sample of streets the author examined.
OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
they like.
>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>
>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>
>
> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>
> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>
> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>>> - A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
>>> Copenhagen during sample period.
>>
>> Causality?
>
>
> It just has to be considered as a explanatory factor.
>
>>
>>> - The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.
>>
>> That's possible, I suppose, but in this case there's no indication that
>> the parking changes were other than removal from on-street on those
>> streets where lanes and tracks had been added. Whether that was enough
>> to actually discourage driving is speculation.
>>
>
> Reducing spaces for car parking reduces driving. Its just a proposal
> what kind of factors should be checked if you want to explain the mode
> of travel. Of course you have to look at transport policy at a whole for
> possible effects.
>
>>> Just to name a few.
>>
>> You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>>
>
> Yes, he didn't even check for weather or oil prices.
I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
that, just watch what they use.
>
>
>>>> A significant factor in the
>>>> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
>>>> the higher volume of turning motorists.
>>>
>>> The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
>>> dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article
>>> about it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues
>>
>> I agree with comments in the "discussion" section. The article reads
>> like a polemic -- an unfortunate and common occurrence in Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up with
> a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling facilities.
> Maybe you can name a few.
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I
> said you can find tons of primary research about the topic.
> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
>
>
>>>> On the whole it was felt that
>>>> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
>>>> safety problems.
>>>
>>> To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
>>> benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the
>>> issue here.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> I think its more than cynical to let people be killed or mutilated for
> the sake of more cyclists. And of course there are better ways to get
> more people on bikes than killing cyclists. Best way is to make car use
> unattractive and built parking places for bikes.
>
>>> The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove his
>>> speculations.
>>
>> This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.
>>
>
> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
be an ethical trade-off. Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
and elite is killing people -- if you choose to put it in that light.
>
>>> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck
>>> should I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective
>>> scale when my individual safety is actually worsened.
>>
>> Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
>>
>
> Sounds very individual cost to me if you lose a leg or get you head
> crushed by a right turning lorry cause the driver didn't see you in his
> blind spot. And of course there a ways to increase cycling without
> worsening road safety. If they want to push cycling they should do it
> right.
And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
when nobody except a hard core participates.
>> In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
>> where mandatory sidepath laws exist.
>
> That's BS (pardon my french). First of all what kind of choice do you
> have with cycle lanes, they are mandadory by principle. BTW cycle lanes,
> they reduce the distance of overtaking cars:
>
> http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ce_journalspr
Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice cycle
> path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
> They are honking,
> yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
> So Im very much effected by
> those facilities. Its gone that far that many people (even cyclists)
> think cyclist dont belong on the road they are better of on the footpath.
> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
most want facilities. I'm also against mandating the use of those
facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
don't see what's so complicated.
Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity, I don't understand the
fuss over a possible slight decline in safety to make a large
improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just unpleasant.
I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.
When I'm in a hurry, I just take to the street and use the most direct
route. I don't bother with traffic rules, because, as I said, I'm in a
hurry, and don't particularly care to adhere to a system that's designed
for motor vehicles. When I'm not in a hurry, I'll stay as far away from
motor vehicles as I possibly can.
You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling. I'm exactly the opposite. When
I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
I agree with the above viewpoint down to the punctuation. It takes an
OVERHAUL of the system, including:
1- Taming traffic,
2- Giving respect and space to cyclists,
3- Bringing cyclists out, which is the measure of success or failure.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
Only a very stupid party sustains a war where the casualties are
unsustainable. We need the surge first and then see what happens. It's
fair war anyway.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
>
> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice cycle
> path they paid for with hard earned tax money. They are honking,
> yelling, overtaking very close and so on. So Im very much effected by
> those facilities. Its gone that far that many people (even cyclists)
> think cyclist dont belong on the road they are better of on the footpath.
> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>
> Frank
I think an elite group (those riding carbon bikes and wearing lycra)
are doing a disfavor to the mundane cyclists who want to use bicycle
as utility vehicles.
I have nothing against those elites but they are better prepared to
deal with traffic, often riding when traffic is light, and THEY GO IN
PACKS, which makes a big difference.
Even wolves in packs can bring down a big moose. ;)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
This sounds like the war of the trenches. How can I give back a
position I just earned? ;)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
>
> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>
> > Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice cycle
> > path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>
> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
>
> > They are honking,
> > yelling, overtaking very
>
>
> read more »
Again I totally agree with you, and you mention the elite that holds
other cyclists back I just talked about.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
> On 8/12/2010 4:49 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> > In message <nLudndvOk8gL2_nRnZ2dnUVZ_sydn...@earthlink.com>, at 15:08:05
> > on Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> remarked:
> >>>> SUVs are probably of limited practicality almost anywhere.
>
> >>> The number of seats, and luggage capacity, is useful anywhere.
>
> >> Even when SUVs do confer those features, they are useful so rarely to
> >> be of limited practicality.
>
> > We'll have to agree to disagree about that.
>
> It's not really a matter of opinion. A typical car trip in the United
> States is fewer than two passengers for almost any type of vehicle.
> (SUVs achieve almost 2 passengers.)
>
> http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2010_fotw613.html
>
> I couldn't find a cite for this with a cursory Google search, but IIRC,
> most trips don't include cargo, and what cargo they do sometimes include
> are things like groceries.
>
> Of course, none of this means such vehicles serve no purpose whatsoever,
> but it's hard to make a case they have features the bulk of the people
> who own them depend on.
>
> _Most_ people in rural America just need a car.
Half the cars at the local supermarket are SUVs, so the distance
traveled is probably under two miles, something doable by bicycle.
I have a campaign going called 'BIKE LOCALLY BUY LOCALLY." We must
emphasize this particular use of the bike, not commuting.
Jim A
With good grace.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
> On 08/14/2010 12:04 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> > On Aug 13, 12:15 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I wouldn't recommend /holding/ the lane - just take it for as long as
> >> you need it then give it back for a bit.
>
> > This sounds like the war of the trenches. How can I give back a
> > position I just earned? ;)
>
> With good grace.
Over my dead body. ;)
I think we should either take the lane or take up indoor cycling.
Taking the lane doesn't need to be more dangerous than fighting a
bull.
Jim A
> On Aug 14, 1:15 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/14/2010 12:04 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>>
>> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
>>> On Aug 13, 12:15 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I wouldn't recommend /holding/ the lane - just take it for as long as
>>>> you need it then give it back for a bit.
>>
>>> This sounds like the war of the trenches. How can I give back a
>>> position I just earned? ;)
>>
>> With good grace.
>
> Over my dead body. ;)
>
> I think we should either take the lane or take up indoor cycling.
>
> Taking the lane doesn't need to be more dangerous than fighting a
> bull.
>
I hope you enjoy your indoor cycling. One thing is for sure - it's even
slower than any other kind. 0 mph all the way ...
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
If you take "slow is better" to the end, then not moving makes sense.
What's the point of going to the market anyway? Call the delivery boy.
Jim A
He's riding a stationary bicycle too!
Frank Studt
> Frank Studt wrote:
>> Am 13.08.2010 14:46, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>>> Am 12.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Here some important factors you need to consider if you are testing
>>>> for such hypothesis (and the author did not).
>>>> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
>>>> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more
>>>> mileage.
>>>
>>> ???
>>
>> You dont believe? You dont understand? Im talking about the relocation
>> of bicycle traffic and car traffic. Many riders who can choose between
>> routes with or without facilities will use the one with facilities.
>> But it has to be said that route choice is not directly connected to
>> travel mode choice.
>
> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>
>
There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode choice
is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has dealt with
travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a claim like that
without testing for confounding factors...
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
>>>> uses data from a sample of roads).
>>>
>>> Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?
>>
>> What I meant to say is, if cycling is booming in the hole city of
>> Copenhagen or Denmark its no surprise if the volume of cyclists
>> increases in the sample of streets the author examined.
>
> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
> they like.
>
Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one variable.
I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists. The only
consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong perception.
Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic. Educate car drivers
to respect cyclists right to the road.
And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists like
on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer infrastructure that
is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek for mixed traffic and
not segregation.
>
>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>>
>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>>
>>
>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>>
>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>>
>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>
> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>
Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html
>>>
>>> You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, he didn't even check for weather or oil prices.
>
> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
> that, just watch what they use.
>
Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences, economics,
psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on and on....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>
> http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>
Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want to
get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns. Why
the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing they
came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle crossings: a
before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we have been
discussing. Smells fishy.
How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.
> Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
>
Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named a
lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car traffic.
>
>>
>>>> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck
>>>> should I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective
>>>> scale when my individual safety is actually worsened.
>>>
>>> Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds very individual cost to me if you lose a leg or get you head
>> crushed by a right turning lorry cause the driver didn't see you in
>> his blind spot. And of course there a ways to increase cycling without
>> worsening road safety. If they want to push cycling they should do it
>> right.
>
> And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
> when nobody except a hard core participates.
>
As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives to
cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.
>
>>> In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
>>> where mandatory sidepath laws exist.
>>
>> That's BS (pardon my french). First of all what kind of choice do you
>> have with cycle lanes, they are mandadory by principle. BTW cycle
>> lanes, they reduce the distance of overtaking cars:
>>
>> http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ce_journalspr
>
>
> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>
Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure. It can be very stressful
if car drivers try to insist to use them. Often there is no alternative
route and Im definitely not going to shitty side streets full of
potholes. I dont think I have to just accept the fact that motor traffic
oriented Transportation planners and politicians think cyclist should
ride in the gutter or on the curb of the road and people think this is
safe because they have been told for decades. Im speaking out the
interest of all cyclists if I insist of there right to ride safe. If
most cyclists and motorist dont know how safe riding work it is another
problem.
>> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
>> cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>
> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
>
You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?
>> They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
>
> They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will loose
every right to use the road.
>
>> So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
>> many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road they
>> are better of on the footpath.
>> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
>> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>
> Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
> most want facilities.
Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
dont know what they want.
> I'm also against mandating the use of those
> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
> don't see what's so complicated.
>
You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
explained it.
> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
Right
> I don't understand the
> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
this a slight declines in safety?
> to make a large
> improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
> proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just unpleasant.
There are measures to reduce motorized traffic.
> I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
> slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
> din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.
Many of them dont know that their behaviour is more dangerous. If you
want to have special infrastructure I think the building of bicycle
boulevards can be useful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
>
> You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling.
Yes.
> I'm exactly the opposite. When
> I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist...
riding a vehicle.
Frank
Peter Cole
> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>>
> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode choice
> is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has dealt with
> travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a claim like that
> without testing for confounding factors...
You're over-complicating things.
>> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
>> they like.
> Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
> since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
> predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one variable.
> I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
> think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
> that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists.
Again, you focus exclusively on safety. People are not statisticians.
"Sharing the road" is by and large unpleasant. It might be less so if
drivers were better behaved and the driving was better moderated, but it
still wouldn't be pleasant.
> The only
> consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong perception.
> Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic. Educate car drivers
> to respect cyclists right to the road.
You can't "educate" around the reality of mixing 2 ton vehicles with
vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
> And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists like
> on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer infrastructure that
> is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek for mixed traffic and
> not segregation.
People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction. They demand
facilities, they use them when they get them. What could be more obvious?
>>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>>>
>>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>>>
>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>>>
>>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>>
>> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>>
>
>
> Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
> the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
> making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
>
> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html
So I guess he's (the blogger) an "idiot" until he posts something you
agree with...
The article is old news (as are so many of the quotes and cites --
literally). People have been fretting over cyclists being banned from
the roads for almost 100 years. It's a Forrester bogey-man. It's fear
mongering, nothing more.
Besides, what the argument boils down to is that you feel people should
do something they don't want to do (ride in the street) to protect your
right to ride in the street. That's like telling people who don't like
broccoli that they should eat it anyway because you (who like it) don't
want the broccoli farmers to go out of business. When they complain they
don't like it, you tell them that's immaterial, it's good for them.
>> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
>> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
>> that, just watch what they use.
> Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
> implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences, economics,
> psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on and on....
You want to predict people's preferences, I just want to accommodate
them. I don't need to have predictive models to do that. You presume to
know better, I don't.
>>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
>>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
>>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>>
>> http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>>
> Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
> roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want to
> get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
> accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
> and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns. Why
> the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing they
> came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle crossings: a
> before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we have been
> discussing. Smells fishy.
You asked for an example. I really don't have the time to critique all
the studies. I merely point out that there is a divergence of opinion.
In any case, as I've belabored, I don't think "safety" is the most
important issue.
>>> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
>>> of primary research about the topic.
>>> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
>>> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
Yes, I've had no luck finding these in English, so I can't comment other
than to repeat the above.
>>> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
>>> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
>>
>> I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
>> cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
>> increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
>> be an ethical trade-off.
>
>
> How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.
Probably in years of life.
>> Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
>>
>
>
> Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named a
> lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car traffic.
Simply stated, vehicular cycling has not been popular. Car traffic
reduction has not been politically feasible. This is in the US, I can't
speak of elsewhere.
>> And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
>> when nobody except a hard core participates.
>>
>
> As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives to
> cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.
But people want facilities and you offer broccoli, then don't understand
when they won't eat it.
>> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
>> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
>> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
>> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
>> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>>
>
> Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
> facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure.
I'm sure many are, but doesn't that mean that many aren't?
> It can be very stressful
> if car drivers try to insist to use them. Often there is no alternative
> route and Im definitely not going to shitty side streets full of
> potholes. I dont think I have to just accept the fact that motor traffic
> oriented Transportation planners and politicians think cyclist should
> ride in the gutter or on the curb of the road and people think this is
> safe because they have been told for decades. Im speaking out the
> interest of all cyclists if I insist of there right to ride safe. If
> most cyclists and motorist dont know how safe riding work it is another
> problem.
Again, where facilities exist, cyclists almost universally choose them.
You are in a minority and shouldn't expect the world to conform to your
ideals.
>>> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
>>> cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>>
>> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
>> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
>> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
> You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?
Maybe it's a language thing.
>
>
>>> They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
>>
>> They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
>
> It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will loose
> every right to use the road.
Now you're being hysterical.
>>> So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
>>> many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road they
>>> are better of on the footpath.
>>> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
>>> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>>
>> Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
>> most want facilities.
>
> Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
> dont know what they want.
That's a pretty arrogant attitude and it explains a lot.
>> I'm also against mandating the use of those
>> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
>> don't see what's so complicated.
>>
>
> You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
> explained it.
I have followed your "explanations". They're really just your personal
preferences. Calling them universal doesn't make them so.
>> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
>
>
> Right
>
>> I don't understand the
>> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
>
>
> We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
> Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
> facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
> only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
> conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
> this a slight declines in safety?
I'm unfamiliar with those specific studies. The study you originally
cited (Copenhagen) was 110%, not 300% or 1200%. Still, the argument is
specious because it is possible to design safe segregated facilities,
and making cycling 100% safe does nothing if the modal share is 0.
In this country, with modal share at 0.5%, very little can be justified,
either in facilities or reduction of motor vehicle speeds or densities.
The fate of cycling rests on the possibility of drastically increasing
modal share. Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
decades, with little to show for it. Finally, vehicular cycling
ideologues are being pushed out and cycling modal share is increasing.
It's about time. You can't talk people into liking broccoli.
>> to make a large
>> improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
>> proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just unpleasant.
>
>
> There are measures to reduce motorized traffic.
Yes, of course there are, but in the US at least, politically impossible
for the most part.
>> I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
>> slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
>> din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.
>
>
> Many of them dont know that their behaviour is more dangerous. If you
> want to have special infrastructure I think the building of bicycle
> boulevards can be useful.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
I'm all in favor of them, but with such a small number of cyclists in
the US, the political base to support them is just too small.
>> You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I'm exactly the opposite. When
>> I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist...
>
> riding a vehicle.
You can call a bike a "vehicle", but that doesn't alter the physics. It
doesn't make people enjoy the experience of "sharing the road", either.
It's a rhetorical ploy, nothing more. I am personally very much
opposed to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.
That's the consequence of "vehicular equivalence". I don't need to
speculate about potential negative consequences, they've already
occurred. What "vehicularists" have lobbied for (and won, here in
Boston), is an increase in bicycle moving violation fines and
enforcement ("same rules, same roads"). I'm ecstatic to see them go.
Cyclists are not the equals of motorists, we have much greater
vulnerabilities and far fewer liabilities. To lump them all together as
"vehicles" is just nuts. But it's the predictable kind of nuttiness that
"vehicular cycling" advocates create.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
> On 08/14/2010 09:42 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
>
>
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> > On Aug 14, 1:27 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 08/14/2010 09:23 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> >> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> >>> On Aug 14, 1:15 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> On 08/14/2010 12:04 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> >>>> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> >>>>> On Aug 13, 12:15 pm, Jim A<j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> I wouldn't recommend /holding/ the lane - just take it for as long as
> >>>>>> you need it then give it back for a bit.
>
> >>>>> This sounds like the war of the trenches. How can I give back a
> >>>>> position I just earned? ;)
>
> >>>> With good grace.
>
> >>> Over my dead body. ;)
>
> >>> I think we should either take the lane or take up indoor cycling.
>
> >>> Taking the lane doesn't need to be more dangerous than fighting a
> >>> bull.
>
> >> I hope you enjoy your indoor cycling. One thing is for sure - it's even
> >> slower than any other kind. 0 mph all the way ...
>
>
> > If you take "slow is better" to the end, then not moving makes sense.
> > What's the point of going to the market anyway? Call the delivery boy.
>
> He's riding a stationary bicycle too!
>
> --www.slowbicyclemovement.org- enjoy the ride
I did 4.5 virtual miles yesterday. Smooth take off and landing in my
recumbent on automatic pilot. Nobody blasted the horn or called
obscenities. I ended up in a very high mood, and listened to some
soprano music. Listen for yourself...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcVg1UtQLNQ
I say that because I end up depressed when I ride on the road. Nice,
sexy soprano, right?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
>
> read more »
You know, I've been struggling with this issue for many years and I
can almost face the experts and tell them when they are wrong and when
they are fucking wrong. To begin with, the experts will never tell you
that this is a POLITICAL PROBLEM and that it takes POLITICAL WILL to
solve it. All they can tell you is a bland "taking the lane is the
primary position, and if you can't hold it then take the secondary
position."
There's only one PRIMARY SOLUTION (free) and a SECONDARY SOLUTION ($$
$): The right lane is prioritized for bicycles OR build bike
facilities however faulty they are. Given the lousy record of working
lanes in America, though, I favor TAKING THE LANE, but also include
building bike paths (not lanes) for families, children or anyone
doesn't want the challenge of the road.
Anyways you won't get the money to build massive infrastructure in
America, so the PRIMARY SOLUTION is the only solution under the
current conditions, and you let me know when we start or else I go
back to my stationary bike. ;)
Frank Studt
> Frank Studt wrote:
>> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>
>>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
>>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>>>
>> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode
>> choice is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has
>> dealt with travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a
>> claim like that without testing for confounding factors...
>
> You're over-complicating things.
>
Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.
>>> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
>>> they like.
>
>> Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
>> since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
>> predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one variable.
>> I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
>> think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
>> that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists.
>
> Again, you focus exclusively on safety. People are not statisticians.
> "Sharing the road" is by and large unpleasant. It might be less so if
> drivers were better behaved and the driving was better moderated, but it
> still wouldn't be pleasant.
>
>
Nope again. People might be confusing "pleasant" or the perceived safety
with real safety but I dont think they tell you they want their kids (or
them self) rather ride on pleasant routes then on safe routes. To
clarify we are talking primary about utility cycling here. And the order
of preferences here is pretty clear:
1. safety
2. velocity
3. pleasantness
Most of the cycle facilities built in Germany dont meet one of the above
criteria. I dont even understand why people think that a marking on the
road (cycle lanes) in the door opening zone could be more pleasant than
riding without marking. Knowing the risks of facilities makes it far
more unpleasant to use them.
>> The only consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong
>> perception. Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic.
>> Educate car drivers to respect cyclists right to the road.
>
> You can't "educate" around the reality of mixing 2 ton vehicles with
> vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
>
Why not? I think a neglected factor is the enforcement of traffic laws
especially on motorized traffic.
>> And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists
>> like on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer
>> infrastructure that is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek
>> for mixed traffic and not segregation.
>
> People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
> perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction.
I really think you are making that up or you are confused, not many
people want their own or the health of their kids be at risk for more
pleasantness. The order of preferences is pretty clear (see above).
> They demand
> facilities,
its more of an excuse, "if there were more facilities I would ride far
more often, but cycling on the road is much to dangerous"
> they use them when they get them. What could be more obvious?
>
Its not obvious at all. The impact on modal split by the building of
facilities have at best been small. Some studies even showed a decline.
We are talking about spending billions (for the whole US) for an
increase in the one digit percent range.
A 2004 study for NL shows that cycling is decreasing\stagnating, despite
the efforts an money put in cycling infrastructure.
http://www.ecf.com/misc/filePush.php?mimeType=application/pdf&fullPath=http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/23/BRR_158_english.pdf
Another study shows that infrastructure is of no relevance for choice of
Transport.
http://www.ecf.com/misc/filePush.php?mimeType=application/pdf&fullPath=http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/23/BRR_159_English.pdf
There is a big misunderstanding of the effect of infrastructure on
cycling in NL, DK. Bicycle use didnt rise after the building of
facilities. It never had been as low as it is in North-America. The
reason for the high figures of cyclists in this countries lie in there
town structure, relatively short ways between housing, work, shopping
etc. and a very late occurrence of mass motorization.
>>>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>>>>
>>>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>>>
>>> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
>> the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
>> making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
>>
>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html
>>
>
> So I guess he's (the blogger) an "idiot" until he posts something you
> agree with...
>
He didnt write the article above and in his comments he showed that he
did not understand it. So he is an idiot all the time.
> The article is old news (as are so many of the quotes and cites --
> literally). People have been fretting over cyclists being banned from
> the roads for almost 100 years. It's a Forrester bogey-man. It's fear
> mongering, nothing more.
>
BS its not my fault people ignore facts since decades sadly there are no
new news on the topic.
> Besides, what the argument boils down to is that you feel people should
> do something they don't want to do (ride in the street) to protect your
> right to ride in the street. That's like telling people who don't like
> broccoli that they should eat it anyway because you (who like it) don't
> want the broccoli farmers to go out of business. When they complain they
> don't like it, you tell them that's immaterial, it's good for them.
>
Nope Im advocating for the right of cyclists to ride safe and to know
the truth (I know you cant handle the truth) about safer cycling. Its
more like people want bananas and are given cucumbers. I just point out
that a banana is not a cucumber.
>>> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
>>> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
>>> that, just watch what they use.
>
>> Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
>> implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences,
>> economics, psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on
>> and on....
>
> You want to predict people's preferences, I just want to accommodate
> them. I don't need to have predictive models to do that. You presume to
> know better, I don't.
If you want to proof your hypothesis or measure effects of
infrastructure on cycle use you need explanatory models the rest is just
speculating around.
>
>>>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
>>>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
>>>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>>>
>>> http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>>>
>
>> Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
>> roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want
>> to get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
>> accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
>> and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns.
>> Why the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing
>> they came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle
>> crossings: a before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we
>> have been discussing. Smells fishy.
>
> You asked for an example.
And you came up with a pretty crappy one.
> I really don't have the time to critique all
> the studies. I merely point out that there is a divergence of opinion.
The tendency of the studies regarding safety effects of cycling
infrastructure is pretty clear.
>
>>>> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
>>>> of primary research about the topic.
>>>> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
>>>> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
>
> Yes, I've had no luck finding these in English, so I can't comment other
> than to repeat the above.
>
>
Dont play dumb. There is enough English material on the issue. In the
above German studies the researchers where pretty astonished that year
long federal and local policies had high negative safety implications
for cyclists.
>>>> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
>>>> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
>>> cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
>>> increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
>>> be an ethical trade-off.
>>
>>
>> How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.
>
> Probably in years of life.
>
>>> Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
>>>
>>
>>
>> Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named
>> a lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car
>> traffic.
>
> Simply stated, vehicular cycling has not been popular. Car traffic
> reduction has not been politically feasible. This is in the US, I can't
> speak of elsewhere.
>
I think its just a question of how many cars are on the road how fast
they are going and with how they are treating other road users. All of
this factors can be influenced and you dont have to spend billions on
facilities.
I think the problem for many towns (people) in the US with making
cycling attractive is that average length of ways between home, work,
shopping etc. are to long. Sadly there isnt much to be done to change
that, land use in the US has been much to car oriented and it will take
decades in most areas to reverse that. Off course there are exceptions.
>
>>> And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
>>> when nobody except a hard core participates.
>>>
>>
>> As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives
>> to cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.
>
> But people want facilities and you offer broccoli, then don't understand
> when they won't eat it.
No, I just tell them a cucumber is not a banana. If they want to believe
cucumbers are bananas I cant change it but I refuse to join them.
>
>>> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
>>> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
>>> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
>>> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
>>> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>>>
>>
>> Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
>> facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure.
>
> I'm sure many are, but doesn't that mean that many aren't?
>
No, there are only a few I use and this are the ones that are totally
separated from motorized traffic. But they often have a bad surface and
aren't well maintained, are to small, are use by pedestrians etc.
>> It can be very stressful if car drivers try to insist to use them.
>> Often there is no alternative route and Im definitely not going to
>> shitty side streets full of potholes. I dont think I have to just
>> accept the fact that motor traffic oriented Transportation planners
>> and politicians think cyclist should ride in the gutter or on the curb
>> of the road and people think this is safe because they have been told
>> for decades. Im speaking out the interest of all cyclists if I insist
>> of there right to ride safe. If most cyclists and motorist dont know
>> how safe riding work it is another problem.
>
> Again, where facilities exist, cyclists almost universally choose them.
> You are in a minority and shouldn't expect the world to conform to your
> ideals.
>
Again, where no facilities exist, cyclists almost universally dont
choose them.
>
>>>> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
>>>> cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>>>
>>> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
>>> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
>>> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
>
>> You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?
>
> Maybe it's a language thing.
>
Thought it was obvious, but I hope my English is better than your German.
>>
>>
>>>> They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
>>>
>>> They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
>>
>> It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will
>> loose every right to use the road.
>
> Now you're being hysterical.
>
Not really. Drivers have been yelling at me I should ride on a cycle
path when there wasn't any in a one mile radius. The building of
facilities have the effect that most road users start to (or even more)
think, cyclists dont belong to the road. Many cyclist dont learn how to
ride properly in mixed traffic and it isnt uncommon that they use
pedestrian paths...
>
>>>> So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
>>>> many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road they
>>>> are better of on the footpath.
>>>> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
>>>> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>>>
>>> Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
>>> most want facilities.
>>
>> Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
>> dont know what they want.
>
> That's a pretty arrogant attitude and it explains a lot.
>
What exactly does this explain? I think its cynical to make people
believe they are safe on segregated facilities and spend billions on
that crap. As an side effect you freeze the status quo of car dominated
cities for decades by not taking real measures to reduce car use.
>>> I'm also against mandating the use of those
>>> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
>>> don't see what's so complicated.
>>>
>>
>> You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
>> explained it.
>
> I have followed your "explanations". They're really just your personal
> preferences. Calling them universal doesn't make them so.
>
>
Right to life and physical integrity are pretty universal to me as is my
right to use the road with the vehicle I choose without being discriminated.
>>> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
>>
>>
>> Right
>>
>>> I don't understand the
>>> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
>>
>>
>> We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
>> Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
>> facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
>> only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
>> conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
>> this a slight declines in safety?
>
> I'm unfamiliar with those specific studies. The study you originally
> cited (Copenhagen) was 110%, not 300% or 1200%.
In Countries like DK and NL there is a pretty large safety in numbers
effect working in favor of cyclists. So the negative safety effects of
segregation tend to be smaller cause everybody is allways expecting
cyclists. In Germany we dont have that and in the US it is far worse.
Negative safety effects of facilitation have been much bigger in Germany
and other countries and the same will happen in the US. The smallest
worsening of safety will happen by the building of cycle lanes but I
dont really understand why people claim its more pleasant than riding in
mixed traffic. For me cycle lanes are more unpleasant cause you are
often expected to ride in the door opening zone and motorized traffic is
overtaking in closer proximity.
> Still, the argument is
> specious because it is possible to design safe segregated facilities,
> and making cycling 100% safe does nothing if the modal share is 0.
>
I dont think this scenario is of any interest at all.
> In this country, with modal share at 0.5%, very little can be justified,
> either in facilities or reduction of motor vehicle speeds or densities.
> The fate of cycling rests on the possibility of drastically increasing
> modal share. Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
> decades, with little to show for it.
They came up with pretty good advice how to ride safe in mixed traffic
that's not bad.
> Finally, vehicular cycling
> ideologues are being pushed out
Pushed out where? I dont think there have been many in administrations
regarding transportation planning, land use planning and transport
policies in general. This are the key fields that determine modal split.
Have they even been relevant regarding road safety education? In other
words they developed methods how to ride safe and not how to increase
the number of cyclists, you are confused.
> and cycling modal share is increasing.
Nice scapegoat you are constructing.
> It's about time. You can't talk people into liking broccoli.
>
>
But you think you can tell them a cucumber is a banana, good lucky with
that one.
>>> to make a large
>>> improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
>>> proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just unpleasant.
>>
>>
>> There are measures to reduce motorized traffic.
>
> Yes, of course there are, but in the US at least, politically impossible
> for the most part.
>
>
Bad for you. Most towns in the US are not fit for utility cycling
(distances to large for the majority of the typical fast food nourished
suburban SUV-driver). There have and will be exceptions of course.
>>> I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
>>> slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
>>> din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.
>>
>>
>> Many of them dont know that their behaviour is more dangerous. If you
>> want to have special infrastructure I think the building of bicycle
>> boulevards can be useful.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
>
> I'm all in favor of them, but with such a small number of cyclists in
> the US, the political base to support them is just too small.
>
>
>>> You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> I'm exactly the opposite. When
>>> I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist...
>>
>> riding a vehicle.
>
> You can call a bike a "vehicle", but that doesn't alter the physics. It
> doesn't make people enjoy the experience of "sharing the road", either.
> It's a rhetorical ploy, nothing more. I am personally very much opposed
> to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.
Car drivers an pedestrians will hate and disrespect you for that (even
more). And I cant take you serious on that one or explain:
> I am personally very much opposed
> to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.
> That's the
> consequence of "vehicular equivalence". I don't need to speculate about
> potential negative consequences, they've already occurred. What
> "vehicularists" have lobbied for (and won, here in Boston), is an
> increase in bicycle moving violation fines and enforcement ("same rules,
> same roads"). I'm ecstatic to see them go. Cyclists are not the equals
> of motorists, we have much greater vulnerabilities and far fewer
> liabilities. To lump them all together as "vehicles" is just nuts. But
> it's the predictable kind of nuttiness that "vehicular cycling"
> advocates create.
I dont think you are right and just work on your building of a
scapegoat. It can be easily argued that the dangers of cyclist for other
road users is relatively small so should be fines. But I do think
operating a bicycle should not follow traffic rules. Traffic rules and
there following are a necessity to raise predictability of behaviour.
With your position nobody will ever take cyclists serious as equal road
users. If cyclists take your viewpoint they always will be weirdos with
a kid toy.
Frank
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
> Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
>
> > Frank Studt wrote:
> >> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>
> >>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
> >>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>
> >> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode
> >> choice is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has
> >> dealt with travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a
> >> claim like that without testing for confounding factors...
>
> > You're over-complicating things.
>
> Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.
I'll make simple for you: IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!
"Exorbitant parking fees are yet another reason for keeping the car
culture"
The "car culture" has little to do with culture or public preference
or convenience. CONVENIENCE IS HAVING OPTIONS, ie. cars, public
transportation, bicycles, etc.
The car is about BIG MONEY, and this goes together with Darwinian
Capitalism. Yep, and we fell in the "trap" of the Hungry Lion today.
We went to this high school contest in the early hours (not fancy
opera concert time) and when we came out of the parking lot three
hours later they charged us... 22 bucks! (That's American dollars)
Oh c'mon, they never posted the rates and we may not have had the
money to come out. It's a rip off, legalized predatory behavior by a
private parking lot (so it was a private lion, not the city). When we
came out a Taxi driver said, "Oh, you fell into the trap."
NOTE: This happened at the Omni parking lot, next to the Carnival
Center of the Arts, near downtown Miami.
NEXT TIME...
http://kiwipolemicist.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/giving-the-finger-gorilla.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
"WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE"
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> "WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE"
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
On Aug 15, 12:57 pm, "J.R.Guthrie" <jguth...@pipeline.com> wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
>
> > The "car culture" has little to do with culture or public preference
> > or convenience. CONVENIENCE IS HAVING OPTIONS, ie. cars, public
> > transportation, bicycles, etc.
>
> The "Car Culture" is all about transfers of wealth through subsidies to
> automobile users. The Libertarians in California once figures that 88% of
> the public cost of the auto on the public highway is subsidy -- taken from
> taxation unrelated to the use of the private auto.
>
> This goes back to the earlier part of the 20th Century, when Liberals and
> Progressives wanted to stick it to the Railroad Robber Barns and the Transit
> Tycoons -- so they set up all manner of subsidies so every man could be the
> king of his own destiny and avoid the profit-makers and private enterprise.
>
> Pres. Wilson even vetoed the Federal Highway Act of 1916 as un-American, but
> the Progressives in Congress over-rode the veto.
>
> Americans love a free lunch when they can get it, and they love Socialism
> and big gummint, central planning when it suits 'em.
>
> But not one who has ever stepped on an automobile accelerator to pull out of
> their private driveway can every honestly say they oppose government
> enterprise (except maybe for government enterprise that benefits someone
> other than themselves -- which for some, might be modern public
> transportation, since the power to tax was the power to destroy private
> enterprise in transit).
>
> You Big Government Tax and Spend Types are all the same.
>
> Cheers,
> Jim Guthrie
Right. More recent of the evidence of the above is that any candidate
to president who proposes to raise gasoline taxes is dead fish. They
could have raised the money for the war from it, but weren't willing
to pay the price. Last one was Perot...
Now we are in big debt, no money for public transportation or
infrastructure, except a little big waste here and there. ;)
Democracy and public transportation are at odds. Chavez though is
further down the road to socialism. Gassing up a big SUV costs you 2
bucks --thanks to subsidy.
Dieter Britz
[...]
> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>
> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>
> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
Idiot's? Do you read Danish, Frank? This is a suggestion to use your bike
after the recent heavy rains in Copenhagen, where the bike is a better way
to get around, not a "campaign". But I agree, there are occasional campaigns
to get more people on their bikes, and a good thing too, even in DK. I don't
find that idiotic.
--
Dieter Britz (dieterhansbritz<at>gmail.com)
Dieter Britz
[...]
> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice cycle
> path they paid for with hard earned tax money. They are honking,
> yelling, overtaking very close and so on. So Im very much effected by
I assume this is Copenhagen you are referring to. You are distorting the
issues. For one thing, if there be cycleways, why use the road (except
just after a heavy snow fall, when roads tend to get cleared first, the
snow often even often being heaped on the cycleways). What happens is
that cyclists, in order to cut short a right-hand turn at traffic lights,
go over the pedestrian crossing on the left side and continue on from there.
You are supposed to walk your bike over the crossing, but many just ride
over it, which is illegal. If you walk, car drivers are polite etc, but if
you ride, they get stroppy, because you are breaking the law, which annoys
them. I see cyclists using their bikes like scooters, assuming that the
occasional foot on the ground means they are walking; or even coasting on
their bike and dropping one foot to the ground now and then. Funny. I walk
until I'm nearly on the other side, then get on the bike, which means I get
out of the way of cars faster.
> those facilities. Its gone that far that many people (even cyclists)
> think cyclist dont belong on the road they are better of on the footpath.
> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
That's bullshit, everyone agrees that cycling is good, and cycleways are
a Good Thing. Cycling on foot paths is illegal. It is done, but frowned
upon.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
> Frank Studt wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice cycle
> > yelling, overtaking very close and so on. So Im very much effected by
>
> I assume this is Copenhagen you are referring to. You are distorting the
> issues. For one thing, if there be cycleways, why use the road (except
> just after a heavy snow fall, when roads tend to get cleared first, the
> snow often even often being heaped on the cycleways). What happens is
> that cyclists, in order to cut short a right-hand turn at traffic lights,
> go over the pedestrian crossing on the left side and continue on from there.
> You are supposed to walk your bike over the crossing, but many just ride
> over it, which is illegal. If you walk, car drivers are polite etc, but if
> you ride, they get stroppy, because you are breaking the law, which annoys
> them. I see cyclists using their bikes like scooters, assuming that the
> occasional foot on the ground means they are walking; or even coasting on
> their bike and dropping one foot to the ground now and then. Funny. I walk
> until I'm nearly on the other side, then get on the bike, which means I get
> out of the way of cars faster.
>
> > think cyclist dont belong on the road they are better of on the footpath.
> > And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
> > slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>
> a Good Thing. Cycling on foot paths is illegal. It is done, but frowned
> upon.
> --
> Dieter Britz (dieterhansbritz<at>gmail.com)
Do you have any video to illustrate the situation?
I saw scooters among bicycles in Holland. They still can kill a
cyclist, and a cyclist can still kill a pedestrian.
I don't promote those facilities for America for very practical
reasons: THEY WON'T HAPPEN.
Peter Cole
> Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>
>>>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
>>>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>>>>
>>> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode
>>> choice is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has
>>> dealt with travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a
>>> claim like that without testing for confounding factors...
>>
>> You're over-complicating things.
>>
>
>
> Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.
Perhaps for you, not for me. If I'm in a hurry, I take the street, if
not I take a track (if there's one). I like having choices.
>
>>>> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
>>>> they like.
>>
>>> Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
>>> since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
>>> predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one
>>> variable.
>>> I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
>>> think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
>>> that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists.
>>
>> Again, you focus exclusively on safety. People are not statisticians.
>> "Sharing the road" is by and large unpleasant. It might be less so if
>> drivers were better behaved and the driving was better moderated, but it
>> still wouldn't be pleasant.
> Nope again. People might be confusing "pleasant" or the perceived safety
> with real safety but I dont think they tell you they want their kids (or
> them self) rather ride on pleasant routes then on safe routes. To
> clarify we are talking primary about utility cycling here. And the order
> of preferences here is pretty clear:
> 1. safety
> 2. velocity
> 3. pleasantness
I think those are your preferences.
> Most of the cycle facilities built in Germany dont meet one of the above
> criteria. I dont even understand why people think that a marking on the
> road (cycle lanes) in the door opening zone could be more pleasant than
> riding without marking. Knowing the risks of facilities makes it far
> more unpleasant to use them.
Bad lanes are dangerous. They're not necessary. I won't ride in a door
zone, lane or not. I've instructed my kids explicitly to stay out of bad
lanes. The worst lanes around here (Boston) were installed by cycling
"advocates" who knew better. There has been at least one dooring
fatality. I'm not naive.
>
>>> The only consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong
>>> perception. Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic.
>>> Educate car drivers to respect cyclists right to the road.
>>
>> You can't "educate" around the reality of mixing 2 ton vehicles with
>> vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
>>
>
> Why not? I think a neglected factor is the enforcement of traffic laws
> especially on motorized traffic.
Of course it is, and there are social reasons for that. Believing that
motorists can be calmed through education or enforcement is unrealistic.
It's not like it hasn't been tried.
>
>>> And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists
>>> like on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer
>>> infrastructure that is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek
>>> for mixed traffic and not segregation.
>>
>> People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
>> perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction.
>
>
> I really think you are making that up or you are confused, not many
> people want their own or the health of their kids be at risk for more
> pleasantness. The order of preferences is pretty clear (see above).
So you say, but calling me a liar and stupid isn't very persuasive, but
it's typical with ideologues.
>
>> They demand
>> facilities,
>
>
> its more of an excuse, "if there were more facilities I would ride far
> more often, but cycling on the road is much to dangerous"
>
>> they use them when they get them. What could be more obvious?
>>
>
>
> Its not obvious at all. The impact on modal split by the building of
> facilities have at best been small. Some studies even showed a decline.
> We are talking about spending billions (for the whole US) for an
> increase in the one digit percent range.
> A 2004 study for NL shows that cycling is decreasing\stagnating, despite
> the efforts an money put in cycling infrastructure.
> http://www.ecf.com/misc/filePush.php?mimeType=application/pdf&fullPath=http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/23/BRR_158_english.pdf
>
> Another study shows that infrastructure is of no relevance for choice of
> Transport.
> http://www.ecf.com/misc/filePush.php?mimeType=application/pdf&fullPath=http://www.ecf.com/files/2/12/23/BRR_159_English.pdf
>
>
> There is a big misunderstanding of the effect of infrastructure on
> cycling in NL, DK. Bicycle use didnt rise after the building of
> facilities. It never had been as low as it is in North-America. The
> reason for the high figures of cyclists in this countries lie in there
> town structure, relatively short ways between housing, work, shopping
> etc. and a very late occurrence of mass motorization.
The results of studies are mixed. There is debate over
correlation/causality, but my overall impression is that facilities,
particularly well designed ones, get used and are frequently preferred
by cyclists,
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/journal/v30/nS1/full/jphp200856a.html
"Findings from revealed preference studies are mixed. At a city level,
two studies have found that bike lanes are associated with higher rates
of bicycle commuting (21, 25). However, at an individual level, other
studies have not found such a link (14, 16). Several studies have found
that bicyclists will take a longer route to use bicycle facilities, such
as lanes or paths (15, 26, 27). Preference for lanes or paths may depend
upon the type of bicyclist. One study found that bicycle commuters
diverted very little from the shortest path and preferred not to ride on
paths or trails (28). A national survey found that frequent bicyclists
preferred bike lanes rather than paths. Infrequent bicyclists were more
likely to want more bike paths rather than lanes (29)."
>>>>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.
>>>>
>>>> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
>>> the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
>>> making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
>>>
>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So I guess he's (the blogger) an "idiot" until he posts something you
>> agree with...
>>
>
>
> He didnt write the article above and in his comments he showed that he
> did not understand it. So he is an idiot all the time.
The article author did say:
"3. I agree, many people (understandably, given a fear of cycling)
prefer to cycle away from motorized traffic. I agree, we should provide
these kinds of facilities, as seen in Dk and the NLs. Such facilities
promote cycling."
I think "fear of cycling" should be replaced by "fear of cycling around
motor vehicles", but even then it would be a distortion. Some may fear
traffic, other may just find it unpleasant.
>
>> The article is old news (as are so many of the quotes and cites --
>> literally). People have been fretting over cyclists being banned from
>> the roads for almost 100 years. It's a Forrester bogey-man. It's fear
>> mongering, nothing more.
>>
>
>
> BS its not my fault people ignore facts since decades sadly there are no
> new news on the topic.
>
>
>> Besides, what the argument boils down to is that you feel people should
>> do something they don't want to do (ride in the street) to protect your
>> right to ride in the street. That's like telling people who don't like
>> broccoli that they should eat it anyway because you (who like it) don't
>> want the broccoli farmers to go out of business. When they complain they
>> don't like it, you tell them that's immaterial, it's good for them.
>>
>
>
> Nope Im advocating for the right of cyclists to ride safe and to know
> the truth (I know you cant handle the truth) about safer cycling. Its
> more like people want bananas and are given cucumbers. I just point out
> that a banana is not a cucumber.
Again, insults aside, I think you are exaggerating the safety issues.
There is a divergence of "truth" about the relative safety of various
facilities, but in absolute terms, cycling is safe enough that the net
public health benefit will be positive. You can claim (luridly) that
"facilities kill", but then the counter-claim (equally lurid) can be
made that sedentary life "kills" just as surely. I think it's far from
certain that facilities must carry a higher risk.
>
>
>>>> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
>>>> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
>>>> that, just watch what they use.
>>
>>> Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
>>> implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences,
>>> economics, psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on
>>> and on....
>>
>> You want to predict people's preferences, I just want to accommodate
>> them. I don't need to have predictive models to do that. You presume to
>> know better, I don't.
>
>
> If you want to proof your hypothesis or measure effects of
> infrastructure on cycle use you need explanatory models the rest is just
> speculating around.
No, you just have to observe the popularity of facilities.
>>>>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
>>>>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
>>>>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>>>>
>>
>>> Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
>>> roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want
>>> to get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
>>> accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
>>> and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns.
>>> Why the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing
>>> they came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle
>>> crossings: a before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we
>>> have been discussing. Smells fishy.
>>
>> You asked for an example.
>
>
> And you came up with a pretty crappy one.
>
>> I really don't have the time to critique all
>> the studies. I merely point out that there is a divergence of opinion.
>
>
> The tendency of the studies regarding safety effects of cycling
> infrastructure is pretty clear.
No, they're all over the map.
Again, people choose additional risk all the time. It's not the
overriding concern. You are attempting to portray in black and white an
issue with many shades of gray.
>>>>> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
>>>>> of primary research about the topic.
>>>>> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
>>>>> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of
>>>>> cyclists.
>>
>> Yes, I've had no luck finding these in English, so I can't comment other
>> than to repeat the above.
> Dont play dumb. There is enough English material on the issue. In the
> above German studies the researchers where pretty astonished that year
> long federal and local policies had high negative safety implications
> for cyclists.
Again, you're insults aren't helpful. The specific studies you cited
have been cited before. I had attempted to find them in English at one
time, I'm not going to spend more time again.
>>>>> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
>>>>> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
>>>> cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
>>>> increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
>>>> be an ethical trade-off.
>>>
>>>
>>> How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.
>>
>> Probably in years of life.
>>
>>>> Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named
>>> a lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car
>>> traffic.
>>
>> Simply stated, vehicular cycling has not been popular. Car traffic
>> reduction has not been politically feasible. This is in the US, I can't
>> speak of elsewhere.
>>
> I think its just a question of how many cars are on the road how fast
> they are going and with how they are treating other road users. All of
> this factors can be influenced and you dont have to spend billions on
> facilities.
Traffic calming is a complicated (politically and technically) subject.
I'm all in favor of it, but it's not politically feasible (US) or cheap.
> I think the problem for many towns (people) in the US with making
> cycling attractive is that average length of ways between home, work,
> shopping etc. are to long. Sadly there isnt much to be done to change
> that, land use in the US has been much to car oriented and it will take
> decades in most areas to reverse that. Off course there are exceptions.
Perhaps more exceptions than you think. Many US cities emptied out,
residentially, in the 60's & 70's, many have since been "recolonized"
with a demographically diverse population, a trend which has been
gathering momentum for a couple of decades now. The "exceptions", like
Portland, OR, may prove to be not all that exceptional.
>>>> And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
>>>> when nobody except a hard core participates.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives
>>> to cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.
>>
>> But people want facilities and you offer broccoli, then don't understand
>> when they won't eat it.
>
>
> No, I just tell them a cucumber is not a banana. If they want to believe
> cucumbers are bananas I cant change it but I refuse to join them.
Your metaphor is based on the claim that people are being misled on the
relative safety of facilities. I don't see the evidence for that. Nor,
as I keep repeating, do I see safety as the defining issue.
>>>> Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
>>>> marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
>>>> for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
>>>> is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route,
>>>> choose
>>>> another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
>>> facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure.
>>
>> I'm sure many are, but doesn't that mean that many aren't?
>>
> No, there are only a few I use and this are the ones that are totally
> separated from motorized traffic. But they often have a bad surface and
> aren't well maintained, are to small, are use by pedestrians etc.
If there are no alternate routes (to facilities), I could see your
point, but speaking to urban riding in the US, it's hard to visualize
such a situation. There are simply so many routes in the urban grid that
the choices are plenty. I can't speak about Germany, and I don't
particularly care about rural and suburban cycling (in this context).
>>> It can be very stressful if car drivers try to insist to use them.
>>> Often there is no alternative route and Im definitely not going to
>>> shitty side streets full of potholes. I dont think I have to just
>>> accept the fact that motor traffic oriented Transportation planners
>>> and politicians think cyclist should ride in the gutter or on the curb
>>> of the road and people think this is safe because they have been told
>>> for decades. Im speaking out the interest of all cyclists if I insist
>>> of there right to ride safe. If most cyclists and motorist dont know
>>> how safe riding work it is another problem.
It seems you have safety on the brain. I don't think about it
particularly. Even in the US, with it's relatively lousy bike safety
record, I've never worried about it. I don't think it's as dangerous as
driving.
>> Again, where facilities exist, cyclists almost universally choose them.
>> You are in a minority and shouldn't expect the world to conform to your
>> ideals.
>>
> Again, where no facilities exist, cyclists almost universally dont
> choose them.
I think you could drop "almost" from that tautology.
>>>>> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
>>>>> cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.
>>>>
>>>> Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for
>>>> out of
>>>> general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
>>>> usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.
>>
>>> You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?
>>
>> Maybe it's a language thing.
>>
>
>
> Thought it was obvious, but I hope my English is better than your German.
I'm sure it is since I only studied for three years and never had an
occasion to use it since. Though I don't know what my fluency (or lack
of) has to do with anything.
>>>>> They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.
>>>>
>>>> They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.
>>>
>>> It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will
>>> loose every right to use the road.
>>
>> Now you're being hysterical.
>>
>
>
> Not really. Drivers have been yelling at me I should ride on a cycle
> path when there wasn't any in a one mile radius. The building of
> facilities have the effect that most road users start to (or even more)
> think, cyclists dont belong to the road. Many cyclist dont learn how to
> ride properly in mixed traffic and it isnt uncommon that they use
> pedestrian paths...
This is a case where education is really necessary, for both drivers and
cyclists (and cops). Rational cycling plans assume a mix of conditions,
not door-to-door facilities. Street riding is a necessary skill and a
right, not privilege (unlike driving).
>>>>> So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
>>>>> many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road they
>>>>> are better of on the footpath.
>>>>> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
>>>>> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.
>>>>
>>>> Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
>>>> most want facilities.
>>>
>>> Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
>>> dont know what they want.
>>
>> That's a pretty arrogant attitude and it explains a lot.
>>
> What exactly does this explain? I think its cynical to make people
> believe they are safe on segregated facilities and spend billions on
> that crap. As an side effect you freeze the status quo of car dominated
> cities for decades by not taking real measures to reduce car use.
You are claiming that people are being misled, I see no evidence for
that. If people find "road sharing" unpleasant, then I think their
preferences should be accommodated with a budget that reflects (perhaps
with some growth factored in) modal share and overall social benefit.
There is nothing exclusive about traffic reduction/calming and cycling
facilities -- they are quite compatible, some say necessarily
complimentary, a sentiment I'd agree with.
>
>
>
>>>> I'm also against mandating the use of those
>>>> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
>>>> don't see what's so complicated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
>>> explained it.
>>
>> I have followed your "explanations". They're really just your personal
>> preferences. Calling them universal doesn't make them so.
>>
>>
> Right to life and physical integrity are pretty universal to me as is my
> right to use the road with the vehicle I choose without being
> discriminated.
I don't find the "discrimination" argument compelling, except in the
"mandatory use" statutes. Where ample alternate routes exist, I just
don't see the case at all. That describes my reality (US urban). If
there's any discrimination, it's denying facilities to those who prefer
them and contribute to infrastructure costs via taxes.
>
>
>
>>>> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
>>>
>>>
>>> Right
>>>
>>>> I don't understand the
>>>> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
>>> Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
>>> facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
>>> only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
>>> conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
>>> this a slight declines in safety?
>>
>> I'm unfamiliar with those specific studies. The study you originally
>> cited (Copenhagen) was 110%, not 300% or 1200%.
>
>
> In Countries like DK and NL there is a pretty large safety in numbers
> effect working in favor of cyclists. So the negative safety effects of
> segregation tend to be smaller cause everybody is allways expecting
> cyclists. In Germany we dont have that and in the US it is far worse.
That's not what I've seen in places like Portland, OR.
> Negative safety effects of facilitation have been much bigger in Germany
> and other countries and the same will happen in the US. The smallest
> worsening of safety will happen by the building of cycle lanes but I
> dont really understand why people claim its more pleasant than riding in
> mixed traffic. For me cycle lanes are more unpleasant cause you are
> often expected to ride in the door opening zone and motorized traffic is
> overtaking in closer proximity.
Ideally, a bike lane is only a space prohibited for use by motor
vehicles. A good lane doesn't put cyclists in the door zone, a bad lane
does. You can't judge all lanes by bad ones.
The idea of segregation of traffic by speed via lanes is well understood
and accepted by motorists. Complications arise at intersections where
the rules are unclear/unfamiliar. Cycle lanes have many drawbacks, but
at the same time often represent a "take back" of road space, which in
itself may have a traffic calming effect. Bad lanes are generally
created when there simply isn't enough room for them, either because the
road is too narrow to share or the "take back" wasn't aggressive enough.
Reducing lane count, or even lane width, is very difficult politically
here in the US.
>> Still, the argument is
>> specious because it is possible to design safe segregated facilities,
>> and making cycling 100% safe does nothing if the modal share is 0.
>>
> I dont think this scenario is of any interest at all.
No, of course not, but it's an extrapolation.
>
>
>> In this country, with modal share at 0.5%, very little can be justified,
>> either in facilities or reduction of motor vehicle speeds or densities.
>> The fate of cycling rests on the possibility of drastically increasing
>> modal share. Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
>> decades, with little to show for it.
>
>
> They came up with pretty good advice how to ride safe in mixed traffic
> that's not bad.
Sure, if they stopped there and didn't tack on the ideology.
>
>> Finally, vehicular cycling
>> ideologues are being pushed out
>
>
> Pushed out where?
Boston, Dallas, etc.
> I dont think there have been many in administrations
> regarding transportation planning, land use planning and transport
> policies in general.
They had been dominant in US cycling advocacy (LAB, etc.) for decades.
> This are the key fields that determine modal split.
> Have they even been relevant regarding road safety education? In other
> words they developed methods how to ride safe and not how to increase
> the number of cyclists, you are confused.
No, ad hominem aside, I'm aware of "Effective Cycling" curricula and
courses. It is useful stuff, orthogonal to the facilities debate (or
should be). It hasn't trained a whole lot of cyclists in the US, however.
>> and cycling modal share is increasing.
>
>
> Nice scapegoat you are constructing.
??? Modal share is growing in several US cities. It was originally
attributed to the spike in gas prices, but didn't revert when prices
fell. All the talk (and implementation) in cities like New York &
Boston, for examples, has been on facilities. This is a huge change.
Boston had 0 miles of bike lane until very recently. This was the direct
result of opposition by vehicular cyclists who dominated the dialog.
>> It's about time. You can't talk people into liking broccoli.
>>
>>
> But you think you can tell them a cucumber is a banana, good lucky with
> that one.
I think the burden of proof is on you that facilities are being
misrepresented.
>>>> to make a large
>>>> improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
>>>> proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just
>>>> unpleasant.
>>>
>>>
>>> There are measures to reduce motorized traffic.
>>
>> Yes, of course there are, but in the US at least, politically impossible
>> for the most part.
>>
> Bad for you. Most towns in the US are not fit for utility cycling
> (distances to large for the majority of the typical fast food nourished
> suburban SUV-driver). There have and will be exceptions of course.
Sweeping generalizations aside, I can't speak for the entire US, but I
live in a small city (90,000) 6 miles from downtown Boston (600,000). My
family lives perhaps 75% car-free, and does a lot of utility and
recreational cycling (often combining the two). We frequently use a
segregated bike path (despite 2 extra miles) to get to the city. It's a
typical early generation path (constructed in the 60's) with all the
usual drawbacks -- crappy surface, dangerous intersections,
undisciplined users, etc., but we generally prefer it simply because
it's more pleasant than the (abundant) alternatives. Since the path
isn't consistently plowed (and never sanded) we simply use studded tires
in the winter.
Our lifestyle isn't common, but it's not particularly difficult, either.
>>>> I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
>>>> slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
>>>> din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Many of them dont know that their behaviour is more dangerous. If you
>>> want to have special infrastructure I think the building of bicycle
>>> boulevards can be useful.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard
>>
>> I'm all in favor of them, but with such a small number of cyclists in
>> the US, the political base to support them is just too small.
>>
>>
>>>> You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> I'm exactly the opposite. When
>>>> I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist...
>>>
>>> riding a vehicle.
>>
>> You can call a bike a "vehicle", but that doesn't alter the physics. It
>> doesn't make people enjoy the experience of "sharing the road", either.
>> It's a rhetorical ploy, nothing more. I am personally very much opposed
>> to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.
>
>
> Car drivers an pedestrians will hate and disrespect you for that (even
> more). And I cant take you serious on that one or explain:
>
>> I am personally very much opposed
>> to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.
Similar to "jaywalking" (originally a slur, btw) laws, the ordinances on
the books are simply for the convenience of motor vehicles. There is no
reason to insist that cyclists come to a full stop at stop signs or be
constrained on one-way streets (or that pedestrians must cross only at
crosswalks, for that matter). Traffic signals at every corner are there
for the convenience of motorists. I was OK as long as such laws were
never enforced and carried negligible fines, but the "vehicularists"
changed all that here.
>> That's the
>> consequence of "vehicular equivalence". I don't need to speculate about
>> potential negative consequences, they've already occurred. What
>> "vehicularists" have lobbied for (and won, here in Boston), is an
>> increase in bicycle moving violation fines and enforcement ("same rules,
>> same roads"). I'm ecstatic to see them go. Cyclists are not the equals
>> of motorists, we have much greater vulnerabilities and far fewer
>> liabilities. To lump them all together as "vehicles" is just nuts. But
>> it's the predictable kind of nuttiness that "vehicular cycling"
>> advocates create.
>
>
> I dont think you are right and just work on your building of a
> scapegoat. It can be easily argued that the dangers of cyclist for other
> road users is relatively small so should be fines. But I do think
> operating a bicycle should not follow traffic rules. Traffic rules and
> there following are a necessity to raise predictability of behaviour.
"Predictability of behavior" raises motorist speeds. Urban motor
traffic is generally characterized by a high ratio of peak to average
speeds -- bad news for cyclists and pedestrians, and of no real
advantage to motorists. I think "predictability of behavior" should be
deliberately and significantly reduced.
> With your position nobody will ever take cyclists serious as equal road
> users. If cyclists take your viewpoint they always will be weirdos with
> a kid toy.
You may have a point with purely recreational cyclists who flaunt that
status with their flashy clothes and bikes. They are, literally, playing
in the streets after all. Not that I have a problem with that. I don't
much care about being taken "seriously" or as an "equal". Those things
should be self-evident and are historical rights. Insisting on special
behaviors to accommodate motorists erodes our true right of way, which
goes back centuries. Your attitude makes you a motorist apologist.
That's the only logical conclusion. You appear to be so brainwashed by
car culture that you can't think outside the box.
There's a frequent claim that most car-bike crashes are caused by
cyclist "scofflaws", but careful studies don't support that conclusion.
"Vehicular equivalence" is an unfortunate consequence of vehicular
cycling dogma. The ultimate result is that we are forced to comply with
rules and road engineering that were designed with motor vehicle
convenience as the highest priority. Queuing up with idling lines of
cars and trucks on a hot summer rush hour or getting sloshed with gritty
brine in the winter from a semi at my elbow isn't my idea of fun or
progress. Good luck selling that vision.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
> On 08/11/2010 09:22 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> > We have to our best and hope it is good enough. We have to denounce
> > "the jungle" for what it is, and expose the "lions" (liars). We have
> > to approach the problem as an intricate web of problems which must be
> > tackled together. I talk thus of a "Dutch package"...
>
> > Actually, I propose a "Dutch Package," where issues normal to the
> > Dutch --gay rights, bike facilities, prostitution and marijuana-- are
> > discussed in less open societies.
>
> > 'U.S. leads world in substance abuse, WHO finds'
>
> > "Countries with looser drug laws have lower rates of abuse"
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080701/hl_nm/drugs_who_dc
>
> > One more proposal: The $15 billion the US wastes on the "war on
> > drugs," could be smartly used to build BIKE FACILITIES.
>
> Bikes are fine in New Orleans, which is just as flat as Amsterdam. But
> I've also used one to go 4 miles to work in MPLS, and keeping it up and
> going on snow is a real challenge. Never mind that you are freezing your
> fucking ass off.
>
> America is a much more spread out place than Europe. From Bavarian snows
> to the beach on the Riviera is only 400 miles, but the trip to Florida
> is usually 3-4 times that. The USA cant use the European model.
>
> What would work would be a high speed rail system that carried you, -in
> your electric car- to the urban hub where you drove the last mile or so
> to work, and then at the other end, the last mile or so to your home.
>
> It'd havta be wide track with flatbed cars to drive on that're twice as
> wide to have the room for a golf cart or electric car. The railway
> itself could also be electric, powered by its own nuke, and setup to
> recharge the cars both coming and going. That way, there'd be no need to
> expand the carrying capacity of the grid.
We shouldn't be tempted to make sweeping statements such as the fast
train is the solution and bicycle is not. You don't travel from Miami
to Orlando everyday.
Most trips in America are done to the market and possibly under a
radius of 5 miles, or could be done if we drop Walmart in favor of the
local store.
The solution is a combination of the above, and take into
consideration that we could be riding faster bikes to cover our sprawl
instead of the heavy European bike.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock
> On 08/19/2010 10:58 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> > We shouldn't be tempted to make sweeping statements such as the fast
> > train is the solution and bicycle is not. You don't travel from Miami
> > to Orlando everyday.
>
> > Most trips in America are done to the market and possibly under a
> > radius of 5 miles, or could be done if we drop Walmart in favor of the
> > local store.
>
> worth of groceries and supplies home on a bike.
That's what I can carry with any of my bikes. But you always have an
excuse to ride more often to the market if not as well prepared.
>
> > The solution is a combination of the above, and take into
> > consideration that we could be riding faster bikes to cover our sprawl
> > instead of the heavy European bike.
>
> Americans are also a buncha fat slobs who wont ride a bike, much less do
> so if its raining. They will ride a golf cart or electric car to the
> corner store or local mall to bring home whatever, and would use it to
> commute if it also rode the train so they can drive off the train and go
> to work.
Yes, they have been bred that way by careful manipulation. That could
change though as they try riding a bike and shedding pounds.
>
> It'd be much better for them to ride bikes more, but that's not upta us.
> I'm outlining a project the fat bastards would actually get behind. The
> vehicle carrier rail could get to the urban hub ten minutes or more
> sooner, and to the lazy bastards that makes all the diff.
>
> I've used my golfcart to haul firewood out of the woods; but properly
> equipped for urban streets, it'd easy go 4-5 miles and back on flat
> pavement at 25 mph.
Some of them are street legal here in Florida (Bombardier type), but
not advisable under conditions where the big fish eats the little
fish.
Frank Studt
> Frank Studt wrote:
>> Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>>> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>>
>>>>> It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
>>>>> facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.
>>>>>
>>>> There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode
>>>> choice is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has
>>>> dealt with travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a
>>>> claim like that without testing for confounding factors...
>>>
>>> You're over-complicating things.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.
>
> Perhaps for you, not for me. If I'm in a hurry, I take the street, if
> not I take a track (if there's one). I like having choices.
>
You are confusing travel mode choice with route choice.
>>
>>>>> OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
>>>>> they like.
>>>
>>>> Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
>>>> since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
>>>> predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one
>>>> variable.
>>>> I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
>>>> think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
>>>> that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists.
>>>
>>> Again, you focus exclusively on safety. People are not statisticians.
>>> "Sharing the road" is by and large unpleasant. It might be less so if
>>> drivers were better behaved and the driving was better moderated, but it
>>> still wouldn't be pleasant.
>
>> Nope again. People might be confusing "pleasant" or the perceived
>> safety with real safety but I dont think they tell you they want their
>> kids (or them self) rather ride on pleasant routes then on safe
>> routes. To clarify we are talking primary about utility cycling here.
>> And the order of preferences here is pretty clear:
>> 1. safety
>> 2. velocity
>> 3. pleasantness
>
> I think those are your preferences.
>
Road safety is a big issue and its the number one reason (surveys) for
people to use segregated facilities.
>
>> Most of the cycle facilities built in Germany dont meet one of the
>> above criteria. I dont even understand why people think that a marking
>> on the road (cycle lanes) in the door opening zone could be more
>> pleasant than riding without marking. Knowing the risks of facilities
>> makes it far more unpleasant to use them.
>
> Bad lanes are dangerous. They're not necessary. I won't ride in a door
> zone, lane or not. I've instructed my kids explicitly to stay out of bad
> lanes. The worst lanes around here (Boston) were installed by cycling
> "advocates" who knew better. There has been at least one dooring
> fatality. I'm not naive.
>
The most facilities I know dont meet any guidelines regarding width etc.
and many of them are mandatory. And even the lawful built facilities
worsen safety (ok you dont care so much about safety). I have enough of
that shit.
>>
>>>> The only consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong
>>>> perception. Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic.
>>>> Educate car drivers to respect cyclists right to the road.
>>>
>>> You can't "educate" around the reality of mixing 2 ton vehicles with
>>> vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
>>>
>>
>> Why not? I think a neglected factor is the enforcement of traffic laws
>> especially on motorized traffic.
>
> Of course it is, and there are social reasons for that. Believing that
> motorists can be calmed through education or enforcement is unrealistic.
> It's not like it hasn't been tried.
>
Thats not really true. The positive road safety effects of Speed limits
and there enforcement for instance have been proven all around the
world. Traffic laws have become more severe in the last decades of
course there is much to be done.
>>
>>>> And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists
>>>> like on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer
>>>> infrastructure that is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek
>>>> for mixed traffic and not segregation.
>>>
>>> People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
>>> perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction.
>>
>>
>> I really think you are making that up or you are confused, not many
>> people want their own or the health of their kids be at risk for more
>> pleasantness. The order of preferences is pretty clear (see above).
>
> So you say, but calling me a liar and stupid isn't very persuasive, but
> it's typical with ideologues.
>
>
Im just asking for some kind of empirical proof for you claims (survey).
Calling someone ideologues its typical for people who dont want to deal
with an well built argument.
Again you are talking about route choice and not travel mode choice. Or
do I have to explain what "travel mode choice" means?
>
>>>>>>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in
>>>>>> Copenhagen.
>>>>>
>>>>> I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
>>>> the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
>>>> making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/fear-of-cycling-04-new-cycling-spaces.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So I guess he's (the blogger) an "idiot" until he posts something you
>>> agree with...
>>>
>>
>>
>> He didnt write the article above and in his comments he showed that he
>> did not understand it. So he is an idiot all the time.
>
> The article author did say:
>
> "3. I agree, many people (understandably, given a fear of cycling)
> prefer to cycle away from motorized traffic. I agree, we should provide
> these kinds of facilities, as seen in Dk and the NLs. Such facilities
> promote cycling."
>
I think the author is either very diplomatic or he does not think his
own argument to the end. Anyway this point is contradicting the message
of his essay. I wanted to write him my self when I read it maybe I will do.
> I think "fear of cycling" should be replaced by "fear of cycling around
> motor vehicles", but even then it would be a distortion. Some may fear
> traffic, other may just find it unpleasant.
>
>
I know a bunch of people who know about the dangers of facilities and
dont think they are safe or pleasant. Being routed in the blind spot of
right turning lorries or slow down at every intersection and gateway
despite you have right of way cause some turning driver might not
anticipate you doesnt sound safe nor pleasant. And I could go on and on
with other problems.
In Germany we have a saying "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber" in
English "Fear is a bad counsellor". It refers to the high rate of
irrationality associated with fear. Bicycle Advocates should not make
this irrationality their on and demand facilitation.
>>
>>> The article is old news (as are so many of the quotes and cites --
>>> literally). People have been fretting over cyclists being banned from
>>> the roads for almost 100 years. It's a Forrester bogey-man. It's fear
>>> mongering, nothing more.
>>>
>>
>>
>> BS its not my fault people ignore facts since decades sadly there are
>> no new news on the topic.
>>
>>
>>> Besides, what the argument boils down to is that you feel people should
>>> do something they don't want to do (ride in the street) to protect your
>>> right to ride in the street. That's like telling people who don't like
>>> broccoli that they should eat it anyway because you (who like it) don't
>>> want the broccoli farmers to go out of business. When they complain they
>>> don't like it, you tell them that's immaterial, it's good for them.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nope Im advocating for the right of cyclists to ride safe and to know
>> the truth (I know you cant handle the truth) about safer cycling. Its
>> more like people want bananas and are given cucumbers. I just point
>> out that a banana is not a cucumber.
>
> Again, insults aside, I think you are exaggerating the safety issues.
Not really. Cycling and safety or road safetysis a big issue. In Some
states even helmets are mandatory (the hole helmet discussion is a
safety discussion). So your nice facilities might not only worsen your
safety it might also bring you mandatory helmet laws.
And the differences between the safety of cyclists are very high.
Especially somebody in the US should be alarmed about the building of
unsafe facilities cause you allready have the highest risk of fatality
per miles traveld in the western world (about 7 times higher then in
Germany). In Germany and Western Europe the discussion about segregated
facilities have always been a discussion about the safety of cyclists.
Its even part of the German traffic code that the mandatory facilities
are explicitly bound on the claim they have positive safety.
> There is a divergence of "truth" about the relative safety of various
> facilities, but in absolute terms, cycling is safe enough that the net
> public health benefit will be positive. You can claim (luridly) that
> "facilities kill", but then the counter-claim (equally lurid) can be
> made that sedentary life "kills" just as surely. I think it's far from
> certain that facilities must carry a higher risk.
>
Its pretty certain, we have seen that even under the circumstances of a
high safety in numbers effect the safety of cyclists is worsened by
segregation.
>>
>>
>>>>> I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
>>>>> people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
>>>>> that, just watch what they use.
>>>
>>>> Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
>>>> implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences,
>>>> economics, psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on
>>>> and on....
>>>
>>> You want to predict people's preferences, I just want to accommodate
>>> them. I don't need to have predictive models to do that. You presume to
>>> know better, I don't.
>>
>>
>> If you want to proof your hypothesis or measure effects of
>> infrastructure on cycle use you need explanatory models the rest is
>> just speculating around.
>
> No, you just have to observe the popularity of facilities.
Nope, I explained it now several times I wont do it again.
>
>>>>>> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
>>>>>> with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
>>>>>> facilities. Maybe you can name a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
>>>> roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want
>>>> to get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
>>>> accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
>>>> and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns.
>>>> Why the fuck would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing
>>>> they came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle
>>>> crossings: a before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we
>>>> have been discussing. Smells fishy.
>>>
>>> You asked for an example.
>>
>>
>> And you came up with a pretty crappy one.
>>
>>> I really don't have the time to critique all
>>> the studies. I merely point out that there is a divergence of opinion.
>>
>>
>> The tendency of the studies regarding safety effects of cycling
>> infrastructure is pretty clear.
>
> No, they're all over the map.
You are dreaming.
>
> Again, people choose additional risk all the time. It's not the
> overriding concern. You are attempting to portray in black and white an
> issue with many shades of gray.
Of course people choose risk for them self and sometimes for there kids
on purpose. But this is not what happens when they use segregated
facilities. Most people will explicitly tell you they use them cause
they are much safer and for the same reason they demand them to be
built... Your situation in the US might be different (would surprise me
and as far as I have seen the discussion about facilities in the USis
highly associated with safety).
>
>>>>>> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
>>>>>> of primary research about the topic.
>>>>>> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
>>>>>> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of
>>>>>> cyclists.
>>>
>>> Yes, I've had no luck finding these in English, so I can't comment other
>>> than to repeat the above.
>
>> Dont play dumb. There is enough English material on the issue. In the
>> above German studies the researchers where pretty astonished that year
>> long federal and local policies had high negative safety implications
>> for cyclists.
>
> Again, you're insults aren't helpful. The specific studies you cited
> have been cited before. I had attempted to find them in English at one
> time, I'm not going to spend more time again.
>
Try this one:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
Some times there are alternatives but the good routes are highly
facilitated. You would love it.
>
>
>>>> It can be very stressful if car drivers try to insist to use them.
>>>> Often there is no alternative route and Im definitely not going to
>>>> shitty side streets full of potholes. I dont think I have to just
>>>> accept the fact that motor traffic oriented Transportation planners
>>>> and politicians think cyclist should ride in the gutter or on the curb
>>>> of the road and people think this is safe because they have been told
>>>> for decades. Im speaking out the interest of all cyclists if I insist
>>>> of there right to ride safe. If most cyclists and motorist dont know
>>>> how safe riding work it is another problem.
>
> It seems you have safety on the brain. I don't think about it
> particularly. Even in the US, with it's relatively lousy bike safety
> record, I've never worried about it. I don't think it's as dangerous as
> driving.
>
In general its a question how you measure or compare the safety of
different activities. But I think for the US it doesnt make any
difference how you measure or compare, cycling would not look that good.
You have helmet laws in some states and want to tell me safety is no
issue...
Just talk to people, listen what politician say or what news papers
write on the issue. Safety is all over the place.
> If people find "road sharing" unpleasant, then I think their
> preferences should be accommodated with a budget that reflects (perhaps
> with some growth factored in) modal share and overall social benefit.
> There is nothing exclusive about traffic reduction/calming and cycling
> facilities -- they are quite compatible, some say necessarily
> complimentary, a sentiment I'd agree with.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I'm also against mandating the use of those
>>>>> facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
>>>>> don't see what's so complicated.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
>>>> explained it.
>>>
>>> I have followed your "explanations". They're really just your personal
>>> preferences. Calling them universal doesn't make them so.
>>>
>>>
>> Right to life and physical integrity are pretty universal to me as is
>> my right to use the road with the vehicle I choose without being
>> discriminated.
>
> I don't find the "discrimination" argument compelling, except in the
> "mandatory use" statutes. Where ample alternate routes exist, I just
> don't see the case at all. That describes my reality (US urban). If
> there's any discrimination, it's denying facilities to those who prefer
> them and contribute to infrastructure costs via taxes.
>
There is already infrastructure its called the road. As stated above
cycle lanes are kind of mandatory by principle and car drivers are
trying to sanction you for defections. Regarding cycle path its almost
the same. Till 1997 every facility in Germany was mandatory and a lot of
people still think they are and behave like it. Its a little complicated
subject and difficult to explain. But if there are facilitated routes
you lose your right to the road belief me or not.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right
>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand the
>>>>> fuss over a possible slight decline in safety
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
>>>> Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
>>>> facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
>>>> only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
>>>> conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
>>>> this a slight declines in safety?
>>>
>>> I'm unfamiliar with those specific studies. The study you originally
>>> cited (Copenhagen) was 110%, not 300% or 1200%.
>>
>>
>> In Countries like DK and NL there is a pretty large safety in numbers
>> effect working in favor of cyclists. So the negative safety effects of
>> segregation tend to be smaller cause everybody is allways expecting
>> cyclists. In Germany we dont have that and in the US it is far worse.
>
> That's not what I've seen in places like Portland, OR.
What? There is no safety in numbers effect in Portland?
>
>
>> Negative safety effects of facilitation have been much bigger in
>> Germany and other countries and the same will happen in the US. The
>> smallest worsening of safety will happen by the building of cycle
>> lanes but I dont really understand why people claim its more pleasant
>> than riding in mixed traffic. For me cycle lanes are more unpleasant
>> cause you are often expected to ride in the door opening zone and
>> motorized traffic is overtaking in closer proximity.
>
> Ideally, a bike lane is only a space prohibited for use by motor
> vehicles. A good lane doesn't put cyclists in the door zone, a bad lane
> does. You can't judge all lanes by bad ones.
I see the reality in Germany I dont want them, even the "best" are worse
than no lane no point to argue.
>
> The idea of segregation of traffic by speed via lanes is well understood
> and accepted by motorists. Complications arise at intersections where
> the rules are unclear/unfamiliar. Cycle lanes have many drawbacks, but
> at the same time often represent a "take back" of road space, which in
> itself may have a traffic calming effect. Bad lanes are generally
> created when there simply isn't enough room for them, either because the
> road is too narrow to share or the "take back" wasn't aggressive enough.
> Reducing lane count, or even lane width, is very difficult politically
> here in the US.
>
>>> Still, the argument is
>>> specious because it is possible to design safe segregated facilities,
>>> and making cycling 100% safe does nothing if the modal share is 0.
>>>
>> I dont think this scenario is of any interest at all.
>
> No, of course not, but it's an extrapolation.
>
>>
>>
>>> In this country, with modal share at 0.5%, very little can be justified,
>>> either in facilities or reduction of motor vehicle speeds or densities.
>>> The fate of cycling rests on the possibility of drastically increasing
>>> modal share. Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
>>> decades, with little to show for it.
>>
>>
>> They came up with pretty good advice how to ride safe in mixed traffic
>> that's not bad.
>
> Sure, if they stopped there and didn't tack on the ideology.
>
You call it ideology, but finding measures to ride safe in a car
dominated society is pure pragmatism for me. That they dont want
facilities its only natural not ideologues.
>>
>>> Finally, vehicular cycling
>>> ideologues are being pushed out
>>
>>
>> Pushed out where?
>
> Boston, Dallas, etc.
I think you are confusing cause and effect.
>
>> I dont think there have been many in administrations regarding
>> transportation planning, land use planning and transport policies in
>> general.
>
> They had been dominant in US cycling advocacy (LAB, etc.) for decades.
>
>
>> This are the key fields that determine modal split. Have they even
>> been relevant regarding road safety education? In other words they
>> developed methods how to ride safe and not how to increase the number
>> of cyclists, you are confused.
>
> No, ad hominem aside, I'm aware of "Effective Cycling" curricula and
> courses. It is useful stuff, orthogonal to the facilities debate (or
> should be). It hasn't trained a whole lot of cyclists in the US, however.
>
You would have less fatalities if every kid (and grown up) would be
trained in effective cycling and people wouldn't fear motorized traffic
so much they need segregation.
>>> and cycling modal share is increasing.
>>
>>
>> Nice scapegoat you are constructing.
>
> ??? Modal share is growing in several US cities. It was originally
> attributed to the spike in gas prices, but didn't revert when prices
> fell. All the talk (and implementation) in cities like New York &
> Boston, for examples, has been on facilities. This is a huge change.
> Boston had 0 miles of bike lane until very recently. This was the direct
> result of opposition by vehicular cyclists who dominated the dialog.
>
Its always the same. When more people start cycling the first thing they
demand is own facilities we have been through it in Germany and other
countries. If you want infrastructure demand parking facilities they are
much more useful. Anyway in twenty years you will look back and see how
naive you where with your damn facilities. Boston has the best
requirements to be a bike city. Its relatively plain, it has short ways
etc.. Cycling is supposed to be growing more or less naturally. You dont
need your own lanes etc. you need parking facilties at work etc.. As far
as I have seen (for Boston) the bike is highly competing with food
travel and public transport. Give the cyclists parking places and more
will use the bike instead of walking and using public transport, you
might even get some motorist involved.
For the greater Boston area.
You are partly right but your argument does not justify the exclusion of
any kind of universal vehicle code. And I dont think you can blame it on
the vehicularists that the law is enforced. In general there are two
reasons why law enforcements concentrates on cyclists 1. There number is
increasing 2. Season (see one).
>>> That's the
>>> consequence of "vehicular equivalence". I don't need to speculate about
>>> potential negative consequences, they've already occurred. What
>>> "vehicularists" have lobbied for (and won, here in Boston), is an
>>> increase in bicycle moving violation fines and enforcement ("same rules,
>>> same roads"). I'm ecstatic to see them go. Cyclists are not the equals
>>> of motorists, we have much greater vulnerabilities and far fewer
>>> liabilities. To lump them all together as "vehicles" is just nuts. But
>>> it's the predictable kind of nuttiness that "vehicular cycling"
>>> advocates create.
>>
>>
>> I dont think you are right and just work on your building of a
>> scapegoat. It can be easily argued that the dangers of cyclist for
>> other road users is relatively small so should be fines. But I do
>> think operating a bicycle should not follow traffic rules. Traffic
>> rules and there following are a necessity to raise predictability of
>> behaviour.
>
> "Predictability of behavior" raises motorist speeds. Urban motor traffic
> is generally characterized by a high ratio of peak to average speeds --
> bad news for cyclists and pedestrians, and of no real advantage to
> motorists. I think "predictability of behavior" should be deliberately
> and significantly reduced.
You are partly right here and I might have chosen the wrong words. I
mostly meant visibility (of course in situations of making a turn you
should be highly predictable). I my self ad a little bit of
unpredictability to my driving by trying appear kind of insecure
(oscilating? more than I need to). But the point is there is an optimal
ratio between perceived risk and real risk. A cyclist in mixed traffic
is perceived as much more vulnerable (by riders and drivers) as an
cyclist on cycle lane for instance. In reality its exactly reverse. The
effect is drivers will drive faster and closer to cyclist in streets
with lanes and riders will feel saver then they really are. So youre
advocating for infrastructure contradicts your reducing predictability
argument.
>
>
>> With your position nobody will ever take cyclists serious as equal
>> road users. If cyclists take your viewpoint they always will be
>> weirdos with a kid toy.
>
> You may have a point with purely recreational cyclists who flaunt that
> status with their flashy clothes and bikes. They are, literally, playing
> in the streets after all. Not that I have a problem with that. I don't
> much care about being taken "seriously" or as an "equal". Those things
> should be self-evident and are historical rights.
Cant buy me nothing with should. I care about my equal right to use the
road as an cyclist because its not self-evident for many other road
users, politicians the media etc...
> Insisting on special
> behaviors to accommodate motorists erodes our true right of way, which
> goes back centuries. Your attitude makes you a motorist apologist.
WTF are you talking about?
> That's the only logical conclusion. You appear to be so brainwashed by
> car culture that you can't think outside the box.
>
Ok, logic isnt your field of expertise. We are living in a car dominated
society and traffic system and I have to deal with that for now and
sadly at least for the next one or two decades (cause I have to
participate in traffic). Vehicular cyclists have developed some
principles to deal with this situation and I have found by experience
that they are mostly right. If you have a need to think outside of the
box stop babbling about the advantages bicycle infrastructure, everybody
is doing it. Sadly my ideas and demands are to much outside of the box
for most people. Your thinking is so deep inside the box I can hardly
recognise it.
> There's a frequent claim that most car-bike crashes are caused by
> cyclist "scofflaws", but careful studies don't support that conclusion.
Of course not and I dont claim something like that. In Germany
statistics show that only 25% of car-bike crashes are caused by cyclists.
> "Vehicular equivalence" is an unfortunate consequence of vehicular
> cycling dogma. The ultimate result is that we are forced to comply with
> rules and road engineering that were designed with motor vehicle
> convenience as the highest priority. Queuing up with idling lines of
> cars and trucks on a hot summer rush hour or getting sloshed with gritty
> brine in the winter from a semi at my elbow isn't my idea of fun or
> progress. Good luck selling that vision.
My vision is car free cities. You misunderstood.
Frank
Edward Dolan
"Frank Studt" <frank...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:i4rh1c$kfj$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>> Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>>>> Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
shit because it is too long. Fuck the both of you dumb assholes all the way
to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have to work
at it?
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Clams
>
> Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
> shit because it is too long. Fuck the both of you dumb assholes all the way
> to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have to work
> at it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
Does everyone in MN have your 12-year old, limited vocabulary or do you
simply represent the ignorant?
Edward Dolan
"Clams" <"Clams"@drunkenclam.com> wrote in message
news:i4rojt$s11$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
>> shit because it is too long. Fuck the both of you dumb assholes all the
>> way to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have
>> to work at it?
>
> simply represent the ignorant?
Vocabulary is neither here nor there. What counts is mind, something that
neither you nor TM possess.
No one in their right mind pays any attention to this god damn fucking TM.
He likes to write about monkeys mostly. That is because he is into fucking
them. He is depraved, but more importantly, he is insane. In short, just
another poor crazy Usenet bastard!
TM is nothing but a poor crazy bastard and if anyone wants to put him out of
his misery, he will have my blessing. But surely there is some motorist in
Florida who will accommodate us. And the sooner the better!
Listen up TM, you god damn fucking stupid son of a bitch! There is no point
in originating threads since all you have on your miniscule brain is one
subject. Find your thread, and then stay on it for all eternity. That way
you will have the freedom to consort with only your fellow idiots in peace.
If you continue to originate threads which have no new interest, I will step
on your posts and make you out to be the poor dumb bastard that you are. I
will only do copy and paste since you are not worthy of any kind of thought
on my part.
You are the village idiot, but at least if you have the grace to keep your
god damn fucking shit on a single thread, I will not bother you. Otherwise I
will bother you no end and I do not care if I take down the entire
newsgroup. You are one of the supreme assholes of all time and you have no
business being here at all.
Find something else to do. Why not fuck all those monkeys you are constantly
referencing. That ought to keep you busy for a few years at least.
Fucking Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
> In Germany we have a saying "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber" in
English "Fear is a bad counsellor". It refers to the high rate of
irrationality associated with fear. Bicycle Advocates should not make
this irrationality their on and demand facilitation.
Not sure if this is from Studt or Cole, but whoever it is from marks one as
an idiot. Fear is the best signpost of what is dangerous. It has nothing to
do with irrationality. It has to do with thousands of years of instinct.
Anyone who does not take heed of his fear is a fool.
But have not the Germans been reckless in the recent past? They should have
paid more attention to their fears instead of boldly dashing forward. If
they had, they might have avoided the destruction of their country by the
Americans and the Russians. Germany in 1945 was a mess. Without American
aid, they would have been slow to recover.
Peter Cole
> Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>> Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.
>>
>> Perhaps for you, not for me. If I'm in a hurry, I take the street, if
>> not I take a track (if there's one). I like having choices.
>>
> You are confusing travel mode choice with route choice.
I stand corrected. Let me amend. If I'm in an even bigger hurry, I'll drive.
> Road safety is a big issue and its the number one reason (surveys) for
> people to use segregated facilities.
Yes, but as I said, people (most) aren't statisticians. Perceived safety
is a preference, but so is a pleasant immediate environment.
> The most facilities I know dont meet any guidelines regarding width etc.
> and many of them are mandatory. And even the lawful built facilities
> worsen safety (ok you dont care so much about safety). I have enough of
> that shit.
Bad facilities are bad (unsafe), no one is saying otherwise.
>> Believing that
>> motorists can be calmed through education or enforcement is unrealistic.
>> It's not like it hasn't been tried.
>>
> Thats not really true. The positive road safety effects of Speed limits
> and there enforcement for instance have been proven all around the
> world. Traffic laws have become more severe in the last decades of
> course there is much to be done.
This seems much more true outside of the US. In the US there is strong
resistance to traffic calming and heightened enforcement (cameras, etc.).
>>>> People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
>>>> perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction.
>
> Im just asking for some kind of empirical proof for you claims (survey).
> Again you are talking about route choice and not travel mode choice. Or
> do I have to explain what "travel mode choice" means?
No, but the 2 are related. Here's an article that discusses mode share
and its complications:
http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~kkrizek/pdfs/Analyzing_effect.pdf
"The evidence here suggests that bicycle facilities significantly
impacted levels of bicycle commuting. In the aggregate, areas closer
to new bicycle facilities showed more of an increase in bicycle mode
share than areas farther away..."
>>>>> Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
>>>>> the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
>>>>> making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.
>> The article author did say:
>>
>> "3. I agree, many people (understandably, given a fear of cycling)
>> prefer to cycle away from motorized traffic. I agree, we should provide
>> these kinds of facilities, as seen in Dk and the NLs. Such facilities
>> promote cycling."
> I think the author is either very diplomatic or he does not think his
> own argument to the end. Anyway this point is contradicting the message
> of his essay. I wanted to write him my self when I read it maybe I will do.
Perhaps he's just more moderate and pragmatic in his thinking.
> In Germany we have a saying "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber" in
> English "Fear is a bad counsellor". It refers to the high rate of
> irrationality associated with fear. Bicycle Advocates should not make
> this irrationality their on and demand facilitation.
And yet highly facilitated Germany is 10x safer than the US.
Correlation is not causality, I know, and there are many other
differences between the 2 countries, but still....
>> Again, insults aside, I think you are exaggerating the safety issues.
>
>
> Not really. Cycling and safety or road safetysis a big issue. In Some
> states even helmets are mandatory (the hole helmet discussion is a
> safety discussion). So your nice facilities might not only worsen your
> safety it might also bring you mandatory helmet laws.
I would love to achieve the safety record of Germany.
> And the differences between the safety of cyclists are very high.
> Especially somebody in the US should be alarmed about the building of
> unsafe facilities cause you allready have the highest risk of fatality
> per miles traveld in the western world (about 7 times higher then in
> Germany). In Germany and Western Europe the discussion about segregated
> facilities have always been a discussion about the safety of cyclists.
> Its even part of the German traffic code that the mandatory facilities
> are explicitly bound on the claim they have positive safety.
I would repeat my above comment.
> Its pretty certain, we have seen that even under the circumstances of a
> high safety in numbers effect the safety of cyclists is worsened by
> segregation.
I disagree. I haven't seen conclusive proof of that at all.
>>> The tendency of the studies regarding safety effects of cycling
>>> infrastructure is pretty clear.
>>
>> No, they're all over the map.
>
> You are dreaming.
No. You yourself have cited studies showing a high risk (5-10x) and a
low (1.1x). The lower one is more recent and seems better controlled,
but you discount it.
>> Again, people choose additional risk all the time. It's not the
>> overriding concern. You are attempting to portray in black and white an
>> issue with many shades of gray.
>
>
> Of course people choose risk for them self and sometimes for there kids
> on purpose. But this is not what happens when they use segregated
> facilities. Most people will explicitly tell you they use them cause
> they are much safer and for the same reason they demand them to be
> built... Your situation in the US might be different (would surprise me
> and as far as I have seen the discussion about facilities in the USis
> highly associated with safety).
I agree that most facilities, as implemented with best practices, may
introduce additional hazards. The questions are the degree of those
hazards, and whether those hazards could be further mitigated by design
and/or education. I also don't think it an unreasonable approach to
consider overall mortality, not just cycling mortality in isolation.
> Try this one:
>
> http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
Again, the results are all over the map.
Just to cite one of the papers, on cycling in Helsinki, accident rates
were found to be a bit higher for lanes, but much lower for paths (45%
of mileage and 56% of the accidents, and 26%/8%, respectively). Hardly a
slam dunk argument against facilities, with "vehicular"/road cycling at
23%/23%.
>> If there are no alternate routes (to facilities), I could see your
>> point, but speaking to urban riding in the US, it's hard to visualize
>> such a situation. There are simply so many routes in the urban grid that
>> the choices are plenty. I can't speak about Germany, and I don't
>> particularly care about rural and suburban cycling (in this context).
>
>
> Some times there are alternatives but the good routes are highly
> facilitated. You would love it.
I might. I would certainly love to achieve Germany's modal share and
safety statistics. More importantly, perhaps older and younger cyclists
and female cyclists might like it much more.
> In general its a question how you measure or compare the safety of
> different activities. But I think for the US it doesnt make any
> difference how you measure or compare, cycling would not look that good.
> You have helmet laws in some states and want to tell me safety is no
> issue...
I'm not saying safety is no issue. I'm saying that cycling is dismally
low in the US, and I'm most interested in improving that. Hopefully, the
"safety in numbers" effect all by itself would dramatically improve the
degree of hazard.
>> I don't find the "discrimination" argument compelling, except in the
>> "mandatory use" statutes. Where ample alternate routes exist, I just
>> don't see the case at all. That describes my reality (US urban). If
>> there's any discrimination, it's denying facilities to those who prefer
>> them and contribute to infrastructure costs via taxes.
>>
>
> There is already infrastructure its called the road. As stated above
> cycle lanes are kind of mandatory by principle and car drivers are
> trying to sanction you for defections. Regarding cycle path its almost
> the same. Till 1997 every facility in Germany was mandatory and a lot of
> people still think they are and behave like it. Its a little complicated
> subject and difficult to explain. But if there are facilitated routes
> you lose your right to the road belief me or not.
Where I am, when bike lanes are installed, it is motorists who lose a
part of the road. There is already a law on the books (US universal
vehicle code) which states that cyclists must remain as "far right as
practicable". This is a vaguely worded law that most cops and motorists
(and usually cyclists) interpret as just "stay out of the way" of
motorists. Any change from this deplorable state of affairs would seem
an improvement. As far as "driver sanctions" go, I think the battle has
been long lost in the US. It can only improve from here.
>>> In Countries like DK and NL there is a pretty large safety in numbers
>>> effect working in favor of cyclists. So the negative safety effects of
>>> segregation tend to be smaller cause everybody is allways expecting
>>> cyclists. In Germany we dont have that and in the US it is far worse.
>>
>> That's not what I've seen in places like Portland, OR.
>
> What? There is no safety in numbers effect in Portland?
Yes, apparently there is, that's my point. So the US need not be
different from DK & NL.
> I see the reality in Germany I dont want them, even the "best" are worse
> than no lane no point to argue.
Your's doesn't seem to be the majority opinion, in DK or US.
>>>>Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
>>>> decades, with little to show for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> They came up with pretty good advice how to ride safe in mixed traffic
>>> that's not bad.
>>
>> Sure, if they stopped there and didn't tack on the ideology.
>>
>
> You call it ideology, but finding measures to ride safe in a car
> dominated society is pure pragmatism for me. That they dont want
> facilities its only natural not ideologues.
"Natural" for some perhaps, but apparently not most.
>>>> Finally, vehicular cycling
>>>> ideologues are being pushed out
>>>
>>>
>>> Pushed out where?
>>
>> Boston, Dallas, etc.
>
>
> I think you are confusing cause and effect.
I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you're just not familiar with the
stories:
"And in 2006, he had the last bicycle lane in the city ripped out.
Dallas, under his vision, was becoming a dream city for "vehicular
cycling.""
"In 2008, Bicycling magazine rated the city as the country's worst place
to ride a bicycle—not exactly the sort of publicity you're looking for
when your job title is bike coordinator."
"In 2005, desperate to inspire the Dallas bicycle advocacy community,
Summer launched "Cycle Dallas," a personal blog to promote vehicular
cycling as the best way to ride. It wouldn't be long before the city
officials discovered the blog and realized that a city employee was
sculpting policy based on personal belief, not popular positions."
"In November 2008, Summer was removed from his position as bicycle
coordinator and transferred to another department. A month later, the
city pledged to support and partially finance a $300,000 plan to
overhaul the old bike plan. Bike lanes would get a second chance in Dallas."
"They consider Boston a prime example of what they see as the league's
wrong-headedness. For many years, a vehicular cyclist was the bicycle
coordinator there until Bicycling magazine rated Boston as the nation's
worst city for cycling. The old bike coordinator was replaced in 2007,
and the city immediately installed five miles of bicycle lanes and
pledged to build more. Boston moved off the worst list, and Dallas took
its place in 2008."
>> No, ad hominem aside, I'm aware of "Effective Cycling" curricula and
>> courses. It is useful stuff, orthogonal to the facilities debate (or
>> should be). It hasn't trained a whole lot of cyclists in the US, however.
>>
>
> You would have less fatalities if every kid (and grown up) would be
> trained in effective cycling
Yes,
> and people wouldn't fear motorized traffic
> so much they need segregation.
Maybe, but it would never make the experience pleasant.
> Its always the same. When more people start cycling the first thing they
> demand is own facilities we have been through it in Germany and other
> countries.
As I've said, I'll take Germany, gladly.
> Boston has the best
> requirements to be a bike city. Its relatively plain, it has short ways
> etc.. Cycling is supposed to be growing more or less naturally. You dont
> need your own lanes etc. you need parking facilties at work etc.. As far
> as I have seen (for Boston) the bike is highly competing with food
> travel and public transport. Give the cyclists parking places and more
> will use the bike instead of walking and using public transport, you
> might even get some motorist involved.
That's not the conclusion the majority of cyclists in Boston reached.
There's no reason Boston can't achieve the modal share of Portland.
Vehicular cycling just wasn't very persuasive (nor in Portland).
>> Sweeping generalizations aside, I can't speak for the entire US, but I
>> live in a small city (90,000) 6 miles from downtown Boston (600,000). My
>> family lives perhaps 75% car-free, and does a lot of utility and
>> recreational cycling (often combining the two). We frequently use a
>> segregated bike path (despite 2 extra miles) to get to the city. It's a
>> typical early generation path (constructed in the 60's) with all the
>> usual drawbacks -- crappy surface, dangerous intersections,
>> undisciplined users, etc., but we generally prefer it simply because
>> it's more pleasant than the (abundant) alternatives. Since the path
>> isn't consistently plowed (and never sanded) we simply use studded tires
>> in the winter.
>>
>> Our lifestyle isn't common, but it's not particularly difficult, either.
>
>
> For the greater Boston area.
And many other locales in the US, including many cities with much higher
cycling modal share than Boston's measly 1.5%.
> You are partly right but your argument does not justify the exclusion of
> any kind of universal vehicle code. And I dont think you can blame it on
> the vehicularists that the law is enforced.
I think I can, There have been 2 examples: the City of Cambridge (MA)
where advocates insisted on (& got) "crackdowns" on "scofflaw" cyclists.
The cops were only too happy to comply. At the state level, a "same
roads, same rules" law was passed, increasing the fines for bicycle
infractions significantly. Again, the work of the "vehicular" advocates.
>> "Predictability of behavior" raises motorist speeds. Urban motor traffic
>> is generally characterized by a high ratio of peak to average speeds --
>> bad news for cyclists and pedestrians, and of no real advantage to
>> motorists. I think "predictability of behavior" should be deliberately
>> and significantly reduced.
>
>
> You are partly right here and I might have chosen the wrong words. I
> mostly meant visibility (of course in situations of making a turn you
> should be highly predictable). I my self ad a little bit of
> unpredictability to my driving by trying appear kind of insecure
> (oscilating? more than I need to). But the point is there is an optimal
> ratio between perceived risk and real risk. A cyclist in mixed traffic
> is perceived as much more vulnerable (by riders and drivers) as an
> cyclist on cycle lane for instance. In reality its exactly reverse. The
> effect is drivers will drive faster and closer to cyclist in streets
> with lanes and riders will feel saver then they really are. So youre
> advocating for infrastructure contradicts your reducing predictability
> argument.
I don't see how motorists can drive any closer than they do now. The
whole point of segregated facilities is to gain separation. If the
facility results in closer spacing it is a failure by definition.
As to whether segregation raises speeds, I don't think that need be
true. Narrowing the roads is a typical consequence of facilities, which
drivers feel slows them down, which is why they're generally opposed.
>> Insisting on special
>> behaviors to accommodate motorists erodes our true right of way, which
>> goes back centuries. Your attitude makes you a motorist apologist.
>
>
> WTF are you talking about?
>
>
>> That's the only logical conclusion. You appear to be so brainwashed by
>> car culture that you can't think outside the box.
>>
>
> Ok, logic isnt your field of expertise.
Actually, it is (professionally).
> We are living in a car dominated
> society and traffic system and I have to deal with that for now and
> sadly at least for the next one or two decades (cause I have to
> participate in traffic). Vehicular cyclists have developed some
> principles to deal with this situation and I have found by experience
> that they are mostly right.
I agree, where facilities don't exist. VC isn't exactly new, I'm well
aware of the principles and adhere to them in the circumstances where
they are reasonable.
> If you have a need to think outside of the
> box stop babbling about the advantages bicycle infrastructure, everybody
> is doing it. Sadly my ideas and demands are to much outside of the box
> for most people. Your thinking is so deep inside the box I can hardly
> recognise it.
Your thinking is outdated and represents the real bicycle "inferiority
complex."
>> "Vehicular equivalence" is an unfortunate consequence of vehicular
>> cycling dogma. The ultimate result is that we are forced to comply with
>> rules and road engineering that were designed with motor vehicle
>> convenience as the highest priority. Queuing up with idling lines of
>> cars and trucks on a hot summer rush hour or getting sloshed with gritty
>> brine in the winter from a semi at my elbow isn't my idea of fun or
>> progress. Good luck selling that vision.
>
>
> My vision is car free cities. You misunderstood.
Don't hold your breath. In the meantime, I'll settle for "different
roads, different rules".
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
"Respondents have high expectations for bicycling and walking
facilities that are not fully
met. 91.0% of bicyclists and 77.1% of non-bicyclists agree or strongly
agree that they
would like their area to be among the most attractive places for
walking and bicycling in the
U.S. However, 87.9% of bicyclists and 72.1% of non-bicyclists agree or
strongly agree that
they would like to live in a place where more of their daily needs can
be met through
walking and bicycling. Only 60.1% of bicyclists and 50.9% of non-
bicyclists agree or
strongly agree that their area is more attractive for bicycling and
walking than other places
that they know about. Also, 88.1% of bicyclists and 71.4% of non-
bicyclists agree or
strongly agree that they would bike and walk for exercise more if good
facilities were
conveniently located."
Thank you. Whenever I let my bigger parrot loose among the parakeets
they are terrorized. It's my own damn fault. It's parrot nature and
human nature for the big ones to scare the little ones. ;)