Free Upcoming LAB Webinar: How Slower Speeds Will Save Lives

[John Cinatl]

Hi Folks

This LAB webinar notice just posted at 1:20 today - thought some of you might enjoy signing up for it - its free and sounds like an interesting topic.

John

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: League of American Bicyclists <communi...@bikeleague.org>

To: John Cinatl <j.f.c...@sbcglobal.net>

Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 at 01:19:59 PM PDT

Subject: Upcoming webinar: How Slower Speeds Will Save Lives

When the League of American Bicyclists was founded in 1880, one of our biggest campaigns and achievements was the Good Roads Movement. But what is a "good road"?  Neither by 1880 nor 2023 standards could what we have today in the United States be considered "good roads". Certainly not by the metric of safety: roads in the United States saw more than 42,000 deaths in 2021 – the most recent year with national data – with 966 of those deaths being people biking. We know, based on evidence from what works around the world, the elements that make a road a “good road”. Ultimately, a “good road” is a slow road. A slow road is a safe road. And a safe road makes life better for everyone.  That's why the League is launching a new campaign for better roads and better biking, the “Slow Roads Save Lives” campaign. “Slow Roads Saves Lives” calls on everyone – you, your neighbors, local leaders, traffic engineers – to embrace slowing down to save lives.  Why are slow roads good roads? How do we slow down our roads to save lives? And what can you do to join the campaign?  Join the League on September 21, 2023 at 3 pm ET to as we launch the “Slow Roads Save Lives” campaign with two incredible advocates for safer streets: Amy Cohen, co-Founder of Families for Safe Streets, who successfully led efforts to lower speed limits in New York City to 25 miles per hour and is currently campaigning to allow 20 mph speed limits in the city. Natalie Draisin, Director of the North American Office and United Nations Representative for the FIA Foundation, who has been instrumental in the UN’s Streets for Life campaign calling for low speeds on urban streets. Register for the Launch Webinar » Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Copyright © 2023 League of American Bicyclists, All rights reserved. Thanks for supporting the League of American Bicyclists' mission to create a Bicycle Friendly America for everyone. Our mailing address is: League of American Bicyclists 1612 K Street NW Suite 1102 Washington, DC 20006 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

[Scott Mace]

Listening in: Natalie Drasin: "The only way to cycle safely is slow speeds." Hmmm

Scott Mace

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/1277809912.1817283.1695069909793%40mail.yahoo.com.

[John Eldon]

Specifically slow motor vehicle speeds. 

John E. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/c8584395-1805-1bee-eb51-5a9194154c9b%40wiredmuse.com.

[Scott Mace]

Then there's this:

E-nough

Electric bikes and gas-powered mopeds are reversing more than a decade’s progress in making New York’s dense streets safer for pedestrians and traditional cyclists.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/e-bikes-reversing-progress-in-making-ny-streets-safer-for-pedestrians-and-traditional-cyclists

Scott Mace

[Mike Lasché]

Dear all,

Unfortunately, this campaign by LAB is another indication of how that organization has lost its way.   Instead of campaigning for the rights of cyclists to use the roads, in concert with other road users, they have been sucked in by the Washington D.C. Beltway mentality, far removed from the rest of America………….and are now campaigning to slow motorists down.    

This effort isis not only doomed to failure but is a horrible political mistake.   It pits cyclists against motorists.    With motorists comprising an overwhelming majority of road users, who do you think is going to win that fight?    Does anyone remember what happened when the government tried to enforce a 55 mph speed limit?

Mike Lasche

Florida Walks and Bikes

[Mike Lasché]

The two teenagers who murdered a cyclist recently, a retired police chief, as he cycled in a bike lane near Las Vegas, have appeared in court.

Earlier in the day, they had intentionally hit another cyclist, a 72 year old man who survived.

As part of their crime spree, they had stolen 4 other cars.

The older one, the one with a face tattoo, apparently bragged that he expected to be back on the street within 30 days.

Mike Lasche

Florida Walks and Bikes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx52YKPpN7w

[Jim Baross]

I agree with the League's and others efforts to promote establishment, acceptance, and enforcement of more reasonable/slower motor vehicle speed limits where appropriate as a movement toward getting to safer conditions for bicycling, walking, and injury prevention. 

The rights we non-motorized users rely on for use of public roads are easier to utilize when vehicle operators travel at speeds that allow them time and distance to lawfully react to and share space with non-motorized users.

Does Mike have alternative or additional actions to reccomend for the League to pursue?

[Stephen Bingham]

I cannot believe that Mike is suggesting we do nothing about excessive speed limits.  Read this Mike.  And this:

 

 

Stephen Bingham

Co-Director

Sylvia Bingham Fund

www.sylviabinghamfund.org

Coordinator, California Ride of Silence Organizers

Board of Directors, Ride of Silence

Member, Families for Safe Streets/San Francisco

Truck Underride Advocacy TEAM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/5112675D-913B-47C2-A260-A79E9FB1ADC4%40floridawalksandbikes.org.

[John Eldon]

Spot on, Jim. Speed kills, and reduced speed limits do not necessarily pit motorists against bicyclists. Consider neighborhoods in which the (car-owning) residents themselves beg for reductions in speed limits on local roads. 

John E.

[John Eldon]

Under California's soft on crime "catch and release" paradigm, he probably would have been back on the street in a short period of time. I am hoping the Nevada legal system cares a bit more about protecting its own law-abiding citizens. 

John E.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/1E74EEBC-30A0-4720-8BA1-2D6D0867BEEC%40floridawalksandbikes.org.

[Mike Lasché]

Dear Jim,

It is hard to disagree with “more reasonable” or “slower motor vehicle speed limits where appropriate”.

But, many of the slow speed proposals are unreasonable.   For instance, some have proposed a speed limit of 25 mph throughout entire cities.

Or, if one reads Jeff Speck’s 101 Rules for Walkable Cities, one quickly grasps that people like Speck and Duany (who wrote Suburban Nation) are using slow speeds as a Trojan horse for their larger campaign against the car, the suburbs, and traditional American development patterns.    Speck and Duany, like many traditional planners, are horrified by how Americans actually want to live…………..in nice residential neighborhoods, with lawns and roomy houses, far from commercial activity.    Instead, their agenda is to force us to live in what they call “walkable” communities, in high-density, higher buildings, in dense urban cores.     This has been part and parcel of planning for decades as planners, taking a view from 10,000 feet, are horrified that people live in one area, travel to another for work, travel to another for shopping, and travel for other purposes.   They call that “unsustainable” and want us to do most everything all in one place. 

 Their problem is that people don’t want to do that.     People like the suburbs.   People, including most bicyclists, like the mobility afforded by automobiles.   So, planners have been continually frustrated.    And, their latest tactic, carefully disguising their agenda, involves so-called walkability and slow automobile speeds.

Just taking a few examples from Jeff Speck’s screed, here are a few things Speck advocates;   I urge you to read Speck’s book, to verify for yourselves.

1)  Roundabouts should be avoided.   Why?   Because they help cars move faster and more efficiently.

2)  Curb cuts, for drive-thru windows, should be abolished.    Why, see 1).

3)  One way streets should be abolished.  Why, see 1).

4)  Parking lots should be avoided.   Why, see 1).

5)  Instead of stop lights, many intersections should become 4-way stops. Why, see 1).

6)  Designations of arterials, collectors, and local streets should be eliminated. Why, see 1).

7)  Traffic studies should be eliminated.   Why, see 1).

8)  Road standards, such as providing enough width for fire trucks, should be eliminated.    Why, see 1).

9)  Ideally, there should be no major roads but rather, all roads should be roughly the same in size, allowing traffic to have to move through the entire grid.   Why, see 1).

10)   Road standards, in general, should be abolished.    Instead, all road projects should be subject to the final approval of…………you guessed it………….planners.   Not only would this serve to impair auto traffic but it serves another penultimate goal of planners, fretful about being ignored for decades…………….it puts all power, and fat consulting contracts, in the hands of planners.

Do these polices sound reasonable and far-sighted?   Does anyone think they would get far without suffering a backlash?

Since you ask about alternatives I would recommend, I have one.  Let us avoid viewing bicyclists as victims, an abused minority,  or as some protected class with “special needs” unable to act in traffic, who need special protected bikeways to survive.   Let us avoid the “woke” approach of picking winners and losers, trying to confer preference based on race, income, or mode of transportation.  Let us avoid being sucked into the planning agenda of anti-car, anti-motorist, anti-suburbaniesm.    We should adopt the simple approach of a return to AASHTO bicycle standards of 2012, which were largely designed by engineers, whose goal was to ensure that all traffic actors ……….cyclists, trucks, buses, cars, pedestrians and others………”Share the Road” and are served for easy and safe flow.

Mike Lasche

Florida Walks and Bikes

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXdmXb38DfVT2qak%3D8YUFG4w-%2BOQzX46ofYiEapAqu918w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baross]

I'll review AASHTO "bicycle standards of 2012, which were largely designed by ...".

[clint.sandusky]

Mike - Very nicely said!

Clint Sandusky

CABO, District 8 Rep.

Sent from my Galaxy

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXem-NFwmWSCkJ%3Dd-VdXJsFZ%2B3jyEj-t8FiUg9eN1Lc7rw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stephen Bingham]

Are any of you thinking about the fact that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because we  “like the suburbs.  People, including most bicyclists, like the mobility afforded by automobiles.”  We may ‘like’ it but we have now 19 months before we reach the tipping point when catastrophic climate events will become inevitable.  Think about the world your grandchildren will inherit.

 

Steve

 

Stephen Bingham

Co-Director

Sylvia Bingham Fund

www.sylviabinghamfund.org

Coordinator, California Ride of Silence Organizers

Board of Directors, Ride of Silence

Member, Families for Safe Streets/San Francisco

Truck Underride Advocacy TEAM

 

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/6511a265.170a0220.bc7c.17c9%40mx.google.com.

[John Eldon]

I absolutely don't buy the argument that suburbs are inherently evil. I work in high speed telecommunications, and work-from-home reduces many people's carbon footprints. I am also proud of the semiconductor industry's continuing contributions to energy conservation and energy generation. My elder son leads an engineering group developing advanced plasma control technology for nuclear fusion, which promises to kick King Coal off his throne once and for all. Motor vehicles become more efficient all the time. 

It is simply not healthy (mentally or physically) to cram people together into condensed spaces against their will, although doing so does nicely line the pockets of big money real estate investors and developers, while stripping John Q. Public of a significant opportunity to build personal wealth and stability. 

The biggest silver lining is that population growth has reversed in all of the First World countries and many of the Second World, as well. 

The "15-minute city" is a total myth, because we do not uproot with every job change. Let real engineers, not social engineers, do what we do best -- solve problems, just as we did with photochemical smog and ozone layer depletion.   

John E.

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/004801d9f003%2428b8fb40%247a2af1c0%24%40earthlink.net

.

[Mike Lasché]

Dear Stephen,

How many times have we heard “chicken little” in our lifetimes?

In the 1970’s, I heard that we would run out of oil in the 1980’s.

Lester Brown, of WorldWatch, had to pay a $100,000 bet to someone who doubted his “sky is falling” predictions.

Since then, how many times have we heard that society would soon run out of water, or oil, or other key resources, or livable climate, or that we would pollute ourselves to death, even by now.

I am sure that you have a source for your comment about our impending extinction if we don’t stop using oil in 19 months.   Somewhere out there, there is somebody who will say almost anything.    But, we have heard too many over-wrought people “cry wolf” too many times.

Mike Lasche

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/004801d9f003%2428b8fb40%247a2af1c0%24%40earthlink.net.

[Mike Lasché]

Dear Jim,

Thanks for looking into the 2012 AASHTO bicycle facility standards.

I think that you will find that the key difference, besides length, which was required in the new version due the complexities of facilities they were promoting…………..is that the 2012 version allowed wide curb lanes and bike lanes…………while the new version does not just allow, but promotes physically segregated facilities.

Regarding the ideology behind it, as someone who works with state legislators in Florida, which is a state a little more conservative than California, my experience with legislators is that they felt the responsibility to help all of their constituents, of which bicyclists were only a minor part, and of which motorists were the vastly dominant part.    Yes, legislators were happy to help bicyclists but not if this impaired the majority of their constituents.   

It  helped, hugely,  when bicycle facilities proposed by the state transportation agency (FDOT) were based on recommendations by the 2012 AASHTO manual.      This is because the facilities it allowed…………wide curb lanes, shoulders, and painted bike lanes…………..benefitted motorists, pedestrians, buses, trucks, and all other road users in obvious, easily understandable ways.    Wide curb lanes, bike lanes, and shoulders provide easier turning movements for all motor vehicles.   These also provide space for motor vehicle to park on the right, in the event of a breakdown, and let traffic continue.    Wider roads have also been documented to significantly reduce several types of motor vehicle crashes, such as rear-end and sideswipe collisions.   In addition, they help pedestrians by providing an initially safer space when they impulsively cross the street.    In short, these standards, overall, helped all modes move efficiently and safely.    For a fuller list of how these facilities help all traffic, see the enclosure, as originally drafted by Bike Tucson, and amended somewhat by yours truly, through Bicycle/Pedestrian Advocates.

Now, flash forward to some of the latest trends in transportation planning, such as the latest AASHTO manual.     One of the key reasons for “physically separated on-street bikeways”, or as John Allen acronymizes them “PSOBs", aka “protected bike lanes”, is that it takes space away from motorists…………and slows motor vehicle traffic down.    These are complemented by such idiocies as “protected intersections” which encourage cyclists to make “chicken left hand turns” and provide a hellish environment for motor traffic.      

Now, imagine how much more difficult it is to propose bicycle facilities, such as PSOBs, when these hurt motorist traffic.   Now, cyclists are pitted against motorists.   But, this is bad for bicyclists, with motorists forming more than 70-80 times the number of cyclists in most areas.    

And, a larger political problem emerges when the bicycle advocate is no longer working for the good of everybody but instead, is clamoring for their special interest at the expense of everybody else.

As examples of how this works, I am sure you, being in California, are well aware of the many controversies that attended the “Vision Zero” implementation in Los Angeles, where many streets received PSOBs, only to be ripped up later as the PSOBs were widely condemned by the people in those districts.   If you like, I can send you articles about at least 6 different projects that were ripped up in LA alone, but of course, there are many other such “rip-ups” elsewhere in the country.  

Unfortunately, much of bicycle planning has been taken over, in recent years, by various interests who are using bicycling to further their agendas.    There is the health community, typified by people like Anne Lusk, who care only about safety and don’t give a damn about efficient bicycle movement.    There are the planners, such as Duany and Speck, who are using bicycling as a tool in their campaign against the suburbs.   Then, there are some racial/ethnic activists who want to strengthen their campaigns by claiming that bicyclists are another victim of the system.   One example of their influence is how these people have tried to drop the word “enforcement” from the 3 E’s of bicycling, with the absurd claim that all “enforcement”, including enforcement of bicycle laws, is racially biased, and therefore malignant.   The result of this infiltration, by all these groups and others, has been to warp bicycle planning away from the consideration of the bicycle as a legitimate vehicle to an inferior mode which requires all kinds of complicated interventions, all of which benefit the hidden agenda of the infiltrators.

As responsible bicycle advocates, we need to be farsighted.    We need to avoid our movement being hijacked by, as the great John Forester would dub them, the FOTB (Friends of the Bicycle).    As responsible advocates, we need to ensure that we don’t allow our movement to be aligned with policies which will eventually be rejected.    And, we need to ensure that our proposals are proposals that make sense to decision-makers.

Mike Lasche

Florida Walks and Bikes

p.s.  One of the key advantages of shoulders is that, in times of natural disaster and evacuation, they provide a breakdown lane for disable vehicles to get out of the way and let traffic flow.    The typical car is 5.5’ wide and a 4’ bike lane, along with a gutter, allows a car to get out of the way.    But, policies which take these away, in the name of inconveniencing and slowing car traffic, take this key advantage away.   In Florida, this is a key point due to hurricanes.   Of course, in California, you don’t worry about hurricanes so much.    But, you do have to worry about wildfires.   And, as you know, the Paradise fire, which claimed over 80 lives, was preceded by a road diet on the main road.    And, the road diet worked as advertised.   It limited traffic, with tragic consequences.

[Stephen Bingham]

It’s real Mike.  You can start here.  Ain’t no chicken little.

steve

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/38163243-E988-4B8A-927A-55F96588E7B6%40floridawalksandbikes.org.

[Bill SELLIN]

Steve, I don’t think Mike is a ‘climate change denier,’ but points out that creating a unsustainable bicycle infrastructure that pits cycling against the majority of road users (motorists) very well. Politicians will have to address the reality, as people see the doom: pitting us against the majority road users at their detriment as a social engineering tool is not as helpful as getting all roads more usable by cyclists and motorists as the shift to carbon reductions expand… even though I have little hope we can pull off the changes needed to stop the doom.

Bill Sellin

714 943-3678

wa...@sellin.com

"Most of the World 

      is either Downhill or Flat...

On Sep 27, 2023, at 11:42 AM, Stephen Bingham <smbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/019b01d9f172%24660eec00%24322cc400%24%40earthlink.net.

[Frank Lehnerz]

Steve,

What's real? Use your words, be specific!

Do you understand how the various IPCC "reports" work? 

First of all there are three different Working Groups (WGs) , WG1 deals with the physical sciences (and is the one most rooted in anything resembling true science), WG2 with impacts, adaptation, vulnerability on systems at various levels and scales, then there's WG3 which is chock full of softer sciences such as economics and politics. 

Second, each Working Group generates a Full Report, a Technical Report, and a Summary for Policymakers. The Full Report contains the nitty gritty research and since they're thousands of pages long, they get condensed into the shorter Technical Report - often by a different set of authors and reviewers. 

Third, there's the Summary for Policymakers which further condenses the Technical Report. On top of that are press releases and documents such as the one you linked. In each process a game of telephone is played. 

At the end of all of this there's a separate Synthesis Report that covers the entire effort, which is also known as an Assessment Report. 

The link your provided that you demand Mike read says nothing of a nineteen month timeline for anything. It's in fact the Headline Statements for the Summary for Policymakers. It's basically the document designed for hysterics to cherry pick from. 

The various ARs over the years have contained various models for "best case" and "worst case" scenarios. The "worst case" scenarios get all the clicks in the Corporate Press and the despicable politicians looking to gain. These scenarios were previously been deemed highly implausible, yet receive most of the handwaving yet the IPCC have become increasingly more ideological, political, and far less based on anything scientific. 

That all said, the 'burbs aren't gonna boil the oceans but they do have tradeoffs in local health and land-use policies. But Mike and John have correctly point out that they're appealing for a lot of people especially after seeing what is being done to the country's great cities. 

You might want to consider making sure your shithole of a city (SF) and sadly,  state is in working order before ordering the rest of us on how to live our lives. 

[Mike Lasché]

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for sending the article.

You might be interested to know that I used to work as a consultant to the EPA on climate change………and have written text for the IPCC.   I did that as an associate for ICF, which was a contractor to the EPA.

One of the principal perspectives in the field is that there are other factors at work besides human pollution…………e.g. volcanoes, weather patterns, planetary temperature trends……….which may have much larger effects than human behavior.    In addition, there are counterintuitive effects.     As more CO2 is produced, this may provide a richer environment for flora, which may lead to a greater production of O2.

And, as someone who has worked on “models” for the EPA, I can tell you that all such models cannot reliably predict all future behavior.   They are all limited by the data which can be quantified, the availability of data, and their inability to predict many social trends.  No one, AFAIK, is able to predict future human events reliably.

Further, as we have found out with the “chicken littles’ regarding running out of oil, we should not assume that social behavior will remain constant.   People adapt.

Since this is not the forum to engage in a debate about climate change, I don’t intend to get into a protracted debate with you about its causes and effects.

What I do question is the wisdom of America abandoning its transportation system and residential system………….in order to meet the 19 month deadline you mentioned……………..in order to avoid extinction.    And, I question the use of this deadline as a factor in bicycle policy.

mike lasche

[Stephen Bingham]

Thanks Mike.  I also don’t want to belabor this on the CABO site.  Suffice it to say that human actions are a very significant factor in how the climate behaves, though there are other factors as well.  We can’t do much to control volcanoes but can influence human behavior if there’s political will.  So that’s what I focus on.  Cycling advocacy is a critical piece in all that so I appreciate all that CABO and others do to make cycling safer.  As for deadlines, 19 months or 190 months, the point is that the tipping point is on the horizon and we’d do well to adjust human behavior more quickly if we want our great-grandchildren to inherit a livable world.

 

steve

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/0D700DD9-D906-47BF-95C0-34DD1E93ACE9%40floridawalksandbikes.org.