Re: [SDCBC_Ed] Fwd: NYTimes: Why Bicycle Deaths in New York City Are at a 23-Year High

[Karl Rudnick]

I wonder what the cyclist's ages were for the e-bike solo fatalities. Based on my experience, the kids really can control their e-bikes. Pete and Howard have had the 70+ crowd in their classes with some pretty disastrous bike handling. A 65 yr old in Solana Beach test driving an e-bike is our only known e-bike fatality. It is a bit sad that there is no mention that right hooks can also be avoided by education and proper lane positioning. Improving safety is not all about having vertical barrier separation. In fact, e-bikes traveling 20 mph are much safer in traffic than in confined spaces unless the cycle tracks are comfortably wide; additionally a 20 mph bicycle is a danger to other slower bike traffic in confined lanes. The teens that I taught rode 15-20 mph the entire time and either rode in Class II bike lanes or in the travel lane.

-- Karl

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 7:10 AM Jim Baross <jimb...@gmail.com> wrote:

FYI

Did I overlook any mention of education or enforcement - even that Right Hook collisions can be easily avoided by appropriate positioning in a lane?

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stephan Vance 
Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2024, 5:52 AM
Subject: [SDCBC Advocacy] NYTimes: Why Bicycle Deaths in New York City Are at a 23-Year High
To: -

Actually, deaths are down as a percentage of bike trips, which are growing, but ebikes appear to be contributing to the increase in the number of deaths.

Why Bicycle Deaths in New York City Are at a 23-Year High https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/nyregion/nyc-cyclist-deaths-ebike.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Stephan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SDCBC_Education_Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sdcbc_education_co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc_education_committee/CAG28zXd0OAqGSMSib1UqiTCrG3FN0dSnPq6F%2B5v-%3Dy%2BqQTFSyA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Eldon]

... and yet the badvocates curse at me for vehemently opposing "protected" cycletracks, which have now spread like a cancer on the UCSD campus, on roads that already had low traffic speeds and frequent driveway cuts.

John A. Eldon

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to San-Diego-Bicyclis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum/CABkk2QZODYdnNpr%3DMna7jVrvkvsn0oebSMZy-_mHGJkDyRhrCQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baross]

I applaud, support, and often help appropriately improve the physical environment to increase bicycling efficiency, safety, and comfort. (Though the "Devil's in the details" for designs.)

But, isn't it obvious that roads don't kill us; people's misbehavior on roads kills us. Appropriate roadway designs can discourage some misbehavior, and some designs can separate bicyclists and pedestrians from most motorists' mistakes. (Not all. Remember the vehicle that plunged off the Coronado bridge onto people in the park below?) For example, tobacco use was significantly reduced not just by prohibiting its use in public structures but also by a significant social engineering/PR campaign, similar efforts discourage DUI. 

What puzzles me is a seemingly single-minded focus and huge allocation of funding toward hardscape changes - yes, they are important - while a pittance of attention and funding goes toward modifying/improving the behavior of roadway users—motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; our personal behaviors. I know that smarter/more knowledgeable bicyclists ride more and more safely - and to/from more locations. Am I mistaken in the assumption that funding for education/enforcement/PR, titled "programs," is either not included or is a very small percentage of funding available/spent for traffic improvements? I suspect that the cost of the Gilman Drive bikeway - important as it is - could fund Active Transportation curricula in all San Diego Co. schools for a year or more, reducing traffic mayhem for thousands of people, not just on one mile or so of a roadway.

Also, appropriate enforcement of traffic laws discourages misbehavior, reducing crashes. So why is there so little mention/attention to enforcement—automated or by traffic cops? Has the BLM legitimate concerns of racially motivated enforcement driven police departments to drastically curtail traffic stops?

Jim Baross

Board Member, League of American Bicyclists

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

Board Member, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

Sender notified by Mailtrack

03/06/24, 01:25:38 PM

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:01 PM Katie Crist  wrote:

While that article doesn't present the injury or fatality rate, the other reports by NYC DOT do. Protected bikeways and conventional bike lanes both increased cycling volumes by >50% and even larger increases were seen on the highest risk streets. When looking at the rate of injuries accounting for the number of bike trips, Class 1 and II both showed a reduction in risk of >30%.

Work needs to continue to improve on designs but best available evidence indicates infrastructure not only gets more people riding but also improves safety.

Katie

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:50 AM Serge Issakov wrote:

The article states that most of the crashes occur on streets without bikeways. 

“…most of the cyclists who died in 2023 collided with automobiles in areas without bike infrastructure”

The implication is that bike infrastructure makes cyclists safer. This viewpoint overlooks the following:

• “most” means “more than half”. That means that probably significant numbers died on streets with bike infrastructure. 

• most streets don’t have bike infrastructure, so of course more crashes occur on streets without infrastructure. 

• the behavior and habits instilled on the roads with infrastructure, i.e. “stay out of the way” edge riding, is what makes the riders particularly vulnerable, including on streets without infrastructure. 

Serge

[Jim Baross]

Yep. I'm advocating that "policies and social norm changes that discourage..." and "... social changes that create a culture that values safe behavior..." can reduce motorists' bad behaviors and encourage people's better bicycling behavior. Getting rid of tobacco vending and freeway free-flow onramps surely helps, but only at the specific locations where they are addressed. Addressing existing social norms - roads are for cars, bike as though you are invisible, sidewalks are safer, bicycling is for children, etc. - can bring about global/system-wide improvements in safety and mobility everywhere. 

Why are these so often ignored? Forgotten? Under or not funded at all?

Jim Baross

Board Member, League of American Bicyclists

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

Board Member, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 3:47 PM Stephan Vance <stepha...@gmail.com> wrote:

The change in smoking behavior provides an interesting lesson about advocacy and change. The reduction in smoking happened in the context of the ecological model for social change, where change is affected at three levels: personal, social, and environmental change. Katie can correct me if I've got this wrong, but my understanding is that smoking reduction happened not by individual effort alone, or even primarily by that. It required social change in the form of policies and social norm changes that discouraged smoking, and by environmental change, that made it harder to acquire cigarettes (e.g. no more vending machines) and even impossible to smoke in many circumstances.

Likewise for traffic safety, expecting individuals to adopt safer practices is not going to be effective without social changes that create a culture that values safe behavior, policy change like speed limit reductions, and environmental changes that require safer behavior bin roadway design.

In bicycle advocacy, it's important to remember that our mission is to create an environment where more people can ride. There's no question that effective education enables people to ride safer, but the ecological model suggests that changes in infrastructure are essential to seeing a significant increase in people riding bikes.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 2:03 PM Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

I applaud, support, and often help appropriately improve the physical environment to increase bicycling efficiency, safety, and comfort. (Though the "Devil's in the details" for designs.)

But, isn't it obvious that roads don't kill us; people's misbehavior on roads kills us. Appropriate roadway designs can discourage some misbehavior, and some designs can separate bicyclists and pedestrians from most motorists' mistakes. (Not all. Remember the vehicle that plunged off the Coronado bridge onto people in the park below?) For example, tobacco use was significantly reduced not just by prohibiting its use in public structures but also by a significant social engineering/PR campaign, similar efforts discourage DUI. 

What puzzles me is a seemingly single-minded focus and huge allocation of funding toward hardscape changes - yes, they are important - while a pittance of attention and funding goes toward modifying/improving the behavior of roadway users—motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; our personal behaviors. I know that smarter/more knowledgeable bicyclists ride more and more safely - and to/from more locations. Am I mistaken in the assumption that funding for education/enforcement/PR, titled "programs," is either not included or is a very small percentage of funding available/spent for traffic improvements? I suspect that the cost of the Gilman Drive bikeway - important as it is - could fund Active Transportation curricula in all San Diego Co. schools for a year or more, reducing traffic mayhem for thousands of people, not just on one mile or so of a roadway.

Also, appropriate enforcement of traffic laws discourages misbehavior, reducing crashes. So why is there so little mention/attention to enforcement—automated or by traffic cops? Has the BLM legitimate concerns of racially motivated enforcement driven police departments to drastically curtail traffic stops?

Jim Baross

Board Member, League of American Bicyclists

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

Board Member, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

Sender notified by Mailtrack

03/06/24, 01:25:38 PM

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:01 PM Katie Crist  wrote:

While that article doesn't present the injury or fatality rate, the other reports by NYC DOT do. Protected bikeways and conventional bike lanes both increased cycling volumes by >50% and even larger increases were seen on the highest risk streets. When looking at the rate of injuries accounting for the number of bike trips, Class 1 and II both showed a reduction in risk of >30%.

Work needs to continue to improve on designs but best available evidence indicates infrastructure not only gets more people riding but also improves safety.

Katie

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:50 AM Serge Issakov wrote:

The article states that most of the crashes occur on streets without bikeways. 

“…most of the cyclists who died in 2023 collided with automobiles in areas without bike infrastructure”

The implication is that bike infrastructure makes cyclists safer. This viewpoint overlooks the following:

• “most” means “more than half”. That means that probably significant numbers died on streets with bike infrastructure. 

• most streets don’t have bike infrastructure, so of course more crashes occur on streets without infrastructure. 

• the behavior and habits instilled on the roads with infrastructure, i.e. “stay out of the way” edge riding, is what makes the riders particularly vulnerable, including on streets without infrastructure. 

Serge

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 5:52 AM Stephan Vance wrote:

Actually, deaths are down as a percentage of bike trips, which are growing, but ebikes appear to be contributing to the increase in the number of deaths.

Why Bicycle Deaths in New York City Are at a 23-Year High https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/nyregion/nyc-cyclist-deaths-ebike.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Stephan

--

Stephan

Sender notified by Mailtrack

03/06/24, 04:51:37 PM

[William D. Volk]

Most of the NYC deaths are “trucks turning right”

William D. Volk
Game Production, Marketing and Design
willia...@gmail.com
858-692-1124

On Mar 6, 2024, at 5:02 PM, Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

Yep. I'm advocating that "policies and social norm changes that discourage..." and "... social changes that create a culture that values safe behavior..." can reduce motorists' bad behaviors and encourage people's better bicycling behavior. Getting rid of tobacco vending and freeway free-flow onramps surely helps, but only at the specific locations where they are addressed. Addressing existing social norms - roads are for cars, bike as though you are invisible, sidewalks are safer, bicycling is for children, etc. - can bring about global/system-wide improvements in safety and mobility everywhere. 

Why are these so often ignored? Forgotten? Under or not funded at all?

Jim Baross

Board Member, League of American Bicyclists

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

Board Member, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 3:47 PM Stephan Vance <stepha...@gmail.com> wrote:

The change in smoking behavior provides an interesting lesson about advocacy and change. The reduction in smoking happened in the context of the ecological model for social change, where change is affected at three levels: personal, social, and environmental change. Katie can correct me if I've got this wrong, but my understanding is that smoking reduction happened not by individual effort alone, or even primarily by that. It required social change in the form of policies and social norm changes that discouraged smoking, and by environmental change, that made it harder to acquire cigarettes (e.g. no more vending machines) and even impossible to smoke in many circumstances.

Likewise for traffic safety, expecting individuals to adopt safer practices is not going to be effective without social changes that create a culture that values safe behavior, policy change like speed limit reductions, and environmental changes that require safer behavior bin roadway design.

In bicycle advocacy, it's important to remember that our mission is to create an environment where more people can ride. There's no question that effective education enables people to ride safer, but the ecological model suggests that changes in infrastructure are essential to seeing a significant increase in people riding bikes.

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 2:03 PM Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

I applaud, support, and often help appropriately improve the physical environment to increase bicycling efficiency, safety, and comfort. (Though the "Devil's in the details" for designs.)

But, isn't it obvious that roads don't kill us; people's misbehavior on roads kills us. Appropriate roadway designs can discourage some misbehavior, and some designs can separate bicyclists and pedestrians from most motorists' mistakes. (Not all. Remember the vehicle that plunged off the Coronado bridge onto people in the park below?) For example, tobacco use was significantly reduced not just by prohibiting its use in public structures but also by a significant social engineering/PR campaign, similar efforts discourage DUI. 

What puzzles me is a seemingly single-minded focus and huge allocation of funding toward hardscape changes - yes, they are important - while a pittance of attention and funding goes toward modifying/improving the behavior of roadway users—motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; our personal behaviors. I know that smarter/more knowledgeable bicyclists ride more and more safely - and to/from more locations. Am I mistaken in the assumption that funding for education/enforcement/PR, titled "programs," is either not included or is a very small percentage of funding available/spent for traffic improvements? I suspect that the cost of the Gilman Drive bikeway - important as it is - could fund Active Transportation curricula in all San Diego Co. schools for a year or more, reducing traffic mayhem for thousands of people, not just on one mile or so of a roadway.

Also, appropriate enforcement of traffic laws discourages misbehavior, reducing crashes. So why is there so little mention/attention to enforcement—automated or by traffic cops? Has the BLM legitimate concerns of racially motivated enforcement driven police departments to drastically curtail traffic stops?

Jim Baross

Board Member, League of American Bicyclists

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

Board Member, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

<image.gif>

Sender notified by Mailtrack

03/06/24, 01:25:38 PM

<image.gif>

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:01 PM Katie Crist  wrote:

While that article doesn't present the injury or fatality rate, the other reports by NYC DOT do. Protected bikeways and conventional bike lanes both increased cycling volumes by >50% and even larger increases were seen on the highest risk streets. When looking at the rate of injuries accounting for the number of bike trips, Class 1 and II both showed a reduction in risk of >30%.

Work needs to continue to improve on designs but best available evidence indicates infrastructure not only gets more people riding but also improves safety.

Katie

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 8:50 AM Serge Issakov wrote:

The article states that most of the crashes occur on streets without bikeways. 

“…most of the cyclists who died in 2023 collided with automobiles in areas without bike infrastructure”

The implication is that bike infrastructure makes cyclists safer. This viewpoint overlooks the following:

• “most” means “more than half”. That means that probably significant numbers died on streets with bike infrastructure. 

• most streets don’t have bike infrastructure, so of course more crashes occur on streets without infrastructure. 

• the behavior and habits instilled on the roads with infrastructure, i.e. “stay out of the way” edge riding, is what makes the riders particularly vulnerable, including on streets without infrastructure. 

Serge

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 5:52 AM Stephan Vance wrote:

Actually, deaths are down as a percentage of bike trips, which are growing, but ebikes appear to be contributing to the increase in the number of deaths.

Why Bicycle Deaths in New York City Are at a 23-Year High https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/nyregion/nyc-cyclist-deaths-ebike.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

Stephan

--

Stephan

Sender notified by Mailtrack

03/06/24, 04:51:37 PM

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to San-Diego-Bicyclis...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum/CAG28zXcj00uOprf0qaxyG7-jtoqnoJBJM_wLqbwsY%3DV5jaewGg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Baross]

From another point of view, right-hook/"trucks turning right" collisions result when bicyclists ride in or into the blind spaces of a turning vehicle. 

Hint: "Blind spaces" are where the driver cannot see a bicyclist. Yeah, someday, fix the infrastructure with a tighter turn radius, separated traffic signal movements, separated/overpass bikeways, green-colored pavement, etc., but, meanwhile, make sure that people bicycling know what they are doing. Tell or show them.

(Bill knows this already.)

Jim Baross

Board Member, League of American Bicyclists

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

Board Member, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

Sender notified by Mailtrack

03/06/24, 08:51:50 PM