Best estimate data on bike lanes?

[Frank Krygowski]

Like many or most here, I'm convinced that properly done, bicycling is a very safe activity. I'm convinced in part by my long history of mining data on the issue. I dislike any effort to portray cycling as unusually dangerous, or requiring unusual measures to be acceptably safe. 

I'm also skeptical of either the need for, or the safety benefits of, most segregated bike infrastructure. Sure, I can enjoy a nice linear park (AKA rail trail), especially if it's empty of other users. But I know about the many traffic complexities introduced by on-road or parallel bike infrastructure. 

But here's my question: What's the honest consensus here on relative risk for riders on a street with a bike lane vs. one without? What's the best data that we have? I'd love actual data, especially on a per-mile-traveled basis - ideally, data comparing streets with facilities to streets without. And in addition to risk ratios, which seem to be the default reports ("20 percent more dangerous!!") I'd love to see actual values, since 20% (or whatever) of a minuscule value is still minuscule. 

I'm aware of efforts to exaggerate benefits, e.g. the Lusk paper that purported to find significant benefits to cycletracks in Montreal. That was disputed by others who noted that the "case" vs. "control" streets were very, very different. I'm also aware of papers from Denmark that compared crash data before and after installation of bike lanes and/or cycletracks. Those papers found increased crashes with facilities. 

Can anyone point to the best date now available? 

[Jim Baross]

Please share the results and sources found.

Jim Baross

CABO President

--
--
To post: bicycle...@googlegroups.com
Only rule: no personal commentary (please comment about content, not people)
 
To unsubscribe: bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com
 
Group website: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving
Discussion archives: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/topics?hl=en
Glossary: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/glossary
Links: http://groups.google.com/group/bicycledriving/web/links

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BicycleDriving" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bicycledrivin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bicycledriving/CACj2jv%2BrfiyzLmx9SGUKnS7ravhJQOyrTVy%2BqMq1PY-TPF_U0w%40mail.gmail.com.

[PetevanNuys]

Legit studies of BL vs non-BL, relative "safety" as reflected in credible accident reports-- I've never heard of one.
There is money and prestige in fear mongering by Badvocates, but zero of either by Actual Bicyclist Advocates or Public Works at any level.
In fact Badvocates are so fearful of reality they've gone on the warpath against us.
The only entity that might fund such research would be the American Bicycle Industry, and that will simply never happen-- too broke, too lame to conduct any effort to attract mainstream America to bicycling. )

There is credible research on Type of car/bike conflicts. I have that from around 2011 for cities in Orange County. But it doesn't include name of street or BL or not. California has that on SWITRS (or whatever it's called now) and someone COULD drill down into that data. And with enough research using Heat Map could build something like that. 

UC Irvine transportation studies students might be so motivated.
Pete