Any bike facility is a good bike facility

[Frank Krygowski]

Bike lanes:

https://momentummag.com/a-look-at-some-of-the-worst-bike-lanes-on-the-planet/


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 11:31:10 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Bike lanes:
>
>https://momentummag.com/a-look-at-some-of-the-worst-bike-lanes-on-the-planet/


Bicyclists around my location have little reason to ride in such
places.

I drove past the Suncoast bike trailhead on state highway 54, early
Saturday at 8 AM and saw at least fifty cars parked there, filling the
parking lot and along the entrance road. I know from experience that
some people park across the highway at the shopping center, and some a
few miles further south at another trailhead. More might join on a
side trail five miles north. I also know from experience that at time
of the morning 90+% of the riders over the 20/25 miles north would be
on road bikes.

That's one of my favorite rides, but on weekdays it's practically
deserted, which is how I like it. I ride for the solitude.

Further North, the Withlacoochee trail won't be as crowded on
weekends, but, OTOH, it will be far from deserted on weekdays. There
will be a lower percentage of fetal position riders and probably
20/30% will be trikes.

I've yet to see any bicyclists "taking the lane" and holding up cars
and trucks. Must not be a Florida thing.

[AMuzi]

On 11/13/2022 10:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Bike lanes:
>
> https://momentummag.com/a-look-at-some-of-the-worst-bike-lanes-on-the-planet/
>
>
>

The Planners, who get paid to convert tax dollars and human
suffering into these projects, have a 'Best Of' list.

Which is the same list you linked.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 12:25:36 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/13/2022 10:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Bike lanes:
>>
>> https://momentummag.com/a-look-at-some-of-the-worst-bike-lanes-on-the-planet/
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>The Planners, who get paid to convert tax dollars and human
>suffering into these projects, have a 'Best Of' list.
>
>Which is the same list you linked.

I'm still waiting to hear/see what my county is going to do about the
poorly designed crossing where a woman was killed two weeks ago. I
suspect nothing will be done. I'll be riding through there tomorrow or
Tuesday.

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 10:25:39 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/13/2022 10:31 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > Bike lanes:
> >
> > https://momentummag.com/a-look-at-some-of-the-worst-bike-lanes-on-the-planet/
> >
> >
> >
> The Planners, who get paid to convert tax dollars and human
> suffering into these projects, have a 'Best Of' list.
>
> Which is the same list you linked.

Those photographs are designed specifically to make commute hour and bike lanes look like a death trap. But if you look at the bottom of that first picture you see the lie of it. There is a pedestrian cross walk that probably has a light on it as well. This is a deadly bike lane but coincidentally perfectly safe for pedestrians. I go over overpasses like that all the time and they do not offer exceptional danger. Furthermore you can see the cars queuing up on the left lane to turn OFF of that road and onto the Freeway which is crossing under the overpass. But if there are lies to be told you can count on Francis to tell them. This is why he doesn't ride anymore. I have a friend that became quite leery of car traffic to the point that he no longer rides but at near my age jogs even in races which are very bad on the knees. (says the man whose brother is so crippled with knee damage that he cannot even drive a car any longer.)

To Francis the talking mule, a bicycle is not a means of transportation which is part of the traffic but a means of killing yourself.

[Tom Kunich]

932 bicyclists were killed in motor-vehicle traffic crashes in 2020. About the same in 2021. There is a learning curve of new cyclists to learn the danger points in roads and how to either avoid them or how to handle them safely. That hardly compares with the auto deaths of 42,000 but depend on assholes to compare them.

[AMuzi]

Once there are enough deaths of empathetic classes (one dead
wino more or less running a stop sign drunk doesn't count)
then there will be a cry of 'Something must be done!'. This
is like catnip for Planners who know damned well the #1 rule
of government, "Once you solve the problem, the money stops."

So several bad-to-worse plans will be drafted, meetings will
be held, plans revised, budgets contested until a new
construction project comes to fruition. And kills cyclists
in a different or more interesting way.

[Tom Kunich]

What they have been doing in the bay area is experimenting with bicycle lanes. From none at all on wide heavily used main streets all the way to closing down similar wide, heavily used streets to everything but buses and bicycles. South of me, they have placed the bike lane next to the curb and parking outside of this. Of course everyone breaks their bottles in this area making that sort of bike lane useless. The normal bike lanes that are outside of the parking lanes work the best and the key to making them work better is to enforce the laws that cars are not suppose to travel in the bike lanes. But having returned from my concussion now for 12 years, nothing surprises me. Descending a local hill I have to move into the car lane because cross winds shove me around too much and I need plenty of room to correct at speed. There is still another lane. But what do drivers do? They will pass me up pull in, in front of me and then put their brakes on. Interestingly enough this is bare tens of yards from the Sheriff's Department who seeing this do absolutely nothing.

[Andre Jute]

On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 7:51:30 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
>
> So several bad-to-worse plans will be drafted, meetings will
> be held, plans revised, budgets contested until a new
> construction project comes to fruition. And kills cyclists
> in a different or more interesting way.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>

Don't be such a cynic, Andrew. Sooner or late, even uncivil servants will do something right by accident. -- AJ

[AMuzi]

They cannot. Union rules.

[Roger Merriman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Bike lanes:
>
> https://momentummag.com/a-look-at-some-of-the-worst-bike-lanes-on-the-planet/
>
>

Do get some particular bad ones in places, though at least in my experience
it changing. Ie stuff like that are self selecting well humor.

Roger Merriman

[sms]

Some of those are humorous, some are not optimal but not unsafe, some
cropped the photo to make the bicycle lane look incorrect. The one where
they show a closed street that has been converted to outdoor dining,
with tables in both the former car lane and bike lane, was clueless.

Fortunately, in most places, separated bicycle infrastructure is much
better thought out.

In my own city, we did have an issue where a separated bicycle lane had
to be narrowed slightly to pass a power pole, at least for the short
term. Moving power poles takes a long time to achieve, no sense risking
lives while waiting for the electric utility.

The reality is that vehicles turning right are going to have to cross in
front of cyclists at some point, whether the cyclist is riding on the
shoulder with no painted or separated bicycle lane, or whether there is
some sort of bike lane.

[Roger Merriman]

Mine (it’s so rarely used it is effectively mine!) is by many and even most
rationals bad it’s fairly narrow, it’s not well maintained it’s fairly
roughy surfaces.

But it bypasses miles of what is desperately unpleasant road I dislike
driving on it, it’s very busy with lots of merging traffic, late night get
boy racers etc!

Vs 4/5 miles of rather dated and somewhat substandard segregated cycle lane
that takes me from work to the start of the parks which is the 2nd part of
the commute.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/28/2022 6:40 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The reality is that vehicles turning right are going to have to cross in
>> front of cyclists at some point, whether the cyclist is riding on the
>> shoulder with no painted or separated bicycle lane, or whether there is
>> some sort of bike lane.

That is not true if the cyclist is riding near lane center, which is
legal and recommended on most traffic lanes. In that case, motorists
wait behind the cyclist until they reach their turning point.

> Mine (it’s so rarely used it is effectively mine!) is by many and even most
> rationals bad it’s fairly narrow, it’s not well maintained it’s fairly
> roughy surfaces.

As I've said in the past, I find most empty off-road bike trails around
here to be fairly pleasant. Most (not all) of the problems occur when
they are crowded with other users.

However, that's not a good way of justifying the expense of a bike
trail: "This will be really nice because almost nobody will use it."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

Definitely some sub-standard segregated and non-segrated bicycle lanes
exist, but at least around here they're the exception rather than the
rule. We all know that, despite some drawbacks, that the research shows
that separated bicycle lanes increase safety
<https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-separated-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/>.

[John B.]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:46:13 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Perhaps "seems" but reality?
I read that the rate per 100,000 people of bicycle deaths was 0.246 in
2000 and 0.269 in 2022.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclist_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 11:53:59 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Perhaps "seems" but reality?
>I read that the rate per 100,000 people of bicycle deaths was 0.246 in
>2000 and 0.269 in 2022.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclist_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

That Wikipedia page is missing quite a bit of data. It's not like the
US population between 1932 and 2020 is difficult to find. The recent
data ends in 2020. Nothing on the discussion page. No other
Wikipedia pages point to it. It seems to have been abandoned. Whether
to trust the few numbers that were provided, I don't know.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 23:03:56 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 11:53:59 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Perhaps "seems" but reality?
>>I read that the rate per 100,000 people of bicycle deaths was 0.246 in
>>2000 and 0.269 in 2022.
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclist_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year
>
>That Wikipedia page is missing quite a bit of data. It's not like the
>US population between 1932 and 2020 is difficult to find. The recent
>data ends in 2020. Nothing on the discussion page. No other
>Wikipedia pages point to it. It seems to have been abandoned. Whether
>to trust the few numbers that were provided, I don't know.

Which was why I used the two dates that I used :-)

But actually basing bicycle "whatever" on the U.S. population is a bit
doubtful as it certainly doesn't indicate the number of actual
cyclists, but I did look, rather diligently, for some numbers that I
could verify but couldn't find any and so went with the numbers I
used.

SMS, who I was replying to doesn't use any data. He just says bike
lanes are better :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 19:46:13 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

+1

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

There's enough data to extrapolate a reasonable statistic that's within a margin of error.

[Roger Merriman]

This one is rather different in that it runs parallel to a bypass. That was
intended to be one of the circular motorways planned, so non motorway
access would of been needed hence the just shy of 5 miles of segregated
cycleway.

It’s main problem is as it runs parallel to a bypass unless you want to go
somewhere on route (which i do) it’s a long way around. Works for cars
though they mostly just sit in traffic jams!

It’s not a road that gets foot traffic, not a single bus stop on it few bus
routes cross it but none use it, they use the older roads though the
Heathrow villages/town centers.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

It’s not just safety but being pleasant, on road it’s multiple
roundabouts/junctions all light controlled all busy, number with lanes
merging and so on. While the cycleway is able to bypass most of the rest
are nowhere near as tedious nor dangerous!

Same goes for the more modern stuff that’s being built in london this
century.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

Marshall is a propagandist. He and his teammate Ferenchak have published
ludicrously weak papers, all attributing magic to bike facilities based
on the most tenuous logic.

Let's look at the key statement in that article: "... researches [sic]
estimated that having a protected bike facility in a city would result
in 44 percent fewer deaths and 50 percent fewer serous injuries than an
average city."

So if a city had no "protected bike facilities" then installed ONE
"protected bike facility," we should expect deaths and serious injuries
for ALL road users to drop by half? I'd say accepting that idea is a
symptom of either great bias or great delusion.

I'll also note that in the study, completely separate bike paths were
counted as "protected bike facilities." IOW, according to the authors,
if a city makes no other change but to add a bike path in a park
somewhere, the city becomes twice as safe. And not just for bicyclists!
For car drivers, walkers, motorcyclists, truck drivers...

Again, one doesn't need to wade into the math on this paper. Its
conclusions are ludicrous. Anyone accepting them at face value is
stating a religious belief, not a scientific one.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 11/29/2022 12:43 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> SMS, who I was replying to doesn't use any data. He just says bike
> lanes are better :-)

See
<https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-separated-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/>:
"A 13-year study of a dozen cities found that protected bike lanes led
to a drastic decline in fatalities for all users of the road."

Not sure how much more data you expect. The problem is that you don't
like what the data proves!

[sms]

On 11/29/2022 6:13 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> It’s not just safety but being pleasant, on road it’s multiple
> roundabouts/junctions all light controlled all busy, number with lanes
> merging and so on. While the cycleway is able to bypass most of the rest
> are nowhere near as tedious nor dangerous!
>
> Same goes for the more modern stuff that’s being built in london this
> century.

That's true for many of the MUPs, but for separated bicycle lanes you
still have all the traffic lights. The advantages of separated bicycle
lanes is that they keep errant vehicles from intruding.

[John B.]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 00:04:45 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

No, I actually looked up some of the data. for example:
https://tillmannlaw.com/portland-bicyle-safety-study
Posted on June 21, 2021 in Bicycle Accidents

The majority of bike crashes in Portland occur in two places: bike
lanes and at intersections.

During the study period, 66 percent of crashes occurred on roads with
some form of bike infrastructure (such as regular lane, protected
lane, bike-only path)...
By comparison, roadways with no bike lanes – 86 percent of all road
mileage – saw just 43 percent of crashes.

Further down the page:

Standard Bike Lane
Percent Bike crashes - 48%
Percent Road mileage - 5%

No Bike Lane Infrastructure
Percent Bike crashes - 43%
Percent Road mileage - 86%

Strange how one mob claims bike lanes are Wonderful! And another
provides actual numbers to show just the opposite.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 00:07:02 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

https://www.bikeleague.org/content/national-household-travel-survey-short-trips-analysis
January 22, 2010
"The good news is that the share of all trips made by bicycle is up 25
percent since 2001, to one percent."

Yup, spending public money on segregated bile lanes makes perfect
sense.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:05:58 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

How many people respond to a survey about how they "travel?" How many
of those who do respond do it accurately and honestly? How many even
keep track of and know their travel data? I suspect we're not the
only persons who shitcans surveys that pry into our private lives. We
did the census thing, but we didn't respond to all the questions.

[AMuzi]

On 11/30/2022 2:07 AM, sms wrote:
> On 11/29/2022 6:13 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>

>> It’s not just safety but being pleasant, on road it’s

>> multiple
>> roundabouts/junctions all light controlled all busy,
>> number with lanes
>> merging and so on. While the cycleway is able to bypass
>> most of the rest
>> are nowhere near as tedious nor dangerous!
>>

>> Same goes for the more modern stuff that’s being built

>> in london this
>> century.
>
> That's true for many of the MUPs, but for separated bicycle
> lanes you still have all the traffic lights. The advantages
> of separated bicycle lanes is that they keep errant vehicles
> from intruding.
>

Great idea. On paper.
https://nypost.com/2017/10/31/8-killed-truck-pedestrians-downtown-nyc-terror-attack/

[Rolf Mantel]

Even without terrorists, separated bicycle lanes are directly
responsible for the death of several cyclists being killed by trucks
turning right every year. Without a separate bike lane, the bikes would
be ahead of or behind the right-turning trucks rather than to the rithg
side of them.

The only way of solving this problem is by ensuring separate traffic
lights for the bike lane forbid going straight as long as other vehicles
are allowed to turn right, as is common in the Netherlands - but forcing
cyclists to stop all the time while cars on the parallel lane are
allowed to drive decreases the attraction of cycling as quick
short-distance mode of transport in urban areas (and only in countries
with cyclist numbers like the Netherlands, the proportion of 'green
light for cyclists' might result in a similar time slice as the
proportion of 'green lights for cars').

Rolf

[AMuzi]

On 11/30/2022 8:03 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 30.11.2022 um 14:40 schrieb AMuzi:
>> On 11/30/2022 2:07 AM, sms wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2022 6:13 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>

>>>> It’s not just safety but being pleasant, on road
>>>> it’s

>>>> multiple
>>>> roundabouts/junctions all light controlled all busy,
>>>> number with lanes
>>>> merging and so on. While the cycleway is able to bypass
>>>> most of the rest
>>>> are nowhere near as tedious nor dangerous!
>>>>

>>>> Same goes for the more modern stuff that’s being

Much agreed. Separate lanes merely set up a different set of
problems.

[Frank Krygowski]

And that claim is 12 years old, about a temporary blip. In recent years,
bike mode share has declined again. IIRC it's about 0.5% now, just as
it's almost always been.

As with other some bike "safety" issues, there are exorbitant promises,
but little evidence of real long term benefit.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

+1

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

Wow, an article from more than 12 years ago, long before most of the
separated bicycle infrastructure was installed.

In any case, looking at national data is highly misleading, you want to
look at the data in the places where the significant new bicycle
infrastructure was put in place.

You also have to be careful about 2020-2022 data because of the
pandemic. Bicycle commuting in San Francisco went up while public
transit usage plunged. With remote-working, commuting as a whole went
way down so the increase in bicycle commuting was even more significant
<https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/imce-images/2022/travel_decision_anticpiated_commute_by_mode_0.jpg>.

[sms]

No, you would need to have no bicycle lane at all, no shoulder, and
narrow lanes, for the bicycles to "take the lane."

In reality, properly designed separated bicycle lanes have a "box" at
major intersections that puts the cyclists in front of other traffic.

[Frank Krygowski]

This is an example of the "No true Scotsman" argument technique.

Scharf claims separated bike lanes are safe.

Rolf alludes to cases where they are not safe, and I have described others.*

Scharf says those cases don't count, by introducing a standard that was
not mentioned before: a "box" at major intersections.

In any case, the bike box idea is faulty. A bike box does no good for a
cyclist who feels so protected by a separate lane that he passes a
vehicle on its blind side just before the motorist turns right across
his path. In fact, the green paint of a bike box may make it worse, by
making the cyclist even more confident and even more unaware of the risk.

Let's remember that Portland, OR installed bike boxes illegally - that
is, without the required request for experiment - maybe 10 years ago.
They were in response to a couple right hook fatalities. Heavy
politicking resulted in after the fact approval, but with a requirement
to collect data.

What did the data show? INCREASES in right hooks at several of those
intersections.

What was Portland's response? "No, no, the bike boxes are still good! We
just need to add warning signs!"

(* I've previously described the "parking protected" bi-directional bike
lane installed a few years ago in Columbus. The department of
transportation had a set of Powerpoint slides online showing the result.
There were over ten times as many car-bike collisions per year after the
lane was installed. The DOT's response? Take down the Powerpoint slides.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I don't know, and, as I have mentioned in the past, I had a good
friend who's business was financial analysis, quite often supported by
surveys, usually to determine whether a projected project would be
profitable to a company. He once said that "Tell me what you want to
prove and I'll make a survey to prove it.

Since then I have always viewed surveys with a certain amount of
skepticism :-)

I'm reminded of a discussion about torture. A survey asking, "do you
approve torture" gets an overwhelming "NO" response, while a "would
you approve torture if it was shown that it would have prevented the
9/11 disaster" gets an very different response.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Roger Merriman]

That kind of depends, the london Embankment while it does had traffic
lights it has far fewer than the road itself in that you can trigger the
lights to turn but mostly going straight on isn’t under traffic lights.

And I think the newest cycle lane in west london is broadly similar with
its own light signals and so on.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2022/november/new-tfl-data-shows-continued-boom-in-walking-and-cycling-with-almost-twice-as-many-now-living-near-a-high-quality-cycle-route

London has essentially kept growing in numbers over the years, which just
predates my living here, I think the terrorist attack was potentially kick
started it just after the turn of the century.

It’s usage as a % is still very low but it is growing and is a sizeable
number of folks who do commute by bike.

Roger Merriman

[sms]

On 11/30/2022 4:33 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2022/november/new-tfl-data-shows-continued-boom-in-walking-and-cycling-with-almost-twice-as-many-now-living-near-a-high-quality-cycle-route
>
> London has essentially kept growing in numbers over the years, which just
> predates my living here, I think the terrorist attack was potentially kick
> started it just after the turn of the century.
>
> It’s usage as a % is still very low but it is growing and is a sizeable
> number of folks who do commute by bike.
>
> Roger Merriman

Same situation for many places in the U.S.. That's why it's important to
use accurate data for each area, something that those opposed to bicycle
infrastructure never want to do because it doesn't support their position.

A 25% increase in cycling that results from improved bicycle
infrastructure in a specific area doesn't result in a 25% increase
nationwide, but you'll constantly see that kind of false statement, i.e.
"San Francisco spent $x million on bicycle infrastructure and the U.S.
saw no increase in bicycling."


"They analyzed the number of cyclists from March through July and found
that in cities that had added bike lanes, cycling increased 11 percent
to 48 percent more than in cities that had not added bike lanes."
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/climate/bikes-climate-change.html>.


"New York City’s injury rates for all road users, including drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists, typically decreased by 40 to 50 percent (PDF)
in areas where the city implemented protected bike lanes. In Montreal,
streets with protected bike lanes had 28 percent lower injury rates than
other streets, on average.

In some places, the implementation of protected bike lanes increased
ridership. From 2009 to 2014, bicycle commuting doubled in New York City
and Washington, DC, both of which had built relatively large networks of
protected bike lanes."

<https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/why-us-cities-are-investing-safer-more-connected-cycling-infrastructure>


The other way that those opposed to bicycle infrastructure misuse
statistics is by not understanding that increases in cycling rates don't
necessarily increase linearly. They'll increase at a high rate for a
couple of years after new infrastructure is installed, then will level
off. However there can be unexpected increases due to certain factors.
The pandemic resulted in a big increase in commuting and eBikes have
made it it more practical for more people to commute by bicycle.

[Catrike Rider]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 06:57:28 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

I believe that to be true...

>Since then I have always viewed surveys with a certain amount of
>skepticism :-)
>
>I'm reminded of a discussion about torture. A survey asking, "do you
>approve torture" gets an overwhelming "NO" response, while a "would
>you approve torture if it was shown that it would have prevented the
>9/11 disaster" gets an very different response.

that's frightening.

[Rolf Mantel]

...which works at most for cyclists arriving while the lights are 'Red'.
How will a cyclist arriving while the light is 'green' be ahead of a
truck arriving at the same time?

[sms]

On 12/1/2022 4:26 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

.which works at most for cyclists arriving while the lights are 'Red'.
>  How will a cyclist arriving while the light is 'green' be ahead of a
> truck arriving at the same time?

It depends on how the intersection is designed. There's no perfect way
to avoid a right hook, whether the separation between the traffic lane
and where the bicycles are riding (shoulder, painted bicycle lane,
bicycle lane separated with curbs or bollards).

Some people, whether cyclists or motorists, will complain about every
system because none of them are perfect and some are confusing.

Here's one in my town where the right-turning driver has to cross over
the bicycle lane to enter a dedicated right turn lane while the cyclist
goes straight <https://goo.gl/maps/7veoptpRxrCJwV5f7>. Both the cyclist
and the motorist are expected to be cautious at the crossover. It works
well except when a motorist that's unfamiliar with the intersection
misses the entrance to the right turn lane and illegally tries to turn
right across both the bicycle lane and the right turn lane.

Here's one in my town with a separate signal light for the bicycle lane
<https://goo.gl/maps/kiVeyiUUHBuAnoBy6>.

Converting a painted bicycle lane to a separated bicycle lane is not
very expensive since it's just installing bollards or concrete
separators and it doesn't cause the vehicle lanes to become any
narrower. It doesn't make a right hook more likely, it probably makes it
less likely because the motorist now clearly sees that there is a cycle
lane because they can no longer use it for other purposes like they used
to. In the latter example, it's right by a high school and motorists
used to use the painted bicycle lane as a drop-off area for their
students, but they no longer do so, and they are unwilling to stop in
the traffic lane to do drop offs (at least most of them are unwilling!).

The bottom line is that separated bicycle lanes have been proven to
increase cycling rates and reduce injuries. Someone can always find some
tragedy and insist that if only there had not been a bicycle lane then
the incident would not have occurred, but all the studies and statistics
show that there's a net positive to separated infrastructure.

Multi-use paths have their own issues. Pre-eBike, speeds were relatively
low, but now you essentially have motorcycles sharing these paths with
pedestrians, runners, strollers, skaters, and regular cyclists. Some of
these paths have a lot of tight turns as they wind around, under, or
over, roads, creeks, and railroad tracks, but those turns tend to force
slower speeds. There are speed limits but in most cases there is no one
to enforce them; one popular trail in San Mateo County does have rangers
with radar guns. Back when the Army controlled several areas in San
Francisco and Marin County the military police loved to ticket cyclists
for speeding and for illegally using a tunnel that avoided some long
steep climbs (now open to cyclists with bicycle lanes in each direction,
while vehicles alternate usage via traffic lights
<https://goo.gl/maps/uzEq3vmDHXQMFqCF8>).

At least pre-pandemic, these MUPs could be extremely busy at commute
time, but at least it was mainly cyclists at those times. On weekends
they are packed and patience and extra caution is required. You can't
drift into opposing traffic. Most are unlighted because they are along
creeks where lighting would disturb the native species so you need good
lights. I once was on a bicycle with only dynamo lighting and that was
not sufficient because of the relative slow speeds.

[Frank Krygowski]

First, when bike mode share is very low, it's mathematically subject to
large variations. A city with 0.3% bike mode share (a very common
figure!) may put in a block of "protected bike lane" and get a couple
dozen people riding to work on a particularly nice day. If that is
observed, it may be counted as 0.35% bike mode share, and generate an
article saying "This bike lane increased bike mode share by 16%!!!" But
as usual, the increase is really from negligible to negligible.

Also, the article you linked had these paragraphs:

=============================
"While the total number of trips made in 2020 showed a dramatic decrease
on the preceding 12 months, with people heeding government advice to
work from home where possible, stay at home and avoid public transport,
the number of cycling journeys rose by 6.4 per cent, also encouraged by
lower levels of motor traffic particularly during lockdown.

"TfL described that growth as “a remarkable change in the context of
lower general activity and major reductions to workplace commuting,”
adding that “this meant that over the year, the proportion of journeys
cycled accounted for 3.4 per cent of all journeys, up from 2.3 per cent
in 2019 – a 48 per cent increase in the proportion of journeys made by
bike.”
=============================

Think about that. They're saying driving to work dropped because of the
pandemic, but bike trips didn't drop as much. That's touted as a huge
gain, because the 1.1% increase is "48 percent" of the previous tiny
amount.

But it's still just a 1.1% increase.

I've mentioned this before: Portland OR claimed a 7% bike mode share by
asking only city residents, ignoring the millions commuting by car into
the city. But visiting Portland showed me the same car-crowded,
gridlocked city I've seen elsewhere. The difference was a _slightly_
larger sprinkling of bikes, mostly in bike racks. To verify this, I
invite r.b.tech readers to view a Google Map for Portland, OR and check
random streets using Google Streetview.

Also, as I've mentioned, since hitting a purported peak of 7%, Portland
has built ever more (and ever weirder) bike facilities. But its bike
mode share has trended downward, not upward. More bike facilities have
not yielded more bike share. Dose response is missing.

And there's probably no need to mention winter. We know what happens to
bike commuting in that time of year.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/1/2022 2:41 AM, sms wrote:
> On 11/30/2022 4:33 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2022/november/new-tfl-data-shows-continued-boom-in-walking-and-cycling-with-almost-twice-as-many-now-living-near-a-high-quality-cycle-route
>>
>> London has essentially kept growing in numbers over the years, which just
>> predates my living here, I think the terrorist attack was potentially
>> kick
>> started it just after the turn of the century.
>>
>> It’s usage as a % is still very low but it is growing and is a sizeable
>> number of folks who do commute by bike.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> Same situation for many places in the U.S.. That's why it's important to
> use accurate data for each area, something that those opposed to bicycle
> infrastructure never want to do because it doesn't support their position.
>
> A 25% increase in cycling that results from improved bicycle
> infrastructure in a specific area doesn't result in a 25% increase
> nationwide, but you'll constantly see that kind of false statement, i.e.
> "San Francisco spent $x million on bicycle infrastructure and the U.S.
> saw no increase in bicycling."

A 25% increase in cycling is likely only in certain weird conditions.
Most important, you have to start from roughly zero cycling. If bike
mode share is 0.4% and there's a jump of 0.1%, segregation promoters are
sure to yell "25% increase!" But it's still just 0.1% bigger.

And it's likely temporary. It will go away come winter, or when the
publicity touting the extra block of "protected bike lane" slips off the
daily news. It can also disappear when the first right hook crash
happens at an intersection, when people realize the "protection" doesn't
include the intersections where almost all car-bike crashes actually
happen.

And speaking of San Francisco: Correlation is not causation, and SF
showed that very clearly when its bike mode share jumped as much as
Portland's did, even though San Francisco was under court orders to
install _no_ new bike facilities.

Again, percentage-wise jumps in bike mode share are easy when bike mode
share is tiny. In particular, if it becomes temporarily fashionable to
bike, people will bike - temporarily. Fashion can have as much influence
as a couple million dollars in infrastructure spending.

But fashion goes away. The millions of dollars expense is permanent.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/1/2022 9:30 AM, sms wrote:
> There's no perfect way
> to avoid a right hook, whether the separation between the traffic lane
> and where the bicycles are riding (shoulder, painted bicycle lane,
> bicycle lane separated with curbs or bollards).

The way to prevent a right hook is to not be to the right of any vehicle
that may turn right. Take the lane.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

+1

[Tom Kunich]

Way down in the south bay area they replaced I think about give light controlled intersections with roundabouts. Last time I was there it so greatly improved traffic flow that all of the traffic in those areas disappeared.

[Tom Kunich]

On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 11:10:50 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/1/2022 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 12/1/2022 9:30 AM, sms wrote:
> >> There's no perfect way to avoid a right hook, whether the
> >> separation between the traffic lane and where the bicycles
> >> are riding (shoulder, painted bicycle lane, bicycle lane
> >> separated with curbs or bollards).
> >
> > The way to prevent a right hook is to not be to the right of
> > any vehicle that may turn right. Take the lane.
> >
> +1

Frank has been adamant that you should take the lane all of the time. I doubt that you approve of that. Our Italian cyclist that was killed hit and run may have been taking a lane where it was necessary.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/1/2022 2:38 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 11:10:50 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/1/2022 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 12/1/2022 9:30 AM, sms wrote:
>>>> There's no perfect way to avoid a right hook, whether the
>>>> separation between the traffic lane and where the bicycles
>>>> are riding (shoulder, painted bicycle lane, bicycle lane
>>>> separated with curbs or bollards).
>>>
>>> The way to prevent a right hook is to not be to the right of
>>> any vehicle that may turn right. Take the lane.
>>>
>> +1
>
> Frank has been adamant that you should take the lane all of the time.

Bullshit. That's not what I've said. I've said multiple times that I
share the lane when it's safe to do so.

I wish you'd grow the courage and honesty to discuss what I've actually
said, not what you wish or pretend I said.

Quote my exact words, like I just did with yours above. Straw man
arguments are stupid and cowardly.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

Actually, Frank said he'd take the lane only when he is afraid to ride
on the far right side.

[Roger Merriman]

No the big london segregated stuff like the embankment it’s thousands per
day not a dozen my forgotten cycleway is probably a dozen or so per day but
stuff like embankment has the numbers and has increased by 30% on the
segregated sections, and more noticeable than numbers is the difference
types using it ie not just middle aged men on road bikes!

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2021/june/londoners-encouraged-to-have-their-say-on-major-upgrades-to-cs8-cycle-route

If it’s my experience in london is anything, bikes are almost exclusively
used during commuting times, even busy stuff such as above mentioned
embankment during the day it’s not heavily used. Plus bikes are remarkably
efficient and will flow though a junction even quite large numbers so tend
not to end up with a noticeable number at junctions etc.

>
> Also, as I've mentioned, since hitting a purported peak of 7%, Portland
> has built ever more (and ever weirder) bike facilities. But its bike
> mode share has trended downward, not upward. More bike facilities have
> not yielded more bike share. Dose response is missing.
>
> And there's probably no need to mention winter. We know what happens to
> bike commuting in that time of year.
>

A very quick glance seems to suggest rather London like weather! Which is
perfectly doable and is done in some of the colder places in Europe.

In general I’d say you loose a lot of the leisure cycling but the commuting
lot keep going which is a change as it used to be quite a noticeable shift.

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

Who doesn't?
I ride to right of center _except_ when it's not
prudent/reasonable. Just like everyone else.

[Roger Merriman]

Vehicular cycling model doesn’t work 100% of the time and has been the
dominant model over last few decades which in general has seen cycling
levels drop to single figure %.

Cycleways or segregated stuff can avoid it though does mean it’s own
traffic light phase in general, the newest one in London has that which can
feel slightly sluggish but probably no slower.

My old cycleway bypasses various junctions with underpasses or light
controlled crossings so a left/right hook is impossible.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

I’d assume most do, though do hug the kerb. And folks make choices with the
roads and routes, and adjust, style to it.

I personally have number of different routes to work, the fastest and
shortest is though Heathrow and while I never feel unsafe as well I’ve
commuted for decades now. And can handle traffic, it’s frankly tedious. Vs
slightly slower less direct route via the old cycleway plus parks

That is my choice is to mostly take a slower but pleasant route to work vs
a faster but frankly tedious route.

Same for leisure rides, particularly the gravel bike I can cut out roads I
dislike or include that lovely climb etc.

Frank seems a bit rigid in his thinking, ie seems ideological rather than
pragmatic, ie this cycle lane is useful? Then I use it. This is pointless
then I don’t i pass a few of each on my commute!

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Rider]

Me too, except I simply don't spend much ride time interecting with
vehicle traffic because I don't need to.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/1/2022 5:52 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 12/1/2022 9:30 AM, sms wrote:
>>> There's no perfect way
>>> to avoid a right hook, whether the separation between the traffic lane
>>> and where the bicycles are riding (shoulder, painted bicycle lane,
>>> bicycle lane separated with curbs or bollards).
>>
>> The way to prevent a right hook is to not be to the right of any vehicle
>> that may turn right. Take the lane.
>>
> Vehicular cycling model doesn’t work 100% of the time and has been the
> dominant model over last few decades which in general has seen cycling
> levels drop to single figure %.

Nothing works 100% of the time in this universe. But assuming a person
isn't going to wait until the never-never land of "cycle tracks
everywhere" arrives, vehicular cycling is the best way of dealing with
the real world. (If I'd waited for that never-never land, I'd have
missed many of my life's greatest experiences.)

Which, BTW, does not mean vehicular cyclists eschew all segregated
infrastructure. Nobody has ever said that. However, the smarter cyclists
realize that bike lanes, cycle tracks and multi-use paths don't work
100% of the time either; and in many cases, they add dangers that legal
road riding avoids.

Competent vehicular cyclists are much more likely to understand and deal
with those dangers, even if they do use those "keep cyclists out of the
way" facilities. Those that think "Oh, they built something for us, so
I'm safe" are the ones who get blind sided. Literally!

> My old cycleway bypasses various junctions with underpasses or light
> controlled crossings so a left/right hook is impossible.

That's nice. It's also extremely rare. Almost all bike lanes, etc. have
at-grade intersections with streets and driveways. And a great many of
them complicate the traffic interactions at those intersections. The
right hooks we were discussing are just one such interaction. There are
others.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 12/1/2022 2:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> In general I’d say you loose a lot of the leisure cycling but the commuting
> lot keep going which is a change as it used to be quite a noticeable shift.
>
> Roger Merriman

A mistake some people make, hopefully unintentionally, is to extrapolate
the weather where they live, and its effect on cycling, onto the whole
world.

Having grown up in south Florida, from mid-November to mid April it's
not miserably hot and humid and cycle commuting is pleasant (at least in
terms of weather).

Now, living in northern California, cycle commuting is practical year
round. There is not much rain (unfortunately), bitter cold is rare, and
there is no snow or ice on the roads. It does get dark early, but with
proper lighting this is not an issue, so commuting continues.

An unintended side-effect of the pandemic has been to reduce commute
traffic and make cycling more pleasant on weekdays, though it's also had
an effect on commuting cycle rates since tech employees didn't have to
go into the office. Now many companies are requiring employees to be at
the office two to three days per week so commute cycling levels are
going back up.

[sms]

On 12/1/2022 2:52 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> Vehicular cycling model doesn’t work 100% of the time and has been the
> dominant model over last few decades which in general has seen cycling
> levels drop to single figure %.

John Forester's theory was the single biggest factor in the reduction of
cycling levels. It was a convenient excuse for local governments to
eliminate spending on bicycle infrastructure. Thankfully, once the
vehicular cycling was discredited, that changed, spending on bicycle
infrastructure increased, and cycling rates in those locales where logic
prevailed increased.

Riding on the right, then veering in front of traffic as you approach an
intersection is probably the most stupid thing a cyclist could ever do.
Properly designed bicycle infrastructure, which includes traffic
calming, goes a long way to preventing right hooks.

> Cycleways or segregated stuff can avoid it though does mean it’s own
> traffic light phase in general, the newest one in London has that which can
> feel slightly sluggish but probably no slower.

The problem is that someone will point to a poorly designed intersection
that has a bicycle lane, whether painted or physically separated, or
other flawed infrastructure, and try to extrapolate that onto all
bicycle infrastructure in the entire world. You can see that in the
various collections of photos. Amusing, but not an accurate
representation of reality.

> My old cycleway bypasses various junctions with underpasses or light
> controlled crossings so a left/right hook is impossible.

That's the ideal scenario.

[AMuzi]

On 12/2/2022 8:23 AM, sms wrote:
> On 12/1/2022 2:52 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>

>> Vehicular cycling model doesn’t work 100% of the time

>> and has been the
>> dominant model over last few decades which in general has
>> seen cycling
>> levels drop to single figure %.
>
> John Forester's theory was the single biggest factor in the
> reduction of cycling levels. It was a convenient excuse for
> local governments to eliminate spending on bicycle
> infrastructure. Thankfully, once the vehicular cycling was
> discredited, that changed, spending on bicycle
> infrastructure increased, and cycling rates in those locales
> where logic prevailed increased.
>
> Riding on the right, then veering in front of traffic as you
> approach an intersection is probably the most stupid thing a
> cyclist could ever do. Properly designed bicycle
> infrastructure, which includes traffic calming, goes a long
> way to preventing right hooks.
>
>> Cycleways or segregated stuff can avoid it though does

>> mean it’s own

>> traffic light phase in general, the newest one in London
>> has that which can
>> feel slightly sluggish but probably no slower.
>
> The problem is that someone will point to a poorly designed
> intersection that has a bicycle lane, whether painted or
> physically separated, or other flawed infrastructure, and
> try to extrapolate that onto all bicycle infrastructure in
> the entire world. You can see that in the various
> collections of photos. Amusing, but not an accurate
> representation of reality.
>
>> My old cycleway bypasses various junctions with
>> underpasses or light
>> controlled crossings so a left/right hook is impossible.
>
> That's the ideal scenario.
>

"probably the most stupid thing a cyclist could ever do. "

Re read 'Effective Cycling'. You did not understand it.

[Tom Kunich]

The single most important thing that reduced cycling was the size of cities. It takes FAR too long to ride 15 miles to a worksite. What would a workman do to carry his tools and while as an engineer everything was provided for my work, two hours to get there and another two home was out of the question. I did get the the occasional job close enough to ride a bike there but then there was no facilities to make my bike safe from theft and police have NEVER enforced bicycle theft laws in the bay area.

[sms]

On 12/2/2022 7:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> Re read 'Effective Cycling'. You did not understand it.

LOL, I understood it just fine. I had a review copy of the manuscript
given to me by a friend of John Forester.

It reminded me of reading Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking
Mr. Feynman" where he's reviewing textbooks: "My wife says that during
this period it was like living over a volcano. It would be quiet for a
while, but then all of a sudden, "BLLLLLOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!" – there would
be a big explosion from the "volcano" below. The reason was that the
books were so lousy. They were false. They were hurried. They would try
to be rigorous.... The definitions weren't accurate. Everything was a
little bit ambiguous – they weren't smart enough to understand what was
meant by "rigor." They were faking it. They were teaching something they
didn't understand."

I'm sure that you are aware of the fallacy of the core premise of
Effective Cycling, that bicyclists fare best when they act, and are
treated in return, as drivers of vehicles, with the same rights and
responsibilities that motorists have. It's the "treated in return" part
that is a naïve expectation.

But beyond the safety issues of vehicular cycling there's a more basic
issue which is that most people don’t want to ride a bike in heavy
vehicle traffic, and that it's only been the installation of bicycle
infrastructure that has succeeded in increasing the number of cyclists
(which Forester had no interest in).

See <https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/17/everyone-needs-to-share-the-road>.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/2/2022 9:14 AM, sms wrote:
> On 12/1/2022 2:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In general I’d say you loose a lot of the leisure cycling but the
>> commuting
>> lot keep going which is a change as it used to be quite a noticeable
>> shift.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> A mistake some people make, hopefully unintentionally, is to extrapolate
> the weather where they live, and its effect on cycling, onto the whole
> world.

:-) Like people in California who think there should be year-round bike
commuting in Ohio!

> Now, living in northern California, cycle commuting is practical year
> round. There is not much rain (unfortunately), bitter cold is rare, and
> there is no snow or ice on the roads. It does get dark early, but with
> proper lighting this is not an issue, so commuting continues.

I'm sure _some_ commuting continues. I did at least occasional biking to
and from work through most winters, and I knew colleagues who lived much
closer than I did and rode in more often.

But there's no question that winter greatly reduces bike use in the vast
majority of the U.S. I strongly suspect that's true even where Scharf
lives. After all, Tom complains that it's cold when the mercury is far
above freezing.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

<LOL> I ride all winter.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/2/2022 9:23 AM, sms wrote:
>
> John Forester's theory was the single biggest factor in the reduction of
> cycling levels. It was a convenient excuse for local governments to
> eliminate spending on bicycle infrastructure.

Such bullshit. When Forester's message got out, there was no "reduction"
in cycling levels. It was at a time when practical cycling was on the
upswing, generated by the baby boomers who had bought bikes in recent
years.

And the techniques Forester explained were founded on cycling according
to the rules of the road, the laws on the books for both cyclists and
motorists. As a specific example: Our state's law (like most) requires a
minimum safe clearance for a car passing a bike. And our state law
specifically says a bicyclist need not ride far right if the lane is too
narrow to be safely shared by a bike and a car. Elementary school math
proves that cyclists are allowed to control most lanes, and cycling
education programs explain the value of that move.

One has to be purposefully obtuse to not accept that.

> Riding on the right, then veering in front of traffic as you approach an
> intersection is probably the most stupid thing a cyclist could ever do.

It's one of the stupid things novices sometimes do - for example, to
make a left turn after having been confined to a right side bike lane.
But Forester's books and every cycling education program specifically
recommends against it. Forester gave very detailed instructions on how
to merge left.

Too bad Mr. Scharf does not know that. But hey, ignorance can be fixed!

> Properly designed bicycle infrastructure, which includes traffic
> calming, goes a long way to preventing right hooks.

Really? https://www.washingtoninjurylaw.com/what-is-a-right-hook-accident/

"Bike lanes can often provide a sense of false security for cyclists. In
many cases, drivers are actually required to merge their cars into the
bike lane before they make a right-hand turn. This can prove to be
disastrous if the bicyclist or driver is not paying attention and can
lead to a right hook accident."

Or:

https://bikeportland.org/2020/10/20/serious-injury-right-hook-at-vancouver-and-columbia-underscores-hazardous-conditions-321866

How many examples would you like?

> The problem is that someone will point to a poorly designed intersection
> that has a bicycle lane, whether painted or physically separated, or
> other flawed infrastructure, and try to extrapolate that onto all
> bicycle infrastructure in the entire world.

The problem is that "99% of bike lanes give the other 1% a bad name." -
John Schubert

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/2/2022 12:00 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 7:58 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Re read 'Effective Cycling'. You did not understand it.
>
> LOL, I understood it just fine. I had a review copy of the manuscript
> given to me by a friend of John Forester.

So let's discuss the book in detail. Quit the vague insults and get
specific. I suggest using the newest edition.

We _should_ be able to have a rational discussion about specifics. I'll
note that I think the book could have been much better. It has good
points and bad points. But its instructions on traffic cycling and on
bike safety in general are very good, and were far better than almost
all contemporaneous material.

I'll note that Forester asked me (as well as others) to help edit the
final edition. Unfortunately, I was too buried with work to make any but
minor suggestions. I did get him to tone down his helmet propaganda.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

To be fair has been for decades high distance/high distance commuting as
folks from suburbs work in the city which is a good 20 miles away, london
is 40/50 mile across. These folks predate the cycle lanes by few decades,
stand on Richmond Park overlooking london on a winter night and can see the
stream of lights.

it’s been a growth in other types of cyclists as these guys are averaging
getting on for 20mph so are outliers for commuters! The bike lanes have
caused a huge growth in other types.

Do get the occasional folk using cargo bikes for such stuff but they again
are outliners do get mums/dads more often transporting kids about!

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/2022 2:52 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Vehicular cycling model doesn’t work 100% of the time and has been the
>> dominant model over last few decades which in general has seen cycling
>> levels drop to single figure %.
>
> John Forester's theory was the single biggest factor in the reduction of
> cycling levels. It was a convenient excuse for local governments to
> eliminate spending on bicycle infrastructure. Thankfully, once the
> vehicular cycling was discredited, that changed, spending on bicycle
> infrastructure increased, and cycling rates in those locales where logic
> prevailed increased.

He may be the figurehead for vehicular cycling but I’d say was 50/60’s ie
peak car and brutalist and such stuff like elevated walkways which you can
still see in few places in London ie fairly unrestricted cars use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Pedway_Scheme

It’s also when lot of the old cycleways got converted into service roads
and so on.

All Forester did was give a name to it really, orgs like CTC now cyclingUK
where advocating it from the end of the 19th ie didn’t want cycleways as
they thought they would be forced to use them.

>
> Riding on the right, then veering in front of traffic as you approach an
> intersection is probably the most stupid thing a cyclist could ever do.
> Properly designed bicycle infrastructure, which includes traffic
> calming, goes a long way to preventing right hooks.
>
>> Cycleways or segregated stuff can avoid it though does mean it’s own
>> traffic light phase in general, the newest one in London has that which can
>> feel slightly sluggish but probably no slower.
>
> The problem is that someone will point to a poorly designed intersection
> that has a bicycle lane, whether painted or physically separated, or
> other flawed infrastructure, and try to extrapolate that onto all
> bicycle infrastructure in the entire world. You can see that in the
> various collections of photos. Amusing, but not an accurate
> representation of reality.
>
>> My old cycleway bypasses various junctions with underpasses or light
>> controlled crossings so a left/right hook is impossible.
>
> That's the ideal scenario.
>
>

Roger Merriman

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

He didn't say that either, shithead.

[Roger Merriman]

No it’s not extremely rare, number around london, clearly easier if you can
use geography ie the thames or parks and so on.

Roger Merriman

[sms]

On 12/2/2022 10:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> No it’s not extremely rare, number around london, clearly easier if you can
> use geography ie the thames or parks and so on.
>
> Roger Merriman

He meant that it's rare where he lives in Ohio.

Also, I guess in the UK it's left hooks not right hooks.

The same situation with "geography" is what we have in my area. Very
long "cycleways" along waterways, with few (or zero) at grade street
crossings. In many cases there were already unpaved access roads for
maintenance vehicles that occasionally need to access the waterway for
various maintenance tasks, so the cost of creating a multi-use trail is
not very high. There are also a lot of bicycle facilities that took over
abandoned railway lines.

The MUP (multi-use paths) are a lot different than the separated bicycle
infrastructure on roadways. There's been a big push to convert painted
bicycle lanes into separated bicycle lanes, using concrete curbs and
bollards. These eliminate a major issue with painted bicycle
lanes--vehicles stopping in the bicycle lanes for nefarious purposes
like parking, deliveries, pick-ups and drop-offs. These separated
bicycle lanes also cause vehicles to drive slower since they have can no
longer drift into the bicycle lane with no consequences. They also stop
vehicles from using the bicycle lane as a very long right turn lane.

[AMuzi]

On 12/2/2022 11:21 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 9:14 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 12/1/2022 2:22 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>

>>> In general I’d say you loose a lot of the leisure

>>> cycling but the commuting
>>> lot keep going which is a change as it used to be quite a
>>> noticeable shift.
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>> A mistake some people make, hopefully unintentionally, is
>> to extrapolate the weather where they live, and its effect
>> on cycling, onto the whole world.
>
> :-) Like people in California who think there should be
> year-round bike commuting in Ohio!
>
>> Now, living in northern California, cycle commuting is
>> practical year round. There is not much rain
>> (unfortunately), bitter cold is rare, and there is no snow
>> or ice on the roads. It does get dark early, but with
>> proper lighting this is not an issue, so commuting continues.
>
> I'm sure _some_ commuting continues. I did at least
> occasional biking to and from work through most winters, and
> I knew colleagues who lived much closer than I did and rode
> in more often.
>
> But there's no question that winter greatly reduces bike use
> in the vast majority of the U.S. I strongly suspect that's
> true even where Scharf lives. After all, Tom complains that
> it's cold when the mercury is far above freezing.
>

He's pretty tough for a Californian.
The others bitch if it's under 60F.

[AMuzi]

On 12/2/2022 12:20 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/1/2022 2:52 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>

>>> Vehicular cycling model doesn’t work 100% of the time and has been the

>>> dominant model over last few decades which in general has seen cycling
>>> levels drop to single figure %.
>>
>> John Forester's theory was the single biggest factor in the reduction of
>> cycling levels. It was a convenient excuse for local governments to
>> eliminate spending on bicycle infrastructure. Thankfully, once the
>> vehicular cycling was discredited, that changed, spending on bicycle
>> infrastructure increased, and cycling rates in those locales where logic
>> prevailed increased.
>

> He may be the figurehead for vehicular cycling but I’d say was 50/60’s ie

> peak car and brutalist and such stuff like elevated walkways which you can
> still see in few places in London ie fairly unrestricted cars use.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Pedway_Scheme
>

> It’s also when lot of the old cycleways got converted into service roads

> and so on.
>
> All Forester did was give a name to it really, orgs like CTC now cyclingUK

> where advocating it from the end of the 19th ie didn’t want cycleways as

> they thought they would be forced to use them.
>
>>
>> Riding on the right, then veering in front of traffic as you approach an
>> intersection is probably the most stupid thing a cyclist could ever do.
>> Properly designed bicycle infrastructure, which includes traffic
>> calming, goes a long way to preventing right hooks.
>>

>>> Cycleways or segregated stuff can avoid it though does mean it’s own

>>> traffic light phase in general, the newest one in London has that which can
>>> feel slightly sluggish but probably no slower.
>>
>> The problem is that someone will point to a poorly designed intersection
>> that has a bicycle lane, whether painted or physically separated, or
>> other flawed infrastructure, and try to extrapolate that onto all
>> bicycle infrastructure in the entire world. You can see that in the
>> various collections of photos. Amusing, but not an accurate
>> representation of reality.
>>
>>> My old cycleway bypasses various junctions with underpasses or light
>>> controlled crossings so a left/right hook is impossible.
>>
>> That's the ideal scenario.
>>
>>
> Roger Merriman
>

>"All Forester did was give a name to it really, orgs like CTC now cyclingUK

where advocating it from the end of the 19th [century] ie
didn’t want cycleways as

they thought they would be forced to use them."

+1

[AMuzi]

It was I. Sorta.

My phrasing was, 'I ride to right of center except when not
prudent or reasonable, as do we all'

[Tom Kunich]

Well, to be truthful, it was a great deal easier to advocate vehicular cycling when the traffic was 5% of what it became later. How many of the people here actually stop at stop signs when there's no cross traffic? Forester and I got off on the wrong foot not because I disagreed with his thoughts so much as he didn't like my treatise showing that helmets made zero difference in bicycling deaths. He couldn't understand my position that you promote helmets to reduce minor injuries rather than trying to explain them as preventing deaths.

[Roger Merriman]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 10:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> No it’s not extremely rare, number around london, clearly easier if you can
>> use geography ie the thames or parks and so on.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> He meant that it's rare where he lives in Ohio.

It’s also rare in the Brecon Beacons (where I’m from) but different places
have different needs and solutions.

>
> Also, I guess in the UK it's left hooks not right hooks.
>
> The same situation with "geography" is what we have in my area. Very
> long "cycleways" along waterways, with few (or zero) at grade street
> crossings. In many cases there were already unpaved access roads for
> maintenance vehicles that occasionally need to access the waterway for
> various maintenance tasks, so the cost of creating a multi-use trail is
> not very high. There are also a lot of bicycle facilities that took over
> abandoned railway lines.

Get number of those in uk, very few are actually useful in terms of
transportation leisure yes, often the towns Center of mass moves as you
where, the Downs link Guildford to the Sea is 40 something miles all on the
old railway and it’s noticeable that you bypass the towns/villages on way.

Can be spectacular though one in the Peak District though various tunnels
and what not running in a narrow gorge fantastic area.

>
> The MUP (multi-use paths) are a lot different than the separated bicycle
> infrastructure on roadways. There's been a big push to convert painted
> bicycle lanes into separated bicycle lanes, using concrete curbs and
> bollards. These eliminate a major issue with painted bicycle
> lanes--vehicles stopping in the bicycle lanes for nefarious purposes
> like parking, deliveries, pick-ups and drop-offs. These separated
> bicycle lanes also cause vehicles to drive slower since they have can no
> longer drift into the bicycle lane with no consequences. They also stop
> vehicles from using the bicycle lane as a very long right turn lane.
>

The very short section with armadillos on my commute does stop traffic
wandering over junction is just as before but at least anything wandering
over will not drift across.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/2/2022 1:20 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> All Forester did was give a name to it really,...

True, to a degree. Forester said he was merely teaching what had been
the best principles of cycling all along, and which were taught in Britain.

> orgs like CTC now cyclingUK
> where advocating it from the end of the 19th ie didn’t want cycleways as
> they thought they would be forced to use them.

Who would ever force cyclists to use weird facilities?

I mean, like this?

https://bikeportland.org/2022/12/01/woman-cited-by-portland-police-for-not-riding-in-downtown-bike-lane-367765?fbclid=IwAR3BPp-477DkZhwdJF4D9jLGD9MlLaUowX8dY-KjmD2aEH-Chln6zcVrKX8

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Let me add that the decision to share or not share the lane does NOT
involve being afraid. Those who would put that label on it are probably
ashamed of their own timidity.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Rider]

Portland is a lonny bin.

[Catrike Rider]

What other reason do you have?

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/2/2022 3:45 PM, sms wrote:
> On 12/2/2022 10:46 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> No it’s not extremely rare, number around london, clearly easier if
>> you can
>> use geography ie the thames or parks and so on.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> He meant that it's rare where he lives in Ohio.

I mean extremely rare everywhere I've ridden, which so far is countless
cities plus even more rural roads in 47 states and about a dozen countries.

Pick ten cities at random. Most will probably have a body of water
nearby - a coastline or a river. Yes, if you can spend the money you can
probably install a nice waterside path. It will have relatively few road
crossings, most of which will involve bridges, for obvious reasons; so
you can provide grade separated crossings by, oh, maybe doubling the
cost of the facility. Grade separation tends to be expensive.

But opportunities for such projects are very limited. Rivers tend to
harbor industrial land which tends to be in use. And even if you squeeze
one in, the area close that nice path will be dwarfed by the total area
of most cities.

Pick a location at random, and it's rare to find a grade separated bike
facility within 50 miles. They are rare.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

It has been attempted in uk by police plus speed limits in both its
noticeable by its rarity and that CPS/courts refused noting that that’s not
what the law says or intends.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

Of the 4 major roads I cross to work only 1 isn’t grade separated and
that’s just that junction, most of them have some at some point, as that’s
how they build stuff in the 1930’s and so on.

But that’s rather moving the goal posts as most of the more modern stuff
doesn’t grade separate but provide bikes with own light change so other
traffic is held by lights when they cross.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

In the U.S., separate traffic light signal phases for bikes are almost
completely nonexistent. I've seen them in Stockholm, but never once
encountered one anywhere in the U.S. In almost all cities, they'd be
impossible to justify based on cost and on delay of other traffic.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

Isn’t New York pushing cycling so possibly something there? The Embankment
and in particular it’s segregated bit from Westminster to Tower and
branches off it so one can fill your boots for such, though most traffic is
heading along the river.

And more recently stuff CS9 is down high streets is getting there.

Roger Merriman

[sms]

On 12/4/2022 1:02 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> But that’s rather moving the goal posts as most of the more modern stuff
> doesn’t grade separate but provide bikes with own light change so other
> traffic is held by lights when they cross.

Again, I think that the issue is that Frank doesn't see much proper
bicycle infrastructure (or any at all) where he lives in Ohio so he's
not familiar with how it functions.

Doing proper separated infrastructure requires a Public Works department
that understands the core principles as well as a willingness to make
modifications once the infrastructure is in use and any issues show up.

Here's another proposal that could reduce the need for separated bicycle
lanes:
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-29/nyc-may-pay-people-for-reporting-bike-lane-blockers>.

[John B.]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2022 16:35:52 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

I would ask, is there an actual need for special bike lanes? The
number of bike fatalities have been in the 900-800 per year range for
close to 50 years, which probably predates bike lanes, and I read that
Statista has it that in 2021 there were 51.4 million cyclists in the
U.S. and while I can't seem to find specific numbers for bicycle
fatalities in 2021 I do see "nearly 1,000". 51.4 million divided by
1,000 is 1 death per 51,400 cyclists, or 0.000002%

Out of curiosity I checked autos and auto deaths for the same year and
came up with 289,5 million autos and 42,915 deaths, or 1 death per
6745 autos or 0.014%

Are bicycles really dangerious?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:35:56 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:

> Again, I think that the issue is that Frank doesn't see much proper
> bicycle infrastructure (or any at all) where he lives in Ohio so he's
> not familiar with how it functions.

:-) Actually, I see "proper bicycle infrastructure" all the time. I can see it by looking out
my window! That's because "proper bicycle infrastructure" is NOT limited to segregated
stuff. Let's remember that bikes are allowed on essentially all roads. Every lane is a
bike lane.

I understand there are people who are so timid that they refuse to ride on any pavement
that a motor vehicle's tires ever touch. That's sad, because those people's use of bikes
will always be much less than it could have been.

And even more sad, the fears of those timid people are made worse by the constant
cries saying "We finally need somewhere SAFE to ride."

Even on normal roads, bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 12/4/2022 5:07 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> I would ask, is there an actual need for special bike lanes?

It depends on your goal.

I'd say yes, for two reasons. First, it gets more people out of cars and
on bikes. Second, it increases safety, which is directly related to the
first reason.

"A study of European cities adds to a growing body of evidence that
investments in cycling infrastructure can encourage bike commuting,
which helps cut greenhouse gas emissions."
<https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/climate/bikes-climate-change.html>.

"New York City’s injury rates for all road users, including drivers,
pedestrians, and cyclists, typically decreased by 40 to 50 percent (PDF)
in areas where the city implemented protected bike lanes. In Montreal,
streets with protected bike lanes had 28 percent lower injury rates than
other streets, on average."
<https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/why-us-cities-are-investing-safer-more-connected-cycling-infrastructure>.

"A 13-year study of a dozen cities found that protected bike lanes led
to a drastic decline in fatalities for all users of the road."
<https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/05/29/protect-yourself-separated-bike-lanes-means-safer-streets-study-says/>.

John Forester had no interest in increasing the number of cyclists,
decreasing the number of motor vehicles, or making cycling safer, so he
did not want any bicycle infrastructure, so for him there was no "actual
need."

One thing that some people do that's highly misleading is to not look at
data in context. You need to look at the data specifically for areas
where there was no infrastructure and then infrastructure was put in.
And you also have to take into consideration the increase in the number
of cyclists. What some people will do is to say "look, cycling
infrastructure was installed and injuries and deaths went up by 2%"
leaving out the fact that the number of cyclists went up by 50%.

[Catrike Rider]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2022 18:56:07 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 7:35:56 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>
>> Again, I think that the issue is that Frank doesn't see much proper
>> bicycle infrastructure (or any at all) where he lives in Ohio so he's
>> not familiar with how it functions.
>
>:-) Actually, I see "proper bicycle infrastructure" all the time. I can see it by looking out
>my window! That's because "proper bicycle infrastructure" is NOT limited to segregated
>stuff. Let's remember that bikes are allowed on essentially all roads. Every lane is a
>bike lane.
>
>I understand there are people who are so timid that they refuse to ride on any pavement
>that a motor vehicle's tires ever touch. That's sad, because those people's use of bikes
>will always be much less than it could have been.

<EYEROLL> Poor Krygowski. He's sad because so many people, including
myself, don't want to ride the way he used to ride.

>And even more sad, the fears of those timid people are made worse by the constant
>cries saying "We finally need somewhere SAFE to ride."

Krygowski is also sad about those darned elected officials who keep
making more and more bike trails in response to the thousands of tax
paying voters who want them. Frank wants those officials to deny the
voters and force all bicyclists to ride the same way he used to ride.

>Even on normal roads, bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

<LOL> It does Frank no good to pretend that he knows what's best for
everyone else.

>- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 00:48:17 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

But will the number, or more logically, the percent of the population
riding bicycles increase to an appreciable level? And yes I do read
the reports talking about the millions of cyclists in the U.S. but the
small print, way down at the bottom of the page, seems to say that it
includes all that rode a bicycle once in the year... which is much
like saying that because you got a bit tiddly at the new years party
you are a drunkard.

I read that only 9% of U.S. families do not have access to a car and
about 24% of U.S. households have three or more.

As for safety, I did point out that the number if bicycle deaths has
been in the 800 - 900 range for nearly 50 years while the bicycle
advocates tell us that numbers of cyclists have increased which seems
to indicate that as the number of fatalities remains the same and the
numbers of cyclists is increasing that cycling is getting safer.....
without elaborate bicycle lanes.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2022 17:10:21 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

...or it might be because more and more bicycle trails are being
built.

https://www.traillink.com/

[John B.]

Bike paths? Nearly 50 years ago?


--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Rider]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2022 21:06:03 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>

I was riding the Military Ridge bike trail in wisconsin back in the
1980s. It was there long before I bought property near it. Since then
many new trails have sprung up in the area.

The Withlacoochee state bike trail in Florida was created in 1989.

[Tom Kunich]

Before him it was Jobst Brandt doing that. Frank was never much of a rider and when Jobst was the kingpin here he used to kiss Jobst's ass. Now somehow he believes himself to have assumed the mantle of King and cannot understand why no one bows down before him. Jobst chief problem to my mind was speed at any cost. Today Jobst would have a carbon fiber bike despite knowing they are not particularly safe. Though he would probably have one he considered safe. Krygowski on the other hand, really is totally judgmental about everything and everyone else. His practices and fears are supposed to be those of everyone else. Isn't it time for him to say that he never said that? It doesn't matter that everyone on this group understands that is his position.

[Tom Kunich]

The Bay Trail has circumnavigated San Franciso Bay for at least 40 years. Parts are paved and others gravel. That is why most people here can ride road bikes on gravel without a second thought.

[sms]

It depends on your definition of "appreciable." In areas that are
suitable for bicycle commuting, yes, bicycle infrastructure has resulted
in what could be safely called "appreciable" numbers. In some cases the
new infrastructure has made it practical to commute by bicycle because
the infrastructure bypassed some very dangerous freeway entrance/exits
that most cyclists would not be willing to ride.

If you look at the population of the entire country, rather than the
population of a local area where the new infrastructure was installed,
of course the percentage increase will be imperceptible, as will the
decrease in injuries and fatalities.

If you logically look at the increase in the area where the
infrastructure was installed, then the percentages are enough to be
measurable. New York City, specifically Manhattan, is the biggest
example. The Manhattan Waterfront Greenway is a 31 mile bikeway that is
a prime example. Prior to its development it would have been unthinkable
to commute by bicycle in Manhattan; "New data stemming from a New York
Department of Transportation report has revealed cycling levels in the
city to have jumped 80% in five years."
<https://cyclingindustry.news/new-york-cycling-levels-increase-80-in-five-years/>

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/5/2022 11:04 AM, sms wrote:
> On 12/5/2022 2:10 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> But will the number, or more logically, the percent of the population
>> riding bicycles increase to an appreciable level?
>
> It depends on your definition of "appreciable." In areas that are
> suitable for bicycle commuting, yes, bicycle infrastructure has resulted
> in what could be safely called "appreciable" numbers.

"Appreciable" is very, very vague. People like Scharf like to zone in on
one particular infrastructure installation during one particular brief
period to give pie-in-the-sky benefits. Yes, a new installation
sometimes gets a surge of interest; and its advocates "appreciate" every
rider who chooses that street over the one they used to ride, one block
away.

But "appreciable" changes as in noticeable reductions in car use?
Measured drops in pollution? Actual reductions in obesity, or heart
attacks or other ailments of the sedentary? No, in that sense of
"appreciable," those benefits are undetectable.

"According to League of American Bicyclists (LAB), a nonprofit that
collects data on biking in the U.S., the total number of bike rides
Americans take each year had actually been falling in the years leading
up to the pandemic. The number of people who ride their bikes to work
fell from around 900,000 in 2014 to just over 800,000 in 2019—about .5
percent of all commuters." That 0.5% has been quite stable for decades,
and despite all the hyping and building of weird bike lanes, it's not
increasing "appreciably."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

My old cycleway dates from 1959 at its oldest and 1992 at its newest.

I think most of the very old stuff is down been converted into service
roads and like ie 1920/30

Roger Merriman

[sms]

On 12/5/2022 11:42 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> My old cycleway dates from 1959 at its oldest and 1992 at its newest.
>
> I think most of the very old stuff is down been converted into service
> roads and like ie 1920/30
>
> Roger Merriman

In my area, the big increase in cycleways, aka MUPs (Multi-Use Paths)
began in the late 90's as service roads for creeks and rivers began
being paved (or hard-packed) and opened to public use.

The issue with this is that during wet years, if the path dips down
close to the water level, it can be closed if the water level rises,
then those street crossings are done at grade level. In one case, the
underpass was closed so often that they eventually built a new overpass,
at considerable expense. The underpasses are also often not ADA
compliant which is an issue.

Here is one project opened in 2021
<https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Engineering-Services/Engineering-Projects/Highway-101-Pedestrian-Bike-Bridge-Project>.
Nearly $23 million for a freeway over-crossing that replaced an
underpass. Google kicked in some money because the bridge serves a lot
of their employees that commute to work by bicycle.

The network of bicycle infrastructure still has some gaps that need to
be filled in but at least there is solid progress being made, unlike the
lack of progress on ever finishing new public transit light rail lines.
It would be pretty rare for someone's commute to be faster on public
transit than by bicycle, and that's not considering eBikes.