On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 14:47:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 1/28/2018 10:34 AM, Ned Mantei wrote:
On 28-01-18 06:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:
And I agree with the concept. As I've mentioned before, we were
staying with (new) friends in Zurich, and they took us on a walking
tour of the city. At that time, they had just passed a "strict
liability" law like you describe. Our friends told us it absolutely
transformed the experience of walking (and IIRC bicycling) around the
city.
Isn't one of our newer posters from there? Any comment?
That could be me...
I've been reading the local newspaper (Tages Anzeiger) everyday for
decades, and I don't remember ever seeing something like this. Maybe it
was a long time ago?
We were there in 2007. We were told the law was very new then.
In any event, I generally feel safe riding in
Zurich. The city has* helped, for example by sometimes reserving the
sidewalk on one side of a street just for bicycles, by allowing bicycles
on small roads where otherwise non-resident traffic is forbidden, and by
establishing sensible bike lanes (wide enough to avoid the door zone).
We were there for two rainy days and did not ride a lot. I do remember
wayfinding signs (for example, leading me to the train station via quiet
streets and some connector paths). I don't think I ever rode a sidewalk
path. Not all connector paths were wonderfully maintained, but they did
provide a pretty peaceful route.
Besides this, over the years I've worked out my own ways to get through
the city, mostly avoiding heavy traffic.
I do the same here. And I acknowledge that that's probably easier in
older cities than in new ones. Big newer development, like in the
southern U.S. (Charlotte NC, Jacksonville FL) tends to be designed
around "stroads" sprouting cul-de-sac "mushroom" housing areas, and huge
shopping areas designed only for car access. Older areas retain more
parallel street choices, and even some cut-throughs that are
inaccessible to cars.
I also signal for turns, stop
for red lights, and generally try to behave in a predictable way.
Me too.
Another factor is that there are enough people on bicycles here that
drivers are used to seeing them. Years ago I went for a ride while
visiting Cincinnati, and had the impression that a lot of drivers had
never encountered a bicycle before. That seemed scary.
I'm certain that having more cyclists helps. Unfortunately, in the U.S.
there is a strong cabal of "bicycle advocates" who seem to think that
any facility that increases cycling count is fine. That's despite
dangers in some designs. And of course, the novices lured by those
designs are the ones least likely to recognize the dangers.
There is a subject here that seems to be totally ignored - the
cyclist.
In a number of formal studies, the CHP study in L.A. country comes
strongly to mind, over half of the accidents, where blame could be
assigned, were the fault of the cyclist. In both New York and San
Francisco autopsies performed on cyclists killed in highway accidents
shows a blood alcohol content in excess of the legal maximum on nearly
half the bodies.
Will all the publicly constructed MUPS in the world protect a drunken
law breaker?
And if not, how can numbers of crashes be reduced?
https://www.planetizen.com/node/8182...-hate-cyclists
https://www.psychologicalscience.org...ith-bikes.html
https://tinyurl.com/y9ccdmzy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248656/
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
https://helmets.org/alcohol.htm
https://tinyurl.com/y9v4xf8k
--
Cheers,
John B.