On 2017-08-10 07:59, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-10 04:12, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:58:36 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 08:36, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure
of Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote
was entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with
bicycling, but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different
transportation planners, in separate presentations, lambast the
“vehicular cycling” movement, as an impediment to increasing the
number of transportational cyclists. As we now know, the
vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of
increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years transportation
planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like cars, an
idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/





The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497.
1% of people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is
good infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no
infrastructure—these people, like Jay, are referred to as “Strong
and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and confident, and will cycle
with just a minimum of infrastructure such as sharrows and “bike
routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what, no matter
how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was
good infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the
infrastructure moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves,
collision, injury, and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly
due to the infrastructure and partly due to the increased number
of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the
“interested but concerned” group for several reasons. They felt
safer in protected bicycle lanes, not only because of the
physical barrier from vehicles, but because there was no way for
vehicles to block the bicycle lane for parking or
loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities
have to go after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need
to follow the example of the Netherlands, where bicycle
infrastructure is directly responsible for the 38% trip share for
bicycles. Silicon Valley, which is flat, and has mild climate, is
particularly well suited for this transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.





The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and
planners that understood what was being talked about. I rode
there with my city’s Public Works director. In my city, we have a
chance to move a lot of projects forward since when I was elected
I replaced a termed-out council member who was not interested at
all in increasing transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed
through several stalled projects.


I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager
that "vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in
traffic and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I
always do. Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be
in a car is stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on
the same runway where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling
once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that.
However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find
excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start
raining, see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on.

We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get
above 3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps
saying. At the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling
and what that means for the economy. I agree with him there but
it's a contradiction. We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode
share increase is worth it or not, considering all "side effects".

John Forester was an extremely persuasive voice. He was a mainstay on
this group and convinced most of us.

In my late 30's I was a crippled old man with a back so bad that I
walked stooped over a great deal of the time and the slightest strain
would kick my back out again.


Wow. Mine wasn't that bad but I had times where for days I could only
get out of bed by pulling myself up on a clothes pole, or not at all.


Then someone suggested cycling. Like most I returned with hesitation
but the more I cycled the less problems I had with my back.


Same here. L4-L5-L6 are pretty hose in my spine. Cycling and evben more
so mountain biking helped that a great deal. Builds back muscle.


... So John
certainly made an impression on me and I immediately became part of
the 1%.


I didn't need anyone to tell me that, I just needed a safe way to cycle
and when they widened the shoulder on a major country road here I had
that. Well, at least safe enough. Plus they opened some MTB trails and
that was what really triggered me to cycle again. Before that there were
some gruesome accidents and the occasional cross with a spoked wheel.

A guy who really helped me was a CPA at our church who suggested I may
also have a magnesium deficiency. So I take supplements now which help a
lot. None of the fancy medical doctors ever figured that out.


Now I'm almost 73 and haven't had a twinge except the occasional
crash.

The reasons it might be hard to convince many people to ride that
would be in the 60% of because of weather conditions. ...


Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and occasionally
ride the residential streets here. They will not even venture out into
the village center 2mi away for errands and such because they will not
ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane. Understandably so. I ride
those a lot but it's not fun.


... If I were to
get a job within a couple of miles of my house would I ride? Probably
not because I have to wear a suit and tie. ...


The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and in
summer loosen the tie for the ride).


... Smelling like a racehorse
isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
communicate with.


Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
our medical device company.


Sorry, I meant engineering company. Jay would be the one heading for the
law office to work.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/