On 2018-02-22 03:45, sms wrote:
On 2/20/2018 9:04 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without
exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to
point B. And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and
the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim
the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities
providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a
trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be
nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a
percentage of the commute. I can take the dopey south waterfront
cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride
over to it. It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but
it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I
just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some
awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day!

Yes, the physically separated bicycle facilities are often not the
fastest route, at least in terms of peak speed. But at least around
here, they often are a) the shortest route, and b) the route with the
fewest stops (fewest traffic lights, stop signs, rail crossings). On the
minus side, they are often unlit, and while there are no bicycle-motor
vehicle crashes, you still have bicycle-bicycle crashes and
bicycle-pedestrian crashes.

While everyone has anecdotes about bicycle infrastructure, sometimes it
really helps to look at the facts (sorry Frank!) when evaluating the
effectiveness of infrastructure. There is a "study of studies" entitled
"The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and
crashes: a review of the literature" that is worth reading, at least the
conclusions:

"On-road marked bike lanes were found to have a positive safety effect
in five studies, consistently reducing injury rate, collision frequency
or crash rates by about 50% compared to unmodified roadways
[61,62,65-67]. Three of those studies [61,66,67] found a similar effect
for bike routes. One study [63] found that there was an increase in
crash rates in the year following installation of marked bike lanes on a
major road, especially for a section counter to on-road traffic flow,
but this effect was not sustained over the long term."

"The evidence to date suggests that purpose-built bicycle only
facilities (e.g. bike routes, bike lanes, bike paths, cycle tracks at
roundabouts) reduce the risk of crashes and injuries compared to cycling
on-road with traffic or off road with pedestrians. Street lighting,
paved surfaces, and low-angled grades are additional factors that appear
to improve cyclist safety. The major advantage of infrastructure
modifications, compared to helmet use, is that they provide
population-wide prevention of injury events without requiring action by
the users or repeated reinforcement. Given the influence of safety on
individuals' decisions to cycle, the importance of cycling modal share
to safety, and the ancillary benefits of this active and sustainable
mode of transportation, infrastructure enhancements have the opportunity
to promote an array of improvements to public health."

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1476-069X-8-47?site=ehjournal.biomedcentral.com


Oh, oh, now you are coming with hard facts. That is greatly poo-poo'ed
upon by some here :-)

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/