On 3/13/2018 12:58 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Is the discussion "there should be separate
lines for bicycles"?

It a great idea and here we have countless of
km of those, including in urban areas, but
surely the ambition isn't a complete
separation? That would be out of the question
he I ride my bike 3-4 times a day and ~5% of
the time on special lines, the rest is among
the cars like everyone else.

Here, most accidents that involve a bike AND
a car, 75-80% of those happen at intersections
when the bike rider expects (?) the car to
stop, but it doesn't. [1]

[1] According to Irene Isaksson-Hellman, traffic
analyzer at If, an insurance company.

Forester and others have demonstrated that the bulk of car-bike crashes
do happen at intersections. (And that every driveway is in fact an
intersection.) They've demonstrated that completely separated bike
facilities cannot be separated at intersections, where most crashes
happen. And they've pointed out that there can never be a complete
separate system getting cyclists to every point, so cyclists must learn
to ride with motor vehicle traffic anyway.

That doesn't matter. There are still lots of nut cases saying only
barrier-separated bike lanes and completely separate trails can be safe.

At this point in time, there are fewer than 250 miles barrier-separated
bike lanes in America. There are roughly 4 million miles of roads.

I guess they never plan to ride on 99.99% of the roads.


--
- Frank Krygowski