On 10/3/2019 6:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 17:03:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


The majority of American cyclists may prefer cycling infrastructure, but
that's due to a couple reasons.

First, the majority of those "cyclists" drive their car to a bike trail,
park, unload their bike and ride out and back. They use the trail as a
linear park, not to replace car trips.

Second, the majority of "cyclists" aren't competent to recognize the
dangers imposed by most facilities. Even when (as with the Jensen study
in Copenhagen) data clearly shows significant increases in crash rates,
the cyclists say they FEEL safer. The syndrome can be described as "Any
bike facility is a good bike facility." That's happened with countless
door zone bike lanes, with bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only
lanes, and other monstrosities.


But given the very low ratio of bike deaths to the number of cyclists
isn't most of the danger actually a perceived, or imagined, danger?

It's true that if done even halfway competently, bicycling is very safe.
By extension, even riding in a door zone in a crowded city is not
_extremely_ dangerous. It's not like jumping out of a plane without a
parachute.

OTOH, I have a problem with bike segregationists and city officials
telling people these facilities are safer than ordinary streets, when in
fact they are more dangerous. I have a problem with spending public
funds based on that falsehood. And I don't like the additional hassling
that comes from motorists who see a cyclist refusing to use those
facilities.


--
- Frank Krygowski