Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709...bumps?ft=1&f=2

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:

"@Greg Smith (jatodog)

'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'

Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."

What the hell? Every driveway is a blind intersection. With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?

damyth wrote:
NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709...bumps?ft=1&f=2

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:

"@Greg Smith (jatodog)

'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'

Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."

What the hell? Every driveway is a blind intersection. With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?

Yup, I agree.

I guess if you ride very slowly, like at walking speed, the footpath
might be ok, but for most people who ride regularly, the footpath is not
an option. I'd like to see how long this civil eng. would survive at 40
km/h on the footpath.

--
JS.

On Sep 22, 10:21 pm, James wrote:
damyth wrote:
NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709...ture-hits-cong...

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:

"@Greg Smith (jatodog)

'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'

Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."

What the hell? Every driveway is a blind intersection. With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?

Yup, I agree.

I guess if you ride very slowly, like at walking speed, the footpath
might be ok, but for most people who ride regularly, the footpath is not
an option. I'd like to see how long this civil eng. would survive at 40
km/h on the footpath.


Riding on the sidewalk introduces some profound hazards of its own,
but offers unique protections and conveniences as well. As long as
the rider is cognizant of the implications, sidewalks are a great
option to *include* in panoply of choices.

damyth wrote:
NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709...bumps?ft=1&f=2

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:

"@Greg Smith (jatodog)

'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'

Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."

What the hell? Every driveway is a blind intersection. With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?

Exactly. While there are times, places and people for which a sidewalk
might be a reasonable choice, in general they're much more dangerous
than using the road. I don't know where JaredParker got his data, but
the studies I'm familiar with all found sidewalks to be significantly
more dangerous than roads.

Also, it's likely that much of the problems come because sidewalk users
feel they're perfectly safe. They don't understand what the hazards
are, and they shut off their brains.

Unfortunately, there's no requirement for a "civil engineer specializing
in traffic engineering and transportation planning" to actually learn
anything about bicycling. Those guys, like almost everyone who has
anything to do with bicycling, feel that they already know everything.
Read a book? Take a course? Why, that would be a waste of time!

This explains straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only
lanes, bike lanes and sharrows in door zones, bike trails with blind
corners, and other travesties. It explains the delusion that "Any bike
facility is a good bike facility."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 23, 11:32*am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
damyth wrote:
NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709...ture-hits-cong...

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:

"@Greg Smith (jatodog)

'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'

Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."

What the hell? *Every driveway is a blind intersection. *With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?

Exactly. *While there are times, places and people for which a sidewalk
might be a reasonable choice, in general they're much more dangerous
than using the road. *I don't know where JaredParker got his data, but
the studies I'm familiar with all found sidewalks to be significantly
more dangerous than roads.

Also, it's likely that much of the problems come because sidewalk users
feel they're perfectly safe. *They don't understand what the hazards
are, and they shut off their brains.

Unfortunately, there's no requirement for a "civil engineer specializing
in traffic engineering and transportation planning" to actually learn
anything about bicycling. *Those guys, like almost everyone who has
anything to do with bicycling, feel that they already know everything.
Read a book? Take a course? *Why, that would be a waste of time!

This explains straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right-turn-only
lanes, bike lanes and sharrows in door zones, bike trails with blind
corners, and other travesties. *It explains the delusion that "Any bike
facility is a good bike facility."

--
- Frank Krygowski

I checked the NPR comments section again the JaredParker has posted
this additional nugget:
"@Brim Stone

'Separating bikes & cars guarantees bikes won't be seen at
intersections and people will needlessly die.'

I would contend the opposite as being true; separating fast moving
traffic from very slow moving cyclists greatly reduces the risk to the
cyclist. In the 1980's, the time span in which your "evidence" points
to; there were 70% less cyclists using road easements as compared to
2005-2010, where ridership has increased exponentially - primarily in
urban settings. Cyclists are now 85%"recreational riders", 15%"urban
commuters"- the setting has largely shifted from suburban to urban for
the vast majority of riders injury. That 15% is key. The point you
make regarding intersections is where to focus though, as studies of
which I've been a part show that between 60-65% of injuries and
fatalities occur at intersections. To address this issue, separating
traffic is ideal, and having clear rules for cyclists at intersections
is a must. In one of my recent projects in Boulder, CO-adjacent to US
HWY 36, separated bike lanes and adjacent sidewalks with bike lanes
are utilized, and the system works very well primarily because of the
visibility in intersections, and required stops at intersections for
cyclists."

This not only has piqued my interest, but has caused some alarm.
Anybody familiar with the project in Boulder that he's talking about?
I'm surprised LAB hasn't gotten involved to make sure this crank never
works on bike infrastructure again!

Incidentally, there is a civil engineer by the name of Jared Parker
with a profile on LinkedIn, so I don't think the poster is lying about
his job.

On Sep 24, 6:51*am, Phil W Lee wrote:
damyth considered Thu, 22 Sep 2011
20:48:09 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



NPR had some coverage today regarding federal funding of bike
infrastructure.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/22/140709...ture-hits-cong...

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:

"@Greg Smith (jatodog)

'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'

Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."

What the hell? *Every driveway is a blind intersection. *With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?

They arrive at those figures by excluding all collisions at junctions,
claiming that those are not really footway incidents.
The poor dumb idiots are too thick to realise that by putting cycle
traffic on the footway, you multiply the number of junctions, which
are the danger points.

That civil engineer needs a refund on the stats module of his degree,
since he clearly missed the most important part, which is to use the
appropriate stats, not the irrelevant ones.

Until he learns that, I hope that chartered status will continue to
evade him.

Considering some of the engineered road solutions around Melbourne,
road traffic civil engineers need a swift kick in the goolies!

--
JS.

To address this issue, separating
traffic is ideal, and having clear rules for cyclists at intersections
is a must. In one of my recent projects in Boulder, CO-adjacent to US
HWY 36, separated bike lanes and adjacent sidewalks with bike lanes
are utilized, and the system works very well primarily because of the
visibility in intersections, and required stops at intersections for
cyclists.

On a local bike path every intersection is posted with a STOP sign and "WALK
BIKE ACROSS INTERSECTION". Of course nobody does that, it would be
ridiculous. So assuming those signs somehow ensure safety is a big mistake.

Per Barry:
On a local bike path every intersection is posted with a STOP sign and "WALK
BIKE ACROSS INTERSECTION". Of course nobody does that, it would be
ridiculous. So assuming those signs somehow ensure safety is a big mistake.


I've been riding a bike path between Pleasantville and Somers
Point NJ intermittently for what must be at least 10 years.

It has those signs. Erected at a cost of what? $250 per sign?

Been looking, but I've never, ever seen anybody stop and walk
their bike across any intersection....

My guess is that lawyers were involved.
--
PeteCresswell

damyth wrote:


This not only has piqued my interest, but has caused some alarm.
Anybody familiar with the project in Boulder that he's talking about?
I'm surprised LAB hasn't gotten involved to make sure this crank never
works on bike infrastructure again!

LAB prevent bad bike infrastructure? You're joking, I hope - or I wish.

There's been considerable discussion on a certain (closed) LAB list
about LAB's "Bicycle Friendly Communities." Those include many
communities with door zone bike lanes, with mandatory bike lane laws,
with mandatory helmet laws, and now even with laws that require
bicyclists to yield to ALL vehicles! (Those are apparently Chicago and
Flagstaff, both rated Silver Level by LAB.)

LAB apparently believes one can't ride safely without a bike lane
stripe. They claim to be pro-education, but give far greater priority
to facilities. And they apparently believe any bike facility is a good
bike facility. Don't look for help there as long as Andy Clarke is in
charge.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
:with mandatory helmet laws, and now even with laws that require
:bicyclists to yield to ALL vehicles! (Those are apparently Chicago and
:Flagstaff, both rated Silver Level by LAB.)

Please provide a citation to the statute that requires that in
Illinois.


--
Movable type was evidently a fad. --Amanda Walker