Cycling Copenhagen through American eyes

Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
Frank Studt wrote:
Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
Frank Studt wrote:
Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:

It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.

There isnt much place for "leap of faith" in science. Travel mode
choice is a complex field with non trivial models. Nobody who has
dealt with travel mode choice and evaluation studies would make a
claim like that without testing for confounding factors...

You're over-complicating things.



Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.

Perhaps for you, not for me. If I'm in a hurry, I take the street, if
not I take a track (if there's one). I like having choices.



You are confusing travel mode choice with route choice.



OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
they like.

Im sorry but your statements lag scientific background. Its well known
since decades in the field of social psychology that you cant directly
predict behaviour from attitude. Especially if you just use one
variable.
I think the interesting thing about the surveys showing most people
think segregated facilities are safe and mixed traffic is dangerous is
that people just dont know where they are safe as cyclists.

Again, you focus exclusively on safety. People are not statisticians.
"Sharing the road" is by and large unpleasant. It might be less so if
drivers were better behaved and the driving was better moderated, but it
still wouldn't be pleasant.

Nope again. People might be confusing "pleasant" or the perceived
safety with real safety but I dont think they tell you they want their
kids (or them self) rather ride on pleasant routes then on safe
routes. To clarify we are talking primary about utility cycling here.
And the order of preferences here is pretty clear:
1. safety
2. velocity
3. pleasantness

I think those are your preferences.


Road safety is a big issue and its the number one reason (surveys) for
people to use segregated facilities.



Most of the cycle facilities built in Germany dont meet one of the
above criteria. I dont even understand why people think that a marking
on the road (cycle lanes) in the door opening zone could be more
pleasant than riding without marking. Knowing the risks of facilities
makes it far more unpleasant to use them.

Bad lanes are dangerous. They're not necessary. I won't ride in a door
zone, lane or not. I've instructed my kids explicitly to stay out of bad
lanes. The worst lanes around here (Boston) were installed by cycling
"advocates" who knew better. There has been at least one dooring
fatality. I'm not naive.


The most facilities I know dont meet any guidelines regarding width etc.
and many of them are mandatory. And even the lawful built facilities
worsen safety (ok you dont care so much about safety). I have enough of
that ****.


The only consequence can be to enlighten people about their wrong
perception. Educate them how to ride properly in mixed traffic.
Educate car drivers to respect cyclists right to the road.

You can't "educate" around the reality of mixing 2 ton vehicles with
vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.


Why not? I think a neglected factor is the enforcement of traffic laws
especially on motorized traffic.

Of course it is, and there are social reasons for that. Believing that
motorists can be calmed through education or enforcement is unrealistic.
It's not like it hasn't been tried.



Thats not really true. The positive road safety effects of Speed limits
and there enforcement for instance have been proven all around the
world. Traffic laws have become more severe in the last decades of
course there is much to be done.





And if you asked the question what kind of infrastructure cyclists
like on an abstract level they will tell you they prefer
infrastructure that is safe first and fast second. Both criteria speek
for mixed traffic and not segregation.

People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction.


I really think you are making that up or you are confused, not many
people want their own or the health of their kids be at risk for more
pleasantness. The order of preferences is pretty clear (see above).

So you say, but calling me a liar and stupid isn't very persuasive, but
it's typical with ideologues.




Im just asking for some kind of empirical proof for you claims (survey).
Calling someone ideologues its typical for people who dont want to deal
with an well built argument.



They demand
facilities,


its more of an excuse, "if there were more facilities I would ride far
more often, but cycling on the road is much to dangerous"

they use them when they get them. What could be more obvious?



Its not obvious at all. The impact on modal split by the building of
facilities have at best been small. Some studies even showed a
decline. We are talking about spending billions (for the whole US) for
an increase in the one digit percent range.




A 2004 study for NL shows that cycling is decreasing\stagnating,
despite the efforts an money put in cycling infrastructure.
http://www.ecf.com/misc/filePush.php...58_english.pdf

Another study shows that infrastructure is of no relevance for choice
of Transport.
http://www.ecf.com/misc/filePush.php...59_English.pdf


There is a big misunderstanding of the effect of infrastructure on
cycling in NL, DK. Bicycle use didnt rise after the building of
facilities. It never had been as low as it is in North-America. The
reason for the high figures of cyclists in this countries lie in there
town structure, relatively short ways between housing, work, shopping
etc. and a very late occurrence of mass motorization.

The results of studies are mixed. There is debate over
correlation/causality, but my overall impression is that facilities,
particularly well designed ones, get used and are frequently preferred
by cyclists,

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jph...hp200856a.html

"Findings from revealed preference studies are mixed. At a city level,
two studies have found that bike lanes are associated with higher rates
of bicycle commuting (21, 25). However, at an individual level, other
studies have not found such a link (14, 16). Several studies have found
that bicyclists will take a longer route to use bicycle facilities, such
as lanes or paths (15, 26, 27). Preference for lanes or paths may depend
upon the type of bicyclist. One study found that bicycle commuters
diverted very little from the shortest path and preferred not to ride on
paths or trails (28). A national survey found that frequent bicyclists
preferred bike lanes rather than paths. Infrequent bicyclists were more
likely to want more bike paths rather than lanes (29)."


Again you are talking about route choice and not travel mode choice. Or
do I have to explain what "travel mode choice" means?




- Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.

What's a "big image campaign"?


They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/

and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in
Copenhagen.

I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.



Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10...ng-spaces.html



So I guess he's (the blogger) an "idiot" until he posts something you
agree with...



He didnt write the article above and in his comments he showed that he
did not understand it. So he is an idiot all the time.

The article author did say:

"3. I agree, many people (understandably, given a fear of cycling)
prefer to cycle away from motorized traffic. I agree, we should provide
these kinds of facilities, as seen in Dk and the NLs. Such facilities
promote cycling."



I think the author is either very diplomatic or he does not think his
own argument to the end. Anyway this point is contradicting the message
of his essay. I wanted to write him my self when I read it maybe I will do.


I think "fear of cycling" should be replaced by "fear of cycling around
motor vehicles", but even then it would be a distortion. Some may fear
traffic, other may just find it unpleasant.



I know a bunch of people who know about the dangers of facilities and
dont think they are safe or pleasant. Being routed in the blind spot of
right turning lorries or slow down at every intersection and gateway
despite you have right of way cause some turning driver might not
anticipate you doesnt sound safe nor pleasant. And I could go on and on
with other problems.

In Germany we have a saying "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber" in
English "Fear is a bad counsellor". It refers to the high rate of
irrationality associated with fear. Bicycle Advocates should not make
this irrationality their on and demand facilitation.



The article is old news (as are so many of the quotes and cites --
literally). People have been fretting over cyclists being banned from
the roads for almost 100 years. It's a Forrester bogey-man. It's fear
mongering, nothing more.



BS its not my fault people ignore facts since decades sadly there are
no new news on the topic.


Besides, what the argument boils down to is that you feel people should
do something they don't want to do (ride in the street) to protect your
right to ride in the street. That's like telling people who don't like
broccoli that they should eat it anyway because you (who like it) don't
want the broccoli farmers to go out of business. When they complain they
don't like it, you tell them that's immaterial, it's good for them.



Nope Im advocating for the right of cyclists to ride safe and to know
the truth (I know you cant handle the truth) about safer cycling. Its
more like people want bananas and are given cucumbers. I just point
out that a banana is not a cucumber.

Again, insults aside, I think you are exaggerating the safety issues.


Not really. Cycling and safety or road safetysis a big issue. In Some
states even helmets are mandatory (the hole helmet discussion is a
safety discussion). So your nice facilities might not only worsen your
safety it might also bring you mandatory helmet laws.

And the differences between the safety of cyclists are very high.
Especially somebody in the US should be alarmed about the building of
unsafe facilities cause you allready have the highest risk of fatality
per miles traveld in the western world (about 7 times higher then in
Germany). In Germany and Western Europe the discussion about segregated
facilities have always been a discussion about the safety of cyclists.
Its even part of the German traffic code that the mandatory facilities
are explicitly bound on the claim they have positive safety.

There is a divergence of "truth" about the relative safety of various
facilities, but in absolute terms, cycling is safe enough that the net
public health benefit will be positive. You can claim (luridly) that
"facilities kill", but then the counter-claim (equally lurid) can be
made that sedentary life "kills" just as surely. I think it's far from
certain that facilities must carry a higher risk.


Its pretty certain, we have seen that even under the circumstances of a
high safety in numbers effect the safety of cyclists is worsened by
segregation.



I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
that, just watch what they use.

Again you lag scientific background. The problems your "methods"
implicate have been discussed for decades in social sciences,
economics, psychology etc.. I already named you a few and could go on
and on....

You want to predict people's preferences, I just want to accommodate
them. I don't need to have predictive models to do that. You presume to
know better, I don't.


If you want to proof your hypothesis or measure effects of
infrastructure on cycle use you need explanatory models the rest is
just speculating around.

No, you just have to observe the popularity of facilities.


Nope, I explained it now several times I wont do it again.



Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up
with a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling
facilities. Maybe you can name a few.

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20


Good one. The part about intersections almost exclusively deals with
roundabouts. There selection of studies is highly biased. I dont want
to get in to detail with the roundabout-studies but only so much: Most
accidents between cars and cyclists occur on town street intersections
and roundabouts are the most uncommon kind of intersection in towns.
Why the **** would they concentrate on roundabout-studies. Funny thing
they came up with Jensens study "Safety effects of blue cycle
crossings: a before-after study" but missed the Copenhagen study we
have been discussing. Smells fishy.

You asked for an example.


And you came up with a pretty crappy one.

I really don't have the time to critique all
the studies. I merely point out that there is a divergence of opinion.


The tendency of the studies regarding safety effects of cycling
infrastructure is pretty clear.

No, they're all over the map.

You are dreaming.


Again, people choose additional risk all the time. It's not the
overriding concern. You are attempting to portray in black and white an
issue with many shades of gray.


Of course people choose risk for them self and sometimes for there kids
on purpose. But this is not what happens when they use segregated
facilities. Most people will explicitly tell you they use them cause
they are much safer and for the same reason they demand them to be
built... Your situation in the US might be different (would surprise me
and as far as I have seen the discussion about facilities in the USis
highly associated with safety).




BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I said you can find tons
of primary research about the topic.
Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of
cyclists.

Yes, I've had no luck finding these in English, so I can't comment other
than to repeat the above.

Dont play dumb. There is enough English material on the issue. In the
above German studies the researchers where pretty astonished that year
long federal and local policies had high negative safety implications
for cyclists.

Again, you're insults aren't helpful. The specific studies you cited
have been cited before. I had attempted to find them in English at one
time, I'm not going to spend more time again.



Try this one:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html


What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis

I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling
would
be an ethical trade-off.


How exactly do you measure an ethical trade-off.

Probably in years of life.

Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular



Me insisting on keeping cycling unpopular? Quite the opposite. I named
a lot of measures to raise the attraction of cycling and reduce car
traffic.

Simply stated, vehicular cycling has not been popular. Car traffic
reduction has not been politically feasible. This is in the US, I can't
speak of elsewhere.


I think its just a question of how many cars are on the road how fast
they are going and with how they are treating other road users. All of
this factors can be influenced and you dont have to spend billions on
facilities.

Traffic calming is a complicated (politically and technically) subject.
I'm all in favor of it, but it's not politically feasible (US) or cheap.


I think the problem for many towns (people) in the US with making
cycling attractive is that average length of ways between home, work,
shopping etc. are to long. Sadly there isnt much to be done to change
that, land use in the US has been much to car oriented and it will
take decades in most areas to reverse that. Off course there are
exceptions.

Perhaps more exceptions than you think. Many US cities emptied out,
residentially, in the 60's & 70's, many have since been "recolonized"
with a demographically diverse population, a trend which has been
gathering momentum for a couple of decades now. The "exceptions", like
Portland, OR, may prove to be not all that exceptional.


And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
when nobody except a hard core participates.


As told already there are a lot of other measures to built incentives
to cycle then worsen road safety by building segregated facilities.

But people want facilities and you offer broccoli, then don't understand
when they won't eat it.


No, I just tell them a cucumber is not a banana. If they want to
believe cucumbers are bananas I cant change it but I refuse to join them.

Your metaphor is based on the claim that people are being misled on the
relative safety of facilities. I don't see the evidence for that. Nor,
as I keep repeating, do I see safety as the defining issue.


Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on
routes
is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route,
choose
another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?


Im from Germany and I can tell you in most towns many good routes are
facilitated with crappy bicycle infrastructure.

I'm sure many are, but doesn't that mean that many aren't?

No, there are only a few I use and this are the ones that are totally
separated from motorized traffic. But they often have a bad surface
and aren't well maintained, are to small, are use by pedestrians etc.

If there are no alternate routes (to facilities), I could see your
point, but speaking to urban riding in the US, it's hard to visualize
such a situation. There are simply so many routes in the urban grid that
the choices are plenty. I can't speak about Germany, and I don't
particularly care about rural and suburban cycling (in this context).


Some times there are alternatives but the good routes are highly
facilitated. You would love it.



It can be very stressful if car drivers try to insist to use them.
Often there is no alternative route and Im definitely not going to
****ty side streets full of potholes. I dont think I have to just
accept the fact that motor traffic oriented Transportation planners
and politicians think cyclist should ride in the gutter or on the curb
of the road and people think this is safe because they have been told
for decades. Im speaking out the interest of all cyclists if I insist
of there right to ride safe. If most cyclists and motorist dont know
how safe riding work it is another problem.

It seems you have safety on the brain. I don't think about it
particularly. Even in the US, with it's relatively lousy bike safety
record, I've never worried about it. I don't think it's as dangerous as
driving.



In general its a question how you measure or compare the safety of
different activities. But I think for the US it doesnt make any
difference how you measure or compare, cycling would not look that good.
You have helmet laws in some states and want to tell me safety is no
issue...



Again, where facilities exist, cyclists almost universally choose them.
You are in a minority and shouldn't expect the world to conform to your
ideals.

Again, where no facilities exist, cyclists almost universally dont
choose them.

I think you could drop "almost" from that tautology.

Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice
cycle path they paid for with hard earned tax money.

Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for
out of
general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax
and
usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.

You dont recognize sarcasm when it bites you in the face?

Maybe it's a language thing.



Thought it was obvious, but I hope my English is better than your German.

I'm sure it is since I only studied for three years and never had an
occasion to use it since. Though I don't know what my fluency (or lack
of) has to do with anything.


They are honking, yelling, overtaking very close and so on.

They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.

It will get worse after the building of more facilities, you will
loose every right to use the road.

Now you're being hysterical.



Not really. Drivers have been yelling at me I should ride on a cycle
path when there wasn't any in a one mile radius. The building of
facilities have the effect that most road users start to (or even
more) think, cyclists dont belong to the road. Many cyclist dont learn
how to ride properly in mixed traffic and it isnt uncommon that they
use pedestrian paths...

This is a case where education is really necessary, for both drivers and
cyclists (and cops). Rational cycling plans assume a mix of conditions,
not door-to-door facilities. Street riding is a necessary skill and a
right, not privilege (unlike driving).


So Im very much effected by those facilities. Its gone that far that
many people (even cyclists) think cyclist dont belong on the road
they
are better of on the footpath.
And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.

Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
most want facilities.

Most want to ride safe, facilities dont do that, so most cyclists just
dont know what they want.

That's a pretty arrogant attitude and it explains a lot.


What exactly does this explain? I think its cynical to make people
believe they are safe on segregated facilities and spend billions on
that crap. As an side effect you freeze the status quo of car
dominated cities for decades by not taking real measures to reduce car
use.

You are claiming that people are being misled, I see no evidence for
that.

Just talk to people, listen what politician say or what news papers
write on the issue. Safety is all over the place.


If people find "road sharing" unpleasant, then I think their
preferences should be accommodated with a budget that reflects (perhaps
with some growth factored in) modal share and overall social benefit.
There is nothing exclusive about traffic reduction/calming and cycling
facilities -- they are quite compatible, some say necessarily
complimentary, a sentiment I'd agree with.




I'm also against mandating the use of those
facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
don't see what's so complicated.


You should make a little effort and read what is complicated. I
explained it.

I have followed your "explanations". They're really just your personal
preferences. Calling them universal doesn't make them so.


Right to life and physical integrity are pretty universal to me as is
my right to use the road with the vehicle I choose without being
discriminated.

I don't find the "discrimination" argument compelling, except in the
"mandatory use" statutes. Where ample alternate routes exist, I just
don't see the case at all. That describes my reality (US urban). If
there's any discrimination, it's denying facilities to those who prefer
them and contribute to infrastructure costs via taxes.


There is already infrastructure its called the road. As stated above
cycle lanes are kind of mandatory by principle and car drivers are
trying to sanction you for defections. Regarding cycle path its almost
the same. Till 1997 every facility in Germany was mandatory and a lot of
people still think they are and behave like it. Its a little complicated
subject and difficult to explain. But if there are facilitated routes
you lose your right to the road belief me or not.




Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity,


Right

I don't understand the
fuss over a possible slight decline in safety


We are not speaking about slight decline. The Federal Highway Research
Institute in Germany came to the conclusion that in Germany cycling
facilities worsened the safety at intersections for 200-300% (and they
only looked at "well" built facilities. The Lund study came to the
conclusion that some facilities worsen safety 1200%. Or do you think
this a slight declines in safety?

I'm unfamiliar with those specific studies. The study you originally
cited (Copenhagen) was 110%, not 300% or 1200%.


In Countries like DK and NL there is a pretty large safety in numbers
effect working in favor of cyclists. So the negative safety effects of
segregation tend to be smaller cause everybody is allways expecting
cyclists. In Germany we dont have that and in the US it is far worse.

That's not what I've seen in places like Portland, OR.

What? There is no safety in numbers effect in Portland?



Negative safety effects of facilitation have been much bigger in
Germany and other countries and the same will happen in the US. The
smallest worsening of safety will happen by the building of cycle
lanes but I dont really understand why people claim its more pleasant
than riding in mixed traffic. For me cycle lanes are more unpleasant
cause you are often expected to ride in the door opening zone and
motorized traffic is overtaking in closer proximity.

Ideally, a bike lane is only a space prohibited for use by motor
vehicles. A good lane doesn't put cyclists in the door zone, a bad lane
does. You can't judge all lanes by bad ones.


I see the reality in Germany I dont want them, even the "best" are worse
than no lane no point to argue.



The idea of segregation of traffic by speed via lanes is well understood
and accepted by motorists. Complications arise at intersections where
the rules are unclear/unfamiliar. Cycle lanes have many drawbacks, but
at the same time often represent a "take back" of road space, which in
itself may have a traffic calming effect. Bad lanes are generally
created when there simply isn't enough room for them, either because the
road is too narrow to share or the "take back" wasn't aggressive enough.
Reducing lane count, or even lane width, is very difficult politically
here in the US.

Still, the argument is
specious because it is possible to design safe segregated facilities,
and making cycling 100% safe does nothing if the modal share is 0.

I dont think this scenario is of any interest at all.

No, of course not, but it's an extrapolation.



In this country, with modal share at 0.5%, very little can be justified,
either in facilities or reduction of motor vehicle speeds or densities.
The fate of cycling rests on the possibility of drastically increasing
modal share. Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
decades, with little to show for it.


They came up with pretty good advice how to ride safe in mixed traffic
that's not bad.

Sure, if they stopped there and didn't tack on the ideology.


You call it ideology, but finding measures to ride safe in a car
dominated society is pure pragmatism for me. That they dont want
facilities its only natural not ideologues.


Finally, vehicular cycling
ideologues are being pushed out


Pushed out where?

Boston, Dallas, etc.


I think you are confusing cause and effect.


I dont think there have been many in administrations regarding
transportation planning, land use planning and transport policies in
general.

They had been dominant in US cycling advocacy (LAB, etc.) for decades.


This are the key fields that determine modal split. Have they even
been relevant regarding road safety education? In other words they
developed methods how to ride safe and not how to increase the number
of cyclists, you are confused.

No, ad hominem aside, I'm aware of "Effective Cycling" curricula and
courses. It is useful stuff, orthogonal to the facilities debate (or
should be). It hasn't trained a whole lot of cyclists in the US, however.


You would have less fatalities if every kid (and grown up) would be
trained in effective cycling and people wouldn't fear motorized traffic
so much they need segregation.


and cycling modal share is increasing.


Nice scapegoat you are constructing.

??? Modal share is growing in several US cities. It was originally
attributed to the spike in gas prices, but didn't revert when prices
fell. All the talk (and implementation) in cities like New York &
Boston, for examples, has been on facilities. This is a huge change.
Boston had 0 miles of bike lane until very recently. This was the direct
result of opposition by vehicular cyclists who dominated the dialog.


Its always the same. When more people start cycling the first thing they
demand is own facilities we have been through it in Germany and other
countries. If you want infrastructure demand parking facilities they are
much more useful. Anyway in twenty years you will look back and see how
naive you where with your damn facilities. Boston has the best
requirements to be a bike city. Its relatively plain, it has short ways
etc.. Cycling is supposed to be growing more or less naturally. You dont
need your own lanes etc. you need parking facilties at work etc.. As far
as I have seen (for Boston) the bike is highly competing with food
travel and public transport. Give the cyclists parking places and more
will use the bike instead of walking and using public transport, you
might even get some motorist involved.


It's about time. You can't talk people into liking broccoli.



But you think you can tell them a cucumber is a banana, good lucky
with that one.

I think the burden of proof is on you that facilities are being
misrepresented.


to make a large
improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just
unpleasant.


There are measures to reduce motorized traffic.

Yes, of course there are, but in the US at least, politically impossible
for the most part.


Bad for you. Most towns in the US are not fit for utility cycling
(distances to large for the majority of the typical fast food
nourished suburban SUV-driver). There have and will be exceptions of
course.

Sweeping generalizations aside, I can't speak for the entire US, but I
live in a small city (90,000) 6 miles from downtown Boston (600,000). My
family lives perhaps 75% car-free, and does a lot of utility and
recreational cycling (often combining the two). We frequently use a
segregated bike path (despite 2 extra miles) to get to the city. It's a
typical early generation path (constructed in the 60's) with all the
usual drawbacks -- crappy surface, dangerous intersections,
undisciplined users, etc., but we generally prefer it simply because
it's more pleasant than the (abundant) alternatives. Since the path
isn't consistently plowed (and never sanded) we simply use studded tires
in the winter.

Our lifestyle isn't common, but it's not particularly difficult, either.


For the greater Boston area.



I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.


Many of them dont know that their behaviour is more dangerous. If you
want to have special infrastructure I think the building of bicycle
boulevards can be useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard

I'm all in favor of them, but with such a small number of cyclists in
the US, the political base to support them is just too small.


You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling.

Yes.

I'm exactly the opposite. When
I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist...

riding a vehicle.

You can call a bike a "vehicle", but that doesn't alter the physics. It
doesn't make people enjoy the experience of "sharing the road", either.
It's a rhetorical ploy, nothing more. I am personally very much opposed
to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.


Car drivers an pedestrians will hate and disrespect you for that (even
more). And I cant take you serious on that one or explain:

I am personally very much opposed
to including bicycles in any kind of universal vehicle code.

Similar to "jaywalking" (originally a slur, btw) laws, the ordinances on
the books are simply for the convenience of motor vehicles. There is no
reason to insist that cyclists come to a full stop at stop signs or be
constrained on one-way streets (or that pedestrians must cross only at
crosswalks, for that matter). Traffic signals at every corner are there
for the convenience of motorists. I was OK as long as such laws were
never enforced and carried negligible fines, but the "vehicularists"
changed all that here.



You are partly right but your argument does not justify the exclusion of
any kind of universal vehicle code. And I dont think you can blame it on
the vehicularists that the law is enforced. In general there are two
reasons why law enforcements concentrates on cyclists 1. There number is
increasing 2. Season (see one).

That's the
consequence of "vehicular equivalence". I don't need to speculate about
potential negative consequences, they've already occurred. What
"vehicularists" have lobbied for (and won, here in Boston), is an
increase in bicycle moving violation fines and enforcement ("same rules,
same roads"). I'm ecstatic to see them go. Cyclists are not the equals
of motorists, we have much greater vulnerabilities and far fewer
liabilities. To lump them all together as "vehicles" is just nuts. But
it's the predictable kind of nuttiness that "vehicular cycling"
advocates create.


I dont think you are right and just work on your building of a
scapegoat. It can be easily argued that the dangers of cyclist for
other road users is relatively small so should be fines. But I do
think operating a bicycle should not follow traffic rules. Traffic
rules and there following are a necessity to raise predictability of
behaviour.

"Predictability of behavior" raises motorist speeds. Urban motor traffic
is generally characterized by a high ratio of peak to average speeds --
bad news for cyclists and pedestrians, and of no real advantage to
motorists. I think "predictability of behavior" should be deliberately
and significantly reduced.


You are partly right here and I might have chosen the wrong words. I
mostly meant visibility (of course in situations of making a turn you
should be highly predictable). I my self ad a little bit of
unpredictability to my driving by trying appear kind of insecure
(oscilating? more than I need to). But the point is there is an optimal
ratio between perceived risk and real risk. A cyclist in mixed traffic
is perceived as much more vulnerable (by riders and drivers) as an
cyclist on cycle lane for instance. In reality its exactly reverse. The
effect is drivers will drive faster and closer to cyclist in streets
with lanes and riders will feel saver then they really are. So youre
advocating for infrastructure contradicts your reducing predictability
argument.





With your position nobody will ever take cyclists serious as equal
road users. If cyclists take your viewpoint they always will be
weirdos with a kid toy.

You may have a point with purely recreational cyclists who flaunt that
status with their flashy clothes and bikes. They are, literally, playing
in the streets after all. Not that I have a problem with that. I don't
much care about being taken "seriously" or as an "equal". Those things
should be self-evident and are historical rights.


Cant buy me nothing with should. I care about my equal right to use the
road as an cyclist because its not self-evident for many other road
users, politicians the media etc...



Insisting on special
behaviors to accommodate motorists erodes our true right of way, which
goes back centuries. Your attitude makes you a motorist apologist.


WTF are you talking about?


That's the only logical conclusion. You appear to be so brainwashed by
car culture that you can't think outside the box.


Ok, logic isnt your field of expertise. We are living in a car dominated
society and traffic system and I have to deal with that for now and
sadly at least for the next one or two decades (cause I have to
participate in traffic). Vehicular cyclists have developed some
principles to deal with this situation and I have found by experience
that they are mostly right. If you have a need to think outside of the
box stop babbling about the advantages bicycle infrastructure, everybody
is doing it. Sadly my ideas and demands are to much outside of the box
for most people. Your thinking is so deep inside the box I can hardly
recognise it.


There's a frequent claim that most car-bike crashes are caused by
cyclist "scofflaws", but careful studies don't support that conclusion.


Of course not and I dont claim something like that. In Germany
statistics show that only 25% of car-bike crashes are caused by cyclists.


"Vehicular equivalence" is an unfortunate consequence of vehicular
cycling dogma. The ultimate result is that we are forced to comply with
rules and road engineering that were designed with motor vehicle
convenience as the highest priority. Queuing up with idling lines of
cars and trucks on a hot summer rush hour or getting sloshed with gritty
brine in the winter from a semi at my elbow isn't my idea of fun or
progress. Good luck selling that vision.


My vision is car free cities. You misunderstood.


Frank

"Frank Studt" wrote in message
...
Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
Frank Studt wrote:
Am 15.08.2010 15:11, schrieb Peter Cole:
Frank Studt wrote:
Am 13.08.2010 22:32, schrieb Peter Cole:
[...]

Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
**** because it is too long. **** the both of you dumb assholes all the way
to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have to work
at it?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:

Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
**** because it is too long. **** the both of you dumb assholes all the way
to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have to work
at it?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota


Does everyone in MN have your 12-year old, limited vocabulary or do you
simply represent the ignorant?

"Clams" wrote in message
...
Edward Dolan wrote:

Don't you assholes know how to edit a post? No one will read any of your
**** because it is too long. **** the both of you dumb assholes all the
way to Hell and back! Christ, were you born this stupid or did you have
to work at it?

Does everyone in MN have your 12-year old, limited vocabulary or do you
simply represent the ignorant?

Vocabulary is neither here nor there. What counts is mind, something that
neither you nor TM possess.

No one in their right mind pays any attention to this god damn ****ing TM.
He likes to write about monkeys mostly. That is because he is into ****ing
them. He is depraved, but more importantly, he is insane. In short, just
another poor crazy Usenet *******!

TM is nothing but a poor crazy ******* and if anyone wants to put him out of
his misery, he will have my blessing. But surely there is some motorist in
Florida who will accommodate us. And the sooner the better!

Listen up TM, you god damn ****ing stupid son of a bitch! There is no point
in originating threads since all you have on your miniscule brain is one
subject. Find your thread, and then stay on it for all eternity. That way
you will have the freedom to consort with only your fellow idiots in peace.

If you continue to originate threads which have no new interest, I will step
on your posts and make you out to be the poor dumb ******* that you are. I
will only do copy and paste since you are not worthy of any kind of thought
on my part.

You are the village idiot, but at least if you have the grace to keep your
god damn ****ing **** on a single thread, I will not bother you. Otherwise I
will bother you no end and I do not care if I take down the entire
newsgroup. You are one of the supreme assholes of all time and you have no
business being here at all.

Find something else to do. Why not **** all those monkeys you are constantly
referencing. That ought to keep you busy for a few years at least.

****ing Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Frank Studt" wrote in message
...
Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
[...]

In Germany we have a saying "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber" in
English "Fear is a bad counsellor". It refers to the high rate of
irrationality associated with fear. Bicycle Advocates should not make
this irrationality their on and demand facilitation.

Not sure if this is from Studt or Cole, but whoever it is from marks one as
an idiot. Fear is the best signpost of what is dangerous. It has nothing to
do with irrationality. It has to do with thousands of years of instinct.
Anyone who does not take heed of his fear is a fool.

But have not the Germans been reckless in the recent past? They should have
paid more attention to their fears instead of boldly dashing forward. If
they had, they might have avoided the destruction of their country by the
Americans and the Russians. Germany in 1945 was a mess. Without American
aid, they would have been slow to recover.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Frank Studt wrote:
Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
Frank Studt wrote:

Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.

Perhaps for you, not for me. If I'm in a hurry, I take the street, if
not I take a track (if there's one). I like having choices.


You are confusing travel mode choice with route choice.

I stand corrected. Let me amend. If I'm in an even bigger hurry, I'll drive.

Road safety is a big issue and its the number one reason (surveys) for
people to use segregated facilities.

Yes, but as I said, people (most) aren't statisticians. Perceived safety
is a preference, but so is a pleasant immediate environment.

The most facilities I know dont meet any guidelines regarding width etc.
and many of them are mandatory. And even the lawful built facilities
worsen safety (ok you dont care so much about safety). I have enough of
that ****.

Bad facilities are bad (unsafe), no one is saying otherwise.


Believing that
motorists can be calmed through education or enforcement is unrealistic.
It's not like it hasn't been tried.

Thats not really true. The positive road safety effects of Speed limits
and there enforcement for instance have been proven all around the
world. Traffic laws have become more severe in the last decades of
course there is much to be done.

This seems much more true outside of the US. In the US there is strong
resistance to traffic calming and heightened enforcement (cameras, etc.).


People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction.


Im just asking for some kind of empirical proof for you claims (survey).

How about:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/pe...ices%201-8.pdf


Again you are talking about route choice and not travel mode choice. Or
do I have to explain what "travel mode choice" means?

No, but the 2 are related. Here's an article that discusses mode share
and its complications:

http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~kkrizek/...ing_effect.pdf

"The evidence here suggests that bicycle facilities significantly
impacted levels of bicycle commuting. In the aggregate, areas closer
to new bicycle facilities showed more of an increase in bicycle mode
share than areas farther away..."


Very much liked the essay of Dave Horton (Fear of Cycling), especially
the part about the building of segregated facilities an there role in
making cycling dangerous in the public opinion.

The article author did say:

"3. I agree, many people (understandably, given a fear of cycling)
prefer to cycle away from motorized traffic. I agree, we should provide
these kinds of facilities, as seen in Dk and the NLs. Such facilities
promote cycling."

I think the author is either very diplomatic or he does not think his
own argument to the end. Anyway this point is contradicting the message
of his essay. I wanted to write him my self when I read it maybe I will do.

Perhaps he's just more moderate and pragmatic in his thinking.


In Germany we have a saying "Angst ist ein schlechter Ratgeber" in
English "Fear is a bad counsellor". It refers to the high rate of
irrationality associated with fear. Bicycle Advocates should not make
this irrationality their on and demand facilitation.

And yet highly facilitated Germany is 10x safer than the US.

Correlation is not causality, I know, and there are many other
differences between the 2 countries, but still....

Again, insults aside, I think you are exaggerating the safety issues.


Not really. Cycling and safety or road safetysis a big issue. In Some
states even helmets are mandatory (the hole helmet discussion is a
safety discussion). So your nice facilities might not only worsen your
safety it might also bring you mandatory helmet laws.

I would love to achieve the safety record of Germany.

And the differences between the safety of cyclists are very high.
Especially somebody in the US should be alarmed about the building of
unsafe facilities cause you allready have the highest risk of fatality
per miles traveld in the western world (about 7 times higher then in
Germany). In Germany and Western Europe the discussion about segregated
facilities have always been a discussion about the safety of cyclists.
Its even part of the German traffic code that the mandatory facilities
are explicitly bound on the claim they have positive safety.

I would repeat my above comment.

Its pretty certain, we have seen that even under the circumstances of a
high safety in numbers effect the safety of cyclists is worsened by
segregation.

I disagree. I haven't seen conclusive proof of that at all.

The tendency of the studies regarding safety effects of cycling
infrastructure is pretty clear.

No, they're all over the map.

You are dreaming.

No. You yourself have cited studies showing a high risk (5-10x) and a
low (1.1x). The lower one is more recent and seems better controlled,
but you discount it.


Again, people choose additional risk all the time. It's not the
overriding concern. You are attempting to portray in black and white an
issue with many shades of gray.


Of course people choose risk for them self and sometimes for there kids
on purpose. But this is not what happens when they use segregated
facilities. Most people will explicitly tell you they use them cause
they are much safer and for the same reason they demand them to be
built... Your situation in the US might be different (would surprise me
and as far as I have seen the discussion about facilities in the USis
highly associated with safety).

I agree that most facilities, as implemented with best practices, may
introduce additional hazards. The questions are the degree of those
hazards, and whether those hazards could be further mitigated by design
and/or education. I also don't think it an unreasonable approach to
consider overall mortality, not just cycling mortality in isolation.

Try this one:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

Again, the results are all over the map.

Just to cite one of the papers, on cycling in Helsinki, accident rates
were found to be a bit higher for lanes, but much lower for paths (45%
of mileage and 56% of the accidents, and 26%/8%, respectively). Hardly a
slam dunk argument against facilities, with "vehicular"/road cycling at
23%/23%.


If there are no alternate routes (to facilities), I could see your
point, but speaking to urban riding in the US, it's hard to visualize
such a situation. There are simply so many routes in the urban grid that
the choices are plenty. I can't speak about Germany, and I don't
particularly care about rural and suburban cycling (in this context).


Some times there are alternatives but the good routes are highly
facilitated. You would love it.

I might. I would certainly love to achieve Germany's modal share and
safety statistics. More importantly, perhaps older and younger cyclists
and female cyclists might like it much more.

In general its a question how you measure or compare the safety of
different activities. But I think for the US it doesnt make any
difference how you measure or compare, cycling would not look that good.
You have helmet laws in some states and want to tell me safety is no
issue...

I'm not saying safety is no issue. I'm saying that cycling is dismally
low in the US, and I'm most interested in improving that. Hopefully, the
"safety in numbers" effect all by itself would dramatically improve the
degree of hazard.

I don't find the "discrimination" argument compelling, except in the
"mandatory use" statutes. Where ample alternate routes exist, I just
don't see the case at all. That describes my reality (US urban). If
there's any discrimination, it's denying facilities to those who prefer
them and contribute to infrastructure costs via taxes.


There is already infrastructure its called the road. As stated above
cycle lanes are kind of mandatory by principle and car drivers are
trying to sanction you for defections. Regarding cycle path its almost
the same. Till 1997 every facility in Germany was mandatory and a lot of
people still think they are and behave like it. Its a little complicated
subject and difficult to explain. But if there are facilitated routes
you lose your right to the road belief me or not.

Where I am, when bike lanes are installed, it is motorists who lose a
part of the road. There is already a law on the books (US universal
vehicle code) which states that cyclists must remain as "far right as
practicable". This is a vaguely worded law that most cops and motorists
(and usually cyclists) interpret as just "stay out of the way" of
motorists. Any change from this deplorable state of affairs would seem
an improvement. As far as "driver sanctions" go, I think the battle has
been long lost in the US. It can only improve from here.

In Countries like DK and NL there is a pretty large safety in numbers
effect working in favor of cyclists. So the negative safety effects of
segregation tend to be smaller cause everybody is allways expecting
cyclists. In Germany we dont have that and in the US it is far worse.

That's not what I've seen in places like Portland, OR.

What? There is no safety in numbers effect in Portland?

Yes, apparently there is, that's my point. So the US need not be
different from DK & NL.

I see the reality in Germany I dont want them, even the "best" are worse
than no lane no point to argue.

Your's doesn't seem to be the majority opinion, in DK or US.

Vehicular cycling has been the dominant paradigm for
decades, with little to show for it.


They came up with pretty good advice how to ride safe in mixed traffic
that's not bad.

Sure, if they stopped there and didn't tack on the ideology.


You call it ideology, but finding measures to ride safe in a car
dominated society is pure pragmatism for me. That they dont want
facilities its only natural not ideologues.

"Natural" for some perhaps, but apparently not most.


Finally, vehicular cycling
ideologues are being pushed out


Pushed out where?

Boston, Dallas, etc.


I think you are confusing cause and effect.

I'm not sure what you mean. Perhaps you're just not familiar with the
stories:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2009-1...-in-traffic/1/

"And in 2006, he had the last bicycle lane in the city ripped out.
Dallas, under his vision, was becoming a dream city for "vehicular
cycling.""

"In 2008, Bicycling magazine rated the city as the country's worst place
to ride a bicycle—not exactly the sort of publicity you're looking for
when your job title is bike coordinator."

"In 2005, desperate to inspire the Dallas bicycle advocacy community,
Summer launched "Cycle Dallas," a personal blog to promote vehicular
cycling as the best way to ride. It wouldn't be long before the city
officials discovered the blog and realized that a city employee was
sculpting policy based on personal belief, not popular positions."

"In November 2008, Summer was removed from his position as bicycle
coordinator and transferred to another department. A month later, the
city pledged to support and partially finance a $300,000 plan to
overhaul the old bike plan. Bike lanes would get a second chance in Dallas."

"They consider Boston a prime example of what they see as the league's
wrong-headedness. For many years, a vehicular cyclist was the bicycle
coordinator there until Bicycling magazine rated Boston as the nation's
worst city for cycling. The old bike coordinator was replaced in 2007,
and the city immediately installed five miles of bicycle lanes and
pledged to build more. Boston moved off the worst list, and Dallas took
its place in 2008."

No, ad hominem aside, I'm aware of "Effective Cycling" curricula and
courses. It is useful stuff, orthogonal to the facilities debate (or
should be). It hasn't trained a whole lot of cyclists in the US, however.


You would have less fatalities if every kid (and grown up) would be
trained in effective cycling

Yes,

and people wouldn't fear motorized traffic
so much they need segregation.

Maybe, but it would never make the experience pleasant.

Its always the same. When more people start cycling the first thing they
demand is own facilities we have been through it in Germany and other
countries.

As I've said, I'll take Germany, gladly.

Boston has the best
requirements to be a bike city. Its relatively plain, it has short ways
etc.. Cycling is supposed to be growing more or less naturally. You dont
need your own lanes etc. you need parking facilties at work etc.. As far
as I have seen (for Boston) the bike is highly competing with food
travel and public transport. Give the cyclists parking places and more
will use the bike instead of walking and using public transport, you
might even get some motorist involved.

That's not the conclusion the majority of cyclists in Boston reached.

There's no reason Boston can't achieve the modal share of Portland.
Vehicular cycling just wasn't very persuasive (nor in Portland).

Sweeping generalizations aside, I can't speak for the entire US, but I
live in a small city (90,000) 6 miles from downtown Boston (600,000). My
family lives perhaps 75% car-free, and does a lot of utility and
recreational cycling (often combining the two). We frequently use a
segregated bike path (despite 2 extra miles) to get to the city. It's a
typical early generation path (constructed in the 60's) with all the
usual drawbacks -- crappy surface, dangerous intersections,
undisciplined users, etc., but we generally prefer it simply because
it's more pleasant than the (abundant) alternatives. Since the path
isn't consistently plowed (and never sanded) we simply use studded tires
in the winter.

Our lifestyle isn't common, but it's not particularly difficult, either.


For the greater Boston area.

And many other locales in the US, including many cities with much higher
cycling modal share than Boston's measly 1.5%.

You are partly right but your argument does not justify the exclusion of
any kind of universal vehicle code. And I dont think you can blame it on
the vehicularists that the law is enforced.

I think I can, There have been 2 examples: the City of Cambridge (MA)
where advocates insisted on (& got) "crackdowns" on "scofflaw" cyclists.
The cops were only too happy to comply. At the state level, a "same
roads, same rules" law was passed, increasing the fines for bicycle
infractions significantly. Again, the work of the "vehicular" advocates.

"Predictability of behavior" raises motorist speeds. Urban motor traffic
is generally characterized by a high ratio of peak to average speeds --
bad news for cyclists and pedestrians, and of no real advantage to
motorists. I think "predictability of behavior" should be deliberately
and significantly reduced.


You are partly right here and I might have chosen the wrong words. I
mostly meant visibility (of course in situations of making a turn you
should be highly predictable). I my self ad a little bit of
unpredictability to my driving by trying appear kind of insecure
(oscilating? more than I need to). But the point is there is an optimal
ratio between perceived risk and real risk. A cyclist in mixed traffic
is perceived as much more vulnerable (by riders and drivers) as an
cyclist on cycle lane for instance. In reality its exactly reverse. The
effect is drivers will drive faster and closer to cyclist in streets
with lanes and riders will feel saver then they really are. So youre
advocating for infrastructure contradicts your reducing predictability
argument.

I don't see how motorists can drive any closer than they do now. The
whole point of segregated facilities is to gain separation. If the
facility results in closer spacing it is a failure by definition.

As to whether segregation raises speeds, I don't think that need be
true. Narrowing the roads is a typical consequence of facilities, which
drivers feel slows them down, which is why they're generally opposed.

Insisting on special
behaviors to accommodate motorists erodes our true right of way, which
goes back centuries. Your attitude makes you a motorist apologist.


WTF are you talking about?


That's the only logical conclusion. You appear to be so brainwashed by
car culture that you can't think outside the box.


Ok, logic isnt your field of expertise.

Actually, it is (professionally).


We are living in a car dominated
society and traffic system and I have to deal with that for now and
sadly at least for the next one or two decades (cause I have to
participate in traffic). Vehicular cyclists have developed some
principles to deal with this situation and I have found by experience
that they are mostly right.

I agree, where facilities don't exist. VC isn't exactly new, I'm well
aware of the principles and adhere to them in the circumstances where
they are reasonable.

If you have a need to think outside of the
box stop babbling about the advantages bicycle infrastructure, everybody
is doing it. Sadly my ideas and demands are to much outside of the box
for most people. Your thinking is so deep inside the box I can hardly
recognise it.

Your thinking is outdated and represents the real bicycle "inferiority
complex."

"Vehicular equivalence" is an unfortunate consequence of vehicular
cycling dogma. The ultimate result is that we are forced to comply with
rules and road engineering that were designed with motor vehicle
convenience as the highest priority. Queuing up with idling lines of
cars and trucks on a hot summer rush hour or getting sloshed with gritty
brine in the winter from a semi at my elbow isn't my idea of fun or
progress. Good luck selling that vision.


My vision is car free cities. You misunderstood.

Don't hold your breath. In the meantime, I'll settle for "different
roads, different rules".

On Aug 23, 8:24*am, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Studt wrote:
Am 16.08.2010 16:36, schrieb Peter Cole:
Frank Studt wrote:
Nope, the reality of travel mode choice is complicated.

Perhaps for you, not for me. If I'm in a hurry, I take the street, if
not I take a track (if there's one). I like having choices.

You are confusing travel mode choice with route choice.

I stand corrected. Let me amend. If I'm in an even bigger hurry, I'll drive.

Road safety is a big issue and its the number one reason (surveys) for
people to use segregated facilities.

Yes, but as I said, people (most) aren't statisticians. Perceived safety
is a preference, but so is a pleasant immediate environment.

The most facilities I know dont meet any guidelines regarding width etc..
and many of them are mandatory. And even the lawful built facilities
worsen safety (ok you dont care so much about safety). I have enough of
that ****.

Bad facilities are bad (unsafe), no one is saying otherwise.

Believing that
motorists can be calmed through education or enforcement is unrealistic.
It's not like it hasn't been tried.

Thats not really true. The positive road safety effects of Speed limits
and there enforcement for instance have been proven all around the
world. Traffic laws have become more severe in the last decades of
course there is much to be done.

This seems much more true outside of the US. In the US there is strong
resistance to traffic calming and heightened enforcement (cameras, etc.).

People want "pleasant". That's a subjective mix of convenience,
perceived safety, aesthetics and social interaction.

Im just asking for some kind of empirical proof for you claims (survey)..

How about:http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/pe...f/Bike%20&%20P...

"Respondents have high expectations for bicycling and walking
facilities that are not fully
met. 91.0% of bicyclists and 77.1% of non-bicyclists agree or strongly
agree that they
would like their area to be among the most attractive places for
walking and bicycling in the
U.S. However, 87.9% of bicyclists and 72.1% of non-bicyclists agree or
strongly agree that
they would like to live in a place where more of their daily needs can
be met through
walking and bicycling. Only 60.1% of bicyclists and 50.9% of non-
bicyclists agree or
strongly agree that their area is more attractive for bicycling and
walking than other places
that they know about. Also, 88.1% of bicyclists and 71.4% of non-
bicyclists agree or
strongly agree that they would bike and walk for exercise more if good
facilities were
conveniently located."

Thank you. Whenever I let my bigger parrot loose among the parakeets
they are terrorized. It's my own damn fault. It's parrot nature and
human nature for the big ones to scare the little ones.