A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure ofVehicular Cycling.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 9th 17, 04:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,983
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure ofVehicular Cycling.

Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/

The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.


The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.
Ads
  #2  
Old August 9th 17, 06:41 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,694
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/

The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.


The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.


I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists.

-- Jay Beattie.




  #3  
Old August 9th 17, 08:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,983
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/

The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.


The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.


I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists.


Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred
due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding
infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to
attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not
admit it.

My wife said "I'm one of that 60%." She rides to work because of the
infrastructure of bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, and and would
otherwise not ride.

The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank
could deny. What happened in Montreal,
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/,
is a very good example.
  #4  
Old August 9th 17, 08:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,447
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 2017-08-09 08:36, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/


The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.


The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.



I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
there on the horizon? And so on.

We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above
3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
or not, considering all "side effects".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #5  
Old August 9th 17, 09:40 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,694
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:29:15 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/

The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.


The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.


I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists.


Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred
due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding
infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to
attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not
admit it.

My wife said "I'm one of that 60%." She rides to work because of the
infrastructure of bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, and and would
otherwise not ride.

The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank
could deny. What happened in Montreal,
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/,
is a very good example.


Read the comments he https://bikeportland.org/2015/06/12/...re-down-144330

Including: "Don’t forget 'efficient'. PBOT has really dropped the ball here with nonsense like Moody, SW Multnomah, and the new bit on SW Terwilliger and Capitol Hwy. I think people need to be able to *average* 12mph on bike trips for it to be a compelling option, which means flat and straight parts need to be easy and relaxing at 15-20mph. A separated facility littered with peds, curb cuts, and red lights won’t give you that."

Chutes are dangerous (cars/pedestrian obstructions) and frustrating because of bike traffic. Here is a classic example of new chute infrastructure in Portland that is demonstrably worse than riding on the road: https://bikeportland.org/2017/02/14/...lwaukie-217696

Scroll down to he https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2324/3...1aab9f0f_c.jpg It builds-in conflicts with turning cars -- both entering and leaving traffic. As a cyclist, you now have to stop every 50-100 yards to cross roadways and driveways that previously you just sped-by on the road. https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3726/3...afc2e7f7_c.jpg And the new path was totally unnecessary, at least for cyclists. There was a good shoulder for those who were afraid of the roadway, and not withstanding the breathless rhetoric in the story, I was never afraid riding down this road and neither were any of my riding companions. It was a total snooze of a ride that I had done for decades on my way to other places. This was a monumental step backwards in the name of progress. The perfect solution would have been to put in a nice sidewalk and an on-road bike lane that did not need stops at every bisecting road, driveway, ant trail, deer track, etc., etc. I am positive that there will be more injuries in this new facility than there ever were without it.


-- Jay Beattie.

  #6  
Old August 9th 17, 09:55 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,276
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/


That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America. Americans
had (and mostly still have) no concept of how bikes should be used. He
simply described to Americans what already worked, and what was known by
millions of other bike users.

The ignorance continues, with people like Scharf (or SMS) and his heroes
demonstrating it regularly. Scharf says "the vehicular cycling movement
was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share." But
_nowhere_ has Forester ever pretended that bigger mode share was his
objective. The objective of Vehicular Cycling techniques is simply to
improve the capabilities, enjoyment and safety of those who choose to
use those techniques. And those techniques work. They just work.

Scharf's heroes pretend that Vehicular Cycling (i.e. cycling with
reasonable skill according to the rules of the road) is only for the
"fearless." Yet very normal women and men manage to use VC techniques
every effectively. They are easy to learn, they work at any speed, they
don't require heroism. See
http://cyclingsavvy.org/2017/05/ride...y-a-great-bag/ for example.

In a nutshell, if a person wants to use their bike practically and
enjoyably for transportation or recreation, they have two choices: They
can lobby for massive public spending on separated bicycle facilities
everywhere they may ever wish to ride; or they can learn to ride a bike
correctly using skills and techniques that are sanctioned by existing
laws. The latter strategy allows you to ride essentially anywhere,
right now. The former strategy tells you to wait for some tax-funded
fairyland to appear.

True, Forester and those who understand his ideas point out that many
elements of the fantasy fairyland are crappy designs and impose risks
that normal riding doesn't. Forester's opponents have lobbied hard for
door zone bike lanes, cattle chutes that send fast cyclists wrong-way
into intersections, straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right
turning cars, etc. This is frustrating to the crowd that believes "any
bike facility is a good bike facility." But reality is often
frustrating to ignorant daydreamers!

The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.



The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.


I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy.
I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for
decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally
misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to
ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My
favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists.


Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred
due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding
infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to
attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not
admit it.


The 60% claim is bull****, unless you use unreasonable standards for
"interested." The survey that got that number essentially asked "would
you be interested in riding if there were amazing bike facilities?" If a
person said "I'd be interested" they count.

But several of us here are engineers. Engineers are supposed to be able
to do numbers. Where in North America have 60% of the population taken
to riding bikes to get around? Where has that number actually been
proven true? Nowhere, Stephen. You can't even point to a large
neighborhood where installation of bike facilities generated 60%
ridership. As Jay said, the best you'd get after producing an amazing
array of bike/cattle chutes is "Oh, that's interesting."

The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank
could deny. What happened in Montreal,
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/,
is a very good example.


Yes, the evidence IS overwhelming! We're engineers, right? We
understand numbers, right? So let's look at the amazing success Montreal
has had in getting those 60% on bikes. What's its bike mode share?

Oh... hmm. http://www.cityclock.org/urban-cycling-mode-share/ says it's
somewhere between 1.3% and 2.4%.

Time for a question, Stephen: Is 2.4 greater or less than 60?

Take your time. I know it takes a while to count to 60 on your fingers.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #7  
Old August 9th 17, 09:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,276
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 4:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
I am positive that there will be more injuries in this new facility than there ever were without it.


On that note: I have a colleague in Columbus, Ohio. The city installed
a bi-directional cycle track on something like 15 blocks (IIRC) of
mostly residential streets north of the university.

She reports that in the year before the installation, there were two
car-bike crashes in that stretch. In the year after, there were 15.

Somehow, the cycle track fans are not trumpeting those crash statistics.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #8  
Old August 9th 17, 10:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,983
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
there on the horizon? And so on.


That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like Amsterdam or
Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If it's only green paint
then you're right. And it's not getting them to make 100% of their
commutes or shopping trips or whatever, even just a small amount is
better than nothing.

The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY of that
60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding, and the
vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to 7%, is not
going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars.

Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%.
  #9  
Old August 9th 17, 10:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,276
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.


Oh, bull****. When I ride lane center, I'm not pretending to be a car.
I'm using the legal right to the road that is specifically given to the
operator of a bicycle. It's clearly written in the state laws. No
pretending is necessary.

And only the ignorant would claim it's stupid to ride according to those
laws. We did 25 miles today, mostly on narrow country roads and
highways, meaning there was really not a single place where the lane was
wide enough to be safely shared with a passing motor vehicle. My wife
and I and the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always
near lane center. We were passed by many dozens of cars. As usual,
there was no drama, no hostility, no close calls, no terror. The same
happens when I ride in the city and suburbs, including the 35,000
vehicle per day road I use to get to the hardware store.

I know there are people too timid for such riding. They tend to hide
their timidity by bragging about their "gnarly" heroics, and spice it
with tales of their beer drinking prowess. But those on today's ride
would probably laugh behind their backs.

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
there on the horizon? And so on.

We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above
3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
or not, considering all "side effects".


Is a 1% - 2% bike mode share worth it? Joerg, it depends greatly on
"worth WHAT?"

Is it worth increasing the crash count from 2 per year to 15 per year,
as happened recently on one stretch of road in Columbus? Is it worth
spending public money on trial-and-error bike facility designs, as
Portland has done for years, then re-doing them to try to make them
work? Is it worth delaying the travel of competent cyclists, or
ticketing them for refusing to use faulty designs? Is it worth telling
people that bicycling is so hazardous that one should not do it until
there are segregated facilities everywhere?

Why is it not worth it to begin educating both bicyclists and motorists
about how to properly and safely share existing roads? After all,
that's _really_ what Vehicular Cycling is about.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #10  
Old August 9th 17, 10:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,983
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 1:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:29:15 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:

On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/

The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.


The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.

I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists.


Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred
due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding
infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to
attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not
admit it.

My wife said "I'm one of that 60%." She rides to work because of the
infrastructure of bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, and and would
otherwise not ride.

The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank
could deny. What happened in Montreal,
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/,
is a very good example.


Read the comments he https://bikeportland.org/2015/06/12/...re-down-144330

Including: "Don’t forget 'efficient'. PBOT has really dropped the ball here with nonsense like Moody, SW Multnomah, and the new bit on SW Terwilliger and Capitol Hwy. I think people need to be able to *average* 12mph on bike trips for it to be a compelling option, which means flat and straight parts need to be easy and relaxing at 15-20mph. A separated facility littered with peds, curb cuts, and red lights won’t give you that."

Chutes are dangerous (cars/pedestrian obstructions) and frustrating because of bike traffic. Here is a classic example of new chute infrastructure in Portland that is demonstrably worse than riding on the road: https://bikeportland.org/2017/02/14/...lwaukie-217696

Scroll down to he https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2324/3...1aab9f0f_c.jpg It builds-in conflicts with turning cars -- both entering and leaving traffic. As a cyclist, you now have to stop every 50-100 yards to cross roadways and driveways that previously you just sped-by on the road. https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3726/3...afc2e7f7_c.jpg And the new path was totally unnecessary, at least for cyclists. There was a good shoulder for those who were afraid of the roadway, and not withstanding the breathless rhetoric in the story, I was never afraid riding down this road and neither were any of my riding companions. It was a total snooze of a ride that I had done for decades on my way to other places. This was a monumental step backwards in the name of progress. The perfect solution would have been to put in a nice sidewalk and an on-road bike lane that did not need stops at every bisecting road, driveway, ant trail, deer track, etc., etc. I am positive that there will be more injuries in this new facility than there ever were without it.


Portland has another big problem--relatively good public transportation
with a very high rate of public transit use, even though it's fallen
slightly, like many cities, due to Uber and Lyft. Good public transit
drives down bicycle usage because the same people willing to bicycle are
also willing to use public transit.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Founder of Marin County Bicycle Coalition Arrested again Mike Vandeman[_4_] Mountain Biking 1 December 13th 13 02:42 PM
Marin County Bicycle Coalition Expands into Mountain Biking sms88 Social Issues 1 November 8th 11 06:02 AM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Rides 0 May 14th 08 09:56 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Australia 0 May 14th 08 09:55 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Techniques 0 May 14th 08 09:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.