A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 26th 11, 04:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

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

The report itself wasn't all that interesting, but in the comments
section, a purported civil engineer (JaredParker) "specializing in
traffic engineering and transportation" said this in response to
another comment:
"@Greg Smith (jatodog)
'Sidewalks are the most dangerous place for bikes, for both cyclists
and pedestrians. If you ever rode a bike more than a few hours a year,
you'd know that.'
Actually Greg, I'd like to see your data regarding cyclist and
pedestrian "dangers". I am Civil Engineer specializing in traffic
engineering and transportation planning. The data that the NHTSA has
released and data in studies that my company has conducted show that
sidewalks are, on average, actually much safer for cyclists, at a rate
of 60-75% less injuries and fatalities sustained by cyclists who use
the sidewalk vs. the road. To more appropriately address the issue of
cyclists and transportation, sidewalks could be converted into bike
lanes much more readily than attempting to dedicate lanes of road to
the cause, considering the easement and space is already there.
Asphalt overlays and striping to separate pedestrian and bike traffic
on the sidewalk is a very cost effective and safe alternative to
exposing bikers to traffic in most urban and suburban settings.
And by the way, I am an avid biker; and, I bike a minimum of 20 miles
per day, weather cooperating. And I use the sidewalk."
What the hell? Every driveway is a blind intersection. With civil
engineers "specializing in traffic engineering and transportation
planning" like this, who needs enemies?
Yup, I agree.

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


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


I know there are times when it becomes useful, the question is, would
you ride exclusively on the footpath, for a minimum of 20 miles per day?

I might ride a short distance on the footpath, to avoid for example a
traffic jam, road works, or open street festival like:
http://www.hispanicfiesta.com.au/

But once the road is clear of obstruction, it's the safest place to be
at any sort of reasonable riding speed.


Here's a blog that analyzes Phoenix Arizona's latest bike crash report.

http://azbikelaw.org/blog/listening-...ision-summary/

The author's major points: Sidewalks seem MUCH more dangerous than
roads, and cycling by vehicle rules seems MUCH safer than being, um,
creative. That's shown by the table, indicating whether the cyclist's
action pre-crash would be deemed "good" or "bad" by VC standards. Only
10% of crashes involved "good" VC behavior. A full 70% happened to
sidewalk cyclists.

Unfortunately, there's no exposure data, which means it's possible that
only 10% of the cycling in Phoenix is done according to the rules of the
road, and that 70% of Phoenix's cycling is done on sidewalks. But I
think that's highly unlikely.

I also think it's likely that most of the rule-flouting cyclists figured
they were being really smart - i.e. much smarter than those cyclists
following normal traffic rules.

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #2  
Old September 26th 11, 10:19 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,790
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

Per Frank Krygowski:
The author's major points: Sidewalks seem MUCH more dangerous than
roads, and cycling by vehicle rules seems MUCH safer than being, um,
creative.


I only skimmed the web page, but this jumped out at me: "...and
nothing is split by seriousness..."

Is he saying that the data only records "Collision" vs
"Non-Collision"? i.e. The data does (do?) not discriminate
between something like road rash/bruises and getting squashed by
a bus?
--
PeteCresswell
  #3  
Old September 26th 11, 10:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Frank Krygowski:
The author's major points: Sidewalks seem MUCH more dangerous than
roads, and cycling by vehicle rules seems MUCH safer than being, um,
creative.


I only skimmed the web page, but this jumped out at me: "...and
nothing is split by seriousness..."

Is he saying that the data only records "Collision" vs
"Non-Collision"? i.e. The data does (do?) not discriminate
between something like road rash/bruises and getting squashed by
a bus?


The original report at http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/2007bike.pdf does
count the number of "serious or fatal" crashes, 63 of them. It doesn't
break down crash types by serious vs. minor, from what I can see.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #4  
Old September 27th 11, 06:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.tech
Jym Dyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

The original report at
http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/2007bike.pdf

=v= As usual, based on police reports and thus subject to
the observer bias of police and, in the case of fatalities,
survivor bias. So the "at-fault" numbers and charts are
completely meaningless, but will of course be used to prop up
the usual entrenched opinions anyhow. The other stats are of
more value, of course, though they depend on how much forensic
work the police decide to do when a bike is involved.
_Jym_
  #5  
Old September 27th 11, 08:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

Jym Dyer wrote:
The original report at

http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/2007bike.pdf

=v= As usual, based on police reports and thus subject to
the observer bias of police and, in the case of fatalities,
survivor bias. So the "at-fault" numbers and charts are
completely meaningless, but will of course be used to prop up
the usual entrenched opinions anyhow. The other stats are of
more value, of course, though they depend on how much forensic
work the police decide to do when a bike is involved.
_Jym_


When someone says "That data is useless," it's good form to give other
data that's better.

So: Got data on Phoenix? Or got other data that proves what you claim?

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #6  
Old September 28th 11, 12:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.bicycles.misc
RobertH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

On Sep 26, 9:30 am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

I also think it's likely that most of the rule-flouting cyclists figured
they were being really smart - i.e. much smarter than those cyclists
following normal traffic rules.


I know that's your fantasy. Reality is that a high percentage of those
'rule-flouting cyclists' were actually little kids riding their bikes
like little kids, on and off the sidewalks. Studying the crashes
suffered by little kids on bikes is of course of very limited utility
for adult cyclists.

  #7  
Old September 28th 11, 03:18 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

Jym Dyer wrote:
The original report at

http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/2007bike.pdf

=v= As usual, based on police reports and thus subject to
the observer bias of police and, in the case of fatalities,
survivor bias. So the "at-fault" numbers and charts are
completely meaningless, but will of course be used to prop up
the usual entrenched opinions anyhow. The other stats are of
more value, of course, though they depend on how much forensic
work the police decide to do when a bike is involved.
_Jym_



When someone says "That data is useless," it's good form to give other
data that's better.

So: Got data on Phoenix? Or got other data that proves what you claim?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #8  
Old September 28th 11, 03:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc
Jym Dyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

When someone says "That data is useless," it's good form
to give other data that's better.


=v= That would be great if other data were available. If
it's not, that doesn't mean the bad data is suddenly good.
_Jym_
  #9  
Old September 28th 11, 04:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc
Frank Krygowski[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,365
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

Jym Dyer wrote:
When someone says "That data is useless," it's good form
to give other data that's better.


=v= That would be great if other data were available. If
it's not, that doesn't mean the bad data is suddenly good.
_Jym_


So what you're saying is "_All_ the data is bad. I just know it is.
You just have to believe me."

Sorry. I think unquestioning faith in a self-proclaimed prophet is kind
of dangerous.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #10  
Old September 29th 11, 06:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.misc
Jym Dyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 999
Default Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering

Frank Krygowski writes:
So what you're saying is "_All_ the data is bad. I
just know it is. You just have to believe me."


=v= What I actually said is that *part* of the data is
subject to bias: namely, the at-fault numbers.

Sorry. I think unquestioning faith in a self-proclaimed
prophet is kind of dangerous.


=v= Now you're really off the rails. I named specific and
well-known forms of bias (observer bias and survivor bias).
I did not invent these insights, I'm just applying them. If
you have any substantial, non-_ad_hominem_ reason why these
biases should simply be ignored, by all means present them.
_Jym_
 




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
Sidewalks, bikes, & civil engineering damyth Techniques 142 October 23rd 11 08:03 PM
No bikes on sidewalks. That's a sign of Banana Republic Keith F. Lynch Social Issues 1 April 12th 10 01:33 AM
bikes are too fast for sidewalks, and too slow for traffic lanes KingOfTheApes Social Issues 27 July 23rd 08 04:20 PM
bikes are too fast for sidewalks, and too slow for traffic lanes KingOfTheApes Rides 24 July 23rd 08 04:20 PM
bikes are too fast for sidewalks, and too slow for traffic lanes KingOfTheApes UK 30 July 23rd 08 04:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.