|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
Pete wrote:
The German Autobahn system works...in Germany. Transplant that system here, and the crash and fatality rate would, IMO, skyrocket. Why? Training, road smoothness, attitude for a start. For instance...very, very rare are the German drivers going 60 in the fast lane. Here, it is a common occurance. Mix 85mph and 60 mph traffic in the same lane, and guess what...more crashes. Thats just a question of training and enforcement of the law, not of nationality. Whenever things change, it takes time for people to get used to the new rules. That, in itself, is no reason not to change the rules, if there are benefits to be had. The bike lane system in Holland works..in Holland. And in many other places. Transplant that system here, and you'd end up with unusable bike lanes, crowded with all sorts of other users (runners, bladers, parked cars), and many, many restrictions and compromises...rendering it useless for bike transportation. And that is just one of the myriad cultural and attitudinal differences between here and there. A lot of bike lanes are also used by roller bladers, dog walkers and the like in Europe. With a little bit of common courtesy, thats no issue. Cars parked on the bike lane are simply towed at the owners expense (about US$ 300, all included). Usually that prevents repetition. Lived and rode in Holland for two years. Also Germany, Spain, England. Look at that lane construct closely. Now go look at a local road. Where would that 8' wide space (16' if you count both sides) come from? Either take out a car lane, or take out some of the sidewalk, or move the buildings back. What would be so bad about having narrower or fewer lanes for cars? After all, more people using bikes means fewer cars. Also, that picture does not show an intersection. What happens there? How does that cyclist make a left turn? Depends on the situation. On small roads with little traffic, simply filter into car traffic and make a normal left turn, similar to a car on a multi-lane road. On major crossings, use the traffic lights for pedestrian/cycle traffic. Since the cyclist can cross a road together with pedestrians, no additional waiting times are necessary. The real problem are cars making a short (that is right, in most places) turn across a cycle path. Again, the legal situation is absolutely clear, a vehicle turning across another lane has to give way to traffic on that lane. But it takes some education of car drivers to point that fact out to them, including legal pressure applied over a number of years. I had some "close encounters" 20 years back, now this is much better. By the way, the same problem also exists on roads without bike lanes. How does a car exiting a parking lot negotiate this? Stop before the lane? Stop on the lane? Where? A car exiting from a parking space has to give way to traffic moving on the road, so he waits in the parking space until the road is free. Nothing new here, the bike lane is just an additional lane on the road, all traffic laws apply. And the monetary costs to retrofit existing roads would be huge. Is the political will there to expend billions on a small minority? Evidently not, as evidenced by a routine rejection of light rail and other alternative transport solutions. This reminds me of the situation in England, where I used to work for a couple of years. They had an extensive system of tram ways, which was disassembled in the late '60s because everybody had a car and the costs of public transport seemd unnecessary. They actually had a royal commision, headed by some lord or such thing which determined this. As a result, people drove their cars more, and traffic in the cities collapsed, with concomittant environmental problems. Now they are placing the rails back in to make traffic more manageble (Manchester beeing but one example), of course at huge expense. That's what happens if myopic fools disregard the question of sustainability. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
What would be so bad about having narrower or fewer lanes for cars? After all, more people using bikes means fewer cars. Only it doesn't. The tiny trickle of people using bikes could increase by a factor of 100 and they'd still be less than 1% of traffic, hardly enough to justify robbing the majority of even a single lane. Depends on the situation. On small roads with little traffic, simply filter into car traffic and make a normal left turn, similar to a car on a multi-lane road. On major crossings, use the traffic lights for pedestrian/cycle traffic. Since the cyclist can cross a road together with pedestrians, no additional waiting times are necessary. So cyclists are allowed to ride in crosswalks in Europe? In the US this is illegal (unless they dismount first) but commonly done anyway, often by pulling out in front of cars as if the biker had the legal status of a pedestrian (which he does not). The real problem are cars making a short (that is right, in most places) turn across a cycle path. Again, the legal situation is absolutely clear, a vehicle turning across another lane has to give way to traffic on that lane. But it takes some education of car drivers to point that fact out to them, including legal pressure applied over a number of years. I had some "close encounters" 20 years back, now this is much better. By the way, the same problem also exists on roads without bike lanes. I take it that Europe does not allow the car driver to take the bike lane a few metres before the intersection, thus preventing this conflict? (In California this is not only allowed, it is compulsory.) This reminds me of the situation in England, where I used to work for a couple of years. They had an extensive system of tram ways, which was disassembled in the late '60s because everybody had a car and the costs of public transport seemd unnecessary. They actually had a royal commision, headed by some lord or such thing which determined this. As a result, people drove their cars more, and traffic in the cities collapsed, with concomittant environmental problems. Now they are placing the rails back in to make traffic more manageble (Manchester beeing but one example), of course at huge expense. That's what happens if myopic fools disregard the question of sustainability. Sustainability my ass. That's what happens when NIMBYs stop the process of expanding the road system (which of course needs to go on permanently as long as population is growing) and then blame drivers for the resulting congestion. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
John David Galt wrote:
I take it that Europe does not allow the car driver to take the bike lane a few metres before the intersection, thus preventing this conflict? (In California this is not only allowed, it is compulsory.) Why bother to call it a bike lane if cars are required to drive in it? Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
John David Galt wrote:
I take it that Europe does not allow the car driver to take the bike lane a few metres before the intersection, thus preventing this conflict? (In California this is not only allowed, it is compulsory.) Marc wrote: Why bother to call it a bike lane if cars are required to drive in it? The same reason the smoking section of a restaurant (in places that still allow such a thing) is open to nonsmokers. The point of a bike lane is to improve traffic flow by keeping bikes in, not cars out. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
John David Galt wrote:
The tiny trickle of people using bikes could increase by a factor of 100 and they'd still be less than 1% of traffic, hardly enough to justify robbing the majority of even a single lane. That is your claim, but observation, at least here in Europe, shows otherwise. Number of people riding to work, school or shopping is high, up to 2/3 of all travels in some regions. So cyclists are allowed to ride in crosswalks in Europe? In the US this is illegal (unless they dismount first) but commonly done anyway, often by pulling out in front of cars as if the biker had the legal status of a pedestrian (which he does not). This would happen on crossings with traffic lights. These have symbols for pedestrians, cycles and "other traffic", and you do what the lights tell you. Within cities bike paths are more often than not segregated parts of the sidewalk, thus the cyclist quite naturally behaves a little like a pedestrian. I take it that Europe does not allow the car driver to take the bike lane a few metres before the intersection, thus preventing this conflict? (In California this is not only allowed, it is compulsory.) No, cars have nothing to do on a cycle path over here. In many cases, construction of cycle paths make such behaviour impossible, too. That's what happens if myopic fools disregard the question of sustainability. Sustainability my ass. That's what happens when NIMBYs stop the process of expanding the road system (which of course needs to go on permanently as long as population is growing) and then blame drivers for the resulting congestion. This sort of red neck car driver attitude does not get you anywhere. First of all, population is shrinking, not growing in most western societies, only the number of cars is growing. Second, experience shows that building new roads does not solve the problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets clogged by additional traffic. Streets claimed in the '60s and '70s to solve traffic problems "until the turn of the century" were clogged 2 days later (London being one example, the "Ruhrstauweg" another). Thirdly, appart from financial considerations there are other limits on road building. Pollution levels and land use for roads can not be increased indefinetly, in particular in the densely populated areas of Europe. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
...experience shows that building new roads does not solve the problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets clogged by additional traffic. Streets claimed in the '60s and '70s to solve traffic problems "until the turn of the century" were clogged 2 days later (London being one example, the "Ruhrstauweg" another). I've heard it said that building roads to relieve congestion is like buying looser clothes to cure obesity. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:00:41 -0400, Mitch Haley
wrote: I've heard it said that building roads to relieve congestion is like buying looser clothes to cure obesity. Well if you listen to environmentalists without using any critical thinking skills, I could see that. Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births and from immigration. It amazes me how stupid their argument is, yet people tend to believe most things the media tells us without thinking about it. How could more cars appear simply by building a road? Uh, aren't there people in those cars? They can't drive on two roads at once... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
"DTJ" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:00:41 -0400, Mitch Haley wrote: I've heard it said that building roads to relieve congestion is like buying looser clothes to cure obesity. Well if you listen to environmentalists without using any critical thinking skills, I could see that. Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births and from immigration. It amazes me how stupid their argument is, yet people tend to believe most things the media tells us without thinking about it. How could more cars appear simply by building a road? Uh, aren't there people in those cars? They can't drive on two roads at once... Traffic volume does increase faster than population, which is what environmentalists say. But that is because people like to travel, and use their income for that purpose. The more radical environmentalists have published letters in our local newspaper saying that the goal of the enviromental movement is to STOP TRAVEL or at least make it expensive and to minimize all travel. This is no different from the old British nobles who were against railroads because it would encourage the peasants to move around too much. No difference today. Environmentalists are white elitists. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
"DTJ" wrote in message ... On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:00:41 -0400, Mitch Haley wrote: I've heard it said that building roads to relieve congestion is like buying looser clothes to cure obesity. Well if you listen to environmentalists without using any critical thinking skills, I could see that. Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births and from immigration. Right, the population keeps increasing. Does expanding the roads improve congestion? Experiments in cities have proven that they don't. LA, San Jose, San Diego, and other large cities in California are the prototypical cities where such exapnsion has failed to keep pace with demand. There is no reason to believe that it will work anywhere else, either. The analogy does have some real life examples that support it. It amazes me how stupid their argument is, yet people tend to believe most things the media tells us without thinking about it. How could more cars appear simply by building a road? Uh, aren't there people in those cars? They can't drive on two roads at once... It happens for all of the following reasons: - some folks who were using alternative transportation opt to drive - folks give up alternative routes and use the major arterials (not a bad thing, but...) - city planners close previously used routes or add "traffic calming" (speed bumps being the prime example) on surface streets which makes them unattractive for commuting - folks move to the area now that one of their primary complaints, urban congestion on the roads, has been addressed - folks give up the inconveniences associated with carpooling and ride sharing because they perceive that conditions have improved - city workers must return to the previously used roads and perform long delayed maintenance, hence rendering these roads useless for 1 to 2 years - the new roads (supposedly maintained by those same workers) are ignored during this period because they are fixing the old ones. They deteriorate rapidly and what happens becomes a series of alternating road/lane closures that reduce the effective width of the new roads back to what they were prior to expansion Hence, when I-280 was expanded through San Jose, things were nice for a couple of months. Then they added Rte. 85 and things improved again, for a short time. Before 6 months passed, however, it was again faster to cycle to work than it was to drive (most days, though there were some rare exceptions when I could drive and beat my cycle/shower time). It amazes me who stupid their argument is, yet people tend to believe most things the media tells us without thinking about it. How could traffic improve just because a road was built? Uh, aren't there people who make new choices when alternatives are offered? Doesn't this add to the road/traffic burden in an urban area? Rick |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Do bicycles and cars mix?
DTJ wrote:
Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births and from immigration. It amazes me how stupid their argument is Before you accuse people of stupidity, you should get your facts right. In most western societies, population is not only not increasing, it is actually shrinking. Population growth is now mainly a problem of 3rd world countries, and even there in many cases at least the growth rates are going down. Increase in traffic in western countries over the last couple of decades is due to two factors: 1) More cars exist in a given population. Increased income means that many families now have two or even more cars, were one used to suffice. 2) More milage per car. This is an effect that is accelerated by road building programs. As I mentioned before there are a couple of examples were motorways were build to relieve traffic congestions in neuralgic areas. These had been calculated to allow traffic increase for 2-3 decades at observed rates. What actually happend was that these new motorways were clogged after a few days by people doing journeys for which public transport had been used before. Interestingly, reducing available roads actually has the opposite effect, as was shown in London (England) recently. An important bridge had to be closed, and it was feared that this would increase traffic problems on other bridges. What actually happend was that car numbers in the inner city decreased. So the solution for traffic problems is not to build new roads, but to close existing ones, counterintuitive but experimentally proven. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Do bicycles and cars mix? | wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX | General | 62 | September 13th 03 03:24 AM |
why did moths change color? was Do bicycles and cars mix? | Dr Engelbert Buxbaum | Social Issues | 0 | July 18th 03 08:50 AM |