riding on the sidewalk

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:49:29 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 11:55 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 11:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 5:03 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 05:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 2:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html






He was riding against the direction of traffic on a sidewalk. That's
much more dangerous than riding properly in the lane.

Unfortunately, many "protected cycletracks" put cyclists in exactly
that
same situation.


Perhaps the "sidewalk" needs re-engineering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKlH9k

I'm aware that these things, when well designed, seem to work in the
Netherlands. But I wonder if a necessary prerequisite for their success
is a culture that has deeply embraced cycling. In other words, I wonder
if certain cycling advocates have confused cause and effect.

I've not yet ridden in the Netherlands, but my daughter did. She
reported that in Amsterdam, she found the maze of bike facilities
confusing at times. But she took comfort in their strict liability
laws. She told us that there were many times that she got a bit
confused, but that motorists slammed to a stop to let her pass, with
never a complaint. They always seemed to be super-cautious around
bikes.


Interestingly & AFAIK, the strict liability laws only apply to monetary
liability. Could be wrong.

Also, I have been very confused by the maze of twisting and turning
roads around Brisbane - regardless whether I'm in a car or on a bike.
Melbourne was far easier to navigate.

In that culture, I suppose there's less risk for a cyclist in an
unexpected direction - because, I suppose, cyclists are expected to come
from any direction.

Here's her report, although she gave us much more detail at home:
http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/amsterdam.htm

And by the way, in not-too-distant Copenhagen, which also has a 100 year
bike culture, the best before-after studies of cycletracks found
significant _increases_ in crash rates! See
www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf
especially conclusion #2.


I note the last sentence from the Abstract.

Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

--
JS

James - you have me somewhat at a loss - how do you propose that cycle-tracks would increase motor traffic?

On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James!

But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less
pollution?


They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially
psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who
are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the
detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways)
where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the
cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful.

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 2:03:16 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 05:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 2:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html


He was riding against the direction of traffic on a sidewalk. That's
much more dangerous than riding properly in the lane.

Unfortunately, many "protected cycletracks" put cyclists in exactly that
same situation.


Perhaps the "sidewalk" needs re-engineering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKlH9k

Yes, to eliminate the motor scooters (1:31). Hmmm. And as you note below, it's the crossings that are dangerous -- just as they were to the kid in the story originally posted. That poor kid got whacked in an intersection in the same manner as many US pedestrians get hit every year. Perhaps he launched off the curb without looking or maybe the truck driver was asleep -- who knows. I do know that intersections are dangerous places -- and no less dangerous if you happen to be riding in an adjacent MUP or cycletrack that crosses a road.

In Portland, bike paths are really dangerous (If you're an idiot). Watch out for that tree! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZbrJh0nORk

-- Jay Beattie.

On 07/06/16 07:00, wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:49:29 PM UTC-7, James wrote:


There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger
increase in bicycle use on those roads with separated
infrastructure compared with painted bike lanes on roads. The
benefit is more than just less pollution. But I guess you chose to
ignore that though you know it.

They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path
as such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't
dangerous, but the motorists who cross it certainly are.

-- JS

James - you have me somewhat at a loss - how do you propose that
cycle-tracks would increase motor traffic?



I don't believe I did. The document Frank posted a link to says;

"Construction of bicycle tracks resulted in a 20 percent increase in
bicycle / moped traffic mileage and a decrease of 10 percent in motor
vehicle traffic milage, whereas marking of bicycle lanes resulted in a 5
percent increase in bicycle/moped traffic mileage and a decrease of 1
percent in motor vehicle traffic mileage."

Which seems to be in line with what I wrote above.

--
JS

On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James!

But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less
pollution?


More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of
health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank.


They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially
psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who
are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the
detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways)
where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the
cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful.

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.


Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all
those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also
offer physical safety benefits after all!

The Dutch realise not everything they do works well. Theirs is a system
of continuous improvement. If a type of crossing is seen to be causing
crashes, they re-engineer it to try to make it better. It seems to be
working, whatever they're doing. Healthier people and a healthy economy.

--
JS

On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they
are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James!

But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less
pollution?


More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of
health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank.

I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be
there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the
cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip.

It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say)
responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by
simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the
changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my
have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool.

(* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of
bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing
bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.)



They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially
psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who
are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the
detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways)
where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the
cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful.

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.


Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all
those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also
offer physical safety benefits after all!

It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking
that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far
different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far
different, too.

How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a
foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures
like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher
taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses,
much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower
speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces,
more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds
and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's
not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think
that it's just the bike facilities.

The Dutch realise not everything they do works well. Theirs is a system
of continuous improvement. If a type of crossing is seen to be causing
crashes, they re-engineer it to try to make it better.

That brings up the point that Mikael Colville-Andersen (one of the
world's most prominent bike facility proponents) thinks that most U.S.
cycletracks are nuts. Why? Because in the U.S., they're typically
two-way on one side of the road. He says that the northern European
countries learned long ago that such a design is much more dangerous.
But his message hasn't sunk in with the "Any bike facility is a good
bike facility" crowd.

It seems to be
working, whatever they're doing. Healthier people and a healthy economy.

What seems to be working is the entire constellation of differences that
I noted above. Again, it's not just bike facilities that make the
difference.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/6/2016 7:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I meant to say:

In other words, you DON'T really know that for each less car on the
cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 2:19:47 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

NEWS READ, TRUCK HIT BICYCLE TURNING INOT A CONSTRUCTION AREA

http://www.bicycling.com/rides/trave...ths-in-the-usa

is there available data tracking development of bike only surfaces going A-B ?

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:27:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 2:19:47 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

NEWS READ, TRUCK HIT BICYCLE TURNING INOT A CONSTRUCTION AREA

http://www.bicycling.com/rides/trave...ths-in-the-usa

is there available data tracking development of bike only surfaces going A-B ?

https://goo.gl/I5pzMy

if total miles/years/regions were crunched, then I assume a horn would blow.

On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they
are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James!

But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less
pollution?


More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of
health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank.

I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be
there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the
cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip.

I assume nothing of the sort.


It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say)
responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by
simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the
changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my
have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool.

(* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of
bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing
bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.)



They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially
psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who
are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the
detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways)
where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the
cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful.

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.


Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all
those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also
offer physical safety benefits after all!

It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking
that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far
different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far
different, too.

How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a
foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures
like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher
taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses,
much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower
speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces,
more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds
and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's
not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think
that it's just the bike facilities.


It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will
magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but
you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane.
That seems to be working well in the US of A.

The Dutch realise not everything they do works well. Theirs is a system
of continuous improvement. If a type of crossing is seen to be causing
crashes, they re-engineer it to try to make it better.

That brings up the point that Mikael Colville-Andersen (one of the
world's most prominent bike facility proponents) thinks that most U.S.
cycletracks are nuts. Why? Because in the U.S., they're typically
two-way on one side of the road. He says that the northern European
countries learned long ago that such a design is much more dangerous.
But his message hasn't sunk in with the "Any bike facility is a good
bike facility" crowd.

It seems to be
working, whatever they're doing. Healthier people and a healthy economy.

What seems to be working is the entire constellation of differences that
I noted above. Again, it's not just bike facilities that make the
difference.



--
JS