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

On 8/10/2017 10:23 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Probably none on the bike paths. That kind of Conga line would drive me crazy, particularly with a commute that is in excess of the average 3.2km (2 mile) trip in Amsterdam. Trip distances in Amsterdam are short and often walkable. They are also dead flat. My commutes have ranged from 14 miles each way down to just a few -- and currently 5-6 miles depending on route and assuming I'm not throwing-in gratuitous miles through the West Hills. I've always tried to live near work or school.

Reminds me of riding in China in the 1980's. Very slow, probably about
10 KM/H, and no sudden stops (since those Phoenix and Flying Pigeon
bicycles had mostly non-functional rod brakes) or unexpected moves. Go
with the flow. I was 31 and it was an effort to not try to go faster.
Wide separated bike lanes too.

It's not rocket science. We know what gets more people on bicycles:

1. Infrastructure
2. Traffic congestion
3. Lack of mass transit

We have #2 & #3 in my area. If we could do more of #1 we'd get some of
that 60%. No one expects to get 100% of that 60% instantaneously. It's a
long process.

On 8/10/2017 7:47 AM, Joerg wrote:

Occasionally I also do that because there are many people who absolutely
positively will not cycle on roads. But they ride and some are quite
sporty so they don't hold me back. I normally rather ride right from our
garage but that requires many miles of county road cycling to get to
"the good stuff".

I have relatives who are willing to ride on roads with bike lanes, but
get very uneasy when there is a break in the bicycle lane. Explaining to
them that it's not that dangerous is futile. They are in that 60%.
They'd prefer separated lanes but at least they're willing to ride where
there's painted lanes.

On 8/10/2017 2:16 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/10/2017 5:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:13:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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?Â
After all,
that's _really_ what Vehicular Cycling is about.


My guess is that bicycle use, as a percentage of the
population is not
and never will increase.

According to the National Bike Dealers Association in
1973 there were
some 15.2 million 20" and larger wheel bicycles sold in
the U.S. which
is asterisked as "Record High". In 1981 there were 8.9
million sold
and in 2015 there were 12.5 million sold.

The U.S. population figures for the same years are
1973 - 311.9 million
1981 - 229.47
2015 - 320.0

Bicycle use per capita is then:
1973 - 1 bike/20.5 people
1981 - 1/25.7
2015 - 1/24.9

In short, other then the one year, 1973, there is a
smaller percentage
of USians on bicycles every year.

Over the past 20 years from 1995 - 2015 the numbers a

1995 - 12 million bikes, 20 inch or larger wheels size,
sold versus a
population of 266.28 million. Or 1 bike per 22.19 people

2015 - 12.5 bikes versus 320.9 million or 1/25.6

Obviously bicycle sales vary from year to year and in the
20 year
period (above) the high point was in 2005 when 14.0
million bikes were
sold in a population of 295.8 million or 1 bike/21.12
people.


As regards 1981, roughly 1/3 of all US bicycle stores open
in 1980 were closed by the end of 1982. That short severe
recession hurt more than bike shops too.

Was it just the recession? Or was it also a change in the
retail market for bicycles? The expansion of stores like REI
which didn't sell the low-end stuff like K-Mart, Sears,
etc., and mail order outfits like Bike Nashbar, first for
high-margin clothing, parts, and accessories, and later for
private-label complete bicycles with higher margins than
name brand bicycles.

Shrinking margins on complete bicycles, and


I do not know.

When things go well, it's always attributed to management
genius. By management, anyway.

When things go awry, the list of reasons/excuses is a mile
long, just as in every other business.

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

On 8/10/2017 10:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 19:21, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 2:31 PM, Joerg wrote:

Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for
decades and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane
center is not at all customary there and would quickly result in a
citation and fine.

But if you're a tourist they just ignore you, and assume that you don't
know the law.


Sometimes.


In the UK you can take the lane when necessary, other times you can't.


That's how it is in most countries. Meaning if you are out there on a
rural road riding lane center you can be ticketed. Or get killed.

Yes, yes, Joerg, we know. Your universe is a terribly, terribly
dangerous place. (BTW, the Perseid meteor shower is coming soon. Be
careful! You could get killed!)

Are you saying it's different in other European countries? No one said
that it's customary to ride lane center, you only do it when there is no
other option.


Frank said in another post yesterday in this thread "My wife and I and
the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always near lane
center".

True. Same on today's ride.

Not the words "almost always". Today he wrote, quote " My wife and I
rode lane center there whenever it was necessary or desirable".

I don't know what to believe of his writing. Do you?
Your basic problem is understanding, not believing. To explain: As
usual, it was almost always necessary or desirable.

30 miles today, probably 20 people on the ride. I'd say about one mile
of the ride had a lane wide enough to safely share. The rest was on
roads with lanes no more than 9 feet wide. Most of the roads had low
traffic.

If you're on a low traffic road riding with friends, how do you ride?
On fairly level ground, we normally ride two abreast and converse.

If a car approaches behind us, someone will say "Car back." Depending on
the situation, we may or may not "single up" to make it easier for the
motorist to pass. Sometimes it's simply not necessary because they can
easily go around in the other lane. Sometimes it's unwise because they
should not pass, because of oncoming traffic. Riding two abreast is
definitely legal in any case.

Now there is one common way I violate state law: If I'm on an empty
street or road, I will almost always violate the "AFRAP" portion of the
law even if the lane is wide enough to theoretically share. Instead of
riding at far right, I'll aim for the smoothest part of the lane;
because after all, why should I move right to help an imaginary motorist?

Perhaps you cower near the gutter even in that situation. It wouldn't
surprise me, because you certainly seem to be a timid and fearful person.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/10/2017 7:20 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

Somebody forgot to take his meds this morning - FRANK. You and I remember John but in many ways he was wrong.

I think you can say that about anyone, Tom - yourself certainly
included. And for the record, a diligent searcher can find times when
Forester and I disagreed publicly in certain online arguments. (A mutual
friend told me he enjoyed debating me.) But despite some disagreements,
he and I have gotten along very well face to face; and he's asked me to
contribute advice on some of his writing.

But most of the "wrong" ideas credited to John Forester are effectively
straw man statements, as in the article linked above. Right at the top
is the idea that Vehicular Cycling's intent is to greatly increase mode
share. Others falsehoods posted here have been the idea that VC pretends
bad things never happen, or emergency maneuvers are never necessary, or
one doesn't need to observe motorist behavior. All those are bunk.

So if you want to talk about ways he's wrong, you'll need to get
specific. You may very well be thinking of something he never said.


Tell me - on a busy 6 lane road do you pull across into the left turn lane without sweating blood? Very often I'm forced to stay to the right and wait for the opposite light and go across with the cross traffic.

Actually, I have almost no experience riding a bike on six lane roads.
We have none that allow bikes anywhere near me. But four lanes with
center bi-directional turn lanes are very common, with the closest one
being 1/10 of a mile from my house. When busy, they're not fun. But I
have successfully merged to the center turn lane literally thousands of
times.

Also, if you were to actually read _Effective Cycling_ by Forester, it
(as well as the cycling education programs that use its principles) will
tell you that there are times you should move to the right and wait for
a gap in traffic. IOW, the idea that Forester forbids such a move is
yet another straw man.


I really do have to admit that bicycle lanes really does improve cycling and I'm probably more of the 1% than you are.

I have said that some bike lanes can be valuable. I feel the same about
side paths. I do, however, think that most bike lanes are not
particularly valuable. In fact, I think most would be more pleasant
with the same pavement width but without the stripe. Most are sops for
needlessly fearful cyclists.

But we can discuss this in detail if you like.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/10/2017 1:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:

When things go well, it's always attributed to management genius. By
management, anyway.

When things go awry, the list of reasons/excuses is a mile long, just as
in every other business.

In my area, the cost to lease space is so high that low-margin
businesses have a very hard time. We have some bike shops that do well,
like two Trek tied shops, because they sell a lot of high-cost CF bikes
to persons with very high disposable income. But selling mainly
$300-$500 bicycles with only 35-40% margins is not going to work unless
you own your building.

When I see boomers like me, they're typically on road bikes that they've
been riding for a very long time. I went on a training ride a couple of
weeks ago with someone, and I thought she'd show up on a recent vintage
CF bike, but she showed up on an old Bridgestone road bike even older
than my Specialized road bike. She wanted a new bicycle but not CF, and
was looking into a custom Dean titanium.

On 8/10/2017 4:26 AM, wrote:

snip

I just said that because of traffic I am often forced to pull around on the side road and cross with the traffic from the side road. This is what I saw in Paris as well.

I often do that on six lane divided roads like De Anza Blvd. It's much
less stressful, and often faster, to wait for the traffic light to cross
the arterial, than to get to the left turn lane and wait for a left turn
arrow.

On 8/10/2017 11:12 AM, Duane wrote:

Having a shower and locker at the office definitely makes things easier
for commuting by bike.

I suppose a shower and locker make bike commuting easier, but I think
the need for a shower is greatly overestimated.

My first bike commuting job was 2.6 miles away. Even in Georgia summers
I never needed a shower when I arrived. I usually took it easy on the
way in, and mornings are the coolest part of the day.

When I moved to Ohio, a firm criterion for our house purchase was that
it had to be within 10 miles of the new job. I found this one, seven
miles from work. Again, I took things easy on the way in (and was lucky
that most of the way in was level or downhill).

I rode in business casual clothes, except when arriving at noon for
summer evening classes. Then I'd wear shorts and have a change of
clothes on board. But showering before cycling meant my sweat wasn't
stinky, so I'd just wait and cool down a few minutes before entering the
office complex.

And I guarantee nobody could tell which days I rode in and which days I
drove or took the motorcycle, because they would frequently ask. That
included students who came to my office for help and were sitting two
feet from me at my desk.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/10/2017 11:20 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is.

The laughable Mr. Jute is obviously unaware that I've been saying that
bike mode share in the U.S. will NEVER exceed 10%. At least, barring
some sort of unpredictable global catastrophe.

It's people like Joerg and SMS who are claiming that bike lanes can
transform America into Amsterdam. I've been arguing against that
foolishness.

Do try to stop posting out of ignorance, Jute!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/10/2017 3:22 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/10/2017 10:23 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Probably none on the bike paths. That kind of Conga line would drive
me crazy, particularly with a commute that is in excess of the average
3.2km (2 mile) trip in Amsterdam. Trip distances in Amsterdam are
short and often walkable. They are also dead flat. My commutes have
ranged from 14 miles each way down to just a few -- and currently 5-6
miles depending on route and assuming I'm not throwing-in gratuitous
miles through the West Hills. I've always tried to live near work or
school.

Reminds me of riding in China in the 1980's. Very slow, probably about
10 KM/H, and no sudden stops (since those Phoenix and Flying Pigeon
bicycles had mostly non-functional rod brakes) or unexpected moves. Go
with the flow. I was 31 and it was an effort to not try to go faster.
Wide separated bike lanes too.

It's not rocket science. We know what gets more people on bicycles:

1. Infrastructure
2. Traffic congestion
3. Lack of mass transit


Nope. You left out the most important item: Dissuading car use. As long
as motoring is more convenient, very few people will choose to bike.
Traffic congestion by itself is not sufficient disincentive to driving.

You also left out short travel distances. And flat terrain. And a
historic culture of utility bicycling. And fashion. And much else.

--
- Frank Krygowski