Cycling: almost actual science

https://cyclingindustry.news/painted...science-paper/


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

On 5/10/2019 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/painted...science-paper/

I heard about that elsewhere. So it's another claim that striped bike
lanes are dangerous. In other words, the segregation advocates that have
been touting those lanes for decades are now admitting they were wrong.
But they want barrier separations everywhere. Even though any rational
analysis shows they are impossible to build on even 1% of our roads.

And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf

Or the pile of studies collected by John Franklin. See
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html



--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/10/2019 2:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2019 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/painted...science-paper/


I heard about that elsewhere. So it's another claim that
striped bike lanes are dangerous. In other words, the
segregation advocates that have been touting those lanes for
decades are now admitting they were wrong. But they want
barrier separations everywhere. Even though any rational
analysis shows they are impossible to build on even 1% of
our roads.

And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown
significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike
lanes, like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Or the pile of studies collected by John Franklin. See
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html



Anyone who's seen an inside fastball brush a batter only to
have a strike called will question the 'methodology' of
evaluating close passes.

I have no idea but I doubt the 'researchers' do either.

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

On Fri, 10 May 2019 15:22:47 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/10/2019 2:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2019 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/painted...science-paper/


I heard about that elsewhere. So it's another claim that
striped bike lanes are dangerous. In other words, the
segregation advocates that have been touting those lanes for
decades are now admitting they were wrong. But they want
barrier separations everywhere. Even though any rational
analysis shows they are impossible to build on even 1% of
our roads.

And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown
significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike
lanes, like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Or the pile of studies collected by John Franklin. See
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html



Anyone who's seen an inside fastball brush a batter only to
have a strike called will question the 'methodology' of
evaluating close passes.

I have no idea but I doubt the 'researchers' do either.

One study was done in England, I believe, using some sort of
ultrasonic distance sensor. See
http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/

In another study he makes an interesting comment about bicycle
helmets:
" suggesting that bicyclists must buy and wear protective devices to
remain safe is no different from suggesting non-smokers must buy and
wear gas-masks as a solution to passive smoking. In both cases, these
are solutions that technically "work", but they place all the
responsibility for action - and a financial burden - on the
non-consenting injured party. In the case of bicycle helmets, it is,
moreover, a "solution" that serves to maintain a status quo in which
people choosing a healthy, clean and socially responsible mode of
travel are systematically marginalised in their competition for
limited public space with those who have chosen to use motor
vehicles".
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 8:00:58 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 15:22:47 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/10/2019 2:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2019 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/painted...science-paper/


I heard about that elsewhere. So it's another claim that
striped bike lanes are dangerous. In other words, the
segregation advocates that have been touting those lanes for
decades are now admitting they were wrong. But they want
barrier separations everywhere. Even though any rational
analysis shows they are impossible to build on even 1% of
our roads.

And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown
significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike
lanes, like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Or the pile of studies collected by John Franklin. See
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html



Anyone who's seen an inside fastball brush a batter only to
have a strike called will question the 'methodology' of
evaluating close passes.

I have no idea but I doubt the 'researchers' do either.

One study was done in England, I believe, using some sort of
ultrasonic distance sensor. See
http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/

In another study he makes an interesting comment about bicycle
helmets:
" suggesting that bicyclists must buy and wear protective devices to
remain safe is no different from suggesting non-smokers must buy and
wear gas-masks as a solution to passive smoking. In both cases, these
are solutions that technically "work", but they place all the
responsibility for action - and a financial burden - on the
non-consenting injured party. In the case of bicycle helmets, it is,
moreover, a "solution" that serves to maintain a status quo in which
people choosing a healthy, clean and socially responsible mode of
travel are systematically marginalised in their competition for
limited public space with those who have chosen to use motor
vehicles".
--
cheers,

John B.

"Finally, when the (male) experimenter wore a long wig, so that he appeared female from behind, drivers left more space when passing."

I may start wearing a wig. :-)

Andy

On Fri, 10 May 2019 18:16:54 -0700 (PDT), AK
wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 8:00:58 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 15:22:47 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/10/2019 2:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2019 12:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/painted...science-paper/


I heard about that elsewhere. So it's another claim that
striped bike lanes are dangerous. In other words, the
segregation advocates that have been touting those lanes for
decades are now admitting they were wrong. But they want
barrier separations everywhere. Even though any rational
analysis shows they are impossible to build on even 1% of
our roads.

And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown
significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike
lanes, like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Or the pile of studies collected by John Franklin. See
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html



Anyone who's seen an inside fastball brush a batter only to
have a strike called will question the 'methodology' of
evaluating close passes.

I have no idea but I doubt the 'researchers' do either.

One study was done in England, I believe, using some sort of
ultrasonic distance sensor. See
http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/

In another study he makes an interesting comment about bicycle
helmets:
" suggesting that bicyclists must buy and wear protective devices to
remain safe is no different from suggesting non-smokers must buy and
wear gas-masks as a solution to passive smoking. In both cases, these
are solutions that technically "work", but they place all the
responsibility for action - and a financial burden - on the
non-consenting injured party. In the case of bicycle helmets, it is,
moreover, a "solution" that serves to maintain a status quo in which
people choosing a healthy, clean and socially responsible mode of
travel are systematically marginalised in their competition for
limited public space with those who have chosen to use motor
vehicles".
--
cheers,

John B.

"Finally, when the (male) experimenter wore a long wig, so that he appeared female from behind, drivers left more space when passing."

I may start wearing a wig. :-)

Andy

I believe that the best incentive was a jacket with "POLICE" on the
back.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 10 May 2019 18:16:54 -0700 (PDT), AK
wrote:


"Finally, when the (male) experimenter wore a long wig, so that he appeared female from behind, drivers left more space when passing."

I may start wearing a wig. :-)

Perhaps I should stop braiding my hair -- but loose hair is an
enormous nuisance and may even obscure one's vision.

I'll stick to wobbling to the left as soon as the driver is close
enough to see me do it.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/`

On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF? The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

--
JS

On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 9:48:36 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF? The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

There shouldn't be any trick. Sorry, I don't know what's causing your problem.
I just tried again with a very xlow, low-end laptop (I'm not at home right now)
and it downloaded within a few seconds.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 13 May 2019 11:48:27 +1000, James
wrote:

On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:


And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant
increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio:
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf


Is there some trick to downloading this PDF? The connection times out
for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget.

I just tried it and it spins its wheels for a while and than pops up
the error message "503 SERVICE UNAVAILABLE"
--

Cheers,

John B.