The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city...

"Paul R" wrote in message
...
What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in
a city?

get them to read either

"Street Smarts" by John Allen

"Cyclecraft" by John Franklin

"Effective Cycling" by John Forester

and ban anyone from riding who hasn't read one of these books.

Reasons

It has been estimated, from surveys of experienced cyclists, that
experience reduces the accident rate by 80%. However it has also
been estimated that acquiring this experience takes either 50 000
miles of riding alone, or 5000 miles riding with a club - and not all
bike clubs are filled with people who will pass on good advice rather
than bad.

It's better to learn from other people's mistakes, rather than your
own, and it's best to do that quickly.

The advantage of this method is that it equips you to ride on the
roads of today. It will work for you even if every other cyclist in
town remains a total plonker. Even in the unlikely event that it's
your city that gets chosen to become utopia, and that it happens in
your lifetime, you still might want to ride outside the border of the
utopian zone.

Thus I've implictly supported a varient of Paul's no 7. Here in
London UK bike education, for both adults and children, is widely
available, and at last, this year, only 80 years or so after large
numbers of cyclists and motorists began sharing the roads with each
other, there is a standardised nationwide list of what cyclists ought
to know. it's probably not a perfect list, but having a list at all
is a start

Regarding Paul's no 6, tax breaks, there was a study here that found
that, to fulfill the then British national target of doubling
cycling, building door to door bike paths for everybody would not
work. On the other hand paying everybody 3 GBP (about $5 US) per
trip would, instantly. Maybe you could build that into the tax
system. Furthermore just getting more bikes on the road system seems
to make cycling safer for everyone, even if every cyclist retains
their previous rate of cluelessness.

This points out that Paul's no 1, helmets, would likely make cycling
more dangerous rather than less. Helmets never prevent an accident,
of course, and are pretty useless at mitigating the accidents that
continue to occur. Helmet laws are a proven deterrent to cycling,
and the resultant decrease in cycling will therefore make accidents
more likely for those cyclists who remain. That's even without any
additional effects that might occur from risk compensation by cyclist
or motorist.

Jeremy Parker
London UK

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:43:17 -0000, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote in message
:

get them to read either
"Street Smarts" by John Allen
"Cyclecraft" by John Franklin
"Effective Cycling" by John Forester
and ban anyone from riding who hasn't read one of these books.

Amen to that.

John can buy me a pint next time I see him from all the extra
royalties :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

=v= The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city is
to have more cyclists in the city:

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/3/205

Unfortunately, some of your recommendations would have the
opposite effect.

1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict
enforcement.

=v= I'm not going to get into the Neverending Usenet Helmet
Flamewar, but I will note that cities that have succeeded in
getting lots of people on bikes don't have such a requirement.

4) ... Widen streets ...

=v= A widened street is a street that motorists speed up on (in
the short term), which is dangerous to cyclists. Once motorists
find out that the street is faster, they come and saturate it,
leading to more congestion and pollution (in the long run).

7) Licensing for cyclists ...

=v= Again, not a requirement in cities that have succesfully
gotten lots of people on bikes.
_Jym_

One large study in Oxford showed that about one in four
cyclists are responsible for crashes in which they are
injured, but over half of pedestrians. Pedestrian license
anyone?

=v= What data was this study based on?

=v= In the U.S., this data comes from police reports. Studies
conducted by the organization Right Of Way revealed a consistent
flaw in police reports for fatalities of pedestrians and
bicyclists: if there weren't any eyewitnesses, police accepted
the testimony of the motorist, and didn't investigate further.
This meant the deceased was declared "at fault," to an extent
that messes up the official statistics.
_Jym_

Wrong. You aren't subsidizing one thing by removing the subsidy for
something it competes with. De-subsidizing cars is not "subsidizing" bikes.
As a matter of fact, you could drop the pittance of true subsidies cyclists
get from motor fuel taxes.

This just reflects the almost genetic American myth that drivers pay their
own way. The truth is for urban drivers driving cheaper cars, they get more
in subsidies (often well over a quarter a mile) than they pay to drive.


"Mitch Haley" wrote in message
...
Robert Haston wrote:
6. NO NO again. Don't subsidize cyclists - de-subsidize drivers. Give
every employee the cash it costs to provide his free parking, then charge
them only if they use it. The tax laws are changing towards this.


The European model "subsidizes" cyclists by not making them pay motor fuel
tax,
same as in USA. The difference is that the motor fuel taxes over there are
a notable fraction of the total cost of owning/operating a car. A 20mpg
car
averaging a thousand miles a month in the USA might cost $25 a month in
tax
on the fuel, as compared to $100 - $200 a month in Europe. Increasing the
USA fuel taxes would be the simplest way to de-subsidize driving.

Mitch.

On 10 Nov 2004 15:45:28 -0800, Jym Dyer wrote:

One large study in Oxford showed that about one in four
cyclists are responsible for crashes in which they are
injured, but over half of pedestrians. Pedestrian license
anyone?

=v= What data was this study based on?

STATS19 returns and interviews, IIRC - police reports with subsequent
checks.

=v= In the U.S., this data comes from police reports. Studies
conducted by the organization Right Of Way revealed a consistent
flaw in police reports for fatalities of pedestrians and
bicyclists: if there weren't any eyewitnesses, police accepted
the testimony of the motorist, and didn't investigate further.
This meant the deceased was declared "at fault," to an extent
that messes up the official statistics.

Also an issue here. The figure of 25% cyclist blame is often regarded
as an upper limit.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:52:07 -0800, Zoot Katz
wrote:

Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:16:37 -0500, ,
"Matt O'Toole" wrote:


Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember
little things
from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still
signal automatically, the exact way that we were thought.

Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?

I think this kind of training early on makes kids better drivers later in life.

Yep, in 2nd year high school driver training, at fifteen and a half
years old, it was like, 'What are you going through all this stuff
for? We learned this on our bikes in third through sixth grade.'

A motorcycle safety course taught me more about driving and riding a
bicycle.

That was back in the days when children actually had fathers _and_
mothers at home who took time to teach them things.

Michael J. Klein
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:43:17 -0000,
,
"Jeremy Parker" wrote:


and ban anyone from riding who hasn't read one of these books.

Reasons

Accept applications for driving licenses only after those applicants
can demonstrate having survived two years in traffic on a bicycle. Or
persons with limited physical abilities that prevents their riding.
--
zk

In article ,
"Paul R" writes:

What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city?

Advise 'em to move over as close to the centre of the road as
practicable (within their lane) while traversing intersections --
bearing in mind John Forester's advice on lane/direction
positioning.

Why?

Because intersections are where most collisions happen, and
a curb-hugging rider is most likely to get clobbered.


cheers,
Tom
--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

"Hugh Jass" wrote in message ...

I disagree. I'm on the road most of the day and see so many
people that cannot ride a bike properly.

Do you live in Jersey....was it a middle aged woman with reddish brown
hair and a hysterical look on her face? ;-)

http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/