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

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/11/2017 12:47 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:39:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, 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.


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.

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?

Here's Ohio's bike-relevant law:
------------------------------------------------
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not
more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
-------------------------------------------------------

The general slow vehicle law is this (I'll omit one paragraph):

4511.22 Slow speed.

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or
street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) ...

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact,
in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably
slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its
operator.
------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph figured heavily in a prominent case that established
that bikes are allowed to operate at bicycle speed, even if the poor
motorist behind the bike has to wait a few seconds.

That is essentially what I had said (perhaps in more poetic terms),
that essentially slower traffic is not to impede faster traffic. And
adds the notation that bicycles don't have to ride in the ditch, or
other unsafe places.

But your 4511.22 (A) and (B) is not an authority to ride lane center,
(as so often advocated) in any and all instances. In fact it would
appear that riding lane center could well be deemed illegal in many,
perhaps most, instances.

Again, if nobody's around, I generally ride wherever it's smoothest.
That's usually lane center.

Which is a totally different matter from the often voiced advice of
"take the lane" which seems to be considered as a panacea for any and
all traffic problems.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
Again, if nobody's around, I generally ride wherever it's smoothest.
That's usually lane center.

Snipped

Funny, a lot of the roads I ride on are a heck of a lot rougher in the center of the lane than they are in either the right hand or left hand tire track. Also, center of the lane around here is where many of the steel utility access hole covers are and hitting the edge of one of the sunken ones (that is the ones a couple of inches below the road surface) with your front wheel is an excellent way to get a front wheel deflected.

Riding lane center is contingent on the locale and is not a hard and fast rule.

Cheers

On 8/11/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.

"Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
lions.



http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

First, Joerg, the techniques used in that "study" are laughable and have
earned much derision. As they say, "The majority of the information
captured by Every Bicyclist Counts came from newspaper reports (56% of
all reported sources), TV reports (25%) and blogs (19%)." Those are
hardly reliable sources of details necessary to determine crash
mechanisms. The very fact that their "hit from behind" category is so
much larger than any other study should raise red flags, even if the
"study" were not done by an organization that these days, devotes most
of its energy to promoting segregated facilities.

Second, there is little or no indication of whether or not most of the
cyclists were using techniques advocated by me, by _Effective Cycling_,
by _Cyclecraft_, by the League's own cycling classes, by CAN-BIKE, by
BikeAbility etc. I'd say it's very likely they were not. IOW, those
cyclists were probably riding like you do. Ponder that, please.

Third, in the sample of "such a wonderful guy/girl" personal stories,
there were at least two killed while riding in bike lanes and two while
riding shoulders. A person could use those tales to say the bike lanes
and shoulders you tout are completely useless. Also, note there are no
heartwarming stories about people riding at night without lights, or
riding drunk, despite their severe over-representation in other data on
bike fatalities.

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/11/2017 7:27 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/11/2017 12:47 AM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:39:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/10/2017 8:01 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 13:55, 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.


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.

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?

Here's Ohio's bike-relevant law:
------------------------------------------------
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not
more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
-------------------------------------------------------

The general slow vehicle law is this (I'll omit one paragraph):

4511.22 Slow speed.

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or
street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) ...

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact,
in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably
slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its
operator.
------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph figured heavily in a prominent case that established
that bikes are allowed to operate at bicycle speed, even if the poor
motorist behind the bike has to wait a few seconds.

That is essentially what I had said (perhaps in more poetic terms),
that essentially slower traffic is not to impede faster traffic. And
adds the notation that bicycles don't have to ride in the ditch, or
other unsafe places.

But your 4511.22 (A) and (B) is not an authority to ride lane center,
(as so often advocated) in any and all instances. In fact it would
appear that riding lane center could well be deemed illegal in many,
perhaps most, instances.

Again, if nobody's around, I generally ride wherever it's smoothest.
That's usually lane center.

Which is a totally different matter from the often voiced advice of
"take the lane" which seems to be considered as a panacea for any and
all traffic problems.

I think we're better off discussing actual statements, preferably with
quotes. As I stated upthread, many people misquote or seriously
misinterpret what John Forester and vehicular cycling information have said.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/11/2017 7:42 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
Again, if nobody's around, I generally ride wherever it's smoothest.
That's usually lane center.

Snipped

Funny, a lot of the roads I ride on are a heck of a lot rougher in the center of the lane than they are in either the right hand or left hand tire track. Also, center of the lane around here is where many of the steel utility access hole covers are and hitting the edge of one of the sunken ones (that is the ones a couple of inches below the road surface) with your front wheel is an excellent way to get a front wheel deflected.

Perhaps our areas are different. On yesterday's club ride on mostly
country roads, I was piloting a tandem. Out of charity toward my wife, I
spent lots of time looking for the smoothest parts. They were usually at
lane center, because the pavement was often showing cracks in the tire
tracks. (Stokers are notoriously sensitive to bumps, BTW.)

Those roads had no utility hole covers. Here in my suburban village, I
rode to the store and back a while ago. On South Main Street, the steel
covers are in the right tire track. I know because I generally
negotiate my way to lane center to clear them. Farther south (past my
turnoff) there's one in lane center; so it varies. It helps to watch
ahead for them so there's time to adjust lane position.

When I return home from the south side, that lane center one is on one
of my favorite downhills, and it's pretty rough. Riding with others, I'm
always careful to point it out.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:01:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

Not having one could make for a smelly situation in meetings and such.

A shower is quicker and more pleasant than a sponge bath, but it's far
from essential to hygiene.

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

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/11/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.

"Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
lions.



http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/...port_final.pdf

Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

First, Joerg, the techniques used in that "study" are laughable and have
earned much derision. As they say, "The majority of the information
captured by Every Bicyclist Counts came from newspaper reports (56% of
all reported sources), TV reports (25%) and blogs (19%)." Those are
hardly reliable sources of details necessary to determine crash
mechanisms. The very fact that their "hit from behind" category is so
much larger than any other study should raise red flags, even if the
"study" were not done by an organization that these days, devotes most
of its energy to promoting segregated facilities.

Second, there is little or no indication of whether or not most of the
cyclists were using techniques advocated by me, by _Effective Cycling_,
by _Cyclecraft_, by the League's own cycling classes, by CAN-BIKE, by
BikeAbility etc. I'd say it's very likely they were not. IOW, those
cyclists were probably riding like you do. Ponder that, please.

Third, in the sample of "such a wonderful guy/girl" personal stories,
there were at least two killed while riding in bike lanes and two while
riding shoulders. A person could use those tales to say the bike lanes
and shoulders you tout are completely useless. Also, note there are no
heartwarming stories about people riding at night without lights, or
riding drunk, despite their severe over-representation in other data on
bike fatalities.

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or perhaps require licenses?

Get a hold on yourself and no I don't mean there.

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or perhaps require licenses?

Sorry, Tom, you seem to have lost track of the conversation. The publicity
document under discussion was a laughable attempt to analyze bike crash causes by
reading blogs, news articles and listening to TV reports. I'm saying that
doesn't produce good data.

I've seen the standard forms cops use to record crash details. (I serve on
two committees that deal with fatal crashes.) The forms are in serious need of
improvement, at least regarding bike crashes. As just one example, it's
often difficult to tell whether the cyclist was using legally required lights
at night. It's very difficult, often impossible, to discern the cyclist's
lane position... and so on.

I have one friend who was grazed by a passing car. Immediately after, she
managed to stop a cop car and get them to take a crash report, even though she
did not fall and was just slightly bruised on the arm. The cops said that
they would have given the guy a ticket if she had been a pedestrian. (And of
course they would have if he had sideswiped a car.) But they said "You were
just riding a bicycle." IOW, they don't take car-bike crashes very seriously.
This leads to less good data on how to prevent them.

- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or perhaps require licenses?

Sorry, Tom, you seem to have lost track of the conversation. The publicity
document under discussion was a laughable attempt to analyze bike crash causes by
reading blogs, news articles and listening to TV reports. I'm saying that
doesn't produce good data.

I've seen the standard forms cops use to record crash details. (I serve on
two committees that deal with fatal crashes.) The forms are in serious need of
improvement, at least regarding bike crashes. As just one example, it's
often difficult to tell whether the cyclist was using legally required lights
at night. It's very difficult, often impossible, to discern the cyclist's
lane position... and so on.

I have one friend who was grazed by a passing car. Immediately after, she
managed to stop a cop car and get them to take a crash report, even though she
did not fall and was just slightly bruised on the arm. The cops said that
they would have given the guy a ticket if she had been a pedestrian. (And of
course they would have if he had sideswiped a car.) But they said "You were
just riding a bicycle." IOW, they don't take car-bike crashes very seriously.
This leads to less good data on how to prevent them.

- Frank Krygowski

I know that it doesn't produce "good" data but it produces data and far better than spending tax dollars for the government to generate better data.

Don't complain that Joerg is whining when all you have to do is bring the same subject up at any bike club meeting and you're assaulted by 2/3rds of the group with exactly the same sort of complaints. You and I are the 1% but remember that makes us outcasts from the 99%.

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 3:29:16 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 10:13:54 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:45:32 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or perhaps require licenses?

Sorry, Tom, you seem to have lost track of the conversation. The publicity
document under discussion was a laughable attempt to analyze bike crash causes by
reading blogs, news articles and listening to TV reports. I'm saying that
doesn't produce good data.

I've seen the standard forms cops use to record crash details. (I serve on
two committees that deal with fatal crashes.) The forms are in serious need of
improvement, at least regarding bike crashes. As just one example, it's
often difficult to tell whether the cyclist was using legally required lights
at night. It's very difficult, often impossible, to discern the cyclist's
lane position... and so on.

I have one friend who was grazed by a passing car. Immediately after, she
managed to stop a cop car and get them to take a crash report, even though she
did not fall and was just slightly bruised on the arm. The cops said that
they would have given the guy a ticket if she had been a pedestrian. (And of
course they would have if he had sideswiped a car.) But they said "You were
just riding a bicycle." IOW, they don't take car-bike crashes very seriously.
This leads to less good data on how to prevent them.

- Frank Krygowski

I know that it doesn't produce "good" data but it produces data and far better than spending tax dollars for the government to generate better data.

That's nonsense.

I've mocked the contingent that says "any bike facility is a good bike
facility." I guess now I have to add the contingent that says "any data is good
data."


Don't complain that Joerg is whining when all you have to do is bring the same subject up at any bike club meeting and you're assaulted by 2/3rds of the group with exactly the same sort of complaints.

Not my bike club.

- Frank Krygowski