|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:37:49 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 9:27 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: snip In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will almost certainly be rejected. Really? https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 https://bikeportland.org/2016/08/12/...traffic-189251 Most of the bike lanes around here get a fair amount of traffic, some way more than others. Is it so heavy that separate light phases are needed for bikes? I don't think so, although in some places, turning motorists may appreciate it during peak commuter hours. Otherwise, probably not. In some European cities, it makes sense. -- Jay Beattie. If I could choose one, of many, subjects to educate Frank about, it would be that the world does not revolve around Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest of World Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest of U.S.A. Are you pretending Portland, Oregon = Rest of World? Or Rest of USA? Are you pretending (like many bike segregation advocates) that Amsterdam or Copenhagen = Rest of World? How does Cupertino compare to Amsterdam for bike mode share? Or how does it compare even to Portland? I think cities like Youngstown, Akron, Indianapolis, Columbus, Lansing, Peoria, St. Louis etc. are FAR more typical of the U.S. than are Portland, Seattle or Cupertino. And I'm really tired of starry-eyed dreamers saying "Amsterdam has _great_ bike mode share and lots of bike lanes! If we just put in bike lanes we can get 30% bike mode share too!" Such nonsense! Again, the U.S. as a whole will never reach 10% bike mode share unless there is some sort of catastrophe that changes everything about our society. I suppose as mayor, you may be able to cause such a catastrophe in your city. Please give it a try. - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 11:49:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 12:27:12 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will almost certainly be rejected. Really? https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 https://bikeportland.org/2016/08/12/...traffic-189251 Really. https://www.google.com/search?safe=o...mg.BMqe9cdCgGg https://alphanewsmn.com/waiting-in-a...pty-bike-lane/ Everyone knows Portland is always at the top of the list for bike use in large cities. That's nice, but it's hardly representative of the rest of the U.S. In fact, it will never be representative of the rest of the U.S., any more than Amsterdam is representative of Europe. Most of the bike lanes around here get a fair amount of traffic, some way more than others. Is it so heavy that separate light phases are needed for bikes? I don't think so, although in some places, turning motorists may appreciate it during peak commuter hours. Otherwise, probably not. In some European cities, it makes sense. How well do you think Portland's bike mode share has reduced congestion? Can a motorist drive from (say) NW Johnson & 21st to SE Hawthorn & 50th faster than ten years ago? The population has exploded, so no. There are zillions of cars on the road, but there would be X + Zillion if people here didn't ride bikes. Imagine existing auto traffic plus all those people on North Williams in the link I sent. Throw in all the people who ride and park on the South Waterfront. If they were all in cars, it would be a real mess. https://bikeportland.org/2012/04/26/...dly-lead-70962 Substitute all those bikes for cars, and the bike parking actually go around the building. BTW, I ride in the scrum through South Waterfront, which is basically a pop-up condo city and a giant extension of the OHSU campus/clinics. Anyway, rush hour there would be a lot worse. Yes, lots of bike lanes go unused in the middle of the day and on many days, but most of them are just paint. No roadway was taken away from cars, and in some cases, additional roadway was created. Unlike some of the hard-core advocates, I am against taking surface away from cars or not building roads or, in PDX, not building parking under the assumption that everyone is going to ride. That's a wrong assumption as the bowling-ball shaped people in the elevator at work illustrate every day. Apart from those with legitimate excuses -- distance, terrain, physical disability -- there are a whole lot of people who will never ride a bike. -- Jay Beattie. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"
On 6/1/2019 1:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:
snip The population has exploded, so no. There are zillions of cars on the road, but there would be X + Zillion if people here didn't ride bikes. Imagine existing auto traffic plus all those people on North Williams in the link I sent. Throw in all the people who ride and park on the South Waterfront. If they were all in cars, it would be a real mess. https://bikeportland.org/2012/04/26/...dly-lead-70962 Substitute all those bikes for cars, and the bike parking actually go around the building. BTW, I ride in the scrum through South Waterfront, which is basically a pop-up condo city and a giant extension of the OHSU campus/clinics. Anyway, rush hour there would be a lot worse. Yes, lots of bike lanes go unused in the middle of the day and on many days, but most of them are just paint. No roadway was taken away from cars, and in some cases, additional roadway was created. Unlike some of the hard-core advocates, I am against taking surface away from cars or not building roads or, in PDX, not building parking under the assumption that everyone is going to ride. That's a wrong assumption as the bowling-ball shaped people in the elevator at work illustrate every day. Apart from those with legitimate excuses -- distance, terrain, physical disability -- there are a whole lot of people who will never ride a bike. It's also important to understand that an increase in traffic density causes an exponential decrease in the traffic flow rate once a road is saturated. So every additional vehicle that you can remove from the road by encouraging bicycling has a larger effect than if the decreases in traffic flow were linear with increased density. It's not necessary to increase bicycle usage to 50% or 75% of commuting in order to have a measurable effect on congestion. Just getting it to 10-15% would pay off in terms of reduced congestion. Of course once congestion goes down there will be pressure for higher density because an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) will show that the roads can handle more vehicle traffic. The entities behind the idea of not adding parking when new residential or commercial space is built do not actually believe that if you don't provide parking that more people will not own cars and will instead walk, bicycle, or take mass transit. They just don't want to be burdened with the cost of parking, preferring to export the parking from parking garages onto streets. I think that Frank really does understand that Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest of U.S.A. but he's so totally invested in his agenda that he can't break free and admit the facts. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"
On 6/1/2019 4:44 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 1:20 PM, jbeattie wrote: snip The population has exploded, so no. There are zillions of cars on the road, but there would beÂ* X + Zillion if people here didn't ride bikes.Â* Imagine existing auto traffic plus all those people on North Williams in the link I sent.Â* Throw in all the people who ride and park on the South Waterfront.Â* If they were all in cars, it would be a real mess. https://bikeportland.org/2012/04/26/...dly-lead-70962 Substitute all those bikes for cars,Â* and the bike parking actually go around the building. BTW, I ride in the scrum through South Waterfront, which is basically a pop-up condo city and a giant extension of the OHSU campus/clinics. Anyway, rush hour there would be a lot worse. Yes, lots of bike lanes go unused in the middle of the day and on many days, but most of them are just paint.Â* No roadway was taken away from cars, and in some cases, additional roadway was created.Â* Unlike some of the hard-core advocates, I am against taking surface away from cars or not building roads or, in PDX, not building parking under the assumption that everyone is going to ride. That's a wrong assumption as the bowling-ball shaped people in the elevator at work illustrate every day. Apart from those with legitimate excuses -- distance, terrain, physical disability -- there are a whole lot of people who will never ride a bike. It's also important to understand that an increase in traffic density causes an exponential decrease in the traffic flow rate once a road is saturated. So every additional vehicle that you can remove from the road by encouraging bicycling has a larger effect than if the decreases in traffic flow were linear with increased density. It's not necessary to increase bicycle usage to 50% or 75% of commuting in order to have a measurable effect on congestion. Just getting it to 10-15% would pay off in terms of reduced congestion. OK, Stephen, please show where that has happened. Show a U.S. city that has demonstrated a measured drop in motor vehicle congestion as a result of a significant increase in bike mode share. I'll wait. I think that Frank really does understand that Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest of U.S.A. but he's so totally invested in his agenda that he can't break free and admit the facts. I've never said Youngstown equals the rest of the USA. But I do think it's closer to typical than Portland is. Certainly, there are hundreds of other cities with our near zero bike mode share. (Akron, Cleveland, Dayton, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, South Bend, Peoria, Detroit, Jacksonville, Tulsa, Omaha, etc. etc. etc. are all under 1%.) Can you tell us how many have Portland's 6% to 7% bike mode share? https://bikeportland.org/2017/09/14/...ommutes-242853 And BTW, what's the bike mode share of Cupertino? Aren't you closer to the national average of 0.6% than to Portland's 6%? That means you're also closer to Youngstown, Ohio. That's despite being host to one of the trendiest companies in the world. Isn't that odd? (For those who won't bother searching it out, Alta Planning - a major bike lane promotion company - claims Cupertino is at 0.7% bike mode share. Same as Cleveland!) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 11:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote: But I think the only way to get people out of cars and onto bikes would be to make motoring much, much less convenient than it is now, . As long as the majority know how to drive cars and the vast majority don't even know that riding a bike is possible, nothing will get people out of their cars and onto bikes. The only way to get people to ride bikes is to teach bike-riding to twelve-year-olds, and teach more-advanced techniques when the children are thirteen and fourteen and fifteen. But with four years of on-the-road experience under the belts of newly-licensed drivers, we wouldn't smear all that delicious sixteen-year-old blood on the streets. The elder gods will never put up with education; after all, it could cost as much as a yard of bike trail per student! -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"
On Fri, 31 May 2019 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:09:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:43:08 PM UTC-4, sms wrote: On 5/30/2019 4:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip "While the policy implications of this work point to protected and separated bike infrastructure as part of the solution, we need to keep in mind that these approaches are complementary and should not be considered in isolation. Moreover, our results - particularly the safety disparities associated with gentrification - suggest equity issues and the need for future research." It's also important to understand that a city doesn't need to cover every single foot (or mile) with protected bike lanes in order to make a difference. Selecting the areas where problems most often occur is often sufficient, and choosing one route out of many possible routes for a protected bike lane is adequate, you don't have to have every parallel road with identical infrastructure. This is what cities around here do, we look at where protected bike lanes will have the most effect and concentrate our financial resources on those areas. Yet Streetsblog, StrongTowns and others recently staged demonstrations in which they put red plastic cups upside down on white bike lane stripes. They photographed cups that had been hit by cars and said "See? Stripes are NOT ENOUGH! It's time to build PROTECTED bike lanes!" There was no "... on certain streets..." or other modifiers. Similarly, the first paper by Ferenchak and Marshall said shared lane markings are not enough, and that barrier separation is necessary. Why? It wasn't because their (admittedly screwy) mashup of data showed no safety benefit for sharrows. It was because other treatments claimed more safety benefit. So if you have a street too narrow for a bike lane? No sharrows! Plow it up and widen it so there's room for barrier protection! What nonsense! Also, be very careful when looking at the statistics of how ridership levels change. Sometimes an area will have a steady increase over a long period of time then all of a sudden have one bad year. An anomaly can be a weather event, a natural disaster, or a host of other things. Some people intentionally take numbers completely out of context in an effort to mislead people. I can tell you that bicycle commuting in Silicon Valley probably fell significantly for 2019 because we've had an extremely wet winter and spring. Last year we had an unprecedented number of bad air days due to large wildfires which led to less cycling. For example lets look at Pittsburgh, PA. From 1990 to 2017 they had a 240.4% increase in those 27 years. From 2006 to 2017 they had a 67.4% increase over 11 years. From 2011 to 2017 they had a 2% increase over six years. But there was a drop of 45.2% from 2016 to 2017. You can't ignore a long-term huge increase and then look only at a single year? that kind of cherry=picking of statistics is extremely dishonest and is something that you often see when someone is trying to manipulate statistics to suit a particular agenda. Yes, let's talk about interpretation of data. Pittsburgh had a huge increase from 1990 to 2017. According to Bike Pgh, the main advocacy organization there, the first commuting-oriented bike lanes went in during 2007. See https://www.bikepgh.org/about-us/history/ That means almost all the growth trumpeted by Scharf happened _before_ the relevant facilities. Many more bike facilities were installed since then, but the growth was minimal - Scharf claims only 2%, and a big drop last year. ISTM the 1990 - 2011 growth couldn't be because of facilities. Instead, the growth was probably driven by the same factor that caused San Francisco's bike mode share to jump when no facilities were built. It became (perhaps briefly) quite fashionable to ride a bike. I'm all for increases in bicycling. But I'm not in favor of the current craze for saying "Riding is too dangerous unless you have barriers protecting you" or "Car tires must never touch the pavement where a bicyclist will ride." I'm not in favor of "Any bike facility is a good bike facility" - the mentality that's painted hundreds of miles of bike lanes within door zones, or to the right of right turn only lanes, or hidden behind parked cars. In general, I'm not a fan of either horror literature or fantasy literature. It's regrettable that so many "bike advocates" engage in producing both. - Frank Krygowski These are not totally effective because there are so many incompetent drivers and in California there are a lot of unlicensed drivers as well. Asian women in large SUV's do not feel the need to remain in the middle of their lane and wander all around over the lines on both sides. "Asian women in large SUV's"? It must be something about the U.S. as my wife is an Asian woman and drives a medium size SUV and does feel the need to remain in the middle of her lane and does not wander all around over the lines on both sides. I find this really puzzling since all of the state, counties and cities are having very bad financial problems and this would be an immediate and LARGE income stream and yet they throw it away. -- Cheers, John B. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"
On Fri, 31 May 2019 10:48:35 -0700, sms
wrote: On 5/31/2019 7:16 AM, jbeattie wrote: snip Lack of education or intelligence is a serious problem here and a problem with bike lanes generally. If motorists simply understood that a bike lane was a "lane" and that they had to look for traffic before changing lanes, at least half of the right-hooks would be eliminated. I think very few drivers know the traffic laws or what their obligations are to bicycles and pedestrians. And a lot of pedestrians think that the laws requiring vehicles to yield to pedestrians in crossing facilities give them carte blanche to just leap into traffic. I have pedestrians step in front of me when I'm in the intersection first -- and they get huffy that I didn't slam on the brakes and go OTB when they stepped or ran off the curb (often runners who don't stop at intersections). And don't get me going on runners in the bike lanes. One of the biggest reasons for protected bicycle lanes is to make it physically impossible for clueless and inexperienced drivers to do stupid and illegal things. You'll never achieve this with either education or law enforcement, the problem is just too big and there is neither the will nor the money to solve the problem in any other way. Now if we could find a way to physically force pedestrians to look up from their phones when crossing a street that would be something that we should implement. We have several crosswalks in my city where this would be useful. I really like what the City of San Jose (Gateway to Cupertino) has done downtown with their protected bike lanes, especially at intersections. Intersections are the most problematic area for protected bike lanes. But some drivers are unhappy, especially with the protected bike lanes next to the curb and parallel parking between the vehicle lanes and the bike lane. In the past, a driver would open their door into the bike lane, endangering bicyclists. Now they are opening their door into a traffic lane and have to be careful getting out. Given that the LA County study done by the CHP in 2012 demonstrated that of 4637 collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles, for which cause could be determined, some 2759, or 59.5% were caused by the bicycle and only 1878, or 40.5% were caused by motorists, it would appear that statistically "to make it physically impossible for clueless and inexperienced drivers to do stupid and illegal things" might be better read as "to make it physically impossible for clueless and inexperienced CYCLISTS to do stupid and illegal things." -- Cheers, John B. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"
On 6/1/2019 10:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
snip Not to disparage the Netherlands but you have been building bike lanes since the late 1890's and the use of bicycles is much, much higher than in the U.S. If only we could figure out if there were a relationship with building more bike lanes and much higher use of bicycles. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:06:10 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 10:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote: snip Not to disparage the Netherlands but you have been building bike lanes since the late 1890's and the use of bicycles is much, much higher than in the U.S. If only we could figure out if there were a relationship with building more bike lanes and much higher use of bicycles. In some locales there might be a bit of an increase in bicycle use but the predominate trend seems to be no, building more bike lanes does NOT normally mean a MUCH HIGHER use of bicycles. Cheers |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, study finds | Alycidon | UK | 3 | August 19th 15 08:48 PM |
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 33 | April 17th 08 06:10 AM |
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 32 | April 17th 08 06:10 AM |
Cycle lanes a "danger" to drivers. | Simon Mason[_2_] | UK | 10 | March 12th 08 12:44 AM |
Cycle lanes save lives | POHB | UK | 2 | July 18th 07 11:44 AM |