Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/8/2011 2:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The point is, delays inconvenience people, and delays are normal. If you
harbor fantasies about biking wherever you like with no delays, you're
bound to be disappointed.

Delays, in urban traffic, are closely monitored and carefully planned
for. It was assumed in the early days that simply adding more capacity
would ameliorate them, but city after city found that demand only
increased by at least as much as new capacity. People hate delays, but
in the absence of delays they drive further and with greater frequency.
Cities are hard up against physical capacity constraints and yet demand
and delays continue to grow.

Since bicycle traffic is so much more spatially efficient than private
vehicles it doesn't make sense to put cyclists in the same delay line as
motorists. It's not necessary from a physical standpoint, and it's a
losing proposition economically. That's one of the built in fallacies of
the "cyclists fare best when treated like vehicles" premise, when that
means (as it usually is interpreted) that cyclists must queue in traffic
along with motorists. Certainly cyclists can "fare" better than that.

You continually misunderstand and/or misrepresent the positions of
vehicular cyclists.

Let's quote from _Street Smarts_ by John Allen, OK? "Traffic jams don't
have to stop you - that's one of the biggest advantages of bicycling in
the city. But in the tight quarters of a tie-up, take extra care."
Allen continues with tips about passing, including "... if the street is
completely plugged..."

Tell a grandmother with her grandchildren in tow to filter
between lines of rush hour traffic. I would love to see how that's
received, even in the cycling utopia of Pittsburgh.

I'm married to a grandmother. She and I have ridden in many dense
cities. I can state with confidence that if we were riding in a total
gridlock situation, she'd be fine with carefully filtering forward.

With the grandchildren? You think she is a representative grandmother?
Please.

We haven't yet ridden with our granddaughter in tow in gridlock traffic.
We've got another grandchild on the way, and that's in a town that
regularly sees some gridlock. I'll try to remember to report back, but
it might take a year or two. But I _certainly_ rode in very dense
traffic with my kids.

Maybe you could invent an alternative to Ritalin. Something
"educational". Work it into your blame the victim seminar. Pass out hair
shirts. Maybe you could replace ghost bikes with bikes of shame. Paint
them red. Just another inattentive fool who got what she deserved.

I see you're back in your weekend posting mode. During the week, you do
much less foaming at the mouth.

Stick to the point.Never mind your analysis of my posting habits.

I'm just trying to protect you from Dan's cries of "smarmy." I know
he'd have jumped all over you if I hadn't gently said something. ;-)

On the contrary. In dense gridlock, it's easier to take a lane, because
I ride as fast as cars. Most motorists are quite cooperative, too,
because it's obvious I'm not going to delay them.

In dense gridlock, cars aren't moving at all. That's why it's called
gridlock.

By that logic, the first-ever gridlock situation in America is still
going on!

In real life, traffic stops and waits; then it gets going again; then it
stops and waits. And that's quite easy for a cyclist to handle.

And I'll repeat: In my experience, your "curb to curb gridlock" is a
myth. Minimum road width is typically nine feet, even in most old
downtowns. Maximum car width is about 6.5 feet, and if the car's not
moving, it's no problem to squeeze carefully by. Again, I've had to
filter only rarely. But there are people who make their living doing it
regularly.

I don't know what cities you are inventing. In one breath you say you
can't trust motorists to respect a "paint stripe", in the next you claim
they all stay tidily in their marked lanes.

Misrepresentation again. Some motorists will zoom into a bike lane if
they think they can gain a place in the queue. But it's extremely rare,
in my experience, for motorists to literally put their right tire in the
right gutter to prevent passing, and at the same time have their left
tire on the center line to prevent passing. Cars are not that wide, and
a cyclist can filter forward. (Are you _sure_ you've ridden in cities?)

I don't want to "filter cautiously" (slowly). I don't see where I should
have to.

Yeah, I know. And motorists don't want to stop for red lights or obey
the speed limit or yield to pedestrians, and they don't see why they
should need to. Some people just need to grow up.

Dedicated bike lanes (buffered if necessary) provide that
solution, They do it every day in cities around the world. Your claims
of impracticality might have been interesting conjectures decades ago,
but now you're just denying the obvious. That goes well beyond
stubbornness.

I'll make a deal with you. If you want to promote bike lanes (and
especially barrier-separated ones) only as "let cyclists get through
traffic" facilities, and NOT "cyclists need them for safety" facilities,
I won't object. (Remember, I'm on record as favoring shortcut bike &
ped access to traffic generators.)

But that's not what I'm reading in most promotions. The people selling
them are always talking about safety, usually with the implication that
anything more normal is dangerous.

I'd be interested in how often cities bite on the "speed" vs. "safety"
sales pitch. Especially when they start to observe the 15 mph cyclist
stuck behind the 8 mph cyclist in the narrow bike track.

The fundamentals were worked out in the 1800s, based on practical
physics. They include things like the fundamental one, "all traffic
moving the same direction should be on the same side of the road." That
simple example works extremely well for a number of good reasons; yet
advocates of "innovative bicycle facilities" propose violating even that.

Things have changed since the 1800's -- several times. They're changing
again.

??? Mechanical physics has changed several times since the 1880s? We
should now let traffic use either side of the road??

Oh, and I should mention that our bike club had another crash on a club
ride a couple weeks ago. It was on, and directly caused by, an
"innovative" bike facility that violated that fundamental law. It was
about half a mile from the spot on that same facility that made a
cyclist a quadriplegic. But of course, the designer absolutely refuses
to believe his standards-violating design is not wonderful. And of
course, there are "bicycle advocates" who agree.

Anecdotes, especially singular ones without context don't make
compelling arguments...

.... unless you want to mention Ken Kifer, right?

How is forcing cyclists to queue up with rush hour motorists efficient?

Who is forcing that?

Oh, by the way, another renowned vehicular cycling sourcebook,
_Cyclecraft_ by John Franklin, also has specific tips on filtering
forward through traffic jams. That section begins "It is unreasonable
to expect cyclists to wait in long lines of traffic when there is room
for them to pass..." and continues with tips on how to do it. So please
stop misrepresenting vehicular cycling principles, OK?

And Peter, how do you think your "facilities" dogmatism is superior?

I hold opinions, not dogma.

:-) Priceless!

As I recall, you literally defended door-zone bike lanes in this forum.

Funny, I don't, literally or figuratively.

You did, very specifically. IIRC it was after some photos of your
terribly dense and tangled city were posted - ones that showed a city
looking just like mine.

I did say your claim of the
causal role of a bike lane in the fatality of a Boston cyclist was
speculative. I'll stick with that.

Right, Dana Laird rode in the door zone bike lane, had a door open and
knock her under passing wheels. It's pretty speculative whether that
bike lane was dangerous, all right!

I just don't hold bicycle facilities to
unrealistic standards ... I don't
see a bollard or a blind corner as a trap. I drive on roads with blind
corners all the time. There's no inconsistency. Anything can be around
any blind curve on any road or path.

You drive on roads that have blind corners, where two motorists who
can't see each other are forced to approach each other head on and hope
nobody's coming? That's what your bike trail was like. Where exactly is
this road?

My views on traffic laws and designs are based on things like:

Traffic moving the same direction should be on the same side of the road.

What's "traffic"? What's a "road"? Is a walker "traffic" Is a "road"
still a "road" if the contra-flow is buffered?

Walkers and cyclists mix poorly. But if we have to start with "what's
traffic," you need to do lots of remedial reading.

Traffic facilities should not be designed with built-in collision
hazards.

Tree lined streets should be outlawed? Light posts? Telephone poles?
Curbs? Pedestrians are not "collision hazards"? Other motorists?

Bike facilities that feature posts IN THE MIDDLE of the bike trail are
demonstrably different than light posts out of the traffic lane. Design
guidelines warn against such posts or bollards, and specify minimum
lateral clearance for such things. Yet these guidelines are frequently
violated, from what I've seen. You've specifically defended ignoring
those guidelines on your Charles River path.

Position at intersections should be governed by destination, so crossing
conflicts are minimized. (i.e. no straight-ahead lanes right of RTO
lanes.)

Sidewalks?

Do you mean you advocate treating cyclists as pedestrians instead of
vehicle operators, and taking away our rights to the road?

In the absence of special turning lanes (i.e. most of the
time) how do you predict "destination"? ESP?

??? I predict my destination by knowing where I want to go. I
communicate it to others by using a signal. I then position myself
leftward to prepare for a left turn, rightward to prepare for a right
turn. Bike lanes frequently set up this situation instead:
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/lane3.jpg

I'm trimming the rest of your response. You're moving into 14-year-old
debate tactics again, shotgunning dumb questions and challenging
absolute fundamentals.

The point is, the logic and predictability of current traffic laws have
worked tremendously well for over 100 years. Road users, while
imperfect, benefit from knowing what to expect. Compared to the pre-law
chaos of people moving almost at random all over the roads, things are
much better and safer.

Yet "innovative" bike facilities often violate the current order and
expectations, all in the name of some safety myth. And the sellers push
their product by false claims of "Danger!" Claims that are yet again
belied by things like 77 to 1 benefit to risk ratios.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/8/2011 12:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/8/2011 1:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
I have no
real interest in whether the benefit ratio is 77 to 1 or 1.1 to 1. I
don't think anyone disputes the likelihood that cycling provides a net
positive health benefit...

Then you are unaware of much propaganda, and much popular opinion.

People are much more responsive to dramatic gains or losses than modest
ones. That's human nature. Partially irrational phobias are also
commonplace.

... and can be conquered. (I have examples.) But you continue to
downplay or deny the effect of decades of statements like "If you don't
wear a bike helmet you're likely to become a vegetable" or "We need bike
lane stripes - no, now we need barrier separated bike lanes - or you'll
get squashed like a bug."

The only thing I downplay is the presence of such "propaganda". I think
I've been as plugged in to the community (bicycle and general) as anyone
else, and I've just never heard such things. I've heard people express a
preference for bike lanes, but I've also heard others express a
revulsion. I've heard people express confidence in bike helmets, I've
heard skepticism. I've used both. I don't have strong personal feelings
one way or the other. I have no objection to either if they improve
people's confidence or sense of well being, either. You keep trying to
portray me as an extremist, I'm not.


There are many things for a cyclist to be legitimately afraid of,
including many that are not within our control. I'd say it is the
vulnerability and lack of control that intimidates people, not the odds.
Ken Kifer was an expert on bike safety, and yet he was mowed down by a
drunk driver. Jobst was an expert cyclist and bike handler and yet
somehow he crashed with severe injuries.

And where is the counterbalancing information, like the guy in our bike
club who said all the men in his family died before age 50, and he'd
certainly have been dead by now if not for his regular cycling? How
about the guy I know who lost 150 pounds through (among other things)
regular cycling?

Why is it that I am always the one telling these positive stories, and
you are one of those emphasizing the risks that you even admit are
statistically tiny? You know better, yet you continue to emphasize every
negative about cycling.

You're not listening. Yes, these things are relatively rare, in the
sense that we're individually statistically unlikely to die from
cycling. That doesn't mean we should throw caution to the winds or stop
trying to improve things. Personally, I focus much more on convenience
and pleasure than performance or safety, but that's just me. Odds are
that you won't get hit by lightning, but that doesn't mean standing on a
hill waving a golf club during a storm is safe. By the odds, Ken Kifer
should be alive today, and Jobst should be uninjured, but by the odds of
the pool, some of us are/were bound to die or get messed up. I just
think it should be fewer.

I congratulated myself on my immunity from heart problems until I
discovered I had serious heart problems likely exacerbated by cycling. I
read the book on cycling and heart conditioning by Ed Burke only to
learn he later died from a heart attack on a ride. Real life is
complicated. My experience wasn't predicted by statistics, either -- or
it may have been, there are many dimensions in true statistical reality,
many of them poorly quantified.

I remember swimming off my sailboat a mile or so offshore comforting
myself that the last reported shark attack had been almost 50 years
earlier, then I wondered if I had been the last person swimming there in
50 years. Statistics can hold surprises, or else Malcolm Gladwell
wouldn't have sold so many books.


The real question isn't what
the net health benefit is but whether cycling can't be easily made
safer.

Ah yes. If _anything_ can be made safer, we _must_ work to make it
safer, no matter the costs, no matter the detriments. And of course, the
best way to make that happen is to tell people it's too dangerous.

There's no such thing as safe enough, you know!

There you go again.

Wait - did Ronald Reagan just take control of your keyboard again?

No one has suggested a "no limits" approach to
safety, just that the status quo leaves much to be desired.

"The real question ... is whether cycling can't be made safer." Sounds
to me like you won't stop until it's as safe as it can possibly be made.

If that's not your standard, perhaps you should tell us what you
consider safe enough. Apparently, fewer fatalities and serious injuries
per mile than walking isn't safe enough. Apparently, benefits orders of
magnitude greater than risks aren't safe enough. Fewer fatalities per
year than falling out of bed isn't safe enough. What _is_ safe enough?

Perhaps the levels reached in Denmark and the Netherlands. Perhaps even
better.


You stubbornly refuse to accept that people may respond to things other
than statistics. That's more than naive, that's incredibly arrogant.
More importantly, it's simply unrealistic. You're swimming against the
tide of human nature. Good luck with that.

That's a mis-characterization of my position, and you should have
realized that. I know people certainly respond to things other than
statistics; for example, I've been saying that people have
over-responded to fear mongering. People over-respond to anecdotes, as
I've discussed in detail.

Which is why you use them so frequently? It sounds like you are the one
who places faith in them, I don't.


What I do say is that appropriately gathered statistics are more
representative of reality than anecdotes like "Well, that cyclist 800
miles away got killed."

And I think the messages that we send should be governed by reality, for
a change. For example, let's quit telling people that they need bike
lane stripes to avoid being run over from behind. Send the message that
cycling, in our present environment, is unquestionably beneficial, and
that its benefits far outweigh its tiny risks. Why on earth do you
object to that message?

I don't. What I object to is politicizing it with a helmet or bike lane
rant add-on (or preamble).

When it comes to "propaganda", I think the worst is the car commercials
which show drivers speeding on empty streets, selling the notion that
driving is this form of total freedom and self-expression. That's real
propaganda -- subliminal as hell, massively funded, slickly produced and
streamed nearly 24x7 out of every media orifice. No wonder Americans
drive around in a semi-hallucinatory state. You don't even need drugs.

Today's paper had a couple of articles I found quite disturbing. The
first was the arrest of a hit and run suspect in the death of a 17 year
old skate boarder. The perp fled the scene, witnesses described him
turning off his lights as he did so. He was picked up on an anonymous
tip 3 days later. The victim's aunt was quoted as feeling that the
driver was "also a victim", and much was made over the fact he was
remorseful and hadn't slept for 3 days. That's the consequence of car
propaganda, that's the propaganda you should be concerned about.

The second article was an expose on how, since the new Boston bike share
program had started, not a single citation had been handed out to
cyclists. Turns out the law was changed (more enforcement, bigger fines)
in January (with full support by MassBike, the local advocacy group),
but since the stipulation of the new law is no RMV consequences, the RMV
doesn't know how to support/enforce, so cops aren't writing tickets.
This was portrayed as a serious problem. The truly galling thing was
that both stories were on the same page and yet no one seemed to connect
2 very large dots.

On 8/8/2011 1:10 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/8/2011 8:57 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/8/2011 12:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 9:04 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 10:02 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 8:43 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 7:36 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 5:32 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 4:51 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 2:52 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:24 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 6:43 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 1:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 10:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/6/2011 4:21 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing
vehicles
jammed curb to curb.[...]

That only happens a few times a year (at special events)
where I
live in
Iowa.


I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense
urban
areas.

Yes, but why would sane people choose to live in such places?


Lots of reasons. One relevant to this thread: the potential to
live
car-free and/or use a bicycle for most of your transportation.

People can do that in areas with less than a quarter of a
million
people, without all the negatives huge population concentrations
bring.


Yeah if you want to shop at Wal-Mart and eat fast food.

Gee, I have alternatives to both of those. *WITHIN* reasonable
cycling
distance.

Contrary to myth, Iowa is *not* a northern version of
Mississippi or
other backwards [1] southern state.

[1] Any place that approves of flying the Confederate Flag is
*not*
modern.


Now that's a low standard.

So is being more patient and polite than the residents of large
cities
on the northeastern US seaboard.


You're hardly an exemplar, are you?

Do not confuse Usenet with real life.


So, your avatar is a New Yorker?

You are seriously full of ****, you know that?

At least I am not flinging around false accusations of racism.


If you cry "Fire!" in a theater, there better be a damn fire.

More like a bomb waiting to go off that will take down the country (USA)
than a fire at the moment. See what happens *if* Iran is attacked.

Also like a chronic sickness that has slowing been dragging the country
down.


The subject is your treasonous Zionist cabal -- a story that goes back
at least to 1903. Get some new ****. We've heard this one.

On 8/8/2011 1:15 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/8/2011 5:11 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:01 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 8:42 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 7:26 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 5:29 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:22 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 8:10 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a
pedestrian or
cyclist could be expected to be traveling.

I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited
access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not
particularly relevant to dense urban areas.[...]

The problem with controlled access roads in dense urban areas is too
much access. Get rid of the interchanges in the cities, and it would
make it much quicker to traverse them on the way to one's
destination.


Except for those coming and going from the city, the very reason
those
highways were built in the first place.

I'm sure that Boston is typical, with the exception that the Atlantic
Ocean limits our Easterly options, in that originally highways
developed
in a "hub & spoke" pattern to bring workers to urban jobs from
suburban
residences, following and extending streetcar lines. In recent
decades,
demographics have changed, with many employers relocating to the
suburbs
and many residents relocating to the city. The former phenomenon
creates
a lot of suburb to suburb commutes, sometimes served by "beltways"
circling the city, but many such commutes have the shortest path
through
the city. That particular commuting pattern defies an easy solution.
Urban residents being understandably intolerant of elevated
expressways
blighting their expensive real estate, the only vehicular solution
is to
bury them, something Boston recently did partially at a truly
horrific
cost. Not a generic solution in the "new economy".

A rational and equitable policy would be to discourage "through
commutes" as they provide no benefit to either urban residents or
workers and they make poor use of precious urban space. Not
surprisingly, that is the exact opposite of your recommendation.

I would be fine with re-routing the controlled access roads to the
periphery or beyond and eliminating many that currently go through the
urban core. The key would be to limit exchanges, since otherwise urban
sprawl develops around them.


I have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). Urban sprawl is an
oxymoron. Suburban sprawl is a recognized problem.

I am suggesting separating intercity and intracity traffic as much as
possible, to prevent the intracity travelers from causing excessive
delays to the intercity travelers.


You don't understand the demographics even of your own state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa#Ru..._brain_drai n



Perhaps the article contains a clue as to why.

If you ever drive on an Interstate through any city in Iowa, 99% of the
time you will not be significantly delayed.

Your point is?


"Iowa's population is more urban than rural, with 61 percent living in
urban areas in 2000, a trend that began in the early 20th century.[55]
Urban counties in Iowa grew 8.5% from 2000 to 2008, while rural counties
declined by 4.2%"

"Another demographic problem for Iowa is the brain drain, in which
educated young adults leave the state in search of better prospects in
higher education or employment. During the 1990s, Iowa had the second
highest exodus rate for single, educated young adults, second only to
North Dakota."

Um, where does that leave us?

Frank Krygowski writes:

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/8/2011 1:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
I have no
real interest in whether the benefit ratio is 77 to 1 or 1.1 to 1. I
don't think anyone disputes the likelihood that cycling provides a net
positive health benefit...

Then you are unaware of much propaganda, and much popular opinion.

People are much more responsive to dramatic gains or losses than modest
ones. That's human nature. Partially irrational phobias are also
commonplace.

... and can be conquered. (I have examples.) But you continue to
downplay or deny the effect of decades of statements like "If you
don't wear a bike helmet you're likely to become a vegetable" or "We
need bike lane stripes - no, now we need barrier separated bike lanes
- or you'll get squashed like a bug."

There are many things for a cyclist to be legitimately afraid of,
including many that are not within our control. I'd say it is the
vulnerability and lack of control that intimidates people, not the odds.
Ken Kifer was an expert on bike safety, and yet he was mowed down by a
drunk driver. Jobst was an expert cyclist and bike handler and yet
somehow he crashed with severe injuries.

And where is the counterbalancing information, like the guy in our
bike club who said all the men in his family died before age 50, and
he'd certainly have been dead by now if not for his regular cycling?
How about the guy I know who lost 150 pounds through (among other
things) regular cycling?


It's like, "duh!"

Why is it that I am always the one telling these positive stories, and
you are one of those emphasizing the risks that you even admit are
statistically tiny? You know better, yet you continue to emphasize
every negative about cycling.


Not emphasize. You are the one that wants to load up the message and
sweep the incovenient stuff under the rug.

The real question isn't what
the net health benefit is but whether cycling can't be easily made
safer.

Ah yes. If _anything_ can be made safer, we _must_ work to make it
safer, no matter the costs, no matter the detriments. And of course, the
best way to make that happen is to tell people it's too dangerous.

There's no such thing as safe enough, you know!

There you go again.

Wait - did Ronald Reagan just take control of your keyboard again?


Engagement...

No one has suggested a "no limits" approach to
safety, just that the status quo leaves much to be desired.

"The real question ... is whether cycling can't be made safer."
Sounds to me like you won't stop until it's as safe as it can possibly
be made.


Stop? Why should we ever stop?

If that's not your standard, perhaps you should tell us what you
consider safe enough. Apparently, fewer fatalities and serious
injuries per mile than walking isn't safe enough. Apparently,
benefits orders of magnitude greater than risks aren't safe enough.
Fewer fatalities per year than falling out of bed isn't safe enough.
What _is_ safe enough?


Safe enough is a weird construct. Nothing is absolutely safe, so "safe"
- period - means undertaken with suitable and appropriate precaution to
make the risk acceptable. Risk remains, should not be ignored or dis-
missed, and if there are worthwhile measures to mitigate it further,
they should be considered and probably employed if safety is the objective.

You stubbornly refuse to accept that people may respond to things other
than statistics. That's more than naive, that's incredibly arrogant.
More importantly, it's simply unrealistic. You're swimming against the
tide of human nature. Good luck with that.

That's a mis-characterization of my position...

Oh that is *rich* coming from you :-)

, and you should have
realized that. I know people certainly respond to things other than
statistics; for example, I've been saying that people have
over-responded to fear mongering. People over-respond to anecdotes,
as I've discussed in detail.

What I do say is that appropriately gathered statistics are more
representative of reality than anecdotes like "Well, that cyclist 800
miles away got killed."


Reality? Hmm... shall we break out the acid and get existential, man?

And I think the messages that we send should be governed by reality,
for a change.

"Reality" governs everything anyway. Nonsense dumped into it is just
another part of it. Creating your reality from statistical data is a
a mistake.

For example, let's quit telling people that they need
bike lane stripes to avoid being run over from behind.

Who said that?

Send the
message that cycling, in our present environment, is unquestionably
beneficial, and that its benefits far outweigh its tiny risks. Why on
earth do you object to that message?


Well, the "in our present environment" casts some doubt on the absolute-
ness of your statement. (You're applying homogenized statistical "reality"
universally again). And your use of terms like "unquestionably"
and "far" and "tiny" make your statement sound kind of fervent and
desperate. But otherwise, yeah - nobody here objecting to the message
that the benefits outweigh the risk; as is evident by the fact that we
ride.

On 8/7/2011 6:38 PM, Peter Cole wrote:

The information is rather old news, at least qualitatively. I have no
real interest in whether the benefit ratio is 77 to 1 or 1.1 to 1. I
don't think anyone disputes the likelihood that cycling provides a net
positive health benefit, there have been a slew of studies that claimed
this and, as far as I know, not a single one that claimed otherwise.

What is not only naive, but proven to be false, is the idea that if any
government body takes steps to increase bicycle safety by adding bicycle
facilities or by encouraging (or even compelling) the use of safety
equipment, that suddenly thousands of people will stop cycling and begin
driving everywhere, begin eating more junk food (rather than Power
Bars), become obese, and encounter all sorts of medical problems.

In fact we don't know what has caused both the increase in cycling,
increased use of helmets, and decreased level of injuries and
fatalities. It could be helmets, it could be better bicycle facilities,
it could be the price of gasoline, it could be health consciousness, it
could be weather changes, etc. Those in favor of mandatory helmet laws
will claim that it's helmets, those that favor more bicycle facilities
will claim that it's better facilities, and some will claim that cycling
levels would have went without any of these factors.

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:


There are boxes at probably fourteen intersections -- so the
likelihood of
these boxes doing much in terms of driver education is questionable.

It was a pilot program.

The
first PSU study (and in fact the only one I remember) actually saw no
benefit -- but I guess that has changed. Now they're saving cyclists from
catastrophe.

The study results have been updated. The results have been deemed
positive. I posted the link.

I didn't hear about the subsequent paper, only the preliminary
evaluation. I see the paper is well over 100 pages, so that will take a
while to read.

But I note from the BikePortland.org (Motto: "There's No Such Thing as
a Bad Bike Facility") article that you linked that only 5% of cyclists
even used the bike box. The others stopped at the right of cars that
could turn right - the position that killed the two cyclists whose
deaths were used to push the bike box. Seems like for this crowd, 95%
failure still counts as success!

Also, as I recall, the installation of the bike boxes coincided with new
"No Right Turn on Red" at those intersections, an obvious and
potentially important confounding factor.

Bike Portland's quoted numbers on conflicts aren't clear to me, so I'll
have to read the full report. But the statement from Chris Monsere
seems pretty cautious: "Since the preliminary report, I am overall more
confident branding the boxes as working." Um... yes, you're one of the
team that said these would be wonderful and pushed them through. Now
you're "overall more confident" that your ideas weren't a total waste? Wow!

And the report seems to rely very heavily on _impressions_ of safety
(from user surveys) rather than measured safety, to set its overall
tone. Of course, the bike box project was preceded with very
significant propaganda efforts, to both tell everyone how much safer
these would be, and teach them how to use them. That was the "Get
behind the bike box!" campaign. After telling people for years that
weird facilities are mandatory for safety, and that this particular
weird facility will make them safer, it's not surprising that installing
the weird facility causes a "Now I feel safer" response.

I did skim the Austin box evaluation paper. Again, their criteria for
success were shockingly low, and apparently had nothing to do with
actual reduction in accidents, since none seemed to be observed.
Interestingly, they counted it as a positive result if a cyclist rode up
to the intersection to the right of cars that might turn right. They
thought this was good, even though they noted very large violations of
the No Right Turn on Red law.

Overall, these reports look like excellent examples of Confirmation Bias
in reports and publications. I'll be interested to read the details of
the 100+ page Portland paper.

--
- Frank Krygowski

SMS wrote:
On 8/6/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
unattractive one.

Nothing, other than not riding, would likely have saved Ken K. from a
driver under the influence of drugs and alcohol. In the face of
overwhelming evidence people do occasionally change their minds about
things.

If Ken were walking, he still would have been killed.

He was a friend of mine. Respect him, please.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:


There are boxes at probably fourteen intersections -- so the
likelihood of
these boxes doing much in terms of driver education is questionable.

It was a pilot program.

The
first PSU study (and in fact the only one I remember) actually saw no
benefit -- but I guess that has changed. Now they're saving cyclists from
catastrophe.

The study results have been updated. The results have been deemed
positive. I posted the link.

I didn't hear about the subsequent paper, only the preliminary
evaluation. I see the paper is well over 100 pages, so that will take
a while to read.

But I note from the BikePortland.org (Motto: "There's No Such Thing
as a Bad Bike Facility") article that you linked that only 5% of
cyclists even used the bike box. The others stopped at the right of
cars that could turn right - the position that killed the two cyclists
whose deaths were used to push the bike box. Seems like for this
crowd, 95% failure still counts as success!

Also, as I recall, the installation of the bike boxes coincided with
new "No Right Turn on Red" at those intersections, an obvious and
potentially important confounding factor.

Bike Portland's quoted numbers on conflicts aren't clear to me, so
I'll have to read the full report. But the statement from Chris
Monsere seems pretty cautious: "Since the preliminary report, I am
overall more confident branding the boxes as working." Um... yes,
you're one of the team that said these would be wonderful and pushed
them through. Now you're "overall more confident" that your ideas
weren't a total waste? Wow!

And the report seems to rely very heavily on _impressions_ of safety
(from user surveys) rather than measured safety, to set its overall
tone. Of course, the bike box project was preceded with very
significant propaganda efforts, to both tell everyone how much safer
these would be, and teach them how to use them. That was the "Get
behind the bike box!" campaign. After telling people for years that
weird facilities are mandatory for safety, and that this particular
weird facility will make them safer, it's not surprising that
installing the weird facility causes a "Now I feel safer" response.

I did skim the Austin box evaluation paper. Again, their criteria for
success were shockingly low, and apparently had nothing to do with
actual reduction in accidents, since none seemed to be
observed. Interestingly, they counted it as a positive result if a
cyclist rode up to the intersection to the right of cars that might
turn right. They thought this was good, even though they noted very
large violations of the No Right Turn on Red law.

Overall, these reports look like excellent examples of Confirmation
Bias in reports and publications. I'll be interested to read the
details of the 100+ page Portland paper.


Admit it - you're bent. (Who isn't?) There is no perfection anywhere,
but Portland is a phenomenal success.

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/8/2011 12:39 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But you continue to
downplay or deny the effect of decades of statements like "If you don't
wear a bike helmet you're likely to become a vegetable" or "We need bike
lane stripes - no, now we need barrier separated bike lanes - or you'll
get squashed like a bug."

The only thing I downplay is the presence of such "propaganda". I think
I've been as plugged in to the community (bicycle and general) as anyone
else, and I've just never heard such things.

So you've never heard claims that a simple fall off a bike can cause
irreversible brain damage? You've never read of people calling
bareheaded cyclists "organ donors"? And what _do_ you think the
function of a bike lane is supposed to be, if not to prevent a hit from
behind? Surely you don't think they're all sold as clearance from gridlock!

There are many things for a cyclist to be legitimately afraid of,
including many that are not within our control. I'd say it is the
vulnerability and lack of control that intimidates people, not the odds.
Ken Kifer was an expert on bike safety, and yet he was mowed down by a
drunk driver. Jobst was an expert cyclist and bike handler and yet
somehow he crashed with severe injuries.

And where is the counterbalancing information, like the guy in our bike
club who said all the men in his family died before age 50, and he'd
certainly have been dead by now if not for his regular cycling? How
about the guy I know who lost 150 pounds through (among other things)
regular cycling?

Why is it that I am always the one telling these positive stories, and
you are one of those emphasizing the risks that you even admit are
statistically tiny? You know better, yet you continue to emphasize every
negative about cycling.

You're not listening. Yes, these things are relatively rare, in the
sense that we're individually statistically unlikely to die from
cycling. That doesn't mean we should throw caution to the winds or stop
trying to improve things.

Nobody has ever accused me of advocating throwing caution to the winds.
(Consult with Dan on that point.)

And I'm not saying we should stop trying to improve things. I've talked
a lot about education and enforcement as ways to improve things. FWIW,
I've also said I'm in favor of facilities giving shortcut bike access to
traffic generators, where feasible. However, I don't think that scaring
people about present conditions is the way to improvement. And I think
logical principles of traffic engineering should be retained.

(I'm not talking about maintaining the excessive privileges of
motorists. I'm talking about not setting up crossing conflicts, head-on
traffic emergencies, surprise road crossings, bike-ped conflicts, etc.
as done by many "innovative" bike facilities.)

...some of us are/were bound to die or get messed up. I just
think it should be fewer.

Right! I think we should have world peace, too! And all children
should be above average!

I congratulated myself on my immunity from heart problems until I
discovered I had serious heart problems likely exacerbated by cycling. I
read the book on cycling and heart conditioning by Ed Burke only to
learn he later died from a heart attack on a ride. Real life is
complicated. My experience wasn't predicted by statistics, either -- or
it may have been, there are many dimensions in true statistical reality,
many of them poorly quantified.

I hope you aren't implying that it's reasonable to tell people never
bike because it might hurt their heart? I know about the (somewhat
tentative) link between extended vigorous exercise and atrial
fibrillation. I also know more non-cyclists with Afib than cyclists, by
far. You'll have a hard time finding a cardiologist who doesn't
recommend exercise for almost everyone.

What _is_ safe enough?

Perhaps the levels reached in Denmark and the Netherlands. Perhaps even
better.

So eight to fifteen million miles of riding per fatality isn't good
enough. Over 30 million miles per fatality "perhaps" isn't good enough.
Benefits outweighing risks by orders of magnitude aren't good enough.

I'd say you have an unrealistic view of risk. It would be better for
cycling and society if you transferred your attention to (say) hazards
from descending stairs.


--
- Frank Krygowski