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

Last we herd, 40 years ago, group size of the population for effective movement of a new idea was 10%.

I had not researched background for that number. My understanding was historical data for successful motion tended to coalesce at 10%.

Both killing the Czar's extended family and court decisions eg on methane recently on the news, are examples of 10%

Many examples are countable ... as winners lined up for 'spoils"


1... 2 ... 3 n so forth

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:58:36 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 08:36, 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/


The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.� 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.� 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,� and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned� group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,� cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.� We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.


The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,� most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.


I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
there on the horizon? And so on.

We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above
3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
or not, considering all "side effects".

John Forester was an extremely persuasive voice. He was a mainstay on this group and convinced most of us.

In my late 30's I was a crippled old man with a back so bad that I walked stooped over a great deal of the time and the slightest strain would kick my back out again.

Then someone suggested cycling. Like most I returned with hesitation but the more I cycled the less problems I had with my back. So John certainly made an impression on me and I immediately became part of the 1%.

Now I'm almost 73 and haven't had a twinge except the occasional crash.

The reasons it might be hard to convince many people to ride that would be in the 60% of because of weather conditions. If I were to get a job within a couple of miles of my house would I ride? Probably not because I have to wear a suit and tie. Smelling like a racehorse isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to communicate with.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-7, 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. Americans
had (and mostly still have) no concept of how bikes should be used. He
simply described to Americans what already worked, and what was known by
millions of other bike users.

The ignorance continues, with people like Scharf (or SMS) and his heroes
demonstrating it regularly. Scharf says "the vehicular cycling movement
was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share." But
_nowhere_ has Forester ever pretended that bigger mode share was his
objective. The objective of Vehicular Cycling techniques is simply to
improve the capabilities, enjoyment and safety of those who choose to
use those techniques. And those techniques work. They just work.

Scharf's heroes pretend that Vehicular Cycling (i.e. cycling with
reasonable skill according to the rules of the road) is only for the
"fearless." Yet very normal women and men manage to use VC techniques
every effectively. They are easy to learn, they work at any speed, they
don't require heroism. See
http://cyclingsavvy.org/2017/05/ride...y-a-great-bag/ for example.

In a nutshell, if a person wants to use their bike practically and
enjoyably for transportation or recreation, they have two choices: They
can lobby for massive public spending on separated bicycle facilities
everywhere they may ever wish to ride; or they can learn to ride a bike
correctly using skills and techniques that are sanctioned by existing
laws. The latter strategy allows you to ride essentially anywhere,
right now. The former strategy tells you to wait for some tax-funded
fairyland to appear.

True, Forester and those who understand his ideas point out that many
elements of the fantasy fairyland are crappy designs and impose risks
that normal riding doesn't. Forester's opponents have lobbied hard for
door zone bike lanes, cattle chutes that send fast cyclists wrong-way
into intersections, straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right
turning cars, etc. This is frustrating to the crowd that believes "any
bike facility is a good bike facility." But reality is often
frustrating to ignorant daydreamers!

The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.� 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.� 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,� and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned� group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!)..

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,� cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.� We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord.



The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,� most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.

I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy.
I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for
decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally
misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to
ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My
favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists.

Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred
due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding
infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to
attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not
admit it.

The 60% claim is bull****, unless you use unreasonable standards for
"interested." The survey that got that number essentially asked "would
you be interested in riding if there were amazing bike facilities?" If a
person said "I'd be interested" they count.

But several of us here are engineers. Engineers are supposed to be able
to do numbers. Where in North America have 60% of the population taken
to riding bikes to get around? Where has that number actually been
proven true? Nowhere, Stephen. You can't even point to a large
neighborhood where installation of bike facilities generated 60%
ridership. As Jay said, the best you'd get after producing an amazing
array of bike/cattle chutes is "Oh, that's interesting."

The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank
could deny. What happened in Montreal,
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/,
is a very good example.

Yes, the evidence IS overwhelming! We're engineers, right? We
understand numbers, right? So let's look at the amazing success Montreal
has had in getting those 60% on bikes. What's its bike mode share?

Oh... hmm. http://www.cityclock.org/urban-cycling-mode-share/ says it's
somewhere between 1.3% and 2.4%.

Time for a question, Stephen: Is 2.4 greater or less than 60?

Take your time. I know it takes a while to count to 60 on your fingers.

Somebody forgot to take his meds this morning - FRANK. You and I remember John but in many ways he was wrong. Tell me - on a busy 6 lane road do you pull across into the left turn lane without sweating blood? Very often I'm forced to stay to the right and wait for the opposite light and go across with the cross traffic.

I really do have to admit that bicycle lanes really does improve cycling and I'm probably more of the 1% than you are. The weakness of the idea is that we already commit too much room for roads. Expanding bicycle lanes will NEVER come at the expense of cars. Even on Market St. in San Francisco the removal of most car lanes wasn't because of bicycles but because of the buses and trolleys etc. And its safety record is abominable.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:31:42 PM UTC-7, 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.

I just said that because of traffic I am often forced to pull around on the side road and cross with the traffic from the side road. This is what I saw in Paris as well.

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 4:40:17 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 14:10, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling
once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that.
However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find
excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining,
see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on.

That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like Amsterdam or
Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If it's only green paint
then you're right. And it's not getting them to make 100% of their
commutes or shopping trips or whatever, even just a small amount is
better than nothing.

The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY of that
60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding, and the
vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to 7%, is not
going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars.

Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%.


Must have been at least some of the 60% group because there was partial
success. "You mean, there is a bike path after we hacking it through the
field towards Folsom? Really?" ... "Yeah, promise. Only 500 yards of
residential roads, then bike paths all the way to Sacramento" ... "Ok,
I'll go".

The American River Trail is a linear park -- probably a pretty ride but not too efficient with a 15mph speed limit, dog walkers, sight-seers, wobbly kids, etc. http://www.americanriverbiketrail.co...l-speed-limit/ I'm sure it has attracted some commuters, but anyone willing to ride to Sacramento and back is probably not in the "60%."

Some MUPs are mostly used by bikes, and those can be convenient. We have some dedicated bike trails that are convenient (mostly along highways), although the I-205 bike trail and parts of the Springwater (MUP) are pretty scary now. Here's a fine fellow who can help you with some repairs! http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...ops1-skeel.jpg

Segregated facilities may attract some riders, but it's hard to tell -- particularly since many facilities were created as part of much larger housing construction projects, including the facility I constantly malign in the south waterfront. https://www.southwaterfrontdental.co...waterfront.jpg All of those condo towers are new. So is the OHSU Hospital complex and all of its employees. Sure, nobody road on S.W. Moody 20 years ago .. . . but look now! What they don't mention is that 20 years ago, that area was an abandoned shipyard and mini-storage. I and five other people rode through there with any regularity. It was very convenient back then. Not so much now with the traffic and "cycle track." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HpCGyr61Do&t=47s

The most heavily used facilities are just on-street bike lanes. https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 No, that's not an event. That's normal bike traffic. But on-street bike lanes are boring and so un-Amsterdam-ish. We need style! We need panache! The "60%" will not use a bland bike lane.

How many people do you think commute to work over 15 mph in Amsterdam?

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 7:50:36 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:58:36 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped
I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

Bloody nonsense! I've been a vehicular bicyclist for over 50 years and I even ride from city to city a lot of times because it's far faster than riding the inter-city buses tht have a really great-circle route. One city I ride to is 2 HOURS away by bicylce and FIVE HOURS away by bus. That's a total of 4 hours riding vesus 10 hours of busing.

Many other cities around here do not have bus service to them or the bus takes just as long proportionally as does that other route = twice as long by bus as by bicycle and then there's the transferring onto a city bus if there is even public transportation and the time to wait forthose buses. Sometimes the inter-city bus does not run except in the morning and the evening.

MAny times my rides to a city are longer than 2 hours but still far faster and less timethan a bus is.

Again, in your world YMMV but that doesn't mean what doesn't work for you won't work for others.

Cheers

The last two times I've gone to my neurologist in Palo Alto 25 miles away I could have gone faster by bike than in the traffic via the fastest route. But I would have arrived covered in sweat.

On 8/9/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:13:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

Oh, bull****. When I ride lane center, I'm not pretending to be a car.
I'm using the legal right to the road that is specifically given to the
operator of a bicycle. It's clearly written in the state laws. No
pretending is necessary.

And only the ignorant would claim it's stupid to ride according to those
laws. We did 25 miles today, mostly on narrow country roads and
highways, meaning there was really not a single place where the lane was
wide enough to be safely shared with a passing motor vehicle. My wife
and I and the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always
near lane center. We were passed by many dozens of cars. As usual,
there was no drama, no hostility, no close calls, no terror. The same
happens when I ride in the city and suburbs, including the 35,000
vehicle per day road I use to get to the hardware store.

I know there are people too timid for such riding. They tend to hide
their timidity by bragging about their "gnarly" heroics, and spice it
with tales of their beer drinking prowess. But those on today's ride
would probably laugh behind their backs.

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
there on the horizon? And so on.

We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above
3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
or not, considering all "side effects".

Is a 1% - 2% bike mode share worth it? Joerg, it depends greatly on
"worth WHAT?"

Is it worth increasing the crash count from 2 per year to 15 per year,
as happened recently on one stretch of road in Columbus? Is it worth
spending public money on trial-and-error bike facility designs, as
Portland has done for years, then re-doing them to try to make them
work? Is it worth delaying the travel of competent cyclists, or
ticketing them for refusing to use faulty designs? Is it worth telling
people that bicycling is so hazardous that one should not do it until
there are segregated facilities everywhere?

Why is it not worth it to begin educating both bicyclists and motorists
about how to properly and safely share existing roads? After all,
that's _really_ what Vehicular Cycling is about.


My guess is that bicycle use, as a percentage of the population is not
and never will increase.

According to the National Bike Dealers Association in 1973 there were
some 15.2 million 20" and larger wheel bicycles sold in the U.S. which
is asterisked as "Record High". In 1981 there were 8.9 million sold
and in 2015 there were 12.5 million sold.

The U.S. population figures for the same years are
1973 - 311.9 million
1981 - 229.47
2015 - 320.0

Bicycle use per capita is then:
1973 - 1 bike/20.5 people
1981 - 1/25.7
2015 - 1/24.9

In short, other then the one year, 1973, there is a smaller percentage
of USians on bicycles every year.

Over the past 20 years from 1995 - 2015 the numbers a

1995 - 12 million bikes, 20 inch or larger wheels size, sold versus a
population of 266.28 million. Or 1 bike per 22.19 people

2015 - 12.5 bikes versus 320.9 million or 1/25.6

Obviously bicycle sales vary from year to year and in the 20 year
period (above) the high point was in 2005 when 14.0 million bikes were
sold in a population of 295.8 million or 1 bike/21.12 people.


As regards 1981, roughly 1/3 of all US bicycle stores open
in 1980 were closed by the end of 1982. That short severe
recession hurt more than bike shops too.

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

On 10/08/2017 8:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:13:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/9/2017 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

Oh, bull****. When I ride lane center, I'm not pretending to be a car.
I'm using the legal right to the road that is specifically given to the
operator of a bicycle. It's clearly written in the state laws. No
pretending is necessary.

And only the ignorant would claim it's stupid to ride according to those
laws. We did 25 miles today, mostly on narrow country roads and
highways, meaning there was really not a single place where the lane was
wide enough to be safely shared with a passing motor vehicle. My wife
and I and the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always
near lane center. We were passed by many dozens of cars. As usual,
there was no drama, no hostility, no close calls, no terror. The same
happens when I ride in the city and suburbs, including the 35,000
vehicle per day road I use to get to the hardware store.

I know there are people too timid for such riding. They tend to hide
their timidity by bragging about their "gnarly" heroics, and spice it
with tales of their beer drinking prowess. But those on today's ride
would probably laugh behind their backs.

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
there on the horizon? And so on.

We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get
above
3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
or not, considering all "side effects".

Is a 1% - 2% bike mode share worth it? Joerg, it depends greatly on
"worth WHAT?"

Is it worth increasing the crash count from 2 per year to 15 per year,
as happened recently on one stretch of road in Columbus? Is it worth
spending public money on trial-and-error bike facility designs, as
Portland has done for years, then re-doing them to try to make them
work? Is it worth delaying the travel of competent cyclists, or
ticketing them for refusing to use faulty designs? Is it worth telling
people that bicycling is so hazardous that one should not do it until
there are segregated facilities everywhere?

Why is it not worth it to begin educating both bicyclists and motorists
about how to properly and safely share existing roads? After all,
that's _really_ what Vehicular Cycling is about.


My guess is that bicycle use, as a percentage of the population is not
and never will increase.

According to the National Bike Dealers Association in 1973 there were
some 15.2 million 20" and larger wheel bicycles sold in the U.S. which
is asterisked as "Record High". In 1981 there were 8.9 million sold
and in 2015 there were 12.5 million sold.

The U.S. population figures for the same years are
1973 - 311.9 million
1981 - 229.47
2015 - 320.0

Bicycle use per capita is then:
1973 - 1 bike/20.5 people
1981 - 1/25.7
2015 - 1/24.9

In short, other then the one year, 1973, there is a smaller percentage
of USians on bicycles every year.

Over the past 20 years from 1995 - 2015 the numbers a

1995 - 12 million bikes, 20 inch or larger wheels size, sold versus a
population of 266.28 million. Or 1 bike per 22.19 people

2015 - 12.5 bikes versus 320.9 million or 1/25.6

Obviously bicycle sales vary from year to year and in the 20 year
period (above) the high point was in 2005 when 14.0 million bikes were
sold in a population of 295.8 million or 1 bike/21.12 people.


As regards 1981, roughly 1/3 of all US bicycle stores open in 1980 were
closed by the end of 1982. That short severe recession hurt more than
bike shops too.


Amazing how stats can be misinterpreted, especially when making a point...

On 2017-08-09 19:21, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 2:31 PM, Joerg wrote:

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.

But if you're a tourist they just ignore you, and assume that you don't
know the law.


Sometimes.


In the UK you can take the lane when necessary, other times you can't.


That's how it is in most countries. Meaning if you are out there on a
rural road riding lane center you can be ticketed. Or get killed.


Are you saying it's different in other European countries? No one said
that it's customary to ride lane center, you only do it when there is no
other option.


Frank said in another post yesterday in this thread "My wife and I and
the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always near lane
center".

Not the words "almost always". Today he wrote, quote " My wife and I
rode lane center there whenever it was necessary or desirable".

I don't know what to believe of his writing. Do you?

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-08-09 16:40, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-09 14:10, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start
cycling once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen
proof of that. However, the majority of the "interested but
concerned" will find excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too
hot. It could start raining, see that cloud there on the
horizon? And so on.

That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like
Amsterdam or Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If
it's only green paint then you're right. And it's not getting
them to make 100% of their commutes or shopping trips or
whatever, even just a small amount is better than nothing.

The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY
of that 60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding,
and the vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to
7%, is not going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars.

Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%.


Must have been at least some of the 60% group because there was
partial success. "You mean, there is a bike path after we hacking
it through the field towards Folsom? Really?" ... "Yeah, promise.
Only 500 yards of residential roads, then bike paths all the way to
Sacramento" ... "Ok, I'll go".

The American River Trail is a linear park -- probably a pretty ride
but not too efficient with a 15mph speed limit, dog walkers,
sight-seers, wobbly kids, etc.


It's really a bike path, was always meant to be but then mutated into an
MUP. However, people adhere to the "Walk left - ride right" rule quite well.

Then we have this bike path which connects to my former work place:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3gnLIUum0

No speed limit! Riders much slower than 15mph should ride AFRAP here and
be prepared to have others blow by race car style.


http://www.americanriverbiketrail.co...l-speed-limit/


Got to know where Smokey is.


I'm sure it has attracted some commuters, but anyone willing to ride
to Sacramento and back is probably not in the "60%."


At least some were in the 60%. We often get to talk to each other.
Sometimes while riding, like when people pick up a tune from my MP3
player and want to know what it is, on breaks, helping with a repair or
lately while gazing at the "progress" with the rock slide.


Some MUPs are mostly used by bikes, and those can be convenient. We
have some dedicated bike trails that are convenient (mostly along
highways), although the I-205 bike trail and parts of the Springwater
(MUP) are pretty scary now. Here's a fine fellow who can help you
with some repairs!
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...ops1-skeel.jpg


We now have that problem in Sacramento with cyclists getting attacked
and all. They have a new mayor who IMHO doesn't have a real clue
regarding the situation and by his promises of free housing and free
whatever has attracted lots more homeless folks. Meaning many cyclist
still use that path but not all the way into town anymore.

We have a bike path up here called the El Dorado Trail. Homeless there
were never aggressive towards me but, no surprise there, their numbers
have greatly dwindled. I guess they migrated to Sacramento and the city
leaders simply don't get it.


Segregated facilities may attract some riders, but it's hard to tell
-- particularly since many facilities were created as part of much
larger housing construction projects, including the facility I
constantly malign in the south waterfront.


It's not very hard to tell once you take time and talk to people.
Because I am self-employed I have the luxury of being able to take a few
hours off here and there to ride. Sometimes I ride full bore, other
times I take it easy and occasionally talk to other riders. I met people
who bought a house in Folsom because of the bike path system. That was
their stated #1 reason. Mostly Bay Area retirees, meaning people with
lots of disposable income - ka-ching!


https://www.southwaterfrontdental.co...waterfront.jpg
All of those condo towers are new.


Eeuuuw! In Germany they call that something like grain elevator living
or residential silo.


... So is the OHSU Hospital complex
and all of its employees. Sure, nobody road on S.W. Moody 20 years
ago . . . but look now! What they don't mention is that 20 years
ago, that area was an abandoned shipyard and mini-storage. I and five
other people rode through there with any regularity. It was very
convenient back then. Not so much now with the traffic and "cycle
track." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HpCGyr61Do&t=47s


Just another confirmation why urban living is not my thing and never
will be.


The most heavily used facilities are just on-street bike lanes.
https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506


Thanks, I have bookmarked that because there are Europeans (and some
folks here ...) who are of the firm belief that a decent mode share can
never be achieved in America.

A place that is more extreme is Davis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHdbIhL0eso


No, that's not an event. That's normal bike traffic. But on-street
bike lanes are boring and so un-Amsterdam-ish. We need style! We
need panache! The "60%" will not use a bland bike lane.


There are probably some 60-percenters among those many riders but yes,
some want to be totally cradled all the time. They typically cart their
bikes to the bike path, unload and then ride. We have mixed-mode
commuters who do this. Better than nothing because they at least shave
off half of the usual car commute and have shifted that part to their
bicycles.

Occasionally I also do that because there are many people who absolutely
positively will not cycle on roads. But they ride and some are quite
sporty so they don't hold me back. I normally rather ride right from our
garage but that requires many miles of county road cycling to get to
"the good stuff".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/