A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 10th 17, 03:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 2017-08-10 04:12, wrote:
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.


Wow. Mine wasn't that bad but I had times where for days I could only
get out of bed by pulling myself up on a clothes pole, or not at all.


Then someone suggested cycling. Like most I returned with hesitation
but the more I cycled the less problems I had with my back.



Same here. L4-L5-L6 are pretty hose in my spine. Cycling and evben more
so mountain biking helped that a great deal. Builds back muscle.


... So John
certainly made an impression on me and I immediately became part of
the 1%.


I didn't need anyone to tell me that, I just needed a safe way to cycle
and when they widened the shoulder on a major country road here I had
that. Well, at least safe enough. Plus they opened some MTB trails and
that was what really triggered me to cycle again. Before that there were
some gruesome accidents and the occasional cross with a spoked wheel.

A guy who really helped me was a CPA at our church who suggested I may
also have a magnesium deficiency. So I take supplements now which help a
lot. None of the fancy medical doctors ever figured that out.


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. ...



Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and occasionally
ride the residential streets here. They will not even venture out into
the village center 2mi away for errands and such because they will not
ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane. Understandably so. I ride
those a lot but it's not fun.


... 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. ...



The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and in
summer loosen the tie for the ride).


... Smelling like a racehorse
isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
communicate with.


Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
our medical device company.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Ads
  #32  
Old August 10th 17, 04:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 2017-08-10 07:59, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-10 04:12, wrote:
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.


Wow. Mine wasn't that bad but I had times where for days I could only
get out of bed by pulling myself up on a clothes pole, or not at all.


Then someone suggested cycling. Like most I returned with hesitation
but the more I cycled the less problems I had with my back.



Same here. L4-L5-L6 are pretty hose in my spine. Cycling and evben more
so mountain biking helped that a great deal. Builds back muscle.


... So John
certainly made an impression on me and I immediately became part of
the 1%.


I didn't need anyone to tell me that, I just needed a safe way to cycle
and when they widened the shoulder on a major country road here I had
that. Well, at least safe enough. Plus they opened some MTB trails and
that was what really triggered me to cycle again. Before that there were
some gruesome accidents and the occasional cross with a spoked wheel.

A guy who really helped me was a CPA at our church who suggested I may
also have a magnesium deficiency. So I take supplements now which help a
lot. None of the fancy medical doctors ever figured that out.


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. ...



Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and occasionally
ride the residential streets here. They will not even venture out into
the village center 2mi away for errands and such because they will not
ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane. Understandably so. I ride
those a lot but it's not fun.


... 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. ...



The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and in
summer loosen the tie for the ride).


... Smelling like a racehorse
isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
communicate with.


Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
our medical device company.


Sorry, I meant engineering company. Jay would be the one heading for the
law office to work.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #33  
Old August 10th 17, 04:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 10/08/2017 11:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-10 07:59, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-10 04:12, wrote:
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.


Wow. Mine wasn't that bad but I had times where for days I could only
get out of bed by pulling myself up on a clothes pole, or not at all.


Then someone suggested cycling. Like most I returned with hesitation
but the more I cycled the less problems I had with my back.



Same here. L4-L5-L6 are pretty hose in my spine. Cycling and evben more
so mountain biking helped that a great deal. Builds back muscle.


... So John
certainly made an impression on me and I immediately became part of
the 1%.


I didn't need anyone to tell me that, I just needed a safe way to cycle
and when they widened the shoulder on a major country road here I had
that. Well, at least safe enough. Plus they opened some MTB trails and
that was what really triggered me to cycle again. Before that there were
some gruesome accidents and the occasional cross with a spoked wheel.

A guy who really helped me was a CPA at our church who suggested I may
also have a magnesium deficiency. So I take supplements now which help a
lot. None of the fancy medical doctors ever figured that out.


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. ...



Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and occasionally
ride the residential streets here. They will not even venture out into
the village center 2mi away for errands and such because they will not
ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane. Understandably so. I ride
those a lot but it's not fun.


... 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. ...



The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and in
summer loosen the tie for the ride).


... Smelling like a racehorse
isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
communicate with.


Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
our medical device company.


Sorry, I meant engineering company. Jay would be the one heading for the
law office to work.


Having a shower and locker at the office definitely makes things easier
for commuting by bike.
  #34  
Old August 10th 17, 04:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:28:15 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 4:40:17 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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?


Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is.

Andre Jute
Demographics are often counter-intuitive
  #35  
Old August 10th 17, 04:48 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,900
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 10/08/2017 11:20 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 12:28:15 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 4:40:17 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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?


Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is.

Andre Jute
Demographics are often counter-intuitive


Not the US but bike facilities get pretty crowded in Montreal. If I
leave early enough in the morning to get to work I can use some bike
paths but if I'm a bit later, I stick to the road. On the way home it's
mostly on the road. On rec rides, I head out of town to avoid the
crowds on paths and city streets. Riding through rural Quebec is a lot
more pleasant than fighting traffic (car or bike) in the city.

Even so, I see a lot of people commuting on the bike path. But I think
it will be some time before it ever reaches this break point that you
talk about. The car culture here is too prevalent.
  #36  
Old August 10th 17, 04:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

Slow Johnny's screed below is a fine example of what happens when jumped-up mechanics (1) mess with statistics.

Yo, Slow Johnny, the rise and fall of per capita adult bicycle unit sales don't tell you **** (2) unless you already know how many bicycles are held from previous years' sales by the target market. Even then, you will need to ask how many are in use,and how regularly (3). Both these numbers exist on a national scale and I have quoted them on this forum before.

BTW, not that it matters after you've made such a newbie mistake in the statistics, your conclusion that the bike share in America is unlikely to increase is cockeyed, the same sort of arrogant hubris that drives the global warming clowns. The US bike share could double or treble and that would already be a tremendous result for the committed people at Scharfie's conference (4). If you meant to say that a doubling or trebling of American bike usage in a few cities would still result in a near-insignificant national bike share (5), you should make an effort to say what you mean. As stated your conclusion isn't supported by your number.

(1) ...except the success of promotional efforts or accidents like having an American in the Tour de France...

(2) In which I include constant overreachers like Frank Krygowski who call themselves "engineers". I find it amazing that, after his statistical grotesqueries have been unmasked so often, Franki-boy can still claim to understand mathematics. Statistics aren't about the math, Franki-boy, they're about reducing large blocks of chaotic but obtainable knowledge to a manageable form and extract the kernel useful to decision-making; it's not so much a technical manipulation (the chi squares can safely be left to the technicians from the better universities) but an art form in which you must first learn to ask the most illuminating question (what a ponce like you might call "formulate the hypothesis").

(3) Vide Joerg walking his dogs and seeing more bicycles in garages than he ever sees on the street.

(4) It is typical of the bull**** on this conference that Scharfie, disdained by almost everyone except me, is the one who gets things done in his city, who has the planner with yes-power to do cyclists some good marching in lockstep with him. Hey, Franki-boy, when did you last get anything done in your city? If you had any manners, you would congratulate Scharfie on achieving what you can't, instead of bitching and denigrating.

(5) Hey, Scharfie, public transport isn't a "problem" anywhere in the world except California, where it is a monument to your governor's ego – and incompetence.

Andre Jute
Perfection is the enemy of achievement

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:06:46 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

  #37  
Old August 10th 17, 06:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 2017-08-10 08:12, Duane wrote:
On 10/08/2017 11:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-10 07:59, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-10 04:12, wrote:


[...]

... Smelling like a racehorse
isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
communicate with.


Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
our medical device company.


Sorry, I meant engineering company. Jay would be the one heading for
the law office to work.


Having a shower and locker at the office definitely makes things easier
for commuting by bike.



Absolutely. It also doesn't cost more time like many think. I always
take a shower in the morning to start the day nice and fresh. If a
strenuous bike ride is ahead there is no problem moving that shower to
after the ride. Hence no time is lost.

What helps me a lot on rides in more populated areas is to pick routes
where some refreshing is possible. Once more that is where bike paths
shine. A short stop at Nisenan Park, hit a button and stand inside this:

https://www.folsom.ca.us/images/Depa...Spray_Play.jpg

Recycled water, so no wasting of resources. I stand underneath until my
T-shirt is completely soaked. That affords me free evaporative cooling
that lasts almost 1/2 hour and by that time I have reached Lake Natoma.
There, a re-purposed cleaned old yoghurt beker is pulled out of the
right pannier. Dunk it in ... pour it over me ... dunk in again ... pour
- Another 1/2 hour of free evaporative cooling.

On MTB trail rides there are creeks, springs and little lakes where the
little yoghurt pot gets used. For the people who think that cyclists
should always ride on roads in Diesel soot and all there is usually ...
nothing.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #38  
Old August 10th 17, 06:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:28:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
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?


Probably none on the bike paths. That kind of Conga line would drive me crazy, particularly with a commute that is in excess of the average 3.2km (2 mile) trip in Amsterdam. Trip distances in Amsterdam are short and often walkable. They are also dead flat. My commutes have ranged from 14 miles each way down to just a few -- and currently 5-6 miles depending on route and assuming I'm not throwing-in gratuitous miles through the West Hills. I've always tried to live near work or school.


-- Jay Beattie.





  #39  
Old August 10th 17, 08:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/9/2017 8:06 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

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


They said the same thing about The Netherlands before the country
decided to change their ways. So your guess is not based on any actual
data. We all know what caused the change in The Netherlands.
  #40  
Old August 10th 17, 08:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.

On 8/10/2017 5:34 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.


Was it just the recession? Or was it also a change in the retail market
for bicycles? The expansion of stores like REI which didn't sell the
low-end stuff like K-Mart, Sears, etc., and mail order outfits like Bike
Nashbar, first for high-margin clothing, parts, and accessories, and
later for private-label complete bicycles with higher margins than name
brand bicycles.

Shrinking margins on complete bicycles, and

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Founder of Marin County Bicycle Coalition Arrested again Mike Vandeman[_4_] Mountain Biking 1 December 13th 13 03:42 PM
Marin County Bicycle Coalition Expands into Mountain Biking sms88 Social Issues 1 November 8th 11 07:02 AM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Rides 0 May 14th 08 09:56 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Australia 0 May 14th 08 09:55 PM
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories [email protected] Techniques 0 May 14th 08 09:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.