More infra promoters

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:29:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2016 10:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:51:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
... We have a new minimum passing
law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter when
it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to have to
change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this is the
intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it. Maybe
it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been following the law.

Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
"1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
difficult.

We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
achieve. We're still trying.

Out of curiosity, how will this be enforced? The cyclist says the guy
in the car was too close and the guy in the car says, "No Sir, I was
36.125" away?

It looks like "J" may be going to get rich defending car guys. Kids
will be transferring to a better school, new car for the Missus... :-)

There have been places where cops used a sort of a sting operation, with
one plainclothes cop riding while another observed passing motorists.

Will that fly? I remember years ago when the cops first started using
"radar guns". Someone, I think in New York, maybe Long Island, took a
case to court and proved that the system of using a tuning fork to
calibrate the gun wasn't accurate.

Several rods held up across the court room and the Policeman asked to
say which of the rods is 36" long?

What we're actually hoping for, should the law be enacted, is A)
publicity regarding the law; and B) less plausible "he swerved in front
of me" defenses for motorists.

Perhaps, but I did see two studies done in Los Angeles County, one
reporting the State police findings and a second done by a Bicycle
Aficionado and they both demonstrated that roughly half of the
collisions between bicycles and automobiles were the fault of the
cyclist - the majority of the collisions deemed to be the fault of the
cyclist was riding the wrong way on a road or highway.

It would seem logical that if the autos can be prevented from hitting
bicycles that will solve only about half the problem.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote in
:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:51:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
... We have a new minimum passing
law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter
when it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to
have to change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this
is the intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it.
Maybe it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been
following the law.

Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
"1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
difficult.

We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
achieve. We're still trying.

Out of curiosity, how will this be enforced? The cyclist says the guy
in the car was too close and the guy in the car says, "No Sir, I was
36.125" away?

In Ontario, which amended its Highway Traffic Act in ways similar to Québec,
it looks as if, unless a policeman witnesses an instance of passing too
close, it will only be enforced as the result of an accident.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On 7/23/2016 4:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:29:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2016 10:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:51:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
... We have a new minimum passing
law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter when
it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to have to
change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this is the
intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it. Maybe
it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been following the law.

Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
"1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
difficult.

We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
achieve. We're still trying.

Out of curiosity, how will this be enforced? The cyclist says the guy
in the car was too close and the guy in the car says, "No Sir, I was
36.125" away?

It looks like "J" may be going to get rich defending car guys. Kids
will be transferring to a better school, new car for the Missus... :-)

There have been places where cops used a sort of a sting operation, with
one plainclothes cop riding while another observed passing motorists.

Will that fly? I remember years ago when the cops first started using
"radar guns". Someone, I think in New York, maybe Long Island, took a
case to court and proved that the system of using a tuning fork to
calibrate the gun wasn't accurate.

Several rods held up across the court room and the Policeman asked to
say which of the rods is 36" long?

What we're actually hoping for, should the law be enacted, is A)
publicity regarding the law; and B) less plausible "he swerved in front
of me" defenses for motorists.

Perhaps, but I did see two studies done in Los Angeles County, one
reporting the State police findings and a second done by a Bicycle
Aficionado and they both demonstrated that roughly half of the
collisions between bicycles and automobiles were the fault of the
cyclist - the majority of the collisions deemed to be the fault of the
cyclist was riding the wrong way on a road or highway.

It would seem logical that if the autos can be prevented from hitting
bicycles that will solve only about half the problem.

I agree that the problems are split pretty much 50:50. And honestly, a
three feet passing law wouldn't be my first choice of strategy in a more
ideal world. But it is a politically achievable preliminary step.

As a long term strategy, I'm very much in favor of education (as well as
better law enforcement). That's education of both cyclists and motorists.

I think the main lesson that motorists need is that bicyclists do, right
now, have full legal rights to the road; and that as a consequence,
motorists need to slow down, wait a few seconds, and pass only when it's
safe.

I think a "minimum three feet" law is a potentially useful tool in that
education effort. If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
John B. wrote in
:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:51:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
... We have a new minimum passing
law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter
when it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to
have to change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this
is the intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it.
Maybe it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been
following the law.

Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
"1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
difficult.

We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
achieve. We're still trying.

Out of curiosity, how will this be enforced? The cyclist says the guy
in the car was too close and the guy in the car says, "No Sir, I was
36.125" away?

In Ontario, which amended its Highway Traffic Act in ways similar to Québec,
it looks as if, unless a policeman witnesses an instance of passing too
close, it will only be enforced as the result of an accident.

The law in Ontario was in place before ours. We ride often to Hawkesbury
or Cornwall and I've noticed the difference.
I don't see how it could actually be enforced except in those 2 ways. I
guess you could take a picture of an offence or something like that. But
it does seem to be working so far. I guess the fear of prosecution does
it.

--
duane

On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:28:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/23/2016 4:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 23:29:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2016 10:44 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:51:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
... We have a new minimum passing
law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter when
it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to have to
change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this is the
intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it. Maybe
it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been following the law.

Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
"1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
difficult.

We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
achieve. We're still trying.

Out of curiosity, how will this be enforced? The cyclist says the guy
in the car was too close and the guy in the car says, "No Sir, I was
36.125" away?

It looks like "J" may be going to get rich defending car guys. Kids
will be transferring to a better school, new car for the Missus... :-)

There have been places where cops used a sort of a sting operation, with
one plainclothes cop riding while another observed passing motorists.

Will that fly? I remember years ago when the cops first started using
"radar guns". Someone, I think in New York, maybe Long Island, took a
case to court and proved that the system of using a tuning fork to
calibrate the gun wasn't accurate.

Several rods held up across the court room and the Policeman asked to
say which of the rods is 36" long?

What we're actually hoping for, should the law be enacted, is A)
publicity regarding the law; and B) less plausible "he swerved in front
of me" defenses for motorists.

Perhaps, but I did see two studies done in Los Angeles County, one
reporting the State police findings and a second done by a Bicycle
Aficionado and they both demonstrated that roughly half of the
collisions between bicycles and automobiles were the fault of the
cyclist - the majority of the collisions deemed to be the fault of the
cyclist was riding the wrong way on a road or highway.

It would seem logical that if the autos can be prevented from hitting
bicycles that will solve only about half the problem.

I agree that the problems are split pretty much 50:50. And honestly, a
three feet passing law wouldn't be my first choice of strategy in a more
ideal world. But it is a politically achievable preliminary step.

As a long term strategy, I'm very much in favor of education (as well as
better law enforcement). That's education of both cyclists and motorists.

I think the main lesson that motorists need is that bicyclists do, right
now, have full legal rights to the road; and that as a consequence,
motorists need to slow down, wait a few seconds, and pass only when it's
safe.

I think a "minimum three feet" law is a potentially useful tool in that
education effort. If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice.

I remember in high school there was an optional "Driver's Class" that
taught the traffic code, safe driving, including defensive driving and
even had a dual control car to teach the mechanics of driving. I've
long forgotten the details but I have the feeling that successfully
completing the course gave one some sort of advantage in obtaining
that much desired driver's licence at 16 years of age.

Don't they have this sort of thing now-a-days?

As for "If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice".

Of course it will. If the penalty is 48 hours in the "stocks" on the
town common there will be one result. If the penalty is a $10 fine and
no points on the license, probably a somewhat different result.

--
cheers,

John B.

Duane wrote in news:812075042.491005284.460000.spoo-
:

But it does seem to be working so far. I guess the fear of prosecution
does it.

Around Ottawa, not so much. My morning commute from the south end leaves me
no option but Bank Street, unless I deviate by a route that adds another 20
minutes to my 25- to 30-minute commute. The heavy goods vehicles (dump
trucks bringing in aggregate, car transporters and the like) crowd cyclists,
and, worse, the tradesmen hauling trailers behind pick-ups seem utterly
unaware of how much wider the track of the trailer is compared to that of
the truck. I give all these beasts a wide berth at the corners.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On 7/24/2016 2:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:28:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I remember in high school there was an optional "Driver's Class" that
taught the traffic code, safe driving, including defensive driving and
even had a dual control car to teach the mechanics of driving. I've
long forgotten the details but I have the feeling that successfully
completing the course gave one some sort of advantage in obtaining
that much desired driver's licence at 16 years of age.

Yes, I took one of those classes on summer in high school.

Don't they have this sort of thing now-a-days?

I'm not sure, but I think driver's training classes have largely gone
away, at least in our state. State support for public schools has been
slashed (so money could go to for-profit charter schools that, on
average, produce worse results). Local school officials have had to put
levies on the ballot to make up for state cuts, but "no new taxes"
sentiment has hurt those efforts. Everything is being cut down to the
minimum needed to have kids pass standardized tests, which are
administered far more often, eating up class time.

And BTW, the state supreme court long ago declared our methods of
funding education to violate the state constitution. But it hasn't changed.

As for "If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice".

Of course it will. If the penalty is 48 hours in the "stocks" on the
town common there will be one result. If the penalty is a $10 fine and
no points on the license, probably a somewhat different result.

Well, the hopeful analogy is this: A few years ago, a law was passed
requiring motorists to slow down and change lanes if possible when
passing an emergency vehicle with flashing lights at the roadside. That
of course included cop cars.

I never saw much publicity about the law. But I heard about it when a
friend got a ticket before the signs were even up. He (a bike club
member, BTW) certainly told everyone he knew about the new law!

That law seems very well obeyed these days. That's not promising that a
minimum passing law will be similarly obeyed, of course. But I can hope.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Duane wrote in news:812075042.491005284.460000.spoo-
:

But it does seem to be working so far. I guess the fear of prosecution
does it.

Around Ottawa, not so much. My morning commute from the south end leaves me
no option but Bank Street, unless I deviate by a route that adds another 20
minutes to my 25- to 30-minute commute. The heavy goods vehicles (dump
trucks bringing in aggregate, car transporters and the like) crowd cyclists,
and, worse, the tradesmen hauling trailers behind pick-ups seem utterly
unaware of how much wider the track of the trailer is compared to that of
the truck. I give all these beasts a wide berth at the corners.

Yeah when I say it seems to be working in Quebec I can't say what it's like
downtown Montreal. I don't work there and I don't ride there much on my
time off.

I haven't ridden in Ottawa though we just did a weekend trip from Montreal
to Gatineau last June. (Gatineau is in Quebec across a bridge from
Ottawa.) When we got into Gatineau it was like what you describe.
Especially from the hotel to Gatineau Park on the Saturday. When we do the
ride next year I'll see if the new law helps.

--
duane

On Sun, 24 Jul 2016 11:18:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 7/24/2016 2:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 11:28:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I remember in high school there was an optional "Driver's Class" that
taught the traffic code, safe driving, including defensive driving and
even had a dual control car to teach the mechanics of driving. I've
long forgotten the details but I have the feeling that successfully
completing the course gave one some sort of advantage in obtaining
that much desired driver's licence at 16 years of age.

Yes, I took one of those classes on summer in high school.

Don't they have this sort of thing now-a-days?

I'm not sure, but I think driver's training classes have largely gone
away, at least in our state. State support for public schools has been
slashed (so money could go to for-profit charter schools that, on
average, produce worse results). Local school officials have had to put
levies on the ballot to make up for state cuts, but "no new taxes"
sentiment has hurt those efforts. Everything is being cut down to the
minimum needed to have kids pass standardized tests, which are
administered far more often, eating up class time.


At the time I was in High School, my mother was an elected member of
the School board (she took parental responsibility to an extreme) and
I know that the driver education scheme, at the time, was funded by
the town, or at least the dual control car was, and the teacher was
one of the normal high school teachers seconded to the project so I
assume that the town also funded some additional pay for his
participation.

And BTW, the state supreme court long ago declared our methods of
funding education to violate the state constitution. But it hasn't changed.

As for "If we can get some well-publicized tickets for close
passes, it should make some impatient motorists think twice".

Of course it will. If the penalty is 48 hours in the "stocks" on the
town common there will be one result. If the penalty is a $10 fine and
no points on the license, probably a somewhat different result.

Well, the hopeful analogy is this: A few years ago, a law was passed
requiring motorists to slow down and change lanes if possible when
passing an emergency vehicle with flashing lights at the roadside. That
of course included cop cars.

I never saw much publicity about the law. But I heard about it when a
friend got a ticket before the signs were even up. He (a bike club
member, BTW) certainly told everyone he knew about the new law!

That law seems very well obeyed these days. That's not promising that a
minimum passing law will be similarly obeyed, of course. But I can hope.

Here there is a law that one must "clear the road" for an emergency
vehicle (who will have its flashing lights and siren) and it is nearly
universally obeyed. I'm sure that if one was observed by the police
not to have complied there would be an instant ticketing.

Here, when they write you a ticket they take your driving license and
you don't get it back until the matter is settled.
--
cheers,

John B.

jbeattie writes:

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:27:24 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:31:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2016 8:53 PM, James wrote:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-...-injuries.html

The one sub-headline is particularly laughable: "The Majority Of People
Will Ride With Protected Bike Lanes."

Regarding the title of the PDF, "Equitable Bike Share Means Building
Better Places for People To Ride." Here's an interesting tidbit on the
word "Equitable."

For the past couple decades, there's been a battle for the soul of the
League of American Bicyclists. The organization used to give plenty of
attention to maintaining cyclist's rights to the road, mostly through
volunteer legislative activists in each state. It also promoted cycling
education in a big way, at least, considering the size of the
organization and its perennial financial troubles. In those days, its
direction was largely controlled by its membership.

But when Andy Clarke became president, the focus shifted. The national
board was changed, with elected positions becoming a minority.
Excellent candidates for the board (I know several) were either told
they did not qualify, or had their campaigns sabotaged. Rules for
write-in candidates were changed, requiring a greater number of write-in
votes than the TOTAL votes in recent elections.

Once Clarke had total control, the focus was on getting money from
manufacturers, and on giving "bike friendly" points to any and every
city that put in bike facilities. It was impossible to be labeled "bike
friendly" without segregated facilities, and towns that had previously
qualified (via quiet streets, cycling-friendly policies, traffic lights
that worked for cyclists, bike parking, etc.) had their status taken away.

There were prominent LAB members who fought against this. A certain
contingent, hoping to re-focus on rights to the road, asked that the
mission statement include "equity," specifically, that traffic laws
would give equitable treatment to bikes relative to cars. Not
identical, mind you; equitable, meaning essentially fair and appropriate
consideration - as in, don't shove the bikes out of the way. The LAB
top brass agreed, and "Equity" was formally accepted as a goal.

Then the top brass let it be known that they didn't really mean "bike
laws equitable to car laws." They twisted the meaning completely
around, to say "Bicycling facilities have to be good for women and
minorities, too!" with the unspoken assumption that if it's good for a
white male, it's not good enough for (say) a black female.

I don't get the article: "The poor and people of colour are
underserved with bike infrastructure, while 'Black and Hispanic
cyclists had a fatality rate 30% and 23% higher than white cyclists,
respectively, and similar racial/ethnic safety gaps are found for
pedestrians.'�

I didn't think bike lanes and sidewalks discriminated. Is the claim
that there are fewer sidewalks and bike lanes in black and hispanic
neighborhoods? And if so, does that explain the increased fatality
rate? What about a black or hispanic cyclist who gets hit on a nice
road in an upscale white neighborhood? Its a mish-mash of statistics
with no explanation.

Of course drivers do. Here's a study (done in Portland) that claims
racial bias in how often drivers stop for pedestrians.

http://web.natur.cuni.cz/~houdek3/pa...0al%202014.pdf

Abstract:

Racial minorities are disproportionately represented in pedestrian
traffic fatalities, indicating a significant public health and safety
issue. Psychological and social identity-related factors have previously
been shown to influence drivers’ behaviors toward pedestrians. If
drivers’ behavior reflects racial bias and results in differential
behavior toward Black and White pedestrians, this may lead to disparate
pedestrian crossing experiences based on race and potentially contribute
to disproportionate safety outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in a
controlled field experiment at an unsignalized midblock marked crosswalk
in downtown Portland, Oregon. Six trained male research team
confederates (3 White, 3 Black) simulated an individual pedestrian
crossing, while trained observers cataloged the number of cars that
passed and the time until a driver yielded. Results (90 pedestrian
trials, 168 driver-subjects) revealed that Black pedestrians were passed
by twice as many cars and experienced wait times that were 32% longer
than White pedestrians. Results support the hypothesis that minority
pedestrians experience discriminatory treatment by drivers.

I don't know how well the study was conducted (only read the abstract),
but the result seems plausible to me. It does not follow that building
bike paths in the ghetto will help.

I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend
it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes
to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing
bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in
bicycle chutes).

That's because you selfishly want roads that work better for you, who
already rides. The goal of all the public policy hoo-haw about bike
infrastructure is not to make *cyclists* "feel safer", it's to make
*non-cyclists* feel like it might be safer for them to try cycling.

I'm not saying that's a laudable or even defensible goal, or that it
would have any actual effect on public health, or traffic congestion, or
whatever the ultimate goal actually is ...


--

First, that study doesn't show that racial minorities get hit more
often. It shows (if anything) that racial minorities wait longer at
crosswalks. Second, I don't believe the report, being that I ride
downtown every day past endless pedestrian facilities, and the cars
are constantly slamming on their brakes when someone does so much as a
head feint toward a cross walk -- black, white, man, woman, etc.,
etc. Third, for driver behavior to affect fatality rates, you would
have to conclude that drivers are consciously hitting (for example)
black people but not white people. Fourth, there is no mention of
driver color. For all we know, minorities are hitting minorities. It's
another one of these dopey PSU studies done by a few guys who walked
out the front of the campus down to the park blocks and ran some
experiments over a lunch hour. It's right up there with their study on
bicycle facilities in Portland -- and the dopey facility in front of
the campus.

I went back and read the whole paper, and the methodology sounds ok to
me: A (black or white) confederate tried to cross the street at a
midblock uncontrolled crosswalk, and an observer some distance away
noted what happened. The confederate did not actually step in the
crosswalk, but stayed on the sidewalk, leaving the drivers not legally
required to yield. Reading between the lines, I suspect that this was
(as you say) because almost all of them would have yielded as required.
50% of the time the first driver stopped anyway, for either race.
The difference was only in how likely subsequent cars were to stop.
There is such a crosswalk a block from my house, and I can assure you
that a brother could stand on the sidewalk looking hopeful for at least
a week before anyone stopped for him.

Collecting data on driver race would have been complicated, since the
relevant datum is how the drivers identified, not how they looked from a
block away. I would be a quite surprised to find that *only* minorities
specifically disfavored their own; that would be a real man bites dog
story.

It's hard to find data on racial disparities on pedestrians being *hit*,
but the NTSC does collect racial data on fatalities. Black people do
die disproportionately in pedestrian collisions. The real losers,
however, are Indians, who seem to be close to twice as likely to be
killed as pedestrians as white people.

Of course we can't conclude that driver bias is responsible for these
disparities, when living conditions and rates of alcohol abuse could
explain them. On the other hand, do you really mean to tell me that one
of the eastern Oregon yahoos you complain about is just as likely to
yield to an Indian pedestrian as a white one? If so, I may have a lead
on a few attractive bridges ...

I disagree that it is necessary for drivers to *consciously* decide to
hit minorities in order to cause a disparate effect. All they have to
do is unconsciously cut it a little closer for those that appear less
than deserving. It is my experience, as the paper claims, that drivers
tend to see yielding to pedestrians as more a matter of courtesy, or a
favor, than a duty.

As for facilities, I selfishly want roads that work for everyone --
being that gas tax revenues are falling and the general fund is
getting sucked dry by PERS payments. It's not like we have a lot of
spare change to spend on demonstration projects. I know you're not
arguing the point, but those who are should spend more effort on
educating motorists and cyclists. If everyone played by the rules and
paid attention, there would be very few if any conflicts.

I selfishly want roads that work better, too. My point was that the
authors of these papers generally don't claim that bicycle facilities will
work better, or be safer, or in any way benefit those that are already
cycling. If anything they leave the idea that facilities are better in
the realm of things everyone knows, like that bike helmets save lives,
or CO2 kills polar bears.

What they do claim is that facilities will convince people to try
cycling. I don't know if that's true, but it might well be.

Suppose for every five couch potatoes that begin to take the fat bike or
the cruiser out on the local path for a spin on the local path one Jay
or Frank decides it's too much trouble to ride to work. Depending on
*why* one thinks it's a Good Thing that more people bike, that might
sound like a fine tradeoff. I suspect that it does for most of the
people writing facility promotion papers.


--