Bike Facilities Report: Protected Bike Lanes a "Resounding Success"

http://bikeportland.org/2014/06/02/g...e-lanes-106714

PDF: http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...nalReportb.pdf

jbeattie wrote:
http://bikeportland.org/2014/06/02/g...e-lanes-106714

PDF:
http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...nalReportb.pdf

Similar to reports from Montreal. Especially downtown where there are
several universities, lots of students, very little parking - almost none
free and lots of traffic congestion. Lots of bikes downtown.

But I expect we're about to hear how horrible all this is...
--
duane

On 8/5/2014 10:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:
http://bikeportland.org/2014/06/02/g...e-lanes-106714

PDF: http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...nalReportb.pdf


Yep. Very heavy on "perceived" safety, i.e. polling people riding,
polling people driving, asking "Do you think this is nice?" and
recording the expected "yes" answers - as in, "Oooh, it's innovative!"

The actual data seems to consist of just 144 hours of video. No crashes
in almost a week! It's wonderful!

Here's a link to more discussion of that pro-cycletrack paper:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/

OTOH, these papers...

Jensen S, Rosenkilde C & Jensen N, Road safety and perceived risks of
cycle facilities in Copenhagen, a summary of three reports for the City
of Copenhagen, 2008

Jensen S, Bicycle Tracks and Lanes: a Before-After Study, a paper for
the City of Copenhagen from TRB 87th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.,
January 2008

.... report a much more thorough investigation of cycletracks. They
measured usage rates and crash rates over several years before and after
the installation of cycletracks. (Unlike certain North American
researchers, who compared parallel - and blatantly different - streets
to compare, Jensen's data was for the same streets prior to, then after,
the installation of cycletracks.)

And their findings? Much higher crash rates (per user) afterwards, so
that there was no doubt that the cycletracks raised the danger level.

However, it's interesting to note that the bicyclists still _felt_ safer
on the cycletracks, even though the data clearly showed they were more
at risk! This is the "Ooh, they've done something special for us!"
mentality.

(I note that Duane has already chimed in with his no-data objection to
any objections. Apparently in Duane's mind, if it's "innovative" it
must be good.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:36:21 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(I note that Duane has already chimed in with his no-data objection to

any objections. Apparently in Duane's mind, if it's "innovative" it

must be good.)

You just don't learn, do you, Franki-boy? Dan has spoken to you many times about this supercilious habit you have of putting words in people's mouths, but you persist in antagonizing everyone with your childishness. We're all adults here, We can all speak for ourselves. We don't need you to speak for us. We don't want you to speak for us.

Andre Jute
Fed up with this fascist Krygowski

Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:36:21 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(I note that Duane has already chimed in with his no-data objection to

any objections. Apparently in Duane's mind, if it's "innovative" it

must be good.)

You just don't learn, do you, Franki-boy? Dan has spoken to you many
times about this supercilious habit you have of putting words in people's
mouths, but you persist in antagonizing everyone with your childishness.
We're all adults here, We can all speak for ourselves. We don't need you
to speak for us. We don't want you to speak for us.

Andre Jute
Fed up with this fascist Krygowski

Ignoring Frank is the best choice.

--
duane

On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:36:21 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2014 10:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:

http://bikeportland.org/2014/06/02/g...e-lanes-106714



PDF: http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...nalReportb.pdf





Yep. Very heavy on "perceived" safety, i.e. polling people riding,

polling people driving, asking "Do you think this is nice?" and

recording the expected "yes" answers - as in, "Oooh, it's innovative!"

Well, it's a little more focused than that, but it is based on perception -- being that they did not evaluation historical crash data for the area. There were no obvious problems during the study, so the lanes were not demonstrably unsafe.

The studied lane in Portland is on the other side of town through a shopping/office area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olqeWephv7A Still a lot of opportunity for conflict (and leaf build up), but that is true with or without the lane.

I lived about five blocks away from the road where the lane is situated. That was about 25 years ago when no one cared about bikes. I never had a problem on that road and didn't even think twice about it. Traffic is a lot worse now, so maybe it is worth the money spent. http://bikeportland.org/2012/11/09/f...h-street-79880

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/5/2014 9:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:36:21 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Yep. Very heavy on "perceived" safety, i.e. polling people riding,
polling people driving, asking "Do you think this is nice?" and
recording the expected "yes" answers - as in, "Oooh, it's innovative!"

Well, it's a little more focused than that, but it is based on perception --
being that they did not evaluation historical crash data for the area.
There were no obvious problems during the study, so the lanes were not
demonstrably unsafe.

Bicycling is quite safe; even if "innovative" designers really screw up
their "innovative" designs, crashes are rare, so it's hard to capture
serious conflicts or crashes on video.

But as you know, I really dislike the growing assumption that we _need_
weird things like cycletracks to make cycling safe. I really dislike
the installation of "now it's safe" facilities that are actually more
dangerous, and which are almost never ripped out. (Columbus, Ohio's
1970s cycletracks were a rare exception; they lasted only about a year,
IIRC.) And I really dislike the propaganda masquerading as research -
and somehow being allowed into print.

(As an example of the propaganda, one pro-cycletrack "research" paper
was shown, by skeptical analysts, to have had all its crash data
collected on just one cycletrack, a track which existed only on a long
bridge and thus had no possibility of crossing conflicts. The paper
itself carefully hid that fact. Citations on request.)

The studied lane in Portland is on the other side of town through a
shopping/office area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olqeWephv7A
Still a lot of opportunity for conflict (and leaf build up), but that
is true with or without the lane.

Looks like that is actually more a buffered bike lane, rather than a
cycletrack. The yellow paint is at street level. There are the
occasional bollards, of course - but at least the cyclists are more
visible than when they're hidden by parked cars.

Of course, if there is leaf (or snow, or trash) buildup on a more
ordinary road, it's easy for the cyclist to move left and avoid it. On
that facility, he can do that _if_ he avoids the bollards. On some
designs of "protected" cycletracks, he can do that if he gets off and
walks. :-/

I lived about five blocks away from the road where the lane is situated.
That was about 25 years ago when no one cared about bikes. I never had a
problem on that road and didn't even think twice about it. Traffic is a
lot worse now, so maybe it is worth the money spent.
http://bikeportland.org/2012/11/09/f...h-street-79880

One way to determine whether it's worth it would be to examine the
counts of bike crashes and the amount of bike use in that area. The
article mentions that the "sad little bike lane" was "narrow and seldom
used."

I'd bet that when it was installed, it was highly praised, perhaps
touted as a savior of the city! Now it's obviously not good enough.

PDX is a marvelous place. Continuous escalation of cyclist segregation
must be written into its city constitution! Its manifest destiny is an
omnipresent network of elevated cycletracks, free of any conflicts with
motor vehicles.

Too bad that despite all the wonders, PDX's bike mode share is stagnating.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 06/08/14 12:43, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2014 9:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:36:21 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Yep. Very heavy on "perceived" safety, i.e. polling people riding,
polling people driving, asking "Do you think this is nice?" and
recording the expected "yes" answers - as in, "Oooh, it's innovative!"

Well, it's a little more focused than that, but it is based on
perception --
being that they did not evaluation historical crash data for the area.
There were no obvious problems during the study, so the lanes were not
demonstrably unsafe.

Bicycling is quite safe; even if "innovative" designers really screw up
their "innovative" designs, crashes are rare, so it's hard to capture
serious conflicts or crashes on video.

2 crashes in 127 hours, captured on video.

http://theconversation.com/helmet-ca...ing-safer-3540

"The footage captured the experiences of 13 riders over 127 hours and in
that time, 54 “events” were identified – two crashes, six near-crashes
and 46 “incidents”."


--
JS

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 4:10:05 AM UTC+1, James wrote:

"The footage captured the experiences of 13 riders over 127 hours and in

that time, 54 �events� were identified � two crashes, six near-crashes

and 46 �incidents�."

I don't know if this is the study Krygo is ranting on about. But on the face of it, one accident and numerous dangerous incidents (in the large majority of which drivers were at fault entirely outside of the cyclist's control) every 63.5 hours on the bike, would certainly make me wonder whether cycling on those roads can possibly be worth the risk. That's an accident every 1000 miles (at a common average speed on the bike of 25kph/15mph), and serious stress to stay alive every minute you're on the bike.

The important point is that the drivers cause these problems and the remedies lie in the hands of the drivers. I can quite see the despair of any involved official at the magnitude of the task of driver training, and the consequent decision to attack the problem where he has some control, by creating bicycle lanes or other facilities.

Andre Jute
My life is extremely valuable

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 8:13:06 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 4:10:05 AM UTC+1, James wrote:



"The footage captured the experiences of 13 riders over 127 hours and in



that time, 54 �events� were identified � two crashes, six near-crashes



and 46 �incidents�."



I don't know if this is the study Krygo is ranting on about. But on the face of it, one accident and numerous dangerous incidents (in the large majority of which drivers were at fault entirely outside of the cyclist's control) every 63.5 hours on the bike, would certainly make me wonder whether cycling on those roads can possibly be worth the risk. That's an accident every 1000 miles (at a common average speed on the bike of 25kph/15mph), and serious stress to stay alive every minute you're on the bike.



The important point is that the drivers cause these problems and the remedies lie in the hands of the drivers. I can quite see the despair of any involved official at the magnitude of the task of driver training, and the consequent decision to attack the problem where he has some control, by creating bicycle lanes or other facilities.



Andre Jute

My life is extremely valuable

The world really is becoming more dangerous for cyclists, but I think it has more to do with the slow creep towards idiocracy than lack of facilities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0O7_3o3BrI

I was riding this weekend in a rural portion of Yamhill County (south of Portland) and had two run-ins with motorist. One guy passed me on an ascending country road with about 2" of clearance -- on purpose. I yelled at him; he stopped, we had words -- but uncharacteristically, it wasn't the "f*** you, no f**** you, no f*** you . . ." kind of exchange. It was me reading him the vehicle code with statutory cites. He responds with "share the road." I respond with the passing law and a cite to ORS Ch 163 and criminal menacing or reckless endangerment. I think he figures I'm a cop and shuts up and drives on. My friend is memorizing his license plate.

Second run in was on a similar road, this time close passing combined with Butt Head in the passenger seat who opens the door to hit me, but apparently relents. This, again, is witnessed by my friend who is ten bike lengths behind me. Car speeds off.

In 40 years of serious cycling, I have never had two assaults in one day. Truly bizarre. Another compounding factor is that it has been hot for a long spell -- I mean really hot for Portland. Everyone is out, particularly the crazies.

BTW, it was an otherwise nice ride. http://tinyurl.com/m7szt3v

-- Jay Beattie.