|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote: On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote: On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget. I can download it in Chrome. Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1 to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up. Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean. From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the bike lane. Ah yes, not safe enough! The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation. Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough. Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some California town. Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city budget of Cupertino! -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths. In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote: On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote: On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget. I can download it in Chrome. Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1 to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up. Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean. From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the bike lane. Ah yes, not safe enough! The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation. Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough. Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some California town. Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city budget of Cupertino! -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths. In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed. We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that. The link to the relevant report is above. They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in car-bike crashes. The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at intersections. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:47:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote: On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote: On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget. I can download it in Chrome. Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1 to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up. Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean.. From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the bike lane. Ah yes, not safe enough! The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation.. Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough. Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some California town. Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city budget of Cupertino! -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths. In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed. We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that. The link to the relevant report is above. They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in car-bike crashes. The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at intersections. -- - Frank Krygowski and intersections include driveways and entrances and exists to/from parking lots. Parking lot exits are bad enough on regular roads but on a road with a segregated bike lane - no thanks! The problem with the latter is that the driver is looking for a break in the traffic flow and is only glancing for pedestrians and DOES NOT EXPECT to see a bicyclist. If that bicyclist is moving at speed then you have the perfect setup for a vehicle/bicycle crash. Cheers |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On 5/16/2019 1:19 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:47:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote: On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote: On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget. I can download it in Chrome. Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1 to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up. Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean. From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the bike lane. Ah yes, not safe enough! The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation. Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough. Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some California town. Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city budget of Cupertino! -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths. In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed. We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that. The link to the relevant report is above. They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in car-bike crashes. The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at intersections. -- - Frank Krygowski and intersections include driveways and entrances and exists to/from parking lots. Parking lot exits are bad enough on regular roads but on a road with a segregated bike lane - no thanks! The problem with the latter is that the driver is looking for a break in the traffic flow and is only glancing for pedestrians and DOES NOT EXPECT to see a bicyclist. If that bicyclist is moving at speed then you have the perfect setup for a vehicle/bicycle crash. Exactly! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:19:19 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:47:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote: On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote: On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget. I can download it in Chrome. Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1 to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up. Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean. From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the bike lane. Ah yes, not safe enough! The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation. Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough. Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some California town. Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city budget of Cupertino! -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths. In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed. We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that. The link to the relevant report is above. They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in car-bike crashes. The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at intersections. -- - Frank Krygowski and intersections include driveways and entrances and exists to/from parking lots. Parking lot exits are bad enough on regular roads but on a road with a segregated bike lane - no thanks! The problem with the latter is that the driver is looking for a break in the traffic flow and is only glancing for pedestrians and DOES NOT EXPECT to see a bicyclist. If that bicyclist is moving at speed then you have the perfect setup for a vehicle/bicycle crash. Cheers Bad traffic design is not the fault of the bicyclists. For instance - a couple of blocks from my home there is a bike lane that is directly on the right edge of a road in front of a shopping area. For an entire block people and particularly women, will come out of this parking area, across the sidewalk and into the bike lane. And MOST of the traffic flow is along that same area. Consequently I ride to the right of the middle lane which has enough lane width for passing if some jackass has the feeling that he must pass a bicycle when there is invariably a red light at the end of that block. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On 5/16/2019 6:34 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 10:19:19 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote: On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 12:47:40 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/16/2019 12:19 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote: On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote: On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf Is there some trick to downloading this PDF?Â* The connection times out for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget. I can download it in Chrome. Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1 to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up. Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean. From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the bike lane. Ah yes, not safe enough! The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation. Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough. Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some California town. Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city budget of Cupertino! -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, I don't know where you're getting your information but from the US Dept of Transportation figures the pure numbers of fatalities and injuries of bicyclists hasn't changed since the 90's as far as I can see. There are year to year variations but on the average we have about 45,000 bicycle injuries a year and 775 deaths. In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed. We were talking about one specific mile of newly installed "parking protected bike lanes" in Columbus, Ohio. My figures referred to that. The link to the relevant report is above. They were touted as a design that would promote bicycing and increase bike safety. They did see a roughly 75% increase in bike traffic on that street (although nobody knows how many riders simply moved their route there from parallel street). But there was an over 700% increase in car-bike crashes. The point is, the facility design so many are begging for is NOT necessarily safer. "Protected" bike lanes add confusion and danger at intersections. -- - Frank Krygowski and intersections include driveways and entrances and exists to/from parking lots. Parking lot exits are bad enough on regular roads but on a road with a segregated bike lane - no thanks! The problem with the latter is that the driver is looking for a break in the traffic flow and is only glancing for pedestrians and DOES NOT EXPECT to see a bicyclist. If that bicyclist is moving at speed then you have the perfect setup for a vehicle/bicycle crash. Cheers Bad traffic design is not the fault of the bicyclists. For instance - a couple of blocks from my home there is a bike lane that is directly on the right edge of a road in front of a shopping area. For an entire block people and particularly women, will come out of this parking area, across the sidewalk and into the bike lane. And MOST of the traffic flow is along that same area. Consequently I ride to the right of the middle lane which has enough lane width for passing if some jackass has the feeling that he must pass a bicycle when there is invariably a red light at the end of that block. That sounds like the technique I'd use in that situation. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:44:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/16/2019 6:34 PM, Tom Kunich wrote: Bad traffic design is not the fault of the bicyclists. For instance - a couple of blocks from my home there is a bike lane that is directly on the right edge of a road in front of a shopping area. For an entire block people and particularly women, will come out of this parking area, across the sidewalk and into the bike lane. And MOST of the traffic flow is along that same area. Consequently I ride to the right of the middle lane which has enough lane width for passing if some jackass has the feeling that he must pass a bicycle when there is invariably a red light at the end of that block. That sounds like the technique I'd use in that situation. The local drivers are so stupid they have a hard time dealing with this - they're going to drive to the following corner and turn right. There is a completely open right hand lane. They will pull to the left, pass me then pull over two lanes into the right lane to turn right. I suppose that this is something they are unfamiliar with so they don't know how to treat it but you would think that they would understand that the threats from people speeding out of the supermarket parking lot and the middle lane that I'm in turning into a bike lane the other side of the stop light might give them at least a clue. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On Thu, 16 May 2019 09:12:22 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: On Monday, May 13, 2019 at 7:11:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 5/13/2019 11:14 AM, sms wrote: On 5/12/2019 6:48 PM, James wrote: On 11/5/19 5:32 am, Frank Krygowski wrote: And they are ignoring the studies that have clearly shown significant increases in crashes from "protected" bike lanes, like this one from Ohio: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineeri...oorhead_72.pdf Is there some trick to downloading this PDF? The connection times out for me, regardless of whether I try Firefox or wget. I can download it in Chrome. Interesting. Cycling rates went way up (75%). Fatal crashes went down (1 to 0). Non-fatal crashes went up. Non-fatal crashes went WAY up. Skip the sugarcoating, please. And fatal crashes anywhere are rare as hen's teeth. Dropping from one to zero is not in any way mathematically significant. It's regression to the mean. From the photos, it appears that they cheaped out and did not do actual protected bicycle lanes that prevent vehicle intrusion. They're using pop-up bollards spaced at intervals that allow vehicles to enter the bike lane. Ah yes, not safe enough! The "Danger! Danger!" crowd said wide lanes were not safe enough, and they demanded bike lane stripes. Then they said bike lane stripes were not enough, and they demanded green paint. Now they're saying stripes and green paint aren't safe enough, and they demand barrier separation. Now Scharf is saying bollard barriers aren't safe enough. Will a 30 foot tall solid concrete wall be sufficient? Trump seems to think it will do the job for him. But if that border wall thing falls through, maybe the disappointed contractors can get work doing kosher bike lanes (i.e. never violated by the touch of car tires) in some California town. Why, if only ONE life can be saved, it will be worth the entire city budget of Cupertino! -- - Frank Krygowski Frank, you don't seem to realize what a problem illegal aliens are. While the majority of them may be good neighbors and hard workers, there is a VERY large criminal contingent. We have a local vocal bicycling group and they have GoPro's mounted front and rear and the things you see would give you the willies and maybe stop you from riding in areas with large illegal populations. Earth to Tom. WTF are you talking about Martians for? They're not the problem. The people who give me the willies around here are Caucasians in Audis. Damned near every driver who's tried to kill me in the past year, whether I'm in my car or on my bike, has been a white male in an Audi. Why do aggressive lunatics seem to buy Audis? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On Thu, 16 May 2019 09:19:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote: In the meantime, actual numbers of cyclists have skyrocketed. Yes, from 0.25% of road users to 0.5% around here. Boom! Love to see those hockey stick growth lines on charts! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Cycling: almost actual science
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 10:18:10 PM UTC+1, Tim McNamara wrote:
Damned near every driver who's tried to kill me in the past year, And that's just your neighbours and colleagues, Timmie. Some must have tried more than once. Andre Jute If at first you don't succeed, by an Audi and try again |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An actual cycling question - plagued by flats lately | Anton Berlin | Racing | 8 | May 25th 10 10:27 AM |
new blog post - the science of cycling position | TriAdmin | Racing | 0 | March 22nd 08 08:10 PM |
new blog post - the science of cycling position | TriAdmin | Rides | 0 | March 22nd 08 08:10 PM |
Cycling News Science | [email protected] | Racing | 3 | September 28th 05 07:44 PM |
actual cycling caps | davek | UK | 10 | May 6th 05 03:52 PM |