bikelane flamebait and going right

Peter Cole wrote:

It's interesting to compare the US with Germany, which has made a
considerable investment in segregated bike facilities. The German auto
fatalities/mile are almost as high as the US, but the US has 2x the
pedestrian, and almost 5x the cyclist, fatalities/mile.

Segregated facilities aren't the only factor, but given attitudes in the
US, might be the only politically acceptable thing we can copy from Germany.

DON'T!!!!

If you can read German, please check the "Fahrrad" newsgroup. Most
of the cyclists in Germany are killed where bikepaths ("Radwege")
cross streets -- you cannot segregate them completely (unless you
are willing to pay a lot of money).

Most car drivers don't "expect" cyclists when they are making their
turns across bikepaths and it too often results in dangerous or
even deadly situations. I've been in the former too often (I commuted
with a bike for more than 20 years in Germany and I tried to avoid
bikepaths as much as possible -- and wrote letters to the local
administration to remove the signs that require cyclists to use
those paths so I could legally use the safer streets.)

If you are trying to find the reason why there are more cycling death
in the US then you might look into these:
- drivers here are the worst I've ever encountered: distracted and
utterly clueless about "traffic".
- killing a cyclist in the US with a car has almost no (legal)
consequences: "Oops, I didn't see her, it was an accident." In
Germany, the car driver will be prosecuted, even if it was
"accidental" (if you didn't see a cyclist, you aren't fit to drive
a car. A car is basically considered a "dangerous machinery" in
Germany and hence you have to prove you are able to handle it
responsibly).

Claus Assmann
writes:

Peter Cole wrote:

It's interesting to compare the US with Germany, which has made a
considerable investment in segregated bike facilities. The German auto
fatalities/mile are almost as high as the US, but the US has 2x the
pedestrian, and almost 5x the cyclist, fatalities/mile.

Segregated facilities aren't the only factor, but given attitudes in the
US, might be the only politically acceptable thing we can copy from Germany.

DON'T!!!!

If you can read German, please check the "Fahrrad" newsgroup. Most
of the cyclists in Germany are killed where bikepaths ("Radwege")
cross streets -- you cannot segregate them completely (unless you
are willing to pay a lot of money).

Most car drivers don't "expect" cyclists when they are making their
turns across bikepaths and it too often results in dangerous or
even deadly situations. I've been in the former too often (I commuted


Incorrect. "Most" drivers in Germany pass their tests knowing to give
way to the right and knowing about bike paths.

The cause of accidents is usually apathetic cyclists not bothering to
ensure they have bee spotted. What happens is that the cars parked on
the right hand side of the road obscure cyclists on the bike paths. As a
result the driver turning right does not see the guy on the bike path
travelling in the same direction, result : smack.

Junctions need people to respect both sides and be sure that they see
each other.

On Oct 16, 11:52*am, Simon Lewis wrote:
Claus Assmann



writes:
Peter Cole *wrote:

It's interesting to compare the US with Germany, which has made a
considerable investment in segregated bike facilities. The German auto
fatalities/mile are almost as high as the US, but the US has 2x the
pedestrian, and almost 5x the cyclist, fatalities/mile.

Segregated facilities aren't the only factor, but given attitudes in the
US, might be the only politically acceptable thing we can copy from Germany.

DON'T!!!!

If you can read German, please check the "Fahrrad" newsgroup. *Most
of the cyclists in Germany are killed where bikepaths ("Radwege")
cross streets -- you cannot segregate them completely (unless you
are willing to pay a lot of money).

Most car drivers don't "expect" cyclists when they are making their
turns across bikepaths and it too often results in dangerous or
even deadly situations. I've been in the former too often (I commuted

Incorrect. "Most" drivers in Germany pass their tests knowing to give
way to the right and knowing about bike paths.

The cause of accidents is usually apathetic cyclists not bothering to
ensure they have bee spotted. What happens is that the cars parked on
the right hand side of the road obscure cyclists on the bike paths. As a
result the driver turning right does not see the guy on the bike path
travelling in the same direction, result : smack.

Junctions need people to respect both sides and be sure that they see
each other.

Yes, and most gun deaths are the result of people not wearing Kevlar
underwear and studying ninja moves so they can slap the bullets out of
the way.

Brian Huntley writes:

On Oct 16, 11:52*am, Simon Lewis wrote:
Claus Assmann



writes:
Peter Cole *wrote:

It's interesting to compare the US with Germany, which has made a
considerable investment in segregated bike facilities. The German auto
fatalities/mile are almost as high as the US, but the US has 2x the
pedestrian, and almost 5x the cyclist, fatalities/mile.

Segregated facilities aren't the only factor, but given attitudes in the
US, might be the only politically acceptable thing we can copy from Germany.

DON'T!!!!

If you can read German, please check the "Fahrrad" newsgroup. *Most
of the cyclists in Germany are killed where bikepaths ("Radwege")
cross streets -- you cannot segregate them completely (unless you
are willing to pay a lot of money).

Most car drivers don't "expect" cyclists when they are making their
turns across bikepaths and it too often results in dangerous or
even deadly situations. I've been in the former too often (I commuted

Incorrect. "Most" drivers in Germany pass their tests knowing to give
way to the right and knowing about bike paths.

The cause of accidents is usually apathetic cyclists not bothering to
ensure they have bee spotted. What happens is that the cars parked on
the right hand side of the road obscure cyclists on the bike paths. As a
result the driver turning right does not see the guy on the bike path
travelling in the same direction, result : smack.

Junctions need people to respect both sides and be sure that they see
each other.

Yes, and most gun deaths are the result of people not wearing Kevlar
underwear and studying ninja moves so they can slap the bullets out of
the way.

What are you talking about?

Are you simply stupid or joking? I hope the latter.

Are really trying to draw an analogy between showing respect to other
vehicles in built up areas with restricted viewing to wearing kevlar
underpants in case someone shoots a gun at you?

Try to think before posting. Your analogy holds absolutely zero water.

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:06 am, Peter Cole wrote:

It's interesting to compare the US with Germany, which has made a
considerable investment in segregated bike facilities. The German auto
fatalities/mile are almost as high as the US, but the US has 2x the
pedestrian, and almost 5x the cyclist, fatalities/mile.

It's funny. When I read this far into your response, I said "Sounds
like this guy has been reading Pucher." I see below that I was
correct.

Sure, I read everybody. What's wrong with that?


Unfortunately, segregated facilities seem to be the only effective way
of reducing fears. It may be because those fears have some substance.

Alternately, it may be because it's the only method that's been
seriously tried!

It seems obvious to me that the level of fear regarding bicycling is
completely disproportionate to the actual level of risk. I believe
this is due to enthusiastic, but mistaken, "bicycle safety" efforts
that focus on scaring people as a first step. Most people never get
to the second step, because they've been too scared to continue.

What if that were turned around? What if people were routinely told
that cycling is safer than walking, safer than swimming?

Well, there's safety, and there's pleasure. You may convince risk-averse
people that riding is safe (though I doubt it), but you'll never
convince them it's fun.

Personally, I'd go for traffic calming...

Me too. I see NYC is adding speed humps around school zones. About
time.

I'd like to believe widespread calming is politically feasible in this
country, but I think it's a cultural long-shot.


Pucher describes "carrots" and "sticks" and admits "sticks" are
political non-starters in the US.

Pucher's favorite technique is what I described above: Make U.S.
cycling sound extremely dangerous. He does it by repeatedly saying
that cyclists in the U.S. suffer far more fatalities per mile than
those in northern Europe. What he fails to emphasize is that by his
own data, U.S. cyclists ride over ten million miles between
fatalities; and that by his own data, U.S. cycling is several times
safer than walking, either per mile, per trip, or per hour. He has no
concept of the word "infinitesmal" nor of the concept "safe enough."
He is one of the most prominent fear mongers.

"The provision of separate cycling facilities is undoubtedly the
cornerstone of Dutch, Danish and German policies to make cycling safe
and attractive. They are designed to feel safe, comfortable and
convenient for both young and old, for women as well as men, and for all
levels of cycling ability.

It's true that separate facilities are designed to FEEL safe. It
doesn't seem that they're designed to add real safety, though.
Specifically, the addition of bike lanes (paint striped or barrier
separated) complicates movements at the intersections, which is where
most accidents occur. The cleanest study I know, in which researchers
in Copenhagen compared before-after data where such facilities were
added, found that lanes increased crashes something like 10% to 15%.
They were clearly _less_ safe. However, those who use them FEEL
safer.

ISTM it's unethical to install a facility that actually increases
danger for users, while luring them to use it. Can you imagine the
FDA's reaction to a drug that promised a reduction in cancer risk, but
actually increased that risk?

Sure, but even if you accept all those numbers, it's not especially
damning of bike lanes. If cycling is relatively safe here, so much so
that the mortality benefits well exceed the risks, then a 10-15%
reduction in safety would still have a net positive social impact if it
increased participation by a significant amount. In Germany, The
Netherlands and Denmark, where things are much safer, the "lane safety
reduction" is even less important. There are lots of examples, like car
radios, where a little safety is traded off for pleasure/convenience.
It's not a black & white issue. It's more like a drug which helps on the
average, but can hurt some times. Most approved drugs have those
characteristics.


Where are the success stories based on "Effective Cycling"/"vehicular cycling" only?

We first have to give it a try. At present, teaching or promoting
vehicular cycling is a cottage industry, done by one volunteer at a
time.

I'd like to see a 21st century effort at promoting cycling,
particularly vehicular cycling, and our rights to the road. This is
the sort of thing I think the League of American Bicyclists should be
doing - everything from public service announcements to magazine ads
to internet ads to billboards to "product" placement in movies and TV
shows. Screw the "Always Wear Your Helmet or you'll Die!!!!"
warnings. Instead, show sexy, fashionable actresses riding and saying
"It keeps me slim and helps the environment," or something like that.

America has spent decades yelling that you'll get killed without your
funny hat and your paint stripe. We should start putting out honest,
correct information instead.

- Frank Krygowski

I think America has spent decades saying nothing about cycling except
for the occasional editorial page rants about cracking down on cycling
"scofflaws". As for the perception of safety being different than actual
safety, sure, I agree, but I don't think you can talk people out of
being stressed by cars zooming by -- the reptilian brain will override
reason. Making me flinch doesn't hurt me, but I don't like it.

Simon Lewis wrote:

The cause of accidents is usually apathetic cyclists not bothering to
ensure they have bee spotted. What happens is that the cars parked on

Oh, so now it's up to the victim to ensure that others obey
the law?

Obviously this is what cyclists have to do to survive;
but this only shows that bikepaths are dangerous.

the right hand side of the road obscure cyclists on the bike paths. As a
result the driver turning right does not see the guy on the bike path
travelling in the same direction, result : smack.

According to German law (you know it, right?) if the driver doesn't
have a line of sight on other traffic participants whose right of
way he might be violating he has to proceed with utmost caution.

On Oct 16, 12:35*pm, Simon Lewis wrote:
Brian Huntley writes:
On Oct 16, 11:52*am, Simon Lewis wrote:
Claus Assmann

writes:
Peter Cole *wrote:

It's interesting to compare the US with Germany, which has made a
considerable investment in segregated bike facilities. The German auto
fatalities/mile are almost as high as the US, but the US has 2x the
pedestrian, and almost 5x the cyclist, fatalities/mile.

Segregated facilities aren't the only factor, but given attitudes in the
US, might be the only politically acceptable thing we can copy from Germany.

DON'T!!!!

If you can read German, please check the "Fahrrad" newsgroup. *Most
of the cyclists in Germany are killed where bikepaths ("Radwege")
cross streets -- you cannot segregate them completely (unless you
are willing to pay a lot of money).

Most car drivers don't "expect" cyclists when they are making their
turns across bikepaths and it too often results in dangerous or
even deadly situations. I've been in the former too often (I commuted

Incorrect. "Most" drivers in Germany pass their tests knowing to give
way to the right and knowing about bike paths.

The cause of accidents is usually apathetic cyclists not bothering to
ensure they have bee spotted. What happens is that the cars parked on
the right hand side of the road obscure cyclists on the bike paths. As a
result the driver turning right does not see the guy on the bike path
travelling in the same direction, result : smack.

Junctions need people to respect both sides and be sure that they see
each other.

Yes, and most gun deaths are the result of people not wearing Kevlar
underwear and studying ninja moves so they can slap the bullets out of
the way.

What are you talking about?

Are you simply stupid or joking? I hope the latter.

Are really trying to draw an analogy between showing respect to other
vehicles in built up areas with restricted viewing to wearing kevlar
underpants in case someone shoots a gun at you?

Try to think before posting. Your analogy holds absolutely zero water.

"Showing respect to other vehicles" means not assuming they're not
there when you turn into their path or simply drive over them.

How can a cyclist possibly "ensure they have bee[n] spotted"? How can
they prevent a driver from using a cell phone while picking up a
dropped CD off the floor while turning right on a street with a bike
lane?

We're not talking about holding water. We're talking about spilling
blood.

On Oct 16, 1:45*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

It's funny. *When I read this far into your response, I said "Sounds
like this guy has been reading Pucher." *I see below that I was
correct.

Sure, I read everybody. What's wrong with that?

Not a thing! Obviously, I've read his stuff too; otherwise I wouldn't
have recognized it or mentioned more detail on his arguments. But I do
think we should be very skeptical of what he says.

*What if people were routinely told
that cycling is safer than walking, safer than swimming?

Well, there's safety, and there's pleasure. You may convince risk-averse
people that riding is safe (though I doubt it), but you'll never
convince them it's fun.

That's fine. Nobody will ever convince me that golf is fun. We can't
all love every possible activity.

However, I get frustrated by the survey results that (typically) say
people don't ride bikes because they think it's too dangerous. Such a
disconnect between attitudes and reality!

*The cleanest study I know, in which researchers
in Copenhagen compared before-after data where such facilities were
added, found that lanes increased crashes something like 10% to 15%.
They were clearly _less_ safe. *However, those who use them FEEL
safer.

ISTM it's unethical to install a facility that actually increases
danger for users, while luring them to use it. *Can you imagine the
FDA's reaction to a drug that promised a reduction in cancer risk, but
actually increased that risk?

Sure, but even if you accept all those numbers, it's not especially
damning of bike lanes. If cycling is relatively safe here, so much so
that the mortality benefits well exceed the risks, then a 10-15%
reduction in safety would still have a net positive social impact if it
increased participation by a significant amount.

That's essentially the way the authors of that Copenhagen study closed
one paper it generated - "Yes, it's more dangerous, but it's worth
it."

I have a problem with that. Novice cyclists - the kind most likely
lured onto those facilities - shouldn't be treated as soldiers
volunteering to die for some cause. Again, if it's less safe, that
honest information should be made available. And it should be made
available before money is spent on the project.


There are lots of examples, like car
radios, where a little safety is traded off for pleasure/convenience.
It's not a black & white issue. It's more like a drug which helps on the
average, but can hurt some times. Most approved drugs have those
characteristics.

There's a fundamental difference between a car radio and a bike lane
or medicine. The purpose of a car radio is to provide pleasure. Yes,
we've accepted that it probably induces a little distraction, and
makes things a little less safe; but we (i.e. society) have judged
that the benefit exceeds the minor safety detriment.

Bike lanes, like bad medicine, are a different kettle of fish. They
promise not pleasure, but increased safety. If they deliver no
benefit, but only safety detriment, they are being falsely promoted.
That's unethical.

The closest medical parallel is probably Hormone Replacement Therapy
for post-menopausal women, although even that merely a big mistake,
not a dishonesty. They pretty much slammed the door on prescribing it
once it was found to worsen a woman's odds of heart problems (and now,
cancer). But can you imagine the uproar if the pharmaceutical
companies had known it made things worse, but advertised and sold it
as making things better?

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:35:38 +0000 (UTC), Claus Assmann
wrote:

Segregated facilities aren't the only factor, but given attitudes in the
US, might be the only politically acceptable thing we can copy from Germany.

DON'T!!!!

If you can read German, please check the "Fahrrad" newsgroup. Most
of the cyclists in Germany are killed where bikepaths ("Radwege")
cross streets -- you cannot segregate them completely (unless you
are willing to pay a lot of money).

I can only agree with this. Bike paths may appear to be safe to
neophytes, but they are in fact highly dangerous at their interfaces
with the roadway, where right-turning cars, and - even more dangerous
- right-turning trucks, do not see the cyclist on the path over which
they are turning.

The abolition of their compulsory use is high on the agenda of many
cyclists in Germany.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:52:15 +0000 (UTC), Claus Assmann
wrote:

Simon Lewis wrote:

The cause of accidents is usually apathetic cyclists not bothering to
ensure they have bee spotted.

[---]

According to German law (you know it, right?)

Don't hold your breath ...