|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bike lanes really, really, really increase biking!!!! Unless youlook at the numbers...
I wrotes:
On 8/5/2014 10:14 AM, jbeattie wrote: http://bikeportland.org/2014/06/02/g...e-lanes-106714 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. And more from the cycletrack promotion industry: http://urbantimes.co/2014/06/bike-la...crease-biking/ "Bike lanes really do increase biking!!!" Gosh, look at all the blue and purple in that second bar graph! I guess it's very impressive! But, um, what were they actually saying? Hmm. OK the first bar graph tells us that bicycling really isn't very dangerous at all compared to walking or motoring. Son of a gun, someone else was saying the same thing. And just think how safe it would be if people rode competently! (Oh, there's the "head injury" thing - because Big Helmet has successfully conflated those scrapes and bumps with serious brain injuries in most people's minds. Unfortunately, we won't be able to fix that for a long while.) But what are all the numbers on the blue and purple bar graph? Ah, people riding in "protected" cycle tracks. Wow, they asked them what they'd be doing without the "innovative" and weird facility. Cool! Oh. Wait. Most of them - the purple bars - would be riding a bike on that very same street anyway. And most of the rest - the blue bars - would have been riding anyway, but on a different street. So that confirms the suspicion that special facilities mostly shift bicycling from one street to another. There are those folks making up the orange bars, who say they would have traveled by a different mode. So golly, we did get _them_ out of their cars! ... or no, wait: We got some of them out of the buses and rail systems. And we got some of them to stop walking. It begins to look like the headline is pretty much backwards. These cycle tracks didn't really increase biking very much, and some of the increase comes from other benign transportation modes. There is that last bar graph, though. Hey, at least we can get people to say they like them! So cycle tracks are not needed, because biking is very safe (and actually safer if you don't use them). And they don't get very many people to substitute a bike trip for a car trip. But golly, we can get the answers we want if we phrase our questions just right. So let the construction begin! Turn on the money faucets! -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Bike lanes really, really, really increase biking!!!! Unless you look at the numbers...
Frank Krygowski writes:
I wrotes: On 8/5/2014 10:14 AM, jbeattie wrote: http://bikeportland.org/2014/06/02/g...e-lanes-106714 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. And more from the cycletrack promotion industry: http://urbantimes.co/2014/06/bike-la...crease-biking/ "Bike lanes really do increase biking!!!" Gosh, look at all the blue and purple in that second bar graph! I guess it's very impressive! But, um, what were they actually saying? Hmm. OK the first bar graph tells us that bicycling really isn't very dangerous at all compared to walking or motoring. Son of a gun, someone else was saying the same thing. And just think how safe it would be if people rode competently! (Oh, there's the "head injury" thing - because Big Helmet has successfully conflated those scrapes and bumps with serious brain injuries in most people's minds. Unfortunately, we won't be able to fix that for a long while.) But what are all the numbers on the blue and purple bar graph? Ah, people riding in "protected" cycle tracks. Wow, they asked them what they'd be doing without the "innovative" and weird facility. Cool! Oh. Wait. Most of them - the purple bars - would be riding a bike on that very same street anyway. And most of the rest - the blue bars - would have been riding anyway, but on a different street. So that confirms the suspicion that special facilities mostly shift bicycling from one street to another. There are those folks making up the orange bars, who say they would have traveled by a different mode. So golly, we did get _them_ out of their cars! ... or no, wait: We got some of them out of the buses and rail systems. And we got some of them to stop walking. It begins to look like the headline is pretty much backwards. These cycle tracks didn't really increase biking very much, and some of the increase comes from other benign transportation modes. There is that last bar graph, though. Hey, at least we can get people to say they like them! So cycle tracks are not needed, because biking is very safe (and actually safer if you don't use them). And they don't get very many people to substitute a bike trip for a car trip. But golly, we can get the answers we want if we phrase our questions just right. So let the construction begin! Turn on the money faucets! That was more or less how I interpreted the "paper": a fluff piece with no indication that anything significant was accomplished. About as useful as a survey that answers the burning question: can half-assed surveys make us feel we learned something? -- Joe Riel |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Bike lanes really, really, really increase biking!!!! Unless youlook at the numbers...
On Saturday, August 9, 2014 8:17:25 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[his polished spiel] Count your blessings. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bike "facilities", you gotta love them, at least for the giggle | Andre Jute[_2_] | Techniques | 45 | August 7th 14 03:38 AM |
"Dedicated Bike Lanes Can Cut Cycling Injuries in Half" | sms | Techniques | 3 | August 1st 13 12:36 AM |
Off Topic - Protected Bike Lanes | JR Namida | Techniques | 24 | January 25th 13 07:55 AM |
"Bike lanes increase safety" | Barry[_3_] | Techniques | 1 | April 4th 11 03:25 AM |
Motorbikes and "bike lanes" or I took stupid pills when? | Zebee Johnstone | Australia | 64 | April 4th 06 02:17 PM |