JavaMan

I was looking for bicycle advocacy information that was balanced instead of one-sided, and came across this article. I haven't read the whole thing, but so far it's pretty interesting. Check it out.

https://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles.../contents.html

Tom

supcom

Very interesting article. It certainly is a big essay but seems to take an objective view of acident statistics as they relate to bikeways. Thanks for posting the link.

Mars

Awesome link. thanks for posting it.

norton

I hope that Dr Hiles was given his PhD in Cyclology for this paper!

Dahon.Steve

Good link... It's going to take me two days to absorb all that info!

Helmet-Head

Ah, Jeffrey Hiles' "Listening to Bike Lanes".

I DID read this thing a few months ago, all 145(!) pages. It took me several nights to get through it. In the end, I agree with most of what he says, which is pretty easy to do, since he actually says surprisingly little in all those pages. But here is a highlight from page 45 of the PDF version:

The 85-page section of Effective Cycling that describes riding technique is arguably one of the most lucid and thorough guides to cycling in traffic in print. However, Forester s obsessive opposition to bicycle facilities and his cantankerous criticisms of those with whom he has differences have alienated many bicyclists that would otherwise be his allies.

This is a typical Hiles position statement. Note that he does not criticize Forester for his opposition to bicycle facilities (i.e., bike lanes and paths) per se, though many facilities supporters say he does. He just makes it sounds like he does. If you read him carefully, he is criticizing Forester for HOW he says what he says, not WHAT he says, a criticism with which I agree 100%. And the resounding endorsement, "the most lucid and thorough ...", of Forester's excellent guide on traffic cycling, from an alleged critic of Forester, should not be missed.

Forester has a reply to this essay, by the way, on his own website.

https://www.johnforester.com/Articles...ies/Hiles3.htm

Serge

New! (updated 12/23/2004 2:39PM PST)

The main thing I got from the Hiles essay is the concept of two viable forms of cycling:
- Riding according to pedestrian rules.
- Riding according to vehicular rules.

The first choice, riding according to pedestrian rules, works only in very special cases. You have to ride at pedestrian speeds 2-3 mph on sidewalks, be very careful at every driveway, and stop at every intersection, ideally getting off and walking across the street. But if you ride across the street, then only do it at ped speeds.

Then there is vehicular cycling, which even Hiles admits no one describes better than Forester in his book , Effective Cycling.

Hiles tries to defend what most cyclists end up doing, which is combining the two methods, which for me, was not done very effectively. I don't think it can be defended effectively. The fact is that motorists are looking for road users traveling according to vehicular rules, and, maybe, they also look out for users travelling according to pedestrian rules. Trying as a cyclist to be a hybrid user - sort of vehicular, sort of not - inevitably results in unexpected behavior that is likely to end up with a collision. Hiles does not address, much less explain, why all cyclists would not be better off if they learned the VC techniques espoused by Forester (and Yours Truly on this forum).

Hiles also does a great disservice to all cyclists by claiming or at least implying that vehicular cycling can only be accomplished by fit/fast cyclists. Forester addresses this is in his rebuttal, but I'm here to tell you that I have no issues riding vehicularly while towing over 50lbs of trailer, child and stuff - and that includes taking the lane, merging across multiple lanes of busy/fast commute traffic to get into a left turn lane, etc. Hiles' misrepresentation of VC is a disservice to all cyclists because cyclists who read his essay might end up discounting vehicular cycling because of it. They may decide not to buy the book, or not to take the LAB Road 1 course, thinking that vehicular cycling is just not for them, perhaps because they feel they are not fast cyclists. To the extent this paper has that effect, I think it's sad.

Serge

JavaMan

The more I read, the more I like this article!

I also like to form my own opinions about what I read.

Tom

Helmet-Head

Likewise. I hope you share the opinion that you form about what you read in both Hiles' essay and in my post about it!

Dchiefransom

The article seems to be a look at how we perceive bike lanes and "separate from the road" bike paths. If you put his look at accident statistics with this, he's completely leaving out doing anything to the motorists that fail to see a cyclist before they collide with them from behind. The gist of his article did seem to be one of looking at cycling as a slower means of transportation, and by that I mean slower than many cyclists ride.
This is why Forester is against many of the things proposed for bicycles, that would separate us from the road. It is indeed seen as a "slippery slope", where someone wanting to get some really fast cycling in would have to go to an inddor facilityand do it on a stationary bike, for money.

Merriwether

Thanks for the link. I always enjoy an extended discussion of bicycle policy.

I have to say, though, that I'm always rubbed the wrong way by authors who begin with the device of claiming that both sides (assuming there are two) in some debate are so strident they're ignoring the merits of the other side. For one thing, it's an arrogant stance-- only the author is calm enough to have an informed and reasonable opinion. For another, it's invariably the prelude to some disappointing material. You can expect that the author is going to go on to do one of a few things: (1) end up advocating one of the two positions after all, (2) make comments that are only peripheral to the debate at hand, (3) explicitly take no position on the debate.

Hiles is no exception, I'm afraid. Despite the third-way rhetoric, Hiles is just another advocate of dedicated bike facilities. In fact, he employs the same argument that has been made many times before by other advocates: these facilities attract cyclists who are (now) afraid of traffic.

Admittedly, Hiles adds a wrinkle or two. Rather than concede that the desire for bike lanes and paths is driven by an irrational fear of traffic, as is usually done, he says that this fear is *not* irrational. It's just a different level of risk tolerace, comparable to the level that results in a preference not to skydive. He also isn't wedded to bike lanes as they're now painted, or to bike paths. He's willing to experiment with arrows (the "hybrid" lane marker) to mark bike lanes instead of lane lines. He's open to other, unspecified suggestions, too.

What does one say to this? It's not as if these matters haven't been discussed before. I suppose one just repeats the salient points.

If one is going to cycle on the roadways, with or without some dedicated bike lane, riding with motor traffic is not an *option*. It's necessary. Whether or not there is a stripe, or an arrow with a bike in it, or anything else painted on the road, a cyclist is going to have to negotiate intersections, turns, lanes too narrow to facilitate passing, parked cars, and so on. A bike lane is no *substitute* for these things. Hiles concedes this much. But he glosses over the obvious implication. A bike lane cannot actually do anything to help someone who isn't comfortable riding in a given level of motor traffic. That person should ride somewhere else, or learn how to ride where he's now afraid to go, whatever we paint on the street. The only question, then, is whether it's worth painting these stripes, arrows, dashed lines, or whatever, anyway.

Hiles points to some benefits other than safety benefits (which, it should be said, he doesn't say bike lanes have). There is a sense that one "belongs" on roads with special markings, or that one is avoiding a "cool" reception from motorists that would occur without the special paint, for example. You can decide for yourselves whether things like this are worth the cost of painting bike lanes, or dealing with the possibile, and much discussed, harms of bike lanes.

Whatever you think about the question, though, the overall point is that there's not much new here. The article's overselling another argument for bike lanes.

DieselDan

Wow, a REAL cycling advocacy thread!

alanbikehouston

Hiles poked a hole in one of Forester's favorite arguments that riding a bike is safe on ANY road at ANY time. Forester used data showing being struck from the rear by a vehicle causes a very small percentage of ALL bike accidents. Hiles points out that being struck from behind by a vehicle is RARE, yet accounts for a high percentage of fatal accidents. And, when is being struck from the rear most likely to be fatal? Not surprisingly, when the vehicle was moving more than 40 mph, a fatality is likely to result.

My city has three "types" of roads in the inner city. First, restricted roads, with speed bumps. Average vehicle speed about 20 mph, and few "non-resident" vehicles. Great for riding in the street safely.

Second, non-restricted residential streets, with an average speed of about 30 mph, and a moderate number of non-resident motorists. Reasonably safe for daytime cyclists.

But, the third type of road is how Houston connects one subdivision with the next, and one neighborhood with the next. Four/Six/Eight lane roads with thousands of vehicles moving at speeds of 40 mph to 50 mph. It is impossible to ride a bike safely in Houston on such roads. So dangerous that I have never seen anyone foolish enough to try.

Yet, those "high risk" roads are often the ONLY way to get from one location to another. People trying to use a bike to commute to work, or to school, or to go to the store MUST ride on a road with traffic moving at speeds up to 50 mph or stay home.

Houston has a "parkway" along Braes Bayou that carries thousands of vehicles per hour during busy times of the day. Bike commuters can safely ride on a bike trail built along the bayou, protected from vehicles by a wide grassy median. Unfortunately, less than one or two percent of Houston's commuters live and work along Braes Bayou.

The Braes solution could work in every neighborhood. Build a network of such trails in a "checkerboard" pattern one mile apart. Every commuter would then be within 1/2 mile of a bike trail. Every place of employment would be within 1/2 mile of a bike trail. Easy to do, if a community only had the will to do the job.

PainTrain

I'm curious as to whether this statement is conceptual, or if you actually tow a child in a trailer across multiple lanes of fast-moving traffic.

sbhikes

I can't wait to see how some of you ride when you are 90 years old. I really don't think it'll be the same way as now, baby trailer or not!

I think the best way to advocate for is the way that'll get the most people cycling. I suspect that would lead to more bike lanes, not less.

LittleBigMan

The most dangerous thing in the world for cyclists of any age is to create "bicycle facilities" that put them in harm's way. A bike lane painted outside a parking zone is not only wasted paint, it might be spilled blood. I've also seen bike lanes about as wide as two feet. What the hell is that about?

Give me a break. Let these designers go back to playing with Tonka toys.

Pat

[QUOTE=alanbikehouston]Hiles poked a hole in one of Forester's favorite arguments that riding a bike is safe on ANY road at ANY time. Forester used data showing being struck from the rear by a vehicle causes a very small percentage of ALL bike accidents. Hiles points out that being struck from behind by a vehicle is RARE, yet accounts for a high percentage of fatal accidents. And, when is being struck from the rear most likely to be fatal? Not surprisingly, when the vehicle was moving more than 40 mph, a fatality is likely to result.

My city has three "types" of roads in the inner city. First, restricted roads, with speed bumps. Average vehicle speed about 20 mph, and few "non-resident" vehicles. Great for riding in the street safely.

Second, non-restricted residential streets, with an average speed of about 30 mph, and a moderate number of non-resident motorists. Reasonably safe for daytime cyclists.

But, the third type of road is how Houston connects one subdivision with the next, and one neighborhood with the next. Four/Six/Eight lane roads with thousands of vehicles moving at speeds of 40 mph to 50 mph. It is impossible to ride a bike safely in Houston on such roads. So dangerous that I have never seen anyone foolish enough to try."

Well, Hiles data is not conclusive. Why is that? Cyclists riding at night, presumably without lights, account for just under 50% of the cycling fatalities. I would think that the percentages of night time bicycle fatalities are overwelming rear end collisions. The situation is far different during the day when the chances of being struck from the rear are far far lower.

Also, I think it depends on the roads one is on whether riding on 4 lane 40-50 mph roads is dangerous or not. Here in Orlando, the 4 lane divided roads at the 40-50 mph level are not that bad. They are not fun to ride but one can do it without being suicidal.

richmyer

It sounds like there are only two possibilities: to have poorly designed and dangerous bike lanes, or to have all bikes riding as "vehicles" in the traffic. Have there never been safe and well designed bike lanes? (I have never seen any, but I live and ride in a city that builds cars for a living.) I like bike paths but I don't see much benefit in bike lanes. On the other hand, I am not afraid to ride in fairly heavy traffic. Well, maybe I am afraid sometimes, but I don't hesitate to do it. But I know a sixty-something year old woman who just bought a nice bike, and she is (rationally) afraid to ride in the street to get to the bike path a couple blocks from her house. There should be a solution that makes it easier for people like her to ride a bike in the city. I'm not sure why I am posting this, for I surely have no answers. But I sure enjoy the discussion, and maybe my questions are worth asking. Maybe some of you have some of the answers! I believe that the issue of urban cycling is a litmeus test for our society. Do we have the imagination and the courage to make the city livable? Are the ideals of good health and a good environment important enough to warrant spending a lot of social resources? And on a micro level, is there anything I can do to make it easier for this lady to enjoy her new bike? By the way, these are real questions, not rhetorical ones!

Helmet-Head

The statement was actual. However, I move across multiple lanes of fast-moving traffic (with or without towing a child in a trailer) vehicularly, meaning:

1) I start out several hunded yards before the intersection where I want to turn left riding near the right side since I'm moving significantly slower than the other vehicles on the road.

2) I don't just move out into traffic. I look back first, sometimes also signalling with my left arm (though this is rarely needed). I wait until someone yields to me (they slow down to let me in).

3) Once the lane is yielded to me, I move into it, riding near the left side (positioned at about the left tire track).

4) repeat 2-3 above until I'm in the left-most lane, then merge into the left turn lane.

That's how I move across multiple lanes of fast-moving traffic on my bike, even when I'm towing my child in the trailer.

Note that I never move in front of anyone before I know they see me and they have chosen to yield to me and let me in. I don't take the right-of-way until it is granted to me.

Serge

PainTrain

Thanks for responding. I've thought about this a lot the past couple of weeks. At first, it seemed like a huge risk to take with a child in tow.

Then, I realized in some way I put my own child's welfare at risk if I get myself taken out while doing something stupid. Not having her daddy around and such. I also drove through the scene of a fatal collision during the holidays on a busy freeway... the car was no protection for that person.

It finally occurred to me that risk on the roads is all about how you approach it, as a cyclist or cager. Stay focused and aware all the time.

Clearly you know what you're doing and have the confidence to carry it off.

alanbikehouston

In my town, a four lane road will have some vehicles moving at 40 mph to 50 mph. If the police here saw a guy on a bike towing a trailer with a child down that sort of road, they would likely arrest him, and turn his kid over to Children's Protective Services.

Are you riding in some sort of "Friendly Village" where 100% of drivers will slow down to 15 mph when they see a bike towing a trailer?

FOG

I think the article was really well written, but I think there is something missing. Obviously the author shows that there is a problem with adults riding bicycles on two-lane roads at night, but there is no exposure data showing what lighting systems were deployed, nor what role driver fatigue played, even though it is well accepted, if poorly measured, that tired drivers are responsible for a lot of accidents. How safe would cyclists be with the existing driver population and fatigue level if the cyclists were well lit? How safe would cyclists be if we adopted driver fatigue countermeasures? At least one safety expert I have heard has said that fatigue is the next big area or progress in traffic safety, and we are currently at the stage in understanding and dealing with fatigue that we were with drunk driving in the 1950's.

CRUM

After a lifetime of cycling in and around urban areas, and after numerous mini collisions with other vehicles, I have decided that the only safe road is one without traffic. I came to the conclusion that if I wanted to ride anywhere, it was up to me to be safe. I always ride on the assumption that everyone out there is capable of doing something stupid. So I ride aggressively, defensively and make a point of being seen by other road users. I refrain from cowboy tricks like running lights, passing stopped traffic on the left or the right, and riding on the wrong side. But on occaision, I know breaking a rule is safer than not.

The design headaches of making the streets safe for cyclists seems to me to be an exercise in futility. Safer roads will only happen once both riding and driving populations agree to get along. Riding a bike with a sense of safety varies widely depending on the location. In order to make your streets safer, IMO, riding sanely but without fear is a step in the right direction.

sggoodri

I pull my son behind me in his Burley trailer on some 4-lane roads that are posted 45 mph max. The travel lanes are 11 to 12 feet wide. I've been passed by plenty of police cars when doing so; nobody has ever bothered me.

I use these roads to reach his day care, and to ride into downtown for ice cream. Use of such roads for at least a short part of a trip is unavoidable in some places.

I cycle for enjoyment, and I don't enjoy fast heavy traffic when towing him in the trailer, so I do seek to avoid these situations when possible, but not at the expense of skipping an interesting or useful trip. I prefer roads that have wider (e.g. 16' lanes) to the roads with narrow lanes because the extra width makes it easier for drivers to pass safely. I don't like the roads with striped bike lanes because the bike lanes fill up with glass, sand, gravel, sticks, etc. I recently contacted the city to ask about the piles of leaves that homeowners had stacked in the bike lanes during leaf collection season, and the city told me that stacking leaves in the bike lanes was allowed. All of this debris forces me to stay out of the bike lane, which creates more resentment from motorists than I get when I ride outside of the debris area on roads lacking the striping and stencils.

-Steve Goodridge
https://humantransport.org/bicycledriving/

Helmet-Head

Do they also arrest moving van and cement truck drivers for (horrors!) causing 50 mph motorists to slow down?

I never force anyone to slow down. I do ask them to slow down to let me in. How? Usually, just looking back is enough, but signaling with my left arm doesn't hurt. Inevitably, someone chooses to slow down to let me in. That's their choice, not mine. I never even start moving in front of anyone who has not explicitly given me permission to do so. At that point they are affecting the traffic behind them as much as a cement truck driver does. In the mean time, I move into the lane in front of them where they have granted me the right-of-way. Further, the motorist who let me is is "running interference" for me at this point. Once I have established my safe position in the lane in front of them, I start working on moving into the next one, again first by asking permission to move into it.

Exactly what law is this violating? How is it endangering my child?

How do you know police would arrest me for doing this in your town? Could you be basing your opinion on a misunderstanding of what constitutes safe and legal traffic cycling? Have you read Effective Cycling or taken a Road 1 cycling safety course? I doubt it...

I'll bet all the vehicular cyclists in your town do exactly as I describe and never get arrested for it.

Cheers!

Serge

Helmet-Head

Even if we magically eliminated ALL car-bike collisions caused by drunk or fatigued motorists, which is of course impossible, we would only reduce the total number of cyclist injuries and deaths by a tiny fraction. The vast majority of cyclist injuries and deaths could have been prevented, even if they were not directly caused by the cyclist, by the cyclist riding defensively according to vehicular cycling principles. So the only realistic outcome here is to reduce the number of car-bike collisions caused by drunk or fatigued motorists by some percentage, which amounts to reducing a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of cyclist injuries and deaths. Given that cyclists have very limited time and finite resources to spend on reducing cyclist injuries and deaths, how much should we spend on reducing a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction as opposed to spending our time and resources on reducing a significant portion of the vast majority of cyclist injuries and deaths (those that could be prevented by cyclist education)?

By focusing on the tiny fraction of cyclist injuries and deaths caused by drunk or fatigued motorists that could not have been prevented by the cyclist, we are basically banging our heads against a wall.

First of all, we have little control or power, very little effectivity, over others.

Second, what little effectivity cyclists might have over others in this area is already eclipsed by others. This is especially when you consider the relatively insignificant resources and political power cyclists have as compared to the vast resources and political muscle (like MADD) already focused on this area.

Third, and most importantly, focusing our scarce resources on hopeless attempts to change the behavior of others diverts us from focusing on the area where we have several orders of magnitude more power and control - our own behavior as cyclists - which is also where the greatest gains can be made since the vast majority of cyclist injuries and deaths are caused, or at least could have been prevented, by the cyclist.

See the thread (particularly my opening post) on Advocating Cycling Safety for more on this.

Serge