Jan Heine copenhagenista smack down II (with citations, statistics, and diagrams)
Even Dutch data shows that injury trips to hospitals are more common on physically separated paths.
Separate paths are less safe: Numerous people posted links to safety studies. There appears to be general agreement that separated cycle paths are less safe at intersections. Data from Berlin and Denmark show a marked increase of cyclist (and pedestrian) injuries at intersections after cycle paths were put in. (The results were adjusted for the increase in ridership.) The graphic above shows the relative risks for cyclists depending on where they are traveling.
The safest is on the street == DZfree bike lane.
The graphic above shows the relative risks for cyclists depending on where they are traveling. The most dangerous path is on the wrong side of the street. The safest is on the street.
Bingo. Slow downs and needless meandering are a feature not a bug to the copenhagenistas.
Where a car driver can go straight, the cyclist has to make a right, a left, another left and finally a right turn to negotiate the intersection. And if the cyclist wants to turn left, she has to wait an extra light cycle, since she has to cross two traffic lights instead of one. For short bike trips, which predominate in the Netherlands, this is not a problem, but efficiency is key to making cycling a suitable alternative for the longer commutes that prevail in the U. S.
Cycling mode share in Munich:
Munich, the largest city in southern Germany, is installing on-street bike lanes and signs that legitimize cycling on the street (above), even where there are separate paths. This approach has been successful: Cycling has increased by 70% in the last nine years.
I wonder if Mikael Colville-Andersen considers Munich to be world class.
I will examine whether Munich’s model may provide a better way forward for North American cities. It’s time to look at the data to see what works and what is safe.