Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Jan Heine copenhagenista smack down II (with citations, statistics, and diagrams) (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/891120-jan-heine-copenhagenista-smack-down-ii-citations-statistics-diagrams.html)

spare_wheel 05-22-13 09:04 AM

Jan Heine copenhagenista smack down II (with citations, statistics, and diagrams)
 
http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/0...ths-a-summary/

Quote:

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.
Even Dutch data shows that injury trips to hospitals are more common on physically separated paths.


Quote:

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.
The safest is on the street == DZfree bike lane.

Quote:

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.
Bingo. Slow downs and needless meandering are a feature not a bug to the copenhagenistas.

Quote:

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.
Cycling mode share in Munich:

1996: 6%
2011: 17.4%



Quote:

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.
I wonder if Mikael Colville-Andersen considers Munich to be world class.

lostarchitect 05-22-13 10:12 AM

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6...arwfo1_400.gif

GP 05-22-13 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spare_wheel (Post 15653593)
I wonder if Mikael Colville-Andersen considers Munich to be world class.

#11. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-w...es-2013-4?op=1

I-Like-To-Bike 05-22-13 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostarchitect (Post 15653898)

Purrfect, Meow!

spare_wheel 05-22-13 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GP (Post 15653927)

Quote:

Reclaiming space from cars and badly redistributing it to bicycle users in the form of modern cycle tracks is the next big move for the city. The creation of a world-beating bicycle infrastructure network. Nothing less.

Nothing less?
Eh?

I guess despite Munich's demonstration that non-world class bike lanes can lead to 20% mode share, it still has a way to go before it can replicate the glorious declines in cycling seen in a world-class cycling city:

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...-in-world.html
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com...openhagen.html

kalliergo 05-22-13 12:29 PM

Only people who have already totally screwed up their city streets, by creating automobile-priority infrastructure and rules, think they have to solve the "problem" of cycling by creating scenes like this.

That includes most of the overdeveloped Western world, of course. But it's not the only choice.

Some people live like this, for instance.

And others like this.

If we're lucky, more people will live in ways like those in the near-ish future. Or maybe rich people will hire poor people to push their cars when the gas runs out. "Americans love their cars."

buzzman 05-22-13 12:32 PM

I actually think Jan Heine is making some good responsible observations, which are open for discussion and interpretation and not yet, IMO, quite enough information to form hard and fast conclusions. And he doesn't just critique but offers some solutions and does so without an overt bias or in an overly contentious way.

In fact, he starts the article with this phrase:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan Heine
I was surprised by the number of comments (more than 260), but even more about how much agreement there is between the proponents and opponents of separating cars and bikes.

Which is why it is so unfortunate when the dialogue gets inflamed by terms like "Copenhagenistas"- a term Mr. Heine never uses. Or "smack down".

What is that need to immediately polarize the discussion?

Don't we all "win" when we have the best possible infrastructure?

I-Like-To-Bike 05-22-13 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15654492)
Which is why it is so unfortunate when the dialogue gets inflamed by terms like "Copenhagenistas"- a term Mr. Heine never uses. Or "smack down".

What is that need to immediately polarize the discussion?

Hysterical rhetoric is good bait.

noglider 05-22-13 12:50 PM

buzzman, are you sure you're from New York? ;) Some people aren't comfortable unless a discussion is contentious.

buzzman 05-22-13 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15654509)
Hysterical rhetoric is good bait.


You're right. If your intention is getting attention on the internet it's effective. If you actually want to accomplish something maybe not so much.


For me it's refreshing to see that the dialogue has now moved not from "infrastructure" vs "no infrastructure" but to what kinds of infrastructure best serve in specific locations and situations.

Bekologist 05-22-13 01:11 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Despite spare wheels ardent and unremitting misframing of the state of bicycling advocacy,

even his so called phantom group of "copenhagenistas" call for a variety of infrastructure that supports cycling,including shared lane use and bike lanes adjacent to the main travel lanes, in addition to cycle tracks and paths.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=318480



This is such a contrived argument, with no merit. Jan Heine supports cycle tracks in well considered placements in Seattle as superior to bikelanes adjacent to the main roadway - he states full separation would be his "First choice always" if it is well considered for cycling.

John Forester 05-22-13 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15654492)
I actually think Jan Heine is making some good responsible observations, which are open for discussion and interpretation and not yet, IMO, quite enough information to form hard and fast conclusions. And he doesn't just critique but offers some solutions and does so without an overt bias or in an overly contentious way.

In fact, he starts the article with this phrase:



Which is why it is so unfortunate when the dialogue gets inflamed by terms like "Copenhagenistas"- a term Mr. Heine never uses. Or "smack down".

What is that need to immediately polarize the discussion?

Don't we all "win" when we have the best possible infrastructure?

So the discussion turns on what is meant by "best possible infrastructure". Frankly, I find the Dutch requirement that I swerve left in front of a right turning car particularly reprehensible. That's just another unpleasantly dangerous result of the false policy of keeping cyclists out of traffic. It's like telling lies; the first lie requires further lies to bolster it, and so on. Start destroying the way that traffic flows normally, and you get led into further and further dangerous complications.

Bekologist 05-22-13 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15654692)
So the discussion turns on what is meant by "best possible infrastructure". Frankly, I find the Dutch requirement that I swerve left in front of a right turning car particularly reprehensible. That's just another unpleasantly dangerous result of the false policy of keeping cyclists out of traffic. It's like telling lies; the first lie requires further lies to bolster it, and so on.

:roflmao:

THAT'S rich, John. Abrupt, unsignallized swerving in front of traffic to make left turns is part of your published (sic) "effective" cycling techinque! Your methods of changing lanes call for swerving between the lane lines, never getting in front of faster traffic. Appalling cycling method you saw fit to print in your book.

It's pretty lowbrow, and terribly inaccurate, to foist that horrendous cycling technique on the quite responsible, aware and trained Dutch cyclists.

spare_wheel 05-22-13 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15654492)
Which is why it is so unfortunate when the dialogue gets inflamed by terms like "Copenhagenistas"- a term Mr. Heine never uses. Or "smack down".

I still believe that copenhagenista is a reasonable term to describe those who promote copenhagen-style infrastructure. I would be happy to be called a Munichista. I have absolutely no idea why you find if offensive.

Quote:

smack down
A common internet colloquialism to describe internet debate is hardly polarizing.

Quote:

Don't we all "win" when we have the best possible infrastructure?
There are deep disagreements about what is "best".

spare_wheel 05-22-13 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekologist (Post 15654644)
Despite spare wheels ardent and unremitting misframing of the state of bicycling advocacy,

even his so called phantom group of "copenhagenistas" call for a variety of infrastructure that supports cycling,including shared lane use and bike lanes adjacent to the main travel lanes, in addition to cycle tracks and paths.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=318480


So according to danish best practice all roads with a speed limit below 50-60 kmh should have bike lanes or no infrastructure. Can you name a single cycle track in Portland or Seattle that is built on a road with a speed limit in excess of 50 kmh? What an amusing diagram.


Quote:

This is such a contrived argument, with no merit.
Its fascinating to see you be so dismissive without even making a single attempt to address arguments put forth by Jan Heine in the above blog post.

bikemig 05-22-13 02:44 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Signing on to this thread to watch the fur fly:

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=318516

spare_wheel 05-22-13 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15654509)
Hysterical rhetoric is good bait.

Attacking the person instead of the argument. I've noticed you do this a lot.

noglider 05-22-13 03:18 PM

OY!

I'm a cycling activist. I believe that if more people rode bikes, there would be more happiness in the world.

This contentious style of debate doesn't appear to be aiming for happiness for anyone.

I know the pluses and minuses of bike lanes and similar things. I encourage people to get on their bikes. It's easier to do it one at a time than convincing government to do anything. And I have done the latter, successfully.

buzzman 05-22-13 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Forester (Post 15654692)
So the discussion turns on what is meant by "best possible infrastructure". Frankly, I find the Dutch requirement that I swerve left in front of a right turning car particularly reprehensible. That's just another unpleasantly dangerous result of the false policy of keeping cyclists out of traffic. It's like telling lies; the first lie requires further lies to bolster it, and so on. Start destroying the way that traffic flows normally, and you get led into further and further dangerous complications.

Is it just me or is this use of language tending towards a kind of hysteria?

noglider 05-22-13 03:31 PM

buzzman, John Forester is the author of a lot of cycling literature. I'm honored to have him here, but yes, his language is pretty absolutist. I have learned a lot from my copy of Effective Cycling, but I make my own decisions, not based on ideas of right and wrong but on what appears to work well and not work well.

spare_wheel 05-22-13 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15655268)
Is it just me or is this use of language tending towards a kind of hysteria?

and instead of addressing Jan Heine's blog post you speculate about another commenter in an insulting way.

kalliergo 05-22-13 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15655268)
Is it just me or is this use of language tending towards a kind of hysteria?

No. John is not even remotely hysterical. He is stubborn, unyielding, pissy, and annoying. He is one of the great contributors to modern cycling and a pain in the butt.

He's John being John. It's really pointless to over-dramatize the situation. Picking personal fights with Forester, or pursuing them, or encouraging them, is truly counterproductive.

gcottay 05-22-13 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostarchitect (Post 15653898)

Thank you. After several years I now finally understand this dispute.

I-Like-To-Bike 05-22-13 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzman (Post 15655268)
Is it just me or is this use of language tending towards a kind of hysteria?

It isn't just you. Though pointing it out sometimes gets the offending party to flap his angel wings in protest.

spare_wheel 05-22-13 04:06 PM

Quote:

It isn't just you. Though pointing it out sometimes gets the offending party to flap his angel wings in protest.
ILTB has 3 comments on this thread and not one of them addresses Jan Heine's blog post.

PS: I am going to drink every time someone posts the word hysteria.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 PM.