Google sponsored links
Helmet, just wanted to clarify that my street sweeper thread was all in fun. I have zero problem with debris, roads here are clean enough, etc. I just had this vision of these guys dressed in orange on yellow tricycles riding all over town sweeping the lanes, taking note of surface issues and in the process giving visibility to drivers of use of BLs and also giving city visibility of issues of BL positioning when these sweepers ran into all kinds of 'intersection' issues that will eventually get reported by them. All in fun remember.
Al
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
Actually they "solve" one problem. Voters are more likely to vote for heavy and light rail funding if some small symbolic money is thrown towards environmentalist, assumed to be cyclist.
They also give politicians something visible to point to. If the politicians redesign a few intersections, retime lights, or adjust the traffic light sensors, the politicians don't have anything visible to point to.
Helmet, just wanted to clarify that my street sweeper thread was all in fun. I have zero problem with debris, roads here are clean enough, etc. I just had this vision of these guys dressed in orange on yellow tricycles riding all over town sweeping the lanes, taking note of surface issues and in the process giving visibility to drivers of use of BLs and also giving city visibility of issues of BL positioning when these sweepers ran into all kinds of 'intersection' issues that will eventually get reported by them. All in fun remember.
Al
I donno Al, it still sounds like a great idea to me... there's a lot of folks downtown sleeping in doorways that could use a pretty minimal job like that. And heck, with those orange jumpsuits, at least they would be wearing something clean.
Well if the sweeper idea doesn't work, how about just putting the local uh, "unemployed" to work just picking up trash... seems like a reasonable idea... minimum wage, less meals... temporarily only.
They also give politicians something visible to point to. If the politicians redesign a few intersections, retime lights, or adjust the traffic light sensors, the politicians don't have anything visible to point to.
But the problem is that there is a cultural acceptance of the "goodness" of bike lanes, hence politicians like to point at them. But if we get them stigmatized, like race segregated facilities are, then they'll stop wanting to point at them.
Imagine if every time a bike lane appeared, the politicians behind it got a few letters from constituents who declared they are rescinding their support because of the politician's cyclo-segregationist policies.
One or two might get ignored, but if a councilman gets 6 letters from individuals on the same issue, that probably gets some notice...
You know, Serge, you use bike lanes and the term "cyclo-segregation" as synonyms, but are they really? Can you have a bike lane that does not segregate in the way we know from Jim Crow laws? I hold that we can.
What makes a segregationist system is the laws standing behind it. Nobody argues that bus and truck lanes are segregationist in the Jim Crow manner, because they are there for the use of trucks or buses, but the law does not require their use. If a bike lane is on a road, but their use is not required, is that "cyclo-segregation"? Perhaps the special use lanes, of which a bike lane is but one example, is simply a tool the traffic engineer has in his back pocket to solve traffic problems.
Problems, you ask? The traffic problems bikes pose are as simple as a 45 mph car coming up behind a 15 mph cyclist. Say on a two lane road (in one direction) with narrow outside lanes, a car encounters a cyclist. Once that happens, the two lane road effectively becomes a one lane road. Actually less than that, because the cyclist creates a choke point in traffic. The road is able to handle less car traffic than it was designed for. The solution is to move the cyclist out of the way of cars for normal, between intersection travel. Hence a WOL or a BL. Whether a WOL or a BL is simply the matter of a bit of paint, and I can concede that a WOL may be the better of the two from a practical standpoint, though I hold that it causes legal ambiguity.
This is very different from race segregated facilities, because cyclists are not required to use the facility and keep off the "car" lanes. Jim Crow punished Blacks if they were to use the "White" facilities. This does not have to be the case. In a state like Oregon, there is no punishment for cyclists if they use the "car" lanes. Hence, no "cyclo-segregation".
You keep saying that bike lanes are simply painted lines that have no effect on how drivers behave when I argue that BL's form a shelter of sorts. Then you turn around and say they really do have an effect when I make the argument that it gives cyclists guidence for traveling a straight line through an intersection. Which is it? It is either a mere strip of paint with no effect on behavior, or it is a behavior modifying "cyclo-segregationist facility" which must be fought.
Lastly, any councilman will not listen to 6 letters from a group of cyclists with an agenda. They will listen to the 6000 mothers of children and the 60,000 drivers of cars which are much in favor of bike lanes and seem like a perfectly good idea to them. Your arguments ring for some cyclists who know what it is like to ride a human powered machine in traffic, but those same arguments do not ring for moterists who are used to a lane for every vehicle and who are not put off by special use lanes.
Just like having a "Whites only" sign over a water fountain is cultural racist segregation, regardless of whether there is a law enforcing it, a "bikes only" or "bike lane" sign is a cultural cyclo-segregation, regardless of whether there is a law enforcing it.
The more interesting question is: Is segregation inherently wrong? I think it is not. For example, affirmative action is arguably segregation that is not wrong. Truck lanes are segregation that is not necessarily wrong.
There are some, very few bike lanes, that are segregation, like all bike lanes, but are not necessarily wrong. For example, bike lanes on freeways, where slow moving vehicles are prohibited (for good reason), is segregation that is not wrong.
But bike lane segregation of cyclists - whether enforced by law or not - on "normal traffic" roads with intersections, where legitimate paths for other vehicles crosses the path of the bike lane cyclist, and where the cyclist has all kinds of legitimate reasons to ride outside of the bike lane, is, to me, segregation that is wrong, at least with respect to the interests of cyclists.
But I do agree that the laws that essentially require a cyclist to justify being outside of a bike lane compound the segregationist problem of bike lanes.
The solution is to move the cyclist out of the way of cars for normal, between intersection travel. Hence a WOL or a BL. Whether a WOL or a BL is simply the matter of a bit of paint, and I can concede that a WOL may be the better of the two from a practical standpoint, though I hold that it causes legal ambiguity.
An informal chat with a rep from the city's (Ottawa) transportation dept. revealed why they prefer bike lanes to WOL on some roads. They feel that wide lanes encourage unpredictable driving on high-traffic roads: for example drivers trying to squeeze past another car in the same lane, not doing a full lane change to pass another car, speeding, etc. According to him, drivers are much better behaved if a bike lane is added instead of a WOL. That fits with me experiences as a cyclist here.
An informal chat with a rep from the city's (Ottawa) transportation dept. revealed why they prefer bike lanes to WOL on some roads. They feel that wide lanes encourage unpredictable driving on high-traffic roads: for example drivers trying to squeeze past another car in the same lane, not doing a full lane change to pass another car, speeding, etc. According to him, drivers are much better behaved if a bike lane is added instead of a WOL. That fits with me experiences as a cyclist here.
That's a good point. I also find I can better hold my line on my bike relative to the road if I have a reference, making my riding more predictable. I suspect drivers are the same way.
That's a good point. I also find I can better hold my line on my bike relative to the road if I have a reference, making my riding more predictable. I suspect drivers are the same way.
Every city has its own driving style, and Ottawa's style includes being just about anywhere in the lane, as long as the tires are more-or-less between the lines. That's why I'm not fond of WOL here. You look down an Ottawa road and you don't usually see a line of cars, more like a random distribution of cars that vaguely line up with the lane markers.
That's a good point. I also find I can better hold my line on my bike relative to the road if I have a reference, making my riding more predictable. I suspect drivers are the same way.
Especially with ad campaigns touting "stay between the lines... the lines are our friends..."
You keep saying that bike lanes are simply painted lines that have no effect on how drivers behave when I argue that BL's form a shelter of sorts.
You keep refuting strawman arguments. Good job. When have I ever said that bike lanes have no effect on how drivers behave? (hint: never)
You look down an Ottawa road and you don't usually see a line of cars, more like a random distribution of cars that vaguely line up with the lane markers.
Indeed, all that random distribution of cars is what keeps all of the pavement swept clean in a WOL for cyclists.
All the concern about "ill behaved" cyclists and "random distribution" voiced by you guys and the city engineer is based on assuming motorist behavior on roadways is not affected by the presence of cyclists. It's absurd. It's like arguing you can't put a traffic calming island in the middle of an intersection because you've observed cars driving there, as if they'll keep driving there despite the presence of the island preventing them from doing so.
Say we're talking about a 16 foot wide lane, in two possible states:
a) A WOL; no bike lane
b) A 5' BL + a 10.5' traffic lane + .5' wide stripe.
Now observe the street for a week in state A, then paint the stripe, and observe for another week in state B.
Despite Brian's strawman claims to the contrary, of course I would expect more random car distribution across the 16' in the first week than the second week. I also expect better debris sweeping in the 5' along the right side the first week... But I wouldn't decide which is better for cyclists in the absence of cyclists. You have to observe motorists interacting with cyclists in both states to make that decision, and for that you need observe while cyclists are traveling on the street in question.
I think it's fair to say that motorist behavior will not vary when a cyclist is on the road if the motorist is unaware of the cyclist. So, if you assume the motorists are unaware of the cyclist, it's reasonable to predict the presence of cyclists will not affect their behavior. This is the assumption underlying the traffic engineer's explanation for their preference of BLs over WOLs. And this is the assumption that I consider to be bunk.
It may not seem like bunk to someone who is accustomed to riding in bike lanes or at the side of the road and so not being aware of how much cyclist presence affects motorist behavior, but it does. Sure, on a road with a bike lane, motorists are not affected by the presence of cyclists who are in the bike lane. In fact, this is a common complaint made by cyclists - as they're riding along the left edge of the BL, to avoid the debris collecting in there as much as possible - motorists driving near the BL stripe do not move away from the cyclist as they pass, passing uncomfortably close. Other cyclists don't mind this close passing, as long as the stripe is there, thinking that the stripe is keeping the motorist from hitting them, apparently ignoring the possibility that the cyclist may have to suddenly adjust laterally to avoid an obstacle, right before he is passed, thus appearing to swerve in front of the car.
I digress. The point is that if you observe traffic behavior in a WOL - in the absence of cyclists - you will see the random distribution (perhaps with a tendency to the left, depending on you the local driving customs) of cars across the lane. But when a cyclist is present riding along the right side of the WOL, you will see car traffic adjust laterally - those that need to adjust - to pass him on his left. It's not like they continue driving up the right side and into the cyclist! That, again, is like assuming if you put an island in the steet motorists will drive over it.
So the fact that bike lane stripes affect motorist behavior is not necessarily a good thing for cyclists. First, it prevents them from sweeping debris from the part of the pavement where slow/narrow vehicles typically travel. Second, it facilitates motorists being unaware of the cyclists that they are passing, which in turn makes the cyclists more vulnerable to the inadvertent drift problem.
But the problem is that there is a cultural acceptance of the "goodness" of bike lanes, hence politicians like to point at them. But if we get them stigmatized, like race segregated facilities are, then they'll stop wanting to point at them.If anything or anyone would be stigmatized by the type of letter-writing campaign you propose, I think it's likely to be the letter-writers, especially if they play the racial segregation analogy card. Anyone who thinks there's any valid comparison between bike lanes and racial segregation should be stigmatized. The comparison of bike lanes to racial segregation should set off any properly functioning crackpot alarms.
But, Serge, if you want to insure that bicycling advocates are stereotyped as crackpots, then a letter-writing compaign that involves such an anology is a great idea.
Just like having a "Whites only" sign over a water fountain is cultural racist segregation, regardless of whether there is a law enforcing it, a "bikes only" or "bike lane" sign is a cultural cyclo-segregation, regardless of whether there is a law enforcing it...Rubbish.
Using the "Whites only' sign image again, are we? You know it's offensive. Oh, wait, that's precisely why you use it.
It's not so much bike lanes I favor as the tactics and absurd theories of some bike lane opponents that I oppose.
Garbage.
Serge made a valid point and used a very valid comparison. The idea that bikes should stay inside the bike lanes is much more about perception, by drivers and cyclists, than it is about laws. In both cases it is about perception. A whites only drinking fountian is a major problem if backed by attitudes even if not backed by law. It is much less of a problem if backed by law but not by attitudes.
Actually his example really gives a good lead in to the different views of bike lanes. In the bad old days in the South there were white and colored drinking fountians and bathrooms. Funny thing is I never heard of a white person getting in trouble for using black facilities. (Though there are some who would have rather cr@pped their pants than use the coloreds restroom). It seems to me many on this board really have the same kind of views about bike lanes. But here there is a difference.
Serge sees the bike lane as the colored area, many others see it as the whites area (e.g. the place where only bikes can go). And yes there are even some who will not leave the bike lane no matter how bad it is.
Garbage.
Serge made a valid point and used a very valid comparison. The idea that bikes should stay inside the bike lanes is much more about perception, by drivers and cyclists, than it is about laws. In both cases it is about perception. A whites only drinking fountian is a major problem if backed by attitudes even if not backed by law. It is much less of a problem if backed by law but not by attitudes.
Actually his example really gives a good lead in to the different views of bike lanes. In the bad old days in the South there were white and colored drinking fountians and bathrooms. Funny thing is I never heard of a white person getting in trouble for using black facilities. (Though there are some who would have rather cr@pped their pants than use the coloreds restroom). It seems to me many on this board really have the same kind of views about bike lanes. But here there is a difference.
Serge sees the bike lane as the colored area, many others see it as the whites area (e.g. the place where only bikes can go). And yes there are even some who will not leave the bike lane no matter how bad it is.
Yes, but laws are what shape the public perception. Change and enforce the laws, and perception follows. Almost every view anyone has on anything is more from theory than from practice. Law enables the practice, so that the commonly held theories can change. There will be no change in perception by eliminating (or adding) some paint. Even a mandated WOL would meet resistance because of the extra resources it would take to build.
Besides, your comparisons are inacurate. If done right, a bike lane could be the equivilent to a "cyclists welcome" sign, as opposed to a "no cyclists" sign. People may grumble a bit, but then, you can't help that. .. All the anti-bike lane people here seem to have the implicit assumption that cyclists are kept to the bike lane and cannot leave. That assumption is simply wrong.
Yes, but laws are what shape the public perception. Change and enforce the laws, and perception follows. Almost every view anyone has on anything is more from theory than from practice. Law enables the practice, so that the commonly held theories can change. There will be no change in perception by eliminating (or adding) some paint. Even a mandated WOL would meet resistance because of the extra resources it would take to build.
Besides, your comparisons are inacurate. If done right, a bike lane could be the equivilent to a "cyclists welcome" sign, as opposed to a "no cyclists" sign. People may grumble a bit, but then, you can't help that. .. All the anti-bike lane people here seem to have the implicit assumption that cyclists are kept to the bike lane and cannot leave. That assumption is simply wrong.
"Change the laws and don't tell anybody... " that is more like the current situation. Go test this yourself. Go ask your co-workers if bikes are allowed on the road, and if they know of any laws that deal with bikes on the road.
Regarding "cyclists welcome..." this is exactly the way I view bike lanes... they are a lane there for my convenience, much like a car pool lane or a truck hill climbing lane... BL encourage cyclists to be on the road and they help facilitate the smooth flow of traffic through the use of channeling lanes.
All the anti-bike lane people here seem to have the implicit assumption that cyclists are kept to the bike lane and cannot leave.
Strawman again? Show me one quote anywhere by any anti-bike lane people here that are based on the implicit assumption that cyclists are kept to the bike lane and cannot leave.
That's like me saying... All the bike-lane defenders around here seem to have the implicit assumption that pigs can fly and sing, as well as ride bikes and even win the Tour de France. That assumption is wrong. So there!
The law is not that important. When cyclists travel to other states or countries, what percentage do you think bother to check and see if cyclists are required to ride in bike lanes? When you see a bike lane, the assumption is that you're generally expected to ride there, period. Cyclists generally follow this rule about as well as they follow rules about stop signs and red lights...
The law is not that important. When cyclists travel to other states or countries, what percentage do you think bother to check and see if cyclists are required to ride in bike lanes? When you see a bike lane, the assumption is that you're generally expected to ride there, period. Cyclists generally follow this rule about as well as they follow rules about stop signs and red lights...
I'll have to pay attention a bit better in the future to make sure, but for now I have to disagree. I think on the whole cyclists follow this 'rule' better than they follow the rules when it comes to stop signs.
...learning vehicular cycling helped me more than anything else to ride safely in traffic... --- Here is an excellent article which promotes vehicular cycling:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/index.html
The article includes this evidence which proves that a "Road with on street bike-lane facility" has the lowest rate of crashes:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/img6.gif
--- Here is an excellent article which promotes vehicular cycling:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/index.html
The article includes this evidence which proves that a "Road with on street bike-lane facility" has the lowest rate of crashes:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/img6.gif
Does the phrase "cause and effect" mean anything to you?
Do you think it's possible that roads without on street bike-lane facilities have narrower lanes, faster traffic, etc.?
Do you think that on the roads with on street bike-lane facilities, if the stripes were removed the crash rate would go up or down, or stay about the same?
--- Here is an excellent article which promotes vehicular cycling:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/index.html
The article includes this evidence which proves that a "Road with on street bike-lane facility" has the lowest rate of crashes:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/img6.gif
Hard to evaluate the reliability of this proof without looking further.
Much of what is in that article seems rather alien to me. Perhaps all these ignorant cyclists and the various problems pointed to are urban effects. The cyclists I see are riding quite lawfully. But I'm in a rural area and only see competent adults, even if a fair number are Freds.
I can't see any problem in enforcing traffic laws. Certainly when I was involved in urban commuting I was well aware of the laws I was breaking, rather than blissfully ignorant. Almost always it was simple laziness - not wanting to put a foot down.
Bike lanes certainly don't help what I've always seen as the real problems: car doors, turning cars, and making left turns. I've not seen a lane system that does help those problems. Past a certain traffic density and speed I'm driven to pedestrian-like crossing at lights. Pass through intersection, stop, get ready to go in the lane I would have normally turned into, and then wait for light change.
I'd certainly like real bicycle highways. Oh, wait, I have them already. Right out my driveway.
--- Here is an excellent article which promotes vehicular cycling:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/index.html
The article includes this evidence which proves that a "Road with on street bike-lane facility" has the lowest rate of crashes:
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/img6.gif
Hard to evaluate the reliability of this proof without looking further.
--- Bike Forums members who want to investigate this evidence further are directed to the source:
Moritz, W., "Adult Bicyclists in the United States: Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996", Transportation Research Record 1636: pp. 1-7, 1998.
by William E. Moritz, Ph.D., Human Powered Transportation, University of Washington,
Box 352500, Seattle WA 98195-2500
Exactly.
Look at those reports, then the next, then the next.
--- But wait, there's more. Here is another official study from the Department of Cambridge entitled "Safety Benefits of Bike Lanes":
http://www.cambridgema.gov/~CDD/et/bike/bike_safety.html
Here is an excerpt:
In 1996, over 2000 League of American Bicyclist members were surveyed about the crashes (accidents) they were involved in over the course of the previous year. From the information, a relative danger index was calculated which shows that streets with bike lanes were the safest places to ride, having a significantly lower crash rate then either major or minor streets without any bicycle facilities; moreover, they are safer than trails and sidewalks as well.
I must say that separate bike paths seemed the most dangerous to me when I commuted. My worst "accident" was on one. I've generally avoided them. In part spurred by this thread, we tried a bike path yesterday with two tandems. I can't recall such a dangerous ride in my recent (last 10 years) history. This danger seemed to come from path design, construction/maintenance, and from user / nonuser behavior.
In design, mixed surfaces, tight turns (e.g., right angle bends to cross bridges, with steel posts in the middle of the bridge entrances), off camber turns, blind curves, stop signs at the top of rises. Some of the oddness seems to come from attempts to make the path interesting, putting curves around trees and so on. Other aspects were just silly. Very steep stretches with steep drops at the end into water. Turns that went to unmarked stairways. Hump bridges with no fairing into the path. This path simply wasn't designed to be used for transportation by bikes, although it was intended for such use. Pretty clear that the concept of bikes was 5 mph ramblers. I would say the design alone made it somewhat dangerous even for a solo cyclist alone on the network.
In construction/maintenance, tree roots pushed up numerous speed bumps, lots of pavement breaks, bad lips on street crossings. And construction with no signs, just sudden end of pavement and beginning of rubble and construction stuff. I could see it ahead of time, but wouldn't see it nearly as well at night. Seemed rather negligent.
Behavior involved cyclists, walkers, dogs, park users, and motorists. Cycling family groups would take up the entire path and go berserk when politely asked to make way. I had a little girl I was overtaking (very slowly) suddenly dart from right to left almost into my bike. I stopped in a track stand while she cleared the way. But this shows pretty much complete lack of any training in path or road use. I think track standing a tandem confused the family as well. These people had no idea what to do. Similar events occurred with about 1/2 the groups we encountered.
Groups of runners and walkers would take the entire path. Some have headphones and can't hear requests to let one by.
Walkers don't know which side to walk on. I don't know where they should be, either. Left or right? I suppose that depends on whether this is a trail or a road. I don't know.
Dogs on retractaleads. Nice dark cable from dog to owner, quite difficult to spot. Interesting potential for problems. I'm not sure how negligent a cyclist has to be to not see one of these. Probably less than 50%.
Motorists. I love the stopping when one has right of way. When I'm timing traffic and a car stops it really throws things off. I can't very well pull in front of one when the next lane is still going!
I can really see that the designers of this particular system, the users of it, and motorists along side and crossing it have little idea of how it should function. I came away less sure of how it could reasonably work. I didn't see anyone doing anything all that stupid, just doing what looked reasonable to do. With the exception of the people sitting in the path having a picnic. That looked really stupid. Perhaps having a pair of tandems roll through the picnic (we didn't hit anything - we drive very well) changed their perception of bike path use.
But the path follows a really good route along a flood plain. The problems could be fixed at moderate cost compared to making a road. The right of way exists. The system connects parks and neighborhoods with down town and an extension to a major city 15 miles away is planned. A few signs illustrating the rules of the road would make it much safer. So would removing or changing some of the really bad features. And I could certainly pick my way through OK. If it merged with a real bikeway I would use it for commuting if I commuted that direction. Which I used to. It is so flat I'd probably use a fixed gear bike.
Got me thinking about what a bikeway should look like. With oil drying up, one needs to plan for heavier traffic and higher speeds. Especially with the advent of streamlined trikes. I'd like each lane to allow passing. Say a trike takes up 4 feet, minimum. 8 ft lane, plus a 1 ft shoulder, times 2 is 18 feet. Design for up to 40 mph. Have entrance and exit ramps or systems in the high speed stretches. Whoops. I think these things already exist, just full of cars.
But seriously, a separate but equal bike highway system might make sense, so long as bikes aren't limited to them. This would have to show up in everyone's minds as something different than stroller paths. Maybe there's some way to get there. I like riding on my roads, but I don't like riding in cities. I'd certainly ride into Knoxville if there were a way that wasn't lethal and was direct. The rights of way largely exist. Old railroad grades and such. But an 8 ft wide irregular lumpy path full of walkers isn't going to be all that useful for serious commuting. I suspect most commuters end up cycling at 15 mph or more most of the time. Strong riders and tandems are substantially faster.
A fun test and we had a good time. Maybe we'll try another path this afternoon. There's a new one up in Townsend, TN. Lots of dubious features appear from the highway, but I don't know how bad they are in person.
For normal cycling, I'll continue to take my place on the road moving at my usual crisp pace.
I really like when people use the bike lane to park their car and talk on their cell phones- nothing makes me happier than that!
In the Compromise and Action: Practical Cycling thread, Bekologist made the following post:
A specific example of positive effects of striping here in Seattle. a 4 lane + center strip arterial (Rainier Ave S) was recently converted to a 2 lane + center strip with bike lane and parking. Popular support for this change seems unanimous in the Seattle cycling commmunity; you would be hard pressed to find a bicyclist that is critical of these changes along Rainier ave S. Maybe every intersection isn't perfect, but compared to the bicycling wasteland it used to be, big positive effects for cyclists of all abilities.
I posted this description on a VC advocacy list, hoping to get some input from a Seattle VC advocate. No such luck, but thought you might want to read John Forester's take on it. As you might expect, it's not glowing...
Somebody wrote: "Popular support for this change seems unanimous in
the Seattle cycling community; you would be hard pressed to find a
bicyclist that is critical of these changes along Rainier ave S.
Maybe every intersection isn't perfect, but compared to the bicycling
wasteland it used to be, big positive effects for cyclists of all abilities."
Serge asked: "Is it true that the recent changes along Rainier ave S,
reducing lanes and adding bike lanes, is a "big positive effect for
cyclists of all abilities". If not, why not? And can I quote you?"
Ah, yes, just one more blast of propaganda shouting loudly that bike
lanes are wonderful, regardless of the actual effect. Just consider
the propagandist's statement that the original condition of the road
was a "bicycling wasteland". He applies this propaganda to a
situation in which the cyclist had a full lane to use without any
danger from the doors of parked cars. He now considers it wonderful
that the cyclist now has a narrow lane bordered by parked cars and
their opening doors. Notice also that this same propagandist claims
that the former situation required extreme abilities while the new
situation is suitable for cyclists without traffic skills. This is
the standard claim that beginning cyclists are either sufficiently
strong to tear off the opened door without harm to themselves, or are
capable of making the sudden turns into motor traffic that the opened
door requires, also without harm. I have never heard of such elitist
claims made for normal vehicular cyclists, despite all the antagonism
that is directed against them.
This discussion has not even had to move to the standard defects of
bike-lane stripes to demonstrate the absurdity of the propagandist's
claims, but, of course, those defects are present just the same.
Thanks HH, I infer from Forester's comments that the BL was put in the door zone of the newly created on street parking. That is all I was trying to understand from Bekologist in the other thread.
Al
Forester lives in San Diego and did not indicate he has been in Seattle recently. I think he just assumed bike lane + onstreet parking means bike lane in door zone. I think it's a fair assumption. I've never heard of a bike lane whose left stripe is some 18 feet from the curb, which is about what would be required to make sure the bike lane is outside of the door zone of parked large vehicles like Ford F250s (8 feet for parking lane, 5 feet for doors, + 5 feet for bike lane = 18 feet).
I posted this description on a VC advocacy list, hoping to get some input from a Seattle VC advocate. No such luck, but thought you might want to read John Forester's take on it. As you might expect, it's not glowing...
Wow, Forester just went down another notch in my mind (which I didn't think was possible). If name-calling and a dismissive attitude is the best he can come up with these days, I guess I don't need to worry too much about him doing any further damage to cycling advocacy!
Thanks HH, I infer from Forester's comments that the BL was put in the door zone of the newly created on street parking. That is all I was trying to understand from Bekologist in the other thread.
Al
Hold on... do any of us down south here really know how and where the BL went... don't jump to conclusions base on HH and Forester... neither one has gone to Seattle and looked at what was actually implemented. (and both are anti BL and prone to poo poo any BL based on blanket statements alone)
Bek is the only one that is actually there... for all we know there may be a designated door zone... or more... I know of a BL in Malibu for instance that is a full auto lane wide...
Gene, a "full auto lane wide" hardly comes close to the 18 feet required for a bike lane to be outside of the door zone of parked cars in that lane.
Well then back to my first question when this came up, from someone who has first hand seen the implementation: Is the bike lane in the door zone. Y or N?
Al
Moritz, W., "Adult Bicyclists in the United States: Characteristics and Riding Experience in 1996"And here's a critique:Moritz repeatedly states that the Kaplan study shows that bike-laned streets
are safer than average streets. That is false. Kaplan's study
showed a lower than average accident rate per bike-mile for streets that
had, previous to 1974, been designated as either bike-route or bike-lane
streets. [...] In 1974 there were very few bike-laned streets in the nation
compared to the number of bike-routed streets. I don't have formal data,
because nobody was then collecting such, but that is the experience of
those of us who were then riding, and it is confirmed by the fact that the
first bike-lane standards were not issued until two years later.
How could there be many bike lanes before there were any standards for them?
Sure, people mention Davis and Palo Alto, and even Homestead FL.
Davis had a special dispensation from the state government, and Palo Alto tried to
piggyback on that dispensation, but both of those systems were experimental
and revisions were compelled by state law once the official standards were
issued. The national standards were, basically, adoption of the California
standards after those had been in effect for several years. Therefore,
practically all of the cycling that Kaplan's study records as being on
streets that were either bike-routed or bike-laned was on bike-routed
streets. Therefore, Moritz is misleading people when he claims that the
Kaplan study shows the lower than average accident rate for bike-laned
streets.
Moritz repeatedly claims that I did not use data that he had made
available to me showing that bike-lane stripes make cycling safer. I did
not because Moritz's study shows nothing of the kind. Moritz is a smart
man, you don't get to be a professor of electrical engineering at a major
university without smarts. However, I think that he has lost his head when
it comes to promoting cycling through bike-lane installation. All that
Moritz's study shows is that the accident rate per bike-mile on bike-laned
streets is lower than average.
That is not the question that I have ever
discussed, because it has no relevance to proper bicycle transportation
engineering. Why not? Easy answer. Consider a city planning a bike program.
That city decides to paint bike-lane stripes, and it chooses to paint them
on the safer streets. Isn't that the typical way these things happen? In
fact, if bike-laned streets showed only the average accident rate per
bike-mile (for the same skilled group of cyclists), then one would have to
very seriously consider the probability that bike-lane stripes were
significantly dangerous.
As it is, all that Moritz's data show is that
streets that have been chosen for bike-laning are those with the lower
accident rate per bike-mile. That demonstration is completely irrelevant to
the engineering question of whether or not bike-lane stripes reduce the
accident rate per bike-mile among equally skilled cyclists. That is the
question whose answer would, or would not, justify the installation of
bike-lane stripes.
I point out that nobody has ever made such a study (the
Madison study that tried was in a very special location, and it showed an
increase in accidents as the result of the installation). With all the
governmental effort devoted to producing bike lanes [...]
nobody has seen fit to produce a real study of what is being
funded and produced.
John Forester, 21 Jan 2000
And here's a critique:
From Forester... the self proclaimed bike lane hater.
Are there any other "experts" in this field other than Forester? Or is every word from him "gospel?" How about peer review? Every other field that professes to use any kind of scientific study or perform any study in a scientific manner has peer review.
From Forester... the self proclaimed bike lane hater.
Are there any other "experts" in this field other than Forester? Or is every word from him "gospel?" How about peer review? Every other field that professes to use any kind of scientific study or perform any study in a scientific manner has peer review.
Why does Forester need a peer review? He didn't do the study, he just wrote a critique of it. If anything, the original study should have been peer reviewed.
And here's a critique:
First off, I am a bit confused by Forester's analysis. He starts off by critiqing the Kaplan study, if I read this correctly. Then he segues into the Moritz study proper, and even repeats the conclusion that bike laned streets are safer than average (which seems to say that bike laned streets are safer than the average street, since, I assume, the accidents on the average street is included in the average accident rate). So far, I see a credible critique of the Kaplan study (or Moritz's analysis of it), but nothing about Moritz's study in 1996.
Therefore, Moritz is misleading people when he claims that the
Kaplan study shows the lower than average accident rate for bike-laned
streets.
All that Moritz's study shows is that the accident rate per bike-mile on bike-laned
streets is lower than average.
A later paragraph shows that Forester is basing his entire critique on one assumption, which is supported by a single, retorical, question.
That is not the question that I have ever
discussed, because it has no relevance to proper bicycle transportation
engineering. Why not? Easy answer. Consider a city planning a bike program.
That city decides to paint bike-lane stripes, and it chooses to paint them
on the safer streets. Isn't that the typical way these things happen? In
fact, if bike-laned streets showed only the average accident rate per
bike-mile (for the same skilled group of cyclists), then one would have to
very seriously consider the probability that bike-lane stripes were
significantly dangerous.
Note the retorical question in the middle of the paragraph: "Isn't that the typical way these things happen?" (talking about putting bike lanes on safer than average roads.) Perhaps this is self evident to him, but it is not necessarily the way these things work (i.e. they don't have to work this way), and Forester brings to bear nothing but his reputation to force the assertion that bike lanes are only put on safer than average roads at the time of the study. He uses this single assertion to force the conclusion that bike lanes actually make the road less safe. Think, for a second, if his retorical question can be answered negatively. If bike lanes were actually put on the worst roads to try to make them better, then the study's concusions are doubly correct; showing that, not only do bike lanes make a dangerous road average, but they make a dangerous road better than average. So the critique's conclusion rests completely on the shoulders of Forester's reputation.
Now, for his reputation. His reputation amongst critics (for it is amongst critics where reputation matters most) is highly suspect. It is made more highly suspect by his comment in the middle of the critique where he aims a thinly vealed ad hominum attack against the study's author:
Moritz is a smart
man, you don't get to be a professor of electrical engineering at a major
university without smarts. However, I think that he has lost his head when
it comes to promoting cycling through bike-lane installation.
A very nice mix of sugar to soften the sucker punch. Perhaps the same comment can be made about Forester.
So, to wrap it up, there is only one way that this critique can be valid: that is, if bike lanes actually were mostly put onto less dangerous streets, at the time of the study. Without evidence of this single fact, the critique is simply a cheap, ad hominum shot from a bitter man in a professional dispute made personal.
Why does Forester need a peer review? He didn't do the study, he just wrote a critique of it. If anything, the original study should have been peer reviewed.
Both ought to be peer reviewed. In fact, upon further inspection, the original study was peer reviewed, as evidenced by its publication in Transportation Research Record.
Individual TRR Journals, which are published on an irregular basis throughout the year, consist of collections of peer-reviewed papers on specific transportation subject areas and modes. Abstracts of papers that make up this TRR are available through TRB's Publication Index. In the Series field type "Record & 1906" (without the quotation marks). After reviewing the abstracts, you will need to use your browser's "back" button to return to this screen in order to purchase the publication.
Forester's critique, however, was not peer reviewed. See my comments in the previous post about his reputation and credibility.
Why does Forester need a peer review? He didn't do the study, he just wrote a critique of it. If anything, the original study should have been peer reviewed.
Because everything he says, whether right or wrong, is accepted by certain advocates as "gospel." He is in reality a self proclaimed self taught "expert."
I also agree that the original study needs a peer review, as do other similar studies that are often financed with an agenda. Certainly Forester could provide some form of peer review, but should not be taken as "the last word," which he often is.
While his compiled tome on vehicular cycling was, at the time, the only such book written with that particular focus and intensity; some of his other "commentary" may or may not have been the best thing to come along for cycling advocacy... and certainly now some 30 years later is not even current with today's cycling technolgy (the use of mirrors is perhaps the best example).
Don't get me wrong, I am not anti vc, but simply believe that Forester is not the final word on many of the items in which he as held court, and that current updated information and studies should be done to either confirm, refresh, or update his theories.
So, to wrap it up, there is only one way that this critique can be valid: that is, if bike lanes actually were mostly put onto less dangerous streets, at the time of the study. Without evidence of this single fact, the critique is simply a cheap, ad hominum shot from a bitter man in a professional dispute made personal.
And this is probably true... as bike lanes in the past were not engineered into the design of streets, and often where just slapdashed installed on already safer streets. That is not to say however that a properly designed street with BL couldn't be safer for cyclists than the same street without bike lanes. And until such a double blind study is actually made and peer reviewed, we cyclists will never know the truth.
I mean after all the two biggest issues surrounding BL are: do they really invite cyclists to use the roads, and do they provide any sort of safety what so ever?
We all know the biggest political lie involving the installation of BL is that politicians put them in for "cyclists' safety," where, in reality, they simply force cyclists off the main travel ways so auto traffic can flow better. So of course this makes politicians look good, makes motorists happy and the few cyclists just think they are happy.
Because everything he says, whether right or wrong, is accepted by certain advocates as "gospel." He is in reality a self proclaimed self taught "expert."
I should add to that, that having "expertise" in a subject scientific in nature comes from having research and conclusion peer reviewed countless times. Peer review of a journal article does not mean that the conclusions are uncontroversial, it simply means that the methods are accurate and the conclusions can be honestly drawn from the data presented.
By Forester's own admission, he has never survived a peer review process; meaning he will never have the credibility of an "expert" outside of his own flock.
Because everything he says, whether right or wrong, is accepted by certain advocates as "gospel." He is in reality a self proclaimed self taught "expert."
I also agree that the original study needs a peer review, as do other similar studies that are often financed with an agenda. Certainly Forester could provide some form of peer review, but should not be taken as "the last word," which he often is.
While his compiled tome on vehicular cycling was, at the time, the only such book written with that particular focus and intensity; some of his other "commentary" may or may not have been the best thing to come along for cycling advocacy... and certainly now some 30 years later is not even current with today's cycling technolgy (the use of mirrors is perhaps the best example).
Don't get me wrong, I am not anti vc, but simply believe that Forester is not the final word on many of the items in which he as held court, and that current updated information and studies should be done to either confirm, refresh, or update his theories.
I agree with this post. I was just trying to point out that the peer review process applies to studies, not to critiques. It would be interesting to see an alternate critique that may or may not agree with Forester, but I wouldn't call that a peer review.
And this is probably true... as bike lanes in the past were not engineered into the design of streets, and often where just slapdashed installed on already safer streets. That is not to say however that a properly designed street with BL couldn't be safer for cyclists than the same street without bike lanes. And until such a double blind study is actually made and peer reviewed, we cyclists will never know the truth.
You are right, but there was no evidence given that this bias affected the study in question. That this question is open is a flaw in the study, no doubt, but an honest one. Forester is trying to turn general assertion into a critique showing that the study is fatally flawed. In this, he fails.
I mean after all the two biggest issues surrounding BL are: do they really invite cyclists to use the roads, and do they provide any sort of safety what so ever?
We all know the biggest political lie involving the installation of BL is that politicians put them in for "cyclists' safety," where, in reality, they simply force cyclists off the main travel ways so auto traffic can flow better. So of course this makes politicians look good, makes motorists happy and the few cyclists just think they are happy.
Perhaps those outside of the cyclist circles wonder why cyclist safety and the free flow of moterized vehicles are necessarily mutually exclusive. The goal of anyone who is not a cyclist is to get traffic to move as smoothly as possible. I think the question is still open as to whether accomodating cyclists means diss-accomodating other traffic. As a political question, one has to wonder whether it is the cyclist's demand for accomodation which hampers our clout, of if it is our demand that other traffic be inconvenienced for our sake which causes the most damage. Money can be obtained for most anything with enough effort, but pissing off constituents is highly frowned upon. I highly doubt that accomodation is a zero sum game. In fact, I firmly believe that, for cycling to expand as a legitiment form of transportation for a significant number of people, accomodation cannot be a zero sum game between non-moterized and moterized traffic.
I agree with this post. I was just trying to point out that the peer review process applies to studies, not to critiques. It would be interesting to see an alternate critique that may or may not agree with Forester, but I wouldn't call that a peer review.
First, the study in question was peer reviewed. Second, no, simply having an alternate critique would not be a peer review, it will simply offer a different view from a different person. Peer review is a strict standard, but has nothing to do with the paper's conclusions.
For instance, a peer review would have eliminated from the critique the ad hominum attacks and it would have forced the author to provide data or witness to support the claims he was making against the peer reviewed study. Forester's article was obviously not peer reviewed and should carry no more weight than any other opinion found on the internet.
Perhaps those outside of the cyclist circles wonder why cyclist safety and the free flow of moterized vehicles are necessarily mutually exclusive. The goal of anyone who is not a cyclist is to get traffic to move as smoothly as possible. I think the question is still open as to whether accomodating cyclists means diss-accomodating other traffic. As a political question, one has to wonder whether it is the cyclist's demand for accomodation which hampers our clout, of if it is our demand that other traffic be inconvenienced for our sake which causes the most damage. Money can be obtained for most anything with enough effort, but pissing off constituents is highly frowned upon. I highly doubt that accomodation is a zero sum game. In fact, I firmly believe that, for cycling to expand as a legitiment form of transportation for a significant number of people, accomodation cannot be a zero sum game between non-moterized and moterized traffic.
You are right in this, and I for one have never seen BL as the social travesty that some feel they are, citing for example comparisons to separatist drinking foutains. I feel that BL are just another lane to handle another form of traffic, much like moutain passing grade lanes are also used to increase the free flow of traffic on the roads where they are installed.
However, I am also realistic enough in my views to see how poorly designed slapdash bike lanes can be a detriment to cyclists and therefore cause more harm than good.
However, I am also realistic enough in my views to see how poorly designed slapdash bike lanes can be a detriment to cyclists and therefore cause more harm than good.
How true is this. I think you'll agree though, that the correct course of action is not to eliminate bike lanes as an option, but simply design them correctly. HH will disagree with the concept of a "correctly designed" bike lane, but just as he's seen and he's believed, so have I.
I should add, that it is up to cyclists to show politicians what is suitable. Politicians are looking for universal appeal; a slap-dash bike lane means nothing more or less than a properly designed one. A few dollars, perhaps, but nothing more. However, money at the levels where road projects are at are just numbers, and a politician can be convinced to reallocate resources, expecially if the numbers are in the $100,000's out of a $100 million dollar project. However, if no one tells the politicians what "real" cyclists need, then the politician will take his or her best stab and we might not like the results.
How true is this. I think you'll agree though, that the correct course of action is not to eliminate bike lanes as an option, but simply design them correctly. HH will disagree with the concept of a "correctly designed" bike lane, but just as he's seen and he's believed, so have I.
Yes, I do tend to agree, and I also feel that BL do not belong on every road. I am a proponent for BL on higher speed roads and roads that have high speed differentials. Put BL on the roads where the different speeds of the road users can indeed cause conflict between those various road users.
But roads with speed limits of less then 25MPH (typically residential areas) should probably never have BL, and both motorists and cyclists should be encouraged to use those roads as simple mixed traffic.
Further, the "proper design" of bike lanes should allow for left turns, conflicts at intersections and the merging of vehicles, where required. It is a much more complex task then simply removing parking and slapping down a line.
I am also not a proponent of the lousy design work present in the MUTCD which makes little consideration for the "door zone" along parked cars in it's handling of bike lanes. It is this "secondary treatment" about which I feel some advocates do have validity in their hue and cry regarding the separatist nature of BL.
There is a time and place for BL and this means neither a full inclusion or exclusion on all streets...
First, the study in question was peer reviewed. Second, no, simply having an alternate critique would not be a peer review, it will simply offer a different view from a different person. Peer review is a strict standard, but has nothing to do with the paper's conclusions.
For instance, a peer review would have eliminated from the critique the ad hominum attacks and it would have forced the author to provide data or witness to support the claims he was making against the peer reviewed study. Forester's article was obviously not peer reviewed and should carry no more weight than any other opinion found on the internet.
Again, I think we're more or less in agreement as to the need for review, but we're getting tripped up on terminology, as I mean the term "peer review" to only apply to published papers. It's still a good idea for a critique to be reviewed, but strictly speaking I wouldn't call that a peer review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Note the retorical question in the middle of the paragraph: "Isn't that the typical way these things happen?" (talking about putting bike lanes on safer than average roads.)
That is Forester's fundamental, and perennial, flaw. He introduces his political bias into a discussion, presents that bias as fact, and then extrapolates a general statement from that bias. After reading his book - not all of it bad - I give statements from him no credibility at all. He'd make a good politician, though.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.