randya
05-03-07, 04:09 PM
^^Breezer is the manufacturer.
Breezer Bikes (http://www.breezerbikes.com/index.cfm?CFID=25078298&CFTOKEN=99128282)
Breezer Bikes (http://www.breezerbikes.com/index.cfm?CFID=25078298&CFTOKEN=99128282)
Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Take the VC Challenge!
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.Brian Ratliff
05-03-07, 04:12 PM
I think it's fair to say that about 2% of the adult population rides a bikes on roads with traffic, that most of them like bike lanes, and probably at least 20% of the population are healthy enough to do it, and like bicycling in general enough to do it, but don't because they believe it is too dangerous and see bike lanes as evidence supporting their belief that bicycling on the roads is so dangerous that bicyclists need their own space to be protected. That's 10 for every 1. It's a guess, but I think it's reasonable, and conservative.
Just admit to pulling this out of your a$$. As rando said, reasonable people disagree on this point. Until you provide some hard evidence in favor of your estimation, I'd have to dismiss it out of hand.
Just admit to pulling this out of your a$$. As rando said, reasonable people disagree on this point. Until you provide some hard evidence in favor of your estimation, I'd have to dismiss it out of hand.
Brian Ratliff
05-03-07, 04:14 PM
Ah, yes, the the opponents of vehicular cycling that Foresterites seem to see under every rock. Foresterites seem to have developed a siege mentality and are quick to circle the wagons.
Personally, I'm an opponent of VC-ism precisely because I'm a proponent of vehicular cycling. Extreme white line phobic VC-ism is a ridiculous, counter-productive, divisive ideology based on the biases and arrogance of John Forester combined with Forester's wacky psychological and social theories.
I don't share Forester's biases (I have my own, thank you) and I'm amused by his psychological fantasies.
I totally agree that bicyclists' right to the road needs to be protected. I don't share VC-ists theories on the effect of paint on a roadway, nor do I put much stock in Forester's wacky cyclist inferiority ramblings-- it's little more than crackpot pseudo-science and an advocacy dead-end for cyclists.
1+
Personally, I'm an opponent of VC-ism precisely because I'm a proponent of vehicular cycling. Extreme white line phobic VC-ism is a ridiculous, counter-productive, divisive ideology based on the biases and arrogance of John Forester combined with Forester's wacky psychological and social theories.
I don't share Forester's biases (I have my own, thank you) and I'm amused by his psychological fantasies.
I totally agree that bicyclists' right to the road needs to be protected. I don't share VC-ists theories on the effect of paint on a roadway, nor do I put much stock in Forester's wacky cyclist inferiority ramblings-- it's little more than crackpot pseudo-science and an advocacy dead-end for cyclists.
1+
randya
05-03-07, 04:22 PM
^^I'll third that!
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 04:23 PM
HH: Say what you want to say straight out. I think what you are trying to say with multiple analogies (not the way to win arguments, BTW) is that adding cyclists doesn't make the bicycling environment safer, I should add, without a supporting argument (an analogy is not considered support for an argument, merely a way to express an idea in visual terms).
Context: I was answering Fagerlin's question inquiring as to why I believed what I believed. He was asking me why I wanted bicycling to be more popular.
In answering that question, to clarify my answer, I included a reason that does not resonate for me: making the cycling environment safer. I explained why that reason did not resonate for me: because I don't believe the cycling environment could be made significantly safer than it already is. Yes, I used an metaphor as a way to convey what I meant: it's like making water wetter.
I refer you to data collected in Portland as a refutation of that statement; it is floating around here and on bikeportland.org. There is a very strong inverse correlation between number of cyclists and accident rate shown in the data.
Of course, correlation is not causation, but neither is it irrelevent.
Indeed, correlation is not causation.
Now, some of you will probably not agree with this, and some might even be angered by it, but this is how I see it. I suppose it's possible that having more incompetent cyclists (disobeying the rules, passing on the right, riding in door zones, going straight from the right without looking back first, expecting the ROW when they don't have it, signalling and merging without negotiating first, etc., etc.) out there could make cycling for incompetent cyclists safer because more motorists would be expecting incompetent cyclists, and driving accordingly (defensively). In the same way, I suppose having more drunk drivers out there could make driving safer for drunk drivers, because more sober drivers would be expecting drunk drivers, and driving accordingly (defensively).
Context: I was answering Fagerlin's question inquiring as to why I believed what I believed. He was asking me why I wanted bicycling to be more popular.
In answering that question, to clarify my answer, I included a reason that does not resonate for me: making the cycling environment safer. I explained why that reason did not resonate for me: because I don't believe the cycling environment could be made significantly safer than it already is. Yes, I used an metaphor as a way to convey what I meant: it's like making water wetter.
I refer you to data collected in Portland as a refutation of that statement; it is floating around here and on bikeportland.org. There is a very strong inverse correlation between number of cyclists and accident rate shown in the data.
Of course, correlation is not causation, but neither is it irrelevent.
Indeed, correlation is not causation.
Now, some of you will probably not agree with this, and some might even be angered by it, but this is how I see it. I suppose it's possible that having more incompetent cyclists (disobeying the rules, passing on the right, riding in door zones, going straight from the right without looking back first, expecting the ROW when they don't have it, signalling and merging without negotiating first, etc., etc.) out there could make cycling for incompetent cyclists safer because more motorists would be expecting incompetent cyclists, and driving accordingly (defensively). In the same way, I suppose having more drunk drivers out there could make driving safer for drunk drivers, because more sober drivers would be expecting drunk drivers, and driving accordingly (defensively).
Brian Ratliff
05-03-07, 04:26 PM
I think it's fair to say that about 2% of the adult population rides a bikes on roads with traffic, that most of them like bike lanes, and probably at least 20% of the population are healthy enough to do it, and like bicycling in general enough to do it, but don't because they believe it is too dangerous and see bike lanes as evidence supporting their belief that bicycling on the roads is so dangerous that bicyclists need their own space to be protected. That's 10 for every 1. It's a guess, but I think it's reasonable, and conservative.
FWIW, this is the part of your estimation I disagree with. People justify their non-cycling with words to the safety issue, but these words aren't thought out. Even with bike lanes, they won't bike, unless pushed. But bike lanes lower the barrier. If they have a friend who does it daily and they are putting $60 in their gas tank weekly for a two mile drive, then a bike laned road is appealing to them and lowers the barrier to entry.
Anyway, there are surveys which indicate the attitude I've stated in the previous paragraph. Real, hard data, again, from the Portland area. Approximately 35% (I don't have the numbers in front of me) of the Portland population show up in this category. This 35% (or something) carries the view that bike lanes and bike boulevards will lower the barrier of entry to their own cycling. There is another approximately 40% (or something) who will never get into cycling. I doubt danger is the reason; the data indicates that most of this group hold out for reasons of practicality.
FWIW, this is the part of your estimation I disagree with. People justify their non-cycling with words to the safety issue, but these words aren't thought out. Even with bike lanes, they won't bike, unless pushed. But bike lanes lower the barrier. If they have a friend who does it daily and they are putting $60 in their gas tank weekly for a two mile drive, then a bike laned road is appealing to them and lowers the barrier to entry.
Anyway, there are surveys which indicate the attitude I've stated in the previous paragraph. Real, hard data, again, from the Portland area. Approximately 35% (I don't have the numbers in front of me) of the Portland population show up in this category. This 35% (or something) carries the view that bike lanes and bike boulevards will lower the barrier of entry to their own cycling. There is another approximately 40% (or something) who will never get into cycling. I doubt danger is the reason; the data indicates that most of this group hold out for reasons of practicality.
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 04:28 PM
I think it's fair to say that about 2% of the adult population rides bikes on roads with traffic, that most of them like bike lanes, and probably at least 20% of the population are healthy enough to do it, and like bicycling in general enough to do it, but don't because they believe it is too dangerous and see bike lanes as evidence supporting their belief that bicycling on the roads is so dangerous that bicyclists need their own space to be protected. That's 10 for every 1. It's a guess, but I think it's reasonable, and conservative.
Just admit to pulling this out of your a$$. As rando said, reasonable people disagree on this point. Until you provide some hard evidence in favor of your estimation, I'd have to dismiss it out of hand.
Honestly, which parts do you believe are likely to be false?
about 2% of the adult population rides bikes on roads with traffic
probably at least 20% of the population are healthy enough to do it, ...
and like bicycling in general enough to do it, ...
but don't [ride bikes in traffic] because they believe it is too dangerous
and see bike lanes as evidence supporting their belief that bicycling on the roads is so dangerous that bicyclists need their own space to be protected.
that's [at least] 10 for every 1
It's a guess, but I think it's reasonable, and conservative.
Just admit to pulling this out of your a$$. As rando said, reasonable people disagree on this point. Until you provide some hard evidence in favor of your estimation, I'd have to dismiss it out of hand.
Honestly, which parts do you believe are likely to be false?
about 2% of the adult population rides bikes on roads with traffic
probably at least 20% of the population are healthy enough to do it, ...
and like bicycling in general enough to do it, ...
but don't [ride bikes in traffic] because they believe it is too dangerous
and see bike lanes as evidence supporting their belief that bicycling on the roads is so dangerous that bicyclists need their own space to be protected.
that's [at least] 10 for every 1
It's a guess, but I think it's reasonable, and conservative.
rando
05-03-07, 04:36 PM
Honestly, which parts do you believe are likely to be false?
about 2% of the adult population rides bikes on roads with traffic
probably at least 20% of the population are healthy enough to do it, ...
and like bicycling in general enough to do it, ...
but don't [ride bikes in traffic] because they believe it is too dangerous
and see bike lanes as evidence supporting their belief that bicycling on the roads is so dangerous that bicyclists need their own space to be protected.
that's [at least] 10 for every 1
It's a guess, but I think it's reasonable, and conservative.
well, other than the first three, it's all conjecture and guessing. there's no way of knowing any of that. there can be all kinds of reasons people do not want to ride, too dangerous is just one; and who knows what they think the BLs mean? I mean, that's a lot of "IFs". I'm not saying anything above is at all unreasonable as a guess, just unverifiable.
about 2% of the adult population rides bikes on roads with traffic
probably at least 20% of the population are healthy enough to do it, ...
and like bicycling in general enough to do it, ...
but don't [ride bikes in traffic] because they believe it is too dangerous
and see bike lanes as evidence supporting their belief that bicycling on the roads is so dangerous that bicyclists need their own space to be protected.
that's [at least] 10 for every 1
It's a guess, but I think it's reasonable, and conservative.
well, other than the first three, it's all conjecture and guessing. there's no way of knowing any of that. there can be all kinds of reasons people do not want to ride, too dangerous is just one; and who knows what they think the BLs mean? I mean, that's a lot of "IFs". I'm not saying anything above is at all unreasonable as a guess, just unverifiable.
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 04:43 PM
FWIW, this is the part of your estimation I disagree with. People justify their non-cycling with words to the safety issue, but these words aren't thought out. Even with bike lanes, they won't bike, unless pushed. That's (part) of my point.
The ones I'm talking about realize that a stripe of paint can't help, given the unreasonably large risk that they believe every cyclist out there is taking.
But bike lanes lower the barrier. For the sake of argument, let's say bike lanes do lower the barrier: a tiny bit for the tiny minority whose perception of the risk is that it's only slightly unreasonable, and the little bit that stripes help is just enough to get them to accept the perceived risk as being reasonable (seriously, what percentage of the population would fall into that very narrow slice?). For everyone else, the perceived risk is already reasonable (and they cycle, or don't cycle for some other reason), or the perceived risk is so high that "even with bike lanes, they won't bike." Now, try for a minute to get into the mind of someone in this latter group, and seriously consider what a bike lane is likely to tell him. I mean, is he likely to think, "oh, I guess bicycling is not as dangerous as I thought, or they wouldn't have bike lanes"? Or his he more likely to think, "gee, bicycling is so dangerous that the nuts who are willing to do it need bike lanes to reduce the risk at least a bit... not enough for me, baby, no way"?
If they have a friend who does it daily and they are putting $60 in their gas tank weekly for a two mile drive, then a bike laned road is appealing to them and lowers the barrier to entry. Yes, if they happen to be one of those rare souls in that slice that has to be very tiny. For everyone else the risk is either already reasonable (as it is for us), or it's so unreasonable that even bike lanes don't help.
Anyway, there are surveys which indicate the attitude I've stated in the previous paragraph. Real, hard data, again, from the Portland area. Approximately 35% (I don't have the numbers in front of me) of the Portland population show up in this category. This 35% (or something) carries the view that bike lanes and bike boulevards will lower the barrier of entry to their own cycling. There is another approximately 40% (or something) who will never get into cycling. I doubt danger is the reason; the data indicates that most of this group hold out for reasons of practicality.
Believe that the barrier will be lowered for others is very different from believing the barrier will be lowered for oneself. I submit all people fall into one of three categories:
Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, [whoa! I just felt an EARTHQUAKE!!!] with or without bike lanes.
Believes cycling in traffic is not reasonably safe, with or without bike lanes.
Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, but only with bike lanes.I believe the vast, vast majority fall into cats 1 and 2, and only a very tiny number, and insignificant number, fall into cat 3, and those are the only ones who can be enticed into cycling with the addition of bike lanes.
The ones I'm talking about realize that a stripe of paint can't help, given the unreasonably large risk that they believe every cyclist out there is taking.
But bike lanes lower the barrier. For the sake of argument, let's say bike lanes do lower the barrier: a tiny bit for the tiny minority whose perception of the risk is that it's only slightly unreasonable, and the little bit that stripes help is just enough to get them to accept the perceived risk as being reasonable (seriously, what percentage of the population would fall into that very narrow slice?). For everyone else, the perceived risk is already reasonable (and they cycle, or don't cycle for some other reason), or the perceived risk is so high that "even with bike lanes, they won't bike." Now, try for a minute to get into the mind of someone in this latter group, and seriously consider what a bike lane is likely to tell him. I mean, is he likely to think, "oh, I guess bicycling is not as dangerous as I thought, or they wouldn't have bike lanes"? Or his he more likely to think, "gee, bicycling is so dangerous that the nuts who are willing to do it need bike lanes to reduce the risk at least a bit... not enough for me, baby, no way"?
If they have a friend who does it daily and they are putting $60 in their gas tank weekly for a two mile drive, then a bike laned road is appealing to them and lowers the barrier to entry. Yes, if they happen to be one of those rare souls in that slice that has to be very tiny. For everyone else the risk is either already reasonable (as it is for us), or it's so unreasonable that even bike lanes don't help.
Anyway, there are surveys which indicate the attitude I've stated in the previous paragraph. Real, hard data, again, from the Portland area. Approximately 35% (I don't have the numbers in front of me) of the Portland population show up in this category. This 35% (or something) carries the view that bike lanes and bike boulevards will lower the barrier of entry to their own cycling. There is another approximately 40% (or something) who will never get into cycling. I doubt danger is the reason; the data indicates that most of this group hold out for reasons of practicality.
Believe that the barrier will be lowered for others is very different from believing the barrier will be lowered for oneself. I submit all people fall into one of three categories:
Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, [whoa! I just felt an EARTHQUAKE!!!] with or without bike lanes.
Believes cycling in traffic is not reasonably safe, with or without bike lanes.
Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, but only with bike lanes.I believe the vast, vast majority fall into cats 1 and 2, and only a very tiny number, and insignificant number, fall into cat 3, and those are the only ones who can be enticed into cycling with the addition of bike lanes.
Brian
05-03-07, 04:44 PM
Anyone that doesn't think the bike lane is safer needs to ride 5 miles in Utah. You will get your ass run over.
Brian Ratliff
05-03-07, 04:45 PM
Context: I was answering Fagerlin's question inquiring as to why I believed what I believed. He was asking me why I wanted bicycling to be more popular.
In answering that question, to clarify my answer, I included a reason that does not resonate for me: making the cycling environment safer. I explained why that reason did not resonate for me: because I don't believe the cycling environment could be made significantly safer than it already is. Yes, I used an metaphor as a way to convey what I meant: it's like making water wetter.
A metaphor does not an argument make. Just understand that. You will never convince another person by a metaphor.
Indeed, correlation is not causation.
You say this as if it means something. Correlation is not worthless.
Now, some of you will probably not agree with this, and some might even be angered by it, but this is how I see it. I suppose it's possible that having more incompetent cyclists (disobeying the rules, passing on the right, riding in door zones, going straight from the right without looking back first, expecting the ROW when they don't have it, signalling and merging without negotiating first, etc., etc.) out there could make cycling for incompetent cyclists safer because more motorists would be expecting incompetent cyclists, and driving accordingly (defensively). In the same way, I suppose having more drunk drivers out there could make driving safer for drunk drivers, because more sober drivers would be expecting drunk drivers, and driving accordingly (defensively).
Perhaps, but again, pulled out your ass, completely and utterly. And besides, does it really matter, in the meta-analysis, why safety is increased? Bottom line, safety is increased. It is a real effect, even if we don't know why.
In answering that question, to clarify my answer, I included a reason that does not resonate for me: making the cycling environment safer. I explained why that reason did not resonate for me: because I don't believe the cycling environment could be made significantly safer than it already is. Yes, I used an metaphor as a way to convey what I meant: it's like making water wetter.
A metaphor does not an argument make. Just understand that. You will never convince another person by a metaphor.
Indeed, correlation is not causation.
You say this as if it means something. Correlation is not worthless.
Now, some of you will probably not agree with this, and some might even be angered by it, but this is how I see it. I suppose it's possible that having more incompetent cyclists (disobeying the rules, passing on the right, riding in door zones, going straight from the right without looking back first, expecting the ROW when they don't have it, signalling and merging without negotiating first, etc., etc.) out there could make cycling for incompetent cyclists safer because more motorists would be expecting incompetent cyclists, and driving accordingly (defensively). In the same way, I suppose having more drunk drivers out there could make driving safer for drunk drivers, because more sober drivers would be expecting drunk drivers, and driving accordingly (defensively).
Perhaps, but again, pulled out your ass, completely and utterly. And besides, does it really matter, in the meta-analysis, why safety is increased? Bottom line, safety is increased. It is a real effect, even if we don't know why.
Brian Ratliff
05-03-07, 04:47 PM
HH: You're post is refuted out of the box by the survey that the city of portland did which showed about 35% of the total population falling into your category 3. You'll have to answer to that. Everything else is wasted electrons, i.e. guesswork.
sbhikes
05-03-07, 04:54 PM
I think it's fair to say that about 2% of the adult population rides a bikes on roads with traffic, that most of them like bike lanes, and probably at least 20% of the population are healthy enough to do it, and like bicycling in general enough to do it, but don't because they believe it is too dangerous and see bike lanes as evidence supporting their belief that bicycling on the roads is so dangerous that bicyclists need their own space to be protected. That's 10 for every 1. It's a guess, but I think it's reasonable, and conservative.
This is totally made up. Most people cite the lack of bike paths or bike lanes as constituting a situation that is too dangerous, not the presence of them.
VC-ists will make up anything to support their cause.
This is totally made up. Most people cite the lack of bike paths or bike lanes as constituting a situation that is too dangerous, not the presence of them.
VC-ists will make up anything to support their cause.
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 04:59 PM
well, other than the first three, it's all conjecture and guessing. there's no way of knowing any of that. there can be all kinds of reasons people do not want to ride, too dangerous is just one; and who knows what they think the BLs mean? I mean, that's a lot of "IFs". I'm not saying anything above is at all unreasonable as a guess, just unverifiable.
Well, of course.
But regardless of which side you're on on the question of whether more cyclists makes the cycling environment safer, or whether more bike lanes create more cyclists, it's mostly conjecture and guessing.
Yet many people feel strongly yes on either question, or both. Based on what? Conjecture and guessing.
My position is the effect is small, at best. Based on what? The reasoning that if either effect was significant in magnitude, it would have been measured and demonstrated by now. But, despite 30 years of many studies to prove either one, they haven't been able to.
Anyway, my belief (admittedly based on guess and conjecture) that there are significant numbers of noncyclists who don't cycle because they believe it to be too dangerous, and see the apparent need for bike lanes as supporting their belief, is all beside the point. At best it's a possible explanation for why bike lanes don't have a significant effect on increasing cycling.
Well, of course.
But regardless of which side you're on on the question of whether more cyclists makes the cycling environment safer, or whether more bike lanes create more cyclists, it's mostly conjecture and guessing.
Yet many people feel strongly yes on either question, or both. Based on what? Conjecture and guessing.
My position is the effect is small, at best. Based on what? The reasoning that if either effect was significant in magnitude, it would have been measured and demonstrated by now. But, despite 30 years of many studies to prove either one, they haven't been able to.
Anyway, my belief (admittedly based on guess and conjecture) that there are significant numbers of noncyclists who don't cycle because they believe it to be too dangerous, and see the apparent need for bike lanes as supporting their belief, is all beside the point. At best it's a possible explanation for why bike lanes don't have a significant effect on increasing cycling.
genec
05-03-07, 05:04 PM
whoa! I just felt an EARTHQUAKE!!!
Thought something shook my window... wasn't sure what it was...
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Quakes/ci14288888.html
http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/
Nothing of any recent size on the quake URLs.
But I am so close to the freeway... it could be anything.
Thought something shook my window... wasn't sure what it was...
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Quakes/ci14288888.html
http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/
Nothing of any recent size on the quake URLs.
But I am so close to the freeway... it could be anything.
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 05:20 PM
A metaphor does not an argument make. Just understand that. You will never convince another person by a metaphor.
Duh. In order to convince someone, you need to convey to them what your argument is. Just understand that. A metaphor can help accomplish that.
You say this as if it means something. Correlation is not worthless.
I didn't say it was. Some of the basic ideas in VC theory are based on correlations for which certain causations are the most likely explanations.
Perhaps, but again, pulled out your ass, completely and utterly.
I'm just saying it's a possible explanation.
And besides, does it really matter, in the meta-analysis, why safety is increased? Bottom line, safety is increased. It is a real effect, even if we don't know why.
Why matters. For one thing, it helps you figure out if the effect scales.
Duh. In order to convince someone, you need to convey to them what your argument is. Just understand that. A metaphor can help accomplish that.
You say this as if it means something. Correlation is not worthless.
I didn't say it was. Some of the basic ideas in VC theory are based on correlations for which certain causations are the most likely explanations.
Perhaps, but again, pulled out your ass, completely and utterly.
I'm just saying it's a possible explanation.
And besides, does it really matter, in the meta-analysis, why safety is increased? Bottom line, safety is increased. It is a real effect, even if we don't know why.
Why matters. For one thing, it helps you figure out if the effect scales.
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 05:22 PM
HH: You're post is refuted out of the box by the survey that the city of portland did which showed about 35% of the total population falling into your category 3. You'll have to answer to that. Everything else is wasted electrons, i.e. guesswork.
My cat 3 is: Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, but only with bike lanes.
35% fall into that category? They won't cycle on roads without bike lanes, but they will cycle on roads with bike lanes? 35%?
My cat 3 is: Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, but only with bike lanes.
35% fall into that category? They won't cycle on roads without bike lanes, but they will cycle on roads with bike lanes? 35%?
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 05:23 PM
Anyone that doesn't think the bike lane is safer needs to ride 5 miles in Utah. You will get your ass run over.
Any where in Utah, or are you thinking of some particular place?
Any where in Utah, or are you thinking of some particular place?
Brian Ratliff
05-03-07, 05:38 PM
My cat 3 is: Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, but only with bike lanes.
35% fall into that category? They won't cycle on roads without bike lanes, but they will cycle on roads with bike lanes? 35%?
Yea. It's something like that; I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it is a significant portion of the population.
35% fall into that category? They won't cycle on roads without bike lanes, but they will cycle on roads with bike lanes? 35%?
Yea. It's something like that; I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it is a significant portion of the population.
Brian Ratliff
05-03-07, 05:54 PM
Yea. It's something like that; I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it is a significant portion of the population.
I am remembering somewhat wrong. It is 7% who ride in traffic with appropriate facilities, HH's category 3. Not 35%, but not insignificant. It is about 90% of all transportational cyclists. It is 60% who don't ride in traffic but will with advanced facilities such as paths and bike boulevards.
To assume why this 60% shys away from traffic is a guessing game, on anyone's part. Somehow I doubt that bike lanes have anything to do with it, and the explanation lies with the number of cars on the road.
In either case, the city of Portland has moved past bike lanes and is trying to change the environment in more drastic ways to accomodate bicycle transportation.
I am remembering somewhat wrong. It is 7% who ride in traffic with appropriate facilities, HH's category 3. Not 35%, but not insignificant. It is about 90% of all transportational cyclists. It is 60% who don't ride in traffic but will with advanced facilities such as paths and bike boulevards.
To assume why this 60% shys away from traffic is a guessing game, on anyone's part. Somehow I doubt that bike lanes have anything to do with it, and the explanation lies with the number of cars on the road.
In either case, the city of Portland has moved past bike lanes and is trying to change the environment in more drastic ways to accomodate bicycle transportation.
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 05:55 PM
Yea. It's something like that; I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it is a significant portion of the population.
I'd like to see that. Let me know if you can find a pointer to it. Thanks.
I'd like to see that. Let me know if you can find a pointer to it. Thanks.
Brian Ratliff
05-03-07, 05:56 PM
Believe that the barrier will be lowered for others is very different from believing the barrier will be lowered for oneself. I submit all people fall into one of three categories:
Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, [whoa! I just felt an EARTHQUAKE!!!] with or without bike lanes.
Believes cycling in traffic is not reasonably safe, with or without bike lanes.
Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, but only with bike lanes.I believe the vast, vast majority fall into cats 1 and 2, and only a very tiny number, and insignificant number, fall into cat 3, and those are the only ones who can be enticed into cycling with the addition of bike lanes.
So, you can see that most all people fall in category 2. A neglegible number fall in category 1. Most all transportational cyclists fall in category 3.
I should add that this is from the Existing Conditions Report executive summary (http://www.bikeportland.org/wp-content/BMP_ExistingConditionsSummary.pdf).
Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, [whoa! I just felt an EARTHQUAKE!!!] with or without bike lanes.
Believes cycling in traffic is not reasonably safe, with or without bike lanes.
Believes cycling in traffic is reasonably safe, but only with bike lanes.I believe the vast, vast majority fall into cats 1 and 2, and only a very tiny number, and insignificant number, fall into cat 3, and those are the only ones who can be enticed into cycling with the addition of bike lanes.
So, you can see that most all people fall in category 2. A neglegible number fall in category 1. Most all transportational cyclists fall in category 3.
I should add that this is from the Existing Conditions Report executive summary (http://www.bikeportland.org/wp-content/BMP_ExistingConditionsSummary.pdf).
Helmet Head
05-03-07, 06:00 PM
I am remembering somewhat wrong. It is 7% who ride in traffic with appropriate facilities, HH's category 3. Not 35%, but not insignificant. It is about 90% of all transportational cyclists. It is 60% who don't ride in traffic but will with advanced facilities such as paths and bike boulevards.
To assume why this 60% shys away from traffic is a guessing game, on anyone's part. Somehow I doubt that bike lanes have anything to do with it, and the explanation lies with the number of cars on the road.
In either case, the city of Portland has moved past bike lanes and is trying to change the environment in more drastic ways to accomodate bicycle transportation.
I'm not saying that bike lanes have anything to do with why the 60% who don't ride in traffic don't ride in traffic.
I'm suggesting a reason for why bike lanes don't help: because those who think cycling in traffic is unreasonably dangerous are unlikely to happen to think it is only unreasonable dangerous due to a lack of striping for cyclists and that the very existence of the bike lanes is likely to reinforce their beliefs that cycling in traffic is not reasonably safe. That's a possible explanation. Can you think of any others?
To assume why this 60% shys away from traffic is a guessing game, on anyone's part. Somehow I doubt that bike lanes have anything to do with it, and the explanation lies with the number of cars on the road.
In either case, the city of Portland has moved past bike lanes and is trying to change the environment in more drastic ways to accomodate bicycle transportation.
I'm not saying that bike lanes have anything to do with why the 60% who don't ride in traffic don't ride in traffic.
I'm suggesting a reason for why bike lanes don't help: because those who think cycling in traffic is unreasonably dangerous are unlikely to happen to think it is only unreasonable dangerous due to a lack of striping for cyclists and that the very existence of the bike lanes is likely to reinforce their beliefs that cycling in traffic is not reasonably safe. That's a possible explanation. Can you think of any others?
randya
05-03-07, 06:02 PM
The ONLY way to get all those interested but concerned people out of the neighborhoods will be to provide 'facilities' of some sort.
genec
05-03-07, 06:33 PM
Anyone that doesn't think the bike lane is safer needs to ride 5 miles in Utah. You will get your ass run over.
Where in Utah?
I did about 35+ miles in southern Utah last summer... From just outside Kanab to just inside of Zion. Nobody ran me over, and while there was a shoulder on the road most of the way, it did not exist all the way... motorists tended to move over and give me plenty of room. That was on Route 89 to Route 9 and into the park. Pretty nice ride actually. The road surface was a lot smoother than the shoulder.
Of course I understand that was probably in a very nice place to ride... Perhaps the cities are not so nice.
Where in Utah?
I did about 35+ miles in southern Utah last summer... From just outside Kanab to just inside of Zion. Nobody ran me over, and while there was a shoulder on the road most of the way, it did not exist all the way... motorists tended to move over and give me plenty of room. That was on Route 89 to Route 9 and into the park. Pretty nice ride actually. The road surface was a lot smoother than the shoulder.
Of course I understand that was probably in a very nice place to ride... Perhaps the cities are not so nice.
genec
05-03-07, 06:39 PM
I'm not saying that bike lanes have anything to do with why the 60% who don't ride in traffic don't ride in traffic.
I'm suggesting a reason for why bike lanes don't help: because those who think cycling in traffic is unreasonably dangerous are unlikely to happen to think it is only unreasonable dangerous due to a lack of striping for cyclists and that the very existence of the bike lanes is likely to reinforce their beliefs that cycling in traffic is not reasonably safe. That's a possible explanation. Can you think of any others?
Helmets probably do more to reinforce the idea that cycling in traffic is dangerous. I honestly doubt bike lanes give an impression of danger any more than a sidewalk gives an impression of danger to a pedestrian.
I think just viewing motor traffic from a motor vehicle might be enough to put off most folks that do not cycle regularly... add the helmet and the bright yellow vest and that might be enough to kill the idea for many folks. Who else wears helmets and bright yellow vests... oh yeah, road workers that acknowledge the danger in their job...
I'm suggesting a reason for why bike lanes don't help: because those who think cycling in traffic is unreasonably dangerous are unlikely to happen to think it is only unreasonable dangerous due to a lack of striping for cyclists and that the very existence of the bike lanes is likely to reinforce their beliefs that cycling in traffic is not reasonably safe. That's a possible explanation. Can you think of any others?
Helmets probably do more to reinforce the idea that cycling in traffic is dangerous. I honestly doubt bike lanes give an impression of danger any more than a sidewalk gives an impression of danger to a pedestrian.
I think just viewing motor traffic from a motor vehicle might be enough to put off most folks that do not cycle regularly... add the helmet and the bright yellow vest and that might be enough to kill the idea for many folks. Who else wears helmets and bright yellow vests... oh yeah, road workers that acknowledge the danger in their job...
Brian
05-03-07, 07:32 PM
Where in Utah?
I did about 35+ miles in southern Utah last summer... From just outside Kanab to just inside of Zion. Nobody ran me over, and while there was a shoulder on the road most of the way, it did not exist all the way... motorists tended to move over and give me plenty of room. That was on Route 89 to Route 9 and into the park. Pretty nice ride actually. The road surface was a lot smoother than the shoulder.
Of course I understand that was probably in a very nice place to ride... Perhaps the cities are not so nice.
Utah County.
I did about 35+ miles in southern Utah last summer... From just outside Kanab to just inside of Zion. Nobody ran me over, and while there was a shoulder on the road most of the way, it did not exist all the way... motorists tended to move over and give me plenty of room. That was on Route 89 to Route 9 and into the park. Pretty nice ride actually. The road surface was a lot smoother than the shoulder.
Of course I understand that was probably in a very nice place to ride... Perhaps the cities are not so nice.
Utah County.
I-Like-To-Bike
05-03-07, 07:40 PM
You need a good Dutch bike (http://usa.batavus.com/).
Even most bad (i.e. cheap) Dutch, as well as German and other Northern European commuter bikes would meet Steve's requirements.
Even most bad (i.e. cheap) Dutch, as well as German and other Northern European commuter bikes would meet Steve's requirements.
I-Like-To-Bike
05-03-07, 07:48 PM
VC-ists will make up anything to support their cause.
That's known as fabricating the best evidence available in Forester speak. AKA known as the scientific basis for Forester & Associates' so-called "Reasonable Assumptions."
That's known as fabricating the best evidence available in Forester speak. AKA known as the scientific basis for Forester & Associates' so-called "Reasonable Assumptions."
sggoodri
05-03-07, 08:18 PM
Even most bad (i.e. cheap) Dutch, as well as German and other Northern European commuter bikes would meet Steve's requirements.
Below is my all-weather commuter bike, based on a ~1982 Trek road bike. It has Shimano Campus pedals (platform one side, spd on the other), Nite Rider front and rear lights, lightweight fenders, and a trunk bag. I've modified it since this picture, replacing the beam rack (a brief experiment) with a lower, conventional rack that supports panniers.
I commuted on this bike in college, long before I ever wore spandex shorts or rode in a club ride. I wish I had installed the fenders back then, but I didn't know what I was missing. A few years ago I switched to a converted fixed-suspension MTB with slicks as a commuter. I switched back to a 700c drop-bar road bike because the slick-tire MTB felt heavy and slow. Most of the upright utility bikes in stores now seem heavy and unappealing to me, although I'm intrigued by the new lightweight flat-bar road bikes with disk brakes that I have seen at REI.
This is also the bike I hop on to ride short distances without putting on special shoes. The only things I would change about it is add a chainring guard to help protect my pants from grease, if only I could find one that would work, and swap the battery lamp system for a good dynamo/LED headlamp combination so I'd never have to worry about charge.
43823
Below is my all-weather commuter bike, based on a ~1982 Trek road bike. It has Shimano Campus pedals (platform one side, spd on the other), Nite Rider front and rear lights, lightweight fenders, and a trunk bag. I've modified it since this picture, replacing the beam rack (a brief experiment) with a lower, conventional rack that supports panniers.
I commuted on this bike in college, long before I ever wore spandex shorts or rode in a club ride. I wish I had installed the fenders back then, but I didn't know what I was missing. A few years ago I switched to a converted fixed-suspension MTB with slicks as a commuter. I switched back to a 700c drop-bar road bike because the slick-tire MTB felt heavy and slow. Most of the upright utility bikes in stores now seem heavy and unappealing to me, although I'm intrigued by the new lightweight flat-bar road bikes with disk brakes that I have seen at REI.
This is also the bike I hop on to ride short distances without putting on special shoes. The only things I would change about it is add a chainring guard to help protect my pants from grease, if only I could find one that would work, and swap the battery lamp system for a good dynamo/LED headlamp combination so I'd never have to worry about charge.
43823
LittleBigMan
05-03-07, 08:40 PM
Why still bickering?
Because the Foresterites advocate auto-centric development and they want cycling to remain an elite sport rather than become mass transportation.
Wait.
I did not choose auto-centric development. I am not an elite cyclist. Biking is my "mass transportation."
Does that mean I have to pretend about my preferences? Does that mean I have to wait another 10 years (until I'm 57) to ride my bike to work?
Pshaw. I don't care how many facilities are built around here, the road can still get me anwhere a car can go. I already have the best cycling network money can buy. I hate it when I'm offered peanuts for steak (which is healthy, by the way, just makin' a point. :D )
Why not fight for the right to use the same great connectivity everyone else enjoys? Why accept less than total equality?
I won't settle for less. No, no, no.
:)
:beer:
(Triple word score? Dang!!! I didn't know you had those letters, sis. I'm goin' upstairs for more crackers...)
Because the Foresterites advocate auto-centric development and they want cycling to remain an elite sport rather than become mass transportation.
Wait.
I did not choose auto-centric development. I am not an elite cyclist. Biking is my "mass transportation."
Does that mean I have to pretend about my preferences? Does that mean I have to wait another 10 years (until I'm 57) to ride my bike to work?
Pshaw. I don't care how many facilities are built around here, the road can still get me anwhere a car can go. I already have the best cycling network money can buy. I hate it when I'm offered peanuts for steak (which is healthy, by the way, just makin' a point. :D )
Why not fight for the right to use the same great connectivity everyone else enjoys? Why accept less than total equality?
I won't settle for less. No, no, no.
:)
:beer:
(Triple word score? Dang!!! I didn't know you had those letters, sis. I'm goin' upstairs for more crackers...)
sggoodri
05-03-07, 08:50 PM
This 35% (or something) carries the view that bike lanes and bike boulevards will lower the barrier of entry to their own cycling.
I'd like to ride with my 4-year-old son (in the Burley trailer) to our nearby ice cream shop and movie theater, about a mile away.
Unfortunately, getting to the shopping center requires traveling half a mile on a busy, narrow two-lane state highway, posted 45, with heavy truck traffic, 11' lanes, no shoulders, and a steep slope into a drainage ditch on each side. Drivers wanting to overtake us would have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear, and in case they get impatient, I don't want them honking behind my son. So, this is one of the trips I don't take with him by bike. Instead, we ride across town to another ice cream store, reachable by pleasant residential streets where drivers don't honk.
I'd prefer a 16' or wider lane, or a wide paved shoulder, so that drivers could pass us more easily on this highway. But, since this is a state maintained road, that won't happen until they widen it to 6 lanes or so, which isn't planned until after my son graduates from high school.
Sooner than that, there is a future subdivision in the planning stages that will connect to my neighborhood. It looks like it will have another street connection across from the shopping center. This would connect my home to the shopping center via 25 mph streets, and one arterial crossing.
Either way, I'm a vehicular cyclist wishing for an engineering improvement that would encourage my road cycling. However, I see this as just better road engineering for better accommodation of low-speed vehicle use, and not something that needs to involve bicycle-specific markings.
I'd like to ride with my 4-year-old son (in the Burley trailer) to our nearby ice cream shop and movie theater, about a mile away.
Unfortunately, getting to the shopping center requires traveling half a mile on a busy, narrow two-lane state highway, posted 45, with heavy truck traffic, 11' lanes, no shoulders, and a steep slope into a drainage ditch on each side. Drivers wanting to overtake us would have to wait for oncoming traffic to clear, and in case they get impatient, I don't want them honking behind my son. So, this is one of the trips I don't take with him by bike. Instead, we ride across town to another ice cream store, reachable by pleasant residential streets where drivers don't honk.
I'd prefer a 16' or wider lane, or a wide paved shoulder, so that drivers could pass us more easily on this highway. But, since this is a state maintained road, that won't happen until they widen it to 6 lanes or so, which isn't planned until after my son graduates from high school.
Sooner than that, there is a future subdivision in the planning stages that will connect to my neighborhood. It looks like it will have another street connection across from the shopping center. This would connect my home to the shopping center via 25 mph streets, and one arterial crossing.
Either way, I'm a vehicular cyclist wishing for an engineering improvement that would encourage my road cycling. However, I see this as just better road engineering for better accommodation of low-speed vehicle use, and not something that needs to involve bicycle-specific markings.
Bekologist
05-03-07, 09:01 PM
two ways of looking at that high speed road you WON'T ride with your son, steve.
make it for 'slow moving vehicles'- kind of disuasive, do you mean "bicycles"?
with wide lanes on a high speed road that WON'T encourage many cyclists to ride there anyway,
or stripe it with bike specific accomodations- striped for 'slow moving vehicles' I.E. Bikes,
and see more cyclists willing to ride that road.
To you, and the rest of us VC, it won't make much of a difference because we all know, vehicular cyclists CAN ride in a bike lane.
the purpose and usefulness in 'slow moving' specific stripes, I.E. for bike traffic, is the encouragement to non-motorized transportation.
but the dogmatic VC-ists fail to see that in 'slow moving' vehicle stripes.
make it for 'slow moving vehicles'- kind of disuasive, do you mean "bicycles"?
with wide lanes on a high speed road that WON'T encourage many cyclists to ride there anyway,
or stripe it with bike specific accomodations- striped for 'slow moving vehicles' I.E. Bikes,
and see more cyclists willing to ride that road.
To you, and the rest of us VC, it won't make much of a difference because we all know, vehicular cyclists CAN ride in a bike lane.
the purpose and usefulness in 'slow moving' specific stripes, I.E. for bike traffic, is the encouragement to non-motorized transportation.
but the dogmatic VC-ists fail to see that in 'slow moving' vehicle stripes.
sbhikes
05-03-07, 09:19 PM
Wait.
I did not choose auto-centric development. I am not an elite cyclist. Biking is my "mass transportation."
Does that mean I have to pretend about my preferences? Does that mean I have to wait another 10 years (until I'm 57) to ride my bike to work?
Pshaw. I don't care how many facilities are built around here, the road can still get me anwhere a car can go. I already have the best cycling network money can buy. I hate it when I'm offered peanuts for steak (which is healthy, by the way, just makin' a point. :D )
Why not fight for the right to use the same great connectivity everyone else enjoys? Why accept less than total equality?
I won't settle for less. No, no, no.
:)
:beer:
(Triple word score? Dang!!! I didn't know you had those letters, sis. I'm goin' upstairs for more crackers...)
There's a difference between accepting and riding in "what is", and advocating for more of the same.
I did not choose auto-centric development. I am not an elite cyclist. Biking is my "mass transportation."
Does that mean I have to pretend about my preferences? Does that mean I have to wait another 10 years (until I'm 57) to ride my bike to work?
Pshaw. I don't care how many facilities are built around here, the road can still get me anwhere a car can go. I already have the best cycling network money can buy. I hate it when I'm offered peanuts for steak (which is healthy, by the way, just makin' a point. :D )
Why not fight for the right to use the same great connectivity everyone else enjoys? Why accept less than total equality?
I won't settle for less. No, no, no.
:)
:beer:
(Triple word score? Dang!!! I didn't know you had those letters, sis. I'm goin' upstairs for more crackers...)
There's a difference between accepting and riding in "what is", and advocating for more of the same.
sggoodri
05-03-07, 09:23 PM
two ways of looking at that high speed road you WON'T ride with your son, steve.
make it for 'slow moving vehicles'- kind of disuasive, do you mean "bicycles"? and have wide lanes on a high speed road that WON'T encourage many cyclists to ride there anyway,
or stripe it with bike specific accomodations- striped for 'slow moving vehicles' I.E. Bikes,
and see more cyclists willing to ride that road.
To you, and the rest of us VC, it won't make much of a difference because we all know, vehicular cyclists CAN ride in a bike lane.
the purpose and usefulness in 'slow moving' specific stripes, I.E. for bike traffic, is the encouragement to non-motorized transportation.
but the dogmatic VC-ists fail to see that in 'slow moving' vehicle stripes.
You've made it clear that you prioritize marketing toward bicyclists when engineering facilities. As I've said, I prioritize how well the facility will function for my bicycling. Where I live (but maybe not where you live) the facilities that are not specifically labeled for bicycle use tend to function better for my cycling than those that are, pavement space being equal. I wish that weren't the case; my advocacy would be much simpler if it weren't but that's the local reality. Facilities that function better will encourage my cycling more. I support marketing of cycling, but I prefer marketing schemes that won't detract from my cycling experience. On this particular road, half the driveways are gravel, so a bike lane will fill up with debris quickly, and drivers honk more if I ride outside a designated bike lane compared to outside a paved shoulder.
In any event, the state road isn't going to change any time soon, but the connecting residential subdivision will get built sooner, and not with any bike lanes on the streets, because homeowners like to have the option of parking on the street on occasion. That won't matter, because the low-volume, low-speed streets will still be ideal for cycling.
make it for 'slow moving vehicles'- kind of disuasive, do you mean "bicycles"? and have wide lanes on a high speed road that WON'T encourage many cyclists to ride there anyway,
or stripe it with bike specific accomodations- striped for 'slow moving vehicles' I.E. Bikes,
and see more cyclists willing to ride that road.
To you, and the rest of us VC, it won't make much of a difference because we all know, vehicular cyclists CAN ride in a bike lane.
the purpose and usefulness in 'slow moving' specific stripes, I.E. for bike traffic, is the encouragement to non-motorized transportation.
but the dogmatic VC-ists fail to see that in 'slow moving' vehicle stripes.
You've made it clear that you prioritize marketing toward bicyclists when engineering facilities. As I've said, I prioritize how well the facility will function for my bicycling. Where I live (but maybe not where you live) the facilities that are not specifically labeled for bicycle use tend to function better for my cycling than those that are, pavement space being equal. I wish that weren't the case; my advocacy would be much simpler if it weren't but that's the local reality. Facilities that function better will encourage my cycling more. I support marketing of cycling, but I prefer marketing schemes that won't detract from my cycling experience. On this particular road, half the driveways are gravel, so a bike lane will fill up with debris quickly, and drivers honk more if I ride outside a designated bike lane compared to outside a paved shoulder.
In any event, the state road isn't going to change any time soon, but the connecting residential subdivision will get built sooner, and not with any bike lanes on the streets, because homeowners like to have the option of parking on the street on occasion. That won't matter, because the low-volume, low-speed streets will still be ideal for cycling.
Bekologist
05-03-07, 09:57 PM
for 'your' cycling is the operative word, steve.
genec
05-04-07, 07:35 AM
Sooner than that, there is a future subdivision in the planning stages that will connect to my neighborhood. It looks like it will have another street connection across from the shopping center. This would connect my home to the shopping center via 25 mph streets, and one arterial crossing.
Either way, I'm a vehicular cyclist wishing for an engineering improvement that would encourage my road cycling. However, I see this as just better road engineering for better accommodation of low-speed vehicle use, and not something that needs to involve bicycle-specific markings.
It is the low speed thing that gets me too. While I do have "markings" on some local streets, the 50MPH speeds of passing vehicles makes for a "less than pleasant" cycling environment... one in which I tend to feel harried and want to move past quickly. I can hear nothing but engine noises and the roar of tires. Bicycle specific markings really do little to aid in this environment other than guide the speeding motorists along.
Slower traffic and wide lanes would be the best thing that could happen. But it is not likely to occur now or ever. (more likely would be an additional lane and higher speeds)
Now while I have no problem biking in this environment... I can easily see why it it can be quite a "turn off."
Either way, I'm a vehicular cyclist wishing for an engineering improvement that would encourage my road cycling. However, I see this as just better road engineering for better accommodation of low-speed vehicle use, and not something that needs to involve bicycle-specific markings.
It is the low speed thing that gets me too. While I do have "markings" on some local streets, the 50MPH speeds of passing vehicles makes for a "less than pleasant" cycling environment... one in which I tend to feel harried and want to move past quickly. I can hear nothing but engine noises and the roar of tires. Bicycle specific markings really do little to aid in this environment other than guide the speeding motorists along.
Slower traffic and wide lanes would be the best thing that could happen. But it is not likely to occur now or ever. (more likely would be an additional lane and higher speeds)
Now while I have no problem biking in this environment... I can easily see why it it can be quite a "turn off."
sggoodri
05-04-07, 08:16 AM
Now while I have no problem biking in this environment... I can easily see why it it can be quite a "turn off."
This is why I am so active in trying to effect change in our local transportation infrastructure. I can bike in the existing environment with an acceptable level of safety, but it could be a lot more pleasant. And, making it more pleasant can be done in ways compatible with vehicular cycling.
As an alternative to arterials, I have promoted (and sometimes obtained)
-ordinance changes that require a higher index of street connectivity for subdivisions
-planning for well-connected, useful low-speed collector roads ahead of new development
-short-cut paths between subdivisions where roadway connections are impractical or undesirable
-connectivity between commercial and residential areas via collectors and paths
-designing greenway paths to have a minimum of street junctions and better junction designs
-land use planning that provides closer proximity between residential, first-tier retail, and school uses.
Our community of over 100,000 has been growing at rates of around 5% annually, including fast outward expansion, resulting in a lot of new transportation construction. I have tried to use this opportunity to obtain more pleasant connections and convenient patterns of land use.
This is why I am so active in trying to effect change in our local transportation infrastructure. I can bike in the existing environment with an acceptable level of safety, but it could be a lot more pleasant. And, making it more pleasant can be done in ways compatible with vehicular cycling.
As an alternative to arterials, I have promoted (and sometimes obtained)
-ordinance changes that require a higher index of street connectivity for subdivisions
-planning for well-connected, useful low-speed collector roads ahead of new development
-short-cut paths between subdivisions where roadway connections are impractical or undesirable
-connectivity between commercial and residential areas via collectors and paths
-designing greenway paths to have a minimum of street junctions and better junction designs
-land use planning that provides closer proximity between residential, first-tier retail, and school uses.
Our community of over 100,000 has been growing at rates of around 5% annually, including fast outward expansion, resulting in a lot of new transportation construction. I have tried to use this opportunity to obtain more pleasant connections and convenient patterns of land use.
genec
05-04-07, 08:34 AM
This is why I am so active in trying to effect change in our local transportation infrastructure. I can bike in the existing environment with an acceptable level of safety, but it could be a lot more pleasant. And, making it more pleasant can be done in ways compatible with vehicular cycling.
As an alternative to arterials, I have promoted (and sometimes obtained)
-ordinance changes that require a higher index of street connectivity for subdivisions
-planning for well-connected, useful low-speed collector roads ahead of new development
-short-cut paths between subdivisions where roadway connections are impractical or undesirable
-connectivity between commercial and residential areas via collectors and paths
-designing greenway paths to have a minimum of street junctions and better junction designs
-land use planning that provides closer proximity between residential, first-tier retail, and school uses.
Our community of over 100,000 has been growing at rates of around 5% annually, including fast outward expansion, resulting in a lot of new transportation construction. I have tried to use this opportunity to obtain more pleasant connections and convenient patterns of land use.
Might work in a community of 100,000. As of 2000, we were well over 1.2 million... and that is the city alone, not including the surrounding 'burbs.
Frankly, I would be happy if the area could simply do proper street maintenance. Yesterday there was a story in the paper discussing how only 30% of our streets meet local maintenance standards. No doubt that includes the fading bike lane stripe.
As an alternative to arterials, I have promoted (and sometimes obtained)
-ordinance changes that require a higher index of street connectivity for subdivisions
-planning for well-connected, useful low-speed collector roads ahead of new development
-short-cut paths between subdivisions where roadway connections are impractical or undesirable
-connectivity between commercial and residential areas via collectors and paths
-designing greenway paths to have a minimum of street junctions and better junction designs
-land use planning that provides closer proximity between residential, first-tier retail, and school uses.
Our community of over 100,000 has been growing at rates of around 5% annually, including fast outward expansion, resulting in a lot of new transportation construction. I have tried to use this opportunity to obtain more pleasant connections and convenient patterns of land use.
Might work in a community of 100,000. As of 2000, we were well over 1.2 million... and that is the city alone, not including the surrounding 'burbs.
Frankly, I would be happy if the area could simply do proper street maintenance. Yesterday there was a story in the paper discussing how only 30% of our streets meet local maintenance standards. No doubt that includes the fading bike lane stripe.
John Forester
05-04-07, 12:42 PM
Why still bickering?
Because the Foresterites advocate auto-centric development and they want cycling to remain an elite sport rather than become mass transportation.
sbhikes, you need to consider whatever it is inside your mind that forces you to continue to repeat such lies.
Because the Foresterites advocate auto-centric development and they want cycling to remain an elite sport rather than become mass transportation.
sbhikes, you need to consider whatever it is inside your mind that forces you to continue to repeat such lies.