Vehicular Cycling (VC) - The science of bike lane advocacy.

Oh HH. You are just some guy...

I post to gauge reactions. I post to learn stuff. I post to reveal another's true thoughts.

I've learned a great deal about the structure of VC advocacy and the relevance of bike lanes to those VC advocates in the thread I started. It turned out to be the right question to ask to gain insight into the VC advocacy movement, as represented on this forum.

You see HH, I am, also, a vehicular cycling advocate, though not part of your clique. I do not come here with a set of answers, and my opinions evolve over time, though I don't get swayed by any one person's argument. Indeed, my debates with you have highlighted the weakness of many of the bottled arguments against bike lanes and for WOLs. And they have modified my views on bike lanes. But no one of my posts here, or even each of my posts taken together will form a complete worldview representative of my thoughts.

Maybe I'll write a book! :D

I look at the safety issue from the perspective of the individual cyclist. There are many factors that determine whether he will be involved in crash, including one that causes serious injuries or even his death.

Among those factors is the behavior of all the motorists around him that he will encounter in the coming years and decades. There are thousands and thousands of them, and there is no way to identify the particular ones he will encounter. The odds of any particular one of those motorists being the one whose mistake causes a crash with that cyclist is extremely low. So, the only way to reach that one motorist whose mistake will cause a crash with that cyclist is by reaching all of the motorists this cyclist will encounter. But, again, there is no way to identify all of these motorists. So we must reach ALL motorists, which of course is impossible. So, we reach as many as we can. But let's consider the possibility that we can reach one half of all motorists. That would mean that the odds of this one cyclist being involved in that crash is reduced by one half, and that's assuming "reaching" the motorists that are reached prevents the one motorist who is destined to crash with this cyclist from doing whatever that contributory mistake is. How effective is education at doing that? Consider the Wilberding case, or your case John R. What motorist education, if any, could have prevented the motorists involved in those crashes from doing whatever they did that contributed to the crash? The motorist in the Wilberding made a normal left turn. What would education teach him? Do you really think education would teach that when turning left into the sun, take the turn even slower than he did? Concentrate on the shadows because there might be a cyclist in that bike lane? So it's not even clear to me what exactly could be taught to all these motorists, assuming they could be reached, that would have a real significant effect on reducing car-bike crashes.

On the other hand, there is a ton the cyclist can do immediately to greatly improve his safety in terms of improving his own behavior with respect to adopting vehicular cycling and defensive driving techniques. A ton that will make a huge difference.

I've learned a great deal about the structure of VC advocacy and the relevance of bike lanes to those VC advocates in the thread I started. It turned out to be the right question to ask to gain insight into the VC advocacy movement, as represented on this forum.

You see HH, I am, also, a vehicular cycling advocate, though not part of your clique. I do not come here with a set of answers, and my opinions evolve over time, though I don't get swayed by any one person's argument. Indeed, my debates with you have highlighted the weakness of many of the bottled arguments against bike lanes and for WOLs. And they have modified my views on bike lanes. But no one of my posts here, or even each of my posts taken together will form a complete worldview representative of my thoughts.
+1 very close to my own sentiments on the subject.

IMO, bike lanes are certainly not a perfect solution, nor the only solution, nor are they everywhere perfectly implemented. But then again, neither is vehicular cycling the perfect or the only solution, particularly as presented by the Foresterologists with all the sociopolitical mumbo-jumbo. But the real tragedy is the inability of the Foresterologists to compromise on anything, their demeaning and insulting attitude towards those who disagree with them, and their total lack of interest in advancing bicycling as a popular transportational choice by promoting higher behavioral standards for all road users in the name of safety for the most vulnerable road users.

+1 very close to my own sentiments on the subject.

IMO, bike lanes are certainly not a perfect solution, nor the only solution, nor are they everywhere perfectly implemented. But then again, neither is vehicular cycling the perfect or the only solution, particularly as presented by the Foresterologists with all the sociopolitical mumbo-jumbo. But the real tragedy is the inability of the Foresterologists to compromise on anything, their demeaning and insulting attitude towards those who disagree with them, and their total lack of interest in advancing bicycling as a popular transportational choice by promoting higher behavioral standards for all road users in the name of safety for the most vulnerable road users.

1+

They are quite the clique.

their total lack of interest in advancing bicycling as a popular transportational choice by promoting higher behavioral standards for all road users in the name of safety for the most vulnerable road users.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? People only have so much time in their lives to devote to what they think is a good cause. If you could reach 1000 people a day by teaching 1 cyclist how to ride or reach a 1000 people a day (by communicating to tens of thousands most of whom will ignore the message) one of whom may encounter a cyclist within a reasonably short enough period of time to actually remember what they were taught, which would you choose?

As I read this thread, I am reminded of a song done by Tom Chapin:



All my life's a circle..........:p

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? People only have so much time in their lives to devote to what they think is a good cause. If you could reach 1000 people a day by teaching 1 cyclist how to ride or reach a 1000 people a day (by communicating to tens of thousands most of whom will ignore the message) one of whom may encounter a cyclist within a reasonably short enough period of time to actually remember what they were taught, which would you choose?
You've obviously drunk the 'bicycling will never be a viable transportation option for the majority of Americans' kool-aid that the Foresterologists and organizations like the ADC promote.

:rolleyes:

What is needed is an universal change in what motorists are taught, the basis on which motorists are licensed; and much stronger enforcement and penalties for motorists that harrass, assault, endanger, injure or kill cyclists and other vulnerable road users. In other words, an end to motorist superiority disorder.

Helmet Head,

Cycling in the USA is not as safe as swimming with sharks:D

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/attacks/relariskbike.htm

John

Wow good news for me... I swim with sharks about 6 months of the year. HH has told me it is dangerous. :D

Since you're the one who always brings up this topic of winning arguments I cannot help but think it must be important to you. I know it is not to me.


Once again you prove to be the patron saint of the persecuted! Good job HH! Although we all know it's just an act - go ahead man, admit it :)
If you want, I can sell you a cross and some roofing nails, it might make your point even better...

What is needed is an universal change in what motorists are taught, the basis on which motorists are licensed; and much stronger enforcement and penalties for motorists that harrass, assault, endanger, injure or kill cyclists and other vulnerable road users. In other words, an end to motorist superiority disorder.

And what about advocating for that has anything to do with cyclist advocacy?

And what about advocating for that has anything to do with cyclist advocacy?
If you can't figure it out, I can't help you; it should be more than obvious by now that improving motorist behavior w/r/t cyclists on the roadway benefits both cyclists and cycling in general.

If you can't figure it out, I can't help you; it should be more than obvious by now that improving motorist behavior w/r/t cyclists on the roadway benefits both cyclists and cycling in general.

What percentage of motorists do you think need a behavior adjustment? If after the revamping of the training system you still had motorists that did not respect cyclists on the road (which is a given no matter how much training you do) do you think they'd still have the same effect on cyclists and cycling in general as the amount that are out there today?

What percentage of motorists do you think need a behavior adjustment? If after the revamping of the training system you still had motorists that did not respect cyclists on the road (which is a given no matter how much training you do) do you think they'd still have the same effect on cyclists and cycling in general as the amount that are out there today?
I took my Adaptive Cycling route home today, and was passed by about 30 cars. Five of them were cell phone users. So that's somewhere around 16-20 percent (there were probably others I did not see).

I don't know where you and HH got hung up on training. Training only works for those who are motivated to learn new things. That apparently precludes HH, as all the carrots I've thrown him today have been thrown back into my face. If you'll look again at the DeJoy Accident Causation model I posted a few posts ago, there is a lot there that has nothing to do with training, or for which training is only a peripheral issue. Predisposing and enabling factors covers a lot of ground for groups, and this includes the endemic advertising we see day in and day out in the USA showing atrocious driving behavior (anything to sell cars, right?). We need more emphasis on the pain and suffering that autos cause in the USA, and less on the leisure enjoyment, but then, that doesn't sell cars, and there are no more government informational spots on TV about the risks of autos. Think about the ruckus that the war in Iraq is making, with 3422 Allied Forces dead, verses the 40,000 or so dead in auto accidents (from:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
(Of course, that doesn't take into account the number of people killed in Iraq, now figured between 64,061 and 70,169:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php
So maybe that isn't such a good analogy. But then, look at your local newspaper to see the traffic deaths for the day, or week. It's probably there, hidden away somewhere in the local section.

John

Among those factors is the behavior of all the motorists around him that he will encounter in the coming years and decades. There are thousands and thousands of them, and there is no way to identify the particular ones he will encounter. The odds of any particular one of those motorists being the one whose mistake causes a crash with that cyclist is extremely low.
Well, I accidentally posted the above message twice, so I'll erase that one here and add a comment on what Helmet Head is saying. I agree with you on this on. But my philosophy is to use route choices which minimize the number of encounters, using back streets, bike paths, and other infrastructure, so that I keep than number lower than it would be otherwise. Above I mentioned that on the route home I took today, I was passed by about 30 vehicles. If I had taken my noon route, straight down NW Evergreen Parkway, I would have been passed and otherwise encountered somewhere over 200 cars. That's a 85% reduction in the encounters, and postpones the encounter with those who may not be completely with it while driving.
John

I think the poor behavior and role models displayed in motor vehicle advertisments sort of count as negative training.

Plus, it is a long held belief of mine that if motor vehicles were truly so desirable, they would not need to advertise them so incessantly in order to drum up business, they would just sell themselves, sort of like bicycles. When was the last time you saw an ad for bicycles or scooters or for that matter any two-wheeled vehicle on the tube???

Personally, I vote for 'some nutcase on the internet'. Maybe I'll start a poll...

;)

:lol:

:beer:
I would add to that group those who recognize HH for what he is and still join him repeatedly in endless debates over cycling and legal minutia,as well as forever counting the angels dancing on bike lane stripes. Some of these guys must like to pick at scabs; they keep returning to the HH induced fray after repeatedly promising never to humor HH again by taking him and his assumptions seriously.

I ride my bike on a bike path and on bike lanes every day. Every day I see motorists who don't know how to stop for the crossing guard leading small children across the street, motorists who go 40 in a school zone (I can tell because they have one of those signs that show your speed -- mine is usually 15), and motorists who run lights or pull out in front of others or who otherwise do stupid things and at the same time are on the phone (perhaps there is a correlation?).

I'm very happy once I reach the path as I am no longer subject to incompetent motoring. And I can finally hear the music in my iPod.

Helmet Head,

Cycling in the USA is not as safe as swimming with sharks:D

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/attacks/relariskbike.htm

John
Here's some more interesting data from the same source:

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/attacks/relarisk.htm

Sharks are not as interested in humans as the movie "Jaws" implies.

I remember a PBS special in which sharks were shown to be particularly disinterested in humans.

By the way, John Forester must have some powerful Mojo to live so long.

I don't know where you and HH got hung up on training. Training only works for those who are motivated to learn new things.
Gene and a couple of others keep bringing up the "importance" of training motorists.

Gene and a couple of others keep bringing up the "importance" of training motorists.
Damn straight!!! Get wit da program, mofo!

Damn straight!!! Get wit da program, mofo!
Yet my explanation for why I think trying to "educate" motorists (any more than they already are) is largely futile in terms of that making cycling actually safer by any significant degree, in post #605, remains unaddressed. It's one thing to agree to disagree, but ignoring the explanation for the opposing position, and simply dismissing it out of hand ("Get wit da program, mofo"), is something I, for one, would like to see eliminated on this forum. We can do better.

I think it's interesting in light of Al Gore's new book, "The Assault on Reason", in which he addresses the question of why we have moved away from "logic, reason and truth" in making political decisions in our society (he cites ignoring the science of global warming and the war in Iraq as two examples of that). I wish we would see a little bit more use of "logic, reason and truth" in bicycling advocacy. I suspect the answer might be that people believe their positions won't hold up to "logic, reason and truth".

Enough with the insults already. Let's address the issues, positions, and reasons we hold these positions, shall we?

I look at the safety issue from the perspective of the individual cyclist. There are many factors that determine whether he will be involved in crash, including one that causes serious injuries or even his death.

Among those factors is the behavior of all the motorists around him that he will encounter in the coming years and decades. There are thousands and thousands of them, and there is no way to identify the particular ones he will encounter. The odds of any particular one of those motorists being the one whose mistake causes a crash with that cyclist is extremely low. So, the only way to reach that one motorist whose mistake will cause a crash with that cyclist is by reaching all of the motorists this cyclist will encounter. But, again, there is no way to identify all of these motorists. So we must reach ALL motorists, which of course is impossible. So, we reach as many as we can. But let's consider the possibility that we can reach one half of all motorists. That would mean that the odds of this one cyclist being involved in that crash is reduced by one half, and that's assuming "reaching" the motorists that are reached prevents the one motorist who is destined to crash with this cyclist from doing whatever that contributory mistake is. How effective is education at doing that? Consider the Wilberding case, or your case John R. What motorist education, if any, could have prevented the motorists involved in those crashes from doing whatever they did that contributed to the crash? The motorist in the Wilberding made a normal left turn. What would education teach him? Do you really think education would teach that when turning left into the sun, take the turn even slower than he did? Concentrate on the shadows because there might be a cyclist in that bike lane? So it's not even clear to me what exactly could be taught to all these motorists, assuming they could be reached, that would have a real significant effect on reducing car-bike crashes.

On the other hand, there is a ton the cyclist can do immediately to greatly improve his safety in terms of improving his own behavior with respect to adopting vehicular cycling and defensive driving techniques. A ton that will make a huge difference. I had an idea this morning about another way to measure the role of motorist error in bike-crashes.

We know that teens are involved in a disproportionate number of crashes overall. I would like to see a comparison of those numbers overall, and with respect to bike-car crashes.

For example, say 45% of car-car crashes involve teens, but only 20% of all bike-car crashes involved teens. What that would indicate is that "bad driving" is probably much less of a factor in bike-car crashes than in car-car crashes.

ridiculous. is this science, or sophistry? nice self derailment of your own thread, head.

ridiculous. is this science, or sophistry? nice self derailment of your own thread, head. Enough with insults, please.

It's not my fault that there is no science supporting the position of bike lane advocacy. So, we've moved on.

actually, there is a body of works supporting bike infrastructure. even your idol, mossy john, alludes to hundreds of studies.....


several posters have brought up studies in this thread.

For example, say 45% of car-car crashes involve teens, but only 20% of all bike-car crashes involved teens. What that would indicate is that "bad driving" is probably much less of a factor in bike-car crashes than in car-car crashes.
It's a nice idea, but make sure you don't confuse causation with correlation. For thereby there cometh hurt.

It's a nice idea, but make sure you don't confuse causation with correlation. For thereby there cometh hurt.
Of course, which is why I couched my statement with terms such as "indicates" and "probably".

Causation can never be proven, but if no other reasonable cause can be surmised, then correlation is likely to come from the identified cause.

actually, there is a body of works supporting bike infrastructure. even your idol, mossy john, alludes to hundreds of studies.....


several posters have brought up studies in this thread.
The only specific information that comes from that entire "body of works" that supports the position of bike lane advocacy at all is in the U of T study which indicates that bike lanes apparently encourage uninitiated cyclists to not hug the curb quite as much between intersections. If there is anything else, then you should be able to state what it is, specifically (vague claims of support don't count), but you can't, because there is nothing else.

You cannot really say that the studies are not there, that they don't exist. John Allen has on his website several studies that he discusses. You may not agree with the studies, but they are there:

http://www.truewheelers.org/comments/cambstudy/index.htm
Scroll down, and you'll see the references:

References:
How Pavement Markings Influence Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Positioning: A Case Study in Cambridge, MA, by Ron van Houten and Cara Seiderman

San Francisco Shared Lane Marking Study -- includes data on car door opening widths and describes an alternative to bike lanes

Two papers, Bicycling and On-Street Parallel Parking and AASHTO and Door Zone Bike Lanes, by Wayne Pein.

My own survey of car door opening widths, which corroborates the San Francisco data

The Bike Lane Design Guide, a widely-used reference for design of streets with bike lane, posted on the Web site of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center.

My review of The Bike Lane Design Guide. The illustrations shown are of a street with the same geometrics as Hampshire Street.

Two papers, Bicycling and On-Street Parallel Parking and AASHTO and Door Zone Bike Lanes, by Wayne Pein.

A survey of research into car-door collisions

Examination of bike lanes and other facilities in Cambridge, Massachusetts, by the author of this page.

Hampshire Street photos and comments from two stages of the study period.

The Dana Laird fatal crash on Massachusetts Avenue

The following is from the discussion part of the Ron van Houten and Cara Seiderman study:


DISCUSSION
All three pavement marking treatments were effective at influencing bicyclists to ride
farther away from parked cars than when no pavement markings were present. There was
some variation at each of the four sites. At sites where the cyclists were closer to parked cars
during baseline, the treatments all normalized the distribution and were associated with an
increase in the percentage of cyclists traveling more than 9 and 10 feet from the curb. At the
one location where the cyclists were significantly farther from the curb to begin with, the
introduction of the installation of the lane line and lane line with bike symbol increased the
percentage of cyclists more than 9 feet but not those more than 10 feet from the curb. The
effects at this location can be understood when one considers that the full bike lane provides
boundaries within which riding is expected. A close examination of the data shows that the
full bike lane is associated with a peak in responding near the center of the bike lane and a
reduction in outliers in the vehicle travel lane.

There is anothe, called the "Oriental Boulevard bicycle lane study," which can be located at this website:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/pr2004/pr04_61.html

Here is a quote from the New York City Department of Transportation:

“We implemented the bike lane a year ago, and we have accomplished several important goals,” said Department of Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall. “First, many bicyclists took advantage of the opportunity to have their own lane and more bicyclists traveled along Oriental Boulevard than ever before – during both weekdays and weekends. Also, motor vehicle travel times along both the eastbound and westbound directions on Oriental Boulevard decreased, thus producing a traffic calming effect. Finally, there was no evidence of vehicular diversion to Shore Boulevard .”

John

You cannot really say that the studies are not there, that they don't exist. John Allen has on his website several studies that he discusses. You may not agree with the studies, but they are there:

http://www.truewheelers.org/comments/cambstudy/index.htm
Scroll down, and you'll see the references:

References:
How Pavement Markings Influence Bicycle and Motor Vehicle Positioning: A Case Study in Cambridge, MA, by Ron van Houten and Cara Seiderman

San Francisco Shared Lane Marking Study -- includes data on car door opening widths and describes an alternative to bike lanes

Two papers, Bicycling and On-Street Parallel Parking and AASHTO and Door Zone Bike Lanes, by Wayne Pein.

My own survey of car door opening widths, which corroborates the San Francisco data

The Bike Lane Design Guide, a widely-used reference for design of streets with bike lane, posted on the Web site of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center.

My review of The Bike Lane Design Guide. The illustrations shown are of a street with the same geometrics as Hampshire Street.

Two papers, Bicycling and On-Street Parallel Parking and AASHTO and Door Zone Bike Lanes, by Wayne Pein.

A survey of research into car-door collisions

Examination of bike lanes and other facilities in Cambridge, Massachusetts, by the author of this page.

Hampshire Street photos and comments from two stages of the study period.

The Dana Laird fatal crash on Massachusetts Avenue

The following is from the discussion part of the Ron van Houten and Cara Seiderman study:
Good links, John. The Wayne Pein papers are especially interesting.

I'd just like to reiterate at this point that not one bike lane advocate posting here is in favor of door zone bike lanes, and yes, I believe we've already had that poll.

You cannot really say that the studies are not there, that they don't exist. I've never said that studies about bike lanes are not there, or that they don't exist, which is all Allen's list disproves.

I said that studies that support the position that bike lanes should be advocated do not exist.

But now we can add Ron van Houten and Cara Seiderman study that do seem to say something in favor of bike lanes, and it's consistent with the U of T study: bike lanes seem to encourage the uninitiated to ride a bit further left. How important/significant that is in the areas where it has this effect is unclear.

The Oriental study might indicate something too.

Whether all that adds up to enough evidence to support the position that bike lanes should be advocated for, is something else again.

While Inspector Clouseau awaits further evidence to fall from the sky and hit him in the head, the rest of the world is advocating for and implementing bike lanes.

The only specific information that comes from that entire "body of works" that supports the position of bike lane advocacy at all is in the U of T study which indicates that bike lanes apparently encourage uninitiated cyclists to not hug the curb quite as much between intersections. If there is anything else, then you should be able to state what it is, specifically (vague claims of support don't count), but you can't, because there is nothing else. (last emphasis added by jcr)


I've never said that studies about bike lanes are not there, or that they don't exist, which is all Allen's list disproves.




Helmet Head,

I was simply looking one post up, where you have said what I have added emphasis to here.

John

John, the "because there is nothing else" claim does not mean to suggest that there no other studies about bike lanes (which is how you seemed to interpret it).

It is referring to there being no other "specific information ... that supports the position of bike lane advocacy".


The only specific information that comes from that entire "body of works" that supports the position of bike lane advocacy at all is in the U of T study which indicates that bike lanes apparently encourage uninitiated cyclists to not hug the curb quite as much between intersections. If there is anything else, then you should be able to state what it is, specifically (vague claims of support don't count), but you can't, because there is nothing else.

actually, there is a body of works supporting bike infrastructure. even your idol, mossy john, alludes to hundreds of studies.....


several posters have brought up studies in this thread.

Certainly such studies exist. Government was extremely anxious, after starting its bikeway program, to discover engineering evidence that it had made the correct decision. Government paid for many studies that attempted to justify the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways. However, they all failed.

Our point, which Bekologist tries to mislead people about, is that none of those studies demonstrated any of the three basic claims for bikeways. The claims are that bikeways reduce car-bike collisions, that bikeways reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and that bikeways make a transportationally significant reduction in motoring.

john, those might be your metrics surrounding bicycling infrastructure.

the proof from Portland studies show a decreased indexed accident rate for bicyclists. you can try to dismiss those figures all you want, but no one will believe your malarky about how bike infrastructure had nothing to do with it.


bike infrastructure also makes a significant INCREASE in bicycling, john. screw the reduction in driving for now, bike infrastructure increases BICYCLING. are you really a bike advocate?????


Studies show, counts prove bike infrastructure increases bicyclist counts, and reduces the indexed accident rates. two metrics very similar to the negative metrics mossy john chooses.


john, get with the 21st century. It's NOT 1930's Britain or 1950's California anymore, dude.

john, those might be your metrics surrounding bicycling infrastructure.

the proof from Portland studies show a decreased indexed accident rate for bicyclists. you can try to dismiss those figures all you want, but no one will believe your malarky about how bike infrastructure had nothing to do with it.


bike infrastructure also makes a significant INCREASE in bicycling, john. screw the reduction in driving for now, bike infrastructure increases BICYCLING. are you really a bike advocate?????


Studies show, counts prove bike infrastructure increases bicyclist counts, and reduces the indexed accident rates. two metrics very similar to the negative metrics mossy john chooses.


john, get with the 21st century. It's NOT 1930's Britain or 1950's California anymore, dude.


Same old arguments as before. When a city conducts such an enormous and wide-spread anti-motoring campaign as Portland has, one should expect some results, one of which would be an increase in bicycle transportation. I don't doubt that. And one would expect that the accident rate per bike-mile would decline along with the increased public attention paid to bicycle transportation. But there is no reason to believe that bike-lane stripes have had significant effect in this reduction, because there is no causal connection between the stripe and the causes of car-bike collisions. Nobody has ever shown such a causal link, and reasonable studies show that any effect is probably insignificant.

Why should anyone believe a claim for which there is no evidence? Only because of the enormous public propaganda that bike lanes make cycling safe and bike lanes reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling. Neither of those claims, though widely made, has been demonstrated.

You dismiss the significance of no reduction in motoring. Well, Portland has doubled its bicycle transportation rate, from what, 2% to 4% of total road transportation? Insignificant.

You ask, "are you really a bike advocate?????" I suspect that you haven't been understanding what has been written over the past three months. I am not a bicycle advocate, because bikes have no feelings. I am an advocate for the welfare of cyclists, which is a very different occupation. I aim to get cyclists operating better and safer in a social environment that approves and encourages such operation, and bike advocates are going after the wrong things, bikeways that encourage incompetent cycling and discourage learning competent cycling.

what a crock.

doubling bicycling is significant, john. it happens in cities that add bike infrastructure.

reducing the indexed accident rate is significant, john, and it IS directly related to the developments in Portland, despite your insistence otherwise.

other cities like Vancouver, Canada, and dozens of cities around the world have also seen significant increases in transportational bicycling via bike infrastructure.

yet mossy john continues his smear campaign....

Same old arguments as before. When a city conducts such an enormous and wide-spread anti-motoring campaign as Portland has, one should expect some results, one of which would be an increase in bicycle transportation. I don't doubt that. And one would expect that the accident rate per bike-mile would decline along with the increased public attention paid to bicycle transportation. But there is no reason to believe that bike-lane stripes have had significant effect in this reduction, because there is no causal connection between the stripe and the causes of car-bike collisions. Nobody has ever shown such a causal link, and reasonable studies show that any effect is probably insignificant.

Why should anyone believe a claim for which there is no evidence? Only because of the enormous public propaganda that bike lanes make cycling safe and bike lanes reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling. Neither of those claims, though widely made, has been demonstrated.

You dismiss the significance of no reduction in motoring. Well, Portland has doubled its bicycle transportation rate, from what, 2% to 4% of total road transportation? Insignificant.

You ask, "are you really a bike advocate?????" I suspect that you haven't been understanding what has been written over the past three months. I am not a bicycle advocate, because bikes have no feelings. I am an advocate for the welfare of cyclists, which is a very different occupation. I aim to get cyclists operating better and safer in a social environment that approves and encourages such operation, and bike advocates are going after the wrong things, bikeways that encourage incompetent cycling and discourage learning competent cycling.
I agree with Bek, what a crock. Every bicyclist represents one less car congesting the roads, and one more parking space for those that must drive. The capacity of the roadway system is not infinite, as increasing traffic congestion in major metropolitan areas throughout the world proves time and time again, bike infrastructure or not.

Believe it or not, you have to start somewhere, and a doubling of the modal split for bicyclists from 2% to 4% of trips is significant; and based on discussions with PDOT staff and my own observations so far this year, the bicycle modal split in Portland is set to double again this year, with very little new added infrastructure.

Certainly such studies exist. Government was extremely anxious, after starting its bikeway program, to discover engineering evidence that it had made the correct decision. Government paid for many studies that attempted to justify the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways. However, they all failed.

Our point, which Bekologist tries to mislead people about, is that none of those studies demonstrated any of the three basic claims for bikeways. The claims are that bikeways reduce car-bike collisions, that bikeways reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and that bikeways make a transportationally significant reduction in motoring. (emphasis added, jcr)
John,

I'm usually studying, and so usually don't watch TV either. But the last two weeks, ever since my finals, I have been watching, and I watched the news tonight (KRCW/KGW, channel 3 at 10:00 PM, channel 8 at 11:00 PM). (Yes, a 61 year-old can learn new things.) On a story about how bicycling is being effected by construction downtown, the program announced that bicycle commuters are now 6% of the commuters coming into Portland. Is that a significant number of bicycle commuters to you? If so, do you think that Portland's committment to cycling facilities has anything to do with it?

John

Here is a report that I found from the Monash Uni in Victoria, Australia

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc218.pdf

"OLDER VULNERABLE ROAD USERS – MEASURES TO REDUCE CRASH AND INJURY RISK"

Although the title is a bit misleading as it has large sections devoted specifically to reducing the dangers of cycling (not just for the elderly) and references a large number of international studies and projects.

It is 140 odd pages but section 4.4 deals with with infrustructure and road design issues and 4.4.5.1 has methods for intersection design with cycling in mind.

Seems to me there is a lot of effort (especially in europe) in traffic engineering with cycling as an integrated part of the road network. No mention of CIC or the massive motorist conspiricy either ;)

I've never said that studies about bike lanes are not there, or that they don't exist, which is all Allen's list disproves.

I said that studies that support the position that bike lanes should be advocated do not exist.

But now we can add Ron van Houten and Cara Seiderman study that do seem to say something in favor of bike lanes, and it's consistent with the U of T study: bike lanes seem to encourage the uninitiated to ride a bit further left. How important/significant that is in the areas where it has this effect is unclear.

The Oriental study might indicate something too.

Whether all that adds up to enough evidence to support the position that bike lanes should be advocated for, is something else again.


Oh com'on, "a bit further left" is your battle cry... and here is evidence that "something" guides cyclists "a bit further left" and you balk?

I agree with Bek, what a crock. Every bicyclist represents one less car congesting the roads, and one more parking space for those that must drive. The capacity of the roadway system is not infinite, as increasing traffic congestion in major metropolitan areas throughout the world proves time and time again, bike infrastructure or not.

Believe it or not, you have to start somewhere, and a doubling of the modal split for bicyclists from 2% to 4% of trips is significant; and based on discussions with PDOT staff and my own observations so far this year, the bicycle modal split in Portland is set to double again this year, with very little new added infrastructure.

I see. Reducing motoring from 100% to 98% of its previous value (while ignoring the natural increase in motoring as the result of population growth) is significant? Not worth the effort, except to committed anti-motorists such as yourself.

I aim to get cyclists operating better and safer in a social environment that approves and encourages such operation, and bike advocates are going after the wrong things, bikeways that encourage incompetent cycling and discourage learning competent cycling.

first of all, please stop with the "you are a bike advocate, I am a cyclist advocate" mentality. it's stupid. when someone says they are advocating for bicycles or bicycling, it doesn't mean that they don't care about the welfare of the RIDER. OK? that little sophistic/linguistic nugget you are holding so fast to can be retired.

I am very happy that you aim to get cyclists operating better and safer. everyone should do that. well-designed Bike facilities do not encourage incompetent cycling. and nobody I know discourages anyone from learning about their local laws, etc. in fact many people would do that before even attempting something like commuting to work. one can be a competent, vehicular cyclist without even reading your book or taking one of the LAB classes. and thousands of sidewalk riders manage to make it to work every day.


Our point, which Bekologist tries to mislead people about, is that none of those studies demonstrated any of the three basic claims for bikeways. The claims are that bikeways reduce car-bike collisions, that bikeways reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and that bikeways make a transportationally significant reduction in motoring. (emphasis added, jcr) .

this one has always bothered me with it's strawman-ness. who is making these claims? why do you assume every bike lane advocate claims these things?

Bikeways (bike lanes?) reduce car-bike collissions

maybe. who knows? do striped lanes on the rest of the roadway reduce car/car collissions? maybe so. it make sense to me that in certain situations this would be so, but so what? I never claim this.

bikeways reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling.

This is a forester favorite! have never, ever seen this claim except from you or HH and other foresterite VCers. I have seen the claim that they encourage cycling on the roadways, which I believe to be true. there is no way to determine the skill level of people using them unless you poll every one of them. you have a lot of free time, right john?

bikeways make a transportationally significant reduction in motoring.

well, that is completely subjective and depends on how you interpret any statistics, as well as how you define "transportationally significant", which you never have AFAIK... a 2%--4% increase is doubled, so that's pretty significant. Bike facilities will increase cycling in a community over time.

Here is a report that I found from the Monash Uni in Victoria, Australia

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc218.pdf

"OLDER VULNERABLE ROAD USERS – MEASURES TO REDUCE CRASH AND INJURY RISK"

Although the title is a bit misleading as it has large sections devoted specifically to reducing the dangers of cycling (not just for the elderly) and references a large number of international studies and projects.

It is 140 odd pages but section 4.4 deals with with infrustructure and road design issues and 4.4.5.1 has methods for intersection design with cycling in mind.

Seems to me there is a lot of effort (especially in europe) in traffic engineering with cycling as an integrated part of the road network. No mention of CIC or the massive motorist conspiricy either ;)


Yes, I have read the relevant parts and there is nothing new there. Naturally, a study such as this would not mention either the cyclist-inferiority view or the motorist conspiracy, since these are the foundations of much of its thought.

:roflmao:

john, i doubt you even believe yourself and your ludicrous rantings about inferiority.

are you really that blind to changes to public space that benefits bicyclists and bicycling in communities? I know you pretend Portland's ascendancy of transportational bicycling has nothing to do with the city planning for bikes on public rights of way.

you obviously have ceased to be able to see positive changes for bicycling a loong, loong time ago. bike advocacy doesn't end with your quixotic rememberances, john.

:roflmao:

john, i doubt you even believe yourself and your ludicrous rantings about inferiority.

are you really that blind to changes to public space that benefits bicyclists and bicycling in communities? I know you pretend Portland's ascendancy of transportational bicycling has nothing to do with the city planning for bikes on public rights of way.

you obviously have ceased to be able to see positive changes for bicycling a loong, loong time ago. bike advocacy doesn't end with your quixotic rememberances, john.

The more that I read in these discussions the more evidence I see for the existence of the cyclist-inferiority view in its various strengths. People such as yourself are providing the evidence.

What do you mean by changes to public space that benefit bicyclists? Use reasonably definitive words if you expect to be answered.

Why should I pretend that Portland's increase in bicycle transportation has nothing to do with bikeways? (That is what I presume you mean by "planning for bikes on public rights of way." Please use words that are not full of ambiguity. My point is that bike lanes do not reduce car-bike collisions and do not reduce the level of skill that is required for safe cycling. Since they do not do these things, then using them to entice people who don't know better into cycling without the necessary skills is just plain lying. There's no getting around the accusation. The bikeway system is based on lies, and those who use it to further their own anti-motoring ends are equally liars. In your singleminded bikeway advocacy you forget all the other things that Portland has done to make motoring inconvenient, and thus increase the competitive advantage of cycling.

Why do you claim that I "ceased to be able to see positive changes for bicycling a loong, loong time ago"? As a matter of fact, this claim is partly true, because the efforts of people such as yourself have prevented cyclists from overcoming the cyclist-inferiority position imposed on them by motorists and by the bikeways they invented. When proper and safe cycling operation becomes more widely spread, then I will be able to see positive changes.

rants and raves from a tragic, quixotic dinosaur. "...based on lies..." :roflmao:

John. you are out of touch. seriously.