Helmet Head
05-14-07, 10:17 AM
Is there any science, or even pseudo science, supporting the advocacy of bike lanes?
View Full Version : The science of bike lane advocacy.
genec
05-14-07, 10:20 AM
Is there any science, or even pseudo science, supporting the advocacy of bike lanes?
The same science that puts lanes on the rest of the road. They work.
The same science that puts lanes on the rest of the road. They work.
rando
05-14-07, 10:23 AM
studies have shown they create an impenetrable magic shield between me and the cars.
Helmet Head
05-14-07, 10:28 AM
The same science that puts lanes on the rest of the road. They work. At intersections?
They don't put slow truck lanes for through truck traffic to the right of straight-or-right not-truck traffic lanes. Why? And why don't those reasons apply to bike lanes that direct through bike traffic to travel to the right of right-turning motor traffic in adjacent straight-or-right lanes?
And before you mention CA laws, note that we don't have such convoluted special case non-intuitive rules for truck lanes because we don't have through truck lanes to the right of adjacent straight-or-right lanes.
They don't put slow truck lanes for through truck traffic to the right of straight-or-right not-truck traffic lanes. Why? And why don't those reasons apply to bike lanes that direct through bike traffic to travel to the right of right-turning motor traffic in adjacent straight-or-right lanes?
And before you mention CA laws, note that we don't have such convoluted special case non-intuitive rules for truck lanes because we don't have through truck lanes to the right of adjacent straight-or-right lanes.
genec
05-14-07, 10:44 AM
At intersections?
They don't put slow truck lanes for through truck traffic to the right of straight-or-right not-truck traffic lanes. Why? And why don't those reasons apply to bike lanes that direct through bike traffic to travel to the right of right-turning motor traffic in adjacent straight-or-right lanes?
And before you mention CA laws, note that we don't have such convoluted special case non-intuitive rules for truck lanes because we don't have through truck lanes to the right of adjacent straight-or-right lanes.
They don't put slow truck lanes on any surface street that I am aware of.
Tell you what, when they stop marking surface streets with 55MPH freeway speeds, then I will join your campaign to erase bike lanes.
They don't put slow truck lanes for through truck traffic to the right of straight-or-right not-truck traffic lanes. Why? And why don't those reasons apply to bike lanes that direct through bike traffic to travel to the right of right-turning motor traffic in adjacent straight-or-right lanes?
And before you mention CA laws, note that we don't have such convoluted special case non-intuitive rules for truck lanes because we don't have through truck lanes to the right of adjacent straight-or-right lanes.
They don't put slow truck lanes on any surface street that I am aware of.
Tell you what, when they stop marking surface streets with 55MPH freeway speeds, then I will join your campaign to erase bike lanes.
chipcom
05-14-07, 11:00 AM
The same science used to advocate against bike lanes. :rolleyes:
Helmet Head
05-14-07, 11:15 AM
They don't put slow truck lanes on any surface street that I am aware of.
Exactly my point: They don't put slow trucks on surface streets for very good reason. The reason is INTERSECTIONS.
Tell you what, when they stop marking surface streets with 55MPH freeway speeds, then I will join your campaign to erase bike lanes.
So on 55+ mph roads with long intersectionless sections, including freeway shoulders designated as bike laens, I don't have nearly as much of a problem with bike lanes. Note that bicyclists are usually required to exit at all offramps to avoid path intersections.
So why not join a campaign to erase bike lanes on streets with intersections closer than, say, 500 feet?
Exactly my point: They don't put slow trucks on surface streets for very good reason. The reason is INTERSECTIONS.
Tell you what, when they stop marking surface streets with 55MPH freeway speeds, then I will join your campaign to erase bike lanes.
So on 55+ mph roads with long intersectionless sections, including freeway shoulders designated as bike laens, I don't have nearly as much of a problem with bike lanes. Note that bicyclists are usually required to exit at all offramps to avoid path intersections.
So why not join a campaign to erase bike lanes on streets with intersections closer than, say, 500 feet?
specq
05-14-07, 11:44 AM
Exactly my point: They don't put slow trucks on surface streets for very good reason. The reason is INTERSECTIONS.
Actually I think the reason just as likely to be HARPSICHORDS, or perhaps KUMQUATS.
Yes, INTERSECTIONS exist, but they are hardly the reason they don't put slow truck lanes on surface streets. Where grades are too steep they often simply ban trucks altogether. Elsewhere the traffic volume isn't high enough or the speed differential great enough to require them.
Not to mention the street may not be wide enough to accommodate them.
Actually I think the reason just as likely to be HARPSICHORDS, or perhaps KUMQUATS.
Yes, INTERSECTIONS exist, but they are hardly the reason they don't put slow truck lanes on surface streets. Where grades are too steep they often simply ban trucks altogether. Elsewhere the traffic volume isn't high enough or the speed differential great enough to require them.
Not to mention the street may not be wide enough to accommodate them.
I-Like-To-Bike
05-14-07, 11:49 AM
Is there any science, or even pseudo science, supporting the advocacy of bike lanes?
I dunno, is there a requirement for "scientific" support of such advocacy?
Besides it all depends how you and your fellow VC collegues choose to define "science". Usually in Forester/VC Brand Science any cherry picked factoid or fabrication that supports a predetermined conclusion is considered the "best available scientific evidence." Hardly the science of Einstein/Newton/Darwin.
I dunno, is there a requirement for "scientific" support of such advocacy?
Besides it all depends how you and your fellow VC collegues choose to define "science". Usually in Forester/VC Brand Science any cherry picked factoid or fabrication that supports a predetermined conclusion is considered the "best available scientific evidence." Hardly the science of Einstein/Newton/Darwin.
genec
05-14-07, 11:50 AM
Exactly my point: They don't put slow trucks on surface streets for very good reason. The reason is INTERSECTIONS.
So on 55+ mph roads with long intersectionless sections, including freeway shoulders designated as bike laens, I don't have nearly as much of a problem with bike lanes. Note that bicyclists are usually required to exit at all offramps to avoid path intersections.
So why not join a campaign to erase bike lanes on streets with intersections closer than, say, 500 feet?
Because they still make streets with lots of intersections AND outragous high speeds... until motorists and road engineers stop treating streets as race tracks, I won't stop asking for slow zones.
There is no more science behind the "safety" of "85 percentile" raising the speed limits in an area than there is behind bike lanes. Show me a street that is safer because of raised speed limits and I'll show you how bike lanes make cycling safer...
So on 55+ mph roads with long intersectionless sections, including freeway shoulders designated as bike laens, I don't have nearly as much of a problem with bike lanes. Note that bicyclists are usually required to exit at all offramps to avoid path intersections.
So why not join a campaign to erase bike lanes on streets with intersections closer than, say, 500 feet?
Because they still make streets with lots of intersections AND outragous high speeds... until motorists and road engineers stop treating streets as race tracks, I won't stop asking for slow zones.
There is no more science behind the "safety" of "85 percentile" raising the speed limits in an area than there is behind bike lanes. Show me a street that is safer because of raised speed limits and I'll show you how bike lanes make cycling safer...
John C. Ratliff
05-14-07, 12:45 PM
I cannot say for sure that this is science for bicycle lanes, but in Singapore there are no bike lanes. This study is being used by some to promote the concept of bike lanes as a possible way of dealing with the injury situation that this study discusses:
1: Singapore Med J. 2006 May;47(5):367-72. Links
Comment in:
Singapore Med J. 2006 May;47(5):357-8.
Helmet use and bicycle-related trauma in patients presenting to an acute hospital in Singapore.
Heng KW,
Lee AH,
Zhu S,
Tham KY,
Seow E.
Emergency Department, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore. kenneth_heng@ttsh.com.sg
INTRODUCTION: To describe the relationship between bicycle helmet use and injury pattern sustained by patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) in Singapore for bicycle-related trauma.
METHODS: Data was collected from all individuals treated for bicycle-related trauma between September 1, 2004 and May 31, 2005 using a closed-ended questionnaire.
RESULTS: 160 bicyclists with mean age of 34.4 years (range 10 to 89 years) were surveyed. Among them, 80 percent were male and 30.6 percent were non-residents. Helmets were worn by 10.6 percent of the patients. Alcohol was clinically detected in 11.3 percent of bicyclists. There was no difference in bicycle helmet use between Singaporeans and non-residents (p-value is 0.275). However, compared to younger bicyclists, bicyclists aged 30 years or older (p-value is less than 0.05), and compared to recreational or sport bicyclists, those who commute by bicycle, tended not to wear helmets (p-value is less than 0.01). Compared to Singaporeans (p-value is less than 0.05), non-residents and bicyclists aged 30 years or older (p-value is 0.011) believed that helmets did not protect against head injury. Comparing the helmeted group with the non-helmeted group, injury patterns by body region were: head injury 5.9 percent versus 40.0 percent (p-value is less than 0.01); facial injury 5.9 percent versus 37.1 percent (p-value is less than 0.05). Not wearing a helmet, being hit by a motor vehicle and age were significantly associated with higher injury severity scores, after adjusting for several potential confounding factors.
CONCLUSION: Bicycle helmet use was low in our sample of injured patients. When worn, protection against injury was demonstrated. A campaign to promote use of bicycle helmets should be targeted at non-residents and older bicyclists. Authorities should consider compulsory helmet laws for bicyclists and expanding anti-drunk driving campaigns to target alcohol-intoxicated bicyclists. (emphasis added, jcr)
PMID: 16645684 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16645684
If any of you want to read the full text of this article, it is available free from the Singapore Medical Journal at:
http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/smjpast.html
If you go to the above site, you will see that there are two articles. One is a shorter commentary, which calls for looking at possible interventions, including the possibility of establishing bike lanes.
Here's a part of that commentary:
Singapore Med J 2006; 47(5) : 357
Editorial
Bicycle protection laws in Singapore:are more compelling data still needed?
Ooi S B S, Iau P T C
...With such compelling local data, can we still afford to give people the option of wearing bicycle helmets during bicycling? Should we not legislate that wearing of helmets be compulsory for all bicyclists? In the same article, Heng et al showed that 69% of patients were hit on the road while cycling while 42% were knocked down by a motor vehicle. This suggests that we should perhaps build separate bicycle lanes in high-use areas. Even if we think that this measure may not be feasible in land-scarce Singapore, we could perhaps have limited bicycle laws on weekends and public holidays where recreational bicycling would be expected to increase.
We should encourage bicycling as a healthy alternative of commuting rather than making it a life-threatening experience! (Emphasis added, jcr)
John
1: Singapore Med J. 2006 May;47(5):367-72. Links
Comment in:
Singapore Med J. 2006 May;47(5):357-8.
Helmet use and bicycle-related trauma in patients presenting to an acute hospital in Singapore.
Heng KW,
Lee AH,
Zhu S,
Tham KY,
Seow E.
Emergency Department, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore. kenneth_heng@ttsh.com.sg
INTRODUCTION: To describe the relationship between bicycle helmet use and injury pattern sustained by patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) in Singapore for bicycle-related trauma.
METHODS: Data was collected from all individuals treated for bicycle-related trauma between September 1, 2004 and May 31, 2005 using a closed-ended questionnaire.
RESULTS: 160 bicyclists with mean age of 34.4 years (range 10 to 89 years) were surveyed. Among them, 80 percent were male and 30.6 percent were non-residents. Helmets were worn by 10.6 percent of the patients. Alcohol was clinically detected in 11.3 percent of bicyclists. There was no difference in bicycle helmet use between Singaporeans and non-residents (p-value is 0.275). However, compared to younger bicyclists, bicyclists aged 30 years or older (p-value is less than 0.05), and compared to recreational or sport bicyclists, those who commute by bicycle, tended not to wear helmets (p-value is less than 0.01). Compared to Singaporeans (p-value is less than 0.05), non-residents and bicyclists aged 30 years or older (p-value is 0.011) believed that helmets did not protect against head injury. Comparing the helmeted group with the non-helmeted group, injury patterns by body region were: head injury 5.9 percent versus 40.0 percent (p-value is less than 0.01); facial injury 5.9 percent versus 37.1 percent (p-value is less than 0.05). Not wearing a helmet, being hit by a motor vehicle and age were significantly associated with higher injury severity scores, after adjusting for several potential confounding factors.
CONCLUSION: Bicycle helmet use was low in our sample of injured patients. When worn, protection against injury was demonstrated. A campaign to promote use of bicycle helmets should be targeted at non-residents and older bicyclists. Authorities should consider compulsory helmet laws for bicyclists and expanding anti-drunk driving campaigns to target alcohol-intoxicated bicyclists. (emphasis added, jcr)
PMID: 16645684 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=16645684
If any of you want to read the full text of this article, it is available free from the Singapore Medical Journal at:
http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/smjpast.html
If you go to the above site, you will see that there are two articles. One is a shorter commentary, which calls for looking at possible interventions, including the possibility of establishing bike lanes.
Here's a part of that commentary:
Singapore Med J 2006; 47(5) : 357
Editorial
Bicycle protection laws in Singapore:are more compelling data still needed?
Ooi S B S, Iau P T C
...With such compelling local data, can we still afford to give people the option of wearing bicycle helmets during bicycling? Should we not legislate that wearing of helmets be compulsory for all bicyclists? In the same article, Heng et al showed that 69% of patients were hit on the road while cycling while 42% were knocked down by a motor vehicle. This suggests that we should perhaps build separate bicycle lanes in high-use areas. Even if we think that this measure may not be feasible in land-scarce Singapore, we could perhaps have limited bicycle laws on weekends and public holidays where recreational bicycling would be expected to increase.
We should encourage bicycling as a healthy alternative of commuting rather than making it a life-threatening experience! (Emphasis added, jcr)
John
John Forester
05-14-07, 01:11 PM
I cannot say for sure that this is science for bicycle lanes, but in Singapore there are no bike lanes. This study is being used by some to promote the concept of bike lanes as a possible way of dealing with the injury situation that this study discusses:
If any of you want to read the full text of this article, it is available free from the Singapore Medical Journal at:
http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/smjpast.html
If you go to the above site, you will see that there are two articles. One is a shorter commentary, which calls for looking at possible interventions, including the possibility of establishing bike lanes.
Here's a part of that commentary:
John
It is well known that physicians and other medical practitioners know nothing about cycling in traffic except the current superstition. I deal professionally with this situation frequently. The article is irrelevant to the question of what to do to make cycling safer in Singapore.
If any of you want to read the full text of this article, it is available free from the Singapore Medical Journal at:
http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/smjpast.html
If you go to the above site, you will see that there are two articles. One is a shorter commentary, which calls for looking at possible interventions, including the possibility of establishing bike lanes.
Here's a part of that commentary:
John
It is well known that physicians and other medical practitioners know nothing about cycling in traffic except the current superstition. I deal professionally with this situation frequently. The article is irrelevant to the question of what to do to make cycling safer in Singapore.
John C. Ratliff
05-14-07, 03:25 PM
John, it's relevant, if only because some physicians in a prestigious medical journal stated it. That makes it a topic for someone to see, and act upon. The physicians could easily say that they do know something about it, as they did a study which shows that people are getting hurt and killed. I think it is here that your professional expertise would be relavent to the situation, and you could state to the Singapore authorities that bike lanes won't make for safer conditions for bicyclists. They may then come back and ask about what would make for safer conditions? That would be your opportunity to earn some consulting fees.
The interesting think to me is that they don't have bike lanes, and are now looking to make some (at least, the physicians are proposing it as one part of a solution). Shouldn't it be safer for these cyclists without the infrastructure for bicycles? That's what I keep hearing here, that cars and bicycles should be using the same lanes, without extras like bike lanes. Anyway, food for thought; why is it that a country without bike lanes feels a need in a professional journal to propose them?
John
The interesting think to me is that they don't have bike lanes, and are now looking to make some (at least, the physicians are proposing it as one part of a solution). Shouldn't it be safer for these cyclists without the infrastructure for bicycles? That's what I keep hearing here, that cars and bicycles should be using the same lanes, without extras like bike lanes. Anyway, food for thought; why is it that a country without bike lanes feels a need in a professional journal to propose them?
John
Helmet Head
05-14-07, 03:33 PM
why is it that a country without bike lanes feels a need in a professional journal to propose them?
Cyclist inferiority thinking.
Cyclist inferiority thinking.
John Forester
05-14-07, 03:34 PM
J
snip
That's what I keep hearing here, that cars and bicycles should be using the same lanes, without extras like bike lanes. Anyway, food for thought; why is it that a country without bike lanes (Singapore) feels a need in a professional journal to propose them?
John
A professional medical journal is not a professional traffic-engineering journal. This is just another example of people in one profession making recommendations about an entirely different field, and merely repeating the worldwide superstition (as it has now become) about bike lanes.
snip
That's what I keep hearing here, that cars and bicycles should be using the same lanes, without extras like bike lanes. Anyway, food for thought; why is it that a country without bike lanes (Singapore) feels a need in a professional journal to propose them?
John
A professional medical journal is not a professional traffic-engineering journal. This is just another example of people in one profession making recommendations about an entirely different field, and merely repeating the worldwide superstition (as it has now become) about bike lanes.
randya
05-14-07, 04:06 PM
Cyclist inferiority thinking.
dumbass not thinking
dumbass not thinking
joejack951
05-14-07, 04:20 PM
I cannot say for sure that this is science for bicycle lanes, but in Singapore there are no bike lanes. This study is being used by some to promote the concept of bike lanes as a possible way of dealing with the injury situation that this study discusses:
If any of you want to read the full text of this article, it is available free from the Singapore Medical Journal at:
http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/smjpast.html
If you go to the above site, you will see that there are two articles. One is a shorter commentary, which calls for looking at possible interventions, including the possibility of establishing bike lanes.
Here's a part of that commentary:
John
Here's another part of the commentary:
Even if we think that this measure [adding bike lanes to highly used areas] may not be feasible in land-scarce Singapore, we could perhaps have limited bicycle laws on weekends and public holidays where recreational bicycling would be expected to increase.
It's not extremely clear what they mean by this but I interpret it to mean that they are considering limiting cycling in certain areas during holidays to reduce cyclists injuries.
John, do you seriously respect the opinion of these people?
If any of you want to read the full text of this article, it is available free from the Singapore Medical Journal at:
http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/smjpast.html
If you go to the above site, you will see that there are two articles. One is a shorter commentary, which calls for looking at possible interventions, including the possibility of establishing bike lanes.
Here's a part of that commentary:
John
Here's another part of the commentary:
Even if we think that this measure [adding bike lanes to highly used areas] may not be feasible in land-scarce Singapore, we could perhaps have limited bicycle laws on weekends and public holidays where recreational bicycling would be expected to increase.
It's not extremely clear what they mean by this but I interpret it to mean that they are considering limiting cycling in certain areas during holidays to reduce cyclists injuries.
John, do you seriously respect the opinion of these people?
John C. Ratliff
05-14-07, 04:28 PM
Really, it does not matter what I respect. This is happening, and I simply wanted you to be aware of it. Singapore has some very different laws, and I do not necessarily want those laws here (something about caning and spitting). But at the same time, this thread was about the science of bike lane advocacy. If this is published and available, it is better for you to know about it than not to know about it. Saying it is "irrelevant" does not make it go away, and people in Singapore may have to live with decisions made, and not necessarily in a democratic manner, concerning bicycling in that country.
Now for the other question; since Singapore has no bicycle infrastructure, why are they having problems with bicycle injuries. It seems that alcohol is a major problem, and on the helmet thread we are discussing whether cyclists riding after drinking should also be factored into the equations. It was suggested there that alcohol is a problem for cycling in Canada and probably also in the USA, so perhaps this could explain some of the accident statistics we see.
John
Now for the other question; since Singapore has no bicycle infrastructure, why are they having problems with bicycle injuries. It seems that alcohol is a major problem, and on the helmet thread we are discussing whether cyclists riding after drinking should also be factored into the equations. It was suggested there that alcohol is a problem for cycling in Canada and probably also in the USA, so perhaps this could explain some of the accident statistics we see.
John
genec
05-14-07, 06:34 PM
Really, it does not matter what I respect. This is happening, and I simply wanted you to be aware of it. Singapore has some very different laws, and I do not necessarily want those laws here (something about caning and spitting). But at the same time, this thread was about the science of bike lane advocacy. If this is published and available, it is better for you to know about it than not to know about it. Saying it is "irrelevant" does not make it go away, and people in Singapore may have to live with decisions made, and not necessarily in a democratic manner, concerning bicycling in that country.
Now for the other question; since Singapore has no bicycle infrastructure, why are they having problems with bicycle injuries. It seems that alcohol is a major problem, and on the helmet thread we are discussing whether cyclists riding after drinking should also be factored into the equations. It was suggested there that alcohol is a problem for cycling in Canada and probably also in the USA, so perhaps this could explain some of the accident statistics we see.
John
Actually John, you have a valid point... why is vehicular cycling not "flourishing" in that country? Why should bike lanes even be considered? Singapore is a country of high control and disipline, it would seem that their drivers could be mandated to properly follow the rules of the road which should be an inducement to cyclists to ride perfectly vehicularly without even facing "motorist superiority" issues.
Vehicular cycling should work perfectly in such an environment... and yet there is a suggestion for bike lanes... why would such a foolish notion even arise?
Now for the other question; since Singapore has no bicycle infrastructure, why are they having problems with bicycle injuries. It seems that alcohol is a major problem, and on the helmet thread we are discussing whether cyclists riding after drinking should also be factored into the equations. It was suggested there that alcohol is a problem for cycling in Canada and probably also in the USA, so perhaps this could explain some of the accident statistics we see.
John
Actually John, you have a valid point... why is vehicular cycling not "flourishing" in that country? Why should bike lanes even be considered? Singapore is a country of high control and disipline, it would seem that their drivers could be mandated to properly follow the rules of the road which should be an inducement to cyclists to ride perfectly vehicularly without even facing "motorist superiority" issues.
Vehicular cycling should work perfectly in such an environment... and yet there is a suggestion for bike lanes... why would such a foolish notion even arise?
Helmet Head
05-14-07, 06:51 PM
Actually John, you have a valid point... why is vehicular cycling not "flourishing" in that country? Why should bike lanes even be considered? Singapore is a country of high control and disipline, it would seem that their drivers could be mandated to properly follow the rules of the road which should be an inducement to cyclists to ride perfectly vehicularly without even facing "motorist superiority" issues.
Vehicular cycling should work perfectly in such an environment... and yet there is a suggestion for bike lanes... why would such a foolish notion even arise? Same reason it arises here.
Nobody, not even me, has ever claimed that bike lanes are the sole cause of anti-vehicular cycling/thinking. I have argued that they are likely to be a contributory factor. That does not mean that anti-vehicular cycling could not arise in a society without bike lanes.
Perhaps the "big" cars evoke some primordial fear of larger predators that served humans well in the jungles, but misguides us as cyclists in motor traffic.
Vehicular cycling should work perfectly in such an environment... and yet there is a suggestion for bike lanes... why would such a foolish notion even arise? Same reason it arises here.
Nobody, not even me, has ever claimed that bike lanes are the sole cause of anti-vehicular cycling/thinking. I have argued that they are likely to be a contributory factor. That does not mean that anti-vehicular cycling could not arise in a society without bike lanes.
Perhaps the "big" cars evoke some primordial fear of larger predators that served humans well in the jungles, but misguides us as cyclists in motor traffic.
natelutkjohn
05-14-07, 07:16 PM
Perhaps the "big" cars evoke some primordial fear of larger predators that served humans well in the jungles, but misguides us as cyclists in motor traffic.
you have got to be joking - science or not HH, not both - wait I'll answer that one - emotional arguments, MUCH beter then science...
you have got to be joking - science or not HH, not both - wait I'll answer that one - emotional arguments, MUCH beter then science...
chipcom
05-14-07, 07:23 PM
Or perhaps countries that have large amounts of bicycle and motor vehicle traffic (unlike the US) have decided that some segregation is the only way to achieve order. Do any of you really think if our roads were flooded with both bicycles and vehicles that everyone would live in complete harmony with everyone following the the same rules on the same roadways with no changes to provide better order among the different classes of vehicles? Hell, motorists can't even live in harmony among themselves, throw in equal amounts of bicycles, no matter how vc, and you got chaos. Your vc utopia is a pipe dream...if you were forward thinking you'd spend more time looking for acceptable ways to provide orderly flow of all classes of traffic, instead of clinging to a utopian dream that hasn't, and will not, ever come true.
sbhikes
05-14-07, 07:42 PM
Or perhaps countries that have large amounts of bicycle and motor vehicle traffic (unlike the US) have decided that some segregation is the only way to achieve order. Do any of you really think if our roads were flooded with both bicycles and vehicles that everyone would live in complete harmony with everyone following the the same rules on the same roadways with no changes to provide better order among the different classes of vehicles? Hell, motorists can't even live in harmony among themselves, throw in equal amounts of bicycles, no matter how vc, and you got chaos. Your vc utopia is a pipe dream...if you were forward thinking you'd spend more time looking for acceptable ways to provide orderly flow of all classes of traffic, instead of clinging to a utopian dream that hasn't, and will not, ever come true.
I'm picturing India right now. Streets flooded with every kind of vehicle. No segregation at all. No order at all.
I'm picturing India right now. Streets flooded with every kind of vehicle. No segregation at all. No order at all.
Brian Ratliff
05-14-07, 07:49 PM
^^^
Actually, VC is concieved as a way for cyclists to cope in an environment dominated by cars. If you have lots of bike and car traffic mixed vehicularly, you get... wait for it... India (or any other poor country where bicycling is a norm and a significant fraction or even a majority of traffic). VC doesn't really work for anyone as the percentage of bicycles approaches 50% of vehicles. This is why the VC'ists have to argue that these percentages will never occur, and why some, such as John Forester, allow the cart to drive the horse and actually work to prevent measures which will result in these types of percentages.
I see VC'ism, and especially anti-facility-ism as an offshoot of the "manifest destiny" type thinking; that what is occuring with sprawl and autocentricism is what should be just because it now is. It is one thing to practice and teach vehicular cycling as a way of getting by in the world as it is, but the arm which opposes everything that Mr. Forester terms (or is "tars" a better term?) "anti-car" is misguided. Bicycling is the most energy and resource efficient way for humans to amplify and extend the traveling range of their bodies. To not expect people who could benefit from this form of transportation to want to take advantage; to actually work against measures which will allow people to benefit from this form of transportation; is extremely misguided.
Actually, VC is concieved as a way for cyclists to cope in an environment dominated by cars. If you have lots of bike and car traffic mixed vehicularly, you get... wait for it... India (or any other poor country where bicycling is a norm and a significant fraction or even a majority of traffic). VC doesn't really work for anyone as the percentage of bicycles approaches 50% of vehicles. This is why the VC'ists have to argue that these percentages will never occur, and why some, such as John Forester, allow the cart to drive the horse and actually work to prevent measures which will result in these types of percentages.
I see VC'ism, and especially anti-facility-ism as an offshoot of the "manifest destiny" type thinking; that what is occuring with sprawl and autocentricism is what should be just because it now is. It is one thing to practice and teach vehicular cycling as a way of getting by in the world as it is, but the arm which opposes everything that Mr. Forester terms (or is "tars" a better term?) "anti-car" is misguided. Bicycling is the most energy and resource efficient way for humans to amplify and extend the traveling range of their bodies. To not expect people who could benefit from this form of transportation to want to take advantage; to actually work against measures which will allow people to benefit from this form of transportation; is extremely misguided.
Brian Ratliff
05-14-07, 07:57 PM
sbhikes beat me to it. Yes, India or Cambodia and the traffic chaos of mixing many different types of vehicles with vastly differing speed limits basically lowers the efficiency (and safety) of the road for all. In my 2 weeks in Cambodia, my car (I wasn't driving) was involved in an accident with a motorcycle, my relative-in-law was involved in an accident with a motorcycle, and we drove past another, probably fatal accident (there was a quite large crowd gathered around it). When was the last time you had this kind of string of accidents in a two week period (and we weren't driving everyday, far from it) anywhere in the US? The accident that we were in, and the one my relative-in-law was in, were both accidents that, if in the US and we drove away as we did (that's how common accidents are on those roads), we would have been arrested and serve jail time for hit and run.
The vehicles in Cambodia were 1) trucks and busses, 2) sedan/SUV type automobiles, 3) small motorcycles /scooters, 4) bicycles (not the racing kind), and 5) travelers on foot. All the cars there, with very, very few exceptions had dents from numerous fenderbenders, and might made right on the roads. Horns were very common, and most cars past a certain age actually had worn out their horn. Even in NYC, does this happen? That cars wear out their horn?
Oh yea, no facilities, and all cyclists were traveling with the flow of traffic in a vehicular style as there were no alternatives. Bicycles were anywhere from ~20-70% of traffic, depending on the location.
The vehicles in Cambodia were 1) trucks and busses, 2) sedan/SUV type automobiles, 3) small motorcycles /scooters, 4) bicycles (not the racing kind), and 5) travelers on foot. All the cars there, with very, very few exceptions had dents from numerous fenderbenders, and might made right on the roads. Horns were very common, and most cars past a certain age actually had worn out their horn. Even in NYC, does this happen? That cars wear out their horn?
Oh yea, no facilities, and all cyclists were traveling with the flow of traffic in a vehicular style as there were no alternatives. Bicycles were anywhere from ~20-70% of traffic, depending on the location.
Brian Ratliff
05-14-07, 08:01 PM
BTW, HH, speaking, for a moment, to the OP. We've had many, many, many discussions about the "science" of "bike lane advocacy" (whoever practices this, I'm not sure). I'd suggest using the search function to get the answers you are looking for.
John Forester
05-14-07, 08:38 PM
^^^
Actually, VC is concieved as a way for cyclists to cope in an environment dominated by cars. If you have lots of bike and car traffic mixed vehicularly, you get... wait for it... India (or any other poor country where bicycling is a norm and a significant fraction or even a majority of traffic). VC doesn't really work for anyone as the percentage of bicycles approaches 50% of vehicles. This is why the VC'ists have to argue that these percentages will never occur, and why some, such as John Forester, allow the cart to drive the horse and actually work to prevent measures which will result in these types of percentages.
I see VC'ism, and especially anti-facility-ism as an offshoot of the "manifest destiny" type thinking; that what is occuring with sprawl and autocentricism is what should be just because it now is. It is one thing to practice and teach vehicular cycling as a way of getting by in the world as it is, but the arm which opposes everything that Mr. Forester terms (or is "tars" a better term?) "anti-car" is misguided. Bicycling is the most energy and resource efficient way for humans to amplify and extend the traveling range of their bodies. To not expect people who could benefit from this form of transportation to want to take advantage; to actually work against measures which will allow people to benefit from this form of transportation; is extremely misguided.
This and the other examples of Asian traffic has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Those traffic problems are caused by disorganized and unlawful (in our terms) operation. Consider instead the operation of bicycles and vehicles in European nations in which motorists operate in a reasonable manner, such as England, France, and The Netherlands (outside the bikeway areas). In those nations, motorists and cyclists get along well.
Anyone can oppose motoring, as Brian wishes to do, but they should not make cycling worse in the process of opposing motoring, simply because the general public believes that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as inferior to motorists. Surely, if one wishes to oppose motoring, one should raise up the public opinion of cyclists to equal that of motorists.
Actually, VC is concieved as a way for cyclists to cope in an environment dominated by cars. If you have lots of bike and car traffic mixed vehicularly, you get... wait for it... India (or any other poor country where bicycling is a norm and a significant fraction or even a majority of traffic). VC doesn't really work for anyone as the percentage of bicycles approaches 50% of vehicles. This is why the VC'ists have to argue that these percentages will never occur, and why some, such as John Forester, allow the cart to drive the horse and actually work to prevent measures which will result in these types of percentages.
I see VC'ism, and especially anti-facility-ism as an offshoot of the "manifest destiny" type thinking; that what is occuring with sprawl and autocentricism is what should be just because it now is. It is one thing to practice and teach vehicular cycling as a way of getting by in the world as it is, but the arm which opposes everything that Mr. Forester terms (or is "tars" a better term?) "anti-car" is misguided. Bicycling is the most energy and resource efficient way for humans to amplify and extend the traveling range of their bodies. To not expect people who could benefit from this form of transportation to want to take advantage; to actually work against measures which will allow people to benefit from this form of transportation; is extremely misguided.
This and the other examples of Asian traffic has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Those traffic problems are caused by disorganized and unlawful (in our terms) operation. Consider instead the operation of bicycles and vehicles in European nations in which motorists operate in a reasonable manner, such as England, France, and The Netherlands (outside the bikeway areas). In those nations, motorists and cyclists get along well.
Anyone can oppose motoring, as Brian wishes to do, but they should not make cycling worse in the process of opposing motoring, simply because the general public believes that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as inferior to motorists. Surely, if one wishes to oppose motoring, one should raise up the public opinion of cyclists to equal that of motorists.
Brian Ratliff
05-14-07, 08:53 PM
If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.
VC is how one bicycles in the limit as the number of bicyclists approach a dilute concentration. Raise the percentage enough, and free and unrestricted travel for everyone is reduced to a common denominator.
How do you know what I wish to do? I've never stated this; it seems you are putting words in my mouth. A straw man is easier to beat up, for sure.
VC is how one bicycles in the limit as the number of bicyclists approach a dilute concentration. Raise the percentage enough, and free and unrestricted travel for everyone is reduced to a common denominator.
How do you know what I wish to do? I've never stated this; it seems you are putting words in my mouth. A straw man is easier to beat up, for sure.
genec
05-15-07, 08:17 AM
If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.
VC is how one bicycles in the limit as the number of bicyclists approach a dilute concentration. Raise the percentage enough, and free and unrestricted travel for everyone is reduced to a common denominator.
How do you know what I wish to do? I've never stated this; it seems you are putting words in my mouth. A straw man is easier to beat up, for sure.
It was worth saying twice!
VC is how one bicycles in the limit as the number of bicyclists approach a dilute concentration. Raise the percentage enough, and free and unrestricted travel for everyone is reduced to a common denominator.
How do you know what I wish to do? I've never stated this; it seems you are putting words in my mouth. A straw man is easier to beat up, for sure.
It was worth saying twice!
sbhikes
05-15-07, 08:23 AM
I just can't get past the title of this topic. The science of bike lane advocacy. What the heck does that mean? There might be some science of bike lane efficacy out there. Maybe that's what was meant.
Brian Ratliff
05-15-07, 08:54 AM
It was worth saying twice!
Fixed it! Sorry ;)!
Fixed it! Sorry ;)!
genec
05-15-07, 09:10 AM
Fixed it! Sorry ;)!
hey, indeed it was worth saying twice... it points out the issue of a true "critical mass."
What happens when cyclists make up 50% of the traffic? I bet it would not even take 50%.
hey, indeed it was worth saying twice... it points out the issue of a true "critical mass."
What happens when cyclists make up 50% of the traffic? I bet it would not even take 50%.
invisiblehand
05-15-07, 10:10 AM
I dunno, is there a requirement for "scientific" support of such advocacy?
Depends on bike-lane-advocate's rationale. If they claim that it increases ridership. Then there should be some evidence--descriptive would be a start--that it increases ridership. If they claim that it increases safety, then there should be evidence supporting the claim. If there is no such evidence but they want to try it out, then they should make such a statement.
Depends on bike-lane-advocate's rationale. If they claim that it increases ridership. Then there should be some evidence--descriptive would be a start--that it increases ridership. If they claim that it increases safety, then there should be evidence supporting the claim. If there is no such evidence but they want to try it out, then they should make such a statement.
Helmet Head
05-15-07, 10:32 AM
If cycling is (say) 50% of the traffic volume (without some sort of speed segregation), then all traffic either slows to bicycling speeds or faster traffic resorts to illegal maneuvers to maintain speeds above 15mph. Space on an asphault road is limited. This is exactly what happens in Asia, where bicyclist concentration is still high.
VC is how one bicycles in the limit as the number of bicyclists approach a dilute concentration. Raise the percentage enough, and free and unrestricted travel for everyone is reduced to a common denominator.
How do you know what I wish to do? I've never stated this; it seems you are putting words in my mouth. A straw man is easier to beat up, for sure. Speed segregation is automatically built into the vehicular rules of the road via the speed positioning principle (slower traffic keeps right).
Often, the 5 and 99 freeways north of L.A. are about half/half truck/car traffic, but the car drivers are not slowed down to the speed of trucks, for the most part, because, for the most part, the truckers keep right.
There is nothing new here. The vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic.
VC is how one bicycles in the limit as the number of bicyclists approach a dilute concentration. Raise the percentage enough, and free and unrestricted travel for everyone is reduced to a common denominator.
How do you know what I wish to do? I've never stated this; it seems you are putting words in my mouth. A straw man is easier to beat up, for sure. Speed segregation is automatically built into the vehicular rules of the road via the speed positioning principle (slower traffic keeps right).
Often, the 5 and 99 freeways north of L.A. are about half/half truck/car traffic, but the car drivers are not slowed down to the speed of trucks, for the most part, because, for the most part, the truckers keep right.
There is nothing new here. The vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic.
genec
05-15-07, 11:19 AM
Speed segregation is automatically built into the vehicular rules of the road via the speed positioning principle (slower traffic keeps right).
Often, the 5 and 99 freeways north of L.A. are about half/half truck/car traffic, but the car drivers are not slowed down to the speed of trucks, for the most part, because, for the most part, the truckers keep right.
There is nothing new here. The vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic.
Right, just like how it works in India and China... Riiiight.
Often, the 5 and 99 freeways north of L.A. are about half/half truck/car traffic, but the car drivers are not slowed down to the speed of trucks, for the most part, because, for the most part, the truckers keep right.
There is nothing new here. The vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic.
Right, just like how it works in India and China... Riiiight.
zeytoun
05-15-07, 11:51 AM
Often, the 5 and 99 freeways north of L.A. are about half/half truck/car traffic, but the car drivers are not slowed down to the speed of trucks, for the most part, because, for the most part, the truckers keep right.
And that works well because the intersections are few (about 1 per mile), announced, and routed with a separate off ramp, that is almost never to the left. Also, the speed differential is usually 55 for trucks, 65-75 for cars. This is much smaller then the speed differential of 12-25 for bicycles, 40-55 for cars on arterials, with traffic turning either left or right, and intersections possibly several times each block.
And that works well because the intersections are few (about 1 per mile), announced, and routed with a separate off ramp, that is almost never to the left. Also, the speed differential is usually 55 for trucks, 65-75 for cars. This is much smaller then the speed differential of 12-25 for bicycles, 40-55 for cars on arterials, with traffic turning either left or right, and intersections possibly several times each block.
Helmet Head
05-15-07, 12:02 PM
BTW, HH, speaking, for a moment, to the OP. We've had many, many, many discussions about the "science" of "bike lane advocacy" (whoever practices this, I'm not sure). I'd suggest using the search function to get the answers you are looking for.
If you're talking about the Texas study that indicates that many cyclists seem to ride further from the curb between intersections when there is a bike lane stripe than when there is not, that's the same study that shows that motorists tend to pass cyclists with less passing distance when there is a stripe, so it's kind of a wash, at best.
Anything else?
If you're talking about the Texas study that indicates that many cyclists seem to ride further from the curb between intersections when there is a bike lane stripe than when there is not, that's the same study that shows that motorists tend to pass cyclists with less passing distance when there is a stripe, so it's kind of a wash, at best.
Anything else?
Helmet Head
05-15-07, 12:03 PM
Right, just like how it works in India and China... Riiiight.
What part of Mr. Forester's answer did you not understand?
This and the other examples of Asian traffic has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Those traffic problems are caused by disorganized and unlawful (in our terms) operation.
What part of Mr. Forester's answer did you not understand?
This and the other examples of Asian traffic has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Those traffic problems are caused by disorganized and unlawful (in our terms) operation.
Helmet Head
05-15-07, 12:18 PM
And that works well because the intersections are few (about 1 per mile), announced, and routed with a separate off ramp, that is almost never to the left. Also, the speed differential is usually 55 for trucks, 65-75 for cars. This is much smaller then the speed differential of 12-25 for bicycles, 40-55 for cars on arterials, with traffic turning either left or right, and intersections possibly several times each block.
There is no question that large numbers of cyclists on surface streets would impact motor traffic more than truck traffic impacts auto traffic on interstates. But, then, interstates are designed for "free flow", and surface streets are not (frequent intersections, on street parking, midblock intersections, left and right turns, etc.).
The issue is whether bike lane stripes alleviate or worsen the inevitable impact.
One view is that bike lane stripes alleviate it by clearly separating the slower through traffic from the faster through traffic (proponents of this view are encouraged to expand on it, if they have anything to add).
The other view is that bike lane stripes worsen the impact because:
the benefit to through traffic alleviation of impact is relatively small, since separation by speed between intersections is already accomplished by speed positioning when there is no stripe.
at least when the ratio of slower bicycle traffic to faster motor traffic is small, the "increased friction" due to lack of bike lane stripe is good because it tends to cause passing motorists to naturally slow down and pass with greater passing distance (ref: Texas study).
the bike lane stripe channels through bicycle traffic to travel to the right of right turning motor traffic in the adjacent straight-or-right motor traffic lane. This is an issue not only at major intersections, but at all midblock intersections (with driveways, mall entrances, etc.). Thus, the separation-channelization by speed with demarcated lanes actually worsens the impact because it sets up conflict situations at intersections.
There is no question that large numbers of cyclists on surface streets would impact motor traffic more than truck traffic impacts auto traffic on interstates. But, then, interstates are designed for "free flow", and surface streets are not (frequent intersections, on street parking, midblock intersections, left and right turns, etc.).
The issue is whether bike lane stripes alleviate or worsen the inevitable impact.
One view is that bike lane stripes alleviate it by clearly separating the slower through traffic from the faster through traffic (proponents of this view are encouraged to expand on it, if they have anything to add).
The other view is that bike lane stripes worsen the impact because:
the benefit to through traffic alleviation of impact is relatively small, since separation by speed between intersections is already accomplished by speed positioning when there is no stripe.
at least when the ratio of slower bicycle traffic to faster motor traffic is small, the "increased friction" due to lack of bike lane stripe is good because it tends to cause passing motorists to naturally slow down and pass with greater passing distance (ref: Texas study).
the bike lane stripe channels through bicycle traffic to travel to the right of right turning motor traffic in the adjacent straight-or-right motor traffic lane. This is an issue not only at major intersections, but at all midblock intersections (with driveways, mall entrances, etc.). Thus, the separation-channelization by speed with demarcated lanes actually worsens the impact because it sets up conflict situations at intersections.
Helmet Head
05-15-07, 12:22 PM
While it's codified in the CVC, in the real world, the one that I drive in, "slower traffic keeps right" as it applies to cars is usually wishful thinking. It's the exception, rather than the norm. We're talking about significantly slower traffic, like trucks vs. cars and bikes vs cars, not the occasional 60 mph Sunday driver in the fast lane, if that's what you're talking about with respect to "as it applies to cars".
Please. If that is the case, explain the great number of left lane blockers that can be seen impeding traffic on our "highly evolved" highway system. Traffic volumes exceed infrastructure design constraints.
Please. If that is the case, explain the great number of left lane blockers that can be seen impeding traffic on our "highly evolved" highway system. Traffic volumes exceed infrastructure design constraints.
Helmet Head
05-15-07, 12:41 PM
Sorry, Pete, I was not following what you were talking about (not that you weren't clear - my bad). Yes, there are all too many morons driving too slowly in the fast lane when there is plenty of space to move over further to the right. And flashing head lights works with probably around only half of them, maybe less.
But, just like the Asian examples, that "has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Those traffic problems are caused by disorganized and unlawful (in our terms) operation."
The issue at hand is whether bike lanes would significantly alleviate the impact of cyclists on faster traffic or not. That too also depends on organized and lawful operation, and would not work, for example, if cyclists eschewed the bike lanes and rode their bikes unlawfully in the fast lanes.
But, just like the Asian examples, that "has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Those traffic problems are caused by disorganized and unlawful (in our terms) operation."
The issue at hand is whether bike lanes would significantly alleviate the impact of cyclists on faster traffic or not. That too also depends on organized and lawful operation, and would not work, for example, if cyclists eschewed the bike lanes and rode their bikes unlawfully in the fast lanes.
chipcom
05-15-07, 12:50 PM
I just can't get past the title of this topic. The science of bike lane advocacy. What the heck does that mean? There might be some science of bike lane efficacy out there. Maybe that's what was meant.
http://thor.mirtna.org/features/titular_movie_themes_ws.jpg
http://thor.mirtna.org/features/titular_movie_themes_ws.jpg
chipcom
05-15-07, 12:52 PM
The vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Pigs fly too.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Pigs fly too.
chipcom
05-15-07, 12:54 PM
We're talking about significantly slower traffic, like trucks vs. cars and bikes vs cars, not the occasional 60 mph Sunday driver in the fast lane, if that's what you're talking about with respect to "as it applies to cars".
Traffic volumes exceed infrastructure design constraints.
Uh huh...that's why it happens during low traffic volume times too. Oh wait, you only know about your little overcrowded corner of California. :rolleyes:
Traffic volumes exceed infrastructure design constraints.
Uh huh...that's why it happens during low traffic volume times too. Oh wait, you only know about your little overcrowded corner of California. :rolleyes:
chipcom
05-15-07, 01:00 PM
But, just like the Asian examples, that "has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Those traffic problems are caused by disorganized and unlawful (in our terms) operation.
So which is the granny in the hammer lane, disorganized or unlawful?
All traffic in the US is disorganized...just not AS disorganized as in some other countries....but to call it organized is like calling a duck a chicken.
So which is the granny in the hammer lane, disorganized or unlawful?
All traffic in the US is disorganized...just not AS disorganized as in some other countries....but to call it organized is like calling a duck a chicken.
Helmet Head
05-15-07, 01:12 PM
So much for the vehicular rules of the road have evolved over a hundred years to effectively handle all kinds of mixes in types of vehicular traffic. They don't seem to be working, do they?
They work great when drivers follow them.
You can't fault the rules for drivers not following them, unless they are inherently non-intuitive and/or inconsistent with other rules.
Plus, the laws in CA no longer clearly state that marginally slower traffic is required to keep to the right lanes, as it is in many other states, and certainly in Europe.
They work great when drivers follow them.
You can't fault the rules for drivers not following them, unless they are inherently non-intuitive and/or inconsistent with other rules.
Plus, the laws in CA no longer clearly state that marginally slower traffic is required to keep to the right lanes, as it is in many other states, and certainly in Europe.
zeytoun
05-15-07, 01:12 PM
....but to call it organized is like calling a duck a chicken.
Just don't call an uber-duck an uber-chicken.
Just don't call an uber-duck an uber-chicken.
Helmet Head
05-15-07, 01:20 PM
So which is the granny in the hammer lane, disorganized or unlawful?
All traffic in the US is disorganized...just not AS disorganized as in some other countries....but to call it organized is like calling a duck a chicken. "Disorganized" is a subjective term. Disputing a position based on a differing implicit use of the definition of "disorganized" is semantic sophistry.
The fact is that organization can be measured on a spectrum, and where "organized" becomes "disorganized" is a matter of opinion.
What's relevant to our discussion is whether traffic is sufficiently organized to be efficient and safe.
It would probably be useful to define "disorganized" as being the lower area on the "organization" spectrum where traffic is made unsafe and/or inefficient due to the lack of organization.
Given that definition, I don't think it's fair to characterize U.S. traffic as "disorganized". But perhaps you have a different definition in mind?
All traffic in the US is disorganized...just not AS disorganized as in some other countries....but to call it organized is like calling a duck a chicken. "Disorganized" is a subjective term. Disputing a position based on a differing implicit use of the definition of "disorganized" is semantic sophistry.
The fact is that organization can be measured on a spectrum, and where "organized" becomes "disorganized" is a matter of opinion.
What's relevant to our discussion is whether traffic is sufficiently organized to be efficient and safe.
It would probably be useful to define "disorganized" as being the lower area on the "organization" spectrum where traffic is made unsafe and/or inefficient due to the lack of organization.
Given that definition, I don't think it's fair to characterize U.S. traffic as "disorganized". But perhaps you have a different definition in mind?
John Forester
05-15-07, 01:23 PM
I just can't get past the title of this topic. The science of bike lane advocacy. What the heck does that mean? There might be some science of bike lane efficacy out there. Maybe that's what was meant.
I think that this discussion was initiated as a challenge to those who advocate bike lanes. Since bike lanes are a new addition to road design that contradict the normal operation of the rules of the road, they should never be advocated, except as an experiment, unless and until they have demonstrated particular advantages. Since bike lanes have had thirty five years of experience behind them, and nobody so far has produced evidence of any advantages, let alone advantages sufficient to overrule the confusion produced by contradicting the normal rules of the road, the answer is rather obvious.
Oh, well, one advantage has been claimed, that bike lanes persuade some sidewalk cyclists to get on the roadway, which means, of course, that they persuade demonstrably incompetent cyclists to ride on the roadway when they don't have the skill to do it safely. Not much of an advantage, that, and there are much better ways of persuading sidewalk cyclists to operate properly.
I think that this discussion was initiated as a challenge to those who advocate bike lanes. Since bike lanes are a new addition to road design that contradict the normal operation of the rules of the road, they should never be advocated, except as an experiment, unless and until they have demonstrated particular advantages. Since bike lanes have had thirty five years of experience behind them, and nobody so far has produced evidence of any advantages, let alone advantages sufficient to overrule the confusion produced by contradicting the normal rules of the road, the answer is rather obvious.
Oh, well, one advantage has been claimed, that bike lanes persuade some sidewalk cyclists to get on the roadway, which means, of course, that they persuade demonstrably incompetent cyclists to ride on the roadway when they don't have the skill to do it safely. Not much of an advantage, that, and there are much better ways of persuading sidewalk cyclists to operate properly.
genec
05-15-07, 01:44 PM
What part of Mr. Forester's answer did you not understand?
Oh yeah that "unlawful" part... like all of our drivers here are in strict compliance with the law... :rolleyes:
Oh yeah that "unlawful" part... like all of our drivers here are in strict compliance with the law... :rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.