Evidence of bikeways increasing cycling

[sbhikes]

Here's an excerpt from an email travelogue I received this morning.

In the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Utrecht and Groningen) I was
stunned by the dominance of bicyclists over all other modes.
Street space, parking space, access to shops is all dominated by
bicycles. I had to learn how to ride in swarms, keeping my bars
absolutely straight to avoid sideswipes from them passing on both
sides and keeping a keen eye out as they came from left and
right. The Netherlands also has the strictest
driver-always-at-fault law and it was obvious - cars gave me tons
of room and stopped far sooner than I'm used to when I had the
right of way.

In Copenhagen I found much more car traffic and far wider
streets, but still far fewer cars than here. There was no
congestion! Gaps in car traffic were the norm at all times of
day. And of course there were more swarms of bicyclists swishing
along the endless networks of bikeways, mostly on-street,
brilliantly designed to give priority to bicyclists at
intersections. Both Amsterdam and Copenhagen are hovering near
40% bicycling mode share and though their streets and cities have
vastly different designs, the result is fascinatingly similar -
calm, quiet streets, swarms of pedestrians and bicyclists, places
to linger.


Notion? What notion? That cycling could become dominant? Scary indeed!

[buzzman]

The Netherlands also has the strictest
driver-always-at-fault law and it was obvious - cars gave me tons
of room and stopped far sooner than I'm used to when I had the
right of way.

I spent quite a bit of time in Rotterdam and Amsterdam and this was the hardest adjustment as a US rider to make. It was amazing how my expectations of being cut off, hooked, buzzed and basically disrespected built in some pretty defensive habits, which were for the most part unnecessary there. Granted my home base is the Boston area (consistently ranked as one of the Top 5 US cities for bad drivers) but I would imagine most cyclists who ride in anywhere in the US would be amazed at not only the well designed infra-structure but the courtesy of the drivers.

[Bekologist]

I recently watched a presentation by a city planner from copenhagen; their city was experiencing massive automobile congestion.

their plan to accomodate bicycling into the transportation mix has had amazing results.

one neat feature: timing series of green lights to work for cyclists' speeds, not automobile traffic; they call it the 'green wave'

and yes, their bike infrastructure is lauded as having everything to do with increasing bicycling. greater numbers of bicyclists on the roads makes bicycling safer, bike infrastructure encourages bicycling.

bully to foresterites' autocentric dystopia of 'competent' cyclists mixing it up on 50MPH arterials. that 'vision' will do NOTHING for cycling in america.

So are America cyclists right in lobbying for complete streets? it will be a far cry from the models seen in cities with 40 percent bicycling, but complete streets treatments are a step in the right direction.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

I spent quite a bit of time in Rotterdam and Amsterdam and this was the hardest adjustment as a US rider to make. It was amazing how my expectations of being cut off, hooked, buzzed and basically disrespected built in some pretty defensive habits, which were for the most part unnecessary there. Granted my home base is the Boston area (consistently ranked as one of the Top 5 US cities for bad drivers) but I would imagine most cyclists who ride in anywhere in the US would be amazed at not only the well designed infra-structure but the courtesy of the drivers.
Look, back when I was driving a truck, there were several occasions where I got lost and a native Bostonian, rather than giving me directions, would just tell me "Follow me, it's too complex to give directions".

I've found most Bostonians to be pretty good folk! Kind of like a Small town midwesterner with an accent!;)

[buzzman]

Look, back when I was driving a truck, there were several occasions where I got lost and a native Bostonian, rather than giving me directions, would just tell me "Follow me, it's too complex to give directions".

I've found most Bostonians to be pretty good folk! Kind of like a Small town midwesterner with an accent!;)

As a resident of Massachusetts, who travels in primarily the Greater Boston area, I could not be more pleased that your experiences of driving in Boston were so positive. Unfortunately, the city frequently rates in the top 10 (usually in the top 3 or 5) of the worst places to drive in America.

Boston is listed third in road-rage survey
By Associated Press | May 15, 2007
Boston has ranked third among cities with the worst road-rage problem, in a survey released yesterday by AutoVantage, a Connecticut-based automobile membership club offering travel services and roadside assistance.

and these recent words from our Governor:

June 09, 2007
HYANNIS — When Gov. Deval Patrick first came to Massachusetts to attend high school, he noticed that the way Yankees treat new neighbors is a little different from what he was accustomed to back in Illinois.

"In the Midwest, the old-timers make a big fuss and bring a pie," he told a crowd of Cape tourism insiders at the Cape Codder Resort yesterday. "Here, the newcomer is expected to bring the pie."

but then again maybe the courteous drivers I encountered all over the Netherlands were also an anomaly.:rolleyes:

[John Forester]

Here's an excerpt from an email travelogue I received this morning.

"Here's an excerpt from an email travelogue I received this morning.
Quote:
In the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Utrecht and Groningen) I was
stunned by the dominance of bicyclists over all other modes.
Street space, parking space, access to shops is all dominated by
bicycles. I had to learn how to ride in swarms, keeping my bars
absolutely straight to avoid sideswipes from them passing on both
sides and keeping a keen eye out as they came from left and
right. The Netherlands also has the strictest
driver-always-at-fault law and it was obvious - cars gave me tons
of room and stopped far sooner than I'm used to when I had the
right of way.

In Copenhagen I found much more car traffic and far wider
streets, but still far fewer cars than here. There was no
congestion! Gaps in car traffic were the norm at all times of
day. And of course there were more swarms of bicyclists swishing
along the endless networks of bikeways, mostly on-street,
brilliantly designed to give priority to bicyclists at
intersections. Both Amsterdam and Copenhagen are hovering near
40% bicycling mode share and though their streets and cities have
vastly different designs, the result is fascinatingly similar -
calm, quiet streets, swarms of pedestrians and bicyclists, places
to linger."

Notion? What notion? That cycling could become dominant? Scary indeed!

Don't be more childish than you must be, Diane. Nobody's afraid that bicycle traffic will become dominant, not any more. That fear went out with the motorists' response to the 1960s-1970s bike boom. Of course, some may already be afraid of the circumstances which would have the power to greatly reduce motoring, which would involve great economic and social turmoil.

What you keep on forgetting, or more likely deliberately ignoring, is that the cities that you admire were built before the automobile age. Trying to implement designs suitable for pre-automotive cities into automotive cities just does not work very well. If you admire these cities, then you will need to go live there, because their style of life is not generally possible here.

[John Forester]

Diane posted the following from a travelogue: "The Netherlands also has the strictest driver-always-at-fault law and it was obvious - cars gave me tons of room and stopped far sooner than I'm used to when I had the right of way."

In compensation the The Netherlands has a much higher proportion of the roads from which cyclists are prohibited than has the USA, and fewer locations where cyclists have the right of way. That is because, of course, the law makes motorists see cyclists as legal nuisances, as beings whose company should be avoided.

I prefer the American system in which the class of vehicle does not change the responsibilities and duties of the drivers.

[randya]

you yourself should grow up, John. other than your insults, this is a very positive thread. peds and bicyclists first, how hard is that to understand? If not for your opposition, it could be one of the standard 'rules of the road'.

[John Forester]

you yourself should grow up, John. other than your insults, this is a very positive thread. peds and bicyclists first, how hard is that to understand? If not for your opposition, it could be one of the standard 'rules of the road'.

The catch to making motorists liable for all collisions with cyclists or pedestrians is the predictable response from motorists. That is, get those trouble-makers off the roads. I think it most unlikely that American motorists would accept the proposed status without making the predictable response, which would be very bad for cyclists. I think it politically impossible for American anti-motorists to carry through their desired proposal in the form that they desire, that is, without adding detriments to the present status of cyclists.

[randya]

The catch to making motorists liable for all collisions with cyclists or pedestrians is the predictable response from motorists. That is, get those trouble-makers off the roads. I think it most unlikely that American motorists would accept the proposed status without making the predictable response, which would be very bad for cyclists. I think it politically impossible for American anti-motorists to carry through their desired proposal in the form that they desire, that is, without adding detriments to the present status of cyclists.
why don't you just admit it, you're a motorist-first kind of guy, John

[rando]

bikeways and bike facilities make it easier and less stressful to ride a bike. what's wrong with that?

[sbhikes]

Why would motorists automatically reject motorist responsibility laws? Most motorists are people who have children and would welcome knowing that their children are safer riding to school because motorists are going to behave.

[Bekologist]

the force of delusion is strong in you, john.

there is so much more to bike advocacy in communities. you ARE a cars first kind of guy, john, and it is sad to see a once relevant bike advocate reduced to such a pathetic, sympathetic gas huffer.

[John Forester]

the force of delusion is strong in you, john.

there is so much more to bike advocacy in communities. you ARE a cars first kind of guy, john, and it is sad to see a once relevant bike advocate reduced to such a pathetic, sympathetic gas huffer.

So much more than what? What are the extras that you think that vehicular cyclists omit?

[John Forester]

I recently watched a presentation by a city planner from copenhagen; their city was experiencing massive automobile congestion.

their plan to accomodate bicycling into the transportation mix has had amazing results.

one neat feature: timing series of green lights to work for cyclists' speeds, not automobile traffic; they call it the 'green wave'

and yes, their bike infrastructure is lauded as having everything to do with increasing bicycling. greater numbers of bicyclists on the roads makes bicycling safer, bike infrastructure encourages bicycling.

bully to foresterites' autocentric dystopia of 'competent' cyclists mixing it up on 50MPH arterials. that 'vision' will do NOTHING for cycling in america.

So are America cyclists right in lobbying for complete streets? it will be a far cry from the models seen in cities with 40 percent bicycling, but complete streets treatments are a step in the right direction.

I watched a demonstration by a traffic planner from Odense (which I think is Denmark's second city in size), that included a slide of which he was particularly proud. The slide showed a cyclist making a left turn from the curb lane right in front of a bus in the normal traffic lane. We Americans were all horrified.

[John Forester]

bikeways and bike facilities make it easier and less stressful to ride a bike. what's wrong with that?

Easier? Please specify which skills one does not need when making bicycle trips in a city with a bikeway system. Nobody before this has demonstrated such a lack, while it has been demonstrated that it takes more skills to ride in such a city because the cyclist has to know both normal traffic skills and bikeway traffic skills, and when to know which to obey.

Less stressful? Please specify the kind and the source of the stress to which you refer, and compare this to the increased stress required when having to consider the greater difficulties of riding properly when bikeways are present.

[Bekologist]

john, you are remarkably out of touch with bicycling. it's sad, really.

[Laika]

Don't be more childish than you must be, Diane.

And don't be douchier than you must be, John.

[LittleBigMan]

The catch to making motorists liable for all collisions with cyclists or pedestrians is the predictable response from motorists. That is, get those trouble-makers off the roads. I think it most unlikely that American motorists would accept the proposed status without making the predictable response, which would be very bad for cyclists. I think it politically impossible for American anti-motorists to carry through their desired proposal in the form that they desire, that is, without adding detriments to the present status of cyclists.
why don't you just admit it, you're a motorist-first kind of guy, John
The assertion that John Forester is anti-cyclist is no more believable now than it was the first time it was made, despite its astonishingly persistent recycling. It's one thing to argue using facts, another thing to argue using fabrications; yet still another to argue using fabrications that aren't remotely believable.

[LittleBigMan]

Don't be more childish than you must be, Diane.
I wish you wouldn't put it that way, there are some of us who respect both you and Diane, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on everything.

We all deserve respect, despite our various opinions regarding cycling.

[Roody]

Why would motorists automatically reject motorist responsibility laws? Most motorists are people who have children and would welcome knowing that their children are safer riding to school because motorists are going to behave.
A Lansing police officer ran over a young girl, killing her. The girl had run in front of her police car without warning. The court ruled that the officer was not responsible for the girl's death because she was driving safely and legally, and there's no way she could have avoided hitting her.

Do you feel differently?

[Roody]

Here's an excerpt from an email travelogue I received this morning.
....
[Idyllic description written by somebody trying to sell a bike tour package]
....
Notion? What notion? That cycling could become dominant? Scary indeed!
I don't believe that bikes ever lost popularity in Denmark or Holland, did they? I know that in old movies they show people riding a lot. Even SS troops cycled during the occupation of these countries during WWII.

Well, if cycling never lost popularity there, what sense does it make to say that bike lanes caused them to regain popularity? Cycling didn't "become dominant" in those cities, rather, it never lost dominance as it did in most other locales.

You are always trying to use correlation to prove causation, and this is illogical. You can't answer this question about Copenhagen and Amsterdam:

Did bike lanes cause the dominance of cycling, or did the dominance of cycling lead to the establishment of bike lanes? Or, did some other factors--cultural, demographic, geographic, historical--cause both the bike lanes and the popularity of cycling?

[Bekologist]

roody, European cities were on the track of motor congestion and declining numbers of bicyclists in Europe after WWII and the Marshall Plan, don't let john forester mislead you with his paltry smear.

cities in europe HAVE INCREASED BICYCLING VIA INFRASTRUCTURE, roody. They are concerned about carbon emissions, pollution, civic health, and liveability on a different scale than America's 'fast food on every corner and speedways between'.

perspectives on liveability have been improving public road space in the Netherlands since the first 'woonerf' design in 1967.... I cannot state it emphatically enough, there HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN BICYCLING in cities in Europe by redesign of public space and roads to accomodate bicycling with bike infrastructure. Emphatically, this does NOT mean a bike lane on every road, by the way....

A great feature I see implemented in Copenhagen is the "green wave"; traffic lights timed for cyclist average speeds, not motor traffic. increasing bicyclists smooth travel by retiming of the traffic signals. cool, huh?

and the obstructioninsts are complaining about communities with 40 percent modal share of bicycling..... pathetic.

[John Forester]

roody, European cities were on the track of motor congestion and declining numbers of bicyclists in Europe after WWII and the Marshall Plan, don't let john forester mislead you with his paltry smear.

cities in europe HAVE INCREASED BICYCLING VIA INFRASTRUCTURE, roody. They are concerned about carbon emissions, pollution, civic health, and liveability on a different scale than America's 'fast food on every corner and speedways between'.

perspectives on liveability have been improving public road space in the Netherlands since the first 'woonerf' design in 1967.... I cannot state it emphatically enough, there HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN BICYCLING in cities in Europe by redesign of public space and roads to accomodate bicycling with bike infrastructure. Emphatically, this does NOT mean a bike lane on every road, by the way....

A great feature I see implemented in Copenhagen is the "green wave"; traffic lights timed for cyclist average speeds, not motor traffic. increasing bicyclists smooth travel by retiming of the traffic signals. cool, huh?

and the obstructioninsts are complaining about communities with 40 percent modal share of bicycling..... pathetic.


It is only your faith, Bekologist, that attributes the current bicycle traffic modal split in those cities to bikeways. There is no evidence that bikeways have produced the current level, whatever it is. There are too many confounding factors, and the high level is restricted to the older city centers, whereas the outer city developments are much more auto oriented, rather on the American model.

[Bekologist]

and I call bull to your insistence bike infrastructure has not had a thing to do with it.

traffic engineers all seem to universally agree bike infrastructure increases bicycling, jhon. particularily in the european cities that place a strong focus on bikes for transportation..

[dynodonn]

and I call bull to your insistence bike infrastructure has not had a thing to do with it.

traffic engineers all seem to universally agree bike infrastructure increases bicycling, jhon. particularily in the european cities that place a strong focus on bikes for transportation..


I'm all for bike infrastructure that not only gets bike count up, but really takes in account for a cyclist safety, not like some of our local pathetic best guess compromises made by some traffic engineers and some bicycling advocates, just for the sake of putting "butts on bikes", and end up seeing very little use.

[John Forester]

and I call bull to your insistence bike infrastructure has not had a thing to do with it.

traffic engineers all seem to universally agree bike infrastructure increases bicycling, jhon. particularily in the european cities that place a strong focus on bikes for transportation..

But you, yourself, have never provided proof of your claim. Many people have the same belief that you have, but the evidence to support that belief is remarkably faint. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider that this belief is the supposed foundation of the European bikeway system, just as cyclist safety was supposed to be the foundation of ours. Both of those excuses are remarkably convenient for those in power. I see no more reason to believe one excuse than the other; skepticism is by far the most appropriate attitude.

[Bekologist]

jkohn, if you think the evidence is faint, you're clearly not seeing all the data that shows bike facilties increase bicycling in communities. skepticism, in light of abundant evidence, is denial.

Oh, by the way, I rode the Burke Gilman trail today, sunday on a summer weekend, clipping along at 21-24 miles an hour, and experienced none of the dangers you seem to have had with it - I suspect your bicycling skills are subpar, if you think the Burke is fraught with danger....

you rode it once and declared it more dangerous than the road, I 've ridden it hundreds of times, and KNOW bike paths like the burke have valid transportational use for bikes transiting communities

a little situational awareness goes a long way on a bike, both on MUPS and on the road! Maybe some classes on bike handling skills would do you good, jhon....

[skanking biker]

Anyone who lives in an area where a bikeway was installed has firsthand knowledge based on their own observation that bikeways increase the number of cyclists--I don't need a government funded study to tell me what i see.

[skanking biker]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/

Recent surveys conducted by the Department, such as the 2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors, offer insight into why and how people walk or bicycle, and can help USDOT, States, and local governments determine how to increase walking and bicycling. For example, a BTS Issue Brief report using data from the National Survey conducted during the summer of 2002 found that bicyclists riding in areas without bike paths or lanes are nearly twice as likely to feel endangered (mostly by motorists) as are bicyclists with paths or lanes, and more than four times as likely to be dissatisfied with how their community is designed for making bicycling safe. Knowing this and other forthcoming information from the 2002 Survey, communities and States can better understand walkers and bicyclists, and might lead to better plans for providing the most appropriate new infrastructure and programs to encourage more walking or bicycling.

[sbhikes]

Yeah, skanking biker, but who cares how anybody feels about it? That's just their superstitions showing. Slap them in the face instead with even worse conditions. Send them all John Forester's book. That'll show them.

[skanking biker]

given the the fcats in my previous post someone with an engineering backgrouns should undertsand that there are only 2 ways of dealing with such attitudes (problems):

1. Design the defect out i.e. change the attitudes -----not a very feasible option

2. Design around the problem--i.e. build facilities these people will use


There is of course a third option---pretend the issue doesn't even exist.

[CB HI]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/
Note the statement:
"differences in methodology in the collection years limit their comparability"

and even with lots of ISTEA and TEA21 money from 1995 to 2001, the cycling number remained the same. I guess they are saying, so far all our money has been wasted in relation to increasing transportational cycling.

[CB HI]

given the the fcats in my previous post someone with an engineering backgrouns should undertsand that there are only 2 ways of dealing with such attitudes (problems):

1. Design the defect out i.e. change the attitudes -----not a very feasible option

2. Design around the problem--i.e. build facilities these people will use


There is of course a third option---pretend the issue doesn't even exist.
"change the attitudes" is not an engineering solution, it is a psychological solution. So maybe we should spend money on psychologist rather than painting bike lanes.

[skanking biker]

Well, no Sh!t--but its called reasoning by analogy

[CB HI]

Glad you agree!

[John Forester]

jkohn, if you think the evidence is faint, you're clearly not seeing all the data that shows bike facilties increase bicycling in communities. skepticism, in light of abundant evidence, is denial.

Oh, by the way, I rode the Burke Gilman trail today, sunday on a summer weekend, clipping along at 21-24 miles an hour, and experienced none of the dangers you seem to have had with it - I suspect your bicycling skills are subpar, if you think the Burke is fraught with danger....

you rode it once and declared it more dangerous than the road, I 've ridden it hundreds of times, and KNOW bike paths like the burke have valid transportational use for bikes transiting communities

a little situational awareness goes a long way on a bike, both on MUPS and on the road! Maybe some classes on bike handling skills would do you good, jhon....

Bekologist, you really do make nasty remarks that do not do your agenda anything but harm. I point out to you that on the Burke-Gilman ride occasion about which you question my bike-handling skills, I was accompanied by the whole board of directors of the League of American Bicyclists, and it was all of them, unanimously, who rated the journey as being extremely dangerous. We rode the Burke-Gilman several times that week, and most of the time the traffic was similar. I presume that you had a particularly easy ride. By the way, I seem to recall that 21-24 mph exceeds the posted speed limit for that trail. And, some years ago, I was called in to investigate a fatal bike-bike collision on the eastward extension of the B-G, the Snohomish Valley Trail as I remember the name.

[randya]

roody, European cities were on the track of motor congestion and declining numbers of bicyclists in Europe after WWII and the Marshall Plan, don't let john forester mislead you with his paltry smear.

cities in europe HAVE INCREASED BICYCLING VIA INFRASTRUCTURE, roody. They are concerned about carbon emissions, pollution, civic health, and liveability on a different scale than America's 'fast food on every corner and speedways between'.

perspectives on liveability have been improving public road space in the Netherlands since the first 'woonerf' design in 1967.... I cannot state it emphatically enough, there HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN BICYCLING in cities in Europe by redesign of public space and roads to accomodate bicycling with bike infrastructure. Emphatically, this does NOT mean a bike lane on every road, by the way....

A great feature I see implemented in Copenhagen is the "green wave"; traffic lights timed for cyclist average speeds, not motor traffic. increasing bicyclists smooth travel by retiming of the traffic signals. cool, huh?

and the obstructioninsts are complaining about communities with 40 percent modal share of bicycling..... pathetic.
I would add that all of these improvements are actually fundamental changes to 'the rules of the road' that benefit cyclists and pedestrians. the motorist-first rules of the road that the Foresterologists hold so dear are not that old, nor are they immutably written in stone; they can and will change over time in response to social, political, economic and other considerations.

[randya]

btw, John, I am not 'anti-motoring'; I have a driver's license and I use it, both for work and for play. What I do oppose is a transportation heirarchy that is motorist-centric and motorist-first, which is exactly what the American Dream Coalition and your distorted personal philosophy support.

[gcl8a]

I watched a demonstration by a traffic planner from Odense (which I think is Denmark's second city in size), that included a slide of which he was particularly proud. The slide showed a cyclist making a left turn from the curb lane right in front of a bus in the normal traffic lane. We Americans were all horrified.

Third largest (Århus is bigger).

But that left turn was likely illegal, as we are supposed to do the 'L' turns when we have to go left (go across to opposite light and wait for the next green). One of the worst parts about cycling here.

I'm curious: are these Danes doing the lecture circuit, or did you and Bek travel to Europe to see this?

[gcl8a]

Don't be more childish than you must be, Diane.

Dude. Some of us are trying to hold onto the notion that you're interested in honest discussion. This does not help.

What you keep on forgetting, or more likely deliberately ignoring, is that the cities that you admire were built before the automobile age. Trying to implement designs suitable for pre-automotive cities into automotive cities just does not work very well. If you admire these cities, then you will need to go live there, because their style of life is not generally possible here.

Well, yes and no. If you're talking about bike infratructure, then it's just as easy to hack out some bike lanes/side paths in urban American cities as it is in Copenhagen, where former car lanes, or sometimes parking lanes, have been converted to bike facilities. No reason East Coast cities couldn't do the same (after all, Boston was built when horse-drawn carriages were king).

The trouble is that in Copenhagen, as I understand it, they have intentionally made it difficult for cars -- a move that in America would be political suicide.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Dude. Some of us are trying to hold onto the notion that you're [John Forester] interested in honest discussion.
Fugeddaboutit. Why should JF start now? Look at the decades old track record, it is consistent.

[gcl8a]

Easier? Please specify which skills one does not need when making bicycle trips in a city with a bikeway system. Nobody before this has demonstrated such a lack, while it has been demonstrated that it takes more skills to ride in such a city because the cyclist has to know both normal traffic skills and bikeway traffic skills, and when to know which to obey.

The ability to hold a straight line while sending a text message.

OK, I'll bite. The 'two sets of rules' isn't really an issue. But people with not-so-good bike handling skills, or people who simply choose to not have to pay strict attention every time a car passes, benefit from side paths. There is less need to hold a straight line. Conversely, it is easier to ride side-by-side if one chooses.

Yes, I realize that you are going to comment on the inherent problems this causes, but the fact is that people here prefer the side path because it minimizes car-bike interaction.

Less stressful? Please specify the kind and the source of the stress to which you refer, and compare this to the increased stress required when having to consider the greater difficulties of riding properly when bikeways are present.

I guarantee you most people here would say it is less stressful. For example, there are several roads into an out of town that are two-lane roads with 80km/t speed limits. They could have put in wide shoulders with or without bike lanes, but instead put separated bike paths. It is much more enjoyable to gaze upon the raps and watch the birds than to worry about power weaving and checking your mirror.

[sbhikes]

The city I live in was built before the automobile. Perhaps that is why it's so good for cycling. Oh, but wait, those nice bike paths and bike lanes were built after the automobile, so nope. Looks like another silly Forester-ite "cars-first!" notion that makes no sense.

[John Forester]

Third largest (Århus is bigger).

But that left turn was likely illegal, as we are supposed to do the 'L' turns when we have to go left (go across to opposite light and wait for the next green). One of the worst parts about cycling here.

I'm curious: are these Danes doing the lecture circuit, or did you and Bek travel to Europe to see this?

These were officials from Odense presenting a paper at a VeloCity Conference. And these officials were proud of that photo as showing the kind of results that they desired.

[John Forester]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/

Recent surveys conducted by the Department, such as the 2002 National Survey of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Attitudes and Behaviors, offer insight into why and how people walk or bicycle, and can help USDOT, States, and local governments determine how to increase walking and bicycling. For example, a BTS Issue Brief report using data from the National Survey conducted during the summer of 2002 found that bicyclists riding in areas without bike paths or lanes are nearly twice as likely to feel endangered (mostly by motorists) as are bicyclists with paths or lanes, and more than four times as likely to be dissatisfied with how their community is designed for making bicycling safe. Knowing this and other forthcoming information from the 2002 Survey, communities and States can better understand walkers and bicyclists, and might lead to better plans for providing the most appropriate new infrastructure and programs to encourage more walking or bicycling.


Data from the FHWA? Rather suspect, that. The FHWA has long been paying for efforts to demonstrate that its bikeway program has met its claims, with few results, mostly inconclusive, from much money.

However, what else would you expect from such a survey? Its substance really is that the cyclist-inferiority superstition pervades American society. The official improvement program programs are very largely those driven by the cyclist-inferiority superstition, so that people who do not know any better who live where something gets done approve of the action, while those who live where nothing gets done are dissatisfied because of that fact. None of this says anything about whether what gets done is really beneficial for cyclists.

[John Forester]

I would add that all of these improvements are actually fundamental changes to 'the rules of the road' that benefit cyclists and pedestrians. the motorist-first rules of the road that the Foresterologists hold so dear are not that old, nor are they immutably written in stone; they can and will change over time in response to social, political, economic and other considerations.

Surely, you can stop lying about our opinions, unless, of course, you have been unable to understand our view. Vehicular cyclists want equal legal treatment for cyclists and motorists; we have made that clear for years, and many times in these discussions.

[John Forester]

The ability to hold a straight line while sending a text message.

OK, I'll bite. The 'two sets of rules' isn't really an issue. But people with not-so-good bike handling skills, or people who simply choose to not have to pay strict attention every time a car passes, benefit from side paths. There is less need to hold a straight line. Conversely, it is easier to ride side-by-side if one chooses.

Yes, I realize that you are going to comment on the inherent problems this causes, but the fact is that people here prefer the side path because it minimizes car-bike interaction.



I guarantee you most people here would say it is less stressful. For example, there are several roads into an out of town that are two-lane roads with 80km/t speed limits. They could have put in wide shoulders with or without bike lanes, but instead put separated bike paths. It is much more enjoyable to gaze upon the raps and watch the birds than to worry about power weaving and checking your mirror.

You from Denmark are the first to try to answer my long-standing question. Your answer appears to consider rural roads with few intersections, while my question concerned cities with bikeway systems.

On the kind of road that you describe, one just rides along and has to do little except keeping a straight line relative to the road. I have cycled on such roads for sixty years.

However, your answer is inaccurate regarding urban systems: "Yes, I realize that you are going to comment on the inherent problems this causes, but the fact is that people here prefer the side path because it minimizes car-bike interaction." In urban areas with many cross streets and driveways, side paths fail to minimize the number of car-bike interactions while making those that exist much more difficult and dangerous.

[John Forester]

Dude. Some of us are trying to hold onto the notion that you're interested in honest discussion. This does not help.



Well, yes and no. If you're talking about bike infratructure, then it's just as easy to hack out some bike lanes/side paths in urban American cities as it is in Copenhagen, where former car lanes, or sometimes parking lanes, have been converted to bike facilities. No reason East Coast cities couldn't do the same (after all, Boston was built when horse-drawn carriages were king).

The trouble is that in Copenhagen, as I understand it, they have intentionally made it difficult for cars -- a move that in America would be political suicide.

You appear to have missed the context of much of the discussion. Road width is only a minor part of the urban pattern; the patterns of living and working are actually much more important factors concerning the transportation system. Where those had grown up before the automobile age, they tend to be suitable for mass transportation, walking, and cycling, while areas that grew up during the automobile age tend to be much less suitable for mass transportation, walking, and cycling.

[John Forester]

The city I live in was built before the automobile. Perhaps that is why it's so good for cycling. Oh, but wait, those nice bike paths and bike lanes were built after the automobile, so nope. Looks like another silly Forester-ite "cars-first!" notion that makes no sense.

What portion of Santa Barbara was built out before 1920 and has not been significantly modified since? Probably only a very small portion.