Sorry but they say that reprinting is prohibited, but here are some quotes:
ATLANTA - Fewer than half of American children who live close to school regularly walk or ride a bike to classes, according to a new study that highlights a dramatic shift toward car commuting by kids.
...
In 1969, about 90 percent of kids who lived within a mile of school walked or rode bikes to get there. In 2004, just 48 percent did that at least one day a week, the new study found.
...
The researchers didn’t ask why so many children were driven to school, but possible explanations include parental attitudes about exercise and concerns about safety, Martin said.
Also, many suburban and rural areas are built without sidewalks, good crosswalks or other safety features, several experts said.
Older urban communities have the most walking and biking children, at least partly because they were built with pedestrians in mind. But newer communities — like many in the South — were designed around the car, and may lack continuous sidewalks or safe crosswalks, Frank said.
...
Liz Hansen, a Lawrenceville, Ga., mother of a 19-year-old college student, recalled that when her son was young, the family lived just two blocks from his elementary school. But she usually drove him because she worried for his safety.
Later, her son — Ryan — lived less than a mile from his high school, but he didn’t like to walk or even ride the bus. “It was uncool,” she said.
Also, check the poll. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19751966/
30% would not let their kids ride to school.
So, what does Vehicular Cycling have to say about this trend? This trend that certainly has been going on for a while and will likely have effects that follow these kids well into adulthood.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
hmm, i think communities that have enacted a "Safe Streets" policy have increased bicycling to schools.
safe streets initiatives includes bike specific infrastructure.
VC as an ideology is completely lousy as a way of encouraging families to let kids ride bicycles to schools.
Roody
That VC crowd sure has some 'splaining to do. First they started all this global warming and now they're forcing all the parents to drive their kids to school. I'm pretty sure the VCers are also the reason ny tomatoes won't ripen and my garage door opens every time the kid next door plays a G chord on his electric guitar. I bet they're tied in with those Al Qaida *******s too!
What can us real cyclists do to stop the VC conspiracy? Oh I know....let's make up lots of stupid accusations and post them on the internet. That always works!
LCI_Brian
To me, the issue of biking to school has little to do with the VC debate. The infrastructure in the area I grew up in - at least the portions with the residences and elementary schools - has not changed significantly between 1969 and 2004. I suspect this is the case for most residential areas that existed in 1969. Yet walking and cycling to school has dropped significantly. This has more to do with other factors such as fear of child abduction, two parents both working, etc., than it does with bicycle-specific infrastructure.
Roody
In 1969, 90 % of kids who lived less than a mile from school either walked or cycled. Yet in 1969 there was no bike-specific infrastructure. In 2004, when there's lots of bike-specific infrastructure, only 48 % of the kids biked or walked. By what passes for logic on this forum, this PROVES that bike-specific infrastructure has reduced bike riding by almost half.
Of course my conclusion is nonsense. There are many factors that may account for this decreased activity of schoolchildren. It's very unlikely that bike-specific infrastructure is one of those factors.
But this very well may be the goofiest thing I've read since Cheney's recent explanation of which branch of government he's in. Thanks for the amusing moment, Diane and especially Bekologist! :)
Bekologist
umm, the groups that collectively comprise the Safe Routes to School national partnership and Bikes Belong both disagree with your hypothesis, roody.
and isn't the vc party line concerning kids bicycling about educating 8 year olds to ride better in traffic than 95 percent of bicyclists in just 3 short classes or some other nonsense?
Roody
umm, the safe routes to school national partnership and bikes belong both disagree with your hypothesis, roody.
But I don't have a hypothesis. The causal link between vehicular cycling and children being driven is so weak that any hypothesis based on it could only be laughable. My own personal experience reminds me that, like 90 per cent of my classmates in the 1960s, I rode or walked to school even though we had no bike lanes.
But this thing is so absurd, you must see that!
For starters, how many eight year olds have even heard of vehicular cycling? And how many parents are thinking, "We'd like our little Jimmy to ride his bike to school....but if he rides on the sidewalk, the VC police will ship us to an Effective Cycling Re-education Camp and we'll be forced to listen to John Forester on the loudspeakers for 20 hours a day until we are begging to drink the Koolaid.":eek:
:lol:
Roody
and isn't the vc party line concerning kids bicycling about educating 8 year olds to ride better in traffic than 95 percent of bicyclists in just 3 short classes or some other nonsense?
Well if they say that, they're just as silly as you guys!
Come to think of it, though, I could teach an 8 year old to ride better in traffic than 95 percent of adult cyclists in 2 minutes. But that's because 95 percent of adults cannot ride in traffic at all! ;)
Bekologist
effective cycling reeducation camp, mandatory for bicycling as a competant bicyclist ;)
you REALLY thought my original post to this thread caused an 'amusing moment' :(?
hmm, i think communities that have enacted a "Safe Streets" policy have increased bicycling to schools.
safe streets initiatives includes bike specific infrastructure.
VC as an ideology is completely lousy as a way of encouraging families to let kids ride bicycles to schools.
Roody
effective cycling reeducation camp, mandatory for bicycling as a competant bicyclist ;)
you REALLY thought my original post to this thread caused an 'amusing moment' :(?
Yeah, and Diane's conclusion that VC is responsible for the kids being lardasses (a condition that may haunt them for the rest of their lives) was a helluva gutbuster!
Tickled my ribs? Damn near fractured them from laughing so hard!
Every time you take the lane you kill a little kid! :lol:
CB HI
Lets see, in 1969 there were no bike lanes and no bike lane advocates telling everyone the roads were dangerous to ride in. Lots of kids cycled to school!
Once bike lanes started to be built and the bike lane advocates started telling everyone the roads were dangerous to ride in, fewer kids each year were riding their bikes to school.
Pretty clear correlation:
more bike lanes = less kids cycling to school :p
CB HI
Diane, thanks again for pointing out the problems of bike lanes.
My suburb town and ILTB's town do not have bike lanes. I guess that is why our towns still have lots of kids cycling to school.
Not so many kids cycle to school in Honolulu proper, where the bike lanes are.
JRA
There are many factors that may account for this decreased activity of schoolchildren. It's very unlikely that bike-specific infrastructure is one of those factors.
I agree. I'd argue that neither VC ideology nor bike infrastructure has much to do with the decrease in the percentage of schoolchildren who either walk or ride a bicycle to school.
To me, the issue of biking to school has little to do with the VC debate. The infrastructure in the area I grew up in - at least the portions with the residences and elementary schools - has not changed significantly between 1969 and 2004. I suspect this is the case for most residential areas that existed in 1969...Indeed, the infrastructure in the area where I grew up is essentially the same today as it was in the 1960s, and the nature of the neighborhood has not changed a whole lot, either. And, yet, I'd venture to guess that a lot fewer children ride or walk to school today.
I pretty much always rode a bicycle or walked to school. If I remember grade school correctly, that was the norm, especially in the early grades. I remember there was a room where we kept our bikes-- and there were a lot of bikes. Most of those who didn't ride, walked. Kids who got rides to school were considered a little strange-- I know that sounds strange today, but that's how it was.
When I was in kintergarten, I think I problably walked. By first grade, I was riding a bicycle-- on the sidewalk. I was taught (mostly by my older brother) how to ride on the sidewalk-- how to always yield to pedestrians and always stop and look both ways before crossing a street. I rode alone on the sidewalk and never had a problem. At some point, my brother taught me to ride in the street.
I rode to school all through grade school and junior high (they call them 'middle schools' these days). I doubt my parents gave me ten rides to or from school my entire life (and most of the ten rides I got were when I was sick or injured and one of my parents came to give me a ride home). It wasn't that my parents couldn't have given me a ride to school (there was usually a car sitting in the garage); they simply didn't believe in it. I mean they really didn't believe in it. They even frowned on me getting a ride with somebody else (which is why I almost never did).
In junior high, the bike racks were pretty full on good days. When it was cold and there was snow on the ground, my bicycle was often the only one-- yep, I rode, rain or snow.
When I went to high school, I found out that riding a bicycle wasn't 'cool', so I walked. I really liked walking and many times refused rides that were offered to me. Even though I didn't ride to school, I often rode after school-- I walked home so I could ride my bike.
I spent a good deal of my childhood on a bicycle.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that the reason I either rode or walked to school was my parents' attitude. They truly believed that I should get to and from school on my own power. Back then, that attitude might not have been the norm, but it wasn't all that unusual.
genec
So what has changed since 1969?
Well where and when I went to school and rode my bike... back then we had bike rodeos. I don't see those anymore.
Traffic has increased.
Speed limits have gone up.
There is no bike infrastructure now where I grew up.
Only more traffic and no more bike rodeos. Who knows VC might have worked fine... if the bike rodeos continued... but for some reason, this aspect of education stopped.
sbhikes
This has nothing to do with VC? Your High Holiness of VC works for an organization that promotes the World's Greatest Invention and believes that organizing our transportation network around the almighty automobile is all that is needed for cycling. And the article I pointed out shows the dandy results of that kind of policy.
So how's that working out for kids? And what can VC say to all these people who don't ride bikes two fecking blocks to school?
rando
I think Diane was asking what the VC solution would be for that situation, not accusing VCers of causing it.
sggoodri
Diane, you appear to be denigrating the idea of kids operating bicycles according to vehicular rules. One would be tempted to conclude, then, that you advocate that kids operate bikes in some way contrary to vehicular rules. This of course is a terrible idea, and one that I will try to insulate my own son from when I teach him to drive his bicycle according to the rules of the road.
Perhaps, rather than attacking operation consistent with vehicular rules, you mean to attack changes in the physical infrastructure of communities, or perhaps the culture that seems to have lost interest in bicycling. Well, vehicular cycling advocates have been working for years to maintain pleasant, convenient roadway links between residences and schools, as well as good sidewalks for pedestrians and the occasional off-road greenway link. I have promoted numerous such projects and have friends who now bike to school with their children on streets and off-road bike paths that we approved on our Cary planning and zoning board. An example is the Buckhurst West subdivision, with a short-cut path to Northwoods Elementary school.
We cycling advocates have faced strong opposition from school systems to bike path access to schools, bike parking at schools, school policies allowing bicycling to schools, good low-speed street connectivity to schools, and close proximity between schools and neighborhoods. The school systems believe that children shouldn't be biking to school because they believe cycling to be inherently dangerous, and they don't try to site schools near neighborhoods because they want huge amounts of land for athletic fields and major arterial access for busing and motoring. I have personally worked with parents who have been trying to overturn school bans on bicycling to school. To accuse vehicular cycling advocates of detracting from bicycling to school is wildly innaccurate and needlessly insulting.
Good proximity between schools and neighborhoods, good street connectivity, wide pavement on busy roads, safe speed limits around schools, traffic bicycling education programs, sidewalks for pedestrians, good law enforcement, short cut paths where appropriate - these are vehicular-cycling-compatible strategies that many vehicular cycling advocates promote to encourage cycling and walking to school. The non-VC strategy would be to promote signing sidewalks for bicycling, and adding stripes to roadways to separate bicycle traffic from other vehicle traffic, as an effort to market cycling to those whose travel isn't made any safer by such markings. Well, as an engineer who is bound by a high standard of ethics, I find the superior approach to be abundantly apparent.
genec
Perhaps, rather than attacking operation consistent with vehicular rules, you mean to attack changes in the physical infrastructure of communities, or perhaps the culture that seems to have lost interest in bicycling. Well, vehicular cycling advocates have been working for years to maintain pleasant, convenient roadway links between residences and schools, as well as good sidewalks for pedestrians and the occasional off-road greenway link.
Steve, I think she is attacking the "VC guru" and his association with an organization that promotes "changes in the physical infrastructure of communities" favoring the automobile.
While smooth safe roadways should be all one needs for cycling... the aforementioned organization promotes high speed roadways with nothing slowing down motorists. (they tout 50-60MPH roadways in their mission statements).
Do you promote 50-60MPH roadways as beneficial for cyclists? (I know you don't... ) Would you associate with an organization that seeks high speed uninhibited roadways for motorists, as part of your cycling advocacy?
sggoodri
Steve, I think she is attacking the "VC guru" and his association with an organization that promotes "changes in the physical infrastructure of communities" favoring the automobile.
While smooth safe roadways should be all one needs for cycling... the aforementioned organization promotes high speed roadways with nothing slowing down motorists. (they tout 50-60MPH roadways in their mission statements).
Do you promote 50-60MPH roadways as beneficial for cyclists? (I know you don't... ) Would you associate with an organization that seeks high speed uninhibited roadways for motorists, as part of your cycling advocacy?
If Diane wants to pick on John Forester, by all means, she should call him out. If she wants to bash a particular pro-motoring organization, she should do so.
But that is not what she wrote in the OP. She implicated vehicular cycling - the idea that cyclists should operate according to vehicular rules and that traffic engineers, motorists, and police should expect cyclists to follow vehicular rules - for reducing bicycling and walking to school.
The expectation and acceptance that school children should and will operate bicycles according to vehicular rules on the roads that serve the school has the effect of encouraging better school siting, lower speed limits, better street design, and better street topology. These things in turn encourage cycling to school. The rejection of vehicular cycling is usually what results in the most unpleasant roadway infrastructure for cycling.
JRA
VC-ism is not to blame for the current situation.
But, if the question is whether VC-ism has an answer, I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
I strongly suspect that, if you asked, the VC-ist brain trust would say that they don't know how to teach young children how to ride safely on the sidewalk.
If that's indeed what they'd say, that's pathetic. My brother knew how to do it. It's a real weakness of VC education if they can't teach something as simple as that.
The VC education know-it-alls would probably also tell you that they can't teach anyone how to ride on a MUP (heck, John Forester even claims that there are no rules of the road on a MUP- what a hoot!). Instead, VC-ists teach group riding and pacelining-- real usefull stuff for rules of the road cycling-- Whew, boy! --and they find nothing funny in any of this.
Learning how to ride safely on the sidewalk was an essential part of my cycling education. While I wouldn't call a cyclist incompetent if they don't ride on the sidewalk, I would call someone who claims to be a cycling teacher a poser if they can't teach the simple but important stuff my brother taught me.
Existing VC education programs are half-assed because they don't teach safe sidewalk riding. For ideological reasons, they don't teach important stuff. Do they have so little faith in the greater efficency of vehicular cycling? My brother didn't have that problem. After he had taught me to ride safely on the sidewalk, it didn't take long for him to convince me that riding on the road was the way to go.
I know this is heresy but it would be more effective, especially for young riders, to teach sidewalk riding first and then point out the inefficiencies. It sure worked for me.
But, hey, nobody but John Forester knows anything.
My brother must have been an anti-motorist :D.
Or maybe a motorist.
Or surely a member of some other group John Forester dislikes (which, if you've been paying attention, includes just about everybody).
Bekologist
I sincerely doubt the VC platform has done that, steve. what a twist of logic. sophistry.
it is the efforts of Safe routes to School, Complete Streets, and Bikes Belong that has been working on that front to improve cycling and pedestrian access to schools, not VC education programs.
sorry. not buying it.
JRA
To accuse vehicular cycling advocates of detracting from bicycling to school is wildly innaccurate and needlessly insulting.To the contrary. To the extent that VC-ists have claimed that sidewalk riding is inherently unsafe and refused to teach young children how to ride safely on the sidewalk, the claim is right on-- a perfect bulls-eye.
I know that doesn't fit with VC dogma but, hey, VC dogma sucks.
Roody
Well, all you Adaptive Cycling folks need to remember your own cycling principles. Kids, to have safe fun on bikes, need to be able to ride in accordance with the facilities and situations within their communities. If they will be riding on streets, they need to know VC principles. If riding on sidewalks, they need to know the pedestrian rules. In any case, they at least need to know how to cross streets safely and they need to have the self-discipline to avoid mid-block rideouts, a big cause of injuries to kids.
Four weeks ago I saw a father (presumably) teaching his 5 year old son to ride safely in the street. (I don't know the kid's exact age, but he looked like he just got off training wheels.) When I saw them, dad was showing the boy how to approach a stop sign on a quiet residential street. He was telling the kid to come up in about the right-wheel track, and stop completely, and look "left, right, front, back." Obviously a 5 year old is not ready to ride alone on streets. But by the time this kid is 8 or 9, he will definitely know the basics and will be able to cross streets safely, and ride alone on residential ltreets and even on sidewalks on busier streets.
Off-street facilities are great for children. AFAIK, no cyclist (regardless of "orientation") would advocate against them in school areas. However, unless the bike path goes directly from the students' homes to the school--without crossing any streets or driveways--the kid obviously needs to know at least the rudiments of vehicular cycling.
As even Diane and Bek know, there is no system but VC for safely and legally riding in streets. Granted, many younger children use pedestrian rules on bike paths and sidewalks, and this is adequate or preferable to VC in many cases. Each parent can determine the style they want their children to use, given child's age and maturity, local conditions and parental comfort levels. But eventually, older children (say 10 to 12 y.o.) are going to ride in the streets. By that time, they must have training in vehicular cycling if they're to be safe.
So what can cycling advocates do in order to encourage kids to ride to school? I would advocate a two-prong approach:
-First, local infrastructure should be made safer for children. This might include bike facilities in some neighborhoods, but in many communities all you need is stop signs, crosswalks and/or traffic calming.
-Second, children should be trained or educated about safe riding that is relevant to the conditions within their local community--whether those conditions include bike facilities, street riding or sidewalks, or even BMX- and MTB-style riding. Like adults, kids need to know how to handle the variety of situations that they'll encounter on their bikes.
Roody
To the contrary. To the extent that VC-ists have claimed that sidewalk riding is inherently unsafe and refused to teach young children how to ride safely on the sidewalk, the claim is right on-- a perfect bulls-eye.
I know that doesn't fit with VC dogma but, hey, VC dogma sucks.
I agree, except I'm not aware of cases where "VC-ists" actually refused to teach young children to ride on sidewalks. Most of the VC literature I've read implies that sidewalk riding is outside the realm of VC, but I've never read that it's inherently bad, especially for children. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of VC writers who have made this claim?
My own opinion is that sidewalk riding is preferable for young children. Since young brains are less developed, and little kids don't ride much faster than adults walk, pedestrian cycling is appropriate. At a certain age, they can begin riding on streets, starting with calm residential streets. At some point they will have the maturity to learn how to ride on busier streets just like we adults do. Once kids (or anybody) starts riding in streets they do need to learn and aply VC principles.
Roody
I sincerely doubt the VC platform has done that, steve. what a twist of logic. sophistry.
it is the efforts of Safe routes to School, Complete Streets, and Bikes Belong that has been working on that front to improve cycling and pedestrian access to schools, not VC education programs.
sorry. not buying it.
How or why would being a VC rider prevent one from also advocating for safe routes to school?
What twist of logic leads you to believe that the two are incompatible?
genec
If Diane wants to pick on John Forester, by all means, she should call him out. If she wants to bash a particular pro-motoring organization, she should do so.
But that is not what she wrote in the OP. She implicated vehicular cycling - the idea that cyclists should operate according to vehicular rules and that traffic engineers, motorists, and police should expect cyclists to follow vehicular rules - for reducing bicycling and walking to school.
The expectation and acceptance that school children should and will operate bicycles according to vehicular rules on the roads that serve the school has the effect of encouraging better school siting, lower speed limits, better street design, and better street topology. These things in turn encourage cycling to school. The rejection of vehicular cycling is usually what results in the most unpleasant roadway infrastructure for cycling.
I have to admit that the counter argument by the anti BL folks sure looks like an appropriate response.
The problem with the expectation of school children operating in a vehicular manner on the current roads or siting the school in a better location is that it denies the fact that much of this infrastructure is already in place... and further denies the "improvements" made by automotive organizations such as AAA and ADC which push for laws that favor motorists over all others. Case in point is the 85 percentile rule here in California which has pushed road speeds well over the original speeds posted.
For instance... those wonderful 35MPH roads you tout in Cary... in California they would probably be pushed to 45 or 50MPH simply because 85% of the road users drive over the speed limit, so the speeds would be adjusted to meet those scofflaws rather than enforce the limits... now how would that affect the previously "well sited school?" Would you want your children riding vehicularly on a 50MPH road?
As an example locally a new road was put in near my office. It was really quite fun to ride, as it was simply free of traffic... the subdivisions and homes had not been built in yet, so here was nice new pavement that happened to offer connection to a bike path that parallels a freeway... so it made for a nice 22 mile round trip... a good noon time ride. Well the new road is posted at 50MPH. Yup they designed it that way. And off that road is a surface street posted at 60MPH. On that road are apartments and light industrial businesses. Back to the road I like to ride... the 50MPH road... after building in some clusters of homes, they built a school. Opps right on the 50MPH arterial. (bad planning I would say). Soon after they lowered the speed limit within a block either side of the school... to 45MPH. How many drivers do you really think slow down that 5MPH? How fast do you think most motorists are driving?
Oh sure there are bike lanes on the road... as if they help.
The problem is organizations that push for high speed roads in the first place... and designs and designers that make these urban freeways possible.
But that is only one example. Roads I have ridden over 25 years ago... once marked at 45MPH... now are marked at 65MPH. Roads that were once 40MPH are now 50... with no improvement to the road. (you can still see the old faded painted speed limits on the road).
How does it work in NC... do you have an 85 percentile rule? If so, how can you keep roads marked at 35 today from becoming 45 and 50 MPH roads in the future?
sbhikes
So if sidewalks are so horribly dangerous why on earth would anybody advocate that kids ride bikes on sidewalks? That makes no sense to me.
I think that VCers just have nothing to offer toward a complete, community-wide solution to safe cycling. They worship the automobile and praise cycling that imitates it. It a foolish platform when taken in its entirety and doesn't serve children or others who are less than the serious cyclists they favor.
The best solution combines cycling in accordance with the vehicle code and on-street cycling facilities. These facilities help children understand what they are supposed to do and let motorists know that cyclists will be present. The only thing you would teach children to do differently from adults would be to do two-corner left turns or use cross walks instead of attempting to merge across lanes to reach a left turn lane.
Get sane people.
rando
So if sidewalks are so horribly dangerous why on earth would anybody advocate that kids ride bikes on sidewalks? That makes no sense to me.
I think that VCers just have nothing to offer toward a complete, community-wide solution to safe cycling. They worship the automobile and praise cycling that imitates it. It a foolish platform when taken in its entirety and doesn't serve children or others who are less than the serious cyclists they favor.
The best solution combines cycling in accordance with the vehicle code and on-street cycling facilities. These facilities help children understand what they are supposed to do and let motorists know that cyclists will be present. The only thing you would teach children to do differently from adults would be to do two-corner left turns or use cross walks instead of attempting to merge across lanes to reach a left turn lane.
Get sane people.
yes!
that is all.
Roody
So if sidewalks are so horribly dangerous why on earth would anybody advocate that kids ride bikes on sidewalks? That makes no sense to me.
I think that VCers just have nothing to offer toward a complete, community-wide solution to safe cycling. They worship the automobile and praise cycling that imitates it. It a foolish platform when taken in its entirety and doesn't serve children or others who are less than the serious cyclists they favor.
The best solution combines cycling in accordance with the vehicle code and on-street cycling facilities. These facilities help children understand what they are supposed to do and let motorists know that cyclists will be present. The only thing you would teach children to do differently from adults would be to do two-corner left turns or use cross walks instead of attempting to merge across lanes to reach a left turn lane.
Get sane people.
IMO, sidewalks are dangerous for people riding fast along busy streets with lots of cross streets and driveways. Not a good place for kiddies to be. But if school is approached by less busy streets, I think kids can ride safely on the sidewalks at pedestrian speeds, and cross like peds in the crosswalks. I wouldn't like to see little kids on busy streets, even with fantastic bike lanes. Riding in bike lanes, like riding in regualr lanes, takes traffic handling skills that young brains just aren't equipped for. It is unethical to encourage young people to ride on unsafe streets by striping bike lanes on those streets. A far better alternative is to totally redesign that street to make it safe for everybody.
Your second paragraph is asinine and offensive. Most VC advocates don't worship automobiles and they don't say that only "serious" riders are favored. They do say that when roads are poorly designed, we must learn special skills if we choose to ride bikes on them. I think it would be "insane" to do otherwise.
Personally, I'm a VC rider, but my anti-car and carfree sentiments and activism are well known on this forum go back more than 35 years. So stop with the bigoted and offensive remarks, please. You really sound ignorant and destructive when you make statements like these in the second paragraph.
I pretty much agree with your third paragraph. Combine good streets with education for the kids. (We had school classes that dealt with safety issues back in the 1960s. Maybe that's one reason more kids walked and rode bikes then?) I don't agree that kids or adults need on-street facilities if the streets are properly designed for all users. I think kids would be safer around schools with lots of stop signs, "school zone" speed limits and other calming features. After all, a bike lane on an unsafe street is still unsafe, while riding in the regular lane of a safe street is a better bet.
sggoodri
There are plenty of parents promoting sidewalk cycling for their kids; vehicular cycling advocates are unlikely to have much affect on this. The League of American Bicyclists Bike Ed program for kids focuses on awareness of traffic and safety equipment for young kids and parents, and teaches proper roadway cycling for older kids. Nobody I know of has devised a viable education program to teach sidewalk cycling technique, because (1) junction conflicts make sidewalk cycling more complicated than roadway cycling, and (2) any kid mature enough to reliably follow all of the rules required to make sidewalk cycling reasonably safe where cross-traffic exists is mature enough to learn to ride safely on two-lane residential roadways. John Forester has written extensively about teaching cycling to kids, I find very credible his reports that kids under 13 are capable of being taught to reliably ride on the right half of the road and yield to traffic before entering/crossing priority roads, and look over their shoulders before turning left, but that they have difficulty grasping destination positioning.
So, the "vehicular cycling program for cycling to school" would be that the school siting and surrounding road designs should be chosen to be well matched to the abilities of cyclists in that age group, i.e. two lane roads with modest speed limits, strict enforcement of reduced speeds during school zone hours, good street connectivity to nearby residences within easy cycling distance, and short-cut paths where adequate connectivity of pleasant streets does not exist. As far as I am aware, vehicular cycling advocates with or without children have been promoting such things for a long time.
If the roadway is designed in such a way that Diane feels that a vehicular left turn is beyond the ability of a child allowed to ride on it, then what can a bike lane stripe do to improve the situation? Nothing. If bike lane stripes end up encouraging cycling by kids without the skills to turn left safely, then perhaps such encouragement is not such a good idea.
In my experience, motorists slow down considerably when encountering a child cycling on the roadway; a bike lane stripe is unlikely to make them any more cautious. It's not possible for me to compare relative rates of overtaking collisions for children here in Cary because we've never had a motorist-error car-bike overtaking collision involving a child on a roadway. The only overtaking collision I could find involving a child involved a cyclist who swerved from the right edge of the road all the way to the centerline and past it to strike the side of a car that had moved completely to the opposite side of the road to overtake at slow speed. The child, who was not wearing a helmet, had some minor abrasions and was okay.
Our town has been working on Safe Routes to Schools activities to efficate safe cycling to schools. There is a lot of resistance from school officials, but the parents support their kids cycling. I know two different bike shop owners who have taken a leading role, one whose child was prohibited from cycling to school even though a greenway provided a useful low-speed shortcut. The Principal was afraid the child cyclists would strike and injure child pedestrians.
In western Cary, a high school student pedestrian was struck by a car when crossing a two-lane road in order to reach a short-cut path that is heavily used by cyclists and pedestrians. The path crosses a railroad track. The school system and town worked with the railroad to close the path, post no-trespassing signs, and place police officers on both ends of the path to prohibit use of the short-cut. This effectively cut the geographical area of walkable trip endpoints in half, and severed a popular cross-town cycling route. Avid road cyclists have lobbied heavily to reopen the path crossing over the railroad (it was originally a street that got closed) and to focus the concentration on roadway safety where it belongs, but to no avail.
Brian Ratliff
Lets see, in 1969 there were no bike lanes and no bike lane advocates telling everyone the roads were dangerous to ride in. Lots of kids cycled to school!
Once bike lanes started to be built and the bike lane advocates started telling everyone the roads were dangerous to ride in, fewer kids each year were riding their bikes to school.
Pretty clear correlation:
more bike lanes = less kids cycling to school :p
You and Roody consistently fail to take into account that the number of cars on those same roads has increased dramatically (nearly exponentially) in the last 10 years. Until you take this into account explicitly, then you cannot make a valid argument along these lines.
littlewaywelt
I'll add this to the mix. My 5yo will be starting Kindergarten this fall. He will ride to school (~2miles) with me following him on a MUP. The plan is to go rain or shine as long as he isn't suffering or hating it. If we didn't have access to the MUP, he would ride the bus or carpool. No way I'd let him ride along the sidewalks to get there. ...I wouldn't even consider the sidewalk option for several years. A child's bike handling skills (even a lot of adults) just aren't there imo to make sure he wouldn't go off the sidewalk and into traffic. No way I'd let him vc to school. While injury maybe statistically unlikely, there is absolutely no way I'd take any chances.
my .02
chipcom
You and Roody consistently fail to take into account that the number of cars on those same roads has increased dramatically (nearly exponentially) in the last 10 years. Until you take this into account explicitly, then you cannot make a valid argument along these lines.
They are not trying to make a valid argument, they making an argument that passes the same validity standard as the premise of the OP. I happen to agree that the premise of this thread is silly. There are a lot of reasons why fewer kids ride/walk to school - vc, is neither the cause nor the magic solution.
genec
They are not trying to make a valid argument, they making an argument that passes the same validity standard as the premise of the OP. I happen to agree that the premise of this thread is silly. There are a lot of reasons why fewer kids ride/walk to school - vc, is neither the cause nor the magic solution.
:beer:
Chip man, that about covers it.
rando
The expectation and acceptance that school children should and will operate bicycles according to vehicular rules on the roads that serve the school has the effect of encouraging better school siting, lower speed limits, better street design, and better street topology. These things in turn encourage cycling to school. The rejection of vehicular cycling is usually what results in the most unpleasant roadway infrastructure for cycling.
total bull****. will VCism cure aids, too?
nice twist on the traditional sophistry though. Forester would be proud!
joejack951
total bull****. will VCism cure aids, too?
nice twist on the traditional sophistry though. Forester would be proud!
And your counter argument is....?
genec
And your counter argument is....?
Well the best counter argument is to lower speeds everywhere, except on freeways, and make motorists adhere to speed limits.
When surface streets are driven at speeds that are accommodating for pedestrians and cyclists, then those roads will accommodate peds and cyclists... but when roads are treated as raceways or urban freeways... then automobiles rule.
Of course as long as 85 percentile rules prevail and motorists are comfortable with their wacky driving... as foolish as it may be (no turn signals, no safe following distances... ) then motorists will establish the speeds and damn us to use "their" roads.
Funny thing about how the 85 percentile rules do not take into consideration other users of the roadway.
The 85th Percentile: Spot speed studies collect free flowing vehicle speeds using a radar or a laser gun. A sample of 100 speed measurements provides a statistically valid database and yields a valuable statistic, the 85th percentile speed, that is the speed at or below which 85 percent of all traffic is traveling. This determines the point where a speed limit should be set. National studies show that the 85th percentile speed reflects the driving public's perception of a safe and reasonable speed.
rando
to say that the lack of vehicular cycling is the cause of roadways that are bad to ride on is just ridiculous. pretty ballsy, though. :rolleyes:
lower speed limits, greater enforcement, traffic calming, complete streets, and bike infrastructure would all help make roads more friendly to cyclists.
joejack951
Well the best counter argument is to lower speeds everywhere, except on freeways, and make motorist adhere to speed limits.
When surface streets are driven at speeds that are accomdating for pedestrians and cyclists, then those roads will accomodate peds and cyclists... but when roads are treated as raceways or urban freeways... then automobiles rule.
You haven't provided a counter argument. You've just agreed with Steve but applied his logic to all surface roads (which is something I can agree with too).
What better way to argue for lower speed limits on roads (that presumably have no other factors limiting speed) than the fact that children (and adults) on slow moving vehicles (like bicycles) use that road to get to the school. Because bicycles are vehicles, they will be using the road vehicularly and thus limiting the speed on that road makes sense. Once you start in with the mindset that all cyclists need is space off to the side of the road to ride on, there's no reason to even care what the speed limit is on the road. Can you see how bike lanes could actually work against making the roads safer for cycling for children?
rando
how the heck could a bike lane make the road LESS safe to bike on?
genec
You haven't provided a counter argument. You've just agreed with Steve but applied his logic to all surface roads (which is something I can agree with too).
What better way to argue for lower speed limits on roads (that presumably have no other factors limiting speed) than the fact that children (and adults) on slow moving vehicles (like bicycles) use that road to get to the school. Because bicycles are vehicles, they will be using the road vehicularly and thus limiting the speed on that road makes sense. Once you start in with the mindset that all cyclists need is space off to the side of the road to ride on, there's no reason to even care what the speed limit is on the road. Can you see how bike lanes could actually work against making the roads safer for cycling for children?
I am not arguing for bike lanes. I am arguing for reasonable speeds.
What you say makes sense, but I have not seen a speed limit that is:
A) followed and maintained
B) is not subject to being raised by motorists envoking the 85 percentile rule.
As far as I am concerned... as soon as all streets are at 25 and 35MPH bike lanes never need to be painted, in fact you can erase all the lines on the road.
But to support BL... if the darn speeds are going to be high on a road (and they will be) then I want something to guide motorists. (I would prefer barriers at those speeds, but that really gets people in a bind)
genec
how the heck could a bike lane make the road LESS safe to bike on?
they make motorists pass cyclists with confidence and thus at a higher speed.
dynodonn
they make motorists pass cyclists with confidence and thus at a higher speed.
And at a closer passing distance.
rando
but isn't that really depending on the width of the bike lane and where the rider is within the lane? if the lane is wide enough, would that even be a problem?
genec
but isn't that really depending on the width of the bike lane and where the rider is within the lane? if the lane is wide enough, would that even be a problem?
You are right... I have riden in 10 foot wide BL up in Malibu and found that motorists were about 5 feet+ from me... now how do we get 10 foot wide BL put in everywhere?
Just as impossible as trying to get motorists to slow down to 25MPH.
markhr
but isn't that really depending on the width of the bike lane and where the rider is within the lane? if the lane is wide enough, would that even be a problem?
Which isn't a problem if you have wide, wide roads - come to the uk and see some of the ridiculous one foot wide, gutter hugging bike lanes. These are generally squeezed in on unsafe, narrow roads anyway where it is clearly much safer to take the lane.
Especially ridiculous was a pro-motoring judge who decided, no matter how bad the facilities, if there was a bike lane you were required to use it. Luckily, this was overturned.
However, the terrified of roads lobbyists keep trying to sneak "cyclist are required where facilities are provided" into legislation. Thus far the pro-VC CTC and LCC lobbyists have kept that stupid piece of legislation off the books.
dynodonn
but isn't that really depending on the width of the bike lane and where the rider is within the lane? if the lane is wide enough, would that even be a problem?
If the lane is not paralleling next to parked cars, and on high speed roads, if the outside line is a minimum of 5 to 7 feet off the curb or shoulder edge, and is maintained regularly and no parked cars, I can live with a BL, but on lower speed, narrow streets with parked cars, I prefer no BL, I can take more lane space and control the traffic closing speed better than being "squeezed" by closer passing, line following motorists on one side and parked cars on the other when in our minimum standard BL's.
joejack951
If the lane is not paralleling next to parked cars, and on high speed roads, if the outside line is a minimum of 5 to 7 feet off the curb or shoulder edge, and is maintained regularly and no parked cars, I can live with a BL,
Don't forget a lack of intersections. I use a multilane 45-50mph road to get home from work with 70 intersections in a 3 mile stretch. There's no way I'd be in a bike lane off to the side on that road. I barely use the 5-10 foot shoulder that's there now.
genec
Don't forget a lack of intersections. I use a multilane 45-50mph road to get home from work with 70 intersections in a 3 mile stretch. There's no way I'd be in a bike lane off to the side on that road. I barely use the 5-10 foot shoulder that's there now.
so you take a lane on that?
markhr
so you take a lane on that?
yes - otherwise you'll end up stuck on the off-ramp, in the gutter or blown off by the backdraft from large vehicles.