Differences in cycling conditions from WWII to the present [Archive] - Page 2

invisiblehand

08-24-07, 12:46 PM

In response to Bek below ...

That is not what I wrote. I don't think that these figures are conclusive regarding driver attention. Even if one thought they were conclusive, there are a lot of dimensions outside of what accidents per mile would address. It is perfectly plausible that driver attention has remained the same since 1990 but that conditions are worse for cyclists since 1970.

Mind you, I have only been (legally) driving since 1988.

I-Like-To-Bike

08-24-07, 02:34 PM

and where is mr. felton these days?

Hopefully enjoying his cycling and far away from his keyboard.

I-Like-To-Bike

08-24-07, 02:38 PM

A
Maybe there is some flaw in the way the data is collected but to my layman's eyes it sure looks like the number of motorists on the road has risen and despite the addition of many new distractions the number of cyclists fatalities has declined since "the good ole days."

The flaw is you don't know if the number of cyclists, or their exposure time to interaction with motor vehicle traffic has risen or fallen during that time span.

genec

08-24-07, 03:06 PM

And if people were less attentive while driving one would expect to see more ped/cyclists deaths.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/chart.gif (http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html)

Bicyclist deaths in motor vehicle crashes 2005: 720 (725 in 2004) (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2006/810583.pdf)

Maybe there is some flaw in the way the data is collected but to my layman's eyes it sure looks like the number of motorists on the road has risen and despite the addition of many new distractions the number of cyclists fatalities has declined since "the good ole days."

Pete, you need to compare that to the actual number of cyclists and peds to have it reflect anything meaningful. Right now it just says the number of deaths went down... but compared to what... number of miles, number of participants or what... it is not normalized in any way. For all I know, the total number dead=the number of participants... and that would be a pretty lousy situation.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics.... "

bmike

08-24-07, 03:29 PM

However, larry does allude to something valid in his OP....the basic tenents of bicycling haven't changed much from the 1940's to today. HOWEVER, the road and traffic conditions they get applied on have, in some places dramatically.

JF agrees with you!

1972 - 2002
At this point I need to change the format of this history. Over the last three decades of the century, I saw little change in cycling as I knew it, but enormous change in the environment in which cyclists had to operate. (http://johnforester.com/History.pdf)

Well, sort of.
In reading it he goes into great detail about a CPSC (and lots of other agencies with acronyms) case dealing with reflectors and pedals and other issues... but hasn't updated the parts on Bicycle Traffic Law Revisions and Bikeway Design and Bike-Planning Standards. Odd that the 'environment' JF alludes to is primarliy legal and theoretical in framework... arguments between manufacturing interests and consumers and not "out there" in the world of streets and cars.

genec

08-24-07, 04:30 PM

The chart is a summary of NHTSA information. Their data collection methods are described in the underlying documents.

For example, comparing 2004 to 2005:

.1% increase in vehicle miles traveled
2.0% increase in registered vehicles
.9% population increase

Persons involved in motor vehicle crashes 2004 to 2005:

Bicyclists 41,000 (2004) to 45,000 (2005) +9.8%
4,000 more accidents yet only 5 additional fatalities?

Given the reporting methods and the difficulty in capturing data like "their exposure time to interaction with motor vehicle traffic" I would be interested to know how anyone can make a definitive statement one way or another about bicycle safety trends.

In this case, I tend to agree with you... for one reason off road cycling has certainly become a large new trend... accidents there are not usually with motor vehicles (but can be).

The number of cyclists off road may bring the total bike picture up, but what is the number of cyclists facing motor vehicle traffic... awful hard to quantify.

genec

08-24-07, 04:32 PM

Bushman

08-24-07, 05:17 PM

More traffic please. I quite enjoy the daily commute thru, around, beside, in front of all the trucks and cars. Raise the speed limits too please. 100km/h on city streets, no limit on freeways, country roads and highways
. get rid of ALL on street parking and stopping.

perfect cyclist nirvana

LittleBigMan

08-24-07, 05:53 PM

Guess I wasn't clear. What is the relevance of data about motor vehicle accidents/miles driven to bicycling conditions?
You're right, there's too much generalization to narrow it down to bicycling conditions.

...unless bicycling conditions have something to do with motorist "accidents..."

All these damn graphs. As you once said, I-Like-To-Bike, "it aint rocket science." Where I live, driving sight-lines are much better, lanes are wider, pavement smoother and better-maintained, cars generally smaller and lighter-weighted (except for the ill-fated entrance of the Hugh Jass SUV, which will go the way of all gas-guzzlers.)

I support cyclists who don't want to mix with traffic. It's their choice!

But not everyone thinks riding on the road with traffic without bicycle facilities is stressful, dangerous, or unpleasant, most of the time. Why war against it?

The roads give those of us who prefer them the best way to compete with motoring for transportation, especially in this far-flung, motorist-oriented culture.

In places where the roads offer a poor option, we cyclists need to advocate for other cyclists to remedy our plight, even if it means crossing religious cycling ideologies, whether pro- or anti-VC.

invisiblehand

08-24-07, 06:52 PM

I don't know, invisible hand, if you DON'T think cycling conditions have worsened since the 1970's, you are living in denial or otherwise belive statistics are the only measurable metric of road conditions and cyclist/driver interactions.

I dispute those statistics you gathered as accurate metrics of road conditions for bicyclists.

Regarding the tables, just one more idea to add ...

I don't think that the world has changed so much that old experiences and studies are worthless. And I do think that fundamentally, people are very similar to their counterparts 20, 30, and 40 years ago. I don't know what is driving the results; but some of the stories described earlier (by me too) just don't appear in the tables. Perhaps if there we an urban/suburban/rural breakdown we could see something then. But as other posters have implied, the data is unable to support many strong statements in either direction.

I believe that the cycling environment is changing and certain environments are more foreboding than others. For instance, I have been trying to find a reasonable non-MUP route past the beltway for a while without any success for the past two or three months. I have also been trying to find an alternative to the WOD (45 mile MUP) without any success. We also know that the type of neighborhoods people live in have been changing over the last 50 years. I can say from a few months experience out here that unless one wants to travel some high pressure roads or take extremely circuitous routes, using a bicycle for transportation or "serious" recreation would be difficult. These "hard to travel" neighborhoods, of course, have been developed in the 70s onwards which might explain why certain people traveling in older suburban neighborhoods have not seen many changes (Arlington is fairly easy to bike ... Fairfax is a lot more work) whereas people living in new neighborhoods or the dense downtown districts may have more complaints.

I-Like-To-Bike

08-24-07, 07:25 PM

LittleBigMan

08-24-07, 07:36 PM

Given the reporting methods and the difficulty in capturing data like "their exposure time to interaction with motor vehicle traffic" I would be interested to know how anyone can make a definitive statement one way or another about bicycle safety trends.

It's easy; self proclaimed "experts" do it all the time. Of course definitive statements and conclusions drawn from such irrelevant data and/or useless analysis are no better than wild donkey guesses.

Pete would be interested to know how anyone can make a definitive statement one way or the other about bicycle safety trends, and I-Like-To-Bike adds that it's no better than wild donkey guesses.

In other words, "...nobody knows anything."

Hmm....

I-Like-To-Bike

08-25-07, 05:41 AM

Pete would be interested to know how anyone can make a definitive statement one way or the other about bicycle safety trends, and I-Like-To-Bike adds that it's no better than wild donkey guesses.

In other words, "...nobody knows anything."

Hmm....

Not quite right. People might know the trends of total numbers of "accidents" with motor vehicles. Conclusions and definitive statements drawn from those raw numbers without any associated data about numbers of cyclists and their exposure to motor vehicle traffic, are know-nothing conclusions/definitive statements.

RobertHurst

08-25-07, 02:12 PM

...

Given the reporting methods and the difficulty in capturing data like "their exposure time to interaction with motor vehicle traffic" I would be interested to know how anyone can make a definitive statement one way or another about bicycle safety trends.

Yeah, grains of salt, grains of salt.

I sometimes think about the fatality numbers, which is admittedly lame. If anyone really cares about this they should know that these numbers appear to be going up again, for the past few years (final count on 2006 is not yet available), so any proclamations of a continued downward trend are premature. But what you say is true -- nobody can really make any definitive statements about bicycle safety trends with these statistics anyway, because available numbers on total numbers of cyclists, miles traveled, hours ridden, etc. are so spotty, so wildly divergent, in some instances so downright ridiculous that the whole business is a non-starter.

That said, there is some important info that is available from which we can make some more educated guesses about what might be goin on. For instance, we can see that the ratio of kids to adults among victims dropped dramatically as the fatality numbers fell. (1-in-3 in '98 to 1-in-5 in '04 (DOT), while number of adult victims was fairly steady.) Perhaps what we are seeing is simply a change in culture, with kids not riding bikes as much as they used to.

Robert

invisiblehand

08-25-07, 02:37 PM

It's easy; self proclaimed "experts" do it all the time.

:lol:

Happens in DC all of the time.

Although I believe we are far from clueless. We can make educated guesses that fit our observations and proceed from that point. But it is important to realize that there is a good deal of uncertainty, that any program pursued should be regularly evaluated, and that some experimentation is justified.

John Forester

08-25-07, 07:54 PM

JF agrees with you!

Well, sort of.
In reading it he goes into great detail about a CPSC (and lots of other agencies with acronyms) case dealing with reflectors and pedals and other issues... but hasn't updated the parts on Bicycle Traffic Law Revisions and Bikeway Design and Bike-Planning Standards. Odd that the 'environment' JF alludes to is primarliy legal and theoretical in framework... arguments between manufacturing interests and consumers and not "out there" in the world of streets and cars.

Thank you very much for reminding me that I needed to complete that article.

It really isn't odd that when I discuss changes in the cycling environment over the last thirty years I am referring to specific actions of government. Operating on the road hasn't changed much in that time (except that the traffic smell has been much reduced by the actions of both government and industry), but the actions of government have been attempts to impose on competent adult cyclists the operating principles and the equipment that government heretofore felt appropriate for incompetent child cyclists using "toys or other articles intended for use by children", in the words of the authorizing law. The last thirty years have been a story of government, motivated by ignorance of cycling and intention to do the work of motorists while humoring the anti-motoring activists, has produced a program for bicycle transportation that is utterly incoherent. How many of you will understand this?

LittleBigMan

08-25-07, 08:07 PM

Not quite right. People might know the trends of total numbers of "accidents" with motor vehicles. Conclusions and definitive statements drawn from those raw numbers without any associated data about numbers of cyclists and their exposure to motor vehicle traffic, are know-nothing conclusions/definitive statements.
Let's all quit riding our bikes and sit on the couch watching the Tour de France.

The rest of you can live in fear.

I'm just going to live.

I'm sick of the fearmongering. Go on with it, y'all. Find every excuse not to enjoy life, to avoid riding your bike.

But I don't need "rocket science" to explain the last decade of pure pleasure (and lovely pain) cycling to work has given me. I ride with traffic, I don't wait until some nanny somewhere gives me a special sidewalk to ride on.

No offense to those of you who want that, but life's too short to wait for perfect circumstances, in my case. Ain't no time for that.

But if you guys want to continue to raise the specter of fear to give cyclists more reasons not to ride on normal roads, you're on the opposite side of my ideology.

Use your graphs. Argue the danger.

I'll be out riding. ;)

(Please continue with your enlightening discussions about how many cyclists can dance on the head of a pin.)

I-Like-To-Bike

08-25-07, 09:08 PM

Let's all quit riding our bikes and sit on the couch watching the Tour de France.

The rest of you can live in fear.

I'm just going to live.

I'm sick of the fearmongering. Go on with it, y'all. Find every excuse not to enjoy life, to avoid riding your bike.

WTF are you bellyaching about my post on this thread? We are discussing if data about motor vehicle accidents has any relevance to bicycling conditions or if even various statements (positive or negative) bandied about bicycling safety have any credence at all. The fearmongoring is all in your head or you are thinking about some other posts.

LittleBigMan

08-25-07, 09:36 PM

WTF are you bellyaching about my post on this thread? We are discussing if data about motor vehicle accidents has any relevance to bicycling conditions or if even various statements (positive or negative) bandied about bicycling safety have any credence at all. The fearmongoring is all in your head or you are thinking about some other posts.
Yes, I've got a belly-full, allright.

I support your own specific cycling needs/preferences. But you are arguing about numbers and graphs.

Don't have time for that, man. Have at it.

Been there done that too. Bottom line is, either you are going to ride, or not. Make your own reasons for/against where you ride.

I-Like-To-Bike, you're the one bellyaching about Forester, so much so that you've lost perspective.

You gonna ride and encourage others to do so, or wage internet war?

Bekologist

08-25-07, 11:06 PM

VC sez -

"VC goggles going on! I see rosy roads regardless, because I HAVE SEEN THE VC LIGHT!
Nothing's changed since jhon rode the PCH in 1948, and if it has, I'm still golden!!!!"

genec

08-26-07, 12:28 AM

Thank you very much for reminding me that I needed to complete that article.

It really isn't odd that when I discuss changes in the cycling environment over the last thirty years I am referring to specific actions of government. Operating on the road hasn't changed much in that time (except that the traffic smell has been much reduced by the actions of both government and industry), but the actions of government have been attempts to impose on competent adult cyclists the operating principles and the equipment that government heretofore felt appropriate for incompetent child cyclists using "toys or other articles intended for use by children", in the words of the authorizing law. The last thirty years have been a story of government, motivated by ignorance of cycling and intention to do the work of motorists while humoring the anti-motoring activists, has produced a program for bicycle transportation that is utterly incoherent. How many of you will understand this?

As I said (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5139515&postcount=65)... sigh.

I-Like-To-Bike

08-26-07, 05:01 AM

Yes, I've got a belly-full, allright.

I support your own specific cycling needs/preferences. But you are arguing about numbers and graphs.

Don't have time for that, man. Have at it.

Been there done that too. Bottom line is, either you are going to ride, or not.
Wrong! The bottom line of the discussion at hand was the usefulness of raw data or irrelevant numbers and graphs.

You don't have time for that? No interest in the subject? So what?

invisiblehand

08-27-07, 10:59 AM

But if you guys want to continue to raise the specter of fear to give cyclists more reasons not to ride on normal roads, you're on the opposite side of my ideology.

Use your graphs. Argue the danger.

Hmmmm, I don't know what you are talking about. I thought that the point was that a portion of a prior argument for negative changes in motorist driving is not supported by 1990-2003 data.

As I wrote before, the simple graphs are not definitive, in my opinion. But to push an argument that modern changes--wide spread cell phone usage for instance--have created an extra hazard to cyclists through lower attentiveness such that older experiences are less relevant, one will have to look harder at the data or have better explanations for the empirical observations.

Regardless, I vote for riding more and typing less. :D

genec

08-27-07, 11:11 AM

Regardless, I vote for riding more and typing less. :D

Hey ride all you can... I only type when I don't have the opportunity to ride. :D

larryfeltonj

08-28-07, 07:10 PM

Hopefully enjoying his cycling and far away from his keyboard.

I've been in Albany NY on somewhat grim family business. No cycling involved, unfortunately, but I'm making up for it this weekend by doing my second century in two weeks.

One thing I noted about Albany is that I hardly saw any cyclists on the road, even though the weather was wonderful compared to the 100 degree plus weather we've been having here in Atlanta. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that despite the derision LBM and I get for asserting that the cycling in Atlanta is good, there has been somewhat of a cycling boom going on here which may not be occurring in other parts of the country.

I'll read through the replies on this thread over the next few days. Judging from the graphs posted it looks like some interesting stuff may have been ferreted out.

larryfeltonj

08-28-07, 07:16 PM

and where is mr. felton these days?

Albany NY. No computer, hence no internet access.

larryfeltonj

08-28-07, 07:25 PM

Guess I wasn't clear. What is the relevance of data about motor vehicle accidents/miles driven to bicycling conditions?

Because a lot of these discussions swirl around driver attentiveness. If drivers are more or less likely to hit other motorists or inanimate objects they are more or less likely to hit cyclists.

bmike

08-28-07, 07:27 PM

Albany NY. No computer, hence no internet access.

we have computers up here in the north country...
depending on where you were in the albany area might make a difference in how many cyclists were about. had you taken a detour 2 hours or so further north and a little east and you would have seen plenty.

actually, heading over to the berkshires or southern vermont would have also been good.

larryfeltonj

08-28-07, 08:02 PM

we have computers up here in the north country...
depending on where you were in the albany area might make a difference in how many cyclists were about. had you taken a detour 2 hours or so further north and a little east and you would have seen plenty.

actually, heading over to the berkshires or southern vermont would have also been good.

Possibly... I was comparing apples to apples though. Most of my riding in Atlanta is either downtown, intown, or in the second ring suburbs. In Albany most of my visit included similar areas (downtown Albany, Colonie, Guilderland, the Washington Park area). Mile for mile I'd have seen a lot more cyclists in Atlanta than I did in Albany, particularly considering the difference in temperature (it was 70 degrees in Albany on a day I phoned home to learn the temperature in Atlanta had hit 103). I'm not bashing Albany. I love the area, and intend to cycle there the next time I'm up.

As for computers, I imagine they do exist in Albany. I was packing up the belongings of a family member who was no longer able to live at home, so my priority was not keeping up with email.

invisiblehand

08-29-07, 12:15 PM

I've been in Albany NY on somewhat grim family business. No cycling involved, unfortunately, but I'm making up for it this weekend by doing my second century in two weeks.

Sorry to read that Larry. Hope all goes well.

Growing up in NYC, we would take trips to upstate NY on a regular basis. From memory, I would think that it would be wonderful touring country. Then again, this would be for another forum.

larryfeltonj

08-29-07, 04:59 PM

Sorry to read that Larry. Hope all goes well.

Growing up in NYC, we would take trips to upstate NY on a regular basis. From memory, I would think that it would be wonderful touring country. Then again, this would be for another forum.

Yep it would be (on both counts wonderful touring country, and I made the observation in a forum in which it's off topic). Before moving it to the appropriate forum though, I can't help but say that the entire time I was dealing with the business at hand I was devising a future tour in my head. All those little towns on the eastern side of the Catskills and along the Hudson River looked like they'd make for great touring.

bmike

08-29-07, 08:37 PM

Just found this (http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/benchmarking.htm) report online... it's primary focus is on obesity and walking and cycling... but I found this bit hard to pass up:

Bicycling and walking make up 9.6 percent of all trips. Yet bicyclists and pedestrians represent 12.9 percent of all traffic-related fatalities, and only 1.5 percent of federal transportation dollars are spent on bicycling and walking projects.

The full report is a long PDF. Maybe I'll read it tomorrow. Long day on the road. (sigh) I can probably do some texting and phone calling and PDF reading. And when WiFi follows our interstates along I can do some BF browsing too.

LittleBigMan

09-01-07, 08:55 PM

bmike

09-02-07, 06:44 AM

"Bicycling and walking make up 9.6 percent of all trips. Yet bicyclists and pedestrians represent 12.9 percent of all traffic-related fatalities, and only 1.5 percent of federal transportation dollars are spent on bicycling and walking projects."

Bmike, I don't want to discount the great need for more bicycling and walking, as those are the two forms of transportation that I've spent by far the most hours doing in the last 15 years (along with running, yes--running transportation...:D)

But when you try to mix cycling fatalities and pedestrian fatalities, I'm afraid I can't get on that bus.

There are just so many pedestrian fatalities that to mix the two is like mixing the earth's fresh water with its oceans.

The part I don't get is, when studies compare cycling, walking, and driving fatalities, it's always per mile. Who walks 20 miles a day? That would take 5 or 6 hours (if you had the stamina.) But I can drive that far in anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes.

It takes a car 60 seconds to do what a pedestrian takes 20 minutes to do. Which is safer?

If you measured not by miles, but by hours, cycling and walking would appear much safer than in most cycling/walking fatality studies. And they are safer.

I didn't write the study, and I also noted that the real focus of the report was obesity and the decline in walking and cycling, not safety or fatalities... so I sort of agree with you, but found that particular quote a bit interesting.

The idea you put forth:

It takes a car 60 seconds to do what a pedestrian takes 20 minutes to do. Which is safer?

I totally agree with. And I'd add that it takes a car 60 seconds what it might take a cyclist 5-10 minutes to do. Which, ahem, is one of the reasons I like traffic systems that honor the differences in mode... but I've written about that in other posts so I'll leave it out of this discussion. :)

I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. There might be more information in there... there might not.

LittleBigMan

09-02-07, 05:34 PM

...it takes a car 60 seconds what it might take a cyclist 5-10 minutes to do. Which, ahem, is one of the reasons I like traffic systems that honor the differences in mode... but I've written about that in other posts so I'll leave it out of this discussion. :)
I get it, bmike!

60 seconds vs. 5 minutes. As if getting there was a pain to be avoided...

Faster is not always better! I love the journey.

Another way to put it is, would one rather enjoy 5 minutes, or suffer through 60 seconds?

:D

(Can't see why people actually prefer driving, but I'm not their judge... ;) )

Helmet Head

09-03-07, 08:25 AM

I didn't write the study, and I also noted that the real focus of the report was obesity and the decline in walking and cycling, not safety or fatalities... so I sort of agree with you, but found that particular quote a bit interesting.

The idea you put forth:

I totally agree with. And I'd add that it takes a car 60 seconds what it might take a cyclist 5-10 minutes to do. Which, ahem, is one of the reasons I like traffic systems that honor the differences in mode... but I've written about that in other posts so I'll leave it out of this discussion. :)

I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. There might be more information in there... there might not.
Cars could go 60 mph in the 1940s, so their ability to drive as fast as they drive today is nothing new., especially when we're talking about urban and suburban settings where the speeds are usually lower than that anyway.

There are many more cars today, so in general it's more challenging to find gaps, if you're cycling depends on that. That is, if you're a cyclist who "rides the margins and gaps", then, yeah, cycling in the 40s, 50s and 60s and even 70s was probably significantly easier than it is today. But as traffic volumes increased, as well as surface streets that are wider and allow for more lanes and higher speeds, the cyclist who requires margins and gaps to get where he is going is going to be more challenged and stressed today than before. Many might even give up.

But the solution is not to create the margins - "traffic systems that honor the differences in mode" - but to learn to ride comfortably, safely and effectively in a manner that does not require riding in margins and gaps. Being able to do that was always helpful, but particularly so today.

bmike

09-03-07, 08:50 AM

"traffic systems that honor the differences in mode" - but to learn to ride comfortably, safely and effectively in a manner that does not require riding in margins and gaps. Being able to do that was always helpful, but particularly so today.

i never said a thing about riding in gaps and margins.
i'm speaking about the problems of multi ton vehicles with ever increasing speed limits supposedly 'sharing' the road with other, legal users of the public rights of ways.

we are talking about 2 completely different things. you want to overcome traffic with some sort of skillset, i'm more interested in why motorized transport gets all the preference when it comes to road design and community development - and everyone else is truly pushed to the margins.

the majority of our public rights of way disenfranchise those who do not wish to travel under power of the motor. a street, road, etc. should be in service of human beings moving from point a to point b, and anywhere in between. mode choice should be secondary - but this is not how we design and build our roads and towns. pedestrian and non motorized transportation are marginalized... and i don't care how effective you cycle - you can't get out of political and cultural and design margins by lane positioning.

genec

09-03-07, 12:30 PM

Cars could go 60 mph in the 1940s, so their ability to drive as fast as they drive today is nothing new., especially when we're talking about urban and suburban settings where the speeds are usually lower than that anyway.

There are many more cars today, so in general it's more challenging to find gaps, if you're cycling depends on that. That is, if you're a cyclist who "rides the margins and gaps", then, yeah, cycling in the 40s, 50s and 60s and even 70s was probably significantly easier than it is today. But as traffic volumes increased, as well as surface streets that are wider and allow for more lanes and higher speeds, the cyclist who requires margins and gaps to get where he is going is going to be more challenged and stressed today than before. Many might even give up.

But the solution is not to create the margins - "traffic systems that honor the differences in mode" - but to learn to ride comfortably, safely and effectively in a manner that does not require riding in margins and gaps. Being able to do that was always helpful, but particularly so today.

As long as you travel significantly slower than the rest of the flow of traffic... you depend on margins and gaps. Don't try to BS us with "a manner that doesn't depend on margins and gaps..." you depend on exactly that when you share a WOL, or when you signal for a turn and expect motorists to slow and create a gap as you have often mentioned ("create your own gap").

Cyclists that ride on the fringes are less of a burden to traffic than those that attempt to merge into much faster traffic. You yourself always mention moving out of the way of FSDT... that takes margins. Not wild leaps of imagination...

You want fit into the flow... slow the whole flow down, otherwise you are either a "roadblock" or are riding in margins and gaps.

Helmet Head

09-04-07, 03:32 PM

As long as you travel significantly slower than the rest of the flow of traffic... you depend on margins and gaps. Don't try to BS us with "a manner that doesn't depend on margins and gaps..." you depend on exactly that when you share a WOL, or when you signal for a turn and expect motorists to slow and create a gap as you have often mentioned ("create your own gap").

Cyclists that ride on the fringes are less of a burden to traffic than those that attempt to merge into much faster traffic. You yourself always mention moving out of the way of FSDT... that takes margins. Not wild leaps of imagination...

You want fit into the flow... slow the whole flow down, otherwise you are either a "roadblock" or are riding in margins and gaps.

Gene, you wrote: "As long as you travel significantly slower than the rest of the flow of traffic... you depend on margins and gaps." In this statement you are conflating taking advantage of it (gaps and margins) if it is there with depending on it.

If you depend on it, you are hampered and/or stressed when the gaps or margins are not there. I'm not, because I don't depend on gaps and margins. Sure, I'll take advantage of them when they are available, but if there is no margin, I take the lane; if there is no gap, I negotiate to create one. No problem. Most cyclists depend on natural gaps in order to merge left. That is, they don't merge left until a natural gap appears, or someone happens to yield to them even though they did not intentionally negotiate.

As far as the gap creation, yes, in that sense you might say I depend on them. But what I'm talking about when I say "depending on margins and gaps" is "depending on margins and natural gaps". That is, gaps that are there and would be there whether the cyclist is present or not.

Helmet Head

09-04-07, 03:37 PM

i never said a thing about riding in gaps and margins.
i'm speaking about the problems of multi ton vehicles with ever increasing speed limits supposedly 'sharing' the road with other, legal users of the public rights of ways.

we are talking about 2 completely different things. you want to overcome traffic with some sort of skillset, i'm more interested in why motorized transport gets all the preference when it comes to road design and community development - and everyone else is truly pushed to the margins.

the majority of our public rights of way disenfranchise those who do not wish to travel under power of the motor. a street, road, etc. should be in service of human beings moving from point a to point b, and anywhere in between. mode choice should be secondary - but this is not how we design and build our roads and towns. pedestrian and non motorized transportation are marginalized... and i don't care how effective you cycle - you can't get out of political and cultural and design margins by lane positioning.
Motoring gets the priority when it comes to road design because it comprises the vast, vast majority of the traffic out there.

But the needs of cyclists are met automatically when they address the needs of motorists, so it's kind of moot. Motoring facilities (roads) exceed cyclist accommodation requirements in every respect, escept a few relatively minor issues like intersections where traffic signal sensors don't detect bicyclists.

genec

09-04-07, 03:43 PM

Gene, you wrote: "As long as you travel significantly slower than the rest of the flow of traffic... you depend on margins and gaps." In this statement you are conflating taking advantage of it (gaps and margins) if it is there with depending on it.

If you depend on it, you are hampered and/or stressed when the gaps or margins are not there. I'm not, because I don't depend on gaps and margins. Sure, I'll take advantage of them when they are available, but if there is no margin, I take the lane; if there is no gap, I negotiate to create one. No problem. Most cyclists depend on natural gaps in order to merge left. That is, they don't merge left until a natural gap appears, or someone happens to yield to them even though they did not intentionally negotiate.

As far as the gap creation, yes, in that sense you might say I depend on them. But what I'm talking about when I say "depending on margins and gaps" is "depending on margins and natural gaps". That is, gaps that are there and would be there whether the cyclist is present or not.

"I don't depend on gaps and margins..." "I create gaps and margins..." bit of a dichotomy there HH.

Your subtle jab at those who don't "command" traffic as you believe you do is wholly ironic when taken in reference to how anything that "modifies the flow of traffic" tends to effect it in a negative way.

Helmet Head

09-04-07, 03:57 PM

"I don't depend on gaps and margins..." "I create gaps and margins..." bit of a dichotomy there HH.

Your subtle jab at those who don't "command" traffic as you believe you do is wholly ironic when taken in reference to how anything that "modifies the flow of traffic" tends to effect it in a negative way.
I don't create margins. That would be impossible. They are either there, or they are not. But I don't depend on them.
I also don't depend on natural gaps because I can negotiate to create one, as required.

Again, the vast majority of cyclists don't know how to create gaps - it doesn't even occur to them to try, apparently -and so they depend on natural gaps. The fewer the natural gaps, the more stressful and difficult riding in traffic becomes to the cyclist who depends on natural gaps.

No dichotomy.

EDIT: And, yes, when there is no margin and the slow cyclist is required to control a lane, or when the cyclist must create a gap in order to merge left for whatever reason, that can be disruptive to the flow of traffic. It's not ideal, but necessary in some circumstances because a design that would circumvent the need is cost prohibitive, or it's practically impossible to do it. Same with red lights, stop signs, drivers of slow moving motor vehicles, road-crossing pedestrians and onstreet parking (all of which interrupt the flow of traffic). Interrupting the flow of traffic is not ideal, but is often necessary, and should not be feared.

Allister

09-04-07, 04:59 PM

And, yes, when there is no margin and the slow cyclist is required to control a lane, or when the cyclist must create a gap in order to merge left for whatever reason, that can be disruptive to the flow of traffic.

Interrupting the flow of traffic is not ideal, but is often necessary, and should not be feared.

So what you're apparently saying is, you don't really see your cycling as 'vehicular', but rather 'disruptive' and 'interrupting' the real traffic. LOL

Helmet Head

09-04-07, 05:09 PM

So what you're apparently saying is, you don't really see your cycling as 'vehicular', but rather 'disruptive' and 'interrupting' the real traffic. LOL
Not at all. Interrupting the flow of traffic is vehicular for drivers of slow moving vehicles, including cyclists.

bmike

09-04-07, 05:34 PM

Motoring gets the priority when it comes to road design because it comprises the vast, vast majority of the traffic out there.

But the needs of cyclists are met automatically when they address the needs of motorists, so it's kind of moot. Motoring facilities (roads) exceed cyclist accommodation requirements in every respect, escept a few relatively minor issues like intersections where traffic signal sensors don't detect bicyclists.

and high speed limits, more than 1, maybe 2 lanes in each direction with high speeds, development spread out for convenience by car - not by human power.... etc.

if all the motor vehicles suddenly disappeared tomorrow, i would half agree with you - the facilities that are created for the motoring public stand to serve cyclists well enough... (and in many cases would be overkill) but then we'd have acres of parking and destination spread out to the horizon... with only our own power to deliver us to those destinations. a superhighway with services every 30-40 miles doesn't really meet the needs of cyclists very well, nor does an 8 lane arterial.

the needs of cyclists are not automatically met by meeting the needs of motorists. yes, cyclists may get more pavement to ride... but that is about it in terms of specificity. i wasn't discussing 'facilities' - i was discussing the whole.