I've been reading in one of the threads here a repeated assertion that changes in road design, driver attentiveness, traffic speeds and a number of other factors render experiences gained on the road prior to the very recent past worthless.
My own experience is based only on cycling in Atlanta, but I find this assertion a bit comical. I've been cycling in Atlanta since the 1950's (from the mid-1950s to the mid 1960's as a typical child cyclist, with a hiatus from 1967 to the early 1970s to follow the southern teen's obsession with automobiles, and then as an [EDIT: I left this phrase incomplete in the original post] adult road cyclist from sometime in the early 1970s to the present -- never can remember the exact year).
I haven't seen any difference in the particular cycling skills I need to interact with traffic from the mid 1970's to the present. The main differences have been mutations in particular roads from one set of characteristics to another. Any set of characteristics I can imagine already existed in the 1950s. With Atlanta's growth (and sprawl) the main change has been overall increase in number of cars on the road.
But that increase doesn't mean that any particular road is carrying heavier volumes. And the road of interest to me is always the road I'm actually on. When I began cycling onroad as an adult in the 1970s there were two industrial operations near my house which ran around the clock shifts (the Lakewood Fisher Body plant, and Fulton Bag cotton mill). Shift changes at those plants spilled volumes of traffic onto the roads which were as road snarling and impatient as any current rush hour.
Another factor of interest to me is general acceptance of cyclists on the road. If anything, in Atlanta, motorists are much more accustomed to and accepting of cyclists on the road. In every part of metro Atlanta cyclists are a common sight these days.
I rode a century in Fayette and Coweta counties Saturday. Those counties are on the zone between bedroom community and rural. Traffic speeds were generally high, though weekend volume was light. As the group spread out much of my riding was solo. On the two lanes when there was traffic behind me cars waited the few seconds necessary to pass, then did so. In a hundred miles of suburban/exurban roads I was never harassed once, nor did anyone do anything to put my life in danger.
Most of my riding is in urban conditions. In fact many people consider the urbanized areas of Atlanta hell for cyclists. My experiences are much different from theirs. I'm riding the same streets and highways I rode as a child, and there isn't a whole lot of difference I can discern in the attitude of motorists, or the hazards of interacting with them.
In 1973 those of us who ventured out onto the roads in Atlanta were considered lawless lunatics by many motorists. The combination of the notion cultivated in the U.S. that bicycles were exclusively children's toys combined with the enthusiastic embrace in the south not only of automobiles, but of fast driving (think NASCAR and "Thunder Road") made cycling in the 1970s here challenging and interesting.
Over the past forty years or so the number and visibility of onroad cyclists has increased enormously here. That alone has made vehicular cycling in Atlanta not harder, but easier.
I'd be interested in hearing the experiences of other cyclists who've cycled onroad during different decades, in different parts of the country.
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.
text messaging drivers. recreational drugs. Perscription drug abuse. In dash navigation systems. Cell phones. TV feeds on cell phones. Hand held video devices. Road rage.
you aren't serious about static road and bicycling conditions between WWII and now, are you, Larry? are you just fawning over jhon?
I've bicycled since the seventies on the roads in several parts of the country. It is OBVIOUS, GLARINGLY APPARANT, that conditions on American roads and the drivers on them have changed.
In '79, as I'm sure you know, Larry, a movie about living the cycling life won an Academy Award. looking back a little further than WWII, in the first decades of the twentieth century, bicycle racing was the largest american spectator sport.
Times change, Larry. The roads and bicycling conditions, the cars and their drivers we interact with, have not stayed static since the 1940's :rolleyes:
bmike
the 'i'm not speeding, i'm qualifying' bumper sticker on a mini-van with dual video players in the back for the kids, gps navigation, cell phones, music system, etc. that i've seen pretty much sums it up.
some stats, from this website (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/MarinaStasenko.shtml):
"Automobile Manufacturers Association's 1970 Automobile Facts and Figures,
Passenger cars, World Total,
169,994,128 (1968)
Trucks and buses, World Total,
46,614,342 (1968)
"You probably have known that the world's human population is increasing dangerously. So is the world's car population. In 1970, there were 200 million cars in the world. In 1990, there were almost 500 million."
200,000,000 (1970)
500,000,000 (1990)
"There are 107 million US households, each with an average of 1.9 cars, trucks or sport utility vehicles and 1.8 drivers, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reported. That equals 204 million vehicles and 191 million drivers."
204,000,000 (US 2003)
sure, things haven't change a bit... ;)
and don't forget to factor in longer commutes, more sprawl, the ubiquitous mini-marts, the expanded shopping mall, and the expansion of suburbia...
more cars on the road. more trips to the corner store. longer trips to work.
more truck traffic - from msnbc:
In just a decade, from 1995 to 2005, the weight load on urban highways increased by half. Since 1970, the weight carried on rural highways has gone up nearly 7½ times, according to Federal Highway Administration statistics.
And it’s not just more traffic. It’s the heavier trucks.
“The number of trucks and the number of heavy trucks have gone up dramatically since 1965,” said Mark Hallenbeck, director of the Washington State Transportation Center at the University of Washington.
“The warehouses that used to fill up are now driving down the road next to you,” he said.
And that, he added, is “beating up” American roads.
'We need to ask the questions'
The number of tractor-trailer truck miles driven on American roadways has well more than doubled to more than 145 billion miles a year since 1980, increasing faster than the rate of smaller trucks or cars, according to federal statistics.
have the number of cyclists on the roads grown in the same way? is the ratio of car/bike the same as it was 20-30 years ago, or is the number of cyclists out there now smaller, due to the increases in automobile and truck use?
so we've been riding 'since i was a child', and we don't really notice that much difference? is that because there isn't one, or that we've slowly grown accustomed to our current situation, much like the frog in the frying pan? there are over 40,000 deaths on our highways a year... was this always the case? if someone told us in the 60's or 70's that this would be the future, would we have been accepting of it? or would we have been outraged? those 40,000 deaths are like 1 large town being wiped off the map every year - but because it happens every day, in small doses, we've grown accepting of it - much like i think you may be accepting of the current traffic in your neighborhood.
is it really folks slinging soda cans or insults at you, or the fact that instead of being passed by 10 cars on your century ride you are now passed by 1000? is that 'OK'? what is an acceptable limit? where's the acceptable risk? more drivers on already over burdened roads, driving larger vehicles, at faster speeds, with more distractions available to them...
i think the 'rules of the road' have changed, dramatically in the last 10 years, and even more in the last 20.
when cyclists are on the road, they deal with these changes, acetylene lamps or not.
genec
Speed limits alone have changed dramatically since the 70s and the national speed limit of 55MPH.
Back in the 60s, typical hiway speeds were 60MPH. In 1974 there was a national speed limit of 55MPH; surface street speeds were fractionally slower with most arterials at 40MPH.
Today freeways are 65 and 70MPH with arterials at 45 and 50MPH. Near my old office is a surface street marked at 60MPH. Oh sure, it has a bike lane...
Speaking of bike lanes... I believe not a single bike lane existed in the '50s, 60's and they were just being introduced in the '70s.
Right turn on red was adopted by all the states in the mid '70s. Prior to that, pedestrians were actually protected by the crossing signals when crossing the street. Motorists stayed in place when they had a red light. Since then 84 pedestrians a year have been struck in right turn on red situations. This actually shifted the burden of ensuring a safe crossing to the pedestrian. You used to be able to tell a child to only cross when the light was green and be pretty assured that it was safe. That is no longer the case.
"Autos" have become taller and boxier. Since the automakers realized the CAFE standard loophole of higher gas mileage allowance for SUVs and truck based vehicles, they have designed and promoted these vehicles specifically targeting families, in order to maintain the manufactures' gas mileage standards. The public has blindly bought into the "truck" standard falsely on a larger size=safety illusion. The larger boxier vehicles restrict the sightlines of both motorists and cyclists.
Have the skills required to ride a bike on public streets changed. The real answer is no, they have not changed much. The basic skills are the same, however, the required level of concentration, assertiveness and vigilance has gone up, as cyclists are more vulnerable to being overlooked (being quite small, relative to the larger vehicles on the road), by faster moving motorists who themselves are more subject to the distraction of the plethora of electronic devices demanding their attention.
Road rage (http://www.nyu.edu/pubs/counterblast/issue1_nov01/articles/schuchardt.html) reared it's ugly head in the early '90s. This is not to say that there were not "disagreements" between motorists back as far as WW2, but they were rare enough to not make national headlines.
Cycling alone has changed. Multispeed derailleur bikes were not available to the general public back in the '50s... The cable operated derailleur we are familiar with today was invented in the '50s and the general public became familiar with these in the late '60s and early '70s... The "English 3-speed" was the fancy consumer model of the time. Before the end of the decade it was the 10-speed derailleur "racing bike" which dominated the American market. This change did somewhat modify the skill levels required to ride a bike, (and some folks have yet to master the derailleur ;) ) as one had to judge the approaching "load" and shift accordingly. Braking changed too, as a shift from rear coaster brakes to hand brakes came along with the "racing bike."
And then there are helmets...
So all in all, there indeed have been a myriad of changes in both the culture of the automobile, and the bicycle since World War II. How those changes have effected cyclists is quite subject to debate.
Bekologist
larry finds this comical :rolleyes:
soorry, larry thinks being oblivious to these changes from lack of recent riding experience is what's comical? or is it worthless?
or does he find a certain bicycle advokate's obliviousness to the changes altogther that's comical and/or worthless?
rando
I would agree with Larry if I thought that particular assertion had been made, but it hasn't been. I think the assertion is that not taking into account these various factors (listed above) that have changed life and therefore drivers, since the 50s or so, is short-sighted at best and delusional at worst. Apparently for cyclists like Larry and LBM Atlanta is much like the carefree sitcom town of Mayberry. heck, my side street urban/suburban ride to work is pretty much Mayberry-ish also, but I know that ain't the case elsewhere.
invisiblehand
I've been reading in one of the threads here a repeated assertion that changes in road design, driver attentiveness, traffic speeds and a number of other factors render experiences gained on the road prior to the very recent past worthless.
Who wrote worthless?
I think that there are important changes--cell phones, type of vehicles, vehicle power, and vehicle safety--such that I would expect empirical differences over time. But I believe that the fundamentals should be similar.
-G
Bekologist
this thread is pandering about vacuous vc platitudes?
speed and destination positioning -news flash- are basics that haven't changed in concept.
the realities of doing so on ever changing roads amidst increasingly distracted drivers have changed.
an advocacy platform or advokate that denies the changes in cycling conditions is what's comical, larry. Merits pity is more appropriate.
invisiblehand
an advocacy platform or advokate that denies the changes in cycling conditions is what's comical, larry. Merits pity is more appropriate.
personally, I don't think this is necessary.
Bekologist
the pitiful or comical reference? larry started with the comical alludes, invisiblehand.
I consider some states of denial a pitiful condition, invisible. it 'merits pity'.
what is comical/pitiful is an advocacy platform or advokate that denies the changes in cycling conditions from the 1940's to present day. it's like suggesting acetylene lamps in a discussion of modern lighting systems :rolleyes:
larryfeltonj
I would agree with Larry if I thought that particular assertion had been made, but it hasn't been. I think the assertion is that not taking into account these various factors (listed above) that have changed life and therefore drivers, since the 50s or so, is short-sighted at best and delusional at worst. Apparently for cyclists like Larry and LBM Atlanta is much like the carefree sitcom town of Mayberry. heck, my side street urban/suburban ride to work is pretty much Mayberry-ish also, but I know that ain't the case elsewhere.
Atlanta is Atlanta. It isn't Mayberry and it isn't Tokyo. I use Atlanta as an example because it's where I cycle, and I just haven't found it to be the cycling-unfriendly nightmare other people often describe. I have no particular reason to disbelieve the reports of sustained harassment by motorists other people report, but I just haven't experienced it myself.
Atlanta has undergone enormous changes, and the nature of distractions and frustrations have certainly gone through some changes. But the psychology of driver interaction, the range of politeness and rudeness while driving, the evident signs of driving while drug impaired, and the actual speeds people drive given similar road conditions really hasn't changed that much here.
Bekologist
so, larry, you are reporting static road and driver conditions in Atlanta between WWII and present day? No one is text messaging? No blue collar workers or suburban moms driving on meth in Atlanta?
interesting....... it DOES sound like Mayberry. Are you SURE you're not describing a mythic city in your alludes to Atlanta road conditions?
anyhoo, about those increased numbers of bicyclists in Atlanta.... everyone riding in the VC approved manner? or is it more 'butts on bikes' that has increased the visibility of bicyclists there?
(looking for my hip waders)
joejack951
No blue collar workers or suburban moms driving on meth in Atlanta?
As opposed to LSD, cocaine, and amphetamines back in the day?
Bekologist
joe, do you mean, in 1948? I think the problem of drugged drivers (on legal and illegal meds) is much on the rise since the 1960's, joe, despite what you saw on "Dragnet". revisionist!
I'm still curious if Larry purports that
a) there's no difference in traffic conditions between the post WWII era in Atlanta and today
b) drivers there are no more distracted
c) roads in Atlanta have not become increasingly arterialized and congested
and
d) all Atlanta bicyclists ride in the VC-approved manner.
I see some sugar coated Mayberrism going on, larry.....
one fundamental difference: the introduction of on road bike facilities. use of bike lanes in a vehicular manner has been introduced- prior to the 1970's no bike lanes existed. A certain advokate begrugingly admits to the vehicular useability of bike lanes and shoulders in this forum, after hemming and hawing, ranting and raving, about incompetant cyclists.
really though, this thread is just fawning over a long outdated bicycle advokate and his visions of static bicycling conditions. It sounds like larry CANNOT STAND any criticism of his favorite, quixotic bicycling guru.
Larry has to start defensive threads, claiming a certain bike advokates' cycling experiences of 30-60 years ago is still relevant.
Larry, I'll give you this much:
DESPITE sweeping changes in road design, traffic congestion, driver distractions and road rage in the last sixty years, the basic tenents of bicycling have not changed. slower traffic keep right, destination position, avoid door zone, be cautious at intersections.... big news flash, larry.
larryfeltonj
I'm still curious [/i]
I don't think the word you're grasping for is "curious". I think "befuddled" is a better fit.
A consolodated answer to these various replies is forthcoming.
joejack951
joe, do you mean, in 1948? I think the problem of drugged drivers (on legal and illegal meds) is much on the rise since the 1960's, joe, despite what you saw on "Dragnet". revisionist!
You brought up the '70's in your post talking about some Academy Award. I thought your point was that the '70's were a much better time for cyclists on the roads, with the '60's then obviously being even better.
Can you really compare taking an allergy pill with gettin' high?
sggoodri
It's well established that motor vehicle occupant fatality rates per mile traveled have decreased in half since the early 1970s. Some of this improvement is due to improved vehicle technology(braking, and crash absorption), but some is due to increased sobriety levels, experience, and improved roadway design. While there are more teenage and elderly drivers on the road today, most drivers are probably more skilled and have better braking capabilities than their 1970's counterparts. Drivers are traveling longer distances, but it's unclear how much of this is happening on freeways where cyclists would be unaffected.
Does anyone know of a link to collision rates (as opposed to fatality rates) per mile of travel compared over a few decades? This would provide an interesting look at how driver behavior related to crash avoidance ability may or may not be changing.
If drivers are generally not much different, then the remaining issues for cyclists would be traffic density (have enough roads been built to diffuse traffic from more drivers?) and speed differentials (have enough low-speed roads connecting to destinations been built or maintained as some other roads have become faster?)
genec
Can you really compare taking an allergy pill with gettin' high?
I can.
One is voluntarily undertaken for the very effect of altering conscious reality, the other is done to relieve a symptom or group of symptoms. The differences of intent are huge.
The same difference exists for inattention blindness as one mentally drifts or daydreams, verses the very intentional act of making a phone call or attending to any other electronic device within a moving vehicle. The first is an involuntary response, the latter is a voluntary intentional decision.
Again, the issues of "intentional decision" are what make the difference, even though the outcome may be the same.
Think of this as the difference between falling and jumping...
Bekologist
i see similarities between driving while taking Oxycontin or driving in the middle of a sleeping pill-induced dream state with driving under the influence of illegal drugs, joe.
allergy pills, not so much :rolleyes: but many more people are on much stronger legal meds than in the 1960's, dontchyaknow... as well as more people abusing legal and illegal drugs.
Bekologist
who says drivers or their attentiveness are not much different from the 1970's, steve? just jhon and his crewe, and I disagree.
what percentage of drivers were text messaging or using a cell phone during the 1970's?? (activities that cause as serious impairments to driving as being under the influence of alcohol)
insurance companies and governements are now recognizing the severe impairments caused when driving while using a cell phone or text messaging.
sggoodri
who says drivers or their attentiveness are not much different from the 1970's, steve? just jhon and his crewe, and I disagree.
what percentage of drivers were text messaging or using a cell phone during the 1970's?? (activities that cause as serious impairments to driving as being under the influence of alcohol)
insurance companies and governements are now recognizing the severe impairments caused when driving while using a cell phone or text messaging.
They may or may not be more impaired than in the past. Certainly, if they are more impaired now, then their crash rates either by themselves or with other motorists would reflect this. So I'm interested if there is any data on crash rates per mile traveled, present and past, which might indicate if drivers are any better or worse than they used to be.
I suspect that increases in driver inattention due to technology are offset by reductions in alcohol-impaired driving over the last 30-40 years. But I am more interested in seeing actual crash data tabulations than speculating.
genec
who says drivers or their attentiveness are not much different from the 1970's, steve? just jhon and his crewe, and I disagree.
what percentage of drivers were text messaging or using a cell phone during the 1970's?? (activities that cause as serious impairments to driving as being under the influence of alcohol)
insurance companies and governements are now recognizing the severe impairments caused when driving while using a cell phone or text messaging.
One such insurance company has been placing ads akin to public service announcements regarding "multi-tasking."
This is just the sort of "voluntary distraction" that I have been talking about.
joejack951
who says drivers or their attentiveness are not much different from the 1970's, steve? just jhon and his crewe, and I disagree.
what percentage of drivers were text messaging or using a cell phone during the 1970's?? (activities that cause as serious impairments to driving as being under the influence of alcohol)
insurance companies and governements are now recognizing the severe impairments caused when driving while using a cell phone or text messaging.
Now that child seats are mandated, a whole lot of distractions that were previously commonplace are also now basically gone. I remember climbing all over the car as a kid, taking care not to knock the transmission out of gear as I climbed from the front to the back of course. How many unrestrained children do you see these days? Also, a kid who is quietly watching a DVD in the backseat is a lot less distracting than a whining kid who's stuck to a vinyl seat with sweat (oh, those childhood memories :))
genec
They may or may not be more impaired than in the past. Certainly, if they are more impaired now, then their crash rates either by themselves or with other motorists would reflect this. So I'm interested if there is any data on crash rates per mile traveled, present and past, which might indicate if drivers are any better or worse than they used to be.
I suspect that increases in driver inattention due to technology are offset by reductions in alcohol-impaired driving over the last 30-40 years. But I am more interested in seeing actual crash data tabulations than speculating.
I too am interested in this. I believe motorist death rates per vehicles on the road or miles driven have gone down... but I attribute that not to better drivers or better roads, but better passive restraint systems, and crash protection within the vehicle.
Of course the only way to know for sure is to find out what the rate of collisions per mile traveled or number of vehicles.
Bekologist
I don't know. if the reduction in drunk driving is offset by an increase in distracted texting and cell phone using drivers, that puts a lot more danger on the road at typical commuting times.
I rarely see drunk driving behavior at 9 am on a weekday, but see tens of drivers weaving and texting and generally driving very badly while using cellphones or texting while I'm bicycling to work.
sggoodri
I don't know. if the reduction in drunk driving is offset by an increase in distracted texting and cell phone using drivers, that puts a lot more danger on the road at typical commuting times.
I rarely see drunk driving behavior at 9 am on a weekday, but see tens of drivers weaving and texting and generally driving very badly while using cellphones or texting while I'm bicycling to work.
That's entirely possible. It might be more interesting to see past and present data just for multi-vehicle collisions per mile rather than that including single-car collisions, in order to filter out some of the 2AM stupidity.
I personally feel more comfortable with AM rush-hour drivers than drivers at any other time. 5 PM rush-hour drivers seem a little nuts, but it doesn't seem to be all that much cell-phone related. In any case, I support increased awareness of or even restrictions on use of communication devices while driving as well as limitations on passengers for beginning drivers. I also think car radios should be designed to be much simpler and should have many features disabled while the vehicle is in motion.
Whether things are worse now than in the past or not doesn't mean they shouldn't be made better.
larryfeltonj
They may or may not be more impaired than in the past. Certainly, if they are more impaired now, then their crash rates either by themselves or with other motorists would reflect this. So I'm interested if there is any data on crash rates per mile traveled, present and past, which might indicate if drivers are any better or worse than they used to be.
I suspect that increases in driver inattention due to technology are offset by reductions in alcohol-impaired driving over the last 30-40 years. But I am more interested in seeing actual crash data tabulations than speculating.
Hi Steve. I appreciate your attempt to drag meaningful data into the discussion, and started digging into the NHTSA reports on crashes. I won't have time to drill down into the tables which indicate year-by-year trends in all crashes (not just fatal) until after Tuesday of next week, but the stuff I found indicates that the DOT has been compiling enough info to really track the trends.
An example from 1996 can be found at this link (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/98.010.PDF)
Bekologist
I'm still wondering, Larry if you continue to assert
a) there's no difference in traffic conditions between the post WWII era in Atlanta and today
b) drivers there are no more distracted
c) roads in Atlanta have not become increasingly arterialized and congested
and
d) all Atlanta bicyclists ride in the VC-approved manner.
Larry, I'll give you this much:
DESPITE sweeping changes in road design, traffic congestion, driver distractions and road rage in the last sixty years, the basic tenents of bicycling have not changed. slower traffic keep right, destination position, avoid door zone, be cautious at intersections.... big news flash, larry.
The other Inane
I too am interested in this. I believe motorist death rates per vehicles on the road or miles driven have gone down... but I attribute that not to better drivers or better roads, but better passive restraint systems, and crash protection within the vehicle.
Of course the only way to know for sure is to find out what the rate of collisions per mile traveled or number of vehicles.
Here is a link to an international comparison of road fatalities from 1975 to 2005 for OECD nations (including the US). It has data for
deaths per 100,000 population (table 2)
deaths per 10,000 registered vehicle (table 4), and
deaths per 100 Million km traveled (table 6).
Road deaths do not tell the whole picture... especially if the vehicle is equipped with air bags... the passengers inside could survive what at one time would have been a very deadly collision. So have the number of collisions increased while the death rate has declined... that is what would tell us if motorists are improving driving, or the vehicles are just better at protecting them.
invisiblehand
Road deaths do not tell the whole picture... especially if the vehicle is equipped with air bags... .
Let's not forget that seatbeat use has increase during this period.
invisiblehand
Hi Steve. I appreciate your attempt to drag meaningful data into the discussion, and started digging into the NHTSA reports on crashes. I won't have time to drill down into the tables which indicate year-by-year trends in all crashes (not just fatal) until after Tuesday of next week, but the stuff I found indicates that the DOT has been compiling enough info to really track the trends.
An example from 1996 can be found at this link (www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/98.010.PDF)
I looked on the linked page below and did not find similar documents for other years.
In general, I found little accident/collision data but a lot of data on fatalities.
There may be issues with accident/collision data anyway. My initial thought is that not all accidents are reported. Moreover, auto construction and cost of repair may have changed over time altering the propensity to report accidents. So we would probably only observe serious accidents--i.e., "fender benders" are censored--but in my view all of these accidents are serious to cyclists.
bmike
Let's not forget that seatbeat use has increase during this period.
agreed. safety features save more lives, meanwhile we drive more miles, at faster speeds. at some point i suspect we become a bit overconfident in our skills and the technology that we employ... belts, side impact bags, air bags, crush zones, AWD, ABS... (also, fuel economy causes people to drive more - i'll have to dig up the study i found out there...)
so, deaths may go down - but where has accident rates gone?
and how to sort this out against miles driven? per capita? etc.
against increased speed limits? right turn on red? road widening? (how many 8 lane arterials were there pouring into the commercial district in towns in the 1970s?
and this only tells part of the story. what we are trying to get at by looking at this data is if drivers and road usage has changed in the time frame we are discussing. miles traveled and increased speeds should be easy to find, but how do we quantify road rage? anger at cyclists, peds, farm machinery, trucks?
near misses, swerving, etc. that keeps cyclists from the roads? distractions?
invisiblehand
But the psychology of driver interaction, the range of politeness and rudeness while driving, the evident signs of driving while drug impaired, and the actual speeds people drive given similar road conditions really hasn't changed that much here.
OK. I can accept quite a bit of this statement. But I recall that driving distances--both for recreation and commuting--and auto density have changed significantly during this same period. Here I am writing broadly and not referring specifically to Atlanta.
If we took the same person from the 1960s Atlanta and had them drive a 30% longer distance with 30% greater density, would you say that the driver would also be more likely to be rude and aggressive? Mind you, I made up the 30% figure. I don't recall what the precise change has been. If the answer is yes, then we would consider the question, "how much more rude and aggressive?"
Personally, I think it would be foolish to dismiss older cycling experiences as irrelevant. However, I do think that we need to apply an extra filter by considering the auto, social, and environmental changes that have occurred.
Bekologist
how many 8 lane arterials were there pouring into the commercial district in towns in the 1970s?
.....and this only tells part of the story. what we are trying to get at by looking at this data is if drivers and road usage has changed in the time frame we are discussing. miles traveled and increased speeds should be easy to find, but how do we quantify road rage? anger at cyclists, peds, farm machinery, trucks?
near misses, swerving, etc. that keeps cyclists from the roads? distractions?
Hear, hear.
Larry purports static road and driver conditions,yet the differences are glaringly apparant, all over the country. change HAS happened, larry....unless you're living in county Mayberry, state of Denial. -or is that the commonwealth of jhon??? ;)
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.
mandovoodoo
Interesting. I was mulling over the differences in opinion. May depend on what kind of riding one does. 35 years ago I was riding in rural areas on small roads with mixed commuter, service, & farm traffic. Just like I ride now. The differences are quite apparent. Most people know how to pass me and are very polite now. More than 35 years ago. Less people try to kill me on purpose. Very few. One so far. A higher number of people scare me through doing stupid by combining cell phone with SUV. That may be the biggest hazard and didn't exist. I find I'm less worried about attack and accident now. And more worried about urban transplants with common sense deficits.
I may be seeing the result of 35 years+ of continued road bike presence in rural areas. I'm not an oddity. And our road bikers are pleasant, ride well, interact with cars well, and even wave at other cyclists, regardless of the fanciness of their kit.
Shifting to an urban environment, I don't think I'd like to ride in a city anymore. They look worse to me. Hostility and aggression seem greater. I have ridden a bit in DC, terrorizing the MUPs by going way too fast. I'd no longer pop up onto Wisconsin Ave or anything like that, as I would do in the 1970s.
sbhikes
I can't say what it was like during WWII, but the main differences I see between the 70s and now, living in the same exact city all this time:
- Less glass in the street than in the 70s
- More plastic litter than the 70s
- Now there are cell phones and all the bad driving they cause - a regular occurrence, almost daily
- Less drunk driving, more erratic driving and you don't know what is causing it
- More car traffic in general now
- Less dirty-old-men looking to lure you away for sport, and more gangs driving around looking to mess with you for sport
- Less children in public now
Helmet Head
I stumbled upon these photos of San Jose, then and now.
http://www.bvnasj.org/SanJose19752006.htm
Both look great for bike riding to me.
noisebeam
Let's not forget that seatbeat use has increase during this period.
To add to what Gene and invisiblehand noted, so has medical technology (and likely medical response time, with some of that added technology available now on accident site) I understand this is particularly improved for traumatic type injuries (head, vital organs) that today result in life changing injury vs. certain death decades ago.
Al
LittleBigMan
With Atlanta's growth (and sprawl) the main change has been overall increase in number of cars on the road.
You ain't kiddin'...
But I remember when Stone Mountain's N. Hairston was a narrow 45 mph. two-lane ridden with potholes. Now it's a median-divided 4-lane, smooth as silk, and wide as Gramdma's rear-end.
(No offense, G-ma. ;) )
I rode that road in the mid-70's with my teenage bud's in those overpowered GM cars.
The only thing that's changed is that there is more space now for me on my bike.
invisiblehand
Passenger Car Log Accidents to Log Miles on Highways
Note that the count of accidents considers multiple car crashes as a single accident.
I am uncertain what "highway" means in this context.
Ya wanna back that chart up a few decades... maybe at least back to the '70s... possibly back to the 50s. Almost every change we have discussed had occurred by the early '90s. Although admittedly cellphones did not make major inroads in the US until the early to mid 90s, and text messaging until the late 90s.
But primarily you are only viewing about a decade. That is pretty much less than half a generation. Just for reference, air bags were introduced in autos in 1988... and production of airbags ramped up in 1994, with mandatory airbags put into law in 1998.
Kestrelman
Less bombs, bomb craters, and snipers. Haven't been strafed by plane in years. Oh - and those pesky ruts left by tank treads are virtually nonexistent. :D
invisiblehand
Look at the source data ... I would have loved to copy and paste more years.
You will also notice definition changes over the longer range as well.
I-Like-To-Bike
Look at the source data ... I would have loved to copy and paste more years.
You will also notice definition changes over the longer range as well.
I didn't notice, and I am still looking, for any relevance of this data to the subject of changes in cycling conditions over time.
Bekologist
wow, the ratio of accidents to miles on highways is down 1 percent in a decade. impressive??? statistically insignificant, I'd say.
what DOES that have to do with bicycling conditions, anyway?
invisiblehand
I didn't notice, and I am still looking, for any relevance of this data to the subject of changes in cycling conditions over time.
Well ... someone asked for an accident to miles driven statistic. I compiled such a statistic as a service to the community for the data available. Time is changing over the horizontal axis although the range fails to cover the entire period we are interested in.
I recall that the argument is that motor vehicle fatalities per mile driven is a poor proxy for how safe motorists drive and the risk to cyclists. Accidents per mile driven might be a better proxy for this question.
Larry wrote that people claimed that conditions have changed drastically--for the worse--in the recent past such that his older experiences were irrelevant. One could say that the table is suggests that (nationally) conditions are getting better or at least not getting worse in the recent past.
I-Like-To-Bike
Well ... someone asked for an accident to miles driven statistic. I compiled such a statistic as a service to the community for the data available. Time is changing over the horizontal axis although the range fails to cover the entire period we are interested in.
I recall that the argument is that motor vehicle fatalities per mile driven is a poor proxy for how safe motorists drive and the risk to cyclists. Accidents per mile driven might be a better proxy for this question.
Larry wrote that people claimed that conditions have changed drastically--for the worse--in the recent past such that his older experiences were irrelevant. One could say that the table is suggests that (nationally) conditions are getting better or at least not getting worse in the recent past.
Guess I wasn't clear. What is the relevance of data about motor vehicle accidents/miles driven to bicycling conditions?
invisiblehand
wow, the ratio of accidents to miles on highways is down 1 percent in a decade. impressive??? statistically insignificant, I'd say.
what DOES that have to do with bicycling conditions, anyway?
If those are population figures, it would be statistically significant. Even if they are based on national surveys, there is a good chance that the change is significant. But I really don't know much about the source data such that measurement problems could swap the percentage changes. The data is in logarithms by the way.
My understanding of your argument Bek is that life on the roads was getting much worse over this period (unless you believe conditions changed a lot in 70s through 80s and remained the same henceforth). At least in these rough tabulations, one does not observe such an effect. In a perfect world, we would want to break this down further by smaller geographic areas over the longer period. But it appears that such data is unavailable.
Fatalities, as someone else mentioned, per mile has decreased over this period as well.
Mind you, there is an issue of reporting an accident in the first place. The propensity to do may have changed over time as well.
invisiblehand
Guess I wasn't clear. What is the relevance of data about motor vehicle accidents/miles driven to bicycling conditions?
In short, earlier in the thread, people argued that drivers were less attentive making cycling conditions worse. One might expect more accidents if they were less attentive.