Advocacy & Safety - "Safer streets" implies some streets less safe than others?

In the Copenhagen thread, an american bicycle obstructionist made claims that bike lanes in Portland were installed on 'the safer streets' first, minimizing the postive effects of bike specific street planning.

The question was raised that if jhon considers some streets 'safer' than others independant of the bicyclist, what constitutes a 'safer' street and what characteristics combine to create some streets less safe?

john recognizes that some streets are safer for bicycling than others.... how does that play out?

John wants bikes banned from high speed transportation cooridors if slow speed alternatives are available. you better belive he does! (I wonder where his proposed bans would stop? is a 65MPH road merit banning bikes? how about a 55MPH road? a 45 MPH road?) Seems jhon not only thinks some roads are safer than others, but some are meant to be reserved soley for cars, banning bikes for the conveinence of motorists.

discuss.

Where has John advocated banning cyclists from higher speed roads?

Of course some streets are safer for all drivers and/or pedestrians.

Lower (actual) speeds, lower traffic volumes, fewer intersections and good sightlines can make a street safer for all users.

Al

Bek, your threads are getting dumber and dumber. What Al said.

Of course some streets are safer for all drivers and/or pedestrians.

Lower (actual) speeds, lower traffic volumes, fewer intersections and good sightlines can make a street safer for all users.

Al

I whole heartedly agree.

And that being the case there would then be times that a well designed, well constructed separated bike facility, like a bike path or MUP, could, in fact, be a safer alternative to that particular street or road.

This may seem like a no-brainer of a conclusion but one that has been impossible for many who advocate for an all-VC/all the time solution to all problems to accept. I have been taken to task on many occasions in these forums for even implying that some streets are "safer" than others. I've been chastised for being childish, incapable of cycling in a vehicular manner and suffering from phobias for daring to suggest that there are some roads that I avoid and that I prefer a bike path or "safer streets"- sometimes even, God forbid:eek:, ones with a bike lane!!

Bek, your threads are getting dumber and dumber. What Al said.

Actually, head, your mentor jhonny made the assertion first...that bike lanes were installed first in portland on the "safer streets"- implying that some streets are safer than others.

I think we all know that, but to the strict VC all roads are equal arent they? why would john then assert some roads are safer than others? are some roads more suited for bike infrastructure than others like high speed suburban arterials? johns comment impliesa there are some streets unsafe for bicyclists.


and the banning bikes comments were made on this forum. john advocates banning bikes from some high speed transportation cooridors -if a slower speed alternative is availavble -for the conveinence of the motorists... I wonder where he draws the line, and if his metric for roads not suitable for bikes will erode over time to encompass greater and lower speed roads. I can see jhons camp lobbying to ban bikes from freeways, then 55MPH state roads, then 45MPH -if a slower speed road is available as an alternative.


just my thoughts on this glaring contradictions in the forestorite POV.

Actually, head, your mentor jhonny made the assertion first...that bike lanes were installed first in portland on the "safer streets"- implying that some streets are safer than others.

I think we all know that, but to the strict VC all roads are equal arent they? why would john then assert some roads are safer than others? are some roads more suited for bike infrastructure than others like high speed suburban arterials? johns comment impliesa there are some streets unsafe for bicyclists.


and the banning bikes comments were made on this forum. john advocates banning bikes from some high speed transportation cooridors -if a slower speed alternative is availavble -for the conveinence of the motorists... I wonder where he draws the line, and if his metric for roads not suitable for bikes will erode over time to encompass greater and lower speed roads. I can see jhons camp lobbying to ban bikes from freeways, then 55MPH state roads, then 45MPH -if a slower speed road is available as an alternative.


just my thoughts on this glaring contradictions in the forestorite POV.

I asserted that with respect to the Moritz studies, that was in the era when bike lanes were first installed on the streets that the planners thought were safest. I don't know about Portland, and I made no assertion regarding Portland.

You are a fool, Bekologist, to try to describe my opinions as that all streets are equally safe for vehicular cyclists. Or, of course, you are a liar making trouble.

And, of course, nothing in this logic implies that some streets are unsafe for vehicular cyclists; it is just that some are safer than others. Again, Bekologist, you are a liar making trouble out of nothing.

And you are more of a liar by stating that I, or any of my associates, propose, or have any intention to propose, that cyclists should be prohibiting from using any other highways than legal freeways for which there is a route on normal roads that is equally suitable for cyclists.

I have no compunction, not any more, for describing you as a liar about to create trouble out of nonsense.

I whole heartedly agree.

And that being the case there would then be times that a well designed, well constructed separated bike facility, like a bike path or MUP, could, in fact, be a safer alternative to that particular street or road.

This may seem like a no-brainer of a conclusion but one that has been impossible for many who advocate for an all-VC/all the time solution to all problems to accept. I have been taken to task on many occasions in these forums for even implying that some streets are "safer" than others. I've been chastised for being childish, incapable of cycling in a vehicular manner and suffering from phobias for daring to suggest that there are some roads that I avoid and that I prefer a bike path or "safer streets"- sometimes even, God forbid:eek:, ones with a bike lane!!

No, buzzman. You have been chastized for claiming, incorrectly, that some particular treatment makes a road safer when there is no evidence for that claim, and, generally speaking, that that claim is contrary to the evidence that is known.

.....some particular treatment makes a road safer when there is no evidence for that claim, and, generally speaking, that that claim is contrary to the evidence that is known.

So this treatment doesn't make this highway safer for cyclists?....
(Warning VC zealots, you may find the following pics offensive :p)

A reinforced concrete barrier which is about 3 or 4 feet thick at its base, over 4 feet tall...
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x248/cyclaholic_album/cycleways/seg01.jpg

This cycleway is a bicycle freeway with its own on/off ramps which interconnect with hundreds of local MUPs. It forms a huge interconnected network which parallels the arterial roads. You can see an on/off ramp in the pic, just off to the right. It links with the road running underneath that overpass up ahead. Look at the wear marks on the ashphalt, you can clearly see the usage pattern i.e. cyclists respect the marked centerline and behave in accordance with the "rules of the cycleway".....
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x248/cyclaholic_album/cycleways/seg06.jpg

This is a bridge over another arterial (with its own segregated cycleway) I took this pic while it was being built, it's lit up like christmas now....
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x248/cyclaholic_album/cycleways/seg05.jpg

This is how the local MUPs cross major arterials with grade separated overpasses...
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x248/cyclaholic_album/cycleways/seg03.jpg

On that arterial (on every single road pictured here, in fact) you have the option of riding on the roadway if you wish, but why would you want to when you have a really nice separate cycleway right next to it? I took this pic from the overpass in the previous pic. Notice that the cycleway on the left is not a sidewalk. There are no driveways, only connected MUPs like the one I circled in red. The right hand side is a sidewalk....
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x248/cyclaholic_album/cycleways/seg07.jpg

controlled intersections accomodate all classes of vehichles...
http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x248/cyclaholic_album/cycleways/seg04.jpg

Anyone want to see the segregated busway with parallel segregated cycleway? it's part of a very functional public transpost system that links all the commercial and industrial areas. :D

^^^^ Im moving to Sydney, tomorrow ! :D

Politics, infrastructure, worker policies.....:cry:
Why are we sooooo far behind civilized countries ?

It's probably worth noting that the relative difference in safety between two streets is significantly less for an experienced vehicular cyclist than for an inexperienced cyclist who rides contrary to the rules of the road (assuming that safety is measured in terms of likelihood of being in an injury causing conflict with a motor vehicle).

Let's say we have roads A and B, with A very quiet and very little traffic, simple quiet intersections with good sight lines, etc., while B is very busy with lots of traffic, including cross traffic and blind intersections.

An experienced/attentive vehicular cyclist would be very safe on Road B (because his behavior makes the odds of him being in a crash so low despite the high traffic), but even a bit safer on Road A (where the odds of a crash are even lower).

The inattentive inexperienced non-vehicular cyclist would be safe on Road A too, simply because the odds of encountering a conflict are so low there, even for how he rides. But on B he would be much less safe than the experienced/attentive vehicular cyclist.

Most cyclists fall somewhere in between on the spectrum with one of these two hypothetical cyclists at each extreme, and, so, the relatively difference in safety between such roads for most cyclists falls somewhere in between too.

But the safety of a given road for a given cyclist depends much more on the behavior and practices of the cyclist than on the road itself. That's the main point.

So this treatment doesn't make this highway safer for cyclists?....
(Warning VC zealots, you may find the following pics offensive :p)

:D

OMG enough to make me cry... that was simply beautiful.

However I did notice that everyone is driving on the wrong side of the road... that simply won't do... perhaps with the right education, those motorists can be convinced to drive properly... :D



BTW the wear patterns on the bike path were interesting... how much bike traffic is there... those pics looked awful lonely.

OMG enough to make me cry... that was simply beautiful.

However I did notice that everyone is driving on the wrong side of the road... that simply won't do... perhaps with the right education, those motorists can be convinced to drive properly... :D

:p




BTW the wear patterns on the bike path were interesting... how much bike traffic is there... those pics looked awful lonely.
I took that pic on a winter weekday after morning rush hour, if I recall correctly. I've noticed that the patterns of traffic tend to mirror car traffic in that during the week the predominant traffic is commuters during AM & PM peak times, then families with kids in the evenings. On the weekends you see pelotons of lycra clad roadies early mornings and a mix of commuter/recreational/family with kids the rest of the time.

It seems to have become busier over the past 12 - 18 months and I'd be hard pressed to find it empty like that these days. One day I'll post a picture of when it gets busy, it's such a beautifull sight. :D You also need to bear in mind that this is on the outskirts of the suburban sprawl, the area beyond that freeway is still rural. The city of Sydney would be about 40km away so all this cycling infrastructure is currently under utilised (as is the freeway) but it's about accomodating future cyclists along this suburban development corridor. One of the universal truths about transport infrastructure is build it and they will come That's why I firmly beleive that you need this sort of infrastructure if you're ever going grow the percentage of transportation/utility cyclists (vehichular or otherwise) into double digits and beyond.

I asserted that with respect to the Moritz studies, that was in the era when bike lanes were first installed on the streets that the planners thought were safest. I don't know about Portland, and I made no assertion regarding Portland.


rants and raves of the angry curmudgeon follows



jhon, sorry to have confused your anti-infrastructure diatribe in the Copenhagen thread. You lumped Moritz' studies into your smear of Portland. My apologies.

Your assertions that YES, some streets are safer than others is what this thread was meant to draw out. Illuminate us, john, what makes some streets safer for bicycling than others? Low speeds, low traffic, wide lanes? what makes streets less safe for bicyclists? high speeds, heavy traffic, limited sightlines, agressive motor traffic? around bars at closing time?

what do you mean when you describe 'safer' streets?

And hey, banning bikes from certain high speed cooridors if a slow speed alternative exists IS your point of view, jhon.

I simply speculate about where the slippery slope stops if you're already lobbying to ban bikes from some transportation cooridors for the benefit of motorists. just freeways? what about limited access highways? and then it will be 50MPH roads.....

:p




I took that pic on a winter weekday after morning rush hour, if I recall correctly. I've noticed that the patterns of traffic tend to mirror car traffic in that during the week the predominant traffic is commuters during AM & PM peak times, then families with kids in the evenings. On the weekends you see pelotons of lycra clad roadies early mornings and a mix of commuter/recreational/family with kids the rest of the time.

It seems to have become busier over the past 12 - 18 months and I'd be hard pressed to find it empty like that these days. One day I'll post a picture of when it gets busy, it's such a beautifull sight. :D You also need to bear in mind that this is on the outskirts of the suburban sprawl, the area beyond that freeway is still rural. The city of Sydney would be about 40km away so all this cycling infrastructure is currently under utilised (as is the freeway) but it's about accomodating future cyclists along this suburban development corridor. One of the universal truths about transport infrastructure is build it and they will come That's why I firmly beleive that you need this sort of infrastructure if you're ever going grow the percentage of transportation/utility cyclists (vehichular or otherwise) into double digits and beyond.

Reaching out to the suburbs is what it is all about... giving cyclists a choice other than either motor freeways or high speed arterial roads with near freeway speeds is what I have been talking about. The city core generally consists of lower speed streets (25-30MPH) which are quite useable by a vehicular cyclist, but reaching the core is often only available through very autocenteric high speed roads.

What is the width of the "bike freeways" you posted here? I have found that a path that allows 2 side by side cyclists in both directions also tends to be about a motor vehicle width wide... which ultimately allows for maintenance, safety and security by regular services such as police and ambulance. Also wider paths have larger radius turns which allow cyclists to move at higher speeds.

OMG enough to make me cry... that was simply beautiful.

I can take photos where I live that look nearly identical to these. But the paths where I live are impractical for most destinations, are used by people who are not just traveling thru, have poor intersection with other paths, sidewalks and roads they cross, etc.
Here are two that forum member wheel took:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=3956237&postcount=1

Here is one of a bike overpass I took:
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/CRW_8863-8866wec.jpg

I am not suggesting that they Sydney paths have these same downsides.

Al

I can take photos where I live that look nearly identical to these. But the paths where I live are impractical for most destinations, are used by people who are not just traveling thru, have poor intersection with other paths, sidewalks and roads they cross, etc.

I am not suggesting that they Sidney paths have these same downsides.

Al

Really? I love to see photos of your local high speed bicycle freeways. But I have to ask if those bike freeways have "have poor intersection with other paths, sidewalks and roads they cross, etc" then perhaps they are not "nearly identical" to those in Sidney. That's the catch 22. Here in the US of A we tend to get marginal, poorly planned paths as an afterthought, more geared to recreation vice transportation.

Near my office is a great path, though roughly only 5 miles in length; it butts up against a narrower path, which extends the whole length of off street path to about 8 miles, however, the quality of the path is not consistent, there is one poorly planned area that floods at the first sign of rain, and ridiculously enough, the western end has no decent connection to the street... there are curbs and a dirt path which forces cyclists to walk their bikes.

Another local path has 4 steps and no curb cuts. Other local paths are akin to waste asphalt: lumpy and narrow, no stripes, no signage and sharp turns. This is typical of what I have seen in various places around America, devoted to cyclists. Let's not forget that most paths are in the jurisdiction of parks departments.

This sort of treatment is due to the over all view that bikes are not viable transportation, but are "toys." This same viewpoint also allows freeway like arterial roads to be built that are anything but "friendly" to cyclists.

The result of this is that only a few very dedicated cyclists chose to cycle regularly... The result of this are very crowded roads and a national transportation agency seeking solutions.

What do you suggest?

Really? I love to see photos of your local high speed bicycle freeways.

Did you see the photos by wheel in the link above:
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=38392&d=1172858718
http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=38393&d=1172858727



But I have to ask if those bike freeways have "have poor intersection with other paths, sidewalks and roads they cross, etc" then perhaps they are not "nearly identical" to those in Sidney.

I said they 'look' nearly identical. Not that they are in function. The point is one can take photos from the right place and angle and only show the good. Far more instructive to show usefulness are maps showing the bike path and photos of the intersections, not the clear unobstructed sections.

Again, I am not suggesting, nor do I think that the photos of the Sydney paths were taken to only show the good.

Take a look at the photo I posted above, the two from wheel in the link and these below and note the similar look.
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/CRW_7779-001 copy.jpg
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/CRW_8568-01 copy.jpg
http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/CRW_8769-01 copy.jpg

And this video of a cycle path, showing the hazards (which I fully support being there)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFcKQF-3h8M

Al

It looks like just what I mentioned... recreation paths, with no consideration for transportation.

We don't see too many auto freeways built to go nowhere... do we?

It looks like just what I mentioned... recreation paths, with no consideration for transportation.

We don't see too many auto freeways built to go nowhere... do we?

How can you tell the Sydney photos show paths that 'go somewhere' and the Arizona ones don't?

(The AZ ones actually go somewhere, but not everywhere and not always for much (>10mi) distance.

Al

jhon, sorry to have confused your anti-infrastructure diatribe in the Copenhagen thread. You lumped Moritz' studies into your smear of Portland. My apologies.

Your assertions that YES, some streets are safer than others is what this thread was meant to draw out. Illuminate us, john, what makes some streets safer for bicycling than others? Low speeds, low traffic, wide lanes? what makes streets less safe for bicyclists? high speeds, heavy traffic, limited sightlines, agressive motor traffic? around bars at closing time?

what do you mean when you describe 'safer' streets?

And hey, banning bikes from certain high speed cooridors if a slow speed alternative exists IS your point of view, jhon.

I simply speculate about where the slippery slope stops if you're already lobbying to ban bikes from some transportation cooridors for the benefit of motorists. just freeways? what about limited access highways? and then it will be 50MPH roads.....

Regardless of your apology, the rest of your posting is more of your typical work. Again, you are either ignorant of what you write so nastily, or you know the facts and are deliberately lying. I don't know which it is, but either set of acts is despicable. I have never lobbied to have any road closed to cyclists; rather, I have done the reverse, worked to prevent roads being closed to cyclists, or to open roads that have been closed.

As for what you consider to be the features that make one street more dangerous than another, they are mostly of little significance. The fact that you choose to offer these examples is another demonstration of how ignorant you are about traffic operation.

How can you tell the Sydney photos show paths that 'go somewhere' and the Arizona ones don't?

(The AZ ones actually go somewhere, but not everywhere and not always for much (>10mi) distance.

Al

I cannot tell. I can guess... based on the fact that the path paralleled a freeway... most likely there is some destination at the end of the path and freeway. Otherwise, I am only going by the word of the poster. How can you tell that the Oulu paths went anywhere... You are going to have to take my word for it... and the fact that I posted links that show that the paths went "everywhere."

I can however make the supposition based on what I usually see in the US that the paths you posted are probably for recreation only.

The path close to my office does in fact tie together two separate communities that recently were tied together with a freeway (one that moments after being built has suffered from the typical "parking lot" stop and go traffic). The "56 path" does offer an alternative to those that cycle to get from Sorrento Valley to Rancho Bernardo/Poway. However, even that path has limitations dictated by the non-cycling community... some of whom referred to cyclists as "kiddos" in the area council meetings; thus showing their bias toward those they believe are cyclists... never mind that the representing cyclists were in their 40s and 50s. (of course that path has the dumb "barrier to entry" of no curb cuts, no signs and cyclists having to walk their bikes to gain entry)

This bias is what needs to be overcome before real transportation paths will start to be accepted and properly engineered throughout this country. Until then, cyclists are "kiddos" and bikes are "toys" and the response of the transportation secretary is to be expected regarding paths to nowhere maintained by parks departments.

It is not as if we need to tie every home to a path to every destination. Low speed surface streets (in typical residential areas and downtown cores) serve cyclists well. But if a freeway is offered to motorists, then the same consideration should be given to cyclists. If a high speed arterial is the only way to access a suburb, then provisions need to be made for cyclists... whether it is a very wide outside lane or an separated path.

When a suitable network, without "barriers to entry" exists, then people will feel safe and will pursue cycling as a transportation alternative.

I cannot tell. I can guess... based on the fact that the path paralleled a freeway... most likely there is some destination at the end of the path and freeway.

The first of the two photos by wheel that I showed above parallels a freeway - it can a useful connection link. It is the red path through Phoenix Mountain Preserves that parallels the 51 freeway. See attachment.

As to destinations at the 'end' of freeways, guess what is most common? More freeways! ;)

This link (http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/bike-map05-front.pdf) (warning 12MB pdf) shows the full bike map of phx-metro. The solid red lines are paved off street bike paths. Biggest problem with them is they are on diagonals and cross many streets with no intersection control. Many have gates across them requiring cyclist to ride off of pavement to get around the gates - only a problem when its muddy like now.

Al

The first of the two photos by wheel that I showed above parallels a freeway - it can a useful connection link. It is the red path through Phoenix Mountain Preserves that parallels the 51 freeway. See attachment.

As to destinations at the 'end' of freeways, guess what is most common? More freeways! ;)

This link (http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/bike-map05-front.pdf) (warning 12MB pdf) shows the full bike map of phx-metro. The solid red lines are paved off street bike paths. Biggest problem with them is they are on diagonals and cross many streets with no intersection control. Many have gates across them requiring cyclist to ride off of pavement to get around the gates - only a problem when its muddy like now.

Al


The bolded statement above is what we have to change... imagine if motorists had to face gated freeways... and get out of their cars, walk around three times before proceeding... that is akin to what we face with the current mentality that prevails around "bikes as toys" thinking.

The bolded statement above is what we have to change... imagine if motorists had to face gated freeways... and get out of their cars, walk around three times before proceeding... that is akin to what we face with the current mentality that prevails around "bikes as toys" thinking.

Yet local bike advocates ask for those gates to prevent the occasional kid on an ATV riding a canal path (they could get thru the previous vertical poles, so more was needed I guess). They ask for sidewalk street facing cross walk buttons instead of inductive sensors that work for bicycles, because getting off the bike and pressing a button gets one out of the way of cars.

Al

Yet local bike advocates ask for those gates to prevent the occasional kid on an ATV riding a canal path (they could get thru the previous vertical poles, so more was needed I guess). They ask for sidewalk street facing cross walk buttons instead of inductive sensors that work for bicycles, because getting off the bike and pressing a button gets one out of the way of cars.

Al

Are they asking for these things or settling for them?

Getting back to the safer streets focus of the thread. I noted in earlier post that lower speeds, lower volumes and fewer intersections can make for safer driving.

I find it is the intersections on lower volume lower speed streets that create more potential safety issue vs. found on faster higher volume streets.

All my 'close calls' have been on streets that many would classify as safer, that is 25mph residential streets. These have involved drivers pulling thru intersections with barely slowing, let alone the required stop, pedestrians crossing without looking (assuming they can hear a car coming), kid cyclists riding haphazardly and the more expected frequent driveway exits and pulling in/out of on street residential parking.

None of this happens on faster higher volume roads (45mph arterials). Drivers stop before entering as they know the severe consequences of not doing so. Peds look before crossing as there is always traffic and engine noise from some lane, kids on bikes avoid goofing around on such arterials for obvious reasons. Drivers, both cycling and motoring and pedestrians are paying more attention overall. There is a much narrower band of 'unexpected' behavior.

Al

I don't think high speed is all that important when it comes to whether a street is safe or not. A high speed street with a lot of intersections and not much room, yeah, not too safe. A high speed street with lots of room and no intersections is just fine.

Seems for a street to be safe it should have few intersections and lots of room.

I don't think high speed is all that important when it comes to whether a street is safe or not. A high speed street with a lot of intersections and not much room, yeah, not too safe. A high speed street with lots of room and no intersections is just fine.

Seems for a street to be safe it should have few intersections and lots of room.

These 25mph residential streets have much wider lanes than the arterials do. That doesn't alone make them safer - it makes no difference actually as the potential surprise dangers come from the forward angles.

Al

snipped

The path close to my office does in fact tie together two separate communities that recently were tied together with a freeway (one that moments after being built has suffered from the typical "parking lot" stop and go traffic). The "56 path" does offer an alternative to those that cycle to get from Sorrento Valley to Rancho Bernardo/Poway. However, even that path has limitations dictated by the non-cycling community... some of whom referred to cyclists as "kiddos" in the area council meetings; thus showing their bias toward those they believe are cyclists... never mind that the representing cyclists were in their 40s and 50s. (of course that path has the dumb "barrier to entry" of no curb cuts, no signs and cyclists having to walk their bikes to gain entry)

This bias is what needs to be overcome before real transportation paths will start to be accepted and properly engineered throughout this country. Until then, cyclists are "kiddos" and bikes are "toys" and the response of the transportation secretary is to be expected regarding paths to nowhere maintained by parks departments.

snipped


My comments refer to both the postings by genec and by noisebeam about this subject.

You appear to think that this attitude and treatment by the public should not be expected. I say, rather, that you should have expected to meet this attitude and treatment, because you people are part of the continuing cause of this treatment. The American attitude about bicycle traffic has been the same for seventy years, that cyclists, being children who are unable to operate in the vehicular manner, should not have the right to so operate. As I have told you time and again, this attitude was created by the motoring establishment without input by cyclists. It was first an unofficial attitude; then it crept into law with the restrictions to the side of the road and to sidepaths, which expressed the public attitude although having little effect on adult cyclists; this attitude was then institutionalized as the bikeway system; it is now being vigorously supported not only by the motorists who wanted, but by the bicycle advocates. You've gotten what you worked for, haven't you?

Instead of buckling down to what the motorists desire, people who consider themselves to be advocates for cyclists should have been standing up for their rights as adults competent to operate as drivers of vehicles, fighting for your rights and status instead of bowing down to the attitudes and discrimination of motorists. I have, always, while you bicycle advocates have not.

but john, your attitude is to get the bikes out of the way of the automobiles almost as vigorously as these purported antibicycling forces.....

out of the way of cars on the shoulders of high speed roads, and banned from some transportation cooridors (freeways)

why does the vc want bikes off the road, out of the way of the cars, riding on shoulders or banned from freeway cooridors?

and why did you describe some streets safer than others? what makes a street safer? or are you disengenously insisting all roads are equally safe for bicycling?

Getting back to the safer streets focus of the thread. I noted in earlier post that lower speeds, lower volumes and fewer intersections can make for safer driving.

I find it is the intersections on lower volume lower speed streets that create more potential safety issue vs. found on faster higher volume streets.

All my 'close calls' have been on streets that many would classify as safer, that is 25mph residential streets. These have involved drivers pulling thru intersections with barely slowing, let alone the required stop, pedestrians crossing without looking (assuming they can hear a car coming), kid cyclists riding haphazardly and the more expected frequent driveway exits and pulling in/out of on street residential parking.

None of this happens on faster higher volume roads (45mph arterials). Drivers stop before entering as they know the severe consequences of not doing so. Peds look before crossing as there is always traffic and engine noise from some lane, kids on bikes avoid goofing around on such arterials for obvious reasons. Drivers, both cycling and motoring and pedestrians are paying more attention overall. There is a much narrower band of 'unexpected' behavior.

Al

I have had the same experience. I switched from a slow, quiet, marked "bike route" to a street with heavier traffic after having to avoid several collisions with motorists who violated my right-of-way. On a quiet street they expect to see no traffic, so they pretend to look for something large while rolling through the stop signs.

it is now being vigorously supported not only by the motorists who wanted, but by the bicycle advocates.

It's easier to coddle peoples' irrational fears than it is to overcome them. Bicycle advocates who are too attached to the notion of promoting cycling can't resist unethical short-cuts, like creating illusions with road paint and allowing our rights to be abridged to a debris-filled margin.

My comments refer to both the postings by genec and by noisebeam about this subject.

You appear to think that this attitude and treatment by the public should not be expected. I say, rather, that you should have expected to meet this attitude and treatment, because you people are part of the continuing cause of this treatment. The American attitude about bicycle traffic has been the same for seventy years, that cyclists, being children who are unable to operate in the vehicular manner, should not have the right to so operate. As I have told you time and again, this attitude was created by the motoring establishment without input by cyclists. It was first an unofficial attitude; then it crept into law with the restrictions to the side of the road and to sidepaths, which expressed the public attitude although having little effect on adult cyclists; this attitude was then institutionalized as the bikeway system; it is now being vigorously supported not only by the motorists who wanted, but by the bicycle advocates. You've gotten what you worked for, haven't you?

Instead of buckling down to what the motorists desire, people who consider themselves to be advocates for cyclists should have been standing up for their rights as adults competent to operate as drivers of vehicles, fighting for your rights and status instead of bowing down to the attitudes and discrimination of motorists. I have, always, while you bicycle advocates have not.
What did noisebeam post that makes anything you said apply to him?
How is noisebeam a "part of the continuing cause of this treatment"?
He is the one who wrote:


But the paths where I live are impractical for most destinations, are used by people who are not just traveling thru, have poor intersection with other paths, sidewalks and roads they cross, etc.
That sounds like something you would write, doesn't it?

I don't see how noisebeam is advocating anything that would explain the mistreatment of cyclists. His advocacy is not bike advocacy, but cyclist advocacy, and, as near as I can tell, is almost identical to yours.

Getting back to the safer streets focus of the thread. I noted in earlier post that lower speeds, lower volumes and fewer intersections can make for safer driving.

I find it is the intersections on lower volume lower speed streets that create more potential safety issue vs. found on faster higher volume streets.

All my 'close calls' have been on streets that many would classify as safer, that is 25mph residential streets. These have involved drivers pulling thru intersections with barely slowing, let alone the required stop, pedestrians crossing without looking (assuming they can hear a car coming), kid cyclists riding haphazardly and the more expected frequent driveway exits and pulling in/out of on street residential parking.

None of this happens on faster higher volume roads (45mph arterials). Drivers stop before entering as they know the severe consequences of not doing so. Peds look before crossing as there is always traffic and engine noise from some lane, kids on bikes avoid goofing around on such arterials for obvious reasons. Drivers, both cycling and motoring and pedestrians are paying more attention overall. There is a much narrower band of 'unexpected' behavior.

Al



I have noticed this as well, and like CommuterBOBbie, I also have switched one section of my commute from a quieter street to a busier multilane arterial for those very same reasons as stated above.

What did noisebeam post that makes anything you said apply to him?
How is noisebeam a "part of the continuing cause of this treatment"?
He is the one who wrote:


That sounds like something you would write, doesn't it?

I don't see how noisebeam is advocating anything that would explain the mistreatment of cyclists. His advocacy is not bike advocacy, but cyclist advocacy, and, as near as I can tell, is almost identical to yours.

Yes, I apologize to noisebeam. I didn't want to write multiple posts on this subject, and I looked for the other source of such comments. Noisebeam had written: "Yet local bike advocates ask for those gates to prevent the occasional kid on an ATV riding a canal path (they could get thru the previous vertical poles, so more was needed I guess). They ask for sidewalk street facing cross walk buttons instead of inductive sensors that work for bicycles, because getting off the bike and pressing a button gets one out of the way of cars." I read that again, quickly, without realizing that Noisebeam was expressing criticism of those he described, and so included his name.

How can you tell the Sydney photos show paths that 'go somewhere' and the Arizona ones don't?

(The AZ ones actually go somewhere, but not everywhere and not always for much (>10mi) distance.

Al

The pictures I posted are on my old commute which was 66 miles a day r/t, all on cycleways. I now commute 40 - 50 miles a day in the opposite direction, also on cycleways for 80% of the way. The variation in distance is because I have 2 completely different cycleways to choose from, one is a longer route that follows a river and is very pleasant, the other is less scenic but a bit shorter. Just depends how I feel on the day.

I also use the cycleways to access long distance public transport (they go to the railway and bus stations), all shopping areas, and to the industrial areas. The cycleways to the industrial areas are the ones that really tell you that it's a transport network, they're really not very pleasant as far as recreational riding goes and the only traffic I see on them are commuters. In short, yes they do go somewhere.

I could use the roads to access these same areas but in most cases it would take longer.

but john, your attitude is to get the bikes out of the way of the automobiles almost as vigorously as these purported antibicycling forces.....

out of the way of cars on the shoulders of high speed roads, and banned from some transportation cooridors (freeways)

why does the vc want bikes off the road, out of the way of the cars, riding on shoulders or banned from freeway cooridors?

and why did you describe some streets safer than others? what makes a street safer? or are you disengenously insisting all roads are equally safe for bicycling?

More lies from you, Bekologist, about my motives. I have denied them before, and do so again. I realize that the group lets you continue to behave in your socially unacceptable manner, but, I would hope, I would even think, that you might care a bit about the character that you present to all.

I guess thanks for the defense HH and thanks for the apology JF. I was just gonna let it slide as it wasn't a big deal to me to get 'grouped' in one side of the debate or another for just a moment. Everyone has valid thoughts on the matter.
Al

nasty material snipped

and why did you describe some streets safer than others? what makes a street safer? or are you disengenously insisting all roads are equally safe for bicycling?

The known major causes of car-bike collisions are turning and crossing traffic. The amount of such, and the controls to make them safer, are the primary factors to consider in considering the traffic safety of a street. The known major causes of cyclist crashes are surface defects; particularly dangerous are slots parallel to movement. These and other defects should also be considered.

I come here and lurk whenever I feel that things are hopeless in Politics & Religion.

A thread like this puts it all into perspective.

I come here and lurk whenever I feel that things are hopeless in Politics & Religion.

A thread like this puts it all into perspective.

Welcome to the trainwreck subforum... a place for those who choose fast and heavily trafficked arterial roads over quiet back streets in the name of safety. :D (anything less would just be "childish":rolleyes:)

Yes, I apologize to noisebeam. I didn't want to write multiple posts on this subject, and I looked for the other source of such comments. Noisebeam had written: "Yet local bike advocates ask for those gates to prevent the occasional kid on an ATV riding a canal path (they could get thru the previous vertical poles, so more was needed I guess). They ask for sidewalk street facing cross walk buttons instead of inductive sensors that work for bicycles, because getting off the bike and pressing a button gets one out of the way of cars." I read that again, quickly, without realizing that Noisebeam was expressing criticism of those he described, and so included his name.
I thought it was something like that. Thanks for the correction!

I guess thanks for the defense HH and thanks for the apology JF. I was just gonna let it slide as it wasn't a big deal to me to get 'grouped' in one side of the debate or another for just a moment. Everyone has valid thoughts on the matter.
Al
My concern wasn't so much you being grouped incorrectly; it's that the grouping indicated a probable misunderstanding of something somewhere by someone (possibly me). That's what I wanted to straighten out.

More lies from you, Bekologist, about my motives. I have denied them before, and do so again. I realize that the group lets you continue to behave in your socially unacceptable manner, but, I would hope, I would even think, that you might care a bit about the character that you present to all.

ah, the indignant ploy. taking an illusory high ground, eh?
jhon, maybe this should be the subject of another thread (and it will be) but you DO support banning bikes from certain roads if slower speed alternatives are available.

Simply because you only support the ban on freeways in no way diminishes the FACT you support banning bikes from some roads - is that for the benefit of the motorists or the safety of the bicyclist? WHY do you support banning bikes on some types of roads (freeways) - is it safety of bikes or conveinence of the motorists?

actually, lets take it to another thread. but you claim I lie about your 'motives' why you support banning bikes from some roads. you're right, I DON'T understand your motives for bans on bikes from some roads. just that you do suppport it.

I'm concerned, after you pass away, jhon, that some of your acolytes might further the ban of bikes from some roads (freeways) to include limited access highways, then high speed arterials, if a slower speed alternative is available.

It's scary, jhon. and you already support bans of bikes from some roads (freeways).

Correct? the high and mighty vehicular cyklist supports banning bikes from some roads (freeways) and pushing bikes off on other slower speed roads. this is not a lie.

thats' a little motorist superiority disorder you're exhibiting, jhon!

ah, the indignant ploy. taking an illusory high ground, eh?
jhon, maybe this should be the subject of another thread (and it will be) but you DO support banning bikes from certain roads if slower speed alternatives are available.

Simply because you only support the ban on freeways in no way diminishes the FACT you support banning bikes from some roads - is that for the benefit of the motorists or the safety of the bicyclist? WHY do you support banning bikes on some types of roads (freeways) - is it safety of bikes or conveinence of the motorists?

actually, lets take it to another thread. but you claim I lie about your 'motives' why you support banning bikes from some roads. you're right, I DON'T understand your motives for bans on bikes from some roads. just that you do suppport it.

I'm concerned, after you pass away, jhon, that some of your acolytes might further the ban of bikes from some roads (freeways) to include limited access highways, then high speed arterials, if a slower speed alternative is available.

It's scary, jhon. and you already support bans of bikes from some roads (freeways).

Correct? the high and mighty vehicular cyklist supports banning bikes from some roads (freeways) and pushing bikes off on other slower speed roads. this is not a lie.

thats' a little motorist superiority disorder you're exhibiting, jhon!
What's wrong with banning drivers of ALL slow moving vehicles (including bicyclists, of course) from certain roads, like freeways, specifically designed for high speed travel?

You act like you have thought of something new. :rolleyes:

ahh, and the slippery slope could then extend to highways designed for motorists to travel 60MPH? and then high speed arterials, eh? They are also designed for 'high speed' travel. if a slow speed road is nearby, I can see jhon eventually suporting bans of bikes from even 50MPH arterials designed for 'high speed travel'.

Why can't bikes ride on the shoulders of the freeways, helemt? Is that for the conveinence of the motorists or the safety of the bicyclist? I would think john would fight for the right for bikes to use any transportation cooridor. after all we are vehicles, right?


Why not lobby for bikes to use the shoulders of freeways? that's one of the places the VC think its okay to ride to stay out of the way of the motorists, head. But no, the vc support bans of bikes along some high speed transportation cooridors. for the benefit of motorists.

I predict some new VC twist will be to support banning bikes from more and more high speed roads for the convienence of the motorists.

What are you going on about Bek? Who is wanting to ban cyclists - where did they say so?

In Arizona cyclists can use the shoulder of all rural interstates/freeways. They are only prohibited from specific urban freeway/interstate all of which have better alternate route options:
http://www.azbikeclub.com/interst.html
http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/Traffic/standards/PGP/TM1030.pdf
http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/freeway/bkfwcr02.pdf

It has been cyclists of the vehicular type who helped ensured this no-ban policy was established.

Al

john supports bans on bikes from freeways if a slow speed alternative is available. john supports banning bikes from some roads for the convienence of motorists.

yeah, we can ride on almost all of the freeway miles in WA state. And I want it that way.

That should be another thread, I was more concerned about the alleged safety/ less safe assertion made in another thread by john forestor.

I agree with you that some residential streets can be more filled with hazardous conditions than some arterials.

I wanted to know what john thought made a street safe versus less safe. he's anwsered it adequately enough -

surface conditions, volume of crossing and turning traffic.

I think he forgot topography, thru traffic volumes and speed, lane width, etc, but hey, he's the 'expert' :roflmao:

Yes, Bek, I would expect bicyclists to be banned from all roads where drivers of slow moving vehicles are not allowed, not just freeways. That's being treated equally. You should learn to recognize it, and appreciate it.

There is no slippery slope, unless you support banning of bicyclists on roads where drivers of other slow moving vehicles are not banned.