John Forester's thinking in Canada's Transportation Planning

[The Human Car]

Allen M ...? I have a hard time making these meetings. I see him at WABA meetings when I show up every blue moon. But they meet in Bethesda which is a pretty inconvenient hike for me.

Ya Allen M, if you can't make the meetings drop him a line.

[invisiblehand]

Here you go mixing up my 30+ years experience and assuming that all cyclists have the same level of skill.

You are talking apples and oranges.

Not all cyclists are going to have the experience that you, John F, and I, and even noisebeam have.

{much more snipped}

Gene, I think that your point about the rest of population is a good one. That is, my conclusion from the research out there that in terms of some vague notion of safety, one is unable to reject the hypothesis that X>Y or Y>X with regards to bike lane or WOL safety. I don't know how complete the literature is -- I do this part-time -- but it does seem that "improvements" -- which I understand as road improvements with a bike lane or WOL -- does result in a better safety record relative to the pre-improved road.

--> The research that comes to mind was done in Texas. I recall they attributed the improvement to bike lanes, but such an effect cannot be identified statistically. <--

My take on this is that if you can get road improvements, then one should seriously consider implementing them even if a bike lane comes in hand. We can theoretically argue about what is better or worse conditioned on the environment; but most of it seems based on speculation. Consequently, I don't see the point getting all riled up about smartly striped lanes that come packaged with other things that we are fairly confident improve our circumstances.

I don't recall of any research that interacts bike lanes (of the non perverse type), WOLs, or other road improvements with cycling experience to analyze safety. Although I suspect that those with less experience would benefit more than old-timers. So if it is the case that the public wants better roads and facilities that have cyclists in mind and they meet particular standards, I think that more cooperative stance would produce better results than an obtrusive position.

I understand the argument that bike lanes represent the slippery slope in limiting cyclist rights to the road. But I have serious reservations about such an effect being meaningful. One, if bike lanes do remove driver delays due to cyclists, then the impetus for enacting such legislation is diminished. Two, cyclists just don't represent much of a problem in the first place to warrant legislation. Three, there are some legal protections to travel that would have to be overcome -- not impossible in my opinion, but still difficult -- in order for our rights to be seriously impeded.

None of this, however, answers the question whether bike-specific facilities really make sense from a societal point of view. Is the extra cost of a bike lane relative to a WOL or no change for that matter -- or any other facility -- a good investment for society? Personally, as I have written in the past, I would go for the low-hanging fruit and see what happens.

I'll plug this here since it has been floating around in my cobwebbed brain lately. John F., you mentioned transportation engineering and human factor principles in another post. What is the scientific basis -- and how well have they performed with regards to forecasts/prediction -- of these principles?

[The Human Car]

Please stop with the personal attacks, Beck.

May I make a suggestion, contact the mods rather then post in the thread. I don't want to read Beck's insults and I don't really want to read about your comments on them ether. The mods can handle things quietly and fairly and as a result everyone can keep their dignity and the forum ends up a little nicer place read.

[RobertHurst]

...

Note that similar cost analysis explains why more people choose bicycling in areas where they do (like Portland and Amsterdam).

No it doesn't. Or are you laboring under the assumption that the 'cost of motoring' is significantly greater in Portland than in other cities of similar size?

Robert

[Bekologist]

I'm sorry helmet head, but john forester's theories have been called 'engineering prejudices' in the Canadian bicycling press and I stick no disrespect reiterating the Canadian perspective on john foresters ideas.

[randya]

Cars are not a problem as long as their drivers understand that I'm on the road behaving as a vehicle just like them. And the majority of motorists, with a few exceptions, seem to understand this.

:roflmao:


The reality is that the general public doesn't think about bicycling. And when they do their thinking is partly informed by viewpoints promoted in the media and in NGOs and local government by people that in the main do not believe that VC is the solution. So we get a circular feedback. Bike lane pushers are educating the public that bicyclists need bike lanes because it is dangerous to be in traffic. Thus, when they think about it, the public believes that cyling is dangerous and they won't do it without bikelanes. And bikelanes cost money and reduce parking space so they don't want bikelanes so they don't cycle.

The only part of that loop which it is possible for us to remove is the idea that cycling in regular traffic is dangerous. You're doing the exact opposite of that.

Well, maybe "childish" is a bit too inflammatory and insulting (and truth be told there are some children that have a better knowledge of safe cycling than some adults) but you can hardly deny that motorists, government and the semi-professional advocates/activists (who derive some of their organisations' funding from a government which is deeply in thrall to the interests of big oil) have all worked together to the practical detriment of cyclists for years.

Basically it ain't broke. Don't tinker with it.

Well then, the VC advocates should be convincing the 'semi-professional advocates/activists' that bike lanes are not the solution in all cases, but I don't see much of this going on; in fact when John Forester's name is mentioned to these folks, all I ever see is a collective rolling of the eyes.

I for one would certainly like to see more VC advocates making inroads in government circles; but you are going to need to change your leadership and your rhetoric if you want to make any progress, because John Forester is the anti-advocate for your cause.

[randya]

It is not the job of planners to encourage anything in particular, nor should it be.

:roflmao:

[Bekologist]

I will point out that when Forester writes of the "costs of motoring to the user" and the "costs of bicycling", he's not talking only about costs paid for with money. Physical effort is a cost. Time is a cost. Relative lack of carrying capacity (for material as well as passengers) of a bike relative to a car is a cost. All of that, and more, goes into the cost analysis. And as long that analysis continues to prove motoring to be less costly to the user than bicycling, costs based on his own perceptions, values and preferences, the user is going to continue to choose motoring over bicycling.

Note that similar cost analysis explains why more people choose bicycling in areas where they do (like Portland and Amsterdam).


I disagree with lumping all factors people consider when choosing biking as a 'cost analysis' as the factors many consider significant have no monetary metric.

Bicycling costs less than motoring. Half of all personal trips in the US are two miles or less. People consider the environment when they consider bicycling. People consider their safety.

I doubt the validity of any 'cost analysis' on people's perceived safety.

[randya]

Please stop with the personal attacks, Beck.

:rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

No it doesn't. Or are you laboring under the assumption that the 'cost of motoring' is significantly greater in Portland than in other cities of similar size?

Robert
Yes. It is my understanding that the shortage of parking in downtown Portland increases the cost of motoring relative to other cities, and also the relative flatness (many destinations can be reached without serious/long climbs) reduces the cost of bicycling relative to at least more hilly cities.

Anyway, there can be no debate here. Ultimately all human behavior can be explained by such economic analysis, if you identify all of the costs involved that contribute to each individual's decision-making, and his perceived estimate of the relative value of each cost.

[randya]

Then you are misinformed, because there is no shortage of parking in downtown Portland, nor is parking in downtown Portland more expensive than in other West Coast cities.

[Bekologist]

any statements that bike advocates desiring greater consideration of bikes want to perpetuate 'bicycling in regular traffic is dangerous' or 'every city needs to be like amsterdam' is dishonest rhetoric.

Redesign of public space to consider bicycling in the transportation mix does not mean bike lanes on every street or the idea cycling with and regular traffic is 'dangerous'

Integrated roadway accomodations include completely unaccomodated streets, wide lanes, bike lanes and intersection redesigns.

[The Human Car]

Note that if you add a bike lane stripe to such a WOL there are two immediate effects:
Debris is no longer being constantly swept by motor traffic from the margin.
Motorists are much less inclined to slow down or adjust laterally before overtaking a cyclist.As far as striping the road to have a shared narrow outside lane, that's my preference too (with or without sharrows). But good luck trying to get someone like John E to agree to such a design on a road like Palomar Airport Rd.

Localized version for Baltimore:
Note that if you add a bike lane stripe to such a WOL there are two immediate effects:
Call 311 to have debris swept.
Motorists are more inclined to slow down or adjust laterally before overtaking a cyclist.

The last one has me scratching my head as well but that's what most of us are observing most motorist doing. If I had to guess it because with our own space we are now ligament road users and without it (some) motorists like to punish or intimidate us off "their" roads.

Is there any national movement in touting a narrow outside lane as bike friendly? My impression that this concept is still out in the ozones (nothing personal here as I think the concept as potential as well.)

[invisiblehand]

its not just the economic cost analysis that drives them to drive to the store, epistimologist.

studies have shown people consider the environment and their comfortability when the consider bicycling. any bonifide 'transportation engineer' should be able to recognize how environment shapes choices.

given a store three blocks away, on a 50MPH narrow laned arterial with lots of passing traffic, very few will consider riding a bike. Improve the environment to reflect more human scaled transportation, and more people will ride. john's denial of this further reinforces his prejudices for all to see. it belies his purported 'engineer' moniker. his prejudices have debased john into a ' bicycle transportation obstructionist' rather than a 'bicycle transportation engineer'

Why do you believe that economic cost omits such considerations, bokologist? People are willing to pay for time and comfort. People are also willing to pay for justice, fairness, choice, and so on. All of these things factor into economic analysis of individual decision making.

Your discussion omits the cost of changing the environment to reflect human scaled transportation. It omits alternatives that might be more efficient at producing positive societal results; i.e., if you think we use too much gasoline maybe a higher gas tax would be more effective and efficient at reducing usage. It also omits spending on other societal concerns such at education, health care, and so on. It also ignores the possibility that people might not want to cycle or walk. It is their choice and if they are willing to pay a price that accounts for its externalities then I see little reason to infringe their liberty to do so.

Some people here have concluded that the Effective Cycling approach of educating cyclists in the pursuit of broad cycling advocacy is foolish. But a platform that fails to consider the questions discussed above fails the practicality test too. The cycling data/evidence is too weak -- in my part-time observation of studies ... obviously there can be unknown literature -- to strongly support grandiose claims on either side of the fence.

[Helmet Head]

I disagree with lumping all factors people consider when choosing biking as a 'cost analysis' as the factors many consider significant have no monetary metric.

Bicycling costs less than motoring. Half of all personal trips in the US are two miles or less. People consider the environment when they consider bicycling. People consider their safety.

I doubt the validity of any 'cost analysis' on people's perceived safety.
Don't underestimate the value, purpose and utility of economic analysis. Much of it has little if anything to do with monetary metrics. Have you read Freakonomics?

Which is more dangerous, a gun or a swimming pool? What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? How much do parents really matter? How did the legalization of abortion affect the rate of violent crime?

These may not sound like typical questions for an economist to ask. But Steven D. Levitt is not a typical economist. He is a much-heralded scholar who studies the riddles of everyday life—from cheating and crime to sports and child-rearing—and whose conclusions turn conventional wisdom on its head.

[invisiblehand]

I disagree with lumping all factors people consider when choosing biking as a 'cost analysis' as the factors many consider significant have no monetary metric.

Like what? I am pretty familiar with the literature on hedonic pricing. Perhaps you would be interested in some references.

[Helmet Head]

Then you are misinformed, because there is no shortage of parking in downtown Portland, nor is parking in downtown Portland more expensive than in other West Coast cities.
Well, if indeed Portland bicycle use is higher per capita than in some other city, than Portlanders by definition are finding the cost (in terms of personal perceptions, values and preferences) of motoring use relative to bicycle use to be higher than are inhabitants of the other city.

[genec]

Exactly. :beer:

Think about that Gene. Do you recognize the existence of the reinforcing feedback loop?

Cycling in traffic is dangerous->Bikes on roads is dangerous->Cars/bikes must be separated->Government takes steps to separate cars/bikes with segregated facilities->When cars/bike are not separated it is dangerous->Bikes in traffic is dangerous->...

Do you see that it's a problem? That it is anti-cycling? Do you see that Walt is correct about the only way for us to interrupt the loop is to address the notion that cycling in traffic is dangerous? Do you see that the facilities advocacy you favor does the exact opposite?

So I should drink the kool-aid and try to convince the motoring public that they should not buy big SUVs to protect their loved ones on the road... I should work to convince the general public that mixing bikes with fast cars is not some sort of conflict... and that mothers should let their babies ride bikes to school as it is perfectly safe... :rolleyes:

The problem is that anyone that drives sees the conditions on the road and feels themselves that there are problems... That is why there is the huge SUV market that exists today that feeds on that anxiety... even though SUVs have been proven to be less safe, they are sold on the premise of safety.

The illusion that the streets are not safe is held far deeper and wider than my faint hue and cry.

I am just saying "play to it," as you sure as heck are not going to convince the average person that a problem doesn't exist. The auto industry did just that... they played to the fear... and the result was a very profitable line for the auto industry (higher profits on SUVs than any other type of vehicle)

Since the public is not likely to ever shake the feeling that the streets are not inherently dangerous... play to it and demand better bike facilities... Shift the burden of cycle transportation from parks departments to transportation departments and demand proper well designed facilities.

Look, the weight is already moving in that direction... motorists don't want to share with cyclists... and do so only begrudgingly. Cyclists really don't want to share with motorists and do so only as a coping mechanism... So why fight all this inertia that is moving in the "wrong direction" (at least in the purist VC viewpoint)? Go with the flow and figure out how to get the entrenched system to work for us.

[randya]

Well, if indeed Portland bicycle use is higher per capita than in some other city, than Portlanders by definition are finding the cost (in terms of personal perceptions, values and preferences) of motoring use relative to bicycle use to be higher than are inhabitants of the other city.

:rolleyes:

people can and do make independent lifestyle choices and decisions, they are not all economics-driven ciphers.

[RobertHurst]

Well, if indeed Portland bicycle use is higher per capita than in some other city, than Portlanders by definition are finding the cost (in terms of personal perceptions, values and preferences) of motoring use relative to bicycle use to be higher than are inhabitants of the other city.

Maybe that is so. If it is, it's not because motoring is particularly difficult or 'costly' there compared to anywhere else. When I have driven into downtown Portland I have found it to be quite easy in fact. It is much more difficult to drive around an auto-centric city like Houston than it is to drive in Portland. I found it perhaps easier, certainly no more difficult, than driving in Denver. How's cycling mode share in Houston or Denver compared to Portland? The answer is there is no comparison.

Make no mistake, bicycle use is higher per capita in Portland than perhaps anywhere else in the US. There might be a few college towns here and there to rival it. It's rich when people try to explain the phenomenon of Portland away with ignorant remarks about the mythical 'cost of motoring' there. You might want to at least visit there before you begin spouting such nonsense.

Portland is more of an accidental cultural phenomenon than a planning success. The cycling culture there did not spring from nor is it dependent on infrastructure or external factors like the 'cost of motoring.'

Robert

[genec]

Maybe that is so. If it is, it's not because motoring is particularly difficult or 'costly' there compared to anywhere else. When I have driven into downtown Portland I have found it to be quite easy in fact. It is much more difficult to drive around an auto-centric city like Houston than it is to drive in Portland. I found it perhaps easier, certainly no more difficult, than driving in Denver. How's cycling mode share in Houston or Denver compared to Portland? The answer is there is no comparison.

Make no mistake, bicycle use is higher per capita in Portland than perhaps anywhere else in the US. There might be a few college towns here and there to rival it. It's rich when people try to explain the phenomenon of Portland away with ignorant remarks about the mythical 'cost of motoring' there. You might want to at least visit there before you begin spouting such nonsense.

Portland is more of an accidental cultural phenomenon than a planning success. The cycling culture there did not spring from nor is it dependent on infrastructure or external factors like the 'cost of motoring.'

Robert

No, but the encouragement of the city leaders to consider cycling as a solution for transportation means is rather unique in American cities... That focus does lead to compromises that are geared toward at least considering cycling as part of the everyday decision process... I don't believe that level of thinking typically occurs in other American city governments. I think in places like San Diego for instance, they come up with a "cycling plan," publish it, then shelve it.

[genec]

Exactly. :beer:

Think about that Gene. Do you recognize the existence of the reinforcing feedback loop?

Cycling in traffic is dangerous->Bikes on roads is dangerous->Cars/bikes must be separated->Government takes steps to separate cars/bikes with segregated facilities->When cars/bike are not separated it is dangerous->Bikes in traffic is dangerous->...

Do you see that it's a problem? That it is anti-cycling? Do you see that Walt is correct about the only way for us to interrupt the loop is to address the notion that cycling in traffic is dangerous? Do you see that the facilities advocacy you favor does the exact opposite?

BTW this sort of thing does more to reinforce the notion that cycling is dangerous more than anything I do:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=391881

It illustrates that the general public does not feel that the mixed auto/cycling structure that now exists is safe.

How are you going to fight that???

more kool-aid sir?:rolleyes:

[LCI_Brian]

Portland is more of an accidental cultural phenomenon than a planning success. The cycling culture there did not spring from nor is it dependent on infrastructure or external factors like the 'cost of motoring.'
I say +1 to that. Where I live, we have miles and miles (certainly more than Portland) of bike lanes and paths (http://www.octa.net/bikeways.aspx) (including bike lanes on virtually every arterial roadway in central and south Orange County) - yet cycle commuting mode share is no greater than other US metropolitan areas.

BTW, I was trying to get a copy of a paper comparing cycling planning and mode share in Portland and Irvine (CA) (http://www.graduate.technion.ac.il/Theses/Abstracts.asp?Id=11541), but it's only available in Hebrew.

[The Human Car]

I understand the argument that bike lanes represent the slippery slope in limiting cyclist rights to the road. But I have serious reservations about such an effect being meaningful. One, if bike lanes do remove driver delays due to cyclists, then the impetus for enacting such legislation is diminished. Two, cyclists just don't represent much of a problem in the first place to warrant legislation. Three, there are some legal protections to travel that would have to be overcome -- not impossible in my opinion, but still difficult -- in order for our rights to be seriously impeded.

None of this, however, answers the question whether bike-specific facilities really make sense from a societal point of view. Is the extra cost of a bike lane relative to a WOL or no change for that matter -- or any other facility -- a good investment for society? Personally, as I have written in the past, I would go for the low-hanging fruit and see what happens.

There is no doubt in my mind that extra road width is good for cyclists and for the general public. For the most part I don't think it matters much how it is treated though some locations would benefit from a specific type of application. It is interesting to note that most significant cost can come from signage which is a point against bike lanes.

[genec]

There is no doubt in my mind that extra road width is good for cyclists and for the general public. For the most part I don't think it matters much how it is treated though some locations would benefit from a specific type of application. It is interesting to note that most significant cost can come from signage which is a point against bike lanes.

The problem with just extra width road is that it also encourages faster auto travel... unless the road is somehow calmed.

[invisiblehand]

It is interesting to note that most significant cost can come from signage which is a point against bike lanes.

Hmmm, interesting. That is not what I would speculate. But then again, I really don't know the relative costs.

[Helmet Head]

:rolleyes:

people can and do make independent lifestyle choices and decisions, they are not all economics-driven ciphers.
The fact that one can apply economic analysis to study and explain human behavior and decision-making does not mean that people are economics-driven in the monetary-profit sense of the term, "economics".

[The Human Car]

The problem is that anyone that drives sees the conditions on the road and feels themselves that there are problems... That is why there is the huge SUV market that exists today that feeds on that anxiety... even though SUVs have been proven to be less safe, they are sold on the premise of safety.

The illusion that the streets are not safe is held far deeper and wider than my faint hue and cry.

+1000 If we can't restore public opinion that the streets are safe for all road users then there is little hope for cyclists.

Here in Baltimore we are moving on to other objectives called for our Bike Master Plan and we had our first meeting with the police and some shocking things came out. There are only 10 officers on traffic duty for the whole city, 5 on day duty and 5 on night duty. The courts strongly discourage the police from ticketing anyone doing less then 15mph over the speed limit (40mph in a school zone is ok.)

It seems to me there is a lot to be done for the general safety of the roads before we can start giving the impression that cyclists can safely ride in the road.

From my experience I am amazed how many people think a cyclist in the road is a major hazard/inconvenience while a double parked car is no big deal.

[Helmet Head]

From my experience I am amazed how many people think a cyclist in the road is a major hazard/inconvenience while a double parked car is no big deal.
I think the problem isn't obstacles, but unexpected obstacles.

For example, a typical double parked car is an obvious obstacle that can been in plenty of time to plan and deal with it.
A typical cyclist in the road is riding so far off to the side that he is easy to miss, until the realization that he is there and is an obstacle comes as a sudden surprise.

I think this is why cyclists who routinely ride visibly and predictably, including clearly taking a lane-controlling position when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared, seem to experience much less harassment than do cyclists who are generally much more accommodating with the amount of space they use and occupy. Irony is rich in social settings, and cycling in traffic is no exception.

[The Human Car]

The problem with just extra width road is that it also encourages faster auto travel... unless the road is somehow calmed.

But the question is how much does a wide road encourage faster auto travel? 2-3mph? and that's a major issue when we are already talking about 10mph over the speed limit? Other studies have hinted that cyclists and pedestrians on the street slow motorists down by 2-3mph. So a reasonable guess would be a WOL that is well used by cyclists will not have any major difference in speeding motorists.

I will assert that the current lane standards of 10'-12' wide for a 6' wide car are already too wide and 2'-4' extra is not something of significance.

[genec]

But the question is how much does a wide road encourage faster auto travel? 2-3mph? and that's a major issue when we are already talking about 10mph over the speed limit? Other studies have hinted that cyclists and pedestrians on the street slow motorists down by 2-3mph. So a reasonable guess would be a WOL that is well used by cyclists will not have any major difference in speeding motorists.

I will assert that the current lane standards of 10'-12' wide for a 6' wide car are already too wide and 2'-4' extra is not something of significance.

Actually the legal width of vehicles in the US is 8 foot 6 inches... and considering some steering play as well as human factor... a 10 foot lane is barely wide enough to encompass such a vehicle... giving some 9 inches of tolerance on either side. A 12 foot lane adds another foot to either side of that.

What I find rather interesting is what happens when a WOL with parked cars is modified for a bike lane and the car parking is removed... the bike lanes are still limited to about 5 feet wide. So what happened to that missing foot or two from where the cars were parked? I would guess it is added to the traveled way... making those lanes wider and thus encouraging faster auto travel.

It has been noted that streets with BL added have a "gunbore effect" and that traffic on such streets tends to travel much faster than previously when there was car parking along the sides... I can't help but wonder if that may be due to the extra width that I just mentioned being lent to the the traveled way... or to clarify this, to the auto lanes. Why is it that the whole area previously devoted to on street parking is not now a bike lane? How might that effect the speed of motorists using that road?

[Helmet Head]

So I should drink the kool-aid and try to convince the motoring public that they should not buy big SUVs to protect their loved ones on the road... I should work to convince the general public that mixing bikes with fast cars is not some sort of conflict... and that mothers should let their babies ride bikes to school as it is perfectly safe... :rolleyes:
Yes and no.

Yes, because
mixing bikes with fast cars is not some sort of conflict.
No, because:

To the extent that cycling in traffic can be dangerous, it's not because people are buying SUVs.
A Honda Prius can be just as deadly as a Ford Explorer.
Nothing in life is "perfectly safe", so you should never say that riding a bike to school is "perfectly safe".


The problem is that anyone that drives sees the conditions on the road and feels themselves that there are problems... That is why there is the huge SUV market that exists today that feeds on that anxiety... even though SUVs have been proven to be less safe, they are sold on the premise of safety.

The illusion that the streets are not safe is held far deeper and wider than my faint hue and cry.

Thank you for recognizing that it's an illusion. Now, why do you insist on reinforcing it, rather than correcting it?


I am just saying "play to it," as you sure as heck are not going to convince the average person that a problem doesn't exist. The auto industry did just that... they played to the fear... and the result was a very profitable line for the auto industry (higher profits on SUVs than any other type of vehicle)

But in the process you (and everyone doing something similar) is only making matters worse. I, and people like me, on the other hand, are working to correct the flawed perceptions. Every time someone asks me about riding to work and commenting on how dangerous it is, I don't agree with them. I see that as an opportunity to explain how and why it's not dangerous (though of course not "perfectly safe").


Since the public is not likely to ever shake the feeling that the streets are not inherently dangerous... play to it and demand better bike facilities... Shift the burden of cycle transportation from parks departments to transportation departments and demand proper well designed facilities.

I see your bet and raise you. It's way beyond the streets and traffic. Our whole society is being enslaved by irrational fear. All the more reason to try not to be part of the problem, but part of the solution.


Look, the weight is already moving in that direction... motorists don't want to share with cyclists... and do so only begrudgingly. Cyclists really don't want to share with motorists and do so only as a coping mechanism... So why fight all this inertia that is moving in the "wrong direction" (at least in the purist VC viewpoint)? Go with the flow and figure out how to get the entrenched system to work for us.
I guess you're just much more of a sheep than I am.
When you see a herd of people moving in some direction, I guess you're tempted to join.
My inclination is to find out why they're moving in that direction, and not joining unless I see it's a good reason, and trying to stop them if it's not.

The entrenched system IS working very well for us. And most attempts to "improve" it only damage it.

[Helmet Head]

BTW this sort of thing does more to reinforce the notion that cycling is dangerous more than anything I do:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=391881

It illustrates that the general public does not feel that the mixed auto/cycling structure that now exists is safe.

How are you going to fight that???
If anyone tried to introduce nonsense like that anywhere in California I would certainly fight it, for the same reasons that I fight bike lanes.

[The Human Car]

I think the problem isn't obstacles, but unexpected obstacles.

For example, a typical double parked car is an obvious obstacle that can been in plenty of time to plan and deal with it.
A typical cyclist in the road is riding so far off to the side that he is easy to miss, until the realization that he is there and is an obstacle comes as a sudden surprise.

I think this is why cyclists who routinely ride visibly and predictably, including clearly taking a lane-controlling position when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared, seem to experience much less harassment than do cyclists who are generally much more accommodating with the amount of space they use and occupy. Irony is rich in social settings, and cycling in traffic is no exception.

Not to disagree but I don't think motorists distinguish a VC cyclists form a non-VC cyclists. So a VC rider can get grief because of what some other cyclists did. As an example suppose a cyclists abruptly pulls into traffic startling a driver and creates a think that "cycling in the road is dangerous" rather then "pulling out into the road without looking is dangerous." So the next cyclist they see in the road they associate that with dangerous behavior.

[noisebeam]

About traffic speeds. I find that traffic happens to be faster on 45mph two lane each way+BL arterial vs. the other arterial I often cycle on a 45mph 3 lane each way (with WOL). Certainly close passing traffic is much faster and more frequent on the road with BL.

Maybe traffic is calmer on a 25mph 16' wide lane striped with a BL (12'/4' lanes) vs. a 25mph 16' wide lane, but once posted speeds are at the 45mph level traffic will move at 45-60mph independent of the lane width.

Al

[Helmet Head]

Not to disagree but I don't think motorists distinguish a VC cyclists form a non-VC cyclists. So a VC rider can get grief because of what some other cyclists did. As an example suppose a cyclists abruptly pulls into traffic startling a driver and creates a think that "cycling in the road is dangerous" rather then "pulling out into the road without looking is dangerous." So the next cyclist they see in the road they associate that with dangerous behavior.
Certainly they don't recognize this cyclist as "VC" and that cyclist as not. But they know when a cyclist is acting predictably and allowing for them to plan accordingly with sufficient time and space, and when one is not.

I don't feel much residual animosity based on how others behave. To the contrary, mostly I get waves, smiles, thumbs up, nods and thank yous. The positive treatment I get is a big reason I enjoy riding in traffic as much as I do.

[The Human Car]

Actually the legal width of vehicles in the US is 8 foot 6 inches... and considering some steering play as well as human factor... a 10 foot lane is barely wide enough to encompass such a vehicle... giving some 9 inches of tolerance on either side. A 12 foot lane adds another foot to either side of that.

Trying to find cars widths and I found this:
1999 CHEVROLET 3500 Cube van - 16.5 feet long by 7.5 feet wide http://www.buysell.com/root/detail/Manitoba/Cargo_Cube_Step_Vans/4406/65432747/1999_CHEVROLET_3500_CUBE_VAN_2dr.aspx
And a lot of cars are smaller then a box truck.

There is a bit of a diff between legal max and what is actually out there.

It has been noted that streets with BL added have a "gunbore effect" and that traffic on such streets tends to travel much faster than previously when there was car parking along the sides... I can't help but wonder if that may be due to the extra width that I just mentioned being lent to the the traveled way... or to clarify this, to the auto lanes. Why is it that the whole area previously devoted to on street parking is not now a bike lane? How might that effect the speed of motorists using that road?

And that stands in contrast to the study in NYC with the buffered bike lane that reduced speed, go figure. But side friction (street parking) is often cited as a good traffic calming device.

[The Human Car]

Certainly they don't recognize this cyclist as "VC" and that cyclist as not. But they know when a cyclist is acting predictably and allowing for them to plan accordingly with sufficient time and space, and when one is not.

I don't feel much residual animosity based on how others behave. To the contrary, mostly I get waves, smiles, thumbs up, nods and thank yous. The positive treatment I get is a big reason I enjoy riding in traffic as much as I do.

Just to put my comment in perspective; after testifing in Annapolis about our 3' passing bill I came away with some anti-bike attitudes.

[genec]

Not to disagree but I don't think motorists distinguish a VC cyclists form a non-VC cyclists. So a VC rider can get grief because of what some other cyclists did. As an example suppose a cyclists abruptly pulls into traffic startling a driver and creates a think that "cycling in the road is dangerous" rather then "pulling out into the road without looking is dangerous." So the next cyclist they see in the road they associate that with dangerous behavior.

Yes, but the VC solution is to retrain the entire cycling public... which for some reason they envision as doable... and at the same time they also envision that the motoring public will then see these perfectly trained cyclists and then themselves adhere to the rules of the road (which motorists do not now do... and thus kill 45,000 of their fellow motorists while NOT following those very rules of the road).

Yet somehow bicyclists riding in a perfect compliance to the rules will make motorists want to do the same... :rolleyes:

[genec]

About traffic speeds. I find that traffic happens to be faster on 45mph two lane each way+BL arterial vs. the other arterial I often cycle on a 45mph 3 lane each way (with WOL). Certainly close passing traffic is much faster and more frequent on the road with BL.

Maybe traffic is calmer on a 25mph 16' wide lane striped with a BL (12'/4' lanes) vs. a 25mph 16' wide lane, but once posted speeds are at the 45mph level traffic will move at 45-60mph independent of the lane width.

Al

Right... now what would happen if the BL striped road had narrower lanes for auto traffic... and wider lanes for cyclists? (perhaps a buffer... )

[genec]

Trying to find cars widths and I found this:
1999 CHEVROLET 3500 Cube van - 16.5 feet long by 7.5 feet wide http://www.buysell.com/root/detail/Manitoba/Cargo_Cube_Step_Vans/4406/65432747/1999_CHEVROLET_3500_CUBE_VAN_2dr.aspx
And a lot of cars are smaller then a box truck.

There is a bit of a diff between legal max and what is actually out there.



Trailers tend to go to the legal max... But you are right, most cars and trucks do not... I wonder what Semi's top out at?



And that stands in contrast to the study in NYC with the buffered bike lane that reduced speed, go figure. But side friction (street parking) is often cited as a good traffic calming device.

No, not in contrast... in fact I just posted to noisebeam a question regarding narrower car lanes and wider bikelanes... or buffered lanes... I suspect that setup will slow traffic down.

[Helmet Head]

Yes, but the VC solution is to retrain the entire cycling public... which for some reason they envision as doable... and at the same time they also envision that the motoring public will then see these perfectly trained cyclists and then themselves adhere to the rules of the road (which motorists do not now do... and thus kill 45,000 of their fellow motorists while NOT following those very rules of the road).

Yet somehow bicyclists riding in a perfect compliance to the rules will make motorists want to do the same... :rolleyes:
Please stop distorting the views of others in order to further your own purpose Gene.

Retraining the entire cycling public?
Perfectly trained?
Motorists will be "adhering to the rules" with perfect compliance?

Thanks for sharing your fantastic imagination, but how about addressing an argument someone has actually made?

[Helmet Head]

Just to put my comment in perspective; after testifing in Annapolis about our 3' passing bill I came away with some anti-bike attitudes.
Can you expound on this, please?

[Helmet Head]

Trying to find cars widths and I found this:
1999 CHEVROLET 3500 Cube van - 16.5 feet long by 7.5 feet wide http://www.buysell.com/root/detail/Manitoba/Cargo_Cube_Step_Vans/4406/65432747/1999_CHEVROLET_3500_CUBE_VAN_2dr.aspx
And a lot of cars are smaller then a box truck.

There is a bit of a diff between legal max and what is actually out there.
As Gene noted trailers can be wider, also buses and some large RVs.
While it's possible to monitor rearward (and I do) and adjust for traffic accordingly, a cyclist should not be required to do so, and should be able to ride where it's reasonably safe assuming he will be passed by a max width vehicle like a wide trailer or a bus... 8.5'.

[genec]

Please stop distorting the views of others in order to further your own purpose Gene.

Retraining the entire cycling public?
Perfectly trained?
Motorists will be "adhering to the rules" with perfect compliance?

Thanks for sharing your fantastic imagination, but how about addressing an argument someone has actually made?

OK then what exactly do you propose? Because anything less is status quo and changes nothing.

And since you do acknowledge that motorists don't comply with the laws now... nor will they in the future... what makes you think that being a law abiding vehicular cyclist is going to improve the lot of cyclists out there... other than your fantasy world of waving motorists that you ignore when honking???

You always talk about "low hanging fruit" and yet have never proposed how to reach this lowest common denominator that cannot even seem to find proper lights for their bikes.

[Allister]

It is not the job of planners to encourage anything in particular, nor should it be. It is their job to meet existing demand.


You should check on the definition of 'planner' while you've got the dictionary out, too.

[John Forester]

Yes, but the VC solution is to retrain the entire cycling public... which for some reason they envision as doable... and at the same time they also envision that the motoring public will then see these perfectly trained cyclists and then themselves adhere to the rules of the road (which motorists do not now do... and thus kill 45,000 of their fellow motorists while NOT following those very rules of the road).

Yet somehow bicyclists riding in a perfect compliance to the rules will make motorists want to do the same... :rolleyes:

Genec, you are not thinking at all logically. First, you are thoroughly misstating the VC position. Retrain the entire cycling public? You're out of your mind if you think that we are so crazy as to have that as an expected result. And to think that making all or nearly all cyclists operate properly would persuade motorists to operate properly, that's at least as great a stretch. Though, there might be something in it. Any society that could persuade almost all cyclists to operate properly probably also would have both the will and the power to markedly reduce the misbehaviors of motorists.

Secondly, you are assuming that some other system makes both motorists and cyclists behave better and, therefore, reduces car-bike collisions. But there is no such system that is practical to install in typical modern cities. Bike lanes have never been shown to improve behavior or reduce collisions (indeed the expectation is the reverse), and your own ideal of many separated paths is impractical.

No, vehicular cyclists have several goals. One is to achieve social acceptance that cyclists should obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Another is to persuade as many cyclists as choose, to learn how to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Still another is to get the road system improved to better accommodate vehicular cyclists. These all work together, for achieving one will assist in the others, as well as in sill other aspects that I have not specifically mentioned herein.

I say that such a system would be better than what we have today, or what we might get with more money spent on current designs, and, indeed, of what it would be reasonable to expect from the range of what is practical.

[John Forester]

Originally Posted by Helmet Head:
"It is not the job of planners to encourage anything in particular, nor should it be. It is their job to meet existing demand."


You should check on the definition of 'planner' while you've got the dictionary out, too.

There is considerable disagreement and controversy about the scope of planning. Obviously, by definition, planning is done before action, and, therefore, is intended to produce action that will be in accordance with future conditions. One kind of planning is done by considering that future conditions will not be much different than the present. For example, when planning a shopping center, or financial building, or an improved intersection, the planning horizon will be not far in the future and is expected to be pretty much what is predicted from current trends. At the other end of the scope of planning is planning that is being done with the specific intent of changing social conditions in a major way. A prime example is urban renewal in which low-quality housing is replaced with better-quality housing in the attempt to reform society, as in Pruitt-Igo and other such towers that have had to be demolished because the inhabitants failed to reform and failed to keep the towers as if they were luxury apartments. There have been several more middle-class projects, designed with the social intent of reducing the motoring of their inhabitants, that have been equal failures in the design respect.

Pucher is one of the more extreme planning theorists, having considerable faith in the concept that city design has major effect in determining the lifestyle of its inhabitants. To some extent, that is true. A walking city doesn't take kindly to the automotive age and its inhabitants long ago found that that new invention, the bicycle, provided quicker transportation than
does walking, and they find, nowadays, that that condition still exists inside their city. So they have high bicycle use, whereas residents of more modern cities have largely abandoned bicycle transportation. However, I point out that these characteristics were not consciously designed into those cities; after all, those cities were built long before bicycles were even thought of.

By and large, planning that is based on short horizons produces useful results, while planning that is based on the idea that redesigning the city will produce a new type of inhabitant generally fails.

[joejack951]

I don't know how complete the literature is -- I do this part-time -- but it does seem that "improvements" -- which I understand as road improvements with a bike lane or WOL -- does result in a better safety record relative to the pre-improved road.

--> The research that comes to mind was done in Texas. I recall they attributed the improvement to bike lanes, but such an effect cannot be identified statistically. <--

From what I recall of the Texas study, bike lane stripes were added to existing roads without adding any new width; the outside lane was already wide enough to accomodate a ~4 ft. bike lane and a reasonable width traffic lane (I want to say about 11 feet but I don't remember the exact details). My point here is that this study wasn't looking to show the safety of widening a road to add a bike lane or to make a WOL. It simply looked at adding bike lane stripes.

Also, from what I remember from the conclusions, one of the "safety" increases they cited was that motorists were less likely to change lanes when approaching a cyclist riding in the road margin. The authors mischaracterized a safe lane change with no other vehicles around as a "swerve" to attempt to bolster their safety argument for which the only other justification was cyclist riding about a foot further left from the curb. Of course, no mention was made of the much lessened passing clearance being given by motorists nor was any mention made about the effects of the bike lane stripe at intersections. All conclusions and supporting photographs were taken from midblock observations. As far as I know, the streets used in the study had no prior record of significant collisions.

[WaltPoutine]

BTW this sort of thing does more to reinforce the notion that cycling is dangerous more than anything I do:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=391881

It illustrates that the general public does not feel that the mixed auto/cycling structure that now exists is safe.

How are you going to fight that???

more kool-aid sir?:rolleyes:

Well, according to you we should accept the fait accompli and all start wearing helmets even though we have a reasonable suspicion that there are problems with them and they may be dangerous. Jim Jones called, he's looking for some followers in the afterlife.;)