Are you happier without bike facilities?

Helmet Head

Exactly. This is especially true for places like AZ where motorist are not permitted by law to merge into a bike lane.

If the stripe does not fully end at intersection approaches without a RTOL, the least that could be done is put a RTOL arrow in the part of bike lane defined by the dotted/dashed line.

Al
Huh. How about ending (not just dotting, Gene) the bike lane stripe and placing a straight arrow/chevron biased center-left in the straight-or-right wide lane (it has to be wide because right now it is a traffic lane plus a bike lane, and we're talking about eliminating the bike lane stripe, which leaves at least an 11 + 4 = 15' wide lane), and a right turn arrow biased far right in the wide lane? That is, instead of having a standard "straight or right" arrow, place separate "straight only" and "right only" arrows side-by-side in the lane, each biased appropriately to one side or the other of the lane. This would encourage the appropriate destination positioning drivers of cars and trucks, but especially for motorcyclists and bicyclists.

Whatever initial minor ambiguity such markings might create is probably a good thing in terms of getting everyone to pay more attention to what is going on and what they're doing.

I don't think I've ever seen this idea before.

noisebeam

Huh.

That didn't come across right. I am not and would never advocate for a bike lane with dashed stripe up to intersection with a mini RTOL arrow it it. I was just saying if there must be such a stripe, the least that could be done it put a mini-RTOL arrow in it. The idea is to call it as it is, a lane that is only useful (yet still not always ideal for cyclists) for drivers who are turning right.

Al

Helmet Head

That didn't come across right. I am not and would never advocate for a bike lane with dashed stripe up to intersection with a mini RTOL arrow it it. I was just saying if there must be such a stripe, the least that could be done it put a mini-RTOL arrow in it.

Al
I understood that. I pictured it and that's what gave me the idea I described above. Take what you described, then remove the dotted stripe, make that mini-RTOL arrow into a standard RTOL arrow, but right biased in the 15+' wide lane, and add a standard straight-only narrow to the left of it.

What about that?

noisebeam

I understood that. I pictured it and that's what gave me the idea I described above. Take what you described, then remove the dotted stripe, make that mini-RTOL arrow into a standard RTOL arrow, but right biased in the 15+' wide lane, and add a standard straight-only narrow to the left of it.

What about that?

Yeah, I'd suggested something similar several months ago. Didn't fly with the lane crowd, and if I recall right some in the NW of the US claimed such implementations or similar existed, but when asked could not provide any locations of specifically where.

Al

Helmet Head

Yeah, I'd suggested something similar several months ago. Didn't fly with the lane crowd, and if I recall right some in the NW of the US claimed such implementations or similar existed, but when asked could not provide any locations of specifically where.

Al
Well, the lane crowd likes colored pavement. How about adding, say, green stones to the left biased 11' of pavement in the 15' wide lane, and red stones to the right biased 11' of pavement, which would create a 7' wide swath of red and green in the shared center of the lane. The straight only arrow would be in the center of the green portion, and the right only arrow in the red portion.

noisebeam

Well, the lane crowd likes colored pavement. How about adding, say, green stones to the left biased 11' of pavement in the 15' wide lane, and red stones to the right biased 11' of pavement, which would create a 7' wide swath of red and green in the shared center of the lane. The straight only arrow would be in the center of the green portion, and the right only arrow in the red portion.

Paint the center white and bring that Italian touch to cycling
http://www.appliedlanguage.com/flags_of_the_world/large_flag_of_italy.gif

Helmet Head

Bravisimo!

Man, that was funny Al. It's really brilliant how you pictured what I wrote and realized it evoked the Italian flag!

On that note, have a great weekend!

Ed Holland

genec

Oh, please. If you pay much attention at all to driver behavior in and around San Diego you know a dotted stripe inhibits proper merging into the too-narrow-for-a-car space it demarcates by right-turning motorists nearly as much (if not as much) as does a solid stripe.

If a bike lane is continued with a dotted stripe it does not end until the dotted stripe ends.

yeah but the fact is I have see the same errant behavior (wide sweeping turns and turns NOT from the right lane) where BL didn't even exist... so discussion of BLs as the cause of poor motorist behavior is moot. The BL is not the factor. That is the bottom line.

Helmet Head

With a change of palette, this could also work in France.

There was a scheme to colourise the bike lanes and bus lanes (green and red respectively) in Oxford (UK) a few years ago. It doesn't make a lot of difference by itself, but makes it look as if the council is really doing something.

The fact that cars cross the bike lanes in front of cyclists has nothing to do with the bike lane, and everything to do with the driver paying too little respect or attention to fellow road users.

Ed
These are not unrelated issues.

I'm convinced the bike lane stripe makes it more likely that the motorists will not pay attention to the particular fellow road users near the edge of the road, because the stripe serves as the perceived edge of the driver's conception of "the road" (as in "get off 'the road'!") and as the edge of the driver's primary zone of attention.

So cyclists on the other side of the bike lane stripe are less relevant to the drivers than they would be if the stripe were not there, and, so, less likely to grab the motorists' attention. If you're an avid mirror user and a student of driver behavior, and pay attention to this, it should be pretty evident.

genec

Bravisimo!

Man, that was funny Al. It's really brilliant how you pictured what I wrote and realized it evoked the Italian flag!

On that note, have a great weekend!

:beer:

For cyclists everywhere!

Helmet Head

yeah but the fact is I have seen the same errant behavior (wide sweeping turns and turns NOT from the right lane) where BL didn't even exist... so discussion of BLs as the cause of poor motorist behavior is moot. The BL is not the factor. That is the bottom line.
And your point is what? Are you suggesting that because you've witnessed wide turns happen at all intersections that right turners are just as likely to make wide sweeping turns at intersections without bike lanes as they are at intersections with bike lanes? If that is your point, do you have any basis for contending this other than seeing someone take a wide turn at an intersection without a BL? If that's not your point, what is?

I'm not suggesting that there are no wide turners at intersections without bike lanes, but I am saying the right turning compliance appears to be significantly higher with 22100/21717 at intersections without bike lanes than at intersections with bike lanes (dotted or solid all the way to the intersection). Are you seriously challenging this point?

Turning Upon a Highway
...
22100 (a) Right Turns. Both the approach for a right-hand turn and a right-hand turn shall be made as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway ...

dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm)

Turning Across Bicycle Lane

21717. Whenever it is necessary for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross a bicycle lane that is adjacent to his lane of travel to make a turn, the driver shall drive the motor vehicle into the bicycle lane prior to making the turn and shall make the turn pursuant to Section 22100.

dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21717.htm (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21717.htm)

genec

And your point is what? Are you suggesting that because you've witnessed wide turns happen at all intersections that right turners are just as likely to make wide sweeping turns at intersections without bike lanes as they are at intersections with bike lanes? If that is your point, do you have any basis for contending this other than seeing someone take a wide turn at an intersection without a BL? If that's not your point, what is?

I'm not suggesting that there are no wide turners at intersections without bike lanes, but I am saying the right turning compliance appears to be significantly higher with 22100/21717 at intersections without bike lanes than at intersections with bike lanes (dotted or solid all the way to the intersection). Are you seriously challenging this point?

The BL may encourage wide sweeping turns... but the fact is that this is because the motorists are ill informed.

Yes, indeed I see sweeping wide turns by motorists all the time in areas where BL do not exist, there is only one BL in all of the Clairemont area, so it is quite common for me to see behavior that is not predicated by BL.

Helmet Head

The BL may encourage wide sweeping turns... but the fact is that this is because the motorists are ill informed.
Being ill informed is a relatively insignificant factor. The significant factor is that merging into a narrow stripe-demarcated space is behavior that is inconsistent with what drivers are otherwise expected to do. I've informed friends, family members and co-workers about this law, and they still obviously and purposefully avoid driving into bike lanes prior to turning right. It's just not natural to do so. And no, they generally do not look back for cyclists passing them on the right as they slow to turn right, because doing that too is unnatural.

Yes, indeed I see sweeping wide turns by motorists all the time in areas where BL do not exist, there is only one BL in all of the Clairemont area, so it is quite common for me to see behavior that is not predicated by BL.
Yes, Gene, I see it quite often too. I still don't understand your point, or how it's relevant to any point we're discussing much less disagreeing about.

Ed Holland

These are not unrelated issues.

I'm convinced the bike lane stripe makes it more likely that the motorists will not pay attention to the particular fellow road users near the edge of the road, because the stripe serves as the perceived edge of the driver's conception of "the road" (as in "get off 'the road'!") and as the edge of the driver's primary zone of attention.

So cyclists on the other side of the bike lane stripe are less relevant to the drivers than they would be if the stripe were not there, and, so, less likely to grab the motorists' attention. If you're an avid mirror user and a student of driver behavior, and pay attention to this, it should be pretty evident.

Yes. There are situations where this allows each lane user to proceed unobstructed by the other. This does not absolve responsibility of either user (with regard to the safety of others) where there is a reason to cross the line.

Helmet Head

Yes. There are situations where this allows each lane user to proceed unobstructed by the other. This does not absolve responsibility of either user (with regard to the safety of others) where there is a reason to cross the line.
Actually, the ambiguity of ROW that exists when the stripe is absent also puts more responsibility on the overtaker than exists when ROW is clarified by a stripe. So in that sense the stripe does absolve some responsibility on the part of the overtaking driver, and, more importantly, explains why the cyclist is less relevant to the motorist and less likely to be given much respect and attention. And you've said the problem has "everything to do with the driver paying too little respect or attention to fellow road users." That's precisely why I'm opposed to having the ROW-clarifying BL stripe at intersection approaches. It's also arguably why no stripes exist in intersections. Actually, in a way the "intersection" for through cyclists and right turning motorists starts earlier (because that's where their paths conflict), and so that's another way to understand why the stripe separating their paths should be removed before actually reaching the intersection.

I bolded that last one because that's a new concept, so far as I know. That is, I don't recall reading that argument before.

John Forester

Actually, the ambiguity of ROW that exists when the stripe is absent also puts more responsibility on the overtaker than exists when ROW is clarified by a stripe. So in that sense the stripe does absolve some responsibility on the part of the overtaking driver, and, more importantly, explains why the cyclist is less relevant to the motorist and less likely to be given much respect and attention. And you've said the problem has "everything to do with the driver paying too little respect or attention to fellow road users." That's precisely why I'm opposed to having the ROW-clarifying BL stripe at intersection approaches. It's also arguably why no stripes exist in intersections. Actually, in a way the "intersection" for through cyclists and right turning motorists starts earlier (because that's where their paths conflict), and so that's another way to understand why the stripe separating their paths should be removed before actually reaching the intersection.

I bolded that last one because that's a new concept, so far as I know. That is, I don't recall reading that argument before.

I have long commented that bike-lane designers usually fail to provide the appropriate distance for what the traffic engineers call weaving and other lane changing and merging movements. Where these movements should occur differs for every pair of participants.

genec

Being ill informed is a relatively insignificant factor. The significant factor is that merging into a narrow stripe-demarcated space is behavior that is inconsistent with what drivers are otherwise expected to do. I've informed friends, family members and co-workers about this law, and they still obviously and purposefully avoid driving into bike lanes prior to turning right. It's just not natural to do so. And no, they generally do not look back for cyclists passing them on the right as they slow to turn right, because doing that too is unnatural.

Yes, Gene, I see it quite often too. I still don't understand your point, or how it's relevant to any point we're discussing much less disagreeing about.

My point is that drivers make wide sweeping turns irrespective of bike lanes. Bike lanes do not matter. Drivers drive this way regardless of bike lanes. There is no point in bringing bike lanes into a discussion of why drivers make wide sweeping turns as drivers make wide sweeping turns anyway.

Did you get the point. Drivers make wide sweeping turns. It is NOT because of bike lanes. Don't blame bike lanes for something drivers do anyway. Did you get the point yet?

Drivers make wide sweeping turns due to poor driving habits. Period.

joejack951

Drivers make wide sweeping turns due to poor driving habits. Period.

This is possibly true when turning right from a WOL (I've never sat and watched for very long though generally I wouldn't agree) but I rarely if ever see this from a driver turning right from a NOL without a shoulder/bike lane. If what you are saying is true and what I am saying is true, a reasonable conclusion is that how a road is striped plays a large part in how motorists will turn right. Basically, if you want to get rid of wide sweeping turns, make the lane narrow and next to the curb, not buffered from it either with space, a bike lane, or a shoulder.

genec

This is possibly true when turning right from a WOL (I've never sat and watched for very long though generally I wouldn't agree) but I rarely if ever see this from a driver turning right from a NOL without a shoulder/bike lane. If what you are saying is true and what I am saying is true, a reasonable conclusion is that how a road is striped plays a large part in how motorists will turn right. Basically, if you want to get rid of wide sweeping turns, make the lane narrow and next to the curb, not buffered from it either with space, a bike lane, or a shoulder.

OK fair enough, and then lower the speed limit.

Helmet Head

Gene, when are you going to realize that speed limit has very little to do with how fast people drive on a given road (unless of course a police cruiser is spotted in the vicinity)?

genec

Gene, when are you going to realize that speed limit has very little to do with how fast people drive on a given road (unless of course a police cruiser is spotted in the vicinity)?

Yeah unfortunately that is probably true... but we still don't have to even "suggest" that driving 55 is OK on surface streets... remember 55 was the national speed limit from 1974 to 1995. Now it seems we are moving freeway designs and speeds to the surface streets.

No, it is not my imagination... roadway speeds ARE increasing.

Frankly, drive 70+ on the limited access freeways... I don't care; but 55 is not an appropriate speed for shared roads.

Bekologist

i just spent a week in LA- people drive 35mph streets at 60 :eek:

bike lanes made streets like Santa Monica much more bikeable than W. Sunset heading west out of Hollywood.

donnamb

i just spent a week in LA- people drive 35mph streets at 60 :eek:

bike lanes made streets like Santa Monica much more bikeable than W. Sunset heading west out of Hollywood.
Amazing, isn't it? And my aunt keeps wondering why I don't visit her more.

Ed Holland

I've ridden in LA a few times. Bike lanes are a blessing where they exist in the busy areas.

Ed Holland

Actually, the ambiguity of ROW that exists when the stripe is absent also puts more responsibility on the overtaker than exists when ROW is clarified by a stripe. So in that sense the stripe does absolve some responsibility on the part of the overtaking driver, and, more importantly, explains why the cyclist is less relevant to the motorist and less likely to be given much respect and attention. And you've said the problem has "everything to do with the driver paying too little respect or attention to fellow road users." That's precisely why I'm opposed to having the ROW-clarifying BL stripe at intersection approaches. It's also arguably why no stripes exist in intersections. Actually, in a way the "intersection" for through cyclists and right turning motorists starts earlier (because that's where their paths conflict), and so that's another way to understand why the stripe separating their paths should be removed before actually reaching the intersection.

I bolded that last one because that's a new concept, so far as I know. That is, I don't recall reading that argument before.

Well I'd look at the stripe's ROW & responsibility implication a different way. Not in terms of modified responsibility, but space clarification. Freeways have lanes these allow for differing speeds of same direction traffic, but drivers are not free to change lane irrespective of other motorists - simple "rules of the road" and ROW apply. I think of a bike lane in similar terms - that these rules are not followed is down to poor motorist behaviour.

Ed
Ed

crackerdog

We managed to overturn a mandatory helmet law that was about to be enforced by showing that a mandatory helmet law actually increases bicycle/vehicle involvements. We found lots of interesting studies with surprising results.
I would like to know of any place in the U.S. that has become bike friendly, has increased ridership and decreased accidents. Anyone? If we can find some examples we could start pushing for some action on the local level with some real world weight behind them.
The Netherlands used to have the same problems as everywhere else until they decided to really do something for bikes and pedestrians and now it is the safest place to bike. Maybe we should examine what they did in detail.
I personally would like to see a driving test for autos that someone could actually flunk. My dog could pass the present day test. There should be two types of suspended licenses, one for moving violation and the others (not paying parking fines, etc.). If you are caught driving with a suspended license which was suspended for a moving violation, your car is seized and sold and you lose your driving rights for 3 times the original length of time. and it goes on and on.....

Bekologist

crackerdog, look to portland- focus on bikes, increased bike counts and an indexed reduction in bike accidents.

invisiblehand

... an indexed reduction in bike accidents.

indexed for what? are you talking about accident rates?

Bekologist

im not going around and around with an 'epistimologist' struck dumb by statistics about portlands increase of bicyclists while keeping accident rates flat.

invisiblehand

im not going around and around with an 'epistimologist' struck dumb by statistics about portlands increase of bicyclists while keeping accident rates flat.

Bok, no need to go around and around. I just asked you what it was indexed by. You already repeated this several times so it should be easy for you to explain. However, if you don't understand your present argument, you are generally better off using a different argument.

For instance, you like to use the word "prove/proven" a lot. After explaining what you mean by indexed, why don't you explain prove for us and what it takes to prove something other than to produce something that agrees with your opinion. Again, nothing to dance around and around about. Since all you have to do is explain what you mean by it.

Before you type away regarding prove, you might want to think about the similarities between your statistical evidence and argument -- I say argument instead of model, however, when you look at descriptive statistics and factor in personal observations to make a conclusion about the world around us, you are fitting a model in your head -- with, for instance, the argument that blacks and women are less intelligent than white males.

buzzman

We managed to overturn a mandatory helmet law that was about to be enforced by showing that a mandatory helmet law actually increases bicycle/vehicle involvements.

perhaps not in this thread, since it's off-topic,but perhaps in another thread would you be willing to share those studies? I'm curious how the correlation exists between mandatory helmet laws and bicycle/vehicle involvements. I remember similar "studies" being used during mandatory helmet law fights over motorcycle helmets but most of those were discredited over time.

* edit: BTW I'm asking out of genuine curiosity not because I support mandatory helmet laws for adult cyclists.

Allister

Well I'd look at the stripe's ROW & responsibility implication a different way. Not in terms of modified responsibility, but space clarification. Freeways have lanes these allow for differing speeds of same direction traffic, but drivers are not free to change lane irrespective of other motorists - simple "rules of the road" and ROW apply. I think of a bike lane in similar terms - that these rules are not followed is down to poor motorist behaviour.

Ed

+100

invisiblehand

perhaps not in this thread, since it's off-topic, ...

What are you kidding me? This is the VC forum! ;)

I think that the argument is that people take more risks when they think that they are more protected.

Peltzman argued something similar with seatbelts; i.e., results in more accidents but less fatalities.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/2003_archives/002587.html

John Forester

What are you kidding me? This is the VC forum! ;)

I think that the argument is that people take more risks when they think that they are more protected.

Peltzman argued something similar with seatbelts; i.e., results in more accidents but less fatalities.

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/2003_archives/002587.html

As I understand the argument, it is far more indirect that that. It does not argue that the seatbelt provides a sense of safety such that drivers then drive more aggressively and take more risks. The argument is a more subtle one that any activity has its casualty rate, from whatever mix of accidents occur, and people observe those accidents. People as a group tolerate some rate of accidents from an activity, based on some uncountable balance between utility, pleasure, participation rate, type of participants, and accident rate. If the accident rate falls noticeably, then people come to think that this activity is safer than it was, and therefore they participate in a more aggressive manner, taking greater risks. This is a convoluted argument, and nobody can really demonstrate the factors inherent in such a model.

RobertHurst

perhaps not in this thread, since it's off-topic,but perhaps in another thread would you be willing to share those studies? I'm curious how the correlation exists between mandatory helmet laws and bicycle/vehicle involvements. I remember similar "studies" being used during mandatory helmet law fights over motorcycle helmets but most of those were discredited over time.

* edit: BTW I'm asking out of genuine curiosity not because I support mandatory helmet laws for adult cyclists.

Buzzman, in some places head injury rates seem to have gone up even as helmet use has increased. But the numbers are mixed, scarce, suffering mightily from lack of observable events, and of course, highly questionable. There is one study out of Sweden which in its contradictions might sort of accidentally poke around the truth; it showed decreasing head injury rates for children and increasing rates for adults as helmet use spiked in both groups. There is a link to this and other helmet research on my website at http://www.industrializedcyclist.com/lies.html scroll down to the helmet section.

A decent summary of the Australian experience with mandatory helmet laws is this article by Robinson: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a

If helmet use has a positive or negative effect it is not clearly evident in available statistics. Sorry for the off-topic ramble.

Robert

invisiblehand

As I understand the argument, it is far more indirect that that. It does not argue that the seatbelt provides a sense of safety such that drivers then drive more aggressively and take more risks. The argument is a more subtle one that any activity has its casualty rate, from whatever mix of accidents occur, and people observe those accidents. People as a group tolerate some rate of accidents from an activity, based on some uncountable balance between utility, pleasure, participation rate, type of participants, and accident rate. If the accident rate falls noticeably, then people come to think that this activity is safer than it was, and therefore they participate in a more aggressive manner, taking greater risks. This is a convoluted argument, and nobody can really demonstrate the factors inherent in such a model.

Hi John,

I didn't quite follow your passage -- baby on the brain ... so it definitely can be me. But I think that you do understand the argument with this passage ... "People as a group tolerate some rate of accidents from an activity, based on some uncountable balance between utility, pleasure, participation rate, type of participants, and accident rate."

I would keep it simple. As an individual, I am willing to tolerate a certain amount of risk to gain utility/pleasure. If I think that something lowers my risk then the effective cost of carelessness or some other risky action/inaction is less. Consequently, I do it more.

The famous example -- I think it is Walter Oi's idea ... but it might just be a rumor that keeps getting passed around -- is putting a spike in the middle of a steering wheel pointed at the driver. The hypothesis is that people would be less likely to tailgate, generally drive more carefully, and accidents would go down. Whether mortality increases or decreases, of course, would depend on whether the increase in mortality given an accident is larger/smaller than the decrease in accidents.

If one believes that the spike would change people's behavior then making the car safer should change behavior too.

There has been a lot of research on the topic -- which includes the literature on risk and uncertainty. But I only know of the seatbelt example from teaching principles and intermediate microeconomics.

-G

invisiblehand

If helmet use has a positive or negative effect it is not clearly evident in available statistics. Sorry for the off-topic ramble.

Robert

Hah! This is the land of ramble. When in Rome ...

P.S. I thought that this was an interesting site on helmets. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

RobertHurst

Hah! This is the land of ramble. When in Rome ...

P.S. I thought that this was an interesting site on helmets. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

They've certainly done a lot of work. Unfortunately (in my view) much of the work has gone into constructing a facade. That is, when visitors click on the title of a certain piece of research, they will actually get a very official-looking document that is the cyclehelmets.org critique of that research. Some folks may not realize exactly what is going on. The critiques themselves are nicely done and beacons of rationality compared to most helmet propaganda.

Robert

genec

Hah! This is the land of ramble. When in Rome ...

P.S. I thought that this was an interesting site on helmets. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

What that site says to me is that countries where motorists readily accept cyclists as peers or where high quality cyclist facilities exist, have less need of helmets.

It also says that if you wear a helmet, you are less likely to ride. :rolleyes:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/index_11.jpg

invisiblehand

... propaganda.

It would be foolish to read anything without considering whether there is an agenda. Regarding helmets, I find that there is a huge overstatement regarding what helmets accomplish with regards to safety to the point that people are ostracized for choosing to ride without one. For instance, try to participate in an organized ride without one.

crackerdog

When we did our research to help overturn a mandatory helmet law, it boils down to some interesting findings: Mandatory helmet law, less people ride, cars see less bikes and aren't expecting them and have little or no experience what to do -more accidents. Bike riding is really safe, not that many injuries compared to most other forms of transportation or even accidents in your home. I believe it is Australia that actually enforced their helmet laws and less people rode bikes but the number of accidents didn't go down. The safest thing the government can do for bikes is to encourage more people to ride more often.

John Forester

But inherent in your argument is the belief that there is some feedback mechanism that convinces drivers that the accident rate is different. I don't believe there is such a feedback mechanism... in this case.

For instance I have not seen anything that publicly proclaims that accident rates are lower... But there has been a subtle message that air bags offer greater survivability to accidents.

I wish that you could read. I have presented no argument of my own, only reported what others give as the argument for risk homeostasis, and I was careful to note that nobody has yet demonstrated the connecting links.

Bekologist

i like facilities; they facilitate.

WaltPoutine

Unfortunately (in my view) much of the work has gone into constructing a facade ... when visitors click on the title of a certain piece of research, they will actually get a very official-looking document that is the cyclehelmets.org critique of that research.

Huh? It's very clear that what is being presented is analysis and critique. I don't see how you can fault it for a fairly clear, readable presentation. What would you prefer? The use of blink tags, gif89as and white text on a black background?

I acknowledge your even-handed description of the content of the site, but claiming that it is somehow misleading because it follows some basic readability and accessibility rules is unfair.

genec

I wish that you could read. I have presented no argument of my own, only reported what others give as the argument for risk homeostasis, and I was careful to note that nobody has yet demonstrated the connecting links.

OK, I stand corrected... please note my correction below.

But inherent in the argument is the belief that there is some feedback mechanism that convinces drivers that the accident rate is different. I don't believe there is such a feedback mechanism... in this case.

For instance I have not seen anything that publicly proclaims that accident rates are lower... But there has been a subtle message that air bags offer greater survivability to accidents.

RobertHurst

Huh? It's very clear that what is being presented is analysis and critique. I don't see how you can fault it for a fairly clear, readable presentation. What would you prefer? The use of blink tags, gif89as and white text on a black background?

I acknowledge your even-handed description of the content of the site, but claiming that it is somehow misleading because it follows some basic readability and accessibility rules is unfair.

Walt,

In certain places, in my opinion, it's not 'very clear that what is being presented is analysis and critique.' It's only somewhat clear, or becomes clear upon further inspection. Especially when the analysis and critique is in the form of a printable pdf linked directly from the title of the actual research. That's all I'm saying. It's a lovely site. Don't be upset.

Robert