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

except for the French of course, they remain the exception

;)

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.

Glad to see that you've modified your extreme and misleading statement that the "a great deal of work has gone into creating a facade." I'm not upset, I'm interested in whether or not your opinion on many matters should be given credence and when I see you make a comment such as the above I trust you less on all matters.

except for the French of course, they remain the exception

;)

No, it's those Brits.

Glad to see that you've modified your extreme and misleading statement that the "a great deal of work has gone into creating a facade." I'm not upset, I'm interested in whether or not your opinion on many matters should be given credence and when I see you make a comment such as the above I trust you less on all matters.

My 'extreme' statement was that, in my opinion, Walt, much of the work has gone into creating a facade. That's still my opinion. I don't much care if that opinion makes you trust me less or not.

But like I said, it's a helpful site if you go in with the necessary grains of salt.

My 'extreme' statement was that, in my opinion, Walt, much of the work has gone into creating a facade.

Pretty squirrelly Robert. You accuse the site of being misleading, when that's questioned you point to the professional, standard, readable nature of the site and further to a couple of examples (by your own reckoning) of the use of PDFs linked from the papers being discussed as evidence for that facade. That's either a malicious accusation, or else you're making careless allegations. It looks like both now. Thanks for making your level of trustworthiness clear.

That's still my opinion. I don't much care if that opinion makes you trust me less or not.. Nyah nyah etc.

My town just finished a new section of bike lane a month ago, and I finally road that section of road today to check out the before and after difference. The road was widen last year, and the lane stripe was done last month, the positioning of the lane put me in the old right tire track, which is a little further right of where I used to ride, but most of the lane is still in the door zone,(sometimes I think that the only reason for the bike lane was put in was to buffer motorists getting out of their cars from traffic). I can manage with the positioning by staying on the white line furthest from the curb, but now where the traffic used to sweep the road clean, the bike lane is now full of debris. So back out into the new right track I go, and pulling back into the bike lane to let cars pass, but now a larger portion of motorists are cutting me less slack and passing at a closer distance when I'm riding outside the lane and pull into it at over a city block before they reach me, where before they moved over and gave me several feet clearance. I did pass another cyclist on that section of road, he just happen to be on the sidewalk though.

My town just finished a new section of bike lane a month ago, and I finally road that section of road today to check out the before and after difference. The road was widen last year, and the lane stripe was done last month, the positioning of the lane put me in the old right tire track, which is a little further right of where I used to ride, but most of the lane is still in the door zone,(sometimes I think that the only reason for the bike lane was put in was to buffer motorists getting out of their cars from traffic). I can manage with the positioning by staying on the white line furthest from the curb, but now where the traffic used to sweep the road clean, the bike lane is now full of debris. So back out into the new right track I go, and pulling back into the bike lane to let cars pass, but now a larger portion of motorists are cutting me less slack and passing at a closer distance when I'm riding outside the lane and pull into it at over a city block before they reach me, where before they moved over and gave me several feet clearance. I did pass another cyclist on that section of road, he just happen to be on the sidewalk though.
On a street I cycle on similar changes were done.

Prior the street was three lanes each way with a center shared turn lane posted 40mph.
After on street parking was added, a door zone bike lane and one thru lane eliminated, speed limit changed to 35mph.
I used to take the outside narrow lane and had zero negative encounters with motorist.
Now I ride outside the door zone BL and get honked at. If I ride on the bike lane stripe I get close passes. It is far less enjoyable to cycle on.

Effectively the change eliminated a nice lane to ride on with two for motorist to pass. Somehow this is considered progress.

Al

On a street I cycle on similar changes were done.

Prior the street was three lanes each way with a center shared turn lane posted 40mph.
After on street parking was added, a door zone bike lane and one thru lane eliminated, speed limit changed to 35mph.
I used to take the outside narrow lane and had zero negative encounters with motorist.
Now I ride outside the door zone BL and get honked at. If I ride on the bike lane stripe I get close passes. It is far less enjoyable to cycle on.

Effectively the change eliminated a nice lane to ride on with two for motorist to pass. Somehow this is considered progress.

Al

Well the lowering of the speed limit was an improvement... but it sounds like sharrows would have worked far better then a BL.

Well the lowering of the speed limit was an improvement... but it sounds like sharrows would have worked far better then a BL.

I totally agree about the SL lowering.

Sharrows too. However I think sharrows need to be centerish in narrow lanes, not right biased as some I've seen are.

Al

On a street I cycle on similar changes were done.

Prior the street was three lanes each way with a center shared turn lane posted 40mph.
After on street parking was added, a door zone bike lane and one through lane eliminated, speed limit changed to 35mph.
I used to take the outside narrow lane and had zero negative encounters with motorist.
Now I ride outside the door zone BL and get honked at. If I ride on the bike lane stripe I get close passes. It is far less enjoyable to cycle on.

Effectively the change eliminated a nice lane to ride on with two for motorist to pass. Somehow this is considered progress.

Al

I agree with Al. I much prefer narrow outside lanes.

Sharrows too. However I think sharrows need to be centerish in narrow lanes, not right biased as some I've seen are.

Al

Yep ... their implementation here has been pretty disappointing so far. Pretty much sticks you in the gutter.

-G

There's really no sense in putting a bikelane on any road with on street parking and regular traffic lights, ie. most city centres. Were cycling groups consulted about these changes? I agree centrally placed sharrows are better in those situations.

I'm curious - are there any sort of design guidelines for bikelane implementation over there? There's one here, although as it' only a 'guide' it often gets ignored, but it's better than nothing.

Yep ... their implementation here has been pretty disappointing so far. Pretty much sticks you in the gutter.

-G

I assume you are talking about DC, if you have road, lane and placement measurements I would be interested. So far I don't think Baltimore's implementation sticks you in the gutter but for some narrow lane widths I do think it would be better to go with more of a center placement then off to the right.

PS. If anyone wants to submit their comments abouts sharrows to the NCUTCD so they can be an adopted standard: http://www.baltimorespokes.org/article.php?story=20080330163659675

There's really no sense in putting a bikelane on any road with on street parking and regular traffic lights, ie. most city centres. Were cycling groups consulted about these changes? I agree centrally placed sharrows are better in those situations.

I'm curious - are there any sort of design guidelines for bikelane implementation over there? There's one here, although as it' only a 'guide' it often gets ignored, but it's better than nothing.

There's the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. It specificaly allows for door zone bike lanes (11 feet total width for parking AND the bike lane).

Based on the many door zone bike lanes I've seen in Philly, the recommendations are also largely ignored and the striped is placed as far right as needed to not make the traffic lane too narrow. The result is bike lanes like the one on Baltimore Avenue where the lane is about 3 feet wide and most cars are parked with their left tires on or near the line. The lanes are entirely useless if you wanted to stay out of the door zone and barely wide enough to offer decent passing clearance from same direction traffic, especially the trolleys.

There's really no sense in putting a bikelane on any road with on street parking and regular traffic lights, ie. most city centres. Were cycling groups consulted about these changes? I agree centrally placed sharrows are better in those situations.

I'm curious - are there any sort of design guidelines for bikelane implementation over there? There's one here, although as it' only a 'guide' it often gets ignored, but it's better than nothing.

We have AASHTO guidelines and I think they are decent enough but you have to be a cyclist/engineer to interpret the guidelines well and there is the problem with the implementation going to the lowest bidder. It is interesting that here in Baltimore it seems the facilities of our Bike Master Plan are all laid out by consulting firm and it seems cycling groups (me) cannot make comments till after they have been put down. There is a couple of issues that I think is the result of envisioning the road restriped with narrower lanes but they squeezed in the bike lane with current lane widths. :(

There's the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. It specificaly allows for door zone bike lanes (11 feet total width for parking AND the bike lane).

Reading AASHTO can be fun, but if you look at the figure you will see they actually recommend 13' when there is substantial parking or high turnover.

Reading AASHTO can be fun, but if you look at the figure you will see they actually recommend 13' when there is substantial parking or high turnover.

You're right. I missed that note. What's strange is that on page 18 they recommend 12 feet of shared-use space where there is on street parking and presumably no bike lane. I wonder how they determined the minor difference between the two. I'd want more space with the bike lane than without (assuming low turnover parking where 11 feet is recommended when a bike lane is striped).

is the 'you' me, or the collective 'you all?'

because i think we are ALL happier WITH facilities, particularily if well implemented. failures or weak infrastructure demands improvement, but generally seen and observed, enough for me, the casual observer, to see a causual effect on bicycling:

bike facilities bring more bicyclists off the sidewalks and onto the road, encourage bicycling, lessen wrong way cycling, increase motorist awareness of bicyclists, and lead to a reduction in indexed accident rates for bicyclists in communities. bike facilities provide bonifide, on the ground evidence that bikes are part of the transportation mix.

a city that is well accomodated? Make no doubt about it, that city is geared up for bikes as viable transportation. It's in your face, and people are biking.

Are we better without bike facilities? heck no!

I assume you are talking about DC, if you have road, lane and placement measurements I would be interested. So far I don't think Baltimore's implementation sticks you in the gutter but for some narrow lane widths I do think it would be better to go with more of a center placement then off to the right.

I will try to take some pictures B. Unlikely that I will have time to stop and take measurements. Sorry bud. Let me list where I have seen them ...

(1) Over by Rosslyn on N. Moore St (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Arlington,+VA,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=38.897897,-77.071495&spn=0.001177,0.00203&z=19&iwloc=addr)

(2) On Harrison Street (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=Arlington,+VA,+USA&ie=UTF8&ll=38.896448,-77.137933&spn=0.002355,0.004061&z=18&iwloc=addr) just north of Lee Highway

(3) ... I think that there is another one on George Mason Drive ... but that is pretty fuzzy. There might also be another set by Four Mile Run. But I will have to look for it.

Now that I think about it more clearly, I would say that Harrison St puts one in a particularly bad situation. N. Moore St. and George Mason are probably more negative than positive although in the gutter is an overstatement from memory.

Some particularly good SHARROWs are in the Del Rey section of Alexandria on Mt. Vernon Avenue (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=del+rey,+va&jsv=107&sll=38.897099,-77.139041&sspn=0.001177,0.00203&ie=UTF8&ll=38.815034,-77.056555&spn=0.002357,0.004061&t=h&z=18). I thought that you might be able to see the one in front of the high school from space; but I think that the picture pre-dates it.

because i think we are ALL happier WITH facilities, particularily if well implemented. failures or weak infrastructure demands improvement, but generally seen and observed, enough for me, the casual observer, to see a causual effect on bicycling:

Awww c'mon Bek. Are you really saying that all cyclists are better off with crappy facilities? Pick an egregious example -- say a bike lane to the right of a right-turn-only lane -- and tell us how we are all better.

I put some text in this font since I am unclear what it means.

I assume you are talking about DC, if you have road, lane and placement measurements I would be interested. So far I don't think Baltimore's implementation sticks you in the gutter but for some narrow lane widths I do think it would be better to go with more of a center placement then off to the right.

Oh B. I should point out that there are few SHARROWs in Arlington. I am trying to think of some in DC. I think that they are there. I am just blanking at the moment.

lessen wrong way cycling

Are you sure about that? Every wrong way cyclist I've encountered has been in a bike lane. Near the university the bike lanes contain 30% wrong way cyclists. So not in my observation and it makes sense too, riding wrong way without a bike lane would 'feel' more dangerous to me than wrong way in one.

Al

I'm pretty neutral on the bike lane/bike facility subject--it would be a good thing if the money was directed to law enforcement with a focus on rigorous enforcement of laws governing driver behavior.
I don't feel a need to be protected from about 99% of drivers--but there's about 1% who, seriously, should be treated about the same way that the Nazis treated Jews.

Oh B. I should point out that there are few SHARROWs in Arlington. I am trying to think of some in DC. I think that they are there. I am just blanking at the moment.
Would you like to get together Sat afternoon to ride out Arlington and we can discuss issues?

Are you sure about that? Every wrong way cyclist I've encountered has been in a bike lane. Near the university the bike lanes contain 30% wrong way cyclists. So not in my observation and it makes sense too, riding wrong way without a bike lane would 'feel' more dangerous to me than wrong way in one.

It's interesting to note in the Mesa stats there were no wrong way cycling crashes in bike lanes. I believe in the BL vs WOL paper it mentions a slight decrease in wrong way cyclists with bike lanes over WOLs. The observation with sharrows is a 80% reduction of wrong way cyclists.

So far I am leaning that sharrows should be stressed more then bike lanes.

It's interesting to note in the Mesa stats there were no wrong way cycling crashes in bike lanes. I believe in the BL vs WOL paper it mentions a slight decrease in wrong way cyclists with bike lanes over WOLs. The observation with sharrows is a 80% reduction of wrong way cyclists.

So far I am leaning that sharrows should be stressed more then bike lanes.

This is the Mesa, AZ 2005 data with in bike lane against traffic collisions bolded.
TABLE 5: LOCATION AND DIRECTION OF PEDALCYCLIST TRAVEL
Location and Direction, Number of Crashes, Percent Total

Midblock Across Roadway 34 12.3%

Sidewalk
Private Drive - Against Traffic 43 15.6%
Intersection - Against Traffic (Ride out) 36 13.0%
Private Drive - With Traffic 5 1.8%
Intersection - With Traffic (Ride out) 6 2.2%

In Crosswalk
Against Traffic 30 10.9%
With Traffic 17 6.2%

In Bike Lane
With Traffic 9 3.3%
Against Traffic 0 0.0%
Private Drive - Against Traffic 4 1.4%
Intersection - Against Traffic 8 2.9%
Private Drive - With Traffic 6 2.2%
Intersection - With Traffic 9 3.3%

In Roadway
With Traffic 5 1.8%
Against Traffic 4 1.4%
Private Drive - Against Traffic 11 4.0%
Intersection - Against Traffic 21 7.6%
Private Drive - With Traffic 5 1.8%
Intersection - With Traffic 19 6.9%

Unknown 4 1.4%
TOTAL 276 100.0%


What these stats don't help with understanding is the rate of collisions for these scenarios.

Are you sure about that? Every wrong way cyclist I've encountered has been in a bike lane. Near the university the bike lanes contain 30% wrong way cyclists. So not in my observation and it makes sense too, riding wrong way without a bike lane would 'feel' more dangerous to me than wrong way in one.

Al

Don't know about the "wrong way" aspect, but near the university here BL tend to make for really bad left turn practices from students... I think I have seen every possible way to turn left from a BL... and none of them are pretty.

On the other hand the only "wrong way" "rider" I have ever encountered was on a Segway, and was the CTO of a very large well known company... and if that guy didn't have the sense to go the right way... heaven help us. (I exchanged emails with him later, and he had a whole list of excuses as to why he did it that way... none of which included giving way to "right way" cyclists.) I think wrong way riding comes down to some perceived sense of safety... not an issue of not knowing better.

I believe in the BL vs WOL paper it mentions a slight decrease in wrong way cyclists with bike lanes over WOLs.

This is what the BLvsWOL page (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm) says:
"10. Wrong Way Riding. BLs more readily enable wrong way riding. Wrong way riding in BLs is a significant collision threat with motor vehicles, especially those pulling out of side streets and driveways, and also with correct riding bicyclists who are in the same path. Imagine the hazard to downhill bicyclists on Airport Rd. riding north from Rosemary St. if the bicyclists who currently ride the wrong way on the sidewalk were to ride the wrong way in a newly created BL. Bicyclists are not as likely ride the wrong way in WOLs, though wrong way riding can and does happen anywhere."

This is the Mesa, AZ 2005 data with in bike lane against traffic collisions bolded.

Whoops I missed a couple of lines, thanks for the correction.

This is what the BLvsWOL page (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm) says:
"10. Wrong Way Riding. BLs more readily enable wrong way riding. Wrong way riding in BLs is a significant collision threat with motor vehicles, especially those pulling out of side streets and driveways, and also with correct riding bicyclists who are in the same path. Imagine the hazard to downhill bicyclists on Airport Rd. riding north from Rosemary St. if the bicyclists who currently ride the wrong way on the sidewalk were to ride the wrong way in a newly created BL. Bicyclists are not as likely ride the wrong way in WOLs, though wrong way riding can and does happen anywhere."

I'm batting a 100 today. :o Even with that said I am still leaning that sharrows are better at correcting some/most errors/problems with bike lanes. I will also note that in (no bike lane) Baltimore 35% of our bike crashes are wrong way cyclists.

I'm batting a 100 today. :o Even with that said I am still leaning that sharrows are better at correcting some/most errors/problems with bike lanes. I will also note that in (no bike lane) Baltimore 35% of our bike crashes are wrong way cyclists.

Are there many one way streets in Baltimore? There are virtually none in Mesa.

Wrong way cycling is in my observation far more common on less busy lower speed streets than on arterials.

To be clear (not that this has come up yet in discussion) I do not consider riding on the sidewalk against traffic wrong way cycling. Except for some municipal codes, most US states do not specify a correct direction to cycle on the sidewalk. It is, however, as the Mesa study calls it "Against Traffic"

Al

Would you like to get together Sat afternoon to ride out Arlington and we can discuss issues?

I will send you my phone number B. However, that the Prince often prevents any lengthy Arlington/Alexandria/DC wandering. His is also somewhat unpredictable.

However, the boss and I might attend a social ride this Saturday. You would be more than welcome. But our attendance really depends on how much sleep Mrs. Invisible Hand gets dealing with the Prince. Moreover, we are still home shopping at the moment. High probability of a summer picnic ... love to have you and significant other over.

-G

I have very few encounters with wrong way cyclists in the bike lanes, and most I see are at a considerable distance, and I can take evasive action long before I reach them. Last year, only one caught me off guard, by curb hugging then pulling out from behind a row of parked cars and into the bike lane, causing me to shorten the life of my rear tire by a hundred miles or more. So far, I have not had a crash that was caused by a wrong way cyclist, and plan to keep it that way, plus the majority of wrong way cyclists that I observe are sidewalk riders, and have little effect on me.


invisiblehand, handsome prince you have there, enjoy those sleepless nights for he'll grow up fast and be out on his own before you know it.

Awww c'mon Bek. Are you really saying that all cyclists are better off with crappy facilities? Pick an egregious example -- say a bike lane to the right of a right-turn-only lane -- and tell us how we are all better.

I put some text in this font since I am unclear what it means.

The Coronation Drive shared path here in Brisbane is probably a good example. Some sections are great, but at some points it narrows to about 3m. It's pretty sub-standard for a singificant proportion of it's length, but it gets lots of bike traffic nonetheless, many of whom I'm sure wouldn't be riding at all if they only had the road to ride on. It's safe if everyone rides according to the conditions, particularly slowing down on the many blind curves, but it's certainly not ideal. Even so, it is preferable to the road. I even used it myself when I worked out that way, even after trying the road option, which was considerably longer.

The Coronation Drive shared path here in Brisbane is probably a good example. Some sections are great, but at some points it narrows to about 3m. It's pretty sub-standard for a singificant proportion of it's length, but it gets lots of bike traffic nonetheless, many of whom I'm sure wouldn't be riding at all if they only had the road to ride on. It's safe if everyone rides according to the conditions, particularly slowing down on the many blind curves, but it's certainly not ideal. Even so, it is preferable to the road. I even used it myself when I worked out that way, even after trying the road option, which was considerably longer.

Ahhhhh ... so the statement does not mean that all cyclists are better off with all crappy facilities. Instead, that sometimes a crappy facility makes all -- well, let's write almost all -- cyclists better off.

I do agree that the safe strategy is speed dependent.

invisiblehand, handsome prince you have there, enjoy those sleepless nights for he'll grow up fast and be out on his own before you know it.

Thanks dynodonn. Lucky for us, my mother-in-law is able to spend a lot of time with the boy. So day care and an extra set of hands is always available.

I plan on starting him off with a fixed gear bike ... I figure I can always flip the wheel if it turns out being a bad idea.

noisebeam, if truly, 30 percent of bicyclists you see in Mesa are wrong way bicyclists in a bike lane, crash stats would be wildly skewed in another direction, noisebeam.

invisiblehand, why the emphasis on crappy facilties? thats a specious argument. I DO NOT ARGUE THAT, thanks.

When i discuss bike infrastructure, i discuss WELL IMPLEMENTED infrastructure. you may think bike infrastructure can only be 'crappy', but thats both a value judgement and an engineering issue.


However, in broad strokes, even 'crappy' infrastructure has a generally positive effect of increasing bicyclists and decreasing indexed bike collisions. Portland in particular and many many other European accomodated cities with what invisible hand would judge as 'crappy' facilites see much greater numbers of bicyclists and an indexed reduction in bike accidents.

High publicity attached to bicyclist deaths in portland do not discredit that portland has become safer -a lower indexed accident rate - for bicyclists thru infrastructure enhancements.

invisiblehand, why the emphasis on crappy facilties? thats a specious argument. I DO NOT ARGUE THAT, thanks.

You are right that you did not explicitly state that cyclists are better off with crappy facilities. However, you did include the statement "particularily if well implemented". My parsing of the sentence -- I don't know whether Allister agrees with my parsing or simply responded to my reply -- interprets the entire passage to mean that cyclists benefit from all facilities but particularly so if they are well implemented. If this is my mistake, my apologies.

Obviously, I think that the "implemented well" caveat is an important one. One that, in my experience, gets overlooked in practice too often and results in people getting seriously hurt or simply creating more trouble than its worth.

I'll end my rant here ... :D

noisebeam, if truly, 30 percent of bicyclists you see in Mesa are wrong way bicyclists in a bike lane, crash stats would be wildly skewed in another direction, noisebeam.

I never said 30% of cyclist are wrong way in the BL in Mesa. Not only did I not say it, it is far from fact. Perhaps ~1/100 cyclists I've encountered in Mesa when BL are present are riding the wrong way in it.

The 30% observation is in BLs on 25mph streets in the university area in Tempe. The problem is widely recognized and in response every "Bike Lane" sign has a "Wrong Way" sign on the back and there are bi-annual enforcement sweeps for wrong way riding.

Al

you may think bike infrastructure can only be 'crappy', but thats both a value judgement and an engineering issue.

Why do you think this?

However, in broad strokes, even 'crappy' infrastructure has a generally positive effect of increasing bicyclists and decreasing indexed bike collisions. Portland in particular and many many other European accomodated cities with what invisible hand would judge as 'crappy' facilites see much greater numbers of bicyclists and an indexed reduction in bike accidents.

High publicity attached to bicyclist deaths in portland do not discredit that portland has become safer -a lower indexed accident rate - for bicyclists thru infrastructure enhancements.

Allister's example of a sub-par trail -- at least that is how I understand it -- is similar to trails around here -- DC people, I am thinking of Four Mile Run where the lines of sight are clearly bad in some spots plus maintenance isn't exactly top notch. Cyclists use them frequently to bypass several busy areas and it connects a few useful points saving quite a bit of time over regular roads. I think that it is a good example of how most cyclists are better off with it than without it even though some sections are pretty crappy by a lot of the standards that get floated around here in A&S.

But I would be careful about those broad strokes since that strategy seems to result in facilities being broadly applied with little thought. Sometimes it works ... sometimes it doesn't ... and, I would argue, that it isn't that difficult to predict given some thought.

BTW, since you think it is the facilities that create more European ridership and safety, what proportion of the increase in ridership in say Copenhagen is due to bike lanes versus the high price of gasoline versus the lack of auto parking versus its geography (and so on)? If you are unsure, well then you really don't know what creates the differences between the two continents.

And what are this accident rates being indexed by anyway?

Ahhhhh ... so the statement does not mean that all cyclists are better off with all crappy facilities. Instead, that sometimes a crappy facility makes all -- well, let's write almost all -- cyclists better off.

I do agree that the safe strategy is speed dependent.

Well I wouldn't use such absolute terms. All I meant was that sometimes a crappy facility can still be the preferred choice and useful to cyclists if ridden correctly, especially if the road is even crappier. The path I mentioned is by no means the worst such facility I've seen. There was a 'story' (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23545222-3102,00.html)in the paper about that very path this week actually. Seems there's growing public pressure to add some width to the worst spots, and I agree.

You are right that you did not explicitly state that cyclists are better off with crappy facilities. However, you did include the statement "particularily if well implemented". My parsing of the sentence -- I don't know whether Allister agrees with my parsing or simply responded to my reply -- interprets the entire passage to mean that cyclists benefit from all facilities but particularly so if they are well implemented. If this is my mistake, my apologies.

That's the way I read it too. Not sure I necessarily agree in all cases, but it did bring that example to mind.

Obviously, I think that the "implemented well" caveat is an important one. One that, in my experience, gets overlooked in practice too often and results in people getting seriously hurt or simply creating more trouble than its worth.


What constitutes a 'well implemented' facility can vary from person to person too I'd say. I think there is a trend in the road building authorities towards trying to make facilities better for cyclists. I think public safety is a very serious consideration for them. These (http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/BicyclesPedestrians/DevelopingBicycleNetworks/BicycleFacilityDesignStandards.htm)are some good examples of design guides that are being more actively enforced by our southern cousins in Victoria, based on the Austroads Part 14 Guide (The local equivalent to your AASHTO guide). I haven't looked at them all, but the ones I have looked at seem pretty good.

And what are this accident rates being indexed by anyway?

Per capita. If you started to make guesses about per cyclists or per bike miles traveled, there would most likely be even a larger gap between the US and Europe.

One or more of my city's authorities must think that the bike lanes in my town are "well implemented", since they keep putting in door zone bike lanes. I have yet to see any noticable number of sidewalk cyclist moving to the bike lanes, and I can only speculate as to why they haven't. It sure hasn't been a case of "build it and they will come" around here locally when it pertains to bike lanes.

What constitutes a 'well implemented' facility can vary from person to person too I'd say.

I agree since there are trade-offs between cost, type of cyclist, velocity, and probably a bunch of other things that escape me at the moment.

Per capita. If you started to make guesses about per cyclists or per bike miles traveled, there would most likely be even a larger gap between the US and Europe.

So then this is just a rate versus an "indexed" rate. My interpretation of an indexed rate would be analogous to statistical controls/adjustments/weighting that one sees in other disciplines. So the indexing can be quite informative -- if done well -- since it allows better comparisons between otherwise very different objects.

Are there many one way streets in Baltimore? There are virtually none in Mesa.

Wrong way cycling is in my observation far more common on less busy lower speed streets than on arterials.

To be clear (not that this has come up yet in discussion) I do not consider riding on the sidewalk against traffic wrong way cycling. Except for some municipal codes, most US states do not specify a correct direction to cycle on the sidewalk. It is, however, as the Mesa study calls it "Against Traffic"

Al

If you include sidewalks Mesa has 57% wrong way cyclists in crashes, without sidewalks 28%. Either way riding the wrong way is a significant problem. It is interesting to note the most significant difference between right way and wrong way cycling in the Mesa breakdown happens in the crosswalk category (excluding sidewalk riding.)

So for me if facilities can help get cyclists off the sidewalk that is a very good thing, and if we can correct wrong way riding, that is even better.

My observations here is that the wrong way cyclists like the same roads I do (I see them everywhere.)

You're right. I missed that note. What's strange is that on page 18 they recommend 12 feet of shared-use space where there is on street parking and presumably no bike lane. I wonder how they determined the minor difference between the two. I'd want more space with the bike lane than without (assuming low turnover parking where 11 feet is recommended when a bike lane is striped).

What I find really strange is recommending 14 feet (pg 17) for shared use without the possibility of car doors opening up.

We have a few residential areas in the metro area where there is optional street parking besides driveway parking and it is rare to find a car in the street. Along sections like this I can see the minimal width being adequate. The problem is conveying to an engineer why an occasional parked car is not really a problem but a whole bunch of parked cars are a problem (you try scanning 2 cars a second for occupants and see how well you do.)

What I find really strange is recommending 14 feet (pg 17) for shared use without the possibility of car doors opening up.

We have a few residential areas in the metro area where there is optional street parking besides driveway parking and it is rare to find a car in the street. Along sections like this I can see the minimal width being adequate. The problem is conveying to an engineer why an occasional parked car is not really a problem but a whole bunch of parked cars are a problem (you try scanning 2 cars a second for occupants and see how well you do.)

Yeah, would love to see some of these engineers ride a bike through their creations. :D