Soil_Sampler
04-10-08, 04:12 PM
http://www.velonews.com/article/74470/legally-speaking-with-bob-mionske---blaming-the-victim
View Full Version : Velonews
Pages :
[1]
2
shatdow
04-10-08, 05:04 PM
Little more descriptive title maybe?
genec
04-10-08, 06:08 PM
One has to wonder about the biases of the data used for the Cross Fisher studies that have been the basis for Effective Cycling et. al..
I understand that the Cross studies were based on reading police reports... if these reports were heavily biased, then that could have tilted the outcome of the studies.
I understand that the Cross studies were based on reading police reports... if these reports were heavily biased, then that could have tilted the outcome of the studies.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-10-08, 06:22 PM
One has to wonder about the biases of the data used for the Cross Fisher studies that have been the basis for Effective Cycling et. al..
I understand that the Cross studies were based on reading police reports... if these reports were heavily biased, then that could have tilted the outcome of the studies.
I long ago stopped "wondering" about the usefulness of conclusions drawn by a grossly biased self-proclaimed expert who cherry picked such biased data in order to promote his own agenda.
I understand that the Cross studies were based on reading police reports... if these reports were heavily biased, then that could have tilted the outcome of the studies.
I long ago stopped "wondering" about the usefulness of conclusions drawn by a grossly biased self-proclaimed expert who cherry picked such biased data in order to promote his own agenda.
bikingshearer
04-10-08, 06:31 PM
I long ago stopped "wondering" about the usefulness of conclusions drawn by a grossly biased self-proclaimed expert who cherry picked such biased data in order to promote his own agenda.
Is there anything that the A&S crowd can't turn into a referendum on John Forester? For crying out loud, people, there are other things going on in the world. Even in the bicycling world. Even in the bicycling advocacy world. Time to move on, don't'cha think?
Is there anything that the A&S crowd can't turn into a referendum on John Forester? For crying out loud, people, there are other things going on in the world. Even in the bicycling world. Even in the bicycling advocacy world. Time to move on, don't'cha think?
genec
04-11-08, 07:44 AM
Is there anything that the A&S crowd can't turn into a referendum on John Forester? For crying out loud, people, there are other things going on in the world. Even in the bicycling world. Even in the bicycling advocacy world. Time to move on, don't'cha think?
Well when you consider either he or his ideas represented by others tend to dominate certain sectors of cycling advocacy... the answer is clearly no.
But the data that much of his work is based upon is from studies made in the 70s gathered from police reports that were most likely biased. and as ILTB points out, the data was probably further cherry picked to meet certain hypothesis.
Meanwhile, other places have shown that cyclists can well get along well in society with a nice mix of political support and facilities, such as exist in many European cultures and even here in Portland Or. (now with a 6% model share). Yet that very reality is denied by those "schooled" in Forester's model.
So on one hand we have one concept probably fueled by biased data. On the other, we have clearly observable results. And because of this dichotomy, this vast rift exists in the cycling community.
Well when you consider either he or his ideas represented by others tend to dominate certain sectors of cycling advocacy... the answer is clearly no.
But the data that much of his work is based upon is from studies made in the 70s gathered from police reports that were most likely biased. and as ILTB points out, the data was probably further cherry picked to meet certain hypothesis.
Meanwhile, other places have shown that cyclists can well get along well in society with a nice mix of political support and facilities, such as exist in many European cultures and even here in Portland Or. (now with a 6% model share). Yet that very reality is denied by those "schooled" in Forester's model.
So on one hand we have one concept probably fueled by biased data. On the other, we have clearly observable results. And because of this dichotomy, this vast rift exists in the cycling community.
invisiblehand
04-11-08, 09:17 AM
So on one hand we have one concept probably fueled by biased data. On the other, we have clearly observable results. And because of this dichotomy, this vast rift exists in the cycling community.
I doubt that only the Ken Cross gathered data has a bias to it ... on this or the other side of the Atlantic.
I doubt that only the Ken Cross gathered data has a bias to it ... on this or the other side of the Atlantic.
The Human Car
04-11-08, 09:31 AM
One has to wonder about the biases of the data used for the Cross Fisher studies that have been the basis for Effective Cycling et. al..
I understand that the Cross studies were based on reading police reports... if these reports were heavily biased, then that could have tilted the outcome of the studies.
The idea of studies like Cross Fisher is to reshuffle the police reports according to different criteria. Police reports are primarily concerned at documenting who is at fault and why. The Cross Fisher study was about identifying crash types or categorizing the movements involved and unlike police reports the Cross Fisher study was reviewed. I seriously doubt one can accuse the study of bias of incorrectly identifying wrong way cycling as right way cycling or any such category errors. Where the bias and errors come in is in drawing conclusions from this data. As ILTB likes to subliminaly suggest without exposure rates we cannot really say what movement is more dangerous then another movement.
As an example of a conclusion error; since most cycling crashes happen to sober cyclists riding on 25mph roads and hardly any crashes happen to drunk cyclists on 65+mph roads, so therefore riding drunk on the expressway must be the safest way to ride.
What we do have is a list of the relative dangers of car/bike interactions, logically we could spin off a couple of alternate universes where we would be teaching how to ride safe while riding against traffic or how to ride safe while cycling on the sidewalk. The reasons why we did not choose those routes should be self evident.
So now what is in question is the methodology employed to mitigate the dangers of car/bike interactions, which is based on our experience, observations and assumptions. In short safe cycling is based on our bias but only because nothing better is available.
I understand that the Cross studies were based on reading police reports... if these reports were heavily biased, then that could have tilted the outcome of the studies.
The idea of studies like Cross Fisher is to reshuffle the police reports according to different criteria. Police reports are primarily concerned at documenting who is at fault and why. The Cross Fisher study was about identifying crash types or categorizing the movements involved and unlike police reports the Cross Fisher study was reviewed. I seriously doubt one can accuse the study of bias of incorrectly identifying wrong way cycling as right way cycling or any such category errors. Where the bias and errors come in is in drawing conclusions from this data. As ILTB likes to subliminaly suggest without exposure rates we cannot really say what movement is more dangerous then another movement.
As an example of a conclusion error; since most cycling crashes happen to sober cyclists riding on 25mph roads and hardly any crashes happen to drunk cyclists on 65+mph roads, so therefore riding drunk on the expressway must be the safest way to ride.
What we do have is a list of the relative dangers of car/bike interactions, logically we could spin off a couple of alternate universes where we would be teaching how to ride safe while riding against traffic or how to ride safe while cycling on the sidewalk. The reasons why we did not choose those routes should be self evident.
So now what is in question is the methodology employed to mitigate the dangers of car/bike interactions, which is based on our experience, observations and assumptions. In short safe cycling is based on our bias but only because nothing better is available.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-11-08, 10:38 AM
Where the bias and errors come in is in drawing conclusions from this data. As ILTB likes to subliminaly suggest without exposure rates we cannot really say what movement is more dangerous then another movement.
Exactly right. The fatal flaw of such so-called risk analysis has all along been drawing conclusions based more on the analyzer's bias than on the actual available data. I didn't think I was all that subliminal ;) in previously pointing out the fatal flaw of drawing any conclusion about relative risk of various scenarios without considering exposure rates and accident severity, both factors completely ignored by Forester, et al. in their bogus "crash rate" analysis schemes.
As an example of a conclusion error; since most cycling crashes happen to sober cyclists riding on 25mph roads and hardly any crashes happen to drunk cyclists on 65+mph roads, so therefore riding drunk on the expressway must be the safest way to ride.
Even safer must be drunk riding the wrong way in the traffic lanes of the expressway without lights at midnight. I'm willing to bet "statistics" prove there is a ZERO CRASH RATE for such a safe cycling technique.
Exactly right. The fatal flaw of such so-called risk analysis has all along been drawing conclusions based more on the analyzer's bias than on the actual available data. I didn't think I was all that subliminal ;) in previously pointing out the fatal flaw of drawing any conclusion about relative risk of various scenarios without considering exposure rates and accident severity, both factors completely ignored by Forester, et al. in their bogus "crash rate" analysis schemes.
As an example of a conclusion error; since most cycling crashes happen to sober cyclists riding on 25mph roads and hardly any crashes happen to drunk cyclists on 65+mph roads, so therefore riding drunk on the expressway must be the safest way to ride.
Even safer must be drunk riding the wrong way in the traffic lanes of the expressway without lights at midnight. I'm willing to bet "statistics" prove there is a ZERO CRASH RATE for such a safe cycling technique.
genec
04-11-08, 10:39 AM
The idea of studies like Cross Fisher is to reshuffle the police reports according to different criteria. Police reports are primarily concerned at documenting who is at fault and why. The Cross Fisher study was about identifying crash types or categorizing the movements involved and unlike police reports the Cross Fisher study was reviewed. I seriously doubt one can accuse the study of bias of incorrectly identifying wrong way cycling as right way cycling or any such category errors. Where the bias and errors come in is in drawing conclusions from this data. As ILTB likes to subliminaly suggest without exposure rates we cannot really say what movement is more dangerous then another movement.
As an example of a conclusion error; since most cycling crashes happen to sober cyclists riding on 25mph roads and hardly any crashes happen to drunk cyclists on 65+mph roads, so therefore riding drunk on the expressway must be the safest way to ride.
What we do have is a list of the relative dangers of car/bike interactions, logically we could spin off a couple of alternate universes where we would be teaching how to ride safe while riding against traffic or how to ride safe while cycling on the sidewalk. The reasons why we did not choose those routes should be self evident.
So now what is in question is the methodology employed to mitigate the dangers of car/bike interactions, which is based on our experience, observations and assumptions. In short safe cycling is based on our bias but only because nothing better is available.
But even in the Cross Fisher studies the information was based on what police had gathered from witnesses.. if the only witness is a motorist and dead cyclist, how accurate is the data contained in the police report... sure the motorist said the cyclist was riding the wrong way... or swerved or came flying out of the intersection... and that is what the police wrote... and that is what Cross Fisher cataloged, but if the only witness was lying in the first place... the resultant study is going to be skewed.
Velo news even reported that there was a bias of police tending to question motorists while ignoring live cyclists... again if the motorist is seeking to cover their behind, the resulting report will tend to convey the data the motorist wants the police to believe, regardless of the truth.
One can be as objective as possible while compiling the data, but if the data is based on bias and lies, then the outcome will tend to reflect that input. (Garbage in ----> Garbage out)
I am sure the review process did verify that Cross and Fisher were objective about their methods of cataloging the data... but again, if the data were flawed...
As an example of a conclusion error; since most cycling crashes happen to sober cyclists riding on 25mph roads and hardly any crashes happen to drunk cyclists on 65+mph roads, so therefore riding drunk on the expressway must be the safest way to ride.
What we do have is a list of the relative dangers of car/bike interactions, logically we could spin off a couple of alternate universes where we would be teaching how to ride safe while riding against traffic or how to ride safe while cycling on the sidewalk. The reasons why we did not choose those routes should be self evident.
So now what is in question is the methodology employed to mitigate the dangers of car/bike interactions, which is based on our experience, observations and assumptions. In short safe cycling is based on our bias but only because nothing better is available.
But even in the Cross Fisher studies the information was based on what police had gathered from witnesses.. if the only witness is a motorist and dead cyclist, how accurate is the data contained in the police report... sure the motorist said the cyclist was riding the wrong way... or swerved or came flying out of the intersection... and that is what the police wrote... and that is what Cross Fisher cataloged, but if the only witness was lying in the first place... the resultant study is going to be skewed.
Velo news even reported that there was a bias of police tending to question motorists while ignoring live cyclists... again if the motorist is seeking to cover their behind, the resulting report will tend to convey the data the motorist wants the police to believe, regardless of the truth.
One can be as objective as possible while compiling the data, but if the data is based on bias and lies, then the outcome will tend to reflect that input. (Garbage in ----> Garbage out)
I am sure the review process did verify that Cross and Fisher were objective about their methods of cataloging the data... but again, if the data were flawed...
invisiblehand
04-11-08, 11:18 AM
But even in the Cross Fisher studies the information was based on what police had gathered from witnesses.. if the only witness is a motorist and dead cyclist, how accurate is the data contained in the police report... sure the motorist said the cyclist was riding the wrong way... or swerved or came flying out of the intersection... and that is what the police wrote... and that is what Cross Fisher cataloged, but if the only witness was lying in the first place... the resultant study is going to be skewed.
Velo news even reported that there was a bias of police tending to question motorists while ignoring live cyclists... again if the motorist is seeking to cover their behind, the resulting report will tend to convey the data the motorist wants the police to believe, regardless of the truth.
One can be as objective as possible while compiling the data, but if the data is based on bias and lies, then the outcome will tend to reflect that input. (Garbage in ----> Garbage out)
I am sure the review process did verify that Cross and Fisher were objective about their methods of cataloging the data... but again, if the data were flawed...
With regards to accident studies in general, I would be pretty surprised if there was wide-spread general disregard for the truth among the police. That is, I believe that their is an anti-cycling bias but that it is probably more of a subconscious bias rather than an active one. Roughly speaking, these accident studies produce results that are in the same ballpark of each other. Now there is a huge identification issue going on, but if this bias is so important small changes in police attitudes should make a big difference in the accident studies.
One can also think about the bias itself and what it means for the analysis and model fitting. My guess is that drivers probably stretch the truth more than make-up fairy tales. For example, a driver would probably say that the cyclist failed to stop at the light/intersection than completely fabricate a story where the cyclist was riding on the wrong side of the street.
Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that exposure in many of these studies is unobserved ... although I have seen a reference to one that did ... such that the probabilities/rates that we would want to know are unknown.
I still don't know why, however, one would think that U.S. accident data is so terrible such that zero inferences can be made while the data about the glorious and safe cycling in Europe is unaffected. If anything, it would seem as if a European driver has a greater incentive to lie -- since they have increased liability -- after an accident than a US/British driver.
Velo news even reported that there was a bias of police tending to question motorists while ignoring live cyclists... again if the motorist is seeking to cover their behind, the resulting report will tend to convey the data the motorist wants the police to believe, regardless of the truth.
One can be as objective as possible while compiling the data, but if the data is based on bias and lies, then the outcome will tend to reflect that input. (Garbage in ----> Garbage out)
I am sure the review process did verify that Cross and Fisher were objective about their methods of cataloging the data... but again, if the data were flawed...
With regards to accident studies in general, I would be pretty surprised if there was wide-spread general disregard for the truth among the police. That is, I believe that their is an anti-cycling bias but that it is probably more of a subconscious bias rather than an active one. Roughly speaking, these accident studies produce results that are in the same ballpark of each other. Now there is a huge identification issue going on, but if this bias is so important small changes in police attitudes should make a big difference in the accident studies.
One can also think about the bias itself and what it means for the analysis and model fitting. My guess is that drivers probably stretch the truth more than make-up fairy tales. For example, a driver would probably say that the cyclist failed to stop at the light/intersection than completely fabricate a story where the cyclist was riding on the wrong side of the street.
Anyway, this doesn't change the fact that exposure in many of these studies is unobserved ... although I have seen a reference to one that did ... such that the probabilities/rates that we would want to know are unknown.
I still don't know why, however, one would think that U.S. accident data is so terrible such that zero inferences can be made while the data about the glorious and safe cycling in Europe is unaffected. If anything, it would seem as if a European driver has a greater incentive to lie -- since they have increased liability -- after an accident than a US/British driver.
The Human Car
04-11-08, 12:41 PM
But even in the Cross Fisher studies the information was based on what police had gathered from witnesses.. if the only witness is a motorist and dead cyclist, how accurate is the data contained in the police report... sure the motorist said the cyclist was riding the wrong way... or swerved or came flying out of the intersection... and that is what the police wrote... and that is what Cross Fisher cataloged, but if the only witness was lying in the first place... the resultant study is going to be skewed.
Ok let's lets say that a lot of crashes were falsely categorized as the cyclists failing to yield the right of way at a stop sign when it really was the motorists who failed to yield the right of way. But since the study does have a significant showing of motorist failing to yield about the only conclusion from this study we could hope to change would be that we could make an assertion that it is safe for cyclists to blow stop signs as it was almost always the motorists fault for failing to yield. While that would be a fun fact to throw around, in practicality it really would not do us much good.
And again what would change and be the implication that all/most wrong way crashes are misclassified and should be be classified as same direction crashes. That would then assert that wrong way cycling is the safest.
In other words what specific outcome of this study that we should be highly suspicious of and how is that based on some logic of misclassification? Bias maybe but without any evidence the bias has altered the outcome we really cannot make a case that a bias has influenced the outcome.
It is sort of like accusing a person of a particular race of having a bias in hiring practices but if the ratio of race hired is where we would expect it then what is the evidence of a bias other then it "could" exist.
Almost all official stuff in regards to bicycling stinks in someway, but that does not mean we should throw it all out and not look into it in some detail to see what we can and cannot assert from it.
Ok let's lets say that a lot of crashes were falsely categorized as the cyclists failing to yield the right of way at a stop sign when it really was the motorists who failed to yield the right of way. But since the study does have a significant showing of motorist failing to yield about the only conclusion from this study we could hope to change would be that we could make an assertion that it is safe for cyclists to blow stop signs as it was almost always the motorists fault for failing to yield. While that would be a fun fact to throw around, in practicality it really would not do us much good.
And again what would change and be the implication that all/most wrong way crashes are misclassified and should be be classified as same direction crashes. That would then assert that wrong way cycling is the safest.
In other words what specific outcome of this study that we should be highly suspicious of and how is that based on some logic of misclassification? Bias maybe but without any evidence the bias has altered the outcome we really cannot make a case that a bias has influenced the outcome.
It is sort of like accusing a person of a particular race of having a bias in hiring practices but if the ratio of race hired is where we would expect it then what is the evidence of a bias other then it "could" exist.
Almost all official stuff in regards to bicycling stinks in someway, but that does not mean we should throw it all out and not look into it in some detail to see what we can and cannot assert from it.
genec
04-11-08, 02:34 PM
Almost all official stuff in regards to bicycling stinks in someway, but that does not mean we should throw it all out and not look into it in some detail to see what we can and cannot assert from it.
Agreed... I do however think that perhaps we can question some of the safety issues that have resulted from such reports...
Are bike lanes as bad as has been suggested for instance...
What really is the frequency of overtaking collisions as another.
Perhaps cycling is not quit as safe as some portray it... and what can be done to increase said safety.
All these are issues that bear further examination... and to depend on the 30+ year old data from a study that compiled questionable data is at the very least something that we should stand up and confront.
Agreed... I do however think that perhaps we can question some of the safety issues that have resulted from such reports...
Are bike lanes as bad as has been suggested for instance...
What really is the frequency of overtaking collisions as another.
Perhaps cycling is not quit as safe as some portray it... and what can be done to increase said safety.
All these are issues that bear further examination... and to depend on the 30+ year old data from a study that compiled questionable data is at the very least something that we should stand up and confront.
invisiblehand
04-11-08, 03:14 PM
Agreed... I do however think that perhaps we can question some of the safety issues that have resulted from such reports...
Are bike lanes as bad as has been suggested for instance...
What really is the frequency of overtaking collisions as another.
Perhaps cycling is not quit as safe as some portray it... and what can be done to increase said safety.
All these are issues that bear further examination... and to depend on the 30+ year old data from a study that compiled questionable data is at the very least something that we should stand up and confront.
Although once you leave the world of JF's website there are plenty of other studies -- accident tabulations -- which produce results where one could draw similar conclusions. The 30+ year-old criticism is a small one if one can simply replace the data set with one from a more recent time.
And I guess we should be questioning the results of the "European model" with the same skeptical eye ...
Are bike lanes as bad as has been suggested for instance...
What really is the frequency of overtaking collisions as another.
Perhaps cycling is not quit as safe as some portray it... and what can be done to increase said safety.
All these are issues that bear further examination... and to depend on the 30+ year old data from a study that compiled questionable data is at the very least something that we should stand up and confront.
Although once you leave the world of JF's website there are plenty of other studies -- accident tabulations -- which produce results where one could draw similar conclusions. The 30+ year-old criticism is a small one if one can simply replace the data set with one from a more recent time.
And I guess we should be questioning the results of the "European model" with the same skeptical eye ...
The Human Car
04-11-08, 03:40 PM
Genec, As far as I am aware reports do not suggest bike lanes are bad, it is JF in particular that makes an argument based on lawful cyclists behavior bike lanes should have a slight decrease in safety. And I counter that with an argument without bike lanes we must also include unlawful cyclists (wrong way and sidewalk riding) so we should see a slight decrease in safety without bike lanes as well.
I agree we need a new study and it is something I am working locally on. But as far as getting data that would support that VC is safer then bike facilities how the heck would one determine if a cyclist is VC or not? Use JF criteria that there is only 3-4 VCs in this forum? Make all VC wear a yellow arm band so we know for sure? Use the criteria established on this forum that if a cyclists was in an accident then they were not riding in the proper VC fashion? It seems to me we are a long way off from "proving" the safety of VC.
The other problem with the 30 year data is the assertion that intersections are the most dangerous for us. According to FARS (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx) intersections account for only a 1/3 of our fatalities. There may be a reason to be afraid of same directional traffic after all.
I agree we need a new study and it is something I am working locally on. But as far as getting data that would support that VC is safer then bike facilities how the heck would one determine if a cyclist is VC or not? Use JF criteria that there is only 3-4 VCs in this forum? Make all VC wear a yellow arm band so we know for sure? Use the criteria established on this forum that if a cyclists was in an accident then they were not riding in the proper VC fashion? It seems to me we are a long way off from "proving" the safety of VC.
The other problem with the 30 year data is the assertion that intersections are the most dangerous for us. According to FARS (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx) intersections account for only a 1/3 of our fatalities. There may be a reason to be afraid of same directional traffic after all.
genec
04-11-08, 04:02 PM
Genec, As far as I am aware reports do not suggest bike lanes are bad, it is JF in particular that makes an argument based on lawful cyclists behavior bike lanes should have a slight decrease in safety. And I counter that with an argument without bike lanes we must also include unlawful cyclists (wrong way and sidewalk riding) so we should see a slight decrease in safety without bike lanes as well.
Agreed... my only connection to BL and JF is that he and his followers often use the Cross study as a basis for their thinking which includes the damnation of BL.
I agree we need a new study and it is something I am working locally on. But as far as getting data that would support that VC is safer then bike facilities how the heck would one determine if a cyclist is VC or not? Use JF criteria that there is only 3-4 VCs in this forum? Make all VC wear a yellow arm band so we know for sure? Use the criteria established on this forum that if a cyclists was in an accident then they were not riding in the proper VC fashion? It seems to me we are a long way off from "proving" the safety of VC.
I tend to agree... I think it is experience not a particular riding style that makes certain cyclists safer. I know I do use VC techniques when appropriate, but I also use BL and even ninja cycling and sidewalk cycling where it makes me the safest.
The other problem with the 30 year data is the assertion that intersections are the most dangerous for us. According to FARS (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx) intersections account for only a 1/3 of our fatalities. There may be a reason to be afraid of same directional traffic after all.
I tend to agree.
Agreed... my only connection to BL and JF is that he and his followers often use the Cross study as a basis for their thinking which includes the damnation of BL.
I agree we need a new study and it is something I am working locally on. But as far as getting data that would support that VC is safer then bike facilities how the heck would one determine if a cyclist is VC or not? Use JF criteria that there is only 3-4 VCs in this forum? Make all VC wear a yellow arm band so we know for sure? Use the criteria established on this forum that if a cyclists was in an accident then they were not riding in the proper VC fashion? It seems to me we are a long way off from "proving" the safety of VC.
I tend to agree... I think it is experience not a particular riding style that makes certain cyclists safer. I know I do use VC techniques when appropriate, but I also use BL and even ninja cycling and sidewalk cycling where it makes me the safest.
The other problem with the 30 year data is the assertion that intersections are the most dangerous for us. According to FARS (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx) intersections account for only a 1/3 of our fatalities. There may be a reason to be afraid of same directional traffic after all.
I tend to agree.
genec
04-11-08, 04:04 PM
Although once you leave the world of JF's website there are plenty of other studies -- accident tabulations -- which produce results where one could draw similar conclusions. The 30+ year-old criticism is a small one if one can simply replace the data set with one from a more recent time.
And I guess we should be questioning the results of the "European model" with the same skeptical eye ...
We should indeed... but bear in mind that the "European model" has at least the success of increasing ridership... there is nothing else that does that.
And I guess we should be questioning the results of the "European model" with the same skeptical eye ...
We should indeed... but bear in mind that the "European model" has at least the success of increasing ridership... there is nothing else that does that.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-11-08, 04:38 PM
Use the criteria established on this forum that if a cyclists was in an accident then they were not riding in the proper VC fashion?
That is EXACTLY the criteria used by Forester to establish his fabricated "safety record" for his chimeric band of "likely" Vehicular Cyclists. Everybody is a Vehicular Cyclist for his statistical purposes UNTIL they have an accident/collision. Then they join the other group -the non-VC of incompetent, lawless rube riffraff.
Even more so this was the model used by HH with his claims that accidents for vehicular cyclists with the right attitude were as unlikely as being hit by a meteor. Anyone hit by a motor vehicle musta been doing something wrong!
That is EXACTLY the criteria used by Forester to establish his fabricated "safety record" for his chimeric band of "likely" Vehicular Cyclists. Everybody is a Vehicular Cyclist for his statistical purposes UNTIL they have an accident/collision. Then they join the other group -the non-VC of incompetent, lawless rube riffraff.
Even more so this was the model used by HH with his claims that accidents for vehicular cyclists with the right attitude were as unlikely as being hit by a meteor. Anyone hit by a motor vehicle musta been doing something wrong!
invisiblehand
04-11-08, 05:23 PM
We should indeed... but bear in mind that the "European model" has at least the success of increasing ridership... there is nothing else that does that.
Sure thing Gene. And I don't mean to "poo-poo" facilities either. There is plenty of uncertainty to go around.
Sure thing Gene. And I don't mean to "poo-poo" facilities either. There is plenty of uncertainty to go around.
genec
04-11-08, 05:44 PM
Sure thing Gene. And I don't mean to "poo-poo" facilities either. There is plenty of uncertainty to go around.
OK fair enough, no study has been done... that I am aware of (I deserved that).
But in the meantime, no where has any other form of cycling advocacy (or promotion or whatever you want to call it) been able to increase the numbers of cyclists. Look at Portland for instance and their insistence that they now have a mode share of some 6%... no where else in the US is anywhere near as high. One has to ask... what makes the difference.
Is it the fees and restrictions on motoring as John Forester states... Well there are no such fees and restrictions in Portland. Is it the geography of the area... matched in other places. So what is making the difference???
OK fair enough, no study has been done... that I am aware of (I deserved that).
But in the meantime, no where has any other form of cycling advocacy (or promotion or whatever you want to call it) been able to increase the numbers of cyclists. Look at Portland for instance and their insistence that they now have a mode share of some 6%... no where else in the US is anywhere near as high. One has to ask... what makes the difference.
Is it the fees and restrictions on motoring as John Forester states... Well there are no such fees and restrictions in Portland. Is it the geography of the area... matched in other places. So what is making the difference???
The Human Car
04-11-08, 06:07 PM
I think it is experience not a particular riding style that makes certain cyclists safer.
Exactly, it all comes down to being aware of the hazards and taking steps to mitigate them and the more options you have at your disposal the better.
Exactly, it all comes down to being aware of the hazards and taking steps to mitigate them and the more options you have at your disposal the better.
The Human Car
04-11-08, 06:08 PM
That is EXACTLY the criteria used by Forester ...
I thought you would like that bit. ;)
I thought you would like that bit. ;)
I-Like-To-Bike
04-11-08, 09:08 PM
I thought you would like that bit. ;)
It is not a question of liking it, but recognizing "that bit" as the obvious truth of the matter.
It is not a question of liking it, but recognizing "that bit" as the obvious truth of the matter.
noisebeam
04-12-08, 12:21 PM
The other problem with the 30 year data is the assertion that intersections are the most dangerous for us. According to FARS (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeoplePedalcyclists.aspx) intersections account for only a 1/3 of our fatalities. There may be a reason to be afraid of same directional traffic after all.
I believe that private drives (home, business: strip mall, gas station, etc.) are not considered intersections. Add to this a number of mid block collisions are due to crossing where there is no intersection and also include wrong way cyclists.
For example in 2005 Mesa, AZ (http://www.cityofmesa.org/transportation/pdf/bike_analysis.pdf) the data on the surface would indicate 56% intersection related and 44% mid-block collisions.
Now take that 44% mid-block collision and break them down by not counting collisions where the cyclist was crossing the street mid-block (12.3%) and not counting collisions at private drives (25%), then of the total mid block collisions where the cyclist was not crossing the street and the cyclist was not crossing a private drive, then there are remaining 6.5% (1.4% wrong way) mid-block collisions and 81% private drive or intersection related.
Al
I believe that private drives (home, business: strip mall, gas station, etc.) are not considered intersections. Add to this a number of mid block collisions are due to crossing where there is no intersection and also include wrong way cyclists.
For example in 2005 Mesa, AZ (http://www.cityofmesa.org/transportation/pdf/bike_analysis.pdf) the data on the surface would indicate 56% intersection related and 44% mid-block collisions.
Now take that 44% mid-block collision and break them down by not counting collisions where the cyclist was crossing the street mid-block (12.3%) and not counting collisions at private drives (25%), then of the total mid block collisions where the cyclist was not crossing the street and the cyclist was not crossing a private drive, then there are remaining 6.5% (1.4% wrong way) mid-block collisions and 81% private drive or intersection related.
Al
The Human Car
04-14-08, 07:54 PM
Al, thanks for the Mesa bike crash analysis link very interesting (and very different then here.)
Now part of my argument is there is a vast difference between crashes and crashes that cause a fatality. While I do not want to end up in a hospital, it would be preferable to death. To demonstrate how fatality data does NOT follow crash data look at the age of those most represented in crashes (10-15) and those in fatalities (45-54.) No one has studied just the fatality data.
What Mesa reports as mid-block/intersection should be the same thing as what FARS reports, the ratio is different because we are talking about a subset of all crashes.
Thanks to what you provided I would speculate the main cause of cyclists deaths is these two items:
Across Roadway (J-biking?)
Sidewalk - Private Drive - Against Traffic
Both of these should be classified as mid-block crashes but a factual answer to what are the most fatal crash types is still unanswered.
Now part of my argument is there is a vast difference between crashes and crashes that cause a fatality. While I do not want to end up in a hospital, it would be preferable to death. To demonstrate how fatality data does NOT follow crash data look at the age of those most represented in crashes (10-15) and those in fatalities (45-54.) No one has studied just the fatality data.
What Mesa reports as mid-block/intersection should be the same thing as what FARS reports, the ratio is different because we are talking about a subset of all crashes.
Thanks to what you provided I would speculate the main cause of cyclists deaths is these two items:
Across Roadway (J-biking?)
Sidewalk - Private Drive - Against Traffic
Both of these should be classified as mid-block crashes but a factual answer to what are the most fatal crash types is still unanswered.
CB HI
04-14-08, 08:37 PM
So much for civil discourse in A&S. Neither HH or JF have posted in this thread and there is plenty VC, JF bashing.
So why did so many blame all the previous discourse all on HH and JF?
So why did so many blame all the previous discourse all on HH and JF?
I-Like-To-Bike
04-15-08, 02:15 AM
So much for civil discourse in A&S. Neither HH or JF have posted in this thread and there is plenty VC, JF bashing.
So why did so many blame all the previous discourse all on HH and JF?
Don't be so modest, I think you and a couple other of posters can share some of the credit/blame for hysterical discourse whenever bike lanes are mentioned, or any disbelief is expressed in the accuracy/validity of the safety statistics and scientific analysis touted by VC promoters.
The difference may be that JF and HH were actually taken seriously by more than a few posters and they tried to dominate all discussion of the subjects whenever, wherever they could.
So why did so many blame all the previous discourse all on HH and JF?
Don't be so modest, I think you and a couple other of posters can share some of the credit/blame for hysterical discourse whenever bike lanes are mentioned, or any disbelief is expressed in the accuracy/validity of the safety statistics and scientific analysis touted by VC promoters.
The difference may be that JF and HH were actually taken seriously by more than a few posters and they tried to dominate all discussion of the subjects whenever, wherever they could.
CB HI
04-15-08, 02:53 AM
Don't be so modest, I think you and a couple other of posters can share some of the credit/blame for hysterical discourse whenever bike lanes are mentioned, or any disbelief is expressed in the accuracy/validity of the safety statistics and scientific analysis touted by VC promoters.
The difference may be that JF and HH were actually taken seriously by more than a few posters and they tried to dominate all discussion of the subjects whenever, wherever they could.
Look in the mirror ILTB.
The difference may be that JF and HH were actually taken seriously by more than a few posters and they tried to dominate all discussion of the subjects whenever, wherever they could.
Look in the mirror ILTB.
The Human Car
04-15-08, 08:48 AM
So much for civil discourse in A&S. Neither HH or JF have posted in this thread and there is plenty VC, JF bashing.
So why did so many blame all the previous discourse all on HH and JF?
First off there is a big difference between "bashing" the data JF uses and "bashing" JF. Second, I personally found the majority of this thread civil until your post. Third, HH and JF were baned for a reason and over simplified it was for being disruptive in threads. If you have comment about data bias please share, if you think a post violates the forum rules please report it to the mods, but please do not disrupt a thread about data bias with a uncivil post about being civil.
So why did so many blame all the previous discourse all on HH and JF?
First off there is a big difference between "bashing" the data JF uses and "bashing" JF. Second, I personally found the majority of this thread civil until your post. Third, HH and JF were baned for a reason and over simplified it was for being disruptive in threads. If you have comment about data bias please share, if you think a post violates the forum rules please report it to the mods, but please do not disrupt a thread about data bias with a uncivil post about being civil.
noisebeam
04-15-08, 09:02 AM
Al, thanks for the Mesa bike crash analysis link very interesting (and very different then here.)
Now part of my argument is there is a vast difference between crashes and crashes that cause a fatality. While I do not want to end up in a hospital, it would be preferable to death. To demonstrate how fatality data does NOT follow crash data look at the age of those most represented in crashes (10-15) and those in fatalities (45-54.) No one has studied just the fatality data.
What Mesa reports as mid-block/intersection should be the same thing as what FARS reports, the ratio is different because we are talking about a subset of all crashes.
Thanks to what you provided I would speculate the main cause of cyclists deaths is these two items:
Across Roadway (J-biking?)
Sidewalk - Private Drive - Against Traffic
Both of these should be classified as mid-block crashes but a factual answer to what are the most fatal crash types is still unanswered.
In that 2005 data set there were four fatalities out of 276 collisions. Three of them were from mid-block arterial crossing (aka J-biking - but I want to point out that crossing the street mid-block as a pedestrian is most often not illegal) The fourth I am not sure, but it was on an arterial.
What Mesa reports as mid-block/intersection should be the same thing as what FARS reports.
So do you think that the FARS data as published is misleading except to those that look at the next level break down?
I know in my locality (which is like Mesa) there are ~5x more mid-block private drives than there are intersections. Private drives include gas stations, malls, strip malls, offices, etc. Some of these 'private drives' see very heavy traffic volume.
Al
Now part of my argument is there is a vast difference between crashes and crashes that cause a fatality. While I do not want to end up in a hospital, it would be preferable to death. To demonstrate how fatality data does NOT follow crash data look at the age of those most represented in crashes (10-15) and those in fatalities (45-54.) No one has studied just the fatality data.
What Mesa reports as mid-block/intersection should be the same thing as what FARS reports, the ratio is different because we are talking about a subset of all crashes.
Thanks to what you provided I would speculate the main cause of cyclists deaths is these two items:
Across Roadway (J-biking?)
Sidewalk - Private Drive - Against Traffic
Both of these should be classified as mid-block crashes but a factual answer to what are the most fatal crash types is still unanswered.
In that 2005 data set there were four fatalities out of 276 collisions. Three of them were from mid-block arterial crossing (aka J-biking - but I want to point out that crossing the street mid-block as a pedestrian is most often not illegal) The fourth I am not sure, but it was on an arterial.
What Mesa reports as mid-block/intersection should be the same thing as what FARS reports.
So do you think that the FARS data as published is misleading except to those that look at the next level break down?
I know in my locality (which is like Mesa) there are ~5x more mid-block private drives than there are intersections. Private drives include gas stations, malls, strip malls, offices, etc. Some of these 'private drives' see very heavy traffic volume.
Al
invisiblehand
04-15-08, 09:32 AM
But in the meantime, no where has any other form of cycling advocacy (or promotion or whatever you want to call it) been able to increase the numbers of cyclists. Look at Portland for instance and their insistence that they now have a mode share of some 6%... no where else in the US is anywhere near as high. One has to ask... what makes the difference.
Is it the fees and restrictions on motoring as John Forester states... Well there are no such fees and restrictions in Portland. Is it the geography of the area... matched in other places. So what is making the difference???
My apologies for missing this Gene.
I don't know much about Portland. So it is very difficult for me to speculate.
My guess is that for transportation purposes, bicycle travel is difficult for many people because of high speed and aggressive traffic at particular points/roads. For instance, crossing the Potomac would be problematic for many if it was not for three main crossings (two of which are interstates) with bike facilities. There is a fourth crossing; but it is a little too far north to be helpful and one has to be a road warrior to use Canal Road on the DC side.
I used the example of a river crossing since it poses obvious problems unless you have an amphibious bicycle -- I am still waiting for Surly to come out with one and Bike Friday to come out with a folding one. But often roads with the aforementioned qualities become barriers for ordinary riders. Again using examples in Northern Virginia, there are very few convenient crossings of Route 50 and I-395. The roads with bike lanes/facilities fail to address these concerns. If one really wanted to help transportation cyclists, then it would make sense to put a WOL, bike lane, whatever on Glebe Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=2209076286439249757,38.832684,-77.052101&saddr=E+Glebe+Rd+%4038.832684,+-77.052101&daddr=38.916214,-77.136641&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=14&jsv=107&sll=38.915146,-77.130203&sspn=0.039535,0.063944&ie=UTF8&ll=38.889162,-77.118187&spn=0.03955,0.063944&z=14), Route 7 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=9849849867178177363,38.805080,-77.046980&saddr=S+Washington+St+%4038.805080,+-77.046980&daddr=38.895909,-77.192345&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=14&jsv=107&sll=38.884552,-77.181358&sspn=0.039553,0.063944&ie=UTF8&ll=38.838571,-77.104282&spn=0.039578,0.063944&z=14), Washington Blvd. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=13338697079838513992,38.865920,-77.062770%3B10596221310566310923,38.885967,-77.096048&saddr=S+Joyce+St+%4038.865920,+-77.062770&daddr=38.86768,-77.066259+to:Washington+Blvd+%4038.885967,+-77.096048&mra=dpe&mrcr=0&mrsp=1&sz=15&via=1&jsv=107&sll=38.868349,-77.073855&sspn=0.019781,0.031972&ie=UTF8&ll=38.872358,-77.080121&spn=0.01978,0.031972&z=15), and ... well you get the point.
I recall that in Portland some river crossings were recently completed. Perhaps a few major roads were made a little more friendly. Also, there are implicit and explicit fees for motorized transportation. For instance, it might be the case that once you get your car in Portland, that there is very little or very expensive parking. Or alternatively -- as some European cities have been described -- it could be the case that getting around by car is somewhat inefficient because of its layout and traffic rules. It could even be based on demographics. More likely, it is due to some combination of things.
My own position is fairly close to JF's on this topic -- assuming that I understand his position. That is, writing generically, if you were really interested in increasing the number/proportion of cyclists (or those using mass transportation) in an area, I think that you would get a bigger bang for the buck by making driving less convenient more expensive than by fancy facilities. I still think that it would make sense to do some engineering at particular points to make people more comfortable and keep traffic flow at an acceptable level.
We have discussed the following before, but I will repeat it here. My strategy would be to grab the high-return, low-cost and low hanging fruit first. For instance, (1) improve cycle parking, (2) clarify and better enforce cycling/traffic laws with local law enforcement, and (3) have law enforcement better classify/record cycling accident information. Then I would see whether these things made any difference.
Is it the fees and restrictions on motoring as John Forester states... Well there are no such fees and restrictions in Portland. Is it the geography of the area... matched in other places. So what is making the difference???
My apologies for missing this Gene.
I don't know much about Portland. So it is very difficult for me to speculate.
My guess is that for transportation purposes, bicycle travel is difficult for many people because of high speed and aggressive traffic at particular points/roads. For instance, crossing the Potomac would be problematic for many if it was not for three main crossings (two of which are interstates) with bike facilities. There is a fourth crossing; but it is a little too far north to be helpful and one has to be a road warrior to use Canal Road on the DC side.
I used the example of a river crossing since it poses obvious problems unless you have an amphibious bicycle -- I am still waiting for Surly to come out with one and Bike Friday to come out with a folding one. But often roads with the aforementioned qualities become barriers for ordinary riders. Again using examples in Northern Virginia, there are very few convenient crossings of Route 50 and I-395. The roads with bike lanes/facilities fail to address these concerns. If one really wanted to help transportation cyclists, then it would make sense to put a WOL, bike lane, whatever on Glebe Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=2209076286439249757,38.832684,-77.052101&saddr=E+Glebe+Rd+%4038.832684,+-77.052101&daddr=38.916214,-77.136641&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=14&jsv=107&sll=38.915146,-77.130203&sspn=0.039535,0.063944&ie=UTF8&ll=38.889162,-77.118187&spn=0.03955,0.063944&z=14), Route 7 (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=9849849867178177363,38.805080,-77.046980&saddr=S+Washington+St+%4038.805080,+-77.046980&daddr=38.895909,-77.192345&mra=mi&mrsp=1,0&sz=14&jsv=107&sll=38.884552,-77.181358&sspn=0.039553,0.063944&ie=UTF8&ll=38.838571,-77.104282&spn=0.039578,0.063944&z=14), Washington Blvd. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=13338697079838513992,38.865920,-77.062770%3B10596221310566310923,38.885967,-77.096048&saddr=S+Joyce+St+%4038.865920,+-77.062770&daddr=38.86768,-77.066259+to:Washington+Blvd+%4038.885967,+-77.096048&mra=dpe&mrcr=0&mrsp=1&sz=15&via=1&jsv=107&sll=38.868349,-77.073855&sspn=0.019781,0.031972&ie=UTF8&ll=38.872358,-77.080121&spn=0.01978,0.031972&z=15), and ... well you get the point.
I recall that in Portland some river crossings were recently completed. Perhaps a few major roads were made a little more friendly. Also, there are implicit and explicit fees for motorized transportation. For instance, it might be the case that once you get your car in Portland, that there is very little or very expensive parking. Or alternatively -- as some European cities have been described -- it could be the case that getting around by car is somewhat inefficient because of its layout and traffic rules. It could even be based on demographics. More likely, it is due to some combination of things.
My own position is fairly close to JF's on this topic -- assuming that I understand his position. That is, writing generically, if you were really interested in increasing the number/proportion of cyclists (or those using mass transportation) in an area, I think that you would get a bigger bang for the buck by making driving less convenient more expensive than by fancy facilities. I still think that it would make sense to do some engineering at particular points to make people more comfortable and keep traffic flow at an acceptable level.
We have discussed the following before, but I will repeat it here. My strategy would be to grab the high-return, low-cost and low hanging fruit first. For instance, (1) improve cycle parking, (2) clarify and better enforce cycling/traffic laws with local law enforcement, and (3) have law enforcement better classify/record cycling accident information. Then I would see whether these things made any difference.
invisiblehand
04-15-08, 09:33 AM
So much for civil discourse in A&S. Neither HH or JF have posted in this thread and there is plenty VC, JF bashing.
So why did so many blame all the previous discourse all on HH and JF?
Really? I thought that it was pretty tame.
So why did so many blame all the previous discourse all on HH and JF?
Really? I thought that it was pretty tame.
invisiblehand
04-15-08, 09:48 AM
Al, thanks for the Mesa bike crash analysis link very interesting (and very different then here.)
Now part of my argument is there is a vast difference between crashes and crashes that cause a fatality. While I do not want to end up in a hospital, it would be preferable to death. To demonstrate how fatality data does NOT follow crash data look at the age of those most represented in crashes (10-15) and those in fatalities (45-54.) No one has studied just the fatality data.
What Mesa reports as mid-block/intersection should be the same thing as what FARS reports, the ratio is different because we are talking about a subset of all crashes.
Thanks to what you provided I would speculate the main cause of cyclists deaths is these two items:
Across Roadway (J-biking?)
Sidewalk - Private Drive - Against Traffic
Both of these should be classified as mid-block crashes but a factual answer to what are the most fatal crash types is still unanswered.
Didn't the Toronto report breakout collisions and fatalities?
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the nature of cyclist/motorized vehicle interaction has changed much. I find it easier to believe that who cycles and where they cycle has changed. If my memory is right and the proportions have changed a lot, I find it even easier to believe that how accidents have been classified has changed. But these are just based on my priors and it strengthens my belief that better data would be a huge gain for cyclists.
Edit in this font.
Now part of my argument is there is a vast difference between crashes and crashes that cause a fatality. While I do not want to end up in a hospital, it would be preferable to death. To demonstrate how fatality data does NOT follow crash data look at the age of those most represented in crashes (10-15) and those in fatalities (45-54.) No one has studied just the fatality data.
What Mesa reports as mid-block/intersection should be the same thing as what FARS reports, the ratio is different because we are talking about a subset of all crashes.
Thanks to what you provided I would speculate the main cause of cyclists deaths is these two items:
Across Roadway (J-biking?)
Sidewalk - Private Drive - Against Traffic
Both of these should be classified as mid-block crashes but a factual answer to what are the most fatal crash types is still unanswered.
Didn't the Toronto report breakout collisions and fatalities?
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the nature of cyclist/motorized vehicle interaction has changed much. I find it easier to believe that who cycles and where they cycle has changed. If my memory is right and the proportions have changed a lot, I find it even easier to believe that how accidents have been classified has changed. But these are just based on my priors and it strengthens my belief that better data would be a huge gain for cyclists.
Edit in this font.
I-Like-To-Bike
04-15-08, 12:05 PM
First off there is a big difference between "bashing" the data JF uses and "bashing" JF. Second, I personally fond the majority of this thread civil until your post. Third, HH and JF were baned for a reason and over simplified it was for being disruptive in threads. If you have comment about data bias please share, if you think a post violates the forum rules please report it to the mods, but please do not disrupt a thread about data bias with a uncivil post about being civil.
Good Point, THC. Apparently CB HI is one those fellas who believes JF's VC data and his analysis of same is sacrosanct and to express skepticism is nothing less than a Personal Insult.
Good Point, THC. Apparently CB HI is one those fellas who believes JF's VC data and his analysis of same is sacrosanct and to express skepticism is nothing less than a Personal Insult.
genec
04-15-08, 01:04 PM
Didn't the Toronto report breakout collisions and fatalities?
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the nature of cyclist/motorized vehicle interaction has changed much. I find it easier to believe that who cycles and where they cycle has changed. If my memory is right and the proportions have changed a lot, I find it even easier to believe that how accidents have been classified has changed. But these are just based on my priors and it strengthens my belief that better data would be a huge gain for cyclists.
Edit in this font.
"Much" since when?
There are at least two significant changes that have occurred since the Cross Fisher study... There are a lot more larger vehicles on the road (SUVs are driven by "everyone," vice the old days when pickup trucks and vans were the largest vehicles on the road, and were typically driven by men). Cell phones... and other devices add to the distraction of the driver... much more so than a burger or the radio have ever done.
There are a lot more smaller vehicles on the road today too... as the Japanese car "invasion" hit after the gas wars of the mid 70's. (actually, there are a lot more cars on the road, period).
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the nature of cyclist/motorized vehicle interaction has changed much. I find it easier to believe that who cycles and where they cycle has changed. If my memory is right and the proportions have changed a lot, I find it even easier to believe that how accidents have been classified has changed. But these are just based on my priors and it strengthens my belief that better data would be a huge gain for cyclists.
Edit in this font.
"Much" since when?
There are at least two significant changes that have occurred since the Cross Fisher study... There are a lot more larger vehicles on the road (SUVs are driven by "everyone," vice the old days when pickup trucks and vans were the largest vehicles on the road, and were typically driven by men). Cell phones... and other devices add to the distraction of the driver... much more so than a burger or the radio have ever done.
There are a lot more smaller vehicles on the road today too... as the Japanese car "invasion" hit after the gas wars of the mid 70's. (actually, there are a lot more cars on the road, period).
invisiblehand
04-15-08, 01:50 PM
"Much" since when?
There are at least two significant changes that have occurred since the Cross Fisher study... There are a lot more larger vehicles on the road (SUVs are driven by "everyone," vice the old days when pickup trucks and vans were the largest vehicles on the road, and were typically driven by men). Cell phones... and other devices add to the distraction of the driver... much more so than a burger or the radio have ever done.
There are a lot more smaller vehicles on the road today too... as the Japanese car "invasion" hit after the gas wars of the mid 70's. (actually, there are a lot more cars on the road, period).
Have we not been through this?
No, I don't think that how cars/trucks and cyclists interact has changed much since those studies. While engines, tires, density, and so on have changed considerably, I think that human beings have changed little ... and I speculate that the big component of accidents is the human machine. There certainly can be interactions with acceleration rates, air bags, cell phones, and so on such that I would be surprised if the change over time was zero. I just think that these effects are relatively small -- which does not mean trivial -- such that there are things that we can learn from old data.
I took the excel files down, but the car accidents per mile seemed pretty flat during the growth of cell phone usage. DOT still has the tabulations if you think that a closer inspection would tease out the effect. I think we all agree that there is noise in the data; however, if the effect is large, I would expect to see something from the aggregate statistics.
EDIT: From memory, the collisions per mile began in the early 90s. Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything that connects the dots for us to the early 70s. So you could be quite right that the environment is so different that old results have no meaning. But it would be helpful to demonstrate this with statistics directly related to driving safety.
There are at least two significant changes that have occurred since the Cross Fisher study... There are a lot more larger vehicles on the road (SUVs are driven by "everyone," vice the old days when pickup trucks and vans were the largest vehicles on the road, and were typically driven by men). Cell phones... and other devices add to the distraction of the driver... much more so than a burger or the radio have ever done.
There are a lot more smaller vehicles on the road today too... as the Japanese car "invasion" hit after the gas wars of the mid 70's. (actually, there are a lot more cars on the road, period).
Have we not been through this?
No, I don't think that how cars/trucks and cyclists interact has changed much since those studies. While engines, tires, density, and so on have changed considerably, I think that human beings have changed little ... and I speculate that the big component of accidents is the human machine. There certainly can be interactions with acceleration rates, air bags, cell phones, and so on such that I would be surprised if the change over time was zero. I just think that these effects are relatively small -- which does not mean trivial -- such that there are things that we can learn from old data.
I took the excel files down, but the car accidents per mile seemed pretty flat during the growth of cell phone usage. DOT still has the tabulations if you think that a closer inspection would tease out the effect. I think we all agree that there is noise in the data; however, if the effect is large, I would expect to see something from the aggregate statistics.
EDIT: From memory, the collisions per mile began in the early 90s. Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything that connects the dots for us to the early 70s. So you could be quite right that the environment is so different that old results have no meaning. But it would be helpful to demonstrate this with statistics directly related to driving safety.
genec
04-15-08, 02:16 PM
Have we not been through this?
No, I don't think that how cars/trucks and cyclists interact has changed much since those studies. While engines, tires, density, and so on have changed considerably, I think that human beings have changed little ... and I speculate that the big component of accidents is the human machine. There certainly can be interactions with acceleration rates, air bags, cell phones, and so on such that I would be surprised if the change over time was zero. I just think that these effects are relatively small -- which does not mean trivial -- such that there are things that we can learn from old data.
I took the excel files down, but the car accidents per mile seemed pretty flat during the growth of cell phone usage. DOT still has the tabulations if you think that a closer inspection would tease out the effect. I think we all agree that there is noise in the data; however, if the effect is large, I would expect to see something from the aggregate statistics.
EDIT: From memory, the collisions per mile began in the early 90s. Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything that connects the dots for us to the early 70s. So you could be quite right that the environment is so different that old results have no meaning. But it would be helpful to demonstrate this with statistics directly related to driving safety.
In some respects you are right about the human interaction aspect.
But to support my arguments, consider that the cell phone did not even come into play until the '90s, therefore data that only goes back to the '90s does not show changes that may have occurred since the advent of the cell phone. Further, recent studies show that cell phone distracted drivers do effect the flow of traffic, often increasing commute times by a couple of minutes... to state that cell phones have "no effect" is to deny these very facts. researchers estimate that such distracted drivers lengthen the average car commute by about 5% to 10%. (here is just one study) (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700846,00.html)
HH used to argue that distraction is distraction... and that cell phones are nothing new... I beg to differ as cell phones are a "voluntary distraction;" one that can be avoided if one chooses, unlike mental distractions that pop up from time to time. The result is that a cell phone adds more opportunities for distraction above what might otherwise occur. (again, enough to effect commute times... )
The other thing I failed to mention is driving speed... the national speed limit in the mid 70s was 55MPH... and while that limit was often ignored on freeways, it did tend to push surface street limits lower. Arterial roads tended to have speeds lower than 50MPH. Today it is quite common (in the west) to find arterial roads with speeds at 50MPH and higher Going back to your "human component" argument, while the speed limits have gone up, the motorists' reaction time has not improved.
No, I don't think that how cars/trucks and cyclists interact has changed much since those studies. While engines, tires, density, and so on have changed considerably, I think that human beings have changed little ... and I speculate that the big component of accidents is the human machine. There certainly can be interactions with acceleration rates, air bags, cell phones, and so on such that I would be surprised if the change over time was zero. I just think that these effects are relatively small -- which does not mean trivial -- such that there are things that we can learn from old data.
I took the excel files down, but the car accidents per mile seemed pretty flat during the growth of cell phone usage. DOT still has the tabulations if you think that a closer inspection would tease out the effect. I think we all agree that there is noise in the data; however, if the effect is large, I would expect to see something from the aggregate statistics.
EDIT: From memory, the collisions per mile began in the early 90s. Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything that connects the dots for us to the early 70s. So you could be quite right that the environment is so different that old results have no meaning. But it would be helpful to demonstrate this with statistics directly related to driving safety.
In some respects you are right about the human interaction aspect.
But to support my arguments, consider that the cell phone did not even come into play until the '90s, therefore data that only goes back to the '90s does not show changes that may have occurred since the advent of the cell phone. Further, recent studies show that cell phone distracted drivers do effect the flow of traffic, often increasing commute times by a couple of minutes... to state that cell phones have "no effect" is to deny these very facts. researchers estimate that such distracted drivers lengthen the average car commute by about 5% to 10%. (here is just one study) (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700846,00.html)
HH used to argue that distraction is distraction... and that cell phones are nothing new... I beg to differ as cell phones are a "voluntary distraction;" one that can be avoided if one chooses, unlike mental distractions that pop up from time to time. The result is that a cell phone adds more opportunities for distraction above what might otherwise occur. (again, enough to effect commute times... )
The other thing I failed to mention is driving speed... the national speed limit in the mid 70s was 55MPH... and while that limit was often ignored on freeways, it did tend to push surface street limits lower. Arterial roads tended to have speeds lower than 50MPH. Today it is quite common (in the west) to find arterial roads with speeds at 50MPH and higher Going back to your "human component" argument, while the speed limits have gone up, the motorists' reaction time has not improved.
richardmasoner
04-15-08, 02:33 PM
We should indeed... but bear in mind that the "European model" has at least the success of increasing ridership... there is nothing else that does that.
I suspect high gas prices works well to increase ridership, though I guess that's part of the European Model too.
Richard Masoner
I suspect high gas prices works well to increase ridership, though I guess that's part of the European Model too.
Richard Masoner
The Human Car
04-15-08, 03:10 PM
Didn't the Toronto report breakout collisions and fatalities?
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the nature of cyclist/motorized vehicle interaction has changed. I find it easier to believe that who cycles and where they cycle has changed. If my memory is right and the proportions have changed a lot, I find it even easier to believe that how accidents have been classified has changed. But these are just based on my priors and it strengthens my belief that better data would be a huge gain for cyclists.
Do you have a link for the Toronto Report, it's not ringing any bells for me.
Part of my "campaign" is to get better data. In road engineering there are emerging designs that trade fatalities for fender-benders, so part of my effort to get the same "think" applied to cyclists concerns, so we need to know where and how our fatalities are happening and not just crashes. If we take Mesa as representative of the states, the problem is not intersections (where VC and anti-bike lane advocates focus a lot of attention) but the major problem to solve is J-biking. This is a major change in the "think" behind cyclists safety and a lot of the debates here on A&S IMHO.
It's hard for me to articulate what I think has changed over the years but I think the safety of the general run of the mill VC has improved but the number of the (near) VC have decreased and the comfort factor of being VC has dramatically fallen causing all types of errors on the part of cyclists to compensate for the lack of comfort on the road and those who are compensating in error are increasing.
It's too easy for far too many just to say cyclists shouldn't do X especially when the road designs do not have any allowance for (the comfort factor of) cyclists when it is this very same lack of accommodations that is behind the action in the first place. Something else needs to change besides people saying cyclists shouldn't do that.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the nature of cyclist/motorized vehicle interaction has changed. I find it easier to believe that who cycles and where they cycle has changed. If my memory is right and the proportions have changed a lot, I find it even easier to believe that how accidents have been classified has changed. But these are just based on my priors and it strengthens my belief that better data would be a huge gain for cyclists.
Do you have a link for the Toronto Report, it's not ringing any bells for me.
Part of my "campaign" is to get better data. In road engineering there are emerging designs that trade fatalities for fender-benders, so part of my effort to get the same "think" applied to cyclists concerns, so we need to know where and how our fatalities are happening and not just crashes. If we take Mesa as representative of the states, the problem is not intersections (where VC and anti-bike lane advocates focus a lot of attention) but the major problem to solve is J-biking. This is a major change in the "think" behind cyclists safety and a lot of the debates here on A&S IMHO.
It's hard for me to articulate what I think has changed over the years but I think the safety of the general run of the mill VC has improved but the number of the (near) VC have decreased and the comfort factor of being VC has dramatically fallen causing all types of errors on the part of cyclists to compensate for the lack of comfort on the road and those who are compensating in error are increasing.
It's too easy for far too many just to say cyclists shouldn't do X especially when the road designs do not have any allowance for (the comfort factor of) cyclists when it is this very same lack of accommodations that is behind the action in the first place. Something else needs to change besides people saying cyclists shouldn't do that.
noisebeam
04-15-08, 03:45 PM
If we take Mesa as representative of the states, the problem is not intersections (where VC and anti-bike lane advocates focus a lot of attention) but the major problem to solve is J-biking. This is a major change in the "think" behind cyclists safety and a lot of the debates here on A&S IMHO..
(Even more specific is that that is 2005 data only)
Pedestrian fatalities are often due to road crossing at non-intersections. I see this 'J-biking' as a symptom of the very high 'pedestrian' mode/style of using a bicycle, especially common in Mesa. The most common interaction (not sighting) with other cyclists and peds I encounter on my commute is mid-block street crossing. It is hard to ride home from work aand NOT have a few cyclist dart across the arterial I am on right in front of me, often hopping right of the sidewalk when there is a small gap between traffic.
A (not the only, bridges work too) facility solution is more controlled intersections mid-block. Right now controlled intersections on arterials are every 1/2-1mi. Not many pedestrians are willing to walk an extra 1/2mi just to cross the street at a controlled intersection, so they cross (legally if they yield) mid-block. I see the exact same thing with 'mixed-correct/wrong-way-sidewalk' cyclists.'
During the period there were four cyclist fatalities, there were about 60 pedestrian fatalities, most due to mid-block crossing. (not jay-walking as law permits mid-block crossing if one or more of the intersections is not light controlled)
Al
(Even more specific is that that is 2005 data only)
Pedestrian fatalities are often due to road crossing at non-intersections. I see this 'J-biking' as a symptom of the very high 'pedestrian' mode/style of using a bicycle, especially common in Mesa. The most common interaction (not sighting) with other cyclists and peds I encounter on my commute is mid-block street crossing. It is hard to ride home from work aand NOT have a few cyclist dart across the arterial I am on right in front of me, often hopping right of the sidewalk when there is a small gap between traffic.
A (not the only, bridges work too) facility solution is more controlled intersections mid-block. Right now controlled intersections on arterials are every 1/2-1mi. Not many pedestrians are willing to walk an extra 1/2mi just to cross the street at a controlled intersection, so they cross (legally if they yield) mid-block. I see the exact same thing with 'mixed-correct/wrong-way-sidewalk' cyclists.'
During the period there were four cyclist fatalities, there were about 60 pedestrian fatalities, most due to mid-block crossing. (not jay-walking as law permits mid-block crossing if one or more of the intersections is not light controlled)
Al
genec
04-15-08, 04:10 PM
I suspect high gas prices works well to increase ridership, though I guess that's part of the European Model too.
Richard Masoner
Both Davis CA and Portland OR have higher ridership then the rest of the nation, yet I suspect that gas prices are pretty much the same there as in other near by communities.
Richard Masoner
Both Davis CA and Portland OR have higher ridership then the rest of the nation, yet I suspect that gas prices are pretty much the same there as in other near by communities.
joejack951
04-15-08, 06:28 PM
Do you have a link for the Toronto Report, it's not ringing any bells for me.
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
Bekologist
04-16-08, 07:07 AM
Bob Mionske sounds like a guy that's mad as hello about media and police reporting bias against bicyclists, and I applaud him. Illlustrating the case of the police bias in the recent Squaw Valley? fatality and the reporting bias in the police caused deaths in Caliofornia, I think this problem lies well away the usual A&S griping about THIS type of road or THAT type of road or what gets cyclists in Portland out there riding. (that mesa rider analysis of yours is pretty wild though, al. )
The reporting bias against cycling - the recurrent calls to license, the damnification of cycling in the press when an accident is clearly the fault of the motorist, etc... need to be addressed and Mionske is doing so. Kudos.
The reporting bias against cycling - the recurrent calls to license, the damnification of cycling in the press when an accident is clearly the fault of the motorist, etc... need to be addressed and Mionske is doing so. Kudos.
invisiblehand
04-16-08, 09:08 AM
In some respects you are right about the human interaction aspect.
But to support my arguments, consider that the cell phone did not even come into play until the '90s, therefore data that only goes back to the '90s does not show changes that may have occurred since the advent of the cell phone. Further, recent studies show that cell phone distracted drivers do effect the flow of traffic, often increasing commute times by a couple of minutes... to state that cell phones have "no effect" is to deny these very facts. (here is just one study) (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700846,00.html)
Just to be clear, we are just discussing the magnitude of the effect. I do not know what the penetration of cell phone use was during the 90s. But I would guess is that it increased during the decade through the early 2000s. Consequently, I would expect some change as penetration changed if the effect was large. It could be the case that one distraction -- cell phones -- simply replaced another distraction -- listening to the radio/music.
Perhaps I should put my opinion in perspective. I believe that things have changed; but that the large component of accident causes are relatively constant conditioned on demographics (essentially the proportion of youth driving). Just making up figures to give a concrete example, this would mean that 90% of fatalities are due to human factors that are unchanged while 10% due to environmental changes. I still think that 10% of ~40-50K deaths is significant and worthwhile of public outcry.
Mind you, how this interacts with cycling and safe strategies is unclear since the risks are different with respect to passenger cars. That is, collisions are more likely to be catastrophic for a cyclist given a collision's qualities. So changes in minor passenger car collisions could have very different ramifications for cyclists since certain relationships can be nonlinear. However, my guess is that older studies are still relevant; i.e., I can't prove that assertion by a reasonable standard ... "proponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt".
To convince me that there was a significant effect, I would like to see a change in accidents, fatalities that somehow controlled for engineering and exposure in general, or something of the sort. The problem with the laboratory studies is that they often fail to mimic real-world situations to completely convincing on their own. For example, few people will be worried about making some appointment, be sleep deprived, or tending to the baby, while conducting an experiment regarding cell phones. Consequently, we don't know what the real marginal effect of increased cell phone use is since the substitution between behavior is inadequately captured.
Got to run.
But to support my arguments, consider that the cell phone did not even come into play until the '90s, therefore data that only goes back to the '90s does not show changes that may have occurred since the advent of the cell phone. Further, recent studies show that cell phone distracted drivers do effect the flow of traffic, often increasing commute times by a couple of minutes... to state that cell phones have "no effect" is to deny these very facts. (here is just one study) (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700846,00.html)
Just to be clear, we are just discussing the magnitude of the effect. I do not know what the penetration of cell phone use was during the 90s. But I would guess is that it increased during the decade through the early 2000s. Consequently, I would expect some change as penetration changed if the effect was large. It could be the case that one distraction -- cell phones -- simply replaced another distraction -- listening to the radio/music.
Perhaps I should put my opinion in perspective. I believe that things have changed; but that the large component of accident causes are relatively constant conditioned on demographics (essentially the proportion of youth driving). Just making up figures to give a concrete example, this would mean that 90% of fatalities are due to human factors that are unchanged while 10% due to environmental changes. I still think that 10% of ~40-50K deaths is significant and worthwhile of public outcry.
Mind you, how this interacts with cycling and safe strategies is unclear since the risks are different with respect to passenger cars. That is, collisions are more likely to be catastrophic for a cyclist given a collision's qualities. So changes in minor passenger car collisions could have very different ramifications for cyclists since certain relationships can be nonlinear. However, my guess is that older studies are still relevant; i.e., I can't prove that assertion by a reasonable standard ... "proponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt".
To convince me that there was a significant effect, I would like to see a change in accidents, fatalities that somehow controlled for engineering and exposure in general, or something of the sort. The problem with the laboratory studies is that they often fail to mimic real-world situations to completely convincing on their own. For example, few people will be worried about making some appointment, be sleep deprived, or tending to the baby, while conducting an experiment regarding cell phones. Consequently, we don't know what the real marginal effect of increased cell phone use is since the substitution between behavior is inadequately captured.
Got to run.
invisiblehand
04-16-08, 09:11 AM
Bob Mionske sounds like a guy that's mad as hello about media and police reporting bias against bicyclists, and I applaud him. Illlustrating the case of the police bias in the recent Squaw Valley? fatality and the reporting bias in the police caused deaths in Caliofornia, I think this problem lies well away the usual A&S griping about THIS type of road or THAT type of road or what gets cyclists in Portland out there riding. (that mesa rider analysis of yours is pretty wild though, al. )
The reporting bias against cycling - the recurrent calls to license, the damnification of cycling in the press when an accident is clearly the fault of the motorist, etc... need to be addressed and Mionske is doing so. Kudos.
Some good points.
I still have not read his book. Any positive reviews?
The reporting bias against cycling - the recurrent calls to license, the damnification of cycling in the press when an accident is clearly the fault of the motorist, etc... need to be addressed and Mionske is doing so. Kudos.
Some good points.
I still have not read his book. Any positive reviews?
noisebeam
04-16-08, 09:54 AM
(that mesa rider analysis of yours is pretty wild though, al. )
Which one and what do you mean?
Which one and what do you mean?
The Human Car
04-16-08, 03:19 PM
I still have not read his book. Any positive reviews?
I'm only a 1/4 way through and I highly recommend it for any A&S regular.
I'm only a 1/4 way through and I highly recommend it for any A&S regular.
invisiblehand
04-16-08, 04:14 PM
I'm only a 1/4 way through and I highly recommend it for any A&S regular.
Excellent. Next stop at the book store or Amazon and I will pick up a copy.
Excellent. Next stop at the book store or Amazon and I will pick up a copy.
richardmasoner
04-17-08, 12:41 PM
Both Davis CA and Portland OR have higher ridership then the rest of the nation, yet I suspect that gas prices are pretty much the same there as in other near by communities.
Gene, you wrote that "nothing else" increases ridership besides the "European model."
A big part of the model in Davis is that it's a college town where on campus car ownership is discouraged. PDX has promotion that go far beyond just facilities. In every US city with high bike modal share (PDX, Davis, Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Boulder, San Francisco, etc) cyclists are a part of traffic, even where there are no bike lanes or bike paths, and in many of these cities something like VC instruction is a core part of bike safety education and advocacy. The Bicycle Transportation Alliance in Oregon, for example, has the Bicycle Safety Education program, which includes instruction on right-of-way, lane positioning, and on bike practice getting through intersections.
Lookie here -- a cyclist outside of the bike lane on MLK Jr Blvd in Portland.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2046/2256654505_b48b1f2700.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2256654505/)
This is an everyday sight in Santa Cruz where I took this photo -- a chick in regular clothes on a heavy cruiser bike riding "vehicularly" on Water Street, turning left onto River St.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/70/201411915_8541a42017_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/201411915/)
And here's a father pulling a trailer and his daughter positioning themselves for their direction of travel in Menlo Park, CA. There's a whole line of traffic behind them (Willow Road at Middlefield):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2047474601_9b3aae924d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2047474601/)
Here's a dude going slow on a Workman trike on Santa Clara Street in San Jose, CA, again in heavy traffic. Nobody's honking or going ballistic as they pass this guy.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1072/1443721822_a14a3bcd75.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/1443721822/)
Here's a mom going to a cub scout meeting with her son in Palo Alto, CA. Note the front bumper of the SUV waiting just behind us as we wait for the light to turn green. Bryant Ave, IIRC.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2404/2330396468_f542a2fd53.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2330396468/in/photostream/)
These are all cities with policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering, but this is matched with education to help cyclists go through areas where the bike lanes end.
Gene, you wrote that "nothing else" increases ridership besides the "European model."
A big part of the model in Davis is that it's a college town where on campus car ownership is discouraged. PDX has promotion that go far beyond just facilities. In every US city with high bike modal share (PDX, Davis, Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Boulder, San Francisco, etc) cyclists are a part of traffic, even where there are no bike lanes or bike paths, and in many of these cities something like VC instruction is a core part of bike safety education and advocacy. The Bicycle Transportation Alliance in Oregon, for example, has the Bicycle Safety Education program, which includes instruction on right-of-way, lane positioning, and on bike practice getting through intersections.
Lookie here -- a cyclist outside of the bike lane on MLK Jr Blvd in Portland.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2046/2256654505_b48b1f2700.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2256654505/)
This is an everyday sight in Santa Cruz where I took this photo -- a chick in regular clothes on a heavy cruiser bike riding "vehicularly" on Water Street, turning left onto River St.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/70/201411915_8541a42017_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/201411915/)
And here's a father pulling a trailer and his daughter positioning themselves for their direction of travel in Menlo Park, CA. There's a whole line of traffic behind them (Willow Road at Middlefield):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2335/2047474601_9b3aae924d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2047474601/)
Here's a dude going slow on a Workman trike on Santa Clara Street in San Jose, CA, again in heavy traffic. Nobody's honking or going ballistic as they pass this guy.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1072/1443721822_a14a3bcd75.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/1443721822/)
Here's a mom going to a cub scout meeting with her son in Palo Alto, CA. Note the front bumper of the SUV waiting just behind us as we wait for the light to turn green. Bryant Ave, IIRC.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2404/2330396468_f542a2fd53.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/2330396468/in/photostream/)
These are all cities with policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering, but this is matched with education to help cyclists go through areas where the bike lanes end.
genec
04-17-08, 01:11 PM
Gene, you wrote that "nothing else" increases ridership besides the "European model."/2404/2330396468_f542a2fd53.jpg?v=0[/IMG][/URL]
These are all cities with policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering, but this is matched with education to help cyclists go through areas where the bike lanes end.
Exactly... Thanks for making my point and the point of others here on BF.
John Forester has long argued that it is the gas prices and cost of ownership of an auto along with "policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering" that make the European model so successful.
I contend that "policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering" will work fine if done in earnest. Often that is not the case as cities slap down paint, get "recognized," yet fail to really do the engineering or promotion...
Certainly teaching Vehicular Cycling alone, and telling cyclists that the roads are "good enough" doesn't seem to be increasing cycling ridership anywhere.
BTW I did not know that Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Boulder, San Francisco had a ridership higher then the national average of about 2%. I do know that Boulder does have bike paths and bike lanes... so it is not a VC only situation there. Bolder has 300+ miles of bike lanes, routes, designated shoulders and paths and a city sponsored web page (http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=322)...
I'd have to say that so far "policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering" seem to be doing more than just education alone. Remember there was cycling education in this country long before there were bike lanes and other facilities... Here is one such example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg
These are all cities with policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering, but this is matched with education to help cyclists go through areas where the bike lanes end.
Exactly... Thanks for making my point and the point of others here on BF.
John Forester has long argued that it is the gas prices and cost of ownership of an auto along with "policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering" that make the European model so successful.
I contend that "policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering" will work fine if done in earnest. Often that is not the case as cities slap down paint, get "recognized," yet fail to really do the engineering or promotion...
Certainly teaching Vehicular Cycling alone, and telling cyclists that the roads are "good enough" doesn't seem to be increasing cycling ridership anywhere.
BTW I did not know that Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Boulder, San Francisco had a ridership higher then the national average of about 2%. I do know that Boulder does have bike paths and bike lanes... so it is not a VC only situation there. Bolder has 300+ miles of bike lanes, routes, designated shoulders and paths and a city sponsored web page (http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=322)...
I'd have to say that so far "policies that promote cycling and with extensive engineering" seem to be doing more than just education alone. Remember there was cycling education in this country long before there were bike lanes and other facilities... Here is one such example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.