Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Old paradigm/new paradigm thinking in vehicular cycling advocacy

Really, when was the last time you were applauded for cycle commuting? Or is it usually more along the lines of "you did what..." or "get outta the road..." Believe me, years and years of that really wear you down. No matter how good cycling is for you physically, constantly "fighting" for space on the road (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=8176192&postcount=1) wears on you psychologically.

My bicycling is a joy and it always has been. I have never 'fought' for space on roadways. I just use a public facility, and have a great time doing it. I applaud the experience myself, mentally, each time I finish a ride... "What fun that just was!"

Never get worn down; always look forward to the next ride coming.

I believe that there is a lot of evidence that experience matters. I don't think that there is evidence that experienced cyclists is strongly correlated with vehicular cyclists. At least I don't recall anything convincing.

Yes, I think you are right. If the study syntheses could have been designed to _better_ select for VC behavior, I suspect the number could have been _better_ than 5X improvement.

But of the studies I am talking about, I don't think any bike messenger would have been included one side or another at a significant rate.

Then consider that the lowest rate ever recorded for any population of cyclists, that recorded by Moritz in his 1996 survey of LAB members, would be unsustainably high for a working messenger. At that rate I would have been 'seriously' injured about 7 or 8 times already.

Were those unhelmeted cyclists sueing despite signing a helmet waiver? If not, there is nothing for me to concede.

When you refer to a "helmet waiver," you confounding a liability waiver with a helmet requirement. A club may require participants to sign a liability waiver. A club may also require participants to wear helmets. While both of these requirements may appear on the same form, they are separate requirements and separate concepts.

When you refer to a "helmet waiver," you confounding a liability waiver with a helmet requirement. A club may require participants to sign a liability waiver. A club may also require participants to wear helmets. While both of these requirements may appear on the same form, they are separate requirements and separate concepts.


My point has been the arbitrary helmet "requirement" by club and organized ride "leaders" and the phoney baloney excuses for it. The alleged protection provided by waivers signed by participants to said "leaders", especially waivers of liability for the leaders' negligence is another issue.

It would be interesting to know if anyone ever attempted to sue a club/group leaders for negligence for not making them wear a helmet where it was not legally required. Better yet to know if the injured helmetless cyclist collected a dime. Even better yet to know would be if an injured helmeted cyclist ever collected a dime from a club/group leader or their insurance company because of "negligence" of the leaders that an injured unhelmeted cyclist wouldn't have also been able to collect. Triple better yet nice to know if a signed waiver ever protected ride organizers in the case of real negligence such as injuries caused by "leaders" reckless disregard for reasonable planning in route selection, date selection, police notifications, emergency/contingency planning etc.

But of the studies I am talking about, I don't think any bike messenger would have been included one side or another at a significant rate.

So who was included; what studies identified the cyclists most likely to be vehicular cyclists and compared their safety record with those identified as not likely to be vehicular cyclists?

My bicycling is a joy and it always has been. I have never 'fought' for space on roadways. I just use a public facility, and have a great time doing it. I applaud the experience myself, mentally, each time I finish a ride... "What fun that just was!"

Never get worn down; always look forward to the next ride coming.

You must live in bicycle heaven. Where exactly is this wonderland?

The only place I have ever been that was cycling heaven was Oulu Finland. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=343260&highlight=heaven+bicycle)

You have cause and effect backwards.

Bad facility ideas did not create mode share here. Mode share created the push for bad facility placement.

You need to do some research... Copenhagen has produced video (http://hk.youtube.com/watch?v=ibCcp0Y3OB0) that discusses how the car was overcrowding their city and how they changed the city to make cycling easier and the result was massively increased cycling modal share. The changes they made started over 40 years ago. Modal shift followed the changes... not the other way around.

How do you explain Portland... right here in the US where modal share is typically less than 1%, Portland has a modal share over 5%. Those changes are also traceable over time.

London is also seeing a change in modal share... due to congestion charges. Is that not cause and effect enough for you?

You must live in bicycle heaven. Where exactly is this wonderland?
I suspect that 100% of the residents of Planet KOB22225 enjoy the same sense of well being and satisfaction with the status quo. The opinions or experiences of outsiders to that world are irrelevant to its inhabitants.

My point has been the arbitrary helmet "requirement" by club and organized ride "leaders" and the phoney baloney excuses for it. The alleged protection provided by waivers signed by participants to said "leaders", especially waivers of liability for the leaders' negligence is another issue.

You have just confirmed my point. You confuse these two issues when you speak of "helmet waivers." There are many instances where waivers of liability for an event organizer's negligence have been upheld by courts. There are certainly also instances where states refuse to enforce such waivers, but to contend that those waivers are always unenforceable is just plain wrong.


Triple better yet nice to know if a signed waiver ever protected ride organizers in the case of real negligence such as injuries caused by "leaders" reckless disregard for reasonable planning in route selection, date selection, police notifications, emergency/contingency planning etc.

That is exactly what happened in the Banfield v. Lewis case that I cited earlier. From the Florida Court of Appeals decision:


Banfield subsequently filed suit seeking to recover damages for the alleged negligence of Louis and the sponsors, organizers, and promoters of the triathlon, namely CAT Sports, Anheuser-Busch, Quaker Oats, the Hall of Fame, the Federation, Mike's Cyclery, its owner Michael Eaccarino, and the City of Fort Lauderdale. Banfield alleged that these individuals and organizations breached their duty to Banfield by failing to establish and maintain a safe bicycle course and failing to properly control traffic around the course.

As I mentioned previously, the trial court in that case dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the event organizers and sponsors because the plaintiff had signed a valid and enforceable waiver, and the Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal.

That is exactly what happened in the Banfield v. Lewis case that I cited earlier. From the Florida Court of Appeals decision:



As I mentioned previously, the trial court in that case dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the event organizers and sponsors because the plaintiff had signed a valid and enforceable waiver, and the Court of Appeals upheld that dismissal.
Perhaps I should have specified non competitive Street or Road Riding on a street or road. Not off road trail blazing, X-games, competive races, and other voluntary risky adventures. Of course the relevance of races to Rides is almost nil. Establishing and waiving liability for accidents while participating in an organized competitive racing event race is a whole kettle of different fish in my book. Helmet requirements for such competive events are also another kettle of fish.

I concede that those who participate in exceptionally risky games often may be expected to acknowledge the additional risks that they may be subjecting themselves to and release the organizers from the likely results, assuming that the organizers take reasonable precautions for such events, i.e. don't hold an ice race on a lake with known thin ice.

Perhaps I should have specified non competitive Street or Road Riding on a street or road. Not off road trail blazing, X-games, competive races, and other voluntary risky adventures. Of course the relevance of races to Rides is almost nil. Establishing and waiving liability for accidents while participating in an organized competitive racing event race is a whole kettle of different fish in my book.

Yet the Florida Court of Appeals did not make that distinction. The court, in its discussion of the enforceability of waivers, referred generally to "participation in recreational or sporting activities" (emphasis mine). In fact, the plaintiff attempted to distinguish the case from other cases where waivers had been upheld, by arguing "that because triathlons involve bicycling at high speeds on public streets, waivers executed by participants should not be upheld because they encourage the sponsors to 'cut corners' on safety." The Court of Appeals rejected that argument. While the court noted that these are "legitimate public safety concerns," the court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to distinguish the case on the basis of the risk of the endeavor, holding that "[w]hen a particular contract, transaction, or course of dealing is not prohibited under any constitutional provision, statutory provision, or prior judicial decision, it should not be struck down on public policy grounds unless it is 'clearly injurious to the public good' or 'contravenes some established interest of society.'"

It's also worth noting that the plaintiff's injuries in the Banfield resulted from being hit by a car. The same risk exists in a non-competitive club ride.

It is possible that some future plaintiff might convince a Florida court to strike a waiver by providing that in the context of a non-competitive club ride the waiver is clearly injurious to the public good or contravenes some established interest of society? Sure, anything is possible. But from a risk management perspective, in light of the Banfield case and other cases like it, there are compelling reasons to require participants to sign a waiver.

Edit: Your argument raises another point germane to the thread topic. You assume that participating in a club ride is not a "voluntary risky endeavor." But I think that much of this thread, like many threads in A&S, deals with the fact that much of the public does perceive cycling to be a risky endeavor. While we can argue about whether that perception is accurate, recognize that there is a substantial likelihood that the judge and jury hearing the negligence case would consider non-competitive cycling to be a risky endeavor, and determine the duty of the event organizer accordingly.

I see you're all nauseatingly embroiled in discussions of nuance of current bicycling paradigms as they stand in the USA.

Read John Pucher's recent article in momentum magazine www.momentumplanet.ca for a view of how bicyclists are treated legally in other countries vs. the usa and how motorists interactions with them are radically different by virtue of different motorist and road use paradigms.

article at http://www.momentumplanet.ca/how-tame-motorists-restrict-car-use

Yet the Florida Court of Appeals did not make that distinction. The court, in its discussion of the enforceability of waivers, referred generally to "participation in recreational or sporting activities" (emphasis mine). In fact, the plaintiff attempted to distinguish the case from other cases where waivers had been upheld, by arguing "that because triathlons involve bicycling at high speeds on public streets, waivers executed by participants should not be upheld because they encourage the sponsors to 'cut corners' on safety." The Court of Appeals rejected that argument. While the court noted that these are "legitimate public safety concerns," the court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to distinguish the case on the basis of the risk of the endeavor, holding that "[w]hen a particular contract, transaction, or course of dealing is not prohibited under any constitutional provision, statutory provision, or prior judicial decision, it should not be struck down on public policy grounds unless it is 'clearly injurious to the public good' or 'contravenes some established interest of society.'"

It's also worth noting that the plaintiff's injuries in the Banfield resulted from being hit by a car. The same risk exists in a non-competitive club ride.

It is possible that some future plaintiff might convince a Florida court to strike a waiver by providing that in the context of a non-competitive club ride the waiver is clearly injurious to the public good or contravenes some established interest of society? Sure, anything is possible. But from a risk management perspective, in light of the Banfield case and other cases like it, there are compelling reasons to require participants to sign a waiver.

I find it hard to believe anyone would find an organizer guilty of negligence, waiver or not, if a participant is hit by a car, unless the organizer did not take reasonable actions to inform the participants that the race/ride is being run on public roads with traffic and that traffic rules (and risks from such traffic) apply to participants, or did not take reasonable actions to close off a race/ride course from motorists. Not to say someone might not sue them anyway, waiver or no waiver; winning such a baseless suit, waiver or no waiver, is another matter.

I see you're all nauseatingly embroiled in discussions of nuance of current bicycling paradigms as they stand in the USA.

Personally, I find discussions about "new paradigms" and similar cliches, made up of fantasies and wishful thinking pretending to be relevant or even related to current bicycling reality, rather dull.

I see you're all nauseatingly embroiled in discussions of nuance of current bicycling paradigms as they stand in the USA.

Read John Pucher's recent article in momentum magazine www.momentumplanet.ca for a view of how bicyclists are treated legally in other countries vs. the usa and how motorists interactions with them are radically different by virtue of different motorist and road use paradigms.

article at http://www.momentumplanet.ca/how-tame-motorists-restrict-car-use

Great article Bek.

I especially note the issues of training of everyone by the 4th grade... just as CBHI has mentioned. Of course the thing that is missing in Hawaii is the further intense training of motorists and the well integrated system of cyclist friendly facilities and laws. Without the latter, training of cyclists is just empty rhetoric.

But I doubt some folks are going to see and understand the cause and effect of a well designed system that is NOT auto centric.

Yes, Gene, the article was pretty good, wasn't it? even if the message about american motorists and aoutocentric rules was dissapointing.

well, i guess vision dies in some of us.


Personally, I find discussions about "new paradigms" and similar cliches, made up of fantasies and wishful thinking pretending to be relevant or even related to current bicycling reality, rather dull.

can you think of any shifts in transportation modality that might occur in the 21st century, i-like-to-bike?

The aging of the american population isn't going away. Issues residing in polluted, congested cities and sprawling communities with crumbling infrastructure aren't going away.

I read occasional articles about seniors being harassed driving their motorized wheelchairs to walmart on public rights of way and see failings in the current paradigm.

fantasies and wishful thinking is more visionary than expectations of continuance of the status quo.

Do you fail to see the changes that have gone on in German cycling experience in the last 40 years?

I find your dismissal of forward thinking about bicycling and transportation, choosing to argue instead about liability under waiver rather dull.

Yes, I think you are right. If the study syntheses could have been designed to _better_ select for VC behavior, I suspect the number could have been _better_ than 5X improvement.

Maybe. But we only have convincing evidence that experience matters.

I lived in Rotterdam for about a month and did quite a bit of riding into outlying areas around it and also down to Amsterdam. Despite the large amount of infrastructure in any of the areas where bikes and autos shared the actual road space automobiles traveled at much slower speeds than I might see in similar areas in the states (ie. small town roads).

I think because such a large proportion of the country cycles and they don't, in general, cycle all that fast travel speeds in general were brought down to a less frantic level than I see in the US. The trains were fast though.

I'll bet if you were to average the time it takes for everyone to get where they wanted to go it was a more efficient system than we have in the US. In the US there's a kind of every man for himself attitude with everyone racing to get to their destination as quickly as possible. That kind of thinking actually makes the system as a whole less efficient and more than likely slower for most travelers.

that's only because the dutch put speed bumps, and traffic furniture everywhere.

that's only because the dutch put speed bumps, and traffic furniture everywhere.

Right... instead of trying to design every roadway like a freeway with high speeds and wide radius ramps like is done here in America.

Hmmm roads designed for people or roads designed for cars...

Hmmm roads designed for people or roads designed for cars...

The roads are designed for the people, to get from a to b as fast as possible, at the time of their choice, while surrounded by the comfort items of their choice, and to bring their goods and services to them as fast as possible as well. Totally practical.

The roads are designed for the people, to get from a to b as fast as possible, at the time of their choice, while surrounded by the comfort items of their choice, and to bring their goods and services to them as fast as possible as well. Totally practical.

I don't believe that all those caveats are part of any traffic engineers mandate... "surrounded by the comfort items of their choice..." for instance I rather doubt.

"At the time of their choice" I rather doubt as well... having seen the typical freeway at "rush hour."

You must live in bicycle heaven. Where exactly is this wonderland?


Everywhere I have ridden in my 49 years of life. That is rural, suburban, and urban all over the US, though predominantly MidAtlantic and NE. I did 6 months in Japan. 2 weeks in Ireland, 2 weeks in northern Italy.

Then consider that the lowest rate ever recorded for any population of cyclists, that recorded by Moritz in his 1996 survey of LAB members, would be unsustainably high for a working messenger. At that rate I would have been 'seriously' injured about 7 or 8 times already.

Yeah, sure. Hence my claim that if study did even a better job selecting for vehicular bicyclists I suspect even better safety numbers. My ancedotal contribution as stat comparison: with decades of daily riding, urban, suburban, rural, I have never gone to the hospital for a bicycling reated injury.

An old post related to this, using age-group numbers of Johns Hopkins study I think I referenced earlier.
======
I was thinking. I can use my numbers from the Johns Hopkins report to show
why I am not concerned about being killed by auto traffic even though I
ride the roads everyday on my bike. First I calculate my number of trips in
my lifetime. I hope to drive twice a day for a total of, let's say 60 years.
That works out to 43,800 trips/lifetime. Now, I think I have very good
traffic skills and ok bike handling skills so I am going to use the best
rate numbers for my entire life. I actually think my rate is much better
since these rates include all the poor bicyclists, but anyway....
This works out that I will die 0.018 times during my life from a bicycle
accident (A meaningless number of course, but you get my point), but I will
have 6.3 injuries. I just got back from walking to lunch at Wendy's where I
had a fatty, greasy (tasty) burger. I think going to Wendy's once a day for
the rest of my life increases my chance of dying a Wendy's related death
(clogged arteries, hit by a car coming out of the drive-thru) much more than
the above 0.018 number.
My view is that if I payed any attention to being forced to use bike lanes
and bike paths, that would increase my rate of accidents and and somewhat
increase my rate of death. I will use 3X injury as a typical example number
that comes out from sidewalk riding, say. Even if this somehow halved my
date changes (something I am confident this would not do, 0.018 and 0.009
looks like the same number to me - something a whole lot smaller than one.
While trading 6 injuries in a lifetime for 18 injuries in a lifetime looks significant
to me.

Ken O'Brien

____

You need to do some research... ?

Let's say I buy that you are quoting studies without major methodology problems. You still need to get a handle on idea of correlation versus causality.

Please note: What I want you to stop advocating for is very targeted. Please stop advocating for the bad design of bikelanes and segregationist facilities that throw pedestrians and bicyclists together on what should be left pedestrian dedicated facility or pedestrian dedicated part of public corridor. Bicyclists belong on the vehicle part of the public corridor design.

Maybe. But we only have convincing evidence that experience matters.

Never in my decades of bumping around in the bicycling world have I witnessed people getting _less_ vehicular with greater experience. Sure, here and there some macho racing parts of some clubs re-inforced each other to stay for long periods of time plateaued at certain poor and immature behavior. But I _never_ witnessed a regression to _less_ vehicular behavior - even on an individual basis... I KNOW what the general trend is.

So who was included; what studies identified the cyclists most likely to be vehicular cyclists and compared their safety record with those identified as not likely to be vehicular cyclists?

I am pressed for time for a week or two, but see syntheses for above 5X number in:

Bicycle Transportation: a Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers,
2nd edition, John Forester, MIT Press, 1994, ISBN 0-262-56079-8.

You can see the group definition from studies he pulled from to get this rough 5X number (which I suspect would end up greater with a study that better selects for best-practice vehicular bicycling behavior.)

:popcorn

The roads are designed for the people, to get from a to b as fast as possible, at the time of their choice, while surrounded by the comfort items of their choice, and to bring their goods and services to them as fast as possible as well. Totally practical.

Equity is another value that should be honored too.

A tip of the hat to the political process that gets us there should be made.

The mile high view looking down:

The roadway portion of the public travel corridor should be designed for vehicle drivers (which includes motorists and bicyclists.) However, each and every public travel corridor should be design for as many modes as practicable. Especially efficient modes like high utilized mass transit should be shown some favoritism, in general getting a dedicated corridor - or in the case of busses, at least perhaps a dedicated roadway in high density areas. (Note, do not use the bad idea of bus _lane_... all the roadway in that corridor belonging to bus routes.)

An _individual's_ speed from point a to b is not a parameter that should be assigned a high value in designing system. What we are talking about is the _whole-public's_ infrastructure and the important service measure goals should be whole-population service measures. This is especially true when we are talking about an individual who has made a particularly bad set of anti-social 'choices' with their life. Perhaps this individual's a-to-b speed should be assigned ZERO value for directing the public's transportation expenditures.

I am pressed for time for a week or two, but see syntheses for above 5X number in:

Bicycle Transportation: a Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers,
2nd edition, John Forester, MIT Press, 1994, ISBN 0-262-56079-8.

You can see the group definition from studies he pulled from to get this rough 5X number (which I suspect would end up greater with a study that better selects for best-practice vehicular bicycling behavior.)


:eek: oh,boy.

Perhaps this individual's a-to-b speed should be assigned ZERO value for directing the public's transportation expenditures.

Time is just about the only thing that we can not get more of. It is therefore one of the things we should value the most. I love cycling, but rather than take my time cycling to work on boring city roads, I'd much prefer to drive and save time that I could later spend cycling in the location of my choice, such as up and down the coast near my home. Therefore, even though I do often cycle on roads, I'd prefer they be maximized for car travel! I can still use them on my bike, and don't need any special modifications (I thought you were of the same opinion?)

btw, if i had my choice, the main "dedicated corridor" for public transportation would be...underground. The corridors for walking and cycling could be unpaved paths instead of yet more asphalt and concrete with paint on them. Strips of pseudo-natural park land all through our cities with paths for walking and cycling would be awesome - as long as cyclists were still allowed on the roads if they'd like.)

You still need to get a handle on idea of correlation versus causality.

Ohhh, I know this one. There is a correlation between how fast my car goes and how much I depress the gas pedal, similarly there is a correlation between miles of bike facilities and the number of cyclists. For causality when my car is going fast it causes me to depress the gas pedal, similarly the more cyclists there are the more bike facilities that magically appear. :rolleyes:

Seriously, if you look at bike ridership world wide you get hints of many causation factors, most interwoven but here in the states it does seem like more bike facilities = more cyclists. (http://trb.metapress.com/content/a2485322g1249615/)

Never in my decades of bumping around in the bicycling world have I witnessed people getting _less_ vehicular with greater experience. Sure, here and there some macho racing parts of some clubs re-inforced each other to stay for long periods of time plateaued at certain poor and immature behavior. But I _never_ witnessed a regression to _less_ vehicular behavior - even on an individual basis... I KNOW what the general trend is.

While I don't think anecdotal experiences have zero weight, _my_ personal experience is that the more extreme someone's views generally the more they interpret the world to fit their views.

Let's say I buy that you are quoting studies without major methodology problems. You still need to get a handle on idea of correlation versus causality.

Please note: What I want you to stop advocating for is very targeted. Please stop advocating for the bad design of bikelanes and segregationist facilities that throw pedestrians and bicyclists together on what should be left pedestrian dedicated facility or pedestrian dedicated part of public corridor. Bicyclists belong on the vehicle part of the public corridor design.

I have never advocated for bad bike lane designs. I have actually fought locally against these and won.

I strongly believe in well designed MUPs.

How about if you stop advocating that bicycles belong on freeways... which is what some "vehicle part of the public corridor designs" are. 60MPH+ freeways designed for vehicles moving fast. These exist all over southern California... which you apparently missed in your 49 year trek.

I also strongly advocate for lower speed shared roadways.

I firmly believe that well designed lower speed roadways can be designed to be shared by all road users.

I am pressed for time for a week or two, but see syntheses for above 5X number in:

Bicycle Transportation: a Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers,
2nd edition, John Forester, MIT Press, 1994, ISBN 0-262-56079-8.

You can see the group definition from studies he pulled from to get this rough 5X number (which I suspect would end up greater with a study that better selects for best-practice vehicular bicycling behavior.)
:roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2:
Ah yes, as I suspected - the infamous Forester brand comparison of various safety results recorded (by different methods) by others of 8 year old cyclists, with another study of a population of experienced middle aged cyclists, with another study of a population made up of of mostly college aged cyclists. NONE of which measured any of the cyclists for vehicular cycling tendencies. NONE of which even mention vehicular cycling or bicycling techniques.

Only Forester, and his devoted acolytes, would attempt, with a straight face, to claim any quantified (80% safer due to vehicular cycling!) conclusions after comparing the behavior and different safety results of populations of 8 year olds with teenage boys, and then with middle aged, mostly professional, married men. Most telling of all about the value of such a farce of a "study" - only Forester and his ilk would ignore the obvious age, maturity, and experience differences of the grossly different populations, and claim with mathematical certainty that any and all variances in safety results is the result of a single variable (likelihood to be vehicular cyclists) that was never identified in any of cyclists.

While I don't think anecdotal experiences have zero weight, _my_ personal experience is that the more extreme someone's views generally the more they interpret the world to fit their views.

That explains exactly why the views of the resident of Planet kob22225 are so much at variance with the views of those who who don't experience cycling in that unique world.

:roflmao2::roflmao2::roflmao2:
Ah yes, as I suspected - the infamous Forester brand comparison of various safety results recorded (by different methods) by others of 8 year old cyclists, with another study of a population of experienced middle aged cyclists, with another study of a population made up of of mostly college aged cyclists. NONE of which measured any of the cyclists for vehicular cycling tendencies. NONE of which even mention vehicular cycling or bicycling techniques.

Only Forester, and his devoted acolytes, would attempt, with a straight face, to claim any quantified (80% safer due to vehicular cycling!) conclusions after comparing the behavior and different safety results of populations of 8 year olds with teenage boys, and then with middle aged, mostly professional, married men. Most telling of all about the value of such a farce of a "study" - only Forester and his ilk would ignore the obvious age, maturity, and experience differences of the grossly different populations, and claim with mathematical certainty that any and all variances in safety results is the result of a single variable (likelihood to be vehicular cyclists) that was never identified in any of cyclists.


exactly.


and then I'd like kob to correlate his "findings" of age, maturity and experience as a factor with the 2007 NHTSA statistics, which shows the group having the highest incidence of death by vehicle collision while biking are men in the age range of 45-54.

My bicycling is a joy and it always has been. I have never 'fought' for space on roadways. I just use a public facility, and have a great time doing it. I applaud the experience myself, mentally, each time I finish a ride... "What fun that just was!"

Never get worn down; always look forward to the next ride coming.

OK here is reality.... http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/a-brentwood-phy.html

Far from your world, eh?

Never in my decades of bumping around in the bicycling world have I witnessed people getting _less_ vehicular with greater experience. Sure, here and there some macho racing parts of some clubs re-enforced each other to stay for long periods of time plateaued at certain poor and immature behavior. But I _never_ witnessed a regression to _less_ vehicular behavior - even on an individual basis...

One thing many cyclists do is ride through red lights after slowing down/stopping when it looks safe to do so, sort of like most states allow for right on red. This is illegal, and not vehicular. But I would say many cyclists will do it when starting out, then stop for a while if they learn about vehicular cycling, then start again.

One thing many cyclists do is ride through red lights after slowing down/stopping when it looks safe to do so, sort of like most states allow for right on red. This is illegal, and not vehicular.

It's not illegal everywhere. Idaho allows it and several other places are discussing allowing it (including Portland and San Francisco).

It's not illegal everywhere. Idaho allows it and several other places are discussing allowing it (including Portland and San Francisco).

Sure. And I do it sometimes. But I did it less when I was less comfortable with biking in the street as a vehicle. And from talking to (2, an admittedly small sample) friends they do it more now as well.

One thing many cyclists do is ride through red lights after slowing down/stopping when it looks safe to do so, sort of like most states allow for right on red. This is illegal, and not vehicular. But I would say many cyclists will do it when starting out, then stop for a while if they learn about vehicular cycling, then start again.

Especially once it's discovered that one can get away from idling traffic, not be there when they all go green, and be well across the intersection having crossed the red perfectly safely without having caused motorists one iota of aggro.

exactly.


and then I'd like kob to correlate his "findings" of age, maturity and experience as a factor with the 2007 NHTSA statistics, which shows the group having the highest incidence of death by vehicle collision while biking are men in the age range of 45-54.

...And then deal with the fact that most of the adult victims of car-bike collision are riding in a lawful fashion when they are hit, unlike little 8-year-old Johnny who comes rolling out of his driveway into the street without looking.

This may be too much reality to deal with all at once though.

I am pressed for time for a week or two, but see syntheses for above 5X number in:

Bicycle Transportation: a Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers,
2nd edition, John Forester, MIT Press, 1994, ISBN 0-262-56079-8.

You can see the group definition from studies he pulled from to get this rough 5X number (which I suspect would end up greater with a study that better selects for best-practice vehicular bicycling behavior.)

Forester's compilation of statistics is useful to show that bicyclist age and experience are closely related to accident rates. But that is all it shows.

It's simple really. If 'degree of vehicular bicycling' were the key variable, then bicyclists who make their living breaking traffic laws could not possibly be among the safest bicyclists in the world. If 'degree of vehicular bicycling' were the key variable, then bicyclists would get hit by cars much less often while riding in a lawful, vehicular manner.

exactly.


and then I'd like kob to correlate his "findings" of age, maturity and experience as a factor with the 2007 NHTSA statistics, which shows the group having the highest incidence of death by vehicle collision while biking are men in the age range of 45-54.

Death _statistics_ is a much smaller number problem then injuries, and has a completely different cause profile. Do you have the full table of raw numbers? I happen to have it for 1988 age group and sex. We can compare. I suspect if we look at it over the years what would control would be changes of exposure to the activity over that time period.

Time is just about the only thing that we can not get more of. It is therefore one of the things we should value the most. I love cycling, but rather than take my time cycling to work on boring city roads, I'd much prefer to drive and save time that I could later spend cycling in the location of my choice, such as up and down the coast near my home. Therefore, even though I do often cycle on roads, I'd prefer they be maximized for car travel! I can still use them on my bike, and don't need any special modifications (I thought you were of the same opinion?)

My opinion is that bicyclist will always fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. This is true now and this will continue to be true when we have a better transportation infrastructure of the future. Given what you write above I doubt you and I will agree on much of the larger elements of that full transportation infrastructure design.


, if i had my choice, the main "dedicated corridor" for public transportation would be

An example that will help you see where we might start to diverge: This common use of 'public transportation' for what would be better called 'mass transporation' has always been one of my pet peeves. 'Public' transit begins the moment an individual driver's rear wheels cross off his driveway into the public street. I live in Maine now where the paper company owns a few long stretches of roadway way up in the northern woods. Perhaps that small subset of roadway transit is private. But almost every trip every one of us takes every day amounts to 'public' transit. The trucking industry in this country is big-picture-approximately as much 'public' transit as Conrail.... and trucking industry probably amounts to a somewhat more 'public' form of commercial transportation than a number of privately owned train freight companies out there.

...And then deal with the fact that most of the adult victims of car-bike collision are riding in a lawful fashion when they are hit, unlike little 8-year-old Johnny who comes rolling out of his driveway into the street without looking.

This may be too much reality to deal with all at once though.

I've provided you the detailed breakdown and references for the whole-population numbers. When I get back next week I will see how much age-related breakdown I can pull from these full population numbers.

Could you list your references and equivalent breakdowns please?

Seriously, if you look at bike ridership world wide you get hints of many causation factors, most interwoven but here in the states it does seem like more bike facilities = more cyclists.[/URL]


Seriously. It looks like what it is: With increasing popularity of bicycling as an activity locally, there is a greater call for special facility placement locally.

I have never advocated for bad bike lane designs. I have actually fought locally against these and won.

Excellent. We are allies here. Keep up the good work. I suspect you need to expand your understanding that a bikelane is bad design at its most basic. Therefore every bikelane is a bad design.


I strongly believe in well designed MUPs.


The best political process is one that has everybody solving the same problems in the same place.... not slicing and dicing the problem with segregationist design ideas.

I want it to become well recognized in design circles that there is no such beast as 'well designed' sidepath.

As a pedestrian I do not want vehicle drivers - even if just the sub-class of bicyclist vehicle drivers - invited onto pedestrian part of travel corridor design. I also don't want them on specialized pedestrian dedicated corridor - when this specialized limited corridor design is used in rare places, typically an occasional, rare recreation-related facility ('greenways' are WAY overdone right now as parts of our recreation infrastructure. I want to see more recreation destination parks and more general aethetic amenities scattered about densely developed communities rather than sprawling 'greeway' projects.) Therefore, in general I oppose "MUP's" whether 'well designed' or not.


How about if you stop advocating that bicycles belong on freeways... which is what some "vehicle part of the public corridor designs" are. 60MPH+ freeways designed for vehicles moving fast. These exist all over southern California... which you apparently missed in your 49 year trek.

There are all levels of advocacy - and triage of that advocacy - that could be applied to this very specific subset issue of the more general overall access issue.... and it would be a long and involved discussion.

Some hint of the triage I would apply to this advocacy:

I advocate that bicyclist have reasonable, equitably convenient access to every location society has built public infrastructure to serve. As a practical matter, that starts with some targeted lifting of bans - most typically across a bunch of bridges - whether those bridges happen to be freeway bridges or not. This also could target a whole slew of places where bicyclist are allowed on one entrance ramp, and then off at the next exit ramp they reach along freeway.

Yes, I advocate that bicyclist not get banned from any public roadway facilities. But designated freeways are a small enough part of the public's total transportation infrastructure. Plus, as the US transportation system moves to a better and better place, freeways will become less and less of a significant element in that infrastructure. Therefore, limiting advocacy for access to freeway pinch points (still difficult to achieve) is the practical targeted advocacy effort for this subset problem for a while.

We must also fight ANY ban not on a designated freeway, no matter how many freeway design features may have been added to that roadway.

Freeway traffic can potentially go 60+mph because of the design sightlines, similarity of intersection design, the VERY high VERY expensive engineering of those similar intersection designs, and the simple low decision-environment this all creates. For all those same reasons, if a bicyclist _is_ introduced into this design a bicyclist would be safe. Probably politically won't get to this place. But since in the larger political process I see - the future transportation infrastructure I see - freeways, ESPECIALLY urban/suburban freeways, will have withered away... it will work itself out.



I also strongly advocate for lower speed shared roadways.

I firmly believe that well designed lower speed roadways can be designed to be shared by all road users.

As with your bikelane opposition: Excellent, we are allies.

I'm sure we have differences to work out on this of course. I suspect from what you write - and even though you say you advocacte for lower speed roadways - you are WAY more accepting than me of segregated roadway design with REALLY high speed segregated freeways.... while you are less accepting than me of a range of roadways with a range of speed limits that integrate out to all trips taken by the population having a slower average speed (though as we change community configuration because the trips taken are shorter... _maybe_ we get shorter total trip time, even as many of those trips move to the walking mode [though I don't put that _way_ high on design value/goal table - Overall equity and sustainable/lower impact get high value assigned for design goals.])

I submit: your acceptance of freeways remaining an important element of our total transportation infrastructure and your acceptance of the supposed unquestioned danger of bicyclist use of freeway and freeway-lite roadways is leading you down a practical and polictical dead-end.

While I don't think anecdotal experiences have zero weight, _my_ personal experience is that the more extreme someone's views generally the more they interpret the world to fit their views.

I suppose. But that idea swings both ways, depending which view Godess Reality dubs 'extreme'.

I would assign this interpretation-blindness to folks who compare the behavior of the overall bicyclist population versus overall motorists population on roadways, and do not see that the more basic and more serious traffic behavior mistakes are more consistently commited by bicyclists (as a population.)