Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Make Your Rules, Obey the Ones You Like.

The only study I can recall at the moment with something like rates is the Wachtel and Lewiston study. I recall that they modeled exposure over several years based on observations over a short period at a few intersections.

The Wachtel and Lewiston study can be found at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

Not surprisingly (for Forester associates), they attempt to draw conclusions about bicycling risk by considering all bicycle accidents as equal in value and totally ignore the severity of the various accidents; i.e a worthless study for drawing any conclusion about relative risk of the various cycling methods.

Another view of the study can be found at http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch7.html in the paragraphs headed "intersection complications."

the watchel and lewiston study would support bike lanes on LA bridges to reduce wrongway cycling.

Improve bicycling conditions thru infrastucture on arterial bridgeways.

"Cyclists" that deride activism and efforts to better facilitate bicycle traffic on arterial bridgeways need a major reality check. the blogger Barry brought up in the first post is a glib, misinformed anti-cycling elitist.

the watchel and lewiston study would support bike lanes on LA bridges to reduce wrongway cycling.

Improve bicycling conditions thru infrastucture on arterial bridgeways.

"Cyclists" that deride activism and efforts to better facilitate bicycle traffic on arterial bridgeways need a major reality check. the blogger Barry brought up in the first post is a glib, misinformed anti-cycling elitist.
hate those elitists!

The Wachtel and Lewiston study can be found at http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

Not surprisingly (for Forester associates), they attempt to draw conclusions about bicycling risk by considering all bicycle accidents as equal in value and totally ignore the severity of the various accidents; i.e a worthless study for drawing any conclusion about relative risk of the various cycling methods.

Another view of the study can be found at http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch7.html in the paragraphs headed "intersection complications."

I disagree that it is worthless. I think that you need to go with the data on hand and just be clear about the methods and data. From my reading, they are quite clear about both. I thought that the appendix -- Appendix: A Paradox of Interpretation -- also demonstrated that they were trying to be clear about the results and interpretation.


the watchel and lewiston study would support bike lanes on LA bridges to reduce wrongway cycling.

Do bike lanes reduce wrongway cycling? I know people have suggested as much but I never read anything that provided empirical evidence. I am more likely to believe that a bike lane results in more people riding on the road than sidewalk. I can't remember whether those bridges had sidewalks.

there's an oregon study that showed a reduction in wrong way and sidewalk cycling as a result of bikelanes.

how do you think high speed arterial bridgeways should be accommodated for cyclists again, invisiblehand?

are you one of the obstructionists doing cyclists at large a disservice, or do YOU endorse bikelanes on arterial bridgeways?

"Cyclists" that deride activism and efforts to better facilitate bicycle traffic on arterial bridgeways need a major reality check.

there's an oregon study that showed a reduction in wrong way and sidewalk cycling as a result of bikelanes.

how do you think high speed arterial bridgeways should be accommodated for cyclists again, invisiblehand?

are you one of the obstructionists doing cyclists at large a disservice, or do YOU endorse bikelanes on arterial bridgeways?

"Cyclists" that deride activism and efforts to better facilitate bicycle traffic on arterial bridgeways need a major reality check.

http://store.perspicuity.com/sections/Products/Lemming.sized.jpg

Are YOU one of the bike lane lemmings doing cyclists at large a disservice? :lol:

Anyway, if we can get past the hysteronics Bek, what makes the evidence so convincing that the effect is real and applicable globally? Is this an old paper? With the Oregon label, I recall something of the sort; but don't remember it being overwhelming. Just like Wachtel and Lewiston shouldn't be the solitary evidence for making sidewalk cycling or parallel paths illegal, I don't recall a paper with strong enough evidence to drive policy. Moreover, unlike sidewalk cycling, it isn't clear to me how bike lanes would directly affect the decision to ride with/against the flow of traffic. If there is a large body of evidence demonstrating that bike lanes reduce wrong way cycling and/or sidewalk cycling, please do share with the forum (seriously).

In regards to some earlier comments by Gene and others, I disagree that cyclists need to speak with a unified voice. Civilized dissent is good since it forces us to face our assumptions and reevaluate evidence for our ideas. Classically, there are two types of errors** -- i.e., reject the hypothesis when its true, accept the hypothesis when its false -- which can be generalized. Speaking with a unified voice -- going along with the group when one has reservations -- just biases decisions in one way which isn't necessarily better than being a big-bad "obstructionist". To the point at hand, I don't think that convincing a large majority that a bike lane/shoulder on a high speed arterial without storefronts or on-street parking -- this describes most bridges in my mind -- is a good idea will be difficult. So why have a cow when a few individuals get into a rant?

** There is a literature for other types of errors (0 and 3) which could also be relevant here.

woah, cute pictures of lemmings and your complaints about the weakness of studies supporting anything pro bicycling!!!

:roflmao:

you said
I don't think that convincing a large majority that a bike lane/shoulder on a high speed arterial without storefronts or on-street parking -- this describes most bridges in my mind -- is a good idea will be difficult.

are you one of the minority, invisiblehand?

you still haven't clearly stated if you are for or against efforts to better accommodate arterial bridgeways for bicyclists.


The OP started with a blogger heaping ill deserved scorn on bike activism for better bridge access for bikes across the LA River. this bloggers' divisive scorn for a good cause does bicycling a disservice. the minority that stand shrilly opposed to better bike access on bridgeways are doing bicyclists a disservice.

and i disagree with you, invisiblehand. i suggest that a special interest group (bicyclists) speaking with a unified voice has more weight and value than a group sending out a conflicted message or opposing messages.

cyclists need to unify and rally behind better arterial bridge access for bicyclists.

Note that invisiblehand chose to support his quoted study... while denying the studies of others...

Of course Bek did not actually provide a link to a study... bit of a shortcoming there eh, Bek?

But at any rate, to invisiblehand I can only say one thing... and I quote you...

"I disagree that it is worthless."

WHY do i need to provide the name of a study unrelated to the issue, on a topic even "doubtingthomas" invisiblehand concedes there would be widespread approval of within the bicycle community?

improve arterial bridgeway access for bicycles as part and parcel of future transportation planning in america.

cyclists, unite.

"cyclists" that deride efforts to improve bike bridgeway access need to step back from the exhaust fumes for a moment so as to clear their heads on the issue.

cyclists, unite.

"cyclists" that deride efforts to improve bike bridgeway access need to step back from the exhaust fumes for a moment so as to clear their heads on the issue.Your call for cyclists to unite might make more sense if you didn't follow it by putting the word "cyclists" in quotes. Isn't it amazing that both you and those you oppose believe that anyone who agrees with you to any degree less than 100% must not be a true bicyclist. There is little point in trying to discuss anything with extremists on either side.

As far as bicyclsts uniting goes, I don't think it's going to happen. Bicyclists are about the most dispirate "group" I've ever been associated with.

i put that in quotes because "Cyclists" that oppose better bridgeway access, ain't cyclists in my opinion. they own bikes and maybe they ride but they don't have a clue -and that is my opinion.

people can agree less than 100 percent over better bridgeway access, but it better not be by much or you're not a cyclist in my book- hence the quotes. it was a blatant slam of those that oppose better bridgeway bike access and the efforts in LA to publicize the lack of good arterial accommodation on highway speed bridges across the LA river.

heck, ANY LA cyclist that would oppose quality bike specific infrastructure there is a FOOL.

Note that invisiblehand chose to support his quoted study... while denying the studies of others...

Of course Bek did not actually provide a link to a study... bit of a shortcoming there eh, Bek?

But at any rate, to invisiblehand I can only say one thing... and I quote you...

"I disagree that it is worthless."

Hmmm?

"Deny" isn't quite the right word. It isn't clear what study Bek is referring to and why he thinks it's worthwhile other than it supports his position. I responded to ILTB's comment which I thought was an inaccurate assessment and I wrote (briefly) why.

To be honest with you Gene, I don't understand what you mean by the final comment. Are you talking about the paper that Bek is referring to? If I am thinking about same study, I recall very few details other than I wasn't overwhelmed by the evidence. But that doesn't mean worthless.

As I think people familiar with the scientific process -- as well as what it takes to get a study published -- will agree, people should be careful about taking the results of a single paper too far. The better the study, the more weight it should get. The more appropriate it is to one's particular problem, the more weight it should get. The better the theoretical underpinnings, the more weight it should get.

i've got a GREAT idea.

you can talk about bridgeway access for bikes on arterial bridgeways across the LA river instead of your obsessive obfuscations.

should arterial bridgeways in LA be further accommodated for bicyclists using class specific lanes?

can YOU, invisiblehand, in simple black and white on the internet,

state "Yes. i agree arterial highway speed bridgeways should have high quality bike specific accommodations for bicyclists"



or "NO. bike travel should not be facilitated across highway speed arterial bridgeways with bike lanes"

simple, eh?


remember invisibleobfuscationist, you dictated a set of criteria you can ostensibly support for bikelanes on bridgeways but you are apparantly just interested in clouding the issue, to hold true to your modus operandi at BF.

woah, cute pictures of lemmings and your complaints about the weakness of studies supporting anything pro bicycling!!!

I thought it was pretty funny too. Although the rest of your sentence is pretty much your own personal fantasy. :lol:


are you one of the minority, invisiblehand?

you still haven't clearly stated if you are for or against efforts to better accommodate arterial bridgeways for bicyclists.

Yes I have.


WHY do i need to provide the name of a study unrelated to the issue, on a topic even "doubtingthomas" invisiblehand concedes there would be widespread approval of within the bicycle community?

It is the way civilized people carry a conversation.

i've got a GREAT idea.

you can talk about bridgeway access for bikes on arterial bridgeways across the LA river instead of your obsessive obfuscations.

should arterial bridgeways in LA be further accommodated for bicyclists using class specific lanes?

can YOU, invisiblehand, in simple black and white on the internet,

state "Yes. i agree arterial highway speed bridgeways should have high quality bike specific accommodations for bicyclists"



or "NO. bike travel should not be facilitated across highway speed arterial bridgeways with bike lanes"

simple, eh?


remember invisibleobfuscationist, you dictated a set of criteria you can ostensibly support for bikelanes on bridgeways but you are apparantly just interested in clouding the issue, to hold true to your modus operandi at BF.

I think most people will find my position about the referenced bridgeways pretty clear, Beklemming. My apologies if its over your head but class is over.

class? you think you're schooling me? :roflmao:

Invisiblehand, apparantly you are FOR bettering arterial bridgeway access for bicyclists in LA that would include quality bikelanes to the criteria you outlined earlier.

before you even address my question you challenged for me to reject them, then you mentioned a previous conversation you had with Genec? "I already wrote that bike lanes that meet an acceptable standard -- roughly speaking, assuming reasonable maintenance, five feet wide with a good proportion outside the door zone if there is parking or four feet wide if there is no parking wuth "smart" intersections -- are a good solution for high speed arterials"

yet you stated a couple of posts after you outlined your criteria that "we would be happier with traffic calming, better road design, LEO enforcement, blah blah blah," which to me indicates you PREFER something other than bike specific lanes.

I still think you secretly and fundamentally oppose bikelanes on arterial bridgeways, invisiblehand- or you are one of the few realistic Vehikular Cyklists that can actually see the bonifide value in class preferred lanes- installed to a quality criteria- along major arterials and bridgeways.

Where are all these recreational trails supposedly funded by transportation funds and not used for transportation?

Until somebody gives specific examples, I'm gonna call "BS!"

Sorry. I missed this. I saw the quoted comment elsewhere.

Is that really the argument? Just from memory, I thought that the argument was about the primary purpose of the facility and how effective it was at "transportation".

Regardless, here the paths here in Arlington are primary commuter lines by my observation. This is supported by the view of local advocacy and county transportation organizations that offer "bikeable commuter routes" through the county that mark these very paths. We just finished a some cyclist/pedestrian counts at a few locations and on a rainy day there were hundreds of cyclists counted at certain path junctions.

Barry, you think cyclists' desire to have a pleasant route is marginalizing? cyclists not wanting to mix it up with 50mph traffic and agressive motor vehicle traffic is marginalizing????

.

Lots of old people are scared to drive on the freeway. We don't accomodate them by lowering the speed limit to 25.
If you are scared to ride on a 50 mph road, don't ride on that road. Don't force all the other bikes to ride in your own self prescribed kiddie lane.

follow along now, maddy! not a lot of other options. like, ziltch.


The Fletcher Drive bridge suddenly has a bike lane -- a homemade bike
lane, and an illegal one. The project is the result of weeks of planning
and years of frustration. Not including freeways, there are 12 bridges
that cross the Los Angeles River, and the three rogue bike-lane makers
are among the hundreds of cyclists who cross those bridges every day.
For more than a decade, an official document has existed that would
create bike facilities on four of those bridges. But to the region's
longtime riders, that proposal, like the entire municipal blueprint for
two-wheeled access along 6,400 miles of the city's roadways, is less a
plan than a catalog of unfulfilled promises. Hundreds of miles of bike
lanes, routes and paths have been okayed, but never built. The
bridges-high -- speed thoroughfares that are the only way to enter
downtown Los Angeles from the east -- are where those wayward vows turn
most deadly, the painters say.Not a single span within city limits has
a real bike lane.


Our real-time crossing felt just a bit less hard-boiled. Los Angeles has
nothing like a Brooklyn Bridge or a Golden Gate. Our bridges are
basically extensions of ordinary streets laid on propped-up roadbeds.
The problem is that in some of the most important ways they aren't
actually streets. Without traffic lights or intersections to naturally
slow traffic, vehicles quickly reach freeway speeds. The bridges have no
shoulders to offer safe refuge for bikes, just high curbs. As we rode,
we found ourselves constantly sandwiched between palisades of concrete
on one side and scores of speeding cars and trucks on the other. Some
vehicles gave us leeway. Some honked. Many-far too many passed within
terrifying inches. There are more than 50 traffic lanes on the 12
bridges, but not a single accommodation for bikes.

you don't believe in better freeway speed bridgeway access for bicyclists? radical lunatic bicycling fringe element must be.

No, I am just not scared to ride my bike. The only accommodation I need is a clean, paved road. Just like the old person scared of the freeway, if you are scared of traffic don't ride in it. DOn't try to force other cyclists into your little lane.

follow along now, maddy! not a lot of other options. like, ziltch.



.
The options are:
1.grow a pair and ride your bike over the bridge
2.or don't and don't ride your bike over the bridge

wow.

I guess that's that's what I'd have to tell your mother too. could you tell her for me?

impressive automania in you, maddyfish. cars first and foremost, eh?


I can't even take your outlook seriously on how to accommodate mixing highway speed bridge traffic and bicyclists.

wow. Not really. Maddyfish is simply expressing the core principle of the VC philosophy.

While many cyclists are familiar with later translations of the VC Creed, it is rare to see the more literal translation: "Cyclists Fare Best When They Grow A Pair."

Not really. Maddyfish is simply expressing the core principle of the VC philosophy.

While many cyclists are familiar with later translations of the VC Creed, it is rare to see the more literal translation: "Cyclists Fare Best When They Grow A Pair."

Another variation on the theme is at: http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=9044418&postcount=14

Tough Guy Jokers seem to "grow their own pair" by telling others to do just that.

Hmmm?

"Deny" isn't quite the right word. It isn't clear what study Bek is referring to and why he thinks it's worthwhile other than it supports his position. I responded to ILTB's comment which I thought was an inaccurate assessment and I wrote (briefly) why.

To be honest with you Gene, I don't understand what you mean by the final comment. Are you talking about the paper that Bek is referring to? If I am thinking about same study, I recall very few details other than I wasn't overwhelmed by the evidence. But that doesn't mean worthless.

As I think people familiar with the scientific process -- as well as what it takes to get a study published -- will agree, people should be careful about taking the results of a single paper too far. The better the study, the more weight it should get. The more appropriate it is to one's particular problem, the more weight it should get. The better the theoretical underpinnings, the more weight it should get.


While I ultimately agree with your final paragraph, I have never met a study that was without biases.

My response to you is based the idea that in a debate, if you have a study that you expect to be accepted by others, you too should be willing to accept or at least give a passing nod to the studies offered by others.

To cite the most extreme examples... I have to cite John Foresters "methods" of typically dismissing any study he deduces as offensive, regardless of the evidence provided... and accepting any study he finds supportive, regardless of the evidence. Not to mention his childish manner of "proving" a thing doesn't work by abusing it in the extreme. By his method, I can prove that the automobile is a failure as I cannot drive it at top speed down any city street. ;)

My response to you is based the idea that in a debate, if you have a study that you expect to be accepted by others, you too should be willing to accept or at least give a passing nod to the studies offered by others.

OK. But you left out a sentence. A study should be accepted, rejected, or something in between based on its merits. Check out the (brief) discussion between ILTB and me.

I ... and I suspect most people around here ... don't expect a study to be accepted regardless of its methods and data. I think it is reasonable to ask someone their understanding of something they quote or on which they base an argument.

OK. But you left out a sentence. A study should be accepted, rejected, or something in between based on its merits. Check out the (brief) discussion between ILTB and me.

I ... and I suspect most people around here ... don't expect a study to be accepted regardless of its methods and data. I think it is reasonable to ask someone their understanding of something they quote or on which they base an argument.

Any "study" that seeks to evaluate and compare the risk of various activities while ignoring severity of injuries incurred in "study" mishaps should be rejected outright as having no merit for risk evaluation purposes.

Any "study" that seeks to evaluate and compare the risk of various activities while ignoring severity of injuries incurred in "study" mishaps should be rejected outright as having no merit for risk evaluation purposes.

I agree that you need a filter when interpreting the results. One important reason is the one above. And my experience is that we -- human beings -- are naturally Bayesians so we do apply filters subject to the cognitive biases discussed in the past.

Along the lines of your linked critque, there is a natural control for injuries within the W & L paper if you make a statement about wrong-way cycling. We can all make a reasonable argument why injury severity would be different for onroad and sidewalk cyclists. However, an argument for why with and against traffic sidewalk cycling (or road riding for that matter) would have disparate distributions would be pretty weak, IMO. Consequently, I think the paper provides evidence that wrong way cycling is incurs higher risk if their sample -- those four intersections -- is a good model for an intersection in question.

do you think that data condones or condemns bikelanes on highway speed bridges, invisiblehand, or is it irrelevant to the topic at hand?

does the scant bicycle accident data available always confound very basic issues for you?

do you think that data condones or condemns bikelanes on highway speed bridges, invisiblehand, or is it irrelevant to the topic at hand?

Data neither condone nor condemn.


does the scant bicycle accident data available always confound very basic issues for you?

What do you mean? If you mean why I manage to avoid getting hysterical over posts that disagree with my personal opinions like some lemmings ... no.

I should have said 'support.'


if you can set pontifical postulations aside for a moment....Give it to use in broad strokes, invisible hand:

Bike lanes on highway speed bridges that cross the LA river - yeah or nay?

.

Bike lanes on highway speed bridges that cross the LA river - yeah or nay?

.

I support them.