Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Other Agendas

You are still arguing from ignorance of the type of analysis which was made thirty-five years ago.

:roflmao2: Look who's talking.


The only criticism you make of my method is that I exaggerate the danger of right hook collisions. OK, prove that I exaggerate that danger.


...the Cross statistics, show that bike lanes can reduce car-bike collisions only by a very small amount
...
The most that they [BF bikeway advocates] would come to was to admit that bike lanes had only an insignificant effect on collision rate.
...
They were absolutely unwilling to admit to the public that bike lanes did not make cycling safe. [???]

Ref: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Year.htm
What's your point here other then to exaggerate the dangers of right hooks. If you press me hard enough I'll find your quote on BF where you make the argument the Cross Statistics + John Foresters Logical Analysis (TM) would result in bike lanes less safe. Your logic trumps studies, that is an exaggeration in my book.


You also claim that the reason that right hook collisions have the frequency shown in the Cross statistics "is because cyclists were riding on car-centric roads." OK, demonstrate why car-centric roads produce right-hook car-bike collisions.

We are going around refusing to answer each others leading questions, which is sort of funny and entertaining in it's own way, though frustrating. But I assert that if I have an obligation to answer this question then you have the obligation to answer outstanding questions as well:

Bek's:

In part:
hunter, 2003, bikelane streets had lower incidence of sidewalk and wrong way cyclists. also, reduced intersection conflict.

john- a reduction in sidewalk and wrong way cycling is an INCREASE in on street, right way cycling, an increase in lawful road bicycling.

In Part:
where is it written that the original road designs were perfect from the beginning? Some world convention of great thinkers took place and they thought of every possibly contingency then and for the future?

In Part:
So are you saying pocket lanes at intersections will make the situation of right hooks worse, please explain if you are.

Even in Texas, like your town chipseal. 250 plus miles of bikelanes, isn't there? you reap the benefits from them regardless if you'll admit it in here or not! motorists might be more cognizant of bikes on road in your town due to the abundant on street bike infrastructure!

Chipseal, cyclists like yourself, concerned about other cyclists' safety, should be lobbying for proven results:

a well thought out network of on street bike infrastructure that helps to reduce sidewalk and wrong way cycling. your concern, proven fix.


The problem is that "well thought out network" is not likely to exist in Texas where they have pioneered such uh, "interesting" highway structures as the "mixmaster (http://www.texasfreeway.com/Dallas/construction/completed/fw_mixmaster/fw_mixmaster.shtml)" ( in Fort Worth) and the "high 5 stack (http://www.texasfreeway.com/Dallas/construction/high_five/high_five_main.shtml)"

So cyclists like Chipseal first are not likely to have the opportunity to actually ride in a truly bike friendly environment. (I go to Texas, and also to Portland, often, to see relatives... ) Thus they have to contend with that auto centric environment as best they can... and that means in a macho alpha dog vc manner...

You won't see a lot of Copenhagen chic (http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/) type cyclists in Dallas. Now on the flip side, perhaps riding in that manner builds the worlds best cyclists. (http://www.lancearmstrong.com/) ;)

Few, but strong. :D

Austin is the exception... and even they admit it's weird (http://www.keepaustinweird.com/) for Texas....

You won't see a lot of Copenhagen chic (http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/) type cyclists in Dallas. Now on the flip side, perhaps riding in that manner builds the worlds best cyclists. (http://www.lancearmstrong.com/) ;)

Few, but strong. :D

Austin is the exception... and even they admit it's weird (http://www.keepaustinweird.com/) for Texas....

Lance Armstrong is the worst thing to happen to cycling in a long time, all Lance does is perpetuate the myth that cycling is sport, not transportation.

the biggest dbags I see cycling in Portland are racer boys all geared up on Lance lookalike bikes, wearing stupid yellow jerseys, running other cyclists and peds off the MUP doing their personal time trials individually or in packs.

Yellow jerseys? How positively gauche.

Lance Armstrong is the worst thing to happen to cycling in a long time, all Lance does is perpetuate the myth that cycling is sport, not transportation.

the biggest dbags I see cycling in Portland are racer boys all geared up on Lance lookalike bikes, wearing stupid yellow jerseys, running other cyclists and peds off the MUP doing their personal time trials individually or in packs.


What, cycling is NOT only a sport... it can be used for transportation too??? ;)


In a way you are agreeing with my point... if all we want and expect out of cycling are Lance Armstrong types... then indeed the Texas way is the right way... and frankly this IS the agenda of certain vehicular cyclists... that cycling is for for folks that love and appreciate it as a Lance would.

Never mind that indeed cycling can be used for transportation, that it can help improve the health of the nation, both physically and through the use of less imported fuel.

^^ yes, I was agreeing with your point!

:beer:

IMO, where these VC cyclists are wrong wrong wrong is this: It has been proven over and over that the more cyclists there are on the road, the lower the accident rate for cyclists is.

Lance Armstrong is the worst thing to happen to cycling in a long time, all Lance does is perpetuate the myth that cycling is sport, not transportation.

I see. Was Robert Barclay Allardice the downfall of walking for transport?

You are still arguing from ignorance of the type of analysis which was made thirty-five years ago.
Look who's talking.

Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
The only criticism you make of my method is that I exaggerate the danger of right hook collisions. OK, prove that I exaggerate that danger.
Originally Posted by John Forester
...the Cross statistics, show that bike lanes can reduce car-bike collisions only by a very small amount
...
The most that they [BF bikeway advocates] would come to was to admit that bike lanes had only an insignificant effect on collision rate.
...
They were absolutely unwilling to admit to the public that bike lanes did not make cycling safe. [???]

Ref: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Year.htm
What's your point here other then to exaggerate the dangers of right hooks. If you press me hard enough I'll find your quote on BF where you make the argument the Cross Statistics + John Foresters Logical Analysis (TM) would result in bike lanes less safe. Your logic trumps studies, that is an exaggeration in my book.



:roflmao2: Look who's talking.




What's your point here other then to exaggerate the dangers of right hooks. If you press me hard enough I'll find your quote on BF where you make the argument the Cross Statistics + John Foresters Logical Analysis (TM) would result in bike lanes less safe. Your logic trumps studies, that is an exaggeration in my book.



We are going around refusing to answer each others leading questions, which is sort of funny and entertaining in it's own way, though frustrating. But I assert that if I have an obligation to answer this question then you have the obligation to answer outstanding questions as well:

Bek's:

Of course I wrote what is accurately quoted. You claim that what I wrote exaggerates the dangers of right-hook car-bike collisions. You appear to claim that this supposed exaggeration is the basis for my evaluation of the likely effect of bike lane stripes on car-bike collisions. That's not what I did.

If you think otherwise, then it is up to you to demonstrate that that has been the nature of my analysis and was the reason for my conclusion.

I see. Was Robert Barclay Allardice the downfall of walking for transport?

the diff is that everybody knows who lance is and practically no one's ever heard of Allardice

^^ yes, I was agreeing with your point!

:beer:

IMO, where these VC cyclists are wrong wrong wrong is this: It has been proven over and over that the more cyclists there are on the road, the lower the accident rate for cyclists is.

But of course some have another agenda, to discourage bicycling by anyone/everyone who doesn't meet their version of approved educational and cycling standards. Works hand in hand with creating a mandated demand for an unpopular educational program.

For a recent example of post from a cyclist who is not interested in encouraging more cyclists see:
http://67.201.16.77/showpost.php?p=9326959&postcount=2

the diff is that everybody knows who lance is and practically no one's ever heard of Allardice

In his time Captain Barclay was very well known, attracting many thousands to events, with wagers in the many millions of equivalent current US dollars.

the other difference is that almost everyone walks, and most people drive, but it is a much smaller percentage of the population that spends any significant time on a bicycle, and the image of Lance is not conducive to the non-cyclists either taking up cycling, or respecting transportational cyclists (or even, for that matter, recreational cyclists) when they encounter them on the road while driving.

^^ yes, I was agreeing with your point!

:beer:

IMO, where these VC cyclists are wrong wrong wrong is this: It has been proven over and over that the more cyclists there are on the road, the lower the accident rate for cyclists is.

Be careful with that "proven" tag, as here you have to cite studies, time, place and conclusion.

Be careful with that "proven" tag, as here you have to cite studies, time, place and conclusion.

the Portland data has been posted here many times, challengers are welcome to search the internet for it on their own

:D


(See Page 57) (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34816&a=72415)

Of course I wrote what is accurately quoted. You claim that what I wrote exaggerates the dangers of right-hook car-bike collisions. You appear to claim that this supposed exaggeration is the basis for my evaluation of the likely effect of bike lane stripes on car-bike collisions. That's not what I did.

If you think otherwise, then it is up to you to demonstrate that that has been the nature of my analysis and was the reason for my conclusion.


This gets to the issue of whether or not bike lanes reduce car-bike collisions. The Cross statistics (referred to above) give the proportions, mechanisms, and contributing factors for a large number of types of car-bike collision. Comparison of the movements of vehicular cyclists versus those of cyclists who obey the bike-lane stripe, evaluated according to the Cross statistics, show that bike lanes can reduce car-bike collisions only by a very small amount, and have the distinct possibility, by making driving more complicated, of increasing car-bike collisions to a somewhat greater extent. The bikeway advocates said that they thought otherwise, but they never presented any contrary analysis. The most that they would come to was to admit that bike lanes had only an insignificant effect on collision rate.
http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Year.htm

So here we have JF saying
The Study + JF Analysis (TM) = More collisions because of bike lanes
but because we could not provide this formula:
The Study + JF Analysis (TM) - BA Analysis (TM) = the same damn conclusion that was in The Study
We are wrong.

I'm sorry but we have a study that says we are right and you don't have a study to back you up.

But hey, I'm a good sport and I'll play for a bit.

Here we get a glimpse of the infamous JF Analysis (TM)

When one applies standard traffic-engineering knowledge to the design of bike lanes, analyzing the effect of the design on each type of car-bike collision, and evaluating the total according to the frequencies given in the Cross report, one concludes that bike lanes can have very little effect in reducing car-bike collisions. In fact, one suspects, from the additional traffic operational difficulties that are created by bike lanes, that the net effect might well be an increase in car-bike collisions. To put the conclusions in the simplest possible way, 95% of car-bike collisions are caused by turning and crossing movements, against which bike lanes have no ameliorative effect.

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2670/199/49/513493075/n513493075_1531041_6656456.jpg
So per JF the above design would have no ameliorative effect against right hooks. I say do study and lets see if it does or not.

And refuting the 5% benefit of bike lines I'll bring up Bek's point that bike lanes reduce wrong way and sidewalk cycling. In my hood during its VC paradise stage (no bike lanes) we had 35% wrong way cyclists in bike crashes and a low guess of 20% sidewalk crashes (that info is not clear on the standardized forms) so that gives bike lanes a potential of reducing 55% of the bike crashes. That's a whole lot better then the 5% that John thinks it should be.

the Portland data has been posted here many times, challengers are welcome to search the internet for it on their own

:D


(See Page 57) (http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=34816&a=72415)

We need to be more careful about this 'Safety in Numbers' thing. Bike statistics have been heavily colored by incidents involving children, novice riders in dark clothing without lights at night, etc. When bike commuting catches on in a community, the total riding population there morphs; the percentage of people on bikes who are relatively careful adults rises, and the stats thus become less influenced by kids, drunks and daredevils. There is also the fact that children all over the US are ever less likely to ride bikes; this is a disturbing trend that nonetheless has a profound and constant positive influence on collision statistics throughout the land. So all-in-all the improvement in per-rider safety which may be evident in statistics from places like Portland is probably due more to a change in the fundamental make-up of these cycling populations over time -- the average bicyclist there is changing -- rather than numbers alone.

So all-in-all the improvement in per-rider safety which may be evident in statistics from places like Portland is probably due more to a change in the fundamental make-up of these cycling populations over time -- the average bicyclist there is changing -- rather than numbers alone.

But all in all, isn't that change a net positive?

Of course the typical Forester response to anything done in Portland is that Portland is denying the use of the motorcar through parking restrictions. Unfettered use of the motorcar IS for some reason, also part of "other agendas" by some "cycling advocates."

We need to be more careful about this 'Safety in Numbers' thing. Bike statistics have been heavily colored by incidents involving children, novice riders in dark clothing without lights at night, etc. When bike commuting catches on in a community, the total riding population there morphs; the percentage of people on bikes who are relatively careful adults rises, and the stats thus become less influenced by kids, drunks and daredevils. There is also the fact that children all over the US are ever less likely to ride bikes; this is a disturbing trend that nonetheless has a profound and constant positive influence on collision statistics throughout the land. So all-in-all the improvement in per-rider safety which may be evident in statistics from places like Portland is probably due more to a change in the fundamental make-up of these cycling populations over time -- the average bicyclist there is changing -- rather than numbers alone.

I resoundingly disagree with part of your concern, Robert.

yes, as bike commuting 'catches on' - from infrastructure enhancements and social inducements - there's more cycling going on.

more lawful road cycling is being engaged in by cognizant and appropriately safety concious adults.

As cycling mode share increases in a community, and the accident rates remain flat, this is rightfully considered an increase in safety.


wether is is because more cyclists are on the streets, or there are more adult cyclists on the streets, more cyclists clued into lawful road cycling, or more lawful road cycling going on is irrelevant.

the correllative affects from the infrastructure/education/inducements are seen repeated, time and time again, in cities in america and around the world.

just because there isn't a direct, distillable causal connection from more cyclists=greater safety doesn't really matter since the effect is replicated across the globe.

American cities that increase lawful road cycling thru infrastructure enhancements reap the correlative benefits despite there being no 'smoking gun' to please the statisticians and doubting thomases.

you've read Pucher i'm sure.

I will also advance a theory I have from observing cycling on the west coast.... that pocket lanes at intersections and bikelanes can have an educational effect that trickles down to riding styles on other streets that remain unaccomodated in communities.

I advance the theory that Infrastructure can have educational effects on cyclists behavior by 'showing' cyclists correct destination positioning being to the left of RTO traffic at intersections, and to ride outside of the door zone consistently versus weaving in and out of parked cars. this is above and beyond the gross effect of reducing sidewalk and wrond way cycling.


this is beyond the 'safety in numbers' postulate and more accurately captures what happens as cycling 'catches on' in a community.

But all in all, isn't that change a net positive?

Of course the typical Forester response to anything done in Portland is that Portland is denying the use of the motorcar through parking restrictions. Unfettered use of the motorcar IS for some reason, also part of "other agendas" by some "cycling advocates."

I've had a suspicion for years that someone is poorly compensated by the automobile lobby to help stunt bicycling in america with their delusional aggrandizements.

I've had a suspicion for years that someone is poorly compensated by the automobile lobby to help stunt bicycling in america with their delusional aggrandizements.

Nah, I really doubt that... probably more along the lines of "motorist superiority complex," a common situation that occurs when one is fascinated by driving a car, and they feel they "own the road... " AND that cars should be given priority over any and all other forms of transit.

We need to be more careful about this 'Safety in Numbers' thing. Bike statistics have been heavily colored by incidents involving children, novice riders in dark clothing without lights at night, etc. When bike commuting catches on in a community, the total riding population there morphs; the percentage of people on bikes who are relatively careful adults rises, and the stats thus become less influenced by kids, drunks and daredevils. There is also the fact that children all over the US are ever less likely to ride bikes; this is a disturbing trend that nonetheless has a profound and constant positive influence on collision statistics throughout the land. So all-in-all the improvement in per-rider safety which may be evident in statistics from places like Portland is probably due more to a change in the fundamental make-up of these cycling populations over time -- the average bicyclist there is changing -- rather than numbers alone.

I've seen and personally analyzed about four years worth of Portland's cyclist crash data from the time period ~1998-2002, so I'm not unfamiliar with what the data looks like and how reliable it is.

I would say the thing that has the biggest influence on cyclist crash stats is how the police handle reporting and which data is analyzed how.

If the local police don't receive or file a report, the incident won't be in the data base, and the bar for when the police themselves file a report on a crash involving a cyclist is PDX has gotten pretty high in recent years, ostensibly to cut down on police paperwork. There was a time a few years ago when a crash involving a cyclist would not have a police report filed unless it involved an injury requiring transport to a trauma center, although there are signs that bar is starting to drop again in the past few years.

Cyclists are also less likely than motorists to self-report crashes to the state DMV, which is another source of crash stats; whereas motorists are required by law to do this when they are involved in a crash resulting in more than a certain amount of property damage.

I'm pretty sure that the City's crash data base has been parsed to separate incidents involving adult cyclists from youth cyclists, so it eliminates the skew that occurs if you include youth crashes; but you're correct, the statistics can be manipulated, and that graph alone doesn't really provide a clue as to data sources or analysis methodology, and there isn't even really a true scale on the graph for the 'crash rate' curve.

Nah, I really doubt that... probably more along the lines of "motorist superiority complex," a common situation that occurs when one is fascinated by driving a car, and they feel they "own the road... " AND that cars should be given priority over any and all other forms of transit.


well, yes, genec i guess that's right.

sometimes a stick in the mud is best identified as a stick in the mud and not a lummox or a grand conspirator.


this 'cars first' agenda is still suspect. seems like the OP and others suffer this delusion, that transportation infrastructure is and should always be optimized for motor vehicle traffic and bicyclists best just fit in, or go suck rocks.

But all in all, isn't that change a net positive?

Of course the typical Forester response to anything done in Portland is that Portland is denying the use of the motorcar through parking restrictions. Unfettered use of the motorcar IS for some reason, also part of "other agendas" by some "cycling advocates."

While it is true that driving on the surface streets in the downtown core has gotten more difficult in recent years, mostly due to transit development, it is not true that parking restrictions play a role. The city of Portland has regularly been adding parking capacity to the downtown core for years. Every new high rise commercial or residential tower built in the downtown area routinely provides multiple levels of 'structured parking' in an underground facility.

On-street metered curbside parking in the downtown core is also a net revenue generator for the cash strapped Transportation Dept., and businesses in the outlying commercial districts typically fight tooth and nail to preserve curbside parking; as a result, it's almost impossible to remove large stretches of curbside parking to create space for bike infrastructure.

The exception to this is that the city now has a program to replace individual curbside parking spaces with bike parking zones, about five to seven bike racks accommodating 10 to 14 bikes can be placed in one former curbside MV parking space, and about 20 of these bike parking zones have been created throughout the city so far, with more on the way.

Perhaps John is thinking of the SE 26th bike lanes. they are about 2 or 3 miles long and these were the first bike lanes ever installed in Portland, back in the 1980s. space was created for these bike lanes by removing parking on one side of a mixed residential collector street. negative feedback was so strong that the city never again removed any curbside parking to create new bike lanes; all the bike lanes installed since have either been installed in areas without curbside parking (e.g. the Hawthorne viaduct) or in the door zone, creating the space for the bike lane either by narrowing the travel lanes or removing a travel lane in areas with 'excess capacity' (see below).

Nah, I really doubt that... probably more along the lines of "motorist superiority complex," a common situation that occurs when one is fascinated by driving a car, and they feel they "own the road... " AND that cars should be given priority over any and all other forms of transit.


well, yes, genec i guess that's right.

sometimes a stick in the mud is best identified as a stick in the mud and not a lummox or a grand conspirator.


this 'cars first' agenda is still suspect. seems like the OP and others suffer this delusion, that transportation infrastructure is and should always be optimized for motor vehicle traffic and bicyclists best just fit in, or go suck rocks.
even Portland still prioritizes for motor vehicle movement. Bike infrastructure will not be provided anywhere it negatively affects the 'level of service' for motorists; it will only be provided where 'excess road capacity' already exists.

So here we have JF saying
The Study + JF Analysis (TM) = More collisions because of bike lanes
but because we could not provide this formula:
The Study + JF Analysis (TM) - BA Analysis (TM) = the same damn conclusion that was in The Study
We are wrong.

I'm sorry but we have a study that says we are right and you don't have a study to back you up.

But hey, I'm a good sport and I'll play for a bit.

Here we get a glimpse of the infamous JF Analysis (TM)


http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2670/199/49/513493075/n513493075_1531041_6656456.jpg
So per JF the above design would have no ameliorative effect against right hooks. I say do study and lets see if it does or not.

And refuting the 5% benefit of bike lines I'll bring up Bek's point that bike lanes reduce wrong way and sidewalk cycling. In my hood during its VC paradise stage (no bike lanes) we had 35% wrong way cyclists in bike crashes and a low guess of 20% sidewalk crashes (that info is not clear on the standardized forms) so that gives bike lanes a potential of reducing 55% of the bike crashes. That's a whole lot better then the 5% that John thinks it should be.

Yes, the design that you picture probably does reduce right-hook car-bike collisions. I and my associates had to argue strongly, in 1974, against the motorists and against CalTrans to get that into the approved designs.

any of those on Lemon Grove Ave, john?

have you ever ridden your bike vehicularily thru an intersection accomodated as such, john? (I have, many times, in several states) or are you ignorant of how this type of arterial roadscape rides for a vehicular cyclist?

a concession from john forester that bike specific, on road infrastructure CAN increase cyclist safety!


Yes, the design that you picture probably does reduce right-hook car-bike collisions. I and my associates had to argue strongly, in 1974, against the motorists and against CalTrans to get that into the approved designs.

john forester makes a concession to arterial on road, bike specific infrastructure. :roflmao:

things have changed a bit out there since 1974, don quixote. you're familiar with the FHWA? :rolleyes: you know about AASHTO, the MUTCD?

I resoundingly disagree with part of your concern, Robert.

yes, as bike commuting 'catches on' - from infrastructure enhancements and social inducements - there's more cycling going on.

more lawful road cycling is being engaged in by cognizant and appropriately safety concious adults.

As cycling mode share increases in a community, and the accident rates remain flat, this is rightfully considered an increase in safety.


wether is is because more cyclists are on the streets, or there are more adult cyclists on the streets, more cyclists clued into lawful road cycling, or more lawful road cycling going on is irrelevant.

the correllative affects from the infrastructure/education/inducements are seen repeated, time and time again, in cities in america and around the world.

just because there isn't a direct, distillable causal connection from more cyclists=greater safety doesn't really matter since the effect is replicated across the globe.

American cities that increase lawful road cycling thru infrastructure enhancements reap the correlative benefits despite there being no 'smoking gun' to please the statisticians and doubting thomases.

you've read Pucher i'm sure.

I will also advance a theory I have from observing cycling on the west coast.... that pocket lanes at intersections and bikelanes can have an educational effect that trickles down to riding styles on other streets that remain unaccomodated in communities.

I advance the theory that Infrastructure can have educational effects on cyclists behavior by 'showing' cyclists correct destination positioning being to the left of RTO traffic at intersections, and to ride outside of the door zone consistently versus weaving in and out of parked cars. this is above and beyond the gross effect of reducing sidewalk and wrond way cycling.


this is beyond the 'safety in numbers' postulate and more accurately captures what happens as cycling 'catches on' in a community.

+1 I will also note we are tracking car-bike crashes which requires a car to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as well as a cyclist. Increasing the number of cyclists does not increase the number of cars in the wrong place at the wrong time. So after an initial saturation point I will assert that our crash rate is related more to VMT then to our "exposure" to traffic.

a concession from john forester that bike specific, on road infrastructure CAN increase cyclist safety!

:eek: :twitchy:

;)

any of those on Lemon Grove Ave, john?

have you ever ridden your bike vehicularily thru an intersection accomodated as such, john? (I have, many times, in several states) or are you ignorant of how this type of arterial roadscape rides for a vehicular cyclist?

a concession from john forester that bike specific, on road infrastructure CAN increase cyclist safety!



john forester makes a concession to arterial on road, bike specific infrastructure. :roflmao:

things have changed a bit out there since 1974, don quixote. you're familiar with the FHWA? :rolleyes: you know about AASHTO, the MUTCD?

I am not surprised at your conception that I do not know about FHWA, AASHTO, MUTCD. I am not surprised because you so blatantly play the part of the ignoramus. I just point out that the bikeway designs adopted by those organizations all started with the California designs, because we in Califonia had managed to eliminate the most dangerous proposals, leaving the adopting organizations much less liable for injuries caused by bikeway designs. That doesn't mean that bikeways made cycling safe, only that the California designs were less dangerous than the others proposed.

I am not surprised at your conception that I do not know about FHWA, AASHTO, MUTCD. I am not surprised because you so blatantly play the part of the ignoramus. I just point out that the bikeway designs adopted by those organizations all started with the California designs, because we in Califonia had managed to eliminate the most dangerous proposals, leaving the adopting organizations much less liable for injuries caused by bikeway designs. That doesn't mean that bikeways made cycling safe, only that the California designs were less dangerous than the others proposed.

John, have you considered that perhaps your use of certain language can be taken as offensive by some posters and does not reflect positively on you personally or professionally?

Now I realize this is the "wild internet," but really would you use that language in say a courtroom or classroom, in which you were attempting to make a point regarding the aforementioned "lack of knowledge" to opposing council or a student?

Of course I realize this is Bek you are responding to... but may I suggest simply a more creative response beyond "name calling."

john,

such coy use of language.

if you didn't realize, i was making light of your apparent stuck in the seventies mindset. a joke, don quixote.

nothing makes bicycling safe but you've conceded some bike-specific infrastructure designs (pocket bikelanes at arterial intersections to the left of RTO lanes) presents a safer proposition. less dangerous, more safe SAFER than WOLs at intersections.

you've just said so yourself.

ever ridden one of these intersection designs vehicularily as a vehicular cyclist john, or are you ignorant of how this street infrastructure rides as a vehicular cyclist?


you still haven't responded as to why an increase in lawful road cycling, versus sidewalk & wrong way cycling, shouldn't be considered an increase in safety also corollated (i.e. strongly intertwined) with infrastructure enhancements to bicycling.

infrastructure on a small minority of streets also has an educative effect that extends to roads without any bike specific infrastructure. that is, by encouraging lawful road cycling on streets with infrastructure, ( reduced sidewalk riding, reduced wrong way cycling, destination positioning to the left of RTO traffic), communities also encourage lawful road cycling on the vast majority of the remaining streets. this is seen in cities all over the west coast in my experience. the more right way bicyclists riding on roads= safer bicycling population is irrefutable and considered common knowledge in both the bicycling world and transportation engineering professions.

John, have you considered that perhaps your use of certain language can be taken as offensive by some posters and does not reflect positively on you personally or professionally?

Now I realize this is the "wild internet," but really would you use that language in say a courtroom or classroom, in which you were attempting to make a point regarding the aforementioned "lack of knowledge" to opposing council or a student?

Of course I realize this is Bek you are responding to... but may I suggest simply a more creative response beyond "name calling."

When I described Bek as blatantly playing the part of the ignoramus I was describing the game that Bek has written he likes playing, that of getting me upset. But, if I were required to describe in court what Bek likes doing, I would have used the same language, with examples from Bek's writings, about how he likes to upset me, to support it. One has to tell the truth.

On the other hand, I have used the word ignorant when that is the accurate description to apply to people who obviously have not read the well-known material that they criticize.

When exasperated, I have expressed puzzlement about whether the statements I have read result from ignorance or from lying. It is hard to tell.

There are prominent people in the world of bicycle advocacy who, I am convinced (along with others), proceed by lies and by sharp practice, but I see very few of these on this or associated lists, and they are so sharp as to carefully avoid direct statements that would incriminate them. Our obvious exception, Bek, is so obviously flagrant about his statements that one recognizes his intent, therefore recognizing that they have little importance. Our other, more skillful, exception, is he, probably an accomplished bureaucrat, who hides his name behind liking to bike.

However, the world of bicycle advocacy is riddled with falsity, because the advocates are caught between popularity and accuracy. They advocate what is popular among the ignorant majority and among the motorists, but they have to dress this up with inaccurate claims about safety and cycling efficiency, which claims get investigated, using government-funded grants, designed to support hypotheses for which there is very low probability that supporting evidence will ever be discovered. (Such as much of the work of Hunter's group) It would be far better to advocate purely on the basis of popular superstition with the open goal of doing the least harm while catering to it.

When I described Bek as blatantly playing the part of the ignoramus I was describing the game that Bek has written he likes playing, that of getting me upset. But, if I were required to describe in court what Bek likes doing, I would have used the same language, with examples from Bek's writings, about how he likes to upset me, to support it. One has to tell the truth.

On the other hand, I have used the word ignorant when that is the accurate description to apply to people who obviously have not read the well-known material that they criticize.

When exasperated, I have expressed puzzlement about whether the statements I have read result from ignorance or from lying. It is hard to tell.

There are prominent people in the world of bicycle advocacy who, I am convinced (along with others), proceed by lies and by sharp practice, but I see very few of these on this or associated lists, and they are so sharp as to carefully avoid direct statements that would incriminate them. Our obvious exception, Bek, is so obviously flagrant about his statements that one recognizes his intent, therefore recognizing that they have little importance. Our other, more skillful, exception, is he, probably an accomplished bureaucrat, who hides his name behind liking to bike.

However, the world of bicycle advocacy is riddled with falsity, because the advocates are caught between popularity and accuracy. They advocate what is popular among the ignorant majority and among the motorists, but they have to dress this up with inaccurate claims about safety and cycling efficiency, which claims get investigated, using government-funded grants, designed to support hypotheses for which there is very low probability that supporting evidence will ever be discovered. (Such as much of the work of Hunter's group) It would be far better to advocate purely on the basis of popular superstition with the open goal of doing the least harm while catering to it.

When considering the cycling world and the advocates involved, and the motoring world in general and their advocates, really is there any "truth and justice" in the way business is carried out? Consider for just a moment the GM apology (http://images.paultan.org/images2/gm-taxpayer-letter-1.gif). Consider also the methods and practices used by motoring advocates to add or change road routing and the benefits that such routing will supposedly bring (congestion relief) verses the realities of traffic congestion.

Clearly the political nature of spending public monies has created those that "dance on the head of a pin with great skill" in order to justify said spending... the same also is true for the empires that administrators have built to control said public monies.

But John, the same has been said of you... in the ways that you have taken scarce data, and formed conclusions that have not been scientifically peer reviewed... are you not also perhaps stretching the truth to fulfill your hypotheses? (this BTW IS a recognized problem in the research community, and a strong reason for said "peer review."

Admittedly Bek is playing something of a game... no doubt to get you to lash out in a manner that he expects can bring you disgrace. I honestly doubt that he might be "an accomplished bureaucrat" or anything of that nature.

Admittedly Bek is playing something of a game... no doubt to get you to lash out in a manner that he expects can bring you disgrace. I honestly doubt that he might be "an accomplished bureaucrat" or anything of that nature.

I believe John was referring to the owner of the Cheshire Cat avatar when he made that particular description.

I believe John was referring to the owner of the Cheshire Cat avatar when he made that particular description.

Genec needs more education in interpreting the cryptic pronouncements from the Book of John! :roflmao2:

My name must be taboo in the Cult of the Forester Acolytes.

Genec needs more education in interpreting the cryptic pronouncements from the Book of John! :roflmao2:

My name must be taboo in the Cult of the Forester Acolytes.

Yup, rather cryptic it was... Oh well, I had no idea who his reference was.

Yup, rather cryptic it was... Oh well, I had no idea who his reference was.

That's OK, Big Bad John doesn't know what he is caterwauling about at all! But he's been consistent at it for at least 35 years.

Genec needs more education in interpreting the cryptic pronouncements from the Book of John! :roflmao2:

My name must be taboo in the Cult of the Forester Acolytes.

OMG! Are you He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? :eek:

:roflmao2:

Especially for an English Major John's writing style leaves a lot of room for improvement.

When considering the cycling world and the advocates involved, and the motoring world in general and their advocates, really is there any "truth and justice" in the way business is carried out? Consider for just a moment the GM apology (http://images.paultan.org/images2/gm-taxpayer-letter-1.gif). Consider also the methods and practices used by motoring advocates to add or change road routing and the benefits that such routing will supposedly bring (congestion relief) verses the realities of traffic congestion.

Clearly the political nature of spending public monies has created those that "dance on the head of a pin with great skill" in order to justify said spending... the same also is true for the empires that administrators have built to control said public monies.

But John, the same has been said of you... in the ways that you have taken scarce data, and formed conclusions that have not been scientifically peer reviewed... are you not also perhaps stretching the truth to fulfill your hypotheses? (this BTW IS a recognized problem in the research community, and a strong reason for said "peer review."

Admittedly Bek is playing something of a game... no doubt to get you to lash out in a manner that he expects can bring you disgrace. I honestly doubt that he might be "an accomplished bureaucrat" or anything of that nature.

I see, there's no truth in the world so we should not complain about its lack? But I'm sure that you are not being so cynical as to advocate that situation. And you are quite correct in that the peer review process is intended to keep science on the track of accuracy (truth being a bit beyond the ability of science). But, again, you are writing from ignorance, in this case ignorance of the circumstances of the discipline of bicycle transportation.

For several years I was a member of, and referee for, the Bicycling Committee of the Transportation Research Board, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. In that capacity I refereed both papers that were accepted and, of course, those that were rejected. While several factors were involved in the evaluation, the most obvious conclusion is that the most powerful factor was whether or not the paper was agreeable to the mode of thought that I call the cyclist-inferiority attitude. Papers with great scientific holes in them were accepted because they did not contradict the common superstition, while papers that had scientific merit were rejected because they offended those who believed in the common superstition.

Referees of scientific papers are supposed to operate by a set of rules. Perhaps the best set of those rules is that in Rules for Referees, by Bernard K. Forscher, editor for the Mayo medical institute, published in Science some forty years ago. TRB stated that its referees must follow Forscher's criteria. And yet, the referees for the Bicycling Committee refused to obey Forscher's rules. The business came to a head when I presented a paper measuring the on-road traffic behavior of several sets of cyclists, pseudo random but unlikely to be biased observations in several N. Calif. cities, plus a set of club cyclists with whom I had often cycled to Thursday lunches. I included the club cyclists to show that my standards for good behavior could be, and were routinely, met by competent cyclists. The other sets of observations showed not only that most of the cycling population of each city were incompetent, with scores less than 70%, but also that the pattern of traffic errors matched the type of bikeway system in that city. Where bike lanes ran through many stop signs, stop-sign errors were more prevalent. Where bike lanes ran alongside right-turning car lanes, the error of getting on the right-hand side of cars that might, sometimes must, turn right were more prevalent. The assigned referees didn't like that. Trouble was, the critical arguments they chose to make disobeyed Forscher's rules, and they did so even after being admonished by TRB management. I consider that effective evidence of contra-scientific bias. Over the years since, I have kept up some observation of the refereeing process in the world of bicycle transportation, and I have seen no evidence of substantial improvement. I have observed the funding of investigations to support the bikeway superstition, with the consequent failure to demonstrate the critical points in the papers so resulting. It's like funding an investigation based on the hypothesis that the Earth is Flat.

You, Genec, point to lack of peer approval for my work. That's been out for more than thirty years, open to the criticism of the world, which is full of people who don't like my views, but there has been no substantial scientific criticism of my work.

You also appear to suffer from the delusion that the bikeway designs and bikeway theory (if such exists) have been approved through the peer-review process. That is not so. There has been no peer-accepted paper that demonstrates the basic points of the bikeway belief. There have been attempts on bits; this last year there was a paper investigating the bike-lane to the left of RTOL design, but the paper was badly done and, as I recall, was not accepted. A very large part of the work has been concerned with the ability of motorists to overtake cyclists; clear evidence of what is considered most important to the powers that be.

Several of us have, over the decades, tried to start peer-reviewed scientific journals concerning bicycle transportation, but each attempt has failed in short time through lack of interest. We recognize what should be done, but too few want it done.

I see, there's no truth in the world so we should not complain about its lack? But I'm sure that you are not being so cynical as to advocate that situation. And you are quite correct in that the peer review process is intended to keep science on the track of accuracy (truth being a bit beyond the ability of science). But, again, you are writing from ignorance, in this case ignorance of the circumstances of the discipline of bicycle transportation.

For several years I was a member of, and referee for, the Bicycling Committee of the Transportation Research Board, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. In that capacity I refereed both papers that were accepted and, of course, those that were rejected. While several factors were involved in the evaluation, the most obvious conclusion is that the most powerful factor was whether or not the paper was agreeable to the mode of thought that I call the cyclist-inferiority attitude. Papers with great scientific holes in them were accepted because they did not contradict the common superstition, while papers that had scientific merit were rejected because they offended those who believed in the common superstition.

Referees of scientific papers are supposed to operate by a set of rules. Perhaps the best set of those rules is that in Rules for Referees, by Bernard K. Forscher, editor for the Mayo medical institute, published in Science some forty years ago. TRB stated that its referees must follow Forscher's criteria. And yet, the referees for the Bicycling Committee refused to obey Forscher's rules. The business came to a head when I presented a paper measuring the on-road traffic behavior of several sets of cyclists, pseudo random but unlikely to be biased observations in several N. Calif. cities, plus a set of club cyclists with whom I had often cycled to Thursday lunches. I included the club cyclists to show that my standards for good behavior could be, and were routinely, met by competent cyclists. The other sets of observations showed not only that most of the cycling population of each city were incompetent, with scores less than 70%, but also that the pattern of traffic errors matched the type of bikeway system in that city. Where bike lanes ran through many stop signs, stop-sign errors were more prevalent. Where bike lanes ran alongside right-turning car lanes, the error of getting on the right-hand side of cars that might, sometimes must, turn right were more prevalent. The assigned referees didn't like that. Trouble was, the critical arguments they chose to make disobeyed Forscher's rules, and they did so even after being admonished by TRB management. I consider that effective evidence of contra-scientific bias. Over the years since, I have kept up some observation of the refereeing process in the world of bicycle transportation, and I have seen no evidence of substantial improvement. I have observed the funding of investigations to support the bikeway superstition, with the consequent failure to demonstrate the critical points in the papers so resulting. It's like funding an investigation based on the hypothesis that the Earth is Flat.

You, Genec, point to lack of peer approval for my work. That's been out for more than thirty years, open to the criticism of the world, which is full of people who don't like my views, but there has been no substantial scientific criticism of my work.

You also appear to suffer from the delusion that the bikeway designs and bikeway theory (if such exists) have been approved through the peer-review process. That is not so. There has been no peer-accepted paper that demonstrates the basic points of the bikeway belief. There have been attempts on bits; this last year there was a paper investigating the bike-lane to the left of RTOL design, but the paper was badly done and, as I recall, was not accepted. A very large part of the work has been concerned with the ability of motorists to overtake cyclists; clear evidence of what is considered most important to the powers that be.

Several of us have, over the decades, tried to start peer-reviewed scientific journals concerning bicycle transportation, but each attempt has failed in short time through lack of interest. We recognize what should be done, but too few want it done.
Tee Hee. I recommend that all interested parties read the so-called study and the testing methods involved in the Forester Brand "discipline of bicycle transportation". What a farce! Pay particular attention to the scoring method and the significance that is placed upon a "test" that the cyclists were unaware they were taking and sample selection, as well as the leap of faith that any alleged difference is somehow associated with THE EFFECT OF BIKELANE SYSTEM DESIGN UPON CYCLISTS' TRAFFIC ERRORS

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/bikelane.htm

The whole article reads like it was written for The Onion.

One quick comment, more to follow later.


I included the club cyclists to show that my standards for good behavior could be, and were routinely, met by competent cyclists.

I note with great interest your choice of using club cyclists as "your standard for good behavior," as often club cyclists have shown repeated disregard for following "the rules of the road" when said cyclists ride in a group manner. The running of stop lights and stop signs is often a notable behavior of such rides...

Your recent comment also aligns perfectly with your view that cycling should be undertaken not by the masses as a means of short distance transportation, but by those who view themselves as "cyclists" in pursuit of a sport. This matches perfectly with your views as previously presented...


It has become more and more apparent that the utility of bicycle transportation in modern society has to be evaluated by non-transportational criteria. The two criteria most often suggested are environmentalism in its anti-motoring form and pure enjoyment, either for the immediate pleasure of cycling during the work week or for maintaining the physical condition necessary for enjoying weekend cycling.

This is again typical of your subtle disdain for cycling to be used in a manner consistent to that demonstrated in places like Copenhagen, Finland, China, and even Portland Oregon, where significant numbers of cyclists DO use bicycles for transportation, and yet do not consider themselves "cyclists..."

One quick comment, more to follow later.

[I included the club cyclists to show that my standards for good behavior could be, and were routinely, met by competent cyclists.]



I note with great interest your choice of using club cyclists as "your standard for good behavior," as often club cyclists have shown repeated disregard for following "the rules of the road" when said cyclists ride in a group manner. The running of stop lights and stop signs is often a notable behavior of such rides...

Your recent comment also aligns perfectly with your view that cycling should be undertaken not by the masses as a means of short distance transportation, but by those who view themselves as "cyclists" in pursuit of a sport. This matches perfectly with your views as previously presented...

[It has become more and more apparent that the utility of bicycle transportation in modern society has to be evaluated by non-transportational criteria. The two criteria most often suggested are environmentalism in its anti-motoring form and pure enjoyment, either for the immediate pleasure of cycling during the work week or for maintaining the physical condition necessary for enjoying weekend cycling.]

This is again typical of your subtle disdain for cycling to be used in a manner consistent to that demonstrated in places like Copenhagen, Finland, China, and even Portland Oregon, where significant numbers of cyclists DO use bicycles for transportation, and yet do not consider themselves "cyclists..."

Genec, you again display your ignorance and bias. I have never cycled with the outlaws. By and large, if in a group, with the lawful, competent cyclists. Besides, since I wrote that I selected this particular cycling group as an example of good behavior and their behavior demonstrated high scores (99% avg, as I remember), they could not have operated in the outlaw manner. This was a group with which I frequently went on Thursday morning rides, ending up at some pre-selected lunch place.

And more of the same ignorance and bias. Isn't it clear that I despise both of the evaluation criteria that I described? My criteria is lawful competence according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

The plain fact that people such as you cannot understand the application of reasonable criteria to cyclist behavior is just one more demonstration of the evil effect of the cyclist-inferiority phobia on your minds.

what an absolute farce.

there's no rebuttal of any arguments i have advanced.

john forester, your arguments are bankrupt, you cantankerous wank.


tell the forum the last time you rode your bike down Lemon Grove Ave, john. in the bikelane, on the side by the light rail tracks.

do you think this bike lane goes against vehicular road design? if so, how? why?

have you ever ridden a bicycle in an intersection with a pocket bikelane?

why do you think a pocket bike lane to the left of all RTO traffic could be safer than other street designs like WOLs john? please elaborate.


should a decrease in sidewalk and wrong way cycling behaviors be considered an increase in lawful, road cycling behaviors, john? if more cyclists use the streets and ride lawfully, this should be considered an increase in lawful road cycling - if not, why?

infrastructure enhancements to a city's transportation network might only be vehicular, arterial bikelanes on 10 percent of city streets or less. these connection routes that facilitate cycling along arterial roadways brings more cyclists to ride on and use the remainder of streets lawfully and in a vehicular manner.

if john somehow thinks his offense at being responded to in same tone and language as he uses somehow absolves him from the debate, that pontificating blowhard concedes utter defeat with his worthless, vacuous lack of a defensible agenda.

...

wether is is because more cyclists are on the streets, or there are more adult cyclists on the streets, more cyclists clued into lawful road cycling, or more lawful road cycling going on is irrelevant.

I think it's really important to consider if an evident per-rider safety improvement is due to the behavior of motorists, as is alleged by Jacobsen in his safety in numbers article, or due to the behavior of bicyclists as the bicycling population changes, gains experience and gets older. No doubt it is a combo of both. Imo the behavior of bicyclists is far more important but Jacobsen and the legion disciples of what is, admittedly, a very happy theory, seem to willfully ignore any potential for bicyclists to control their own destiny.


... the correllative affects from the infrastructure/education/inducements are seen repeated, time and time again, in cities in america and around the world.

just because there isn't a direct, distillable causal connection from more cyclists=greater safety doesn't really matter since the effect is replicated across the globe.

American cities that increase lawful road cycling thru infrastructure enhancements reap the correlative benefits despite there being no 'smoking gun' to please the statisticians and doubting thomases.

Correlation being the operative word. I'm sure you've heard that correlation does not imply causation. I'm not going to say you have the cart before the horse, but the horse is maybe pulled up alongside the cart and looking at the driver sideways.



I will also advance a theory I have from observing cycling on the west coast.... that pocket lanes at intersections and bikelanes can have an educational effect that trickles down to riding styles on other streets that remain unaccomodated in communities.

I advance the theory that Infrastructure can have educational effects on cyclists behavior by 'showing' cyclists correct destination positioning being to the left of RTO traffic at intersections, and to ride outside of the door zone consistently versus weaving in and out of parked cars. this is above and beyond the gross effect of reducing sidewalk and wrond way cycling. ...

I agree that there is some effect, and I think sharrows would have a similar effect.

Correlation being the operative word. I'm sure you've heard that correlation does not imply causation. I'm not going to say you have the cart before the horse, but the horse is maybe pulled up alongside the cart and looking at the driver sideways.

one common - not statistician - definition of correlation is "strongly intertwined", robert. i suggest such a link. so do many others.

the variables are difficult to quantify but qualitatively there's a strong pattern of interconnectivity between the enhancements/inducements in communities and societal participation in bicycling.

i suspect you see this in the greater denver metro area and other cities you've cycled.

But all in all, isn't that change a net positive?


It's still a positive, but a completely different sort of positive, and a positive with a separate and distinct cause.

EDIT: Insofar as the improvement in statistics is due to a decrease in children bicycling, then I don't believe that is positive evidence, actually. We are raising the first generation of kids in a long time that doesn't ride bikes much. It's increasingly common that kids don't even bother to learn how to ride -- imagine that. This could have some very chilling implications for the future of bicycling in this country.

I agree that there is some effect, and I think sharrows would have a similar effect.

just try to get a sharrow 15 feet into a wide lane at an intersection to convey destination positioning. i'm confident it can be done (I've even suggested the possibility of a super series of sharrows conveying multi lane merges for left turns)

but traffic engineers should be striping pocket lanes to the left of RTO traffic at intersections over WOL/sharrow combos if there is adequate width, high volumes of traffic and high speed differentials.

*pocket bike lanes even john forester could be proud of!* :D
I and my associates had to argue strongly, in 1974....to get that into the approved designs.

I've seen and personally analyzed about four years worth of Portland's cyclist crash data from the time period ~1998-2002, so I'm not unfamiliar with what the data looks like and how reliable it is.

I would say the thing that has the biggest influence on cyclist crash stats is how the police handle reporting and which data is analyzed how.

Good points -- bicycle-car collision data is not built on rock-solid foundation when it comes down to it. Highly sketchy and questionable.


If the local police don't receive or file a report, the incident won't be in the data base, and the bar for when the police themselves file a report on a crash involving a cyclist is PDX has gotten pretty high in recent years, ostensibly to cut down on police paperwork. There was a time a few years ago when a crash involving a cyclist would not have a police report filed unless it involved an injury requiring transport to a trauma center, although there are signs that bar is starting to drop again in the past few years.

Interesting.


Cyclists are also less likely than motorists to self-report crashes to the state DMV, which is another source of crash stats; whereas motorists are required by law to do this when they are involved in a crash resulting in more than a certain amount of property damage.

I'm pretty sure that the City's crash data base has been parsed to separate incidents involving adult cyclists from youth cyclists, so it eliminates the skew that occurs if you include youth crashes...

I'm not sure, maybe they did. But it's amazing how often something so obvious is completely overlooked, or perhaps deliberately ignored. The author of the Safety in Numbers article seems to have made no attempt to distinguish incidents involving children from those involving adults in his analysis of crash data from several cities.

just try to get a sharrow 15 feet into a wide lane at an intersection to convey destination positioning. i'm confident it can be done (I've even suggested the possibility of a super series of sharrows conveying multi lane merges for left turns)

I love this sharrow: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39.337633,-76.625841&spn=0,359.98071&z=16&layer=c&cbll=39.337694,-76.625929&panoid=Ns6jh1ACW4uzipPfqaH6VQ&cbp=12,125.16,,0,35.63
But I agree it can be hard to get them out that far.

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2670/199/49/513493075/n513493075_1531044_7805479.jpg

That's from NHI free Webinar: "Shared Lane Markings/Sharrows" NHI has some fun cool stuff.

It's still a positive, but a completely different sort of positive, and a positive with a separate and distinct cause.

EDIT: Insofar as the improvement in statistics is due to a decrease in children bicycling, then I don't believe that is positive evidence, actually. We are raising the first generation of kids in a long time that doesn't ride bikes much. It's increasingly common that kids don't even bother to learn how to ride -- imagine that. This could have some very chilling implications for the future of bicycling in this country.

I wholly agree with you regarding the issues of a generation not riding bicycles...

I cannot help but wonder how much of that can be attributed to mandatory helmet laws, and how much can be attributed to the auto centric design (and the use of larger SUV like vehicles) that is now prevalent in many of our US cities.

On the plus side, kids in small towns (imagine that) do seem to still be riding bicycles... even to school... ILTB and others continue to post pictures of schools with real bike racks, and walmart keeps selling plenty of cheap bikes.