Vehicular Cycling

Bigmikepowell

I appologise for not making myself clearer. I am more than aware that all forms of transport have risks.

What I meant was that the relative risks are low enough that to not cycle for reasons of safety is, in my eyes, a poor excuse. If we think hard enough everything we do has an element of danger and I think that being in the warm, comfortable confines of a car to some extent makes you less aware of your surroundings and what that car is capable of doing to another human being.

I am not a car hater, I have just heard so many people use 'the risks of cycling' as an excuse not to when all it takes is a bit of mental awareness....

Finally after much digging.

Cross modal comparison of fatality risk for passengers 2001
Fatalities per billion
passenger kilometres in the UK

Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3
Van 0.9
Rail 0.1
Water 0.4
Bus or coach 0.2
Air >0.01

Source: Road Casualties Great Britain 2002: DfT (2003).

The implication is that cycling somewhere is 10 times less safe on a bike than in a car. Look at the figures though 33 fatalities per billion miles cycled. The risk is higher but it is still a relatively low risk activity

We can argue the meaning of these stats for ever if we want to get picky. Wonder what they would look like for Europe as a whole and America.

Bruce Rosar

Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres in the UK
Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3From Cross Modal Fatality Rate Comparisons (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm) Table 4 - 1985/86 Fatalities per million passenger hours in Australia
Pedestrians 0.68
All motorised vehicles 0.53
Cyclists 0.42

Bigmikepowell

From Cross Modal Fatality Rate Comparisons (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm) Table 4 - 1985/86

Bruce to make these numbers equivilant to mine you can multiply by the average speeds, 4Km/hr for pedestrians, 10km/hr for bikes, 50Km/hour for cars and lorries.

This gives fatalities per billion Km

Pedestians UK48 Aus 170
bicycles UK 33 Aus 40
Cars/Lorries UK 3 Aus 10

I have rounded the Aus figures.

Trend is still the same but Aus has some bad stats. Wonder if this is linked to the time difference 2003 UK 1985 Aus, as road safty particularly with respect to cars has improved massively in this time frame. On the other hand if you have ever cycled in Sydney you would wonder why their is not much more difference.

* jack *

Bruce Rosar

This gives fatalities per billion Km
Pedestians UK48 Aus 170
bicycles UK 33 Aus 40
Cars/Lorries UK 3 Aus 10
From Cross Modal Fatality Rate Comparisons in Australia (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm), Table 4 Fatalities/million vehicles trips
Car drivers 0.10
Cyclists 0.10

The Rob

I'd enter the road. Constructing that path in that manner flies in the face of safety and logic.

Daily Commute

Jack, I'd take the road, too. Never ride on a poorly designed path or in a poorly designed bike lane.

Bigmikepowell

I've got a question. Sorry if one like it has been asked before:

There is a MUP/urban greenway/bike trail in my town. This trail
(which isn't clearly marked in some areas) is designed to have the cyclist
ride on the sidewalk, sometimes facing traffic, when approaching and crossing roadways.

I always practice VC when commuting, (except for the occasional stopsign breeze-by), so I
feel uncomfortable using the trail as it is designed when crossing roadways - because to me -
it seems wrong, not to mention dangerous.

What is the proper approach here, follow the marked path of the trail, or hop off the trail and
enter the road as a vehicle, to re-enter the trail when it starts again down the block?

Sounds like a badly constructed bike path but any chance of pictures? I would never recommend using a badly thought out or dangers bike path. However I have a bike path I use that I could describe like that, that is good. To get to it I make a right turn across the traffic onto the bike path then another right turn back again. Even though it means two more junctions than just sticking on the road I use it because it is shorter, and nicer to ride than the road.

Bigmikepowell

From Cross Modal Fatality Rate Comparisons in Australia (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/research/cross_modal.cfm), Table 4

Bruce interesting alternate way of looking at the stats. You can't get away from the conclusion though that if you want to move between two fixed points it is safer to use a car then either walking or biking. The way you present the stats hides the fact that walking and bike trips are on average slower than by car and that people tend to use walking and biking for shorter trips than cars.

Daily Commute

Bruce interesting alternate way of looking at the stats. You can't get away from the conclusion though that if you want to move between two fixed points it is safer to use a car then either walking or biking. The way you present the stats hides the fact that walking and bike trips are on average slower than by car and that people tend to use walking and biking for shorter trips than cars.
Until the driver dies at age 50 from a heart attack from lack of exercise.

Bruce Rosar

... looking at the stats ... if you want to move between two fixed points it is safer to use a car then either walking or biking. Stats are about averages. I am not an average. The average family may have 2.3 children, but no individual family has that many. An average traveler may be killed by traffic at some rate, but that doesn't mean that a given traveler will be killed by traffic after a certain amount of trips/distance/time.

Just as each family has a degree of influence on the number of children that they have at a given moment in time, each traveler has a degree of influence on the odds that they will killed by traffic at a given moment in time. An individual who travels (whether on feet or wheels) in a better than average manner can move between two fixed points with a lower than average chance of being killed. The better their manner, the more effective their travel.

Which reminds me of a proverb (http://sjsu.sjweb.net/15/):
The future is not set, there is no fate but what we make for ourselves.

John E

... There is a MUP/urban greenway/bike trail in my town. This trail
(which isn't clearly marked in some areas) is designed to have the cyclist
ride on the sidewalk, sometimes facing traffic, when approaching and crossing roadways.

I always practice VC when commuting, (except for the occasional stopsign breeze-by), so I
feel uncomfortable using the trail as it is designed when crossing roadways - because to me -
it seems wrong, not to mention dangerous.

What is the proper approach here, follow the marked path of the trail, or hop off the trail and
enter the road as a vehicle, to re-enter the trail when it starts again down the block?

Analysis of intersections, bike lanes, MUPs, and roads has to be done on a case-by-case basis. Your instincts against contraflow crossing of roadways are spot-on and a good reason to hop of the trail, cross vehicularly, and then re-enter the trail or simply stay on the road.

LittleBigMan

You can't get away from the conclusion though that if you want to move between two fixed points it is safer to use a car then either walking or biking.
The idea that cycling is more dangerous than motoring is based on statistics that include untrained children and adult cyclists. If motorists as a group included untrained 9 to 12 year-olds and anyone else whose feet could reach the gas and brake pedals, the stats would change quite a bit.

Furthermore, the idea that this "danger" can be removed by the construction of separate facilities is also unproven.

Anyone who has cycled vehicularly since the age of 12 will probably be a better driver at age 16 than one who has not. And since the leading cause of teenage deaths in the US is automobile crashes, that would be a giant step forward.

(Maybe if everyone cycled several years before they drove a car, pedestrians wouldn't need to worry as much either.)

Bigmikepowell

The idea that cycling is more dangerous than motoring is based on statistics that include untrained children and adult cyclists. If motorists as a group included untrained 9 to 12 year-olds and anyone else whose feet could reach the gas and brake pedals, the stats would change quite a bit.

Furthermore, the idea that this "danger" can be removed by the construction of separate facilities is also unproven.

Anyone who has cycled vehicularly since the age of 12 will probably be a better driver at age 16 than one who has not. And since the leading cause of teenage deaths in the US is automobile crashes, that would be a giant step forward.

(Maybe if everyone cycled several years before they drove a car, pedestrians wouldn't need to worry as much either.)

It's an interesting thought. However in the UK children make up a small portion of these cycle death numbers. The number declined from about the mid 80's. One thought is that children deaths on cycles are reported in the pedestrian figures.

The idea that danger can be removed by providing cycle facilities, bike lanes, seperated bike lanes advanced stop signs and that this increases the number of people cycling, and is likely to result in reduced accident rate and deaths and does not cause increased danger is based on good stats.

Now everyone cycling a few years before driving or even as part of the motoring test, top idea.

I wonder why the idea that bike lanes and other cycle facilities raises such anti passion when the balance of information indicates they are a positive benifit?

I haven't heard a sound argeument yet that says cycle training and bike specific road facilities are incompatable.

LittleBigMan

I haven't heard a sound argeument yet that says cycle training and bike specific road facilities are incompatable.
Well, I agree there.

And Mike, I appreciate your balanced tone. Perhaps there are things that I see here in the US that just don't apply to you, I don't know. I can't afford to be that dogmatic. I don't believe that "one size fits all."

But Mike, if you could see what passes for "bike facilities" around here, I think you'd agree that we're being handed the shortest possible end of the stick. This is perhaps why I see things the way I do.

Yet also, I find the roads just fine for cycling. As one advocate put it, "There are no better bike facilities than the roads we have." This is not just a catch-phrase, it's a reality in my experience. My city (Greater Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, USA, aka "Southeastern Suburban Sprawl Capitol, USA") has been dubbed one of THE most cycling-unfriendly cities in the US. But as a cyclist here, I find that the same roads I've driven on for 30 years to be great for cycling, too. I tried the bike paths and bike lanes, and still use them for sometimes as much as 15% of my trip mileage.

But in general, my experience with "bike facilites" in my area are negative for the following reasons:

1) Bike lanes added to streets reduce the usable part of the roadway. Where I once had plenty of clean pavement, I now have a place for debris to hinder my journey. This often means I must leave the bike lane to use the now much narrower ordinary lane. (I've been robbed!) Not to mention that bike lanes are often contain drains and rough pavement, which cannot be swept out, they were built that way. Ideal bike lanes, smooth and clean-swept, are not the reality.

2) Bike paths work only in park-like areas where there are no roads to intersect, which means I'll soon be switching to a glorified sidewalk that treates every driveway as an intersection (with me yielding to all motor traffic) after only about 2 miles of city travel (how many stop signs can you count in a mile?) Also, the residents consider this park-like atmosphere (the only decent paths) a wonderful place to walk their dogs on long leashes, bad for cycling 15 to 25 mph. Sand and glass make their expected appearance.

3) Once a bike lane or path is put in place, the law often allows police to order any cyclist to use it instead of the adjacent roadway. Not only that, but motorists sometimes take it upon themselves to "police" the roadway, honking and commanding cyclists to "get on the path." If you asked anyone around here if it was alright for a cyclist to leave the bike lane, they would probably answer "no," it's lawlessness just like running a stop sign. Even without the unfair, restrictive laws, motorists instinctively think it's wrong to leave the bike facility, sometimes provoking road-rage incidents.

To use an analogy, when I see an advertisement for a product, no matter how great they claim it is, if I've had bad experiences with that product, I tend to disbelieve the claims.

sbhikes

I do not doubt that it is as bad as you describe in Atlanta, but it's not like that everywhere. Here, the bike lanes are clean and clear. Only the ones that aren't really bike paths and a few bad spots here and there have grates or substandard conditions (usually the roads are just as bad or worse when that happens). And I've never seen or heard of anybody being ordered by a cop to get in the bike lane or on the bike path where I live. I have certainly never had a cop say that to me.

Bruce Rosar

The idea that ... providing cycle facilities, bike lanes, seperated bike lanes advanced stop signs ... is likely to result in reduced accident rate and deaths ... is based on good stats.Public policy decisions should be based on the best studies available. Has the study with these stats been published? What's the URL (i.e., web link) to the study? Has the study been reviewed by qualified experts? What are the URLs to those reviews?

BTW, there was a similar claim made in another list (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy/message/5997): The recently released Chicago bike lane study results (http://www.chibikefed.org/biketraffic/BT0404/) showed that mid-block collisions dropped by 15.4% on streets with bike lanes, and intersection collisions dropped by almost 10%.
Here are some quotes from that "study":CONFERENCE SESSION REPORT
On-Street or Off: Designing Roads for Bicycles
By David Callahan

People ... think it is safer to be away from cars, but in reality it is not, ...

It is at intersections, where side paths feed into traffic, that problems arise, he said, showing a number of diagrams to illustrate how side path riders move largely outside of the fields of vision of motorists who are executing turns.

While the Chicago bike lane network has spurred a dramatic increase in cycling on streets with new bike lanes, the crash rate per intersection has decreased by nearly 10 percent, and mid-block collisions have declined by 15.4 percent.
The word "study" doesn't appear at all in the report, which is proper since the author omitted answers to such basic questions as: What was the data upon which the claims are based? How was the data collected? How was the data summarized? What inferences can be properly drawn from the data?
"In God we trust. Everybody else is suspect" - Kevin Mitnick

kwv

Yes, but Serge you are just choosing which motorists to impede. This trick works much better in intersections that don't have a signaled left-turn lane, very common in Los Angeles. Why risk negotiating a left hand turn with two lanes of 45mph traffic when you can negotiate that you are going straight with one motorist? You talk about respect, but nothing pisses off a motorist more than missing a light because a cyclist was holding them up in the left-hand turn lane.

We need to be respected as fellow users, but we are not equal. I don't know any cyclists with a 100hp motor.

But in the real world many road users (driver, rider or pedestrian) don't requsted other road users and these road users think they are not equal to other road users in fact they think they are high or mighty.

And the new Toyota TV ad in Australia for their Hilux doesn't help matters when the slogan is:

Get in or get out of the way.

kwv

Well, I agree there.

And Mike, I appreciate your balanced tone. Perhaps there are things that I see here in the US that just don't apply to you, I don't know. I can't afford to be that dogmatic. I don't believe that "one size fits all."

But Mike, if you could see what passes for "bike facilities" around here, I think you'd agree that we're being handed the shortest possible end of the stick. This is perhaps why I see things the way I do.

Yet also, I find the roads just fine for cycling. As one advocate put it, "There are no better bike facilities than the roads we have." This is not just a catch-phrase, it's a reality in my experience. My city (Greater Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, USA, aka "Southeastern Suburban Sprawl Capitol, USA") has been dubbed one of THE most cycling-unfriendly cities in the US. But as a cyclist here, I find that the same roads I've driven on for 30 years to be great for cycling, too. I tried the bike paths and bike lanes, and still use them for sometimes as much as 15% of my trip mileage.

But in general, my experience with "bike facilites" in my area are negative for the following reasons:

1) Bike lanes added to streets reduce the usable part of the roadway. Where I once had plenty of clean pavement, I now have a place for debris to hinder my journey. This often means I must leave the bike lane to use the now much narrower ordinary lane. (I've been robbed!) Not to mention that bike lanes are often contain drains and rough pavement, which cannot be swept out, they were built that way. Ideal bike lanes, smooth and clean-swept, are not the reality.

2) Bike paths work only in park-like areas where there are no roads to intersect, which means I'll soon be switching to a glorified sidewalk that treates every driveway as an intersection (with me yielding to all motor traffic) after only about 2 miles of city travel (how many stop signs can you count in a mile?) Also, the residents consider this park-like atmosphere (the only decent paths) a wonderful place to walk their dogs on long leashes, bad for cycling 15 to 25 mph. Sand and glass make their expected appearance.

3) Once a bike lane or path is put in place, the law often allows police to order any cyclist to use it instead of the adjacent roadway. Not only that, but motorists sometimes take it upon themselves to "police" the roadway, honking and commanding cyclists to "get on the path." If you asked anyone around here if it was alright for a cyclist to leave the bike lane, they would probably answer "no," it's lawlessness just like running a stop sign. Even without the unfair, restrictive laws, motorists instinctively think it's wrong to leave the bike facility, sometimes provoking road-rage incidents.

To use an analogy, when I see an advertisement for a product, no matter how great they claim it is, if I've had bad experiences with that product, I tend to disbelieve the claims.

1) Would you rather have a bike lane (or Bus lane) taken over by the roadway and what areas have you visited to know for sure "Ideal bike lanes, smooth and clean-swept, are not the reality"?

2) You are right here

3) What would you do or say if you saw a motorist driving down a bikelane but they weren't about to turn?

Would you be honking and commanding motorists to get on the roadway?

Daily Commute

The Chicago lanes are so good, the city had to pass a law (http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1824490331.1113301105@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfaddefgddmejcefecelldffhdfgn.0&contentOID=536907994&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=SubAgency&blockName=Chicago+Bike+Program%2FCity+Bike+Ordinances%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Chicago+Bike+Program&deptMainCategoryOID=-536887813) to force cyclists to use them:

Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Certain Roadways

9-52-020. Riding bicycles on sidewalks and certain roadways.

* * *

(c) Bicycles shall not be operated on Lake Shore Drive or on any roadway where the operation of bicycles has been prohibited and signs have been erected indicating such prohibition.

(d) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway
The Chicago system belies the myth that bike facilities are not a threat to cyclists right to use road. In Chicago, once the city builds a special "facility" for bikes, cyclists get banned from the road. Nice.

Helmet Head

This, my friends, is the arch enemy of cyclists, and eliminating the mentality that forms the basis for such laws should be the primary target of cycling advocacy:

(d) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway

I-Like-To-Bike

The Chicago lanes are so good, the city had to pass * * *

(c) Bicycles shall not be operated on Lake Shore Drive or on any roadway where the operation of bicycles has been prohibited and signs have been erected indicating such prohibition.

(d) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
The Chicago system belies the myth that bike facilities are not a threat to cyclists right to use road. In Chicago, once the city builds a special "facility" for bikes, cyclists get banned from the road. Nice.
DC, be for real. Cyclists don't need a sign to stay off of the LSD. I was there this past weekend; NO cyclist in his or her right mind would contemplate cycling on the LSD at any time with the density of traffic and narrow lanes, with or without the presence of a parallel recreational path.

Would you?

Daily Commute

DC, be for real. Cyclists don't need a sign to stay off of the LSD. I was there this past weekend; NO cyclist in his or her right mind would contemplate cycling on the LSD at any time with the density of traffic and narrow lanes, with or without the presence of a parallel recreational path.

Would you?
The law doesn't apply only to Lake Shore Drive--it applies anywhere the city builds a path. I probably would chose a path over LSD. I might make the same choice other places there are paths near roads. I just don't want the city to take that choice away.

I-Like-To-Bike

The law doesn't apply only to Lake Shore Drive--it applies anywhere the city builds a path. I probably would chose a path over LSD. I might make the same choice other places there are paths near roads. I just don't want the city to take that choice away.

What other road in Chicago besides the LSD DOES this law apply to?
And you would "probably" choose a path over the LSD?

What are the probabilities that you, or anybody you know, would EVER cycle on the LSD instead of the parallel motorist free path under current LSD traffic conditions and lane width?

I presume the city has passed laws about jumping from tall buildings, would that law "take choice away" from sane people also?

Daily Commute

What other road in Chicago besides the LSD DOES this law apply to?
And you would "probably" choose a path over the LSD? What are the probabilities that you or anybody you know would EVER cycle on the LSD?

I presume the city has passed laws about jumping from tall buildings, would that law "take choice away" from sane people also?
Why this focus ONLY on LSD? As I pointed out, the law applies everywhere a bike path is built, even if the road is perfectly ridable.

This is one of the most common and feeble anti-VC arguments. VC'ers point out that cyclists can generally do just fine in traffic without "special" facilities. Anti-VC'ers respond, "but you can't ride on a freeway, cyclists must be separated from freeway traffic." The world (even Chicago) is not made up entirely of freeways.

noisebeam

What other road in Chicago besides the LSD DOES this law apply to?

It doesn't matter as the law states:

(d) Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway

Now if a path is built along a reasonable road to ride on, that road suddenly becomes illegal to ride on. Do you think the law will be re-written? Also per the language written, who is to judge what is 'useable' or 'adjacent' or 'provided'? All that law is is a slow whittling away of cyclists rights to the road.

All that is needed instead of this law are some signs posted along entrances to LSD that indicate that cycling is not permitted, just like those signs exist along the entrances to certain stretches of freeway here in AZ where cycling is prohibited.

Al

Daily Commute

noisebeam makes a good point--the existence of a bike path near a road has no bearing on whether cyclists can safely use the road. Laws like Chicago's support the VC argument that many bike paths/bike facilties are mainly about helping cars go faster on the roads.

Helmet Head

Anyone have a picture of Lake Shore Drive that shows why cyclists in their right mind would not choose to cycle on it?

genec

Anti-VC'ers respond, "but you can't ride on a freeway, cyclists must be separated from freeway traffic." The world (even Chicago) is not made up entirely of freeways.

Not to jump into this arguement, but simply to point out that in some areas, the world IS just freeways. Many western states have only high speed roads and in some cases, only interstates connecting two points.

I have ridden my bike from San Diego, CA to Fort Worth TX, and to get there, I rode in some cases interstates 8 and 10, which were the only roads that existed.

In other locations, the only other roads, were local state hiways.

This was perfectly legal, albeit not exactly fun in some parts. (interstates are boring and noisy at ~15MPH). In some places, I was the only thing on the state hiways for hours... (now that was a blast!)

LittleBigMan

I do not doubt that it is as bad as you describe in Atlanta, but it's not like that everywhere.
But Diane, I didn't say it was "bad in Atlanta." I said that the roads in Atlanta are great for cycling, and there is no need for the substandard bike facilites they have tried to build.

Here, the bike lanes are clean and clear.

That's the minimum standard. I'm not prepared to endorse all bike lanes just because the minimum standard of safety is sometimes obeyed.

And I've never seen or heard of anybody being ordered by a cop to get in the bike lane or on the bike path where I live. I have certainly never had a cop say that to me.

I've never had a cop put me in jail indefinitely without due process of law. But that doesn't mean I'm prepared to wink at laws that remove my rights in that regard. You can't ignore the laws that have already been passed which allow police to order cyclists off the road.

Only the ones that aren't really bike paths and a few bad spots here and there have grates or substandard conditions (usually the roads are just as bad or worse when that happens).
That's substandard and unsafe, even if it happens only occasionally.

I still prefer the road, but I am not against you using bike facilities, so long as your freedoms aren't accompanied by laws that restrict mine. I like my freedoms, and want to keep them.

Bruce Rosar

All that is needed instead of this law are some signs posted along entrances to LSD that indicate that cycling is not permitted...Instead of a ban on travel by a minority of the public (cyclists) from a public way, there's a more effective (covers all vehicles, not just some) and fair (applies equally to every operator) solution that can be used to prohibit slow travel. Here's the model rule for the USA:

Uniform Vehicle Code, 11-805 Minimum speed regulation
(b) Whenever the ... determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any highway or part of a highway impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the ... may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law ...
http://www.ohiobike.org/NCUTLO/uvc11pt2.htm

When compared to differentiating by class of traveler, a minimum speed limit is more effective method of ensuring that slower traffic won't normally be encountered in the travel lanes.

Bigmikepowell

This, my friends, is the arch enemy of cyclists, and eliminating the mentality that forms the basis for such laws should be the primary target of cycling advocacy:

Serge. From the following discussion I am not sure if this is uniform law in the US or just in specific places.

If it is a uniform law it is bad and I can see why you would be down on bike lanes. But if this is the case it isn't the bike lanes it's the law that needs attacking.

By the way this most certainly isn't the case in Europe where in general bike lanes are optional. There are specific places where they are mandated.

In San Francisco there is a bike lane over the golden gate. It is mandated that cyclists cycle on this. It is also prohibited from cycling on the main carridgeway, but you wouldn't want to. All the other cycle lanes in San Francisco seemed optional some where good some where dreadful.

Bigmikepowell

Public policy decisions should be based on the best studies available. Has the study with these stats been published? What's the URL (i.e., web link) to the study? Has the study been reviewed by qualified experts? What are the URLs to those reviews?

BTW, there was a similar claim made in another list (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy/message/5997):
Here are some quotes from that "study":
The word "study" doesn't appear at all in the report, which is proper since the author omitted answers to such basic questions as: What was the data upon which the claims are based? How was the data collected? How was the data summarized? What inferences can be properly drawn from the data?
"In God we trust. Everybody else is suspect" - Kevin Mitnick

Bruce. I applaud your scepticism. However not all data and reports are on the Web. The one I was refering to was printed on good old fashioned paper. Also to be true papers don't have to be reviewed by experts, I can think of many cases where the experts have eventually be proven to be dead wrong. I do beleive in peir review so I will try to locate the data and scan it in. This will take me at least 3 weeks as I am in the US from tommorrow and Itally for the week after, so a bit of patients please.

Just a point. You don't seem to hold to this same standard for the views you propound for VC cycling and attacking bike lanes or have I missed the studies you are relying on.

Helmet Head

Serge. From the following discussion I am not sure if this is uniform law in the US or just in specific places.
that particular law was a local Chicago law.

If it is a uniform law it is bad and I can see why you would be down on bike lanes. But if this is the case it isn't the bike lanes it's the law that needs attacking.
I prefer to go after root causes, which in this is case I believe to be the cyclist/motorist separatist mentality.

By the way this most certainly isn't the case in Europe where in general bike lanes are optional. There are specific places where they are mandated.
I've read that in some countries (Holland?) they are mandatory. It's only a matter of time. It's a logical step after establishing special facilities for bicycles, including bike lanes. Why? Because the only reasonable justification for special facilities is that they make cycling safer. If they make cycling safer, then it's not a leap to conclude that without them, cycling is unsafe. Once it is established that cycling without facilities is unsafe, then it is only a matter of time to forbid cycling without facilities because it is unsafe. From bike lanes to banning of cyclists... it's a logical path, travel on which is fueled by the the cyclist/motorist separatist mentality.

In San Francisco there is a bike lane over the golden gate. It is mandated that cyclists cycle on this. It is also prohibited from cycling on the main carridgeway, but you wouldn't want to. All the other cycle lanes in San Francisco seemed optional some where good some where dreadful.
I have stated repeatedly that I support cycling facilities on roadways where cycling is otherwise banned, like on freeways, bridges and tunnels. I do not support cycling facilities on roadways where cycling is legal, largely because I believe such facilities are the first step of the the cyclist/motorist separatist mentality process towards banning cycling on those same roads.

Bigmikepowell

Well, I agree there.

And Mike, I appreciate your balanced tone. Perhaps there are things that I see here in the US that just don't apply to you, I don't know. I can't afford to be that dogmatic. I don't believe that "one size fits all."

I think from your previous posts we are pretty close in our thinking. I don't beleive their is one unique solution to promote cycling.
But Mike, if you could see what passes for "bike facilities" around here, I think you'd agree that we're being handed the shortest possible end of the stick. This is perhaps why I see things the way I do.

I have and agree that some of it is just a joke and some seems plane dangerous. This is also the case in the UK but fortunately this is decreasing. One think the London cycling campaign does is audit bike lanes for the local councils, and submit written reports to the engineering departments. They have been working for long enough now that many of these audit critism's get fixed. Beleive it is not all harmony however and some councils are rabidly anti bike and anticriticism.
Yet also, I find the roads just fine for cycling. As one advocate put it, "There are no better bike facilities than the roads we have." This is not just a catch-phrase, it's a reality in my experience. My city (Greater Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, USA, aka "Southeastern Suburban Sprawl Capitol, USA") has been dubbed one of THE most cycling-unfriendly cities in the US. But as a cyclist here, I find that the same roads I've driven on for 30 years to be great for cycling, too. I tried the bike paths and bike lanes, and still use them for sometimes as much as 15% of my trip mileage.

Some of the time I agree. The west ridge and resiviour loop off mount tam in california. I still dream of riding those roads. But I also dream of riding the bayshore trail in Marin.

But in general, my experience with "bike facilites" in my area are negative for the following reasons:

1) Bike lanes added to streets reduce the usable part of the roadway. Where I once had plenty of clean pavement, I now have a place for debris to hinder my journey. This often means I must leave the bike lane to use the now much narrower ordinary lane. (I've been robbed!) Not to mention that bike lanes are often contain drains and rough pavement, which cannot be swept out, they were built that way. Ideal bike lanes, smooth and clean-swept, are not the reality.

Don't really understand the litter thing. Most lanes I cycle are clean. Wonder if this is to do with traffic and bike density. Most bike lanes I use are fairly heavily used and the only dirty one I use seems to be just me, but the road next to it is death so I put up with the muck. The drains thing is bad and bike lanes don't have to be designed like that. On the reduced width thing, road design is getting more extreme to squeeze traffic of the road so in some places the road is redesigned with on lane dropped. This give much more space cycling and doesn't reduce the lane width for cars.

2) Bike paths work only in park-like areas where there are no roads to intersect, which means I'll soon be switching to a glorified sidewalk that treates every driveway as an intersection (with me yielding to all motor traffic) after only about 2 miles of city travel (how many stop signs can you count in a mile?) Also, the residents consider this park-like atmosphere (the only decent paths) a wonderful place to walk their dogs on long leashes, bad for cycling 15 to 25 mph. Sand and glass make their expected appearance.

Well that isn't true for me. Cycle facilities are not just bike lanes they are advanced stop boxes and junction bipasses. I only cycle in one park like cycle lane and they are in the minority over here. Their isn't much conflict with pedestrians on the one I use. If I am on a shared pedestrian facility I am usually only at about 10kph, 30-40kph for bike only and road facilities "When I am on form enough to maintain that speed".

3) Once a bike lane or path is put in place, the law often allows police to order any cyclist to use it instead of the adjacent roadway. Not only that, but motorists sometimes take it upon themselves to "police" the roadway, honking and commanding cyclists to "get on the path." If you asked anyone around here if it was alright for a cyclist to leave the bike lane, they would probably answer "no," it's lawlessness just like running a stop sign. Even without the unfair, restrictive laws, motorists instinctively think it's wrong to leave the bike facility, sometimes provoking road-rage incidents.

Sounds like lots of education is needed in your area. Whats the deal with this compulsory use of bike lanes is it really a uniform law across the US, I was never aware of this.

To use an analogy, when I see an advertisement for a product, no matter how great they claim it is, if I've had bad experiences with that product, I tend to disbelieve the claims.

What you are describing sounds like London about 10-15years ago. I took a trip to Holland back then and couldn't beleive how good things could be if road planners really started trying to design integrated road schemes encompassing pedestrians, bikes, cars, lorries and trams. London has moved a long way in that direction albeit not exactly copying the Dutch systems. It sounds like that move has started where you live now as road planner are at least considering bikes. However it also seems like the road planners need a lot of guidence on what is appropriate for bike users and what is not. There is a huge diversity in bikes some people not being able to make more than 10kph, others roaring along at 30-40kph and more. Bike facilities have to take this into account to be really effective.

Is there a pressure group in your area lobbying the district with what cyclists need?

Bigmikepowell

that particular law was a local Chicago law.

I prefer to go after root causes, which in this is case I believe to be the cyclist/motorist separatist mentality.

Can't agree with you there and I don't think I have seen evidence of a generalised seperationist mentality. Is that thinking in the biking community, general public or somewhere else. I think a better pressure point is promoting cycling in general to increase numbers and reduce dependency on cars. Also pressure on local road planers from cycle groups seems to be effective.

I've read that in some countries (Holland?) they are mandatory. Not true. They are only mandatory in places and in my limited experience I have never come across a place in holland where you woudn't want to use the bike path. It's only a matter of time. It's a logical step after establishing special facilities for bicycles, including bike lanes. Why? Because the only reasonable justification for special facilities is that they make cycling safer. If they make cycling safer, then it's not a leap to conclude that without them, cycling is unsafe. Once it is established that cycling without facilities is unsafe, then it is only a matter of time to forbid cycling without facilities because it is unsafe. From bike lanes to banning of cyclists... it's a logical path, travel on which is fueled by the the cyclist/motorist separatist mentality.

I have stated repeatedly that I support cycling facilities on roadways where cycling is otherwise banned, like on freeways, bridges and tunnels. I do not support cycling facilities on roadways where cycling is legal, largely because I believe such facilities are the first step of the the cyclist/motorist separatist mentality process towards banning cycling on those same roads.

Serge this is a hugh leap of logic. Cylce lanes are put in for all sorts of reasons, to advertise the presence of bikes on the road in general, provide a seperated less stressed place for less experienced riders, to allow a clear pathway for bikes through traffic when the traffic is moving more slowly than the bikes, to provide a shorter route for bikes, to allow bikes into an area where car noise and pollution are concidered too extreme.

I would get in amoung the road designers and councils and make sure they don't hold such extreme views on what is and isn't good for cyclists, but make sure you take some other cyclists along or you will be in danger of getting Serge only cycle facilities.

I-Like-To-Bike

Why this focus ONLY on LSD? As I pointed out, the law applies everywhere a bike path is built, even if the road is perfectly ridable.

Because (AFAIK) the LSD is the only limited access road in Chicago that does have a parallel separated bike path alongside for any length, and IS the only road affected. And only dreamers think that any more separated bike paths are likely to be built alongside city streets in Chicago or are likely in any other built-up densely urbanized area unless in an existing park or along a natural barrier, like Lake Michigan.

The LSD is "perfectly rideable"? Did you type that with a straight face or do you know as little about the LSD as your West Coast comrade? Do you think the Dan Ryan and JFK highways in Chicago should be opened up to cyclists that think these efficient roads are "perfectly rideable"?

Daily Commute

You are misreading the rule. It doesn't just ban cyclists from limited access roads with nearby bike paths, it bans cyclists from ALL roads with nearby paths.

Bruce Rosar

I do beleive in peir review so I will try to locate the data and scan it in. Great!

You don't seem to hold to this same standard for the views you propound ... or have I missed the studies you are relying on.See John Allen's Postings and reviews of bicycle-related research (http://www.bikexprt.com/research/), which includes links to such studies as
Jerrold Kaplan's Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User (http://www.bikexprt.com/research/kaplan/index.htm), as well as
Ken Cross's Santa Barbara study (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm) (suppressed for 28 years!)

There's also the ABOUT BICYCLE SIDEPATHS (http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/), page, which includes links to papers such as
Bicycle sidepaths: crash risks and liability exposure (http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sidecrash.htm) by John Allen and
a translation (from German) of Bernd Sluka's (Un)safe on sidepaths? (http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/unsafe.htm)

I-Like-To-Bike

You are misreading the rule. It doesn't just ban cyclists from limited access roads with nearby bike paths, it bans cyclists from ALL roads with nearby paths.
And there are no other roads in Chicago with nearby paths. So what other "perfectly rideable roads" are YOU being banned from?

Do you still feel LSD is "perfectly rideable"? I agree that the LSD can be perfectly rideable for someone in total ignorance of the actual traffic conditions or whose vision is clouded in ideological fog.

jabowker

2) Bike paths work only in park-like areas where there are no roads to intersect, which means I'll soon be switching to a glorified sidewalk that treates every driveway as an intersection (with me yielding to all motor traffic) after only about 2 miles of city travel (how many stop signs can you count in a mile?) Also, the residents consider this park-like atmosphere (the only decent paths) a wonderful place to walk their dogs on long leashes, bad for cycling 15 to 25 mph. Sand and glass make their expected appearance.

This is the point where our experiences and perspectives are different. Part of it may be in terms of definition. It the metroplex where I live there are many miles of what I call Bike Paths which typically run extended distances along railroad and water right of ways. They present unique (as in there is not a directly parallel facility) route from one place to another with limited access. The roughly half of them that parallel rail probably average 1-2 intersections/driveways per mile and have such little access between intersections that peds are virtually unseen. The other roughly half along waterways have almost no road or driveway intersections what so ever. You have to take a ramp to or from the Bike Path to a road or park path to get access probably 90% of the time. Time will tell but some of these facilities have been around quite a while and in my observation they are generally well kept. I almost think of these facilities as private motor-free roadways.

I agree with you that facilities which run through park areas can quickly loose their utility for bicycles because of heavy pedestrian use.

The environment that you describe where what I would call a side path parallels a roadway can indeed be rendered unusable and by too frequent intersections and with increased access pedestrians. I do however have a couple of places where I would love to see a bike side path. Commuting to work by the most direct route would require me to cross a half mile long multi-lane bridge across a lake. There is a ten foot wide berm with the same quality pavement as the roadway but it is stereotypically full of trash and debris. The alternative is to try to make eye contact with a semi-truck moving 65mph faster to let me into his lane.. ain't happenin. If there were a clean side facility available for bicycles they wouldn't need a law to make me use it.

genec

...which includes links to such studies as
Jerrold Kaplan's Characteristics of the Regular Adult Bicycle User (http://www.bikexprt.com/research/kaplan/index.htm), as well as Ken Cross's Santa Barbara study (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm) (suppressed for 28 years!)

It it interesting that both these studies occured during the rise in cycling popularity in the US... in early to mid 70's. That was almost a generation ago.

I wonder if any new studies, based on current motorist/cyclist interactions have been done, and I also wonder about motorist distraction due to the fairly recent trend of on board entertainment, maping and telecommunications systems.

A few presumptions:
Cycling popularity is not at the same per capita high as in the 70's.
Motor vehicle technology has changed.
Roadway speeds are higher.
Congestion and traffic density is higher.

Bruce Rosar

Cylce lanes are put in for all sorts of reasons, ... Excuses of all sorts have been made to defend the separation of cyclists from everyone else just because they're cyclists.
... to advertise the presence of bikes on the road in general, ...The sight of any individual within the roadway "advertises" their presence more truthfully than markings which indicate cyclist when no cyclist is there (which is most of the time).
... provide a seperated less stressed place for less experienced riders, ....
Pseudo-separation (i.e., there's no separation from crossing traffic at junctions) provides the same effect as a recreational drug: the user may feel better. but the situation they're stressed about hasn't objectively improved.
...to allow a clear pathway for bikes through traffic ..., to provide a shorter route for bikes, to allow bikes into an area where car noise and pollution are concidered too extreme. Narrow travel lanes can provide such functionality without separating travelers according to a government classification.

Daily Commute

I-Like-To-Bike

I notice that Chicago is considering getting rid of its mandatory sidepath law as part of its 2010 Bike Plan (http://www.biketraffic.org/2010/Enforcement.htm). That's a good step, unfortunatelu, it's part of the 2010 draft bike plan, so it may be a ways off. I find it hard to believe that no other bike path is anywhere near a street anywhere in Chicago. We have more paths that that in a much smaller city. I also couldn't find a definition of "path," so the term could include bike lanes.

Bottom line: If the city intended the rule to apply only to LSD, they wouldn't have added that last paragraph.

As to LSD, I thought I would never ride it, until you posted pictures in another thread. Specifically, this one (http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=27485) and this one (http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=27487). That part of the road looks ridable to me. (Maybe it isn't to you, but that's your choice.) There are probably times of the day and the week I would chose the path over the road, but on a beautiful afternoon when bike path "traffic" would be at its highest, I may want to take the road. I'd probably compare the traffic on the two, then make my decision.

As hubs concedes (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=1062151&postcount=94), "the traffic on the Path/Trail gets real dense and can even be hard to enjoy on a bike. . . ." When the traffic on the path gets "real dense," it's time for the cyclist to look for alternatives. Depending on the time of the day and of the week, the road might be viable alternative depending on the skill and experience level of the rider.
I posted and clearly identified those pictures as examples of the scenic viewpoints from the LSD bike path; NOT as the LSD ROAD.

The "ridable" roads you are admiring are Jackson Blvd. and it is perpendicular to the LSD. A couple of your VC comrades mistakenly identified them as LSD and waxed on just like DC. I informed those other confused VCs yesterday on the same thread. Maybe DC didn't see that; maybe he sees what he wants to see.

Bike lanes don't become bike paths because such a definition would conveniently fit into a scheme of fear mongering about an exaggerated threat to cycling civil rights; nor do separated bike paths get built in Chicago because DC's city has them.

The LSD would be a "viable alternative" when pigs can fly.

Sorry, but I am not impressed with a "when in doubt, just make it up" method to reach predetermined conclusions.

Daily Commute

I posted and clearly identified those pictures as examples of the scenic viewpoints from the LSD bike path; NOT as the LSD ROAD.

The "ridable" roads you are admiring are Jackson Blvd. and it is perpendicular to the LSD. A couple of your VC comrades mistakenly identified them as LSD and waxed on just like DC. I informed those other confused VCs yesterday on the same thread. Maybe DC didn't see that; maybe he sees what he wants to see.

Bike lanes don't become bike paths because such a definition would conveniently fit into a scheme of fear mongering about an exaggerated threat to cycling civil rights; nor do separated bike paths get built in Chicago because DC's city has them.

The LSD would be a "viable alternative" when pigs can fly.

Sorry, but I am not impressed with a "when in doubt, just make it up" method to reach predetermined conclusions.
The reason I did not go through the other thread post-by-post is that, unlike I-Like-to-Bike and other anti-VC'ers, I honored the thread starter's request to avoid a debate about VC principles. I only joined in only to show the abusive language some anti-VC'ers (including I-Like-to-Bike) frequently resort to.

As to cycling "civil rights," I have repeatedly said in these forums that it's wrong to compare segregating cyclists from traffic with segregating people by race. I think the right of cyclists to use the road is important, but it's not on the same level as the civil rights struggle. So please, don't put words in my mouth.

Two final points. First, if the City of Chicago did not want to ban cyclists from roads other than LSD, why did they add the language banning cyclists from ALL roads with nearby "paths." Can anyone other than I-Like-to-Bike verify that there are no other paths in the entire City of Chicago that are anywhere near a road?

Second, what is the definition of "path" under Chicago law? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I couldn't find it. If you can cite to any definition sections in the city code or a court case that shows that Chicago's legal definition of "path" does not include bike lanes, I will gladly accept the clarification. But without a clear definition, a cop or judge could easily say the language includes bike lanes.

Bruce Rosar

I think the right of cyclists to use the road is important, but it's not on the same level as the civil rights struggle. The following is from a Business Law/Legal Studies study outline (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~albert/lstu130/als-outline/LCE-CH04.html)
Chapter 4 -- Constitutional Law

The U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law of the United States and takes precedence over any other source of law...
it imposes limits on the power of government.Quoting from section 4.4 of the same outline, LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL AND STATE POWERS
Judicial Scrutiny of Governmental Regulation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has developed three primary levels of scrutiny for determining whether governmental regulation (state or federal) is valid under the Constitution: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and the rational relationship test...

1. Strict scrutiny. It is the most demanding of all. This test is sometimes referred to as the compelling interest test.
a. The strict scrutiny test is applied when legislation affects fundamental rights, e.g., voting, privacy, travel, free speech, and religion.
b. The test is also applied when legislation affects suspect classifications, e.g., classifications based on race or national origin.
c. Any legislation subject to strict scrutiny must be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest.
1) "Necessary" implies that there are no less restrictive means than the challenged regulation available to protect or promote the interest.