I wanted to pass this along, but be WARNED, the pdf is 166 pages:

SAN JOSE, Calif., Feb. 9, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Mineta Transportation Institute (transweb.sjsu.edu) has published a free report that identifies best practices and program characteristics in communities where many people walk, bicycle, or use other non-motorized means of travel. Integration of Bicycling and Walking Facilities into the Infrastructure of Urban Communities focuses on case studies in Davis, Palo Alto, and San Luis Obispo, Calif. Principal investigators were Cornelius Nuworsoo, Ph.D., Erin Cooper, Katherine Cushing, Ph.D., with assistance from Eugene Jud, PE. The report is available for PDF download from transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2906.html

https://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2906.html

(Logo: https://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100318/MTILOGO)

"Several manuals, handbooks and web resources already provide varied guidance on planning and designing bicycle and pedestrian facilities," said Dr Nuworsoo. "However, these resources offer no specific indications about which of these varied treatments work well in a practical sense. Our research went deeper to investigate what compels people to give up their cars and start walking or biking."

The [166 page] report is available for PDF download from transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2906.html

https://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2906.html

Hopefully as newer and more updated reports keep getting released, maybe more DOT engineers will be more inclined to update their standards for cycling and ped infrastructure, rather than just sticking to whatever minimum "one size fits all" standard that is currently available to them.

This implies their focus is more butts on bikes while ignoring safer butts on bikes. If so that is not good.

I tend to think that more butts on bikes forces cagers to pay more attention which leads to safer conditions for bikers. Power is in numbers.

There's also the factor that as the number of butts on bikes increases there would be a growing constituency pressing for safer conditions. Not only the bicyclists themselves, but also members of their families, friends, etc. That constituency then influences government actions on all levels - more legal protection of bicyclists, greater police enforcement of both existing and any new laws, more emphasis on safe infrastructure, etc.

The problem being is if DOT engineers stick to minimum cycling infrastructure standards, much of the general population that tries to take up cycling as a viable means of transportation will quickly sour on it and revert back to driving a motor vehicle, less butts on bikes and more into cars.

But which is the chicken and which is the egg?

I have been daily commuting since 1982. For many years when there were fewer cyclist out there, very few motorist ever passed too close, they were too afraid of hitting me. With more cyclist, my experience is that motorist have become too comfortable passing closer and closer to cyclist, decreasing the margin for error and thereby reducing my safety.

So my personal observation is the opposite of your belief.

personal observations can be deceiving.

fatal crashes involving bicyclists has declined in hawaii; the non-fatal crash rate looks flat, but increases in ridership reported by CBHI coupled to the accident rate suggest a DECLINING INDEXED ACCIDENT RATE for cyclists in Hawaii.

sorry, but the data doesn't support increased endangerment of cyclists in hawaii as a result of more riders on the road.

As we have been through the statistics game for Hawaii before, why do you wish to play ignorant again simply to mislead. Yes the cyclist death rate has decreased recently for Hawaii, because of the restrictions place on the downhill riding at Haleakala by inexperience tourist. It does not take too many tourist deaths to hugely skew the statistics.

So it seems my observations are correct when someone is not trying to lead astray with ignorance of the basis of the statistics they wish to use.

why the misdirect about your personal, skewed observations in Hawaii as if they counteract the findings of a fairly exhaustive university analysis of problems and issues of bicycling in urban communities?

CBHI thinks increased numbers of cyclists has led to his decreased safety margins while riding. statistically, his concerns don't match the declining indexed accident rate for bicyclists in Hawaii.

To hotbike:

thanks for posting the link to the study. I'm going thru it now. It echoes a lot of the current concerns voiced by many communities in the US about increasing the viability of walking and biking in urban areas.

the city of Honolulu officially recognizes the deluterious effect automobile congestion and overreliance on the automobile as the driving force of transportation on Oahu has had on mobility and public health - the report meshes and illustrates problems faced by cities like Honolulu.

That is right Bek, ignore the actual facts and just attack the messenger.

The dog is chasing his tail again, and in more than one thread.

Bek wishes to portray tourist getting on unfamiliar bicycles for the first time since they were kids and riding down the side of a volcano at high speed, as representative of normal Hawaii cycling.

The fact that the State stopped the downhill cycling for a time and then prohibited the tour groups from taking the tourist all the way to the top of the volcano to start their cycling has significantly reduced the number of cycling deaths in Hawaii. Hardly representative of cyclecommuting in Hawaii.

I can't get it to down load...will try later....but I predict about a million posts with selected quotes with the poster stating this proves it, whatever it maybe.

I do want to see the whole thing....this part of the abstract in interesting, especiall if this is a priortized list, but bottom line need to read the whole thing,

"The most salient themes that emerged from this study are linked to the following user preference: (a) distance to desired land uses and activities; (b) route directness; (c) route connectivity; (d) the separation of motorized and non-motorized transportation modes; (e) safety; (f) convenience; and (g) education and outreach. The aforementioned themes are integrated into key guiding principles that correspond to the trip-making cycle, from the decision to engage in an activity through the choice of route to arrival at the destination."