Helmet Head

The Singapore study is not a study about why bike lanes should be advocated. It's simply a record of a doctor's opinion about bike lanes.

The Portland study is about whether bike lanes shown to be dangerous should be painted blue to make them less dangerous, hardly scientific evidence supporting the notion that bike lanes should be advocated.

Yes, I want more, because I want something.

zeytoun

Right, I would say that natural equates likely to automatic in your post.
Although these are misnomers. There is nothing especially natural, automatic, or artificial about speed segregation.

John C. Ratliff

HH,

By the way, there is research currently underway that will help resolve these issues:

Analysis of Bicycle Lanes (BL) Versus Wide Curb Lanes (WCL)
https://adotnet/divisions/itd/pnp/PDF/MGT/mgt021.pdf
Record Type: RiP

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Bicycle Policy (MGT 02-01) became effective 3/1/02 and is scheduled for review. Excerpts from that policy state that it is ADOT’s policy: (1) provide shared roadway cross-section templates; (2) consider, as a part of major new construction and major reconstruction in urban areas, Wide Curb Lanes up to 15’ in width; and (3) consider bicycle lanes for inclusion with major new construction or major reconstruction when they are fully funded for construction and maintenance by a local agency and the bicycle lane is included as a part of a planned designated bicycle route approved by ADOT. What is the appropriate type of bicycle facility on the State Highway System for cyclists? Some research, for example, concludes that: (1) BL cause problems to the extent that they encourage bicyclists and motorists to violate the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, or (2) the best way to make most busy roads "Motorist Friendly in the Presence of Bicyclists, Resulting in Bicycling Friendliness" is to provide WCL, that they are simple, and simply better. The counterargument is that cycling is much safer and more popular precisely in those countries where bikeways, bike lanes, special intersection modifications, and priority traffic signals are the key to their bicycling policies. Finally, some studies conclude that both BL and WCL facilities can and should be used to improve cycling conditions.
Start date: 2005/10/1
End date: 2008/7/31
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 598
Total Dollars: 15000
Source Organization: Arizona Department of Transportation
Date Added: 11/09/2005
Index Terms: Bicycle lanes, Curbs, Policy making, Bicycling, Reconstruction, Construction of specific facilities, Maintenance, Bikeways, Research projects, Arizona,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
Arizona Department of Transportation
https://www.azdot.gov
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
USA


Federal Highway Administration
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20590
USA
Phone: (202) 366-4000

Semmens, John
Phone: (602) 712-3137



Performing Organization Principal Investigator


Subjects
Administration and Management
Construction
Maintenance
Operations and Traffic Management
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Highway and Facility Design
Highway Operations, Capacity and Traffic Control

https://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=11339

_______________________

Bicycle Traffic Pavement Markings
Record Type: RiP

Pavement markings, including those in colour, take many forms and functions in North American and European jurisdictions. In some cases the pavement markings are intuitive and easily understood by motor vehicle traffic and cyclists, but in some applications, the intended effect is not always clear. It also seems that the use of pavement markings is discretionary, without clear guidelines, numerical evaluation processes or ranking systems to help determine when benefits can be achieved. The objective of this project is to develop guidelines and recommendations on the design and application of pavement markings for bicycle traffic on Canadian roads. The project will provide recommendations on the most effective configuration of pavement markings, use of materials, installation, maintenance and cost. Furthermore, numerical evaluation processes and ranking systems will be determined. The project will also result in recommendations for an update to the TAC 1998 publication, Bikeway Traffic Control Guidelines for Canada, with relevant guidelines on pavement markings.
Start date: 2004
End date: 2006
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 200411RT369E
Total Dollars: 0
Source Organization: Transportation Association of Canada
Date Added: 06/14/2005
Index Terms: Bicycles, Pavements, Marking materials, Bicycle lanes, Traffic lanes, Specifications, Evaluation and assessment, Safety, Recommendations, Motor vehicles, Bicycling, Research projects, Canada,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
City of Calgary Transportation Department
P.O. Box 2100 , Station M
Calgary, Alberta T2P 2M5
Canada


Regional Municipality of Halifax
Halifax
Nova Scotia


Regional Municipality of Halton
Halton
Canada


City of Hamilton
Hamilton
Canada


City of Ottawa
Ottawa
Canada


Transportation Association of Canada
2323 St Laurent Boulevard
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8
Canada



Performing Organization Principal Investigator
Transportation Association of Canada
2323 St Laurent Boulevard
Ottawa, Ontario K1G 4J8
Canada

Skene, M.



Subjects
Administration and Management
Materials
Operations and Traffic Management
Pavements
Planning
Research
Safety and Human Factors
Vehicles
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Highway Operations, Capacity and Traffic Control
Pavement Design, Management and Performance
Safety and Human Performance


https://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=10903
__________________________________________________


Tools for Predicting Usage and Benefits of Urban Bicycle Network Improvements
Record Type: RiP

Research started in the first Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) project, and developed further in the NCHRP project, would make it possible to develop precise expectations regarding the quantity and types of cycling and cyclists expected under various conditions. Data collection for this research will focus first on exploratory counts and questioning to establish the extent to which these expectations are supported, and if there are particular situations for which further study would provide the most new knowledge. Additional data would then be collected for those situations.
Start date: 2004/1/2
End date: 2005/12/31
Status: Active
Contract/Grant Number: 81655-102
Secondary Number: 2003-048R
Total Dollars: 50000
Source Organization: Minnesota Department of Transportation
Date Added: 04/30/2004
Index Terms: Urban areas, Urban development, Bicycle facilities, Networks, Benefits, User benefits, Tools, Research projects, Minnesota,



Sponsor Organization Project Manager
Minnesota Department of Transportation
https://www.dot.state.mn.us/
Mail Stop 330
395 John Ireland Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55155-1899
USA
Phone: (800) 657-3774

Warzala, Dan
Phone: (651) 366-3786
Email: dan.warzala@dot.state.mn.us



Performing Organization Principal Investigator
University of Minnesota
301 19th Avenue South, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Minneapolis, MN 55455-
USA

Barnes, Gary R.
Phone: (612) 626-9865
Fax: (612) 626-9833
Email: gbarnes@hhh.umn.edu



Subjects
Materials
Research
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Public Transportation
Planning and Administration
Public Transit

https://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=9485

John

John Forester

The issue never concerned what you, Brian, have argued. The question concerned reasonable studies upon which you might have based your arguments. You have advanced none.

On the contrary, there are reasonable studies supporting vehicular cycling. The first is that the rules of the road have been worked out to fit the operating characteristics of vehicles and of their human drivers. While I know of no specific early study to determine the fits, it is obvious that the experimentation and discussion that developed the rules of the road has always been based on the goodness of fit. It is well known that acting contrary to the rules of the road causes collisions. Numerous studies on various aspects of that. When it comes specifically to cycling, the Cross study demonstrates that issue quite nicely, and also demonstrates that the specific hazard of the straight-ahead cyclist being run over by the straight-ahead motorist, upon which the bikeway hypothesis is based, is a very small proportion of car-bike collisions. Then there is my own study of the different requirements placed on drivers by the normal rules of the road versus the bikeway operating characteristics. And, of course, studies showing that learning how to operate according to the rules of the road is easy to learn.

The above are the reasons why your foolish assertion that vehicular-cycling advocacy is nothing but useless twaddle, hot air, and disturbed electrons is just what I have written about other bikeway advocacy. There is a difference between an accurate, though picturesque, description and nonsense, and it is not an insult to describe nonsense as what it is.

You ask why I am here? I am here precisely because this group chose to denigrate my position regarding bicycle transportation, specifically using my name as the evil-doer. Think about it.

zeytoun

No, in #82 it appears that you were still confused, and misinterpreted Brian's talk of the existence "natural" speed segregation (slower traffic keep right laws) as Brian asserting that those ideas were generally being followed.

Helmet Head

So, for the scientific evidence favoring the advocacy of vehicular cycling we have:

1. The rules of the road have been worked out to fit the operating characteristics of vehicles and of their human drivers.
2. Experimentation and discussion that developed the rules of the road has always been based on the goodness of fit.
3. Numerous studies showing that acting contrary to the rules of the road causes collisions.
4. The Cross study.
5. The Forester study comparing the safety of cycling on roadways to cycling on a sidepath at the same speeds using the same vigilance.
6. studies showing that learning how to operate according to the rules of the road is easy to learn.

For the scientific evidence opposing the advocacy of vehicular cycling we have:

Nothing.

For the scientific evidence favoring the advocacy of bike lanes we have:

1. Some Singapore doctors' opinions (arguably not scientific evidence)
2. A study showing that particularly dangerous bike lanes are not quite as dangerous when painted blue (not really evidence support the advocacy of bike lanes)

For the scientific evidence opposing the advocacy of bike lanes we have:

1. The Cross study showing that the specific hazard of the straight-ahead cyclist being run over by the straight-ahead motorist, upon which the bikeway hypothesis is based, is a very small proportion of car-bike collisions.

Anything else?

John C. Ratliff

If you are interested in papers currently published, you can look at this source:

https://www.vtpi.org/documents/walking.php

On this page, you will find a link to this paper:

Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A comparative
analysis of bicycling trends and policies
John Pucher *, Ralph Buehler
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, University of Sydney, Newtown NSW 2006, Australia; Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy,
Rutgers University, 33 Livingston Avenue, Room 363, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Received 26 May 2005; received in revised form 21 October 2005; accepted 1 November 2005

Abstract
In spite of their colder climate, Canadians cycle about three times more than Americans. The main reasons for this difference are Canada’s higher urban densities and mixed-use development, shorter trip distances, lower incomes, higher costs of owning, driving and parking a car, safer cycling conditions, and more extensive cycling infrastructure and training programs. Most of these factors result from differences between Canada and the United States in their transport and land-use policies, and not from intrinsic differences in history, culture or resource availability. That is good news, since it suggests the possibility of significantly increasing cycling levels in the United States by adopting some of the Canadian
policies that have so effectively promoted cycling and enhanced its safety. (Emphasis added, jcr)
copyright 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

John Forester

Of the first two studies advanced by John R in this discussion, the first, by doctors in Singapore, presents no expert knowledge regarding either bikeways or vehicular cycling. The second, largely a study of the blue-painted bike lanes in Portland, reports attempts to make several particularly dangerous bike-lane locations somewhat safer.

The three studies advanced by John R in the above post are unfinished; we have only the intended aim of the studies, nothing about method, results, or conclusions. The first, in Arizona, acknowledges the two main lines of argument that have been present in this discussion, but there is no indication of how evidence will be obtained to settle the issue. I doubt that much will come of this; I've seen too many such. The second, for Canadian highways, looks to be much the same, developing guidelines without good evidence. The third, for Minnesota, intends to start trying to measure bicycling volume against various types of facility, to determine whether or not further study would be valuable. Possibly useful as far as it goes, but this is irrelevant to the issue of vehicular cycling versus other styles of cycling.

Perhaps John R should start to consider the characteristics that distinguish reasonable relevant studies from those that are irrelevant or do not produce an expectation of new and useful knowledge.

chipcom 

There's the difference between you and I John...I consider cycling as a way of life, not science...and my momma taught me better manners than to tell people to shut up just because they don't agree with my wacky theories. Of course, when one's twaddle doesn't hold water, I guess 'shut up' is the only response left to them.

Helmet Head

I suspect Mr. Forester will have something to say about Pucher. Everything I've read about him and his studies is not pretty.

natelutkjohn

And everything we read from you and Forester is pretty?
Then again, the wig is nice....

John Forester

John R, you added the emphasis for "safer cycling conditions". Upon what do you base your view that this is both important and supports bikeways rather than vehicular cycling? I say a bit more. Professor Pucher has never shown any indication in a published paper of knowing the difference between safe and dangerous cycling, and he has violated the cardinal rule of statistical comparison that correlation does not demonstrate causation. He has shown in public correspondence that he is full of the typical bikeway superstitions as well as the anti-motoring attitude typical of his profession. And he has shown, in public correspondence, that he is, or recently was, completely ignorant of the literature of bicycle transportation engineering. Of course, I am arguing ad hominem, but in this kind of case I think it justified as the proper skepticism to be expected from his papers, unless demonstrated otherwise.

zeytoun

In all usages of the term "rules of the road" are you referring to the local traffic laws, or the vc rules of the road (based on the EF 5 points), or something else?

Also, if you take the stance that the ROTR evolved to reach their current state, then there is the question of whether they need furthur evolution, and if there is a "perfect state" that has already been conceived and will one day be reached, or if we can't yet know what improvements the future will show us. Thoughts?

zeytoun

Let's just stick to his studies, right? If I were trying to decide whether Hitler's, Einstein's, a poster with the user name Helmet Head's, John Forrester's, Zeytoun's, an unrelated person named Harvey Muldragger, Stalin's, or VC advocate Serge *******'s ideas were valid or not, it would be illogical to consider their respective behaviors while evaluating their statements.

Helmet Head

Indeed, his behavior is irrelevant.

By Everything I've read about him and his studies is not pretty I did not mean:

Everything I've read about him is not pretty AND everything I've read about his studies is not pretty.

I meant everything I've read about him and his studies is not pretty.

John C. Ratliff

I'm not answering questions here, just posting studies at this point. You guys (HH and JF) are saying that there's nothing out there, and ask us to find it. You are not doing any work here at all. Here's another:

Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe
John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra
Department of Urban Planning
Rutgers University—Bloustein School
33 Livingston Avenue, Suite 302
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901—1900
Phone: (732) 932-3822, ext. 722; Fax: (732) 932-2253
Email: pucher@rci.rutgers.edu; lewis.dijkstra@bigfoot.com
February 2000
This article is scheduled for publication in Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, summer
2000. Please use that citation in any references to this pre-print version of the paper. This
preprint version does not contain the ten photographs in the printed article; also, page numbers
will vary between this version and the final, printed version in the summer 2000 TQ issue

Here is a quote from that study:

Now, HH & JF, you can discount the studies if you wish (I think I'm up to four posted now, with posts of others that are underway). But you cannot say that they don't exist, as HH has stated. If everything you've read about him and his studies "is not pretty," I would suggest that you read the actual studies before making a judgement. They are available here:

https://www.vtpi.org/documents/walking.php

John

joejack951

The rules of the road might be ever evolving, but I fear the day that they start regularly striping straight thru traffic lanes to the right of right turn lane. This would NEVER happen for normal traffic lanes in my opinion. I doubt you'd disagree. Why then is it so acceptable for bike lanes?

Helmet Head

John R, I never said that scientific studies that do not provide reasons to advocate for bike lanes do not exist. In fact, I'm sure they do, as you are proving.

zeytoun

I don't know. I am against lanes that continue at the curb up to the intersection (except for at an intersection with no right turn possible). I'm not sure I have seen one that hasn't either ended or routed to the left of RTOLs here in San Diego.

Helmet Head

I'm using it generically to mean any or all. That is, the statements stand regardless of which specific definition for rules of the road you use.

See JJ's comment/question on this if you haven't already.

Helmet Head

Where have you see one that did NOT go all the way to the intersection?

Yes, they change the striping from solid to striped, 20-60 feet prior to the intersection, but it still goes all the way to the intersection, 3-5 feet from the curb, unless the lane becomes too narrow to be able to handle that.

joejack951

Are they dashed as they approach the intersection or does the lane switch to a WCL before the intersection? Of course the stripes end in the intersection but so do all stripes (if this is what you were referring to).

FWIW, the treatment of bike lanes to the left of a RTOL leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. There is often only a very short merge area and the ones I've seen have made room for the RTOL by severely cutting down on the bike lane width. As others have pointed out (and I see this wherever there are RTOL's bike lane or not), that unswept area that the bike lane occupies between the straight and RTOL's is very prone to debris build up as well.

zeytoun

Proposition 1, by Helmie: the rules of the road (I read this as traffic law) have been worked out to fit the characteristics of vehicles and their drivers human.

Proposition 2, by Helmie: Proposition 1 is evidence favoring the advocacy of vehicular cycling.

So if a traffic law is unsatisfactory to VC, does it now fall outside of Proposition 1?
If a traffic law changes to conform to your idea of VC (for example, a mandatory side path law is repealled next week) does that mean that the current law (with mandatory side paths) is evidence favoring the advocacy of VC?

Helmet Head

Semantic sophistry alert. You got me

Sorry, I should have said any definition excluding any rules that are contradictory to the basic principles of vehicular operation.

zeytoun

Yes, I'm sorry, they're dashed, so technically the bike lane continues. I guess I just see them as ended since they are dashed, the mandatory bike lane law is now void, and cars can legally enter the space. In addition to the fact that your fear of "striping". And the striping ends. But I will not be a semantic prig. Technically, they continue, I stand corrected.

I guess, in a big picture sense, I would rather see something like regular ads on TV explaining to viewers how and why a cyclist would leave the right side of the road (even with a bike lane) then have bike lanes erased on arterials. On 25mph streets, yes, let's spray paint 'em all black.

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I get more excited about advocacy in the areas where I see common ground. I'm happier withholding my personal controversial advocacy ideas, while there is still much common advocacy to be done.

If so, isn't that in violation of California Law?