The facts about cycling in Holland
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Like most of the professional journals, you have to subscribe, either personally or through an institution, to read their stuff.
#27
Senior Member
I disagree with the claim that I did not answer the questions asked during the Q&A session at the end. Cruiserhead complains that I did not provide a solution to whatever were the problems raised by a question. Well, if there is no solution then it was my obligation to say so.
Obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is the best way to cycle on the American road system. Nobody has invented a better way. And the official way produced by government was, for decades, a childishly simple way for incompetent cyclists that drove them into traffic conflicts. As I said, those cyclists who graduated from the former official method to obeying the rules of the road reduced their car-bike collision rate by 75%. Such an astonishing safety improvement that would never be ignored in any field except that of bicycle transportation, where it is ignored because it is contrary to the political will.
In the real world, the situation is very different.
It may be that something might be done to make American cycling both safer and more convenient. However that has not occurred. The most that has been done is to make typical American cyclists feel safer while still cycling in their dangerously incompetent style. I say that vehicular cycling should not be criticized until a new system has been devised that demonstrates that it improves both the safety and convenience beyond that provided by vehicular cycling.
I also didn't realize I was criticizing "vehicular cycling". Even that term is car-centric. All that says to me is "status quo and cyclists fend for yourselves"
While shared access on public roads (how's that for a term? ) is the way to get around now, and everyone should follow road laws- in the real world, this really circles back to what I posted originally a few posts up.
Of course, if the policy is to simply get more people switching trips from motor bicycle transport by having them ride in the typically dangerously incompetent manner just because they feel more comfortable, then I both criticize that policy as being unethical and state that that policy must be formally announced with the proviso that those cyclists who choose to ride safely by obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles must be both allowed and encouraged to do so.
Now, I'm not saying YOU are saying this. I'm saying this is the impression it leaves me. In the video, it seems it left that impression as well because someone stated as much.
What allows both motorists and cyclists to move safely and encourages both modes of transport?
Vehicular cycling? No. I don't even agree with that terminology.
Again, I agree that while we all share the same roadway, we all should follow the laws. The real world scenario is that it doesn't happen.
When bicycles don't, you call it "typically dangerously incompetent manner just because they feel more comfortable"
but if a vehicle doesn't, you say, "[yeah well cyclists get used to it and you'll be safer.]"
There is a lot of good info presented and progress of people-centric urban planning and cars sharing biking & pedestrian roads, it is good to keep in mind the pros and cons and what we are up against to create a better community. (How's that for terminology? lol)
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm sorry if it comes across as complaining. You are presenting your facts & observations and drawing conclusions. I simply disagree and/or do not think some of the responses were satisfactory. That is my feeling. Someone else might have a different feeling on it.
Of course I am for cyclists following the rules of the road. What about drivers?
In the real world, the situation is very different.
I don't agree with this point of view.
I also didn't realize I was criticizing "vehicular cycling". Even that term is car-centric. All that says to me is "status quo and cyclists fend for yourselves"
While shared access on public roads (how's that for a term? ) is the way to get around now, and everyone should follow road laws- in the real world, this really circles back to what I posted originally a few posts up.
To me, this is really saying that cyclists should fall in line and suck it up. Cars have no added responsibility other than keep on doing what they are doing.
Now, I'm not saying YOU are saying this. I'm saying this is the impression it leaves me. In the video, it seems it left that impression as well because someone stated as much.
What allows both motorists and cyclists to move safely and encourages both modes of transport?
Vehicular cycling? No. I don't even agree with that terminology.
Again, I agree that while we all share the same roadway, we all should follow the laws. The real world scenario is that it doesn't happen.
When bicycles don't, you call it "typically dangerously incompetent manner just because they feel more comfortable"
but if a vehicle doesn't, you say, "[yeah well cyclists get used to it and you'll be safer.]"
There is a lot of good info presented and progress of people-centric urban planning and cars sharing biking & pedestrian roads, it is good to keep in mind the pros and cons and what we are up against to create a better community. (How's that for terminology? lol)
Of course I am for cyclists following the rules of the road. What about drivers?
In the real world, the situation is very different.
I don't agree with this point of view.
I also didn't realize I was criticizing "vehicular cycling". Even that term is car-centric. All that says to me is "status quo and cyclists fend for yourselves"
While shared access on public roads (how's that for a term? ) is the way to get around now, and everyone should follow road laws- in the real world, this really circles back to what I posted originally a few posts up.
To me, this is really saying that cyclists should fall in line and suck it up. Cars have no added responsibility other than keep on doing what they are doing.
Now, I'm not saying YOU are saying this. I'm saying this is the impression it leaves me. In the video, it seems it left that impression as well because someone stated as much.
What allows both motorists and cyclists to move safely and encourages both modes of transport?
Vehicular cycling? No. I don't even agree with that terminology.
Again, I agree that while we all share the same roadway, we all should follow the laws. The real world scenario is that it doesn't happen.
When bicycles don't, you call it "typically dangerously incompetent manner just because they feel more comfortable"
but if a vehicle doesn't, you say, "[yeah well cyclists get used to it and you'll be safer.]"
There is a lot of good info presented and progress of people-centric urban planning and cars sharing biking & pedestrian roads, it is good to keep in mind the pros and cons and what we are up against to create a better community. (How's that for terminology? lol)
#29
Senior Member
So it is your view that the behavior of American motorists ought to be improved, and, possibly, their view of their place in society. I don't doubt that. After all, I have been criticizing the American motorist-superiority/cyclist-inferiority view for forty years now.
However, I note that a large proportion (I have not been counting) of the complaints about motorist behavior discussed in these forums have little to do with cyclist safety. And I maintain that our nation would get a greater reduction in car-bike collisions by paying attention to the competence of cyclists than to the competence of motorists. Does anyone have evidence to suggest the converse?
Remember that anger stems from fear. Anger is a reaction, not a cause.
I maintain that our nation would have
-far fewer accidents in total,
-higher quality of life
-faster, sweeping changes
-life saving shifts in lifestyle
- improved vehicle congestion and flow
- billions in national savings
if we change our thinking. I joke about terminology, but it is actually very important to this change.
Saying that cycle safety needs to be improved is like saying salmon need to avoid landing in bears mouths while jumping upstream.
Yes, it's true in fact. Yes, it can be quantifiable.
Is it realistic? Does it take into account what the real wold is like for cyclists and all the reactionary motives?
Does this encourage cycling as a beneficial transport choice?
This logic is what I disagree with. Ignoring the steak and concentrating on the peas.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, that is part of the solution. The most important part to this change, imo, is the shift in thinking. Once that happens, or starts to, the rest will follow.
I agree. The complaints in these forums cater to people who need to vent or spout about motorists as one of their few outlets to express frustration and anger.
Remember that anger stems from fear. Anger is a reaction, not a cause.
I maintain that our nation would have
-far fewer accidents in total,
-higher quality of life
-faster, sweeping changes
-life saving shifts in lifestyle
- improved vehicle congestion and flow
- billions in national savings
if we change our thinking. I joke about terminology, but it is actually very important to this change.
Saying that cycle safety needs to be improved is like saying salmon need to avoid landing in bears mouths while jumping upstream.
Yes, it's true in fact. Yes, it can be quantifiable.
Is it realistic? Does it take into account what the real wold is like for cyclists and all the reactionary motives?
Does this encourage cycling as a beneficial transport choice?
This logic is what I disagree with. Ignoring the steak and concentrating on the peas.
I agree. The complaints in these forums cater to people who need to vent or spout about motorists as one of their few outlets to express frustration and anger.
Remember that anger stems from fear. Anger is a reaction, not a cause.
I maintain that our nation would have
-far fewer accidents in total,
-higher quality of life
-faster, sweeping changes
-life saving shifts in lifestyle
- improved vehicle congestion and flow
- billions in national savings
if we change our thinking. I joke about terminology, but it is actually very important to this change.
Saying that cycle safety needs to be improved is like saying salmon need to avoid landing in bears mouths while jumping upstream.
Yes, it's true in fact. Yes, it can be quantifiable.
Is it realistic? Does it take into account what the real wold is like for cyclists and all the reactionary motives?
Does this encourage cycling as a beneficial transport choice?
This logic is what I disagree with. Ignoring the steak and concentrating on the peas.
#31
incazzare.
I don't see why we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can't we have some sensible separated lanes and paths where it seems like it will work well, and better driver education, and "take the lane" VC when it also makes sense? It just seems like everyone wants to fight and not actually work on what's best for cyclists in a given area.
__________________
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
1964 JRJ (Bob Jackson), 1973 Wes Mason, 1974 Raleigh Gran Sport, 1986 Schwinn High Sierra, 2000ish Colian (Colin Laing), 2011 Dick Chafe, 2013 Velo Orange Pass Hunter
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 1,832
Bikes: A load of ancient, old and semi-vintage bikes of divers sorts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hagen has provided us with his feelings about cycling, when we would rather receive useful information. Therefore, Hagen, please justify your feelings regarding young cyclists and the speed of traffic. What evidence do you advance to support the argument implied by your feelings? Is is possibly that motorists are more likely to feel that hitting a small cyclist is less likely to damage their car?
Furthermore, what part of the VC advice "is very unsafe"?
Furthermore, what part of the VC advice "is very unsafe"?
#33
Senior Member
I agree lostarchitect, and also with with some of what JF says.
You don't go to extremes and create polarity. (it's already hostile enough). I am commenting on JF's opinions and talks.
Just to be clear, I agree about bike lanes. I'm not a all-or-nothing person. I'm happy with a "share the road" sign. Anything that is going to encourage the share the road mentality.
Yes, seperated lanes (I linked to earlier as an example) and education are great. That's the only way to progress to the next step.
Instead of villifying either the motorist or the cyclist, maybe the problem is the way the roads are designed. Putting cyclists in a position of fearing for their well-being, and reacting becomes a hostile situation because while a driver may see it as illegal, the cyclist may see it as life-saving.
I am not saying the cyclist is right or wrong. What I'm saying is that the conditions exist and are rife where the roadways do not encourage cycling (quite the opposite).
The reactions of motorists and cyclists tells the story. It's putting them into situations that create hostility, danger.
Couldn't it be that what you say is improper operation of bicycles is a symptom, not the cause?
When the Swedish guy in the video says,"bicycling here is too dangerous." Don't you think a reaction while riding would be to react (legally or illegally) to protect himself?
Public opinion changes with one person at a time. That's how stuff gets done. Honestly, I would have never thought they would cut a lane of auto traffic and turn it into a bike only lane in the middle of downtown LA. Not in a million years.
Maybe you're saying I'm too idealistic, but I really believe these changes occur at the grassroots level. Maybe it wasn't time back in the day, but maybe today is.
But, like I said, agree and like a lot of what's said. I just don't agree with the conclusions.
And vehicular cycling is just wrong. That is the kind of term that will never get people to think otherwise.
You don't go to extremes and create polarity. (it's already hostile enough). I am commenting on JF's opinions and talks.
Just to be clear, I agree about bike lanes. I'm not a all-or-nothing person. I'm happy with a "share the road" sign. Anything that is going to encourage the share the road mentality.
Yes, seperated lanes (I linked to earlier as an example) and education are great. That's the only way to progress to the next step.
Instead of villifying either the motorist or the cyclist, maybe the problem is the way the roads are designed. Putting cyclists in a position of fearing for their well-being, and reacting becomes a hostile situation because while a driver may see it as illegal, the cyclist may see it as life-saving.
I am not saying the cyclist is right or wrong. What I'm saying is that the conditions exist and are rife where the roadways do not encourage cycling (quite the opposite).
The reactions of motorists and cyclists tells the story. It's putting them into situations that create hostility, danger.
Couldn't it be that what you say is improper operation of bicycles is a symptom, not the cause?
When the Swedish guy in the video says,"bicycling here is too dangerous." Don't you think a reaction while riding would be to react (legally or illegally) to protect himself?
Public opinion changes with one person at a time. That's how stuff gets done. Honestly, I would have never thought they would cut a lane of auto traffic and turn it into a bike only lane in the middle of downtown LA. Not in a million years.
Maybe you're saying I'm too idealistic, but I really believe these changes occur at the grassroots level. Maybe it wasn't time back in the day, but maybe today is.
But, like I said, agree and like a lot of what's said. I just don't agree with the conclusions.
And vehicular cycling is just wrong. That is the kind of term that will never get people to think otherwise.
Last edited by cruiserhead; 11-18-12 at 06:20 PM.
#34
Senior Member
What I was thinking of is bike lanes. Buffered or otherwise. When people (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) see these bike lanes take priority, it tells them something.
Besides being safe and creating a sense of community, it tells everyone that there is a priority shift.
Cars are not the priority- people are.
Don't get bogged in the current system and bending cyclists into a mold that doesn't fit. Instead, create one that everyone can co-exist safely and with improved quality of life and choice of mobility.
So that was what my steak and peas analogy was about.
Please watch this video on buffered lanes in America, narrated by a traffic engineer- does a good job of explaining it
https://www.streetfilms.org/floating-...d-cycletracks/
#35
MUP World Champ
How about an opportunity to have fun while cycling? There is no time to have fun while sharing the road. Bike lanes and paths are a lot more enjoyable.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Kind of.
What I was thinking of is bike lanes. Buffered or otherwise. When people (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) see these bike lanes take priority, it tells them something.
Besides being safe and creating a sense of community, it tells everyone that there is a priority shift.
Cars are not the priority- people are.
Don't get bogged in the current system and bending cyclists into a mold that doesn't fit. Instead, create one that everyone can co-exist safely and with improved quality of life and choice of mobility.
So that was what my steak and peas analogy was about.
Please watch this video on buffered lanes in America, narrated by a traffic engineer- does a good job of explaining it
https://www.streetfilms.org/floating-...d-cycletracks/
What I was thinking of is bike lanes. Buffered or otherwise. When people (motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) see these bike lanes take priority, it tells them something.
Besides being safe and creating a sense of community, it tells everyone that there is a priority shift.
Cars are not the priority- people are.
Don't get bogged in the current system and bending cyclists into a mold that doesn't fit. Instead, create one that everyone can co-exist safely and with improved quality of life and choice of mobility.
So that was what my steak and peas analogy was about.
Please watch this video on buffered lanes in America, narrated by a traffic engineer- does a good job of explaining it
https://www.streetfilms.org/floating-...d-cycletracks/
The argument that bike lanes and cycle tracks provide a message for the general public is as old as they are, and just as indeterminate. To the majority of Americans who believe that cyclists should not use the roads, they indicate that those facilities are where the cyclist ought to be, out of the way of motorists. That tells lawful competent cyclists that they are supposed to stay off the roadways. That argument is a two-edged sword, depending on what one initially believes. To those who believe that cyclists should be using the roadways, it tells them that they are being dumped into a second-class facility for second-class road users. To those who believe that cyclists should not be using the roadways it represents a heaven-sent gift.
None of these American bikeways have been proved to be safer than lawful use of the roadway, despite forty years of trying by their advocates, both the motoring establishment and the bicycle advocates. Making American cycling safer and more convenient is going to be a much bigger task than bicycle advocates consider, particularly because that, up to this date, they have no evidence of changes that have done so.
#37
Senior Member
I don't see it that way at all. But I appreciate this perspective on it. It's thought provoking.
I see it as giving cyclists more priority on the roadway. Roads cannot be widened in the urban setting so these lanes would replace car lanes.
To my eyes, this tells people that cycling is valued and has priority.
Visually, the "world" is not all about cars and get out of the way if you're not one.
Not all roads can have buffered lanes, but that attitude shift will certainly carry over to shared traffic roads. With more cyclists, it also curbs motorists "own the road" mentality as well.
I also like the fact the cars are kept "to the center" and away from pedestrians as well.
When I see the video, the idea that a family can ride bikes- kids and all- on a busy, main street through NYC- with complete safety, it's pretty neat.
It is also attractive in that it is relatively quick and inexpensive to make these kinds of changes, where the city is re-purposing exisiting roadways with road paint and barriers.
Also, the reason there is no growth in cycling could be that there is no infrastructure that supports or encourages it. Despite that, people still do it and at least in my area, it is growing.
If buffered lanes were widespread, i know even more would use it.
I see it as giving cyclists more priority on the roadway. Roads cannot be widened in the urban setting so these lanes would replace car lanes.
To my eyes, this tells people that cycling is valued and has priority.
Visually, the "world" is not all about cars and get out of the way if you're not one.
Not all roads can have buffered lanes, but that attitude shift will certainly carry over to shared traffic roads. With more cyclists, it also curbs motorists "own the road" mentality as well.
I also like the fact the cars are kept "to the center" and away from pedestrians as well.
When I see the video, the idea that a family can ride bikes- kids and all- on a busy, main street through NYC- with complete safety, it's pretty neat.
It is also attractive in that it is relatively quick and inexpensive to make these kinds of changes, where the city is re-purposing exisiting roadways with road paint and barriers.
Also, the reason there is no growth in cycling could be that there is no infrastructure that supports or encourages it. Despite that, people still do it and at least in my area, it is growing.
If buffered lanes were widespread, i know even more would use it.
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I agree lostarchitect, and also with with some of what JF says.
You don't go to extremes and create polarity. (it's already hostile enough). I am commenting on JF's opinions and talks.
Just to be clear, I agree about bike lanes. I'm not a all-or-nothing person. I'm happy with a "share the road" sign. Anything that is going to encourage the share the road mentality.
Yes, seperated lanes (I linked to earlier as an example) and education are great. That's the only way to progress to the next step.
Instead of villifying either the motorist or the cyclist, maybe the problem is the way the roads are designed. Putting cyclists in a position of fearing for their well-being, and reacting becomes a hostile situation because while a driver may see it as illegal, the cyclist may see it as life-saving.
I am not saying the cyclist is right or wrong. What I'm saying is that the conditions exist and are rife where the roadways do not encourage cycling (quite the opposite).
The reactions of motorists and cyclists tells the story. It's putting them into situations that create hostility, danger.
Couldn't it be that what you say is improper operation of bicycles is a symptom, not the cause?
When the Swedish guy in the video says,"bicycling here is too dangerous." Don't you think a reaction while riding would be to react (legally or illegally) to protect himself?
Public opinion changes with one person at a time. That's how stuff gets done. Honestly, I would have never thought they would cut a lane of auto traffic and turn it into a bike only lane in the middle of downtown LA. Not in a million years.
Maybe you're saying I'm too idealistic, but I really believe these changes occur at the grassroots level. Maybe it wasn't time back in the day, but maybe today is.
But, like I said, agree and like a lot of what's said. I just don't agree with the conclusions.
And vehicular cycling is just wrong. That is the kind of term that will never get people to think otherwise.
You don't go to extremes and create polarity. (it's already hostile enough). I am commenting on JF's opinions and talks.
Just to be clear, I agree about bike lanes. I'm not a all-or-nothing person. I'm happy with a "share the road" sign. Anything that is going to encourage the share the road mentality.
Yes, seperated lanes (I linked to earlier as an example) and education are great. That's the only way to progress to the next step.
Instead of villifying either the motorist or the cyclist, maybe the problem is the way the roads are designed. Putting cyclists in a position of fearing for their well-being, and reacting becomes a hostile situation because while a driver may see it as illegal, the cyclist may see it as life-saving.
I am not saying the cyclist is right or wrong. What I'm saying is that the conditions exist and are rife where the roadways do not encourage cycling (quite the opposite).
The reactions of motorists and cyclists tells the story. It's putting them into situations that create hostility, danger.
Couldn't it be that what you say is improper operation of bicycles is a symptom, not the cause?
When the Swedish guy in the video says,"bicycling here is too dangerous." Don't you think a reaction while riding would be to react (legally or illegally) to protect himself?
Public opinion changes with one person at a time. That's how stuff gets done. Honestly, I would have never thought they would cut a lane of auto traffic and turn it into a bike only lane in the middle of downtown LA. Not in a million years.
Maybe you're saying I'm too idealistic, but I really believe these changes occur at the grassroots level. Maybe it wasn't time back in the day, but maybe today is.
But, like I said, agree and like a lot of what's said. I just don't agree with the conclusions.
And vehicular cycling is just wrong. That is the kind of term that will never get people to think otherwise.
So the Swede questioning me in my talk simply stated that cycling in America is too dangerous. I had forgotten that, and did not understand it when played on my computer. But that's nothing new here; all of us have been hearing that from the general public for sixty years or so, and it is all wrong. Cycling when obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is quite reasonably safe and provides very efficient travel, as so many of us have demonstrated for all of those years. The fear of cycling in traffic has been created by society, by the motoring establishment and by the bicycle advocates, rather than by the experience of cycling competently in traffic.
I read your argument, Cruiserhead, as saying that cycling must be made attractive to the frightened incompetents of the population, so that some outside objective is served. That may be desirable for some, but that program has two drawbacks. One is that attempts to make cycling attractive to the frightened incompetents may not, in America, persuade them switch a transportationally significant proportion of trips from motor to bicycle transport. Nothing of the sort has been demonstrated anywhere in America. The other is that these efforts reduce the legitimacy and acceptance of cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't see it that way at all. But I appreciate this perspective on it. It's thought provoking.
I see it as giving cyclists more priority on the roadway. Roads cannot be widened in the urban setting so these lanes would replace car lanes.
To my eyes, this tells people that cycling is valued and has priority.
Visually, the "world" is not all about cars and get out of the way if you're not one.
Not all roads can have buffered lanes, but that attitude shift will certainly carry over to shared traffic roads. With more cyclists, it also curbs motorists "own the road" mentality as well.
I also like the fact the cars are kept "to the center" and away from pedestrians as well.
When I see the video, the idea that a family can ride bikes- kids and all- on a busy, main street through NYC- with complete safety, it's pretty neat.
It is also attractive in that it is relatively quick and inexpensive to make these kinds of changes, where the city is re-purposing exisiting roadways with road paint and barriers.
Also, the reason there is no growth in cycling could be that there is no infrastructure that supports or encourages it. Despite that, people still do it and at least in my area, it is growing.
If buffered lanes were widespread, i know even more would use it.
I see it as giving cyclists more priority on the roadway. Roads cannot be widened in the urban setting so these lanes would replace car lanes.
To my eyes, this tells people that cycling is valued and has priority.
Visually, the "world" is not all about cars and get out of the way if you're not one.
Not all roads can have buffered lanes, but that attitude shift will certainly carry over to shared traffic roads. With more cyclists, it also curbs motorists "own the road" mentality as well.
I also like the fact the cars are kept "to the center" and away from pedestrians as well.
When I see the video, the idea that a family can ride bikes- kids and all- on a busy, main street through NYC- with complete safety, it's pretty neat.
It is also attractive in that it is relatively quick and inexpensive to make these kinds of changes, where the city is re-purposing exisiting roadways with road paint and barriers.
Also, the reason there is no growth in cycling could be that there is no infrastructure that supports or encourages it. Despite that, people still do it and at least in my area, it is growing.
If buffered lanes were widespread, i know even more would use it.
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't see why we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can't we have some sensible separated lanes and paths where it seems like it will work well, and better driver education, and "take the lane" VC when it also makes sense? It just seems like everyone wants to fight and not actually work on what's best for cyclists in a given area.
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You are utterly uninformed. I cycled in traffic for decades because I enjoyed it. When you are confident of your abilities and find that the traffic around you generally respects your operation, the act of cycling becomes enjoyable, so enjoyable that one prefers it to driving, whenever the disadvantages of cycling, for that particular trip, do not outweigh its advantages.
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There's plenty of diverse evidence for the feelings I write about above. Ranging from child psychology via accident stats for different speeds to accident stats for bike paths etc. It's all out there, and most of it is even round here. I don't care to look for it again. Do that for yourself. You bloody well know I'm right, cause I've shown you it before. Enough is enough.
#43
MUP World Champ
You are utterly uninformed. I cycled in traffic for decades because I enjoyed it. When you are confident of your abilities and find that the traffic around you generally respects your operation, the act of cycling becomes enjoyable, so enjoyable that one prefers it to driving, whenever the disadvantages of cycling, for that particular trip, do not outweigh its advantages.
If bike riding is only about getting from point A to point B, what is the point? I expected to enjoy riding when I bought my bike.
#44
Senior Member
I don't see it that way at all. But I appreciate this perspective on it. It's thought provoking.
I see it as giving cyclists more priority on the roadway. Roads cannot be widened in the urban setting so these lanes would replace car lanes.
To my eyes, this tells people that cycling is valued and has priority.
Visually, the "world" is not all about cars and get out of the way if you're not one.
Not all roads can have buffered lanes, but that attitude shift will certainly carry over to shared traffic roads. With more cyclists, it also curbs motorists "own the road" mentality as well.
I also like the fact the cars are kept "to the center" and away from pedestrians as well.
When I see the video, the idea that a family can ride bikes- kids and all- on a busy, main street through NYC- [strike]with complete safety[/strike], it's pretty neat.
It is also attractive in that it is relatively quick and inexpensive to make these kinds of changes, where the city is re-purposing exisiting roadways with road paint and barriers.
Also, the reason there is no growth in cycling could be that there is no infrastructure that supports or encourages it. Despite that, people still do it and at least in my area, it is growing.
If buffered lanes were widespread, i know even more would use it.
I see it as giving cyclists more priority on the roadway. Roads cannot be widened in the urban setting so these lanes would replace car lanes.
To my eyes, this tells people that cycling is valued and has priority.
Visually, the "world" is not all about cars and get out of the way if you're not one.
Not all roads can have buffered lanes, but that attitude shift will certainly carry over to shared traffic roads. With more cyclists, it also curbs motorists "own the road" mentality as well.
I also like the fact the cars are kept "to the center" and away from pedestrians as well.
When I see the video, the idea that a family can ride bikes- kids and all- on a busy, main street through NYC- [strike]with complete safety[/strike], it's pretty neat.
It is also attractive in that it is relatively quick and inexpensive to make these kinds of changes, where the city is re-purposing exisiting roadways with road paint and barriers.
Also, the reason there is no growth in cycling could be that there is no infrastructure that supports or encourages it. Despite that, people still do it and at least in my area, it is growing.
If buffered lanes were widespread, i know even more would use it.
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
How utterly pompous you are! I am speaking from experience. While I am busy maintaining situational awareness while sharing the road, there is no way to enjoy the ride. Instead of enjoyment it is actually borderline stressful. As soon as I pull into the bike lane, everything slows down and I can actually have fun.
If bike riding is only about getting from point A to point B, what is the point? I expected to enjoy riding when I bought my bike.
If bike riding is only about getting from point A to point B, what is the point? I expected to enjoy riding when I bought my bike.
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So you did not mean to say that cycle tracks make cycling "completely" safe for kids, although that is the word you used. Well, then, please inform us of what you view as the likely reduction in car-bike collisions to be produced when kids cycle on streets with cycle tracks as compared with the normal roadway. It would be nice, but really it is not expected of you, if you could provide a quantitative factual argument to support your opinion.
#47
Senior Member
Cycling infrastructure should be made so to encourage it's use.
This is always done with cars, why not bicycles?
Roads are expanded, they are revised, evolve and built all to encourage car use- to make car travel easier.
The problem is the priority of car travel has overwhelmed everything else- so that cars "own the road" and everyone else (pedestrians and cyclists) is chattle to the demands of the automobile.
Road does not = domain of the car.
Road = shared use roadway for people to travel.
Evolving and re-prioritizing the roadways sounds good to me. Buffered lanes and all.
So you did not mean to say that cycle tracks make cycling "completely" safe for kids, although that is the word you used. Well, then, please inform us of what you view as the likely reduction in car-bike collisions to be produced when kids cycle on streets with cycle tracks as compared with the normal roadway. It would be nice, but really it is not expected of you, if you could provide a quantitative factual argument to support your opinion.
Debating the word "completely" while I was just enjoying the video, while ignoring the bulk of what I wrote kind of proves you are stuck on the peas and not the steak.
Last edited by cruiserhead; 11-18-12 at 08:31 PM.
#48
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Where would I feel that my 11 and 13 year old kids would be safe on their bikes?
Well, anywhere there were Dutch style cycle paths in place of course. But in slow traffic, like up to 20 mph, they might be perfectly safe sharing the lane. As they would in somewhat faster traffic, like 30 mph, with a painted bike lane, given that it were sufficiently wide. And, surprise, on a road with fast, light traffic they might be safe on a wide shoulder, too (anything wider than 4 ft). Bike lanes, bike paths and shoulders will of course have to be free of snow, debris etc. for them to really be safe. And the 20 mph streets would have to be constructed so as to make higher speeds unlikely. Alas, they aren't always, round here, and there are very few 20 mph streets anyway
If we're talking about younger kids, like 6-11 years old, that's a totally different story. Dutch style all the way to make them safe on their own.
There are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" involved, as there are a lot of different ways of making cycling safe. One thing is sure: A lot of the VC advice is very unsafe.
Well, anywhere there were Dutch style cycle paths in place of course. But in slow traffic, like up to 20 mph, they might be perfectly safe sharing the lane. As they would in somewhat faster traffic, like 30 mph, with a painted bike lane, given that it were sufficiently wide. And, surprise, on a road with fast, light traffic they might be safe on a wide shoulder, too (anything wider than 4 ft). Bike lanes, bike paths and shoulders will of course have to be free of snow, debris etc. for them to really be safe. And the 20 mph streets would have to be constructed so as to make higher speeds unlikely. Alas, they aren't always, round here, and there are very few 20 mph streets anyway
If we're talking about younger kids, like 6-11 years old, that's a totally different story. Dutch style all the way to make them safe on their own.
There are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" involved, as there are a lot of different ways of making cycling safe. One thing is sure: A lot of the VC advice is very unsafe.
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
I'm sure JF could offer a better explanation of the dangers of these side paths, but I'll give it a go. Unless the strip between the road and the side path is cleared of such things as light posts, mail boxes, landscaping and parked cars, the view of the side path is obstructed for motorists and cyclists alike. When a motorist attempts to turn across the side path into a driveway, alley or cross street, there is no way to really know if the path is clear until it is too late. I have seen two ways this is dealt with:
1. The cyclist is given yield signs and must keep his/her head on a swivel to avoid being struck by motorists who are crossing his/her path from all angles.
2. The cyclist has the right-of-way, but is in a dead-right sort of situation. What good is the right of way when two tons is coming at you?
The other problem concerns people exiting the driveways and side streets. They can't see down the street until they are blocking the side path with their vehicles. Add in the fact that Americans don't stop at the limit lines (they don't stop until they can see down the road, if then), and you have a dangerous situation.
With these side paths, the risk to the cyclist goes up dramatically with his/her speed, which is the exact opposite of what happens on the road proper. They function like sidewalks, and as such a cyclist whose speed is closer to that of a pedestrian has a better experience.
It is my understanding that the motorists in Northern Europe are better trained and have better incentives to behave properly at these side paths. I have lived in cities that have some of them here in the U.S., and they are frighteningly dangerous.
For what it is worth, Davis, CA put one in in the '70s, back when the bike dominated the landscape in "The Bicycle Capital of the World". I knew of several cyclists who had been seriously injured while riding in town and all of the collisions occurred on that side path. It's just really difficult to adjust to someone overtaking you from behind and turning across you.
Oh, and to amplify Genec's comments on the quality of American motorists: Motorists injure 1.2 Million people per year on our roads. That gives an American even-odds on being injured by a motorist in his/her lifetime. I would say that means our motorists are incompetent, but feel free to disagree.
1. The cyclist is given yield signs and must keep his/her head on a swivel to avoid being struck by motorists who are crossing his/her path from all angles.
2. The cyclist has the right-of-way, but is in a dead-right sort of situation. What good is the right of way when two tons is coming at you?
The other problem concerns people exiting the driveways and side streets. They can't see down the street until they are blocking the side path with their vehicles. Add in the fact that Americans don't stop at the limit lines (they don't stop until they can see down the road, if then), and you have a dangerous situation.
With these side paths, the risk to the cyclist goes up dramatically with his/her speed, which is the exact opposite of what happens on the road proper. They function like sidewalks, and as such a cyclist whose speed is closer to that of a pedestrian has a better experience.
It is my understanding that the motorists in Northern Europe are better trained and have better incentives to behave properly at these side paths. I have lived in cities that have some of them here in the U.S., and they are frighteningly dangerous.
For what it is worth, Davis, CA put one in in the '70s, back when the bike dominated the landscape in "The Bicycle Capital of the World". I knew of several cyclists who had been seriously injured while riding in town and all of the collisions occurred on that side path. It's just really difficult to adjust to someone overtaking you from behind and turning across you.
Oh, and to amplify Genec's comments on the quality of American motorists: Motorists injure 1.2 Million people per year on our roads. That gives an American even-odds on being injured by a motorist in his/her lifetime. I would say that means our motorists are incompetent, but feel free to disagree.
#50
MUP World Champ
Adamhenry writes that he speaks from experience that he cannot enjoy cycling on the normal roadway, but when he enters a bike lane he finds cycling to be "fun". That statement proves that Adamhenry, like most Americans, is afflicted with the cyclist-inferiority/motorist-superiority complex and, furthermore, is completely ignorant of the real hazards of cycling in traffic and the statistics of car-bike collisions. The major hazards of cycling in traffic come not from the same-direction motor traffic that frightens Adamhenry, but from the turning and crossing movements about which he shows no concern. These latter are not ameliorated by bike lanes, which, indeed, have some effect in increasing the probability that the cyclist will commit a traffic error where it is most significant.
Last edited by adamhenry; 11-18-12 at 08:49 PM.