Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-15-14, 02:26 PM   #326
CrankyOne
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,898
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by squirtdad View Post
completely disagree as segregated bikeways:

will never have the coverage to go all places a bicyclist might want to go

will not be high speed

Segregated does not automatically equal safe.
Segregated paths don't need to go everywhere, they are only needed on roadways where motor vehicles are traveling at higher speeds and in many cities they do cover nearly 100% of these roadways. As to speed, I've safely maintained 20+ mph on a number of paths throughout northern Europe. If they're good enough for Rabobank's pro tour riders, I'd think they'd be good enough for you. It's all in how well they're designed.
CrankyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 02:31 PM   #327
CrankyOne
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,898
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
What makes you think you know that other cyclists prefer no bike lanes rather than bike lanes that are in the so-called door zone, which is often the only practical alternative to no bike lanes? What makes you think that all other cyclists are ignoramuses that cannot/will not use caution when riding in such lanes if parked cars are present?
I only express my opinion for what my desires are. VC's should be more than capable of standing up for themselves and shouldn't need me to do it for them. Fortunately, the number of VC's is declining quickly, including many former VC's, myself included, who've realized the inherent dangers of playing tag with 4000 cars, but even more, that the vast majority of people will never want to mix with cars and will never ride on roadways outside of quiet neighborhood streets.

As to practical alternatives to the door zone, the easiest is usually to simply swap the door zone bike lane and parking; put car parking next to motor vehicle travel lane and put the bike lane between the parked cars and sidewalk (where parking had been). Ideally though, there should be a 3' buffer between the parked cars and bike lane (now cycletrack) which may require narrowing the motor vehicle travel lane widths.

Last edited by CrankyOne; 01-15-14 at 02:34 PM.
CrankyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 03:01 PM   #328
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
... why is it that you are so reluctant to admit the possibility that cycling in the usa has had a resurgence, not due to infrastructure build out, but due to high gas prices and recession?
Cycling in the USA has increased due to larger numbers in some metropolitan areas but not in all. There are many areas in the US hard hit by the recession and by gas prices with no increase in numbers of cyclists. If that were the primary reason for more people cycling it would be across the US but it isn't. The regions leading the curve on growth all added infrastructure.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 04:14 PM   #329
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
Cycling in the USA has increased due to larger numbers in some metropolitan areas but not in all. There are many areas in the US hard hit by the recession and by gas prices with no increase in numbers of cyclists.
most large MSAs did. are you telling me that this correlation is entirely due to the build out of bike infrastructure? really???

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]Location
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]2010[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]2009[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]2008[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]2007[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]2006[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]2005[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]United States[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.53%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.55%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.55%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.48%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.45%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.40%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]70 large city average
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]1.02%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]1.02%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.93%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.79%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.72%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.75%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]Bicycle Friendly Communities (BFC)[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]1.42%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]1.39%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]1.29%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]1.09%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]1.00%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.97%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]Non-Bicycle Friendly Communities[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.55%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.57%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.50%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.42%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.39%[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #969696"]0.43%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



http://www.bikeleague.org/content/bi...commuting-data

Quote:
The regions leading the curve on growth all added infrastructure.
during the zeros portland, san francisco, and seattle had little new cycling infrastructure but all these cities at least doubled their mode share. san francisco is particularly illustrative in that there was a moratorium on new infrastructure but mode share still somehow increased enormously. and then there are the examples of NYC and vancouver. two cities that have arguably added the most european-style protected infrastructure with piss poor increases in mode share (on a percentage basis).

Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-15-14 at 04:38 PM.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 04:58 PM   #330
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Bikes:
Posts: 1,366
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
What you say you didn't say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
...
2. i never stated that the 2007 vs 2008 comparison in boston is significant. [your emphasis] however, a comparison over a period of several years is significant (2005-2007 vs 2008-2010). How do you explain this increase? What is your narrative? And why is it that you are so reluctant to admit the possibility that cycling in the usa has had a resurgence, not due to infrastructure build out, but due to high gas prices and recession?
What you actually said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
...
Boston acs cycling mode share data from 2008-2012:

1.6, 2.1, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0

did they suddenly stop building bike lanes in boston?
Or...mebbee...just...mebee the spike every major city saw in 2008 had more to do with great recession (e.g. A disincentive to drive) than the build out in 2008 (sarcasm).

...
What I already said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
yes, the margin of error covers the differences some of us are citing.
...
The boston acs numbers are even more all over the place, and other than there are more cyclists commuting primarily by bicycle than in 2005, there's not much more to say. [emphasis mine] but local measurements tell the story.

That's my only point.

...
-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 05:31 PM   #331
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
What you say you didn't say:


What you actually said:


What I already said.


-mr. bill
Quote:
Boston acs cycling mode share data from 2008-2012:
1.6, 2.1, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0
and let's compare those numbers with 2007-2005

1%, 1.2%, 0.9%
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 06:18 PM   #332
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
...are you telling me that this correlation is entirely due to the build out of bike infrastructure? really???
No, not entirely. No, of course there are other factors. But the main , the essential (your word), factor that it cannot happen without is improved facilities and infrastructure.

And it's not just me saying it.

You must be familiar with this report from Pucher, Buehler and Seinen, which states unequivocally-

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Renaissance in North America
In Europe and North America the main approach to increasing cycling and making it safer has been the provision of more and better bike paths and lanes. [studies cited] The scientific evidence in the existing literature generally supports that strategy. Results from aggregate cross-sectional studies indicate that there is a positive correlation between cycling levels and the supply of bike paths and lanes, even after controlling for other explanatory factors such as city size, climate, topography, automobile ownership, income and student population.[more studies cited] Disaggregate, individual-level studies report a strong preference for separate paths and lanes over cycling in traffic [even more studies cited]...thus there is considerable scientific evidence that improving cycling facilities is essential for increasing cycling.
And why didn't cities like Dallas, Detroit, Memphis and regions like the US southeast, despite being hard hit by gas prices and the recession, have no increase at all? Read the report linked above to see why.

Last edited by buzzman; 01-17-14 at 06:55 PM.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 07:57 PM   #333
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
No, not entirely. No, of course there are other factors. But the main , the essential (your word), factor that it cannot happen without is improved facilities and infrastructure.

And it's not just me saying it.

You must be familiar with this report from Puchler, Buehler and Seinen, which states unequivocally-



And why didn't cities like Dallas, Detroit, Memphis and regions like the US southeast, despite being hard hit by gas prices and the recession, have no increase at all? Read the report linked above to see why.
meh. you will forgive me for engaging in some rhetoric but the puchler's of the world love to frame the question as separate paths versus cycling in traffic. in the real world there are more options. take this recent study in PDX:

jennifer dill recently investigated the preference of cyclists in the Portland area for particular types of infrastructure based on Roger Geller's categorization of cycling types. In the Portland area this study found 6% strong and fearless, 9% enthused and confident, and 60% interested but concerned.

Moreover, Dill's study reported an average comfort level of 2.7 for a crappy conventional door zone bike lane and a comfort level of 3.2 for a protected bike lane (scale of 1-4).


http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/Types_of_Cyclists_PSUWorkingPaper.pdf

i wonder how an 8-12 foot buffered german-style bike lane would have fared?

stripe it and they will come?
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 09:08 PM   #334
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
meh. you will forgive me for engaging in some rhetoric but the puchler's of the world love to frame the question as separate paths versus cycling in traffic. in the real world there are more options. take this recent study in PDX:

jennifer dill recently investigated the preference of cyclists in the Portland area for particular types of infrastructure based on Roger Geller's categorization of cycling types. In the Portland area this study found 6% strong and fearless, 9% enthused and confident, and 60% interested but concerned.

Moreover, Dill's study reported an average comfort level of 2.7 for a crappy conventional door zone bike lane and a comfort level of 3.2 for a protected bike lane (scale of 1-4).


http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/Types_of_Cyclists_PSUWorkingPaper.pdf

i wonder how an 8-12 foot buffered german-style bike lane would have fared?

stripe it and they will come?
I'm struggling to follow your thinking here. Too off point and paranoid for me. The "Pucher's of the World"?

Last edited by buzzman; 01-17-14 at 06:55 PM.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 10:01 PM   #335
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
I'm struggling to follow your thinking here. Too off point and paranoid for me. The "Puchler's of the World"?
your puchler quote contrasted separated infrastructure with no infrastructure. talk about a low bar by which to measure success. the problem is that this preference is repeated as mantra without concrete evidence (much like "build it and they will come")

professor dill of PSU's OTREC institute actually performed a study to determine which facility people prefer and it turns out that there was very little difference between a facilitythat i think most of us agree is sub-par (the door zone bike lane) and a protected bike lane.

oops.

Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-15-14 at 10:07 PM.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-14, 10:59 PM   #336
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
professor dill of PSU's OTREC institute actually performed a study to determine which facility people prefer and it turns out that there was very little difference between a facilitythat i think most of us agree is sub-par (the door zone bike lane) and a protected bike lane.

oops.
Oops is right, maybe you and the rest of the whatever group makes up "most of us" may not be so darn correct with overheated rhetoric (mantra) about the high risk of door zone bike lanes relative to cycling on the same street without them.

"Protected bike lanes" in dense urban areas with heavy traffic demand? Not too likely to be found in many places, if at all in the U.S. The choice taken by most urban cyclists is riding "unprotected" to the right with or without painted lines; the painted lines at least provide some visual guidance for motorists to stay to the left of where most cyclists will place themselves, despite what you and "most of us" think about it.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 01:23 AM   #337
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
the painted lines at least provide some visual guidance for motorists to stay to the left of where most cyclists will place themselves, despite what you and "most of us" think about it.
so which would you prefer: a standard 4-5 foot bike lane adjacent to parked vehicles or an 8-12 foot buffered bike lane.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 02:18 AM   #338
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
so which would you prefer: a standard 4-5 foot bike lane adjacent to parked vehicles or an 8-12 foot buffered bike lane.
What is an "8-12 foot buffered bike lane"? Is it something likely to be carved out of crowded traffic lanes in dense urban areas? Got any pictures of what it looks like when implemented?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 07:47 AM   #339
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Bikes:
Posts: 1,366
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
and let's compare those [Boston] numbers with 2007-2005
...
[non-margin-of-error data deleted]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
[Boston ACS-1 year mode share numbers, with noise]...
2012 2.0 +/- 0.4
2011 1.7 +/- 0.5
2010 1.4 +/- 0.4
2009 2.1 +/- 0.7
2008 1.6 +/- 0.4
2007 1.0 +/- 0.3
2006 1.2 +/- 0.3
2005 0.9 +/- 0.4
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
"Note: ACS numbers are based on surveys of a sample of the population, so they are just estimates -- sometimes with large margins of error. Some changes may not be statistically significant. [Some? LOL.] They are just bike commuter estimates; many people who ride bikes are not counted here."
I don't think the you intended to use the league's report which shows faster growth than the norm in bike friendly communities, but....

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
What is an "8-12 foot buffered bike lane"? Is it something likely to be carved out of crowded traffic lanes in dense urban areas? Got any pictures of what it looks like when implemented?
Buffered Bike Lane demonstration project.

-mr. bill

Last edited by mr_bill; 01-17-14 at 11:22 AM.
mr_bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 09:24 AM   #340
spare_wheel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Bikes: NA
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
What is an "8-12 foot buffered bike lane"?
Our first long stretch of buffered lane (2009):
http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/12/p...-holgate-52885

Some more recent examples:

http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/08/c...awthorne-95224

Quote:
something likely to be carved out of crowded traffic lanes in dense urban areas?
A major reason I support infrastructure...

Last edited by spare_wheel; 01-16-14 at 10:20 AM.
spare_wheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 11:56 AM   #341
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
Our first long stretch of buffered lane (2009):
http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/12/p...-holgate-52885

Some more recent examples:

http://bikeportland.org/2013/10/08/c...awthorne-95224



A major reason I support infrastructure...
The lanes look fine and dandy, if a super wide street has lots of extra space to insert them AND they are continuous for long useful stretches; appears the Hawthorne Bridge is just a temporary change from a typical so called door zone bike lane at the exit. I don't see much future in advocating for buffered lanes if/when the heavy traffic load cannot support removing normal traffic lanes to find the street side real estate to paint the buffered lane. Only an extraordinary high daily bicycle count would justify such a use of restricted street real estate in the minds of city officials almost anywhere.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 12:01 PM   #342
squirtdad
Senior Member
 
squirtdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Bikes: '89 Miyata 1400, '82 nishiski (current utilty/commuter project)
Posts: 4,150
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
snip

As to practical alternatives to the door zone, the easiest is usually to simply swap the door zone bike lane and parking; put car parking next to motor vehicle travel lane and put the bike lane between the parked cars and sidewalk (where parking had been). Ideally though, there should be a 3' buffer between the parked cars and bike lane (now cycletrack) which may require narrowing the motor vehicle travel lane widths.
This design is pretty much terrible. It does not really deall with door zone (it minmizes it because every car has driver, but not all have passengers) It increases right hook opportunities reducing driver visibility and awareness of cyclists at intersections and the bike lane is cluttered with pedestrians etc.
__________________
'82 Nishiski commuter/utility
'83 Torpado Super Strada ... cafe commuter
'89 Miyata 1400
Soma rush Fixie
06 Haro x3 (son's bmx)
Electra cruiser (wife's bike)
squirtdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 12:03 PM   #343
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
"Why were SW Stark and Oak streets chosen?
• These streets were selected for the Buffered Bicycle Lane demonstration project because they have light traffic flows.
• Traffic analysis indicates that the loss of one travel lane on both SW Stark and SW Oak will not create significant delays or queues for vehicles. "

Not exactly the answer for most city centers with dense traffic with all travel lanes in heavy use.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 12:38 PM   #344
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
Our first long stretch of buffered lane (2009):
http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/12/p...-holgate-52885
"Moderate and Severe Injury Crashes Only".

One might suppose that the number of total crashes has either not changed or increased.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 01:36 PM   #345
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
"Moderate and Severe Injury Crashes Only".

One might suppose that the number of total crashes has either not changed or increased.
So what?

When measuring and evaluating risk, one could also suppose for the sake of an argument that "crashes" that produce insignificant injuries or none at all are equal to those that produce moderate and severe injuries. Some of the so-called, self-styled "bicycle traffic engineer" ilk do just that when manipulating data to reach a desired conclusion and consider a "crash" with a skinned knee result as equal to a "crash" that results in paralyzing or traumatic amputation injuries.

No credible person or organization responsible for safety decisions would make that supposition when evaluating risk.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 02:09 PM   #346
noisebeam
Al
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Posts: 14,111
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Locally they changed a wide two lane road with center shared turn lane and wide shoulders to a narrow two lane road with center median and bike lanes. I used to take my son to school in trailer on this road every weekday, never an issue, I rode towing trailer in the wide shoulder, motorist passed in the main travel lane.

Then they did this 'complete streets' thing and removed over half the asphalt width of the road, but even worse put in these things called chicanes every 100 yards which artificially narrowed the lane even more with concrete curbs and also short sections of separated bike lane that were too narrow to ride thru safely with trailer. At each of those points I had to negotiate a merge into the main travel lane partly out the bike lane as I needed ~1ft clearance between the trailer outside wheel and curb, which required the inside wheel go over bike lane into very narrow shared lane. To do so required I merge ahead of motor vehicles every 100 yards - this pissed off too many motorists (on a road I had never prior had an issue on) with regular honking and attempts to squeeze by me and yelling to stay in bike lane. I did not want to subject my son in trailer to this abuse so I stopped cycling him to school and my wife had to start motoring him there - it was previous one of the more enjoyable things I did and it saddened me to have to give it up. So they built it and I left.

Last edited by noisebeam; 01-16-14 at 02:13 PM.
noisebeam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 02:10 PM   #347
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Bikes:
Posts: 9,544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
So what?

When measuring and evaluating risk, one could also suppose for the sake of an argument that "crashes" that produce insignificant injuries or none at all are equal to those that produce moderate and severe injuries. Some of the so-called, self-styled "bicycle traffic engineer" ilk do just that when manipulating data to reach a desired conclusion and consider a "crash" with a skinned knee result as equal to a "crash" that results in paralyzing or traumatic amputation injuries.

No credible person or organization responsible for safety decisions would make that supposition when evaluating risk.


Why hide the data? I'm not saying they should be treated as "equal".

Why do you presume that there's no "manipulation" going on here?

Why include "moderate" injuries? Why lump "moderate" with "severe"?

"Moderate" injuries are the same as "paralyzing or traumatic amputation injuries"? The data that was shown is calling them "equal".

How many "severe" injuries where there?

Maybe, "severe" injuries have stayed the same or increased.

If the total crashes are high (we have no idea), maybe, the small difference in "moderate and severe injuries" is random.

If you include all of the data, you might be able to start to understand why there are fewer "moderate and severe injuries".

That is, that an effect is a reduction of "moderate and severe injuries" rather than total crashes might be useful to know.


Also, the number of moderate/severe accidents for this one stretch of road seems oddly high.

Last edited by njkayaker; 01-16-14 at 06:04 PM.
njkayaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 02:15 PM   #348
CrankyOne
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,898
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Here's an interesting article that kind of speaks directly to the OP's question:

http://www.streets.mn/2014/01/10/cyc...feedback-loop/
CrankyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 03:27 PM   #349
CrankyOne
Senior Member
 
CrankyOne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Bikes:
Posts: 1,898
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by noisebeam View Post
Then they did this 'complete streets' thing and removed over half the asphalt width of the road ...
Good example of poorly designed infrastructure being worse than no infrastructure. FWIW, we've had to spend a lot of time educating traffic engineers about designing paths to accommodate all people on bicycles with trailers, bakfiets, and cargo trikes being the examples.
CrankyOne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-14, 09:08 PM   #350
buzzman
----
 
buzzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Bikes:
Posts: 4,570
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
your puchler quote contrasted separated infrastructure with no infrastructure. talk about a low bar by which to measure success. the problem is that this preference is repeated as mantra without concrete evidence (much like "build it and they will come")

professor dill of PSU's OTREC institute actually performed a study to determine which facility people prefer and it turns out that there was very little difference between a facilitythat i think most of us agree is sub-par (the door zone bike lane) and a protected bike lane.

oops.

My primary purpose in quoting the Pucher report was for this conclusion:

Quote:
Results from aggregate cross-sectional studies indicate that there is a positive correlation between cycling levels and the supply of bike paths and lanes, even after controlling for other explanatory factors such as city size, climate, topography, automobile ownership, income and student population.
You extrapolate from the whole quote a reference to studies which show a strong preference for separated infrastructure and turn it into an argument about preferences between "door zone bike lanes" and protected lanes.

I think the Pucher reference to that preference was a pretty simple one. For example, I have two routes to downtown Boston. An 8.1 mile streets route with almost the entire distance with bike lanes and sharrows. The alternative being a 10.2 mile route which includes one mile of back street riding to a separated bike path for 8 miles and another mile of sharrows to my destination. I would answer that my preferred route was the one with the separated path. I do the other one when I'm in a hurry. It doesn't surprise me at all that there is a strong preference for separated infrastructure when placed in that context, which may be different from Professor Dill's study if the choice was "door zone bike lanes" vs "protected lanes".

Last edited by buzzman; 01-17-14 at 06:56 PM.
buzzman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:12 PM.