Originally Posted by
John Forester
........ I reviewed that volume some two years ago and reported that it is not a bicycle safety program because it does not do those things necessary to make cycling safer. That's right, it doesn't fit the characteristics of a recognized safety program.
It doesn't do any good for you, Bek, to argue that because the government says it, the government is right. You have to challenge my criticism of this program, or, by equally valid means, actually demonstrate to us why P500 V18 actually will produce the results expected of a safety program.
Unsubstantiated bluster that the AASHTO strategic highway safety plan and guidance on its strategies to reduce collisions involving bicyclists isn't a roadway safety plan must be John's idea of a joke.
I need demonstrate nothing. There's a preponderance of studies showing that better planning for bike traffic makes for safer cycling. What would that prove in a discussion about the denigratory argument that planning safer roads for all road users should be mischaracterized as anti-motoring anyway? Seems way off topic. Meh.
That's such vile framing of road safety and the noble pursuit of better roads to ride on.
Question is, why is the promotion of safer road designs for every type of user, that have been shown to reduce collisions and increase roadway safety, so rabidly mischaracterized as 'anti-motoring?'
why are the people angry with better roadway planning so intent to mischaracterize it as 'anti-motoring?' The argument doesn't hold up to even basic scrutiny.
Most road diets have been shown to decrease collisions, unsafe motoring, and increased cyclists LOS of most roadways while not unduly affecting motorist LOS.
this is safety for all - peds, bikers, motorists.
Grousing about planning for better roads, more bike traffic, safer pedestrians while reducing dangerous, illegal driving are the uneducated complaints of the NIMBYist Schumers and O'Rourkes, livid at better street design in New York City.