livedarklions

Are these stats comparing amount of riding per capita? The US has a lot of states where the climate is reasonably warm year round.

I-Like-To-Bike

Fatalities per 100,000 what?
Miles driven? Total Population? Licensed Drivers?

It makes a difference when comparing various nations.

livedarklions

I have no idea what he's talking about. The number of bicycle deaths per 100.000 population in the U.S. in 2020 was 0.269. So basically, he's overstated that rate by 41 times!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclis...n_U.S._by_year

Honestly, I can't tell if he makes up his statistics or just doesn't know what they mean.

mr_bill

Just fyi, it is all road deaths/100,000 population.

Now back to our regularly scheduled diversions from the point.

-mr. bill

livedarklions

OK, that makes sense. And yeah, kind of besides the point.

Any thoughts on the OP? Curious about your take on this.

Daniel4

Feedback Survey #2
Bloor Street Bike Lane Survey December 13, 2016 to May 4, 2017.

People Who Bike
How safe do you feel riding on Bloor Street
Before:
Unsafe: 52%
Very Unsafe: 27%

After:
Unsafe: 4%
Very unsafe: 1%

Preferred Configuration
No Bike Lanes: 4%
Traditional paint only bike lanes next to parking: 7%
Separated bike lanes next to curb: 89%

Post #84 of this link
https://www.bikeforums.net/commuting/1258448-why-don-t-more-people-ride-bikes-commuting-4.html#post22665317

cudak888 

Very, very interesting. I did some Googling trying to find the source in the meantime, and I found a Streetsblog article referencing a 2014 Portland State University study that found the following:

Source: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/06/...-safer-biking/

In other words, ~4% of those who actually used the PBL in Portland thought it unsafe or equal to the prior config. Almost the same as the Bloor Street survey.

Not surprised that this is also within the 4-7% that make up the Highly Confident rider demographic according to the FHWA (2019). Obviously nothing more than a corollary, but something I'll keep in the back of my mind if any more stats like this pop up.




-Kurt

Daniel4

When that Bloor Survey came out I had downloaded it right away. Now I can't find it online. So the city must have removed it. Lucky I still have my own copies of it in my laptop and my smartphone.

I once had a discussion with a guy, or should I say, I had let him rant about why we should be wasting money on bike lanes for only the 5% of the people on the road.

That 5% could be broken down in many ways. These surveys show that the cyclists that guy was seeing on the road are those people who have the confidence riding on all sorts of roads
Whereas there's a hidden 95% that are would-be riders who would go out when they feel safe. Those 95% are what separated bike lanes are for.

cudak888 

Greatly appreciated; saved for my own records too.

In his particular case, I'd wager the 5% figure cited was pulled from where the sun doesn't shine, not any actual study. Granted, based on the Toronto study, it might be closer to 15%, given how many riders were neutral about the Bloor Street reconfiguration.

Indeed, the demand is masked by the lack of safe infrastructure. Case in point, the Uni of Denver + New Mexico study from 2019 - which primarily focused on the crash rate before and after the presence of PBLs - also found that ridership went up significantly after cities installed PBLs.

Quite a few use the corollary that "it's hard to justify a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river." Wise words indeed.

-Kurt

Inisfallen

Good point. But let us remember that electric bicycles (with the possible exception of the “pedal-assist bikes” are actually motorcycles, and are capable (at least where I live) of moving with the flow of automotive traffic. They don’t belong in the bike paths, and, at least here in New York City, are driving actual bicyclists out of the bike paths. It’s a real problem here.
So? I agree with him. Aggressive motorists (and we have no shortage of them here) are a menace. They kill cyclists regularly here. It's a valid concern.

Sure. I'm not actually disagreement with you. I will say that here in NYC, it was the city (under the otherwise odious Mike Bloomberg) that got the job done when it came to creating bike lanes and paths throughout the city. It's a work in progress, of course, but it's actually really amazing how much has been done. Don't underestimate local government. It is, after all, the people in that local environment who will make things happen.

Yeah, that's nice. It's also irrelevant.

Posting on another message board, some time ago (a local Brooklyn forum) I was having a conversation with a bunch of people who actually want to ban cars in NYC. They know that’s not going to happen, but their focus right now is banning on-street parking. Okay.They say that nobody needs a car in NYC. Apparently the elderly and the disabled and those ill-served by public transportation don’t actually exist, as far as they’re concerned. What they actually meant was that nobody outside of Park Slope exists, and, if such people do exist, well, they’re the servant class, and should listen to their betters.

I brought up the example of a friend of mine who lives in the Red Hook Houses. He’s a construction worker. That means he works all over the city, when the project is complete, he gets laid off, and has to find another job. So, that all happed, and he got on to another project. It’s out by LaGuardia Airport. That’s quite a trip. By car, it’s not that tough (especially at the very early hour when construction starts here).

But one of these car-banners actually said he doesn’t need a car, and helpfully mapped out how my friend should get to work. It involved getting on a Citibike at about 4:00 in the morning, riding it to the nearest subway stop (Red Hook does not have subway service), transferring to the train, riding that train all through Brooklyn and Manhattan and into Queens, getting to the subway stop nearest to LGA (which is not actually near – subways don’t go there), transferring to a bus, and then walking for close to a mile to the construction site.

Amazing. And he should do this all on, say, a cold and rainy December morning, carrying twenty or thirty pounds of tools and batteries and so on.

The car-banner seemed to think this was all perfectly reasonable, even after I pointed out that this would add up to at least five hours a day, which is time my friend could spend with his kids and his wife.

My point being that actual distance isn’t that important. It’s time that matters. And also what one has to carry.
Yes. And that's not going to happen. This is pie in the sky. Forget about it.

And, finally, a poster (I won't name him/her) earlier said:

What an arrogant statement. There are so many reasons not to bike to work. There are more good reasons not to bike than there are good reasons to bike.

Just look at the article. For example, one reason cited was "getting children to school." Believe me, I spent years getting three small children to school in the morning. I wasn't doing it on a bicycle, and that's not because I'm lazy. It's because it's impossible.

Another was being unable to ride a bike. I have two artificial joints. There were years when I couldn't ride a bike.

Arrogant stuff like this is the very reason we don't have better bike infrastructure. The people who would have to get behind the financing and construction of such infrastructure hear people like the person who said this and decide to write off all of us.

Thanks for your help (you know who you are). The best thing you could do for cycling would be to stop talking.

UniChris

Yes, even the most "bikes and cars must never share a lane" type of naive perspective has to admit that motorcycles don't belong in bike infrastructure.

But if you consider why, the reasons fall on a continuum - plenty of things that are legally bikes (more than a few of them human powered) can often be moving faster than other traffic, too.

And when you get right down to it, even a little kid on a pedal bike can move faster than the pedestrian-style intersections of segregated "infrastructure" are safe for.

I raise the electric devices argument not because I prioritize designing for them, but because they force self-styled "bike advocates" who are actually anti-biking to confront the reality of factors which prove that what they are calling for doesn't actually work for people making serious trips by bike - even by pedal bike.

And most definitely not by the motorized two wheel bike-form devices that are the only way most of the general public is going to consider making useful trips outside of a car.

cudak888 

Legally questionable in states that have established the Class 1/2/3 classification system for pedal assist and throttle assist. By law, they're neither a bicycle nor a motorcycle; they're an electric bicycle. It's a new vehicle entirely - no reason why we should insist on shoehorning them into existing definitions. That's the whole reason the new definitions exist.

I wouldn't be against Class 1/2 being reduced to 15mph if this compromise could help find middle ground between those who can't stand e-bikes and those who benefit from them. 15 is more or less the top cruising speed the average commuter can achieve on a half-decent analog hybrid or IGH city bike with no motorized assist, so it's a fair balance; anything else boils down to the general lack of etiquette (thank you, USA - you're still the Wild West).

Are we still talking about the study, or another article that was interjected since?

Either way, one's own personal scenario isn't necessarily reflective of others - so while riding to school may be out of the question for you, it may not for others. There are also many families that can, do and would ride if the infrastructure existed. They may have fewer or older children, and live in an area that provides a shorter or more conducive route. Put simply, it's not impossible.

There are some great examples of this concept on an extremely popular level - far exceeding the average - if you look up the bike trains that Sam Balto has helped lead. He's a PE teacher in Portland.

-Kurt

Viich

Agree - we were a family that did the ride to school regularly (though admittedly, not every day, and not in deep winter), My wife and I rode with my boys to school when the older was 4 and riding the 2.5km no problem, younger was in a trailer at that point. Kept going, older one on his own bike, younger (less keen on cycling when young) on a trail-a-bike. I'd lock both and my wife would ride after school and pull the trail-a-bike with hers (Burley rack-attachment system was amazing)

We happen to have a great setup, most of the distance was on a pathway in an under-power-line green space, which is why it was do-able.