FXjohn

Bigger? Maybe you mean SUVs, there's only a couple full size rear wheel drive cars anymore, and they're small compared to 70's cars.

With all the money this country spends, we could use more bike paths!

FXjohn

DanFromDetroit

I was thinking that SUVs and Pickups are much more common than days of old. I also think that horsepower has increased (200+ for a minivan ?). I really wasn't thinking about the early 70's. I had in mind the post-1973 "oil shortage" period, where cars were downsized fairly quickly.

Dan

Pete Clark

Again, I have to point out, Denver, that your bike path network is not possible in most places, as fortunate as you are to have them.

The only way to achieve what you are advocating is to build bike paths up on raised platforms and bridges, or underground.

Otherwise, alongside every major artery, a bike path is built. Each path forms a new intersection at every existing one, plus an intersection at every driveway. What a nightmare. You might as well put a sign on your back that says, "Hit me," though I doubt motorist would see it as you ride down the left side of the road against traffic on the path. (I'm not trying to be rude, Denver, but that's about the way it is around here!)

That's an interesting point too, Denver. Statistics bear you out on this: cycling produces more injuries (most not serious) than does driving, because you can't fall off a car.

But when talk about fatalities, the chances of dying in a car are almost twice as high as on a bike, and overall, about 50 times as many people die in cars as on bikes.

I had two accidents on my bike. One was my fault, a simple fall, causing only abrasions. The other was caused by a pedestrian!

I am with you there--I don't want one of them to hit me, either. But what you are suggesting is that we all move to a place like the one you live, but that's not a viable solution for most people. Your solution leaves out the vast majority of cyclists.

Therefore, since your solution cannot apply in most cases, the other option is to let the hammer down on bad driving, once and for all. Nothing less is acceptable.

DnvrFox

Ours follow stream beds - which generally follow the freeways. At each road crossing, the trails go underneath the bridge over the stream. There are also some independent bridges where needed and appropriate.

I can go from the south end of the Platter River Trail to the north end - a distance of 30 miles through the veritable center of downtown Denver, and I have cross streets at only 3 streets, and two of these are low volume street, generally requiring only a look see, without a slow down.

I can leave my home and go 10 miles south without ever hitting a cross street. Again, there are five bridges, but the trail goes underneath each of them.

I can go west 20 miles to Chatfield Reservoir and cross 5 streets. Each of these is a street crossing, and each is controlled by traffic lights. And this includes a very cleverly designed bike path (with a small tunnel) that actually crosses through an intersection of two freeways (C-470 and I-25). It is amazingly built, and someday I will figure it out. Anyway, I end up on the other side of I-25 without a hitch.

I can leave the Platte River Trail and go on the Bear Creek Trail for 10 miles and cross only one minor street.

Same for the following trails which head out from the Platte River Trail

Little Dry Creek Trail - 5 miles
Cherry Creek Trail - 15 miles
Clear Creek Trail - 20 miles
C-470 Trail West
Sand Creek Trail
Ralston Creek Trail off of the Clear Creek Trail (a few crossings in residential areas)
Little Dry Creek Trail off of the Clear Creek Trail (a few crossings in residential areas)
Sulphur Gulch Trail (off of the S. Cherry Creek Trail - 4 minor corssings.

Etc.

And, I really am NOT advocating for anything.

I am simply stating the conclusion I have come to personally. Why I shared it here, I don't really know, except that is what I think is one of the reasons for a forum (wow - awful syntax).

Thanks, everyone for all the feedback. It made me think. But I haven't changed my mind.

So, I have said my bit, and will end my "thought-sharing" at this time.

Good luck.

John C. Ratliff

I share DnvrFox's conclusions to a large degree. This is based both on my own personal experience, my observations on the road, and the research that I have done over the last year and a half since my accident. Here's what I have done:

--Reconfigured my bicycle to be able to see better by raising the handlebar to over the seat height.
--Use a helmet mirror, to see behind and in front of me at the same time.
--I use bike paths that go toward my destination when I can. I have about a half of my route on a bicycle path. No, it doesn't have those kinds of dangerous intersections, as it begins behind a store and ends on a back street. I have had to do some of my own maintenance on it though.
--I simply do not ride on Friday's during commute times, at all. It's too dangerous here, and that's the day of both of my accidents. I think this is a combination of my own fatigue, and the normally distracted drivers becoming more road-raged. Again, this may be my own superstition, but I'm comfortable with it, and it helps keep me riding on the other days.
--I wear bright clothing, and use my lighting system.

You guys can pound DnvrFox all you want, but he and I share a bit of experience (I'm almost 58), and insight that perhaps you don't. It won't help bicycling one bloody bit if either of us gets wiped on the pavement again (I can say that for myself at least).

One thing that everyone can do is to start monitoring your own traffic, and I mean semi-scientifically. For a time, I counted the number of cars that had what I term "auto-bicycle interactions" with me. This term means that either I needed to change something because of them, or they came within ten feet of my bicycle while I was in motion (any direction). On one commute from work to home, I had over a hundred of these interactions. I started experimenting with different routes, and got that number down to just five by varying the route, using bicycle paths, using back roads, crosswalks, sidewalks (to get to a side street), etc.

My reasoning is that by reducing all auto-bicycle interactions with me, I will reduce the likelihood that some wacko will be distracted, drunk, drive with dialated eyes (don't laugh, my wife and I saw some guy do that today), talking on a cell phone (saw that today), be fatigued by flying in from Saudi Arabia then driving home to turn in front of me (that actually happened, wiped me and my bicycle out of bicycling for a month), shoving a hamburger into her mouth (saw that today too), and hit me.

Good luck,

John

randya

You should be able to ride your bicycle safely on any public road, along the most direct route, to any concievable destination that any other road user expects to be able to conveniently and safely access. End of story.

Getting from point A to point B on a bicycle should not have to involve circuitous routes, separated paths or any other constructs designed to keep motor vehicles and bicycles from mixing.

The only problem here is arrogant, selfish, stupid, ignorant and dangerous motorists, and a crumbling social system that allows them to get away with behaving in a dangerous and threatening manner towards other legitimate road users.

Roads are for people, not for cars.

DnvrFox

Yes, that is THE problem.

And until it is solved, what are YOU going to do?

And, it likely wil NOT be solved, that is the conundrum.

The young believe they are invincible and will live forever. Those of us a bit older KNOW that is not correct.

Also, as a parent of two children both paralyzed from accidents, I have just a bit different perspective on accidents and injuries and their totally devastating effect on people and their families.

Pete Clark

I do not agree with the philosophy that, "The roads are dangerous, and will always be dangerous. There is nothing we can do about it." I think that it's long overdue that our roads need to be made safe for all users--drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. To waver on this issue invites more sorrow and death.

For the transportational cyclist, there are only two choices:

1) Separate cyclists from motor traffic.

2) Accomodate cyclists with motor traffic.

There are certainly some safe bike paths available to some at the moment. But as development which favors automobile use continues to mushroom, these kinds of "limited access" paths will become less and less common.

The only realistic option for the future of transportational cycling is option 2, accomodate cyclists with motor traffic. If there are safety issues, they must be dealt with now.

Every cyclist wants safety. But I don't believe we can afford to close our eyes and accept dangerous driving, putting our hopes in building paths. Urban paths will always have to cross roads, or parallel them. These kinds of paths are death-traps--I have ridden them and I refuse to do it anymore.

We must make the roads safe for everyone--NOW. This recent tragic death of our friend and mentor, Ken Kifer, emphasizes this more than ever!

DnvrFox

So, what is your plan to accomplish the above?

Rich Clark

Ten feet!

Yes, it certainly would be hard not to feel endangered on the road if you feel threatened anytime a car comes within ten feet of you. If that's your benchmark, it's a wonder you stray off the paths at all.

I have plenty of experience too, John. I'm 52, and I've been riding transportationally for more than 40 years (with an unfortunate hiatus in the middle when I mostly drove). The only accident I ever had that caused serious injury -- a broken arm -- was a collision with a pedestrian. But personal anecdotes aren't the point, or proof of anything.

Nobody's arguments can change the way someone else feels. Only you can do that. But don't try to pretend that you're being rational; you're just trying to rationalize your fears because nobody likes to feel afraid.

If someone can manage to continue cycling using paths and trails, fine. It's great that you've found a way to avoid the things that frighten you without giving up the benefits of cycling. But be very clear that there's a line between accommodating your own fears and advocating that other people start sharing them.

I'm not suggesting that either you or Denver are trying to do that, and it takes a certain, different kind of courage to discuss your fears in a public forum, and I admire that.

We've been around and around on the "is cycling dangerous" topic, and it's been quite thoroughly demonstrated that anyone can find statitistics to support whatever position they choose to take. So yes, it really does come down to how you feel about it, how threatened you are... and I suspect (without substantiation, other than my own experience) that one's level of fear has a direct relationship with one's competence on the road.

RichC

Pete Clark

A good start would be to enforce the written traffic code.

The beauty of the strategy of accomodating cyclists with motor traffic is that it requires primarily the enforcement of existing law.

This would benefit everyone, not just cyclists. As it is now, motorists and pedestrians die at an alarming rate. They would be helped, too.

On the other hand, by not acting decisively to reign in out-of-control driving, any attempt to make cycling "safe" by separating cyclists from motor traffic would be ineffective. As a wise man said, "He who is unfaithful in small matters will also be unfaithful in large matters." Drivers who can not be trusted with existing law will never respect new, more confusing ones, such as those that will be created by building more urban bike paths.

And since urban bike paths actually do not separate cyclists from motor traffic (this is impossible,) but actually create more intersecting situations, the cyclist will be placed more squarely in harm's way, especially when you factor in the conflux of pedestrians and others that would populate urban paths.

The simpler the laws, the safer traffic flows.

Whether you want urban paths or not, job #1 is still to make the roads safer, not build more paths. Until you do that, everyone is at risk.

DnvrFox

That is like saying - "Everyone should be honest."

That is not a plan - it is a hope.

Specifically, how would you accomplish this? High minded statements are great, but exactly HOW would YOU change the behaviors of police, legislatures, the general public so that laws would be enforced and roads would be safer (for all, not just bicyclists).

A plan, please.

It seems to me we spend time in this forum berating and making lofty statements, but no one actually has a real and viable plan.

How about it?

Richard D

Personally I think joining an advocacy group is a good idea - no it won't change things overnight, but certainly in the UK the CTC have been fairly good at fighting for cyclists. Politicians will pay more attention to a large group of potential voters than individuals.

pel-o-ton

One way to start would be with educating drivers, and where better to start than driver's education classes? My daughter just completed her level 1 training, and nothing is mentioned about cyclists sharing the road. It would take 5 minutes max to introduce this to new students. Signage at Secretary of Stat offices would help immensely as well. We all have to take tests to renew driver's licenses periodically (not often enough, IMO), and it seems about half the questions on the tests are to increase awareness. How about a question on the test? Again, minimal amount of time, and expense. I really don't think MOST motorists are aware of laws, or how to deal with bicycles sharing the road.
Not a complete answer, but a start, I think.....

Pete Clark

No, it is like saying, "If you get caught stealing, you will be prosecuted."

My "plan" starts with the idea that convincing a few fellow cyclists (and motorists) that something should be done about lawlessness on the roads will make a difference. Part of the problem is apathy, something I hope to change.

Pete Clark

Denver,

It is clear to me that you enjoy your paths, and I expect I would enjoy them, too. I do not advocate removing your paths, nor prohibiting them from being built.

But I might advocate prohibiting the building of paths like some of the kinds we have around here. Just as some believe the road is not safe for bicycling, I do not think our local paths are safe for bicycling. I am fully persuaded of this.

But this has nothing to do with the design of the paths where you live. You have no reason to be offended when I talk negatively about paths, because I am referring to an entirely different animal.

There is a world of difference between the limited-access style of path and the sidewalk style of path. I won't ride on sidewalks, and I won't ride on a path that is a sidewalk by another name.

How often do your paths have stop signs? If you had to stop as often as a cyclist on one of our paths, you would move back to Colorado. It's just impossible to build your kind of paths in my city. The only such path I know of is a recreational path that starts probably over 10 miles outside the city and stretches through rural areas to the Alabama border. But this path cannot possibly help me, since I would have to drive for a solid hour to get to it, and it could never bring me near my workplace, Kroger, haircut, bike shop, etc.

We are talking apples and oranges.

Stubacca

Pete - you're dead right there.

Denver has a great network of multi-use trails - probably the best I've ever seen. Most cities just don't have the geography or the planning to have these networks. In Brisbane, Australia where I grew up, there were some great trail segments, but not much really interconnected so they didn't seem to be used that much. It was one of those situations where public asked for more bike paths, and they certainly got 'more' bike paths - just not 'good' or 'safe' bike paths. I imagine this is a lot like the paths around you, Pete.

In Denver, if you live near a trail you can get to a lot of places on the trails, but this often takes a lot longer than taking the direct route on the roads. These trails are, and in my mind should always be, designed for recreation (i.e. primarily exercise), not to be a fantastic commuting network.

If I want to ride downtown, it's an easy 12 mile ride up the Cherry Creek Trail without a single stop. Riding to work is a different story; 11 miles on the roads, or 22 on the trails. In both cases, when riding on the trails I have to deal with a lot of foot traffic, and I have to ride slower than I would like to so that I can help to keep the trail safe for all users.

I'll stick to the roads for my commute, and ride assertively so that I can try and control my safety. I've had more close calls on the multi-use trails than I have on the roads, that's for sure!

orange

Instead of taking all the bikes off the roads, why not put twice, ten times, fifty times as many? So the cars won't be able to go 500 feet without seeing and having to deal with a bike? So people will stop thinking bikes are blocking traffic and see them as traffic?

Segregation is not the answer! Only repeated, face-to-face interaction can kill stereotypes. Make the interactions pleasant if possible, but stand up for yourself if necessary. Like so many things in life, there is only conflict here because people see it that way.

Allister

I'm sorry that you seem to have taken a somewhat defeatist attitude to bike advocacy, Denver. It's not hopeless though, and things can change. I'm not familiar with the history, but I'd hazard a guess that the creation of Denver's trails network came about partially as a result of effective advocacy from cyclists.

I'm also sorry that you underestimate the value of these fora. I ride alone most of the time. Without a site such as this and the bikeqld mailing list I'd have vitually no contact with other cyclists. This is the place where ideas are bounced around, where the pros and cons can be weighed up and a course of action can be revealed. The members can then use these ideas in their local advocacy efforts. They are also an important news source to hear about success stories from around the world. So, yes we talk about 'lofty ideals' and maybe ideals are unacheivable, but don't denegrate their importance as part of the process in achieving things such as Denver's intricate trail network.

In the meantime, we all make do with what we've got. I don't have the luxury of a trail network such as you do, so I ride on the road, and have learned the skills necessary to do so in relative safety (even off-road paths aren't perfectly safe btw.)

I wouldn't describe myself as 'young' (I'm 34), and I certainly don't suffer an immortality complex, but neither do I succumb to fear and try to remove myself from all risk. Every moment of our lives is a calculated risk and I have determined after years of practice and experience that the risk of cycling in traffic is small enough that I'll contuniue to do it. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

Maybe when and if I reach my 60's I'll sing a different tune but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it, but as it stands now I'd rather be a Rich Clark than a Denver Fox.

Or maybe it's just that the motorists aren't as psychotic here in Brisbane as they are in Denver. booyah can probably give the definitive opinioin on that one.

Stubacca

You rang?

Motorists in Denver (and the US in general) are much more psychotic than they are in Brisbane. They are impatient, obnoxious, rude and inconsiderate. They drive larger cars at much higher speeds. Stop signs are but a mere suggestion. They don’t know what a turn signal is. They think a red light means 3 more cars can go.

But….

The roads are wider; the shoulders are broader, in better repair and generally cleaner; and there are far more on-street bike lines. The most psychotic ones stick to the freeways and major arterials and give each other grief.

In general I find Denver easier to ride around on the roads than I did Brisbane. The grid layout of the city makes it a piece of cake to ride one street over and get to the same point with less traffic and less imbeciles. I’ve ridden around Salt Lake City, Nashville, Chicago and Sydney and come to much the same conclusions.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other really…. As with the discussion about road rules, most things are usually applicable to both countries.

closetbiker

More like an ill informed post.

If you read Ken's site you would have seen @

https://kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Is Cycling Dangerous?

Ken says,

" There is absolutely no way that I can furnish definite proof that bicycling is a safe activity...Nor can I do anything to reconcile my various sources of statistics. However, I think I can easily establish that cycling is much less dangerous that what the fearmongers insist and that it has compensating benefits which are more important than the risks involved...if someone tells you that bicycling is dangerous, point out that heart disease alone -- which can be prevented by riding a bicycle -- kills almost 1,000 times as many people each year."

I also agree with Rich C when he says,

"We've been around and around on the "is cycling dangerous" topic, and it's been quite thoroughly demonstrated that anyone can find statitistics to support whatever position they choose to take. So yes, it really does come down to how you feel about it, how threatened you are..."

I'd also add that to ignore the real threat to everyone (bad road use by dangerous drivers) we'll continue to to get the same results.

John C. Ratliff

Closetbiker,

You can cite all the stats you wish, but the fact is that the person your are citing is now dead. That is what has shaken up Dnvrfox. Also, it is not that we don't agree with what Ken cited. But that one fact has an impact upon us; please respect that.

I'll post more after supper, about my ideas of making my commute safer. It will be based upon today's ride too.

John

Chris L

From https://www.bicyclinglife.com/Practic...ng/VCIntro.htm

This would give lie to the fact that "cycling on the road is dangerous". We should all remember here that Ken Kifer's death would have occurred had he been on a bike, walking or in a car. In fact, from the same reference I quoted above:

The truth of the matter is that riding on bikepaths does not automatically mean one is impervious to accidents of all kinds -- and riding on roads does not automatically mean one is going to die. I myself have over 100,000km of riding in traffic behind me and have yet to suffer so much as a broken bone (and no, my luck isn't that good). Removing drunk/incompetent drivers from the road mightn't be likely, but once you've seen a few of them driving on footpaths and bikepaths (as I frequently have), you'll realise that precious little else has any chance at all of being effective.

By all means, ride on a path if you feel more comfortable there, but don't put on all this scare-mongering to try to put others off doing what is safer for them. I personally feel safer on the roads than the paths, and as such will continue to ride on the roads.

closetbiker

What stats have I cited?

I used Ken's words, endorsed Rich Clark's reasoning and said maybe we should concentrate on dangerous drivers to make things safer.

What are you saying?

John C. Ratliff

Today I did some of the counting that I talked about above, using the "auto-bicycle interaction criterion" that I defined in the earlier post. That definition says that I count a "auto-bicycle interaction" whenever a car either makes me do something, or comes within ten feet of my bicycle. When I discussed this earlier on this thread, Rich Clark said:



First, let me say that I don't feel endangered by having a car within ten feet. Those who know me know better than that. But, I am a safety professional, and I'm constantly trying new methodologies of studying different problems.

I say that ten feet is my criterion for counting the car as having an interaction with me. It can be a very slight interaction, in which I only notice the noise and air pressure changes. Or it can be a great interaction, where I must evade. I should point out that bicycle lanes typically are not wide enough to keep cars out of the ten-foot interaction area; in other words, although on a bicycle path, the cyclist and the motorist still are interacting. Many ignore this interaction unless it becomes very prominent. Most will watch closely a car that does pass within ten feet (unless they have no mirror system, in which case they may be unaware of this until it is over).

Why ten feet? That, to some, seems like a lot of space. Well, there are at least two reasons I choose ten feet.

First, because at the closing speed of most cars (in excess of 25 mph), at ten feet there is no room for reaction times. If the bicyclist falls over due to something in the road, the car probably will hit the bicyclist if he or she falls into the cars path at ten feet. Or, if the bicyclist swerves out of the way of an opening door, the car cannot react in time to avoid a collision. If the car does something weird within ten feet, the bicyclist cannot react in time to avoid a crash. Or if someone passes by, and decides to do something like was posted when someone leaned out an open door to hit the cyclist, there is no time to react (in this case though, the cyclist averted the problem by having first taken a sidewalk). If someone yells or screams, or makes a loud noise, it is much more likely to elicit a startle reflex within ten feet than outside that distance.

Second, ten feet is easy for me to estimate. I have a pretty good handle on whether a car comes within that space. In other countries, it's about 2 meters. Either way, it's an easily estimated distance, and so it is easy to keep track of cars that get into that space.

So that is my criterion, and I can set it because this is my study only. I don't pretend it to be real scientific, but it is a tool I can use daily to determine my exposure on different roadways.

Today, I used it at noon, on a ten-mile bicycle ride, and going home, on a different route than the noon ride. The noon ride started with about a half-mile of heavily trafficed road (Cornellius Pass Road), and then two country roads (West Union and Jackson Bottom Road). And I must say that it was really, really enjoyable with the weather we've had--bright sunshine all this week. Going home was on the same first portion of the road, then on backroads most of the way home.

On the noon ride, during the first section, I had 21 auto-bicycle interactions (ABIs) in about a half-mile, the second portion on the back roads was another 21 ABIs, and finally 22 on the last portion, again on the heavily trafficed road. That was a total of 54 ABIs. Most were simple interactions, with the cars just passing me. I was able to avoid a few, by keeping by bicycle away more than ten feet from the cars when it was convenient. But one stood out; I was riding up a hill, when from the top of the hill two cars were coming down, with a third pickup trying to pass them IN MY LANE. He saw me, and dived in front of the lead car with less than 30 feet to spare, at something like 60 mph! I was looking to take the ditch. So this particular ABI was significant, one we in the safety profession call a "near miss." It was particularly galling because, as I made a sweeping motion for him to get into his own lane, he gave me the wonderful birdie finger gesture.

Going home was pretty nice too, and I did have 21 ABIs in that first section. I am not too concerned about this area, because it has a good bicycle lane, but I still counted them. On the back roads home, I had very few, and ended the ride with 36 ABIs. I did see one instance of road rage, which was very peculiar as a lady was trying to back out of her driveway, and a car had to stop for her (it was going less than 25 mph), and it honked hard at her. He was having a bad day, apparently. Anyway, that was two bad drivers in the one day.

Okay, what can I do with these numbers. As I said in my earlier entry, my belief is that I would be safer with fewer of these ABIs. By counting them, I can get an estimate of the usage, and the closeness, of car-bicycle interactions. I can, if I keep this up, also determine the best times to be on the road. I can also get an idea of how many impared drivers are using the roads by my observations. For instance, I saw two today, and had 90 ABIs. That is a percentage that is at 0.022, or 2.22%.

Does that seem high? Well, maybe, but maybe not. Take a look around, on a daily basis, and start monitoring driver behavior. In safety terms, this is behavioral safety inventory information. It is looking at the percentage of unsafe behaviors verses the number of interactions. I only described the two that affected me within my study criterion. I cannot affect the unsafe behaviors I note; I can determine my exposure to them at various times, routes, etc., and look for alternatives.

All the talk of getting involved with education, with going to driver's ed classes, is good, but it will not affect the driver behaviors. These are driven by forces beyond the control of these measures. Look at TV ads for cars, and try to determine whether these are encouraging good driver behavior, or showing bad behavior as the norm. I think you'll discover that the latter is occurring. If 40,000+ deaths a year from auto accidents doesn't dent enforcement of traffic violations, what makes you think that a letter will help?

What I'm encouraging is that you look at your own cycling experience, and see what you can do right now, with your own behavior, which will lessen your chances of being injured by a car.

John

PS--Closetcyclist, the stats I was talking about turned out to be heart disease states you cited from Ken's materials; I owe you an apology on that one--my dyslexia again. 'Sorry.