I have a dream for the future of bicycle transportation - What's yours?
08-29-13, 12:19 PM
#26
Senior Member
The reference to "the laws of physics" is totally irrelevant. The purpose of the rules of the road is to achieve reasonable mobility with reasonable safety, meaning the prevention of collisions. If the purpose of the rule is to prevent collisions, it doesn't matter which party is affected at that moment, the heavier or the lighter.
The idea that motorists risk colliding with bicyclists because the motorist is not likely to be hurt in such a collision is pure fiction, except for a very few psychopaths. No normal motorist wants to go through all the troubles that will pile up on him through colliding with a cyclist, certainly not for the pleasure of hitting the cyclist.
The idea that motorists risk colliding with bicyclists because the motorist is not likely to be hurt in such a collision is pure fiction, except for a very few psychopaths. No normal motorist wants to go through all the troubles that will pile up on him through colliding with a cyclist, certainly not for the pleasure of hitting the cyclist.
But with years commuting with MC in various cities and a couple by bicycle, I think it is below the conscious choice level. I think that out threat detection is faster and lower level then our cognition. So it's not a matter of "I really splatter him." it is more of a matter "Gee officer, I just didn't see him..."
08-29-13, 12:36 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,707
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5781 Post(s)
Liked 2,576 Times
in
1,427 Posts
All this doesn't even consider the added complexity and hazards of intersections that parallel paths introduce.
There is no one easy answer to road (mixed or separate) safety, there is only common sense self preservation and respect for other traffic.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
08-29-13, 12:44 PM
#29
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Looks like Americans in general have had enough of driving... and are seeking alternatives or are just avoiding driving altogether...
https://news.yahoo.com/stats-show-ame...071610428.html
We may be closer to the dream that the OP has. Certainly we appear to be beyond the dream of everybody needing a car, and suburbia being the ultimate destination.
https://news.yahoo.com/stats-show-ame...071610428.html
After rising for decades, total vehicle use in the U.S. — the collective miles people drive — peaked in August 2007. It then dropped sharply during the Great Recession and has largely plateaued since, even though the economy is recovering and the population growing. Just this week the Federal Highway Administration reported vehicle miles traveled during the first half of 2013 were down slightly, continuing the trend.
Researchers are divided on the reasons behind the trends. One camp says the changes are almost entirely linked to the economy. In a few years, as the economy continues to recover, driving will probably bounce back, they reason. At the same time, they acknowledge there could be long-term structural changes in the economy that would prevent a return to the levels of driving growth seen in the past; it's just too soon to know.
The other camp acknowledges that economic factors are important but says the decline in driving also reflects fundamental changes in the way Americans view the automobile. For commuters stuck in traffic, getting into a car no longer correlates with fun. It's also becoming more of a headache to own a car in central cities and downright difficult to park.
"The idea that the car means freedom, I think, is over," said travel behavior analyst Nancy McGuckin.
Lifestyles are also changing. People are doing more of their shopping online. More people are taking public transit than ever before. And biking and walking to work and for recreation are on the rise.
Researchers are divided on the reasons behind the trends. One camp says the changes are almost entirely linked to the economy. In a few years, as the economy continues to recover, driving will probably bounce back, they reason. At the same time, they acknowledge there could be long-term structural changes in the economy that would prevent a return to the levels of driving growth seen in the past; it's just too soon to know.
The other camp acknowledges that economic factors are important but says the decline in driving also reflects fundamental changes in the way Americans view the automobile. For commuters stuck in traffic, getting into a car no longer correlates with fun. It's also becoming more of a headache to own a car in central cities and downright difficult to park.
"The idea that the car means freedom, I think, is over," said travel behavior analyst Nancy McGuckin.
Lifestyles are also changing. People are doing more of their shopping online. More people are taking public transit than ever before. And biking and walking to work and for recreation are on the rise.
08-29-13, 01:00 PM
#30
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
With all due respect, thinking that motor vehicle collision is a primary cause of cyclist death and sever injury, is also a fools game. Cyclists manage to crash and kill themselves very well without any help from cars. Add to that the narrowness of many cycle tracks, the hard turns, the failure to keep them clerared of sand or silt that rains wash onto them, and the lowered guard that many cyclists bring to the path, and you have a recipe for a roadway as dangerous as the mixed use roads.
All this doesn't even consider the added complexity and hazards of intersections that parallel paths introduce.
There is no one easy answer to road (mixed or separate) safety, there is only common sense self preservation and respect for other traffic.
All this doesn't even consider the added complexity and hazards of intersections that parallel paths introduce.
There is no one easy answer to road (mixed or separate) safety, there is only common sense self preservation and respect for other traffic.
Contrary to your opinion, various reports show that for adult cyclists, it is usually the driver at fault and not risky behaviour or skidding on sand, or that sort of thing.
With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.
"We believe this report strongly supports our view that the biggest problem for cyclists is bad driving. With that in mind we are greatly concerned that the government still seems fascinated with analysing and promoting cycle helmets, the value of which appears to be inconclusive. We believe that the government should now focus on tackling the causes of injury which appears to be mainly inconsiderate and dangerous driving. Reduced speed limits, stronger traffic law enforcement and cycle-friendly road design are the solutions."
Just over 15% of all such accidents involved the cyclist alone.
Motorists usually at fault. The NYC group Right of Way says: "After NYC cycling fatalities increased twofold in 1999, police rushed to cover their, er, reputation by claiming (without analysis or supporting data) that cyclists are to blame in 75% of cycling deaths. Right of Way took a closer look. Surprise! The truth is just the reverse, as listed in our report, The Only Good Cyclist (PDF)." According to Right of Way, over 90% of pedestrian deaths in NYC are the fault of drivers. And research from Toronto shows the same thing for car-bike crashes.
08-29-13, 01:16 PM
#31
----
08-29-13, 02:03 PM
#32
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
I think when it comes to cycling infrastructure, I would like to see more bike highways... paths designed for cyclists to avoid intersections, that allow for high speed "cross town" transit, very similar, albeit scaled to cyclists, to what motorists use.
But at the same time I expect to mix with motor traffic at speeds that easily favor mixing both bikes and cars.
08-29-13, 02:30 PM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Lancaster, PA, USA
Posts: 1,851
Bikes: 2012 Trek Allant, 2016 Bianchi Volpe Disc
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I recently switched part of my commute route to riding on MUPs through two local parks. It cuts out a hill and one of the busier stretches of road. It does take a bit longer, since I can't ride at 20mph with joggers and dog walkers sharing the path, but it is much more pleasant and I can turn down my personal radar a bit.
I am all for road rights, since there will never be a path going from my house to the office, but I would be happy to see a longer-distance bike highway system.
I am all for road rights, since there will never be a path going from my house to the office, but I would be happy to see a longer-distance bike highway system.
08-29-13, 02:43 PM
#34
Senior Member
I recently switched part of my commute route to riding on MUPs through two local parks. It cuts out a hill and one of the busier stretches of road. It does take a bit longer, since I can't ride at 20mph with joggers and dog walkers sharing the path, but it is much more pleasant and I can turn down my personal radar a bit.
I am all for road rights, since there will never be a path going from my house to the office, but I would be happy to see a longer-distance bike highway system.
I am all for road rights, since there will never be a path going from my house to the office, but I would be happy to see a longer-distance bike highway system.
08-29-13, 03:35 PM
#35
----
The bike trails I take are faster than the roads. I am re posting this link from earlier in this thread. Zoom out and follow the path to the south and this in one such bike highway. Before it ends, it only crosses two vehicular streets at street level, but those are secondary's with only stop signs on the bike path. https://api.viglink.com/api/click?for...13778090445706
I ride full speed on the MUP's because during the week when I use them most they are not that crowded with pedestrians. I slow down for them , but they are sparse enough that I doesn't slow me down much. On the weekends there are more walkers, joggers and dog walkers, but it still is not a problem. If it was I would advocate widening the bike paths to allow room for sidewalks. Then MUP could go from being a dirty word to an obsolete one.
I ride full speed on the MUP's because during the week when I use them most they are not that crowded with pedestrians. I slow down for them , but they are sparse enough that I doesn't slow me down much. On the weekends there are more walkers, joggers and dog walkers, but it still is not a problem. If it was I would advocate widening the bike paths to allow room for sidewalks. Then MUP could go from being a dirty word to an obsolete one.
I bought my home near Boston because it was near a bike path that takes both me and my wife almost directly to our respective places of employ. I can shave off a couple of miles and a few minutes by taking to the streets if I need to but I much prefer the path. Granted I don't commute in Boston in the summer months when it's crowded but much of the rest of the year I have it all to myself- especially in inclement weather.
And sure, we'll still have to use streets and roads to get to even the best of paths, that goes without saying. I have no problem at all cycling on virtually any road, I love roads if there are no motor vehicles on them.
08-30-13, 12:34 PM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
I believe that bicyclists already enjoy more privileges in traffic than drivers of cars, and 'equality' would be a step down. That's the way it should be. In fact I believe that bicyclists should receive more privileges to make cycling even more superior and more attractive compared to driving.
I believe that some of the privileges that many cyclists already enjoy should be codified in the law. Namely, I believe cyclists should have the explicit right to treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs, as long as they don't violate the rights-of-way of other road users. I believe this would be a lot more important and useful of a change for cyclists than eliminating a requirement to move right when 'practicable' to facilitate passing, which is something most experienced cyclists do anyway and don't have a problem with. I believe those who do have problems with their lane-taking are a very small, but unfortunately very loud and insistent, subset of cyclists. I believe that a little finesse and more intensive route-finding can eliminate just about all lane-taking issues, and that laws which already allow cyclists to take lanes just about any time they feel the need to are probably adequate.
I believe that some of the privileges that many cyclists already enjoy should be codified in the law. Namely, I believe cyclists should have the explicit right to treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs, as long as they don't violate the rights-of-way of other road users. I believe this would be a lot more important and useful of a change for cyclists than eliminating a requirement to move right when 'practicable' to facilitate passing, which is something most experienced cyclists do anyway and don't have a problem with. I believe those who do have problems with their lane-taking are a very small, but unfortunately very loud and insistent, subset of cyclists. I believe that a little finesse and more intensive route-finding can eliminate just about all lane-taking issues, and that laws which already allow cyclists to take lanes just about any time they feel the need to are probably adequate.
08-30-13, 12:43 PM
#38
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,972
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,536 Times
in
1,045 Posts
I believe those who do have problems with their lane-taking are a very small, but unfortunately very loud and insistent, subset of cyclists. I believe that a little finesse and more intensive route-finding can eliminate just about all lane-taking issues, and that laws which already allow cyclists to take lanes just about any time they feel the need to are probably adequate.
08-30-13, 12:45 PM
#39
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
Of course, I do exactly what you prescribe. However, this is a dream thread and it just doesn't seem like an effective long term strategy.
08-30-13, 12:46 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,621
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
12 Posts
The reference to "the laws of physics" is totally irrelevant. The purpose of the rules of the road is to achieve reasonable mobility with reasonable safety, meaning the prevention of collisions. If the purpose of the rule is to prevent collisions, it doesn't matter which party is affected at that moment, the heavier or the lighter.
The idea that motorists risk colliding with bicyclists because the motorist is not likely to be hurt in such a collision is pure fiction, except for a very few psychopaths. No normal motorist wants to go through all the troubles that will pile up on him through colliding with a cyclist, certainly not for the pleasure of hitting the cyclist.
The idea that motorists risk colliding with bicyclists because the motorist is not likely to be hurt in such a collision is pure fiction, except for a very few psychopaths. No normal motorist wants to go through all the troubles that will pile up on him through colliding with a cyclist, certainly not for the pleasure of hitting the cyclist.
08-30-13, 01:49 PM
#41
Senior Member
+1. Maybe in Colorado and Washington first. They seem to be the only ones lately using reason.
08-30-13, 02:37 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,707
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5781 Post(s)
Liked 2,576 Times
in
1,427 Posts
Actually, I believe this or something very similar is already the law in a few states. If memory serves (and that's iffy these days) it might be Idaho or Montana.
But in many other states it's already the virtual equivalent of law, since a cyclists has to got out of his way to get cited for running a red light or stop sign. Here in metro NY (though not in Manhattan or Brooklyn) the cops take a no harm, no foul attitude toward cyclists at intersections. As one cop explained to me, he doesn't have to enforce the red light law for cyclists, Mother nature does it for him.
But in many other states it's already the virtual equivalent of law, since a cyclists has to got out of his way to get cited for running a red light or stop sign. Here in metro NY (though not in Manhattan or Brooklyn) the cops take a no harm, no foul attitude toward cyclists at intersections. As one cop explained to me, he doesn't have to enforce the red light law for cyclists, Mother nature does it for him.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
08-30-13, 02:53 PM
#43
----
I believe that bicyclists already enjoy more privileges in traffic than drivers of cars, and 'equality' would be a step down. That's the way it should be. In fact I believe that bicyclists should receive more privileges to make cycling even more superior and more attractive compared to driving.
I believe that some of the privileges that many cyclists already enjoy should be codified in the law. Namely, I believe cyclists should have the explicit right to treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs, as long as they don't violate the rights-of-way of other road users. I believe this would be a lot more important and useful of a change for cyclists than eliminating a requirement to move right when 'practicable' to facilitate passing, which is something most experienced cyclists do anyway and don't have a problem with. I believe those who do have problems with their lane-taking are a very small, but unfortunately very loud and insistent, subset of cyclists. I believe that a little finesse and more intensive route-finding can eliminate just about all lane-taking issues, and that laws which already allow cyclists to take lanes just about any time they feel the need to are probably adequate.
I believe that some of the privileges that many cyclists already enjoy should be codified in the law. Namely, I believe cyclists should have the explicit right to treat red lights like stop signs and stop signs like yield signs, as long as they don't violate the rights-of-way of other road users. I believe this would be a lot more important and useful of a change for cyclists than eliminating a requirement to move right when 'practicable' to facilitate passing, which is something most experienced cyclists do anyway and don't have a problem with. I believe those who do have problems with their lane-taking are a very small, but unfortunately very loud and insistent, subset of cyclists. I believe that a little finesse and more intensive route-finding can eliminate just about all lane-taking issues, and that laws which already allow cyclists to take lanes just about any time they feel the need to are probably adequate.
Originally Posted by RobertHurst
Both********** Both********************?
I think you just blew my mind.
I think you just blew my mind.
08-30-13, 03:14 PM
#44
----
I have watched as many roadways that previously had so little motorized traffic that taking the lane wasn't an issue became so busy with motorists that few if any cyclists would ride on them (and when one does it is difficult for motorists to pass because of oncoming traffic). Sure, we may have passed "peak car", but that doesn't help me much when the miles driven are shrinking somewhere else but growing where I want to ride. Your approach just puts off the day of reckoning as we get shunted off to ever smaller margins.
Of course, I do exactly what you prescribe. However, this is a dream thread and it just doesn't seem like an effective long term strategy.
Of course, I do exactly what you prescribe. However, this is a dream thread and it just doesn't seem like an effective long term strategy.
This is why I suggest a two pronged approach- improvements to existing infrastructure by making certain roadways more conducive to cyclists, adding infrastructure that specifically addresses the needs of cyclists, including bike lanes, separated and non-separated, bike paths and bike "thruways" (much like Genec describes). Bike infrastructure, which runs alongside highways and roadways that are either currently prohibited to bikes or awful to ride on is something I wouldn't mind. And the second part of this is increases in our rights to the road, much like RobertHurst describes. Sensible rights that are more accepting, cognizant and accomodating of the unique characteristics of bicycle travel.
08-30-13, 03:51 PM
#45
Senior Member
08-30-13, 05:04 PM
#46
----
Here is an example of that in San Diego CA https://goo.gl/maps/ryxZu
Now that's what I'm talkin' about!
And they said, it couldn't be done!
PS Here's a link with some pertinent info about transportational dreams of the future with a link with ways of hopefully making some of these dreams a reality.
https://www.bikeleague.org/content/ol...an-falls-short
Last edited by buzzman; 08-30-13 at 06:26 PM.
08-30-13, 11:10 PM
#47
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
Here is an example of that in San Diego CA https://goo.gl/maps/ryxZu
08-30-13, 11:21 PM
#48
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
Your post is further evidence of a contention I have made in other threads- the bulk of the issues cyclists face are due to increases in population, concurrent increases in the number of motor vehicles, all on infrastructure that is maxed out. "Educating" motorists and cyclists in "take the lane" theories won't solve the problems of traffic congestion and inadequate infrastructure.
This is why I suggest a two pronged approach- improvements to existing infrastructure by making certain roadways more conducive to cyclists, adding infrastructure that specifically addresses the needs of cyclists, including bike lanes, separated and non-separated, bike paths and bike "thruways" (much like Genec describes). Bike infrastructure, which runs alongside highways and roadways that are either currently prohibited to bikes or awful to ride on is something I wouldn't mind. And the second part of this is increases in our rights to the road, much like RobertHurst describes. Sensible rights that are more accepting, cognizant and accomodating of the unique characteristics of bicycle travel.
This is why I suggest a two pronged approach- improvements to existing infrastructure by making certain roadways more conducive to cyclists, adding infrastructure that specifically addresses the needs of cyclists, including bike lanes, separated and non-separated, bike paths and bike "thruways" (much like Genec describes). Bike infrastructure, which runs alongside highways and roadways that are either currently prohibited to bikes or awful to ride on is something I wouldn't mind. And the second part of this is increases in our rights to the road, much like RobertHurst describes. Sensible rights that are more accepting, cognizant and accomodating of the unique characteristics of bicycle travel.
I think your two pronged approach, which I like, is better as three prongs. Clearly, we need to fight to avoid losing our right to use the road, and not just in theory. On the infrastructure enhancements, those probably should be split into those that are common and well accepted and those that generate a bit more heat and division. In the former group, I would put bike lanes (but not door-zone bike lanes), totally separated bike paths with minimal intersections and shoulder enhancements. In the latter group I would put cycletracks, sidepaths and some of the creative intersection treatments like bike boxes. If we focus our energies where we have widespread agreement, we are less likely to argue ourselves into nothing at all.
08-31-13, 11:47 AM
#49
Senior Member
I hope large vehicles run on a separate lane secured by dividers. They are too dangerous and scary--blind spots, wide body, often high speed...and fatal.
08-31-13, 10:43 PM
#50
Senior Member
I looked down the road a bit and it appeared that the accommodation for bikes ended at the next ramp (Santo Rd). Is that correct? It also appeared to start at the prior on ramp. That's a pretty small step. Again, the motorists get a freeway and the nonmotorists get a segment that begins at one ramp and ends at the next.