spare_wheel

A road diet will typically remove a single lane, add a turn lane, and narrow the other lanes. This typically generates in an additional 13-16 feet of space without having to narrow parking to 8 feet or remove parking on one side.

CrankyOne

Fatalities are what we were discussing though and, the only element that's fairly easily compared. Dead is, usually, the same as dead.

Comparative analysis of injuries is extremely difficult (though still valuable to look at). This starts with reporting which is fairly unreliable in injury cases. Then there's an ultra-complicated issue of range of severity, from minor scrapes to stitches, broken bones, loss of limb, TBI, etc. Fortunately a good chunk of injuries are non-permanant.

We certainly want to reduce both. John will not want to admit that being struck from behind is dangerous because that throws a rather huge kink in vehicular cycling. However, if being struck from behind is anywhere close to what the LAB report indicates then we want to make sure we don't forget about the section between junctions and thus the point of my statement.

CrankyOne

If I remember correctly, the projects that John fought against in the 70's were actually very Dutch style projects, not MUPs.

CrankyOne

The bicycle network in The Netherlands is both safe and intuitive. Even children visiting from the U.S. can quickly figure it out and ride safely, without more than a few minutes instruction. More importantly, parents are comfortable with their children doing so.

In the U.S. with vehicular cycling it is highly recommended, by John and most vehicular cycling advocates, that even adults with considerable driving experience take at least traffic skills 101. Ideally the advanced traffic skills class as well. Further, these are only recommended for people 14 years and older. What about 13-year-olds? or 8-year-olds? Worse though is that few parents are even remotely comfortable, training or no training, sending their child off to ride on the same road as a 4000 lb Ford F-350 hemi driven by some guy talking on a cell phone.

So, 40 years of John's vehicular cycling has given us a society where nearly every kid rides to school on a bus while 40 years of building a good bicycling network in The Netherlands has resulted in about 79% of children throughout the country walking or riding bicycles to school. BTW, I have never seen a school bus in The Netherlands.

CrankyOne

Which brings up another element where we should be looking to Europe to solve our problems. Buses spend something like 13 times as long at stops in the U.S. as buses in Europe. This is largely due to European being pre-pay so loading is much faster. My NL Chipkaart (chip card) works on every bus, train, tram, and metro throughout The Netherlands. Similar for my Oyster card in London. The result is that buses don't need dedicated lanes or turnouts nearly as often.

Put another way, it seems quite stupid to allow buses to effectively take up 22-24' of right-of-way when this space can be much better use by bicycle riders.

John Forester

You have it all wrong, Cranky! Certainly, it is reasonable to consider LAB's actions in terms of politics, because LAB exists to sell more bicycles. The machinations of the LAB board of directors is ample proof of that. Forty years ago, or more, they decided that the best way to promote greater bicycle sales was to advocate bikeways. That's understandable. To further that goal they naturally carry on the cyclist-inferiority great exaggeration of fear of same-direction motor traffic that had originally been invented by America's motordom. That this distorts the cycling safety facts doesn't bother them at all.

You are equally wrong, but in the reverse direction, in your statement that: "John will not want to admit that being struck from behind is dangerous because that throws a rather huge kink in vehicular cycling." That is because, right from its beginning, vehicular cycling was worked out in the interests of cyclists to make cycling much safer. The welfare of cyclists is the reason for the existence of vehicular cycling. The vehicular cycling pattern of behavior is directed to counter the traffic hazards of cycling approximately according to the frequency of those hazards. The goal is to improve the welfare of American cyclists operating in the American traffic pattern; there never has been an ulterior or political or financial motive attached.

Furthermore, you ignore the fact that traffic operations are interrelated. You write: "we want to make sure we don't forget about ... " the hit from behind fatal car-bike collisions. I don't recommend forgetting them, but they must be viewed in perspective. They are 1% of the car-bike collisions that occur. The trouble with your overemphasis on them is that whatever facilities are created to prevent them end up increasing the hazards of most of the other types of car-bike collision. More generally, 5% of the car-bike collisions are caused by this traffic mechanism, while 95% are caused by turning and crossing movements by either or both parties. Facilities created to separate cyclists from same-direction motor traffic increase the difficulties and dangers associated with turning and crossing movements, ameliorating the 5% while magnifying the 95%. Designing and introducing a system that solves this problem in American urban and traffic conditions has not been solved.

John Forester

Cranky, your statements are inaccurate again, and again. You need to learn. You state that: "In the U.S. with vehicular cycling it is highly recommended, by John and most vehicular cycling advocates, that even adults with considerable driving experience take at least traffic skills 101. Ideally the advanced traffic skills class as well. Further, these are only recommended for people 14 years and older. What about 13-year-olds? or 8-year-olds?" I don't recommend Traffic Skills 101; that's an LAB program, and they don't recognize the skills required. Actually, learning to operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles is simple, because the rules are simple and intuitively understandable. This was demonstrated with classes starting at the third grade of elementary school thirty years ago, and the graduates cycled better than the average adults in the same cities. The need for teaching adult Americans is to get them to unlearn all the bad habits and debilitating fears that American motoring society has inculcated into them.

Cranky is wrong again. He states: "So, 40 years of John's vehicular cycling has given us a society where nearly every kid rides to school on a bus ... " Cranky, where's your evidence that I or my activities have changed American society in any significant way, such as establishing school-bus routes? Of course, if you actually believe that nonsense, then you should consider me the Devil Incarnate, but you really should consider the evidence for or against that nonsense. What's your answer to that?

jyl

A chip card would speed things up a bit, but most bus riders I see are not paying cash. The loading and unloading is just slow. People are slow, the bus has to kneel and rise, sometimes people are loading bikes. And the stops are way too close together - every 2 blocks on the routes in my area. Make them every four blocks, and the walk to/from the stop will be on average just 1 block longer. Still, buses will unavoidably slow traffic on a two lane road, as will deliveries, garbage pickup, parallel parking, etc.

kickstart

Walking, cycling, and driving are 3 distinct forms of transportation that are only as compatible as human nature allows and that can't be "unlearned". No amount of esoteric theories or targeted statistics will change the fact than there is no single solution. "VC", bike lanes, cycle tracks, and MUTs all have their place in making cycling a viable part of the transportation system for the average person.

yugyug

A simpler solution is to just make public transport completely free. Its typically subsided from general taxation anyway, making it free is one little step further which encourages people to use it and leave their cars at home. Loads of other social benefits too.

I-Like-To-Bike

Free! I like free.
An even simpler idea is free pizza and beer outlets for bicycle commuters, dispensed at numerous locations alongside the bike lanes throughout all cities. Perhaps in cold winter months hot chocolate or glühwein could also be offered for a warmup.

jyl

You may want to check the facts for the particular public transportation system you are thinking of. Here in Portland, our municipal bus system (Trimet) has an annual budget of $473MM, of which $102MM is funded by passenger fares, and $371MM is subsidized by the government (2012 numbers). If the bus were free, then the government would have to come up with another $102MM, and probably a bit more since increased ridership drives some increased operating costs.

Suppose we spent that $102MM on bike-related programs instead of making the bus free? Well, that would be like going to heaven as far as our bike budget is concerned. We have only about $1MM/year budget for all bike and pedestrian infrastructure projects. The actual spend ends up higher, because some specific projects get federal or state funding, and some bike improvements get done as part of roadway projects, but I think the total annual spending for all bike infrastructure is still less than $10MM/year.

So, we can make the bus free, or we can do a decade of bike infrastructure inprovements in one year. Choice? Lesson: there is no "free".

genec

John I agree that riding a bicycle according to RRFDV (Rules of the Road for Drivers of Vehicles) is indeed simple. And yes, 8 year old children can do it... the problem is mixing those 8 year old Children on to roads that are used by much older selfish "Children" that refuse to accept drivers of bicycles as valid road users, but instead view them as users of toys that are obstructing the road for the "serious people". Couple this with laws that modify the RRFDV for the sake of motor vehicle users and for the sake of high speed flow vice safety and therein is the problem.

The RRFDV is massively simple (it is practiced daily in supermakets)... but far too many motorists violate those basic rules and manage to kill 10s of thousands of people.

No doubt you have demonstrated children can be taught RRFDV... but what happens to those 8 year old children on 45 and 50 MPH 6 lane arterial roads where impatient motorists fail even to give way to pedestrians at crosswalks, much less to a small cyclist?

And please enlighten us as to why overtaking collisions are so deadly... being that an overtaking collision is a basic violation of RRFDV; to give way to slower traffic in front of you?

The core problem isn't that we need to just train cyclists, but EVERYONE as to their real responsibilities RE RRFDV.

kickstart

Even if we could train everyone and change human nature, there's still issues such as high speed differentials, human error, and the plain truth that its unpleasant to ride a 50 mph 6 lane road....I know, I do it every day. Limiting cyclists options to only RRFDV is stupid and counter productive.

John Forester

John Forester wrote: " The need for teaching [traffic cycling to] adult Americans is to get them to unlearn all the bad habits and debilitating fears that American motoring society has inculcated into them. "

Kickstart has not given us any reason why we should believe his statements about training American adult cyclists in traffic operation. I have taught many students, I have created and administered a nationwide program for doing so, I have done research on this subject. And I say that the primary reason that adult Americans, nearly all of them licensed motorists, need instruction in traffic cycling is to overcome, to unlearn, "all the bad habits and debilitating fears that American motoring society has inculcated into them". OK, Kickstart, where is your evidence that, either there is nothing to unlearn or that it is impossible to unlearn this subject (whichever meaning you think you stated)?

kickstart

Your arguments are like saying just because the thumb is the most important finger, we don't need the other four. RRFDV may be the most important thing, but its still only part of the equation, and if you don't comprehend human nature by now, nothing I can say will enlighten you.

genec

I agree... but John seems to think logically if everyone did what they are supposed to do, with regard to rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, then there should be no problems at all what so ever... of course that is as pie in the sky as thinking we well all have bike paths everywhere.

The fact is that we create roads for less than well trained drivers... and remind them of their responsibilities all the time... with markers, signs, paint and too many traffic signals... but to do the same for cyclists is somehow considered blasphemy. Yes it all complicates the transportation scene... but until we are all real followers of "rules of the road for drivers of vehicles," and not a society that is selfish which others have to respond by driving defensively in vehicles designed to protect them; we more vulnerable road users may need alternatives... or roll cages, crumple zones, seat belts and airbags... and now smart crash avoidance systems... That is just how it stacks up. Denial is just flat out head in the sand stupid.

Of course the irony is that in the not too distant future perhaps smarter cars WILL follow the rules exactly... but really that is just speculation.

John Forester

Well, then, what are these other parts of your "equation"?

kickstart

Bike lanes, cycle tracks, MUTs, sharable sidewalks, and roads where bicycles are given the right of way.

BTW, its not "my" equation, its the obvious proven truth to anyone without tunnel vision, or an ideology to defend.

kickstart

Try driving in traffic 5 mph below the ambient speed and watch how others behave around you. Yet somehow with a little education those same impatient drivers will miraculously tolerate cyclists going 30 mph under ambient speeds??? IMO, that's criminally negligent naivety.

curbtender

I always imagine a ride out into the country and feeling that the change of scenery holds a scarecrow telling me 'witch' way the yellow brick road goes.

B. Carfree

Hmm, the ambient speed may be 10 mph due to overcrowding by motorists. Under those conditions, the typical motorist is just fine with that speed even on roads posted for 65 mph maximums. However, let these same people find themselves behind a cyclist travelling at 15 mph for a few seconds and you don't think they can be trained to not go into a homicidal rage?

Sorry for the culture you find yourself living in. I've lived in regions of the US where people have been civilized enough that they could handle such things without risking people's lives, so I know it is possible. We don't need massive amounts of concrete for partial segregationist infrastructure (which still requires vigorous law enforcement to deal with those lousy intersections), we just need proper law enforcement or a large enough shock to change the culture. The student loan debt bomb may well be that shock and every thing else may just be details.

genec

When I drive it is either at or below the speed limit. I see all sorts of things. I see the impatience of many motorists.... not necessarily because I am driving slow, but because I am not trying to rush, I can observe... I see motorists "pushing and shoving;" not merging and being cooperative... what I see is a lot of close calls... situations where others have to avoid those drivers acting selfishly; those speeding and weaving, not stopping where they should while cutting off others... I see a lot of drivers doing risky things and just barely "getting away with it." Throw something "different" into that mix and there are poor reactions... and "different" can mean anything such as a slow moving construction vehicle (which is actually visible from a long way off, if you look and plan ahead and are driving at a reasonable speed to react to such things), to a cyclist, just moving along.

What I observe is a lot of poor jerky interaction... not the smooth flow of drivers acting in a cooperative fashion acting according to the rules of the road... it is more like "the rules of the jungle..." get away with whatever you can and don't get caught.

This is really exemplified when you see how drivers react in the presence of a police cruiser... suddenly everyone "plays nice." People know the rules, they know what they are supposed to do... but they selfishly choose not to do the right thing. The fact that there is such a difference, that we have to remind motorists to "watch for pedestrians when turning" are all indicators that in spite of knowing, drivers don't do the right thing.

And we should put children out there on bicycles?

kickstart

That's funny,
I'm 50, have driven professionally in all 48 and most of Canada yet I have never seen someone go into a "homicidal rage" over a minor inconvenience, a few may make bad decisions because of ignorance or impatience, but that's it.
For someone who seems to have a strong counter culture, "they did it to us" attitude, I find it odd that you advocate a police state rather than suitable facilities for everyone.........or maybe that's just some mecentric coming through.
But thats ok, we all do it sometimes, it's human nature.

spare_wheel

I see motorists passing closely or buzzing active transport fairly often. While some of these interactions are attributable to poor driving ability and/or stupidity, in many cases they do represent at least potential homicidal anger. It's banal evil.