Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > General Cycling Discussion
Reload this Page >

How are the Ebikes and Bikes Lanes in your city?

Notices
General Cycling Discussion Have a cycling related question or comment that doesn't fit in one of the other specialty forums? Drop on in and post in here! When possible, please select the forum above that most fits your post!

How are the Ebikes and Bikes Lanes in your city?

Old 11-26-23, 06:22 PM
  #76  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by 50PlusCycling
Nowadays police usually canít arrest people for driving on a suspended license, and many states have done away with habitual offender laws, so there is no point in even bothering to pull them over. If you are hit by an unlicensed driver, you can be pretty sure they are also uninsured, and that their car is likely unregistered. My brother was hit and killed while riding a bicycle, the driver was an illegal immigrant with no license, no insurance, driving a car with a fake temporary license plate. The driver wasnít arrested. I had to file a claim with my own insurance company to pay for the funeral expenses.
I frankly don't care if cops arrest people for having a suspended license -- as long as they didn't hit anyone. The problem is, as you seemingly discovered, even running people over goes unpunished regularly, and that is the problem. And that problem is entirely owned by our cops and prosecutors -- who, like I said, largely refuse to work.

Originally Posted by 50PlusCycling
It seems a large part of the American voting public donít want law and order or public safety.
Nothing could be further from the truth -- which is largely why the Republican party continues to do as well as it does, despite being culturally out of sync with most Americans. They are able to run on "Law & Order" -- even if that's unadulterated nonsense. The problem is that those voters usually don't have anyone to vote for, who actually shares their concern.

Repeated waves of flight from American cities illustrates beyond question that your premise here is completely without support.

Originally Posted by 50PlusCycling
They are fine with crumbling infrastructure and failing schools, they donít mind that entire districts in major American cities look like something from a zombie apocalypse movie.
The people that live in those districts don't vote -- and sometimes, through no fault of their own, their votes barely count.


Originally Posted by 50PlusCycling
And how wonderful it is to be able to send your kids to public schools in which nearly all kids are proficient in fundamental subjects.
The United States is number one according to the United Nation's Education Index, just for the record ( https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/e...ngs-by-country ) and its good public schools are world-class -- which is why so many of the world's top universities are also in the US.

Japan is not in the top 5 on that index -- despite having a demographic situation that should make it easy to educate their rare children.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-26-23, 07:08 PM
  #77  
Rider. Wanderer. Creator.
 
john m flores's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 689

Bikes: Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Cinelli Hobootleg, Zizzo Liberte

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 342 Post(s)
Liked 677 Times in 321 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
John, I implore you to develop the habit of reading the source material you cite. Your inability or unwillingness to do so has become repetitive, and is wasting everyone's time. That chart is not the source data. The source data is on page 20, as I already told you, and I will quote it for you:

"The New York State 2009 NHTS Comparison Report (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2012) indicates that 18.2% of trips that New Yorkers take using personal vehicles are commuting trips to work. This would indicate that potentially 536,000 (97,600/18.2%) total bicycle trips are taken each day."

365 days times 536,000 daily trips is just shy of 200M annual trips -- starting almost a decade a ago.
Funny how you're ignoring "potentially" in "potentially 536,000 (97,600/18.2%) total bicycle trips are taken each day" and simply multiplying by 365. What happened to seasonality? You do realize that New York has winters? That's a fundamental and egregious error that throws your whole argument that bicycle trips have not increased since 2015 out the window.

You're still wrong.

Originally Posted by TC1
That said, let's examine those East River bridge counts that you are so fond of: total in 2013 was 20,935. Total in 2018 was 21,033. Almost exactly the same. Yet this chart claims cycling exploded by 40% over that same span ( of time, not span of river ).
Sigh. Please note the seasonality that pisses all over your 536,000 x 365 days math. You going to admit that you're wrong yet?






Originally Posted by TC1
Furthermore, many of those count locations are on protected routes, yet no control is apparently implemented to account for those attracting cyclists from other routes, as opposed to representing actually increased cycling.
You do realize that we're talking about bridges, right? "Attracting cyclists from other routes" is a hilarious and pathetic reach in the context of bridges. What other routes are you talking about...swimming?


Originally Posted by TC1
So, again, the claimed explosion in cycling trips is simply not present in this data.
Sigh...






Originally Posted by TC1
John, buddy, try to keep up. You are the one trying to prove that construction saves lives. I am explaining to you that it does not -- and all of the data agrees with me. If one of us needs to prove causation, it is you.
Ball's in your court, buddy.
john m flores is offline  
Old 11-26-23, 07:35 PM
  #78  
NoElectricAssist
 
Bugspit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2023
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 3

Bikes: 2018 ICE SprintX w/Schlumpf 2.5 speed drive. 2020 Trek Checkpoint

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
In my area, 12 miles away from the city we have a bike lane on one of the most traveled 4lane highways in the county. This one particular lane I can count on one hand how many bikes Iíve seen on it in my 40 years of driving it. Total waste of tax dollars IMO. Plus they seldom clean it.
It does lead to a train depot and crosses another busy 4lane. At least on this route you can access a greenway which will give you a scenic route all the way to downtown.

We do have some nice greenways but what would be super is to have the bike lanes where you can easily jump on the greenways. Doing so would connect multiple neighborhoods. I guess that would make too much sense.

Personally, riding in this city would be too dangerous with or without bike lanes.
Bugspit is offline  
Old 11-26-23, 07:40 PM
  #79  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by john m flores
Funny how you're ignoring "potentially" in "potentially 536,000 (97,600/18.2%) total bicycle trips are taken each day" and simply multiplying by 365. What happened to seasonality? You do realize that New York has winters? That's a fundamental and egregious error that throws your whole argument that bicycle trips have not increased since 2015 out the window.
I am using the same methodology as your source.

Originally Posted by john m flores
You're still wrong.
If I am, then so are they. So you need to find better data -- which doesn't exist, because as I already explained, you are arguing a lost cause.

Originally Posted by john m flores
(snipped several charts for readability)
None of those charts support your claimed 34% increase in trips from 2013 to 2018. They also don't support the monotonic increase claimed in your original chart. Again, if you are going to post charts, it would behoove you to understand them first, and even better would be to find some that support your point, instead of contradicting it.

Originally Posted by john m flores
You do realize that we're talking about bridges, right?
No, we are not, we're talking about the street-level counts on pages 22 and 23 in the Appendix -- that you should've read before starting this mess. We already covered the bridges in the preceding paragraph, and moved on to the street counts. Again, try to keep up.

Finally, I note with interest that you declined to comment on the summary:

"Simplifying to wrap up, NYC hit about 200M annual bicycle trips in 2015 and had 14 fatalities, and 4896 injuries ( officially ). It reached about 220M trips last year, and had 18 fatalities, and 4949 injuries ( again, official count, not worth much ). ( All per NYC.gov bicycle crash data reports, and the aforementioned trip estimates. )"
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-26-23, 07:40 PM
  #80  
Happy With My Bikes
 
Chuck M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 2,128

Bikes: Hi-Ten bike boomers, a Trek Domane and some projects

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 841 Post(s)
Liked 2,206 Times in 1,070 Posts
I must apologize. I incorrectly stated earlier in this thread that I thought there was a potential for this to be an e-bike bashing opportunity.
__________________
"It is the unknown around the corner that turns my wheels." -- Heinz StŁcke

Chuck M is offline  
Likes For Chuck M:
Old 11-26-23, 08:28 PM
  #81  
Method to My Madness
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,453

Bikes: Trek FX 2, Cannondale Synapse, Cannondale CAAD4, Santa Cruz Stigmata GRX

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1810 Post(s)
Liked 1,364 Times in 954 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
Irvine doesn't have a particularly impressive safely record, per the League of American Bicyclists, and scores only 4.19/10 for its Engineering, and even worse for "Evaluation & Planning".
I am not sure about the BFA rankings within California.

BFA Awards Database | League of American Bicyclists (bikeleague.org)
SoSmellyAir is offline  
Old 11-26-23, 08:54 PM
  #82  
Rider. Wanderer. Creator.
 
john m flores's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 689

Bikes: Bike Friday Pocket Rocket, Cinelli Hobootleg, Zizzo Liberte

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 342 Post(s)
Liked 677 Times in 321 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
I am using the same methodology as your source.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Firstly, they used the Journey to Work data from the American Community Survey to determine what percentage of trips are commutes. Nowhere did they take the 536,000 number and multiply by 365. In fact, their 2017 estimate is based on 488,000 daily cycling trips, not 536,000 because they used a conservative estimate of 20%, not 18.2% from the NYS 2009 NHTS Comparison Report.

You are the only one multiplying 536,000 x 365. And you're wrong. And you won't admit it.

Originally Posted by TC1
Finally, I note with interest that you declined to comment on the summary:

"Simplifying to wrap up, NYC hit about 200M annual bicycle trips in 2015 and had 14 fatalities, and 4896 injuries ( officially ). It reached about 220M trips last year, and had 18 fatalities, and 4949 injuries ( again, official count, not worth much ). ( All per NYC.gov bicycle crash data reports, and the aforementioned trip estimates. )"
Because your assertion of 200M annual bicycle trips in 2015 is wrong for all the reasons stated above. Your whole argument is built on a house of cards and your unwillingness to have an honest discussion without resorting to passive aggressive ad hominem attacks is why I'm leaving this discussion and blocking you. It's a waste of time.

Apologies to all that have had to endure this.

I'll end this with a couple of tables from the US Census American Community Survey that shows that from 2010 to 2022, over twice as many bicyclists are now commuting to work.



john m flores is offline  
Old 11-26-23, 08:59 PM
  #83  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by SoSmellyAir
I am not sure about the BFA rankings within California.
I'm not either, to be honest, but city-level data is not easy to find. Another one is:

Originally Posted by https://alfresco.cityofirvine.org/alfresco/guestDownload/direct?path=/Company%20Home/Shared/PW/Active%20Transportation%20Plan/IrvineATP%20TW%20-%20Final.pdf
From 2008 to 2012, there were 293 bicycle-related collisions in Irvine, an average of 58.6 bicycle-related collisions per year. During the same period, 194 pedestrian-related collisions occurred,
an average of 38.8 pedestrian-related collisions per year. The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides statistics for victim and collision rankings based on rates of victims killed and injured per ď1,000 daily-vehicle-miles-of-travelĒ (Caltrans data) and per ď1,000 average populationĒ (Department of Finance) figures. The most recent ranking data is for collisions during 2011. The rankings for Irvine are based on 55 California cities (in its size category) with first position being the worst ranking. Out of 55 California cities, Irvine ranked 38th based on vehicle miles traveled and 28th based on average population for bicycle collisions. For pedestrian collisions, Irvine ranked 53rd based on vehicle miles traveled and 54th based on average population.
Again, not impressive ( although very good for pedestrians ).

Most of Irvine's vaunted "infrastructure" isn't really that impressive, it's mostly just unprotected bike lanes. "There are 355 miles of bike paths, 54 miles off-street and 301 miles on-street." (ibid) "85 percent of Irvineís 355-mile bikeway network is on city streets, where bicyclists ride alongside high-speed vehicular traffic with a six-inch bike lane stripe that disappears at intersections as the only buffer." (ibid)

And residents don't actually bike all that much -- "However, community input indicates that the levels of active transportation activity remain relatively low due to concern over traffic speeds, challenging pedestrian crossings,and large, auto-oriented intersections." (ibid)

So, no, not Irvine.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-26-23, 08:59 PM
  #84  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,727

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3806 Post(s)
Liked 7,009 Times in 2,834 Posts
Originally Posted by john m flores
Apologies to all that have had to endure this.
It's not your fault.
tomato coupe is offline  
Likes For tomato coupe:
Old 11-26-23, 09:11 PM
  #85  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by john m flores
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Firstly, they used the Journey to Work data from the American Community Survey to determine what percentage of trips are commutes. Nowhere did they take the 536,000 number and multiply by 365. In fact, their 2017 estimate is based on 488,000 daily cycling trips, not 536,000 because they used a conservative estimate of 20%, not 18.2% from the NYS 2009 NHTS Comparison Report.

You are the only one multiplying 536,000 x 365. And you're wrong. And you won't admit it.
So why, then, do your charts not quote daily trips? Why, exactly, do they quote annual trips? And how did they arrive at annual trips from daily? They multiplied daily trips times days in the year -- exactly like I said.

Originally Posted by john m flores
I'm leaving this discussion and blocking you. It's a waste of time.
Runaway then. Better luck next time.

Originally Posted by john m flores
I'll end this with a couple of tables from the US Census American Community Survey that shows that from 2010 to 2022, over twice as many bicyclists are now commuting to work.
"Commuting to work" is meaningless, unless you believe that a commuter's life is somehow worth more than a child's, or a shopper's, or a recreational rider's. I do not believe that. And, in evidence that a bikecommuter increase does not necessarily indicate a commensurate cyclist increase, your alleged 244% increase not supported by any of the counts, of which you were recently so proud.

Last year Was Deadliest on NYC Streets in Nearly a Decade in case anyone cares about reality, as it directly contrasts John's wishful imagination.

Last edited by TC1; 11-26-23 at 09:25 PM. Reason: added last link
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 06:10 AM
  #86  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 7,748
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4033 Post(s)
Liked 4,416 Times in 2,742 Posts
The best local town/city I can think of for relatively safe cycling is Milton Keynes (UK). They have 200 miles of purpose built bike paths (Redways) criss-crossing the city and wider area. I haven't ridden there for a few years, so can't comment on e-bike use, but I would imagine there are loads of them.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 11:43 AM
  #87  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
The best local town/city I can think of for relatively safe cycling is Milton Keynes (UK). They have 200 miles of purpose built bike paths (Redways) criss-crossing the city and wider area. I haven't ridden there for a few years, so can't comment on e-bike use, but I would imagine there are loads of them.
As it happens, there is a very in-depth article extant on those Redways -- and why "separate but equal" infrastructure never is, and why it doesn't work.

Another analysis of Milton Keynes contains the following interesting section:

Originally Posted by https://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html
It is known that many accidents involving cyclists are not reported to the Police, but this is especially the case for accidents that occur on cycle paths where fewer than 3 per cent of accidents are believed to be reported (Ref 5). In particular, accidents that do not involve a motor vehicle are rarely recorded even when serious.

In Milton Keynes this situation has been aggravated by a frequent unwillingness on the part of the Police to accept accident reports from cyclists, especially when off-road. One fatality to a cyclist was not recorded as a cycling accident.

Notwithstanding these shortcomings, the Stats 19 statistics have recorded a considerable number of Redway injuries over the years. Table 1 lists the comparative accident performance of Redways, local roads and grid roads in the new town area. Year Grid road Local road Redway 1988 13 (2) 22 (5) 13 (3) 1989 19 (2) 18 (3) 13 (3) 1990 26 (7) 13 (1) 18 (1) 1991 15 (2) 12 (0) 9 (1) 1992 12 (1) 19 (0) 17 (1) 1993 13 (1) 24 (1) 13 (1) 1994 25 (1) 16 (1) 24 (4) 1995 13 (1) 20 (0) 26 (6) 1996 16 (2) 21 (1) 10 (0) 1997 20 (3) 23 (1) 28 (4) Table 1
Cyclist accidents 1988 - 1997
(Serious and fatal in brackets)
Stats 19


There have been as many, or more, serious accidents on Redways as on grid roads in five of the past 10 years, and more than on local roads in four years.

So we find, hopefully to no one's surprise at this point, that dedicated cycling infrastructure did not work to improve safety in Milton Keynes either -- and we can add it to the list of literally every single municipality that has attempted such a strategy.


​​​​​​​
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 12:29 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1309 Post(s)
Liked 312 Times in 211 Posts
What a silly debate. Ofc cycling infrastructure and separating cyclists from motor vehicles improves cycling safety, although I'm sure lots of dedicated cycling infrastructure half a**ed to the extent of being meaningless. Ppl wont get on a bike in the first place, if its not there either.

I live in Copenhagen, Denmark. A city that has lots of good cycling infrastructure and MANY cyclists. If it wasn't there I wouldn't dare cycling in the city at all or would have to find quieter backroads, - or buy a car that I currently doesn't own or desperately need.
Racing Dan is offline  
Likes For Racing Dan:
Old 11-27-23, 01:07 PM
  #89  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 7,748
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4033 Post(s)
Liked 4,416 Times in 2,742 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
As it happens, there is a very in-depth article extant on those Redways -- and why "separate but equal" infrastructure never is, and why it doesn't work.

Another analysis of Milton Keynes contains the following interesting section:

So we find, hopefully to no one's surprise at this point, that dedicated cycling infrastructure did not work to improve safety in Milton Keynes either -- and we can add it to the list of literally every single municipality that has attempted such a strategy.

I just knew you would dredge up those articles on Google. Of course there are more bike accidents (non-fatal and most unreported) on the bike paths, but in MK you rarely see a bike on the roads because everybody rides on the Redways. MK was designed like this from the start and has resulted in a more cycle friendly culture than other neighbouring towns like Northampton, where I would imagine there are far fewer cyclists and yet more cycling fatalities. I havenít checked the stats, but Iím sure you could.

One thing you can say for sure about MK is that without the Redways it would be a horrible place to cycle. But the Redways make cycling a far more attractive proposition and I think that is reflected in the large cycling community there.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:
Old 11-27-23, 01:38 PM
  #90  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by Racing Dan
What a silly debate. Ofc cycling infrastructure and separating cyclists from motor vehicles improves cycling safety, although I'm sure lots of dedicated cycling infrastructure half a**ed to the extent of being meaningless. Ppl wont get on a bike in the first place, if its not there either.
People once also believed that "of course" the Sun orbits the Earth -- with exactly as much evidence, it should be noted. Absolutely all of the evidence we do have contradicts your wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Racing Dan
I live in Copenhagen, Denmark. A city that has lots of good cycling infrastructure and MANY cyclists.
And, just for the record, those cyclists barely ride at all. The average Copenhagener rides 3.0 km/day, which is a short stroll -- in many cities it isn't worth biking such a short distance and risking having your bike stolen, you might as well walk.

Despite that, Copenhagen averages 3 cyclists killed annually for the past decade, which doesn't compare favorably with, for example, an American city like Chicago -- which has about 5 times the population, around twice as many cyclists, about seven times the land area, and averages about 6 cyclist fatalities annually.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 01:43 PM
  #91  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,727

Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3806 Post(s)
Liked 7,009 Times in 2,834 Posts
Originally Posted by Racing Dan
What a silly debate.
Listen, and understand. TC1 is out there, he can't be bargained with, he can't be reasoned with, he doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and he absolutely will not stopÖ EVER, until you are dead!
tomato coupe is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 01:50 PM
  #92  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
I just knew you would dredge up those articles on Google.
Well good, maybe some learning is taking place here after all.

Originally Posted by PeteHski
Of course there are more bike accidents (non-fatal and most unreported) on the bike paths, but in MK you rarely see a bike on the roads because everybody rides on the Redways.
Can you explain why your claim is directly refuted by the survey referenced?

Originally Posted by https://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html
In 1993 a survey (Ref 8) asked cyclists about their accident experience in the previous year. The great majority of respondents were adults, so this section may be more indicative of adult experience than that of children.

Overall 27 per cent of respondents had suffered an injury accident on a Redway, against 6 per cent on local roads and just 3 per cent on grid roads. Damage-only crashes were also more common on Redways, with 25 cases reported against one on a grid road and none on local roads.

It might be thought that the relatively low accident rate for grid roads is because few cyclists use them and those who do so are relatively experienced. The survey suggests otherwise, as 43 per cent of respondents said that they cycle on grid roads at least once a week. It must be assumed, therefore, that these roads are regularly used by cyclists of average skill, a viewpoint confirmed by casual observation.

This survey also attempted to relate accident risk to exposure. Cyclists were asked to estimate the distance they cycle in a week on each of the three kinds of highway. Inevitably there will be a wide margin of error in these estimates, but there is no reason to believe that they favour one type of highway over another. Some cyclists were able to give a very detailed breakdown of their mileage.

Based on distance cycled and accidents suffered, Table 4 shows the relative accident performance of each type of highway, normalised in terms of accidents per million kilometres cycled.


Highway Injury accidents All accidents Grid road 31 47 Local road 149 149 Redway 166 319 Table 4
Accidents per 106 km cycled
1993 survey of cyclists

Note: These figures are amended from those
published in Traffic Engineering + ControlThis suggests that a cyclist is more than twice as likely to suffer an accident on a Redway than on an local road, with the grid roads being the least hazardous type of highway relative to distance cycled by a wide margin. Applying the same distribution criteria to the known record of fatal accidents, a cyclist is more than twice as likely to be killed whilst using a Redway as when using a grid road.


Originally Posted by https://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html
MK was designed like this from the start and has resulted in a more cycle friendly culture than other neighbouring towns like Northampton, where I would imagine there are far fewer cyclists and yet more cycling fatalities. I havenít checked the stats, but Iím sure you could.
This is already directed refuted by the first of my two original citations regarding Milton Keynes -- MK does not have greater cycling uptake than average.


Originally Posted by https://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html
One thing you can say for sure about MK is that without the Redways it would be a horrible place to cycle. But the Redways make cycling a far more attractive proposition and I think that is reflected in the large cycling community there.
Again, both claims are directed refuted by the evidence at-hand.

I understand that you all want to believe that your beloved infrastructure works. It makes you feel safer, and everyone wants to feel safe -- except for freeclimbers and a few others categories of nutjobs. That's a natural inclination. But when you allow your natural inclination to blind you to decades of unmistakable proof that such infrastructure does not work, and wastes time, money, and lives, you are no longer acting in the best interest of cyclists. I think many of you need to seriously reconsider your position with regard to cyclist safety, and ask yourselves why you are actively working against it.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 01:51 PM
  #93  
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,423
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3626 Post(s)
Liked 5,286 Times in 2,685 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
Listen, and understand. TC1 is out there, he can't be bargained with, he can't be reasoned with, he doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and he absolutely will not stop… EVER, until you are dead!
Add "not a cyclist." IIRC that was established the last time he acted up.
shelbyfv is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 02:00 PM
  #94  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by tomato coupe
Listen, and understand. TC1 is out there, he can't be bargained with, he can't be reasoned with, he doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear, and he absolutely will not stopÖ EVER, until you are dead!
Why would I stop? I have offered a challenge to this estimable group. Find one municipality anywhere on this planet that has successfully saved cyclist lives via dedicated cycling infrastructure construction.

A few people -- who I will credit at least for making an attempt -- have tried. No one has succeeded. This is not a new development -- as I mentioned, I've made this challenge before, to other groups. No one has found one yet. If dedicated cycling infrastructure actually worked, this challenge would be trivial to win. And yet, as shown here, and not for the first time, it is anything but winnable for your side.

Can you explain why, if such infrastructure works, why it is so incredibly hard for y'all to find even one example of such?

Can you explain why, since it doesn't work, we should continue to waste time, money, and lives pouring trillions of gallons and paint and concrete, which have no positive effect, instead of pursuing other strategies that do work?

Or, are you just going to stick with pathetic little snide comments that add nothing to the discussion?
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 02:01 PM
  #95  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by shelbyfv
Add "not a cyclist." IIRC that was established the last time he acted up.
How so, exactly? I realize that ad hominem attacks are all you've got left here, but I'm curious how this was "established" other than by more of the wishful thinking displayed on this topic.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 02:01 PM
  #96  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 7,748
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4033 Post(s)
Liked 4,416 Times in 2,742 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1

I understand that you all want to believe that your beloved infrastructure works. It makes you feel safer, and everyone wants to feel safe -- except for freeclimbers and a few others categories of nutjobs. That's a natural inclination. But when you allow your natural inclination to blind you to decades of unmistakable proof that such infrastructure does not work, and wastes time, money, and lives, you are no longer acting in the best interest of cyclists. I think many of you need to seriously reconsider your position with regard to cyclist safety, and ask yourselves why you are actively working against it.
I think you should come to MK and be forced to ride on the roads there instead of the bike paths. I'm sure we could set up a funding page for that.

The fundamental problem with cycling in many places is that most people are simply not interested in cycling. But for those that are, bike paths like the ones in MK are a far better proposition than the local roads. I've ridden around them enough times to make my own conclusions. But as you have proved there is always someone or some group that will complain about anything. For example there are people who actually write to complain that the MK bike paths are not all straight grid lines.
PeteHski is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 02:14 PM
  #97  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteHski
I think you should come to MK and be forced to ride on the roads there instead of the bike paths. I'm sure we could set up a funding page for that.
I'm game, if you all want to fly me around. I already ride the roads in my area, though, and I doubt they are completely different.

Originally Posted by PeteHski
The fundamental problem with cycling in many places is that most people are simply not interested in cycling.
No, that's no the fundamental problem. See, for example, the field report from Japan a few pages earlier in this thread. They addressed the fundamental problem which is that some road users are disinclined to cooperate safely with others. Japan provided the motivation for those selfish road users to change their behavior -- free prison time if they don't -- and as a result, cycling safety is greatly improved.

Imagine that you were the only cyclist in your country, and everyone else was "simply not interested" in cycling. But also imagine that self-driving vehicle technology was sufficiently developed as to make it impossible for a motor vehicle to strike a cyclist. Would the fact that no one else cared about cycling be "the fundamental problem"? No. You could ride anywhere in perfect safety ( well, unless you ran into a tree ).


Originally Posted by PeteHski
But for those that are, bike paths like the ones in MK are a far better proposition than the local roads.
Maybe they are more scenic, but they are not safer according to the data we've got so far.

Originally Posted by PeteHski
I've ridden around them enough times to make my own conclusions. But as you have proved there is always someone or some group that will complain about anything. For example there are people who actually write to complain that the MK bike paths are not all straight grid lines.
Everyone should be complaining about time, money, and lives being wasted on strategies that have failed in every instance.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 02:30 PM
  #98  
Senior Member
 
Racing Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,202
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1309 Post(s)
Liked 312 Times in 211 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
Why would I stop? I have offered a challenge to this estimable group. Find one municipality anywhere on this planet that has successfully saved cyclist lives via dedicated cycling infrastructure construction.

A few people -- who I will credit at least for making an attempt -- have tried. No one has succeeded. This is not a new development -- as I mentioned, I've made this challenge before, to other groups. No one has found one yet. If dedicated cycling infrastructure actually worked, this challenge would be trivial to win. And yet, as shown here, and not for the first time, it is anything but winnable for your side.

Can you explain why, if such infrastructure works, why it is so incredibly hard for y'all to find even one example of such?

Can you explain why, since it doesn't work, we should continue to waste time, money, and lives pouring trillions of gallons and paint and concrete, which have no positive effect, instead of pursuing other strategies that do work?

Or, are you just going to stick with pathetic little snide comments that add nothing to the discussion?
Sure! :-) Go ride your bike on the freeway or use the bike path next to it. While your at it, take your kids and wife too ;-)

(cant be bothered digging for statistics that I'm sure you'll insta-reject and counter with more frivolous comparisons and stats)

-> Everybody, Stay safe and wear a helmet (even if you can statistically "prove" helmets are a scam, made up by tree huggers and George Soros! ... haha
Racing Dan is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 02:43 PM
  #99  
TC1
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2023
Location: Illinois
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 115 Times in 74 Posts
Originally Posted by Racing Dan
Sure! :-) Go ride your bike on the freeway or use the bike path next to it. While your at it, take your kids and wife too ;-)
Well it's not currently legal to ride on freeways, and there's not much point anyway, except in places like Colorado where they are sometimes the only route across the mountains. The whole point of freeways is that one can travel at high-speed, and you're not reaching those speeds on a bicycle. That said, if we stopped wasting time, money, and lives on building ineffective dedicated cycling infrastructure, and instead fixed the actual problem of road user behavior, those interstates with their tremendous sight lines, slight grades, and wide shoulders would be perfectly safe to ride, and would open up a whole new class of bike travel -- almost for free.

But who wants that, right? Let's instead continue to throw away time, money, and lives on construction that has never worked yet, anywhere on the planet.

Originally Posted by Racing Dan
(cant be bothered digging for statistics that I'm sure you'll insta-reject and counter with more frivolous comparisons and stats)
The pride in ignorance exhibited by many here is alarming, and sad. I did not expect to find that bikeforums.net was a harbor for so much of the internet's anti-intellectualism and anti-education sentiment.
TC1 is offline  
Old 11-27-23, 02:47 PM
  #100  
Expired Member
 
shelbyfv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: TN
Posts: 11,423
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3626 Post(s)
Liked 5,286 Times in 2,685 Posts
Originally Posted by TC1
How so, exactly? I realize that ad hominem attacks are all you've got left here, but I'm curious how this was "established" other than by more of the wishful thinking displayed on this topic.
Are you now saying you do ride a bike some significant amount? I'm not going to search prior threads and I did say "IIRC." Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
shelbyfv is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.