Machka 

Pardon me??? What in the world are you talking about?

Rowan

If the cap fits, wear it. And you do well.

Rowan

Why do you use such confrontational language? I asked you a question about Seville specifically. Every country is still going through the after-effects of the GFC. The US, Australia, Great Britain... but Spain, Portugal and Greece are portrayed as the economic basket-cases of Europe right now.

You don't want to see that there are practical barriers to the changes you want to impose on the rest of the world and then turn abusive with confrontational language when you don't get what you want. Frankly, I've come across one or two of that type of advocate, and their opinions become devalued every time they put fingers to keyboards or open their mouths.

What has been explained in this thread is that the political will depends on the people who elect members of government at federal, state and local levels. Right now in places such as North America and Australia and Britain, those people see other priorities that need addressing. If you cannot answer the questions raised by that, then your campaign to have separated/segregated/protected bike lanes won't achieve much.

I will ask you, as I have asked Roody: Do you participate in any worthwhile, direct meetings with decision-makers on what you think should be developed in your community, as regards cycling facilities? Things such as bicycle advisory committees attached to local councils? Submissions to government on road developments?

This is not a competition. It's a discussion between people who mostly have displayed a mature approach to the subject as it affects them

I thought we might have turned a corner with you. Evidently not.

By the way, Machka and I have been to Amsterdam and actually experienced their cycling infrastructure. As we have in Paris, wider France, Germany and Britain. Have you?

Rowan

Specific examples exactly as you have quoted, please.

Rowan

And I repeat, as I have said before:

Every road is a bike path.

Think about it.

Rowan

On your first point, Hobart has a one-way traffic system that should and occasionally does help cyclists. Launceston in the north of the state is likewise. In fact, Melbourne and Adelaide and Perth have similar.

The constraints in Hobart are similar to those in London. We're talking about inner city and just outside. There are constraints imposed by terrain and property boundaries.

Your last point is as critical as bike lanes or wider shared lanes or whatever. The speed limit in many of the villages and in parts of Paris we cycle through was around 40km/h. This as well as that legal responsibility issue discussed earlier go a long way to controlling driver behaviour and engendering respect for other road users. Street furniture also played a role -- things such as roundabouts, and narrowing of roads.

Ekdog

That's what people of a certain ilk were repeating ad nauseam in my city. Fortunately, a decision was made to ignore them and just go ahead and build a complete network of bike lanes. We realized that what these naysayers wanted with all of their foot dragging, gradualism and dire predictions was to either stop the project altogether or allow us to build just one or two disconnected lanes, knowing that this would be a colossal failure which they could later point to and say, "We told you so. People don't want this kind of infrastructure. They don't want to cycle. There's no cycling tradition here. It's too hot. The streets are too narrow. Blah, blah, blah..."

contango 

It would be nice if traffic were more restricted than it is in the city centres. The trouble is the city centre is where the retail outlets are, and the retail outlets need to be restocked. So one way or another you've got to have delivery vehicles in town. Then when you've got construction going on you need some hefty motor vehicles to deal with the construction. When you've got business parks you need to be able to use some form of transport that works for bulky equipment and it just isn't a sensible option to expect people to shift equipment that is some combination of bulky/expensive/delicate on public transport and then carry it for the last mile or so. And buses can't stop outside every single business. Finally you need a means for people to get around if they are physically incapable of walking very far or using a bicycle or other personal transport.

The roads would be a lot more pleasant to cycle if they weren't choked with cars but the chances are the net effect would be to kill the city completely. It's hard to see a city surviving if construction/renovation couldn't take place, if retail outlets couldn't be restocked etc. It might represent an improvement to require people to park outside of the city and then use some form of park-and-ride to get into the city but then you'd need to find enoug land to build parking areas big enough to make the whole thing work.

I remember driving on US13 in northern Virginia - it had two lanes in both directions with a strip of grass dividing them (what we'd call a dual carriageway over here), was dead straight as far as I could see in both directions, and there wasn't another thing moving as far as I could see in both directions. Compared to our motorways it was quite something to be able to spend more time enjoying the views than looking at the road, knowing that if I drifted one way the fart strips would alert me and if I drifted the other way the markers between the lanes would alert me, and there wasn't anything else around that I might run into.

contango 

In the interests of disclosure, I own a car that's a few days short of 20 years old and which I've owned for 14 years, and it does maybe 2500 miles in an average year (that's the total mileage that my wife and I do - we only have the one car). I usually cover ~3000 miles a year on my bike. My wife prefers to use the car for social engagements that are relatively local - while I'd take the bike for anything up to about 10 miles she doesn't go as fast as me and doesn't want to arrive hot and sweaty.

katsrevenge

And yet that kind of thinking has kept the active biker types to mostly young, male and fairly fit. Riding with 45+ MPH traffic does not appeal to many females, those with fitness lacks or those who are older. (that said, there will always be a few outliers, but for the most part, this holds true with what research has been done.)

Roody

I'm assuming that construction and delivery vehicles would be allowed in a carfree city center. Also emergency vehicles and transport for people with medical needs. Park&Ride lots will be a challenge, but really it's a matter of shifting the parking burden from a congested area to an area with more space and cheaper land values. I imagine a lot of commuters would choose to commute from their homes rather than park in a lot n the fringes.

I think at least one of the world's largest cities will be going this route within 15 or 20 years. It might be London...

Machka 

I'm a female who has been riding on city streets since she was 6 years old. I grew up in a cycling family (both parents cycled). Bicycles are vehicles of the road, and therefore, that's where we all rode. And not only my family, but all my friends as well.

I don't think it is the lack of cycling infrastructure that discourages females from cycling ... I think it is the parents, the education system, society.

Cycling is not seen as "lady-like" ... and if you insist on being a female who cyclists, the appropriate bicycle is an upright step-through with a cute basket and flowers and ribbons so that you can maintain some semblance of being "lady-like". Females are not seen as being strong enough to cycle ... this came up in the early days of the Paris-Brest-Paris where it was thought that if a female cycled that distance she would surely die.

But some of us women know all of that is just rubbish. We don't have to be "lady-like" in today's society and we are indeed strong enough to ride long distances and maintain a decent speed. We just need to get the word out.

contango 

Thinking about London it would be nice if there could be a massive reduction in motor traffic moving about, but if we're still going to have heavy lorries, all the current buses plus a load of park-and-ride buses, coaches, construction traffic, taxis etc it's hard to know if life would actually be much nicer.

Given the proportion of fatal accidents involving cyclists that also involve large vehicles where the truck or similar turns left while a cyclist is close beside them, either crushing them against railings or dragging them under the rear wheels, it's hard to know whether life would be any better while such large vehicles are allowed on narrow roads.

katsrevenge

I ride 'step throughs' because I'm short and I wear skirts. I'd nut myself on most diamond frames and fall over trying to get my skirt off the seat tip. Been there, done it, no thanks. As for being strong enough... why is that even an issue? We aren't riding the Tour de France here... we are running errands! There is more to it then just strength, too. My fiancée can dead lift me but won't ride in the road unless he has too. He has a lazy eye and that interferes with his depth perception just enough so that he is uncomfortable in the road.

And, again you'd be the exception to the rule. MOST women do not want to ride in the streets in specialized spandex outfits on hunched over race-style bikes. I fall right into the 'most women' crowd. I have no interest in fighting with cars for my 'right' to the road, breathing exhaust and looking like my clothes came from a colorblind person's closet from 1983. I just want to go to the store and maybe even enjoy the ride. Tall order, i know.

The data backs me up here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/ny...anted=all&_r=0
There is a reason for that:
NYC DOT - Bicyclists - Cycling safety and women cycling
Increased Comfort = More Women Biking | League of American Bicyclists
And still more...
Women on bikes encourage biking safety and in turn, bike lanes or other bike infrastructure.
Public Biking and Female Visibility | Sustainable Cities Collective
Bike Shares bring more women riders..
Why bike sharing could get more women riding in Seattle | Crosscut.com

And so it goes. You build it, they will come.

ro-monster

There's a simple way to make room for bikes on streets, even narrow streets, one that will at the same time mitigate the most common cause of bike-car collisions in urban areas. All you have to do is prohibit on-street parking. This has the added benefit of making driving a less attractive transportation choice.

Machka 

We do agree then, @katsrevenge

For those of us cyclists who use the roads and other facilities to run errands, commute, train, race, ride long distances, ride recreationally, etc., etc. ... for those of us who are strong and active male or female cyclists, who are out there on a regular basis riding bicycles suitable to the task, and wearing comfortable kit suitable to our sort of cycling ... for those of us who enjoy travel and exploration and adventure, and generally having fun on our bicycles ...


For those who prefer to toodle around doing a bit of this and that at slower speeds ...


My suggestions have something for everyone.

ro-monster

I started reading this summary, which is one of the links in the thread I mentioned. I like it better than the study we've been discussing, because the authors take care to point out areas where there is just not enough data to draw firm conclusions and the body of data they look at is much larger. While I haven't encountered anything that would be a big surprise to anyone that knows a bit about infrastructure and public policy, it is an interesting read. In some areas it does support the ideas put forth in the Portland State University study.
Cycling, Health, and Safety

Roody

Why do you think the bikes should be hidden? That is what the radical bike haters like Rob Ford want.

It doesn't make sense to put cyclists in seashores and country lanes, since most of us want to go to the same stores and offices that the car drivers are going to.

I would prefer to ride on the real streets, a first class citizen, equal to the motorists, but with adequate protection from motor traffic wherever needed.

katsrevenge

Yes and no. All of the research says that if you put down those markings and that strip of paint, you will have more riders. An unmarked wide curb is not a bike lane. It's just an unmarked wide curb... and here in the states drivers will just drive down the center of the lane. It would be useless without some markings. Not to mention, it would not have that feeling of safety that most people state is what they want if they are to ride more places. It's just a curb.

And we do have a number of those MUPs around here already. A few run in useful places and are used instead of the roads by many bikers. (It's a great lesson in 'if you build it, they will come'! After they finished connecting the paths I swear bikers doubled in the area.) Some are Rails to Trails, others run atop dikes. And at least the one goes through three or four towns. But they are not aimed at people looking for a 'bike highway' but a ride for fun. Most are sort of useless if you want to go shopping or get anywhere not a park.


Your emphasis on 'strong and active' is telling. Not all would-be riders fit the bill. Or (like my otherwise fit fiancée) have other handicaps that must be taken into account. Or, they are like me.. I'm active and fairly strong.. but I like to 'toodle'. I want real bike lanes. I want real infrastructure.

Machka 

I didn't say that.


Yep. That's why I've offered the solutions I've mentioned.


Yep. That's why I've offered the solutions I've mentioned.

Machka 

Most people are capable of being stronger than they think ... and most people need to be more active than they think.

Strong doesn't necessarily mean you can bench press a certain amount. There's a lot more to strong than that. Check out the definition of strong.

And I like to toodle too ... that's where my third suggestion comes in. When I am not in the mood to toodle, I use my first two suggestions whenever possible ... or wish they existed if they don't.

contango 

I read it more as hiding the cars from the bikes.

People who cycle as a means of transport want to go to the same places that drivers are going, so they use the roads (with or without bike-specific facilities). People who cycle for leisure are likely to enjoy a trail around the lake far more than a trail along the side of the busy interstate. When I'm on my mountain bike wanting to have a relatively gentle ride and enjoy the view I do things like ride along the riverside towpath, accepting the pedestrians and dogs and children and endless imperfections in the surface, because it means I get to look at the pretty river rather than the less pretty road and series of overtaking cars. If I want to get where I'm going faster I take the road because it's shorter and the lack of pedestrians means I don't have to worry about people wandering all over the path.

Machka 

Absolutely!!

Rowan

I'd argue strongly with you that this "kind of thinking" has kept the active biker types to mostly young, male and fairly fit. Even the profile of posters in other parts of BikeForums is older than you think.

Part of becoming a good cyclist is being able to assess routes for their cycling amenity. That's why, when someone says they are going car-free and want to commute, we suggest they scope out the neighbourhood looking for routes that have suitable cycling amenity. Indeed, why ride a 45mph busy road with no room to cycle safely, when there might be a parallel road that is not a main route but connects to another road that enables that person to arrive at their destination in a timely manner.

Every road is indeed a bike path. Remove the cars and that's what you've got. And as has been pointed out earlier, the specialised separated bike facilities do not go everywhere cyclists generally want to go. At some stage, a rider has to use the road to make the destinations they want, if they are a utility cyclist. Education and experience will play major roles in improving the amenity of roads that those riders now consider unrideable (as contango has mentioned several times).

katsrevenge

Strength has nothing to do with problems like a lack of depth perception. Strength has nothing to do with wanting a safer place and way to ride with your family.