katsrevenge

Well, we all knew how to ride, for the most part. What we were supposed to be learning was how to handle a bike in the same way that you handle a car in a course. Oh, and a small bit about arm signals and whatnot. The course ended with a 20 mile ride in the country. I have no idea if that bike course was something regular or just a pet project of the gym teacher.

Not much of a group joiner... but I do write lots of letters! No.. I think this belongs here. It's hard to advocate car free living without the proper tools for everyone and anyone to participate in the lifestyle if they want to.

I have a big mouth. Everywhere.

Exactly.

ro-monster

Pondering bike education, I think you guys may be looking at it in too limited a way. Rather than education in the sense of school curriculum, we could use education in the sense of a good propaganda campaign like the one that made smoking in public venues socially unacceptable. It would take time, but if people see and hear the message that bikes belong in the traffic mix and are expected to be accommodated like any other slow-moving vehicle enough times, it will alter their attitudes even if they aren't really concious of the shift taking place. Such a campaign would be expensive, but probably more attainable than bike instruction in public schools.

At least here in the US, many schools are so severely underfunded that they can't even afford up-to-date textbooks for their core curriculum and teachers are paying for classroom supplies out of their own pockets. It seems very unlikely that they could institute a new program that requires the purchase and maintenance of a lot of equipment, teacher training, etc.

Machka 

I'm sorry you found one simple, short question making an innocent inquiry to be confrontational, dictatorial and hostile. Was it because I left off the smilie? I'll do better in the future.

I must say, I am amazed how much "tone" gets (mis)read into so few words.

Ekdog

The problem I see with lanes that are separated with painted lines is that people tend to use them as parking lots. To avoid having to walk even a block or two, they'll leave the car in the bike lane while they "pop in" to the bank, a shop or whatever. Physical barriers make it more difficult to do this.

katsrevenge

Around here we have cops who do nothing but ticket people who park in no parking zones. It makes a lot of money for the city.

Slap some "No Parking" signs up and it might help. Not as nice as separate lanes but it is a start...

contango 

It's inevitable that people will focus on things from their own perspective. It's also important to differentiate between "I won't use it so I don't see the need for it" and "it's a huge step back for me and I don't want to end up forced to use it"

Sure, it's not always possible to build the entire network in a single hit (although for new development one would hope that all users would be considered). The key thing is that if there's going to be infrastructure for cyclists it has to actually help cyclists rather than looking like a shabby move to get cyclists out of everyone else's way. It's also important to figure whether it's likely that the total infrastructure will actually be completed because if it never gets completed the result is a bunch of disjointed cycle lanes that go nowhere, installed at considerable cost. That's not good for cyclists any way you look at it - the lanes provided are useless and the money spent for little to no benefit won't make it any easier to get future schemes funded.

Accusations of narrow self-interest really aren't helpful here. I don't have children myself but know very well that if we can get people to cycle young then we can hope they'll stick with it. That still doesn't mean I want to find myself forced to use a segregated lane that's also used by small children cycling because that just means I'm stuck going maybe 6-8mph when I want to be going twice that speed. It pleases me that children cycle to school, but the minute the council builds a cycleway for the children and then demands that all cyclists use it is the minute I'll be fighting against children cycling to school.

Of course a part of the issue is the expectation that any cyclist should be free to ride on any road at any time. While legally that might be the case (with the exception of some particularly high speed roads), an analogy to drivers who are learning makes sense. You woudn't put a learner driver on a busy arterial route at rush hour, purely out of consideration to the other road users. There's no reason why they can't legally use the road, it's just inconsiderate to practise basic car handling skills in a place that delays everybody else. The same applies to someone who is getting to grips with cycling and bike control. Being inconsiderate is a good way to annoy people, and I've often said the idea of "share the road" works both ways.

Roody

I think a lot depends on country/region and of course enforcement makes a big difference. Around here, people almost never park where they're not supposed to. If they do, they are pretty likely to get a ticket.

I think the problem here isn't with the parked cars, it's with the moving cars. They often "squeeze" bikes in the bike lanes. Even worse is that right hooks are a leading cause of car-bike accidents. Some people think that standard bike lanes make right hooks more likely, because the bike lane places cyclists on the far right edge of the road, where it's harder for drivers to see them. The idea is that protected bike lanes will prevent some right hooks.

Education might help too--teaching cyclists to ride a bit more to the left, and teaching motorists to be more aware.

contango 

Perhaps something in schools, perhaps something as part of learning to drive. It would be a useful thing to do for drivers as well as cyclists - it's good for drivers to know that cyclists have a right to the road and should be treated with respect and at the same time it would be good for cyclists to know that rules apply to them as well. Part of considerate cycling is being reasonably predictable to other road users, so if there's going to be an educational programme why not take the chance to teach a generation of potential cyclists that weaving all over the road, riding the wrong way, riding after dark without lights, aren't acceptable behaviours.

contango 

This seems like a classic case of mental disconnect. You're "in mortal danger" every time you ride in the street yet somehow come back unscathed every single time. How many times do you have to do that before people start to conclude that maybe cycling isn't as dangerous as they thought it was? It might be interesting to flip it around and express amazement that they feel safe travelling at 80+ feet per second in a metal box surrounded by other metal boxes when each one has a big tank of highly explosive liquid in it. Bonus points for the liberal mention of people you know who had road traffic accidents as examples to prove your point.

Around here I sometimes see cyclists ignore a bike lane and ride on the path/sidewalk. Usually they are slower cyclists and I tend to take the view that if a cyclist on the pavement is being considerate I'll keep out of their way. They aren't supposed to be there but unless they are moving at antisocial speed it's not something I'd fuss over.

That's the problem, it's a small step from supporting segregated lanes for Other People to use to suddenly finding that all cyclists are legally required to use the lanes. Then they shift from a good way to get people to start cycling to an ongoing nuisance because you can't get anywhere fast due to constantly being stuck behind one slow cyclist after another. I wouldn't support anything that means cycling is subjected to the same kind of traffic problems as driving - for me part of the point of cycling is that I don't get snarled up due to the volume of traffic.

Of course if all cyclists are required to use cycle lanes the chances are the less experienced cyclists would also end up not cycling any more - if people are intimidated by the thought of traffic going at 20-30mph how are they going to react the first time a peloton steams past them in the segregated lane?

I still wonder (and don't see anybody addressing the concern) that building protected bike lanes to encourage new cyclists is likely to do nothing more than reinforce the idea that it's too dangerous to ride on the road, leaving people continuing to feel vulnerable unless they can stay in the confined of their dedicated lane. From there, unless the lane covers the entirety of someone's journey, how are they going to cope with the hazards associated with cycling to get onto the lane, and the section from where they have to come off the lane to get to their final destination?

Ekdog

No, sometimes you don't come back unscathed. How many cyclists have been killed in London so far this year?

From what I read in this article, eleven had died by November 2013, six in the space of two weeks.

There has been a swell of anger among cyclists in recent weeks after it emerged that six people were killed while riding in the space of two weeks earlier this month. Brian Holt, 62; Francis Golding, 69, Roger William De Klerk, 43, Venera Minakhmetova, 24, a 21-year-old man from St John's Wood and a man believed to be in his 60s all died between November 5 and 18.


The number of cyclists killed in London so far this year - 14 - now stands equal to those who died in the whole of 2012. Leon Daniels, managing director of TfL Surface Transport, said one of the protesters' key demands - segregated cycle routes - were to be introduced in the next 10 years.

Stop Killing Cyclists Campaign Sees Riders Sprawled Across London's Roads For A 'Die-In' (PICTURES)

contango 

In this case the "you" was intended as meaning ro-monster, whose observation was that people see him/her (sorry, I'm not sure if ro-monster is male or female) going out on a bike and yet despite being "in mortal danger" somehow makes it back. That alone should cause people to question their concept of danger but for some reason seldom does.

Sometimes you don't come back unscathed if you've opted for four wheels instead of two. Sometimes you don't come back unscathed if you took the bus or the train. But we don't see people talking about being in mortal danger every time they get in their car, or get on the train. The other day the police helicopter was circling not far from my house, and it turned out a pedestrian had been run over by a van. Sadly the pedestrian was taken to hospital where she later died. Do people talk about being in mortal danger when they go out on foot?

I'm not going to say that 14 cyclist deaths is anything other than 14 deaths too many. But in terms of risk analysis a bit of perspective is in order. In 2012 a total of 118 cyclists were killed on the roads, while the total number of people killed on the roads was 1,754. Why do people look at the 118 deaths and conclude cycling is so dangerous, while apparently disregarding the danger associated with the other 1,636 deaths?

Roody

1. The data is murky, but riding a bike on roadways is probably just as dangerous as riding in a car, in terms of fatalities and severe injuries, and possibly more dangerous.
2. According to studies already discussed in this thread, bicycle infrastructure reduces risk to cyclists. Not just perceived risk, but actual risk.
3. The slippery slope argument that the presence of bike lanes will lead to a loss of road rights on roads that don't have bike lanes is pretty ridiculous. AFAIK, this has not yet happened anywhere in the real world. If anybody does know of this actually happening, please correct me.

Ekdog

Unfortunately, many have learned to accept the massive numbers of human beings that are maimed and killed by cars on our streets and highways. Some of us have had enough, however, and are demanding change. Those Londoners who stage "die-ins" are examples this latter group.

BBC News - Rate of cyclist injuries on London's roads on the rise

contango 

So perhaps the answer is an education campaign that addresses all road users rather than just some?

Which still doesn't answer my question about relative risk and the tradeoff between risk and convenience. The decision whether to reduce an already small risk to turn it into an even smaller risk, in exchange for a substantial reduction in speed, is something best left to the individual.

Someone already talked of how bike lane use is mandatory in California. I hear stories of cyclists in NYC ticketed for not riding in the bike lane even when the bike lane was blocked. A couple of times I've had people shouting at me for not using the bike lane, when the bike lane was to the left and I was indicating my intention to turn right.

Is it really such a far-fetched idea that if substantial amounts of taxpayer money is spent on providing bike lanes the most likely outcome is for motorists to demand that cyclists stay off their roads and use "our" facilities? How do you suppose motorists are going to react when "their" road is narrowed to install a protected bike lane, and they are then held up behind a cyclist who isn't using the protected bike lane? If the lane is full of slow cyclists and the guy they are stuck behind is holding 20-25mph do you suppose they'll be impressed that he's one of the "elite few" and being considerate of the other bike lane users, or angry that he's holding them up when he could be in the bike lane? How many angry motorists does it take before lobby groups are formed, especially when motorists are the majority of road users?

contango 

You're missing the point entirely. My point is that people look at the number of cyclists killed on the roads and assume that cycling is dangerous, and yet look at the number of motorists killed on the roads and don't question their assumption that driving is safe.

You mentioned earlier someone (I think it was your wife?) who thought cycling in London was too dangerous. I'm not sure what she based her assessment on. I've cycled in London several times and consider it to be safe. I don't tend to cycle in central London very often, simply because I don't find the combination of the traffic (both motor and pedestrian) and frequent junctions make for an enjoyable journey. As it happens in more urban I'm more concerned about boneheaded pedestrians walking out in front of me than I am of the motor traffic.

ETA: It's hard to know whether measuring "per million journeys" is a relevant construct without knowing the length of the journeys. If a 600km brevet counts as a "journey" and a 600m bimble to the shops counts as a "journey" it's hard to know what conclusions to draw from the figures. It's also hard to know what proportion of cyclist casualties were due to the cyclist doing something stupid, a motorist doing something stupid, or something else. I'm not going to pretend that every motorist is a saint but it's equally pointless to assume that every cyclist does the right thing all the time. When cyclists do truly boneheaded things, like running a red light and turning right despite the clear "no right turn" sign, practically throwing themselves under the wheels of oncoming traffic, any incidents involving such a cyclist is perhaps best addressed with a Darwin award rather than worrying about redesigning the junction.

Roody

Obviously you have to consider the number of trips, number of participants, and number of miles traveled by both groups if you're going to do a comparative risk analysis!

Who can say why people blithely accept car deaths? It might be related to the psychological process of denial. More Americans died in car crashes in the month following 9/11 than died in the terrorist attacks. But nobody wanted to start a couple wars about it. The global public is more alarmed by a dozen cases of a new disease in the Middle East than they are by 1.24 million annual car related deaths on the world's roads.

contango 

Yes, but the way a lot of people think they look at one or two cases that confirm their suspicions, and ignore several cases that might challenge other assumptions.

I forget the figures but remember reading something along the lines that more Americans had been killed due to peanut allergies than terrorism, worldwide, since 2000. But we never saw a "war on peanuts" the way we saw the "war on terror". As you say, we get a bit of media scare about some new exotic disease and everybody panics but if there's a huge pile-up on the interstate and a few dozen people die then the people caught up in the traffic chaos complain about the delays, and people who didn't lose a loved one in the accident just get back in their cars and continue driving as before.

I suspect a lot of it is the natural conclusion that our behaviour is correct. After all, if our behaviour wasn't correct we'd have corrected it. So if we don't cycle because "it's dangerous" then every cyclist injured or killed confirms that we were right not to cycle because "it's dangerous". But because we drive cars (perhaps less than most in this forum but most western adults aren't car free by choice) we figure that accidents are outliers, things that "won't happen to me". Besides which, we need to drive because, you know, it's a long way and it's warm and, well, cycling is dangerous. It's curious how people seem to think that car accidents happen to Other People but bike accidents will happen to them just as soon as they take to two wheels.

Machka 

Absolutely, I agree. Education doesn't just happen in schools.

I'd like to see more ads on TV (and elsewhere) about cycling. There are a few good ones, but there could be more.

Ekdog

Our cops are would probably be among the first to park their cars in the painted bike lanes. I'm hoping they'll enforce our new speed limits, which are going down to 30 kph on most city streets and even 20 kph on some, but I'm not holding my breath.



Tráfico espera que la mayoría de las calles reducirá la velocidad máxima a 30 km/h

Rowan

All I get from Ekdog's link is one graph. That's all. The link I provided is a full commentary and shows a lot more about the transport modes in Hobart. But be selective, if you like. It's the MO here.

I am not necessarily arguing with Ekdog. Go back and read one of my posts. He just has a confrontational tone that comes from zealotry. He says we need more protected bike lanes. I say that his one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work in other parts of the world for all the reasons that have been discussed in this thread. But his dismissive attitude of anyone who dares to suggest there are issues and political hurdles -- and these observations have come from people who have worked in advocacy -- needs challenging, particularly when he is asked pointed questions about his own participation in direct action, and he fails to answer... showing that he fails to understand how things work.

One of the significant issues is terrain, and I have said this before in this thread. There is a difference in the very hilly terrain of Hobart compared with a flat Prairies city, or even a city such as France. Roody, you've had this conversation before about the physical restraints of Hobart with your desire to design all cities on a grid network.

An integrated bicycle plan includes a mix of a wide range of things... including good quality paths, well thoughtout lanes, wide travel lanes for shared use.

One of the things I am very strong on is providing training courses for cyclists, particularly those who want to transfer from car usage to bikes. People think that because they learned to ride a bike as a kid, they have the skills. My direct experience in designing and running adult bike training courses is that they don't. That limits their riding to separated facilities. When they gain those skills, they have the confidence to ride almost anywhere and have the judgment not to ride where it's not safe.

I was attached to five municipal bicycle committees, four of which were quite active, and the fifth was difficult to get enthused, not because of the council involved, but from the community perspective; it was a poor area reliant on welfare, although strangely it was well serviced by sealed paths between housing nodes.

What was gained out of those committees was an understanding of how things worked and why infrastructure of any sort took time to implement. Putting aside maintenance, long-term planning is required to enable assessment, budgeting, community consultation and detailed planning, then a tendering process for the project to be built.

But yeah, go slap down a line of paint. Except, it's not that simple. Go find out why. Get involved with a bike committee. If there isn't one, lobby to get one established. Drag in your cycling friends.

But a piece of advice -- keep the big mouth aggression at bay and work with people. Identify who are allies and be respectful of those who aren't (because more often they have more influence over the final decisionmakers -- the elected representatives -- than you ever will). Deal with facts that can withstand robust analysis because shooting from the hip will get you shot down in no time at all.

Then you might get what Ekdog proposes. Or something less but equally amenable to the riders in your area.

Rowan

You're right, you don't live in Hobart and don't have a clue about the constraints that the terrain here imposes. But that's OK; when you haven't actually been somewhere recently and experienced those issues, it's difficult to get a feel for how things are done differently and why.

cooker

Wow, those were massive drops in public transit in the 70s and 80s. Was it just increasing car ownership or perhaps increasing sprawl or was it a big reduction in service for ostensible cost reasons? (or some other possible reason?)

CbadRider

This is more of an A&S thread than Living Car Free. Moved.

spare_wheel

this is only true in nations where people are unfamiliar with bike lanes. in areas where bike lane density is high motorists quickly become accustomed to them and compliance is high. germany and belgium are great examples of this. and in portland hardly anyone parks in a conventional bike lane. ironically, it is the protected lanes that have the problem with nimwits parking and driving in them.

Ekdog

Most of our lanes here in Seville are protected and we don't have that problem. New York, on the other hand:

new york car parked in bike lane - Google Search

London, on the other hand:

new york car parked in bike lane - Google Search