genec

As I said... sigh.

I-Like-To-Bike

Wrong! The bottom line of the discussion at hand was the usefulness of raw data or irrelevant numbers and graphs.

You don't have time for that? No interest in the subject? So what?

invisiblehand

Hmmmm, I don't know what you are talking about. I thought that the point was that a portion of a prior argument for negative changes in motorist driving is not supported by 1990-2003 data.

As I wrote before, the simple graphs are not definitive, in my opinion. But to push an argument that modern changes--wide spread cell phone usage for instance--have created an extra hazard to cyclists through lower attentiveness such that older experiences are less relevant, one will have to look harder at the data or have better explanations for the empirical observations.

Regardless, I vote for riding more and typing less.

genec

Hey ride all you can... I only type when I don't have the opportunity to ride.

larryfeltonj

I've been in Albany NY on somewhat grim family business. No cycling involved, unfortunately, but I'm making up for it this weekend by doing my second century in two weeks.

One thing I noted about Albany is that I hardly saw any cyclists on the road, even though the weather was wonderful compared to the 100 degree plus weather we've been having here in Atlanta. I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that despite the derision LBM and I get for asserting that the cycling in Atlanta is good, there has been somewhat of a cycling boom going on here which may not be occurring in other parts of the country.

I'll read through the replies on this thread over the next few days. Judging from the graphs posted it looks like some interesting stuff may have been ferreted out.

larryfeltonj

Albany NY. No computer, hence no internet access.

larryfeltonj

Because a lot of these discussions swirl around driver attentiveness. If drivers are more or less likely to hit other motorists or inanimate objects they are more or less likely to hit cyclists.

bmike

we have computers up here in the north country...
depending on where you were in the albany area might make a difference in how many cyclists were about. had you taken a detour 2 hours or so further north and a little east and you would have seen plenty.

actually, heading over to the berkshires or southern vermont would have also been good.

larryfeltonj

Possibly... I was comparing apples to apples though. Most of my riding in Atlanta is either downtown, intown, or in the second ring suburbs. In Albany most of my visit included similar areas (downtown Albany, Colonie, Guilderland, the Washington Park area). Mile for mile I'd have seen a lot more cyclists in Atlanta than I did in Albany, particularly considering the difference in temperature (it was 70 degrees in Albany on a day I phoned home to learn the temperature in Atlanta had hit 103). I'm not bashing Albany. I love the area, and intend to cycle there the next time I'm up.

As for computers, I imagine they do exist in Albany. I was packing up the belongings of a family member who was no longer able to live at home, so my priority was not keeping up with email.

invisiblehand

Sorry to read that Larry. Hope all goes well.

Growing up in NYC, we would take trips to upstate NY on a regular basis. From memory, I would think that it would be wonderful touring country. Then again, this would be for another forum.

larryfeltonj

Yep it would be (on both counts wonderful touring country, and I made the observation in a forum in which it's off topic). Before moving it to the appropriate forum though, I can't help but say that the entire time I was dealing with the business at hand I was devising a future tour in my head. All those little towns on the eastern side of the Catskills and along the Hudson River looked like they'd make for great touring.

bmike

Just found this report online... it's primary focus is on obesity and walking and cycling... but I found this bit hard to pass up:


The full report is a long PDF. Maybe I'll read it tomorrow. Long day on the road. (sigh) I can probably do some texting and phone calling and PDF reading. And when WiFi follows our interstates along I can do some BF browsing too.

LittleBigMan

"Bicycling and walking make up 9.6 percent of all trips. Yet bicyclists and pedestrians represent 12.9 percent of all traffic-related fatalities, and only 1.5 percent of federal transportation dollars are spent on bicycling and walking projects."

Bmike, I don't want to discount the great need for more bicycling and walking, as those are the two forms of transportation that I've spent by far the most hours doing in the last 15 years (along with running, yes--running transportation...)

But when you try to mix cycling fatalities and pedestrian fatalities, I'm afraid I can't get on that bus.

There are just so many pedestrian fatalities that to mix the two is like mixing the earth's fresh water with its oceans.

The part I don't get is, when studies compare cycling, walking, and driving fatalities, it's always per mile. Who walks 20 miles a day? That would take 5 or 6 hours (if you had the stamina.) But I can drive that far in anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes.

It takes a car 60 seconds to do what a pedestrian takes 20 minutes to do. Which is safer?

If you measured not by miles, but by hours, cycling and walking would appear much safer than in most cycling/walking fatality studies. And they are safer.

bmike

I didn't write the study, and I also noted that the real focus of the report was obesity and the decline in walking and cycling, not safety or fatalities... so I sort of agree with you, but found that particular quote a bit interesting.

The idea you put forth:

I totally agree with. And I'd add that it takes a car 60 seconds what it might take a cyclist 5-10 minutes to do. Which, ahem, is one of the reasons I like traffic systems that honor the differences in mode... but I've written about that in other posts so I'll leave it out of this discussion.


I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet. There might be more information in there... there might not.

LittleBigMan

I get it, bmike!

60 seconds vs. 5 minutes. As if getting there was a pain to be avoided...

Faster is not always better! I love the journey.

Another way to put it is, would one rather enjoy 5 minutes, or suffer through 60 seconds?



(Can't see why people actually prefer driving, but I'm not their judge... )

Helmet Head

Cars could go 60 mph in the 1940s, so their ability to drive as fast as they drive today is nothing new., especially when we're talking about urban and suburban settings where the speeds are usually lower than that anyway.

There are many more cars today, so in general it's more challenging to find gaps, if you're cycling depends on that. That is, if you're a cyclist who "rides the margins and gaps", then, yeah, cycling in the 40s, 50s and 60s and even 70s was probably significantly easier than it is today. But as traffic volumes increased, as well as surface streets that are wider and allow for more lanes and higher speeds, the cyclist who requires margins and gaps to get where he is going is going to be more challenged and stressed today than before. Many might even give up.

But the solution is not to create the margins - "traffic systems that honor the differences in mode" - but to learn to ride comfortably, safely and effectively in a manner that does not require riding in margins and gaps. Being able to do that was always helpful, but particularly so today.

bmike

i never said a thing about riding in gaps and margins.
i'm speaking about the problems of multi ton vehicles with ever increasing speed limits supposedly 'sharing' the road with other, legal users of the public rights of ways.

we are talking about 2 completely different things. you want to overcome traffic with some sort of skillset, i'm more interested in why motorized transport gets all the preference when it comes to road design and community development - and everyone else is truly pushed to the margins.


the majority of our public rights of way disenfranchise those who do not wish to travel under power of the motor. a street, road, etc. should be in service of human beings moving from point a to point b, and anywhere in between. mode choice should be secondary - but this is not how we design and build our roads and towns. pedestrian and non motorized transportation are marginalized... and i don't care how effective you cycle - you can't get out of political and cultural and design margins by lane positioning.

genec

As long as you travel significantly slower than the rest of the flow of traffic... you depend on margins and gaps. Don't try to BS us with "a manner that doesn't depend on margins and gaps..." you depend on exactly that when you share a WOL, or when you signal for a turn and expect motorists to slow and create a gap as you have often mentioned ("create your own gap").

Cyclists that ride on the fringes are less of a burden to traffic than those that attempt to merge into much faster traffic. You yourself always mention moving out of the way of FSDT... that takes margins. Not wild leaps of imagination...

You want fit into the flow... slow the whole flow down, otherwise you are either a "roadblock" or are riding in margins and gaps.

Helmet Head

Gene, you wrote: "As long as you travel significantly slower than the rest of the flow of traffic... you depend on margins and gaps." In this statement you are conflating taking advantage of it (gaps and margins) if it is there with depending on it.

If you depend on it, you are hampered and/or stressed when the gaps or margins are not there. I'm not, because I don't depend on gaps and margins. Sure, I'll take advantage of them when they are available, but if there is no margin, I take the lane; if there is no gap, I negotiate to create one. No problem. Most cyclists depend on natural gaps in order to merge left. That is, they don't merge left until a natural gap appears, or someone happens to yield to them even though they did not intentionally negotiate.


As far as the gap creation, yes, in that sense you might say I depend on them. But what I'm talking about when I say "depending on margins and gaps" is "depending on margins and natural gaps". That is, gaps that are there and would be there whether the cyclist is present or not.

Helmet Head

Motoring gets the priority when it comes to road design because it comprises the vast, vast majority of the traffic out there.

But the needs of cyclists are met automatically when they address the needs of motorists, so it's kind of moot. Motoring facilities (roads) exceed cyclist accommodation requirements in every respect, escept a few relatively minor issues like intersections where traffic signal sensors don't detect bicyclists.

genec

"I don't depend on gaps and margins..." "I create gaps and margins..." bit of a dichotomy there HH.

Your subtle jab at those who don't "command" traffic as you believe you do is wholly ironic when taken in reference to how anything that "modifies the flow of traffic" tends to effect it in a negative way.

Helmet Head

I don't create margins. That would be impossible. They are either there, or they are not. But I don't depend on them.
I also don't depend on natural gaps because I can negotiate to create one, as required.

Again, the vast majority of cyclists don't know how to create gaps - it doesn't even occur to them to try, apparently -and so they depend on natural gaps. The fewer the natural gaps, the more stressful and difficult riding in traffic becomes to the cyclist who depends on natural gaps.

No dichotomy.

EDIT: And, yes, when there is no margin and the slow cyclist is required to control a lane, or when the cyclist must create a gap in order to merge left for whatever reason, that can be disruptive to the flow of traffic. It's not ideal, but necessary in some circumstances because a design that would circumvent the need is cost prohibitive, or it's practically impossible to do it. Same with red lights, stop signs, drivers of slow moving motor vehicles, road-crossing pedestrians and onstreet parking (all of which interrupt the flow of traffic). Interrupting the flow of traffic is not ideal, but is often necessary, and should not be feared.

Allister

So what you're apparently saying is, you don't really see your cycling as 'vehicular', but rather 'disruptive' and 'interrupting' the real traffic. LOL

Helmet Head

Not at all. Interrupting the flow of traffic is vehicular for drivers of slow moving vehicles, including cyclists.

bmike

and high speed limits, more than 1, maybe 2 lanes in each direction with high speeds, development spread out for convenience by car - not by human power.... etc.


if all the motor vehicles suddenly disappeared tomorrow, i would half agree with you - the facilities that are created for the motoring public stand to serve cyclists well enough... (and in many cases would be overkill) but then we'd have acres of parking and destination spread out to the horizon... with only our own power to deliver us to those destinations. a superhighway with services every 30-40 miles doesn't really meet the needs of cyclists very well, nor does an 8 lane arterial.

the needs of cyclists are not automatically met by meeting the needs of motorists. yes, cyclists may get more pavement to ride... but that is about it in terms of specificity. i wasn't discussing 'facilities' - i was discussing the whole.