RazrSkutr

I can read enough to know that despite your historian's claim to the contrary there were lots of bicycles around until at least 1942. The Wehrmacht confiscated vast numbers (c.100,000) of Dutch bicycles during the occupation for their own use (ironically in low-fuel situations it turned out the bicycle was pretty useful). Horst Hinrischen's _Radfahr Schwadronen: Fahrräder im Einsatz bei der Wehrmacht 1939-1945_

hagen2456

Of course there were still lots of bicycles. They didn't run out of tyres, tubes and other repair material instantly. The same was the case in Denmark.

RazrSkutr

Oh whatever. I was only pulling your leg with the NAZI stuff. Of course I don't think that bicycle lanes are inherently a NAZI idea. It's just a demonstration that it's easy to demonize your opponents. I'd suggest you apply a little more care to avoiding your simplistic idea that people that cycle vehicularly are car-loving, people-hating fools and that they oppose your crap facilities out of anything other than having seen what we get here.

Chicago Al 

Guys, is this tone really necessary? Razr, Hagen, you both started out with a pretty polite disagreement a few days ago but things have really deteriorated. Some members here apparently have no tone other than aggressive and disagreeable but you both have shown respect for others and a sense of humor (imho the most important thing in polite disagreement) so can't you get back to that? Sorry if I come off naive here, I'm not asking you to hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya, I promise.

Besides I'm not even sure that you really are that far apart. Surely you don't think the Danish or Dutch bike infrastructure is 'crap,' Razr? And surely you know that Razr can read, Hagen?

RazrSkutr

You are correct and I apologize to all unreservedly. You're not naive, just well mannered.

I actually would probably like Dutch / Danish infrastructure. I just don't like what I've seen produced in N.America (and the Rep. of Ireland and the UK) under the promise of such infrastructure and would prefer to see in order:
1) legislation assuming fault with motorists
2) driver education
3) infrastructure which includes signalized intersections that do not impose undue waiting times on cyclists

Again, sorry.

Chicago Al 

I think #1 would be a really tough sale here in the US and I could even see how it could go too far (considering some of the cyclist behavior I see) but...

that's a pretty damn good list.



ps: thanks for compliment on my manners. My momma would be so proud. She knew I would turn out okay, and she always told the judges so.

nealhe

Hello John and All,

and thanks for a good reply as usual ….. though I am foggy as to what my argument was that is disproved by what happened in merry old England, (or UK, or British Isles, or Great Britain) … always a bit odd to this Yank which different terms can offend since the whole place is so small.

I suspect the problems you outline in the history of American cycling law are some of the reasons Dr. Pucher’s work to better American cycling is so popular.

With your kind permission and to help me catch up (I was tied up [not literally] for a few days) as I am tardy in replying to your posts and some others on this forum …… so this reply will be a threefer (that is a twofer … makes you think of Broadway tickets …plus one) and I’ll respond to your license posts and your Dr. Pucher post all in this one.

“Neal, you need to learn so much, but equally important is to learn to
reject so much that you think you know.”

John, that is the story of my life. And believe it or not …… you are not the first one to tell me. I think it is a character flaw that I am trying to convert to a virtue.

And for you John, it is important to remember, …….. ‘A wise man will heed his own advice.’

I am not so sure that what “most of what people are so sure that they know is erroneous”.


The many studies you find lacking are very persuasive on the subject of bicycle infrastructure improving cycling and increasing the number of people riding bicycles ….. in other words …… improving the popularity of cycling.

While the occasional study may be flawed I think most are carefully done.

I am surprised, flabbergasted actually that the following differences with your fellow members could occur: “the top committee in American bicycle transportation engineering, the Bicycling Committee of the Transportation Research Board, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, I saw papers accepted that I had rejected for
obvious defects ………”

I submit that your fellow members were flat out wrong and you were right and I for one applaud your efforts to restore some honesty and gravitas to the peer review system.

“Neal, choose to stick with the popular view, more accurately termed
the popular superstition and ignorance, you will have a hard time in
these discussions.”

John, so far, I am having a delightful time here in this forum and truly hope that you are too. I am learning a great deal from you and all the others in these posts and must confess that under your tutelage I have learned that there are many more layers to this bicycle infrastructure business than I realized at the outset.

I think it is to your credit that your attended Dr. Pucher’s appearance here in San Diego: “Walking and Cycling for Healthy Cities," public presentation for the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the Active Living Research Program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and San Diego State University, San Diego, California, August 23. Click here for PDF of PPT. to learn about current research.

I am stunned at Dr. Pucher’s answer below to your question:

“When he had opened for questions, I asked him why he advocated bikeways for which he could not provide mechanisms of how they came to produce the wonderful
reductions in car-bike collisions he praised so much. His answer, clear
for all to hear, was that he paid no attention to engineering, he just
did what was popular.”

"Does that make you think twice, Neal?”

Indeed ……… twice and even thrice.

Noting that Dr. Pucher outranks you with his PHD and many publications ……

My first thought of the situation you describe is that Dr. Pucher did not know who you were and was just blowing you off.

My second thought of the situation you describe is that Dr. Pucher did know who you were and was just blowing you off.

My third thought of the situation was ….. Who is this guy Dr. Pucher?

John Pucher is a professor in the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University (New Brunswick, New Jersey). Since earning a Ph.D. at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1978, Pucher has conducted research on a wide range of topics in transport economics and finance, including numerous projects for the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Canadian government, and various European ministries of transport. For almost three decades, he has examined differences in travel behavior, transport systems, and transport policies in Europe, Canada, and the USA.

Over the past twelve years, Pucher's research has focused on walking and bicycling. His international comparative analysis has included Australia, Canada, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and several other European countries. The main objective is to determine what American, Canadian, and Australian cities could learn from each other and from European cities to improve the safety, convenience, and feasibility of these non-motorized modes. He has published 25 articles and book chapters on walking and cycling and given over 60 featured talks, keynote addresses, and conference talks on this subject. From 2008 to 2010, he is directing a major research project for the U.S. Department of Transportation examining bicycling trends and policies in large American cities.

Pucher has been increasingly interested in the public health implications of urban transport. In particular, he has emphasized the need for Americans to increase their walking and cycling for daily transportation as the best way to ensure adequate levels of physical exercise and enhance overall public health.

From 2005 to 2006, Pucher spent his sabbatical as a visiting professor at the University of Sydney's Institute of Transport Studies directing a research project that examined differences between Canada, Australia, and the USA in their travel behavior, transport systems and policies, and the impacts of transport on public health. Now that he is back at Rutgers, Pucher is working with Australian, Canadian, and European colleagues to pursue this increasingly important research on public health impacts of transport.

Complete Curriculum Vitae (C.V.)
Abbreviated Curriculum Vitae (C.V.)
Brief Bio

Who is Dr. Pucher ……. Obviously from your criticism some ‘Johnny Come Lately’ so the computer Googled him to learn more:

……. The lights dimmed in a partial power failure …. As when some convict is being executed …. Then the computer lit up like it was having a ‘denial of service’ attack by both the Russians and Chinese at the same time ….. and when I opened my eyes there were pages and pages of references and publications by John Pucher, PHD, referred to as brilliant, famous, etc. etc. etc.

John you sly devil, what a sneaky way to get me to read Dr. Pucher’s publications …. Well some of them anyway ….
You are a good teacher ….. 

As to the math errors I will take your word for that as the following work of yours appears to be genius:

Because teaching statistical decision theory from the texts of Robert O. Schlaifer was so difficult for the students to understand, Forester decided to prepare his own text, Statistical Selection of Business Strategies. In the course of preparing this book, Forester determined several characteristics of this aspect of statistics. All the problems, treated in rather different ways by mathematics that looked complicated, were capable of solution only if they had one common structure. This common structure could be solved by one purely arithmetical algorithm. While the mathematical solutions were mathematically accurate, the error in finding a formulation that best fit the empiric data was as great as the error introduced by treating the empiric data directly by arithmetical methods. Forester determined that Schlaifer, when describing his simplified method usable when all the data were normal, used the common normal table that gives areas of the two portions of the normal curve, when what was needed for Schlaifer's calculation method was a table showing the center of mass of each portion. Forester prepared such a table. The Forester method was so suited to digital calculation that once desk-top computers became available, problems that had required several hours of slide-rule and adding machine computation were solved almost as fast as the data could be entered.

===========================================

On the larger question though I think Dr. Pucher prevails in making the case for bicycle infrastructure increasing cycling (making it more popular):

===================================

This research report for the U.S. Department of Transportation reviews trends in cycling levels, safety, and policies in large North American cities over the past two decades. We analyze aggregate national data as well as city-specific case study data for nine large cities (Chicago, Minneapolis, Montreal, New York, Portland, San Francisco, Toronto, and Vancouver). The number of bike commuters in the USA rose by 64% from 1990 to 2009, and the bike share of commuters rose from 0.4% to 0.6%.

Over the shorter period from 1996 to 2006, the number of bike commuters in Canada rose by 42%, and the bike share of commuters rose from 1.1% to 1.3%. From 1988 to 2008, cycling fatalities fell by 66% in Canada and by 21% in the USA; serious injuries fell by 40% in Canada and by 31% in the USA.

Cycling rates have risen much faster in the nine case study cities than in their countries as a whole, at least doubling in all the cities since 1990. The case study cities have implemented a wide range of infrastructure and programs to promote cycling and increase cycling safety: expanded and improved bike lanes and paths, traffic calming, parking, bike-transit integration, bike sharing, training programs, and promotional events. We describe the specific accomplishments of the nine case study cities, focusing on each city's innovations and lessons for other cities trying to increase cycling.

===============================

Cheers,

Neal

John Forester

There is no doubt but that an American governmental program aimed at encouraging bicycle transportation by building bikeways and doing other things has some effect in increasing bicycle mode share. Just how it does this is unknown, but a considerable part of the result is produced by bikeways making cyclists feel safer, even though the bikeway designs don't prevent car-bike collisions. That's just one of the things that most people are so sure of but are not true: the belief that bikeways are designed to reduce car-bike collisions.

So you are impressed by Pucher's PhD and publications in planning. What planners don't know about their own profession is enormous; the frequency with which plans don't turn out as predicted is enormous. Anyway, we are discussing bicycle transportation engineering, about which Pucher, both by my evaluation and his admission, knows nothing. And the idea that the professionals in the field know much of anything is another of these erroneous ideas; damn near all the progress in bicycle transportation engineering has been done by the amateurs who constantly have to fight the idiocies produced by the professionals.

Oh, yes, Pucher indeed knew who I was, and that he had better not try to blow me off or I might make him look even worse. I have been criticizing his work for years, and he once blew up in public email discourse about one of his papers, saying that there was no scientific support for my views. I informed the editors of that journal of his words, so they rather had to accept a paper by me providing a commented bibliography of many papers from the 1970s on, that Pucher should have known about, some of them seminal governmental documents.

==============

Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities: Lesson for New York
John Pucher, Ralph Buehler
March 2011
University Transportation Research Center 2

This is another survey of statistics so typical of Pucher. The statistics are justified, made to seem more persuasive, by being submitted to a variety of statistical tests. Several of these tests are unknown to me, but my ignorance of these does not change my conclusions about the study, which are based on the content of the study and not about the reliability of the statistics presented, and which agree with Pucher’s own conclusions.

Pucher has become much more cautious in his claims. He now admits that he presents nothing more than correlations between urban characteristics and amount of cycling. All his study shows is that those cities in which there is much governmental activity about bicycle transportation have more bicycle commuting, and even Pucher repeatedly states that the causal relationship, if any, may be in either direction and there is no way to separate the effect of any one program.

And a bit more besides. Dense urban cores have higher bicycle mode share, as do areas with many students. In these two cases, causal relationships probably exist, but these are not characteristics that can be changed to increase the bicycle mode share.

Despite Pucher’s presentation of statistics with repeated tests of statistical reliability, he has made at least one glaring mathematical error. He has presented a graph of two ratios. Fatalities per cyclist is graphed against cyclists per worker. Any graph of this form is meaningless, because, whatever numbers may be used, even random, they produce a declining pseudo-hyperbolic curve that looks as though increases in bicycle mode share produce decreases in cyclist death rate. That is, the Jacobsen error.

I need to emphasize that Pucher makes no claim that bikeways reduce cyclist crashes or how such an effect might be achieved. As he stated in his meeting in San Diego, when asked about this, he replied that he paid no attention to engineering but just did (in this case, reported) what was popular.

Bekologist

I'm with the prevailing information, neal's bot-like wisdon and analysis of the studies extant. j. forester has got no game compared to Professor John Puchers. Trounced.

exemplary!

hagen2456

Sure. I know he can read. And actually I don't mind a little hand-holding or singing. What I DO mind is when people round here grab hold of one statement from me (or others), leaving out whatever qualifications I've added, and then happily using the un-qualified statement as a straw man. That's just plain bad manners. I don't mind a harsh word or two, though I think that John Forester goes far past the limit calling anyone he disagrees with a liar. I HATE poor discussion manners.

I obviously over-reacted, though. For that I apologize.

Bekologist

johns strawman army and angry rhetoric are the foundation of most of his arguments. its a shame to see such stooping.

Bekologist

John's comment here is worth highlighting......

what was this thread about anyway? making the roads more amenable to bicycling, and riders shouldn't slow the cars down?

well, some of that is true i guess......

RazrSkutr

It's obvious from the last few pages of discussion that HagenXXX and others shared this belief. What's stunning is that when it's been demonstrated to him (in his own Copenhagen paradigm no less) that he responds "you win some, you lose some".

That's an interesting aspect of the disputes.

hagen2456

Will you please stop quoting out of context?

Besides, I have told you again and again that the number of accident are not equal to the number of deaths (in this case, overall accidents increase, serious accidents and deaths decrease).

That amateurs know more than experts? Please pour on the populism, and don't forget to tell Jan Gehl and all those cities all over the world who hire him and his architectural expertise that he's a know-nothing.

Chicago Al 

There may be a fundamental misinterpretation of that Copenhagen study going on. I read it though it's the kind of thing that makes my eyes glaze over.

A fundamental question I had that I don't see in the writeup (and may well have missed it) is: when was it done? If it was done years after the bike infrastructure was installed, as a kind of 'final grade' on safety improvements, then it indeed shows troubling results. If it was done a relatively short time after the cycle lanes and -ways were installed, as a part of the process, to see how it was working and what needed improvement, that's a whole different thing. And as Hagen's comments suggest that there were modifications made after the study to improve the very aspects that were not working well, I suspect it was the latter.

If that's the case, it would explain some baffling results, such as an increased rate of crashes, yet cyclists reporting 'feeling' safer. Or that anomalous result of far more crashes involving women. A possible explanation for these results might be: very few women cycling at all before the infrastructure changes, a large response to the infrastructure, with lots of inexperienced cyclists flooding the paths and ways, and a period of chaotic adjustment before these novice riders, many of them women, learn how the system works.

Riding in the Netherlands last summer, my wife and I were certainly clumsy in our use of their bike infrastructure simply because it's not what we are used to. In fact my wife had been cycling very little at all, and for me the use of a roundabout where cars would yield to me was completely counter-intuitive. So we also would have said that the infrastructure 'felt safe,' even as we ourselves were relatively 'dangerous' users of it.

John Forester

The discussion from which these quotations have been taken refers to American bikeways and American bicycle planners. About these I know the facts, because they have been experienced and documented so many times. My information about the N. European bikeways and their designers is much more limited, at least in part because they appear, so an official said, not to have documented the research, if any, on which they based their designs.

John Forester

I do not call people liars simply because they have views that disagree with mine. I call people liars when that is the most reasonable description of their action, based on what they have written against what they should know. I have always tried to conduct these discussions as if they were reasonable and polite. However, I have found, over forty years now, that when opposition to motoring is the base of bicycle advocacy the sense of the rightness of their cause drives such advocates to extreme positions that they can support only by false statements that, by now, have been demonstrated to be false that restating them should be named as lies.

genec

Based on your standard of "what they have written against what they should know" several posters here should be able to also extend the term "liar" to you... I sincerely doubt that those seeking better treatment and facilities for cyclists actually have any sort of opposition to motoring, but instead are merely seeking something better for cyclists on something other than motor vehicle specific facilities. Since most cyclists are also motorists, a true "opposition to motoring" would also be a detriment to them. But then you should know that.

John Forester

Yes, Bek and Pucher agree that governmental programs intended to make bicycle transport more popular increase bicycle transport to some degree. I have never written that that is not accurate. However, Pucher used to make other claims as well, that, for example, bikeways reduced the car-bike collision rate. I have been the most prominent critic of the engineering deficiencies of his papers, and he has now given up all such pretense of knowing causality and limits his claims to simple presentation of known statistics.

It appears, also, that Bek has moved along the same path, reducing his claim to one: government bicycling action deemed popular increases bicycle use.

Note that neither of these claims considers the actual factors which determine how much bicycle transport is likely to be produced by these governmental actions. It should be obvious, at first glance at least, that cities which developed as walking cities, and proved unsuited to mass motoring, are much more likely to produce large bicycle mode shares than are cities which developed as automotive cities. Such has been the case; therefore, the goal of producing a great switch from motor to bicycle transport through programs directed at bicycling is unlikely to be achieved.

Note that neither of these claims considers whether any of the governmental actions actually promotes the welfare of those who choose to cycle, which is the concern of vehicular cyclists. In America, doing what is popular about bicycle traffic makes bicycling worse for those who already do it properly and safely; that's the fault of the anti-cyclist, motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority aspects of American culture.

John Forester

Your logic is defective, Genec, which is so often the case. I never wrote that all efforts to seek better somethings for cyclists are driven by anti-motoring. And it is not necessarily true that all bikeway activism is driven by people who are not motorists; look at the number of times that bikeways are touted as reducing motoring congestion, in short as an advantage for motorists. The whole situation is more complicated than your shallow argumentation.

RazrSkutr

I'm not quoting you out of context. The context is that you claim that the Copenhagen model makes cycling safer. You were ignorant of the paper which I quoted which showed that on the contrary accidents increase by c.10%. Your response to this is really quite shocking and goes a long way to convince me that skepticism as to the cynical real-politik of "bike lane advocates" is justified. Your hyperbolic hysteria when faced with your own words is instructive.

WIth absolutely no offence intended: you telling me something does not suffice. I will be satisfied with a statistically significant study such as the Jensen one. Failing that (and it's important to note that despite the black-and-white assertions made by you and others that think in the same manner there is apparently little information) I would be interested to see a link to _any_ information you have about the death rate at intersections in Copenhagen before and after the construction of separated cycle-tracks.



Well, I've seen what he likes in Montreal and I'm not impressed by it. Don't forget that "the experts" also include the people that decided that the future was car-based travel connecting suburbs by high-speed arterials.

It's not populist to retain a critical attitude towards experts that propose interesting solutions but lack the statistics to demonstrate that what they claim will happen has actually happened.

Reading your recent posts I'm reminded of why I got irritated with you in the first place. Please supply some factual information and bottle-up the ire. It doesn't advance the discussion at all.

Bekologist

there's more than a couple of obvious things that are messed up with that one, singular study that's negative

THEY INCLUDED MOPEDS.. that's that's not the only problem..

The streets with bikeways in the study are referenced to be a type of second tier of roadways getting bikeways. I suspect some were not ideal installations.....Additionally, the bikeways in the study had not received any fine tuning after the initial installation of the bikeways.

i suspect, carefully selected for the study from "traffictek" to show biased results.

RazrSkutr

What's your objection to the inclusion of mopeds? To me they're a two-wheeled vehicle constrained to the same max velocity as a bicycle and using the same infrastructure. Benefits/hazards for moped riders should be roughly the same as for cyclists.

wphamilton

not precisely "BOTH car and bicycle drivers" (referring to the annual number of accident victims). One may read your objection in a way in which you did not intend. Just to clarify, the reduction is the case with automobiles and also the case with cyclists. There are two lines in the table, one for automobiles and one for cyclists. In each case, the number more than halved. The reduction in fatalities is even more pronounced in terms of casualty per passenger mile.

Your question is probably rhetorical, but without further information it is impossible to state with any confidence the cause of the reduction of automobile passenger fatalities. I would be extremely hesitant to jump to the conclusion that you imply: that since both were reduced, the reduction in cycling cannot be related to cycling infrastructure. They may or may not be related, and if related one of the factors may indeed be cycling facilities. Your objection appears to me to be the result of overly enthusiastic generalizing (eg, that there must be a singular common cause) compounded by reasoning to a faulty contrapositive (that it cannot be cycling facilities because driving is not cycling).

More likely, there are both common and distinct causes, and without knowing more I'd venture that traffic safety issues were addressed in general, with some success. The more reasonable scenario is perfectly in line with the thrust of that article.

Regarding safety of intersections, I think it is uncontroversial to state that the greatest danger of cyclist/automobile accidents exists at or close to traffic intersections. The usual "bike lane" that I've seen - the line simply extends to the intersection - does not significantly alter the situation other than placing the cyclist more dangerously, so it is no surprise that the frequency of those accidents remains the same or increases. There are however other designs and methods which do reduce the danger. For an extreme example I'm not likely to be struck while riding under the overpass - other than falling off the bridge it is physically impossible!

hagen2456

OK. I'll answer this one, and that's it. No more discussions with you. You're not worth it.

The "out of context" refers, of course, to the fact that yes, I wrote that "you win some, you lose some" and then continued to note that the number of accidents went up, and the number of deaths down. But you used the out-of-context quote as a means of slander. That in itself should have made me stop any conversation with you, as it is a totally dysfunctional way of debating.

Next, I was, as far as I know, the first on this board to refer to the paper (though only ā propos, in a response, I think, to Genec in another thread). So you were in the wrong there, again, and you should have been able to see that from my "reaction" alone. No, you can't read. Sorry.

I think that "Your hyperbolic hysteria" speaks for itself.

Goodbye. I won't take any more bull**** from you.