SF: Now America's Top Big City for Biking!!

[Cycle America]

In case you missed it:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/05/25/gree.DTL

--
54% of New York City households do not own cars

M A R T I N K R I E G : "Awake Again" Author
http://www.bikeroute.com/AwakeAgain
Bent Since '83, Car Free Since '89, '79 & '86 TransAms********
Coma, Paralysis, Clinical Death Survivor*
Can You Change it with Love?*
N A T I O N A L B I C Y C L E G R E E N W A Y

[Ken]

"Cycle America" > wrote in message
...
>
> In case you missed it:
>
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/05/25/gree.DTL
>
The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly commute
by bicycle in San Francisco

This is not a lot for a city the size of SF. Hardly even a drop in the
bucket really.

Ken

[Roger Zoul]

Ken wrote:
:: "Cycle America" > wrote in message
:: ...
:::
::: In case you missed it:
:::
::: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/05/25/gree.DTL
:::
:: The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly
:: commute by bicycle in San Francisco
::
:: This is not a lot for a city the size of SF. Hardly even a drop in
:: the bucket really.

Doesn't need to be a 'lot' to be the 'top' big city for cycling...

[Ken]

"Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
...
> Ken wrote:
> :: "Cycle America" > wrote in message
> :: ...
> :::
> ::: In case you missed it:
> :::
> ::: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/05/25/gree.DTL
> :::
> :: The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly
> :: commute by bicycle in San Francisco
> ::
> :: This is not a lot for a city the size of SF. Hardly even a drop in
> :: the bucket really.
>
> Doesn't need to be a 'lot' to be the 'top' big city for cycling...
>
>
True, but 40,000 hardly even seems worth talking and or writting about.

Ken

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:59:01 -0400, "Ken"
> wrote:

>The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly commute
>by bicycle in San Francisco

Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike commuters.
Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten million for the
county?

You're right, that is pathetic!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Mark Hickey]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:59:01 -0400, "Ken"
> wrote:
>
>>The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly commute
>>by bicycle in San Francisco
>
>Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike commuters.
>Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten million for the
>county?
>
>You're right, that is pathetic!

When I lived in Beijing, there were around 12-14 million people there
(the Chinese weren't too good at census taking). There were 7 million
bikes, and it appeared that most of 'em were on the road at "rush
hour". You can't even imagine what it's like riding in a situation
like that until you do it - we have a long, long way to go.

Unfortunately, China is moving the way of the western world,
eliminating bikes and replacing them with cars.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

[Roger Zoul]

Ken wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" > wrote in message
:: ...
::: Ken wrote:
::::: "Cycle America" > wrote in message
::::: ...
::::::
:::::: In case you missed it:
::::::
::::::
:::::: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/05/25/gree.DTL
::::::
::::: The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly
::::: commute by bicycle in San Francisco
:::::
::::: This is not a lot for a city the size of SF. Hardly even a drop in
::::: the bucket really.
:::
::: Doesn't need to be a 'lot' to be the 'top' big city for cycling...
:::
:::
:: True, but 40,000 hardly even seems worth talking and or writting
:: about.

Perhaps articles such as that one will encourage more people to ride. You
have to start somewhere....

[Ken]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:59:01 -0400, "Ken"
> > wrote:
>
>>The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly commute
>>by bicycle in San Francisco
>
> Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike commuters.
> Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten million for the
> county?
>
> You're right, that is pathetic!
>
> Guy
> --
Well I just checked population and the number I got for SF was just over
750,000 so 40,000 thats a joke barely 5% or something like that.

Ken

[Mathias Koerber]

Just zis Guy, you know? said the following on 26/5/2005 20:30:
> Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike commuters.
> Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten million for the
> county?

London has about ten times the populkation you cited:

population info from: http://www.citypopulation.de/
(commuter info from this thread)

City Population Bike commuters %
SF 750,000 40,000 5.33
London 7,120,000 100,000 0.14

[GaryG]

"Ken" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:59:01 -0400, "Ken"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly
commute
> >>by bicycle in San Francisco
> >
> > Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike commuters.
> > Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten million for the
> > county?
> >
> > You're right, that is pathetic!
> >
> > Guy
> > --
> Well I just checked population and the number I got for SF was just over
> 750,000 so 40,000 thats a joke barely 5% or something like that.
>
> Ken
>

Compared to what? Did you sleep through statistics class?

GG

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:43:16 +0800, Mathias Koerber
> wrote:

>London has about ten times the populkation you cited:

Transposition error, sorry.

So, comparable population (greater London v. LA County)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[OnTwoWheels]

"Ken" > wrote in message
...
> >
> True, but 40,000 hardly even seems worth talking and or writting about.
>
> Ken
>

Think about adding 40,000 more cars to 5:00 traffic.

[Ken]

"GaryG" > wrote in message
...
> "Ken" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:59:01 -0400, "Ken"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly
> commute
>> >>by bicycle in San Francisco
>> >
>> > Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike commuters.
>> > Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten million for the
>> > county?
>> >
>> > You're right, that is pathetic!
>> >
>> > Guy
>> > --
>> Well I just checked population and the number I got for SF was just over
>> 750,000 so 40,000 thats a joke barely 5% or something like that.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> Compared to what? Did you sleep through statistics class?
>
> GG
>
Well I never looked up the population of London.

Ken

>

[Ken]

"OnTwoWheels" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Ken" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> True, but 40,000 hardly even seems worth talking and or writting about.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> Think about adding 40,000 more cars to 5:00 traffic.
>
>
You are assuming that all these people work the same hours. I highly doubt
it.

Ken

[Ken]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:43:16 +0800, Mathias Koerber
> > wrote:
>
>>London has about ten times the populkation you cited:
>
> Transposition error, sorry.
>
> So, comparable population (greater London v. LA County)
>
> Guy
Well SF is NOT is LA county.

Ken

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:47:14 -0400, "Ken"
> wrote:

>SF is NOT is LA county.

SF county. Bad Windows day, too much distraction :-)

Greater London is about 15% of the entire UK population - it's huge
and sprawling.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Ken]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:47:14 -0400, "Ken"
> > wrote:
>
>>SF is NOT is LA county.
>
> SF county. Bad Windows day, too much distraction :-)
>
> Greater London is about 15% of the entire UK population - it's huge
> and sprawling.
>
> Guy

But I am willing to bet that if you were to look up the % of people in
London that use methods of transport other than thier own motor vehicle, it
would be much higher than the % of either SF or LA. They have a great public
transit system over there, from what I have heard and read. I have never
been there.

Ken

[[email protected]]

Ken wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
> ...
> Well I just checked population and the number I got for SF was just over
> 750,000 so 40,000 thats a joke barely 5% or something like that.
>
I have to disagree. Here in San Diego, where people can't use the
weather as an excuse for not commuting by bike, I'm the only bike
commuter that I know. I'm the only one in my company (~100 people) and
at my previous employer (~500 people).

My route to work is 25 miles which passes through two industrial areas
(Kearney Mesa and Mira Mesa) and one university (San Diego State). On
a typical morning I might see one or two cyclists and maybe 1000 cars.
Nothing close to 5%.

I agree that it is all pathetic. But 5% is a whopping step up from
where I live.

Tom

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 26 May 2005 13:00:40 -0400, "Ken"
> wrote:

>I am willing to bet that if you were to look up the % of people in
>London that use methods of transport other than thier own motor vehicle, it
>would be much higher than the % of either SF or LA. They have a great public
>transit system over there, from what I have heard and read. I have never
>been there.

Large numbers of Londoners live car-free, and public transport is
commonly used by large numbers of people especially travelling to and
from the centre.

I *have* been there - in fact I live about 40 miles away :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Matt O'Toole]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:59:01 -0400, "Ken"
> > wrote:
>
>> The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people regularly
>> commute by bicycle in San Francisco
>
> Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike commuters.
> Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten million for the
> county?

Who said anything about LA? SF is 400 miles away. :-)

Also, I believe greater London is at least the same size as greater LA. In a
practical sense London is a bigger city. LA has patches of high density,
interspersed with low-mid density. Over the same area, London has relatively
high density throughout.

In central London, motorized traffic moves slowly enough that cycling is almost
always faster. Even with heavy traffic, this is not often true in LA. Not to
mention faster traffic is intimidating to most cyclists. Also, London is as
flat as a billiard table, which facilitates cycling for everyone -- not just the
young and fit. LA is a lot hillier than most people think.

> You're right, that is pathetic!

That I agree with!

If it's any consolation, I've noticed a huge increase in the number of bike
commuters in Orange County, CA. What was once a trickle of cyclist commuters on
major throughfares has become a steady stream. I think this is due to a
combination of things -- a rapid increase in driving commute times; a
time-pressed, but health conscious population that wants to get their exercise
in; and a sudden, tremendous increase in the cost of living and driving, w/o
increases in pay -- especially for the working poor.

To an even greater degree, the latter is probably a factor in SF cycling too.
When people can hardly afford their rent anymore, they can no longer afford to
keep a car on the road.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Ken wrote:

> Well I just checked population and the number I got for SF was just
> over 750,000 so 40,000 thats a joke barely 5% or something like that.

It may be a joke to a European, but it's over twice the norm for an American
city.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

wrote:

> I have to disagree. Here in San Diego, where people can't use the
> weather as an excuse for not commuting by bike, I'm the only bike
> commuter that I know. I'm the only one in my company (~100 people)
> and at my previous employer (~500 people).
>
> My route to work is 25 miles which passes through two industrial areas
> (Kearney Mesa and Mira Mesa) and one university (San Diego State).

This is one of the problems -- too many people live too far from work. 25
miles, or 50 miles a day, 250 miles a week, is a lot of riding for most people,
even for most "avid" cyclists. Heck, it's more than I ride.

I definately agree about San Diego's weather and relatively bike-friendly roads
though.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Ken wrote:

> But I am willing to bet that if you were to look up the % of people in
> London that use methods of transport other than thier own motor
> vehicle, it would be much higher than the % of either SF or LA. They
> have a great public transit system over there, from what I have heard
> and read. I have never been there.

That's for sure. We LA lovers all dream of how wonderful LA would be, with
public transportation like that. It's getting better, but it still has a long,
long way to go.

Matt O.

[Fritz M]

Ken wrote:

> But I am willing to bet that if you were to look up the % of people in
> London that use methods of transport other than thier own motor vehicle, it
> would be much higher than the % of either SF or LA. They have a great public
> transit system over there, from what I have heard and read.

I've used public transit in San Fran, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris and a few
other smaller cities. Never been to London. In spite of the language
barrier, I've generally been able to figure out how to get around when
I'm overseas more easily than here in the States. Other than that, I've
been able to get around on rail transit in S.F. just fine.

RFM

[Ken]

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> I have to disagree. Here in San Diego, where people can't use the
>> weather as an excuse for not commuting by bike, I'm the only bike
>> commuter that I know. I'm the only one in my company (~100 people)
>> and at my previous employer (~500 people).
>>
>> My route to work is 25 miles which passes through two industrial areas
>> (Kearney Mesa and Mira Mesa) and one university (San Diego State).
>
> This is one of the problems -- too many people live too far from work. 25
> miles, or 50 miles a day, 250 miles a week, is a lot of riding for most
> people,
> even for most "avid" cyclists. Heck, it's more than I ride.
>
> I definately agree about San Diego's weather and relatively bike-friendly
> roads
> though.
>
> Matt O.
>
>
But I would put money on 25% or more of the people that live in SD DO NOT
work more than 25 miles from home.

Ken

[Matt O'Toole]

Ken wrote:

> But I would put money on 25% or more of the people that live in SD DO
> NOT work more than 25 miles from home.

That's actually the norm statewide, according to some stats I've seen
(admittedly over 10 years old, but AFAIK it's gotten worse).

Matt O.

[Ken]

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> Ken wrote:
>
>> But I would put money on 25% or more of the people that live in SD DO
>> NOT work more than 25 miles from home.
>
> That's actually the norm statewide, according to some stats I've seen
> (admittedly over 10 years old, but AFAIK it's gotten worse).
>
> Matt O.
>
>
Well that certainly makes me NOT want to relocate to CA.

Ken

[Matt O'Toole]

Fritz M wrote:

> Ken wrote:
>
>> But I am willing to bet that if you were to look up the % of people
>> in London that use methods of transport other than thier own motor
>> vehicle, it would be much higher than the % of either SF or LA. They
>> have a great public transit system over there, from what I have
>> heard and read.
>
> I've used public transit in San Fran, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris and a few
> other smaller cities. Never been to London. In spite of the language
> barrier, I've generally been able to figure out how to get around when
> I'm overseas more easily than here in the States. Other than that,
> I've been able to get around on rail transit in S.F. just fine.

All of the above plus Sydney, NYC, Boston and DC, and minus Chicago for me.
London has them all beat. I was surprised Paris wasn't better.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Ken wrote:

> Well that certainly makes me NOT want to relocate to CA.

Well, it was one thing that caused me to de-locate!

Matt O.

[Ken]

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
> Fritz M wrote:
>
>> Ken wrote:
>>
>>> But I am willing to bet that if you were to look up the % of people
>>> in London that use methods of transport other than thier own motor
>>> vehicle, it would be much higher than the % of either SF or LA. They
>>> have a great public transit system over there, from what I have
>>> heard and read.
>>
>> I've used public transit in San Fran, Chicago, Tokyo, Paris and a few
>> other smaller cities. Never been to London. In spite of the language
>> barrier, I've generally been able to figure out how to get around when
>> I'm overseas more easily than here in the States. Other than that,
>> I've been able to get around on rail transit in S.F. just fine.
>
> All of the above plus Sydney, NYC, Boston and DC, and minus Chicago for
> me.
> London has them all beat. I was surprised Paris wasn't better.
>
> Matt O.
>
>
Yeah well I will agree with NYC and Boston. They both have good public
transit.

Ken

[OnTwoWheels]

"Ken" > wrote in message
...
>
> "OnTwoWheels" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >
> > "Ken" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >
> >> True, but 40,000 hardly even seems worth talking and or writting about.
> >>
> >> Ken
> >>
> >
> > Think about adding 40,000 more cars to 5:00 traffic.
> >
> >
> You are assuming that all these people work the same hours. I highly doubt
> it.
>
> Ken
>
>

You can't say 40,000 cars off the road isn't significant. Of course we all
want 10 times that or more but I'm thankful for those 40,000.

[Leo Lichtman]

"Fritz M" wrote: (clip) I've been able to get around on rail transit in
S.F. just fine.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since you mention rail transit in SF, that brings up an interesting fact
that no one has mentioned. Much of the rail transit in SF is cable cars,
because of the very steep hills. For SF to achieve any kind of bicycling
record in spite of those hills is remarkable in itself.

[[email protected]]

Ken wrote:
> "Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ken wrote:
> >
> >> But I would put money on 25% or more of the people that live in SD DO
> >> NOT work more than 25 miles from home.
> >
> > That's actually the norm statewide, according to some stats I've seen
> > (admittedly over 10 years old, but AFAIK it's gotten worse).
> >
> > Matt O.
> >
> >
> Well that certainly makes me NOT want to relocate to CA.
>
> Ken
Please don't. There are enough people here already. Other reasons
include the cost of housing, earthquakes, our goofy governor ....

Tom

[Claire Petersky]

Leo Lichtman wrote in message ...

> For SF to achieve any kind of bicycling
>record in spite of those hills is remarkable in itself.

I gave this issue some thought during the ride home, and one of the things
that strikes me is that cities with topographic restrictions (water, hills)
like Seattle, SF, and Vancouver are considered bike-friendly, whereas cities
that are flat, and where you'd think it would be easier to cycle (Houston?),
have fewer cyclists. I think the hills and water mean that there are far
fewer routes for anyone -- on bike or in a car or on transit -- to choose
from. As a result, traffic congestion is higher overall. Bicycling on the
city streets becomes more appealing when the few limited-access highways are
moving at 5 or 10 mph.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky

[Matt O'Toole]

Claire Petersky wrote:

> Leo Lichtman wrote in message ...
>
>> For SF to achieve any kind of bicycling
>> record in spite of those hills is remarkable in itself.
>
> I gave this issue some thought during the ride home, and one of the
> things that strikes me is that cities with topographic restrictions
> (water, hills) like Seattle, SF, and Vancouver are considered
> bike-friendly, whereas cities that are flat, and where you'd think it
> would be easier to cycle (Houston?), have fewer cyclists. I think the
> hills and water mean that there are far fewer routes for anyone -- on
> bike or in a car or on transit -- to choose from. As a result,
> traffic congestion is higher overall. Bicycling on the city streets
> becomes more appealing when the few limited-access highways are
> moving at 5 or 10 mph.

This is true. Also, most port cities had matured before the age of the
automobile. So everything is laid out to human scale, rather than to automobile
scale. Houston is mostly a post WW-II boom town (oil, aerospace).

On top of its port city origins, modern Vancouver is a masterpiece of master
planning. Many of its major building projects were public/private partnerships,
with the city as developer in some cases. This was all done to a master plan,
resulting in one of the most livable cities anywhere. Of course it sucks if
*your* property gets taken in a public domain seizure for one of these
redevelopments, but few would argue with the results.

Matt O.

[Bob Dole]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
message ...
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 06:59:01 -0400, "Ken"
> > wrote:
>
> >The Bicycle Coalition estimates that up to 40,000 people
regularly commute
> >by bicycle in San Francisco
>
> Compare with London: 650,000 regular cyclists, 100,000 bike
commuters.
> Population about 750,000. LA population is, what? ten
million for the
> county?
>
> You're right, that is pathetic!

1. The population of London is 2.7 million inner boroughs and
4.4 million outer boroughs for a total of 7.1 million people.
I don't know which number is relevant to your 100,000 figure.
This means that either 1 in 27 or 1 in 71 people commute by
bike.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/year1/numerical/problems/london/london-pop-table.html

2. Who cares what the population of Los Angeles is? My guess
is that the people in San Francisco couldn't care less.

3. The population of San Francisco is about 770,000. So 40,000
bike commuters is about 1 in 19. At first glance, this is
higher than London. (although it is unclear this 40,000 number refers
to the city proper, or includes the suburbs)

4. I'm sure the cyclists in San Francisco will be happy to
receive your apology.

[OnTwoWheels]

> 2. Who cares what the population of Los Angeles is? My guess
> is that the people in San Francisco couldn't care less.
>

Actually we do. They're the ones who vote in the sick governors, horrendous
propositions, etc....

[bfd]

"OnTwoWheels" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> 2. Who cares what the population of Los Angeles is? My guess
>> is that the people in San Francisco couldn't care less.
>>
>
> Actually we do. They're the ones who vote in the sick governors,
> horrendous
> propositions, etc....
>
I disagree. The "red" part of California is in the middle and east. Fresno,
Bakersfield, Modesto, and many other small cities and towns you probably
never heard of. Of course, Orange County is on the coast, but we all know
that's not part of "Los Angeles"....

[Paul Turner]

Claire Petersky wrote:

> I gave this issue some thought during the ride home, and one of the
> things
> that strikes me is that cities with topographic restrictions (water,
> hills)
> like Seattle, SF, and Vancouver are considered bike-friendly, whereas
> cities
> that are flat, and where you'd think it would be easier to cycle
> (Houston?),
> have fewer cyclists. I think the hills and water mean that there are far
> fewer routes for anyone -- on bike or in a car or on transit -- to
> choose
> from. As a result, traffic congestion is higher overall. Bicycling on
> the
> city streets becomes more appealing when the few limited-access highways
> are
> moving at 5 or 10 mph.

There may be something to that, but It leaves Chicago as a counter-example
that needs to be explained away. Chicago has few topographic restrictions.
It's about as flat and regular as a chessboard. Even the lakeshore is a
big smooth curve, with no cliffs or fiords. There's a river, but with
almost 200 bridges it doesn't create many bottlenecks. Yet Chicago is a
very bike-friendly city, in my opinion.

--
Paul Turner

[Rich Clark]

"Paul Turner" > wrote in message
...

> There may be something to that, but It leaves Chicago as a counter-example
> that needs to be explained away. Chicago has few topographic restrictions.
> It's about as flat and regular as a chessboard. Even the lakeshore is a
> big smooth curve, with no cliffs or fiords. There's a river, but with
> almost 200 bridges it doesn't create many bottlenecks. Yet Chicago is a
> very bike-friendly city, in my opinion.

I think it's explainable, but it's not a simple explanation. Part of it is
that Chicago's street layout is more planned than many other cities'. Part
of it is Chicago's extensive cycling infrastructure. Part of it is that
Chicago has one of the best public transit systems in the world which, while
not solving the traffic problem, ameliorates it to some extent. Part of it
is that there's a Midwestern sensibility prevalent amongst the drivers that,
for whatever reason, tends to make them a bit more tolerant and law-abiding
than Eastern or Californian drivers in my experience.

Maybe underlying this is that Chicago has *always* been bike-friendly, and
it's a self-perpetuating attitude. Chicago's streets have always been full
of bikes, and the people who run the city are more likely to have been (or
to still be) cyclists themselves.

I grew up there, but for 35 years have lived and cycled in other cities.
When I go back and ride in Chicago I am still struck by how well drivers
accommodate cyclists on the streets, and just how much bikes are an
*expected* part of the traffic flow.

RichC

[Leo Lichtman]

"Rich Clark" wrote: (clip) When I go back and ride in Chicago I am still
struck by how well drivers accommodate cyclists on the streets, and just
how much bikes are an *expected* part of the traffic flow.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You have raised a very good point. When bicycles are present in numbers,
they increase the awareness of drivers. A lone cyclist may be seen as an
impediment, while a population of cyclists becomes part of the scene.

[Matt O'Toole]

Paul Turner wrote:

> There may be something to that, but It leaves Chicago as a
> counter-example that needs to be explained away. Chicago has few
> topographic restrictions. It's about as flat and regular as a
> chessboard. Even the lakeshore is a big smooth curve, with no cliffs
> or fiords. There's a river, but with almost 200 bridges it doesn't
> create many bottlenecks. Yet Chicago is a very bike-friendly city, in
> my opinion.

Again, it's an older city that took its final form before the age of the
automobile.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Leo Lichtman wrote:

> "Rich Clark" wrote: (clip) When I go back and ride in Chicago I am
> still struck by how well drivers accommodate cyclists on the
> streets, and just how much bikes are an *expected* part of the
> traffic flow. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> You have raised a very good point. When bicycles are present in
> numbers, they increase the awareness of drivers. A lone cyclist may
> be seen as an impediment, while a population of cyclists becomes part
> of the scene.

Well, put, Leo.

Matt O.