View Single Post
  #4  
Old February 6th 20, 11:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Cycling in NJ video

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 12:57:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/6/2020 10:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/video/bicyclist-p...in-the-street/


Raise your middle finger in solidarity, my brothers!


He's right on almost all of that. I don't react to motorist negativity
with his loud aggression, but I get far less negativity than he does
when I ride lane center.

I'm curious about his four crashes. From what I've seen, bike crashes
have a wide variety of causes. Without knowing details of his four
causes, we can't comment on what measures might have helped to mitigate
them.

But I'm very skeptical of the closing push for "protected" bike lanes. A
few months ago, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety published a
study of so-called "protected" bike lanes and found that except for
spots like bridges (with no possibility of crossing conflicts), the
"protected" bike lanes causes something like a dozen times as many
car-bike crashes as a major street with no bike lanes. A few years ago,
Columbus Ohio put in an up-to-date "parking protected" bike lane and saw
car bike crashes jump over 600%. Columbus also tried a different
"protected" lane in the 1970s and removed it within a year or two due to
increased crash counts. Davis, CA installed one in the 1960s and pulled
it within about a year for the same reason.

But boy, are they fashionable!



I wonder...

Various studies of bicycle/auto collisions have shown that, in some
cases, as many as 60 percent of the collisions are the fault of the
bicycle. Is the increased crashes in protected bike lanes simply added
evidence that cyclists are their own worse enemy? That by segregating
them you simply eliminate the bike/auto collision factor leaving only
added evidence that so many of the collisions are the fault of the
cyclist?
--
cheers,

John B.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home