View Single Post
  #43  
Old February 10th 20, 06:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,318
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 6:24 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski


And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're designed by Wiley Coyote?


Elsewhere today, I posted this comment about Door Zone Bike Lanes (DZBLs):

Years ago, I was a League Certified Instructor (LCI). I earned their
certification and taught their courses. And I proposed that there should
be a private email list for LCIs, to discuss course content, teaching
techniques, etc. without the "students" listening in.

LAB started such a list; perhaps it's still running.

One day a few years ago, an unsigned essay was sent to the list from
somebody at LAB. (Some of us suspected it was Andy Clarke, a very
pro-segregation guy who was then Director.) The paper was a long and
adamant defense of DZBLs. It said things like "Many bicyclists ride in
DZBLs every day without getting injured."

To me, it explained how cities I'd visited with DZBLs were given awards
as "Silver Level Bike Friendly Communities." (Personally, I'd say a DZBL
should blackball a city.)

I never found out who wrote that paper. But shortly after it appeared, I
was one of the many instructors who dropped out of LAB. That paper was
far from the only reason, but it contributed to my decision.

A much better alternative is Street Smarts. One thing they'll tell you
is "Don't let the paint think for you."


I don't know if you've ever noticed it but the Chevrolet Camaro has a door twice as wide as normal and it is impossible to build a bicycle lane wide enough that the door on these cars cannot totally block. And the sort of people that buy these cars are also the kind that throw them open without the slightest glance in their side mirrors.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home