A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 2nd 20, 07:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,244
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists

QUOTE:
Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists overtaking cyclists in a dangerous manner simply to get ahead of them – a type of driving behaviour that now has its own acronym, MGIF (Must Get In Front) because they perceive that bike riders are holding them up. Now, a new study from the United States highlights just how pointless such passing manoeuvres are, finding that cyclists are not responsible for holding up motorists in traffic.

Published last month (link is external) in the journal Transportation Research Record, the study highlighted that “A concern raised by some motorists in relation to the presence of bicycles on urban roads without bicycle lanes … is that cyclists will slow down motorised vehicles and therefore create congestion.”

Researchers from Portland State University’s Transportation, Technology & People Laboratory sought to establish whether that was true on urban roads without cycle lanes.

They found that “Bicycles are not likely to lead to reduced passenger car travel speed,” and “In most cases, the differences in speed were not significant from a practical standpoint.”

The study was carried out on six streets in Portland, Oregon, and involved two scenarios – the first where a cyclist rode in front of a passenger car, the second where it was another car in front of a car.

While “a few statistically significant differences” between those two scenarios were identified, “the actual speed differences were generally in the order of 1 mph or less.

“Therefore, differences in class two (motorised passenger) vehicle speeds with and without cyclists were found to be negligible from a practical perspective,” the study concluded.

As cycling journalist and author Carlton Reid highlights on Forbes.com (link is external), the study found that people riding their bikes downhill were less likely to be passed by drivers, since they were travelling more quickly than they would on flat roads.

Reid asked study co-author Miguel Figliozzi about the potential implications of that for people riding e-bikes.

Figliozzi told him that e-bike riders “are not as affected by uphills, and have better travel performance regarding speed and acceleration. In a low volume and low-speed street, motorists are less likely to overtake e-bikes because the speed differential is smaller or maybe zero.”

The study was welcomed by Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath, who told Reid: “It’s nice to have hard data to suggest that sharing roads with cyclists doesn’t slow down drivers by any real degree.

“A lot of sentiment towards cyclists is founded on prejudice rather than rational analysis.”

He said that the study would be of most value to local politicians who are sympathetic towards making provision for cyclists but are concerned about it potentially causing congestion.

“They might find themselves reassured that such effects might not happen,” he explained.

With the caveat that the study was carried out on American roads, not British ones, he cautioned that some local authorities might use the results to oppose the case for segregated cycling infrastructure.

“Showing street planners that you can mix cycles and motors without speed impacts might make planners think it’s a good idea to mix cycles and motors,” he said.

https://road.cc/content/news/new-stu...torists-275103
Ads
  #2  
Old July 2nd 20, 08:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 374
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists

On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:03:52 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

QUOTE:
Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists


Oh no! Warrington CFotM has stalled in Feb 2019.
(see sig)

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
  #3  
Old July 3rd 20, 05:56 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists

On 02/07/2020 19:03, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists overtaking cyclists in a dangerous manner simply to get ahead of them – a type of driving behaviour that now has its own acronym, MGIF (Must Get In Front) because they perceive that bike riders are holding them up. Now, a new study from the United States highlights just how pointless such passing manoeuvres are, finding that cyclists are not responsible for holding up motorists in traffic.

Published last month (link is external) in the journal Transportation Research Record, the study highlighted that “A concern raised by some motorists in relation to the presence of bicycles on urban roads without bicycle lanes … is that cyclists will slow down motorised vehicles and therefore create congestion.”

Researchers from Portland State University’s Transportation, Technology & People Laboratory sought to establish whether that was true on urban roads without cycle lanes.

They found that “Bicycles are not likely to lead to reduced passenger car travel speed,” and “In most cases, the differences in speed were not significant from a practical standpoint.”

The study was carried out on six streets in Portland, Oregon, and involved two scenarios – the first where a cyclist rode in front of a passenger car, the second where it was another car in front of a car.

While “a few statistically significant differences” between those two scenarios were identified, “the actual speed differences were generally in the order of 1 mph or less.

“Therefore, differences in class two (motorised passenger) vehicle speeds with and without cyclists were found to be negligible from a practical perspective,” the study concluded.

As cycling journalist and author Carlton Reid highlights on Forbes.com (link is external), the study found that people riding their bikes downhill were less likely to be passed by drivers, since they were travelling more quickly than they would on flat roads.

Reid asked study co-author Miguel Figliozzi about the potential implications of that for people riding e-bikes.

Figliozzi told him that e-bike riders “are not as affected by uphills, and have better travel performance regarding speed and acceleration. In a low volume and low-speed street, motorists are less likely to overtake e-bikes because the speed differential is smaller or maybe zero.”

The study was welcomed by Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath, who told Reid: “It’s nice to have hard data to suggest that sharing roads with cyclists doesn’t slow down drivers by any real degree.

“A lot of sentiment towards cyclists is founded on prejudice rather than rational analysis.”

He said that the study would be of most value to local politicians who are sympathetic towards making provision for cyclists but are concerned about it potentially causing congestion.

“They might find themselves reassured that such effects might not happen,” he explained.

With the caveat that the study was carried out on American roads, not British ones, he cautioned that some local authorities might use the results to oppose the case for segregated cycling infrastructure.

“Showing street planners that you can mix cycles and motors without speed impacts might make planners think it’s a good idea to mix cycles and motors,” he said.

https://road.cc/content/news/new-stu...torists-275103


QUOTE:
“Bicycles are not likely to lead to reduced passenger car travel speed,”
and “In most cases, the differences in speed were not significant from a
practical standpoint.”
ENDQUOTE

TRANSLATION:
Yes, cyclists do hold up motor traffic, but not to a degree that bothers
cyclists.
  #4  
Old July 3rd 20, 06:03 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,244
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists

On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 8:02:34 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:03:52 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

QUOTE:
Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists


Oh no! Warrington CFotM has stalled in Feb 2019.


Here's a late entry from Liverpool!

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/fi...p-marshall.PNG

  #5  
Old July 3rd 20, 06:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mike Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 817
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists

On Friday, 3 July 2020 18:03:15 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 8:02:34 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:03:52 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

QUOTE:
Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists


Oh no! Warrington CFotM has stalled in Feb 2019.


Here's a late entry from Liverpool!

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/fi...p-marshall.PNG


That is one strong motorist. The only way that could happen is the driver lifting the car sideways onto the footway because motorists never drive on pavements.
  #6  
Old July 3rd 20, 06:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Mason[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,244
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists

On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 6:29:10 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 18:03:15 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 8:02:34 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:03:52 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

QUOTE:
Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists

Oh no! Warrington CFotM has stalled in Feb 2019.


Here's a late entry from Liverpool!

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/fi...p-marshall.PNG


That is one strong motorist. The only way that could happen is the driver lifting the car sideways onto the footway because motorists never drive on pavements.


They are allowed to drive along pavements in order to park on double yellow lines, or something.
  #7  
Old July 3rd 20, 11:51 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mike Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 817
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists

On Friday, 3 July 2020 18:31:54 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, July 3, 2020 at 6:29:10 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 3 July 2020 18:03:15 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 8:02:34 PM UTC+1, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:03:52 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

QUOTE:
Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists

Oh no! Warrington CFotM has stalled in Feb 2019.

Here's a late entry from Liverpool!

https://cdn.road.cc/sites/default/fi...p-marshall.PNG


That is one strong motorist. The only way that could happen is the driver lifting the car sideways onto the footway because motorists never drive on pavements.


They are allowed to drive along pavements in order to park on double yellow lines, or something.


I had forgotten rules only apply to motorists when convenient.
  #8  
Old July 4th 20, 04:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 875
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists

Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists overtaking cyclists in a

dangerous manner simply to get ahead of them – a type of driving behaviour that now


has its own acronym, MGIF (Must Get In Front) because they perceive that bike riders


are holding them up.


Even without cyclists many U. S. motorists like to accelerate up to red lights weaving in between cars on double lane roads to break in line, wasting fuel collectivizing risk to privatize the most petty advantage.

Elon Musk exploited MGIF to the max to sell EVs. The EV out accelerates the fuel vehicle trying to break in line before a red light. The EV can then drive next to the vehicle in the adjacent lane blocking all passing until the light turns green. The EV even recoups the energy braking.

Considering CAGW, accelerating up to a red right should be a $200 fine even w/o any lane swerving or cyclists. This would certainly result in collateral damage to the MGIF mentality as it also concerns cyclists.

Corporations pay Hollywood, Madison Ave. -- the "greater media" -- to astro turf all kinds of crank notions of glamour that are bad for public health. This certainly includes motor vehicle manufacturers.

Progressives and activists in the U. S. are kind of dumb whining mostly about the source of the money, the corporations, when it is much faster and easier to knee cap their shills.

Deglamouring Hollywood is slam dunk easy and seems to get nearly instantaneous results. ("Clint Eastwood nebber made no mobie about shooting up no Walmart.")

Even the "posh" media as one of the tabloid editors once called the MSM, are easy to de high brow. ("NPR's Robert Siegel spent 5 years jerryspringing the imPOORtant flag burner issue.")

You are hitting the shills precisely where it really hurts and shills cannot fight back.


Bret Cahill

  #9  
Old January 27th 21, 06:03 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 875
Default New study finds that cyclists don’t hold up motorists


Our Near Miss of the Day series regularly features motorists overtaking cyclists in a


dangerous manner simply to get ahead of them – a type of driving behaviour that now


has its own acronym, MGIF (Must Get In Front) because they perceive that bike riders


are holding them up.

Even without cyclists many U. S. motorists like to accelerate up to red lights weaving in between cars on double lane roads to break in line, wasting fuel collectivizing risk to privatize the most petty advantage.

Elon Musk exploited MGIF to the max to sell EVs. The EV out accelerates the fuel vehicle trying to break in line before a red light. The EV can then drive next to the vehicle in the adjacent lane blocking all passing until the light turns green. The EV even recoups the energy braking.


Of course they can always pull out a gun and start shooting at you:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/t...224928198.html


Considering CAGW, accelerating up to a red right should be a $200 fine even w/o any lane swerving or cyclists. This would certainly result in collateral damage to the MGIF mentality as it also concerns cyclists.

Corporations pay Hollywood, Madison Ave. -- the "greater media" -- to astro turf all kinds of crank notions of glamour that are bad for public health. This certainly includes motor vehicle manufacturers.

Progressives and activists in the U. S. are kind of dumb whining mostly about the source of the money, the corporations, when it is much faster and easier to knee cap their shills.

Deglamouring Hollywood is slam dunk easy and seems to get nearly instantaneous results. ("Clint Eastwood nebber made no mobie about shooting up no Walmart.")

Even the "posh" media as one of the tabloid editors once called the MSM, are easy to de high brow. ("NPR's Robert Siegel spent 5 years jerryspringing the imPOORtant flag burner issue.")

You are hitting the shills precisely where it really hurts and shills cannot fight back.


Bret Cahill

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cycling keeps your immune system young, study finds Bod[_5_] UK 3 March 16th 20 04:57 AM
Stronger legs associated with a 'fitter' brain finds study Alycidon UK 17 November 13th 15 07:29 PM
Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, study finds Alycidon UK 3 August 19th 15 08:48 PM
Study finds sports drinks very bad for the teeth Ben Kaufman General 2 March 24th 05 01:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.