A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old June 1st 19, 08:51 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 2:37:49 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 9:27 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


snip

In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure
that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will
almost certainly be rejected.


Really? https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

https://bikeportland.org/2016/08/12/...traffic-189251

Most of the bike lanes around here get a fair amount of traffic, some way more than others. Is it so heavy that separate light phases are needed for bikes? I don't think so, although in some places, turning motorists may appreciate it during peak commuter hours. Otherwise, probably not. In some European cities, it makes sense.

-- Jay Beattie.


If I could choose one, of many, subjects to educate Frank about, it
would be that the world does not revolve around Youngstown, Ohio.

Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest of World
Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest of U.S.A.


Are you pretending Portland, Oregon = Rest of World? Or Rest of USA?

Are you pretending (like many bike segregation advocates) that Amsterdam or
Copenhagen = Rest of World?

How does Cupertino compare to Amsterdam for bike mode share? Or how does it
compare even to Portland?

I think cities like Youngstown, Akron, Indianapolis, Columbus, Lansing,
Peoria, St. Louis etc. are FAR more typical of the U.S. than are Portland,
Seattle or Cupertino.

And I'm really tired of starry-eyed dreamers saying "Amsterdam has _great_ bike
mode share and lots of bike lanes! If we just put in bike lanes we can get 30%
bike mode share too!" Such nonsense!

Again, the U.S. as a whole will never reach 10% bike mode share unless there is
some sort of catastrophe that changes everything about our society. I suppose
as mayor, you may be able to cause such a catastrophe in your city. Please give
it a try.

- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #52  
Old June 1st 19, 09:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 11:49:09 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 12:27:12 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 1, 2019 at 7:50:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

In the U.S., almost all bike lanes have almost no bikes. Any measure
that adds expense and adds traffic delays to cater to an empty lane will
almost certainly be rejected.


Really? https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

https://bikeportland.org/2016/08/12/...traffic-189251


Really.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=o...mg.BMqe9cdCgGg

https://alphanewsmn.com/waiting-in-a...pty-bike-lane/

Everyone knows Portland is always at the top of the list for bike use in large
cities. That's nice, but it's hardly representative of the rest of the U.S. In
fact, it will never be representative of the rest of the U.S., any more than
Amsterdam is representative of Europe.

Most of the bike lanes around here get a fair amount of traffic, some way more than others. Is it so heavy that separate light phases are needed for bikes? I don't think so, although in some places, turning motorists may appreciate it during peak commuter hours. Otherwise, probably not. In some European cities, it makes sense.


How well do you think Portland's bike mode share has reduced congestion? Can a
motorist drive from (say) NW Johnson & 21st to SE Hawthorn & 50th faster than
ten years ago?


The population has exploded, so no. There are zillions of cars on the road, but there would be X + Zillion if people here didn't ride bikes. Imagine existing auto traffic plus all those people on North Williams in the link I sent. Throw in all the people who ride and park on the South Waterfront. If they were all in cars, it would be a real mess. https://bikeportland.org/2012/04/26/...dly-lead-70962 Substitute all those bikes for cars, and the bike parking actually go around the building. BTW, I ride in the scrum through South Waterfront, which is basically a pop-up condo city and a giant extension of the OHSU campus/clinics. Anyway, rush hour there would be a lot worse.

Yes, lots of bike lanes go unused in the middle of the day and on many days, but most of them are just paint. No roadway was taken away from cars, and in some cases, additional roadway was created. Unlike some of the hard-core advocates, I am against taking surface away from cars or not building roads or, in PDX, not building parking under the assumption that everyone is going to ride. That's a wrong assumption as the bowling-ball shaped people in the elevator at work illustrate every day. Apart from those with legitimate excuses -- distance, terrain, physical disability -- there are a whole lot of people who will never ride a bike.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #53  
Old June 1st 19, 09:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On 6/1/2019 1:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

The population has exploded, so no. There are zillions of cars on the road, but there would be X + Zillion if people here didn't ride bikes. Imagine existing auto traffic plus all those people on North Williams in the link I sent. Throw in all the people who ride and park on the South Waterfront. If they were all in cars, it would be a real mess. https://bikeportland.org/2012/04/26/...dly-lead-70962 Substitute all those bikes for cars, and the bike parking actually go around the building. BTW, I ride in the scrum through South Waterfront, which is basically a pop-up condo city and a giant extension of the OHSU campus/clinics. Anyway, rush hour there would be a lot worse.

Yes, lots of bike lanes go unused in the middle of the day and on many days, but most of them are just paint. No roadway was taken away from cars, and in some cases, additional roadway was created. Unlike some of the hard-core advocates, I am against taking surface away from cars or not building roads or, in PDX, not building parking under the assumption that everyone is going to ride. That's a wrong assumption as the bowling-ball shaped people in the elevator at work illustrate every day. Apart from those with legitimate excuses -- distance, terrain, physical disability -- there are a whole lot of people who will never ride a bike.


It's also important to understand that an increase in traffic density
causes an exponential decrease in the traffic flow rate once a road is
saturated. So every additional vehicle that you can remove from the road
by encouraging bicycling has a larger effect than if the decreases in
traffic flow were linear with increased density.

It's not necessary to increase bicycle usage to 50% or 75% of commuting
in order to have a measurable effect on congestion. Just getting it to
10-15% would pay off in terms of reduced congestion. Of course once
congestion goes down there will be pressure for higher density because
an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) will show that the roads can handle
more vehicle traffic.

The entities behind the idea of not adding parking when new residential
or commercial space is built do not actually believe that if you don't
provide parking that more people will not own cars and will instead
walk, bicycle, or take mass transit. They just don't want to be burdened
with the cost of parking, preferring to export the parking from parking
garages onto streets.

I think that Frank really does understand that Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest
of U.S.A. but he's so totally invested in his agenda that he can't break
free and admit the facts.
  #54  
Old June 2nd 19, 12:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On 6/1/2019 4:44 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 1:20 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

The population has exploded, so no. There are zillions of cars on the
road, but there would beÂ* X + Zillion if people here didn't ride
bikes.Â* Imagine existing auto traffic plus all those people on North
Williams in the link I sent.Â* Throw in all the people who ride and
park on the South Waterfront.Â* If they were all in cars, it would be a
real mess.
https://bikeportland.org/2012/04/26/...dly-lead-70962
Substitute all those bikes for cars,Â* and the bike parking actually go
around the building. BTW, I ride in the scrum through South
Waterfront, which is basically a pop-up condo city and a giant
extension of the OHSU campus/clinics. Anyway, rush hour there would be
a lot worse.

Yes, lots of bike lanes go unused in the middle of the day and on many
days, but most of them are just paint.Â* No roadway was taken away from
cars, and in some cases, additional roadway was created.Â* Unlike some
of the hard-core advocates, I am against taking surface away from cars
or not building roads or, in PDX, not building parking under the
assumption that everyone is going to ride. That's a wrong assumption
as the bowling-ball shaped people in the elevator at work illustrate
every day. Apart from those with legitimate excuses -- distance,
terrain, physical disability -- there are a whole lot of people who
will never ride a bike.


It's also important to understand that an increase in traffic density
causes an exponential decrease in the traffic flow rate once a road is
saturated. So every additional vehicle that you can remove from the road
by encouraging bicycling has a larger effect than if the decreases in
traffic flow were linear with increased density.

It's not necessary to increase bicycle usage to 50% or 75% of commuting
in order to have a measurable effect on congestion. Just getting it to
10-15% would pay off in terms of reduced congestion.


OK, Stephen, please show where that has happened. Show a U.S. city that
has demonstrated a measured drop in motor vehicle congestion as a result
of a significant increase in bike mode share.

I'll wait.

I think that Frank really does understand that Youngstown, Ohio â‰* Rest
of U.S.A. but he's so totally invested in his agenda that he can't break
free and admit the facts.


I've never said Youngstown equals the rest of the USA. But I do think
it's closer to typical than Portland is. Certainly, there are hundreds
of other cities with our near zero bike mode share. (Akron, Cleveland,
Dayton, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, South Bend, Peoria, Detroit,
Jacksonville, Tulsa, Omaha, etc. etc. etc. are all under 1%.) Can you
tell us how many have Portland's 6% to 7% bike mode share?
https://bikeportland.org/2017/09/14/...ommutes-242853

And BTW, what's the bike mode share of Cupertino? Aren't you closer to
the national average of 0.6% than to Portland's 6%? That means you're
also closer to Youngstown, Ohio. That's despite being host to one of the
trendiest companies in the world.

Isn't that odd?

(For those who won't bother searching it out, Alta Planning - a major
bike lane promotion company - claims Cupertino is at 0.7% bike mode
share. Same as Cleveland!)

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #55  
Old June 2nd 19, 04:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 11:49:06 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

But I think the
only way to get people out of cars and onto bikes would be to make motoring
much, much less convenient than it is now, .


As long as the majority know how to drive cars and the vast majority
don't even know that riding a bike is possible, nothing will get
people out of their cars and onto bikes.

The only way to get people to ride bikes is to teach bike-riding to
twelve-year-olds, and teach more-advanced techniques when the children
are thirteen and fourteen and fifteen.

But with four years of on-the-road experience under the belts of
newly-licensed drivers, we wouldn't smear all that delicious
sixteen-year-old blood on the streets. The elder gods will never put
up with education; after all, it could cost as much as a yard of bike
trail per student!

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/


  #56  
Old June 2nd 19, 06:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"

On Fri, 31 May 2019 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 5:09:44 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:43:08 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/30/2019 4:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

"While the policy implications of this work point to protected and
separated bike infrastructure as part of the solution, we need to keep
in mind that these approaches are complementary and should not be
considered in isolation. Moreover, our results - particularly the
safety disparities associated with gentrification - suggest equity
issues and the need for future research."

It's also important to understand that a city doesn't need to cover
every single foot (or mile) with protected bike lanes in order to make a
difference. Selecting the areas where problems most often occur is often
sufficient, and choosing one route out of many possible routes for a
protected bike lane is adequate, you don't have to have every parallel
road with identical infrastructure. This is what cities around here do,
we look at where protected bike lanes will have the most effect and
concentrate our financial resources on those areas.


Yet Streetsblog, StrongTowns and others recently staged demonstrations in which they put red plastic cups upside down on white bike lane stripes. They photographed cups that had been hit by cars and said "See? Stripes are NOT ENOUGH! It's time to build PROTECTED bike lanes!" There was no "... on certain streets..." or other modifiers.

Similarly, the first paper by Ferenchak and Marshall said shared lane markings are not enough, and that barrier separation is necessary. Why? It wasn't because their (admittedly screwy) mashup of data showed no safety benefit for sharrows. It was because other treatments claimed more safety benefit. So if you have a street too narrow for a bike lane? No sharrows! Plow it up and widen it so there's room for barrier protection!

What nonsense!

Also, be very careful when looking at the statistics of how ridership
levels change. Sometimes an area will have a steady increase over a long
period of time then all of a sudden have one bad year. An anomaly can be
a weather event, a natural disaster, or a host of other things. Some
people intentionally take numbers completely out of context in an effort
to mislead people. I can tell you that bicycle commuting in Silicon
Valley probably fell significantly for 2019 because we've had an
extremely wet winter and spring. Last year we had an unprecedented
number of bad air days due to large wildfires which led to less cycling.

For example lets look at Pittsburgh, PA. From 1990 to 2017 they had a
240.4% increase in those 27 years. From 2006 to 2017 they had a 67.4%
increase over 11 years. From 2011 to 2017 they had a 2% increase over
six years. But there was a drop of 45.2% from 2016 to 2017. You can't
ignore a long-term huge increase and then look only at a single year?
that kind of cherry=picking of statistics is extremely dishonest and is
something that you often see when someone is trying to manipulate
statistics to suit a particular agenda.


Yes, let's talk about interpretation of data. Pittsburgh had a huge increase from 1990 to 2017. According to Bike Pgh, the main advocacy organization there, the first commuting-oriented bike lanes went in during 2007. See https://www.bikepgh.org/about-us/history/
That means almost all the growth trumpeted by Scharf happened _before_ the relevant facilities. Many more bike facilities were installed since then, but the growth was minimal - Scharf claims only 2%, and a big drop last year.

ISTM the 1990 - 2011 growth couldn't be because of facilities. Instead, the growth was probably driven by the same factor that caused San Francisco's bike mode share to jump when no facilities were built. It became (perhaps briefly) quite fashionable to ride a bike.

I'm all for increases in bicycling. But I'm not in favor of the current craze for saying "Riding is too dangerous unless you have barriers protecting you" or "Car tires must never touch the pavement where a bicyclist will ride." I'm not in favor of "Any bike facility is a good bike facility" - the mentality that's painted hundreds of miles of bike lanes within door zones, or to the right of right turn only lanes, or hidden behind parked cars.

In general, I'm not a fan of either horror literature or fantasy literature. It's regrettable that so many "bike advocates" engage in producing both.

- Frank Krygowski


These are not totally effective because there are so many incompetent drivers and in California there are a lot of unlicensed drivers as well. Asian women in large SUV's do not feel the need to remain in the middle of their lane and wander all around over the lines on both sides.


"Asian women in large SUV's"?

It must be something about the U.S. as my wife is an Asian woman and
drives a medium size SUV and does feel the need to remain in the
middle of her lane and does not wander all around over the lines on
both sides.



I find this really puzzling since all of the state, counties and cities are having very bad financial problems and this would be an immediate and LARGE income stream and yet they throw it away.

--

Cheers,

John B.
  #57  
Old June 2nd 19, 06:54 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"

On Thu, 30 May 2019 22:14:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 4:40:29 AM UTC+2, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 7:43:08 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/30/2019 4:07 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

"While the policy implications of this work point to protected and
separated bike infrastructure as part of the solution, we need to keep
in mind that these approaches are complementary and should not be
considered in isolation. Moreover, our results - particularly the
safety disparities associated with gentrification - suggest equity
issues and the need for future research."

It's also important to understand that a city doesn't need to cover
every single foot (or mile) with protected bike lanes in order to make a
difference. Selecting the areas where problems most often occur is often
sufficient, and choosing one route out of many possible routes for a
protected bike lane is adequate, you don't have to have every parallel
road with identical infrastructure. This is what cities around here do,
we look at where protected bike lanes will have the most effect and
concentrate our financial resources on those areas.

Also, be very careful when looking at the statistics of how ridership
levels change. Sometimes an area will have a steady increase over a long
period of time then all of a sudden have one bad year. An anomaly can be
a weather event, a natural disaster, or a host of other things. Some
people intentionally take numbers completely out of context in an effort
to mislead people. I can tell you that bicycle commuting in Silicon
Valley probably fell significantly for 2019 because we've had an
extremely wet winter and spring. Last year we had an unprecedented
number of bad air days due to large wildfires which led to less cycling.

For example lets look at Pittsburgh, PA. From 1990 to 2017 they had a
240.4% increase in those 27 years. From 2006 to 2017 they had a 67.4%
increase over 11 years. From 2011 to 2017 they had a 2% increase over
six years. But there was a drop of 45.2% from 2016 to 2017. You can't
ignore a long-term huge increase and then look only at a single year?
that kind of cherry=picking of statistics is extremely dishonest and is
something that you often see when someone is trying to manipulate
statistics to suit a particular agenda.


So what do those bicyclists in segregated protected bicycle lanes do when that lane ends? See the problem? Unless the segregated bike lane goes to exactly where the bicyclist wants to go the non-bicyclist is NOT likely to take up bicycling and that's because the "segregated bicycle lane" spiel HAS CONVINCED them that it's TOO DANGEROUS to ride anywhere but in a segregated bicycle lane. How do you expect people to get to and from those segregated bike lanes if you keep harping that bicycling is too dangerous if not in a segregated bicycle lane and without all sorts of safety equipment, such as DRL and bright clothing on bicycles? In effect you're probably doing more to discourage people from taking up bicycling as transportation than you are encouraging them.

Cheers


Maybe you should come and look here in the Netherlands how we do it. Along roads with a 80 km/hr speed limit all the bicycle lanes are seperated.

Lou


Not to disparage the Netherlands but you have been building bike lanes
since the late 1890's and the use of bicycles is much, much higher
than in the U.S.
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #58  
Old June 2nd 19, 07:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 547
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"

On Fri, 31 May 2019 10:48:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/31/2019 7:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Lack of education or intelligence is a serious problem here and a problem with bike lanes generally. If motorists simply understood that a bike lane was a "lane" and that they had to look for traffic before changing lanes, at least half of the right-hooks would be eliminated. I think very few drivers know the traffic laws or what their obligations are to bicycles and pedestrians. And a lot of pedestrians think that the laws requiring vehicles to yield to pedestrians in crossing facilities give them carte blanche to just leap into traffic. I have pedestrians step in front of me when I'm in the intersection first -- and they get huffy that I didn't slam on the brakes and go OTB when they stepped or ran off the curb (often runners who don't stop at intersections). And don't get me going on runners in the bike lanes.


One of the biggest reasons for protected bicycle lanes is to make it
physically impossible for clueless and inexperienced drivers to do
stupid and illegal things. You'll never achieve this with either
education or law enforcement, the problem is just too big and there is
neither the will nor the money to solve the problem in any other way.

Now if we could find a way to physically force pedestrians to look up
from their phones when crossing a street that would be something that we
should implement. We have several crosswalks in my city where this would
be useful.

I really like what the City of San Jose (Gateway to Cupertino) has done
downtown with their protected bike lanes, especially at intersections.
Intersections are the most problematic area for protected bike lanes.
But some drivers are unhappy, especially with the protected bike lanes
next to the curb and parallel parking between the vehicle lanes and the
bike lane. In the past, a driver would open their door into the bike
lane, endangering bicyclists. Now they are opening their door into a
traffic lane and have to be careful getting out.


Given that the LA County study done by the CHP in 2012 demonstrated
that of 4637 collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles, for
which cause could be determined, some 2759, or 59.5% were caused by
the bicycle and only 1878, or 40.5% were caused by motorists, it would
appear that statistically "to make it physically impossible for
clueless and inexperienced drivers to do stupid and illegal things"
might be better read as "to make it physically impossible for clueless
and inexperienced CYCLISTS to do stupid and illegal things."
--

Cheers,

John B.
  #59  
Old June 2nd 19, 03:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On 6/1/2019 10:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Not to disparage the Netherlands but you have been building bike lanes
since the late 1890's and the use of bicycles is much, much higher
than in the U.S.


If only we could figure out if there were a relationship with building
more bike lanes and much higher use of bicycles.
  #60  
Old June 2nd 19, 04:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,270
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:06:10 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 6/1/2019 10:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Not to disparage the Netherlands but you have been building bike lanes
since the late 1890's and the use of bicycles is much, much higher
than in the U.S.


If only we could figure out if there were a relationship with building
more bike lanes and much higher use of bicycles.


In some locales there might be a bit of an increase in bicycle use but the predominate trend seems to be no, building more bike lanes does NOT normally mean a MUCH HIGHER use of bicycles.

Cheers
 




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
Stoned drivers are safer than drunk ones, study finds Alycidon UK 3 August 19th 15 08:48 PM
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 33 April 17th 08 06:10 AM
Shimano, IMBA Release MTB Economics "Study" (Read "Lies") Mike Vandeman Social Issues 32 April 17th 08 06:10 AM
Cycle lanes a "danger" to drivers. Simon Mason[_2_] UK 10 March 12th 08 01:44 AM
Cycle lanes save lives POHB UK 2 July 18th 07 11:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:54 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.