Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

On 8/8/2011 3:22 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

Portland has seen enormous growth in bicycle use.

That's simply not possible because helmet usage percentages have gone up
dramatically as well.

On 8/6/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

But it's like an inverse lottery. Every one is likely to get a small
benefit, but a few are destined for a big loss. Ken K. and J. Brandt
being two examples. I'd say, given (apparent) human nature, that
lotteries are an attractive form of gambling, while cycling is an
unattractive one.

Nothing, other than not riding, would likely have saved Ken K. from a
driver under the influence of drugs and alcohol. In the face of
overwhelming evidence people do occasionally change their minds about
things.

Frank Krygowski writes:

Dan wrote:
Frank writes:

Dan wrote:

DANGER! DANGER!

You're misunderstanding the conversation, Dan. I don't recall Tom
every claiming that bicycling is very dangerous. Quite the opposite.


DANGER! DANGER! ... is what the die-hard cager too afraid to take the
plunge is going to hear when you say something like, "... inability to
prevent serious brain trauma is well established."

So we should start saying "Look, competent biking is very safe. The
fear mongering is false.

What fear-mongering? 99.44% of the fear is simply inherent in the
cagers' minds based on their sense of what it must be like to try and
ride a bike in traffic - without any "fear mongers" telling them it's
dangerous. Experience riding around will eventually show them that
impression was false. You know it, I know it. Some education may
begin to make them question the reasonableness of their fear, but it
won't go away until they've put in the saddle time.


Riding a bike in a normal way has never been
an unusual head injury risk."


But still a risk (not making more of it than it is). And you know
I have a problem with your qualifier "normal".

Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to
stop and go and balance and steer?

Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh,
"Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the
right and ability to control their space.")

A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping
to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows
the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience,
if you ask me.

What was it about your life that gave you such an anti-education bent?

Whether it was playing sports, doing engineering, playing a musical
instrument, riding bike or whatever, I've found that getting some good
instruction made skills much easier to acquire.

That doesn't mean that one plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke after
three hours of fiddle lessons. But it does mean that nobody plays
like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke if they've never had a lesson.


I am all about education - *love* it!

Fine. Then don't disparage it.

Don't say nothin' bad about it? Dogmatic?

Three hours of on-bike training won't
turn a novice into Hans Rey.

No **** (whoever that is).

It looked to me like they spend three hours going from place to place
(in a group, which does not present a realistic traffic experience unless
they only ever ride in a group - but nothing wrong with it for the exper-
ience of the education course) *analyzing* situations and a *little* bit
of time trying things out.

Only when riding in traffic is second nature after they've had lots and
lots of time to sort things out for themselves without someone holding
their hand will they become comfortable with it (lose their previous
unrealistic fear [note that I do not call it "irrational" fear. it *is*
unrealistic, but not necessarily irrational])

But it can make them significantly
better at understanding how their bike behaves, and set them on the
path to learning much faster through their subsequent experience.


Sure, and I acknowledge that that sort of thing may do some good *for
the sort of people* that that sort of thing does any good (of which
there are plenty).

My present point in this discussion is what is "the surest way to get
cagers out of their cars and using bikes instead", and I maintain that
experience riding is the only best way for them to realize that bi-
cycling is not so dangerous as they seem to believe, and that facilities
are the surest way to get them to take the plunge, and that they don't
need anyone treating them like idiot, chicken**** babies if they a
helmet makes them more comfortable and give them the extra sense of
security that lets them keep riding long enough to learn how it really
is.

If you can point to any publicity anywhere that calls helmeted
cyclists "idiot chicken**** babies," please give us a citation. Until
you do, I say you're just building straw men to knock down.


I'm feeling civil today, so resisted my knee jerk to this absurdity coming
from you. Look in the mirror ;-)

Frank Krygowski writes:

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:26 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

The rest of the factors you mention would not give me measurable
benefit, and would give some detriments. Even in the core of downtown
Pittsburgh at rush hour (really, gridlock hour), I've never needed a
separate bike lane to avoid vehicles jammed curb to curb.

If so, either you or Pittsburgh are unusual. Being impeded by vehicular
traffic, whether cycling or on foot, significantly detracts from the
convenience of either.

Yes, being _significantly_ impeded by anything at all does significantly
detract from the convenience of _any_ mode of transportation. That
includes weather delays when flying, trains that are late, crowds of
zoning-out walkers on a MUP, etc. This is life in our universe, like it
or not.

I'm not talking about acts of god, I'm talking about planned congestion
and associated delays. You know, that stuff people go to school to learn.

The point is, delays inconvenience people, and delays are normal. If
you harbor fantasies about biking wherever you like with no delays,
you're bound to be disappointed.


What holds you up an a bike? Me? Pretty much nothing except intermittent
lack of mojo. That's the beauty of it.

But I have essentially never been significantly delayed by car traffic.
Occasionally, rarely, I've missed a green light that I could have
caught; yet that doesn't meet the definition of "significant" in my
book. And contrary to the claims of some others, I've never seen a
traffic jam so curb-to-curb that I couldn't filter forward on a bike
when I chose to. As it is, I rarely choose to... but again, that's
because the delays haven't been significant.

If you didn't need to filter then the queue didn't last more than one
light cycle. Lucky you. I wouldn't call that gridlock. You might not be
aware that many/most people would not be comfortable filtering at all,
particularly between lines of traffic. You have an elitist view of
cycling. Tell a grandmother with her grandchildren in tow to filter
between lines of rush hour traffic. I would love to see how that's
received, even in the cycling utopia of Pittsburgh.

I'm married to a grandmother. She and I have ridden in many dense
cities. I can state with confidence that if we were riding in a total
gridlock situation, she'd be fine with carefully filtering forward.

IME, the most serious problem with downtown gridlock at 5 PM Friday is
the occasional driver's explosion of chaotic behavior. Things like the
fuming driver who suddenly says "#%$!! I'm just going to whip a U-turn
and get out of this jam!" and does something totally unexpected, with no
warning nor caution. But a stripe of paint has zero influence on such
people. You just have to learn to be alert.

But there's that "learning" thing again.

Maybe you could invent an alternative to Ritalin. Something
"educational". Work it into your blame the victim seminar. Pass out hair
shirts. Maybe you could replace ghost bikes with bikes of shame. Paint
them red. Just another inattentive fool who got what she deserved.

I see you're back in your weekend posting mode. During the week, you
do much less foaming at the mouth.


This degree of engagement is a little weird, man.


And separate
signal phases would slow everyone down even more.

Giving cyclists an "early green", for instance, might slow some
motorists slightly, but I doubt it would have any real cross-town trip
time effect. Giving cyclists a head start allows them to not have to
contend with vehicles at intersections, particularly turning vehicles.

Yeah. I get that already by not being too far to the right at an
intersection. That keeps me visible in a motorist's attention zone, and
prevents right hooks. (There's that "learning" thing again.)

In curb to curb gridlock, that's not an option.

On the contrary. In dense gridlock, it's easier to take a lane,
because I ride as fast as cars. Most motorists are quite cooperative,
too, because it's obvious I'm not going to delay them.

And I'll repeat: In my experience, your "curb to curb gridlock" is a
myth. Minimum road width is typically nine feet, even in most old
downtowns. Maximum car width is about 6.5 feet, and if the car's not
moving, it's no problem to squeeze carefully by. Again, I've had to
filter only rarely. But there are people who make their living doing
it regularly.


It is what it is, and will be what it will be, and no one new exactly
what it was going to be, or exactly what it will be. We only know one
thing for su It's a mess, and it's going to be a mess. I kind of
dig it that way. (Traffic still sucks big time, though.)


The obvious question is, what does one choose to believe? Seems most
people make their pick, then call the opposing view "dogma." And you've
chosen the dogma that says "The only way for biking to be safe and
popular is by adding facilities that change the rules of the road."

You should capitalize "Rules of the Road". You make them sound like they
came down from the mount carved in stone.

The fundamentals were worked out in the 1800s, based on practical
physics. They include things like the fundamental one, "all traffic
moving the same direction should be on the same side of the road."
That simple example works extremely well for a number of good reasons;
yet advocates of "innovative bicycle facilities" propose violating
even that.

Oh, and I should mention that our bike club had another crash on a
club ride a couple weeks ago. It was on, and directly caused by, an
"innovative" bike facility that violated that fundamental law. It was
about half a mile from the spot on that same facility that made a
cyclist a quadriplegic. But of course, the designer absolutely
refuses to believe his standards-violating design is not wonderful.
And of course, there are "bicycle advocates" who agree.

And then, of course, there's the data confirming that...

Again, define "work".

How about "Allow travel with efficiency and safety"?

You seem unaware that there is a spectrum of opinion, and your views are
extreme in that they describe a static, Panglossian world. Such rigid
thinking is dogmatic and deeply conservative. Dogmatism isn't merely
holding an opinion*.

And Peter, how do you think your "facilities" dogmatism is superior?


He's in no way dogmatic about it - more pragmatic.

(I usually respond poitn by point without butchering the
context, but am tired and need to rest now :-)

snip

Peter Cole writes:

On 8/8/2011 1:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

snip


Your argument
basically boils down to: why can't everyone be like me? Naive, at a
minimum.


+1

snip


Good luck with that.

+1

Dan wrote:
Frank writes:

So we should start saying "Look, competent biking is very safe. The
fear mongering is false.

What fear-mongering? 99.44% of the fear is simply inherent in the
cagers' minds based on their sense of what it must be like to try and
ride a bike in traffic - without any "fear mongers" telling them it's
dangerous.

So you really think that 20 years worth of "You MUST wear a helmet for
safety!" has had no effect? You really think that 20 years worth of "We
need bike lanes for safety!" didn't make anyone think ordinary roads are
dangerous?

Experience riding around will eventually show them that
impression was false. You know it, I know it. Some education may
begin to make them question the reasonableness of their fear, but it
won't go away until they've put in the saddle time.

My view is that they are much less likely to get saddle time until we
replace the "Danger!" warnings with information on the tremendous net
benefits.

(And I remain astonished that whenever I post "Bicycling is safe" news
here, I end up getting hammered.)

Riding a bike in a normal way has never been
an unusual head injury risk."

But still a risk (not making more of it than it is).

Then why on earth do you feel a need to even say "But it's still a
risk"??? What on earth is that supposed to accomplish, in a culture
that already foolishly believes a simple topple from a bike is a
near-death experience?

That's precisely the kind of bull**** that cyclists need to stop
spouting! You're like a swimming instructor that says "It's good to be
afraid of the water!"

Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to
stop and go and balance and steer?

Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh,
"Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the
right and ability to control their space.")

A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping
to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows
the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience,
if you ask me.

What was it about your life that gave you such an anti-education bent?

Whether it was playing sports, doing engineering, playing a musical
instrument, riding bike or whatever, I've found that getting some good
instruction made skills much easier to acquire.

That doesn't mean that one plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke after
three hours of fiddle lessons. But it does mean that nobody plays
like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke if they've never had a lesson.


I am all about education - *love* it!

Fine. Then don't disparage it.

Don't say nothin' bad about it? Dogmatic?

Don't say a class is worthless, especially if you don't even know what
happens in that class.

It looked to me like they spend three hours going from place to place
(in a group, which does not present a realistic traffic experience unless
they only ever ride in a group - but nothing wrong with it for the exper-
ience of the education course) *analyzing* situations and a *little* bit
of time trying things out.

And that's your "It looks to me..." guess based on - what? How many
cycling classes have you taught? How many have you taken?

As a long time educator as well as a certified cycling instructor, I
know that it's far more effective to explain principles first, then have
the student do the practice. The alternative is uninformed trial and
error by students.

Only when riding in traffic is second nature after they've had lots and
lots of time to sort things out for themselves without someone holding
their hand will they become comfortable with it...

Says the guy who has never taught such a class, never watched students
quickly improve, never gotten positive feedback and compliments on the
course...


--
- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/8/2011 1:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
I have no
real interest in whether the benefit ratio is 77 to 1 or 1.1 to 1. I
don't think anyone disputes the likelihood that cycling provides a net
positive health benefit...

Then you are unaware of much propaganda, and much popular opinion.

People are much more responsive to dramatic gains or losses than modest
ones. That's human nature. Partially irrational phobias are also
commonplace.

.... and can be conquered. (I have examples.) But you continue to
downplay or deny the effect of decades of statements like "If you don't
wear a bike helmet you're likely to become a vegetable" or "We need bike
lane stripes - no, now we need barrier separated bike lanes - or you'll
get squashed like a bug."

There are many things for a cyclist to be legitimately afraid of,
including many that are not within our control. I'd say it is the
vulnerability and lack of control that intimidates people, not the odds.
Ken Kifer was an expert on bike safety, and yet he was mowed down by a
drunk driver. Jobst was an expert cyclist and bike handler and yet
somehow he crashed with severe injuries.

And where is the counterbalancing information, like the guy in our bike
club who said all the men in his family died before age 50, and he'd
certainly have been dead by now if not for his regular cycling? How
about the guy I know who lost 150 pounds through (among other things)
regular cycling?

Why is it that I am always the one telling these positive stories, and
you are one of those emphasizing the risks that you even admit are
statistically tiny? You know better, yet you continue to emphasize
every negative about cycling.

The real question isn't what
the net health benefit is but whether cycling can't be easily made
safer.

Ah yes. If _anything_ can be made safer, we _must_ work to make it
safer, no matter the costs, no matter the detriments. And of course, the
best way to make that happen is to tell people it's too dangerous.

There's no such thing as safe enough, you know!

There you go again.

Wait - did Ronald Reagan just take control of your keyboard again?

No one has suggested a "no limits" approach to
safety, just that the status quo leaves much to be desired.

"The real question ... is whether cycling can't be made safer." Sounds
to me like you won't stop until it's as safe as it can possibly be made.

If that's not your standard, perhaps you should tell us what you
consider safe enough. Apparently, fewer fatalities and serious injuries
per mile than walking isn't safe enough. Apparently, benefits orders of
magnitude greater than risks aren't safe enough. Fewer fatalities per
year than falling out of bed isn't safe enough. What _is_ safe enough?

You stubbornly refuse to accept that people may respond to things other
than statistics. That's more than naive, that's incredibly arrogant.
More importantly, it's simply unrealistic. You're swimming against the
tide of human nature. Good luck with that.

That's a mis-characterization of my position, and you should have
realized that. I know people certainly respond to things other than
statistics; for example, I've been saying that people have
over-responded to fear mongering. People over-respond to anecdotes, as
I've discussed in detail.

What I do say is that appropriately gathered statistics are more
representative of reality than anecdotes like "Well, that cyclist 800
miles away got killed."

And I think the messages that we send should be governed by reality, for
a change. For example, let's quit telling people that they need bike
lane stripes to avoid being run over from behind. Send the message that
cycling, in our present environment, is unquestionably beneficial, and
that its benefits far outweigh its tiny risks. Why on earth do you
object to that message?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

Dan wrote:
Frank writes:

So we should start saying "Look, competent biking is very safe. The
fear mongering is false.

What fear-mongering? 99.44% of the fear is simply inherent in the
cagers' minds based on their sense of what it must be like to try and
ride a bike in traffic - without any "fear mongers" telling them it's
dangerous.

So you really think that 20 years worth of "You MUST wear a helmet for
safety!" has had no effect? You really think that 20 years worth of
"We need bike lanes for safety!" didn't make anyone think ordinary
roads are dangerous?


Like I said to Tom re; public schools - admittedly too many people
have not been raised to think for themselves. Anyone who thinks for
themself knows that other people say stuff that is baloney. It
logically follows that people without the experience to know better
will say stuff like that based on their inherent misperception of
danger. Cagers may - even probably - have a similar perception, but
didn't get it from fear mongers. Those that do swallow it from
someone else are great candidates for the church membership.

Experience riding around will eventually show them that
impression was false. You know it, I know it. Some education may
begin to make them question the reasonableness of their fear, but it
won't go away until they've put in the saddle time.

My view is that they are much less likely to get saddle time until we
replace the "Danger!" warnings with information on the tremendous net
benefits.


Some of them - and I acknowledge that; but the fear won't go away until
they really ride on their own, and "the surest way to get them out of
their cars and using bikes instead" is obvious to me. You and I don't
need bike lanes. You don't even want them. I acknowledge their sig-
nificant downside, but I appreciate their significant upside. Die-hard
cagers practcally *need* facilities to even consider taking the plunge.

(And I remain astonished that whenever I post "Bicycling is safe" news
here, I end up getting hammered.)


Bicycling is relatively safe. So is skydiving (relatively). Your
version of "normal" bicycling is quite safe is judgmental and super-
cilious.

Riding a bike in a normal way has never been
an unusual head injury risk."

But still a risk (not making more of it than it is).

Then why on earth do you feel a need to even say "But it's still a
risk"???

Just pointing out that even you acknowledge a risk in your own qualified
statement. I'm not terribly concerned about the risk, even though I
ride like a maniac :-)

What on earth is that supposed to accomplish, in a culture
that already foolishly believes a simple topple from a bike is a
near-death experience?


It's a fact. Get over it. (Sweep inconvenient facts under the rug much?)

That's precisely the kind of bull****

There is a risk? Bull****?

... that cyclists need to stop
spouting! You're like a swimming instructor that says "It's good to
be afraid of the water!"


No, I'm not. Did I say that? (And BTW, a little fear is not all bad.)

Three hours in a parking lot watching each other take turns learning to
stop and go and balance and steer?

Three hours in a classroom discussing video and animation? (Uh-oh,
"Students discover that bicycle drivers are equal road users, with the
right and ability to control their space.")

A three hour experiential tour of Orlando roads? In a *group*? Stopping
to survey and discuss each exercise location? (The picture even shows
the group standing around *looking* at the road.) Not much experience,
if you ask me.

What was it about your life that gave you such an anti-education bent?

Whether it was playing sports, doing engineering, playing a musical
instrument, riding bike or whatever, I've found that getting some good
instruction made skills much easier to acquire.

That doesn't mean that one plays like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke after
three hours of fiddle lessons. But it does mean that nobody plays
like Joshua Bell or Kevin Burke if they've never had a lesson.


I am all about education - *love* it!

Fine. Then don't disparage it.

Don't say nothin' bad about it? Dogmatic?

Don't say a class is worthless, especially if you don't even know what
happens in that class.


Did I say worthless? Did I not acknowledge some value for some people.

It looked to me like they spend three hours going from place to place
(in a group, which does not present a realistic traffic experience unless
they only ever ride in a group - but nothing wrong with it for the exper-
ience of the education course) *analyzing* situations and a *little* bit
of time trying things out.

And that's your "It looks to me..." guess based on - what? How many
cycling classes have you taught? How many have you taken?


Supercilious.

As a long time educator as well as a certified cycling instructor, I
know that it's far more effective to explain principles first, then
have the student do the practice. The alternative is uninformed trial
and error by students.


Yada, yada, yada.

Only when riding in traffic is second nature after they've had lots and
lots of time to sort things out for themselves without someone holding
their hand will they become comfortable with it...

Says the guy who has never taught such a class, never watched students
quickly improve, never gotten positive feedback and compliments on the
course...


(So presumptuous, you are.) The immediate above is based on my observation
internally of how my experience effects my perceptions. I'm pretty sure it
is applies to just about anybody. I think if you take off your blinders
for a second and look under that rug you'll know very well that it's true.

On 8/8/2011 8:57 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/8/2011 12:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 9:04 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 10:02 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 8:43 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 7:36 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 5:32 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 4:51 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 2:52 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:24 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 6:43 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 1:47 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 10:26 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/6/2011 4:21 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/6/2011 12:50 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
I hate queuing up behind long lines of hot, exhaust spewing
vehicles
jammed curb to curb.[...]

That only happens a few times a year (at special events)
where I
live in
Iowa.


I can believe that, but the context of my comments was dense
urban
areas.

Yes, but why would sane people choose to live in such places?


Lots of reasons. One relevant to this thread: the potential to
live
car-free and/or use a bicycle for most of your transportation.

People can do that in areas with less than a quarter of a million
people, without all the negatives huge population concentrations
bring.


Yeah if you want to shop at Wal-Mart and eat fast food.

Gee, I have alternatives to both of those. *WITHIN* reasonable
cycling
distance.

Contrary to myth, Iowa is *not* a northern version of
Mississippi or
other backwards [1] southern state.

[1] Any place that approves of flying the Confederate Flag is *not*
modern.


Now that's a low standard.

So is being more patient and polite than the residents of large
cities
on the northeastern US seaboard.


You're hardly an exemplar, are you?

Do not confuse Usenet with real life.


So, your avatar is a New Yorker?

You are seriously full of ****, you know that?

At least I am not flinging around false accusations of racism.


If you cry "Fire!" in a theater, there better be a damn fire.

More like a bomb waiting to go off that will take down the country (USA)
than a fire at the moment. See what happens *if* Iran is attacked.

Also like a chronic sickness that has slowing been dragging the country
down.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 8/8/2011 5:11 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:01 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 8:42 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 7:26 PM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 5:29 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 11:22 AM, "T°m Sherm@n" wrote:
On 8/7/2011 8:10 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
I agree with reduced speed limits in any place where a
pedestrian or
cyclist could be expected to be traveling.

I would assume by that you mean the only exception would be limited
access highways. I think that exception should be obvious and not
particularly relevant to dense urban areas.[...]

The problem with controlled access roads in dense urban areas is too
much access. Get rid of the interchanges in the cities, and it would
make it much quicker to traverse them on the way to one's
destination.


Except for those coming and going from the city, the very reason those
highways were built in the first place.

I'm sure that Boston is typical, with the exception that the Atlantic
Ocean limits our Easterly options, in that originally highways
developed
in a "hub & spoke" pattern to bring workers to urban jobs from
suburban
residences, following and extending streetcar lines. In recent
decades,
demographics have changed, with many employers relocating to the
suburbs
and many residents relocating to the city. The former phenomenon
creates
a lot of suburb to suburb commutes, sometimes served by "beltways"
circling the city, but many such commutes have the shortest path
through
the city. That particular commuting pattern defies an easy solution.
Urban residents being understandably intolerant of elevated
expressways
blighting their expensive real estate, the only vehicular solution
is to
bury them, something Boston recently did partially at a truly horrific
cost. Not a generic solution in the "new economy".

A rational and equitable policy would be to discourage "through
commutes" as they provide no benefit to either urban residents or
workers and they make poor use of precious urban space. Not
surprisingly, that is the exact opposite of your recommendation.

I would be fine with re-routing the controlled access roads to the
periphery or beyond and eliminating many that currently go through the
urban core. The key would be to limit exchanges, since otherwise urban
sprawl develops around them.


I have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). Urban sprawl is an
oxymoron. Suburban sprawl is a recognized problem.

I am suggesting separating intercity and intracity traffic as much as
possible, to prevent the intracity travelers from causing excessive
delays to the intercity travelers.


You don't understand the demographics even of your own state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa#Ru..._brain_drai n


Perhaps the article contains a clue as to why.

If you ever drive on an Interstate through any city in Iowa, 99% of the
time you will not be significantly delayed.

Your point is?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
I am a vehicular cyclist.