Dangerous? Study: 77 to 1 benefit to risk

SMS wrote:


I did not see the original post in this thread, but I expect that it was
claiming that helmets reduce the level of cycling.

Well, ignorance has never yet deterred your posting!


As most people are well aware, there has never been any scientifically
and statistically sound survey or study that has shown that helmets,
whether mandatory or compulsory, reduce cycling levels.

Robinson, B., "Is there Any Reliable Evidence That Australian Helmet
Legislation Works?", paper presented to Velo Australis, Freemantle,
Australia, October 1996

Robinson, D.L., "Head Injuries & Bicycle Helmet Laws," 1996, Accident
Analysis Prevention, vol 28, pp. 463 - 475

Scuffham, P.A., Langley, J. D., "Trends in Cycling Injuries in New
Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use," 1997, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, Vol 29, No 1

Hillman, M., "Cycle Helmets, the Case For and Against," 1993, Policy
Studies Institute Report 752, ISBN 0-85374-602-8

You may also want to browse http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1096.html

Data on cycling reduction with MHLs became harder to gather after the
Australian experience and its sharp drops in riding. Helmeteers seemed
to note the Australian problems and set up ways to hide them.

For example, in my own state, the sales pitch for the law (which failed,
BTW) stated "Effectiveness of the legislation will be shown by the
increase in PERCENTAGE of bicyclists wearing helmets." It was pointed
out that this interpreted every non-helmeted cyclist who quit riding as
a positive effect, rather than the negative it truly was; and that the
only correct evaluation would be to count both cyclists and serious head
injuries before and after.

MHL proponents claimed that would be too expensive. I think what they
really meant was "We don't want to show that it discourages riding."

Oh, BTW: Those who believe mandating helmets has no effect on riding
might compare the experiences with bike share systems in London, Dublin,
Paris (with no helmet requirement and little helmet use) to the badly
failing bike share system in Melbourne (with mandatory helmets and
almost no use of the bikes.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vmYuKcvau8

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

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

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 7:53 PM, Jym Dyer wrote:


=v= Good grief. Frank provided info for all of us to think
whatever the heck we want to think about it. You two reply
by slagging him for it?

=v= I'm aware that many people aren't swayed by facts and
a deeper understanding of statistics. That doesn't mean
these things should never be mentioned. Again, good grief.
Thank you, Frank,
_Jym_

The information is rather old news, at least qualitatively. 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.

... there have been a slew of studies that claimed
this and, as far as I know, not a single one that claimed otherwise.

And yet, I read and hear frequent complaints about the supposed dangers
of cycling. And fear of cycling is always among the top reasons people
say they don't cycle more.

Then there are the implicit statements of fear - like "We need barrier
separated bikeways for safety!" or "A bike path will give us a safe
place to ride, away from traffic."

What you took out of context and apparently didn't get from the thread
was that Frank takes such data and spins it to conclude that anyone with
safety concerns is being a "fear monger". "Danger! Danger!" & all that.
That's essentially a straw man argument.

What you just wrote was a straw man argument. "Fear monger" applies not
to "anyone with safety concerns." It applies to people who say things
like "Biking is really dangerous." We've gotten that with gusto from
certain posters - for example, Duane, who said "Yeah, but you don't know
how dangerous it is HERE in Montreal" (and who kill filed me when I put
up Montreal data showing he was wrong).

A person can have safety concerns without being a fear monger. Just
refrain from trying to convince others that they should share your fears.

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!


--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

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.


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.


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?

As I recall, you literally defended door-zone bike lanes in this forum.
You also defended shared-use paths with built-in collision hazards for
bicyclists, and blind corners where cyclists could meet head-on. If
that's part of your idealized vision of the world, it's more than a
little Panglossian, just with lower standards.

You are doing nothing more than
rationalizing the status quo. That is reflexive, irrational resistance
to change, the very definition of conservatism.

Hmm. Does that also apply to things like mechanical physics? If I
insist that Force really does equal Mass times Acceleration (at least,
at non-relativistic velocities) does that also constitute reflexive,
irrational resistance to change? Is that really too conservative for
you? Should we perhaps re-write the laws of physics so they all rhyme,
in preference to matching experimental results?

My views on traffic laws and designs are based on things like:

Traffic moving the same direction should be on the same side of the road.

Traffic facilities should not be designed with built-in collision hazards.

Position at intersections should be governed by destination, so crossing
conflicts are minimized. (i.e. no straight-ahead lanes right of RTO lanes.)

Vehicle operators entering a stream of traffic should yield to those
already in that stream of traffic.

Lanes should not be positioned where road users are hidden from other
road users.

Movements should be predictable, so operators are not confused or surprised.

There are more; but many "innovative" bike facilities violate those
common-sense rules. Many seem designed with one overarching principle:
"Any bike facility is a good bike facility."

That idea's certainly not "conservative." But it's also bull**** that
ignores physics and the abilities of road vehicle operators.

What you fail to recognize is that the world has changed, and
particularly in dense urban areas, vehicular traffic has been judged to
present more of a problem than a solution.

I'm not disputing those problems, nor that MOTOR vehicle traffic should
be restricted more than it is. I'm disputing that we must have separate
and weird additions to our road to make cycling safe.

The particular compromise reached over decades is now being
renegotiated.

Fine. But I'm hoping for more rationality from the negotiators.
Particularly those who purport to represent me!

Do you really think all
of these bike sharing programs are merely gimmicks?

I'm quite in favor of bike sharing programs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

On 8/7/2011 11:41 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 8/7/2011 4:42 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

I think they are goofy and non-sensical -- you have this box; you're in
the
middle of the traffic lane, and then immediately past the intersection is
a
normal width bike lane that by law you have to be in. Why put bikes in
the
middle of traffic in a green box and then have them get over immediately
after the intersection.

Very good reasons if you look at the source of so many car bike collisions
in big cities. They need to fix the surface if the paint becomes slippery,
but the concept is very good. They've combined education with the program
so vehicles know what to do.

There are boxes at probably fourteen intersections -- so the likelihood of
these boxes doing much in terms of driver education is questionable.

It was a pilot program.

The
first PSU study (and in fact the only one I remember) actually saw no
benefit -- but I guess that has changed. Now they're saving cyclists from
catastrophe.

The study results have been updated. The results have been deemed
positive. I posted the link.

And for Peter, the City has a limited transportation budget
that includes mundane road repairs along with bicycle infrastructure, except
when they hide bull **** infrastructure in our water bills (which is an
entirely different issue), so yes, build a green box and you don't fix a pot
hole. There is only so much money. Riding on broken pavent and weaving
around in traffict to avoid smashing a rim or doing a header is far more
likely problematic to me than infrequent conflicts at stop lights. I ride at
least six days a week in PDX, and I can say with certainty that there are
more pressing problems -- way more.

Road funding is a maze, I defy anyone to untangle it, especially to
identify the specific funding of a line item so small as painting a
dozen bike boxes. You complain about lousy infrastructure and high
taxes. From what I've seen, your tax rates are lower than average. Maybe
that's why your infrastructure is, too.

Portland has seen enormous growth in bicycle use. Displacement of
traffic from cars to bikes is a huge economic gain. Cities all over the
country are trying to duplicate Portland's success. It's nuts to
complain about it, particularly on economic grounds.

On 8/8/2011 12:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

You can say people are irrational, but that irrationality is the product
of millions of years of evolution that enabled every single one of our
ancestors to survive long enough to at least reproduce, all the way back
to the beginnings of life.

During most of our evolution, survival and reproduction have depended
less on rationality, and more on reflex and instinct, with some myth and
politics thrown in.

Consider the evolutionary development of our brains relative to our
closest animal species. It wasn't the development of "instinct and
reflexes" that led to our success. It was abstract and social thinking,
including communication.

One tribe attacking and conquering another tribe and spreading their
seed, so to speak, probably didn't happen based on rational evaluation
of odds, risk or anything else. It probably happened because the other
tribe had tasty looking cows, plus some really hot women. 18-year-olds
(i.e. warriors) need little other justification.

Quaint but wildly inaccurate mythology. Disease and famine have claimed
far more victims than combat, even among combatants, up until very
recently (less than a century).

For evidence of the modern effects of irrationality, I offer the following:
http://moombahtonic.net/__oneclick_u...egas-night.jpg

The profits that built Las Vegas in a desert came from millions of
customers betting irrationally.

People gamble because they enjoy gambling. In some ways it represents
the very essence of life. People aren't as stupid as you believe them to be.

On 8/8/2011 1:37 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:
On 8/7/2011 7:53 PM, Jym Dyer wrote:


=v= Good grief. Frank provided info for all of us to think
whatever the heck we want to think about it. You two reply
by slagging him for it?

=v= I'm aware that many people aren't swayed by facts and
a deeper understanding of statistics. That doesn't mean
these things should never be mentioned. Again, good grief.
Thank you, Frank,
_Jym_

The information is rather old news, at least qualitatively. 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. Ironically, I have a fear of heights, quite a common
phobia. No amount of rationality will quell my anxiety in high places.
Human nature again.


... there have been a slew of studies that claimed
this and, as far as I know, not a single one that claimed otherwise.

And yet, I read and hear frequent complaints about the supposed dangers
of cycling. And fear of cycling is always among the top reasons people
say they don't cycle more.

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. Sure, anyone can have a pure
accident, but cyclists and pedestrians feel uniquely vulnerable in the
presence of large, fast moving vehicles. Perhaps it's just something
that evolution didn't prepare us for (or did, in a reflexive, anxiety
provoking way). Not all fears are statistically defensible, probably
most aren't. You may decry the lack of rationality and attribute it to
"propaganda", but you haven't proven the obvious suspicion that it may
simply be innate and not subject to rational control. Yes, human nature
is often irrational, but that doesn't mean that particular quality is
changeable. Your argument basically boils down to: why can't everyone be
like me? Naive, at a minimum.


Then there are the implicit statements of fear - like "We need barrier
separated bikeways for safety!" or "A bike path will give us a safe
place to ride, away from traffic."

What you took out of context and apparently didn't get from the thread
was that Frank takes such data and spins it to conclude that anyone with
safety concerns is being a "fear monger". "Danger! Danger!" & all that.
That's essentially a straw man argument.

What you just wrote was a straw man argument. "Fear monger" applies not
to "anyone with safety concerns." It applies to people who say things
like "Biking is really dangerous." We've gotten that with gusto from
certain posters - for example, Duane, who said "Yeah, but you don't know
how dangerous it is HERE in Montreal" (and who kill filed me when I put
up Montreal data showing he was wrong).

A person can have safety concerns without being a fear monger. Just
refrain from trying to convince others that they should share your fears.

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

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.

On 8/8/2011 2:22 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.

Delays, in urban traffic, are closely monitored and carefully planned
for. It was assumed in the early days that simply adding more capacity
would ameliorate them, but city after city found that demand only
increased by at least as much as new capacity. People hate delays, but
in the absence of delays they drive further and with greater frequency.
Cities are hard up against physical capacity constraints and yet demand
and delays continue to grow.

Since bicycle traffic is so much more spatially efficient than private
vehicles it doesn't make sense to put cyclists in the same delay line as
motorists. It's not necessary from a physical standpoint, and it's a
losing proposition economically. That's one of the built in fallacies of
the "cyclists fare best when treated like vehicles" premise, when that
means (as it usually is interpreted) that cyclists must queue in traffic
along with motorists. Certainly cyclists can "fare" better than that.

The irony, of course, is that when cyclists actually show up in any
numbers the complaints start about cyclists causing delays. Pedestrian
light phases and HOV lanes cause delays, too. They take time and/or
space away from some motorists. Everyone, with wheels or not, is not
being treated equally -- that's the whole point. The idea of reserving a
lane for spatially efficient vehicles makes perfect sense, it's common
practice. I see no reason why the technique shouldn't be applied to
bicycles, as it is.

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.

With the grandchildren? You think she is a representative grandmother?
Please.


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.

Stick to the point. Never mind your analysis of my posting habits. Your
"blame the victim" philosophy needs defense. I'd like to see you try.



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.

In dense gridlock, cars aren't moving at all. That's why it's called
gridlock. You're idea of gridlock must be like your idea of dense urban
streets.


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.

I don't know what cities you are inventing. In one breath you say you
can't trust motorists to respect a "paint stripe", in the next you claim
they all stay tidily in their marked lanes. In rush hour I see nothing
but lane splitting, double and live parking. "Curb to curb" wasn't a
metaphor. Certainly not a myth.

I don't want to "filter cautiously" (slowly). I don't see where I should
have to. Dedicated bike lanes (buffered if necessary) provide that
solution, They do it every day in cities around the world. Your claims
of impracticality might have been interesting conjectures decades ago,
but now you're just denying the obvious. That goes well beyond
stubbornness.



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.

Things have changed since the 1800's -- several times. They're changing
again.


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.

Anecdotes, especially singular ones without context don't make
compelling arguments. Certainly not compelling enough to question the
whole thrust of urban bicycle planning. You've got to do a whole lot
better than a bad path in a local suburban park to make your case.


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

Again, define "work".

How about "Allow travel with efficiency and safety"?

How is forcing cyclists to queue up with rush hour motorists efficient?
It's certainly not for me. It's stupid. It negates the biggest incentive
(efficiency) to using a bicycle in the first place.

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?

I hold opinions, not dogma.


As I recall, you literally defended door-zone bike lanes in this forum.

Funny, I don't, literally or figuratively. I did say your claim of the
causal role of a bike lane in the fatality of a Boston cyclist was
speculative. I'll stick with that.

You also defended shared-use paths with built-in collision hazards for
bicyclists, and blind corners where cyclists could meet head-on. If
that's part of your idealized vision of the world, it's more than a
little Panglossian, just with lower standards.

I accept that any facility, bicycle, automotive, or railroad for that
matter, will have hazards. I just don't hold bicycle facilities to
unrealistic standards because I'm intrinsically (dogmatically) opposed
to them. I differentiate between predictable hazards and traps. I don't
see a bollard or a blind corner as a trap. I drive on roads with blind
corners all the time. There's no inconsistency. Anything can be around
any blind curve on any road or path.

You are doing nothing more than
rationalizing the status quo. That is reflexive, irrational resistance
to change, the very definition of conservatism.

Hmm. Does that also apply to things like mechanical physics? If I insist
that Force really does equal Mass times Acceleration (at least, at
non-relativistic velocities) does that also constitute reflexive,
irrational resistance to change? Is that really too conservative for
you? Should we perhaps re-write the laws of physics so they all rhyme,
in preference to matching experimental results?

As I've said, the negotiations behind the compromises reached in road
sharing policies are not rooted in laws of nature. So no, I don't accept
your analogy as representative.

The case you dismiss (relativity) as well as quantum mechanics might be
more appropriate.


My views on traffic laws and designs are based on things like:

Traffic moving the same direction should be on the same side of the road.

What's "traffic"? What's a "road"? Is a walker "traffic" Is a "road"
still a "road" if the contra-flow is buffered? Should motorists not be
allowed to back up streets? Do relative speeds enter the picture?


Traffic facilities should not be designed with built-in collision hazards.

Tree lined streets should be outlawed? Light posts? Telephone poles?
Curbs? Pedestrians are not "collision hazards"? Other motorists?

Position at intersections should be governed by destination, so crossing
conflicts are minimized. (i.e. no straight-ahead lanes right of RTO lanes.)

Sidewalks? In the absence of special turning lanes (i.e. most of the
time) how do you predict "destination"? ESP?

Vehicle operators entering a stream of traffic should yield to those
already in that stream of traffic.

By "stream" do you mean a marked lane? If not, how do you know whether
the space can be shared (the need for a yield).

Lanes should not be positioned where road users are hidden from other
road users.

Hidden by what? Foliage? Billboards? Parked trucks? Fog? Is a separated
road still to be considered a whole road or essentially two parallel roads?

Movements should be predictable, so operators are not confused or
surprised.

ESP again? Recent studies have put the whole connection between
predictability and safety into question. The issue is far from resolved,
but neither is it above suspicion.


There are more; but many "innovative" bike facilities violate those
common-sense rules. Many seem designed with one overarching principle:
"Any bike facility is a good bike facility."

Nonsense. Such claims do little for your credibility.

That idea's certainly not "conservative." But it's also bull**** that
ignores physics and the abilities of road vehicle operators.

Nonsense again.


What you fail to recognize is that the world has changed, and
particularly in dense urban areas, vehicular traffic has been judged to
present more of a problem than a solution.

I'm not disputing those problems, nor that MOTOR vehicle traffic should
be restricted more than it is. I'm disputing that we must have separate
and weird additions to our road to make cycling safe.

Only "weird" in your eyes. And it's not just "to make cycling safe".
It's to make cycling more convenient and appealing. It may also make it
more safe, as facilities around the world have demonstrated. Portland
being a notable example.

The particular compromise reached over decades is now being
renegotiated.

Fine. But I'm hoping for more rationality from the negotiators.
Particularly those who purport to represent me!

I don't think they do represent you, at least in your objectives.
Perhaps they used to but (fortunately) times have changed. I suppose
you'll just have to put up with it.


Do you really think all
of these bike sharing programs are merely gimmicks?

I'm quite in favor of bike sharing programs.

Perhaps you should reconsider your support. They're bound to bring
renewed calls for more facilities.

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.