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
  #21  
Old May 31st 19, 02:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 824
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 3:15:38 PM UTC+2, AMuzi wrote:
On 5/31/2019 12:14 AM, 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


Maybe it's just a Dutch thing. My Nederlander girlfriend
says she has never run over a bicyclist with her car, not
even a little bit. sample size = 1, incidents = 0.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


'Nederlandse' girlfriend. ;-)
Me neither. Sample size 2, incidents 0

Lou
Ads
  #22  
Old May 31st 19, 03:16 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 Friday, May 31, 2019 at 6:29:59 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 12:43:29 PM UTC+2, sms wrote:
On 5/30/2019 10:14 PM, wrote:

snip

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..


I think that you must have better drivers than in my area. The big issue
here is vehicles on slower roads not staying out of the non-separated
bike lanes. No bike lane at all is better than a bike lane with a
vehicle parked illegally in it because it causes cyclists to suddenly
veer into a vehicle lane to get around it.



I think the big difference is that drivers are used to bicyclists because they ride a bicycle themselves or have in the past. Getting a drivers license is much harder here I think. Getting along with cyclist is a big part of driving lessons. 'look in your mirrors', look over your shoulder', 'use your indicators in the correct' are phrases you here a lot during driving lessons.


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..

-- Jay Beattie.
  #23  
Old May 31st 19, 04:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well as cyclists, study finds"

Andre Jute writes:

On Friday, May 31, 2019 at 1:37:31 AM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

"need for future research"

Boilerplate. Just as teachers' union officials always add
something about higher school taxes for the government
schools, outcomes and efficiency be damned. What researcher
ever called for less research?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Hold on a minute there, young man. I have often said that my research
projects would go faster if I were funded to do them in St Tropez,
especially the one which requires measuring the upper thighs of women
to check whether Dr Kinsey got it right when he claimed that in the
generation since pasteurisation of milk American women put on 3 inches
around the upper thigh, and of course how universally relevant his
claim has now become, urgent work that no one else is even suggesting.


Nothing like undulant fever for keeping a girlish figure.
  #24  
Old May 31st 19, 05:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 1:00:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/30/2019 11:48 AM, sms wrote:
Well actually it's from the U.S., reported in the UK.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bike-lane-cycling-road-safety-driver-deaths-fatalities-a8934841.html


"With added bike lanes, fatal crash rates dropped in Seattle (by 61 per
cent), San Francisco (by 49 per cent), Denver (by 40 per cent) and
Chicago (by 38 per cent)."

Cue the "Danger Danger" people to dispute the study. Maybe it wasn't the
bike lanes at all, maybe it was more people wearing helmets--wait that
couldn't be. Maybe it was more disc brakes. Maybe it was risk
compensation. Did gardening injuries go up or down?


Right, we're not allowed to dispute the study, because it conforms to
Scharf's prejudices.

Scharf saw the British propaganda ad for the study. I saw the one
published in America. I'd read the paper, but the advertisement seems to
be premature; the article's not available yet.

But the American promotion publicity for the paper makes it clear that
Ferenchak and Marshall remain masters of propaganda by implication. They
said "Researchers looked through 13 years of data from 12 large U.S.
cities with high-bicycling mode shares, including Denver, Dallas,
Portland, Ore., and Kansas City, Mo. During those [unspecified] years,
the United States saw a 51% increase in bicycling to work and the number
of protected bike lanes double each year starting in 2009. In a
longitudinal study, the researchers investigated over 17,000 fatalities
and 77,000 severe injuries."

But if there was such an increase - which is debatable - "protected bike
lanes doubling each year" had approximately zero relation. Why? Because
there are still only about 300 miles of "protected" bike lanes in the
entire nation, out of 400 million miles of roads. "Protecting" a block
here and a block there - which is what's usually done - seems very
unlikely to have a national effect.

Also, there's the inconvenient fact that "protected" bike lanes continue
to be built ("Faster than ever!" proponents would say) yet bike
commuting actually dropped in recent years. See
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/
which points out that the national bike mode share has dropped, and in
certain cities, dropped precipitously despite the building of new
facilities. The League of American Bicyclists' rah-rah publication
https://bikeleague.org/sites/default..._2017_KM_0.pdf
(with no mention of the national drop, and with numbers massaged to be
as perky as possible) mentions Pittsburgh's 45.2% _drop_ from 2016 to
2017, a time when I know firsthand that the city has been furiously
installing bike accommodation of all kinds. Similarly, Portland keeps
adding new gizmos, but sees no parallel increase. (Just a 1% increase
from 2011 to 2017, and a 0.1% increase from 2016 to 2017.)

In other words: The "dose response" is absent. Bike lanes, included
"protected" ones, are more common each year, but bike commuting is not
increasing in parallel. That shoots down facility count as a driver for
bike mode share. And U.S. bike mode share remains less than 1% overall,
meaning we're talking about low counts and rare events that are subject
to outsized random variation.

Ferenchak and Marshall seem to have settled on a career path of
massaging numbers any way possible to promote bike segregation. I'm sure
they're welcomed and coached by others with that same objective. But
they're not doing actual cyclists any good.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Locally there is a road that has a bike lane on it for about half its length. The right lane to the curb is approximately 12 feet. While riding in the bike lane the cars drive near the dividing line to the left hand lane of the two lane road in each direction road.

Where the bike lane ends they immediately move over to within four feet of the curb. That these lanes are effective is undeniable. I do not pay much attention to people who worry about cars but the actions of drivers that almost entirely ignore the presence of bicycles when lanes aren't marked is pretty clear.

There are several places in which cars try to keep me out of their lane coming up to a stop light and I am forced to take the lane. When you are coming to a stop why would you attempt to cut someone else off? Especially since you have to turn left and then a bike lane is there.

Yesterday some jerk woman was turning right in a right turn lane, I took the next lane over which was going straight. She pulls up to me and says, "You have to learn how to ride a bicycle." I was a little tired after 35 miles as fast as I could go so I didn't say anything. There should be some method of reporting these people so that they can be retested for rules of the road knowledge. Surely the cops will do NOTHING at all unless there is a reportable accident. They watch drivers endangering bicyclists all the time and do nothing. Even in San Francisco where they have now closed off a couple of main streets to rail buses and bicycles only, cars will pull onto these streets and the cops look the other way. I can accept that as a learning curve as long as they do not threaten cyclists but that isn't the case.

If the police are not going to enforce the driving laws, the bicycle lanes appear to be a workable solution.
  #25  
Old May 31st 19, 05:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

On Thursday, May 30, 2019 at 4:43:08 PM UTC-7, 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.


In San Francisco the main routes through the city are protected with bike lanes. Since these routes tend to be also fast speed limits the lanes are effective.
  #26  
Old May 31st 19, 05:24 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default More from the UK: "Bike lanes save lives of drivers as well ascyclists, study finds"

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.

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.
  #27  
Old May 31st 19, 06:48 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 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.
  #28  
Old May 31st 19, 07:06 PM 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 5/31/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
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.


While I agree that American motorists need education pretty badly, I'd
also say the same about people who design bike lanes. Those designers
give motorists a difficult and unfamiliar problem.

In 99.9% of the cases where a motorist turns right, he's already in the
rightmost lane. There is no "straight ahead" lane to the right of him,
and it's obvious why. Roadways are normally designed with "destination
positioning" to avoid that obvious conflict. Can you imagine signs on a
six-lane freeway telling the person in the _middle_ lane that he's
supposed to shoot rightward to an exit? Or signs telling the person in
the right lane that he's supposed to watch out for that? It's geometric
nonsense.

So motorist assume nobody will be passing them on the right as they turn
right. And if anyone is passing on the right, they're very likely in one
of the driver's blind spots. You can hope and pray that Portland
motorists will catch on to the weirdness and be extra careful; and you
can hope and pray the motorist has good flexibility (to pivot around and
search for bicyclists); but there will always be less agile motorists
and those who are encountering the weirdness for the first time.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #29  
Old May 31st 19, 09:00 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 Friday, May 31, 2019 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/31/2019 10:16 AM, jbeattie wrote:
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.


While I agree that American motorists need education pretty badly, I'd
also say the same about people who design bike lanes. Those designers
give motorists a difficult and unfamiliar problem.

In 99.9% of the cases where a motorist turns right, he's already in the
rightmost lane. There is no "straight ahead" lane to the right of him,
and it's obvious why. Roadways are normally designed with "destination
positioning" to avoid that obvious conflict. Can you imagine signs on a
six-lane freeway telling the person in the _middle_ lane that he's
supposed to shoot rightward to an exit? Or signs telling the person in
the right lane that he's supposed to watch out for that? It's geometric
nonsense.

So motorist assume nobody will be passing them on the right as they turn
right. And if anyone is passing on the right, they're very likely in one
of the driver's blind spots. You can hope and pray that Portland
motorists will catch on to the weirdness and be extra careful; and you
can hope and pray the motorist has good flexibility (to pivot around and
search for bicyclists); but there will always be less agile motorists
and those who are encountering the weirdness for the first time.


I don't think its difficult at all, and I watch for traffic in the bike lanes all the time when I'm driving. Moreover, the existence of a cyclist is often obvious because he or she is overtaken and passed prior to the right turn. It is certainly more of a problem when a car is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane, but then again, the motorist can see the bike lane and can simply look before turning. It's a lane.

There are problems with certain MV lane and bike lane configurations, but the usual right hook across a bike lane, IMO, is not one of those. We now have a statute saying as much -- where the bike lane is deemed to continue through intersections.

Another approach that would work, too, is the California approach where cars are allowed to occupy the bike lane when setting up for a turn. That gets the cyclist into the lane and going around, which is what I do whenever possible anyway. In Oregon, cars are prohibited from being in the bike lane except when actually turning across it.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #30  
Old May 31st 19, 09:57 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 5/31/2019 1:00 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

I don't think its difficult at all, and I watch for traffic in the bike lanes all the time when I'm driving. Moreover, the existence of a cyclist is often obvious because he or she is overtaken and passed prior to the right turn. It is certainly more of a problem when a car is being passed on the right by a bike in a bike lane, but then again, the motorist can see the bike lane and can simply look before turning. It's a lane.

There are problems with certain MV lane and bike lane configurations, but the usual right hook across a bike lane, IMO, is not one of those. We now have a statute saying as much -- where the bike lane is deemed to continue through intersections.

Another approach that would work, too, is the California approach where cars are allowed to occupy the bike lane when setting up for a turn. That gets the cyclist into the lane and going around, which is what I do whenever possible anyway. In Oregon, cars are prohibited from being in the bike lane except when actually turning across it.


The first time I took the written driving test I missed the question
about turning right when there's a bike lane. But what California does
makes sense.

There are solutions for protected bike lanes at intersections with
traffic signals. First you don't allow right-on-red. Second you have a
phase where the light is only green for the protected bicycle lanes.

At intersections without traffic signals you have to take other steps to
minimize right-hooks. But even when there's no bike lane, and the
cyclist is riding on the right side of the road, you have the danger of
a right hook.

In a perfect world, drivers would all behave properly and there would be
no need for any bike lane, whether painted or protected. We're not there
yet.

What amuses me is when someone insists that a protected bike lane is
unnecessary because there have been very few problems with either a
painted bike lane or no bike lane. This misses the point. The reason why
there are few problems is because so few people feel safe riding under
those conditions. On Tuesday night we interviewed 52 teenagers for our
teen commission. Several mentioned about how they would not be allowed
to ride their bicycles to school until there was more protected
infrastructure.

If you want to get more people riding, you have to make them not only
feel safe, you also have to make their parents feel that it's safe and
you also need to design the protected bicycle lanes so they actually are
safe enough. If you just want hard-core riders to be out there using
bicycles for transportation then you don't need bicycle lanes at all.

 




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 10:21 AM.


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.