riding on the sidewalk

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 13:13:44 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per John B.:
There is even a protocol for riding the wrong way...

Don't leave us hanging..... -)

The individual that is riding the wrong way keeps to the outer edge of
the pavement when meeting another vehicle while the vehicle going the
right way keeps to his lane. If a motorcycle or bicycle, required by
law to ride "on the left side of the road", this involves two vehicles
passing each other on the outer lane.

I might add that this is most common on divided highways with a raised
median where crossing the road might require a 2 Km., or longer trip
to the closest U turn opening and then back..
--
cheers,

John B.

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they
are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James!

But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less
pollution?


More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of
health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank.

I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be
there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the
cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip.

I assume nothing of the sort.


It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say)
responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by
simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the
changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my
have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool.

(* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of
bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing
bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.)



They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially
psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who
are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the
detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways)
where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the
cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful.

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.


Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all
those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also
offer physical safety benefits after all!

It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking
that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far
different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far
different, too.

How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a
foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures
like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher
taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses,
much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower
speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces,
more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds
and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's
not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think
that it's just the bike facilities.


It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will
magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but
you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane.
That seems to be working well in the US of A.

For the most part, ordinary roads are working well in the US of A. There are problem areas that could benefit from more infrastructure, and those places need to be identified. Appropriate infrastructure needs to be identified. I live in a place that fits Frank's reviled model of "any infrastructure is good infrastructure." It isn't. Some of it is quite dangerous -- and expensive.

I have plenty of conflicts with cars and buses, and in some places those conflicts are exponentially greater than they were 30 years ago. OTOH, it's still not that bad or that scary -- yet a new or new-ish crop of cyclists wants facilities built, presumably to their front doors. IMO, separate facilities are fine in some places (e.g. over the bridges in some high traffic areas), but they are incredibly expensive and unnecessary in others. Around here, the worst places to ride are the shoulderless arterials through former farm land now suburbs. Money would be better spent improving and widening those roads and not putting in some side path which will be appropriated by the runner, dog walker and stroller set.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:49:53 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they
are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James!

But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less
pollution?


More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of
health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank.

I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be
there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the
cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip.

I assume nothing of the sort.


It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say)
responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by
simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the
changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my
have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool.

(* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of
bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing
bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.)



They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially
psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who
are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the
detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways)
where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the
cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful.

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.


Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all
those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also
offer physical safety benefits after all!

It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking
that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far
different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far
different, too.

How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a
foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures
like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher
taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses,
much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower
speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces,
more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds
and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's
not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think
that it's just the bike facilities.


It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will
magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but
you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane.
That seems to be working well in the US of A.

For the most part, ordinary roads are working well in the US of A. There are problem areas that could benefit from more infrastructure, and those places need to be identified. Appropriate infrastructure needs to be identified. I live in a place that fits Frank's reviled model of "any infrastructure is good infrastructure." It isn't. Some of it is quite dangerous -- and expensive.

I have plenty of conflicts with cars and buses, and in some places those conflicts are exponentially greater than they were 30 years ago. OTOH, it's still not that bad or that scary -- yet a new or new-ish crop of cyclists wants facilities built, presumably to their front doors. IMO, separate facilities are fine in some places (e.g. over the bridges in some high traffic areas), but they are incredibly expensive and unnecessary in others. Around here, the worst places to ride are the shoulderless arterials through former farm land now suburbs. Money would be better spent improving and widening those roads and not putting in some side path which will be appropriated by the runner, dog walker and stroller set.

-- Jay Beattie.

One might implement a law, as is, I believe, done in Holland, that
the auto is deemed to be largely responsible.
see
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...e-netherlands/
for an explanation of the law in Holland which is rather detailed.

If a motorist knew, without doubt that he/she would be likely to be at
least financially liable, if he/she hit a bicycle, than he/she might
be more careful not to hit them.

I might mention that in the "good old days" probably the greatest
motivation for a company to implement safety rules was that the
insurance company wouldn't pay if safety rules weren't enforced.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 6/6/2016 9:04 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride
bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they
are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our
findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger
increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James!

But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less
pollution?


More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of
health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank.

I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be
there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the
cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip.

I assume nothing of the sort.

So what percentage of the increased bicycle count do you think comes
from previous motorists? Roughly?

It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say)
responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by
simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the
changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my
have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool.

(* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of
bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing
bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.)

And I note, you chose not to comment on those points. I guess you now
agree that we can choose what to comment on, yes? ;-)

They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially
psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who
are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the
detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways)
where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the
cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful.

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.


Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe all
those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also
offer physical safety benefits after all!

It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking
that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far
different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far
different, too.

How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a
foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures
like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher
taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses,
much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower
speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces,
more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds
and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's
not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think
that it's just the bike facilities.


It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will
magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but
you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane. That
seems to be working well in the US of A.

Apparently you, like many "paint and path" advocates, misunderstand the
motivation behind the style of riding advocated by me and by those
behind programs like Effective Cycling, the League of American
Bicycling's courses, the CAN-BIKE courses, the British cycling education
courses, etc.

The motivation is not to transform the culture, magically or otherwise.
The motivation is to enable those who choose to learn the techniques to
ride safely and enjoyably in the real world as we know it.

You might say it's a practical alternative to "Oh gosh, I'd love to ride
my bike if only we had completely segregated pathways that would take me
everywhere I'd like to go. THEN I'd be SAFE!!!"

FWIW: When I began riding as an enthusiastic adult, I had a very brief
dalliance with the segregation idea. In some magazine or other, I read
an account of someone's bike tour that briefly mentioned the idea of a
coast-to-coast (U.S.) segregated bike trail. I now can't even remember
whose pipe dream that was; but I briefly thought "Oh, that would be so
nice." Within a day or two, I had considered it enough to know that it
was flat out impossible. And within a year or two, I was reading about
how to ride and enjoy the roads we actually have.

If I'd stuck to the bike segregation dream, I'd still be waiting for a
"safe" place to ride my bike. But given the wonderful experiences I and
my family have had through bicycling, I'm sure glad I didn't wait.

Which doesn't mean others should stop trying to convert their own city
into Amsterdam. But if they want to do that, I just wish they'd start
with something other than bad copies of Amsterdam's bike facilities.




The Dutch realise not everything they do works well. Theirs is a system
of continuous improvement. If a type of crossing is seen to be causing
crashes, they re-engineer it to try to make it better.

That brings up the point that Mikael Colville-Andersen (one of the
world's most prominent bike facility proponents) thinks that most U.S.
cycletracks are nuts. Why? Because in the U.S., they're typically
two-way on one side of the road. He says that the northern European
countries learned long ago that such a design is much more dangerous.
But his message hasn't sunk in with the "Any bike facility is a good
bike facility" crowd.

It seems to be
working, whatever they're doing. Healthier people and a healthy
economy.

What seems to be working is the entire constellation of differences that
I noted above. Again, it's not just bike facilities that make the
difference.





--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/6/2016 10:49 PM, jbeattie wrote:


For the most part, ordinary roads are working well in the US of A. There are problem areas that could benefit from more infrastructure, and those places need to be identified. Appropriate infrastructure needs to be identified.

Agreed. It seems that more and more "bicycle advocates" want nothing
less than "protected" cycletracks, and they want them everywhere. It's
nonsense.

Interestingly, the highway 1/10 mile from my house wouldn't be a bad
place for a pair of cycletracks. (And I say "pair" to preclude the
insane two-way-on-one-side that even segregation fan Colville-Andersen
objects to.) This half mile of highway has almost no intersections and
few driveways (the big danger spots for cycletracks), it has high
traffic volume, and it's the only route over the interstate to connect
maybe a thousand residences and the biggest shopping complex in the
county.

But practically speaking, it's not going to get cycletracks. There are
political difficulties involving jurisdiction borders, there are big
engineering difficulties, and there are much more pressing needs for the
huge pile of money required.

After our residents are willing to accept Amsterdam's tax burdens, speed
restrictions, liability laws and all the rest - IOW after our culture is
transformed - maybe there will be the political will and money to build
this tiny chunk of paradise. And maybe, if and when I'm reincarnated, I
can take a peek and see if that happened. But I doubt it will.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 07/06/16 12:49, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 6:04:13 PM UTC-7, James wrote:


It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will
magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done,
but you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the
lane. That seems to be working well in the US of A.

For the most part, ordinary roads are working well in the US of A.

Yes, I dare say bicycle mode share there is similar to Australia. Maybe
a couple of percent average across the country.

--
JS

On 07/06/16 14:38, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 9:04 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 4:49 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous
for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride
bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they
are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our
findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger
increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

Sheesh! I do get to choose what to comment on, James!

But what, precisely, is the benefit of less motor traffic if not less
pollution?


More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of
health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank.

I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be
there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the
cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip.

I assume nothing of the sort.

So what percentage of the increased bicycle count do you think comes
from previous motorists? Roughly?


No idea, but probably greater than zero. I.e. I doubt more people drive
as a result.

It's likely that many, perhaps most, of those were motorists who (say)
responded to a road diet (necessary to fit in many cycletracks) by
simply taking a different route.* Some motorists may have decided the
changes to their chosen route reached the tipping point, but that my
have tipped them to take buses, trams, or perhaps to car pool.

(* And similarly, it's been pointed out that a certain percentage of
bike traffic on streets with new infrastructure is actually existing
bike traffic that's moved from parallel routes.)

And I note, you chose not to comment on those points. I guess you now
agree that we can choose what to comment on, yes? ;-)


Your benefits reasoning above was all about lessened pollution, though
you have stated in the past, I'm sure, that there are benefits beyond
just pollution reduction - i.e. increased fitness, reduced risk of heart
disease and obesity, etc.

Hence you obviously know there are many benefits to increased levels of
cycling both to the individual and society, and my comment that I know
you already know it.

They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous,
but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Yes, indeed: with cycletracks, the benefits are essentially
psychological ones on the straight sections. They comfort people who
are overly afraid if the relatively rare hits from behind. But the
detriments are at crossing points (street intersections and driveways)
where most car-bike crashes actually happen. At those points, the
cycletracks delude people into feeling safer and being less careful.

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate.
But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.


Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC. Maybe
all
those bike facilities that offer psychological safety benefits also
offer physical safety benefits after all!

It's certainly possible. But don't make the common mistake of thinking
that the infrastructure is the only important factor. NL cities are far
different from typical U.S. or Australian cities. The culture is far
different, too.

How? First, a 100 year culture of cycling for transportation forms a
foundation that the U.S. and OZ will never have. That allowed measures
like strict liability laws, much higher taxes on gasoline, much higher
taxes on car sales, much more difficulty in obtaining drivers' licenses,
much denser networks of mass transit, much denser cities, much lower
speed limits, stricter enforcement of speeds, many fewer parking spaces,
more expensive parking, streets that are closed to cars but open to peds
and cyclists, etc. And flatter terrain and a much milder climate. It's
not just the bike facilities; and it's pretty simple minded to think
that it's just the bike facilities.


It is likewise pretty simple minded to think a culture change will
magically happen if we keep on doing things as we've always done, but
you keep up the productive work of telling people to take the lane. That
seems to be working well in the US of A.

Apparently you, like many "paint and path" advocates, misunderstand the
motivation behind the style of riding advocated by me and by those
behind programs like Effective Cycling, the League of American
Bicycling's courses, the CAN-BIKE courses, the British cycling education
courses, etc.

The motivation is not to transform the culture, magically or otherwise.
The motivation is to enable those who choose to learn the techniques to
ride safely and enjoyably in the real world as we know it.


Sadly though, those techniques do not make riding on the road with motor
traffic safe enough (perceived or actual) to encourage many ordinary
people to ditch their car.

You might say it's a practical alternative to "Oh gosh, I'd love to ride
my bike if only we had completely segregated pathways that would take me
everywhere I'd like to go. THEN I'd be SAFE!!!"

They don't have "completely segregated pathways that would take me
everywhere I'd like to go" in NL either. Gross exaggerations.


FWIW: When I began riding as an enthusiastic adult, I had a very brief
dalliance with the segregation idea. In some magazine or other, I read
an account of someone's bike tour that briefly mentioned the idea of a
coast-to-coast (U.S.) segregated bike trail. I now can't even remember
whose pipe dream that was; but I briefly thought "Oh, that would be so
nice." Within a day or two, I had considered it enough to know that it
was flat out impossible. And within a year or two, I was reading about
how to ride and enjoy the roads we actually have.

If I'd stuck to the bike segregation dream, I'd still be waiting for a
"safe" place to ride my bike. But given the wonderful experiences I and
my family have had through bicycling, I'm sure glad I didn't wait.

Which doesn't mean others should stop trying to convert their own city
into Amsterdam. But if they want to do that, I just wish they'd start
with something other than bad copies of Amsterdam's bike facilities.


Well, there's something we can agree on.

--
JS

Am 06.06.2016 um 22:49 schrieb James:

They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

Right. Combine that with the facts that in a European city like
Copenhagen,
* you have road crossings every few hundred yards
* the majority of accidents are of the type 'crossing accidents'
* drives present the same danger as crossings

any you'll see that the benefit of cycling on a sidewalk evaporates.

The net result is that a right sidewalk is more dangerous than lane
riding by a factor 3 and a left sidewalk is more dangerous than a right
sidewalk by another factor 3.

Am 07.06.2016 um 00:56 schrieb James:
On 07/06/16 07:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'm not saying there's no place where a cycletrack is appropriate. But
they are being tremendously oversold, and touted as the near-universal
solution. In that way, these things are no different from the helmet
mania at its peak.

Yet NL is the safest place in the world to ride a bike, IIRC.

I think you are wrong here. My memory places Germany and Switzerland at
a lower accident risk per million km cycling.

Am 07.06.2016 um 06:38 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
On 6/6/2016 9:04 PM, James wrote:
On 07/06/16 09:15, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/6/2016 6:56 PM, James wrote:

More people engaging in active transport which generates a raft of
health benefits - but "sheesh", I think you knew that, Frank.

I think you're assuming a one-to-one correspondence which may not be
there. In other words, you really know that for each less car on the
cycletrack road, the motorist converted that trip to a bike trip.

I assume nothing of the sort.

So what percentage of the increased bicycle count do you think comes
from previous motorists? Roughly?

Zero. Comparative studies in various European cities give evidence that
the only thing that changes the proportion of motorists in a city it to
implement restrictions on motorists. Improving public transports or
improving cycling facilities largely only shifts the shares between
pedestrians, public transport users and bicycles, not motorists.