|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure ofVehicular Cycling.
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling. Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling, but the event improved from there. The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling” movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,” http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/ The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33% breakdown, from a Portland study https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people, like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what, no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury, and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure and partly due to the increased number of cyclists. The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles, but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!). The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this transformation https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord. The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out council member who was not interested at all in increasing transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled projects. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling. Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling, but the event improved from there. The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling” movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,” http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/ The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33% breakdown, from a Portland study https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people, like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what, no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury, and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure and partly due to the increased number of cyclists. The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles, but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!). The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this transformation https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord. The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out council member who was not interested at all in increasing transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled projects. I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists. -- Jay Beattie. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling. Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling, but the event improved from there. The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling” movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,” http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/ The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33% breakdown, from a Portland study https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people, like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what, no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury, and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure and partly due to the increased number of cyclists. The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles, but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!). The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this transformation https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord. The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out council member who was not interested at all in increasing transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled projects. I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists. Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not admit it. My wife said "I'm one of that 60%." She rides to work because of the infrastructure of bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, and and would otherwise not ride. The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank could deny. What happened in Montreal, http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/, is a very good example. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 2017-08-09 08:36, sms wrote:
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling. Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling, but the event improved from there. The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling” movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,” http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/ The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33% breakdown, from a Portland study https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people, like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what, no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury, and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure and partly due to the increased number of cyclists. The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles, but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!). The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this transformation https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord. The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out council member who was not interested at all in increasing transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled projects. I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that "vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do. Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway where a Boeing 747 is about to land. As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on. We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above 3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction. We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it or not, considering all "side effects". -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:29:15 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling. Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling, but the event improved from there. The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling” movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,” http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/ The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33% breakdown, from a Portland study https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people, like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what, no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury, and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure and partly due to the increased number of cyclists. The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles, but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!). The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this transformation https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord. The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out council member who was not interested at all in increasing transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled projects. I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists. Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not admit it. My wife said "I'm one of that 60%." She rides to work because of the infrastructure of bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, and and would otherwise not ride. The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank could deny. What happened in Montreal, http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/, is a very good example. Read the comments he https://bikeportland.org/2015/06/12/...re-down-144330 Including: "Don’t forget 'efficient'. PBOT has really dropped the ball here with nonsense like Moody, SW Multnomah, and the new bit on SW Terwilliger and Capitol Hwy. I think people need to be able to *average* 12mph on bike trips for it to be a compelling option, which means flat and straight parts need to be easy and relaxing at 15-20mph. A separated facility littered with peds, curb cuts, and red lights won’t give you that." Chutes are dangerous (cars/pedestrian obstructions) and frustrating because of bike traffic. Here is a classic example of new chute infrastructure in Portland that is demonstrably worse than riding on the road: https://bikeportland.org/2017/02/14/...lwaukie-217696 Scroll down to he https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2324/3...1aab9f0f_c.jpg It builds-in conflicts with turning cars -- both entering and leaving traffic. As a cyclist, you now have to stop every 50-100 yards to cross roadways and driveways that previously you just sped-by on the road. https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3726/3...afc2e7f7_c.jpg And the new path was totally unnecessary, at least for cyclists. There was a good shoulder for those who were afraid of the roadway, and not withstanding the breathless rhetoric in the story, I was never afraid riding down this road and neither were any of my riding companions. It was a total snooze of a ride that I had done for decades on my way to other places. This was a monumental step backwards in the name of progress. The perfect solution would have been to put in a nice sidewalk and an on-road bike lane that did not need stops at every bisecting road, driveway, ant trail, deer track, etc., etc. I am positive that there will be more injuries in this new facility than there ever were without it. -- Jay Beattie. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling. Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling, but the event improved from there. The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling” movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,” http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/ That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece. Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European countries, where far more people used bikes than in America. Americans had (and mostly still have) no concept of how bikes should be used. He simply described to Americans what already worked, and what was known by millions of other bike users. The ignorance continues, with people like Scharf (or SMS) and his heroes demonstrating it regularly. Scharf says "the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share." But _nowhere_ has Forester ever pretended that bigger mode share was his objective. The objective of Vehicular Cycling techniques is simply to improve the capabilities, enjoyment and safety of those who choose to use those techniques. And those techniques work. They just work. Scharf's heroes pretend that Vehicular Cycling (i.e. cycling with reasonable skill according to the rules of the road) is only for the "fearless." Yet very normal women and men manage to use VC techniques every effectively. They are easy to learn, they work at any speed, they don't require heroism. See http://cyclingsavvy.org/2017/05/ride...y-a-great-bag/ for example. In a nutshell, if a person wants to use their bike practically and enjoyably for transportation or recreation, they have two choices: They can lobby for massive public spending on separated bicycle facilities everywhere they may ever wish to ride; or they can learn to ride a bike correctly using skills and techniques that are sanctioned by existing laws. The latter strategy allows you to ride essentially anywhere, right now. The former strategy tells you to wait for some tax-funded fairyland to appear. True, Forester and those who understand his ideas point out that many elements of the fantasy fairyland are crappy designs and impose risks that normal riding doesn't. Forester's opponents have lobbied hard for door zone bike lanes, cattle chutes that send fast cyclists wrong-way into intersections, straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right turning cars, etc. This is frustrating to the crowd that believes "any bike facility is a good bike facility." But reality is often frustrating to ignorant daydreamers! The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33% breakdown, from a Portland study https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people, like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what, no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury, and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure and partly due to the increased number of cyclists. The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles, but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!). The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this transformation https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord. The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out council member who was not interested at all in increasing transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled projects. I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists. Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not admit it. The 60% claim is bull****, unless you use unreasonable standards for "interested." The survey that got that number essentially asked "would you be interested in riding if there were amazing bike facilities?" If a person said "I'd be interested" they count. But several of us here are engineers. Engineers are supposed to be able to do numbers. Where in North America have 60% of the population taken to riding bikes to get around? Where has that number actually been proven true? Nowhere, Stephen. You can't even point to a large neighborhood where installation of bike facilities generated 60% ridership. As Jay said, the best you'd get after producing an amazing array of bike/cattle chutes is "Oh, that's interesting." The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank could deny. What happened in Montreal, http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/, is a very good example. Yes, the evidence IS overwhelming! We're engineers, right? We understand numbers, right? So let's look at the amazing success Montreal has had in getting those 60% on bikes. What's its bike mode share? Oh... hmm. http://www.cityclock.org/urban-cycling-mode-share/ says it's somewhere between 1.3% and 2.4%. Time for a question, Stephen: Is 2.4 greater or less than 60? Take your time. I know it takes a while to count to 60 on your fingers. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/9/2017 4:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
I am positive that there will be more injuries in this new facility than there ever were without it. On that note: I have a colleague in Columbus, Ohio. The city installed a bi-directional cycle track on something like 15 blocks (IIRC) of mostly residential streets north of the university. She reports that in the year before the installation, there were two car-bike crashes in that stretch. In the year after, there were 15. Somehow, the cycle track fans are not trumpeting those crash statistics. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on. That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like Amsterdam or Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If it's only green paint then you're right. And it's not getting them to make 100% of their commutes or shopping trips or whatever, even just a small amount is better than nothing. The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY of that 60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding, and the vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to 7%, is not going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars. Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/9/2017 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that "vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do. Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway where a Boeing 747 is about to land. Oh, bull****. When I ride lane center, I'm not pretending to be a car. I'm using the legal right to the road that is specifically given to the operator of a bicycle. It's clearly written in the state laws. No pretending is necessary. And only the ignorant would claim it's stupid to ride according to those laws. We did 25 miles today, mostly on narrow country roads and highways, meaning there was really not a single place where the lane was wide enough to be safely shared with a passing motor vehicle. My wife and I and the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always near lane center. We were passed by many dozens of cars. As usual, there was no drama, no hostility, no close calls, no terror. The same happens when I ride in the city and suburbs, including the 35,000 vehicle per day road I use to get to the hardware store. I know there are people too timid for such riding. They tend to hide their timidity by bragging about their "gnarly" heroics, and spice it with tales of their beer drinking prowess. But those on today's ride would probably laugh behind their backs. As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on. We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above 3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction. We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it or not, considering all "side effects". Is a 1% - 2% bike mode share worth it? Joerg, it depends greatly on "worth WHAT?" Is it worth increasing the crash count from 2 per year to 15 per year, as happened recently on one stretch of road in Columbus? Is it worth spending public money on trial-and-error bike facility designs, as Portland has done for years, then re-doing them to try to make them work? Is it worth delaying the travel of competent cyclists, or ticketing them for refusing to use faulty designs? Is it worth telling people that bicycling is so hazardous that one should not do it until there are segregated facilities everywhere? Why is it not worth it to begin educating both bicyclists and motorists about how to properly and safely share existing roads? After all, that's _really_ what Vehicular Cycling is about. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failureof Vehicular Cycling.
On 8/9/2017 1:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 12:29:15 PM UTC-7, sms wrote: On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote: Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling. Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/ yesterday. The keynote was entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling, but the event improved from there. The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling” movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,” http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/ The statistic that they both harped on was the 1%/7%/5%/60%/33% breakdown, from a Portland study https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497. 1% of people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people, like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what, no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury, and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure and partly due to the increased number of cyclists. The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles, but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!). The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this transformation https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord. The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out council member who was not interested at all in increasing transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled projects. I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists. Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not admit it. My wife said "I'm one of that 60%." She rides to work because of the infrastructure of bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, and and would otherwise not ride. The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank could deny. What happened in Montreal, http://shifter.info/heres-what-happe...cular-cycling/, is a very good example. Read the comments he https://bikeportland.org/2015/06/12/...re-down-144330 Including: "Don’t forget 'efficient'. PBOT has really dropped the ball here with nonsense like Moody, SW Multnomah, and the new bit on SW Terwilliger and Capitol Hwy. I think people need to be able to *average* 12mph on bike trips for it to be a compelling option, which means flat and straight parts need to be easy and relaxing at 15-20mph. A separated facility littered with peds, curb cuts, and red lights won’t give you that." Chutes are dangerous (cars/pedestrian obstructions) and frustrating because of bike traffic. Here is a classic example of new chute infrastructure in Portland that is demonstrably worse than riding on the road: https://bikeportland.org/2017/02/14/...lwaukie-217696 Scroll down to he https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2324/3...1aab9f0f_c.jpg It builds-in conflicts with turning cars -- both entering and leaving traffic. As a cyclist, you now have to stop every 50-100 yards to cross roadways and driveways that previously you just sped-by on the road. https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3726/3...afc2e7f7_c.jpg And the new path was totally unnecessary, at least for cyclists. There was a good shoulder for those who were afraid of the roadway, and not withstanding the breathless rhetoric in the story, I was never afraid riding down this road and neither were any of my riding companions. It was a total snooze of a ride that I had done for decades on my way to other places. This was a monumental step backwards in the name of progress. The perfect solution would have been to put in a nice sidewalk and an on-road bike lane that did not need stops at every bisecting road, driveway, ant trail, deer track, etc., etc. I am positive that there will be more injuries in this new facility than there ever were without it. Portland has another big problem--relatively good public transportation with a very high rate of public transit use, even though it's fallen slightly, like many cities, due to Uber and Lyft. Good public transit drives down bicycle usage because the same people willing to bicycle are also willing to use public transit. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Founder of Marin County Bicycle Coalition Arrested again | Mike Vandeman[_4_] | Mountain Biking | 1 | December 13th 13 02:42 PM |
Marin County Bicycle Coalition Expands into Mountain Biking | sms88 | Social Issues | 1 | November 8th 11 06:02 AM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Rides | 0 | May 14th 08 09:56 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | May 14th 08 09:55 PM |
Best Bike Buys searches online bike stores to help you find bicycles,bikes, bicycle parts, bicycle clothing, and bicycle accessories | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | May 14th 08 09:54 PM |