Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[[email protected]]

On 27 Jul, 16:44, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been
> > constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and
> > feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on
> > road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the
> > construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in
> > health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much
> > greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in
> > road safety."
>
> Looks like a post hoc rationalisation for cycle facilities - nowhere in
> the report have the health benefits been assessed so it can only be an
> attempt at policy based evidence making.

Basically true, but rather harsh? Compared to the detailed safety
assessment, it does rather stick out like a sore thumb for want of
supporting data. But the the +20% cycling / -10% driving indicates a
substantial increase in the number of active (i.e. several times a
week rather than weekend potterers) cyclists, and there is plenty of
evidence elsewhere that active cyclists live longer.

I think I could defend "result in gains in health from increased
physical activity" but I agree the "much, much greater" is not
supported by the report, particularly as (disappointingly) they make
no mention of severity of injuries.

Rob

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >>
>>The increased distance inexperienced cyclists ride from the curb in a
>>bike lane is insignificant and has no bearing on the occurance of a
>>hook collision.
>
>
> Absolutely false. They'll ride anywhere inside a bike lane. Without
> one, they hug the curb regardless, except on next-to-zero-traffic
> residential streets.
>

So what? They ride a very small amount futher left laterally. That does
not discourage a hook incident. You've got to be further left than bike
lanes afford.

And really, who gives a hoot about ignorant bicyclists? They should
learn how to ride.

> The further you are from the curb, the less chances you have of being
> cut off, and the more room you have to avoid an accident otherwise.

Again, the small amount that a bike lane results in a left lateral shift
for ignorant beginners is not enough to deter collisions.

>
>
>>For experts, the bike lanes make very
>>
>>>little difference (as long as they follow current design standards).
>>
>>Bike lanes reduce the ability of bicyclists to manage their lateral
>>position, and their space is reduced.
>
>
> Not true at all. Read the California Vehicle Code and compare where
> you can legally ride with and without bike lanes (and you can legally
> ignore any bike lane that was not installed in conformance with
> state design standards).
>

Who cares what the California Vehicle Code says? First, many places do
have mandatory bike lane use. You've got to have a reason to leave it.
Second, regardless of laws, motorists enforce bike lane use through
coercion and intimidation.

If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space that
the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A bike
lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral position.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

>
>
> You can't be serious - this is a web site put up by some guys with
> an agenda. There is no reason to take it seriously. Provide something
> respectable, like a journal article.
>
>
>
You can't be serious. Most peer reviewed journal articles with bicycling
content are a methodological joke.

Wayne

 

[coyoteboy]

>> They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no effort and
>> they get to think they're doing something useful.

From what I hear the highways engineers hate them but are required to
include certain percentages.

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:


> The anti-bike lane hysteria of many is just plain silly. All the
> things are is a special purpose lane. Drivers should be expected
> to understand what these are, and they are fundamentally no different
> that HOV lanes or bus lanes - lanes restricted to specific types
> of vehicles.

Huh? A 4' lane is not different than a HOV or bus lane? Last time I
checked, these lanes were at least 12'.

And you've already noted that bike lanes are like shoulders. Well,
shoulders are not intended for vehicular use. They are for providing
buffer from roadside elements and a vehicle recovery area.




To justify your claim you would have to show why
> a bus lane doesn't make drivers suddently incapable of noticing
> buses.

No he doesn't. A bike lane makes bicyclists less noticable to motorists
because it creates an additional lane of traffic that bicyclists can be
obscured by from turning motorists.




>
> This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too
> close to the curb.

Who cares about most cyclists who are ingorant of proper bicycling? Get
education!

Wayne

 

[A Muzi]

>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> -snip the usual-

>>> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.

>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> How often do polls reach people without phones?

> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote
>> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
>> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd have
>> to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
>> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those likely
> to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess not.

I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. I do not fit the
demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic
healthcare gripes.

(Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street
force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as
they currently threaten)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Amy Blankenship]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> -snip the usual-
>
>>>> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
>>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
>> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
>>> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd
>>> have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
>>> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
>> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those
>> likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess
>> not.
>
> I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. I do not fit the
> demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic healthcare
> gripes.
>
> (Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street force
> a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as they
> currently threaten)

Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of
informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the
plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
you may want to consider using "us".

HTH;

Amy

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 26, 11:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>> I think if you visit Scandinavian countries, you will find that the
>>> issue of
>>> bike-friendly infrastructure and healthcare are intimately connected in
>>> ways
>>> that are difficult to explain to people who are not open to making such
>>> connections easily.
>>
>> Personally I think it's a loony connection. Bike lanes do not exist
>> because of democracy, not because we aren't democratic. It's purely
>> asinine.
>
> The Scandinavians are remarkably sane people.

Great, I don't see what that has to do with this conversation though.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> messagenews:[email protected]...
>>> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't
>>> know of
>>> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy
>>> with
>>> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every
>>> other
>>> industrialized nation in the world.
>>
>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> How often do polls reach people without phones?

Who doesn't have a phone? It's the best technique we have, and errors are
accounted for in the polls. That still doesn't reflect what occured in
Massachusetts and Oregon referendums.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, say I was the President I'd go before the people and say, "My
> fellow Americans, the state of transportation is pitiful. It's a
> jungle out there. There are too many accidents on the roads while the
> Public Transportation and Biking infrastructure sucks. Such sad state
> of affairs also leads to pollution and war, so all the more reason to
> change. You know CHANGE is a force of evolution, without it dinosaurs
> die... So from now on, bicycles will have priority on the right lane
> of multiple lane roads as well as have other bike facilities. You
> know, lions still keep their share of the road, but now monkeys can
> bike in peace. And all other infracture geared for the monkeys will be
> vastly improved, creating jobs in the process. That's real DEMOCRACY,
> a place where the monkeys are not discriminated against just for being
> monkeys. And, of course, you will all have bananas."

I would think transportation issues are mostly local issues and should
therefor be addressed there. I wouldn't want my president attempting to
micromanage traffic policy.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What you say makes so much sense that overrides any theoretical
> opinions so called "experts" may have. Democracy has to listen to real
> people in real situations, otherwise it's just technocracy.

Do you enjoy your angry, ineffectual rantings? What purpose does it give
you?

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.

It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, it seems to me that while imperfect (only human, right?) we can
> speak about a Danish, Dutch, Cuban or Chinese models where millions of
> people ride bikes for real life situations. On the other hand
> countries like the USA and the UK, where the respective ridership is
> 1% and 3%, can hardly speak for their model. Actually they are models
> for what NOT to do.


The market will respond if that is true.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those
> likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess
> not.

Who the hell doesn't have any sort of phone? It's not likely to be any
different than any other country:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_mai_lin_in_use_percap-main-lines-use-per-capita

Don't quote me on this, but I don't think this includes cell phone either.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 11:34 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 3:22 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >>> Maybe many individual drivers are good, but reckless driving is the
> >>> rule.
> >>> Just compare the stats of the UK vs. the USA.
> >> So USA cyclist deaths per annum is about 700, UK about 140, a ratio of
> >> 5:1.
> >> USA population is about 300 million, UK 60 millio. A ration of 5:1.
> >> Deaths per million vehicle kms; USA 2.5, UK 2.0.
> >> Ratio of total vehicle km travelled (USA:UK) 7:1.
>
> >> Looks pretty comparable to me.
>
> >> Tony
>
> > I said driving, not biking. Your rates are much lower than here, which
> > shows your drivers are more attentive and better trained, resulting in
> > less Darwinian roads.
>
> Hmmmm, Deaths per million vehicle kms; USA 2.5, UK 2.0 looks pretty much
> like driving to me and looks pretty similar to me. YMMV

Well, sorry, but you seem to be out of touch with reality...

"Sweden and Britain each reported about 35 deaths for every billion
kilometers driven in 1970, more than the 30 in the United States. But
in 2005 both European countries reported about 6 deaths for every
billion kilometers, compared with 9 in the United States."

and...

"Bella Dinh-Zarr, the North American director of Make Roads Safe, a
nonprofit organization based in London, said other countries had
stricter laws, better enforcement, more accessible public
transportation, greater awareness, public support and more rigorous
training and licensing standards."

This article is quite enlightening...

Safety First? True Once, but U.S. Now Lags in Road Deaths
By TANYA MOHN
Published: July 22, 2007

DRIVING has never been safer. Cars, which once had just one air bag,
can now have six or more, and there are crumple zones to protect
occupants in a crash and electronic stability control to avoid crashes
in the first place. There are run-flat tires and antilock brakes. The
rate of highway fatalities has plummeted since 1970, when the United
States led the world in road safety.

Still, despite its head start and that cocoon of technology, the
nation has steadily slipped behind other countries, becoming
comparatively one of the most dangerous places to drive in the
industrialized world.

The United States ranks 42nd of the 48 countries measured in the
number of fatalities per capita, according to the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Transport
Forum. Australia, Britain, France, Germany and Japan all did
significantly better.

And in what many safety experts consider a more precise measure,
fatalities per distance driven, the United States was No. 1 in 1970
with the lowest death rate among industrialized countries reporting
data. It now ranks 11th, with some countries reporting rates that are
25 percent lower.

"Here we are, probably the richest country in the world," said Barbara
L. Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety
Association, which represents state highway safety offices. "Why are
other countries doing a better job than we are?"

Safety experts said the reasons were many. One, they said, was
inadequate driver training. Some countries require that teenagers have
100 hours behind the wheel before they receive a license, compared to
about 6 in the United States.

But expert after expert said the real problem was one of culture. With
personal freedom being a cornerstone of the United States, many states
are loath to pass legislation that curtails them, even when it comes
to road safety. So while the governments of other countries can easily
pass laws to make driving safer, like a national ban on hand-held
cellphone use, those laws here are left up to the states to impose,
and that is often not so easy.

New Hampshire, for example, is the only state with no seat belt law
for adults, and in May its state Senate rejected a bill that would
have mandated the use of belts.

"The citizens of New Hampshire don't like to be told by anyone else
what to do," said State Senator Robert E. Clegg Jr.

Fred Wegman, managing director of the National Institute for Road
Safety Research in the Netherlands, said attitudes were different in
Europe. There, he said, safety is not just about the individual, but
is the responsibility of society as a whole. "European countries
fundamentally pay more political attention to road safety," he said.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/automobiles/22SAFETY.html

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 11:44 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > "Taken in combination, the cycle tracks and lanes which have been
> > constructed have had positive results as far as traffic volumes and
> > feelings of security go. They have however, had negative effects on
> > road safety. The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the
> > construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in
> > health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much
> > greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in
> > road safety."
>
> Looks like a post hoc rationalisation for cycle facilities - nowhere in
> the report have the health benefits been assessed so it can only be an
> attempt at policy based evidence making.
>
> When your client, The Municipality of Copenhagen, has spent lots of
> money on these facilities you can hardly tell them they make life more
> dangerous and should be removed. That would be repeat business suicide
> so you tell them the facts and then sugar them with a reason to say "But
> its all right really"
>
> Tony

When you show me London has similar bike riding rates to that of
Copenhagen, I will start listening to you.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 12:33 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

> If the bike lane stripe wasn't there, there'd be a very wide space that
> the vehicle (ie bicyclist) in front would have right of way to. A bike
> lane is nanny state micromanagement of bicyclist's lateral position.

Driving a car is democratic in America, any asshole can drive. Riding
a bike is elitist though. Where the lions live there's plenty of bike
lanes.

If you are a monkey though ride if you dare.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 12:40 pm, coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> They are liked by traffic engineers because they involved no effort and
> >> they get to think they're doing something useful.
>
> From what I hear the highways engineers hate them but are required to
> include certain percentages.

They ride SUVs, why should they care.

 

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

You obviously do not have the brains to realize that the per capita
statistic is completely meaningless.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 12:48 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

> > This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too
> > close to the curb.
>
> Who cares about most cyclists who are ingorant of proper bicycling? Get
> education!

Cyclists are ignorants? So are drivers of SUVs. But they got 5 tons of
metal to get their own way.

By the way, isn't a bike lane a good way to keep ignorant cyclists in
one place?

Wasting my time. I guess you are more ignorant than them.