Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 1:05 am, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Jul 26, 11:45 pm, rotten <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I live in Boston, so most likely the latter.-
>
> > Playing among the sharks is playing sitting duck. When they are
> > allowed to run wild, and few regulations are enforced, many things can
> > happen, even by accident...
>
> > Boy's Foot Nearly Severed By SUV
>
> > A 14-year-old boy was seriously injured Thursday when his bicycle was
> > hit by a sport utility vehicle, police said.
>
> Too bad, but the article didn't say what caused the accident or who
> was responsible.
>
> About 15 years ago in the area I live in, a small girl on a bicycle
> was killed in a head-on collisions with a pickup trip. The accident
> was used as a justification for a mandatory helmet law applicable to
> children. The accident happened at around 6:30 PM in October, just at
> the point where 6:30 PM was a bit after sunset, but not late enough
> for it to be completely dark. The girl was riding without a helmet,
> but the constributing factors to the accident were that she was riding
> against the flow of traffic without a light in low-light conditions.
>
> The idea that maybe children should be taught to ride in the same
> direction as vehicular traffic and use lights when it is getting dark
> was simply ignored, even though the driver said that he didn't see the
> girl in time to stop, time that traveling in the same direction might
> have provided.
>
> Why her parents let her ride a bike without a light under those
> conditions was also never brought up. All people would talk about
> were helmets - while using one might have helped, that is not a
> substitute for avoiding the accident in the first place.

In the case at hand, I would put the blame squarely... on the lenient
system (POLITICIANS, TRAFFIC OFFICIALS) that allows boys to drive SUVs
without asking hard questions. Actually the older boy at 16 should
have been riding another bike, and no accident would have happened.
One easy way to accomplish this is to require a minimum of 25 years of
age to drive these behemoths.

Now to the other accident you relate to us, I can tell you that the
same thing happens with accidents in general: NOT AN OUNCE OF
PREVENTION, JUST MORE ARMOR, whether in the form of helmets or
Hummers. That's the approach to survival in this jungle: ARMOR.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 3:09 am, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > No bike paths? Ok, then let the whole right lane belong to the bikes
> > and other smart transportation. Keep the dinosaurs aways from the
> > smart furry mammals.
>
> Is the wrong answer. Segregation, as in most other walks of life, fails
> because the dinosaurs do not have to learn to co-exist with the small
> furry mammals. Mix them up and they both learn and the safety increases
> is a well known phenomenom. In London cycling increased 83% and the
> number of accidents decreased 28%. It has been well documented in the
> literature for other countries that increases in the number cycling
> leads to a decrease in the accident rate.
>
> Tony

Well, I know you are the champions of segregating people in
neighborhoods, economic status, etc, I don't know why you don't want
to segregate things that really don't mix.

OK, let's speak metaphorically here: The lions tells the monkey, "Come
down from the trees, nothing to fear." And the monkey says wisely, "I
appeciate your good will, but while you got nothing to fear, I'm
shaking all over."

 

[donquijote1954]

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.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 3:33 am, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:11:20 -0700, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> >> I have been quite impressed lately by the posts of Zoot Katz. Even though
> >> she is a dyke, she is nonetheless very intelligent and, unlike the rest of
> >> you, seldom says anything really stupid. I will have to start paying more
> >> attention to her posts in the future.
>
> >When did Zoot have a sex change operation?
>
> Since she started getting whooped by girls on mountain bikes.

That's an advantage in mountain biking, right? Less bulk to be
compressed against the seat.

 

[[email protected]]

On 27 Jul, 15:06, [email protected] wrote:
> (I can't get at the original at the moment, so here's the digest which I
> trust is accurate).

Can now get at the original - the final paragraph comes down in favour
of increasing cycle facilities:

"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."

I'm personally reconsidering my view as a result of reading this
paper. Before, I would have said that most urban cycle facilities are
positively harmful and should be scrapped tomorrow (I'd make an
exception for various routes such as those on former railway lines
which can be worthwhile). However, having seen the impact on cycling
levels and road traffic of the Copenhagen scheme, I'm starting to
wonder. I guess there's scope for safety to increase as people get
more used to them, and maybe designs can be improved.

I think the key thing is the quality of the facilities. The pictures
in the report suggest that Copenhagen has the space and inclination to
do things properly. Many British urban areas simply don't have the
space. If a city has room to do things properly - which means a
comprehensive network, not scraps of route where there happens to be
space that end suddenly just where you actually need them - then great
go ahead. Otherwise, forget it, and consider other measures.

Rob

 

[Amy Blankenship]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 27 Jul, 15:06, [email protected] wrote:
>> (I can't get at the original at the moment, so here's the digest which I
>> trust is accurate).
>
> Can now get at the original - the final paragraph comes down in favour
> of increasing cycle facilities:
>
> "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."
>
> I'm personally reconsidering my view as a result of reading this
> paper. Before, I would have said that most urban cycle facilities are
> positively harmful and should be scrapped tomorrow (I'd make an
> exception for various routes such as those on former railway lines
> which can be worthwhile). However, having seen the impact on cycling
> levels and road traffic of the Copenhagen scheme, I'm starting to
> wonder. I guess there's scope for safety to increase as people get
> more used to them, and maybe designs can be improved.
>
> I think the key thing is the quality of the facilities. The pictures
> in the report suggest that Copenhagen has the space and inclination to
> do things properly. Many British urban areas simply don't have the
> space. If a city has room to do things properly - which means a
> comprehensive network, not scraps of route where there happens to be
> space that end suddenly just where you actually need them - then great
> go ahead. Otherwise, forget it, and consider other measures.

It looks like in Copenhagen that they've turned their narrower streets into
a pedestrian shopping district.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 4:11 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > But before I leave you, I'd like like to comment on a commercial now
> > showing here... A group of co-workers is having lunch when one of them
> > starts choking. Then one guy makes all kinds of comments he read about
> > what to do in such cases --but does nothing. And another guy finally
> > helps the choking man out of suffocation.
>
> > SO WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THE CHOKING BICYCLE FACILITIES???
>
> First, see what causes the choking, and then act.
>
> Rather than say, "I know what to do, I saw it on TV!", wade in and kill
> your choker with what turns out to be inappropriate action.
>
> If you study the effects of bike infrastructure you see it doesn't help.
> So going ahead with something you know won't work, because it's been
> seen not to, is just a case of "we must do something. This is
> something. So we'll do it". All you'll do is waste money and time /and
> not actually stop the choking/.

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."

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 4:17 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > Practice riding on the road and buy Life Insurance. Your loved ones
> > will appreciate it.
>
> I do practice riding on the road. As does my wife. We don't have life
> insurance. It would actually be just as relevant to being a pedestrian
> if you look at the figures rather than jump to unwarranted conclusions.
>


OK, would you like to see droves of people biking in the UK? Why not
turn to the other European nations, namely Holland, Germany, Denmark?
Or you find it easier to invade a country that has plenty of oil? It
doesn't look very smart to me --let alone civilized.

 

[Bill Z.]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > We have very wide roads around here by European standards.
>
> But to what degree is "here" local? I've been places in the US and
> Canada where the roads were remarkably similar in most respects to
> many European ones. You need to realise that your solution doesn't
> necessarily scale too well to be a general solution. Would you
> happily fit an extra 12' of bike lane into a typical Boston street?

12'??? The minimum is more like 4 to 5 feet (with some dependency on
how the gutter is treated). I said bike lanes aren't a problem when
you follow design standards, and if they don't follow design
standards, you can legally ignore a bike lane. Also, it is not my
solution. A bike lane is simply one of any number of road facilities
that traffic engineers can use, depending on the circumstances.

Also, your use of the word "scale" is technically wrong. I'd suggest
avoiding high-tech jargon if you don't know how to use it.

> > You mean you have to do a lane change just as you would if you were in
> > a traffic lane and a vehicle broke down in front of you?
>
> No, because in a normal lane change I'm sharing the road with drivers
> who are used to cyclists being on the road and consequently are more
> likely to notice me and know how to deal with a bike.

This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a vehicle
was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a
lane change whether or not there is a bike lane. The drivers will
notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not
one - drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes. I've
yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.)
side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous.

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. To justify your claim you would have to show why
a bus lane doesn't make drivers suddently incapable of noticing
buses. In reality, drivers tend to notice things on the road that
can cause some damage to their vehicles. Bicycles are no exception.
If they cut you off or otherwise misbehave, it is because they
think they can get away with it (you'll get out of their way)
but they really don't want to have to take the vehicle to the shop
to get a dent fixed.


> > Where the bike lanes tend to really help experienced cyclists is on
> > heavily traveled commute routes in which cars back up at lights for
> > very long distances. The bike lanes tend to "organize" the cars
> > better so that you can jump to the head of the queue. I'd pass the
> > stopped vehicles slowly and carefully anyway, but at least you don't
> > have a slalom course to deal with.
>
> That's where they're often popular in the UK. Works very nicely until
> you get to /near/ the head of the queue and the lights change. At
> which point people turn without paying much attention or if you want
> to be in the lane to turn right (left in US) you're completely
> snookered, because there's a mile of traffic to go by before you can
> move across the road.

Also not true. Under the CVC (California Vehicle Code), you are
allowed to leave a bike lane at any point where a right turn (a
turn across the bike lane) is permitted, and only have to use the
bike lane otherwise when riding at less than the normal speed of
traffic. We also have bike lanes to the left of right turn lanes,
which reduces the chance of being cut off in such situations.

Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile
before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the
traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your
left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be
riding a bike, at least not on that road.

> They have some usefulness, yes. But they're not a full solution
> applicable everywhere.

Nobody claimed they were applicable everywhere - you made that one
up.

> > That one is not true - it puts the cyclists further from the curb.
>
> Would depend on the lane. It certainly doesn't put *me* further from
> the kerb, because I typically ride slightly further out than UK lanes
> are wide (I ride about 4' out typically). Imagine 12' of lane to
> every road in the US for bikes, and we're in the realm of not too
> practical, I'd guess. Not to say it's a bad thing in all cases, but
> the advantages of segregation are often assumed rather than real
> AFAICT.

This is another bogus argument - most cyclists tend to stay way too
close to the curb. If you ride 4' from the curb, in a typical bike
lane in which parking is not allowed, that will put you about one foot
inside the bike lane. If parking is allowed (and of course, I'm assuming
that parking is needed and used), you should be alot further than
4 feet from the curb to avoid swerving around parked cars.

We don't have 12' bike lanes in the U.S. unless cars are allowed to
park inside the bike lane. We do have 12' traffic lanes in many
places. If that is what you use, then when you are riding inside
a bike lane, you are in the same position relative to the cars that
pass you that you would be if you rode in traffic lane at about the
same position that a motorcycle would use.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 9:08 am, dgk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:39:54 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Joe the Aroma wrote:
> >> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>> Joe the Aroma wrote:
> >>>> No wonder you anti-car people are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're
> >>>> LOONY, and if you weren't you could actually convince people to create
> >>>> bike lanes or trails or whatever, and it would be a good thing. Posting
> >>>> loony article does you no good.
>
> >>> Oh I don't know. If it keeps them from building more cycle farcilities
> >>> many cyclists would see that as a good thing.
>
> >> What?
>
> >What I said. Psychle Farcilities are a thoroughly bad idea. They are
> >more dangerous, slower and more inconvenient than using the roads. The
> >less we have of them the better. Practice Vehicular Cycling on the road.
>
> >Tony
>
> Nonsense. I use a bike/pedestrian way down the east side of Manhattan
> on my daily commute. It adds about a half mile, making it an even 15
> in each direction, but it speeds up the commute because I don't have
> to deal with lights or cars. I can simply pedal along without looking
> in my mirror all the time.
>
> I AM NOT A CAR. Repeat I AM NOT A CAR. I can't go as fast. Bottom
> line. I do not expect folks in cars to go 12 mph to accomodate me.
> That would be obnoxious.
>
> There are places that I share the road, and cars have to also. But
> there are places that I don't need to share the road, and I appreciate
> them.-

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.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 9:12 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

And they are a remarkable model for America. They used to live from
the spoils of war.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 9:16 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "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?

Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 10:06 am, [email protected] wrote:

> It poses lots of questions - e.g. presumably the increase in numbers
> comes from relatively inexperienced cyclists who are more likely to
> have accidents. Maybe the numbers will improve after a while when they
> become more experienced. Maybe with increased confidence, they'll take
> to the roads and become safer that way.

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.

 

[Tony Raven]

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

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

[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

 

[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?

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.

--
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?
>
> 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.

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.

 

[[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

 

[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.

 

[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