On Jan 31, 2006, at 8:50 PM, Mike Wilson wrote:

> Part of my problem is that I cannot explain much of what I do, like
> why I own 7 cars and ride a bike to work every day.

I got into a discussion about a similar issue with a friend at work a
few days ago.  We were discussing what we'd do if we won the lottery
(the jackpot for 6/49, our most popular local lottery, was unusually
high).  I said how I'd probably get several top-of-the-line bikes each
for a different kind of riding (road bike, mountain bike, comfort bike
etc.).  She just couldn't understand why, if I had so much money, I
wouldn't just go buy a CAR... :P

John A. Ardelli
Moderator
BIFIDA-L:            http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/bifida-l/
The Crystal Corner:  http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/CrystalCorner/
Bicycling Advocacy:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy/

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "mytzpyk" wrote:
> South Dakota HB1190 wants to remove bicycle from the protections
> provided to vehicles.

"... exclude ... bicycles from the definition of vehicles"
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2006/bills/HB1190p.htm

Of course, that language is way too broad to achieve the stated
purpose (stopping prosecution of cyclists for impaired driving). SD
could do what NC did; limit the exclusion just to the section which
makes impaired driving illegal:

NCGS § 20 138.1.  Impaired driving.
(a) A person commits the offense of impaired driving if
he drives any vehicle ... (1) While under the influence ...
(e) ... for purposes of this section the word "vehicle"
does not include a ... bicycle ...

Bruce Rosar

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, John Forester <forester@j...>
wrote:
> The issue was comparing
> accident rates according to distance or according to time. For
> transportation I wrote that distance was clearly better.

I disagree.  My primary modes of transportation are walking,
bicycling, and by private car, generally in that order of preference,
and the choice I make between modes is greatly influenced by the
distance (which determines the time required for each mode) to the
destination.

My personal treshold for switching to the next mode is a trip length
of roughly 30 minutes to one hour.  Thus I usually walk for trips
that take less than 30 minutes of walking; in the range of 30-60
minutes of walking I often choose to bicycle instead (which trips
will then take only about 7-15 minutes instead), and I will almost
always choose bicycling over walking if the walk would take more than
an hour.  If a trip by bicycle takes 30-60 minutes I might switch to
the car; for most transportation trips that would take longer than an
hour by bike I usually end up choosing to go by car instead.  (What
if motoring takes more than an hour?  Then I generally wouldn't go -
that's roughly my threshold for places I'd be interested in traveling
there and back in a day).

Thus I would compare an hour of walking (about 3-5 km) with an hour
of bicycling (15-20 km) with an hour of motoring (about 50-80 km).
To compare accident rates for walking, bicycling, and motoring a
particular distance (say 80 km) wouldn't make sense to me, because I
wouldn't be walking or bicycling that kind of distance for
transportation (as opposed to recreation) purposes.

In other words, it doesn't make sense to compare accident rates
according to distance, because distance itself is an important
determing factor on which mode will be used.  If one is willing to
travel a half hour or so (obviously each individual's threshold will
be different) to get to a destination and choose the mode
accordingly, then time is a better way compare modes.

Another way to think about this is that comparison by distance
penalizes slower modes because there is then by definition
greater "exposure time" for the slower modes.

Chris Lundberg
Meadville, PA (USA)

John Forester writes:
After all, that has been the entire point of bikeways from the time they were
being
invented.  No other purpose has ever been demonstrated, despite many attempts to
uncover another purpose.
-----------
Assuming that bikeways are separate paths (not separate lanes), I think that two
other purposes are to allow people a way to ride bikes without having to see,
listen to or "look out for" cars,  or to be the "top dog" on the road rather
than the "lesser dog".

Not that I am in favor of the separate paths, since neither reason is of
particular interest to me, but I do see these as purposes, and to pretend they
do not exist is to misunderstand what many cyclists at least seem to want. 
Commentary on why these reasons "make no sense" may be made, but the people who
use these reasons will not read that commentary so you might as well save your
typing.

There are rail trails in my area, and almost everyone I know has no
comprehension of why I would use a public road rather than the rail trail.  This
includes friends who cycle and other people who work in this building and use
the trail on their cycle commute.  One of them has just started working in this
building; we will see how often he rides all the way by road, all the way using
the rail trail where that is possible, part way by cycle and part way by train,
or no cycle.  I have given up explaining*; I just ride on.

Michael Wilson
*Part of my problem is that I cannot explain much of what I do, like why I own 7
cars and ride a bike to work every day.

South Dakota HB1190 wants to remove bicycle from the protections
provided to vehicles.

Here are some state laws. These laws specifically relate to how one
vehicle should relate to another on the road in South Dakota. As
riders we rely heavily on these laws…regardless of if you know you do,
and regardless of if you think they work very well.

A bloggers view: http://minuscar.blogspot.com.
Technical info: http://spoke-n-sport.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=201
Recent media article:
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060131/NEWS/601310334/10\
01

South Dakota Senate Judiciary Committee is deliberating this bill
Wednesday Feb 1 at 10am. If you ride in South Dakota, or think you
might ride in South Dakota, or you just think states should protect
bicycles on public roadways please contact the South Dakota Legislature.

32-26-3.   Passing oncoming vehicles to right--Yielding one-half of
highway--Violation as misdemeanor.  Drivers of vehicles proceeding in
opposite directions shall pass each other to the right, each giving to
the other at least one-half of the main-traveled portion of the
roadway as nearly as possible. A violation of this section is a Class
2 misdemeanor.

32-26-13.   Right-of-way at intersections--Unlawful speed as
forfeiting right-of-way--Violation as misdemeanor.  When two vehicles
approach or enter an intersection at approximately the same time, the
driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the
vehicle on the right except as otherwise provided in §§ 32-26-14 to
32-26-16, inclusive. The driver of any vehicle traveling at an
unlawful speed shall forfeit any right-of-way which he might otherwise
have hereunder. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-26-14.   Entry of highway from alley, building or private
road--Violation as misdemeanor. The driver of a vehicle about to enter
or cross a public highway from an alley, building, private road, or
driveway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on
such public highway. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-26-15.   Yielding right-of-way to emergency vehicles--Duty of
driver of emergency vehicle not to exercise right-of-way
arbitrarily--Violation as misdemeanor.  The driver of a vehicle upon a
highway shall yield the right-of-way to police and fire department
vehicles and ambulances if they are operated upon official business
and the drivers give an audible signal by bell, siren, or exhaust
whistle. The provisions of this section do not relieve the driver of a
police, fire department vehicle, or ambulance from the duty to drive
with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway nor
does it protect the driver of any such vehicle from the consequence of
an arbitrary exercise of such right-of-way. A violation of this
section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-26-19.   Left-turning vehicles--Right-of-way of oncoming
vehicle--Signals--Violation as misdemeanor.  The driver of a vehicle
within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the
right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction
which is within the intersection or so close thereto as to constitute
an immediate hazard. The driver after having so yielded and having
given a signal when and as required by this chapter, may make such
left turn. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-26-26.   Overtaking vehicles--Passing to left required--Cutting in
front prohibited-- Violation as misdemeanor.  The driver of any
vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction
shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof. The driver of an
overtaking vehicle shall pass at a safe distance to the side of an
overtaken vehicle and may not cut in front of the latter until safely
clear of the overtaken vehicle. A violation of this section is a Class
2 misdemeanor.

32-26-30.   Overtaking and passing within business or residence
district--Violation as misdemeanor.  The driver of a vehicle within a
business or residence district may not deviate from his direct line of
travel without ascertaining that such movement can be made with safety
to other vehicles approaching from the rear and about to overtake and
pass such first mentioned vehicle. A violation of this section is a
Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-26-31.   Duty of driver of overtaken vehicle--Increasing speed
prohibited--Violation as misdemeanor.  Unless overtaking and passing
on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall
give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on suitable
and audible signal being given by the driver of the overtaking
vehicle, and may not increase the speed of his vehicle until
completely passed by the overtaking vehicle. A violation of this
section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-26-34.   Passing by crossing highway center line when vision is
obscured--Violation as misdemeanor.  No driver of a vehicle may drive
to the left side of the center line of a highway in overtaking and
passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless such
left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a
sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be
made in safety. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-26-35.   Driving to left on grade or curve--Obstructed
view--Violation as misdemeanor.  No person may drive any vehicle on
the left side of the roadway when approaching or upon the crest of a
grade or a curve in the highway where the driver's view is obstructed
within such distance as to create a hazard if another vehicle is
approaching from the opposite direction. A violation of this section
is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

32-26-40.   Following too closely--Violation as misdemeanor.  The
driver of a motor vehicle may not follow another vehicle more closely
than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of
such vehicles and the traffic upon and condition of the highway. A
violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.


---
» mytzpyk is Michael Christensen
» Blogging the MinusCar Project - http://minuscar.blogspot.com/

» e-mail to mytzpyk@...
» connect @ http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/BicycleSF

>>>>> As long as we (cyclists) have to share the road with drivers of <BR>
>>>>> higher speed vehicles (motorists), road width will ALWAYS be of <BR>
>>>>> equal importance to both groups.<BR>
>>><BR>
>>> Exactly.  This makes overtaking maneuvers on BOTH sides (motorist and
<BR>
>>> cyclist) unique, so it's an issue that affects both.<BR>
>><BR>
>> [A]dvocating for the widening of roadways is not a bicyclist-specific
<BR>
>> issue.<BR>
><BR>
>I NEVER SAID IT WAS.  My EXACT words were (as quoted above) is was an <BR>
>issue of "EQUAL importance to BOTH groups"

Yes. I know you said that. I explained why that is an incorrect statement
in my last 2-3 letters to you. I will repeat, if you missed that point.


>(motorists and cyclists).  I <BR>
>also called it "an issue that affects BOTH." 

Yes I know. I explained in my last 2-3 letters why roadway
width is something that effects bicyclists _significantly_
less than it effects motorists. I will repeat, if you missed
that point.

I also explained why work by a focused
national level bicyclist advocacy organization
ought to avoid many/most issues that effect all
drivers of low occupancy vehicles equally. That would
apply even more so for any issue that effects bicyclists
to a significantly lower degree relative to how the
issue effects wide motorized low occupancy vehicles.


<BR>
>>> Many [roads] are too narrow, and any road too narrow to safely <BR>
>>> accommodate a car is going to have trouble accommodating cyclists, <BR>
>>> too.<BR>
>><BR>
>> I have never found a road too narrow to accommodate motor vehicles....
<BR>
>> It probably would not be consider a "road" if that was the case.<BR>
><BR>
>Obviously.  However, you neglected to include the word "safely" (which <BR>
>I DID include when *I* said it).

Correct. On purpose. I do not believe it.

>  IMHO, any road so narrow that motor
>vehicles traveling in opposing lanes must pass within less than a meter
>of each other (as they do on Argyle Street and the incomplete section
>of Kings Road here) is too narrow to safely accommodate the motor
>traffic they're required to bear.

Do you have the accident statistics to support that claim?
Remember, the study of statistics must do a good job of
showing it is the paved width specifically that accounts
for accident differentials.

Otherwise, I disagree. The rules of the road, drivers maintaining
their line, modifying their speed as a function of conditions,
etc. allows this to be safe.



>> I don't accept that "safely accommodate" is a phrase applicable to the
>> roadway width design issue.
>
>thn you and I will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Yes. But please remember if you join any advocacy organization
I support and work in - please anticipate a fight from me
if you try to incorporate your opinions on this subject into
the organization's advocacy efforts.


>> 1) I don't agree bicyclist/motorist are equally affected. Bicyclist <BR>
>> can always make it through jams somewhat less affected than people <BR>
>> with large motor vehicle.<BR>
><BR>
>That's not been my experience.  Not on Argyle or certain sections of <BR>
>Kings Road, anyway.<BR>

It is my OVERWHLEMING, OVERWHELMING experience all over the world
in all kinds of roadway situations over decades of daily bicycling,
that bicyclists are always significantly less impacted by traffic jams
then motorists.

>> 3) I don't think bicyclist advocacy should spend much or any effort on
<BR>
>> things that effect all drivers _equally_ anyway. We need to focus.<BR>
>
>There's something to be said, however, for creating solidarity with
>motorists.  Maybe they'd be more likely to accommodate us on the road
>if they saw that we all share many of the same problems.

I think it more likely that pandering to misperception and lack
of focus in bicyclist advocacy efforts will harm the cause
of roadway bicycling, and especially roadway bicycling access
issues.

>>>> Don't call this "bicyclist advocacy."
>>>
>>> I don't recall CALLING it ANYTHING.  I'm just expressing an opinion.
>>
>> We are discussing bicyclist advocacy on a bicyclist-specific email
>> list.

Please note you dropped the rest of the quote where I noted that
this thread has been about how we define the charter/scope/limits/focus
of efforts by a national-level bicyclist advocacy organization to be
most effective.


>True, but a bicycle is, in the final analysis, just another vehicle out
>there on the road.  Therefore, there will inevitably some "bleed over"
>of issues from one to the other.  The issues I've brought up may not be
>cycling-specific, but they DO affect cyclists.  They just happen to
>affect motorists as well.

However, you have made incorrect characterizations of roadway
width as of equal importance to bicyclists as to wide motorized
vehicle drivers. This is incorrect. You have advanced your opinion
that roadway width and extra width is a safety feature in roadway design.
That is also incorrect. I believe allowing these misperceptions
to stand will have negative implications for bicyclist advocacy.
I plan to always fight hard to not allow these misperceptions to become
part of any bicyclist advocacy organization I belong to.

>If we always confined ourselves to issues that affect cyclists only, we
>wouldn't have much to talk about. 

A bicyclist advocacy organization that maintained a very tight
focus on promoting "bicyclists fare best when they act and
are treated as drivers of vehicles" would have lots to talk about
and lots to do without adding roadway widening advocacy
to its efforts.

>
>> My point in these discussions is: whether you have this opinion or
>> not, don't attempt to express  this opinion while working as a member
>> of any bicyclist advocacy organization I support.
>
>Unless you are a moderator of this group, DO NOT tell me what opinions
>I may or may not express.

Please read my original quote again carefully. This list is not the official
announcement organ of some official bicyclist advocacy group I belong to
and
support. Therefore I am NOT telling you what opinions you may or may not
express on this list. However, I am warning you that if you join a
bicyclist
advocacy organization I belong to and support, and you attempt to get that
organization to reflect your misperceptions about roadway width and safety,
or attempt to get effort shifted to promoting roadway widening advocacy,
you should expect a very strong fight from me.

KOB


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Michael Graff wrote: "the impression I get is that many traffic
engineers believe in the overall concept of keeping cyclists out of
the way of motorists,"

On that point, Michael, I don't disagree at all. After all, that has
been the entire point of bikeways from the time they were being
invented. No other purpose has ever been demonstrated, despite many
attempts to uncover another purpose. The fact that bikeways had no
other purpose was demonstrated at the very start, when the only
actions taken by those who invented them and designed them was to
enable easier overtaking by motorists, while any changes that made
cycling safer or better were very carefully excluded.

I have written this fact time after time; but those who wish that
history had occurred otherwise always try to cover it up with other excuses.

It is true that two other excuses have been advanced for bikeways:
that they make cycling safe, particularly for beginners, and that
therefore, by attracting the crowds who dislike having to motor, they
will significantly reduce motoring. The safety claim was never even
imaginable, and officialdom has long avoided using it for fear of
being found out, while the reduction of motoring claim has never been
demonstrated to have occurred anywhere.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

On 1/31/06, John Forester <forester@...> wrote:

> Michael Graff commented on the training effects of a
> traffic-engineering curriculum and career: "[F]rom my conversations
> with traffic engineers, and from the evidence painted on the road, I
> conclude that many traffic engineers are internally
> conflicted.  Their training tells them one thing, but their gut tells
> them something else."

> Well, of course that's so. The government requires them to obey the
> damn-fool bicycle facilities standards which conflict with their
> professional training in traffic-engineering and traffic-engineering
> standards. They can't help but be conflicted, if they think about the
> situation.

I wish that were the conflict, but the impression I get is that many
traffic engineers believe in the overall concept of keeping cyclists
out of the way of motorists, and only somewhat reluctantly go along
with VC concepts.

I suspect this has more to do with concern for motorist throughput
than concern for cyclist safety.

> most of them
> don't think very hard about the wider aspects of their profession,
> which is why the damn-fool bicycle facilities standards have been
> allowed to occur.

I suspect most traffic engineers don't think much about cyclists at
all, other than adding bits and pieces of bike lane where it's
convenient to do so.

On Jan 31, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Kenneth O'Brien wrote:

>>>> As long as we (cyclists) have to share the road with drivers of
>>>> higher speed vehicles (motorists), road width will ALWAYS be of
>>>> equal importance to both groups.
>>
>> Exactly.  This makes overtaking maneuvers on BOTH sides (motorist and
>> cyclist) unique, so it's an issue that affects both.
>
> [A]dvocating for the widening of roadways is not a bicyclist-specific
> issue.

I NEVER SAID IT WAS.  My EXACT words were (as quoted above) is was an
issue of "EQUAL importance to BOTH groups" (motorists and cyclists).  I
also called it "an issue that affects BOTH."  At NO time did I say it
was a bicyclist-SPECIFIC issue.  An issue that affects cyclists, yes.
A bicycle SPECIFIC issue, no.

You're putting words in my mouth again.  Please stop doing that.

>> Many [roads] are too narrow, and any road too narrow to safely
>> accommodate a car is going to have trouble accommodating cyclists,
>> too.
>
> I have never found a road too narrow to accommodate motor vehicles....
> It probably would not be consider a "road" if that was the case.

Obviously.  However, you neglected to include the word "safely" (which
I DID include when *I* said it).  IMHO, any road so narrow that motor
vehicles traveling in opposing lanes must pass within less than a meter
of each other (as they do on Argyle Street and the incomplete section
of Kings Road here) is too narrow to safely accommodate the motor
traffic they're required to bear.

> I don't accept that "safely accommodate" is a phrase applicable to the
> roadway width design issue.

Then you and I will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Though I will qualify that a bit:

> Drivers are responsible to adjust to the conditions as  they exist.

I agree with this.  However, I also maintain that, after a certain
point, a lane becomes too narrow to safely navigate the average sized
car through.

>> On some of the roads around here (Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada), I'm
>> EQUALLY affected by traffic jams along with motorists because the
>> road lanes are simply too narrow for me to safely thread traffic.  My
>> only option to get by in these situations would be the sidewalk, and
>> I'm sure everyone knows where I stand on THAT... :P
>
> 1) I don't agree bicyclist/motorist are equally affected. Bicyclist
> can always make it through jams somewhat less affected than people
> with large motor vehicle.

That's not been my experience.  Not on Argyle or certain sections of
Kings Road, anyway.

> 2) Using the sidewalk as a pedestrian, wheeling your bike is very
> acceptable. It is also part of why bicyclists are less affected by
> jams.

True, but most times I can make faster progress by simply crawling
along with the jam.  If I got off my bike and walked it, I would still
be slower overall than the motorists.

That being said, while construction was going on on Kings Road and
there were 20+ minute delays, in THOSE cases I FREQUENTLY walked my
bike past the stoppages.  However, the average traffic jam around here
gets moving in much less time than that and I'm better off just waiting
it out with the motorists.

> 3) I don't think bicyclist advocacy should spend much or any effort on
> things that effect all drivers _equally_ anyway. We need to focus.

There's something to be said, however, for creating solidarity with
motorists.  Maybe they'd be more likely to accommodate us on the road
if they saw that we all share many of the same problems.

>>> Don't call this "bicyclist advocacy."
>>
>> I don't recall CALLING it ANYTHING.  I'm just expressing an opinion.
>
> We are discussing bicyclist advocacy on a bicyclist-specific email
> list.

True, but a bicycle is, in the final analysis, just another vehicle out
there on the road.  Therefore, there will inevitably some "bleed over"
of issues from one to the other.  The issues I've brought up may not be
cycling-specific, but they DO affect cyclists.  They just happen to
affect motorists as well.

If we always confined ourselves to issues that affect cyclists only, we
wouldn't have much to talk about.  A vast majority of issues that
affect cyclists affect the drivers of ALL vehicles to some extent.  It
is this very fact that allows traffic law to be applied to bicycles
pretty much exactly the way it is to motor vehicles with only a few
minor modifications for bicycle specific issues (lights, helmets etc.).

> My point in these discussions is: whether you have this opinion or
> not, don't attempt to express  this opinion while working as a member
> of any bicyclist advocacy organization I support.

Unless you are a moderator of this group, DO NOT tell me what opinions
I may or may not express.

>>>> Yes, narrow roads CAN be shared "safely," but only by
>>>> inconveniencing those driving faster vehicles.
>>>
>>> It only reaches a convenience issue when two way volumes rise above
>>> a certain level.
>>
>> Point well taken.  OK...
>>
>> Narrow roads WITH HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME CAN be shared "safely," but
>> only by inconveniencing those driving faster vehicles.
>
> No. Not what I said, if you think this is agreeing with what I said.

No, I'm not agreeing with what I said.  Just clarifying my point so you
can understand.

John A. Ardelli
Moderator
BIFIDA-L:            http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/bifida-l/
The Crystal Corner:  http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/CrystalCorner/
Bicycling Advocacy:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy/

KOB expresses his usual dictatorial demands: "My point in these
discussions is: whether you have this opinion or not, don't attempt
to express this opinion while working as a member of any bicyclist
advocacy organization I support."

That makes it utterly obvious that you, KOB, should get off the list
and out of the discussion, because you will not support any
organization created by reasonable vehicular cyclists, such as most
of those on this list.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

Michael Graff commented on the training effects of a
traffic-engineering curriculum and career: "[F]rom my conversations
with traffic engineers, and from the evidence painted on the road, I
conclude that many traffic engineers are internally
conflicted.  Their training tells them one thing, but their gut tells
them something else."

Well, of course that's so. The government requires them to obey the
damn-fool bicycle facilities standards which conflict with their
professional training in traffic-engineering and traffic-engineering
standards. They can't help but be conflicted, if they think about the
situation. If the same situation had occurred in the field of
mechanical engineering, say a government standard for bicycle bridges
using an allowable stress of 30,000 psi for mild steel, to make them
cheaper, instead of the 22,000 psi or so used for other structures,
there would have been a revolt among MEs. I rate traffic engineers
rather low in the hierarchy of technological fields; most of them
don't think very hard about the wider aspects of their profession,
which is why the damn-fool bicycle facilities standards have been
allowed to occur.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

On 1/30/06, John Forester <forester@...> wrote:

> Michael Graff noted: "These two concepts seem to be alien to
> practically everybody except vehicular cyclists.  Most motorists,
> police officers, traffic engineers, and cyclists seem to believe in
> their gut that #1 [bicycle in front of motorist in narrow lane]
> should never happen, and #2 [at least partially change lanes to
> overtake] should never be necessary, no matter how narrow the lane might be."
>
> I think that Michael is drastically overstating the case.
>
> I haven't met a traffic engineer in the last thirty years who held
> such views, and even then such engineers were only a small proportion
> of those I met. It is correct that traffic engineers would like to be
> able to install facilities to prevent this situation, but, even then,
> they recognize that such facilities will exist for only some roads.

Perhaps I'm overstating it, but from my conversations with traffic
engineers, and from the evidence painted on the road, I conclude that
many traffic engineers are internally conflicted.  Their training
tells them one thing, but their gut tells them something else.

"John A. Ardelli" wrote:

>  On Jan 28, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Kenneth OBrien wrote:
>
> >> As long as we (cyclists) have to share the road with drivers of
> >> higher speed vehicles (motorists), road width will ALWAYS be of equal
> >> importance to both groups.
> >
> > No. It is not of equal importance to both groups.
> >
> > Bicyclists drive narrow vehicles. Bicyclists have lower potential top
> > speed. Average and typical bicyclist speeds are significantly lower.
>
> Exactly.  This makes overtaking maneuvers on BOTH sides (motorist and
> cyclist) unique, so it's an issue that affects both.

No. The occurrence of bicyclist-overtaking-motor-vehicle happens
is relatively rare. The occurrence of motorist-overtaking-bicyclist
happens is much, much, much more common. When the rare event
bicyclist-overtaking-motor-vehicle occurs, it occurs at much lower
speeds than motorist-overtaking-bicyclist. Therefore advocating
for the widening of roadways is not a bicyclist-specific issue.
Bicyclists are _significantly_ less impacted by lack of extra
roadway width.

>
>
> > Any road capable of providing service to a typical motor vehicle
> > traveling typical motor vehicle speeds automatically has enough width
> > to service bicyclist.
>
> The problem is many roads are NOT truly capable of servicing motor
> vehicles properly.  Many are too narrow, and any road too narrow to
> safely accommodate a car is going to have trouble accommodating
> cyclists, too.

I have never found a road too narrow to accommodate motor vehicles.... It
probably
would not be consider a "road" if that was the case. I have come across one road
in my entire life that had trouble fitting a car and bicyclist along side each
other
(see about half way down

http://cascobaybicycleclub.org/italy


We still managed it, though we did stop and lean against the wall.
Also this road was all of about 1/8th a mile long at this width.)

I don't accept that "safely accommodate" is a phrase applicable
to the roadway width design issue. Drivers are responsible  to
adjust to the conditions as  they exist. If some road is posted
with max speed limit signs not supported by the design that exists,
that should be corrected. But any accidents that occur due to
excessive speed are still primarily driver fault even in cases
of mislabeled Max speed signs. Drivers must _always_ be
ready to handle any condition as predictable as a road
user ahead using the roadway according to the vehicle rules.


>
>
> > In traffic jams the small bicyclist vehicle size, and easy flexibility
> > of the bicycle means bicyclists are always significantly less effected
> > by jammed traffic conditions than motorized vehicle driver.
>
> On some of the roads around here (Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada), I'm
> EQUALLY affected by traffic jams along with motorists because the road
> lanes are simply too narrow for me to safely thread traffic.  My only
> option to get by in these situations would be the sidewalk, and I'm
> sure everyone knows where I stand on THAT... :P

1) I don't agree bicyclist/motorist are equally affected. Bicyclist
can always make it through jams somewhat less affected than
people with large motor vehicle.

2) Using the sidewalk as a pedestrian, wheeling your bike is very acceptable. It
is
also part of why bicyclists are less affected by jams.

3) I don't think bicyclist advocacy should spend much or any effort on
things that effect all drivers _equally_ anyway. We need to focus.

>
>
> When traffic is jammed, the extra width benefits the cyclist more.
> When traffic is flowing, it benefits the motorist more.
>
> Either way, extra width benefits both parties to some degree.

See 1-3) above

>
>
> >> I believe road width DOES have an impact on safety.Â
> >
> > Please cite the studies you think support this claim.
>
> My exact words (quoted above) were "I BELIEVE."  I didn't say it was
> established fact.  Therefore your request for studies to support my
> "claim" are inappropriate.

> One does not need studies to express one's opinion.  One only needs
> studies to support anything one claims is fact.

Then I will continue to be confident you are wrong.

>
>
> >> I do not believe in delaying motorists unnecessarily.  If a road can
> >> be designed to allow motorists to pass me more conveniently without
> >> compromising my safety (or theirs, for that matter), I'm all for it.Â
> >
> > You are a " motorist convenient overtaking" advocate not a "bicyclist
> > advocate", at times when you promote this.
> >
> > Don't call this "bicyclist advocacy."
>
> I don't recall CALLING it ANYTHING.  I'm just expressing an opinion.

We are discussing bicyclist advocacy on a bicyclist-specific email
list. We are in the middle of a discussion about positing
some national level bicyclist advocacy group, and how we would
go about developing charter/efforts/limits-of-advocay. My point in
these discussions is: whether you have this opinion or not, don't attempt
to express  this opinion while working as a member of any bicyclist
advocacy organization I support.


>
>
> >> Yes, narrow roads CAN be shared "safely," but only by inconveniencing
> >> those driving faster vehicles.
> >
> > It only reaches a convenience issue when two way volumes rise above a
> > certain level.
>
> Point well taken.  OK...
>
> Narrow roads WITH HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME CAN be shared "safely," but only
> by inconveniencing those driving faster vehicles.

No. Not what I said, if you think this is agreeing with what I said.
I don't believe "safely" comes into the equation as a simple function of width.
Even motorist "convenience" (a primarily perception issue that does not
necessarily deserve a whole lot of public expense if that is all that
is being addressed, anyway) doesn't come into the equation in all that many
situations.  Any true impact on legitimate public roadway service measures
,where
the bicyclist's  impact is greater than that bicyclist in a motor vehicle,
almost
never happens.

Ken

On Jan 28, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Kenneth OBrien wrote:

>> As long as we (cyclists) have to share the road with drivers of
>> higher speed vehicles (motorists), road width will ALWAYS be of equal
>> importance to both groups.
>
> No. It is not of equal importance to both groups.
>
> Bicyclists drive narrow vehicles. Bicyclists have lower potential top
> speed. Average and typical bicyclist speeds are significantly lower.

Exactly.  This makes overtaking maneuvers on BOTH sides (motorist and
cyclist) unique, so it's an issue that affects both.

> Any road capable of providing service to a typical motor vehicle
> traveling typical motor vehicle speeds automatically has enough width
> to service bicyclist.

The problem is many roads are NOT truly capable of servicing motor
vehicles properly.  Many are too narrow, and any road too narrow to
safely accommodate a car is going to have trouble accommodating
cyclists, too.

> In traffic jams the small bicyclist vehicle size, and easy flexibility
> of the bicycle means bicyclists are always significantly less effected
> by jammed traffic conditions than motorized vehicle driver.

On some of the roads around here (Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada), I'm
EQUALLY affected by traffic jams along with motorists because the road
lanes are simply too narrow for me to safely thread traffic.  My only
option to get by in these situations would be the sidewalk, and I'm
sure everyone knows where I stand on THAT... :P

When traffic is jammed, the extra width benefits the cyclist more.
When traffic is flowing, it benefits the motorist more.

Either way, extra width benefits both parties to some degree.

>> I believe road width DOES have an impact on safety.Â
>
> Please cite the studies you think support this claim.

My exact words (quoted above) were "I BELIEVE."  I didn't say it was
established fact.  Therefore your request for studies to support my
"claim" are inappropriate.

One does not need studies to express one's opinion.  One only needs
studies to support anything one claims is fact.

>> I do not believe in delaying motorists unnecessarily.  If a road can
>> be designed to allow motorists to pass me more conveniently without
>> compromising my safety (or theirs, for that matter), I'm all for it.Â
>
> You are a " motorist convenient overtaking" advocate not a "bicyclist
> advocate", at times when you promote this.
>
> Don't call this "bicyclist advocacy."

I don't recall CALLING it ANYTHING.  I'm just expressing an opinion.

I'm beginning to see what people find so frustrating about you.  You
have good ideas, I'll admit, but you have an unfortunate tendency to
put words in other people's mouths.

Just as a point of fair warning:  I do NOT react well to that after a
point...

>> Yes, narrow roads CAN be shared "safely," but only by inconveniencing
>> those driving faster vehicles.
>
> It only reaches a convenience issue when two way volumes rise above a
> certain level.

Point well taken.  OK...

Narrow roads WITH HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME CAN be shared "safely," but only
by inconveniencing those driving faster vehicles.

> [B]icyclists advocates need to advocate for designs that do NOT
> encourage bicyclist shoulder use. Bicyclists need to fight to see the
> extra width placed in the travel lane.

Actually, I'd be pleased to see EITHER of these outcomes, particularly
on high speed (90 km/h+) roads (though I do agree that extra width in
the travel lane itself is the ideal solution).

John A. Ardelli
Moderator
BIFIDA-L:            http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/bifida-l/
The Crystal Corner:  http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/CrystalCorner/
Bicycling Advocacy:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy/

On Jan 30, 2006, at 9:08 PM, John Forester wrote:

>> Most motorists, police officers, traffic engineers, and cyclists seem
>> to believe in their gut that #1 [bicycle in front of motorist in
>> narrow lane] should never happen, and #2 [at least partially change
>> lanes to overtake] should never be necessary, no matter how narrow
>> the lane might be."
>
> I think that Michael is drastically overstating the case.
>
> I haven't met a traffic engineer in the last thirty years who held
> such views, and even then such engineers were only a small proportion
> of those I met.

I'm sure you're right, particularly about the police officers and
traffic engineers.  However, it does sometimes feel like many MOTORISTS
feel this way.  Not ALL, mind you.  I've found, in fact, that MOST
motorists are much more sensible about this.  The problem is, though,
that those who DO hold these beliefs, though they are in the minority,
are an unfortunately large minority.  I don't encounter them often, but
more often than I should per driver I encounter.

John A. Ardelli
Moderator
BIFIDA-L:            http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/bifida-l/
The Crystal Corner:  http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/CrystalCorner/
Bicycling Advocacy:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/bicyclingadvocacy/

Mike Wilson wrote:

>  I am less interested in wider roads as a motorist than I am as a cyclist.
>
> As a motorist, the wide roads make the road less interesting, and raise the
comfortable speed way over the speed limit*.  The
> end result is an uncomfortable constant watching for police and of speed,
rather than just driving the car.  Note that I try
> desperately to avoid motoring in traffic.  I have a bicycle; that is my
solution to driving in traffic.
>
> As a cyclist, I prefer not to have motorists stacked up behind me.

I am 46 years old. I have lived in the crowded US northeast my whole life -
including
city and dense suburb, north New Jersey, Allentown PA, Boston and suburbs.
For long stretches of that time I have ridden my bike daily. There have been ~10
times in my life I have had to pull over because traffic "stacked up" behind me.

Any concern beyond this is not concern "as a cyclist".

Traffic flow accordioning a little to wait for an opening to overtake is not
traffic "stacking up". The whole population - bicyclist and motorist - needs
to get over this occasional, and to-be-expected roadway occurrence.


>Many roads here in New England are already plenty wide even for this comfort
rating.

The vast majority of roads, the vast majority of the time will not amount
to a bicyclist needing to pull over due to "stacked-up" traffic.

Ken OB

> So I ask again - does anyone have a pointer to believable statistics
> about the annual USA passenger miles of cycling?  And for computing
> convenience, a pointer to the annual USA motoring passenger miles?
> Without these there is no basis for comparison at all.

The 1993 Johns Hopkins, Baker, Li, Fowler, Dannenberg study used something
called
the "National Personal Transportation Survey" to get exposure measures. Since I
have
my doubts about whatever that might be, I don't have too much of an opinion on
its
believability.

But just to list what they have:

They listed things in two forms of exposure: "per trip" and "per person miles of
travel"

deaths per 100 million person trips
13 cars
55 bicycles (41 is lowest for an age group [20-29])
602 motorcycles

deaths per 100 million person miles of travel
1.5 cars
25 bicycles
54 motorcycles

they also lists for bicycling only:

300 injuries per million trips (143 is lowest for an age group [30-39])


I think the main thing to take out of this:

Even with the very bad bicycling typical of the US, bicycling is relatively
safe.

You could go on and say:
There is some indication that populations
associated with better bicycling practice are factors
(5x?) safer then this for injury rates. That  likely means
that a  bicyclist population with VC-evauated-good bicycling
practice would be _at_least_ that much safer than average.

It is interesting to note table for death rate per 100 million trips
by age

5-15    50
16-19  72
20-29  41
30-39  47
40-49  85
50-64  176

I think the analysis notes that heart attacks while bicycling
get counted in the fatality numbers. I suspect that goes
a long way towards explaining this strange increase in fatality
rate at age 40 and above. If the health related numbers in these
statistics could be more firmly established - I think noting
that a _health_issue_  can so strongly distort fatality statistics
of a supposedly  dangerous-by-collision activity would be
another thing that would help highlight bicycling (by those
of sound health) as not nearly  as dangerous as common
misperceptions believes.


KOB

Michael Graff noted: "These two concepts seem to be alien to
practically everybody except vehicular cyclists.  Most motorists,
police officers, traffic engineers, and cyclists seem to believe in
their gut that #1 [bicycle in front of motorist in narrow lane]
should never happen, and #2 [at least partially change lanes to
overtake] should never be necessary, no matter how narrow the lane might be."

I think that Michael is drastically overstating the case.

I haven't met a traffic engineer in the last thirty years who held
such views, and even then such engineers were only a small proportion
of those I met. It is correct that traffic engineers would like to be
able to install facilities to prevent this situation, but, even then,
they recognize that such facilities will exist for only some roads.

As for trying to figure out what the population of cyclists thinks of
these situations, that population is so badly informed, and so
infested with superstitions, that there is little point in trying to
describe the range of opinions.

I think that Michael is representing the more common and less
informed of that range of public opinion, but not that of
traffic-engineering opinion. The popular opinion certainly is a
problem that we vehicular cyclists all have to deal with, the more so
as government runs its program, with the inherent traffic-engineering
errors built into it, and requires that traffic engineers and, more
to the point, bikeway planners, have to conform to government's
errors. That is where the professional errors come in.


John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

I am less interested in wider roads as a motorist than I am as a cyclist.

As a motorist, the wide roads make the road less interesting, and raise the
comfortable speed way over the speed limit*.  The end result is an uncomfortable
constant watching for police and of speed, rather than just driving the car. 
Note that I try desperately to avoid motoring in traffic.  I have a bicycle;
that is my solution to driving in traffic.

As a cyclist, I prefer not to have motorists stacked up behind me.  Just a
preference, mind you, but a preference.  The wider road helps with this.  It is
of particular interest on roads that are narrower than   2 cars + 1 bicycle +
2*normal_pass_gap   that have short sight lines.  Wider here makes for more
comfortable riding, at least for me.  Many roads here in New England are already
plenty wide even for this comfort rating.

Michael Wilson
*I freely admit that as a motorist I am not in synch with the majority.

A few days ago the FARS data was mentioned; I believe it was something
like 44000 total USA deaths due to motoring in 2004, of which 700 or so
were cyclists and 6000 or so were pedestrians.

This leaves us with a ratio of something like 700 / 37000 between bikes
and cars, or cyclists deaths being about 2 percent of motorists.

I agree with John Forester, that the rate of interest should be per
passenger mile.

So I asked if anyone had any idea on the ratio of passenger miles of
cycling in the USA vs passenger miles of motoring.  As I said before, a
casual glance* leads me to the conclusion that the passenger miles of
cycling is vastly less than 2 percent of the passenger miles of
motoring.

Thus my casual glance leads me to believe from these numbers that
cycling is a lot more dangerous from the fatality perspective than
cycling.  Yes there may be a lot of caveats about the "kind of cycling"
etc, although again my suspicion is that they will also not be valid.

So I ask again - does anyone have a pointer to believable statistics
about the annual USA passenger miles of cycling?  And for computing
convenience, a pointer to the annual USA motoring passenger miles?
Without these there is no basis for comparison at all.

Thanks,
Michael Wilson
* When I ride my bike I see almost no other cyclists.  When I drive my
car I see almost no cyclists.  I see cars being driven all the time.
The ratio seems a lot more than 50:1.

I was assuming that policy meant something like "mission statement".

My take is that Jack Taylor is thinking of policy as how we talk to people and
align with people on particular roadway projects.

My opinion on particular roadway projects is that we should not need to mention
freeway bans except as we are attempting to remove them from places like bridges
where that is the only access, and in those cases (if necessary) concede that we
are not, at least for now, seeking removal everywhere.  I view these as
different sets of statements, and would not have called the negotiations for
particular projects "policy".  Maybe I should be.

I have no policy or vc advocacy experience.  I am on this list in the hopes of
lending my support to the idea that I can continue to cycle legally on the
public roads in the USA.

In the 70s I read the 2 books by the 2 Johns to see what I might be doing wrong
and what I might do better.  Mostly they confirmed what I had already been
doing, and they explained some of the reasons why it seemed to work and some of
the reasons for some of the right-of-way laws.

Michael Wilson

On 1/28/06, Jack Taylor <jacktaylor@...> wrote:

> I have never really understood the thinking behind those.  Are they to
reassure motorists that should they see some creature which appears to be on two
wheels of some sort that they should not panic or intentionally run it down- it
could be a bicyclist?  Do bicycles drop out of the sky or spring from the ground
along that stretch of road, so be prepared for a panic stop? Do they possibly
have invisible bicyclists and the motorist should swerve away from the curb
periodically? Might a bicycle be expected to shoot out into the road from the
woods, possibly followed a few seconds later by a couple of baby bicycles? Do
people somehow not see an actual bicycle unless they have seen the painted one
first?

> And they specifically use these in areas where there is a lot of bicycle
traffic.  It seems like the motorists there would have learned to recognize a
bicycle by now.  I guess you have to paint even more symbols the more bicycles
there are.  It seems to me they should paint the thing where they have never yet
seen a bicycle- that's where the motorist's wouldn't be expecting one.

I think a more specific exclamation is "Good lord, it's a bicycle in a
narrow lane."

In particular:

1. The bicyclist is in front of a motorist in a narrow lane.

2. For a motorist to legally pass the cyclist, the motorist must (at
least partially) change lanes.

These two concepts seem to be alien to practically everybody except
vehicular cyclists.  Most motorists, police officers, traffic
engineers, and cyclists seem to believe in their gut that #1 should
never happen, and #2 should never be necessary, no matter how narrow
the lane might be.

But the reality is that traffic laws generally support 1 and 2 in
narrow lanes, and many roadway designs require 1 and 2.

So there's some serious cognitive dissonance among many traffic
engineers, trying to deal with a reality that goes against their gut
feeling.

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, CRKJLAW@a... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 1/29/2006 9:12:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jacktaylor@g... writes:
>
> .   At any rate, it's the yellow bicycle stencil thing, the
intention of
> which is  simply to indicate to motorists that the thing they see
up ahead might
> be a  bicycle so be prepared for the world to end.
>
>
>
> Actually, Jack, I'm on the edge of a problem where such sarrows
might be
> applicable.

Hi Chris,

I think if you look at my original posting a bit closer you will see
that I was denigrating the specific yellow bicycle stencil-style such
as the one shown in Brisbane.  I mentioned that I think the chevron
style at least had the intent of being for educational purposes-
trying to educate bicycle riders to get off the sidewalks, into the
traffic lanes, and heading in the right direction, both literally and
figuratively I would say.

While the use of any road paint will be objected to by most on this
list, I see that one as more for the purpose that any informational
road sign might have (e.g. "bicycles use traffic lane") and in fact
conveying information that would be essentially impossible to convey by the use
of an informational sign.  Of course the sudy itself recognized that the full
intent of the sign was not understood by many.

Whether it should be necessary or not, the particular chevron used in that
report at least seemed  to be trying to convey a number of "good" VC things,
both to cyclists and motorists, and actually encouraging the integration of
cycling into the traffic flow and not specifically intended to separate cyclists
from motor traffic as most of the other glyph-and-stripe things are used.

Jack

Shane, use your head rather than your tongue. The issue was comparing
accident rates according to distance or according to time. For
transportation I wrote that distance was clearly better.

I never wrote that the data were perfect; I wrote that the data were
bad. In addition to your proportions of freeway motoring vs normal
street motoring that you introduced, there are many other
considerations. For motorists, the ratio of pleasure driving vs
transportational driving. The differing ratios of travel in the dark.
The widely different levels of cyclist skill. The differing ratios of
travel on unfamiliar roads. The proportion of cyclists who cycle
because they are prohibited from motoring.

I don't know how many such difficulties can be considered, but we do
not have the data to do anything about such considerations. You
should have known that also, rather than condemning my statement that
distance was better than time as a rating base.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

In a message dated 1/29/2006 9:12:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jacktaylor@... writes:

.   At any rate, it's the yellow bicycle stencil thing, the intention of
which is  simply to indicate to motorists that the thing they see up ahead might
be a  bicycle so be prepared for the world to end.



Actually, Jack, I'm on the edge of a problem where such sarrows might be
applicable. State Route 1 is virtually the only way to access Rehoboth -
Delaware's beach area. Years ago, the road was a multi-lane surface highway with
lights at intersections and rideable shoulders. Traffic along it, during beach
season, was very high. Over the years, traffic has increased and shopping
malls/outlet stores have grown up along it.

Bicycle travel along this stretch of Rt. 1 has always been relatively high.
Service workers, both seasonal and year-round, need to travel to employment
located along the route and in the Rehoboth area. Many of these seasonal
workers  are college age youths from Europe or Hispanics recently relocated to
the
US.  Because of high property rents, most can't afford to live in the beach
area and  so must travel along the route between their quarters and jobs. In
addition, the  beach area is a hotbed of tourist cycling - many people rent a
bike
for the week  to get around the area while others strap 3 or 4 bikes to the
back of their  cars. Most don't have a clue as to what they are doing and
because most are out  of towners, educational classes would have minimal effect.

DelDOT's latest plan is to eliminate the shoulders and add a Bus/Bike/Right
Turn lane. The initial design called for the lane to be marked with a dashed
line along its entire length. The latest version calls for a solid line. Local
  and state bike advocates are up in arms about the loss of the shoulders -
which  may have been marked at one time as bike lanes. They have proposed that
the road  speed be reduced from 50 MPH to 35 MPH, the left lanes narrowed to 10
feet and 4  foot bike lanes be added either to the left or right of the
bus/right turn lane.  DelDOT, according to a written communication published in
the
local paper, does  not want to encourage cyclists here and so opposes any
separate facility.

Without going into the faults of bike lanes, I would propose that the speed
be reduced and the left lanes reduced in width. The remaining space (between
14-15 feet) would be devoted to DelDOT's proposed bus/bike/turn lane. However,
I  would add sarrows such as the chevron design, which seemed to be the most
effective. These sarrows would be placed to the right of the center of the
lane  but an appropriate distance from the right edge of the road. This would
allow  cyclists to choose their position within the lane without the implied
restriction that a separate bike lane would impose.

The study that you linked seems to support my idea. While there was only
marginal change in cyclist position - about 8 inches - there was a marked change
in passing motorist position - up to an additional 2 feet from the cyclists.
The  study also claims that there was an 80% reduction in wrong way riding - a
figure  I find a bit high based on observation of local
shoulders-marked-as-bike-lanes  here. Still the reduction is a plus. In
addition, highly visible
sarrows would  alert motorists to the fact that cyclists can be found here and
do  have the legal right to ride this section of Rt. 1. Given the nature of the
  traffic, the road and the location, this is a concept that many of the
motorists  lack.

By the way, just to head off the argument, DelDOT and local/state bike
organizations have embarked on "on the spot" educational programs such as
distributing bike laws to employers, light give-aways, stop and educate 
misbehaving
cyclists, and Motorist Ed classes for bus drivers. We continue to  support
these efforts.

Chris Law


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Try doing it as a handcyclist.
>
> From: "Lauren Cooper \(DancesWithCars\)" <cyclemedia@...>
> Date: 2006/01/29 Sun PM 01:00:12 EST
> To: chainguard@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [CG] Re: Lies, damned lies, and statistics
>
> Man, it really makes my blood boil when they do this:
> >>> article in Popular Science:... Of the 800 bicyclists killed in
> accidents with cars each year, 90 percent are male; 80 percent of the
> 500,000 injured are men.... <<<
>
> Problem: 9/10 of the 500,000 injured were NOT accidents with cars!  No car
> involved.
>
> >>> Traveling a mile by bike is almost 14 times as likely to be fatal as a
> mile by car. <<<
>
> By this measure of inequal usage, I believe space travel comes up as the
> safest way to go.
>
> Lauren
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the corresponding
address shown below:
>   Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   Switch to Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com
>   Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com
>   Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com
> Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com
> To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- John Forester <forester@...> wrote:

> This silly controversy about whether to rate the
> danger of cycling by
> the mile or by the hour has been bandied about for
> decades. It
> depends entirely on the purpose of the cycling that
> is being
> measured. For the purpose of transportation, which
> is to get from one
> place to another, the distance between the origin
> and the
> destination, in other words the miles traveled, must
> be the rating
> base.

In my view, Forester's analysis in this matter is
simplisitic, flawed and untenable.  His claim only
holds true if it can be shown that the two modes of
travel are carried out in equal proportions on roads
of an equivalent character.

Thus, to be comparable exclusively on the basis of
distance, the cyclist and motorist populations must be
shown to have proportionately equivalent milage on
freeways etc.

Otherwise we are clearly not comparing equivalent
situations.

Later

SF





___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Hi

There's a presentation on comparisons of the relative
danger of motoring and cycling here.

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm

SF



___________________________________________________________
Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now.
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry

Jack R. Taylor has expressed the concern of many of us about the
supposed high accident rate of cycling, and dissatisfaction with the
two arguments that I criticized earlier, whether the accident rate
should be calculated on the basis of miles or hours when it is
compared to motoring. Per mile shows higher than per hour, of course,
in these comparisons, because motor travel is faster than cycle travel.

Why should we bother at all about this issue? I argue below that we
shouldn't bother, except in a relative sense. However, Jack writes
that we should worry about the use made of accident statistics by our
adversaries. Here is the way he phrased it: "Just what is our best
way of handling this issue in relation to our adversaries? Where is
fact-package and/or what is our best tactical weapon and technique?"

Just who might be these adversaries who use accident rate statistics,
accurate or not, against us? The specific comparisons being made, and
being discussed, are those between motoring and cycling, to the
disfavoring of cycling. If any entity were making use of these
statistics in an adversarial way, it would be motorists. Do we see
motorists, or motoring organizations, or highway organizations,
proclaiming that to save the world, to make themselves safe, cyclists
should switch to motoring? Of course we don't. The nearest that I
think has been done has occurred in Britain, where, so rumor says,
there was some opposition to governmental urging to switch to
cycling, the objectors saying that this was improper because cycling
was more dangerous than motoring. The nearest thing to principled
opposition to cycling in the USA is the unspoken, unannounced,
unpropagandized motoring by parents taking children to school.

So, who then could be our adversaries who make much of the supposed
high cycling accident rate? I can think of only one group: promoters
of bikeways and incompetent cycling. But that, of course, in any real
world, would be counterproductive. But in cycling affairs the
topsy-turvey world is most prominent; we have these fearmongers
proclaiming that cycling is so dangerous that we must have bikeways
to make cycling safe. That propaganda works only so long as the
public continue to believe the superstition that bikeways make
cycling safe, especially for beginners. That is the superstition
against which we are fighting, which has nothing at all to do with
the comparison of accident rates for cycling and motoring. The weight
of the evidence that exists, and the very likely weight of all the
evidence that might be discovered in the future, shows that cycling
competence is the strongest factor in reducing the cyclist accident
rate, and that bikeways, if they have any effect, probably increase
the rate, and in persuading people to refuse to learn competence they
certainly prevent reducing the rate. That's the battle, not one of
comparing rates for motoring against cycling.

No sane person tries to live life as safely as possible. Howard
Hughes, after early years in risky flying, turned paranoid and tried
to live as safely as possible, making the last half of his life a
ghastly horror, nothing that any sane person would want to emulate.
In every activity of life, we act as if we had compared the benefits
of the activity against the risks thereof, even though we are not
conscious of doing so. The sales of beef remain high, despite the
risk that any chunk of beef might contain a prion. We drive to work
without thinking anything about it, but we would be safer at home, at
least if we had the money to support a hermit life, as Hughes had.
Should we take baths? Swabbing off from a washbasin is probably safer
than stepping into a tub. Very few of us are health-food nuts, and
those who are probably take almost as many food risks as those who
aren't; just different ones. Do any of us avoid the dangers inherent
in social life by always avoiding the temptation to speak ill of
someone who might take it into his head to stab us in the back,
figuratively if not always literally?

For some of us in particular situations, bicycle transportation is
the best available way to get about town. For others of us, cycling
is an activity that we enjoy, whether doing it for transportation or
health, or purely for recreation. What is important to us is that we
do it in the most reasonably safe way with plenty of enjoyment and
confidence, which is acting, and hoping to be treated, as drivers of
vehicles (including, on rare occasion, going a bit too fast on some
descents). Insofar as we would join an organization of cyclists, that
organization should advocate a vehicular cycling policy, both for its
members and for society as a whole in its relation to cyclists. The
accident rate comparison between incompetent cyclists and lawful,
competent cyclists, according the weight of the best evidence, is
that the rate for lawful, competent cyclists is only about 20% of
that for typical incompetent cyclists. That is the statistic to which
we should pay attention, not the rest, which are much less reliable
as well as being largely irrelevant.



At 10:22 AM 1/29/2006, Jack R. Taylor wrote:
>John,
>
>I also am frustrated when I hear ourselves struggling with this, and
>doing a very poor job of it.  That is in fact part of what I meant
>about vehicular cyclists being well armed in their skills on the
>road, but generally easy prey against the advocacy opposition, in
>this case the paint and path fearmongers.
>
>Yes, we indeed have to accept the facts and live with them, but the
>problem is basically two fold.  What are the facts, as best we could
>put the package together, and how do we as advocates counter our
>adversaries when they offer what we believe to be distortions to a
>third-party audience.
>
>We have a gut feeling that we will not be run over should we decide
>to ride to the grocery store. How do we counter those who basically
>are claiming that we will?  Smile and offer "Yeah, that's the way it
>goes?" Or perhaps, "The studies have been poor and aren't conclusive
>one way or the other."  I hope we can do better.
>
>Our standard retort seems to be something along the lines that for
>urban cycling, in a vehicular manner, during daylight hours, by adult
>cyclists, it's much closer to being the same as motoring.   That just
>is not the zinger we could use.
>
>As you have said, we must not let misleading statements go
>unchallenged, so we need to work on our best method for handling this
>issue.  It is certainly not going away.
>
>All that you have said is sadly true, but beyond the silliness of the
>discussion these are still our guys, and  advocates struggling for
>some help in handling this.  That is a very serious topic, and very
>likely one you might have some insight into.
>
>While I personally feel that should you take away a few of the
>qualifiers I listed above, cycling numbers will in fact suffer in
>either the "per-mile or per-hour" analysis, and we will have to
>accept that and work with it, just what is our best way of handling
>this issue in relation to our adversaries? Where is fact-package
>and/or what is our best tactical weapon and technique?
>
>Jack Taylor
>http://probicycle.com

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com

Man, it really makes my blood boil when they do this:
>>> article in Popular Science:... Of the 800 bicyclists killed in
accidents with cars each year, 90 percent are male; 80 percent of the
500,000 injured are men.... <<<

Problem: 9/10 of the 500,000 injured were NOT accidents with cars!  No car
involved.

>>> Traveling a mile by bike is almost 14 times as likely to be fatal as a
mile by car. <<<

By this measure of inequal usage, I believe space travel comes up as the
safest way to go.

Lauren


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com