Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
chainguard · Bicycle Advocacy
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Messages 28175 - 28204 of 28249   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Messages: Show Message Summaries   (Group by Topic) Sort by Date v  
#28204 From: Serge Issakov <serge.issakov@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:24 pm
Subject: Re: Roundabouts: ... [CG] Re: National Center for Bicycling ...
ljserge
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
 
Think of the roundabout as a long, tight, infinitely long curved road, with several (usually four) 3-way outside-only "T" intersections, rather than as one intersection.  The transverse lane changes are a result of the curve, and are no different from lane changes on any other similar curve on a multi-lane road.  Lane changes at a T intersection, especially from the outside towards the inside to make room for others trying to enter from the vertical part of the "T" - are not as unusual or unexpected as at 4-way intersections.

Thanks for getting me to think about this!

Serge


On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Eli Damon <public@...> wrote:
 

I feel completely confident in my lane-changing skill, which I exercise
regularly. But it seems like there is something more involved: crossing
transversely over lanes rather than shifting laterally between them. I
thought that the principal benefit of roundabouts is that they allowed
people to navigate an intersection without having to cross paths with
each other. Also, people are rarely expected, or even allowed, to change
lanes while in an intersection, whereas here they are required to. Eli



On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:13 -0800, John Forester wrote:
>
> Well, if you don't have the skill of changing lanes, it will be risky.
> Learn how, and you'll be OK.
>
> Eli Damon wrote:
> >
> >
> > Would one of you please explain to me why the concept of a
> > multi-lane
> > roundabout is not totally crazy? I have never actually seen one in
> > real
> > life and have wondered about this since I first heard of the
> > concept.
> > The idea of crossing transversely over some of the outer lanes to
> > enter
> > one of the inner lanes and crossing transversely over them again to
> > exit
> > the roundabout seems absurdly risky to me. Eli



#28203 From: Alan Forkosh <aforkosh@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:57 pm
Subject: Re: Roundabouts: ... [CG] Re: National Center for Bicycling ...
alanforkosh
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I read Mr Damon's comments as referring to the characteristic of roundabouts and the vehicles using them, not just to bicycles. The problem of lane changing in a multilane roundabout is that several lane changes may be required over a very short distance.  A usual tenet of safe driving practice is to allow for decent time and distance interval in moving to a destination lane so that sudden movements are not required. Unfortunately the conditions to allow this do not usually exist in multilane roundabouts; until you reach your exit, you are constantly changing lanes,.

In a posting to the CABOforum google group, Richard Moeur referenced figures 3C7-3C18 in the proposed next edition of the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) as sample roundabout stripings: 

Several of these are multilane, and, given that you approach the roundabout is the correct entrance lane, you will be able to exit the roundabout with no more lane changes (3C8, 3C15). Note that these cases work by creating a new inner lane at each junction, spiraling the existing lanes outward with the right most lane ending. Thus to use this, you choose the appropriate lane before entering the roundabout, maintain that relative lane upon entering the roundabout  and then stay in that lane until exit. However, using this effectively requires some advance signage to know what lane to choose. IIf there are real world examples of these cases, I'd love to see a google map and photo reference.

(Note on the road markings shown--the left turn arrows on the entrance lanes are very confusing--they seem to suggest heading against roundabout circulation. I think what would be required in the real world are markings with the name of the exit road corresponding to that lane).

Alan Forkosh                    Oakland, CA


On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:13 AM, John Forester wrote:



Well, if you don't have the skill of changing lanes, it will be risky. Learn how, and you'll be OK.

Eli Damon wrote:

Would one of you please explain to me why the concept of a multi-lane
roundabout is not totally crazy? I have never actually seen one in real
life and have wondered about this since I first heard of the concept.
The idea of crossing transversely over some of the outer lanes to enter
one of the inner lanes and crossing transversely over them again to exit
the roundabout seems absurdly risky to me. Eli



#28202 From: Eli Damon <public@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: Roundabouts: ... [CG] Re: National Center for Bicycling ...
eli_damon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I feel completely confident in my lane-changing skill, which I exercise
regularly. But it seems like there is something more involved: crossing
transversely over lanes rather than shifting laterally between them. I
thought that the principal benefit of roundabouts is that they allowed
people to navigate an intersection without having to cross paths with
each other. Also, people are rarely expected, or even allowed, to change
lanes while in an intersection, whereas here they are required to. Eli

On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:13 -0800, John Forester wrote:
>
> Well, if you don't have the skill of changing lanes, it will be risky.
> Learn how, and you'll be OK.
>
> Eli Damon wrote:
> >
> >
> > Would one of you please explain to me why the concept of a
> > multi-lane
> > roundabout is not totally crazy? I have never actually seen one in
> > real
> > life and have wondered about this since I first heard of the
> > concept.
> > The idea of crossing transversely over some of the outer lanes to
> > enter
> > one of the inner lanes and crossing transversely over them again to
> > exit
> > the roundabout seems absurdly risky to me. Eli

#28201 From: John Forester <forester@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: Roundabouts: ... [CG] Re: National Center for Bicycling ...
biketransengr
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Well, if you don't have the skill of changing lanes, it will be risky. Learn how, and you'll be OK.

Eli Damon wrote:
 

Would one of you please explain to me why the concept of a multi-lane
roundabout is not totally crazy? I have never actually seen one in real
life and have wondered about this since I first heard of the concept.
The idea of crossing transversely over some of the outer lanes to enter
one of the inner lanes and crossing transversely over them again to exit
the roundabout seems absurdly risky to me. Eli

On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 04:30 +0000, gordon_renkes wrote:
>
>
> John Forester wrote:
> I have had more experience than most American cyclists in cycling
> through multi-lane roundabouts. I encountered them in Massachusetts
> decades ago, I regularly used such in Berkeley (one lane only) and
> Long Beach, California, and many in England (even the seven linked
> magic roundabouts in Swindon), with no trouble. My advice was to stay
> out of the outer lane, use the inner lane until approaching the exit
> that you intend to take (just as if the outer lane were a lane with a
> large proportion of right-turning traffic (left-turning in England)).
> No problem at all, and one can cross an English provincial city
> without making one stop.
> ------------------------------------------
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaqcCnduf3g>
> How to deal with roundabouts: Driver training for Indians
>
> John, This video appears to agree with your advice, with some more
> details.


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

#28200 From: Tymothy Tucker <tym_tucker@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] Re: Dangerous by Design
tym_tucker
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Not speaking, just commenting.  Our local mtb club, well actually it's the largest in the nation, I believe, (www.dorba2.com) has a commuter section on their online forum.  The club's "commuter coordinator" posted a thread, simply providing the link to this report and asking for comments.  I often comment there when I see a chance to interject the VC position, to the extent that I am capable. So, to that end, I was fishing for a tidy little package of comments or counter points to claims made in this report, not assuming such already exists, but just checking.
 
My comments regarding things like this typically involve attempts to point those who are, or desire to be, active in local political actions toward the literature that both describes and reinforces VC methodology in my own small effort to avoid being legislated into the bike lane.  In the context of this report, for instance, I have no problems with any of the pedestrian oriented proposals but felt the need to highlight ideas such as the fact that "bike lanes" bring their own set of problems - intersections - and that I feel education of both cyclists and motorists should have a more prominent role, to many of the forum readers (many of which are new commuters) who still do not know these issues exist but are subject to a constant barrage of PnP advocates in the local arena. 
 
It is already a tough market here, as P.M. Summer has indicated on many occasions.
 
Thanks, 
Tym
 
 

From: JohnB <john@...>
To: chainguard@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 7:15:32 PM
Subject: [CG] Re: Dangerous by Design

 

I don't know the direct answer to your question (a written critique), but if we knew more about the context you are going to be speaking in, and your role in the discussion, we might be able to give you some advice.

I found it especially ironic that the big yellow title page still retains the subtitle about "pedestrian deaths" while showing a bicyclist, possibly a helmet-less youth.

- JohnB

--- In chainguard@yahoogro ups.com, Tymothy Tucker <tym_tucker@ ...> wrote:
>
> http://t4america. org/docs/ dangerousbydesig n/dangerous_ by_design. pdf
>  
> Has anyone written a critique of this? I searched the yahoo group buy came up empty. I need to comment on a local board and would like to bolster my opinion with that of the respected listmembers.
>  
> I know there is a lot of pedestrian content here, and CG does not have a dog in that fight, but based on a quick scan it seems to present cycling's issues as identical to pedestrians and appers to be fatally flawed with the typical position that facilities are the answer and there just isn't enough money being spent.
>  
> Thanks,
> Tym Tucker
> Arlington, TX
>



#28199 From: Serge Issakov <serge.issakov@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] [Fwd: Re: [ITETRAFFIC] Multi-Use Paths adjacent to Roadways]
ljserge
Online Now Online Now
Send Email Send Email
 
Outstanding!  Let us know how they respond to that.

Serge


On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Bob Shanteau <RMShant@...> wrote:
 

A discussion on the ITETraffic mailing list about sidepaths and
eventually about the ethical responsibility of traffic engineers to
protect the public safety:



Bob Shanteau

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ITETRAFFIC] Multi-Use Paths adjacent to Roadways
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:18:29 -0800
From: Bob Shanteau <RMShant@...>
To: Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group
<ITETRAFFIC@...>

Michael Hendrix wrote:
> Richard C. Moeur, PE wrote:

>> Richard Deal wrote:
>>> Michael Hendrix wrote:
>>>> Hello ITE Colleagues-
>>>>
>>>> We are working on a planning project proposing to install a number of multi-use pathways adjacent to roadways.
>>>>
>>>> One issue which has arisen is how to treat locations where the path is directly adjacent to the roadway itself (pretty much a sidewalk). While the AASHTO Bike Guide specifies the use of a barrier, the jurisdiction we are working for is not comfortable with use of a jersey barrier for separation. I know that there are locations in other places where there are no barriers but I was wondering what treatments you have seen.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, I am leaning towards having landscape buffers where possible but there are still some locations which will not allow this due to physical constraints.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts or comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Mike Hendrix, PE
>>>> Engineer III
>>>>
>>>> Perteet Inc.
>>>> 206.436.0515
>>>> 1.800.615.9900 fax: 206.436.0516 www.perteet.com
>>>> 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 210, Seattle, WA 98104-3892
>>>>
>>>> engineers, planners, surveyor
>>> Monterey used to have a "side path" that accommodated bikes and peds adjacent to a high volume arterial street. I relocated the multi-use path away from the arterial after discovering that the veh/bike and veh/ped crashes were three times higher where the side path crossed at a signalized intersection with ped actuation in a crosswalk than at any other uncontrolled mid-block location. After moving the path away from the street and out of the intersection, the crash rate dropped. From this very hard lesson, I look for more bike lane opportunities and shy away from side paths.
>>>
>>> Rich Deal, PE, TE, PTOE
>>> City Traffic Engineer
>>> City Hall - Public Works
>>> Monterey, CA 93940
>>> Office (831) 646-3473
>>> Fax (831) 646-3474
>> The Monterey experience closely mirrors our experience here in
>> Arizona - on one corridor with a sidepath in northern Arizona, 25% of
>> all total reported crashes involved bicyclists, with the overwhelming
>> majority of those involving sidepath/sidewalk riders, especially at
>> intersections.
>>
>> I have a presentation discussing the serious problems inherent in
>> sidepath intersections on my website at:
>> <http://www.richardcmoeur.com/docs/bikepres.pdf>
>>
>> It's important to note that _no_ traffic control device - sign,
>> marking, signal, etc. - has been shown to mitigate the visibility
>> and road user behavior/expectancy/conditioning problems at every
>> sidepath intersection. Many devices have been proposed, and several
>> installed, but none have been shown to have any meaningful effect.
>>
>> The Sprinkle study on sidepaths (IIRC) was a simple regression
>> analysis that didn't really delve into the operations problems noted
>> above. Unfortunately, some advocates started holding up this study as
>> "proof" that "sidepaths could be made safe".
>>
>> Due to these inherent problems, Arizona DOT has a policy that
>> parallel paths or sidewalks on state right of way will not be signed
>> or marked as bicycle facilities - see:
>> <http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/Traffic/standards/PGP/TM1031.pdf>
>>
>> --
>> Richard C. Moeur, P.E., L.C.I., WC7RCM
>> Practicing Traffic Engineer (I'll get it right someday...)
>> Phoenix, Arizona, USA
>> "Life is just one W1-5 after another, until the W14-1"
>> The opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by any organization
>> with which I may be associated. :)
>> <http://www.richardcmoeur.com>
>> <http://www.trafficsign.us>
>> <http://twitter.com/rcmoeur>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/rcmoeur>
> Thank you Richard for the link to that presentation. I think this
> graphically shows the issue with paths on the roadway side.
>
> Just as a clarification, I am not in favor of path ways adjacent to
> roadways be them separated or not due to the reasons you mention.
> However, we are in a situation of trying to balance what the client
> wants and how to deliver a product which can be used as safely as
> possible by the user.
>
> Until AASHTO comes out and blatantly says that pathways shall not be
> located adjacent to roadways, we will continue to have to design for
> this.

But suppose that the multi-use path adjacent to the road (generally
called a sidepath) that the client wants would be less safe than using
the road?

Suppose that a client wanted you to use a 2x4 in a building where you as
an engineer knew that a 4x4 were necessary. Isn't it your responsibility
as a professional engineer to inform the client that using a 2x4 would
result in the building's failure, or at least in it not being as safe as
using a 4x4? Would you sign off on using the 2x4 because you could take
other steps to make the building as safe as possible, but still not as
safe as using a 4x4? Would you need the equivalent of AASHTO to have a
statement that you "shall" not use a 2x4 in that situation? No, of
course not.

With traffic engineering, we don't anything as dramatic as buildings or
bridges that might fall down. But we as traffic engineers do know when
doing one thing would result in a "better" job than something else given
the resources available to us. For instance, if we have two alternatives
that cost the same (in general terms), but one would result in fewer
accidents, then that is the alternative we should choose, right?

So if you as a consulting traffic engineer were told that your client
wants a sidepath, but you knew that the road would be safer, then
wouldn't you inform your client that you must refuse to design the
sidepath on ethical grounds? Or is it OK to design something that is
less safe as long as the client wants it and you can do something to
"deliver a product which can be used as safely as possible by the user"?

Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations

Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Voice: (831) 394-9420
Cell: (831) 917-0248
FAX: (831) 394-6045


#28198 From: Eli Damon <public@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 2:34 pm
Subject: Re: Roundabouts: ... [CG] Re: National Center for Bicycling ...
eli_damon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Would one of you please explain to me why the concept of a multi-lane
roundabout is not totally crazy? I have never actually seen one in real
life and have wondered about this since I first heard of the concept.
The idea of crossing transversely over some of the outer lanes to enter
one of the inner lanes and crossing transversely over them again to exit
the roundabout seems absurdly risky to me.  Eli

On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 04:30 +0000, gordon_renkes wrote:
>
>
> John Forester wrote:
> I have had more experience than most American cyclists in cycling
> through multi-lane roundabouts. I encountered them in Massachusetts
> decades ago, I regularly used such in Berkeley (one lane only) and
> Long Beach, California, and many in England (even the seven linked
> magic roundabouts in Swindon), with no trouble. My advice was to stay
> out of the outer lane, use the inner lane until approaching the exit
> that you intend to take (just as if the outer lane were a lane with a
> large proportion of right-turning traffic (left-turning in England)).
> No problem at all, and one can cross an English provincial city
> without making one stop.
> ------------------------------------------
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaqcCnduf3g>
> How to deal with roundabouts: Driver training for Indians
>
> John, This video appears to agree with your advice, with some more
> details.

#28197 From: Bob Shanteau <RMShant@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 7:32 am
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [ITETRAFFIC] Multi-Use Paths adjacent to Roadways]
bshanteau
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
A discussion on the ITETraffic mailing list about sidepaths and
eventually about the ethical responsibility of traffic engineers to
protect the public safety:

Bob Shanteau

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Re: [ITETRAFFIC] Multi-Use Paths adjacent to Roadways
Date:     Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:18:29 -0800
From:     Bob Shanteau <RMShant@...>
To:     Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group
<ITETRAFFIC@...>

Michael Hendrix wrote:
> Richard C. Moeur, PE wrote:
>> Richard Deal wrote:
>>> Michael Hendrix wrote:
>>>> Hello ITE Colleagues-
>>>>
>>>> We are working on a planning project proposing to install a number of
multi-use pathways adjacent to roadways.
>>>>
>>>> One issue which has arisen is how to treat locations where the path is
directly adjacent to the roadway itself (pretty much a sidewalk).  While the
AASHTO Bike Guide specifies the use of a barrier, the jurisdiction we are
working for is not comfortable with use of a jersey barrier for separation.  I
know that there are locations in other places where there are no barriers but I
was wondering what treatments you have seen.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, I am leaning towards having landscape buffers where possible but
there are still some locations which will not allow this due to physical
constraints.
>>>>
>>>> Any thoughts or comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Mike Hendrix, PE
>>>> Engineer III
>>>>
>>>> Perteet Inc.
>>>> 206.436.0515
>>>> 1.800.615.9900 fax: 206.436.0516 www.perteet.com
>>>> 505 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 210, Seattle, WA 98104-3892
>>>>
>>>> engineers, planners, surveyor
>>> Monterey used to have a "side path" that accommodated bikes and peds
adjacent to a high volume arterial street.  I relocated the multi-use path away
from the arterial after discovering that the veh/bike and veh/ped crashes were
three times higher where the side path crossed at a signalized intersection with
ped actuation in a crosswalk than at any other uncontrolled mid-block location. 
After moving the path away from the street and out of the intersection, the
crash rate dropped.  From this very hard lesson, I look for more bike lane
opportunities and shy away from side paths.
>>>
>>> Rich Deal, PE, TE, PTOE
>>> City Traffic Engineer
>>> City Hall - Public Works
>>> Monterey, CA 93940
>>> Office (831) 646-3473
>>> Fax (831) 646-3474
>> The Monterey experience closely mirrors our experience here in
>> Arizona - on one corridor with a sidepath in northern Arizona, 25% of
>> all total reported crashes involved bicyclists, with the overwhelming
>> majority of those involving sidepath/sidewalk riders, especially at
>> intersections.
>>
>> I have a presentation discussing the serious problems inherent in
>> sidepath intersections on my website at:
>> <http://www.richardcmoeur.com/docs/bikepres.pdf>
>>
>> It's important to note that _no_ traffic control device - sign,
>> marking, signal, etc. -  has been shown to mitigate the visibility
>> and road user behavior/expectancy/conditioning problems at every
>> sidepath intersection. Many devices have been proposed, and several
>> installed, but none have been shown to have any meaningful effect.
>>
>> The Sprinkle study on sidepaths (IIRC) was a simple regression
>> analysis that didn't really delve into the operations problems noted
>> above. Unfortunately, some advocates started holding up this study as
>> "proof" that "sidepaths could be made safe".
>>
>> Due to these inherent problems, Arizona DOT has a policy that
>> parallel paths or sidewalks on state right of way will not be signed
>> or marked as bicycle facilities - see:
>> <http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/Traffic/standards/PGP/TM1031.pdf>
>>
>> --
>> Richard C. Moeur, P.E., L.C.I., WC7RCM
>> Practicing Traffic Engineer (I'll get it right someday...)
>> Phoenix, Arizona, USA
>> "Life is just one W1-5 after another, until the W14-1"
>> The opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by any organization
>> with which I may be associated.  :)
>> <http://www.richardcmoeur.com>
>> <http://www.trafficsign.us>
>> <http://twitter.com/rcmoeur>
>> <http://www.facebook.com/rcmoeur>
> Thank you Richard for the link to that presentation.  I think this
> graphically shows the issue with paths on the roadway side.
>
> Just as a clarification, I am not in favor of path ways adjacent to
> roadways be them separated or not due to the reasons you mention.
> However, we are in a situation of trying to balance what the client
> wants and how to deliver a product which can be used as safely as
> possible by the user.
>
> Until AASHTO comes out and blatantly says that pathways shall not be
> located adjacent to roadways, we will continue to have to design for
> this.

But suppose that the multi-use path adjacent to the road (generally
called a sidepath) that the client wants would be less safe than using
the road?

Suppose that a client wanted you to use a 2x4 in a building where you as
an engineer knew that a 4x4 were necessary. Isn't it your responsibility
as a professional engineer to inform the client that using a 2x4 would
result in the building's failure, or at least in it not being as safe as
using a 4x4? Would you sign off on using the 2x4 because you could take
other steps to make the building as safe as possible, but still not as
safe as using a 4x4? Would you need the equivalent of AASHTO to have a
statement that you "shall" not use a 2x4 in that situation? No, of
course not.

With traffic engineering, we don't anything as dramatic as buildings or
bridges that might fall down. But we as traffic engineers do know when
doing one thing would result in a "better" job than something else given
the resources available to us. For instance, if we have two alternatives
that cost the same (in general terms), but one would result in fewer
accidents, then that is the alternative we should choose, right?

So if you as a consulting traffic engineer were told that your client
wants a sidepath, but you knew that the road would be safer, then
wouldn't you inform your client that you must refuse to design the
sidepath on ethical grounds? Or is it OK to design something that is
less safe as long as the client wants it and you can do something to
"deliver a product which can be used as safely as possible by the user"?

Bob Shanteau
Transportation Engineering Liaison
California Association of Bicycling Organizations

Robert M Shanteau, PhD, PE
Consulting Traffic Engineer
13 Primrose Cir
Seaside, CA 93955-4133
Voice: (831) 394-9420
Cell: (831) 917-0248
FAX: (831) 394-6045

#28196 From: "opeapea" <akohekohe@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 6:22 am
Subject: Re: Dangerous by Design
akohekohe
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
This in today's paper where I live there is an  Article  based on the this article.  I think there is a lot that can be done to improve pedestrian facilities.  I know that many of the people pushing these things are also the same who push for bicycle lanes etc., but I find I can get them on our side some times for example regarding mixed use facilities.  I'm actually for a lot of the improvements they suggest for pedestrians - longer crossing times, more pedestrian crossing, etc.  In my local town they did a traffic calming project putting in a median with trees and crosswalks and it is so much easier to walk across the street now.  I like it.  Some people think this made it less bicycle friendly because the lane width was narrowed but of course that doesn't make any difference to me since I just take the lane.  In my subdivision they put in some cross-walk speed bumps near the elementary school but they are a bicycle friendly design unlike a lot of speed bumps and they really did slow traffic down that was going too fast in that area.  Many pedestrian advocates I know really do think bicycles on the side walk are a serious problem but of course they want to solve the problem by putting in bike lanes on the road.  So I have really mixed feelings about these people, they often really do make it better for pedestrians, particularly the elderly, but for the most part they are completely clueless about bicycles and bike facilities.  I've had some success getting them to be against bike lanes in door zones but I suspect it is really because they hate cars so much they will take any excuse to take their parking away.

Aloha, - John W.

 
--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Tymothy Tucker <tym_tucker@...> wrote:
>
> http://t4america.org/docs/dangerousbydesign/dangerous_by_design.pdf
>  
> Has anyone written a critique of this? I searched the yahoo group buy came up empty. I need to comment on a local board and would like to bolster my opinion with that of the respected listmembers.
>  
> I know there is a lot of pedestrian content here, and CG does not have a dog in that fight, but based on a quick scan it seems to present cycling's issues as identical to pedestrians and appers to be fatally flawed with the typical position that facilities are the answer and there just isn't enough money being spent.
>  
> Thanks,
> Tym Tucker
> Arlington, TX
>

#28195 From: "gordon_renkes" <gdr1950@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:30 am
Subject: Roundabouts: ... [CG] Re: National Center for Bicycling ...
gordon_renkes
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
John Forester wrote:
I have had more experience than most American cyclists in cycling through
multi-lane roundabouts. I encountered them in Massachusetts decades ago, I
regularly used such in Berkeley (one lane only) and Long Beach, California, and
many in England (even the seven linked magic roundabouts in Swindon), with no
trouble. My advice was to stay out of the outer lane, use the inner lane until
approaching the exit that you intend to take (just as if the outer lane were a
lane with a large proportion of right-turning traffic (left-turning in
England)). No problem at all, and one can cross an English provincial city
without making one stop.
------------------------------------------
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaqcCnduf3g>
How to deal with roundabouts: Driver training for Indians

John,   This video appears to agree with your advice, with some more details.

#28194 From: Bob Shanteau <RMShant@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:24 am
Subject: Consulting traffic engineers design sidepaths because clients want them and AASHTO allows them
bshanteau
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Re: [ITETRAFFIC] Multi-Use Paths adjacent to Roadways
Date:     Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:04:05 -0800
From:     Michael Hendrix <mhendrix@...>
Reply-To:     Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group
<ITETRAFFIC@...>
To:     ITETRAFFIC@...

Thank you Richard for the link to that presentation.  I think this
graphically shows the issue with paths on the roadway side.

Just as a clarification, I am not in favor of path ways adjacent to
roadways be them separated or not due to the reasons you mention.
However, we are in a situation of trying to balance what the client
wants and how to deliver a product which can be used as safely as
possible by the user.

Until AASHTO comes out and blatantly says that pathways shall not be
located adjacent to roadways, we will continue to have to design for this.

Mike Hendrix
Perteet, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Traffic Engineering Council Discussion Group
[mailto:ITETRAFFIC@...] On Behalf Of Joe Gustafson
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:06 PM
To: ITETRAFFIC@...
Subject: Re: [ITETRAFFIC] Multi-Use Paths adjacent to Roadways

Excellent links, particularly the presentation.  The illustrations in
particular of the hazards of "wrong-way" cycling on a multi-use path
were spot on.

The Arizona policy is very good, although there remains the concern of
where a multi-use path shares a signalized crosswalk, particularly if
the "Walk" indication is not pushbutton-activated.  The MUTCD provides
the R9-5 sign requiring cyclists to obey the ped indications, but in
practice many cyclists will instead choose to use the vehicular green
and enter at speed, leading to the types of problems you illustrated so
well.  Furthermore, there is also a conflict with a right turn from the
major street as the cyclist on the path approaches from behind a
right-turning vehicle.  If the cyclist were riding on the roadway as a
vehicle, the cyclist would be more visible and this condition would be
prohibited (passing on the right).

Thus, signalized crossings are a rare instance where stop signs for the
pathway cyclists may be appropriate, though they are potentially
confusing for a cyclist confronted with both a stop sign and a
walk/green indication.

Joe Gustafson, P.E.
Washington County, MN


On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:22:32 -0500, Richard C. Moeur, PE wrote:
> The Monterey experience closely mirrors our experience here in Arizona
> - on one corridor with a sidepath in northern Arizona, 25% of all
> total reported crashes involved bicyclists, with the overwhelming
> majority of those involving sidepath/sidewalk riders, especially at
> intersections.
>
> I have a presentation discussing the serious problems inherent in
> sidepath intersections on my website at:
> <http://www.richardcmoeur.com/docs/bikepres.pdf>
>
> It's important to note that _no_ traffic control device - sign,
> marking, signal, etc. -  has been shown to mitigate the visibility and
> road user behavior/expectancy/conditioning problems at every sidepath
> intersection. Many devices have been proposed, and several installed,
> but none have been shown to have any meaningful effect.
>
> The Sprinkle study on sidepaths (IIRC) was a simple regression
> analysis that didn't really delve into the operations problems noted
> above. Unfortunately, some advocates started holding up this study as
> "proof" that "sidepaths could be made safe".
>
> Due to these inherent problems, Arizona DOT has a policy that parallel
> paths or sidewalks on state right of way will not be signed or marked
> as bicycle facilities - see:
> <http://www.azdot.gov/Highways/Traffic/standards/PGP/TM1031.pdf>
>
> -- Richard C. Moeur, P.E., L.C.I., WC7RCM Practicing Traffic Engineer
> (I'll get it right someday...) Phoenix, Arizona, USA
> "Life is just one W1-5 after another, until the W14-1"
> The opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by any organization
> with which I may be associated. :)
> <http://www.richardcmoeur.com http://www.trafficsign.us>
> <http://twitter.com/rcmoeur http://www.facebook.com/rcmoeur>

#28193 From: "JohnB" <john@...>
Date: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:15 am
Subject: Re: Dangerous by Design
johnbrooking4
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I don't know the direct answer to your question (a written critique), but if we
knew more about the context you are going to be speaking in, and your role in
the discussion, we might be able to give you some advice.

I found it especially ironic that the big yellow title page still retains the
subtitle about "pedestrian deaths" while showing a bicyclist, possibly a
helmet-less youth.

- JohnB

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Tymothy Tucker <tym_tucker@...> wrote:
>
> http://t4america.org/docs/dangerousbydesign/dangerous_by_design.pdf
>  
> Has anyone written a critique of this? I searched the yahoo group buy came up
empty. I need to comment on a local board and would like to bolster my opinion
with that of the respected listmembers.
>  
> I know there is a lot of pedestrian content here, and CG does not have a dog
in that fight, but based on a quick scan it seems to present cycling's issues as
identical to pedestrians and appers to be fatally flawed with the
typical position that facilities are the answer and there just isn't enough
money being spent.
>  
> Thanks,
> Tym Tucker
> Arlington, TX
>

#28192 From: "trafficcivilityadvocate" <keribird@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:49 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] Dangerous by Design
trafficcivil...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Most of the bike stats here are a reflection of ped issues because most
bicyclists are acting like rolling pedestrians.

As you might imagine, this is quite the buzz here since We're Number One!

KC
NOT trying to cross the street
in Orlando



--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Bob Bayn <bob.bayn@...> wrote:
>
> Tym tucker wrote about that document, in part:
> "I know there is a lot of pedestrian content here, and CG does not have a dog
in that fight..."
>
> I don't know why you think that.  The League of American Bicyclists certainly
seems to think that ped issues are cyclist issues, and vice versa.
>
> Bob LCI#685
> Cache Valley, Utah
>

#28191 From: "opeapea" <akohekohe@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:33 pm
Subject: [CG] Re: National Center for Bicycling and Walking review of Environmental Health paper
akohekohe
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
John Forester wrote:

"My advice was to stay out of the outer lane, use the inner lane until
approaching the exit that you intend to take (just as if the outer lane were a
lane with a large proportion of right-turning traffic (left-turning in
England)). No problem at all, and one can cross an English provincial city
without making one stop."

Thanks for the advice John.  Makes sense.

Aloha, - John W.

#28190 From: Bob Bayn <bob.bayn@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:18 pm
Subject: RE: [CG] Dangerous by Design
bob.bayn@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Tym tucker wrote about that document, in part:
"I know there is a lot of pedestrian content here, and CG does not have a dog in
that fight..."

I don't know why you think that.  The League of American Bicyclists certainly
seems to think that ped issues are cyclist issues, and vice versa.

Bob LCI#685
Cache Valley, Utah

#28189 From: Tymothy Tucker <tym_tucker@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:41 pm
Subject: Dangerous by Design
tym_tucker
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
http://t4america.org/docs/dangerousbydesign/dangerous_by_design.pdf
 
Has anyone written a critique of this? I searched the yahoo group buy came up
empty. I need to comment on a local board and would like to bolster my opinion
with that of the respected listmembers.
 
I know there is a lot of pedestrian content here, and CG does not have a dog in
that fight, but based on a quick scan it seems to present cycling's issues as
identical to pedestrians and appers to be fatally flawed with the
typical position that facilities are the answer and there just isn't enough
money being spent.
 
Thanks,
Tym Tucker
Arlington, TX

#28188 From: John Forester <forester@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:13 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] Re: National Center for Bicycling and Walking review of Environmental Health paper
biketransengr
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I have had more experience than most American cyclists in cycling through multi-lane roundabouts. I encountered them in Massachusetts decades ago, I regularly used such in Berkeley (one lane only) and Long Beach, California, and many in England (even the seven linked magic roundabouts in Swindon), with no trouble. My advice was to stay out of the outer lane, use the inner lane until approaching the exit that you intend to take (just as if the outer lane were a lane with a large proportion of right-turning traffic (left-turning in England)). No problem at all, and one can cross an English provincial city without making one stop.

opeapea wrote:
 

Well, the study could be worse - they do conclude that "Results to date suggest that sidewalks and multi-use trails pose the highest risk." Many, many of the "cars are evil crowd" think anything is better than mixing it up with the cars so it is nice to see multi-use trails and sidewalks being found the worse facilities in a literature review paper. I am interested in taking a look at some of the literature mentioned on multi-lane roundabouts. There is only one on the whole island where I live and it doesn't get very much traffic, but I'm not sure how well I would do trying to navigate some of the higher speed ones with a lot of traffic I've seen in the UK. Does anyone on the list have experience riding on this type of facility?

- John W.


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

#28187 From: "trafficcivilityadvocate" <keribird@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:17 pm
Subject: Re: Severity of Bicycling Injuries Increasing in Denver with mature bicycle infrastructure
trafficcivil...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Along these lines... ISTM, if you add uninformed novice cyclists to flawed
facilities (like bike lanes or side paths) that give them a false sense of
security, this would be the expected outcome.

And if you add desire to get cyclists off the road to any kind of injury data,
the conclusion will be "we need more facilities." No matter how much you have to
twist the logic.






--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Peter Rosenfeld <jprosenfeld@...> wrote:
>
>
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/medicos-find-bike-injuries-are-increasin\
g-in-severity.php
>
> From the article:
> "If our data is a microcosm of what is going on nationally, we may be on
> the cusp of an injury epidemic," Dr. Kashuk remarked, noting that this
> small study was carried out in Denver, which has one of the most
> well-developed bicycle path networks in the USA. "If we are seeing an
> increase in injuries in a metropolitan area that has fairly mature bike
> infrastructure from the standpoint of bike pathways, there's reason for
> concern about what's happening in metropolitan areas that don't have
> that level of maturity."
>
> I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that the infrastructure is
increasing the severity of the collisions?
>

#28186 From: John Forester <forester@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:15 pm
Subject: Discussion of Surface Transportation Bill
biketransengr
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation has presented his short view of the
Surface Transportation Bill developed by Oberstar. It is at the URL
given here:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm2693.cfm

I do not think that this is outside the purview of chainguard, because
it describes what quite possibly will be the environment in which
vehicular cyclists will have to live and operate. As I see it, there is
likely to be considerable patriotic fervor for attempting to convert
typical American cities into Amsterdams, with, naturally, the full
panoply of bikeways to "make bicycle transportation possible." I have
written to Oberstar's staff, and received no hope. He is adamant about
the bikeway part of his plan. So, consider the future.

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

#28185 From: John Forester <forester@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] Severity of Bicycling Injuries Increasing in Denver with mature bicycle infrastructure
biketransengr
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
I have seen maps of the Denver bike path situation. These are built alongside the several small rivers that run through Denver.

Kalle wrote:
 



--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Eli Damon <public@...> wrote:
>
> I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
> on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe.

That depends on what you mean by a 'separated bikepath'. If I understand correctly, bikepaths in US are built only at special locations with minimal intersections. Then there might be a trade-off between exrtemely rare but severe crashes with high speed motor traffic and the typical everyday MUP mayhem.

BUT, if you try to build an extensive transportational system of bikepaths, you will be installing them at normal locations with normal intersection densities, as has been done at many European countries. The evidence (for example Jensen Copenhagen paper, the London fatality study) strongly suggests that Euro style sidapath systems increase the number of severe and fatal crashes.

Kalle Mustonen
Helsinki
Finland


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

#28184 From: "frkrygow" <frkrygow@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:50 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] Severity of Bicycling Injuries Increasing in Denver with mature bicycle infrastructure
frkrygow
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Eli Damon <public@...> wrote:
>
> I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
> on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe. The
> article does not give any hint of a cause. My questions are (1) What
> types of crashes tends to result in severe head trauma?

A couple points:  The press release of that study talked more about chest and
abdominal injuries than head injuries.

Yes, it mentioned head injuries and helmets, because (apparently) it's mandatory
to continue the false linkage of cycling with head injury.  But I'll note that
the press release, at least, did not use the words "severe head trauma." 
Instead, it said that "33 percent of 329 bicycle injury victims had a
significant head injury."

The difference between "significant" and "severe" may be important.  It's common
for the hand-wringing crowd to call every scratch above the neck a "significant
head injury."  This is precisely what Thompson, Rivara et. al. did in their 1989
study that (ludicrously) claimed 85% benefit for bike helmet use.  Cut ears and
scratched chins were recorded as "head injuries," and such minor wounds
dominated the data.

Let's remember that, contrary to today's received wisdom, bicycling is not and
never has been an unusual source of serious (i.e. consequential) head injury. 
Fewer than 1% of American head injury fatalities occur on bikes, and the
per-hour rate for cyclists has been found to be little different than for
motorists, and significantly better than for pedestrians.

- Frank Krygowski

#28183 From: "opeapea" <akohekohe@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: National Center for Bicycling and Walking review of Environmental Health paper
akohekohe
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Well, the study could be worse - they do conclude that "Results to date suggest
that sidewalks and multi-use trails pose the highest risk."  Many, many of the
"cars are evil crowd" think anything is better than mixing it up with the cars
so it is nice to see multi-use trails and sidewalks being found the worse
facilities in a literature review paper.  I am interested in taking a look at
some of the literature mentioned on multi-lane roundabouts.  There is only one
on the whole island where I live and it doesn't get very much traffic, but I'm
not sure how well I would do trying to navigate some of the higher speed ones
with a lot of traffic I've seen in the UK.  Does anyone on the list have
experience riding on this type of facility?

- John W.

#28182 From: Peter Rosenfeld <jprosenfeld@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] [Fwd: University Ped. and Bicycle Transportation Education Workshop at the TRB Annual Meeting]
jprosenfeld
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 

What would be the point of attending?

I live 2.5 hours by train from DC.


From: Bob Shanteau <RMShant@...>
To: Chainguard <chainguard@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 4:27:56 PM
Subject: [CG] [Fwd: University Ped. and Bicycle Transportation Education Workshop at the TRB Annual Meeting]

 

Does anybody live close enough to DC to attend this workshop? Note that
registration for the TRB Meeting is not required to attend the workshop.

Bob Shanteau

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: University Ped. and Bicycle Transportation Education
Workshop at the TRB Annual Meeting
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:22:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Jennifer Dill jdill@... <>
To: rmshant@gmail. com

The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Pedestrian and Bicycle
Committees are hosting a workshop on University Pedestrian and Bicycle
Transportation Education at the TRB Annual Meeting. The workshop will
be held on Sunday, January 10, 2010, from 9 a.m. to noon at the Marriott
Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. We hope that you can attend.
More details are provided below.

TITLE: University Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Education
DATE AND TIME: Sunday, January 10, 2010, 9 a.m. to noon
LOCATION: Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, 2660 Woodley Road NW, Washington, DC
Registration for the TRB Meeting is not required to attend this workshop.

WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION:
This workshop will provide information about existing university
pedestrian and bicycle transportation courses. It will explore
challenges and opportunities for improving non-motorized transportation
education and foster discussion about how professors, researchers,
students, advocates, and other professionals can contribute to better
pedestrian and bicycle education opportunities at the national and local
levels. Workshop participants will have an opportunity to provide input
and discuss key topics in small breakout groups.

WORKSHOP LEADERS:
Rebecca Sanders, University of California-Berkeley
Laura Sandt, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Robert Schneider, University of California-Berkeley
Lynn Weigand, Portland State University

WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:
*Understand how many university pedestrian and bicycle education courses
are currently being offered in the United States and abroad
*Understand the range of topics currently being covered in a sample of
pedestrian and bicycle education courses
*Understand the range of institutional arrangements that have been made
to offer pedestrian and bicycle education within university planning and
engineering programs
*Understand the challenges related to establishing new pedestrian and
bicycle courses within existing university structures
*Learn about what other pedestrian and bicycle course instructors
throughout the country are struggling with-from specific topics to
institutional barriers
*Learn about opportunities for integrating expertise from pedestrian and
bicycle practitioners into courses
*Help define the core competencies, central topics, or essential body of
knowledge necessary for bicycle and pedestrian practitioners

For further information please contact Bob Schneider,
rschneider@berkeley .edu



#28181 From: Bob Bayn <bob.bayn@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:34 pm
Subject: RE: [CG] National Center for Bicycling and Walking review of Environmental Health paper
bob.bayn@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Linkedin shows lots of Josh Levins, but it's probably this one:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/josh-levin/13/ab0/758

Josh Levin

Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner at The National Center for Bicycling and Walking

Greater New York City Area



Bob Bayn        (435)797-2396      Security Team coordinator
   Stop by the "Security Bunker" in SER 301 to see our network
   visualizers showing the continual attacks by outsiders.
Office of Information Technology   at  Utah State University
________________________________________
From: chainguard@yahoogroups.com [chainguard@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Shanteau [RMShant@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:55 PM
To: Chainguard
Subject: [CG] National Center for Bicycling and Walking review of Environmental
Health paper

Josh Levin writes a glowing review of this flawed paper for Centerlines,
the biweekly newsletter of NCBW.

Anybody know who Josh Levin is?

Bob Shanteau

***
<http://www.bikewalk.org/cl/2009/nov/1111b.html#a4>
THE IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ON BIKE CRASHES, INJURIES
By Josh Levin

Each year more and more evidence is gathered that shows the correlation
between increased bicycle safety as a result of increased access to
bicycle facilities. This literature review is no different in its
conclusion. What is revealing about this paper, titled The impact of
transportation infrastructure on bicycling crashes and injuries: a
review of the literature, is how extensive the review is. The literature
review looks at twenty-three papers that examine bicycle facilities at
intersections and along straightaways in Europe and North America. The
conclusion states what we in the bicycle community already know, more
bicycle facilities means less crashes and injuries.

While the conclusion is obvious, further examination of the data
revealed that not all bicycle facilities are equal in providing safety.
Obvious claims were made that clearly marked bike lanes and facilities
were safer than mixing bicyclists with on road traffic or off road
pedestrians. Yet separated cycle tracks that route cyclists around the
roundabout were proven to be far safer than a bike lane with traffic.
The reason being is due to errors associated with drivers searching for
automobiles but failing to “see” bicyclists. While the conclusion was
only applied to literature reviews of roundabouts from Europe, this can
be easily translated to busy American roads that have an excess of speed
and signage. Such road designs and conditions are death traps for
bicyclists.

To offset these dangers transportation planners must enlist a multitude
of tools. Even though bicycle lanes, paths, and tracks are key
components to safety so too are basics such as proper placement of
bicycle facilities. The claim that minor roads are safer than major
roads is not a groundbreaking revelation by any means. But creating a
bicycle boulevard trail system on minor roads like Portland, Oregon did
is more cost effective and less contentious than paving bike lanes on
every major road. Either way there is no single solution to providing
safety to bicyclists. In the end coordinated bicycle facilities and
policies will need to be in place to reduce crashes and injures.

The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling crashes and
injuries: a review of the literature
Environmental Health
Published October 21, 2009
<http://tinyurl.com/yk9r9gz>
***


------------------------------------

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

#28180 From: "Kalle" <kalle.mustonen@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:19 pm
Subject: BBC: Police chiefs ditch cycle manual
kalle.mustonen
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
#28179 From: Peter Rosenfeld <jprosenfeld@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: [CG] Severity of Bicycling Injuries Increasing in Denver with mature bicycle infrastructure
jprosenfeld
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Yes, I was wondering about intersection collisions. On sidepaths, bicyclists tend to enter roadways from sidepaths  similar to "sidewalk run outs", where the bicyclist enters the roadway at speed (from my observation of bicycling behavior on sidepaths, not from actually seeing collisions). It's conceivable that these could cause more severe injuries than, say,  the typical right hook where the bicyclist is traveling relatively slowly when the collision occurs.

An increase in the number of bicyclists may increase the overall number of injuries but, by itself, should not increase the PERCENT of severe injuries. If the demographics of the bicycling population is changing, perhaps. Say if a higher percentage of young men are riding. Doubtful.


From: Kalle <kalle.mustonen@...>
To: chainguard@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 1:04:46 AM
Subject: Re: [CG] Severity of Bicycling Injuries Increasing in Denver with mature bicycle infrastructure

 



--- In chainguard@yahoogro ups.com, Eli Damon <public@...> wrote:
>
> I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
> on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe.

That depends on what you mean by a 'separated bikepath'. If I understand correctly, bikepaths in US are built only at special locations with minimal intersections. Then there might be a trade-off between exrtemely rare but severe crashes with high speed motor traffic and the typical everyday MUP mayhem.

BUT, if you try to build an extensive transportational system of bikepaths, you will be installing them at normal locations with normal intersection densities, as has been done at many European countries. The evidence (for example Jensen Copenhagen paper, the London fatality study) strongly suggests that Euro style sidapath systems increase the number of severe and fatal crashes.

Kalle Mustonen
Helsinki
Finland



#28178 From: "Kalle" <kalle.mustonen@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:04 am
Subject: Re: [CG] Severity of Bicycling Injuries Increasing in Denver with mature bicycle infrastructure
kalle.mustonen
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, Eli Damon <public@...> wrote:
>
> I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
> on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe.

That depends on what you mean by a 'separated bikepath'. If I understand
correctly, bikepaths in US are built only at special locations with minimal
intersections. Then there might be a trade-off between exrtemely rare but severe
crashes with high speed motor traffic and the typical everyday MUP mayhem.

BUT, if you try to build an extensive transportational system of bikepaths, you
will be installing them at normal locations with normal intersection densities,
as has been  done at many European countries. The evidence (for example Jensen
Copenhagen paper, the London fatality study) strongly suggests that Euro style
sidapath systems increase the number of severe and fatal crashes.

Kalle Mustonen
Helsinki
Finland

#28177 From: Eli Damon <public@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:53 am
Subject: Re: [CG] Severity of Bicycling Injuries Increasing in Denver with mature bicycle infrastructure
eli_damon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 12:21 -0800, Peter Rosenfeld wrote:

> I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that the
> infrastructure is increasing the severity of the collisions?

I am no fan of bikes paths. However, from what I have heard, collisions
on separated bike paths, while more common, tend to be less severe. The
article does not give any hint of a cause. My questions are (1) What
types of crashes tends to result in severe head trauma? (2) Which of
these types, if any, have become more prevalent in Denver? (3) What
factors might be contributing to this? (4) How does the collision rate
compared to the amount of cycling activity. For all we know, it could be
caused primarily by an increase in cycling activity. The collisions per
cycling mile could even have decreased. Eli

#28176 From: Bob Shanteau <RMShant@...>
Date: Thu Nov 12, 2009 12:55 am
Subject: National Center for Bicycling and Walking review of Environmental Health paper
bshanteau
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
Josh Levin writes a glowing review of this flawed paper for Centerlines,
the biweekly newsletter of NCBW.

Anybody know who Josh Levin is?

Bob Shanteau

***
<http://www.bikewalk.org/cl/2009/nov/1111b.html#a4>
THE IMPACT OF TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ON BIKE CRASHES, INJURIES
By Josh Levin

Each year more and more evidence is gathered that shows the correlation
between increased bicycle safety as a result of increased access to
bicycle facilities. This literature review is no different in its
conclusion. What is revealing about this paper, titled The impact of
transportation infrastructure on bicycling crashes and injuries: a
review of the literature, is how extensive the review is. The literature
review looks at twenty-three papers that examine bicycle facilities at
intersections and along straightaways in Europe and North America. The
conclusion states what we in the bicycle community already know, more
bicycle facilities means less crashes and injuries.

While the conclusion is obvious, further examination of the data
revealed that not all bicycle facilities are equal in providing safety.
Obvious claims were made that clearly marked bike lanes and facilities
were safer than mixing bicyclists with on road traffic or off road
pedestrians. Yet separated cycle tracks that route cyclists around the
roundabout were proven to be far safer than a bike lane with traffic.
The reason being is due to errors associated with drivers searching for
automobiles but failing to “see” bicyclists. While the conclusion was
only applied to literature reviews of roundabouts from Europe, this can
be easily translated to busy American roads that have an excess of speed
and signage. Such road designs and conditions are death traps for
bicyclists.

To offset these dangers transportation planners must enlist a multitude
of tools. Even though bicycle lanes, paths, and tracks are key
components to safety so too are basics such as proper placement of
bicycle facilities. The claim that minor roads are safer than major
roads is not a groundbreaking revelation by any means. But creating a
bicycle boulevard trail system on minor roads like Portland, Oregon did
is more cost effective and less contentious than paving bike lanes on
every major road. Either way there is no single solution to providing
safety to bicyclists. In the end coordinated bicycle facilities and
policies will need to be in place to reduce crashes and injures.

The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling crashes and
injuries: a review of the literature
Environmental Health
Published October 21, 2009
<http://tinyurl.com/yk9r9gz>
***

#28175 From: Peter Rosenfeld <jprosenfeld@...>
Date: Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:21 pm
Subject: Severity of Bicycling Injuries Increasing in Denver with mature bicycle infrastructure
jprosenfeld
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
 
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/medicos-find-bike-injuries-are-increasing-in-severity.php

From the article:
"If our data is a microcosm of what is going on nationally, we may be on the cusp of an injury epidemic," Dr. Kashuk remarked, noting that this small study was carried out in Denver, which has one of the most well-developed bicycle path networks in the USA. "If we are seeing an increase in injuries in a metropolitan area that has fairly mature bike infrastructure from the standpoint of bike pathways, there's reason for concern about what's happening in metropolitan areas that don't have that level of maturity."

I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that the infrastructure is increasing the severity of the collisions?


Messages 28175 - 28204 of 28249   Newest  |  < Newer  |  Older >  |  Oldest
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help