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

 

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

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.

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

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.

-------- 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>

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
>

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
>

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.

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

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

 

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

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?
>

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

 

--- 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

--- 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

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.

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/news/8356367.stm

Kalle

--- 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

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

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>
***