Real Bike Cities.

[Matt O'Toole]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Regarding the mandatory use of such an atrocity:
>
> It must be common to have tourists come through who do not
> read German. (As you must know, Americans rarely speak
> even two languages.) If an ignorant tourist were to ride
> through there on the road, how would they be treated?

With lots of self-righteous, northern European finger
wagging...

Matt O.

 

[Stephen Harding]

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]>:
>
>>Here in Europe we usually consider Holland as the best
>>example of how to plan and build for bicycle commuters.
>
> I don't know any experienced bicycle commuters who
> consider Holland to be especially bicycle friendly. On the
> other hand, I know a lot of experienced and competent
> riders who fervently hate that model.
>
> In theory, the Netherlands model means planning and
> building for cyclists. In practices, it is a model for
> building ghettos in order to get cyclists off the roads.
> Building and maintaining usable seperate facilities for
> cars and cyclists doesn't even work anymore in the
> Netherlands itself, where cycling has had a very strong
> tradition.

Of course most places on earth are probably more bike
friendly than almost anywhere in the US, but I was extremely
impressed with the "Dutch model" of biking.

I'm willing to ride the road, bike path or bike lane as mood
and need require. Although I think I understand the argument
against these "separate but equal" sorts of bike
accommodations, I largely disagree with them.

*Any* arrangement that get more people feeling better about
using a bicycle for transportation needs is a step in the
right direction IMHO, even if it in fact *might* be a bit
more dangerous for the bicyclist (and I'm still not entirely
convinced separation is in fact more dangerous).

I personally would *** LOVE *** to see Dutch style bicycling
infrastructure in the US. Of course I probably would not
remain enthusiastic for long if that infrastructure came
with laws that no longer allowed me to choose my routes for
business or pleasure due to legal restrictions on bike
access (i.e. no bikes on the roads).

SMH

 

[Jacques Moser]

All this discussion (and the examples provided by Wolfgang
Strobl) makes me very worried about the future of cycling.
Also here, in Switzerland, cycling facilities are more and
more frequent, seem to be accepted by most as the obvious
thing to do, and are most often quite bad at least for
experienced cyclists. So bad that I would prefer not to use
them. But they probably please the beginners or occasional
riders. When these people see them from behing the wheel of
their cars, they think "oh, why not try my bike on this nice
bike path/lane". And these people are 10 times more numerous
than "we", regular cyclists, are.

"Transportational" cycling is, in theory, considered
positive if you stick to downtown but is also considered
dangerous and "courageous" in a sligthly condescending
manner (the constant and official pro-helmet hammering is
probably contributing to cycling being considered
dangerous). I say "in theory" because the official
experts in transportation policies keep telling everybody
that cycling to work is a good idea. But when you tell
people that you went some place (like only 20 km away) by
bike for _transportation_, they see you as just one crazy
guy, so strange that whatever you may say can be
discarded as not serious. "Normal" people will never
identify with this behavior.

So you have to "excuse" yourself and explain that, yes, you
were also doing it as some kind of sports. Sports _is_
considered positive. Mountain bikers in colorful jerseys are
considered fun people. Similarly dressed road cyclists also
are, although to a lesser extent.

In this situation, the question is how to make the public
(including authorities and planners) understand that
cyclists must keep their right to use the road, and that,
at the very least, the use of cycling facilities should not
be made mandatory. In this fight, I more and more doubt
that commuter or "daily" cyclists have a chance to reverse
the course of things, because they are seen as out-of-
fashion dreamers. On the other hand, road cycling clubs
(the guys in bright jerseys) may be more respected because
everybody understands that, for sports, you need to be able
to ride fast.

What I am writing here is probably a little bit confused,
but the real question that remains is clearly how to avoid
the multiplication of such dreadful facilities as shown in
this thread by our German friends, coupled with the
obligation to use them.

Jacques

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Jacques Moser wrote:

>...
>
> What I am writing here is probably a little bit confused,
> but the real question that remains is clearly how to avoid
> the multiplication of such dreadful facilities as shown in
> this thread by our German friends, coupled with the
> obligation to use them.

What you wrote is perfectly clear. It's certainly a problem
we have here in America.

Unfortunately, the non-cyclists are convinced that
a) bicycling is SO dangerous that
b) any bike facility is better than riding "in traffic"
(that is, sharing the road) and of course, c) one must
never, ever ride without a helmet.

More unfortunately, these issues polarize the bicycling
community. There are many avid cyclists who at least
partially accept these ideas, and are used to
legitimize them.

One enthusiastic bike-path-loving cyclist can do a lot of
damage by standing up and saying how wonderful Holland must
be. Those who never bicycle beyond their own street already
"know" this fantasy, and immediately believe it without
question. Even the County Engineer will be ignorant of the
problems. Besides, he'll want to be re-elected, so he'll go
with the majority.

And if a few practical commuting cyclists stand up to
speak, they've got to speak to the details to rebut the
idea of separate paths. The dreamers never understand.
They're still envisioning an impossible set of bike paths
leading everywhere they want to go. They're probably
dreaming of cute Dutch girls in wooden shoes in front of
windmills, too ;-)

So it's a problem.

There's some discussion of this issue in

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/TheRoads-
WeHave.htm

And if I recall correctly, there's a well-known article
titled "The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning" that discusses
this too. You can probably find that using Google.

--
--------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove
rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Badger_south]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 11:30:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Jacques Moser wrote:
>
>>...
>>
>> What I am writing here is probably a little bit confused,
>> but the real question that remains is clearly how to
>> avoid the multiplication of such dreadful facilities as
>> shown in this thread by our German friends, coupled with
>> the obligation to use them.
>
>What you wrote is perfectly clear. It's certainly a problem
>we have here in America.
>
>Unfortunately, the non-cyclists are convinced that
>a) bicycling is SO dangerous that
>b) any bike facility is better than riding "in traffic"
> (that is, sharing the road) and of course, c) one must
> never, ever ride without a helmet.
>
>More unfortunately, these issues polarize the bicycling
>community. There are many avid cyclists who at least
>partially accept these ideas, and are used to
>legitimize them.
>
>One enthusiastic bike-path-loving cyclist can do a lot of
>damage by standing up and saying how wonderful Holland must
>be. Those who never bicycle beyond their own street already
>"know" this fantasy, and immediately believe it without
>question. Even the County Engineer will be ignorant of the
>problems. Besides, he'll want to be re-elected, so he'll go
>with the majority.
>
>And if a few practical commuting cyclists stand up to
>speak, they've got to speak to the details to rebut the
>idea of separate paths. The dreamers never understand.
>They're still envisioning an impossible set of bike paths
>leading everywhere they want to go. They're probably
>dreaming of cute Dutch girls in wooden shoes in front of
>windmills, too ;-)
>
>So it's a problem.
>
>There's some discussion of this issue in
>
>http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/TheRoadsW-
>eHave.htm
>
>
>And if I recall correctly, there's a well-known article
>titled "The Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning" that discusses
>this too. You can probably find that using Google.

Up until recently, and reading the ng, I didn't have an
awarness of this problem. But it's pretty obvious now that
it can creep in and end up being terrible for the bikers who
commute and ride the bike as 'transportation', etc.

I guess we can take some consolation that as gas prices
rise, we're way ahead of the game. It would be pretty cool
for all vehicular traffic to be outlawed within the city
limits, and mass transit and biking to be the rule, not the
exception. Gee, just think of all the real estate that is
currently occupied by asphault!

-Badger "World's most dangerous City Bike Path Rider"

 

[Per ElmsäTer]

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
> "Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]>:
>
>> Here in Europe we usually consider Holland as the best
>> example of how to plan and build for bicycle commuters.
>
> I don't know any experienced bicycle commuters who
> consider Holland to be especially bicycle friendly. On the
> other hand, I know a lot of experienced and competent
> riders who fervently hate that model.
>

I used to think Holland was a good example until your
postings. The reason I thought so was because everytime our
bikepathbuilders make a bikepath like the ones you've linked
us to in Holland and Germany everybody says. "Damn if they'd
only go to Holland first and check how it should be done"
Evidently this is a popular and probably easy way of working
in an already built town. But. I'm sure there must be nicer
places than the pics you've shown. Evidently the people
using Holland as an example must've seen something else than
what you've shown us.

--
Perre
"No I've never rode a bike in Holland"

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Badger_South wrote:

> Gee, just think of all the real estate that is currently
> occupied by asphault!

This strikes me hard every time I fly in to southern CA.
Paradise paved! If it isn't freeways and streets, it's
parking lots, plazas, and everything hardscaped to the point
of fetish. And to live among this, people pay $300k for a
one bedroom apartment! Yuck!

Matt O.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> The dreamers never understand. They're still envisioning
> an impossible set of bike paths leading everywhere they
> want to go. They're probably dreaming of cute Dutch girls
> in wooden shoes in front of windmills, too ;-)

Methinks they're dreaming of ISTEA money for projects they
can manage, more and bigger feathers for their caps.

Matt O.

 

[Pete]

"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I used to think Holland was a good example until your
> postings. The reason
I
> thought so was because everytime our bikepathbuilders
> make a bikepath like the ones you've linked us to in
> Holland and Germany everybody says. "Damn if they'd only
> go to Holland first and check how it should be done"
> Evidently this is a popular and probably easy way of
> working in an already built town. But. I'm sure there
> must be nicer places than the pics you've shown.
> Evidently the people using Holland as an example must've
> seen something else than
what
> you've shown us.

Some of the facilities in Holland are great. Miles of
isolated narrow pavement, across fields between towns, often
shorter than the connecting roads. Racks and locking
facilities everywhere. Some are no more than a paint stipe
along the side of the street. Some are longer than the
corresponding road segment, separated and winding along
property lines, up and down slight rises, instead of flat
like the road. Some suck badly. Poorly maintained strip of
cobblestone, between the street and the sidewalk.

And eternally, the expectation and requirement that
you use it.

Pete There are more ways to do it wrong than right, and the
engineers seem to be intent on finding and building *all* of
those wrong ways.

 

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Frank Krygowski <[email protected]>:

>Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
>
>> ... Make no mistake: the part of to the right of the
>> green bushes in
>> http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/rwarg03a.jpg
>> that's a newly build bicycle lane, built to the
>> Netherlandian model, according to those people who
>> represent and propagate this fashion arond here
>> vociferously.
>>
>> Thanks, but no thanks. I'd rather us the road, if I
>> only could. Unfortunately, **** like that shown above
>> is mandatory for every single cyclist, whether a
>> child, a commuter, or a racer ridng at the speed limit
>> on that road.
>
>Regarding the mandatory use of such an atrocity:
>
>It must be common to have tourists come through who do not
>read German. (As you must know, Americans rarely speak even
>two languages.) If an ignorant tourist were to ride through
>there on the road, how would they be treated?

Well, it depends. Even now, most German roads don't have a
accompanying bicycle lane (Radweg), so having the right to
use the road like any user of a vehicle still is the norm
rather the exception, around here. Given that slightly more
than ten percent of traffic are cyclists, motorists and
cyclists are very well accustomed to each other on the road,
even on narrow rows which would scare an average American
driver to death. Sure, there are jerks on both sides, but
these are a small minority.

I'm a sporadic, but long time reader in rec.bicylces. From
what I read here here in the past, I conclude that American
cyclists face a certain amount of harassment on the roads,
people honking, shouting or throwing beer cans at cyclists,
for examle. Well, the former happens here, too (never heared
about somebody throwing cans, though), - in nine of ten
times, it's triggered by a bicylce lane giving the motorist
the impression of somebody stomping on _his_ ground.

I guess it will happen to tourists, too, because the
motorist normally doesn't have a way of detecting the
cyclists nationality. It is annoying, especially for a
foreigner, to be honked at for no valid reason, but rarely
dangerous.

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

 

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Stephen Harding <[email protected]>:

>Of course most places on earth are probably more bike
>friendly than almost anywhere in the US, but I was
>extremely impressed with the "Dutch model" of biking.

Ouch. I've visited the Netherlands a few times by car, in my
youth, and was impressed, too. The "Dutch model" is indeed
impressing to non-cyclists.

Visiting the Netherlands again later, I found it rather
depressing. I can do happily without a car, here (actually,
we did, for about six years), but I wouldn't try that under
similar circumstances (children, schools, two jobs, long
commute for one of us, ..) in the Netherlands. No way.

>
>I'm willing to ride the road, bike path or bike lane as
>mood and need require. Although I think I understand the
>argument against these "separate but equal" sorts of bike
>accommodations, I largely disagree with them.

I understand your reasoning and believe it to be
completely wrong.

>
>*Any* arrangement that get more people feeling better about
>using a bicycle for transportation needs is a step in the
>right direction.

Not so. Any delusion, which makes the people feel
better, but do worse will drive people away from
cycling, in the long run.

You will have to learn that statements like "if there only
was a bicycle lane, I certainly would ride to work" usually
are nothing but an excuse. If you paint that lane on the
road or the sidewalk, you will make cycling more dangerous,
less convenient and ineffective for some cyclists, and those
people will find another excuse.

I viviidly remember a heated discussion with a colleague
which took place some years ago. He was diligently arguing
for more bicyle lanes as a way of getting more people riding
to work. Eventually we got to point of me noticing that both
of us drove almost the same route to work. So for trying to
focus the discussion an a concrete example, I asked about
his opinion about that road.

"See? With a bicycle lane on that route, I'd certainly ride
to work, too!", he said.

"Great. There already _is_ one, on that road, and has been
for a long time".

(He quickly found another excuse).

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

 

[Wolfgang Strobl]

"Pete" <[email protected]>:

>Some of the facilities in Holland are great. Miles of
>isolated narrow pavement, across fields between towns,
>often shorter than the connecting roads. Racks and locking
>facilities everywhere. Some are no more than a paint stipe
>along the side of the street. Some are longer than the
>corresponding road segment, separated and winding along
>property lines, up and down slight rises, instead of flat
>like the road. Some suck badly. Poorly maintained strip of
>cobblestone, between the street and the sidewalk.
>
>And eternally, the expectation and requirement that
>you use it.

Good description!

>
>Pete There are more ways to do it wrong than right, and the
>engineers seem to be intent on finding and building *all*
>of those wrong ways.

... and trying to copy the Dutch model (which is mostly
based on tradition, not on science and engineering) without
actually having that tradition is a sure way of finding some
more ways of doing it wrong.

Examples abound.

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>It must be common to have tourists come through who do not
>>read German. (As you must know, Americans rarely speak
>>even two languages.) If an ignorant tourist were to ride
>>through there on the road, how would they be treated?
>
>
> Well, it depends. Even now, most German roads don't have a
> accompanying bicycle lane (Radweg), so having the right to
> use the road like any user of a vehicle still is the norm
> rather the exception, around here. Given that slightly
> more than ten percent of traffic are cyclists, motorists
> and cyclists are very well accustomed to each other on the
> road, even on narrow rows which would scare an average
> American driver to death. Sure, there are jerks on both
> sides, but these are a small minority.
>
> I'm a sporadic, but long time reader in rec.bicylces. From
> what I read here here in the past, I conclude that
> American cyclists face a certain amount of harassment on
> the roads, people honking, shouting or throwing beer cans
> at cyclists, for examle. Well, the former happens here,
> too (never heared about somebody throwing cans, though), -
> in nine of ten times, it's triggered by a bicylce lane
> giving the motorist the impression of somebody stomping on
> _his_ ground.

You shouldn't get the wrong impression about riding here.
Many of us have only very rare expereiences with being
harassed. As an example, my family and I rode coast to coast
last year, and had only two moderately unpleasant
experiences in 4000 miles.

>
> I guess it will happen to tourists, too, because the
> motorist normally doesn't have a way of detecting the
> cyclists nationality. It is annoying, especially for a
> foreigner, to be honked at for no valid reason, but rarely
> dangerous.

Actually, I wasn't worried about being harassed by ordinary
drivers. The few times that happens (here, at least) it's
easily dealt with by just ignoring the jerks.

I was wondering what a passing policeman would do. Would an
American ignoring a mandatory sidepath be ignored? Ticketed?
Jailed? Deported? Shot on sight?

FWIW, many years ago we toured Britain. On our first jet-
lagged day, we took a pleasant little cycle path that
ran along a river, since it led directly from our B&B
into town. The few pedestrians we passed were smiling
and very friendly.

Only later did we realize that we'd mis-read the sign - that
a bike with a red circle around it meant bikes _forbidden_.

--
--------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove
rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Collin]

Per Elmsäter wrote:

> DRS wrote:
>
>>"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>I doubt it. Here in Europe we usually consider Holland as
>>>the best example of how to plan and build for bicycle
>>>commuters.
>>
>>How much of it is actually planned? I lived in Almere and
>>Amsterdam. I thought the bike paths (and roads generally)
>>in Almere were designed by people on acid. And Amsterdam
>>wasn't planned, it's old and organic (not that that's a
>>bad thing).
>
>
> That's the difference between Europe and the U.S. We built
> our towns long before any cars and bicycles were around,
> then we built the roads. In the U.S. it seems you build
> the roads first and then the town. Planning over here is
> utilizing what you've already got as best as possible.
>

You may notice that the layout of cities built up after WWII
are significantly geared toward car culture. One reason so
many inner cities are easy for bicycling is that they were
laid out before cars were so ubiquitous. Starting in the
fifties, everyone believed there would be two cars in each
garage, and the concept of bicycles for transportation
disappeared. Numerically, there are far mnore than two cars
in ecery garage! City planners have been following this cars-
only mentality ever since.

I have noticed that most main roads in the Chicago area
suburbs have NO shoulder at all. The space between the
outside lane and the curb is exactly the same width as your
widest car. This means bicyclists either
a) cause cars to have to re-route, generating dislike
for bicyclists, instead of urban planners, b) hold
up traffic, or c) get killed (which fortunately
seldom happens).

> --
> Perre
>
> You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

 

[Per ElmsäTer]

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> I was wondering what a passing policeman would do. Would
> an American ignoring a mandatory sidepath be ignored?
> Ticketed? Jailed? Deported? Shot on sight?
>

You'd have to know what the local laws say. For instance
here in Sweden the law says that if there's a bike path I
must use it. *Unless* it is not practical considering my
destination. When I'm on my roadbike passing through towns
it is *never* practical to get involved in local bike paths
so I don't use them and won't get ticketed for
it. When I'm commuting to work I use the bikepaths as I
should because the traffic is bad at this timeof day and
I'd rather take the inconvenience of the path rather
than fight traffic.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

 

[Stephen Harding]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> And if a few practical commuting cyclists stand up to
> speak, they've got to speak to the details to rebut the
> idea of separate paths. The dreamers never understand.
> They're still envisioning an impossible set of bike paths
> leading everywhere they want to go. They're probably
> dreaming of cute Dutch girls in wooden shoes in front of
> windmills, too ;-)

Whoa momma! The "St Pauli Girl" bike path!

Guess who's gonna give biking to work a try today!!!

SMH

 

[Jeremy Parker]

For more about bike facilities, it's well worth looking at
Britain. We've towns like Cambridge, with a higher bike % of
traffic than Amsterdam, and a few new towns built from
"greenfield" status, where the bike path network was built
first, and then the town built round
it. This, I would hope, results in a better network than
any you could devise by retrofitting facilities into an
already built town.

About 20 miles/30 km north of me is the town of Stevenage,
the town which showed the Dutch how to do things. In the
1970s Stevenage's Chief Engineer, Eric Claxton, roamed the
world giving papers - see for example the proceedings of the
very first Velo-City conference held in Bremen, Germany, in
1981. I have US and German bike books from the 1970s, and
Stevenage is the example they give, never the Netherlands,
which didn't start building "modern" facilities until the
first, in the Hague, and Tilburg, in about 1978.

I spent a few days in Dublin, Ireland, at the beginning of
May. They seem pretty unhappy about their bike facilities,
even though, for maximum credibility, they hired Dutch
consultants to advise them. The problem is that Ireland then
passed a law saying that you actually had to use them.

There was a garda (policeman) at our meeting, and somebody
asked him whether they would enforce the facilities law. All
he said was, "What do you think?". Various people told him
what they thought, but he just smiled.

For some British information about bike facilities, take a
look at www.lesberries.co.uk - see the stuff following on
from the cycling home page. I wrote my own history of
facilities in Europe. Its on www.bikereader.com somewhere.

Studies in Britain seem to show that the main determinant of
how much cycling there is, is hilliness. This seems to agree
with Danish findings that a 50m elevation gain halves
cycling, which in turn seems to agree well with John
Forester's rule that a 20m elevation gain is about
equivalent to an extra km riding.

We have a number of web sites her in Britain showing bad
facilities. For an example, which links to others, see
www.speedy5/freeserve.co.uk/cycling/farcilities.html

It's worth remembering that the Dutch for bike separation is
fietsapartheid. The English "separate-but-equal" is
analogous. It's especially appropriate to remember that now,
because we have just had the 50th anniversary of the US
Supreme Court case, Brown vs. Board of Education, which
showed that separate-but-equal never is equal.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Per ElmsäTer]

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> For more about bike facilities, it's well worth looking at
> Britain.

Thanks. Lot's of interesting info.
--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

 

[Stephen Harding]

Wolfgang Strobl wrote:

> Stephen Harding <[email protected]>:
>
> Ouch. I've visited the Netherlands a few times by car, in
> my youth, and was impressed, too. The "Dutch model" is
> indeed impressing to non-cyclists.
>
> Visiting the Netherlands again later, I found it rather
> depressing. I can do happily without a car, here
> (actually, we did, for about six years), but I wouldn't
> try that under similar circumstances (children, schools,
> two jobs, long commute for one of us, ..) in the
> Netherlands. No way.

I would regard myself as a cyclist. I was still impressed
with Dutch bicycling infrastructure. I rode quite a distance
during my visit to that country. I would not be reluctant to
have wife and family ride those facilities either as
recreation or for transportation needs.

But perhaps that was just the area I happened to be
visiting.

>>I'm willing to ride the road, bike path or bike lane as
>>mood and need require. Although I think I understand the
>>argument against these "separate but equal" sorts of bike
>>accommodations, I largely disagree with them.
>
> I understand your reasoning and believe it to be
> completely wrong.

I know for a fact, at least here in the US, that narrowing
road lanes (for cars) causes them to slow down. It's a trick
used by civil (road) engineers for further protecting
pedestrians at cross walks, as well as providing safety for
bicyclists on the roads.

I can personally attest to the *much improved* riding
experience on my commute when my home town converted a four
lane state highway coming into town, into a two lane highway
with very broad "breakdown lane/bike path".

That improvement certainly exists in the psychology of
riding that stretch of road. I believe there has been a
reduction not only of (very rare) bicycle/car accidents,
but more so in accidents between cars. It was a bike lane
"done right".

>>*Any* arrangement that get more people feeling better
>>about using a bicycle for transportation needs is a step
>>in the right direction.
>
> Not so. Any delusion, which makes the people feel better,
> but do worse will drive people away from cycling, in the
> long run.

Sometimes it may be delusional. If the project is "done
right", I think it can be shown to be real in a statistical
sense as well.

As someone mentioned, it just depends how well the project
has been done.

> You will have to learn that statements like "if there only
> was a bicycle lane, I certainly would ride to work"
> usually are nothing but an excuse. If you paint that lane
> on the road or the sidewalk, you will make cycling more
> dangerous, less convenient and ineffective for some
> cyclists, and those people will find another excuse.

Excuses in choosing the car over the bike are probably more
often focused on convenience over actual personal safety.

A car can be a very convenient transportation choice,
irrespective of whether bicycle infrastructure has been
"done right" or not. There is simply no way around this
fact, at least until traffic volume becomes congested and
movement snarled.

But you simply won't get a person out on the road using his
bike for transportation needs if he thinks the route is
unsafe. This isn't necessarily an excuse. It's the reason
many people won't go skydiving, or mountain climbing or para-
sailing or whatever.

It's simply inexperience more than anything.

SMH

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> I know for a fact, at least here in the US, that narrowing
> road lanes (for cars) causes them to slow down. It's a
> trick used by civil (road) engineers for further
> protecting pedestrians at cross walks, as well as
> providing safety for bicyclists on the roads.

This is true, but you can't make that generalization about
every road. More width is safer for everyone on some roads,
while on others, the calmiing effect of narrower lanes is
called for. The key to good road design is identifying these
specific situations, and designing appropriately for them.
The biggest problem with road design is that codes paint
everything with too broad a brush, without considering
cyclists at all. And even where the codes do exist, they may
be ignored by good-old-boy traffic "engineers."

> I can personally attest to the *much improved* riding
> experience on my commute when my home town converted a
> four lane state highway coming into town, into a two lane
> highway with very broad "breakdown lane/bike path".

> That improvement certainly exists in the psychology of
> riding that stretch of road. I believe there has been a
> reduction not only of (very rare) bicycle/car accidents,
> but more so in accidents between cars. It was a bike lane
> "done right".

>>> *Any* arrangement that get more people feeling better
>>> about using a bicycle for transportation needs is a step
>>> in the right direction.

>> Not so. Any delusion, which makes the people feel better,
>> but do worse will drive people away from cycling, in the
>> long run.

Like those horrible, "door zone" bike lanes in Amherst?

> Sometimes it may be delusional. If the project is "done
> right", I think it can be shown to be real in a
> statistical sense as well.

> As someone mentioned, it just depends how well the project
> has been done.

Exactly -- and the knowledge exists, for those who care to
look for it.

>> You will have to learn that statements like "if there
>> only was a bicycle lane, I certainly would ride to work"
>> usually are nothing but an excuse. If you paint that lane
>> on the road or the sidewalk, you will make cycling more
>> dangerous, less convenient and ineffective for some
>> cyclists, and those people will find another excuse.

> Excuses in choosing the car over the bike are
> probably more often focused on convenience over
> actual personal safety.

> A car can be a very convenient transportation choice,
> irrespective of whether bicycle infrastructure has been
> "done right" or not. There is simply no way around this
> fact, at least until traffic volume becomes congested and
> movement snarled.

Making cars inconvenient can certainly spur bicycle use, but
that's not the best answer. The real problem is over-
reliance on transportation itself. The answer to that is in
urban planning -- discouraging developers from moving to the
outskirts of town, to build more sprawly, cul-de-sacky, auto-
dependent slumburbia.

Again, look at where the highest land values are, and note
how many more bicycles there are than in the typical
American suburb. Being able to walk and bike to
work/school/shopping, etc. is a *luxury,* for which many
people are willing to pay *lots.* Go over to Northampton,
and note the home prices within walking distance of
downtown. One could argue that living there would be *less*
convenient for the typical, auto-dependent American. So
there must be value in walkable, bikeable neighborhoods.

Matt O.