W
Wolfgang Strobl
Guest
Stephen Harding <[email protected]>:
>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.
Sure. I was merely telling about my own experience as both a
cyclist and a motorist. It makes a lot of difference whether
you view some infrastructure as an everyday user or as a
tourist, and it makes some difference whether your main mode
of transport is the bicycle or the car.
>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.
That's a common slip of logic in this kind of discussions. A
tourist on a bicycle is free in what destinations to head
for and which routes to take. He or she usually invests
quite a lot of time to plan routes, in order to select only
those which are safe, friedly and rewarding. A commuter, on
the other hand, can't simply change to another job for two
months in winter, because somebody has choosen to use the
scenic route as a deposit for trash, snow or construction
tools. A mother can't carry her child to a different school
because the picturesque bike path through the park has
become known as a insider's tip for rapists. Etc.
>
>But perhaps that was just the area I happened to be
>visiting.
It was because you where visiting the place, not
living there.
>
>>>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.
Alas, it doesn't work that way. Roads are built to
standards, around here, a lane has to be wide enough to
allow for trucks, busses and other wide and long vehicles. A
road engineer just can't narrow it enough to have an effect
on driveres of typical passenger cars.
In addition, a stripe on the pavement doesn't make a road
narrow, nor does it make it wider. All it can do is to
deprive the cyclist of the right to position himself
properly on the road. There is another effect, shown in htt-
p://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/radstreifen6/01_1.h-
tml These slides are German, to, but the pictures speak for
themselves. Just click on the picture in order to get to the
next slide.
Another defect produced by arranging and separating vehicles
by the type of engine (instead of direction and speed, as
usual) is that we get turing traffic on the wrong side of
traffic heading forward. An alarming percentage of bicycling
fatalities around here are people dying under the double
tires of a truck turing right. One hasn't have to be a cynic
in order to notice that this mostly happens to
inexperiienced and insecure cyclists - those which are often
(mis)used as a justification for such traps.
>
>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".
You seem to have plenty of space and few cars over there.
It doesn't work that way around here. Usually, "converting
a road" means that bicyclists find themselves on the very
same space which was reserved to pedestrians, before the
conversion. Before the conversion which happened in '97,
the four lane road shown in
http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/rwarg03a.jpg
(two lanes per direction) had the very same layout than
what it has now.
But even in cases where converting from two lanes to one
makes sense from a road engineers point of view (like in the
road shown in the first link, the one with the wet bicycle
lane - that one could become easily converted to singel
lane, because it narrows down later, anyway), and where a
naive and narrow look on the scene seems to indicate the
change to be an advancement for the cyclist, in actual fact
it is not.
It certainly looks nice on paper (forget the dirt on the
bike lane, for a moment), but the cyclists actually _using_
this facility immediatly notices a lot to be wrong. To
begin with, parking space, especially space for short term
parking is scarce ressource, there. Before the conversion,
both of the two lanes were free, clean and useable. Slower
traffice used the right lan, faster traffice used the left
lane for overtaking.. Now it is quite different. It didn't
take long for people to notice that such a space is ideal
for short time parking. Traffic on the left (now single)
lane is as fast as always, but now cyclists have to drive
around obstacles and to merge with fast traffic every few
hundred meter.
When I consider how long and fiercly our local bicycling
club fought for this mess, it really could convert me
into a cynic.
>
>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".
Perhaps, I haven't seen it, so I'll have to take your
word for it. Well, you said that some of the improvement
may exist (only) in the psychology. So please allow me to
have doubts and reserver judgement. I have listened to
descriptions of bicycle facilities "done right" often
enough, which emergied as nice on the surface, but as a
rats nest of traps, when I had the chance of taking a
peer at htem..
>
>>>*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.
Our "Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen", an official
institution doing traffic research for the gouvernment,
tried this once, by selecting bicylce lanes which met ther
criteria for "good", only. Even these show a heavy increase
in risk at the intersections.
>
>As someone mentioned, it just depends how well the project
>has been done.
As it seems, it doesn't. Of course, one could always do
worse.
>
>> 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.
Oops. Somehow, I have the feeling of not having stated my
point clearly enough. Of course people often choose the car
over the bike because that choice is convenient. However,
that's not the point. The point being that people asking for
seggregated bicycle facilities aren't looking for
convenience. They are looking for an excuse. The lack of a
necessary facility certainly is a vaild excuse, in their
eyes. In addition, with this specific excuse, they kill two
birds with one stone. They have a convenient reason to
continue to use the car, and see a chance to get rid of
those annoying cyclists, for good measure.
--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions
>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.
Sure. I was merely telling about my own experience as both a
cyclist and a motorist. It makes a lot of difference whether
you view some infrastructure as an everyday user or as a
tourist, and it makes some difference whether your main mode
of transport is the bicycle or the car.
>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.
That's a common slip of logic in this kind of discussions. A
tourist on a bicycle is free in what destinations to head
for and which routes to take. He or she usually invests
quite a lot of time to plan routes, in order to select only
those which are safe, friedly and rewarding. A commuter, on
the other hand, can't simply change to another job for two
months in winter, because somebody has choosen to use the
scenic route as a deposit for trash, snow or construction
tools. A mother can't carry her child to a different school
because the picturesque bike path through the park has
become known as a insider's tip for rapists. Etc.
>
>But perhaps that was just the area I happened to be
>visiting.
It was because you where visiting the place, not
living there.
>
>>>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.
Alas, it doesn't work that way. Roads are built to
standards, around here, a lane has to be wide enough to
allow for trucks, busses and other wide and long vehicles. A
road engineer just can't narrow it enough to have an effect
on driveres of typical passenger cars.
In addition, a stripe on the pavement doesn't make a road
narrow, nor does it make it wider. All it can do is to
deprive the cyclist of the right to position himself
properly on the road. There is another effect, shown in htt-
p://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/radstreifen6/01_1.h-
tml These slides are German, to, but the pictures speak for
themselves. Just click on the picture in order to get to the
next slide.
Another defect produced by arranging and separating vehicles
by the type of engine (instead of direction and speed, as
usual) is that we get turing traffic on the wrong side of
traffic heading forward. An alarming percentage of bicycling
fatalities around here are people dying under the double
tires of a truck turing right. One hasn't have to be a cynic
in order to notice that this mostly happens to
inexperiienced and insecure cyclists - those which are often
(mis)used as a justification for such traps.
>
>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".
You seem to have plenty of space and few cars over there.
It doesn't work that way around here. Usually, "converting
a road" means that bicyclists find themselves on the very
same space which was reserved to pedestrians, before the
conversion. Before the conversion which happened in '97,
the four lane road shown in
http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/rwarg03a.jpg
(two lanes per direction) had the very same layout than
what it has now.
But even in cases where converting from two lanes to one
makes sense from a road engineers point of view (like in the
road shown in the first link, the one with the wet bicycle
lane - that one could become easily converted to singel
lane, because it narrows down later, anyway), and where a
naive and narrow look on the scene seems to indicate the
change to be an advancement for the cyclist, in actual fact
it is not.
It certainly looks nice on paper (forget the dirt on the
bike lane, for a moment), but the cyclists actually _using_
this facility immediatly notices a lot to be wrong. To
begin with, parking space, especially space for short term
parking is scarce ressource, there. Before the conversion,
both of the two lanes were free, clean and useable. Slower
traffice used the right lan, faster traffice used the left
lane for overtaking.. Now it is quite different. It didn't
take long for people to notice that such a space is ideal
for short time parking. Traffic on the left (now single)
lane is as fast as always, but now cyclists have to drive
around obstacles and to merge with fast traffic every few
hundred meter.
When I consider how long and fiercly our local bicycling
club fought for this mess, it really could convert me
into a cynic.
>
>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".
Perhaps, I haven't seen it, so I'll have to take your
word for it. Well, you said that some of the improvement
may exist (only) in the psychology. So please allow me to
have doubts and reserver judgement. I have listened to
descriptions of bicycle facilities "done right" often
enough, which emergied as nice on the surface, but as a
rats nest of traps, when I had the chance of taking a
peer at htem..
>
>>>*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.
Our "Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen", an official
institution doing traffic research for the gouvernment,
tried this once, by selecting bicylce lanes which met ther
criteria for "good", only. Even these show a heavy increase
in risk at the intersections.
>
>As someone mentioned, it just depends how well the project
>has been done.
As it seems, it doesn't. Of course, one could always do
worse.
>
>> 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.
Oops. Somehow, I have the feeling of not having stated my
point clearly enough. Of course people often choose the car
over the bike because that choice is convenient. However,
that's not the point. The point being that people asking for
seggregated bicycle facilities aren't looking for
convenience. They are looking for an excuse. The lack of a
necessary facility certainly is a vaild excuse, in their
eyes. In addition, with this specific excuse, they kill two
birds with one stone. They have a convenient reason to
continue to use the car, and see a chance to get rid of
those annoying cyclists, for good measure.
--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions
