The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city...

[Paul R]

What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city?
Why?

1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.

2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for those who
kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave (in Toronto), was
thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points (out of 15) and $105
fine). Take away the driving priviliges for repeat dangerous driving
offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist
and motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist
should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits to
society outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people
start screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a cyclists
utopia.

3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely

4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
Widen streets or remove extra lane.

5) Extensive system of bike paths

6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work (like
drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.). These breaks
should reflect the improvements to society gained by having more cyclists on
the road (improved safety for cyclists, improved air, reduced congestion,
reduced noise, reduced use of materials and energy, improved health of
cyclist (more important in Canada than US with public health system) etc.).

7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely in
traffic

I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws won't
change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as it is now.
The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.

That's what I think,

Paul

 

[Dragan Cvetkovic]

"Paul R" <[email protected]> writes:

> Widen streets or remove extra lane.

What do you mean here? I am not sure I understand what you propose.

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

 

[Paul R]

"Dragan Cvetkovic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Paul R" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> What do you mean here? I am not sure I understand what you propose.
>
> Dragan
>

Some people believe that bike lanes are inherently unsafe. They believe that
the best way to ensure drivers treat cyclists with respect is to have
cyclists part of traffic.

Personally, I feel safest on streets with extra wide curb lanes.

If a street has two lanes travelling the same direction, one lane could be
removed and dedicated to cyclists.

During rush hour here in downtown Toronto (at least in summer), there are
often upwards of 5-10 or even more bikes waiting at a stop light. they could
almost fill up a car lane.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Dan]

"Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a
> city? Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.
>
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for
> those who kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave
> (in Toronto), was thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points
> (out of 15) and $105 fine). Take away the driving priviliges for
> repeat dangerous driving offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY
> altercation between a cyclist and motorized vehicle, the motorized
> vehicle should be held 100% at fault. Likewise, in any altercation
> between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist should be held 100%
> responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits to society
> outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people start
> screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a cyclists
> utopia.
>
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely
>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing
> infrastructure. Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths
>
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work
> (like drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.).
> These breaks should reflect the improvements to society gained by
> having more cyclists on the road (improved safety for cyclists,
> improved air, reduced congestion, reduced noise, reduced use of
> materials and energy, improved health of cyclist (more important in
> Canada than US with public health system) etc.).
>
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride
> safely in traffic
>
> I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws
> won't change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as
> it is now. The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.
>
> That's what I think,
>
> Paul
>
>
>

2,3,4 and 6. Europeans make it work, USA can too!

Dan

Cell phones and drunk drivers are a bikers worst nightmare!

 

[Micheal Artindale]

"Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a
city?
> Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.

YES

>
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for those
who
> kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave (in Toronto),
was
> thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points (out of 15) and $105
> fine). Take away the driving priviliges for repeat dangerous driving
> offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist
> and motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
> Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist
> should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits
to
> society outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people
> start screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a
cyclists
> utopia.

YES

>
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely

YES

>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.

YES

>
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths

YES

>
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work (like
> drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.). These breaks
> should reflect the improvements to society gained by having more cyclists
on
> the road (improved safety for cyclists, improved air, reduced congestion,
> reduced noise, reduced use of materials and energy, improved health of
> cyclist (more important in Canada than US with public health system)
etc.).

YES

>
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely
in
> traffic

YES

>
> I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws won't
> change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as it is now.
> The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.
>
> That's what I think,
>
> Paul
>
>

One change wont solve the problem, byt make significant changes to
everything, and the problem is less than a problem


Micheal

 

[Terry Morse]

Paul R wrote:

> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city?
> Why?
>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.

#4, definitely. Why? Because wider lanes work. As does traffic
calming.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

 

[Claire Petersky]

"Dragan Cvetkovic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Paul R" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> What do you mean here? I am not sure I understand what you propose.

My assumption is that what is proposed here is the reduction of a four-lane
street to three. This has several benefits:
a. central two-way turn lane means that through-traffic is not delayed by
left-turning traffic
b. room is created for shoulder or bike lane
c. the traffic lanes look narrower to the motorists and thus vehicle speeds
are diminished, as demonstrated in Portland, Oregon (USA).
(http://www.lakesammfriends.org/BikeLanesCalmTraffic.html)


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

 

[Robert Haston]

1. Seeing that the protective Styrofoam hat is the last (and pretty much
least important) factor in a mishap, I would leave it there. I hate to
think of all the kids who have died after their parents filled their heads
with little more information than how magically powerful their fancy helmet
was.

2. I agree, but more precisely, our first problem is we treat traffic laws
like etiquette. People who speed everywhere (like everyone else) and think
it is A-OK despite the death toll, are inflamed by a cyclist running a stop
sign - a cyclist who could do little more to them than scratch their paint.

3. Drivers will just ignore whatever training they feel isn't important to
them. You have to change the whole situation. In the US (and third world)
cyclists are seen as reckless suicidal road-kill. It is more than just
traffic safety.

4. Instead of attempting to re-route present spending to change how we build
roads, stop the nearly 1 trillion a year subsidizing drivers that keeps
people from cycling. The #1 factor in making cycling safe is more cyclists
on the roads. Property taxes pay for roads, fire and police services for
accidents, runoff, etc. Income taxes pay to defend oil. And let's not
forget "free" parking. If driving suddenly became a dime or three more
expensive per mile, you would see more cycling.

5. NO NO NO. The reason we made bike paths is because we disconnected all
our side streets. I never needed a bike path where I grew up, and I never
bicycled more than a few blocks on a major road. Mandate that any new
subdivision be connected at least via bike path, and any isolated
subdivisions be connected where feasible. If we would never have provided
free urban school bussing (saving all the money for education, not
transportation) people would have chosen to save the few bucks per day per
kid; and live in closer, connected suburbs.

6. NO NO again. Don't subsidize cyclists - de-subsidize drivers. Give
every employee the cash it costs to provide his free parking, then charge
them only if they use it. The tax laws are changing towards this.

7. Rather than giving cyclists licenses, I would rather see a really good
safety education program, geared towards the local area, then give people
licenses which prove they have taken the course. A $10 fee or so would be
enough to pay the instructor. It would be worth far more just as insurance
in case you (our your surviving spouse) find yourself in court. That's also
the main reason I wear a helmet. I would rather hear my lawyer say "Mr.
Haston was a very experienced road cyclist. Aside from reading a whole book
on cycling safety, he attended the certified safety training for his
district, and always wore his helmet. Better this than the opposition's
lawyer saying "Mr. Haston was clearly reckless - he wasn't even wearing a
helmet".

Best Solutions? I think eliminating all subsidies for driving or using oil
is the first real solution. When the high gas taxes, tolls, and parking
costs drive millions of more people to bicycle, these problems will be
reduced. Look at European cities where anywhere from one out of ten to one
out of three trips are by bike.


"Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a
> city?
> Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.
>
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers. Significant charges for those
> who
> kill or injure cyclists (guy got doored on University Ave (in Toronto),
> was
> thrown into traffic and killed. Driver got 3 points (out of 15) and $105
> fine). Take away the driving priviliges for repeat dangerous driving
> offenders. Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist
> and motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
> Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the cyclist
> should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think the benefits
> to
> society outweigh the few cases where someone gets burned. Before people
> start screaming, be aware that this is how the law is in Holland, a
> cyclists
> utopia.
>
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely
>
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.
>
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths
>
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists who commute to work (like
> drivers get tax breaks on the highways, parking lots etc.). These breaks
> should reflect the improvements to society gained by having more cyclists
> on
> the road (improved safety for cyclists, improved air, reduced congestion,
> reduced noise, reduced use of materials and energy, improved health of
> cyclist (more important in Canada than US with public health system)
> etc.).
>
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely
> in
> traffic
>
> I believe that no's 2, and 6 are the best. I think that helmet laws won't
> change anything - it will still be open season on cyclists, as it is now.
> The more cyclists on the streets, the safer we are.
>
> That's what I think,
>
> Paul
>
>

 

[maxo]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 17:19:46 -0500, Paul R wrote:

> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely
> in traffic

I don't know about licensing, but proper training is by far the most
effective tool.

I've ridden for years in the city, and for a short time as a courier--the
best thing you can do is become a hyper aware and better rider. So what if
15% of drivers payed attention at the bike-car awareness seminar during
licensing--the other 85% were thinking of hamburgers.

Enforcing the law and ticketing in bike/car incident, be it the car or the
cyclist's fault, will perhaps make folks take bikes more seriously. I know
that when riding in Sweden, I won't take the chance to ride at night
without a light, because I'll get a deserved ticket. When I'm here in the
States, I get lazy and rely on my reflectors for short evening jaunts to
the store from time to time.

Helmets should be something like 30th on the list, btw, they can certainly
work, but preventing falling down is the priority right? In car/bike
interactions, if you get whacked hard, wearing a helmet won't help a great
deal when your chest gets crushed. It'll certainly be of use if you take a
little spill sliding out in a corner or something like that of course...

 

[Mitch Haley]

Robert Haston wrote:
> 6. NO NO again. Don't subsidize cyclists - de-subsidize drivers. Give
> every employee the cash it costs to provide his free parking, then charge
> them only if they use it. The tax laws are changing towards this.
>

The European model "subsidizes" cyclists by not making them pay motor fuel tax,
same as in USA. The difference is that the motor fuel taxes over there are
a notable fraction of the total cost of owning/operating a car. A 20mpg car
averaging a thousand miles a month in the USA might cost $25 a month in tax
on the fuel, as compared to $100 - $200 a month in Europe. Increasing the
USA fuel taxes would be the simplest way to de-subsidize driving.

Mitch.

 

[Hugh Jass]

"Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote
> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely in
> traffic


Great points Paul. I think #7 is best in theory but how can it be put into practice?
Like car exams? I guess.

When I was about 11 years old, my school had a bike safety course for an hour
a week for six weeks, after school hours. My mother signed me up coz I was
spending a lot of time on streets riding my BMX ( the 1st time it was around -
circa 1982). I was downright embarrassed in front of my friends just for being
one of the 'geeks' that was taking part, ye know what kids are like.

Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember little things
from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still signal automatically,
the exact way that we were thought.

Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?

 

[Hugh Jass]

....outlaw taxis

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Hugh Jass" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> "Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote
>> 7) Licensing for cyclists - they must prove they know how to ride safely in
>> traffic
>
>
> Great points Paul. I think #7 is best in theory

NNNNnnnooooooo!!!!

There has never been a need for formal testing & licensing
of bicyclists -- no more than for pedestrians. To inflict
such formality on just plain gettin' around is just too
majestically overblown.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Hugh Jass]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote
> "Hugh Jass" <[email protected]> writes:

> > Great points Paul. I think #7 is best in theory


OK. I meant training as opposed to licensing.

>
> NNNNnnnooooooo!!!!
>
> There has never been a need for formal testing & licensing
> of bicyclists -- no more than for pedestrians. To inflict
> such formality on just plain gettin' around is just too
> majestically overblown.


I disagree. I'm on the road most of the day and see so many
people that cannot ride a bike properly. While educating drivers
is paramount, it would be nice as a cyclist if he/she had an instinct
to control a dodgy situation.

 

[LightCycles]

Oh...I have to chime in here! I was traveling down a mtn road on my road bike when a butt-head turned in front of me then backed out in front of me! I have 30' of skidmarks and I probably slammed into the jeep liberty at about 35+ mph! The helmet saved my bee hind! I did suffer a concussion (I do not to this day remember my crash!) I did break 3 ribs..punctured a lung and had severe nerve damage to my left arm! wanna see pixs? Check my website!

http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/robert.light

Helmets work! Wear one! I am lucky as hell!

Pedal On,

Bob Light



Helmets should be something like 30th on the list, btw, they can certainly
work, but preventing falling down is the priority right? In car/bike
interactions, if you get whacked hard, wearing a helmet won't help a great
deal when your chest gets crushed. It'll certainly be of use if you take a
little spill sliding out in a corner or something like that of course...[/QUOTE]

 

[Matt O'Toole]

Hugh Jass wrote:

> When I was about 11 years old, my school had a bike safety course for
> an hour
> a week for six weeks, after school hours. My mother signed me up coz
> I was
> spending a lot of time on streets riding my BMX ( the 1st time it was
> around -
> circa 1982). I was downright embarrassed in front of my friends just
> for being
> one of the 'geeks' that was taking part, ye know what kids are like.

They did this when I was a kid too. But we all did it, and no one thought it
was geeky. *Most* kids rode bikes to school. Sadly, in the same neighborhood,
almost no kids ride bikes anymore. And nothing has changed to explain this,
except the culture.

> Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember
> little things
> from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still
> signal automatically, the exact way that we were thought.

> Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?

I think this kind of training early on makes kids better drivers later in life.

Matt O.

 

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:16:37 -0500, <[email protected]>,
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> Anyway, my point is that more than 20 years later I still remember
>> little things
>> from that course ( safe turns/signals/observation etc) and I still
>> signal automatically, the exact way that we were thought.
>
>> Maybe it could be introduced at a young age?
>
>I think this kind of training early on makes kids better drivers later in life.

Yep, in 2nd year high school driver training, at fifteen and a half
years old, it was like, 'What are you going through all this stuff
for? We learned this on our bikes in third through sixth grade.'

A motorcycle safety course taught me more about driving and riding a
bicycle.
--
zk

 

[Michael J. Klein]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:42:03 -0500, "Hugh Jass"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote
>> "Hugh Jass" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> > Great points Paul. I think #7 is best in theory
>
>
>OK. I meant training as opposed to licensing.
>
>>
>> NNNNnnnooooooo!!!!
>>
>> There has never been a need for formal testing & licensing
>> of bicyclists -- no more than for pedestrians. To inflict
>> such formality on just plain gettin' around is just too
>> majestically overblown.
>
>
>I disagree. I'm on the road most of the day and see so many
>people that cannot ride a bike properly. While educating drivers
>is paramount, it would be nice as a cyclist if he/she had an instinct
>to control a dodgy situation.

Oh yeah, licensing will solve that problem. Just as licensing makes
drivers obey the laws and the roads safer.

Michael J. Klein [email protected]
Dasi Jen, Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

 

[Peter Cole]

"Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What do you think is the best way to improve safety for cyclists in a
city?
> Why?
>
> 1) Mandatory helmet laws for all cyclists with strict enforcement.
> 2) Enforce existing laws against drivers.
> 3) Education for drivers on handling cyclists safely
> 4) Better traffic planning. Extensive changes to existing infrastructure.
> Widen streets or remove extra lane.
> 5) Extensive system of bike paths
> 6) Provide significant tax breaks for cyclists
> 7) Licensing for cyclists -

2, 3, and 4. 6 would be nice.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 22:42:03 -0500, "Hugh Jass"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm on the road most of the day and see so many
>people that cannot ride a bike properly.

One large study in Oxford showed that about one in four cyclists are
responsible for crashes in which they are injured, but over half of
pedestrians. Pedestrian license anyone?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University