News from below on bike lanes.

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Jame » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:07:49


In a letter from Bicycle Network Victoria to me, after I complained
about the spread of Copenhagen style bike lanes around Melbourne.

"There was strong opposition to protected bikes lanes in the English
speaking world for many years, led by John Forester, an influential
force in the American League of Bicyclists.

So while Europe went in one direction, the US, UK, Australia, NZ and
other places resisted.

But the answer was in the data. The bike lanes in Europe seemed to
attract massive numbers of riders.

When this was tried in Melbourne, we noticed a similar trend.

Now the whole world is following Europe and Forester and his ideas are
as good as dead.

Copenhagen lanes and their variations will gradually become the norm,
and cycling numbers will rise to never imagined levels.

There is no going back."

All they want is more participation - not safe riding on the road.

--
JS.

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:46:49


Quote:
> In a letter from Bicycle Network Victoria to me, after I complained
> about the spread of Copenhagen style bike lanes around Melbourne.

> "There was strong opposition to protected bikes lanes in the English
> speaking world for many years, led by John Forester, an influential
> force in the American League of Bicyclists.

> So while Europe went in one direction, the US, UK, Australia, NZ and
> other places resisted.

> But the answer was in the data. The bike lanes in Europe seemed to
> attract massive numbers of riders.

> When this was tried in Melbourne, we noticed a similar trend.

> Now the whole world is following Europe and Forester and his ideas are
> as good as dead.

> Copenhagen lanes and their variations will gradually become the norm,
> and cycling numbers will rise to never imagined levels.

> There is no going back."

> All they want is more participation - not safe riding on the road.

Yep.  I believe the shorthand phrase for that is "butts on bikes."

There have been a couple recent evaluations of "innovative" bicycle
facilities.  The Executive Summary link at tinyurl.com/DC-innovation
contains a slow-loading PDF that describes crash rates quintupling at
some of Washington, DC's new, "innovative" bike facilities.  ("Bike
lanes in the _middle_ of the road!  What could go wrong??")

Granted, ridership went up, but crashes per month went up more than
ridership, so each rider that was lured in was in more danger than
those who had ridden there pre-"innovation." Yet the facilities
proponents say they need more time to evaluate the quintupling crash
counts.  :-/

It does get more butts on bikes, though.  If you tell people that the
"innovation" is going to make them safer, people believe it.  People
actually report that they like door zone bike lanes. People like the
bike boxes Portland put in, even though they doubled the right-hook
crashes.  (Those would be left hooks in Oz.)  See tinyurl.com/portl-
box

People such as Forester, who are actually competent at riding in
traffic and have been analyzing traffic motion for years, have long
been saying such weird facilities don't work.  For example, you can't
put a straight-ahead cyclist to the right of a right-turning
motorist.  But to the promoters of "innovation," people who actually
understand riding in traffic shouldn't be listened to; they're not
"innovative" enough.  Much better to listen to, say, folks who know so
little that they won't venture off a bike path.

And when the designs don't work?  Um... try adding more green
paint. :-/

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Jay Beatti » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:43:36


Quote:

> > In a letter from Bicycle Network Victoria to me, after I complained
> > about the spread of Copenhagen style bike lanes around Melbourne.

> > "There was strong opposition to protected bikes lanes in the English
> > speaking world for many years, led by John Forester, an influential
> > force in the American League of Bicyclists.

> > So while Europe went in one direction, the US, UK, Australia, NZ and
> > other places resisted.

> > But the answer was in the data. The bike lanes in Europe seemed to
> > attract massive numbers of riders.

> > When this was tried in Melbourne, we noticed a similar trend.

> > Now the whole world is following Europe and Forester and his ideas are
> > as good as dead.

> > Copenhagen lanes and their variations will gradually become the norm,
> > and cycling numbers will rise to never imagined levels.

> > There is no going back."

> > All they want is more participation - not safe riding on the road.

> Yep. ?I believe the shorthand phrase for that is "butts on bikes."

> There have been a couple recent evaluations of "innovative" bicycle
> facilities. ?The Executive Summary link at tinyurl.com/DC-innovation
> contains a slow-loading PDF that describes crash rates quintupling at
> some of Washington, DC's new, "innovative" bike facilities. ?("Bike
> lanes in the _middle_ of the road! ?What could go wrong??")

> Granted, ridership went up, but crashes per month went up more than
> ridership, so each rider that was lured in was in more danger than
> those who had ridden there pre-"innovation." Yet the facilities
> proponents say they need more time to evaluate the quintupling crash
> counts. ?:-/

> It does get more butts on bikes, though. ?If you tell people that the
> "innovation" is going to make them safer, people believe it. ?People
> actually report that they like door zone bike lanes. People like the
> bike boxes Portland put in, even though they doubled the right-hook
> crashes. ?(Those would be left hooks in Oz.) ?See tinyurl.com/portl-
> box

> People such as Forester, who are actually competent at riding in
> traffic and have been analyzing traffic motion for years, have long
> been saying such weird facilities don't work. ?For example, you can't
> put a straight-ahead cyclist to the right of a right-turning
> motorist. ?But to the promoters of "innovation," people who actually
> understand riding in traffic shouldn't be listened to; they're not
> "innovative" enough. ?Much better to listen to, say, folks who know so
> little that they won't venture off a bike path.

> And when the designs don't work? ?Um... try adding more green
> paint. :-/

All I gotta say is that riding with other cyclists in a confined space
is far more frustrating than riding in traffic.  I couldn't hack the
Amsterdam model: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYajXN4pPHI

-- Jay Beattie.

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Jame » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:19:20


Quote:

>> In a letter from Bicycle Network Victoria to me, after I complained
>> about the spread of Copenhagen style bike lanes around Melbourne.

>> "There was strong opposition to protected bikes lanes in the English
>> speaking world for many years, led by John Forester, an influential
>> force in the American League of Bicyclists.

>> So while Europe went in one direction, the US, UK, Australia, NZ and
>> other places resisted.

>> But the answer was in the data. The bike lanes in Europe seemed to
>> attract massive numbers of riders.

>> When this was tried in Melbourne, we noticed a similar trend.

>> Now the whole world is following Europe and Forester and his ideas are
>> as good as dead.

>> Copenhagen lanes and their variations will gradually become the norm,
>> and cycling numbers will rise to never imagined levels.

>> There is no going back."

>> All they want is more participation - not safe riding on the road.

> Yep.  I believe the shorthand phrase for that is "butts on bikes."

> There have been a couple recent evaluations of "innovative" bicycle
> facilities.  The Executive Summary link at tinyurl.com/DC-innovation
> contains a slow-loading PDF that describes crash rates quintupling at
> some of Washington, DC's new, "innovative" bike facilities.  ("Bike
> lanes in the _middle_ of the road!  What could go wrong??")

> Granted, ridership went up, but crashes per month went up more than
> ridership, so each rider that was lured in was in more danger than
> those who had ridden there pre-"innovation." Yet the facilities
> proponents say they need more time to evaluate the quintupling crash
> counts.  :-/

> It does get more butts on bikes, though.  If you tell people that the
> "innovation" is going to make them safer, people believe it.  People
> actually report that they like door zone bike lanes. People like the
> bike boxes Portland put in, even though they doubled the right-hook
> crashes.  (Those would be left hooks in Oz.)  See tinyurl.com/portl-
> box

> People such as Forester, who are actually competent at riding in
> traffic and have been analyzing traffic motion for years, have long
> been saying such weird facilities don't work.  For example, you can't
> put a straight-ahead cyclist to the right of a right-turning
> motorist.  But to the promoters of "innovation," people who actually
> understand riding in traffic shouldn't be listened to; they're not
> "innovative" enough.  Much better to listen to, say, folks who know so
> little that they won't venture off a bike path.

> And when the designs don't work?  Um... try adding more green
> paint. :-/

Yes, there is a bike lane there, to the left of the left turn only lane.

http://goo.gl/maps/8tKal

--
JS.

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by klaus.m.nos.. » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:09:39

Quote:

> In a letter from Bicycle Network Victoria to me, after I complained
> about the spread of Copenhagen style bike lanes around Melbourne.

> "There was strong opposition to protected bikes lanes in the English  
> speaking world for many years, led by John Forester, an influential
> force in the American League of Bicyclists.
> So while Europe went in one direction, the US, UK, Australia, NZ and
> other places resisted.

> But the answer was in the data. The bike lanes in Europe seemed to
> attract massive numbers of riders.
> Now the whole world is following Europe and Forester and his ideas are
> as good as dead.
> Copenhagen lanes and their variations will gradually become the norm,
> and cycling numbers will rise to never imagined levels.
> There is no going back."

Copenhagen and the Netherlands are not representative for the whole of Europe! In Germany the trend is to bring cyclists back into the street, because seperate bike lanes next to the sidewalk have proved to be dangerous at intersections, slip roads, parcing cars and in interaction with pedestrians. Also in narrow streets of old towns there is simply not enough room to allow for wide enough bike lanes, which allow save overtaking and enough distance to pedestrians, lamp posts and parking cars. "Shared spaces" is the new model for livable city streets - low speed limits, no seperate sidewalks, restricted parking. I would wish places, where there is not already much "bike infrastructure", to avoid the errors of Copenhagen, Netherlands and the 70s to 90s in Germany!

Out of towns, where there are not much pedestrians and intersections, wide enough seperate bike lanes are less problematic.

Klaus

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Duan » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:54:28


Quote:
> In a letter from Bicycle Network Victoria to me, after I complained
> about the spread of Copenhagen style bike lanes around Melbourne.

> "There was strong opposition to protected bikes lanes in the English
> speaking world for many years, led by John Forester, an influential
> force in the American League of Bicyclists.

> So while Europe went in one direction, the US, UK, Australia, NZ and
> other places resisted.

> But the answer was in the data. The bike lanes in Europe seemed to
> attract massive numbers of riders.

> When this was tried in Melbourne, we noticed a similar trend.

> Now the whole world is following Europe and Forester and his ideas are
> as good as dead.

> Copenhagen lanes and their variations will gradually become the norm,
> and cycling numbers will rise to never imagined levels.

> There is no going back."

> All they want is more participation - not safe riding on the road.

That's pretty much the story here, driven by the need to reduce cars in
the cities.  But I think the increased participation is due to people
believing that segregated bike paths/lanes are safer.  And since it does
seem to increase cycling numbers, there is a decrease in injuries though
this is more likely due to the increased numbers than the actual
segregated paths.

Before what's his name jumps on my case, I will say that I don't
generally like segregated facilities and don't tend to ride in them but
it seems to be what casual riders think.  And it seems to work as far as
increasing their numbers.  And in my view, the more people that start
riding, the more people stop being casual riders.

What the rest of us do is keep our politicians aware that we don't want
this to be mandatory.  We have a law here specifying that we have a
right to not use these.  So far, so good.

Now, if they would just fix these potholes...

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Duan » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:58:28


Quote:


>>> In a letter from Bicycle Network Victoria to me, after I complained
>>> about the spread of Copenhagen style bike lanes around Melbourne.

>>> "There was strong opposition to protected bikes lanes in the English
>>> speaking world for many years, led by John Forester, an influential
>>> force in the American League of Bicyclists.

>>> So while Europe went in one direction, the US, UK, Australia, NZ and
>>> other places resisted.

>>> But the answer was in the data. The bike lanes in Europe seemed to
>>> attract massive numbers of riders.

>>> When this was tried in Melbourne, we noticed a similar trend.

>>> Now the whole world is following Europe and Forester and his ideas are
>>> as good as dead.

>>> Copenhagen lanes and their variations will gradually become the norm,
>>> and cycling numbers will rise to never imagined levels.

>>> There is no going back."

>>> All they want is more participation - not safe riding on the road.

>> Yep.  I believe the shorthand phrase for that is "butts on bikes."

>> There have been a couple recent evaluations of "innovative" bicycle
>> facilities.  The Executive Summary link at tinyurl.com/DC-innovation
>> contains a slow-loading PDF that describes crash rates quintupling at
>> some of Washington, DC's new, "innovative" bike facilities.  ("Bike
>> lanes in the _middle_ of the road!  What could go wrong??")

>> Granted, ridership went up, but crashes per month went up more than
>> ridership, so each rider that was lured in was in more danger than
>> those who had ridden there pre-"innovation." Yet the facilities
>> proponents say they need more time to evaluate the quintupling crash
>> counts.  :-/

>> It does get more butts on bikes, though.  If you tell people that the
>> "innovation" is going to make them safer, people believe it.  People
>> actually report that they like door zone bike lanes. People like the
>> bike boxes Portland put in, even though they doubled the right-hook
>> crashes.  (Those would be left hooks in Oz.)  See tinyurl.com/portl-
>> box

>> People such as Forester, who are actually competent at riding in
>> traffic and have been analyzing traffic motion for years, have long
>> been saying such weird facilities don't work.  For example, you can't
>> put a straight-ahead cyclist to the right of a right-turning
>> motorist.  But to the promoters of "innovation," people who actually
>> understand riding in traffic shouldn't be listened to; they're not
>> "innovative" enough.  Much better to listen to, say, folks who know so
>> little that they won't venture off a bike path.

>> And when the designs don't work?  Um... try adding more green
>> paint. :-/

> All I gotta say is that riding with other cyclists in a confined space
> is far more frustrating than riding in traffic.  I couldn't hack the
> Amsterdam model: http://SportToday.org/

That's it.  But on the other hand, having a place where the ***s with
their iPods can ride that is away from me is also good.
For me, the worst is trying to negotiate motor vehicle traffic while
avoiding the kid with his iPod going the wrong way.
 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by datakol » Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:17:38

we have a new lane with new surfacing on the escape route the airport 1/8 mile past a stoplight at the beginning of the Mulsanne. The lanbe is on the approach to a 140 mph corner. The bike lane runs between the 140 lane and an exit for.....the Primo electonic arcade COMPLEX and more.

100' to the south paralleling the new bike lane is a p[aved bike path of 26 or more miles

?

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by (PeteCresswell » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 01:43:52

Per Frank Krygowski:

Quote:
> For example, you can't
>put a straight-ahead cyclist to the right of a right-turning
>motorist.

Two of my near-death experiences on a bike involved just that.

Seems tb a temptation for the driver to speed up and try to make their
turn before the bike gets to the turn.
--
Pete Cresswell

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by (PeteCresswell » Fri, 05 Apr 2013 01:48:08


Quote:
>"Shared spaces" is the new model for livable city streets - low speed limits...

The best bike/motor vehicle mix I have experienced is Haven Avenue in
Ocean City, New Jersey (USA).

No bike lane, just a "Bike Route" designation, 15 mph speed limit, and
frequent speed bumps with (I *think*.. haven't ridden it in awhile)
notches that bikes can negotiate without taking the bump.

It's not perfect - too many Stop signs... but it's pretty good.
--
Pete Cresswell

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 03:20:13


Quote:

> >"Shared spaces" is the new model for livable city streets - low speed limits...

> The best bike/motor vehicle mix I have experienced is Haven Avenue in
> Ocean City, New Jersey (USA).

> No bike lane, just a "Bike Route" designation, 15 mph speed limit, and
> frequent speed bumps with (I *think*.. haven't ridden it in awhile)
> notches that bikes can negotiate without taking the bump.

> It's not perfect - too many Stop signs... but it's pretty good.

Are they speed bumps, or speed humps?  They're different.

I really wish the originators of Speed Humps had come up with a
different name.  It would have removed a lot of confusion.

- Frank Krygowski

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Jame » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:29:50


Quote:

> 11:20:13 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

>> I really wish the originators of Speed Humps had come up with a
>> different name.  It would have removed a lot of confusion.

> Vertically oriented chicanes? ;)

Speed Jumps

--
JS.

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Dan » Sat, 06 Apr 2013 13:48:25


Quote:


> > >"Shared spaces" is the new model for livable city streets - low speed limits...

> > The best bike/motor vehicle mix I have experienced is Haven Avenue in
> > Ocean City, New Jersey (USA).

> > No bike lane, just a "Bike Route" designation, 15 mph speed limit, and
> > frequent speed bumps with (I *think*.. haven't ridden it in awhile)
> > notches that bikes can negotiate without taking the bump.

> > It's not perfect - too many Stop signs... but it's pretty good.

> Are they speed bumps, or speed humps?  They're different.

> I really wish the originators of Speed Humps had come up with a
> different name.  It would have removed a lot of confusion.

"Speed Humps"?  Have you no shame whatsoever? ;-)

I know, you have so much shame it doesn't even register.

But seriously - the *best* mixed car and bike traffic involves
deliberate obstacles?  I thought you were an "ordinary roads" kind of
guy.  What kind of ordinary road has deliberate impediments?  What is
the objective of a road, anyway?

(Sorry to be "challenging" you like this again.)

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Dan » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 00:45:22


Quote:

> > In a letter from Bicycle Network Victoria to me, after I complained
> > about the spread of Copenhagen style bike lanes around Melbourne.

> > "There was strong opposition to protected bikes lanes in the English
> > speaking world for many years, led by John Forester, an influential
> > force in the American League of Bicyclists.
> > So while Europe went in one direction, the US, UK, Australia, NZ and
> > other places resisted.

> > But the answer was in the data. The bike lanes in Europe seemed to
> > attract massive numbers of riders.
> > Now the whole world is following Europe and Forester and his ideas are
> > as good as dead.
> > Copenhagen lanes and their variations will gradually become the norm,
> > and cycling numbers will rise to never imagined levels.
> > There is no going back."

> Copenhagen and the Netherlands are not representative for the whole of Europe! In Germany the trend is to bring cyclists back into the street, because seperate bike lanes next to the sidewalk have proved to be dangerous at intersections, slip roads, parcing cars and in interaction with pedestrians. Also in narrow streets of old towns there is simply not enough room to allow for wide enough bike lanes, which allow save overtaking and enough distance to pedestrians, lamp posts and parking cars. "Shared spaces" is the new model for livable city streets - low speed limits, no seperate sidewalks, restricted parking. I would wish places, where there is not already much "bike infrastructure", to avoid the errors of Copenhagen, Netherlands and the 70s to 90s in Germany!

> Out of towns, where there are not much pedestrians and intersections, wide enough seperate bike lanes are less problematic.

This is kind of cool:

"The results were striking. Without bumps or flashing warning signs,
drivers slowed, so much so that Mondermans radar gun couldnt even
register their speeds. Rather than clarity and segregation, he had
created confusion and ambiguity. Unsure of what space belonged to
them, drivers became more accommodating. Rather than give drivers a
simple behavi***mandatesay, a speed limit sign or a speed bumphe
had, through the new road design, subtly suggested the proper course
of action. And he did something else. He used context to change
behavior. He had made the main road look like a narrow lane in a
village, not simply a traffic-way through some anonymous town."

"Perhaps unsurprisingly, given how long we have lived with this built
ideology, Mondermans ideas encounter two common criticisms. The first
is that measures that appeal to the better angels of our nature could
never work in a country such as the United States, where drivers seem
stubbornly reluctant to share the road even with other cars, much
less pedestrians and cyclists, and the threat of a lawsuit hovers over
the smallest traffic intervention. It is true that if a local
government is to remove the signs from a busy intersection, and
orchestrate the smooth movement of bicycles and cars through it,
strong social norms must be in place. But norms can be influenced by
context. Picture, for example, the improvised grass parking lots at
county fairs: no stop signs, no speed limits, no markings of any kind
maybe just some kids with flags telling you where to go. But people,
by and large, drive and walk in a cautious manner. There is no great
epidemic of traffic fatalities at county fairs."

... and, perhaps my favorite:

"Traffic signs, for Monderman, were an invitation to stop thinking, to
stop acting on ones own volition. In streets designed to safely
handle the actions of the riskiest participants, everyone slips into
riskier behavior. As he put it to me, There are so many things that
can be forbidden. The stranger thing is that we believe everything
that isnt forbidden is allowed."

http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

News from below on bike lanes.

Post by Frank Krygowsk » Sun, 07 Apr 2013 01:20:21


Quote:



> > > >"Shared spaces" is the new model for livable city streets - low speed limits...

> > > The best bike/motor vehicle mix I have experienced is Haven Avenue in
> > > Ocean City, New Jersey (USA).

> > > No bike lane, just a "Bike Route" designation, 15 mph speed limit, and
> > > frequent speed bumps with (I *think*.. haven't ridden it in awhile)
> > > notches that bikes can negotiate without taking the bump.

> > > It's not perfect - too many Stop signs... but it's pretty good.

> > Are they speed bumps, or speed humps? ?They're different.

> > I really wish the originators of Speed Humps had come up with a
> > different name. ?It would have removed a lot of confusion.

> "Speed Humps"? ?Have you no shame whatsoever? ;-)

> I know, you have so much shame it doesn't even register.

> But seriously - the *best* mixed car and bike traffic involves
> deliberate obstacles? ?I thought you were an "ordinary roads" kind of
> guy. ?What kind of ordinary road has deliberate impediments? ?What is
> the objective of a road, anyway?

Interesting question.  I'd say it depends on the road.

All roads used to have multiple objectives.  (Read, for example,
_Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age..." by Norton)  Most
still do have multiple objectives, despite "motordom's" largely
successful efforts to give the streets to car customers.  Some roads
still have objectives that include giving people a place to walk, kids
a place to play, neighbors a place to socialize, etc.

My neighborhood's streets are an example of the latter.  Yes, kids
still play catch in the street.  Kids walk in the street to get to the
middle school down the street.  People regularly walk their dogs.
Kids and ***s ride bikes.

Yet people use these streets as cut-throughs (NOT short cuts, because
the distance is longer) to avoid the traffic light at the main
intersection.  Example: This Tuesday at 7 PM (NOT a high traffic time)
I was riding my bike to a certain volunteers' meeting.  I watched a
middle-aged woman zoom into our street from the four lane, and
followed her, noting her route.  Down to the stop sign at the middle
school, took the road alongside the school building, turned past the
playground and practice/picnic field, past the village hall and police
station, to get back out and continue on the other main road.  The
ONLY reason she could have done this was because she thought it would
save her the 30 seconds waiting at one or (rarely) two traffic
lights.

Unfortunately, lobbying to dissuade cut-through traffic is difficult.
There are always reactionaries who claim "But if you slow traffic, an
ambulance might get to a heart attack fif*** seconds later, and
someone might DIE!!"  They're in league with the boys with their
lowered, tricked-out, fart-can muffler tuner toys who seem to like the
curves in the streets.

Didn't think they'd be in league with many bicyclists, though.

Quote:
> (Sorry to be "challenging" you like this again.)

I'm not surprised.

- Frank Krygowski