On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> I assume it’s ideological.

Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
infrastructure.

The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:37:22 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I assume it’s ideological.
>
>Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
>cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
>to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
>infrastructure.
>
>The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
>same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
>separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."

But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
traffic increasing? Or is it more a matter of "Oh! It looks like a
nice day, I guess I'll ride my bike."? Or the alternate, "Goodness,
it's raining and cold, I'll take the car."

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/5/2024 6:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner
>>> london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
>>> routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to
>>> them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive
>>> certainly compared to junction upgrades.
>>
>> I recall when they finally completed one bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
>> a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a vehicle bridge
>> but no one on either side really wanted it because of the additional
>> motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets. Finally they
>> built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it
>> cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for cyclists and it is
>> heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend tax money than to
>> improve transportation infrastructure.

If a person is hugely devoted to bike infrastructure, of course they'll
say spending millions on a bike/ped bridge is a great idea. People like
that are in favor of almost any bike infrastructure, no matter the cost.

>> Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against increasing cycling
>> numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.
>>
> I assume it’s ideological.

First, I'm not against increasing cycling numbers. But I'm skeptical of
the value of most bike infrastructure based on several observations.

One is the inflated promises: "If we build it, they will come!"
promotions promise terrific increases in bike mode share, and with that,
significant decreases in auto use and congestion. AFAICT that almost
never happens. I've seen many, many cities with lots of bike lanes. I
see lots of bikes only very near some universities in some of those
cities, and empty bike lanes elsewhere. Bike mode share in U.S. cities
rarely exceeds 1%, no matter what promises were made.

Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this stuff. The
number one talking point is "safety," as in "This will _finally_ give
people a safe place to ride!" That carries the implication that riding
ordinary streets is just too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By
putting that message out there, I think facilities proponents are
actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making people believe
they should not ride on ordinary streets! And almost all streets in any
city will remain "ordinary" forever. You simply can't put bike
facilities everywhere.

A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike facility is a
good bike facility." I've seen some really crazy stuff built for bikes -
crazy enough that no cyclist I know is likely to use it. They've said so
in conversations I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had
several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities, specifically
because of deficient designs. Based on people I know, the risk per mile
ridden is actually higher on these "innovative" facilities.

A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians push to get
bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure their job is done,
because they have something to point to at reelection time. But it's not
as effective to point at an expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or
guys fixing pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions about that
lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or snow-filled bike lanes are a well
known problem. So is broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.

A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states or countries
where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride on a road without one,
motorists assume you should never do that, and even some cops do the
same. Some motorist get downright aggressive about it. And I think
motorist education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but they
don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or succeed if they do
exist. Hell, within the past two years I had a woman driver slow down,
match my speed, blare her horn and yell at me to "get on that new
sidewalk! My tax dollars paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)

I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike advocate said,
"99 percent of bike lanes give the others a bad name." I think he's
exaggerating only slightly.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/5/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Here in the U.S., the League of American Bicyclists used to be very
>> dedicated to preserving cyclists' rights to the road. In the past 15
>> years or so they've switched to heavily promoting segregation. Some say
>> the change was pushed by prominent bike industry figures who imagine
>> that changing America into Amsterdam will help industry bottom lines.
>>
> That doesn’t need to be either, can do both they aren’t mutually exclusive
> by any means.

True, the two strategies don't need to be mutually exclusive. But from
what I've observed of LAW, they are.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 22:21:02 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/5/2024 6:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner
>>>> london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
>>>> routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to
>>>> them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive
>>>> certainly compared to junction upgrades.
>>>
>>> I recall when they finally completed one bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
>>> a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a vehicle bridge
>>> but no one on either side really wanted it because of the additional
>>> motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets. Finally they
>>> built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
>>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it
>>> cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for cyclists and it is
>>> heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend tax money than to
>>> improve transportation infrastructure.
>
>If a person is hugely devoted to bike infrastructure, of course they'll
>say spending millions on a bike/ped bridge is a great idea. People like
>that are in favor of almost any bike infrastructure, no matter the cost.
>
>>> Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against increasing cycling
>>> numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.
>>>
>> I assume it’s ideological.
>
>First, I'm not against increasing cycling numbers. But I'm skeptical of
>the value of most bike infrastructure based on several observations.
>
>One is the inflated promises: "If we build it, they will come!"
>promotions promise terrific increases in bike mode share, and with that,
>significant decreases in auto use and congestion. AFAICT that almost
>never happens. I've seen many, many cities with lots of bike lanes. I
>see lots of bikes only very near some universities in some of those
>cities, and empty bike lanes elsewhere. Bike mode share in U.S. cities
>rarely exceeds 1%, no matter what promises were made.
>
>Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this stuff. The
>number one talking point is "safety," as in "This will _finally_ give
>people a safe place to ride!" That carries the implication that riding
>ordinary streets is just too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By
>putting that message out there, I think facilities proponents are
>actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making people believe
>they should not ride on ordinary streets! And almost all streets in any
>city will remain "ordinary" forever. You simply can't put bike
>facilities everywhere.
>
>A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike facility is a
>good bike facility." I've seen some really crazy stuff built for bikes -
>crazy enough that no cyclist I know is likely to use it. They've said so
>in conversations I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had
>several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities, specifically
>because of deficient designs. Based on people I know, the risk per mile
>ridden is actually higher on these "innovative" facilities.
>
>A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians push to get
>bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure their job is done,
>because they have something to point to at reelection time. But it's not
>as effective to point at an expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or
>guys fixing pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
>or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions about that
>lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or snow-filled bike lanes are a well
>known problem. So is broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.
>
>A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states or countries
>where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride on a road without one,
>motorists assume you should never do that, and even some cops do the
>same. Some motorist get downright aggressive about it. And I think
>motorist education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but they
>don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or succeed if they do
>exist. Hell, within the past two years I had a woman driver slow down,
>match my speed, blare her horn and yell at me to "get on that new
>sidewalk! My tax dollars paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)
>
>I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike advocate said,
>"99 percent of bike lanes give the others a bad name." I think he's
>exaggerating only slightly.

Here's a simple solution to your problem. If you're afraid to ride in
some "bicycle infrastructure," don't do it

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:37:22 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I assume it’s ideological.
>>
>> Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
>> cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
>> to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
>> same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
>> separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
>
> But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
> traffic increasing? Or is it more a matter of "Oh! It looks like a
> nice day, I guess I'll ride my bike."? Or the alternate, "Goodness,
> it's raining and cold, I'll take the car."
>
In cities as large as London? Absolutely the trend for cars is down.
Driving into london even off peak hours is a monumentally bad idea! And
folks have options such as public transport which is the big hitters, and
yes cycling is growing if fairly low number of mode share.

Roger Merriman

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here in the U.S., the League of American Bicyclists used to be very
>>> dedicated to preserving cyclists' rights to the road. In the past 15
>>> years or so they've switched to heavily promoting segregation. Some say
>>> the change was pushed by prominent bike industry figures who imagine
>>> that changing America into Amsterdam will help industry bottom lines.
>>>
>> That doesn’t need to be either, can do both they aren’t mutually exclusive
>> by any means.
>
> True, the two strategies don't need to be mutually exclusive. But from
> what I've observed of LAW, they are.
>
These things are not set in stone and can be changed as well it’s politics.

Roger Merriman

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 6:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner
>>>> london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
>>>> routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to
>>>> them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive
>>>> certainly compared to junction upgrades.
>>>
>>> I recall when they finally completed one bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
>>> a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a vehicle bridge
>>> but no one on either side really wanted it because of the additional
>>> motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets. Finally they
>>> built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
>>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it
>>> cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for cyclists and it is
>>> heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend tax money than to
>>> improve transportation infrastructure.
>
> If a person is hugely devoted to bike infrastructure, of course they'll
> say spending millions on a bike/ped bridge is a great idea. People like
> that are in favor of almost any bike infrastructure, no matter the cost.
>
>>> Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against increasing cycling
>>> numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.
>>>
>> I assume it’s ideological.
>
> First, I'm not against increasing cycling numbers. But I'm skeptical of
> the value of most bike infrastructure based on several observations.
>
> One is the inflated promises: "If we build it, they will come!"
> promotions promise terrific increases in bike mode share, and with that,
> significant decreases in auto use and congestion. AFAICT that almost
> never happens. I've seen many, many cities with lots of bike lanes. I
> see lots of bikes only very near some universities in some of those
> cities, and empty bike lanes elsewhere. Bike mode share in U.S. cities
> rarely exceeds 1%, no matter what promises were made.
>
On a big city one bike lane etc isn’t going to increase mode share london
is what 15 million or so, but certainly can have a huge increase in numbers
using said infrastructure.

> Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this stuff. The
> number one talking point is "safety," as in "This will _finally_ give
> people a safe place to ride!" That carries the implication that riding
> ordinary streets is just too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By
> putting that message out there, I think facilities proponents are
> actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making people believe
> they should not ride on ordinary streets! And almost all streets in any
> city will remain "ordinary" forever. You simply can't put bike
> facilities everywhere.

Don’t need to in general at least with london the infrastructure is
targeted at least now on main routes, ie generally big roads some of which
absolutely can be accident black spots, ie junctions one in the city of
London has had cars and taxies banned I believe for that reason.

It’s notable with good reason that it’s not just the numbers change but the
diversity of riders ie not just the fast and the brave like myself, who was
happy to take on Hammersmith multi lane roundabout.

And remember it’s not just about absolute risk to, folks experience ie some
roads can be guite grim.
>
> A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike facility is a
> good bike facility." I've seen some really crazy stuff built for bikes -
> crazy enough that no cyclist I know is likely to use it. They've said so
> in conversations I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had
> several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities, specifically
> because of deficient designs. Based on people I know, the risk per mile
> ridden is actually higher on these "innovative" facilities.
>
A few cones isn’t really, it and note some such as the article you linked
are being highly selective.

TfL certainly say they have data that they do work but we are talking
proper segregation ie protected junctions and so on than some cones to keep
cars from wandering over the white line which isn’t totally pointless but
life changing it’s not.

> A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians push to get
> bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure their job is done,
> because they have something to point to at reelection time. But it's not
> as effective to point at an expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or
> guys fixing pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
> or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions about that
> lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or snow-filled bike lanes are a well
> known problem. So is broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.
>
That is maintenance or rather if your town/city etc aren’t clearing it what
on earth are you paying your taxes for?

And London is far from a cycling utopia!

> A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states or countries
> where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride on a road without one,
> motorists assume you should never do that, and even some cops do the
> same. Some motorist get downright aggressive about it. And I think
> motorist education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but they
> don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or succeed if they do
> exist. Hell, within the past two years I had a woman driver slow down,
> match my speed, blare her horn and yell at me to "get on that new
> sidewalk! My tax dollars paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)
>
This sort of thing clearly does happen, though personally not something
that happens to me.

And yes car centric stuff will keep pushing, attempts to change the Highway
Code to suggest cyclists must use bike lanes was rapidly dropped due to
feedback.

> I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike advocate said,
> "99 percent of bike lanes give the others a bad name." I think he's
> exaggerating only slightly.
>
The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
closed mind about these things.

Roger Merriman

On 2/5/2024 9:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 6:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Certainly for cities as large as London (note your
>>>> suburb would be inner
>>>> london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance)
>>>> with number of cycling
>>>> routes which as time has gone on have had cycle
>>>> infrastructure added to
>>>> them, people converge onto them. None of these are
>>>> particularly expensive
>>>> certainly compared to junction upgrades.
>>>
>>> I recall when they finally completed one
>>> bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
>>> a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a
>>> vehicle bridge
>>> but no one on either side really wanted it because of the
>>> additional
>>> motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets.
>>> Finally they
>>> built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
>>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it
>>> cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for
>>> cyclists and it is
>>> heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend
>>> tax money than to
>>> improve transportation infrastructure.
>
> If a person is hugely devoted to bike infrastructure, of
> course they'll say spending millions on a bike/ped bridge is
> a great idea. People like that are in favor of almost any
> bike infrastructure, no matter the cost.
>
>>> Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against
>>> increasing cycling
>>> numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.
>>>
>> I assume it’s ideological.
>
> First, I'm not against increasing cycling numbers. But I'm
> skeptical of the value of most bike infrastructure based on
> several observations.
>
> One is the inflated promises: "If we build it, they will
> come!" promotions promise terrific increases in bike mode
> share, and with that, significant decreases in auto use and
> congestion. AFAICT that almost never happens. I've seen
> many, many cities with lots of bike lanes. I see lots of
> bikes only very near some universities in some of those
> cities, and empty bike lanes elsewhere. Bike mode share in
> U.S. cities rarely exceeds 1%, no matter what promises were
> made.
>
> Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this
> stuff. The number one talking point is "safety," as in "This
> will _finally_ give people a safe place to ride!" That
> carries the implication that riding ordinary streets is just
> too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By putting that
> message out there, I think facilities proponents are
> actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making
> people believe they should not ride on ordinary streets! And
> almost all streets in any city will remain "ordinary"
> forever. You simply can't put bike facilities everywhere.
>
> A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike
> facility is a good bike facility." I've seen some really
> crazy stuff built for bikes - crazy enough that no cyclist I
> know is likely to use it. They've said so in conversations
> I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had
> several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities,
> specifically because of deficient designs. Based on people I
> know, the risk per mile ridden is actually higher on these
> "innovative" facilities.
>
> A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians
> push to get bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure
> their job is done, because they have something to point to
> at reelection time. But it's not as effective to point at an
> expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or guys fixing
> pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
> or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions
> about that lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or
> snow-filled bike lanes are a well known problem. So is
> broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.
>
> A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states
> or countries where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride
> on a road without one, motorists assume you should never do
> that, and even some cops do the same. Some motorist get
> downright aggressive about it. And I think motorist
> education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but
> they don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or
> succeed if they do exist. Hell, within the past two years I
> had a woman driver slow down, match my speed, blare her horn
> and yell at me to "get on that new sidewalk! My tax dollars
> paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)
>
> I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike
> advocate said, "99 percent of bike lanes give the others a
> bad name." I think he's exaggerating only slightly.
>

+1 well done
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I assume it’s ideological.
> Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
> cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
> to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
> infrastructure.
>
> The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
> same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
> separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
> --
> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?

On 2/6/2024 9:18 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>> On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> I assume it’s ideological.
>> Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
>> cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
>> to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
>> same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
>> separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
>> --
>> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
>> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
> So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?

Without.
I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:45:20 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/6/2024 9:18 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28?PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> I assume it’s ideological.
>>> Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
>>> cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
>>> to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>> The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
>>> same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
>>> separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
>>> --
>>> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
>>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
>>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
>>> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
>> So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?
>
>Without.
>I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.

Me too. I don't like cars and trucks whizzing past a couple of feet
away. It's worse on the Catrike where I set below most car's windows.

On 2/5/2024 6:02 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
> traffic increasing?

Not sure about auto traffic declining, but bicycle traffic is absolutely
increasing in areas that have installed bicycle infrastructure.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 2/6/2024 7:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> Without.
> I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.

Except often there are no parallel streets that get you where you need
to go, and often the alternate routes are freeways where you aren't
allowed (with a few exceptions.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 2/6/2024 11:58 AM, sms wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 7:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Without.
>> I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.
>
> Except often there are no parallel streets that get you
> where you need to go, and often the alternate routes are
> freeways where you aren't allowed (with a few exceptions.
>

There's always an alternate. The world is my bicycle route.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Tom Kunich <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>> On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> I assume it’s ideological.
>> Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
>> cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
>> to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
>> same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
>> separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
>> --
>> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
>> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
> So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?
>

Doesn’t it rather depend? On my commute bike or MTB I’m more likely to
choose a bike lane even if it requires crossing etc, on the gravel bike I’m
more likely to keep on the road as I’m comparatively faster.

Roger Merriman

On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
> closed mind about these things.

Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.

The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:55:59 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/5/2024 6:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
>> traffic increasing?
>
>Not sure about auto traffic declining, but bicycle traffic is absolutely
>increasing in areas that have installed bicycle infrastructure.

But, is this a "good" thing?

Given that a "road", the area over which wheel traffic can travel, is
of finite size is it good, in the sense of the traveling public, to
increase the number of vehicles using it?

Added to that, I have frequently heard bike paths described as making
the cyclist "feel safer", but is that a good thing? Given that in any
altercation between a bike and an auto one never sees the auto in the
ditch waiting the ambulance and the bicycle pedaling off with a dent
in the fender.

Is the cyclist actually 'safer"? Is it good for the cyclist to "feel"
safer?

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 16:14:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
>> closed mind about these things.
>
>Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
>problems have vanished recently.
>
>The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
>been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
>local facilities that are less than five years old!

Good Grief. Nobody is going to make you ride where you don't want to
ride. You can keep on "taking the lane." Others have different
priorities, and apparently, there's enough of them to get the
facilities where they want to ride.

On 2/6/2024 12:55 PM, sms wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 6:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
>> traffic increasing?
>
> Not sure about auto traffic declining, but bicycle traffic is absolutely
> increasing in areas that have installed bicycle infrastructure.

Bicycle traffic may be increasing in _some_ areas that have installed
bicycle infrastructure. But it's not increasing in other areas that have
installed bicycle infrastructure.

Then there's the question of how much it's increasing. Raising an
American city's bike mode share from 0.3% to 0.4% counts as
"increasing," strictly speaking; but it's an increase from negligible to
negligible.

And BTW, those are typical values for U.S. cities. One advocacy
organization recently _bragged_ that NYC hit 1% bike mode share!

Spending a million dollars per mile to get a couple more people
occasionally riding bikes makes no sense.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/6/2024 10:18 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>> On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> I assume it’s ideological.
>> Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
>> cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
>> to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
>> same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
>> separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
>> --
>> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
>> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
> So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?

Without, in almost every case I've tried. For one thing, if you remove
the bike lane stripe, you actually have more debris-free pavement.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/6/2024 2:44 PM, John B. wrote:

> Is the cyclist actually 'safer"? Is it good for the cyclist to "feel"
> safer?

Yes, the statistics to bear out the fact that cyclists are safer when
separated from vehicles.

See <https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/5/303.full> and
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 2/7/2024 11:44 AM, sms wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 2:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>> Is the cyclist actually 'safer"? Is it good for the cyclist to "feel"
>> safer?
>
> Yes, the statistics to bear out the fact that cyclists are safer when
> separated from vehicles.
>
> See <https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/5/303.full> and
> <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>.

Alternately, see https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2193

"Compared with cycling on lanes of major roads without bicycle
facilities, the risk of crashing or falling was lower on conventional
bike lanes (adjusted OR=0.53; 95% CI=0.33, 0.86) and local roads with
(adjusted OR=0.31; 95% CI=0.13, 0.75) or without bicycle facilities or
traffic calming (adjusted OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.23, 0.65). Protected bike
lanes with heavy separation (tall, continuous barriers or grade and
horizontal separation) were associated with lower risk (adjusted
OR=0.10; 95% CI=0.01, 0.95), but those with lighter separation (e.g.,
parked cars, posts, low curb) had similar risk to major roads when one
way (adjusted OR=1.19; 95% CI=0.46, 3.10) and higher risk when they were
two way (adjusted OR=11.38; 95% CI=1.40, 92.57)"

Let's review that. So compared to major roads without any bike facilities:

They found adding a paint stripe (which many facilities proponents say
"That's not good enough!!!") cut risk about in half. (OR=.53)

Minor or "local" roads with bike lane stripes had roughly 1/3 the risk
of major roads with no bike facilities. (OR=0.31)

But "Local" roads with no bike facilities had roughly the same level of
safety as those with facilities. (OR=0.39) So adding those stripes to
local roads is hardly worth it.

Heavily "protected" bike lanes had very low risk (OR=0.10) IF they were
one way. But deeper into the paper, that was dominated by such bike
lanes over bridges, where no intersections could occur. And
intersections are the real problem for car-bike crashes. That's where
you get crossing paths and surprises.

Lightly "protected" bike lanes (flex posts, curbs, even parked cars!)
were slightly MORE dangerous than major roads with no facilities!
(OR=1.19) as long as they were one-way.

And the most "stylish" facility these days, the bi-directional
"protected" bike lanes? They were over 11 times as dangerous as a major
road with no bike facilities at all! (Odds ratio OR=11.38)

How come? There can be many reasons, but it's likely that a big one is
half the bicyclists pop into intersections from directions and locations
where motorists don't normally have to look. Here's a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE

So the "bike lanes make you safer" argument is simplistic at best.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 7:45:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 9:18 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> >> On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> I assume it’s ideological.
> >> Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
> >> cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
> >> to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
> >> infrastructure.
> >>
> >> The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
> >> same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
> >> separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
> >> --
> >> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
> >> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
> >> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
> >> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards
> > So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?
> Without.
> I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> a...@yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I tried that in San Francisco and alternate routes that were not also wall to wall traffic actually had pavement surfaces turned to gravel. Google
Maps kept trying to route me on those.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 at 9:58:58 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 7:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Without.
> > I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.
> Except often there are no parallel streets that get you where you need
> to go, and often the alternate routes are freeways where you aren't
> allowed (with a few exceptions.
> --
> “If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
> they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

Particularly on long distance travels. North on the peninsula from Palo Alto to San Francisco doesn't have ANY low traffic side roads and there are few bike lanes but it is clear that where there ARE bike lanes that bicycle travel is much easier. Middlefield road doesn't have a bike lane and really sucks. El Camino Real is outright dangerous. The road that changes its name all of the time from Airport Blvd or Bayshore or 3rd has a bike lane on it over most of its length and travel is so much easier that I find it shocking that others don't agree.