On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:25:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:25:19?PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>>
>> Some people try to attribute every change in the number of commuter
>> cyclists to whatever reason they can come up with that fits the
>> narrative that they are promoting.
>
>Yes, indeed! Thanks for admitting that. What I've been posting on that issue
>is the _lack_ of increase in bike mode share despite countless miles of ever-
>weirder "innovative" bike facilities. They built it, but they didn't come. And to
>repeat, in Portland they keep building "it" and bike mode share is dropping like
>a stone,
>
>>The biggest example of this was an
>> effort to claim that a mandatory helmet law led to a reduction in
>> cycling. The reality was the cycling numbers actually increased after
>> the law was passed. The story then changed to "well, the cycling numbers
>> didn't increase proportionally with the population increase so that
>> proves that the helmet law was responsible."
>
>So Scharf speaks in defense of all-ages mandatory helmet laws!
>
>And Scharf must be referring to Australia's territories and New Zealand, which are really
> the only large jurisdictions with all ages, pretty well enforced mandatory helmet laws (MHLs).
>And although he seems unable to understand concepts like "per capita," the per-capita
>cycling rate dropped sharply when those MHLs were instituted. They have NOT recovered.
>
>> The reality is that cycling
>> numbers change for multiple reasons such as changes in weather, changes
>> in public transit infrastructure, changes in bicycling infrastructure,
>> changes in work culture such as remote-working, demographic changes
>> especially an aging population, and crime.
>
>Yet the drops in Australia's and New Zealand's per capita cycling were step changes,
>drops that occurred immediately after the imposition of the MHLs. What other step
>changes occurred at that same time? Did weather suddenly and permanently become
>more hostile? Did public transit suddenly get built everywhere? Did work culture
>instantanously change across Australia?
>
>No. The biggest change was the sudden imposition of fines (now over $300) for
>riding a bike without a styrofoam hat. Oddly enough, tons of people said "Screw it.
>I'm not riding a bike." And now, after decades of propaganda, tons of people are
>saying "Just riding a bike is so dangerous it can kill you without the funny hat! I'm
>not doing anything that dangerous!"
>
>Meanwhile, pedestrian traffic deaths eclipse bicyclist deaths both in total and per mile
>traveled. But no helmets for them!
>
>- Frank Krygowski

I'm curious as to how the bicycle rider counting is done. It seems to
me that the only method is with polling, and maybe, with all the
latest concerns about personal privacy, many people are rejecting the
polling, as, BTW, I have always done.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 12:08:42 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 24.10.2023 um 00:16 schrieb John B.:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:39:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:36:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 22.10.2023 um 14:23 schrieb John B.:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it?s up with painted bike lanes,
>>>>>>>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn?t seem to do
>>>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>>>>>>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>>>>>>>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>>>>>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>>>>>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>>>>>>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>>>>>>> ie don?t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>>>>>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>>>>>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>>>>>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>>>>>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>>>>>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>>>>>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>>>>>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>>>>>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>>>>>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don?t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>>>>> using I?d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>>>>>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>>>>>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>>>>>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>>>>>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>>>>>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>>>>>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>>>>>>> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can?t not
>>>>>>> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
>>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
>>>>>> In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
>>>>>> owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also in Europe, nearly everybody owns a car. European cites typically
>>>>> fall under
>>>>>>>> places where motoring is somehow restricted or impractical
>>>>> just like New York City or San Francisco.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lack of space means it's impossible to allocate enough space to make car
>>>>> driving enjoyable, so the proportion of people happy to use public
>>>>> transport or bicycles is a lot higher than in sprawled-out cites.
>>>>> This in turn enables politicians to restrict the proportion of land
>>>>> allocated to cars, makeing car driving even less attractive...
>>>>
>>>> Rather like Bangkok. While we had a car we used it mainly for trips
>>>> away from the city. In fact the only time we used it in the city was a
>>>> weekly trip to buy groceries which was about a 2 km drive to the store
>>>> and 2 km home again, with the weeks food..
>>>>
>>>> But having said that, Bangkok has a rather extensive public
>>>> transportation system and it is much quicker to take public
>>>> transportation then to drive.
>>>
>>> Realistically if folks can drive easily then large % will, in general folks
>>> like easy life. As car numbers have grown become less easy particularly in
>>> cities and further in.
>>>
>>> Ie the idea even london which is having significant grown in cycling
>>> numbers are still low, though walking is broadly equal to driving and
>>> public transport ie 3 way split, though the exact split will depend where.
>>>
>>> In general cities seem to be discouraging car use, and encouraging other
>>> uses be that cycling/walking bus/tram/train boats and so on.
>>
>> I suspect that the percentage, anywhere, that will ride a bicycle as a
>> means of transportation will always be low.
>> "GOOD LORD! It's Raining!", for example.
>
>Wrong. Several cities in Europe (typically in the size range of 100,000
>to 500,000 people) have 40% of all journeys made by bicycle; cities
>above 500,000 people are more likely to be public-transport dominated.
>
>Rolf

Yes, I know. Holland for example where they went to considerable
effort to make a country friendly to bicycles. 35,000 km of bike paths
and 140,000 km of auto roads.
https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/09/17/the-worlds-cycling-nation-how-the-netherlands-redesigned-itself-as-a-country-fit-for-bikes
In comparison, the U.S. would have to build some 1,047,550 miles
(1,685,787.8 km) of Bike paths to compete.

Can you imagine a politician standing up and announcing that "If
elected I will build a million miles of bicycle paths which may cost
the tax payer as much as $5,237,600,000."
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney1/library/countermeasures/10.htm
(:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 06:29:28 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:25:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:25:19?PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>>>
>>> Some people try to attribute every change in the number of commuter
>>> cyclists to whatever reason they can come up with that fits the
>>> narrative that they are promoting.
>>
>>Yes, indeed! Thanks for admitting that. What I've been posting on that issue
>>is the _lack_ of increase in bike mode share despite countless miles of ever-
>>weirder "innovative" bike facilities. They built it, but they didn't come. And to
>>repeat, in Portland they keep building "it" and bike mode share is dropping like
>>a stone,
>>
>>>The biggest example of this was an
>>> effort to claim that a mandatory helmet law led to a reduction in
>>> cycling. The reality was the cycling numbers actually increased after
>>> the law was passed. The story then changed to "well, the cycling numbers
>>> didn't increase proportionally with the population increase so that
>>> proves that the helmet law was responsible."
>>
>>So Scharf speaks in defense of all-ages mandatory helmet laws!
>>
>>And Scharf must be referring to Australia's territories and New Zealand, which are really
>> the only large jurisdictions with all ages, pretty well enforced mandatory helmet laws (MHLs).
>>And although he seems unable to understand concepts like "per capita," the per-capita
>>cycling rate dropped sharply when those MHLs were instituted. They have NOT recovered.
>>
>>> The reality is that cycling
>>> numbers change for multiple reasons such as changes in weather, changes
>>> in public transit infrastructure, changes in bicycling infrastructure,
>>> changes in work culture such as remote-working, demographic changes
>>> especially an aging population, and crime.
>>
>>Yet the drops in Australia's and New Zealand's per capita cycling were step changes,
>>drops that occurred immediately after the imposition of the MHLs. What other step
>>changes occurred at that same time? Did weather suddenly and permanently become
>>more hostile? Did public transit suddenly get built everywhere? Did work culture
>>instantanously change across Australia?
>>
>>No. The biggest change was the sudden imposition of fines (now over $300) for
>>riding a bike without a styrofoam hat. Oddly enough, tons of people said "Screw it.
>>I'm not riding a bike." And now, after decades of propaganda, tons of people are
>>saying "Just riding a bike is so dangerous it can kill you without the funny hat! I'm
>>not doing anything that dangerous!"
>>
>>Meanwhile, pedestrian traffic deaths eclipse bicyclist deaths both in total and per mile
>>traveled. But no helmets for them!
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski
>
>I'm curious as to how the bicycle rider counting is done. It seems to
>me that the only method is with polling, and maybe, with all the
>latest concerns about personal privacy, many people are rejecting the
>polling, as, BTW, I have always done.

See
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/04/survey-100-million-americans-bike-each-year-but-few-make-it-a-habit
The study found that about 34 percent of Americans over the age of
three rode a bike at least once in the last year. For adults over 18,
the share was a slightly smaller 29 percent. But of everyone who
bikes, less than half, ride more than twice a month, and just 14
percent bike at least twice a week.

U.S. population - 111,991,433
once a year - 38,077,087
twice a week - 15,678,800
(Note I can find no data for "under 3 years of age", so used 0-4)

Based on a survey of 16,000 American adults. Or some .0014% of the
U.S. population above 4 years of age.

--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 5:42:57 AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>
>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>
> "Don't hug the curb" is absolutely NOT instinctively known in the U.S.! I
> read today about a
> Hollywood producer, known for getting everywhere on his bike, who was
> killed by getting doored.
> He rode close enough to a parked car that when the driver popped the door
> open, the cyclist
> was knocked down immediately in front of a passing car.
>
> Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
> One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road,
> is it not? If that
> were instinctively known, they would not devote
> ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.

A vanishing amount of folks would have any cycle training, or read the
cycling parts of the Highway Code, only transport nerds!

Yet folks do take the lane and so on. I believe that vehicular cycling was
named by observing cyclists.
>
> And I'll remind you that there are individuals in this group who seem to
> believe a cyclist should
> never delay any motorist. I've been called names here for suggesting
> riding lane center is wise.
>
>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>
>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>
>> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>
> Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child
> for "innovative" bike
> facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
> including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
> very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
>
Segregated with light controlled junctions? I suspect not. I’m not
suggesting all has to be at that standard, though arguably just paint is
worse than not at all.

And Portland seems to be an outlier hence I’m sure for your reasons to
choose it, in that its share is dropping while other cities even in America
are increasing.

>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>
>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>
Education hasn’t worked over the years decades if not 100 years roads and
cities have become car centric, which isn’t a force of nature ie doesn’t
have to be so, it is a choice.

> - Frank Krygowski
>
Roger Merriman

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:00:31 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 06:29:28 -0400, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:25:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:25:19?PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some people try to attribute every change in the number of commuter
>>>> cyclists to whatever reason they can come up with that fits the
>>>> narrative that they are promoting.
>>>
>>>Yes, indeed! Thanks for admitting that. What I've been posting on that issue
>>>is the _lack_ of increase in bike mode share despite countless miles of ever-
>>>weirder "innovative" bike facilities. They built it, but they didn't come. And to
>>>repeat, in Portland they keep building "it" and bike mode share is dropping like
>>>a stone,
>>>
>>>>The biggest example of this was an
>>>> effort to claim that a mandatory helmet law led to a reduction in
>>>> cycling. The reality was the cycling numbers actually increased after
>>>> the law was passed. The story then changed to "well, the cycling numbers
>>>> didn't increase proportionally with the population increase so that
>>>> proves that the helmet law was responsible."
>>>
>>>So Scharf speaks in defense of all-ages mandatory helmet laws!
>>>
>>>And Scharf must be referring to Australia's territories and New Zealand, which are really
>>> the only large jurisdictions with all ages, pretty well enforced mandatory helmet laws (MHLs).
>>>And although he seems unable to understand concepts like "per capita," the per-capita
>>>cycling rate dropped sharply when those MHLs were instituted. They have NOT recovered.
>>>
>>>> The reality is that cycling
>>>> numbers change for multiple reasons such as changes in weather, changes
>>>> in public transit infrastructure, changes in bicycling infrastructure,
>>>> changes in work culture such as remote-working, demographic changes
>>>> especially an aging population, and crime.
>>>
>>>Yet the drops in Australia's and New Zealand's per capita cycling were step changes,
>>>drops that occurred immediately after the imposition of the MHLs. What other step
>>>changes occurred at that same time? Did weather suddenly and permanently become
>>>more hostile? Did public transit suddenly get built everywhere? Did work culture
>>>instantanously change across Australia?
>>>
>>>No. The biggest change was the sudden imposition of fines (now over $300) for
>>>riding a bike without a styrofoam hat. Oddly enough, tons of people said "Screw it.
>>>I'm not riding a bike." And now, after decades of propaganda, tons of people are
>>>saying "Just riding a bike is so dangerous it can kill you without the funny hat! I'm
>>>not doing anything that dangerous!"
>>>
>>>Meanwhile, pedestrian traffic deaths eclipse bicyclist deaths both in total and per mile
>>>traveled. But no helmets for them!
>>>
>>>- Frank Krygowski
>>
>>I'm curious as to how the bicycle rider counting is done. It seems to
>>me that the only method is with polling, and maybe, with all the
>>latest concerns about personal privacy, many people are rejecting the
>>polling, as, BTW, I have always done.
>
>See
>https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/04/survey-100-million-americans-bike-each-year-but-few-make-it-a-habit
>The study found that about 34 percent of Americans over the age of
>three rode a bike at least once in the last year. For adults over 18,
>the share was a slightly smaller 29 percent. But of everyone who
>bikes, less than half, ride more than twice a month, and just 14
>percent bike at least twice a week.
>
>U.S. population - 111,991,433
>once a year - 38,077,087
>twice a week - 15,678,800
>(Note I can find no data for "under 3 years of age", so used 0-4)
>
>Based on a survey of 16,000 American adults. Or some .0014% of the
>U.S. population above 4 years of age.

I have trouble accepting the results of surveys asking about people's
habits and preferences. There are some people who are eager to be
acknowledged, and others, like myself, who aren't.

That being said, it's obvious that in a list of countries, the USA is
pretty low in the bicycling_for_transportation category. I don't know
and I don't care why that is, and I'm not interested in trying to
change that. I think people should be able to ride their bikes when,
where, how, and for whatever reasons appeals to them. I also think the
efforts to limit gas powered vehicles are best left to the market, and
not the nanny government.

On 10/24/2023 7:00 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/04/survey-100-million-americans-bike-each-year-but-few-make-it-a-habit
> The study found that about 34 percent of Americans over the age of
> three rode a bike at least once in the last year. For adults over 18,
> the share was a slightly smaller 29 percent. But of everyone who
> bikes, less than half, ride more than twice a month, and just 14
> percent bike at least twice a week.
>
> U.S. population - 111,991,433
> once a year - 38,077,087
> twice a week - 15,678,800
> (Note I can find no data for "under 3 years of age", so used 0-4)
>
> Based on a survey of 16,000 American adults. Or some .0014% of the
> U.S. population above 4 years of age.

Such a study, conducted over the entire country, is pretty worthless.
There are parts of the U.S. where bicycle use is high for a number of
factors, including weather, income, ethnicity, bicycle infrastructure,
types of industries, etc..

In my area you have professionals commuting to work, elderly parents
from China that live with their adult children and don't drive so they
bike to the store or to pick up their grandchildren from school, day
workers, and students, which contributes to a relatively high percentage
of cyclists, though still small in the scheme of things. In other areas
of the U.S. bicycling is less practical for much of the year, either too
hot and humid or too cold and snowy.

You also have the effects of the pandemic bike boom where people were
biking for recreation and, in cities, for commuting because they wanted
to stay off of public transit
<https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/10/07/dot-cycling-in-the-city-report-confirms-2020-bike-boom-really-happened>.
The pandemic also increased driving as people stayed off of public transit.

--
“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 Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:34:36 AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
> > One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road,
> > is it not? If that
> > were instinctively known, they would not devote
> > ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.
> A vanishing amount of folks would have any cycle training, or read the
> cycling parts of the Highway Code, only transport nerds!
>
> Yet folks do take the lane and so on. I believe that vehicular cycling was
> named by observing cyclists.

Vehicular Cycling is mostly just riding according to normal laws
for vehicles, which is what the laws actually tell cyclists to do. John Forester did
the most to promote the idea in the U.S., and point out that "cyclists fare best" when
doing that, as opposed to other oddball behaviors.

Forester said he didn't invent the practice of vehicular cycling. Instead, he learned it
as standard behavior when growing up in Britain. He claimed it was much more common
there, possibly because Brits have always used bikes for transportation. Americans did
not. From the 1930s to the 1970s at least, American bikes were considered just kids' toys.
And kids were told nonsense like "Ride facing traffic so you can see cars coming" or "If a
car comes, get off the road until it's gone" or "It's safer to always ride on the sidewalk."
Forester was among the first here to point out the fallacy of those ideas.

> >> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
> >> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
> >
> > Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child
> > for "innovative" bike
> > facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
> > including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
> > very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
> >
> Segregated with light controlled junctions? I suspect not. I’m not
> suggesting all has to be at that standard, though arguably just paint is
> worse than not at all.

I've already noted the ever-increasing criteria for "safety" among the timid. Is "Segregated with
light controlled junctions" now going to be THE minimum standard for "safety"? So will bike
advocates next year be saying "We NEED separate traffic light phases at every intersection so
our 'protected bike lanes' will finally be SAFE!"?

How will you convince the countless jurisdictions in America to spend the money
on the installation of those special traffic lights? How will you justify the cost in
loss of intersection efficiency, and in increased travel times and traffic congestion?

> And Portland seems to be an outlier hence I’m sure for your reasons to
> choose it, in that its share is dropping while other cities even in America
> are increasing.

Portland is an outlier, famous for having a long, long history of installing a huge array
of ever-weirder bike facilities. It's also been famous for its outsized bike mode
share (although that was computed in a rather deceptive way). The "Paint & Path"
crowd used Portland as their "proof" of "Build it and they will come," claiming
that the (only?) reason Portland had a pretty large bike mode share was its bike
facility collection. They claimed that, even way back when there was nothing 'fancier'
than a painted bike lane, BTW - those same stripes that "paint & path" people now
deride as terribly inadequate.

But it seems obvious to me that the bike lanes, etc. were not THE cause of Portland's
bike boom, any more than the bike lanes caused Portland's tattoos, leather
jackets, music scene, vegan restaurants and all the rest. Portland attracted a young
demographic that is proud of its weirdness. (Our kid still has a bumper sticker
saying "Keep Portland Weird".) Fashions come there, and fashions go.

It is a really interesting city. But the really heavy use of bikes is largely in the flattest
areas, not the extremely hilly west side of the city. (Jay Beattie was a strong
exception to that.) Portland's climate is mild, somewhat rainy but usually with
few days of snow or ice, few days of high humidity heat. The most bikeable
parts have mixed use neighborhoods, with plenty of housing close to plenty
of shops, so short trip lengths. All that facilitates bike use. Yet despite those factors
plus the large collection of bike facilities, it looks like cycling is going out of fashion, with
mode share suddenly down more than half.

> >>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
> >
> Education hasn’t worked over the years decades if not 100 years roads and
> cities have become car centric, which isn’t a force of nature ie doesn’t
> have to be so, it is a choice.

The definition of "works" depends on the goal. Your phrasing suggests your goal
is to free cities from dominance by automobiles and drivers. While I think that
would be pleasant in many ways, I think that in the U.S. at least, that is flat out
impossible - barring, say, major asteroid strikes that totally disrupt society.

My goal was always to ride my bike wherever I wanted to ride my bike. I chose
to bike for transportation as well as recreation, and I wanted to do it safely
and enjoy it. For that, I had two choices: Education (that is, learn how to do it)
or "Wait For Special Infrastructure."

If I'd chosen the latter, I'd have missed out on over 50 years of wonderful cycling.

BTW, I'm out of town on a family visit now. In a few minutes I'll get on my bike and
ride to do some light shopping, then I'll head to a library where a book is waiting for me
to borrow. If I needed separate bike facilities, I'd have to wait for a few more years
to make those trips.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:34:36?AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
>> > One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road,
>> > is it not? If that
>> > were instinctively known, they would not devote
>> > ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.
>> A vanishing amount of folks would have any cycle training, or read the
>> cycling parts of the Highway Code, only transport nerds!
>>
>> Yet folks do take the lane and so on. I believe that vehicular cycling was
>> named by observing cyclists.
>
>Vehicular Cycling is mostly just riding according to normal laws
>for vehicles, which is what the laws actually tell cyclists to do. John Forester did
>the most to promote the idea in the U.S., and point out that "cyclists fare best" when
>doing that, as opposed to other oddball behaviors.

That seemed to be his opinion, anyway...

>Forester said he didn't invent the practice of vehicular cycling. Instead, he learned it
>as standard behavior when growing up in Britain. He claimed it was much more common
>there, possibly because Brits have always used bikes for transportation. Americans did
>not. From the 1930s to the 1970s at least, American bikes were considered just kids' toys.
>And kids were told nonsense like "Ride facing traffic so you can see cars coming" or "If a
>car comes, get off the road until it's gone" or "It's safer to always ride on the sidewalk."
>Forester was among the first here to point out the fallacy of those ideas.
>
>> >> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>> >> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>> >
>> > Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child
>> > for "innovative" bike
>> > facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
>> > including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
>> > very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
>> >
>> Segregated with light controlled junctions? I suspect not. I’m not
>> suggesting all has to be at that standard, though arguably just paint is
>> worse than not at all.
>
>
>I've already noted the ever-increasing criteria for "safety" among the timid. Is "Segregated with
>light controlled junctions" now going to be THE minimum standard for "safety"? So will bike
>advocates next year be saying "We NEED separate traffic light phases at every intersection so
>our 'protected bike lanes' will finally be SAFE!"?
>
>How will you convince the countless jurisdictions in America to spend the money
>on the installation of those special traffic lights? How will you justify the cost in
>loss of intersection efficiency, and in increased travel times and traffic congestion?

I'm not interested in "those special traffic lights." Mostly, when
riding, I ignore any and all traffic lights.

>> And Portland seems to be an outlier hence I’m sure for your reasons to
>> choose it, in that its share is dropping while other cities even in America
>> are increasing.
>
>Portland is an outlier, famous for having a long, long history of installing a huge array
>of ever-weirder bike facilities. It's also been famous for its outsized bike mode
>share (although that was computed in a rather deceptive way). The "Paint & Path"
>crowd used Portland as their "proof" of "Build it and they will come," claiming
>that the (only?) reason Portland had a pretty large bike mode share was its bike
>facility collection. They claimed that, even way back when there was nothing 'fancier'
>than a painted bike lane, BTW - those same stripes that "paint & path" people now
>deride as terribly inadequate.
>
>But it seems obvious to me that the bike lanes, etc. were not THE cause of Portland's
>bike boom, any more than the bike lanes caused Portland's tattoos, leather
>jackets, music scene, vegan restaurants and all the rest. Portland attracted a young
>demographic that is proud of its weirdness. (Our kid still has a bumper sticker
>saying "Keep Portland Weird".) Fashions come there, and fashions go.
>
>It is a really interesting city. But the really heavy use of bikes is largely in the flattest
>areas, not the extremely hilly west side of the city. (Jay Beattie was a strong
>exception to that.) Portland's climate is mild, somewhat rainy but usually with
>few days of snow or ice, few days of high humidity heat. The most bikeable
>parts have mixed use neighborhoods, with plenty of housing close to plenty
>of shops, so short trip lengths. All that facilitates bike use. Yet despite those factors
>plus the large collection of bike facilities, it looks like cycling is going out of fashion, with
>mode share suddenly down more than half.
>
>
>> >>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>> >
>> Education hasn’t worked over the years decades if not 100 years roads and
>> cities have become car centric, which isn’t a force of nature ie doesn’t
>> have to be so, it is a choice.
>
>The definition of "works" depends on the goal. Your phrasing suggests your goal
>is to free cities from dominance by automobiles and drivers. While I think that
>would be pleasant in many ways, I think that in the U.S. at least, that is flat out
>impossible - barring, say, major asteroid strikes that totally disrupt society.
>
>My goal was always to ride my bike wherever I wanted to ride my bike. I chose
>to bike for transportation as well as recreation, and I wanted to do it safely
>and enjoy it. For that, I had two choices: Education (that is, learn how to do it)
>or "Wait For Special Infrastructure."

Actually,there's a third choice, but it requires the ability to think
for yourself.

>If I'd chosen the latter, I'd have missed out on over 50 years of wonderful cycling.

Funny, I've ridden that long, mostly requiring neither of those
"choices."

>BTW, I'm out of town on a family visit now. In a few minutes I'll get on my bike and
>ride to do some light shopping, then I'll head to a library where a book is waiting for me
>to borrow. If I needed separate bike facilities, I'd have to wait for a few more years
>to make those trips.

What you need is mostly a subjective evaluation.

>- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:46:36 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:34:36?AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
>>> > One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road,
>>> > is it not? If that
>>> > were instinctively known, they would not devote
>>> > ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.
>>> A vanishing amount of folks would have any cycle training, or read the
>>> cycling parts of the Highway Code, only transport nerds!
>>>
>>> Yet folks do take the lane and so on. I believe that vehicular cycling was
>>> named by observing cyclists.
>>
>>Vehicular Cycling is mostly just riding according to normal laws
>>for vehicles, which is what the laws actually tell cyclists to do. John Forester did
>>the most to promote the idea in the U.S., and point out that "cyclists fare best" when
>>doing that, as opposed to other oddball behaviors.
>
>That seemed to be his opinion, anyway...
>
>>Forester said he didn't invent the practice of vehicular cycling. Instead, he learned it
>>as standard behavior when growing up in Britain. He claimed it was much more common
>>there, possibly because Brits have always used bikes for transportation. Americans did
>>not. From the 1930s to the 1970s at least, American bikes were considered just kids' toys.
>>And kids were told nonsense like "Ride facing traffic so you can see cars coming" or "If a
>>car comes, get off the road until it's gone" or "It's safer to always ride on the sidewalk."
>>Forester was among the first here to point out the fallacy of those ideas.
>>
>>> >> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>> >> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>> >
>>> > Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child
>>> > for "innovative" bike
>>> > facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
>>> > including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
>>> > very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
>>> >
>>> Segregated with light controlled junctions? I suspect not. I’m not
>>> suggesting all has to be at that standard, though arguably just paint is
>>> worse than not at all.
>>
>>
>>I've already noted the ever-increasing criteria for "safety" among the timid. Is "Segregated with
>>light controlled junctions" now going to be THE minimum standard for "safety"? So will bike
>>advocates next year be saying "We NEED separate traffic light phases at every intersection so
>>our 'protected bike lanes' will finally be SAFE!"?
>>
>>How will you convince the countless jurisdictions in America to spend the money
>>on the installation of those special traffic lights? How will you justify the cost in
>>loss of intersection efficiency, and in increased travel times and traffic congestion?
>
>I'm not interested in "those special traffic lights." Mostly, when
>riding, I ignore any and all traffic lights.
>
>>> And Portland seems to be an outlier hence I’m sure for your reasons to
>>> choose it, in that its share is dropping while other cities even in America
>>> are increasing.
>>
>>Portland is an outlier, famous for having a long, long history of installing a huge array
>>of ever-weirder bike facilities. It's also been famous for its outsized bike mode
>>share (although that was computed in a rather deceptive way). The "Paint & Path"
>>crowd used Portland as their "proof" of "Build it and they will come," claiming
>>that the (only?) reason Portland had a pretty large bike mode share was its bike
>>facility collection. They claimed that, even way back when there was nothing 'fancier'
>>than a painted bike lane, BTW - those same stripes that "paint & path" people now
>>deride as terribly inadequate.
>>
>>But it seems obvious to me that the bike lanes, etc. were not THE cause of Portland's
>>bike boom, any more than the bike lanes caused Portland's tattoos, leather
>>jackets, music scene, vegan restaurants and all the rest. Portland attracted a young
>>demographic that is proud of its weirdness. (Our kid still has a bumper sticker
>>saying "Keep Portland Weird".) Fashions come there, and fashions go.
>>
>>It is a really interesting city. But the really heavy use of bikes is largely in the flattest
>>areas, not the extremely hilly west side of the city. (Jay Beattie was a strong
>>exception to that.) Portland's climate is mild, somewhat rainy but usually with
>>few days of snow or ice, few days of high humidity heat. The most bikeable
>>parts have mixed use neighborhoods, with plenty of housing close to plenty
>>of shops, so short trip lengths. All that facilitates bike use. Yet despite those factors
>>plus the large collection of bike facilities, it looks like cycling is going out of fashion, with
>>mode share suddenly down more than half.
>>
>>
>>> >>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>> >
>>> Education hasn’t worked over the years decades if not 100 years roads and
>>> cities have become car centric, which isn’t a force of nature ie doesn’t
>>> have to be so, it is a choice.
>>
>>The definition of "works" depends on the goal. Your phrasing suggests your goal
>>is to free cities from dominance by automobiles and drivers. While I think that
>>would be pleasant in many ways, I think that in the U.S. at least, that is flat out
>>impossible - barring, say, major asteroid strikes that totally disrupt society.
>>
>>My goal was always to ride my bike wherever I wanted to ride my bike. I chose
>>to bike for transportation as well as recreation, and I wanted to do it safely
>>and enjoy it. For that, I had two choices: Education (that is, learn how to do it)
>>or "Wait For Special Infrastructure."
>
>Actually,there's a third choice, but it requires the ability to think
>for yourself.
>
>>If I'd chosen the latter, I'd have missed out on over 50 years of wonderful cycling.
>
>Funny, I've ridden that long, mostly requiring neither of those
>"choices."
>
>>BTW, I'm out of town on a family visit now. In a few minutes I'll get on my bike and
>>ride to do some light shopping, then I'll head to a library where a book is waiting for me
>>to borrow. If I needed separate bike facilities, I'd have to wait for a few more years
>>to make those trips.
>
>What you need is mostly a subjective evaluation.
>
>>- Frank Krygowski

Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
country and bicycle deaths are very low.
But on second thought the most recent bicycle death I've read about in
the news was an American woman who ran a red light and was hit by a
car doing an estimated 60 kmh, while her Thai companion stopped and
wasn't hit. Perhaps Frank and his ilk do need education -
"See it is big and going at a wondrously fast speed. Don't get hit by
it!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:37:53 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 19:00:31 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 06:29:28 -0400, Catrike Rider
>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:25:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:25:19?PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people try to attribute every change in the number of commuter
>>>>> cyclists to whatever reason they can come up with that fits the
>>>>> narrative that they are promoting.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, indeed! Thanks for admitting that. What I've been posting on that issue
>>>>is the _lack_ of increase in bike mode share despite countless miles of ever-
>>>>weirder "innovative" bike facilities. They built it, but they didn't come. And to
>>>>repeat, in Portland they keep building "it" and bike mode share is dropping like
>>>>a stone,
>>>>
>>>>>The biggest example of this was an
>>>>> effort to claim that a mandatory helmet law led to a reduction in
>>>>> cycling. The reality was the cycling numbers actually increased after
>>>>> the law was passed. The story then changed to "well, the cycling numbers
>>>>> didn't increase proportionally with the population increase so that
>>>>> proves that the helmet law was responsible."
>>>>
>>>>So Scharf speaks in defense of all-ages mandatory helmet laws!
>>>>
>>>>And Scharf must be referring to Australia's territories and New Zealand, which are really
>>>> the only large jurisdictions with all ages, pretty well enforced mandatory helmet laws (MHLs).
>>>>And although he seems unable to understand concepts like "per capita," the per-capita
>>>>cycling rate dropped sharply when those MHLs were instituted. They have NOT recovered.
>>>>
>>>>> The reality is that cycling
>>>>> numbers change for multiple reasons such as changes in weather, changes
>>>>> in public transit infrastructure, changes in bicycling infrastructure,
>>>>> changes in work culture such as remote-working, demographic changes
>>>>> especially an aging population, and crime.
>>>>
>>>>Yet the drops in Australia's and New Zealand's per capita cycling were step changes,
>>>>drops that occurred immediately after the imposition of the MHLs. What other step
>>>>changes occurred at that same time? Did weather suddenly and permanently become
>>>>more hostile? Did public transit suddenly get built everywhere? Did work culture
>>>>instantanously change across Australia?
>>>>
>>>>No. The biggest change was the sudden imposition of fines (now over $300) for
>>>>riding a bike without a styrofoam hat. Oddly enough, tons of people said "Screw it.
>>>>I'm not riding a bike." And now, after decades of propaganda, tons of people are
>>>>saying "Just riding a bike is so dangerous it can kill you without the funny hat! I'm
>>>>not doing anything that dangerous!"
>>>>
>>>>Meanwhile, pedestrian traffic deaths eclipse bicyclist deaths both in total and per mile
>>>>traveled. But no helmets for them!
>>>>
>>>>- Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>>I'm curious as to how the bicycle rider counting is done. It seems to
>>>me that the only method is with polling, and maybe, with all the
>>>latest concerns about personal privacy, many people are rejecting the
>>>polling, as, BTW, I have always done.
>>
>>See
>>https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/04/survey-100-million-americans-bike-each-year-but-few-make-it-a-habit
>>The study found that about 34 percent of Americans over the age of
>>three rode a bike at least once in the last year. For adults over 18,
>>the share was a slightly smaller 29 percent. But of everyone who
>>bikes, less than half, ride more than twice a month, and just 14
>>percent bike at least twice a week.
>>
>>U.S. population - 111,991,433
>>once a year - 38,077,087
>>twice a week - 15,678,800
>>(Note I can find no data for "under 3 years of age", so used 0-4)
>>
>>Based on a survey of 16,000 American adults. Or some .0014% of the
>>U.S. population above 4 years of age.
>
>I have trouble accepting the results of surveys asking about people's
>habits and preferences. There are some people who are eager to be
>acknowledged, and others, like myself, who aren't.
>
>That being said, it's obvious that in a list of countries, the USA is
>pretty low in the bicycling_for_transportation category. I don't know
>and I don't care why that is, and I'm not interested in trying to
>change that. I think people should be able to ride their bikes when,
>where, how, and for whatever reasons appeals to them. I also think the
>efforts to limit gas powered vehicles are best left to the market, and
>not the nanny government.

I've told this story before, but again. A good friend was in the
business of doing financial studies for companies and individuals
thinking of starting a new business enterprise. As part of his studies
he often did surveys and in discussing this he once stated, "Tell me
what you want to prove and I'll design a survey to prove it".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 05:30:50 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:46:36 -0400, Catrike Rider
><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:34:36?AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
>>>> > One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road,
>>>> > is it not? If that
>>>> > were instinctively known, they would not devote
>>>> > ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.
>>>> A vanishing amount of folks would have any cycle training, or read the
>>>> cycling parts of the Highway Code, only transport nerds!
>>>>
>>>> Yet folks do take the lane and so on. I believe that vehicular cycling was
>>>> named by observing cyclists.
>>>
>>>Vehicular Cycling is mostly just riding according to normal laws
>>>for vehicles, which is what the laws actually tell cyclists to do. John Forester did
>>>the most to promote the idea in the U.S., and point out that "cyclists fare best" when
>>>doing that, as opposed to other oddball behaviors.
>>
>>That seemed to be his opinion, anyway...
>>
>>>Forester said he didn't invent the practice of vehicular cycling. Instead, he learned it
>>>as standard behavior when growing up in Britain. He claimed it was much more common
>>>there, possibly because Brits have always used bikes for transportation. Americans did
>>>not. From the 1930s to the 1970s at least, American bikes were considered just kids' toys.
>>>And kids were told nonsense like "Ride facing traffic so you can see cars coming" or "If a
>>>car comes, get off the road until it's gone" or "It's safer to always ride on the sidewalk."
>>>Forester was among the first here to point out the fallacy of those ideas.
>>>
>>>> >> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>> >> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>> >
>>>> > Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child
>>>> > for "innovative" bike
>>>> > facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
>>>> > including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
>>>> > very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
>>>> >
>>>> Segregated with light controlled junctions? I suspect not. I’m not
>>>> suggesting all has to be at that standard, though arguably just paint is
>>>> worse than not at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've already noted the ever-increasing criteria for "safety" among the timid. Is "Segregated with
>>>light controlled junctions" now going to be THE minimum standard for "safety"? So will bike
>>>advocates next year be saying "We NEED separate traffic light phases at every intersection so
>>>our 'protected bike lanes' will finally be SAFE!"?
>>>
>>>How will you convince the countless jurisdictions in America to spend the money
>>>on the installation of those special traffic lights? How will you justify the cost in
>>>loss of intersection efficiency, and in increased travel times and traffic congestion?
>>
>>I'm not interested in "those special traffic lights." Mostly, when
>>riding, I ignore any and all traffic lights.
>>
>>>> And Portland seems to be an outlier hence I’m sure for your reasons to
>>>> choose it, in that its share is dropping while other cities even in America
>>>> are increasing.
>>>
>>>Portland is an outlier, famous for having a long, long history of installing a huge array
>>>of ever-weirder bike facilities. It's also been famous for its outsized bike mode
>>>share (although that was computed in a rather deceptive way). The "Paint & Path"
>>>crowd used Portland as their "proof" of "Build it and they will come," claiming
>>>that the (only?) reason Portland had a pretty large bike mode share was its bike
>>>facility collection. They claimed that, even way back when there was nothing 'fancier'
>>>than a painted bike lane, BTW - those same stripes that "paint & path" people now
>>>deride as terribly inadequate.
>>>
>>>But it seems obvious to me that the bike lanes, etc. were not THE cause of Portland's
>>>bike boom, any more than the bike lanes caused Portland's tattoos, leather
>>>jackets, music scene, vegan restaurants and all the rest. Portland attracted a young
>>>demographic that is proud of its weirdness. (Our kid still has a bumper sticker
>>>saying "Keep Portland Weird".) Fashions come there, and fashions go.
>>>
>>>It is a really interesting city. But the really heavy use of bikes is largely in the flattest
>>>areas, not the extremely hilly west side of the city. (Jay Beattie was a strong
>>>exception to that.) Portland's climate is mild, somewhat rainy but usually with
>>>few days of snow or ice, few days of high humidity heat. The most bikeable
>>>parts have mixed use neighborhoods, with plenty of housing close to plenty
>>>of shops, so short trip lengths. All that facilitates bike use. Yet despite those factors
>>>plus the large collection of bike facilities, it looks like cycling is going out of fashion, with
>>>mode share suddenly down more than half.
>>>
>>>
>>>> >>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>> >
>>>> Education hasn’t worked over the years decades if not 100 years roads and
>>>> cities have become car centric, which isn’t a force of nature ie doesn’t
>>>> have to be so, it is a choice.
>>>
>>>The definition of "works" depends on the goal. Your phrasing suggests your goal
>>>is to free cities from dominance by automobiles and drivers. While I think that
>>>would be pleasant in many ways, I think that in the U.S. at least, that is flat out
>>>impossible - barring, say, major asteroid strikes that totally disrupt society.
>>>
>>>My goal was always to ride my bike wherever I wanted to ride my bike. I chose
>>>to bike for transportation as well as recreation, and I wanted to do it safely
>>>and enjoy it. For that, I had two choices: Education (that is, learn how to do it)
>>>or "Wait For Special Infrastructure."
>>
>>Actually,there's a third choice, but it requires the ability to think
>>for yourself.
>>
>>>If I'd chosen the latter, I'd have missed out on over 50 years of wonderful cycling.
>>
>>Funny, I've ridden that long, mostly requiring neither of those
>>"choices."
>>
>>>BTW, I'm out of town on a family visit now. In a few minutes I'll get on my bike and
>>>ride to do some light shopping, then I'll head to a library where a book is waiting for me
>>>to borrow. If I needed separate bike facilities, I'd have to wait for a few more years
>>>to make those trips.
>>
>>What you need is mostly a subjective evaluation.
>>
>>>- Frank Krygowski
>
>Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
>countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
>guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
>country and bicycle deaths are very low.

Actually, he says he needed education to ride here in the USA. OTOH,
I learned all by myself when I was a little kid.

<Sigh> Some people can't learn anything without a related education.
>But on second thought the most recent bicycle death I've read about in
>the news was an American woman who ran a red light and was hit by a
>car doing an estimated 60 kmh, while her Thai companion stopped and
>wasn't hit. Perhaps Frank and his ilk do need education -
>"See it is big and going at a wondrously fast speed. Don't get hit by
>it!"

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 18:50:53 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 05:30:50 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:46:36 -0400, Catrike Rider
>><soloman@drafting.not> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 09:10:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:34:36?AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
>>>>> > One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road,
>>>>> > is it not? If that
>>>>> > were instinctively known, they would not devote
>>>>> > ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.
>>>>> A vanishing amount of folks would have any cycle training, or read the
>>>>> cycling parts of the Highway Code, only transport nerds!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet folks do take the lane and so on. I believe that vehicular cycling was
>>>>> named by observing cyclists.
>>>>
>>>>Vehicular Cycling is mostly just riding according to normal laws
>>>>for vehicles, which is what the laws actually tell cyclists to do. John Forester did
>>>>the most to promote the idea in the U.S., and point out that "cyclists fare best" when
>>>>doing that, as opposed to other oddball behaviors.
>>>
>>>That seemed to be his opinion, anyway...
>>>
>>>>Forester said he didn't invent the practice of vehicular cycling. Instead, he learned it
>>>>as standard behavior when growing up in Britain. He claimed it was much more common
>>>>there, possibly because Brits have always used bikes for transportation. Americans did
>>>>not. From the 1930s to the 1970s at least, American bikes were considered just kids' toys.
>>>>And kids were told nonsense like "Ride facing traffic so you can see cars coming" or "If a
>>>>car comes, get off the road until it's gone" or "It's safer to always ride on the sidewalk."
>>>>Forester was among the first here to point out the fallacy of those ideas.
>>>>
>>>>> >> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>>> >> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child
>>>>> > for "innovative" bike
>>>>> > facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
>>>>> > including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
>>>>> > very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Segregated with light controlled junctions? I suspect not. I’m not
>>>>> suggesting all has to be at that standard, though arguably just paint is
>>>>> worse than not at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I've already noted the ever-increasing criteria for "safety" among the timid. Is "Segregated with
>>>>light controlled junctions" now going to be THE minimum standard for "safety"? So will bike
>>>>advocates next year be saying "We NEED separate traffic light phases at every intersection so
>>>>our 'protected bike lanes' will finally be SAFE!"?
>>>>
>>>>How will you convince the countless jurisdictions in America to spend the money
>>>>on the installation of those special traffic lights? How will you justify the cost in
>>>>loss of intersection efficiency, and in increased travel times and traffic congestion?
>>>
>>>I'm not interested in "those special traffic lights." Mostly, when
>>>riding, I ignore any and all traffic lights.
>>>
>>>>> And Portland seems to be an outlier hence I’m sure for your reasons to
>>>>> choose it, in that its share is dropping while other cities even in America
>>>>> are increasing.
>>>>
>>>>Portland is an outlier, famous for having a long, long history of installing a huge array
>>>>of ever-weirder bike facilities. It's also been famous for its outsized bike mode
>>>>share (although that was computed in a rather deceptive way). The "Paint & Path"
>>>>crowd used Portland as their "proof" of "Build it and they will come," claiming
>>>>that the (only?) reason Portland had a pretty large bike mode share was its bike
>>>>facility collection. They claimed that, even way back when there was nothing 'fancier'
>>>>than a painted bike lane, BTW - those same stripes that "paint & path" people now
>>>>deride as terribly inadequate.
>>>>
>>>>But it seems obvious to me that the bike lanes, etc. were not THE cause of Portland's
>>>>bike boom, any more than the bike lanes caused Portland's tattoos, leather
>>>>jackets, music scene, vegan restaurants and all the rest. Portland attracted a young
>>>>demographic that is proud of its weirdness. (Our kid still has a bumper sticker
>>>>saying "Keep Portland Weird".) Fashions come there, and fashions go.
>>>>
>>>>It is a really interesting city. But the really heavy use of bikes is largely in the flattest
>>>>areas, not the extremely hilly west side of the city. (Jay Beattie was a strong
>>>>exception to that.) Portland's climate is mild, somewhat rainy but usually with
>>>>few days of snow or ice, few days of high humidity heat. The most bikeable
>>>>parts have mixed use neighborhoods, with plenty of housing close to plenty
>>>>of shops, so short trip lengths. All that facilitates bike use. Yet despite those factors
>>>>plus the large collection of bike facilities, it looks like cycling is going out of fashion, with
>>>>mode share suddenly down more than half.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> >>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>>> >
>>>>> Education hasn’t worked over the years decades if not 100 years roads and
>>>>> cities have become car centric, which isn’t a force of nature ie doesn’t
>>>>> have to be so, it is a choice.
>>>>
>>>>The definition of "works" depends on the goal. Your phrasing suggests your goal
>>>>is to free cities from dominance by automobiles and drivers. While I think that
>>>>would be pleasant in many ways, I think that in the U.S. at least, that is flat out
>>>>impossible - barring, say, major asteroid strikes that totally disrupt society.
>>>>
>>>>My goal was always to ride my bike wherever I wanted to ride my bike. I chose
>>>>to bike for transportation as well as recreation, and I wanted to do it safely
>>>>and enjoy it. For that, I had two choices: Education (that is, learn how to do it)
>>>>or "Wait For Special Infrastructure."
>>>
>>>Actually,there's a third choice, but it requires the ability to think
>>>for yourself.
>>>
>>>>If I'd chosen the latter, I'd have missed out on over 50 years of wonderful cycling.
>>>
>>>Funny, I've ridden that long, mostly requiring neither of those
>>>"choices."
>>>
>>>>BTW, I'm out of town on a family visit now. In a few minutes I'll get on my bike and
>>>>ride to do some light shopping, then I'll head to a library where a book is waiting for me
>>>>to borrow. If I needed separate bike facilities, I'd have to wait for a few more years
>>>>to make those trips.
>>>
>>>What you need is mostly a subjective evaluation.
>>>
>>>>- Frank Krygowski
>>
>>Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
>>countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
>>guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
>>country and bicycle deaths are very low.
>
>Actually, he says he needed education to ride here in the USA. OTOH,
>I learned all by myself when I was a little kid.
>
><Sigh> Some people can't learn anything without a related education.
>
>>But on second thought the most recent bicycle death I've read about in
>>the news was an American woman who ran a red light and was hit by a
>>car doing an estimated 60 kmh, while her Thai companion stopped and
>>wasn't hit. Perhaps Frank and his ilk do need education -
>>"See it is big and going at a wondrously fast speed. Don't get hit by
>>it!"

On 10/24/2023 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
> countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
> guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
> country and bicycle deaths are very low.

I don't know about cycling conditions in Thailand. I know about them in
the U.S., Canada and Europe.

You yourself has said many times that half of U.S. bike fatalities are
due to cyclist mistakes. Now are you trying to pretend that those people
wouldn't have done better if they had known how to avoid the mistake
that killed them? Really?

> But on second thought the most recent bicycle death I've read about in
> the news was an American woman who ran a red light and was hit by a
> car doing an estimated 60 kmh, while her Thai companion stopped and
> wasn't hit. Perhaps Frank and his ilk do need education ...

I've ridden as an avid adult cyclist for over 50 years. I've ridden in
47 states and something like 10 countries. I've fallen only three times
on the road. I've never had a crash with a car. I think the learning
I've done has contributed to that record.

Others may be fond of ignorance. I'm not.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/24/2023 6:50 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>
> Actually, he says he needed education to ride here in the USA. OTOH,
> I learned all by myself when I was a little kid.

Nobody needs much education to ride back and forth, back and forth on a
flat bike trail, riding something that doesn't even require balancing.

But hey, if it keeps you moving, that's good for you.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 23:12:59 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 10/24/2023 6:50 PM, Catrike Rider wrote:
>>
>> Actually, he says he needed education to ride here in the USA. OTOH,
>> I learned all by myself when I was a little kid.
>
>Nobody needs much education to ride back and forth, back and forth on a
>flat bike trail, riding something that doesn't even require balancing.

I also needed no "education" to ride the thousands of miles I rode on
roads before I bought the Catrike, lots of it in Illinois, Wisconsin,
and here in Florida, and some in Colorado and around Central America
and the Carribean.

I realize that some people don't have the ability to learn things on
their own, but I'm not one of them.

Riding in hills, like I did just a few days ago, doesn't require any
different skills than riding where it's flat, regardless of the type
of bicyle.

....and by the way, balancing a bicycle is generally a skill little
children learn all by themselves.

>But hey, if it keeps you moving, that's good for you.

--

Yes, little fella, I ride a Catrike, always alone, mostly on bike
trails, carrying a gun, and never without attaching my feet to the
pedals. Nowdays,I always truck my bike to where I start my ride. I
tried and found riding a bike to the grocery store and other routine
trips to be boring. I hope I am never reduced to riding like that.
I am arrogantly proud of my bicycle rides and all my other
accomplishments. As an introvert, I also value my solitude and thus
reject intrusions so I'm free to tune into my own inner monologue.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 9:34:36 AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for
>>> cyclists, does it not?
>>> One of the main points is to ride in the
>>> "primary position" on the road,
>>> is it not? If that
>>> were instinctively known, they would not devote
>>> ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.
>> A vanishing amount of folks would have any cycle training, or read the
>> cycling parts of the Highway Code, only transport nerds!
>>
>> Yet folks do take the lane and so on. I believe that vehicular cycling was
>> named by observing cyclists.
>
> Vehicular Cycling is mostly just riding according to normal laws
> for vehicles, which is what the laws actually tell cyclists to do. John Forester did
> the most to promote the idea in the U.S., and point out that "cyclists fare best" when
> doing that, as opposed to other oddball behaviors.
>
> Forester said he didn't invent the practice of vehicular cycling. Instead, he learned it
> as standard behavior when growing up in Britain. He claimed it was much more common
> there, possibly because Brits have always used bikes for transportation. Americans did
> not. From the 1930s to the 1970s at least, American bikes were considered just kids' toys.
> And kids were told nonsense like "Ride facing traffic so you can see cars coming" or "If a
> car comes, get off the road until it's gone" or "It's safer to always
> ride on the sidewalk."
> Forester was among the first here to point out the fallacy of those ideas.
>
>>>> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>
>>> Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child
>>> for "innovative" bike
>>> facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes
>>> in countless cities,
>>> including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and
>>> complained about the
>>> very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.

Just because it’s new doesn’t mean it’s a new design, which really is my
point. Ie modern designs are segregated (mosty) and will get folks across
junctions etc.

As aside have you ridden Glenn Jackson bridge then? Has a cycleway down the
middle of the freeway, which is folks say is very loud though some folks do
like it! My commute is next to a large road though your mostly shielding by
vegetation and a few feet of verge so not as loud, though the large flyover
doesn’t though traffic isn’t as fast or as big as the freeway does have
good view into to london though due to its height!

>>>
>> Segregated with light controlled junctions? I suspect not. I’m not
>> suggesting all has to be at that standard, though arguably just paint is
>> worse than not at all.
>
>
> I've already noted the ever-increasing criteria for "safety" among the
> timid. Is "Segregated with
> light controlled junctions" now going to be THE minimum standard for
> "safety"? So will bike
> advocates next year be saying "We NEED separate
> traffic light phases at every intersection so
> our 'protected bike lanes' will finally be SAFE!"?

Well essentially because they work, number near me. Paint largely doesn’t.
>
> How will you convince the countless jurisdictions in America to spend the money
> on the installation of those special traffic lights? How will you justify the cost in
> loss of intersection efficiency, and in increased travel times and traffic congestion?
>
Doesn’t need to be every junction in my experience cyclists mostly follow
the same routes so infrastructure particularly if there is Bastard
junction.

For myself going into centre, I go via one of the Royal Parks so traffic
lite cross the river via a town Center few back roads and LTN on to the
embankment. Which is dual carriageway, no cycleway for few miles, though
until Parliament it’s only paint though have started added wands near the
junctions.

But from Parliament to Tower is fully segregated lights etc. and it’s made
quite a difference was always the least pleasant bit, least free flowing
and so on. It’s not just the extra numbers but types of riders, ie kids and
families which never got before as well a wide busy multi lane road.

Ie can get quite an effect with targeting areas.

>> And Portland seems to be an outlier hence I’m sure for your reasons to
>> choose it, in that its share is dropping while other cities even in America
>> are increasing.
>
> Portland is an outlier, famous for having a long, long history of installing a huge array
> of ever-weirder bike facilities. It's also been famous for its outsized bike mode
> share (although that was computed in a rather deceptive way). The "Paint & Path"
> crowd used Portland as their "proof" of "Build it and they will come," claiming
> that the (only?) reason Portland had a pretty large bike mode share was its bike
> facility collection. They claimed that, even way back when there was nothing 'fancier'
> than a painted bike lane, BTW - those same stripes that "paint & path" people now
> deride as terribly inadequate.
>
> But it seems obvious to me that the bike lanes, etc. were not THE cause of Portland's
> bike boom, any more than the bike lanes caused Portland's tattoos, leather
> jackets, music scene, vegan restaurants and all the rest. Portland attracted a young
> demographic that is proud of its weirdness. (Our kid still has a bumper sticker
> saying "Keep Portland Weird".) Fashions come there, and fashions go.
>
> It is a really interesting city. But the really heavy use of bikes is
> largely in the flattest
> areas, not the extremely hilly west side of the city. (Jay Beattie was a strong
> exception to that.) Portland's climate is mild, somewhat rainy but usually with
> few days of snow or ice, few days of high humidity heat. The most bikeable
> parts have mixed use neighborhoods, with plenty of housing close to plenty
> of shops, so short trip lengths. All that facilitates bike use. Yet despite those factors
> plus the large collection of bike facilities, it looks like cycling is
> going out of fashion, with
> mode share suddenly down more than half.
>
>
>>>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>
>> Education hasn’t worked over the years decades if not 100 years roads and
>> cities have become car centric, which isn’t a force of nature ie doesn’t
>> have to be so, it is a choice.
>
> The definition of "works" depends on the goal. Your phrasing suggests your goal
> is to free cities from dominance by automobiles and drivers. While I think that
> would be pleasant in many ways, I think that in the U.S. at least, that is flat out
> impossible - barring, say, major asteroid strikes that totally disrupt society.
>
> My goal was always to ride my bike wherever I wanted to ride my bike. I chose
> to bike for transportation as well as recreation, and I wanted to do it safely
> and enjoy it. For that, I had two choices: Education (that is, learn how to do it)
> or "Wait For Special Infrastructure."
>
> If I'd chosen the latter, I'd have missed out on over 50 years of wonderful cycling.
>
> BTW, I'm out of town on a family visit now. In a few minutes I'll get on my bike and
> ride to do some light shopping, then I'll head to a library where a book is waiting for me
> to borrow. If I needed separate bike facilities, I'd have to wait for a few more years
> to make those trips.

Missing the point really as I suspect is deliberate nowhere has 100% cycle
only lanes will always be some roads that don’t.

And yes get some odd folks who ask for stuff in odd places, Richmond park
which is a nature reserve (old deer hunting park) and has a 7 mile park
loop so used by cyclists a lot plus dog walkers and you name it.

But folks have suggested bike lanes, kinda missing the point of Richmond
Park cars are doing 20mph and are generally benign it is very busy at times
but bike lanes?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Roger Merriman

On 10/24/2023 10:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike
>> safely in the
>> countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists
>> but (I'm
>> guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher
>> then in his
>> country and bicycle deaths are very low.
>
> I don't know about cycling conditions in Thailand. I know
> about them in the U.S., Canada and Europe.
>
> You yourself has said many times that half of U.S. bike
> fatalities are due to cyclist mistakes. Now are you trying
> to pretend that those people wouldn't have done better if
> they had known how to avoid the mistake that killed them?
> Really?
>
>> But on second thought the most recent bicycle death I've
>> read about in
>> the news was an American woman who ran a red light and was
>> hit by a
>> car doing an estimated 60 kmh, while her Thai companion
>> stopped and
>> wasn't hit. Perhaps Frank and his ilk do need education ...
>
> I've ridden as an avid adult cyclist for over 50 years. I've
> ridden in 47 states and something like 10 countries. I've
> fallen only three times on the road. I've never had a crash
> with a car. I think the learning I've done has contributed
> to that record.
>
> Others may be fond of ignorance. I'm not.
>

People are a conundrum generally.

'Knowing' traffic law and accepting the logic of traffic
rules doesn't stop people from running red lights, sometimes
to their injury or demise.

One we enter the area of human behavior, logic becomes a
distant small factor.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/24/2023 6:09 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Can you imagine a politician standing up and announcing that "If
> elected I will build a million miles of bicycle paths which may cost
> the tax payer as much as $5,237,600,000."
> https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney1/library/countermeasures/10.htm
> (:-)

No, but I can imagine politicians converting painted bike lanes to
separated bike lanes for relatively low cost, in an effort to prevent
vehicles from driving in the bike lanes.

--
“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 10/24/2023 5:30 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
> countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
> guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
> country and bicycle deaths are very low.

The U.S. is huge and diverse. I have not been to Youngstown Ohio but I
would guess that it's quite different than Silicon Valley in
demographics, weather, and other characteristics.

Agreed that in most countries there is no "education" for cyclists, but
the L.A.B. does provide a useful service with their training.

--
“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

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/2023 5:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
>> countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
>> guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
>> country and bicycle deaths are very low.
>
> The U.S. is huge and diverse. I have not been to Youngstown Ohio but I
> would guess that it's quite different than Silicon Valley in
> demographics, weather, and other characteristics.
>
> Agreed that in most countries there is no "education" for cyclists, but
> the L.A.B. does provide a useful service with their training.
>

Even in smaller countries get quite different terrain and what you’re
likely to,deal with to a extent same with driving, back in wales traffic
volume is low, so folks tend to be less assertive on junctions and so on.

Equally tourists can get caught out by some of the roads, the road that
connects the two villages is steep need 1st gear in places. Folks get stuck
or what ever every few years, even had a Coach party with retired American
Service personnel get lost and attempt to drive down it, didn’t work very
well!

Though local farmer got to show off his new tractor by towing it back up!

Roger Merriman

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:28:18 -0500, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/24/2023 6:09 AM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Can you imagine a politician standing up and announcing that "If
>> elected I will build a million miles of bicycle paths which may cost
>> the tax payer as much as $5,237,600,000."
>> https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney1/library/countermeasures/10.htm
>> (:-)
>
>No, but I can imagine politicians converting painted bike lanes to
>separated bike lanes for relatively low cost, in an effort to prevent
>vehicles from driving in the bike lanes.

The post was intended to be a comparison of bike riding conditions in
the Netherlands to that in the U.S.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:38:02 -0500, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/24/2023 5:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
>> countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
>> guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
>> country and bicycle deaths are very low.
>
>The U.S. is huge and diverse. I have not been to Youngstown Ohio but I
>would guess that it's quite different than Silicon Valley in
>demographics, weather, and other characteristics.
>
>Agreed that in most countries there is no "education" for cyclists, but
>the L.A.B. does provide a useful service with their training.

But Cyclists are vehemently against any form of education.
There has been a number of discussion here about the feasible of
licensing cyclists, i.e. ensuring that they are conversant with
traffic laws, and there has been an overwhelming outcry, "No, No,
No!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 05:45:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:38:02 -0500, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/24/2023 5:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
>>> countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
>>> guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
>>> country and bicycle deaths are very low.
>>
>>The U.S. is huge and diverse. I have not been to Youngstown Ohio but I
>>would guess that it's quite different than Silicon Valley in
>>demographics, weather, and other characteristics.
>>
>>Agreed that in most countries there is no "education" for cyclists, but
>>the L.A.B. does provide a useful service with their training.
>
>But Cyclists are vehemently against any form of education.
>There has been a number of discussion here about the feasible of
>licensing cyclists, i.e. ensuring that they are conversant with
>traffic laws, and there has been an overwhelming outcry, "No, No,
>No!"

I think it's only mandated eduction that's vehemently opposed. Many
people learned how to ride a bike as a child, and quickly learned, all
by themselves how to ride amongst cars and trucks when they started
riding amongst cars and trucks.

I think people going to bicycle education programs are only excuses
for them to get together and socialize with other bicyclists. The
education, itself, is worthless.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 08:16:11 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 10/24/2023 10:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 10/24/2023 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike
>>> safely in the
>>> countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists
>>> but (I'm
>>> guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher
>>> then in his
>>> country and bicycle deaths are very low.
>>
>> I don't know about cycling conditions in Thailand. I know
>> about them in the U.S., Canada and Europe.
>>
>> You yourself has said many times that half of U.S. bike
>> fatalities are due to cyclist mistakes. Now are you trying
>> to pretend that those people wouldn't have done better if
>> they had known how to avoid the mistake that killed them?
>> Really?
>>
>>> But on second thought the most recent bicycle death I've
>>> read about in
>>> the news was an American woman who ran a red light and was
>>> hit by a
>>> car doing an estimated 60 kmh, while her Thai companion
>>> stopped and
>>> wasn't hit. Perhaps Frank and his ilk do need education ...
>>
>> I've ridden as an avid adult cyclist for over 50 years. I've
>> ridden in 47 states and something like 10 countries. I've
>> fallen only three times on the road. I've never had a crash
>> with a car. I think the learning I've done has contributed
>> to that record.
>>
>> Others may be fond of ignorance. I'm not.
>>
>
>People are a conundrum generally.
>
>'Knowing' traffic law and accepting the logic of traffic
>rules doesn't stop people from running red lights, sometimes
>to their injury or demise.
>
>One we enter the area of human behavior, logic becomes a
>distant small factor.

Frank's argument is, at best, foolish and at worse outright lies. I
have not, for example, said that "that half of U.S. bike
fatalities are due to cyclist mistakes". I have said that "the CHP has
stated that half or more then half of the bicycle crashes were the
fault of the Cyclist". Violations of the traffic laws, in other words.

And, I might add, when I have suggested licensing of Cyclists, to
ensure that they were knowledgeable of the traffic laws, Frank has
been one of the loudest in shouting "No! No! No!"

But more of this "learning". The largest trucks you see here will be
40 ft flatbed trucks pulling a 40 ft trailer with two 40 ft Conex
containers up. A 40 ft. Conex has a maximum gross weight of 67,200 lbs
so total cargo is 134,400 lbs - 67 tons. Plus the weight of the rig,
and these trucks will be doing about 100 kmh. Certainly on the "down
hills" and probably on the flats. Does it take a lot of "learning" to
figure out that it is probably not conductive to long life to ride -
thundering along at, say 20 kmh - out in front of these behemoths? Or
in my example,run red lights, in traffic that is traveling 60 kmh or
more.

I might add that I've been ridding for 50 years, but in only 5
countries, and I've fallen only 2 times and never had an altercation
with a car or truck.... with no training at all (:-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 19:23:19 -0400, Catrike Rider
<soloman@drafting.not> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 05:45:22 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 11:38:02 -0500, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/24/2023 5:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> Strange isn't it? Frank needs "education" to ride a bike safely in the
>>>> countries I've lived in there is no education for cyclists but (I'm
>>>> guessing here) the level of cycling is probably higher then in his
>>>> country and bicycle deaths are very low.
>>>
>>>The U.S. is huge and diverse. I have not been to Youngstown Ohio but I
>>>would guess that it's quite different than Silicon Valley in
>>>demographics, weather, and other characteristics.
>>>
>>>Agreed that in most countries there is no "education" for cyclists, but
>>>the L.A.B. does provide a useful service with their training.
>>
>>But Cyclists are vehemently against any form of education.
>>There has been a number of discussion here about the feasible of
>>licensing cyclists, i.e. ensuring that they are conversant with
>>traffic laws, and there has been an overwhelming outcry, "No, No,
>>No!"
>
>I think it's only mandated eduction that's vehemently opposed. Many
>people learned how to ride a bike as a child, and quickly learned, all
>by themselves how to ride amongst cars and trucks when they started
>riding amongst cars and trucks.
>
>I think people going to bicycle education programs are only excuses
>for them to get together and socialize with other bicyclists. The
>education, itself, is worthless.

Well, there certainly is no formal education of cyclists here but the
little Thai girl I've mentioned was certainly riding in a safe and
sensible manner so I assume that it is a matter of the parents or big
brothers and sisters telling the little ones how to act. Just as they
do with other thing.
--
Cheers,

John B.