Comments on: 10 blocks into town and 1,000 miles in the wrong direction

By: Steve A

Steve A — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:06:42 +0000

Rantwick says “When I see infrastructure like that, all I see is $$$$.”

When I see infrastructure like that, I see cycling taxes and mandatory use of the infrastructure I didn’t want.

In North Texas, we have infrastructure that pretty much FUNCTIONS like that, but we call them “Freeway Service Roads” and we tell the motorists that they’re for THEIR benefit!

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:10:29 +0000

Ask the man that owns one.

“Europeans have also found increased crash risk in their studies.”

From the German wiki translated by BabelFish:
http://tinyurl.com/qh5kvy
original page: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radverkehrsanlage#Benutzungspflichtige_Radwege

“Numerous international statistic collections and scientific investigations prove that the accident numbers on cycle tracks are clearly higher than on common lanes used of all vehicles [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. ”

15.↑ R. Schnüll, J. Lange, I. Fabian, M. Kölle, F. Schütte, D. Alrutz, H.W. Fechtel, J. Stellmacher-Hein, T. Brückner, H. Meyhöfer: Sicherung von Radfahrern an städtischen Knotenpunkten, Bericht zum Forschungsprojekt 8925 der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, 1992 (Forschungsberichte der BASt, Nr. 262)
16.↑ W. Angenendt, J. Bader, T. Butz, B. Cieslik, W. Draeger, H. Friese, D. Klöckner, M. Lenssen, M. Wilken: Verkehrssichere Anlage und Gestaltung von Radwegen, Bericht V9 der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, 1993
17.↑ Bundesminister für Verkehr (Hg.): Forschung Stadtverkehr, Zusammenfassende Auswertung von Forschungsergebnissen zum Radverkehr in der Stadt, Heft A7, 1991
18.↑ Ole Bach, Ole Rosbach, Else Jørgensen: Cyclestier i byer – den sikkerhedsmæssige effekt, Hg. Vejdirektoratet, Næstved/Dänemark, 1985, auch zu finden in: ADFC Hessen (Hg.): Fahrrad Stadt Verkehr, II. Tagungsband, S. 53–55, Darmstadt 1988
19.↑ Zusammenfassung zur Sicherheit auf Radwegen
20.↑ Drucksache 16/5317 des Deutschen Bundestages, Seite 83/84 (Im PDF: Seite 92/93), Antwort vom 09.05.2007 der Parlamentarischen Staatssekretärs Achim Großmann auf die schriftliche Frage des Abgeordneten Dr. Anton Hofreiter

Links to the last two are on one of the pages I provided links for.

By: Keri

Keri — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:28:37 +0000

I don’t know of any recent studies. When these things were tried in the 70’s they were studied and found unacceptable.

Europeans have also found increased crash risk in their studies. Injuries to exiting bus passengers in Copenhagen increased 1762%. Helsinki’s 2-way sidepaths have 5 times the crash risk of riding with traffic on the road. But, you know, they “must bear up to the end.”

But it’s the new millennium in America, and there’s a noisy contingent of egg-headed academicians who have determined we must coddle people with the illusion of safety to convince them to ride bikes.

Cyclists fare best when the act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. Coddling people who don’t wanna, just to convince them to ride bikes, is bad public policy. Coddling them with an illusion of safety and increased risk is unethical.

It also takes energy and resources away from solving broader traffic safety and infrastructure issues that affect bicyclists and pedestrians.

By: andrewp

andrewp — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:05:46 +0000

I have a different concern about these cycletrack/sidepaths ….. it seems to me that these devices decrease situational awareness. You have pedestrians stepping into these paths because they know there will be no conflicts with cars, so they can walk in any direction, head down, listening to iPods. You have cyclists who let their guard down because they are on paths designated for them, not aware of increased potentials for crashes into objects or pedestrians, and increased risk at intersections. If they were stepping into streets, I think there would be more pedestians looking both ways. Likewise, cyclists would be more aware since they are expected to act like vehicles but are more vulnerable when traffic mistakes are made ….

Do we know if we have any crash statistics on these new cyclepaths to see if what we perceive is actually being born out in hard numbers?

By: Keri

Keri — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:32:06 +0000

Rantwick,

That was exactly my feeling about it!

Watching the cyclists in St Pete really bummed me out. So much wrong-way riding, sidewalk riding, red light running. The club riders had the best road skills, but they were in their own private Idahoe when it came to traffic control devices (this is a major point of contention with motorists and is seen in letters to the editor there). One woman was lucky I saw her as I stopped at a 4-way stop sign or we would have had a bike-v-bike collision. She totally violated my right-of-way, blowing through at speed.

By: Rantwick

Rantwick — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:08:52 +0000

* could do so much…

By: Rantwick

Rantwick — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:07:51 +0000

When I see infrastructure like that, all I see is $$$$. I know planners and others generally have good intentions, but it bums me out to see lots of money wasted in the name of “cyclists”. That kind of cash to do so much to educate so many instead.

By: Keri

Keri — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:43:04 +0000

I repeatedly tell those planning trails, “Never ask ‘How do we get a trail from A to B?’; ask ‘How do we help cyclists and pedestrians get from A to B.’ The answer is often not a ‘trail.’”

Well said! For true connectivity, it should be thought of as a route. The paths of pedestrians and cyclists may need to diverge onto different facilities when the separate right-of-way ends, or the area becomes too dense with road crossing. At that point, pedestrians need sidewalk/separated infrastructure and cyclists fare better on the streets.

The need to make the trail itself continue almost always results in some hideous Frankenstein’s monster or shared sidewalk facility.

As soon as the trail curves East/West, it begins to cross streets with constant stops. Even before it reaches the downtown, it’s tedious. They have at least installed various crossing signals to stop traffic (though 2 of the HAWK beacons are installed backwards), but most cyclists I saw didn’t stop or push the button, they just took their chances.

By: Mighk

Mighk — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:28:34 +0000

On terminology:
I’m not sure the term “cycle track” is appropriate here. In my understanding a cycle track is a barrier separated bike lane; uni-directional and separate from the sidewalk.
This is separate from the sidewalk, but I wonder about the intended users. Since it’s “The Pinellas Trail” there may be an expectation that this is a shared use path, like the rest of the trail (even though there are sidewalks right next to it).
In the sidepath stretch of the facility one would probably be correct in calling it a “bike path.” One of the few cases where the term makes sense.
I repeatedly tell those planning trails, “Never ask ‘How do we get a trail from A to B?’; ask ‘How do we help cyclists and pedestrians get from A to B.’ The answer is often not a ‘trail.’”