Article: Why biking to work is a barrier for most Americans

[vvill]

@dasgeh 112296 wrote:

In other words, good, safe, protected, separated infrastructure isn’t as much about preventing collisions – it’s about getting more people out on bikes, which makes us all safer.

Very true – I thought the same thing. But it’s a bit subversive how that works (I think I only figured it out recently), and I assume most drivers do think it’s all about preventing collisions/improving safety in a particular location, which means when there isn’t that infrastructure drivers assume bikes are inherently unsafe on the road. I do think bike infrastructure matters, but without changes in attitudes/legal responsibility/driver education/enforcement?, it’ll only go so far (at least it will always look nice for cities promoting cycling).

As a 10-year old I rode around without a lot of bike infrastructure (the exception being the Sydney Harbour Bridge) but times have changed and I get the analogy – I don’t feel comfortable riding with my kids on semi-major roads around here.

[OneEighth]

I just wanna know what it’s gonna take for y’all to finally get that it’s my road, my sidewalk, and my MUP.
Jeez.

[dbb]

@OneEighth 112307 wrote:

I just wanna know what it’s gonna take for y’all to finally get that it’s my road, my sidewalk, and my MUP.

Takers are just going to take.

Chill dude!

[scoot]

@dasgeh 112296 wrote:

good, safe, protected, separated infrastructure isn’t as much about preventing collisions – it’s about getting more people out on bikes, which makes us all safer.

Yes, more people on bikes means more safety for everyone. And separated infrastructure is one way of luring newbies onto bikes. But it’s not the only way. Intended or not, it also does reinforce the idea that bicycles don’t belong in traffic. Overall, I’m not convinced that it gets us any closer to the goal: where cycling is a normal, culturally accepted, and safe method for anyone to get anywhere, anytime.

I worry that the movement for separated infrastructure is missing the forest for the trees. Only one thing needs to be fixed in order to make transportation cycling a viable and attractive option for all people in all times and places: driver behavior. Driver behavior is the ONLY problem. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Build a protected bike lane on Glebe Road: a 10yo (albeit one very alert to the perpetual danger of turning vehicles) can ride on Glebe Road. Eliminate bad driving: the 10yo can safely ride anywhere that cycling is legal.

The obvious objection is that fixing bad driving might seem to be impossible. For sure, it’s supremely difficult, and will require a gargantuan fight over many years. But there is a way forward, and the potential benefits to society of such a transformation would be even more immense than the challenges in getting there. We must recognize that the vast majority of today’s “accidents” are not acts of God but instead foreseeable consequences of very poor operator decisions. Almost all of which could essentially be eliminated through a combination of aggressive reforms in motorist education, enforcement, regulation, transportation policy, economic policy, legislation, and the court system.

Think Vision Zero, but a genuine implementation of it, not the empty rhetoric we hear from today’s politicians who may pontificate but who are unwilling to make the difficult decisions necessary to achieve anything. Isn’t this the vision that active transportation enthusiasts and road safety advocates should be fighting for?

[lordofthemark]

@scoot 112311 wrote:

Yes, more people on bikes means more safety for everyone. And separated infrastructure is one way of luring newbies onto bikes. But it’s not the only way. Intended or not, it also does reinforce the idea that bicycles don’t belong in traffic.

Just put a “bike may take full lane sign” on the road with the bike lane.

The notion that because there is seg infra, bikes do not belong in traffic is wrong. Is changing THAT notion difficult? Sure. But not harder, IMO, than getting universal good driver behavior. Note that universal good driver behavior is going to be a pretty high bar – it will mean, on some roads, that a driver will patiently wait for a safe place to pass a ten year old, going uphill – at whatever speed (I won’t venture to hazard what the typical 10 year old can manage)

Meanwhile, of course, getting critical mass of cyclists will help with good driver behavior around cyclists – because more drivers will be cyclists, more will have family members who bike, more law enforcement will bike, etc, etc (and note, when more driver bike, more will understand why a bike lane that works for a slower or less confident rider is not the best facility for other riders)

One side note – safety from collisions is NOT the only issue with riding in heavy traffic. A recent study (I think from the NL) showed that cyclists who ride in traffic are more exposed to air pollution from auto emissions than those riding even a few feet away. Since I ride in part for my health, I sure do not want to add exposure to emissions.

[chris_s]

@scoot 112311 wrote:

Yes, more people on bikes means more safety for everyone. And separated infrastructure is one way of luring newbies onto bikes. But it’s not the only way. Intended or not, it also does reinforce the idea that bicycles don’t belong in traffic. Overall, I’m not convinced that it gets us any closer to the goal: where cycling is a normal, culturally accepted, and safe method for anyone to get anywhere, anytime.

The Dutch have painted us a proven road map that works and it is separated infrastructure. Not necessarily saying that you can’t make biking normal, safe and expected with out it, but no country has done it yet despite years of trying.

The end game of segregated infrastructure is getting so many butts onto bikes that the majority of drivers are at least fair-weather cyclists. This spells the end of the windshield perspective which, honestly is the root of the problem. Nothing makes you a more considerate driver than biking in traffic yourself.

[ShawnoftheDread]

@chris_s 112315 wrote:

The Dutch have painted us a proven road map that works and it is separated infrastructure. Not necessarily saying that you can’t make biking normal, safe and expected with out it, but no country has done it yet despite years of trying.

The end game of segregated infrastructure is getting so many butts onto bikes that the majority of drivers are at least fair-weather cyclists. This spells the end of the windshield perspective which, honestly is the root of the problem. Nothing makes you a more considerate driver than biking in traffic yourself.

Seems like a contradiction here. If you’re always in separated infrastructure, you’re never biking in traffic yourself. So why would driver behavior change?

[chris_s]

@ShawnoftheDread 112317 wrote:

Seems like a contradiction here. If you’re always in separated infrastructure, you’re never biking in traffic yourself. So why would driver behavior change?

Because separated infrastructure on every street is a pipe dream. Get separated infrastructure on the majority of the arterials though and more and more people will bike – at some point they’ll end up on minor arterials or neighborhood streets and get the biking with cars perspective.

[DismalScientist]

@ShawnoftheDread 112317 wrote:

Seems like a contradiction here. If you’re always in separated infrastructure, you’re never biking in traffic yourself. So why would driver behavior change?

Because the segregated infrastructure intersects the driving infrastructure at every intersection.

Putting you (and me) on Dutch cycling infrastructure will lead to another social pathology: bicycle infrastructure rage. With every one’s butts on (heavy, upright townie) bikes, are you going to be happy in a mob of cyclists riding at 8 mph?

[Powerful Pete]

@DismalScientist 112319 wrote:

Putting you (and me) on Dutch cycling infrastructure will lead to another social pathology: bicycle infrastructure rage. With every one’s butts on (heavy, upright townie) bikes, are you going to be happy in a mob of cyclists riding at 8 mph?

Small point: northern Europeans are, in my experience, pretty decent riders. I recall dawdling on a ride in NL one day and being passed by four older women on sit-up-and-beg 25 kg bikes that were in a very efficient paceline to get home with groceries in their baskets. Not necessarily speed racers, but not bad. Could have taught a thing or two to some people I have ridden with at Hains Point in terms of holding your line…

Urban cycling is of course different, and you run into just as many nincompoops, slowpokes, people making un-signalled turns and all the rest on the Amsterdam bike paths as you would in car traffic.

[Mikey]

Install speed limiting equipment on all cars so that cars can only travel at 20 miles per hour. Biking will become safer, Driving will become less desirable, Driving on the highways would be unaffected (I’d love to be able to go that fast on 395 during rush hour).

[rcannon100]

@Powerful Pete 112320 wrote:

Small point: northern Europeans are, in my experience, pretty decent riders.

Smaller point: Just not the British!

[PotomacCyclist]

@DismalScientist 112319 wrote:

Because the segregated infrastructure intersects the driving infrastructure at every intersection.

Putting you (and me) on Dutch cycling infrastructure will lead to another social pathology: bicycle infrastructure rage. With every one’s butts on (heavy, upright townie) bikes, are you going to be happy in a mob of cyclists riding at 8 mph?

I resemble that remark!

(CaBi Bixi bikes definitely qualify as heavy, upright bikes.)

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 112319 wrote:

Putting you (and me) on Dutch cycling infrastructure will lead to another social pathology: bicycle infrastructure rage. With every one’s butts on (heavy, upright townie) bikes, are you going to be happy in a mob of cyclists riding at 8 mph?

12 mph, thank you very much

@Powerful Pete 112320 wrote:

Urban cycling is of course different, and you run into just as many nincompoops, slowpokes, people making un-signalled turns and all the rest on the Amsterdam bike paths as you would in car traffic.

Yes. The big difference is that by and large, jerks on bikes don’t kill people. Collisions on bikes don’t kill people. You get scraped up (or if you’re on those tank-like bikes going 12 mph, you just bounce off of each other) and you go about your day.

And speaking of speed, cars traveling 36-ish* mph are more likely than not going to kill any person they hit. So any cyclist that does something and ends up in the path of a car, even if it’s totally their fault, is more likely to die when the cars are traveling faster. Which is why I don’t think we can accept having a 10-year-old bike on a road where cars are traveling 35+ mph is an acceptable “safe” solution, even if drivers magically follow the law to a T.

*Don’t quote me on the number, but I’m pretty sure it’s between 35 and 45

[dplasters]

I look forward to the day I get on these boards and complain about how I am being held up by cycling traffic on Lee Highway in Fairfax. Damn if I didn’t get stuck behind that bakfiets at Gallows and Lee again today!

[Author]

Posts