The Economist on measures for safe cycling.

jag

10 kW
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
777
There's always been a debate if bikes belong on the road with the traffic or not. Some prominent cyclist such as Forrester in his "Effective cycling" book argued that bikes are vehicles and with proper cycling the road is the best place. However, as The Economist argues below actual statistics favor traffic solutions where bikes are physically separated from cars.

With a very few exceptions, America is no place for cyclists

Sep 3rd 2011 | SEATTLE | from the Economist print edition

DYING while cycling is three to five times more likely in America than in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands. To understand why, consider the death of Michael Wang. He was pedalling home from work in Seattle on a sunny weekday afternoon in late July when, witnesses say, a brown SUV made a left turn, crunched into Wang and sped away.

The road where the 44-year-old father of two was hit is the busiest cycling corridor in Seattle, and it has clearly marked bicycle lanes. But the lanes are protected from motor vehicles by a line of white paint—a largely metaphorical barrier that many drivers ignore and police do not vigorously enforce. A few feet from the cycling lane traffic moves at speeds of between 30 miles per hour, the speed limit for arterials in Seattle, and 40 miles per hour, the speed at which many cars actually travel. This kind of speed kills. A pedestrian hit by a car moving at 30mph has a 45% chance of dying; at 40mph, the chance of death is 85%, according to Britain’s Department of Transport.

Had Mr Wang been commuting on a busy bike route in Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Berlin, his unprotected exposure to instruments of death—namely, any vehicle moving at 20mph or more—would be nearly nil. These cities have knitted together networks for everyday travel by bike. To start with, motor vehicles allowed near cyclists are subject to “traffic calming”. They must slow down to about 19mph, a speed that, in case of collision, kills less than 5%. Police strictly enforce these speed limits with hefty fines. Repeat offenders lose their licences.

Calmer traffic is just the beginning. In much of northern Europe, cyclists commute on lanes that are protected from cars by concrete buffers, rows of trees or parked cars. At busy crossroads, bicycle-activated traffic lights let cyclists cross first. Traffic laws discriminate in favour of people on bikes. A few American cities have taken European-style steps to make streets safer for cycling, most notably Portland, Oregon, which has used most of the above ideas. The result: more bikes and fewer deaths. Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists, have been killed in the past few weeks.

http://www.economist.com/node/21528302
 
If everyone on the road had proper respect for each other, and could be bothered to pay attention, much less learn the rules of the road and communicate with each other in the correct fashion, then the proper place for all wheeled traffic would be sharing the lanes on the road.

Since that apparently isn't possible, totally separate road systems get implemented, which since cyclists don't pay separate large fuel and other taxes specifically to maintain, usually don't get built or if they do they get little to no maintenance, or are designed poorly, not thought out at all, and essentially don't go anywhere useful because the designers wanted to keep the bikes out of "traffic's" way, instead of integrating them all in a safe way.

What should happen is that everyone that uses the roads (and sidewalks!) for *any* purpose should be taught the same rules, and the same respect for every other person using them.

What does happen is that every type of user is taught something different, if they are taught at all (rare), and respect is virtually never taught by anyone at any level.

It's a problem with society itself, not necessarily the traffic system.
 
If bicycles just moved at traffic speeds, then you have no problem.
 
Which is another part of the societal problem: allowing the enacting of laws that prevent that.

But even with speeds being the same, there's still the inattentiveness of all the other traffic on the road, including pedestrians, other cyclists, and larger vehicles. It doesn't matter how fast you are if someone suddenly is in your path at a different angle or speed, and there is nowhere to go. :(
 
DAND214 said:
Don't forget that WHITE line will protect you!

Half of the cars ride that line. So where do we go?

Same speed as the traffic? Maybe where you are, not here.
They can't even read the do not turn, let alone the speed limit.

Dan

I would never suggest slowing the cars, I wish they would speed up. The issue is vehicle operators and cyclists not paying attention. Slowing down means more distractions and less attention


The goal should never be to make cyclist/car impacts more survivable, the goal should be to not have vehicles and bikes touching in the first place.

Make a bike that also speeds with them.

Faster bikes, faster cars, more alert operators.
 
The number one killer of Americans under age 30 is the automobile. This is true, year after year.
 
http://www.walkinginfo.org/engineering/roadway-reduction.cfm

http://bikefriendlyarlington.com/2011/03/19/safety-benefits-of-the-proposed-transportation-plans/

[youtube]4hcO3m_c_jM[/youtube]

[youtube]ONS2ptAR4mo[/youtube]

[youtube]59-roEQZWOY[/youtube]

http://www.gizmag.com/bike-lane-travels-with-you/12092/

http://www.gizmag.com/blaze-bicycle-laser-safety-device/18886/

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2011/06/07/qmb.fc.copenhagenisation.cnn?iref=allsearch

[youtube]bzE-IMaegzQ[/youtube]

[youtube]lwHfibl1AoI[/youtube]
 
Back
Top