David Luskin (left) and Ian Hallett (right) compiled and evaluated data on the interactions of cyclists and drivers in three Texas cities to uncover the impact of labeled bike lanes on road safety behaviors. The study funded by the Texas Department of Transportation was conducted by the researchers at the Center for Transportation Research at The University of Texas at Austin.
Photo: Patrick Cummings
Here's a fascinating story from the UT School of Engineering that should dissuade anyone from ever thinking that a P.E. behind a name is worth anything more on face value than the ink (or pixels) used to render it. Or the letters AICP.
The City of Dallas passed on the chance to participate in this study, as the pre-study questionnaire was so full of hidden biases indicating that the intent of the "study" was only to justify an already agreed upon conclusion. That's not science. It's propaganda (an area in which I was trained in another life).
WARNING! Do not be drinking fluids while reading this article!
To whet your appetite, I'll feed you this closing howler from the story:
“Bike lanes reinforce the concept that bicyclists are supposed to behave like other vehicles, and make life safer for everyone involved as a result,” Hallett said.
22 comments:
This is truly ridiculous.
"[study] involving 31 paid, volunteer cyclists"
If they were paid, they were not volunteers - they were compensated study subjects.
"The surface could be re-striped to provide a 10-foot-wide motorists’ lane and a 14-foot-wide, outside lane that is unmarked for shared use."
What kind of crappy study design is that? AKA a Wide Outside Lane (WOL), this is a valid accommodation which needs no striping. Regardless of the investigators' opinion, the presence or absence of paint is not going to affect the passing gap. The latter is a result of inadequate depth perception, from which I find a majority of drivers suffer. The paint simply serves to calm motorist anxiety, but the detriment to the cyclist in other considerations does not justify that end.
I love that photo! Great big crack running down the middle of the bike lane.
FYI, this article and study are several years old.
Eliot, it's two years old (barely). It's effects are just now starting to be felt, as it is being rolled out by transportation agencies nationwide (and a corresponding one from the southeast) as justification for bike lanes as narrow as 3', including the gutter pan, instead of wide outside lanes.
@eliot
So? Do you believe the perceptions and faulty logic have changed?
from the report: (p.13)
"A peculiar trend occurs between 1200 and 1359 (12:00 a.m. and 1:59 a.m.)."
The researchers do not even know how to tell time or, at least, to convert between 24-hour and 12-hour. I can certainly hazard a guess as to why during "the first hour of this period, percent of fatal/incapacitating accidents is relatively greater than the percent of all accidents and then is relatively fewer in the following hour." Perhaps this is due to the fact that 12:00-13:00 (that would be 12:00p.m. to 1:00 p.m., BTW) is during the lunch hour. Motorists are probably too busy stuffing their faces while driving to pay attention to other drivers.
It would be interesting to compare motorist/motorist crashes during the same period. Anyone care to wager that the results would be similar, though perhaps not as lethal?
stu42j said...
"I love that photo! Great big crack running down the middle of the bike lane."
Yes, that's certainly as fine an example of "bike friendly" as I have seen from an LAB Bike Friendly Community (Austin, in this case). The fact that they would agree to pose before that outrage tells you volumes about what they really think of bicyclists.
The fundamental problem with your commentary is that it ignores the abilities and preferences of the average and novice cyclist - the very ones we are trying to convert from motorists to cyclists (since you and I would ride regardless of public support). I commute 100-120 miles a week (my wife and I only have one car), and I assume my full rights as a vehicle operator. The conclusions of the study made even more sense when my wife and I started to ride home together, and I saw how she viewed bicycle commuting. Despite at least a thousand miles under her belt and my encouragement, she is still too intimidated to act as a motor vehicle on the roadway. Similarly, we used paid cyclists because the only volunteers I could find were 40-60yr old, white, middle/upper-class,
retired males. By paying cyclists, I got a true cross-section of people who really use their bicycle out of necessity - those that could use $100 and could not afford to blow an entire day volunteering for a bicycle study. Again, these are the cyclists that we are trying to encourage.
However, I have sincerely appreciated your commentary and believe that it represents well the views of seasoned cyclists like you and me - problem is, we're the minority.
Best,
Ian Hallett
Ian, thanks for the response. I truly hate one-way streets.
However, not letting the preferences of inexperienced cyclists dictate design should be rather like not letting the preferences of inexperienced motorists dictate design... it's what we do when we design and implement a functioning street system. The lowest common denominator must never be the design standard.
My rule of thumb is ALWAYS to expect vehicle operators to behave with a level of competence associated with their inclusion on the street. "To those whom much is given, much is expected." The alternative is the creeping "toy vehicle" mentality.
I don't ride as a vehicular cyclist because of high testosterone levels (which I don't possess), or because I'm a great cyclist (I'm not). I ride in a vehicular fashion because I hate conflict (hard to believe, I know), and I discovered (was shown by the late Mr. Gene Carr, P.E., who died at the tender age of 90-something) that operating as a slow-moving vehicle eliminated the vast majority of conflicts I was experiencing on the streets.
The primary issue I have with your study (and with the similar NC/FLA study that preceded it) is that it's preferred results weren't based on what was best for cyclists, but what was best for motorists.
On the roadway, if a bicycle is truly a vehicle (as opposed to a "toy vehicle"), then the premise of your study is invalid. However, if a bicycle is considered an impediment to "real" vehicular operation, then your study has warrant. Sadly, that is the direction bicycle 'advocacy" has been headed, towards the acceptance of bicycles as toy vehicles.
Your wife's concerns should be easily overcome with education (a quaint belief in our current culture of entitlement, I realize), not with a segregated system based upon fear, which actually increases the dangers a cyclist is exposed to.
False security is a hazard in itself, not an enticement.
I clicked the wrong button again. Sorry, Herman.
velociped has left a new comment on your post "Monday Morning Dis-information Memo":
"Your wife's concerns should be easily overcome with education, not with a segregated system based upon fear, which actually increases the dangers a cyclist is exposed to."
I have given this concept a great deal of thought over the years. While I do believe that education can play a vital role in mitigating the initial fears of those who have never adopted a bicycle as a viable means of transportation, I am dubious of whether education can convince those with experience - and who still fear injury or death - from overcoming their irrational fear. (whew, that was a doozy of a sentence.) There are simply some people who, despite their sincere desire to do otherwise, are too scared (harsh word, I know, but apt) to operate in a vehicular manner. Try as I might, these people will not accept the fact that they are statistically more likely to keel over dead from a coronary or aneurysm than they are to be struck by another vehicle. To them, I guess, one is fate and the other preventable. In actuality, they are both largely preventable.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, this timorous minority plays into the hands of those who would seek to segregate cyclists to a narrow delineated curb lane, rather than accept us as legitimate users of the standard roadway.
While I appreciate Ian taking the time to comment upon his study, I remain unconvinced of its value to the discussion. All it does is reinforce the idea that those who either do not regularly operate in a vehicular manner or harbor an irrational fear of doing so, continue to desire either special facilities or inefficient lateral routes to give the (false) impression of safety.
I think I see why we do not agree on some key issues....
I see my research as an intermediate step to increase ridership given the current state of motorists' mentality, physical infrastructure, and average cyclist abilities, and I see bike lanes as a good means to increase ridership from our current starting point of very little.
Once we have the levels of ridership like Europe or Asia, I think we could THEN move to the model of vehicular operation.
I think I am focused on taking small steps towards a society that depends on bicycles for transportation while you are primarily concerned with how that world should look when we get there.
In essence, I do not think that vehicular operation of bicycles is impractical or irrational, just that the US is not ready for it in our current state.
What do you think?
Ian, I agree that people often skip over the "how do we get there" part but I completely disagree that bike lanes are a good intermediate step.
On the other hand, some would argue that getting more people on bikes is not even a reasonable or attainable goal. Their goal is simply to ensure that those who currently choose to use their bikes for transportation can continue to do so safely and unrestricted.
Ian,
It's pointless to look towards the time we have ridership levels like Europe or Asia (btw, Asia has exponentially more cyclists than Europe, but without "facilities").
The controlling issues are:
1)High Population Density
2)Comprehensive Public Transportation
3)Favorable Demographics (which could be either Low Income or "Progressives")
The facilities you discuss are always a response to the emergence of a strong bicycle element to the transportation mix. It's a reaction (and reactionary), not a precursor. It's the effect, not the cause.
I can spend all day in South or North Austin and see nary a cyclist in the bike lanes, wondering if I am in Houston or Dallas. As I move towards the core of the city, I will begin to see cyclists (not a lot, but some) as it begin to meet the requirements of density and demographics. Deeper in, around the university and capitol, while density remains low, transit begins to play a role (especially for the UT community during the school year).
Ian said: "Once we have the levels of ridership like Europe or Asia, I think we could THEN move to the model of vehicular operation."
I believe this is exactly backward. Here's how the cause and effect usually seems to work:
1. Outside causes, such as motoring being difficult or expensive, combined with suitable land use, lead to higher levels of transportation cycling.
2. When cycling levels become high enough, segregated (non-vehicular) facilities are added.
The causes of #2 are usually a combination of motorists wanting cyclists out of the way, and cyclists wanting their "own space".
I think you'll find that most every place with extensive segregated facilities already had a relatively high level of transportation cycling first.
Vespa lanes.
Michael Graff said: "The causes of #2 are usually a combination of motorists wanting cyclists out of the way, and cyclists wanting their "own space"."
The first clause is the position of the Texas Department of Transportation (who paid for this study), the second clause is the position of most of the poorly behaved casual cyclists in Austin Texas.
I am puzzled by Ian's response.
"I see my research as an intermediate step to increase ridership given the current state of motorists' mentality, physical infrastructure, and average cyclist abilities..."
current state of motorists' mentality
First, thank you for getting the possessive correct! :-)
What is the basis of this "mentality"? Ignorance. The misplaced perception that roadways are the province of motorized conveyance and that cyclists represent a hazard, rather than an alternative vehicle type to be respected. Education is the remedy for this one.
physical infrastructure
Perhaps the most perplexing to me. Do we not have an existing infrastructure of paved roadways leading from origin to destination? What infrastructure enhancement do you feel is lacking? (see below for a corollary)
average cyclist abilities
Define that level of ability? I fear that, like many such measurements, this is far too subjective to be relevant or useful. When I began commuting by bicycle (nearly twenty years ago), I suppose I could have been considered an average cyclist. As such, I was able to assert my position on the roadway; was able to maintain a reasonably functional average speed (ca. 22-27kph); be aware of my immediate surroundings and competently navigate potential hazards. Experience (and some education) has improved my abilities in all of those areas ...without the need for segregated facilities.
If bike lanes possessed even a modicum of agnosticism WRT purpose and implementation, then they would be excellent training grounds for novice cyclists. However, this is not the case. In almost every instance where bike lanes exist, there are companion MSP laws. If one is legally required to make use of these lanes, regardless of experience or level of skill, they cease to be tools for gaining proficiency and become segregationist. Such a situation is not egalitarian.
Ian Hallet refers to his research as if there are valid and reliable results. For my extensive critique of his effort, please see:
http://bicyclingmatters.wordpress.com/critiques/bicycle-facilities-added/
It's junk science.
Wayne
I have to duck out of this conversation because my wife and I just had a baby on 11/13, and I have no time these days.
I just want to give one last cautionary comment....
Allowing people who are so involved in an issue that they spend time blogging about it (including myself) to decide policy for the general population is very dangerous; it's like letting Mario Andretti design interstate exit and entrance ramps. This is why I defer to my wife's experience, and more importantly, EMPIRICAL observations of the 60 (first study and second study coming out) cyclists and 5,000 motorists that are not involved in the debate to form my views on how facilities should be designed.
Good to talk to you all.
Best,
Ian
Ian, congratulations on the new baby!
Dear Wayne,
The report is only "junk science" because you do not know how to read a regression table. Lateral position is calculated as (1 or 0) times the coefficient for the presence of bike lane added to the coefficient for width of bike lane multiplied by actual width of bike lane. Same goes for motorist lateral position in passing vs. non-passing events - you are only using one of the pertinent variables to generate your calculations. Note how the coefficients on the width of road variables change. The fact that you make such a novice analytical mistake destroys any credibility of the rest of your arguments.
Seriously, go back to school and take a basic graduate level stats class.
Ian
Ian,
I repeatedly contacted the CTR office via email for clarification on the report. They dodged my questions and never answered anything. Similarly, when I sent them my critique I was met with nothing but silence.
The report is junk science because of the many, many elementary mistakes. You even considered the gutter pan as part of bike lane width! Could the AASHTO Guide be any more clear?
It's as if your results are purposefully obscured. A reader shouldn't have to know that "Lateral position is calculated as (1 or 0) times the coefficient for the presence of bike lane added to the coefficient for width of bike lane multiplied by actual width of bike lane." If that is the case it should say it in text.
So what of your findings? You measured wrong. Therefore your finding are junk. Even if what you found is true about lateral position, your interpretation of the data and conclusions are junk.
Wayne
Ian, I am disappointed in you.
You begged off the discussion, citing a new child as an excuse, but then came back with a childish personal and professional insult to a colleague.
The bottom line remains, and your words reveal it, that rather than seeking how bicycles are best served as vehicles, your premise is that bicycles are nothing more than toy-vehicles. Your "research" is merely an attempt to "prove" such, reinforcing the misconception that bicycles have no right to the public roadways, but rather, must be dealt with as inconveniences to the automobile, continuing a campaign that TxDOT (your benefactor) has been quietly waging for a number of years (see the history of the Houston Bike Plan that TxDOT, Wilbur Smith, and BikeFed buggered up).
Your conclusion that bike-lanes are superior to wide curb lanes because timid cyclists prefer them (devoid of any improvement in safety, while being passed by automobiles at higher speeds with lower clearances) steps out of the realm of scientific research and into the realm of propaganda.
There is science, and there is propaganda posing as science. Being familiar with both methodologies, I can usually spot the difference.
That is why Wayne called your work "junk science", and junk science it is.
Post a Comment