A Letter to the Editor

Cultural ignorance about safe roadway bicycling has created the misperception that bike lanes are a good idea. Bike lanes are not a good idea. Bike lanes should not be used in Portland.

While it is true that bike lanes are bad operational design and they tend to make bike-lane-delimited space less useful for best-practice bicyclists, increased danger and wasted paved roadway width are not the primary problems with bike lanes.

The primary problem is that bike lanes validate existing poor behavior and existing false beliefs about bicyclist roadway use.

If Portland paints bike lanes, the immediate need will be to educate police officers not to harass best-practice bicyclists, who tend to avoid bike-lane delimited space.

Longer term, the whole culture needs education. In that way, increased interest in bicycling will not lead to calls for bad and wasteful facility design.

Bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. The roadways drivers share must be designed using sound principles. The idea of a vehicle type-specific lane runs counter to basic tenets of sound roadway design.

Kenneth O'Brien

Gorham

Copyright 2009 by The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram. All rights reserved.

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=247374&ac=PHedi

Those aren't cow catchers on the front of DART buses.

Life is Unfair Park.

We get noticed (sorta).

All the squealing brings back memories of the old Neuhoff's Meat Packing Plant on Goat Hill (where my dad was the kosher butcher for awhile during the Great Depression).

Unfair Park.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/03/how_to_cycle_in_dallas_without.php

Making lemonade out of Lemmon Avenue.

Two cyclists demonstrate vehicular cycling techniques during a Friday afternoon early rush hour in the Uptown district of Dallas. They are riding two-abreast to demonstrate how two cyclists may legally ride side-by-side. The results of driving a bicycle like a vehicle are the same if it is just one cyclist, riding either in the middle of the lane, or where an automobile's left wheel would ride.

In Texas, cyclists may legally take the full lane ("command the lane") if the lane width is less than 14'. The vast majority of multi-lane streets in Dallas are only 11' wide. Take what is yours, or a car will take it away from you. Make every lane a "bike lane", and ride where you want/need to, not where someone has made that decision for you (whether well intentioned or not).

For more instructions along this line, visit www.cyclistview.com.

Paradise revisited.

The Dallas Run videos on YouTube received a comment from an Austin commuter bicycle rider. I, as always (with the rare exception of insulting and abusive posts aimed at others... insulting and abusive posts aimed at me generally prove my point), approved it (unlike some who only allow supporting commentary).

This video illustrates almost everything I have been saying, but from a reverse perspective. You may know that I have no love lost for the way Austin implemented bike lanes as a political response, instead of as an engineering solution (which has much stricter warrants). As the author says, this is the real-world reality of that approach. He is also honest enough to say that many of his problems are his own fault. However, most of the problems he encounters are designed into the system, and the ones that are his own fault (parking lot and sidewalk riding... as well as the wrong way cyclists seen in the video) are actually encouraged by systems like this. Hence my opposition to systems that segregate cyclists, and my promotion of vehicular cycling.

Death Rides On My Left - urban bicycle commuting
I am a bicycle commuter. I am not a certified safety instructor. This video represents real world conditions. Not some imaginary utopian world that bicyclist hope to create. The statistics are only approximate. Don't get bogged down in the numbers. The important message is riding in the road has risk. These are some of the most common risk you will face. Much of the advice is for motorist. Motorist do not yield to bicycles in the bike lane and they should be. Cyclist are as much at fault as motorist for the situations in which we find ourselves. If you trust motorist to do the right thing and drive safely you will be disapointed. Part of the reason I am so obsessed with safety in my videos is it is so F**king crazy on the road. I have had way to many close calls. I make these videos for my own safety awareness. I have discovered that filming helps me discover my own mistakes. Hopefully others can learn from my mistakes too.

Truth will set you free, but what is truth?

Do you really love cycling?

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

1 John 4:18

Before you freak out (you know who you are), I found this quote noted in a left-wing political discussion of war (in case that helps... but then, it could hurt I suppose). It struck a chord with me.

It made me think of fear-based cycling, and how people let their fears dictate their actions, and cripple their love (for cycling). Fear of punishment (evil cars). The desire to punish others because of their own fears. And so I was reminded of this.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

1 Corinthians 13:4

Gentle readers, may you continue to overpower fear, and grow in your love of simply cycling.

I yield to no man...

...but to this Lady, I yield.

Read why.

Strategy for a Bicycle-Friendly Community.

Is maintenance an issue?

I often express concern about how well new bicycle/pedestrian facilities will be maintained. This is a picture of part of one of the most popular trails in the state, that just happens to be here in my fair city. Lack of maintenance has narrowed it to barely half its original usable width (that's my helmet set out for scale), and has driven most runners and wobbly-cyclists to use the nearby roadway (often running, walking and cycling in the wrong direction... doubly confusing because the law requires pedestrians to walk facing traffic). But because the City relies on federal funds to build "enhancement" facilities like bike trails, there's never additional/sufficient budget provided to the responsible department for maintenance.

So pardon me if I don't believe the city will maintain its sparsely populated bike lanes... the ones you'll be required to ride in if present, and will be told (loudly) to get in if you ride on a street without them.

It's also why I insisted that concrete be used for multi-purpose trails instead of asphalt (properly designed concrete trails last three to four times as long as properly designed asphalt ones).

The Dallas Run: a seven-fold revelation

Here are seven 10-minute (+/-) videos of a 12 mile loop through in-town Dallas on a Friday afternoon at the start of rush hour. Some of the streets used are part of the Dallas Bike Route system (including the bridges across the Trinity), and some are not, illustrating how important education for confident cycling is over the reliance upon fear-based special facilities, when it comes to bicycles being a truly useful part of the transportation mix.

The average rolling speed for this ride was about 15 mph, and the average trip speed was just under 10 mph. The technique utilized was three cyclists riding in tandem (not on a tandem), with a helmet cam capturing the trailing cyclists and their interactions with overtaking traffic.









Please pay attention to the lane position of the cyclist(s). By legally controlling the lane, motor vehicles do not attempt to pass them without first pulling out. The vehicles complete the pass at a safe distance, and then pull in when it's clear, making the so-called "safe-passing" law unnecessary.

You may wonder where the cars are on a Friday afternoon at the start of rush hour. Well, for the most part, the cars are ahead of them. When an intersection signal turns green, the cyclist(s) are at the back of the queue, and the motorized traffic simply pulls away, leaving the cyclist(s) in relatively empty road space. Overtaking motorists pass the cyclist(s) without incidence. The cyclist(s) catches up to the rear of the motorized traffic at the next intersection, and the cycle starts again.

Thanks to Brian DeSousa of Dual Chase Productions in Long Beach, California, Richard Wharton of the Cycling Center of Dallas, and to local vehicular cyclist Herman May (the guy with the panniers).

It really is this easy.

Note: No horns were honked, tempers lost, or fingers waved, in the making of this video.

High fidelity.

"Scientific method allows investigators to form hypotheses in any way they please: out of a cold assembly of facts, intuition, or a drunken stupor... Once a hypothesis is proposed, however, it must be demonstrated rigorously. The __________ discipline needs to be brought back to the world of reason."

-- Edgar Villchur

Of course, a high sense of "fidelity" is quite passe now. Who needs fidelity, when we can have feelings?

Mailing it in.

"Any ___________________ that requires the suspension of reason as a necessity for support is a bad ___________________."

- Norman Mailer

Bikes for the rest of us.

Want to see some available bicycles that are more utilitarian in nature than what racer-oriented bike shops usually sell? Bikes For The Rest Of Us is a pleasant way to peruse cool, functional bicycles without having to dodge a salesman. I realize it runs the risk of falling into the Bicicli-Fashionista trap, but right now it's great fun.

Added to the roll.

A witty, but sarcastic headline about Portland was going here, but...

...sometimes, things are just funny/cool on their own merit, and don't deserve being cheapened by their use for propaganda purposes.



Besides, it looks more like 6th Street in Austin.

Feel light headed.

It's dark out there this morning (thank you, daylight savings time). Here's a one day only deal at WOOT! you might find useful. It's a pivoting headlamp with a 1 Watt Luxeon® LED to the front (bright) and an additional 7 LEDs for multiple uses, including red lamps to the rear. It fits on a helmet, is high quality, and has a low, low price. $15 shipped, plus tax if a Texas resident.

Of course, this should be used as supplementary lighting only, but it does meet the Texas minimum requirement for night lighting on a bicycle (presuming your rear reflector is still there).

Hurry, if interested. One day only. After today, the link I've embedded will have some other overstocked, probably useless gizmo.

Large, slow moving vehicle.

In the video about commanding a lane while crossing the Houston Street Viaduct, a comment was posted to the effect that it was "easy when following a large, slow-moving vehicle".

Meet the Big Truck. Brian DeSousa of Dual-Chase productions in southern California (producers of Cyclist View videos), as he prepared to make the video. Brian is 6' 2" (I guess that's large), riding his Bike Friday folding bicycle (slow moving).

A Call to Action?

This came into my email box from a bicycle advocacy group:

CALL TO ACTION
March 9, 2009

Urgent Support Needed for Safe Passing Bill
3/11/09 Transportation Committee Hearing

DALLAS, TEXAS 3/9/09

We are asking citizens of Senator Florence Shapiro's district to indicate their support for the Vulnerable Road User Bill, SB 488 as introduced, to her ASAP. There is a hearing of the Senate Transportation Committee Wednesday March 11, 2009. Ms. Shapiro is a member of this committee and will hear testimony from individuals in reference to this bill. She has not commited to supporting this important legislation. We would like to make sure she realizes that her constituents consider this bill important and that she should support it.

We are sending this message to you because your zip code , or a portion of zip code, is in Senate Shapiro's District 8. Please verify that you are in District 8 by following this link and entering your address information, and contact her especially if you are in her district.

If you are in her district please send letters, phone calls and e-mails requesting that she support this important piece of legislation for all road users. Please take a moment and let her know that you support a defined safe passing distance for all users of the roadways. Thank you.

I have problems with this bill, and asked members of two vehicular cycling advocay listeserves for their opinions. Here's my request...

A local cycling advocacy leader is really touting the now trendy Safe Passing law as being NECESSARY for bicycle safety, while saying that repealing the Ride to the Right language is good, but not that important.

The more I consider the Safe Passing laws, the more I dislike them. The language bothers me ("vulnerable operator"... I proposed "exposed operator" to make cyclists sound less pathetic and helpless), and the exclusion of having the law apply to cyclists as well (therefore, they are now less of a vehicle because ALL laws don't apply to them).

It seems also to reinforce the notion that cyclists belong on the road edge (the source of the vast majority of negative car-bike interactions).

Am I just being crankier and crankier as I see cyclists become classified as "disabled vehicles", or is more here than meets the eyes?

Thoughts (better than mine) appreciated.

Responses came in.

In one of my recent interactions with uninformed uniformed law enforcement, the officer referenced the Florida law requiring three-foot clearance as his justification (one of many) for writing me a citation. I explained to him that the laws on the books make the three-foot passing law unnecessary. That went nowhere and I've given up on talking logic, even when it's printed in black and white.

What control does the cyclist have to ensure that the motorist obey the three-foot passing law? Lane position, simple enough. If you're properly positioned, you don't need the law. Why is it that only trained cyclists (and apparently not all of them) are the only ones able to recognize this? At least some law enforcement officers are getting some training, but every class has people to finish at the bottom of the list.


------------------------------


It's strictly my opinion, but since I've been controlling the sub-14' wide lanes, almost all of the passing has been done by the overtaking motor vehicle changing lanes, which leads me to conclude that the three foot passing law is unnecessary. Virtually all vehicles give me at least three feet by the lane change. If almost all drivers provide suitable clearance when passing, why have an unenforceable and unenforced law on the books?


------------------------------


The problem that many "bike advocates" are mistakenly trying to solve with 3' legislation, is not bad passing laws, rather it is that many police officers across the US, when investigating a car-bike collision, choose not to cite bad passing, 3-foot law or not, typically citing the cyclist for
violating the FTR law instead! The proper approach to this lack of enforcement is two-fold:
.
1) Eliminate the FTR law which is main tool police use to blame cyclists for using the roadway, instead of citing a motorist for a bad passing.
.
2) Educate police to cite any motorist that interferes with the safe operation of a bicycle per existing passing laws; and this interference can and does happen when more than three feet of clearance exists between the cyclist and the motorist, particularly on roads with faster traffic.
.
In addition, motorists who pass cyclists at less than three-feet clearance at very low absolute and relative speeds, as is common in dense urban traffic, are criminalized by these ill-conceived laws. Worse still, a (mindless) three-foot minimum sets a very bad precedent in law that is being used against cyclists.
.
For example Wisconsin has seen fit to legislate 3-feet as the minimum by which a cyclist may also pass also a motorist - under all conditions. In one instance in that state a cyclist was cited for violating the three foot law when she was doored! Bad law craft in the guise of 3-foot laws will not solve a police education problem, and creates additional problems for cyclists and motorists compared to standard passing laws. In other words, the "bike advocate" solution is not addressing the real causes, and is making the problem worse.


------------------------------


You've drawn a good parallel with the disabled community. There is controversy among the advocates for the disabled about whether disabled students should be "included", "mainstreamed" or "segregated". The usual approach seems to be to match the the level of inclusion to the individual student's needs.

The problem with applying this concept to bicycling on roads is figuring out whether some bicyclists need help because of their special needs. In the words of CVC 21200, it is a matter of what traffic principles "by their very nature can have no application". Curb hugging bicyclists often complain about being buzzed. When I lived in Indiana, I often rode on 2-lane county roads or state highways with narrow lanes and no paved shoulder. I tried to ride along the edge of the pavement to make room for motorists to pass, but occasionally one would pass close, apparently on purpose. These sociopaths in automobiles apparently figured that they could prey on the vulnerable and get away with it. Nowadays, though, with helmet cams and cell phones, we have tools to record their actions on video and report them to the police. The problem, though, is that many police officers haven't a clue about bicycle related traffic law.

Of course, the main question is where a bicyclist should ride on a road with narrow lanes. I helped write the law that excepts bicyclists from having to ride as far right as practicable when riding in a lane that is "too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane." But, as bicycle advocates such as Roger Geller contend, operating a bicycle "the same as the primary vehicles for which the roadways were designed: automobiles" is only for the "strong and the fearless".

Advocates for vehicular cycling, of course, contend that any cyclist can take the "primary position" in a narrow lane. This is a fundamental disagreement between the two groups of advocates. Right now, the Gellers of the world are winning; they hold the positions of power and the purse strings. We vehicular cyclists, though, believe that we hold the moral and intellectual high ground.

Your question is apparently whether the 3 foot passing rule fits better with the curb hugging or the vehicular cycling point of view. Since vehicular cycling advocates like Dan Gutierrez point out that the further left you ride in a narrow lane, the more room passing motorists give you , the 3 foot rule is only relevant for advocates of curb hugging.

If we bicycling advocates are to be inclusive of all bicycling behaviors, then we need to acknowledge that the curb huggers do need help with sociopathic motorists who intimidate vulnerable bicyclists. Whether the best way to do that is with the 3 foot rule, though, is debatable. More effective might be efforts at improved driver education, tighter driver licensing standards, and educating police and judges. So far, we have focused on educating bicyclists, which has not been terribly effective. We need to "mainstream" our own view of how traffic should operate, displacing the current dominant view that all roads are motorways and that the job of bicyclists is to "stay out of the way of cars". Primary in this effort would be the repeal of the "as far to the right as practicable" rule, which your local "bicycle advocate" sees as not important.

I hope this helps you in deciding whether or not to support the 3 foot rule.


------------------------------


Every law that is bicyclist specific brings us closer to bicyclists officially being a third party to motorists and peds. This cannot be good. Of course, bicyclists are also more and more being defined as rolling pedestrians as well.


------------------------------


We already have safe passing laws in every state. The laws that are the subject of agitation are not safe passing laws but "Don't frighten me" laws that define some specific clearance distance as necessary to prevent fear being felt by some cyclists. Or, they might be "Don't harass me" laws, based on the fear that many motorists are attempting to inform cyclists that they don't belong on the road.

I think that it is all silly. There is no specific "safe overtaking clearance", because every situation is different. In the world of traffic law, that clearance has always been a matter of judgment. Certainly, if contact occurred, the law was violated. Also, if the motion of the overtaking vehicle caused the slower driver to take avoidance action, then the issue of violation would arise. That would occur if the faster vehicle moved into the front of the slower vehicle so close as to cause the slower driver to take avoidance action, or if, when the vehicles were side by side, the faster vehicle moved so close to the slower vehicle that the slower driver took avoidance action. If observed by a police officer, these movements would be grounds for citation and prosecution. If the avoidance action by the slower driver caused him to run off the road, or to collide with another vehicle, and suffer damages, then the issue would be considered by the court.

The argument for this agitation is that cyclists are vulnerable road users, meaning much more vulnerable than are motorists. As I have always written, motorists don't like the inconvenience and cost of repairing collision damage; I see no evidence that any significant number of motorists are deliberately risking colliding with a cyclist despite the
inconvenience and cost resulting from such a collision. Those motorists who deliberately run that risk are, pretty generally, so very obvious in their determination that the issue is one of assault, not needing any other law.

I also don't like being labeled as some kind of road user for whom special treatment is warranted, either for vulnerability or for political purposes. The stronger is the mental image that cyclists require special treatment from other road users, the stronger is the motorists' attitude that such nuisances should not be using the roadway.

For that matter, what is the expected result of this law? It will have no effect if the standard safe overtaking law is violated. It will have effect only when that is not violated. When would that be? I say, only when observed by a police officer equipped with measuring and recording equipment. And, I say it, such conditions will in in all probability occur only in very slow traffic when the actual safe overtaking clearance can be less than the usually specified three feet. If I am navigating in slow traffic where there is no possibility of turning right, I don't mind having an eighteen-wheeler close alongside me.


------------------------------


We had a car/bike collision four or five years ago in Nebraska in which the motorist claimed the cyclist swerved--and he hit him from behind and killed him. The motorist was not held responsible. How do you prove that the swerve was less than three feet without witnesses? Could an expert reconstruct the collision that closely? I have my doubts.

------------------------------

Sometimes the point of impact can be determined from physical evidence (skid marks, damage to vehicles, etc.). Sometimes, the "usual" or probably position of the cyclist can be determined. If the two are within 3', then the motorist defense can be challenged.

Also note that a more complete version of the law might require different distances for different MV speeds: no specified distance for >25 mph, or 3' for <25>45 mph.

It's no panacea but I think it could help. Certainly universal education is the closest we have to a universal solution and a 3' law is no substitute for such education. We need to dispel what I call the three great fallacies of bicycle operation:

1. The superstition that there is great danger from passing traffic (fear from the rear).
2. The notion that cyclists do not belong on the road; that their greatest duty is "staying out of the way".
3. The erroneous belief that cyclists cannot (or do not need to or should not) follow the standard rules of the road.

Note also last year's fatality on a bridge in Louisville KY, where the police did not cite the motorist. Apparently state law does not allow a citation unless the officer witnesses a violation or unless drugs of abuse are found. A police spokesman made excuses for the driver "He didn't see him."

Still, I suspect there would have been citations if it had been a police officer killed alongside the road with no surviving witnesses (other than the motorist).

We need that education.

Ultimately, I feel that I support the intent (that motorists should pass cyclists at a safe distance), but I disagree that more complicated legislation is the correct way.

I believe this is more of a "feel good" law than an effective piece of legislation. Is someone "bad" or "wrong" for supporting this (or opposing it)? No. But I have an uneasy feeling that it's driven by misguided optimism, when cleaning up the existing laws (i.e., removal of the "far to the right" language") would have better results, and certainly be less confusing.

Finally, expressing much of my opinion, and using language I will employ as a base in contacting my elected officials, there came this response.

I do not support either SB-488 or its companion bill in the House, HB-827.

Existing statutes already dictate that slow(er) moving traffic is to stay to the right (§545.051) and overtaking vehicles are to pass to the left (§545.053). Since bicycles are already recognized as legitimate vehicles, the only action necessary is for the definition of "a safe distance" (§545.053.a.1) to be specified.

These bills are dangerous for cyclists, for they combine recognized, legitimate vehicles with several pedestrian groups. In doing so, this opens the door to future legislation which may serve to lessen the legitimacy of cyclist's rights.

The Gloss on Ross

There has been a recurrent interest expressed here in having Bike Lanes on Ross Avenue, and so that's a good test case to look at.

Ross Avenue is 1.75 miles long, from Greenville Avenue to Central Expressway, and another 1.2 miles from Central to Houston Street. Let's discuss the section from Greenville to Central, first. That section of Ross is 56' wide, with 11' wide through lanes, and with a center turn lane of 12'.

A bike lane should be 5' wide according to the AASHTO Guide that the vast majority of public agencies use (there are exceptions), including 4' for the lane itself and a 1' offset from the curb, to avoid the worst of the problems that occur along road edges, including the very dangerous to bicycles seam between the gutter pan and the actual road pavement. To install a bike lane in both directions (5'x 2), one travel lane would have to be removed from Ross. Would you remove the center turn lane, forcing all left turning vehicles to block traffic (adding to air pollution due to increased idling, and increasing rear-end collisions)?

Or would you remove 2' from each lane? That would result in 9' travel lanes... the same width as many of the trucks and buses that are on the road, resulting in frequent sideswipes, and truck mirrors protruding into the bike lane.

The section from Greenville to Central has approximately 18 street intersections and 60 commercial driveways per side. This sets up the high probability of frequent right-hook collisions, where a right turning vehicle (turning either onto a cross street, or entering a commercial driveway) strikes a cyclists they can't see (in the driver's blind zone). Additionally, there are numerous sections of Ross Avenue that have either parallel parking (door zone dangers) and head-in parking (another danger to bike-lane constrained cyclists when vehicles begin backing out, or pulling in unexpectedly).

One option would be to widen the street. That would mean tearing down every street-side building along Ross, or eliminating the sidewalks completely, neither of which strike me as a terribly good solution, not to mention the astronomical expense of buying private property.

If a cyclist chose Ross Avenue for their commute, the safest, and most environmentally responsible way to do so is to ride in the middle of the travel lane (as allowed by law). Sounds scary to some, but I believe there have been offers here to show one how easy it is to do.

For the cyclist who just can't face Ross Avenue during rush hour (no shame here, especially for the inexperienced), there are other, less congested options. San Jacinto, Bryan, Munger, Swiss, and even Gaston Ave and Live Oak, are all excellent ways to get from East Dallas/Lower Greenville, into the CBD. It may require you to ride a couple blocks out of your way to get across Julius Schepps and the DART line, but it's only a couple of blocks at most.

So, those of you who want bike lanes on Ross Avenue, what's your suggestion? More pollution? More traffic jams? More accidents? This is one inescapable reality of the streetscapes in Dallas, although once you learn the simple skills of vehicular cycling, it's not a bad one.

The other inescapable reality is this: just as there is no Magick Paint that keeps cars out of bike lanes, there's also no Magic Wand that creates new right of way.

T-Town on Two Wheels.

Tulsa is a town with many similarities to Dallas (except they get a real winter). Here's a nice clip of a bicyclist advocate.

As in the Dallas video below, notice the rider's lane position in traffic (he is commanding his lane), and how overtaking vehicles pull out early to pass him safely, with plenty of clearance.

Cycling in the Netherlands: 2009

I reprint this with permission of the author.

For the past decade, I have been criticizing the frequent and almost-official argument that producing Amsterdam-style bikeways in American cities will produce a large switch from motor transport to bicycle transport, and I have been roundly criticized by those who make that argument. My criticism is based on two arguments. Making bikeways safe delays and limits all traffic. Large bicycle modal shares occur only in cities that developed as walking cities. My criticisms are based on the inherent characteristics of bicycle and motor traffic, when both are equally available.

The Dutch, themselves, agree with my views, as they express themselves in "Cycling in the Netherlands", issued by the Dutch Department of Public Works, 2009 issue. Note that in 1.2, they state that the largest bicycling shares occur in large cities that never have had a "properly functioning" mass transit system, and that one reason that Manchester never had a large bicycle share is that it had an early "properly functioning" mass transit system. That is a distinction that I did not know. Consider the other characteristics of a large city that prevented the development of a mass transit system, and how the urban functions had to be arranged. No wonder that walking, and its speedier sister, bicycling, work well there. Note that in all the other sections, the Dutch emphasize high-density, concentrated development with short travel distances. And, rather remarkable, because the Dutch recognize (in 3.2) that, outside these areas, bicycle transport is not generally time-competitive with motor transport, they are considering building bicycle freeways to assist in reducing the time penalty.

These are quotations from "Cycling in the Netherlands" issued by the Dutch Department of Public Works, 2009 issue.

>From 1.2, Dutch bicycle use in a European perspective

Apart from the general parallels in the trend lines, we immediately find very striking differences. Differences in the level on which this general continuous movement takes place and differences in the strength in the rise and fall of the bicycle use share.

A high bicycle share (more than 30%) for Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Enschede and Copenhagen -- cities that never saw the arrival of a bicycle-use devouring public transport system and where bicycle traffic had always had always been a regular component of traffic policy. Accepting the cyclist as a 'normal' traffic participant with equal rights in the '50s and '60s has been a crucial factor in these cities.

An average bicycle share (approx. 20%) for South-East Limburg and Hanover. Here the rise of the car coincided with a more manifest pro-car policy and a spatial structure that was more in line with the car.

A low bicycle share (approx. 10% or below) for Antwerp, Manchester and Basel. Here it is especially the car-oriented traffic policy that explains matters, and the manifest influence of an early, properly functioning public transport system (Manchester). The decline which was the result of the arrival of the motor car continues uninterrupted and without 'brakes', because all relevant influencing factors are pointing in the same direction: a negative collective picture on cycling, a strong car-oriented policy, realization of a large-scale car infrastructure, strong suburbanization.

==========

>From 1.7 Bicycle policy works

It is regularly asked why there is so much cycling in the Netherlands. A difficult question -- although the answer clearly lies in a combination of factors. Morphological and spatial factors are obviously involved: cycling is easier on a flat polder than in a hilly area. And in the compact Dutch cities many trips can more easily be covered by bicycle because of the short distance. Historical-cultural factors also play a major role. Cycling is so embedded in the Netherlands that virtually every child gets the first bicycle around the fourth birthday -- and
learns to use it.

====================

>From Example A: Groningen: consistent policy

In Groningem the spatial policy is focused strongly on a compact city. The spatial structure exhibited strong compression around 2000, and the 1980 outline of the city is maintained. The municipality has worked on its policy with clear vision and persistence over some two or three decades. As a consequence, among other things, most traveling distances are easily covered by bicycle. Some 78% of the inhabitants live within a radius of 3km from the city centre, and 90% of all jobs are located
here; almost all major buildings are within 5km radius.

In 1977 this perception produced the traffic circulation plan which divided the city into four sectors. It was no possible to travel between sectors by car, but it was possible by bicycle and bus. Passing car traffic was kept outside the inner city ...

=======================

>From 3.2 Cycling to work

Most people believe that half-an-hour's traveling time to and from work is acceptable. Cyclists can certainly cover some 7.5 km in this time. This is an interesting figure, because of all those working in the Netherlands, half live within 7.5 km of work. ... All over the country there is interest in cycle routes for longer distances. [Routes in the form of bicycle freeways] As a result, distances of up to 15 km are achievable with cyclists able to reach speeds of 25-30 km/hour. This means that cyclists are not much slower than other modes of transport and in congested areas they may be much faster.

--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
www.johnforester.com

When reading the above, it's important to remember that the Dallas area has the lowest population density of any statistical metropolitan area in the world, and that our commute distances are among the longest.

It's all right, Ma. I'm only bleeding.

From Bike Portland.

Major injury right-hook crash at 9th and Lovejoy

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on March 2nd, 2009 at 10:12 am

This is the northeast corner of
NW 9th and Lovejoy.
(Photos by Marion Rice)

This morning around 8:45 a woman riding her bike in the bike lane down NW Lovejoy was right-hooked as she attempted to cross NW 9th.

According to Marion Rice, who was on the scene just minutes after the collision took place, the woman was pinned under the car and dragged across the intersection. The car and the bike came to rest near the northwest corner of the intersection (in front of Subway).

Police and ambulance responded to the scene and the woman was taken to the hospital with serious injuries. An officer on the scene told Rice that the woman was conscious (but unable to speak) and has likely suffered a broken leg and pelvis, a broken jaw, and has suffered serious facial lacerations.

This intersection is no stranger to
right hooks. I took this photo in 2006.
(Photo © J. Maus)

End of Bike Portland's report.

What's going on here? It's simple. The universal understanding that a vehicle in the right lane may turn right has been suspended, by creating a "segregated" right lane that may continue straight across the path of right turning vehicles. Such a concept requires the suspension of logic, and results in "right hook" collisions like this, when a straight through bicyclist enters a right turning motorist's blind zone.

Such encounters are often fatal, and in this case, are purely the result of politically-based traffic engineering decisions.

Caution-based, not fear-governed, cycling.

These cyclists are crossing the Houston Street Viaduct from downtown Dallas to north Oak Cliff during the early rush hours of a Friday afternoon.

The cyclists are traveling about 15 mph (not fast). Notice how the overtaking vehicles pull out to pass well in advance of overtaking them. That’s because the cyclists are “controlling” their lane. Works that way all the time, even if it's just one cyclist... as long as they control their lane.

If the cyclists had been riding to the far right of the lane (as many people mistakenly believe they should), the motorists would have attempted to pass them without changing lanes, creating a dangerous situation.

Had there been a bike-lane present (which the cyclists would have been required to use), the motorists would have passed the cyclists closer, and at a higher rate of speed.

Is that really what people want? Sadly, it seems many do. Especially the ones who don't ride bicycles.

This was videoed by Brian DeSousa of Dual-Chase Productions, Long Beach, California.

A reminder of the inefficacy of paint as a protector...

...and the false promise it presents.

Recall the old on-street trail on Mockingbird Lane at White Rock Lake. That's the type of facility this woman and her two children were riding on.