BIKE: Re: bike safety

[Thorne]

Thanks, Lane and Dave.  

It's interesting to note that while bicyclinginfo.com dismisses Forester's
figure of 2.6 times as dangerous to ride on a bike/hike path as on the streets
(and it is surely subject to criticism), on its FAQ regarding striped lanes it
cites the 1996 Moritz study which finds bike/hike paths to be more than twice
as dangerous as the streets (if I read the chart right).  Are they quibbling? 
More info:
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html (John Franklin's
summary of studies on path safety from 1938-1999--see his link to "Redways"
experience in the UK 1971-1999)

As Dave points out, the thing is not to say "never ride one" but rather to
understand that a bike/hike path presents dangers to riders riders must be
aware of to make themselves safe.  Problems from other traffic (peds, dogs,
baby strollers, skateboards, standers, other riders) will present themselves,
maybe to different degrees at different times.  The other problem they tend to
present is for cyclists getting to the end of a path or an intersection of a
path with a roadway.  That is where the car collisions come in.

I've ridden various kinds of hike/bike paths in several US cities and also in
several European countries and almost without exception would rather be riding
in the road for two reasons (or three depending on how one counts.  The road
is usually safer (1).  The road usually is a more direct (2) and faster (3)
route than the paths.  More power to the path that gets me there quicker, if
there is one, especially if I don't end up on a poorly designed, poorly
maintained path full of dog walkers (not that I hate dog walkers), where I
have to stop ever few hundred yards to safely cross a street.

And all that is to say I'd rather see my cycling advocacy time and taxpayer
money spent looking at the safety on the roads of people riding bikes for
transportation purposes, rather than at how can we get the cyclists to get off
of the roads and get along with the walkers.

Peace.

Jeff

------ Original Message ------
Received: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:33:32 PM CDT
From: "Lane S. Wimberley" <lane>
To: Dave W <daveintex13>Cc:
forum-bicycleaustin.info
Subject: Re: BIKE: Re: bike safety

FWIW...

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/insight/faqs/bicycle_facilities.htm

-Lane

Dave W writes:
> Jeff, thanks for the info and link; I bookmarked it.
> 
> > 2: There has been no significant demonstration that 
> > either bike paths or bike-lane stripes have reduced
> > the cyclist crash rate. On the contrary, bike paths 
> > have several times been shown to be the most
> > dangerous facilities we have.
> 
> As for bike paths, I don't dispute that they're
> dangerous, maybe even more dangerous than cycling on
> (some) streets.  I can only relate my experience on
> several bike paths in the Washington, DC area.
> 
> On most of my commutes on the Mount Vernon, Martha
> Custis, and Capital Crescent Trails, there were no
> other users around, maybe a jogger or two.  A simple
> bell ring and loud "passing on the left" let them know
> I was coming.
> 
> I never had any problems because there was rarely
> anyone to crash into.  But on the first warm sunny
> spring day, you can bet all the runners, walkers,
> cyclists and whatnot were out clogging up *my* trails
> :).  Another very rare problem was the "gorilla"
> cyclists out doing training on the bike path.  They
> usually didn't give much audible warning they were
> coming.  But I'd rather be hit by a gorilla than a
> car.
> 
> Besides the mixing of high and low speed traffic, bike
> paths also suffer from their accessibility to
> all--including people with no riding skills or
> etiquette.  Children slaloming from one lane to the
> other.  People passing without an audible signal.  And
> walkers and joggers who execute U-turns on the path
> without even looking behind them (with or without
> headphones).  But, once again, I'd rather collide with
> a path user than a motor vehicle (I've done both, so I
> know ;) ).
> 
> Dave Westenbarger
>