BIKE: Bikes and Traffic Laws FW: [allandale] curb extension wreck

[Thorne]

The point of cyclists' need to follow traffic laws of course fits into the
ongoing discussion of bike lane design vs. whether we might be served best by
not putting up bike lanes as a general rule unless we can identify a
particular problem in a particular place where channelization may help overall
safety.

It has not been shown that a bike lane makes one safer, even though a bike
lane plainly can make one feel safer.  I have recently posted several good
reasons for thinking a bike lane stripe often makes things worse for riding,
both for the skilled rider and for the novice, because the bike lane stripe is
a traffic control device that to a large degree encourages behaviors by both
cyclists and motorists that differ from safe and legal behavior.  The lane
makes safe riding more difficult to do it makes it harder to learn to ride
safely where there are lanes and where there aren't.  On the other hand, it
has been quite adequately demonstrated that riding the bicycle in accordance
with vehicular cycling principles, that is by riding the bike according to the
same traffic principles and laws that apply when driving a car or motorcycle,
reduces risks from cycling very significantly.

In Foresterist fashion, I'll quote from Forester's website
[http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/Organization.htm --this one being a
postition statement, you'll have to explore some to find the scientific basis
for the arguments on either side, and emphasis I've added in caps and comments
I've bracketed]:

"The scientific support for vehicular cycling comes from a variety of sources
and methods of investigation, all of which provide conclusions that support
the vehicular-cycling principle.

"1: The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles specify how vehicles should
be operated. These have been tested and improved for a century, and they
provide reasonable safety with reasonable efficiency. Nobody has devised a
better system; if someone had, motorists would have adopted it. Nobody has
ever demonstrated that cyclists would benefit from operating in a different
manner. 

"2: Accident statistics show that ONLY ABOUT 12% OF ACCIDENTS TO CYCLISTS HAVE
ANYTHING TO DO WITH MOTOR TRAFFIC. Of car-bike collisions, about 95% ARE
CAUSED BY TURNING OR CROSSING MOVEMENTS, very few by same-direction motor
traffic. In nearly all car-bike collisions, the collision would have been
avoided had both parties been obeying the rules of the road. In MORE THAN HALF
of car-bike collisions, the cyclist was not obeying the rules of the road. 

"3: Comparison of different populations of cyclists and their accident rates
shows that the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR in reducing accidents is the skill of the
cyclist. As far as car-bike collisions are concerned, this skill is reflected
by the degree to which the cyclist obeys the rules of the road for drivers of
vehicles. Those populations with the greatest conformity to the rules of the
road have the lowest accident rates, about 20%-25% of those of the general
bicycling public. Furthermore, those cyclists who most often ride in the most
difficult conditions have the lowest overall accident rate. [Riding your bike
more in the right manner is what will keep you safe--not striping, not paths. 
See MBJ's "How Not to Get Hit by Cars" @ bicyclesafe.com  Is my math wrong--is
the data?  Magically eliminating all cycling accidents involving motor traffic
would reduce my accident risk by about 12% while riding according to the
rules, even without somehow taking the cars out of the equation, would double
that safety enhancement.  What is the bike lane stripe most arguably
protecting us from?  The overtaking collision--about 4% of accidents (and for
that statistic, we're combining cyclist at fault with motorist at fault), and
no one can claim it's 100% effective at that.  "Well, I'll take what part of
that 4% I can get," I can hear already, "especially on Jollyville."  What part
is that?  At what cost?*]

"4: The road system goes almost everywhere that people want to go. Bikeways,
by their very nature, cannot be built on every street. The cyclist who wishes
to get around by bicycle has to know how to ride on normal streets, whether or
not his town has a bikeway system.  [EVERY LANE IS A BIKE LANE.]

"5: Comparison of the different methods of making traffic movements required
by the rules of the road and by bikeways (either bike lanes or sidepaths)
shows that the vehicular methods are well within human ability, while the
bikeway methods require abilities that humans do not have, such as all-around
vision and decision making based thereon. Urban bikeway systems require
superhuman abilities to ride in a safe manner at reasonable speed. [Hyperbole
alert, but do note the point behind it:   Bike lanes require more skills from
the expert or novice rider, not fewer.]

"6: Learning to obey the rules of the road is sufficiently easy that even
young children can learn to cycle according to the rules of the road. The time
required is about 15 class hours of practical instruction, given using the
instructional methods used for swimming, skiing, tennis, and the like. The
graduates of such courses cycle far better than the typical adults in the
society around them." [That is, cycling is like tennis or swimming or skiing,
but really most is like driving--most anyone can learn to do it competently
easily.  A course may help, but isn't necessary.  Young children are mentioned
here, I think, because a child can learn to cycle safely and with good
judgment even if we wouldn't trust him in our 4,000 lb. family wagon at 45
mph.  Safe riding isn't a mystic art or brain surgery.]

See also "Bicycle Politics" to see what cycling advocacy group you most
identify with, and with whom you are in league, especially if you lean toward
thinking 'attracting people to cycling' (a worthy goal) is more than enough
reason to put up (and put up with) lanes that can't be shown to actually
benefit riders.  Do the means justify that end? 
http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/bicycle_politics.htm  Suddenly I wonder, what
do the critical massers think about bike lanes and bike paths?  
Good for acheiving the car-free world of the future or not?

Thorne
(one car fewer)

[*and I'll again disclaim:  I'm not always opposed to bike lanes, I just want
them designed and installed so that the identified downsides are minimized in
the interests of overall cycling safety.]
[Also, I'll apologize right now for my stupid lack of foresight if this
somehow devolves into a discussion of whether one should run the red light or
whatever like that.]


------ Original Message ------
From: "Jeb Boyt" <jeboyt>
To: forum: 
Subject: BIKE: Bikes and Traffic Laws FW:  [allandale] curb extension 

FYI  Examples of how cyclists failing to follow the traffic laws undermine our
credibility.  Also, more discussion of curb extensions.

For what it is worth, the vast majority of the cyclists that I see on Shoal
Creek obey the laws.  It is the few that don't, though, that stand out in
people's minds.

Jeb