Ecology of Rights

One of the more useful ideas that I have come across, recently in my reading, is called ecology of ideas.

This has nothing to do with nature, but everything to do with how useful an idea is to promoting your goals. When you ask whether an idea is ecological, you aren’t asking whether the idea is true.

It’s not that ecological ideas are necessarily false, but rather sometimes our obsession with the truth can get in the way of the useful.

Many un-ecological phrases are also examples of loaded language:

“Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional implications and involve strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language

One example of this is “rights to the road”.

This is a useless phrase because it doesn’t really mean anything.

It does sound good, in a vague way. Who would be against “rights to the road” by a totalitian or patriarch.

However, it would be better for the rights to be spelled out more specifically like I did in a previous post. Also, it’s nice if we could see specifically _why_ these rights are so important.

Right now, I do _not_ feel like I have the right to ride my bicycle many places. That is, I feel that there are many jobs that I will NOT be able to get to by bicycle.

Even new laws specifically allowing me to ride on the roads that get there won’t help much.

Another un-ecological phrase is “motorist education”. Again, who would be against education?

However, things fall apart when you look at the details. What does education, in this context, mean? Is there as specific class that motorists will have to take? When will they take it? How will we ensure that they will take it? What’s taught in the class? When will 100% of motorists be “educated”.

Right now, to my knowledge, cyclist education, for motorists is 100% voluntary and there is no government body which oversees said education. Thus is totally non-standard. Thus, without knowing who’s educatated or with what, we have no idea how to judge whether this is a good idea.

As it stands, “motorist education” is a soft and vague way of deflecting complaints that motorists suck to be close to when on a bicycle. If someone complains that motorists harass you for taking the lane or that a stretch is too dangerous because you keep getting buzzed, some “cycling advocates” will say that “motorists need education” rather than putting in to effect something with more teeth which will actually solve the problem.

The real hope is that you, and your complaint, go away and we continue with life as usual with said advocates not riding on the stretch of road that sucks for you, because they have cars, and can choose when and where to ride.

Another pointless phrase is “door zone”. Where is this exactly? We know that if you get hit by a door “doored” you were riding too far into the “door zone”. However, car doors are variable in length. Thus the door zone is really not a rectangular “zone”, but rather a fuzzy area which changes with parking patterns. For example, if there’s a semi truck parked in front of a smart car, you might have to go further out into the lane to avoid crashing into the corner of the semi. However, if you are in the same location when riding next to the smart car, you are still out of range of its door.

The silliest thing about the door zone is that it’s often given as an exact distance where you are “safe to ride”. However, it’s absurd that one can keep one’s bicycle straight. Even if you could, unless you ride out into the center of the travel lane, you will be in the “door zone” some time or another.

The problem with “door zone” is also that it implies that there are locations which are particularly dangerous on the road. However, studies have shown that people get hit in every single location on the road. Thus, splitting up the road into arbitrary zones is not really helpful in ascertaining a safe place to ride because we don’t know a safe place.

This is because even when designations such as “travel lane” are given, we still can’t be sure exactly where each cyclist was and the other circumstances of his accident. As I said before, you can get hit by a car while sitting in your house. It’s not common, but it’s possible.

Finally, with the door zone, when someone gets doored, we blame the cyclist. We don’t ask for more “motorist education”. On the other hand, if the same cyclist is rear ended, we don’t blame him for riding in the road, but rather we try to find some other cause for his death or we start to talk about how if you do the math in a certain way, this is an unlikely event.

Thus, “door zone” is an arbitrary phrase which is usually used against cyclists sometimes to make us look stupid other times to justify our deaths.

Another useless phrase that is going out of fashion is “competent cyclist.”

Again, since cyclist safety is in its infancy, especially in the US, there are no real experts on cycling riding. At best there are people who are experienced, Sadly, many experienced and intelligent cyclists report that they feel that the more they cycle, the less safe they think that they are riding because they take more chances due to less fear. So experience might not be all that it’s cracked up to be for riding. Statistics are also not much help as we said before. Thus, outside of speculation–which many people love to do, including me–there’s no real way saying what’s safe and what’s not.

The more honest people say that they don’t know, there are no “cycling experts”.

Also, note that cyclists are 10x more likely to be killed in accidents per trip mile than motorists. Why don’t we have the phrase “incompetent motorists”?

Pedestrians are even more likely to die than cyclists per trip mile. Why not say “incompetent pedestrian”? Mainly because it’s stupid, but the same can be said for cycling unless you want to create a convoluted argument against infrastructure.

I suggest that since our roads suck for cycling, there is no real safe way of riding. At best, we can avoid certain roads, especially “rural roads” at night.

Thus, another useless phrase is “with proper education, a cyclist can ride safely anywhere”. Most data shows that this is a total fabrication as some roads are more inherently dangerous than others.

Along these lines is another meaningly combination of words which is “normal flow of traffic.” It’s often said that we can’t have cycling infrastructure because it interupts the “normal flow of traffic.”

Well, everything interupts traffic. Flowing traffic isn’t the point; the point is to get from point A to point B. To make this safer and more efficient, we have traffic lights, drive ways, and parking lots. In each of these, a motorists interupts the “normal flow of traffic.”

Also, traffic isn’t naturual, it’s created by humans. Thus, it’s up to humans to decide what is “normal” for their creation. We used to not have freeways. When the first one was built, would it have been legitimate to argue that this was not normal? People would have laughed. Thus, to say that anything interupts “normal” traffic flow is just silly.

Overall, there are many nonsensical phrases we hear around cycling. They are strongly worded so we must agree with the phrases. Otherwise, we are incomptents who are against rights and education and thus we urge people ride in the door zone and away from rural roads.

Externalized Mitigation

I’m not a libertarian because I think that their views are mainly selfish and show a lack of understanding of human nature.

However, I do like one of their sayings which is “My rights begin where your rights end.”

To me, this means that I can do whatever I want as long as I don’t take your rights away.

That usually works except when it comes to motor vehicle traffic.

Here’s the thing. I really want dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Not because I can’t all ready use the roads, anyone can ride their bike on a well formed road.

The main reason is that automobiles are annoying and scary.

The thing is that NOBODY thinks of them as being the problem.

Everytime you have a safety lesson, it’s where the victim didn’t take care of themselves.

It’s a total blame of the victim.

For example, we are responsible for wearing bright clothes.

Why?

Because if we don’t, motorists might kill us.

That’s pretty harsh, don’t you think? Death for the wrong wardrobe? Sounds like a backward, and insane religious theocracy.

But no, we are _different_ from an insane, theocracy because we don’t mean to kill you, it’s an accident.

Really? How so?

Before you get into a car, you know it’s dangerous. Streets are not inherently safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

If they were, I wouldn’t have to continuously live in a state of paranoia like I do now.

I’ll repeat this, I live in a constant state of paranoia not unlike a child in a war zone who has to watch out for mine zones, stray bullets, and sexual predator soldiers.

Can you just walk into any street without looking, wearing black with no lights and be safe?

Why not?

Because you will be killed.

I think I should have the right to NOT be killed. I don’t think it’s reasonable that I have to mitigate the problems that automobiles cause. Making me constantly having to check and double check for some moron on their cell phone is IMPINGING ON MY RIGHTS.

Which rights?

Well don’t I have a reasonable right to live?

Another example is disease. Disease is caused by nature and we have drugs and immunizations to lessen the risk.

Wild animals are another problem that humans have greatly reduced.

So why is the US government spending billions to make it more likely for us to die if we don’t dress a certain way and look around all the time like scared mice?

It should be the responsibility to each individual to mitigate the harm that they cause. 100% mitigated, not 50% not 10%.

That means, I should NEVER hear a car engine if I don’t want. I should never have to look around for a car. I should never have to carry lights and all kinds of other crap on my bicycle if I don’t want to.

But it’s really hard to mitigate automobile related problems.

So what?

It’s hard for me to control myself when walking by someone eating an ice cream cone but that doesn’t make it OK for me to take their ice cream.

But the economy will collapse if I don’t pollute as much as possible.

Really?

I’d like to meet this economy person who is the scape goat for other people’s selfishness.

From what I learned, “economy” meant exchanging goods and services in an mutually beneficially way. I see no benefit to noise, smoke, and death. Perhaps I’m stupid or I am looking at smog at all the wrong ways. Most people think that traffic noises are awesome which is why I see people picnicing right along the 8.

The point is that I don’t have the answers. But I get really angry when people create a shitty situation for me then they bitch when we have to spend a fraction of their subsidies on mitigating the problem that they created in the first place.

So the next time someone moans about the high cost of facilities say “no” that’s the high cost of our auto-centric world. Facilities for bicycle and pedestrians, only, would be a fraction of the cost of the auto-centric infrastructure. I mean the cost of socialized housing for cars, aka free parking, alone could pay for significant improvements in our infrastructure.

Micro-violations

OK, before I post this, you should see this amazing
data analysis.

You should probably read this whole blog before wasting time on my ramblings. This is truly a landmark blog.

OK, you’re back. I trust that you have read all of Biking in LA.

There is this are where I ride where people are turning from a rural road onto a freeway. Each and every driver rides across the double yellow lines.

This is funny to me for many reasons. One is that that I have to dash across the intersection, as it is, because the cars come down the rural road so fast, it’s almost as if they come out of nowhere. Also, it’s funny because there are people who claim that “nobody will cross a double yellow line, because it’s illegal, which is why motorists have to buzz cyclists on certain roads.”

Yeah right.

There’s another reason why I think it’s funny that people cross the double lines and that is because it’s totally harmless.

Very few cyclist go through this area, and the ones that do can take evasive action, like ride the wrong way, if they really need to get through this intersection.

This started me thinking of the notion of micro-violations. Note, that I’m not a lawyer, blah, blah, blah. This is merely an idea of my own that I just invented.

The idea is that there are some things that are illegal and are really dangerous like blowing through a stop sign in front of a school.

I know people are in a hurry, and so on, but hello, children! There’s a giant school right in front of you so stop, completely, for these stop signs even if it’s after school hours because many schools have play grounds that are used even at night.

On the other hand, like above, where people blow over a double yellow line, this is harmless.

Many violotions of cyclists, are similarly harmless.

Yet the government treats all violations the same. Worse, many people also treat these violations as the same.

This whole idea is why there are suggestions for changing the law so that it’s more in harmony with what’s actually necessary and safe rather than just blindly and mindless following arbitrary laws.

One last thing.

We are so obsessed with interection violations, we have red light cameras. As per above, I say rightly so.

But now rear ending is incresing. In fact, if you google rear ending statistics, they are totally obsessed about a minor increase in rear endings at red light cameras. The idea is that red light cameras are “dangerous”.

Maybe, but I think that the solution to this problem is to make the lanes more narrow near the red light so that people ride slower. Also, they can ticket tail gating more. I have never seen a ticket for tail gating, only speeding. But tail gating, in many places, can be just as dangerous.

Also, while speeding is just inconsiderate and irresponsible, tail gating is a form of agression and bullying.

If we just accept that most motorists will be incompetent and irresponsible, we can, at least, pull the licenses of those who are hostile.

Cycling Values

There are lots of groups who promise to do things which are “good for cycling”, but I have to ask, what does this really mean?

For me, this means four things: safety, efficiency, comfort, and mode share.

If something does not contribute to these things, I am not interested.

1. Safety is not as easy to understand as people may think. This is because it’s difficult to determine how many people are riding. Thus, to measure safety a census is necessary. I feel that this should be done in the next US census to get better data. Also, better crash data is needed.

Also, people make divergent predictions on what will make us safe. However, I find that the best way to determine this is to study places that are all ready safe and to find out what they do.

Increased safety for bicycles should mean increased safety for motoring and pedestrians, too.

2. Efficiency means how quickly and easily we can cycle. This means cycling freeways and paths with fewer junctions with motor vehicles. This means less hills or mitigation strategies on par with freeways which means 6% or less EVERYWHERE. This is far less expensive than building a new freeway and way more fun!

Efficient cycling should mean more efficient walking and motoring, too.

3. Comfort is related to efficiency and less hills, but also with less fear. Additionally, cycling should be more quiet and less smelly with less burning petrol odors.

Finally, we can do things like wrapping polls to make them less dangerous, give foot rests at curbs when we stop, or even handles for resting on.

When it comes to comfort, the sky’s the limit.

4. Mode share means increasing the number of people who cycle. This will be a natural result of the first three points. More mode share will actually also reinforce the top three points because more cyclists will want more safety, efficiency, and comfort and they will vote them for themselves.

I mainly want higher mode share, however, because I want more people to ride so everyday I am surrounded by beautiful cyclists of all ages, races, and walks of life.

One day, we will all leave our thunderdome view of cycling behind.

This is my vision for the future.

Biking Bell Curve

Imagine if there was a group of people who had superior skills regarding to cycling so that they could do so in such a way as to make it much safer.

Should we listen to this group?

The vast majority of cyclists says “NO!” In fact, they flat out ignore this group.

Why?

Because they are women of course.

How do I really know that these cyclists are the most “competent” of them all?

Let’s look at the facts. After all, just going on our own “superstitions”, we’d never learn anything!

Women account for only 40% of cyclists nationally, but they make up only 10% of the fatalities. Men on the other hand, are 60% of the total, but are 90% of the fatalities. Thus, women are less likely, even when their smaller total numbers are factored out, to die when cycling.

But who are the chest thumping bike xperts? (sic)

Men!

So here’s the thing. Why the hell would I listen to someone who is more likely to die?

I shouldn’t.

We really don’t know _why_ women are less likely to die, and we probably never will because, like I said, nobody listens to women.

We’d rather continue to die in larger numbers while mocking the safer sex.

I do have a theory on why women are in less accidents, and that is because they ride more intelligently.

In order to promote bicycle safety, I’m going to advocate riding more like women.

Other idiots can continue to ride their own made up ways, but I’m going to peddle down the path of wisdom.

Here are some of my preliminary findings in the wonderful, innovation I call “listening to women”.

Notice that these are all tendencies and the opinions of the women cyclists that I have spoken with and read about. Thus, there are going to be women who ride the exact same as the prototypical male. If this offends you, please close your browser window now. I’m not here to offend, but merely to collect data to keep myself alive.

Women tend to ride only when they feel comfortable. Other morons call this “superstitious” or whatever, but guess what, the proof’s in the pudding.

Women don’t tend to look at made up “crash diagrams” nor do they obsess over door zones or the dangers of sidewalk riding.

They go out of their way to ride longer routes which are quieter and avoid heavy, loud traffic.

They wear what they want.

If riding is too hard or scary, they just won’t ride at all which probably accounts, in part, for their lower numbers of cyclists. This also happens to be one of the cornerstones of Cross’ conclusions. Be very careful on what roads you ride on. Don’t be bold. Don’t ride too fast.

And overall, if you aren’t part of the safer sex who rides like the safer sex, shut up about safety. The numbers are against you, and whatever you say is bound to be wrong and just get people hurt.

Let A Thousand Flowers Bloom

The title is from a Mao quote where, for a brief time, he loosened up the speech codes thinking that this would lead to many poems written about the brilliance of Communist China. Instead, he got lots of criticism about his regime.

Some people feel, from the beginning, his plan was to trick his opponents out into the open so he could arrest them.

What does this have to do with cycling?

Nothing really except that I do like the title, and I see it as a metaphor for what California, and the rest of the United States would look like if we had the courage to loosen up our planning codes to allow engineers to truly innovate.

Many people make the stupid comparison of government and the private sector. However, I do feel that in this particular case, the government can learn from private industry.

Imagine if the engineers at Apple Computers had the same rigid “design codes” that the traffic engineers have. We would all be staring at blocky green cursors on black screens as text crawled across the screen from a 2400 baud modem.

American bikeways are now at the same kind of shitty standard that computers were forty years ago. I think that is, in part, because we don’t allow our engineers to have the full creative expression that they need to truly shine.

One of the reasons for these regressive attitudes is based on fear for the safety of cyclists due to confusion that all road users will have when confronted with innovations.

I think that this fear is largely unfounded.

Humans are more intelligent than that. Also, one of the best innovations that the roads are lacking is intuitiveness. Just as a radically new iPhone is more intuitive to use than the safer and well trod DOS, newer road designs will be more intuitive for cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians.

Initially, there will be a shock, but this is more of a safety shock than a collision producing one. When confronted with an innovation, motorist will be forced to slow down and to pay attention. This attentiveness will result in fewer not more collisions as one of the biggest contributors to motorway fatalities is driver inattentiveness.

Although the increase in safety and comfort for all is a huge advantage there are other benefits as well which is to make travel fun again.

A good friend of mine recounted it this way: she lived in a country where each state had not only different colored traffic signs but they were written in differing languages! Shortly after moving to the US, she took a road trip to a neighboring state. Imagine her dismay to realize that the state looked exactly same as the one before. With so much homogeneity, what’s the use of travel at all?

Traveling by bicycle, however, she had a much different experience. Infrastructure for cycling was slightly different in each state. There were harried students squeezing by her into the door zone in college towns, to wine tours by bicycle in another, to a bike path in the golf ball zone in another. Finally, in many places there was the unfortunate smelly and noisy shoulder of the boring and homogenous highway.

How many places have we gotten off an exit of a freeway and saw the same cluster of chains along side a fast paced arterial road and wondered why are we even here?

Now imagine every town being different with different styles of cycle tracks, round abouts, buffered bike lanes, biking boulevards, and even rope bridges across canyons for bicycles only.

Where are people going to come for tourism? What towns will people talk about, start businesses in, and want to raise their children in?

People like to whine about how high New York rent is, but there, more than anywhere else, you get what you pay for. New York has world class talent in every field because it has built the infrastructure that draws those people there and keeps them there. Why do you think that they are building all this biking stuff anyway?

Hint, it’s because they really know how to take care of their residents, and they are not afraid to spend money to do so. In fact, one might argue that this kind of government spending actually increases the tax base because it attracts wealthier residents to live and spend their money there.

Where else do you see such wealthy people living in apartments and walking the streets? In other places, walking is seen for the poor only.

So I urge the state of California to get off its ass and to stop standing in the way of innovation. We wasted forty or so years while the rest of the world surpassed us.

Instead of trying to ape Amsterdam, let’s up our game and have them coming here to learn for us. Sure there are lots of intelligent Dutch and Danish engineers so it’s a worthy competition. Let’s see who can build the most bicycle friendly city.

Burning Kens on My Lawn

Before we get off on the wrong foot, let’s just say that I am a BIG fan of Kenneth Cross and his research.

My goal is to burn down the house of cards which is based upon a misreading of his research, but I have nothing but good to say about the man (and all other men [and women]).

For some people, it’s always 1977 and the Ramones are getting a “Teenage Lobotomy”.

And so it goes as I venture into the well trod and tired world of Kenneth Cross’s 1977 study.

Why do I waste time on a study which is over 30 old?

Mainly because it’s the basis of _Effective Cycling_ a book everyone should read especially when they find themselves as hostages in Iran.

My goal is bury this study once and for all.

I want a VCer to be highly embarrassed when I mention Dr. Cross and his study because they have been exposed as humbugs as surely as the man behind the black curtain.

But I didn’t come to bury Dr. Cross, but to praise him.

From the good man himself:

“I am pleased by the increasing rationality among those concerned with bicycle programs. There is less emotionalism and more informed discussion at bicycle conferences.Definitive data are beginning to appear from bicycle research. Funding agencies at the national level have become aware of bicycle safety and the social benefits of bicycling. All of these changes point to a promising future for bicycling in the United States.”— Ken Cross, 1978″

Yes, he’s actually quite an affable fellow, and his study is a landmark in cycling research, but it does have some short comings which are no fault of Dr. Cross.

First of all, the study is old, and things have changed. Cycling technology has gotten a lot better. Many of the ideas, like good cycling lights, have been invented. Automotive radar is, perhaps, around the corner.

Ironically, his study has been used, in the US, to squelch more research in safe infrastructure and we are many years behind. This is not Cross’ fault.

In fact, my goal is to resurrect his original message to move research forward or at least to shut up the local nutjobs who quote his study in vain.

First, let’s see the quote that launched a thousand anti-bike way ships:

“Crucial to this policy is the superstition that the greatest danger to cyclists is same-direction motor traffic. Experienced cyclists such as myself knew that the major collision hazards came from conditions ahead of the cyclist, just as they do for motorists, but we had no scientific data on this point. California contracted with Ken Cross to make a statistical study of car-bike collisions, in the expectation that this study would demonstrate the truth of the superstition that the greatest hazard to cyclists came from same-direction motor traffic. Ken’s study was presented to the California Statewide Bicycle Committee at a meeting room in the Sacramento Airport. After the presentation, I rather naively pointed out that the Cross study supported all that I had been saying and utterly disproved the supposed basis for California’s policy.”

http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm

Note how he says that people’s fears of being rear ended are “superstitious” this is really important because we are going to come back to it.

There’s a funny thing about superstition and that is that we all have biases. Even me. Heck, especially me; I have breakfast with my biases daily. I want to be intimately acquainted with their biases.

Sometimes, though, we can read a paper, and make an honest mistake.

This is what I think happened when the book _Effective Cycling_ was written.

Here’s the first one (with page number from the study for easy reference):

Page 256

“The fear of overtaking accidents is well founded since the likelihood of fatal injuries is indeed higher for overtaking accidents than for any other class of accidents revealed by this study.”

Remember how above, we were told that this fear was “superstitious” and yet here in Cross’s study, the basis of all VC, this was the opposite.

Some of the things that VC people say are true, but many, many of their quotes turn out to be totally false. In fact, every time there’s a quote, I do a five minute google search and often, I can find that their quotes are not substantiated by the data at all.

Recall the anti-infrastructure bent the VC community has visited upon us?

Page 267

“Except for accidents that resulted from the motor vehicle being out of control, it seems reasonable to assume that most Class D accidents would not have occurred if an on-street bicycle lane had been present and the bicyclist had been riding in it.”

So Cross sees the benefit of infrastructure. Guess what? Like many cases, here he’s right.

There’s more:

“There is virtually no doubt that off-street bicycle lanes would reduce the incidence of overtaking accidents, if such facilities were available and used by bicyclists who otherwise would be riding on roadways.”

But what about education? Doesn’t that help?

“With only a few exceptions, there is little that a
bicyclist can be taught that would help him avoid Class D accidents once he has decided to ride where and when such accidents are most likely to occur.

As a consequence, the primary objective of an education and training program for bicyclists should center on modifying the bicyclist’s choice of where and when he will ride.”

Note, that he doesn’t promise that there’s a magic riding style to “liberate us all from superstition.” This was nonsense that was made up and put into Cross’s mouth.

Basically, Cross is saying that some roads are too dangerous to ride on at all.

Check this out:

http://cyclingsavvy.org/hows-my-driving/

“Many bike lanes are designed poorly or just plain dangerous. Bike lanes next to parked cars are often entirely within a hazard area we call “the door zone.” A suddenly-opened door can kill a cyclist.”

This is funny because in an earlier blog post, I talked about how dooring wasn’t a problem in Florida. It’s just too small of a problem to be worried about. Haha, superstition.

“Driving in the middle of the lane actually protects cyclists against the most common motorist-caused crashes: sideswipes, right hooks, left crosses, and drive-outs. A bicycle driver’s top safety priority is to ensure he or she can be seen by motorists with whom they might potentially be in conflict, and bicycling in the middle of a lane is one of the most effective ways to do that. Most overtaking crashes involve a motorist who attempts to squeeze past (illegally) in a lane that is too narrow to share.”

Actually, as you suspect, this is a lie.

If you look on problem 16 on page 237, you’ll see just 1.8% fatalities for a motorist trying to squeeze past. The 4% of the problem 14 where there’s no possible evasive action is greater, and there are other risks which are greater as well.

So you wonder, where they got this information from and why they don’t post data for us to look at it?

In fact, with such wrong data, I suspect that they merely made shit up.

From page 227:

“Many bicycling experts advocate riding in the center of the traffic lane rather than along the right-hand edge of the roadway. They claim that riding in the center of the traffic lane increases the chances of
being observed by motorists who are preparing to enter the roadway from intersecting streets or driveways.

“Also, they argue that riding in the center of the lane provides a greater buffer zone between the bicycle’s path and the position at which motor vehicles stop before entering the
roadway.

“Thus, riding in the center of the traffic lane provides addi­tional time for the bicyclist to initiate evasive action once it becomes apparent that a motor vehicle is going to enter the roadway. The authors believe that the following important questions must be answered before it is possible to recommend that bicyclists be taught to ride in the center of the traffic lane.

* Would riding in the center of the traffic lane increase the likelihood of detection by a margin that has practical significance?

* Would riding in the center of the traffic lane increase the bicyclist’s preview time by a margin that has practical significance?

* How would traffic efficiency be affected if riding in the center of the traffic lane became a common practice?

* Should riding in the center of the traffic lane be prohibited on some types of roadways and/or during certain time periods? If so, what types of roadways and what time periods?

* Should young bicyclists and/or slow-moving bicycles be permitted to ride in the center of the traffic lane? If not, what is the cutoff age/speed?”

If there’s an answer to these questions, please let me know. I have never seen it. I’ll post it if I get a good answer.

Thus, overall, I do think that the idea of a cycling safety course based on the data is a good idea, but have we ever seen one?

I have not. The ones I have seen like cycling savvy have misinformation all over them, and they seem to made to appeal to a small part of the population who wants to seem more elite than the rest of us sad sacks.

I mean I shudder at the whole notion of taking the lane because I think it’s totally inconsiderate. Of course, they’d probably tell me that I’m an idiot for having manners or something.

Also, the double standard arises, regarding classes versus facilities. This is because do we seen any moves to license the class by the government? No. Is there a law that expressly makes the classes legal? No.

Finally, do we see any mention, in this study, to the “rights to the road”? No.

Another shibboleth that we waste a ton of time on is the number of “turning conflicts that facilities cause.”

Looking at the Cross study, we realize that this is total nonsense.

Of all the types of fatalities caused by cyclists, 2.4% are caused by motorists going through an intersection and hitting a cyclist.

In fact, out of the 5 categories of Class C accidents, only two yield any deaths at all. Yet there are a great number of collisions for this type of accident as would be expected when vehicles come into conflict with one another.

This is where the VC people make a classic bait and switch where they confuse collisions with lethality then they pretend that all collisions are deadly.

Page 211-212″

“The vast majority of collisions occurred shortly after the motorist accelerated from a stopped position. This fact accounts for the low inci­dence of fatalities for Class C accidents. When the motor vehicle struck the bicycle, the impact velocity was low and the bicyclist usually careened off the front of the motor vehicle. When the bicyclist struck the motor vehicle, the impact velocity was solely a function of the bicyclist’s speed.

Apparently, the bicycle speed was not often great enough to produce fatal injuries.Because of the low incidence of fatal accidents, Class C accidents must be considered less important than other types of accidents that account for fewer accidents but more fatal injuries.”

Thus, it is clear from Cross’ study that if you were going to increase cyclist safety, you’d argue against taking the lane (untested still), against “rights to the road”, in favor of facilities, and for classes that taught one to ride where the least number of deaths were observed and not merely to satisfy an ideology.

The Safety Delusion

The other day, someone at worked as me if I were afraid to die on the streets.

This told me a number of things.

One was that in his mind, and many others, a bicycle equals death.

I wrote about this before.

Another thing, though, was that it implied that motoring was safe.

Not a safer choice, given conditions, but just plain old safe.

It’s not.

I wondered where he got this idea since there are so many car accidents, we all know at least one person who has been injured in one, and many more of us were in them.

I don’t know the answer to this question, but it affects how we treat road design.

This is why I oppose our hysteria about drunk driving and our hand waving over motorist education about our “rights to the road.”

Yes, we should not drink and drive. Yes, we should be educated.

But I’d argue that poorly designed roads are as much to blame for people’s deaths as drunks and lack of education.

When we focus on drunks and learning, we seem to pretend that the roads are safe right now. We just need smarter, sober drivers.

I have been looking into other alternatives.

One of them is “Sustainable Safety.”

http://www.swov.nl/uk/research/kennisbank/inhoud/05_duurzaam/sustainablesafety.htm

This movement started in 1991, and it seeks to continually make countries like the Netherlands, safer.

“At the same time, every year, we have to regret the fact that so many road traffic casualties occur. This represents enormous societal loss.”

This is from the safest country in the world.

They are so humble.

The difference here is that there is an emphasis on safety in engineering.

It is assumed that the same is true in the United Statses, but from my limited contact with people, there is no.

In vehicle purchasing there is a desire for the appearance of safety, but many vehicles that are bought for safety purposes, like SUVS, are actually less safe than cars.

But when people have complained to the City of San Diego because they felt a section was unsafe, the city disagreed. This is despite several accidents happening there.

So the burden of proof is on us. Roads designed within code are seen as safe. This is despite our large number of traffic deaths a year.

On the other hand, things that have worked well in other countries, saving many lives, Countries like the Netherlands have had a twenty-fold reductions in children deaths after the “Stop de Kindermoord” (Child Murder Campaign).

I wonder why we have not had the same outrage to the deaths of children in the US.

This blog post talks more about Sustainable Safety:

http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2010/01/sustainable-safety.html

Strangely, in California where there are more cycling deaths, in proportion to the number of riders, yet less money spent on safety for cyclists, new innovations are put under a microscope because they may be “unsafe”.

The reality is that that roads are all ready unsafe, and the fact that people don’t ride means that we don’t care about cyclists here.

As pointed out elsewhere, if they merely made cycling illegal, more people would be doing it. Right now it’s seen as so terrible, dangerous, and unpleasant, more people smoke pot, which is illegal than ride a bicycle.

Why is this? I don’t really know the answers, but I do realize that this reality means that we have been sold out by Quislings who have made cycling worse than illegal.

For those who’d like to see what real advocates have done, let’s look at a movie about them in the Netherlands:

What is an Expert?

Often in the cycling world, we have the testimony of “experts.”

Overall, this sounds like a good idea

We need to have people who really know what they are talking about before we make decisions on riding style and infrastructure.

Right?

I’d argue that, “no”, we don’t need an expert at all. What we need is good data to decide what’s best practice.

But won’t an expert give us the best data?

I’m not sure. Maybe. I’m not against educated people looking objectively at data. However, I am a little suspicious when I can clearly see things being true, in professional data, and I am told the opposite is true, and that I’m too stupid to even read some simple statistics.

If we are to decide whether we need experts or not, we should first decide what makes an expert cyclist advocate?

Let’s first look at what does NOT make an expert.

An expert is not someone who is merely old. It is ageist (sic) to say that a younger person needs to “respect his elders” with regard to the facts.

In fact, the facts are open to all of us to look at and are not the monopoly of a single generation especially ones that keep telling us how awesome they are. (I’m looking at you, Greatest).

An expert is not someone who repeats himself–yes, himself, there are few older women who try to lord their non-existant expertise over others–over and over again.

So what is an expert?

I have worked for a number of them over the years, and in general, but not always, are bad speakers. But not all bad speakers are real experts, of course.

Experts give data to back up their claims. If they don’t have data, they will say “I don’t know”. Experts are well read in their topic, and they are constantly learning new data.

Experts don’t assume that the past will be like the future, but they are constantly looking for new findings.

Experts are generally unsure of themselves and will lose a public “debate” with someone who knows nothing on the topic, but is able to give a false sense of confidence.

Experts are humble and are more interested in learning the right thing rather than being right in a moment.

Experts often change their minds and are not afraid to admit it.

The more the expert knows about a topic, the less dogmatic and less certain they will be on anything because they will realize that there are always exceptions. Still, an expert will not get distracted by exceptions, but rather will be able to give the facts which are relevant in most cases.

When an expert evaluates something, such as a road for safety, they will be able to give, ahead of time, the criteria that they are looking for. Experts can train other experts and are happy to do so. But an expert will urge others to go and read on their own as well.

One of the biggest problems that experts have is confirmation bias (read _You Are Not So Smart, book). This infects everything we learn because we have said things in the past, and we like to seem smart. Thus, when contradictory data comes along, we’ll mentally fight it.

The way around this is the corny, but true saying, “Zen mind, beginners’s mind” which means we try to keep everything fresh by forgetting what we know to learn more. Another way of putting this is “empty your cup” which means that we need to have an open mind when learning, always.

Thus, if someone is truly an expert, you will know that they are right through the clear presentation of data rather than the insistence that you are too stupid to understand anything and thus should take their word for it.

Door Zone Face Off!!

Below is an interesting discussion I had with John. We went back and forth for a while.

Originally, I was upset about his door zone webpage.

I do agree that bike lanes should not be in door zones even though it’s “within code” in the highway manual. This is why the highway code is not always the best place for bikway design, and we need to use things that work elsewhere.

Initially, I thought that the door zone page had useful info, but then I realized that like other door zone pages, it was merely a thinly disguised anti-bike lane page.

I looked at the data and presented it to Mr. John. He got angrier and angrier.

At first, he repeated stale notions like the idea that most rear end collisions occur in rural areas, which is not true as most bike collisions are urban and many of the studies do not even list rural collisions.

The results are very consistent in showing how there are some major injuries and a few deaths in the door zone there are worse kinds of injuries.

The more data I gave, the more personal John got. I noticed that this was a pattern.

If the data is bad then we get personal. Then we argue from authority.

Yes, I love being insulted in arguments because it makes me feel as if I’m getting somewhere.

But then again, I’m not a bik exprt (sic), but I do know how to spell expert.

Below is the transcript:

We both want to make riding safer by better informing cyclists.

I have no interest in angering you, and no interest in debating you.

We are too intelligent, and reasonable people with the same information in front of us.

I feel that you should tell cyclists ALL the information that they need to make a smart decision.

I was merely asking for more data because I thought that your webpage was misleading by telling cyclists to ride in places where they are more likely to die.

I avoid the door zone as much as possible, but I also like to stay out of the travel lane especially when cars are moving faster than 30 MPH because we both know that’s the speed where collisions become deadly and that’s the speed where overtaking by motorists is more necessary.

In San Diego, most roads are very fast. Fortunately, more of them are getting bike lanes which force motorists to pass with greater
distance. Bike lanes also allow me to ride further away from the door zone.

Can you please just look at the data in a new way rather thanimmediately trying to make up some kind of excuse on why this is unimportant.

I can show you places where you distort the data.

I looked at your quote:

>>http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm

“Ms. Laird could have understood that the relative risk of riding in the “door zone” from “dooring” collisions and other crashes is many times higher than the risk of being struck by overtaking vehicles when riding outside the “door zone.” She might then have ridden at the very left edge of the marked bike lane, or outside the lane. “

I found dooring to be 0.44% in New York and Orlando, 0%, both of which are not rural. NYC is WELL LIT as well.

Toronto has a 0.4% of deaths in 2003 from dooring while there are 4x as many deaths from being rear ended.

Also, there are no more COLLISIONS in Toronto from dooring than being rear ended.

In every study, I listed below there are at least 4x more overtaking deaths than door zone deaths including the original Cross study.

In his study, dooring was a mere 0.6% fatal vs. 24% by being rear ended.

Even with the statistical games that John Forester plays, which discounts situations where I find myself all the time, it’s 5% of
deaths are by rear ending which is 8x as high for being rear ended.

I’m just saying that whenever you give risk of the door zone, you need to give fatalities as well as the number of fatalities in other areas such as the travel lane. Otherwise, the data is misleading.

>And that some places are different from others — but on the other hand, most streets with parallel parking do not have high speed >limits.

Which would suggest that they are safer.

However, I ride on a road, daily, where there is parallel parking and people ride > 50 MPH. Should I take the lane and increase my risk of death by 4x?

> The fact that something is illegal doesn’t keep it from happening, now does it? Doesn’t keep either of these kinds of crashes from happening.

Nor does it prevent the 4x (or much more) chance of being rear ended.

>> No, actually, rear-ending often happens to cyclists riding at night without lights.

So rear ending never happens during the day?

Actually, during the day, collisions with motor vehicles, in urban areas, is still more deadly than being hit by a door.

>Diving into a pool where you can’t tell if it’s deep enough is legal too.

Why are you talking of swimming pools.

John, you are intelligent person. Please stay on topic.

> Yes, getting rear-ended on rural roads is a major cause of fatalities. It is  not the major cause of fatalities in urban areas. Read this:

Getting rear ended during the day, indeed, is more common for  fatalities in urban areas than being doored.

Even the crusty Cross study from the 1970′s show rearending is 3x higher than other one.

> That’s because the Cross study only accounts for how many crashes occurred.  It makes no account of whether there are parked

> cars. Studies in urban areas show several times the rate of doorings. Then there are all the other types of crashes that happen by

>riding too close to parked cars. You didn’t read my examination.
No, the Toronto study that you linked to showed no more rear ending COLLISIONS than doorings.

Still, I argue that using  collision data is misleading. This is a common tactic used to distort data and to make things look more dangerous than it is. For example, when a study shows that cycle tracks have more collisions this is said to show that they are unsafe even when they save lives.

This data is not put under the same microscope that other data is put under, but merely accepted due to confirmation bias.

When people talk about risk, they want to know if they will die or be seriously injured. Why do you use the word “risk” in a non-standard way?

> Again, because he made no study of whether the streets had parallel parking or not, greatly diluting the results. Read my material > bout Santa Barbara, Gainesville, Austin, Boston, Toronto.

I’m arguing that you are misleading people and you should include travel lane deaths from the papers you show as well as more recent evidence from urban areas such as New York. I did much of this work for you by giving you three new papers.

You did not read the papers, but merely referred me to your biased view of doorings based on misreadings of papers.

I am trying to correct you on this. I have no idea why you are wasting time arguing rather than looking at the data.
I’d like you to put this up on your site.

Don’t say that it happened on rural roads at night.

>Now you’re getting me angry. Don’t you tell me what to say, thank you very much. I have a right to my opinions, and you don’t

> have a right to order me around.

But this is a matter of data and not opinion, right?

We have to go with the data no matter whether we like it or not.

Or are you suggesting that riding style is a “matter of opinion”?

I did and I was told there was “scientific evidence” of a riding style. I looked at the evidence, and it was the opposite of what was claimed. I’m seeing a pattern here.

2. Rural roads are not rural, this means that the cyclists has no bike
lane nor shoulder. By riding vehicularly, you are converting an urban
road into a rural one.

> Rural roads are not rural? Yeah, and the Pope isn’t Catholic.

You are familiar with Cross’s definition of rural roads which are high  speed and with no shoulder, right?

To say “rural” road like you did is misleading because you don’t clarify that many of these roads are in cities. I ride on one
everyday.

> You are becoming a troll now.

Why are you becoming angry when I am giving you good information?

What do you mean by troll, a well informed person?

> There is no “only reason” for any type of crash. The major reason is that traffic is slow. People are compelled to
> ride in the line by many things, even if they don’t want to.

This is true, but you seem to imply that merely riding in the door zone, a single cause, creates accidents. This is untrue. Other causes MOST door zone deaths are one motorist acting unlawfully and high speed traffic. Cyclists can not control for these things.

Riding in the lane to “prevent a door zone accident” opens a cyclist up to other dangers which is why better infrastructure is needed.

I am working to eliminate these kinds of risks as well as the notion that people have to wear stupid, bright colors and to have big
flashing lights. There are people who are rear ended here, in San Diego, and they have all the lights.

> You have cited a lot of numbers without saying where they are from or what  the amount of mileage was on any of these, or what > kind of streets.

I gave you links to all my data.

> Nonsense to make this comparison because there are many kinds of crashes
> between intersections, and not only the overtaking crash. And because 75% or
> more of bicycle crashes don’t involve a car at all.

Most deaths do.

The link you gave me above was talking about how to prevent DEATH.

This is another statistical trick. To compare door zone collision rate with the death rate for rear ending which is divided by some arbitrarily large number like total cyclist collisions.

We must compare apples to apples and door zone deaths are so low in many areas to be non-existant. Why make such a scary page about something that doesn’t even exist in some places?

I smell a hidden agenda.

My argument is that riding vehicularly will increase risk of death or serious injury.

I posted tons of evidence to support this.

I am starting to feel that you are attached to certain ideas and everything is getting distorted around it.

In fact, being rear ended is the most deadly of all collisions in every study I have seen including the ones you presented.

> But it is very rare.

If by rare, you mean to say that “while rare, there are 4x as many travel lane deaths as door zone deaths.”

Another way to say it is that travel lane deaths are rare, but door zone deaths are 4x as rare.

In fact, door zone deaths are so rare as to not even worry about. I don’t even worry about riding in the door zone for this reason.

I agree that cycling is relatively safe, though several times more dangerous than driving a car and to many more complicated.

Since it is so safe, the travel lane is mostly safe, the door zone is much safer, why are we concerned about the door zone at all?

Why not make a page urging for better infrastructure so more people can ride?