Reblogging: Sharrows Suck

Reblogging: Sharrows Suck

http://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/sharrows-suck/

I have Erik Griswold to thank for this [https://twitter.com/erik_griswold]. Thanks, Erik.

According to the study: SHARROWS ARE MORE DANGEROUS TO CYCLISTS THAN NOTHING AT ALL. THAT IS, BY INSTALLING SHARROWS, CITIES INCREASE THE RISK TO CYCLISTS.

In fact, sharrows are riskier than sidewalk riding.

In the attached study, they compared doing nothing which they set as risk level 1 vs. other types of infastructre. Cycle tracks were rated at 0.05 or to put it another way, CYCLE TRACKS ARE TWENTY TIMES SAFER THAN DOING NOTHING AT ALL.

At 1.99, sharrows are twice as risky as doing nothing at all while sidewalk riding is 1.54.

Another intersting finding is that riding downhill is twice as dangerous as riding on flat ground. When riding down hill one is able to speed up without effort kind of like an e-scooter. Thus, I’d imagine that e-scooters are twice as dangerous as regular cycle. Further going up hill is twice as safe as riding on flat ground. Again, I believe that this is because the cyclists are forced to ride slower. This is part of my six word cycling safety speech:

“Ride slow, slow traffic, yield agressively.”

Further, the second line slow traffic is also proven by this paper as streets with 30 MPH traffic or less are twice as safe. Seems like a really dumb thing to put sharrows on high speed streets.

This has me reading further. I found a survey paper in which the authors read all the previous papers that they can find and make general conclusions about things:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1476-069X-8-47.pdf

Here’s the conclusion:

“The principal trend that emerges from the papers reviewed
here is that clearly-marked, bike-specific facilities (i.e.
cycle tracks at roundabouts, bike routes, bike lanes, and
bike paths) were consistently shown to provide improved
safety for cyclists compared to on-road cycling with traffic
or off-road with pedestrians and other users.”

But whaaaaat about intersections? This is where accidents happen. Vehicular cycling should protect you, right?

No:

“It has been
suggested that the reason for high rates of bicycle-motor
vehicle collisions at intersections is that motor vehicle
drivers may be making “looked-but-failed-to-see” errors,
whereby they search for oncoming motor vehicles but do
not recognize that a cyclist is approaching because they
are not looking for them.”

Riding vehicularly is not going to get rid of the “looked-but-failed-to-see” errors.

Finally we get back to the tired and stupid helmet debate:

“The major advantage of infrastruc-
ture modifications, compared to helmet use, is that they
provide population-wide prevention of injury events
without requiring action by the users or repeated rein-
forcement. ”

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Reblogging: Sharrows Suck”

  1. Steve A Says:

    One wonders about the credibility of any post made by one who signs him/herself as “Drunk Engineer.” I expected better links from here.

    • Fred Says:

      Really, a personal attack? Since the only objection you have is the person’s drinking I assume you made this remark because you agree that sharrows suck and don’t wish to admit it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: