Category: Biking Elsewhere

B’ Spokes: There is something inherently wrong with the concept that drivers of motor vehicles do not need to know the laws as they apply to bicyclists. I will also note my conversations go something like this: "If you think I am not obeying the law call the police. If you try to enforce the law, I call the police and you go to jail."
The article along with a link to a video of extreme driver stupidity:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1317323–toronto-cyclist-posts-yelling-matches-with-motorists-on-youtube

By Juliellen Sarver, Mobility Lab
Why are the relatively modest costs of sidewalks, bicycle lanes and paths, and pedestrian improvements met with suspicion and hostility by the conventional auto-oriented transportation community? What are the true costs and the true benefits of these projects?
…
Litman challenges the perception that non-motorized transportation improvements (for travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and wheelchairs) only benefit a small subset of users. He claims that they, in fact, benefit nearly everyone, even the most dedicated motorists. After all, people who consider themselves motorists must get to and from their cars and benefit from accessible, convenient, and efficient connections between their cars and their destinations.
Conventional cost-benefit analysis heavily favors car-oriented projects at the expense of considering the importance of a diverse and dynamic transportation system that includes non-motorized modes as integral to the overall system.
Litman meets the typical arguments against non-motorized transport projects with well-considered and practical responses, summarized here;
Inferior Good: Road projects are an indication of wealth, according to critics of spending on non-auto transportation projects. One look at many wealthy communities – those with many walkers, bicyclists, and pedestrians – proves that providing an array of transportation options is the key to and an indicator of community well-being.
Slow and Inefficient: While walking and bicycling are often slower than traveling by car, non-motorized transportation is often very efficient, and those transportation options actually increase efficiency through cost savings and the benefits of connecting places, people, goods, and services.
Excessive Costs and Subsidies: The true costs of roadway projects are rarely considered by the models typically used to justify them. These include increased crashes resulting from higher speeds and volumes, and the decrease of physical activity due to car travel. Similarly, the true benefits of non-motorized projects are rarely considered when arguing against such projects.
Unfair to Motorists: Non-motorized transportation projects do not benefit motorists and should not be funded with transportation dollars. The true cost of road subsidies, however, is rarely considered by proponents of this view. Litman also argues that non-motorized facilities offset the negative impacts of roadway projects such as air pollution and water-quality issues.
Inefficient and Wasteful: The lack of demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities is often cited as a reason to not “waste” funds on such projects. The most successful places, however, are those that provide diversity of transportation options and connections. Those places become centers of social and economic life by attracting people who arrive by or use the non-motorized facilities.
So Litman concludes: Diverse and robust transportation networks – including motorized and non-motorized facilities – are the most efficient and cost effective when the true costs and benefits are calculated. Litman provides specific cost and benefit categories and explains how non-motorized transport projects can be more accurately analyzed and justified, which should be a big help going forward as researchers like all of us at Simple Solutions Planning & Design continue to make progress on showing what a great return-on-investment non-motorized transport is for officials and developers.
https://mobilitylab.org/2013/01/11/arguments-against-non-motorized-transport-development-beginning-to-lose-steam/

A sampling:

Photo via Colossal

Photo via Architizer

Photo credit: Patricia Almeida

https://www.flavorwire.com/360078/astounding-and-interactive-sidewalk-art-around-the-world/view-all

by: STEVE BRANDT, Star Tribune
Failure to yield, other lapses by both drivers and bikers lead to motor vehicle-bicycle collisions, a 10-year analysis of Minneapolis crash reports found.
…
Biker actions contributed to the crash in 59 percent of collisions, compared to almost 64 percent for drivers, according to the study presented Tuesday to the City Council. Sometimes both were judged at fault by investigating officers.
The city’s Public Works Department plans to use the data to target education campaigns at drivers and bicyclists as well as to improve bike features such as lanes, bike-triggered traffic signals and other accommodations.
…
It also urged continuing training for truck and bus drivers on bike awareness, as well as wide use of public service videos posted online for other drivers and bikers about road safety. It also urged that bikers and motorists receive even-handed enforcement.
…
Collisions were most likely to happen during the afternoon rush hour. Eighty-one percent of crashes occurred within 50 feet of an intersection. One of five crashes were classified as hit-and-run, with the driver the fleeing party 93 percent of the time.
,,,
https://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/186957371.html?refer=y

Without laws protecting bikers and walkers, the goal of having truly livable cities in America remains out of reach.
BY: ALEX MARSHALL, Governing
At a street corner somewhere, a pedestrian, a bicyclist and an automobile driver enter an intersection. The person in the car turns and hits either the person on foot or the person on the bike, killing her.
Question: What happens to the driver? In most states, nothing. Unless the driver is drunk or can be shown to be speeding or driving recklessly, it is, in the words of Aaron Naparstek, founder of Streetsblog, “a free kill.” The driver walks away without criminal charges, civil liabilities or administrative penalties.
This is crazy.
…
There are several ways to strengthen consequences. There are increased criminal penalties, such as charges of manslaughter. There are increased civil penalties, such as liability for hospital bills, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. And there are increased administrative penalties, such as points on one’s license or loss of license.
Personally, I think the way to go is increased civil liability. The countries where cycling is an integral part of life, such as Holland and Denmark, as well as much of the rest of continental Europe, have something in effect called “strict liability.”
It means that if you, the driver, strike a pedestrian or cyclist, you are automatically at fault, even if the walker or cyclist literally jumps out in front of you. This may not seem fair, but a system where a cyclist and a driver are on equal footing is not a fair one either, because the results of any collision are so unequal. A system needs to acknowledge that it is the driver of a car or truck that is doing something inherently dangerous.
…
https://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/col-bikers-walkers-need-cities-to-protect-them.html

100-Car Naturalistic Study – Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
"Nearly 80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near-crashes involved driver inattention (due to distraction, fatigue, or just looking away) just prior to (i.e., within 3 seconds) the onset of the conflict."
https://ssl.csg.org/dockets/2011cycle/31B/31Bbills/100-Car_Fact-Sheet.pdf

B’ Spokes: So now we have proof that it is very satisfying to bike around Baltimore. 😉
Read about this and other highlights from Transportation Research Board’s annual conference: https://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/01/16/biking-uphill-is-satisfying-and-other-bicycle-research-from-trb-2013/

This would be cool if it happened.
The petition: https://wh.gov/EF49

B’ Spokes: A little speech (3:54) by Julie Hochstadter of Chicago on how she started biking and why.
https://www.wbez.org/story/cycling/cycling-political
"Hochstadter shared the story of the moment she realized biking was a viable option for transportation. And in the audio excerpt posted above you can hear her explain why she believes riding a bike in the U.S. is a radical political statement."