Slashdot Mirror

I'm saying that in the absence of a dedicated bike lane, radical differences between the fastest and slowest vehicles on the road are the most common root cause of accidents that don't involve some form of impairment.

#1, I thought you were talking about traffic jams -- which usually are not caused by accidents, at least not on the surface streets where bicycles are most common, and #2 your assertion is not true anyway. Overtaking accidents are rare (you can look it up), and the place where they are most common (last time I checked the stats) was in rural areas.

For example, see http://www.metroplanorlando.com/site/upload/documents/Bicyclist_Crash_Study_OrlandoArea.pdf , page 10. Out of 17 fatalities in the study, only one was an overtaking accident.

So I don't know what you're getting at. Interesting theory, but not based on facts.

In terms of "it's a car problem", you can get traffic jams with no bicycles at all, just from the sheer density of cars. This indicates to me that traffic jams are not caused by bicycles, and since they are caused by simply cramming too many cars onto one piece of pavement, that moving drivers out of cars and onto bicycles might just help.

I'm sure you know all this already since you comment with such authority, but two good sources of information are Effective Cycling ( byJohn Forester ) and a presentation by John Pucher on cycling in Northern Europe. Pucher is a fan of bike lanes, not because they are necessary to the free flow of auto traffic, but because they make cyclists feel safe enough to ride en masse. Forester is lukewarm on paths and downright anti-lane, but he makes the point rather well (with plenty of numbers) that there is nothing incompatible about bikes and cars on the same road. However, in terms of getting bikes on the road, he views it as a problem of education, which means his approach is doomed. (Step one: ignore your fear of overtaking vehicles. Lots of people never make it to step two.)

There are no sidewalks, no back roads that go through, no bike lanes[...]

First, I hope you were joking about the sidewalks, because riding your bicycle on the sidewalk is extraordinarily dangerous.

Bicycle lanes are advocated by people who mean well but know nothing about the science of traffic engineering. John Forester (the Effective Cycling guy) has loads of articles and scientific analyses that explain it all better than I can: www.johnforester.com/Articles/facilities.htm

The League of American Bicyclists have put together excellent courses on the safest way to cycle based upon research done by people like Forester and John Allen.

Reading the original post I wonder if it is a deliberate troll. My reasons for that suspicion are that the poster says that the lane was narrow. Now, according to the drivers handbooks of most states and a considerable body of case law it is not recommended to pass another road user with less than 4 feet of clearance. I would suspect that the cyclist knew that this was not possible and did not want to take the chance of a judgement-impaired driver trying to "squeeze past". I find it hard to believe that the OP would not be aware of that. Sit back dude, and relax, you won't get anywhere faster (except prison) by rushing around.

Bicycle commuting is not necessarily as dangerous as you think. There are conditions under which I won't ride, including dangerous traffic conditions. However, I have commuted on busy city streets and secondary highways. It is worth it to learn about safety. I don't live in a particularly bike-friendly city, although it isn't actively bike-hostile either. I recommend John Forester's book Effective Cycling. He can be a bit strident on some issues, but his advice on safety has saved me from at least two accidents.

Really, it's a fascinating book, if nothing else for his views on the "cyclist inferiority complex" and how it's been perpetuated in our society. I'll admit it certainly made me look closer at how bike training programs in my area worked. For those unfamiliar with the term, he believes that almost all bike laws and safety programs were manufactured not to provide for greater bicycle safety, but to keep bicyclists off the roads. You can tell it's a bit of a holy war for him, but once you get past the rants, there's a lot of solid information on technique with statistics to back it up.

Separated "bike paths" tend to have the same problems. The road really is where you want to be--and as someone who has shared the road with cars on daily commutes, I've found it works darned well in practice too. Just think of yourself as any other slow-moving vehicle (like a tractor (well, except when you have a sufficiently steep downhill...)) and it all works out

The rest of us recognize that they've got a lot of good points, but that the situation isn't as simple as they make it out. The expert cyclist *might* have no need for bike lanes, but beginning cyclists love them, and it's pretty clear that bike lanes help a lot to get people out on bikes (e.g. there've been cases in San Francisco where sticking in a bike lane on a street doubled the bike traffic). Having more bikes on the road gets the car drivers used to seeing bikes out there, and that makes it safer even for the expert riders, and helps encourage even more beginning cyclists.

Also, I have to say that while you might call me an "expert" rider I *still* like having bike lanes. They're not a panacea: you need to understand you have to ride on the *left* side of the lane to stay out of reach of car doors; you need to watch out for right turners cutting you off; and you need to know how to "ride like a car" when you're passing a double-parked idiot, or heading off into a zone where the city planners in their infinite wisdom have not yet seen fit to extend the bike lanes... But even with all those caveats, I like having a zone of relative safety that I can retreat to and relax.

Consider this guy's argument: He makes the point that wide lanes encourage a larger *average* distance between bikes and passing cars, but in his experience you also get a smaller *minimum* distance, which would seem to be more important.

I'm watching this thread closely. I don't doubt for a minute that the PR firms that handle tech clients have seeded /. with paid posters. Segway is backed by famously deep pockets and would be a likely customer for a /. turfing.

Thus far, all the highly modded posts are quite rightly pointing out the existing laws and science of bicycle transportation. Let's see what the latter posts look like now that that the employees of Kamen's PR company are likely to be working late tonight.

This is a good place to start if you're looking for real studies of transportation safety.

A boss started me riding by his enthusiasm (and desire for a riding partner to work), and I shortly found out why---it's very enjoyable for me. I'd tried running, walking, and karate, and skipped swimming because I couldn't hack the hassle (drive to pool, change clothes, shower, change clothes, ...). But with cycling I don't mind the hassle, and best of all I live about five miles from work, and so commute by bike most days (~four out of five), plus weekend rides.

As my title indicates, that exercise has to be something fun for you, or you won't do it regularly (unless you have a will of iron, in which case you probably don't need any of this).

So, I took the list below (making your own exercise machine) and stopped after item one. Works for me, but keep trying things until you find one that works for you. I've lost 25 pounds in under a year, and haven't had to change my eating at all.

[And if you're biking, go toJohn Forester's site and buy Effective Cycling. He can be crusty, but he's earned the right, and tells you how to ride to prevent accidents, rather than what to wear when you're having one.]