|
I attended Brian Hansen's (transportation planner for the city of
Copenhagen) presentation in Seattle about the physically separated bike lanes in Copenhagen.
http://www.i-sustain.com/events/bicycleCulture.htm
If one listened carefully to some simple facts that Brian outlined, one
could get the picture.
1. Bicycling was at its most popular when facilities were not yet
segregated, about twice as popular as today.
2. With the affordability of the auto, people switched to cars from
transit and bicycles.
3. Eventually congestion was the result.
4. To reduce congestion, auto use was discouraged even restricted, and
to "encourage" more cycling, bicycle facilities were built. Most of the
effect of reducing motoring was due to restrictions on motoring.
5. The bicycle lanes are NOT safer, they are PERCEIVED as safer, and the
segregated bike lanes are not safer than the ones they replaced, they
shift even more of the crashes to the intersections.
6. The perception of safety is credited with increasing bicycling and it
is the increased numbers of cyclists that leaves the number of crashes
similar but reduces the crash RATE for each individual cyclist.
I note that the "safety in numbers" concept is the basis of the
facilities program as pushed here by the bike activists and city
planners.
I ask: Who needs safety in numbers? The cyclist driving a bicycle in a
safe manner with traffic, or the cyclist separating from traffic and
riding in a manner that is inconsistent with destination positioning for
example?
Brian Hansen made it very clear, when you have thousands of cyclists per
hour riding through intersections to the right of motorists, the
motorists are more easily reminded to look for the cyclists before
turning. The cyclists do not provide for their own safety, they are
forced to rely on the motorists as the cyclist drives into conflicts
with them.
It is my perception that bike activists and city planners lie to
cyclists about safety, pander to their fear and herd them like sheep
into less safe situations requiring slower speeds. All to achieve a
political objective that they justify by indirect means.
When I teach traffic cycling I try to be simple, direct, and honest. I
can not work with these folks. I will need my independent program and it
will challenge theirs.
David Smith
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
