[sustran] Bicycles - Improving the image

[J.H. Crawford]

We're treading on contentious turf here, so let me start by
saying what I think about bicycles PERSONALLY.

1. I love to ride a bike in the countryside. One of the most
enjoyable days I ever spent was biking a long distance over
a dedicated path on a beautiful day in Denmark.

2. I have a perfectly good 10-speed garaged a few minutes walk
from my home in Amsterdam, generally regarded as one of the
best biking cities in the world. I hardly ever ride it because
it is frightfully dangerous due to wreckless speeding car drivers 
and the narrow or non-existant bike paths.

3. I am now starting to get furious with bicyclists, who have
recently taken to riding on the sidewalks here because the
streets are so crowded and dangerous. I can no longer go for
a peaceful, contemplative walk because I have to be on the lookout
for bikes all the time. The bicyclists are usually incensed if
you say anything to them about their behavior. They also almost 
never stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk, even if the pedestrian
is crossing with the light.


This leads me to some simple conclusions GENERALLY:

1. Street space is a precious commodity, especially in older
European cities.

2. Street space ought to be apportioned by priority as follows:

first: pedestrians
second: public transport vehicles (they carry the most people 
  of all modes for the amount of space they occupy)
third: bicyclists
fourth: delivery trucks
fifth, if there's anything left over: private cars and taxis

3. Traffic regulations should be set up to provide absolute
clarity on these matters, a situation which does not exist
in the Netherlands at this time. The regulations should be
based on the priorities for occupation of street space (above).
All street users should obey these laws, and they should be
stringently enforced. Exactly how this is all arranged is not
clear and will probably vary from city to city because of differing
circumstances. All wheeled vehicles must stop for pedestrians who
have the right of way. In most cases, I think the pedestrian should
have presumptive right of way at all corners unless other traffic
is heavy enough to warrant a traffic light, in which case the
pedestrians should not hamper the movement of vehicles which
have a green light. I have no problem with bicyclists running
red lights (or pedestrians jay-walking), as long as they abide
by the simple principle that they must not hamper the passage
of pedestrians and vehicles which, at that moment, have right of way.

>1. Momentum comes to the cyclist at high cost.  If there is no cross
>traffic, or pedestrians sufficient to make progress perilous.  One feels
>the weight of the rediculousness of continued waiting in light of the
>low top speeds that will be achived and the inconvenience of having
>needlessly discarded momentum.

The new electric bikes coming on the market solve this problem--
your braking energy is stored in the battery, which can be used
to accelerate after the stop.

>  A quick and dirty, casual estimate yields about 90 minutes added to my
>trip. And for what?  My methods have served me for over 35 years without
>one serious accident, and two minor ones from which all parties walked
>away without complaint (except me, I suffered a cut and a bruise.  In
>most bicycle accidents, even in encounters with pedestrians, it's the
>cyclist who is the most likely to get hurt and sustain injuries.) 

I'm not sure. I don't have statistics. I do know that pedestrians
sometimes get killed by bicyclists. What happened in your one
accident?

>  Laws that give bikers preference on the road would do much to
>encourage and elevate biking.  Realizing that the one who will expend
>the least effort when stoping and starting is required is the person
>driving the auto, means that one should reasonably give the biker the
>right of way.  Doesn't it make sense to give preference to the machine
>powered by a heart, blood pressure and muscle over the one using oil,
>gasoline and metal? No reasonable person can even make a comparison
>between the two, how can they be reasonably be held to the exact same
>rules?  

Most of these problems relate to the fact that bikes just don't
have enough room on the streets. The sad part of it is that 
bikes are only twice as space-efficient as single-occupancy
cars in terms of people carried per lane-mile per hour.
(I'm not sure I believe this figure, but it is widely quoted.)
So bikes aren't really helping much with the congestion problem.
The space-efficiency issue is what underlies my prioritization 
above.

>  History has shown me that it is more than just reasonable two have
>people operating in the same space by two different sets of rules.  It's
>not just possible its an actual reality that happens all the time.  Just
>as there are major differences in rules of the road between the
>different types of vehicles, so too there should be consideration made
>for the handicaps/advantages of bikes.  

One of the biggest difficulties is that managing traffic
gets steadily more difficult the more different speed ranges
there are that are being accommodated on the same roadway.
The most difficult mix is cars, mopeds, bikes, carts, and
pedestrians. 

In the Netherlands mopeds are allowed to use the bike paths
under the assumption that the speed difference between a moped
and a bike is less than the speed difference between a moped
and a car. In fact, many of the mopeds have been illegally souped up 
and travel as fast as a car, gravely endangering the bicyclists.
To say nothing of the horrible stink they leave behind.

We're dealing with a critical issue here. I look forward to
the disucssion.


                                          ###

J.H. Crawford    Crawford Systems    joel at xs4all.nl    http://www.mokum.com/