4 ms·

This doesn't really prove anything. My observations from Vancouver where a lot of time and money has been spent on bike lanes over the last few years: (I'm a no

This doesn't really prove anything. My observations from Vancouver where a lot of time and money has been spent on bike lanes over the last few years: (I'm a non car owner, mostly pedestrian) - Pilot projects are not representative of actual long term use. When Burrard bridge lost a footpath to a temporary cycle lane, as a regular pedestrian commuter I saw a brief spike in cycle traffic but then a big drop off again. - Cycle lanes have a negative impact on both car and foot traffic. The Burrard cycle lanes increased the length of my commute on foot (footpaths were converted to cycle lanes that went empty much of the time) and disrupted car traffic causing delays to drivers. - Expensive but poorly thought out physically separated bike lanes made intersections more dangerous for cyclists (who would go faster and slow down less for cars) and pedestrians (cyclists are silent and frequently ignore traffic lights) - On street parking is frequently lost to new cycle lanes that frequently sit unused. - There are a lot of 'fair weather cyclists' who only ride in good weather. Pedestrian traffic seems much less weather dependent. A pilot project like this doesn't necessarily reflect actual long term usage and also ignores the many negative effects and costs associated with cycle lanes. Existing cities that grew up around mixed pedestrian and car traffic are not necessarily well suited to increased bike traffic. Bikes are dramatically more dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians and take up disproportionate space relative to their contribution to transport options.

jnty 9y ago
Sounds like Vancouver is seeing fastest growing number of cycling trips in the world - do you think it's possible your experiences might not have been representative, or is there an effect you believe the stats aren't capturing? http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/02/eco-counter-cycling-index-vancouver-biking/ http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/02/eco-counter-cycling-index...
- mattnewport 9y ago
  Lots of effects yes. I never suggested that bike lanes don't increase bike traffic however, I think it's pretty obvious that they will to some extent. I merely suggested that the large increase that might be observed in a temporary and well publicised pilot project likely greatly overrepresents the actual sustained usage. Questions I would ask that I haven't seen addressed as part of Vancouver's bike lane push: - Given the higher risks of cycling relative to driving or walking, how many extra deaths and injuries are associated with increased cycle use substituting for other forms of transport? - How many people are switching to cycling from driving because you have made things worse for drivers, pedestrians and transit users by installing cycle lanes (less parking space available, fewer car lanes, dramatically more congestion during the construction process) - Are pedestrians at greater risk due to the increased cycle use? (anecdotally it appears to me they are) - Given all the other ways the transport budget could be spent and road space used, is building cycle lanes the best bang for the buck? - What exactly are the goals of transport policy (hopefully not just 'increase the number of cyclists') and how are you measuring your success?
gregwtmtno 9y ago
You don't cite a single source for any of these propositions. Frequently sit unused? Brief spikes and big dropoffs? How do you know? I'll bet your local department of transportation is conducting traffic counts though. I know mine does. "poorly thought out physically separated bike lines made intersections more dangerous"? You really need a cite on that because this study--conducted in Canada--says the opposite: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762?journalCode=ajph& http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.3... "Bikes are dramatically more dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians" Really? How many pedestrians were killed by cyclists in your city last year? How many by motor vehicles?
- mattnewport 9y ago
  The original article is also entirely free of statistics or sources which was kind of my point. My comments were intended as a counterpoint to the unsupported assertion in the article that the increased cycle traffic observed in a two week trial would translate to a sustained increase and to the unspoken assumption that increased cycle traffic is clearly and obviously a good thing and worth the costs and negative impacts on other road users. The dangers of cycling itself are pretty well known I thought, it is far more dangerous than driving, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219 I don't know of any figures comparing the relative risk to pedestrians of cyclists vs cars. I would expect that pedestrians are less likely to be killed if hit by a bike than a car but I would also guess that adjusted for relative miles traveled you are more likely to be hit by a bike as a pedestrian than a car. Certainly as a pedestrian in Vancouver I am more concerned about bikes than cars due to the silence and lack of respect for the rules of the road I mentioned. If the changes made here were based on solid research, I never saw it presented to the public. It was just 'Cycling is great! And green! Yay cycling!' and PR shots of the mayor on a bike to justify the money spent and disruption to other road users caused.

jnty 9y ago

Sounds like Vancouver is seeing fastest growing number of cycling trips in the world - do you think it's possible your experiences might not have been representative, or is there an effect you believe the stats aren't capturing? http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/02/eco-counter-cycling-index-vancouver-biking/ http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/02/eco-counter-cycling-index...

mattnewport 9y ago
Lots of effects yes. I never suggested that bike lanes don't increase bike traffic however, I think it's pretty obvious that they will to some extent. I merely suggested that the large increase that might be observed in a temporary and well publicised pilot project likely greatly overrepresents the actual sustained usage. Questions I would ask that I haven't seen addressed as part of Vancouver's bike lane push: - Given the higher risks of cycling relative to driving or walking, how many extra deaths and injuries are associated with increased cycle use substituting for other forms of transport? - How many people are switching to cycling from driving because you have made things worse for drivers, pedestrians and transit users by installing cycle lanes (less parking space available, fewer car lanes, dramatically more congestion during the construction process) - Are pedestrians at greater risk due to the increased cycle use? (anecdotally it appears to me they are) - Given all the other ways the transport budget could be spent and road space used, is building cycle lanes the best bang for the buck? - What exactly are the goals of transport policy (hopefully not just 'increase the number of cyclists') and how are you measuring your success?

gregwtmtno 9y ago

You don't cite a single source for any of these propositions. Frequently sit unused? Brief spikes and big dropoffs? How do you know? I'll bet your local department of transportation is conducting traffic counts though. I know mine does. "poorly thought out physically separated bike lines made intersections more dangerous"? You really need a cite on that because this study--conducted in Canada--says the opposite: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300762?journalCode=ajph& http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.3... "Bikes are dramatically more dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians" Really? How many pedestrians were killed by cyclists in your city last year? How many by motor vehicles?

mattnewport 9y ago
The original article is also entirely free of statistics or sources which was kind of my point. My comments were intended as a counterpoint to the unsupported assertion in the article that the increased cycle traffic observed in a two week trial would translate to a sustained increase and to the unspoken assumption that increased cycle traffic is clearly and obviously a good thing and worth the costs and negative impacts on other road users. The dangers of cycling itself are pretty well known I thought, it is far more dangerous than driving, e.g. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-39856219 I don't know of any figures comparing the relative risk to pedestrians of cyclists vs cars. I would expect that pedestrians are less likely to be killed if hit by a bike than a car but I would also guess that adjusted for relative miles traveled you are more likely to be hit by a bike as a pedestrian than a car. Certainly as a pedestrian in Vancouver I am more concerned about bikes than cars due to the silence and lack of respect for the rules of the road I mentioned. If the changes made here were based on solid research, I never saw it presented to the public. It was just 'Cycling is great! And green! Yay cycling!' and PR shots of the mayor on a bike to justify the money spent and disruption to other road users caused.