3 ms·

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 depart

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.

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.