Comments on: Misc.: Links about bikes, speeds and traffic, plus a cautionary tale

By: Morg

Morg — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:14:41 +0000

Those idiots might cause someone to lose their life because they block an ambulance or car from getting to the hospital. These “people” are despicable and get no respect or break from me. They violate the very rights and freedoms they are advocating in their futile effort to enlighten the rest of us. Sorry, but if someone ran over a horde of critical assers in an effort to get to a hospital to save a loved one’s life, I’d applaud.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:12:49 +0000

Gentlemen, I’m not saying Critical Mass contributes anything great. That’s why I never go. Personally, I have always thought they were a little crazy–and that they gave the rest of us cyclists a bad reputation.
But what I tried to point out (in an off-the-wall way) was that the level of anger at them from a couple commenters seems a little disproportionate.

By: Prof. S.

Prof. S. — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:32:16 +0000

Barry - That is the most baffling comment I’ve seen in some time. So because they complain about Critical Mass, they don’t have a problem with Nazis or the Klan? Great example of Godwin’s Law at work there.

Nobody likes those groups, so what’s the point of bringing them up. People bring up Critical Mass here because some people actually defend the hoodlums. You’d do the same if a bunch of cars decided they were going to block up bike paths to “raise awareness” of the joys of automobile commuting (read: annoy people who make an alternate choice with your own self-righteous indignation).

By: Josh R

Josh R — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:28:17 +0000

I think that Critical mass has become counterproductive. At one point it seemed like there was a good idea there, raising awareness of bikes as a commuting option and as a means of trasport that deserved a share of the road. (the name Critical mass comes from the idea that in order for pedestrians and bikes to be safe, there has to be enough of them around that drivers are tuned in to their presence.)But somewhere along the line it turned into bullying by the anti-car crowd. They really seem to be doing more harm then good these days.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:59:30 +0000

Even though I’m a bike advocate, I won’t do Critical Mass. But I sure wonder where our priorities are. So many anti-massers get worked up into a frenzy, and foam at the mouth. (ahem, Morg?) I wish they would get that angry at other local groups like… maybe street gangs, the Klan, Neo-Nazis, etc…
If a buncha purple-haired kids wanna bike together, let ‘em. I don’t agree with their methods, but they’re not exactly a threat to society.

By: botski

botski — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:04:22 +0000

Morg: “ruining the !!!!DAYS!!!!” (emphasis mine) “of several hundred commuters”

Consider me surprised if some nutcases aren’t scarred for a whole week. Not pointing fingers or anything.

By: Morg

Morg — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:46:12 +0000

The fault with Matty’s theory is in thinking that just because a lane is taken away from vehicles that all of a sudden thousands of people are going to decide to bike to work. Ain’t gonna happen. I’d be surprised if 7200 bikes TOTAL ride to work downtown every day, much less 7200 an hour.

As for J’s “post”, s/he epitomizes the attitude of these morons. Just bursting with pride over ruining the days of several hundred commuters. And for what? They should all be hauled to the Graybar Motel. Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw: “nonconformists are all alike”. Just a bunch of sheep, following the herd. BAAAAAA.

It’s a good thing none of those runaway vehicles with faulty brakes or panicked drivers that plow into sidewalk cafe’s, crowded sidewalks and such or red-light runners are never around when Critical A$$ does their thing. That would be a tragedy. I real shame I tell ya.

By: Joe G

Joe G — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:47:12 +0000

I stand by my assessment, but maybe I just need to be more careful with my wording. Converting general-use lanes, which can also be used by bikes, to bike-only lanes will undoubtedbly cut down on “automobile” capacity. Again, the question would be if people would switch to bikes in large enough numbers, even over time, to make the offset worth it. If not, you can easily increase the carbon emissions by reducing the efficiency of automobile travel (more idling).

And because bikes move more slowly and have different braking characteristics, I don’t know that the 7200 bikes per hour is a logical capacity. Could be more, could be less, I think it’s more complicated than vehicle size.

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:37:01 +0000

“If we create high quality space for people to use bicycles comfortably, we see that people do use bicycles comfortably and frequently.”

Kinda like the “If you build it they will come” theory. Hey, if we add more lanes to freeways and they still get congested, the same works for bike lanes. People are getting sick of sitting in traffic jams, plus paying for gas and parking just to go three miles to work. I would bet that biking would increase enough to make it all even out.

By: Matty

Matty — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:44:40 +0000

I respectfully disagree with Joe G’s analysis that converting general traffic lanes to bike lanes results in a decreased vehicle capacity on a road. On the contrary, the road will have a much higher vehicle capacity as bicycles (very much vehicles) take up much less space than cars and trucks (motor vehicles).

This illustration from Münster, Germany illustrates this phenomenon well:

http://www.hubsess.com/uploaded_images/26080732636761.jpg

A single general traffic lane can accommodate about 1,800 motor vehicles an hour at full capacity. If that general lane was converted to dedicated bicycle space, it would have a capacity of at least 7,200 vehicles per hour with a conservative assumption that 4 bicycles take the space of one car. This is a much greater vehicle capacity for the road.

Joe is correct to ask the question about the result of adding quality bicycle facilities on peoples’ transportation mode choice. Of course, we cannot predict the future, but we do have many examples to look at to give us a hint at what happens. The city of Copenhagen is the best example of a community that took a bunch of space away from storing and moving motor vehicles in order to create dedicated space for bicycling. Copenhagen’s mode split is roughly 1/3 bicycle, 1/3 transit and 1/3 private motor vehicle. Closer to home Davis, CA has included bicycle facilities in their transportation system for more than three decades. The result is many people choose to travel by bicycle. I can’t recall their mode split off the top of my head, but it’s significant.

If we create high quality space for people to use bicycles comfortably, we see that people do use bicycles comfortably and frequently.