Drunk driver with six empty beer cans in SUV rams two cyclists, before driving over stricken rider, in shocking hit-and-run in Texas

Dnnnnnn wrote:

dh700 wrote:

we have no reference to show that it is possible to operate a transport system across a country like the US with substantially fewer deaths.

Here's one place to start.

Your comment had literally nothing whatsoever to do with the point.

dh700 wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

The US scores poorly on road safety, with around 4x as many deaths in road crashes/head of population than the UK.

You neglected to note that the United States sees an order of magnitude more vehicle miles traveled than the United Kingdom does.

It's almost as though the transport systems on a tiny little island and an entire Continent are not directly comparable.  Who'd a thunk.

A completely tangential point.

The death rate is way more than double in the US vs the UK per distance travelled.

That's despite their much lower population density and vehicle density.

The issue is around their dangerous vehicles, little safety checking (MOT test etc), half-trained drivers, terribly designed roads, and poisonous road culture.

mattw wrote:

A completely tangential point.

You don't appear to be familiar with the meaning of that third word.  Suggest looking it up, before continuing.

mattw wrote:

The death rate is way more than double in the US vs the UK per distance travelled.  That's despite their much lower population density and vehicle density.  The issue is around their dangerous vehicles, little safety checking (MOT test etc), half-trained drivers, terribly designed roads, and poisonous road culture.

Now you are attempting to directly compare the two transport systems.  Precisely illustrating why the preceding point was not "tangential", but in fact, directly relevant.

As previously explained, due to that relatively-low population density, the US has around 3M miles of the most-dangerous type of road -- rural highways.  That's twelve times the length of the UK's entire road system.  And to-date, no one has engineered or even proposed an alternative to such roads for a country with the transport requirements of the US.

So, to sum up, you've very little idea of what you are discussing, and are mostly blathering nonsense.

From spending too much time on Reddit the US is absolutely a horrible place to ride in general. Outside of specific locations you have to deal with people throwing stuff at you, shouting at your, rolling coal, actively trying to run you off the road and run the risk of someone pulling a gun on you, It sounds like is much worse than the UK in general. 

mctrials23 wrote:

From spending too much time on Reddit the US is absolutely a horrible place to ride in general. Outside of specific locations you have to deal with people throwing stuff at you, shouting at your, rolling coal, actively trying to run you off the road and run the risk of someone pulling a gun on you, It sounds like is much worse than the UK in general. 

They've literally designed their country around private cars and the suburbs are barely livable in without access to a car.

hawkinspeter wrote:

They've literally designed their country around private cars and the suburbs are barely livable in without access to a car.

Tell me you've never been to the United States without telling me you've never been to the United States.

I live in a US suburb, and it is completely livable without a car.  I have a car, but it almost never moves unless I need to haul something large, or drive across the country.  I bike almost everywhere.  My friend walks almost everywhere, in the same town.  There are 49 grocery stores within 5 miles of my house.  There is a light-rail station 3/4ths of a mile away -- and 5 others within 5 miles.  There are six ice cream shops that I frequently bike to.  There are eight bike shops within 5 miles.  The only two things that I cannot easily reach on a bicycle, or indeed on foot, are an ocean and a mountain -- but a Great Lake is close enough to the former.  And if I were so inclined, I could easily ride my bike to an Amtrak station, or an international airport.

Well, it's virtually a continent you're living in so variable. There are also some nicer places (20mph limits, most people drive slow in town) where people do walk about
(On sidewalks, the ones I've seen) - tended to be east coast.

Places with lots of empty space might *manage* under such a plan, for a while - but that's not generally the case in Europe. If space is empty it's a mountain or a marsh, and because of the accumulation of history people tend to be bothered about knocking down buildings to install freeways - not that this stopped places in the early love affair with mass motoring.

US designers have helpfully identified some problematic patterns of development (which can kick in long *before* places run out of space) and ways to do it better eg. Notjustbikes has a good series covering the ideas of the Strongtowns group.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SXXTBypIg

https://www.strongtowns.org/

chrisonabike wrote:

Well, it's virtually a continent you're living in so variable.

The scope in question was "United States suburbs", not an entire continent.  The former are renowned for their lack of variety.

chrisonabike wrote:

There are also some nicer places (20mph limits, most people drive slow in town) where people do walk about (On sidewalks, the ones I've seen) - tended to be east coast. Places with lots of empty space might *manage* under such a plan, for a while...

Again, as I responded to the other individual, "Tell me you've never been to the United States without telling me you've never been to the United States."

The exact opposite of your supposition is true.  The worst areas for cycling are often the least populated, and least developed.  In particular, areas with low population-density often have residences plopped down alongside highways, with nothing available within a short ride.  Also, the Western Mountain ranges are often crossed only by Interstate highways -- which is precisely why those Interstates are the only ones on which it is legal to cycle.

Now, there's nothing actually wrong with those highways, in terms of cycling on them -- except, again, as I'm sure I have said, road-user behavior.  There is no reason at all that highway traffic cannot cooperate with cyclists, and in fact, highways are specifically designed to maximize sightlines and virtually guarantee that users can see each other at distance -- but that only works when users are looking, and are prepared to operate appropriately, and those can be a problem.

chrisonabike wrote:

Notjustbikes has a good series covering the ideas of the Strongtowns group. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SXXTBypIg https://www.strongtowns.org/

I've seen that before -- they've almost zero idea what they are doing, unfortunately, and have misidentified the problem completely.

Well I'm still not quite sure what "good" you're interested in: you've said it's not less traffic (perhaps you live somewhere without any?) As others have noted the US doesn't have great road safety numbers, however you want to dice it - so there's maybe room for improvement there?

You say you're not keen on building more stuff; I can agree there but I think that horse has bolted. Most places, most people are urban now (US - surprising me slightly has similar numbers to the UK).

The only thing I've seen that might be useful to learn from the US regarding traffic is the lower urban speed limits (and that was a long time back). Wales has done this now, they're patchily implemented about the place, Scotland passed up the chance unfortunately.

So far most of what you've said is "the problem is humans". That's true, but - correct me if I'm wrong - you're yet to explain how we get a nation of "better humans" somehow? That's going to be a tricky one (unless we start importing those supposedly great Dutch or Norwegian drivers - who I'd expect to get worse over time!) You've suggested "police it better" - but you don't seem any more keen on a police state or social coercion than me).
You also mention "education" - and while we do need enforcement that may have more mileage. On the other hand just look how seriously they take that in NL and as you've pointed out people still crash there.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d0yzZLVsTCE

Treating driving like a normal "licenced dangerous activity" would help somewhat - in the UK it's more like a club with a one-off membership test. On the other hand at current driving levels apparently folks think it would be wildly uneconomic to have retests say every few years throughout life. I've not got the numbers on that though.

b) you've decried stuff which is actually working in practice apparently because it doesn't fit your theory or your *local* experience. (I guess you're not interested but Seville would be a good example
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2024/02/07/the-seville-cycling-revolu...
...if not the whole of NL, parts of Scandinavia etc).

Of course if you're some place that suits you, then good for you. Edinburgh where I stay is not a cycling or even "active travel" paradise but it is well above average for the UK and "works for me". And in fact I've cycled most places I've lived.

If you did have some recipe for changing human nature around cars and transport I would be interested. Otherwise, good luck over there. (I should probably be back, it's been years now - but plenty of European places to get to first, where they actually have mass cycling etc! If you've not been, I would recommend it!)

chrisonabike wrote:

Well I'm still not quite sure what "good" you're interested in:

I've said it repeatedly -- we need to improve road-user behavior.  That is the one, and only, problem.  I have literally used those same small words already.  I am not sure how much more clearly I can state it.

chrisonabike wrote:

you've said it's not less traffic (perhaps you live somewhere without any?)

I live in a metro area with about 1/6th the population of your Kingdom.  We've plenty of traffic.

chrisonabike wrote:

The only thing I've seen that might be useful to learn from the US regarding traffic is the lower urban speed limits (and that was a long time back).

Setting speed limits accomplishes nothing without improving road-user behavior.

chrisonabike wrote:

Wales has done this now, they're patchily implemented about the place, Scotland passed up the chance unfortunately. So far most of what you've said is "the problem is humans". That's true, but - correct me if I'm wrong - you're yet to explain how we get a nation of "better humans" somehow?

Again, we have to train and incentivize humans to cooperate properly on public roads.  You may recognize some of those words, since I have used them repeatedly.  I'm sure we even discussed the example of Japan, which has implemented this strategy with excellent results.

If you are only reading every tenth word that I am typing, please let me know so I can discontinue wasting my time here.  If otherwise, I suggest that your level of reading comprehension could stand improvement.

chrisonabike wrote:

You've suggested "police it better" - but you don't seem any more keen on a police state or social coercion than me).

I am actually quite keen on social coercion.  That works, and has been used to excellent effect, for example, in reducing drunk driving.  Until fairly recently, it was cool to brag about how wasted one was behind the wheel in many social settings.  It no longer is, in most.  Unfortunately, legalized drugs will probably reverse that situation if they haven't already, so more work remains to be done.

We try to use social coercion quite a bit already.  You'd be hard-pressed to find an American subdivision without at least one sign -- official or otherwise -- requesting that drivers operate as though their own children played in that neighborhood.  Many honor those signs -- but the degenerates who should not be allowed on public roads, typically do not.  Those people are much of the problem.

In non-urban areas, where neighbors know each other, driving dangerously is rare, except for the drunks (who need to be locked-up).  In urban areas, where no one knows anyone else, there is no social pressure to act responsibly ( which causes all manner of crime, including by driving ).

chrisonabike wrote:

You also mention "education" - and while we do need enforcement that may have more mileage. On the other hand just look how seriously they take that in NL and as you've pointed out people still crash there. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d0yzZLVsTCE

We have "safety villages" in the US, as well.  Those children -- in that video, and in our 'villages' -- are about a decade from obtaining driving licenses.  That's not effective driving education, and they will not retain that material, and little of it is relevant to motorized operation anyway.

As it happens, I know a little bit about driving instruction.  I volunteer with a great program which teaches new, typically teenaged, drivers the skills they require to operate a vehicle safely and to maintain control of it in emergency situations.  I've also instructed racing drivers, and law enforcement ( who are, collectively, worse than your average inexperienced teen, almost solely due to their bad attitudes ).

I have, in just a two-day program, taken a young girl from struggling with pulling her car into a parking spot without assistance, to navigating a figure-8 slickpad with confidence and control, not to mention the other drills like emergency lane changes, and obstacle avoidance with and sans brakes.

We can implement programs like this, and we can do it more affordably than continuing to pave and paint the surface of the planet.

chrisonabike wrote:

 b) you've decried stuff which is actually working in practice apparently because it doesn't fit your theory or your *local* experience.

Everything that I have "decried" has been repeatedly proven ineffective, everywhere it has been tried.  As I've repeatedly stated, constrution-based strategies always fail, and are succeeded by attempts to decimate motor vehicle traffic ( which does work, but is not strictly necessary from a safety perspective ) and enforce traffic laws ( which is both effective and necessary ).

chrisonabike wrote:

If you did have some recipe for changing human nature around cars and transport I would be interested.

Japan has largely written that cookbook already, as I've already mentioned.

dh700 wrote:

If you are only reading every tenth word that I am typing, please let me know so I can discontinue wasting my time here.

This website is notorious for the fact that nobody reads more than every tenth word. Absolutely you should discontinue wasting your time here. Suggest start forthwith.

Rendel Harris wrote:

This website is notorious for the fact that nobody reads more than every tenth word. Absolutely you should discontinue wasting your time here. Suggest start forthwith.

I guess that explains why almost none of you have any idea whatsoever on what you are trying to talk about, and why several of you have been forced to resort to childish insults in rather sad attempts to scare off the persons who are revealing just how clueless most of the this lot are.  Not a great look, to be honest.

dh700 wrote:

I guess that explains why almost none of you have any idea whatsoever on what you are trying to talk about, and why several of you have been forced to resort to childish insults in rather sad attempts to scare off the persons who are revealing just how clueless most of the this lot are. 

You're quite right, nobody here knows a thing. I suggest you punish us all by following through on your threat and depriving us of your incredible pearls of wisdom. We would of course be bereft without them but it's the only way we're going to learn. Cruel to be kind, that's the ticket.

That's better - much more concise. Well done.

Simples then! If it's just social changes over here we just need to make people in the UK a bit more like the Dutch (relatively simple - language is a close relation and the culture is similar) and you just need to make people like the Japanese. Or yourself. I can't speak to the difficulty of the second task but I think you've a harder job with the first than I would!

Again I actually agree with you on the *theory* again. Social pressures (positive and negative) are a major driver of behaviour. Hence my observations of the difference between "not safe" as the main reason given by people for not cycling and the fact that (wearing a hat or not) cycling - even around motor traffic, in the UK, is in fact a statistically safe activity, yet people don't.

It sounds like you're doing good work there (as people do in the UK also) - but see, most people aren't. It'd be great if in practice all the talk of "we just need to share the road" and exhortations to drivers and indeed some educational programs actually made a difference*. Achieving that "training" / re-motivating people to the level required? Hasn't happened to the level you suggest, not in the US, not in the UK - not even in places with better "road safety" than either. Why could that be?

It turns out that changing humans - in the mass - is hard. Hard, and expensive. (Your solution of one at a time - and that is a way to effectively change folks - doesn't scale well...) In fact, it's seems its cheaper or politically easier to design the environment around the humans than the reverse....

...And in fact - all places do so! We engineer cars to work around human quirks and failings, and the same with our roads. I'm merely suggesting we've done that *so* far for the safety and convenience of those driving but not so much for other road users, particularly cyclists **. Places that have done the latter well enough, amazingly more people cycle.

In the past at least this hasn't been helped by some large and now very well established industries. Which you might think would see the benefit in promoting "responsible use" of their products. Perhaps not.

Again I would agree there may be some benefits to be had from doing more training (which of course is as much "social training" as skills - there are some local youths who appear very skilled in handling their unregistered motorbikes they race illegally around the place). Or rather - I think bringing in periodic driving re-tests might help in several ways, not least by making people understand that driving is a licenced dangerous activity and should be approached as such. Currently it's more a "rite of passage" or joining a club.

This would be a good point to wheel out figures for the relative damage done by n'er-do-wells" vs. "otherwise law abiding drivers" but alas, I have not yet found same.

* I'm sure that in fact that wouldn't make much of difference to numbers cycling, because people just don't like cycling around lots of motor traffic (even some of the "fast and the brave" don't). And without other measures people will still tend to drive because its convenient etc.

** In the UK we've fixed it for eg. pedestrian safety and driving *convenience* - by having pedestrians wait for long times at crossings, or sending them up and over "concrete trenches in the sky". Rather than, say, moving the motor traffic out of *their* way. But that would be madness! That would be much more expensive, probably take up space (obviously we *have* to fit in the motor traffic) and those people in cars have important journeys they're making! Anyway everyone drives...

chrisonabike wrote:

Achieving that "training" / re-motivating people to the level required?  Hasn't happened to the level you suggest, not in the US, not in the UK - not even in places with better "road safety" than either. Why could that be?

Because, as I've stated repeatedly here, too many people are wasting their energy on failed strategies like encouraging cyclists to wear helmets and encouraging municipalities to waste time, money, and lives on construction-based strategies.

That's the whole problem, and why I am commenting here.

Everyone who considers themselves "pro cycling" should never discuss or even admit the existence of, bicycle helmets and dedicated cycling infrastructure.  Both of those items are complete wastes of time, money, and lives that do nothing to improve the safety of cyclists -- and in fact, both are deleterious to cyclist safety, at least in part because they serve as convenience excuses and distractions for the parties who do not wish to improve cyclist safety.

chrisonabike wrote:

 It turns out that changing humans - in the mass - is hard. Hard, and expensive. 

It's really not.  For just one example, as recently as 15 years ago, if you had proposed that almost every human being would need to walk around with a computer in their pocket for every waking minute, you'd have been sent to a loony bin.

And now that situation is mostly here.

On the transportation front, Ford sold 15 million Model Ts in under 20 years, to a country that only had about 57M adults -- and Ford's competitors sold many additional units, too.  And 20M of those adults were women, who for various reasons had neither the resources nor ability to buy a car.

Humans have a rather startling capacity for change.

chrisonabike wrote:

In fact, it's seems its cheaper or politically easier to design the environment around the humans than the reverse.... ...And in fact - all places do so!

It is politically easier, only due to the ignorance of the population as you and others are demonstrating in this thread.  It is not cheaper, nor is it effective.

chrisonabike wrote:

We engineer cars to work around human quirks and failings, and the same with our roads.

We are only just starting to engineer cars in this manner.  Far more often, they are engineered without regard to human "quirks" -- the examples of which are too numerous to list here.

dh700 wrote:

I've stated repeatedly here [stuff about helmets & infrastructure]

...

Everyone who considers themselves "pro cycling" should never discuss or even admit the existence of, bicycle helmets and dedicated cycling infrastructure

Should we conclude from this that you are very much not pro-cycling?

mdavidford wrote:

Should we conclude from this that you are very much not pro-cycling?

No.  Is that silliness really the best you can manage?

dh700 wrote:

Is that silliness really the best you can manage?

Oh no - I can be much sillier than that - just ask anyone around here.

Apologies - to (try to) keep it short I'll just pick on one there:

dh700 wrote:

Because, as I've stated repeatedly here, too many people are wasting their energy on failed strategies like encouraging cyclists to wear helmets and encouraging municipalities to waste time, money, and lives on construction-based strategies. [...]

Everyone who considers themselves "pro cycling" should never discuss or even admit the existence of, bicycle helmets and dedicated cycling infrastructure.  Both of those items are complete wastes of time, money, and lives that do nothing to improve the safety of cyclists -- and in fact, both are deleterious to cyclist safety, at least in part because they serve as convenience excuses and distractions for the parties who do not wish to improve cyclist safety.

You have stated repeatedly.  (I'm mostly with you on the helmets so will skip that).

Unless I've only been reading one word in ten you've certainly not shown anything that indicates that building a grid of quality attractive, convenient and safe cycling routes is a waste of time: certainly not when it comes to getting more than a small fraction people cycling!  I will certainly grant that building stuff of insufficient quality or quantity (connectivity) is a total waste - we've a ton of experience of that in the UK!  Plenty of things just don't work at all if we do half a job.  I've given examples of "good enough" which have done what I'm suggesting they do.  You don't seem to have addressed these?

If I have you right you say it's not necessary because (if only) we could ensure all drivers drive much better than currently.  Your point is that behaviour is the root of the issue.  That's logical although I actually partly disagree with that - as in "if drivers were perfect people be happy to cycling amongst heavy traffic / around fast-moving vehicles".  People can be desensitised to some extent but that's also a massive training proposition - we just don't find it pleasant or safe.  It's actually the case that the great majority of the time people drive pretty well around me - yet folks aren't cycling.

Further - you've also not shown how that happens from where we are.  I've suggested that is not easy - in part because ... it hasn't happened.  I addressed Chicago - definitely not a "cycling city"!  Again - assuming a radical cultural shift back to "the good old days" / something more like SE Asia (see Japan).

(Your point that motoring became a thing and so did phones is correct - and so did bikes did back in the day - the UK had mass cycling, peaking in the 1920s-1940s - apologies, I can't find the nice graph of that.  But now this would be going from "now we have lots of driving" to "now we have lots of cycling" which is a very different proposal.  Needs money and though it's not "economically uphill" the benefits are more distributed.  Who's going to give those bungs to the politicians - competing with the motor industry, recall?  How are the salesmen going to make their markup?  Far more people in the UK own a bike - or several - than regularly cycle).

Saving the best 'till last - I wonder what your justification for stating that separating modes which are quite dissimilar in speed and mass (and "behaviour" etc.) is decreasing safety?  Or that putting in measures to "tame the car" (modal filtering, lower speed limits etc) is doing same?

In particular you've said more than once things to the effect that "dedicated cycling infra is deleterious to cycle safety" / "waste of lives".  If you mean "more people will choose to cycle ergo more will die" then - if nothing else changed - you're logically correct and logically you should be campaigning for less - or no! - cycling to save the lives of cyclists everywhere ... only of course that wouldn't be a good idea as you'd lose the benefit of a (slightly) more active population.  And more people would choose to drive those short journeys which they might cycle, which would push up the numbers affected by the deletarious effects of motoring etc.

dh700 wrote:

at least in part because they serve as convenience excuses and distractions for the parties who do not wish to improve cyclist safety.

I wouldn't worry - I don't think those people are that bothered!  I think they're too busy doing the things they want to do e.g. keeping business as usual going or promoting motoring / selling the next new expensive transport solution ("cars 2.0 - now they're electric" currently).

chrisonabike wrote:

Apologies - to (try to) keep it short I'll just pick on one there:

No apology necessary, I am also declining to address some points on which we either agree, or on which debate is not interesting, for the sake of manageable reply lengths.

chrisonabike wrote:

You have stated repeatedly.  (I'm mostly with you on the helmets so will skip that).

Unless I've only been reading one word in ten you've certainly not shown anything that indicates that building a grid of quality attractive, convenient and safe cycling routes is a waste of time: certainly not when it comes to getting more than a small fraction people cycling!

The example of the Netherlands has been discussed repeatedly.  Yes, they have a lot of cyclists.  They also had a lot of cyclists since cycles were invented.  113 years ago, the Dutch owned more bicycles per capita than anywhere else in Europe.  That situation has persisted constantly since.  This was not a "build it, and they will come" situation.

On the contrary, the Netherlands has spent substantial resources building dedicated cycling infrastructure in an attempt to keep cyclists safe -- and it has failed comprehensively, as we've discussed.  Their fatality rate remains stubbornly-high, and they have been forced to pivot to the alternatives which have been mentioned here at length -- traffic reduction and traffic enforcement.

All other municipalties that have attempted that stategy, exhibit the same pattern.

chrisonabike wrote:

If I have you right you say it's not necessary because (if only) we could ensure all drivers drive much better than currently.  Your point is that behaviour is the root of the issue. 

You understand me correctly, at least in-part.  Construction-based strategies are both unnecessary and ineffective.

chrisonabike wrote:

That's logical although I actually partly disagree with that - as in "if drivers were perfect people be happy to cycling amongst heavy traffic / around fast-moving vehicles".  People can be desensitised to some extent but that's also a massive training proposition - we just don't find it pleasant or safe. 

This isn't because of safety.  Motor vehicle occupants are at tremendous risk in almost every country -- and yet the enormous majority of people are perfectly comfortable inside a car, despite it being the most dangerous activity many of them will ever undertake.  Many of them are so comfortable they will play with their phone, or read a newspaper, even while they are supposed to be driving.  Why?  Because they've been told that it is safe, all evidence to the contrary.  Why do people feel in-danger on bikes?  For the same reason, because they are constantly told that it is dangerous -- again, all evidence to the contrary.  People are highly-suggestable animals, which is why  pharmaceutical placebos work.

chrisonabike wrote:

Further - you've also not shown how that happens from where we are.  I've suggested that is not easy - in part because ... it hasn't happened. 

Two things relevant to this discussion have not happened, in the West.  My proposed strategy of traffic enforcement has not been attempted.  Your proposed strategy of construction has been attempted many times, and has failed each and every time.

Which one should we try next?  Repeating the same mistake perpetually does not make any sense.

chrisonabike wrote:

I addressed Chicago - definitely not a "cycling city"!  Again - assuming a radical cultural shift back to "the good old days" / something more like SE Asia (see Japan).

That "cycling city" classification would depend on your scope.  Globally, no one would refer to Chicago as such.  On its continenet, however, it is in the top five, and higher among genuinely-large cities.

chrisonabike wrote:

Saving the best 'till last - I wonder what your justification for stating that separating modes which are quite dissimilar in speed and mass (and "behaviour" etc.) is decreasing safety?  Or that putting in measures to "tame the car" (modal filtering, lower speed limits etc) is doing same?

 

First up, I just want to clarify that those are two different things, which is an important distinction.  Also, speeds in urban areas are not that dissimilliar in practice, especially where law-abiding is commonplace, and even moreso with the proliferation of electric motors.  Speed limits are irrelevant sans enforcement, as I've said.  Mass, yes, is quite different -- but we don't separate cars and lorries.  

That said, construction of infrastructure dedicated to one vehicle type -- typically cycles in this context -- is detrimental to safety because:

* It is rather expensive ( varying some by location ) and ineffective.  Funds wasted on such could have been used to, say, hire a police officer, stand him or her at a crosswalk all day, and ticket every car that fails to yield to cyclists and pedestrians.  Or about a thousand other ways that money could be better spent,  on improving road-user behavior instead of useless construction.

* Said construction provides cover for road users to continue to operate dangerously.  The most obvious example of such is when cyclists on other roads are run off them because "they belong in the bike lane!".

* Said construction provides cover for politicians and 'law enforcement' to continue to ignore the problem, which is road user behavior.  They can pour a few hundred yards of ineffectual concrete and paint, on one section of one road, and pretend that the problem has been addressed.

* Municipal budgets are a zero-sum game.  Whenever cyclists demand money for construction dedicated to their use, non-cyclists feel shorted and abused.  Whether or not this is a valid response, is not my point, but this increases the animosity of non-cyclists towards cyclists -- and we often see the results of this animosity on the roads.  Many also feel that municipal space-allotment is another zero-sum game, so the same applies.  As a cyclist, what is your response when your local drivers demand roads be built for their exclusive use?  Do you feel that is fair, or does that increase your animosity toward them?  The Golden Rule applies here, as it does almost everywhere.

* All else being equal, it is much easier to ride on a wide relatively-straight street, than it is on a narrow bike lane -- for a whole raft of reasons.

dh700 wrote:

The example of the Netherlands has been discussed repeatedly.  Yes, they have a lot of cyclists.  They also had a lot of cyclists since cycles were invented.  113 years ago, the Dutch owned more bicycles per capita than anywhere else in Europe.  That situation has persisted constantly since.  This was not a "build it, and they will come" situation.

On the contrary, the Netherlands has spent substantial resources building dedicated cycling infrastructure in an attempt to keep cyclists safe -- and it has failed comprehensively, as we've discussed.  Their fatality rate remains stubbornly-high, and they have been forced to pivot to the alternatives which have been mentioned here at length -- traffic reduction and traffic enforcement.

All other municipalties that have attempted that stategy, exhibit the same pattern.

[...]

My proposed strategy of traffic enforcement has not been attempted.  Your proposed strategy of construction has been attempted many times, and has failed each and every time.

Well - here's a simple point of disagreement at least.  But a quick diversion here - (why I was labouring the point before) I suspect you want something slightly different than what I do so you may consider "works" / "has failed" under different criteria:

I'd like lots more people to consider cycling more journeys (than currently do in the UK).  For a whole collection of reasons (including woolier "nicer cities, liveable places" etc.).  Also with a wide definition of cycling (FWIW wheelchairs, mobility vehicles, Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles - many things are in if they're reasonably compatible in terms of mass and speed).  I'd like that to be safe - safe enough.  People die by tripping over while walking, or being taken ill (I believe these are often counted in our cycle stats - heart attack on bike = "death by cycling").

I'm also up for accommodating a measure of predictable human fallibility and "folly" (perhaps we differ here?).  So "forgivingness" of the infra and vehicle systems (that's quite distinct from any views on the legal system!).  Quite happy to have guard rails around massive holes in the road rather than leaving them unmarked and coming along and saying "tough cookies, idiot" and filling them in.

That even goes for driving.

Anyway - to the main point:

I am not quite sure just how much training and policing you are calling for - I think it's probably even more than that which would be required!  I suspect there have even been "zero tolerance" policies in some regard.  (Perhaps you'd have some examples?)

My objections are:
a) I think it's not politically achievable (again - outside of dictatorships etc).  Less so even than building proper infra (also not easy...).
b) And for reasons outlined (above) it won't get many more people cycling.  We will still have noisy places full of cars.  Although - depending on your standards and ruthlessness - perhaps it could end up removing so many drivers (my point about "trained to airline standards"?) it will mean there are only a tiny fraction of the current lot.  In which case you've done the "motor traffic reduction" you didn't particularly care about - and that might improve cycling numbers and indeed the environment!
c) I think that infra works (below).

I disagree on the "infra has been tried and it is ineffective" (again - with a note that what you are declaring "effective" isn't quite what I am).  Certainly ineffective infra has been tried, and it has been ineffective.  So then - is there any "effective" infra and what is it?

As you say NL could be seen as a case of "a good way to make a small fortune is start with a large one".  However - the UK also started with massive cycling numbers, did similar things (e.g. built infra - admittedly initially with the intent of "getting the bloody cyclists out of the way of the car"!) BUT we stopped, reversed course, and in cases where it did build cycle infra it was flawed and it was always made easier to drive!  People took the hint.

NL had a curve in cycle usage with a decline which was like the UK's, just a bit later.  And they turned the direction around.  So it went down, slowed, and is now going back up.

Your queries about road casualty statistics (still comfortably better than in the US of course)  The fatality rate e.g. since the 70s when they decided to "tame the car" has indeed fallen (fewer fatalities, greater population AND more people cycling - and indeed motorists also have done very well out of their safety approach).

Similar to a point you made about US folks driving longer distances / times (therefore exposure to risk is greater) - looking at the people: as I see it NL has done a great job of fixing it so people who'd never cycle elsewhere do so (an overview of recent figures here).  In particular the old - a higher risk group whatever the activity and who have much worse outcomes from "minor incidents" e.g. just falling over.  Additionally in NL while people do cycle round parks and on completely motor-traffic-free country paths they also cycle for transport, in places where there is some exposure to motor traffic - and that has been made a lot safer than in other places (it feels safe, so they do etc.)

Seems pretty good to me!  (No, I'm not moving there - at least, not until I'm quite done with more mountainous terrain...)

As far as I know relatively very few of those people cycle in the US (they don't in the UK)?  Also - even where people in that demographic do cycle perhaps it is e.g. in parks and places where there are no motor vehicles (perfectly protected infra, you might say - so they aren't going to die from cars!  Only - they might in a car crash, driving to the ride, perhaps taking someone else with them...)

Seville is a "de novo" example.  Build separate cycle infra, more people cycle.

How can we "get there from here" though?  Well ... London (not IMO great example of "build it well and in quantity" - but they have added a kind of network of separated cycle paths) shows a 3-fold increase in cycling (over some time - infra went in slowly).  That's from a low base, and despite hype it's not a "cycling city" overall though in some parts the cycle flows can be quite impressive.  Of course - perhaps it was the police and better driving?  (In practice there are probably several contributors.  Not sufficient, but - alas - necessary from where we are it seems...)

Other places are available but gosh - this is an essay.  So I'll just touch on your points against:

Quote:

It is rather expensive ( varying some by location ) and ineffective. Funds wasted on such could have been used to, say, hire a police officer, stand him or her at a crosswalk all day...

The first is true (though there is a good economic case for building good quality cycling infra - agreed that if you build rubbish that doesn't help, it's all waste).   The latter is just stating your conclusion again.  Dunno what's the going rate for police where you are but they are NOT cheap to acquire, set up and run!  Depending on penalty you dole out courts might be needed, even prisons (all really expensive - ours are already way over capacity).  And we have a LOT of crosswalks - indeed even the UK has a lot of roads...

Quote:

Said construction provides cover for road users to continue to operate dangerously.  The most obvious example of such is when cyclists on other roads are run off them because "they belong in the bike lane!".

People will cite excuses for their prejudices.  Now prejudices are hard to shift.  Having your family and friends cycling might help.  How might we achieve that?  (Round the loop we go...you say "just eliminate all bad drivers" I say "good luck!")

Of course - if there is a good cycle path why would cyclists not be in it?  (not bike lane, please - truly you should experience the difference somewhere they build proper quality separate cycle paths, if you haven't... or just imagine a trail but you can see the cars...)

Quote:

Said construction provides cover for politicians and 'law enforcement' to continue to ignore the problem, which is road user behavior. 

They are quite happy to do that without in the UK!  I can't imagine why!  And if the cycle path is good quality and safe (and interactions with motor vehicles are managed), why not let the drivers kill each other?  (In practice we have been fixing it for drivers to be safer for years regardless of their behaviour, but we either haven't done that for other road users OR we have made them safe at the cost of any convenience.)

Quote:

Municipal budgets are a zero-sum game. ... As a cyclist, what is your response when your local drivers demand roads be built for their exclusive use? ...

There are roads around Edinburgh for the exclusive use of motorists - and I'm quite happy with that!  And as others have said, for the vast majority of people in the UK most roads are effectively for the exclusive use of motorists from their perspective.  Because they won't cycle on them due to the traffic.

I'm not aware of motorists getting outraged that pedestrians are walking past them on the footway, or that people in trains are passing them on their separate train infra.  (OTOH "more road" and "but congestion" are constant refrains.  Perhaps just one more lane will fix it?)  It can be sold as "get the cyclists out of your way!" or as part of "make it better for all road users (including you)".  These drivers don't seem to be oppressed...

I quite agree - there are people's feelings to deal with, it's not easy (it wasn't even in NL), and "when you're accustomed to priveledge, equality feels like oppression".  But I would imagine your solution would also have quite a bit of push-back!  Better lock up those bad drivers in case they sneak back into their cars (locking up lots of folks is expensive too...)

Quote:

* All else being equal, it is much easier to ride on a wide relatively-straight street, than it is on a narrow bike lane -- for a whole raft of reasons.

I think I may understand where you're coming from here.  I remember my reaction years ago when some activists said "why ask for a narrow bike lane?  At best you'll get a narrower one - but likely will still get nothing!  If you don't ask for sensible space for cycling from the start you're setting yourself up to fail all ways".  I understand that now - although perhaps time ago it no-one could believe it was possible to get proper cycling facilities.  Now - there are a few even in the UK.

chrisonabike wrote:

Well - here's a simple point of disagreement at least.  But a quick diversion here - (why I was labouring the point before) I suspect you want something slightly different than what I do so you may consider "works" / "has failed" under different criteria:

"Failed" would mean 'did not evidence an improvement in cyclist safety' -- and that's precisely what we see, everywhere, which is why every municipality subsequently turns to reducing traffic and increasing enforcement.

I'm actually not sure why you, personally, are so opposed to that statement, since traffic reduction is your stated objective.  We are not actually all that far apart -- I just realize that we needn't waste time, money, and lives on hopeless construction before we move on to strategies that do work, like traffic reduction ( and enforcement ).

chrisonabike wrote:

I'm also up for accommodating a measure of predictable human fallibility and "folly" (perhaps we differ here?).  So "forgivingness" of the infra and vehicle systems

That citation is fake news.  It states "The main objectives of this vision are preventing severe crashes and (almost) eliminating severe injuries when crashes do occur. It was introduced and quickly adopted by all road managers in 1992 and has since been very successful."

That statement is patently-false, as even a cursory review of any of the relevant crash or injury statistics will reveal.  In reality, those metrics are actually climbing and in some opinions, to the level of a national crisis.

https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2023/05/10/netherlands-grapples-w...

chrisonabike wrote:

I am not quite sure just how much training and policing you are calling for - I think it's probably even more than that which would be required!  I suspect there have even been "zero tolerance" policies in some regard.  (Perhaps you'd have some examples?)

Again, Japan is the salient example, where they are at or very-close-to zero tolerance.

chrisonabike wrote:

My objections are:
a) I think it's not politically achievable (again - outside of dictatorships etc).  Less so even than building proper infra (also not easy...).

I cannot speak to the political situation in your country, but this strikes me as a weak excuse.  If anything is "impossible", politically, it would be the construction of dedicated cycling infrastructure sufficient to reach even a tiny percentage of destinations, nevermind everywhere.

https://cyclingindustry.news/governments-pledge-hands-english-cities-und...

At that rate, it will only take you a millennium to build your cycling network.  And cost at least half a trillion pounds -- just to build, never mind maintenance.

chrisonabike wrote:

b) And for reasons outlined (above) it won't get many more people cycling. 

On the contrary, Japan's cycling mode share is 8 times that of the UK's.

As discussed a while back, "fear" is the top reason that non-cyclists do not ride.  Reducing that will result in more people riding.

chrisonabike wrote:

We will still have noisy places full of cars. 

Cities are noisy.  Full stop.  There is no way around that.  If you want quiet, buy a car, and move out to the country.  Increasing cycling mode share -- as is your goal -- is only going to necessitate even greater population density, and therefore even more noisy environments.  You are working at cross-purposes here.

chrisonabike wrote:

I disagree on the "infra has been tried and it is ineffective" (again - with a note that what you are declaring "effective" isn't quite what I am).  Certainly ineffective infra has been tried, and it has been ineffective.  So then - is there any "effective" infra and what is it?

I mean, I feel like I've already covered this a couple times.  No, there is no effective infrastructure.

chrisonabike wrote:

As you say NL could be seen as a case of "a good way to make a small fortune is start with a large one".  However - the UK also started with massive cycling numbers, did similar things (e.g. built infra - admittedly initially with the intent of "getting the bloody cyclists out of the way of the car"!) BUT we stopped, reversed course, and in cases where it did build cycle infra it was flawed and it was always made easier to drive!  People took the hint.

If cycling infrastruture works -- at all -- why then is the UK cycling mode share 2% today, when it used to have "massive cycling numbers"?

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/dictionary/modal-share

Why are you arguing for a strategy that very clearly has completely failed to address your top priority?

Maybe I'm asking the wrong question.  How many more decades are you suggesting be wasted pursuing this failed strategy?

chrisonabike wrote:

Your queries about road casualty statistics (still comfortably better than in the US of course) 

On the other hand, the Dutch started with a massive lead on Japan due to their history, and today, are only slightly ahead in terms of cycling model share.

Only the threat is typically required, you needn't have an officer on every crosswalk.  Back in the day, when we had law enforcement, speed limits were enforced in this manner, to some reasonable effect.  If you suspect a cop might be hiding around the next corner, and might not be just sleeping in his cruiser as they do now, most drivers increase their level of care.

chrisonabike wrote:

People will cite excuses for their prejudices.  Now prejudices are hard to shift.  Having your family and friends cycling might help.  How might we achieve that?  (Round the loop we go...you say "just eliminate all bad drivers" I say "good luck!")

I think you missed the point here.  Dedicated cycling infrastrucure advetises that cyclists do not belong on roads.  That might be okay if you could build such infrastructure to every address, but that's obviously impossible for several reasons -- as previously explained above.

chrisonabike wrote:

Of course - if there is a good cycle path why would cyclists not be in it? 

Due to the danger of it, actually.  And the traffic.

On the first point, even high-quality cycle routes are necessarily narrow.  With heavy traffic, that makes them challenging.  In Chicago, there exists one of the finest pieces of dedicated cycling infrastructure found anywhere, known as "The Lakefront Trail".  Being surrounded by about 10M residents, it can be very heavily-trafficked.  Many people -- even some high-caliber cyclists that I know, who have ridden across this entire country -- will not ride it during nice weather.  I think they are a little-bit loopy, but it is true that bad head-on crashes are commonplace, and people have been killed.  

Many people commute on the LFT -- or try to.  But with it featuring world-class scenary, it tends to be overrun with tourists, on bike-share bikes.  Passing them is almost impossible, because they cannot ride straight and aren't looking where they are going -- and lately, they are riding electric rented bikes, just about the worst of all worlds.  So, people who are riding for transport often take other routes.

That said of course the most common reason why cyclists do not ride "good cycle paths" is because the path doesn't go where the cyclist needs to.

chrisonabike wrote:

They are quite happy to do that without in the UK!  I can't imagine why!  And if the cycle path is good quality and safe (and interactions with motor vehicles are managed), why not let the drivers kill each other?

Thtat's an immature response, and you are capable of much better. Perhaps you don't know anyone who ever travels via motor vehicle, but I do, and I like many of them, and would prefer to see them remain unkilled.

chrisonabike wrote:

There are roads around Edinburgh for the exclusive use of motorists - and I'm quite happy with that!  And as others have said, for the vast majority of people in the UK most roads are effectively for the exclusive use of motorists from their perspective.  Because they won't cycle on them due to the traffic.

So let's fix that.  That's what I've been saying.

chrisonabike wrote:

 

I think I may understand where you're coming from here.  I remember my reaction years ago when some activists said "why ask for a narrow bike lane?  At best you'll get a narrower one - but likely will still get nothing!  If you don't ask for sensible space for cycling from the start you're setting yourself up to fail all ways".  I understand that now - although perhaps time ago it no-one could believe it was possible to get proper cycling facilities.  Now - there are a few even in the UK.

I am likely spoilt compared to many here, since as I said a while ago, my entire county does not have a single protected bike lane.  There are a few off-street MUPs, which are almost exclusveily terrible, for a variety of reasons.  So we ride on the streets, which are fantastic.  They go everywhere.  They are wide.  They are relatively smooth.  They are plowed, and not full of debris.  I don't have to ride inches from pedestrians and hope they'll continue to walk straight.  My friend and I ride two-abreast often, although I prefer not to, and when we do, we single-up to ease drivers' passing.

That's all possible because motor vehicle operators around here are relatively well-behaved - apart from their complain disdain for crosswalks.  And it isn't due to enforcement, of which there is almost none -- it is just culture, and people choosing not to harass others.  Many places could be similar, if they only chose to enforce the laws they likely already have on their books.  Doing so would be nearly free, compared to spending millions per-mile on useless construction.

Instead, for unknown reasons, cyclists prefer to throw tantrums and demand the construction of useless dedicated infrastructure 1 block at a time, which will take a thousand years to reach the network that we already have, while making the situation worse.

dh700 wrote:

 

That's all possible because motor vehicle operators around here are relatively well-behaved - apart from their complain disdain for crosswalks.  And it isn't due to enforcement, of which there is almost none -- it is just culture, and people choosing not to harass others.  Many places could be similar, if they only chose to enforce the laws they likely already have on their books.  Doing so would be nearly free, compared to spending millions per-mile on useless construction.

Instead, for unknown reasons, cyclists prefer to throw tantrums and demand the construction of useless dedicated infrastructure 1 block at a time, which will take a thousand years to reach the network that we already have, while making the situation worse.

because we see what happens on shared infrastructure, cyclists are killed, drivers might be prosecuted, but even if they are there is a hgh chance that a jury (comprised mostly of drivers) will conclude the driving was not that bad and acquit.

The majority of drivers are not that bad but there is a reasonably sized group that are positively malicious, you are selling a utopia where all drivers are respectful, tolerant and safe. You suggest that if only there is enforcement we will get there, but experience here is that there is little enforcement, and when there is it is foiled by judges, magistrates and juries who consider that cycling is dangerous and cyclists have accepted that level of risk.

We can't even get to a culture where the media does not demonise cyclists, never mind one where drivers are held accountable for their actions.

Here we have an example where a driver came round a bend on the wrong side of the road, killed a cyclist coming the other way and argued it was the cyclists fault for getting in her way, and the jury accepted that argument and acquited. 

https://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/emergency-services/86044/woman-is-...

How does more enforcement help? if courts will tolerate lethal driving standards?

wycombewheeler wrote:

because we see what happens on shared infrastructure, cyclists are killed,

Okay, but why do you ignore that the exact same thing happens with dedicated infrastructure?  Selective amnesia?

wycombewheeler wrote:

drivers might be prosecuted, but even if they are there is a hgh chance that a jury (comprised mostly of drivers) will conclude the driving was not that bad and acquit.

So let's fix that, instead of wasting time, money, and lives on construction that does not work.

wycombewheeler wrote:

The majority of drivers are not that bad but there is a reasonably sized group that are positively malicious, you are selling a utopia where all drivers are respectful, tolerant and safe. You suggest that if only there is enforcement we will get there, but experience here is that there is little enforcement, and when there is it is foiled by judges, magistrates and juries who consider that cycling is dangerous and cyclists have accepted that level of risk.

An appropriate level of enforcement has only been tried, in modern times, by Japan.  And it has worked just about exactly as I describe.

Let's try that then.  Since everything else we've tried has resulted in abject failure.

wycombewheeler wrote:

We can't even get to a culture where the media does not demonise cyclists, never mind one where drivers are held accountable for their actions.

Have you tried?  Or are you all wasting your breath bleating about helmets, and high-vis, and bike lanes?

wycombewheeler wrote:

How does more enforcement help? if courts will tolerate lethal driving standards?

 

Courts are part of the law enforcement system, and they obviously need much work as well.  I'm not alleging that problems do not exist.  They very much do -- but they are not helped by construction, which has been illustrated too many times to count by now.

What would the verdict have been if the driver in your example had jumped a curb and killed that cyclist in a "protected" bike lane?  Probably no different.  Maybe they'd have received a fine.

That's the problem.

Thanks for the conversation - I think I've written enough (certainly for everyone else).  More than enough space for explanation and counter-argument.  It's pretty clear where we aren't essentially agreeing we're mostly talking past each other here now **.  (Also ***).

As a fools errand my summary (hopefully not mischaracterising): you say "nobody ever did enough enforcement / removing bad drivers!  (Or 'nobody got drivers to take driving extremely seriously and stopped them driving poorly') *.  But perfect driving will fix cycling safety (and maybe encourage more people to cycle - still not sure if you're interested in that?).  And that is obviously the cheapest way.  Infra never made cycling (or walking?) safer (!)"

Mine: "nobody ever built enough quality infra - oh, except all those places they did (long list of places including Seville, Oulu, Joensuu, Copehagen, almost the entire of NL etc.).  It's unfortunately necessary - while not sufficient.  A key part of safety is "safe systems" (like the Dutch Sustainable Safety one) and indeed safety engineering is part of that (as it is very much a part of every country's existing road infra).  Achieving better driving may be possible - but not cheap or easy, and the law of diminishing returns applies because humans.  However even that of itself won't lead to more people cycling or nicer places".

I do think your proposal - "remove all the drivers not up to standard" has a kind of novelty.  Since I have missed the your proposed mechanics of how to do that (zero tolerance - perhaps Judge Dredd?  But even sufficient judges and ammo are costly!) and by your own contention it hasn't happened anywhere yet * that is possibly interesting but pretty speculative (even as to cost)!  I'm guessing you might be able to try to sell it to the populace with a "You are a good driver - prove your own high standards!  And more - help us lock up all those other crooks and idiots who are a danger to you in your car!".  Also popular with some posters here - some of whom would apparently go as far as banning driving completely, or e.g. "banning bad drivers" but have also failed to elaborate on the costs and logistics of doing that and keeping them from driving again.  (I agree - outside of locking them up permanently or killing them off it's a tricky thing).

I don't believe it will do most of the things I think are interesting (mass cycling etc.).  And if you are solely interested in eliminating all cycle casualties from motoring just stop people cycling or confine them to parks, velodromes etc - even cheaper!  Preferably with EMT on standby for when they fall off.  (Again - I'm a little unclear on your views here - what about people who just fall off their bikes?  That's a significant contributor to the numbers in NL ** because e.g. a higher proportion of older people are cycling!)

As a final proposal - an exchange!  Let's say you're entirely right - and not only that, you've achieved what you're proposing.  For us benighted believers that this is likely only realistically possible via some dedicated infra for cyclists (not only that of course - necessary but not sufficient...) - and indeed pedestrians and even trains(!) - are there any videos, images (perhaps "artists' impressions) of how it looks in such a place?  And / or what should we be looking at to explain this / persuade us this is the right way forward?

In return, (not that I suspect you're interested, you seem to have a strongly-held view) I'd propose the videos of NotJustBikes since they appear to cover many of the exact points you raise (e.g. "Cities aren't loud, cars are loud").  Not surprising since (though not American) they've lived and travelled extensively there - and indeed around the world.  On the other hand they agree with the Strong Towns folks and that you have dismissed that!  In which case perhaps the relaxing videos of NotJustBikes (mostly in the Netherlands, but they've pieces on other places around Europe, Australia and including a couple in the US e.g. NYC).

If you're in a pleasant place to cycle for you, enjoy!  Good luck keeping it that way (genuinely).  If people there mostly haven't considered cycling / don't want to you've a mountain to climb, changing the system (certainly changing driver behaviour).  Which is the case in the UK also.  I would have said perhaps a bit less so - only given recent political developments in Westminster (and Holyrood for me) perhaps the mood is going backwards again ("We're on the side of drivers" apparently).

* Again possibly excepting Japan (or North Korea!) - where it's my contention that the culture is much father than either the US or UK than they are from each other and it's that that is the critical factor.  So it's more "zero tolerance amongst the people", rather than the police (heavy-handed as they apparently are if someone accuses you of something!)  I found my time in South East asia stimulating - but the more I learned the less relaxing I found the culture.  You may vary - but remember your idea involves changing everyone else!  (An interesting point - South Korea also has a cooercive social culture and said police you don't want to visit involuntarily.  Road safety there is a fair bit worse than Japan OR the UK, though still comfortably above the "US".  Eyeballing the list I notice that another large country with lots of roads in the countryside - Kazakhstan - is also marginally above the US for safety.  I'm quite prepared to accept that they may be under-reporting though or it's within margin of error.  Or perhaps it's just "same environment" and the other things like policing and driver education don't matter or are the same?)

**   Your comment about the low UK modal share(!)  I think I noted that the UK has at best patches of 2nd or 3rd class cycle infra saying "but the UK has cycle infra AND the entire UK has a low modal share for cycling" that's not paying attention (understandable I guess, long thread).  I have noted a place in the UK (London - still pretty poor and not overall a "cycling city") where infra was built, and that increased.  If you want better counter-examples to "build it and they will come" from the UK (you wouldn't want to attack strawmen / aunt sallies) I suggest Milton Keynes and Stevenage.  I supplied a response to that, also...

*** I was interested in why you seem so allergic to how things are in NL.  Not that I'm unfamiliar with that view.  It's fairly common in the UK.  People seem determined to ignore the evidence of their own eyes or explain it away.  "Can't happen" - well, look, it has.  "Well, it's just it's always been that way" - not quite (see BicycleDutch links I posted).  And NOT the case in places like Seville where people didn't cycle and now they do (other examples too, just trying to keep it short).  Tumbleweed on that one...  "Lots of people die cycling there" - perhaps because lots of people are cycling there?  Lots of people die cycling here, and lots of people (like older people) who are much more a risk of dying cycling don't die here simply because they don't cycle.  "Nothing like here / can't possibly work here". That's fairer - but (at least in the UK) there are a great deal of very similar built environments - the difference being our treatment of streets.

The only reason I can see is "cognitive dissonance".  (Could be "we just don't want to change / don't believe we can" - any others?)  Places where people built it and they did indeed come - well, that's a challenge to "I know it doesn't work / can't work / too expensive / will take forever"?  When it's literally there, in front of you?

chrisonabike wrote:

Thanks for the conversation - I think I've written enough (certainly for everyone else).  More than enough space for explanation and counter-argument.  It's pretty clear where we aren't essentially agreeing we're mostly talking past each other here now **.  (Also ***).

I have to say Chris, it is a fascinating roller-coaster discussing this with you.  One minute, I think you are approaching a position that I can largely argee with... and then we seemingly crest the climb and drop screaming off into an area where I cannot fathom how you are reaching the conclusions you are drawing.  It's a ride, that's for sure.

chrisonabike wrote:

I do think your proposal - "remove all the drivers not up to standard" has a kind of novelty.  Since I have missed the your proposed mechanics of how to do that (zero tolerance - perhaps Judge Dredd?  But even sufficient judges and ammo are costly!) and by your own contention it hasn't happened anywhere yet * that is possibly interesting but pretty speculative (even as to cost)! 

I covered this previously, although with the quantity of comments here, it is isn't unreasonable that you missed it.  Prison is the only corrective solution for a relatively-small but recalcitrant segment of our population.  That's unfortunate, but true.  "Luckily", so to speak, my country is pivoting away from imprisoning non-violent drug users, so we have an opportunity to fill those cells with actual dangerous folks, and I'm suggesting that we do so.  This would be almost free for us, but I realize the penal industry in your country probably differs.

So, it needs to be much more difficult to obtain permission to drive on public roads, and driving without that permission needs to be treated as a very serious offence.  Neither are presently the case.  Potentially even more important, the concept of only punishing drivers based on intent needs to be obliterated.  Motor vehicle operators are the only people who are routinely allowed to kill and maim others and avoid repercussions by saying the magic word "Oops".  That has to stop, completely, because it breeds precisely the careless and dangerous operation that is most of the problem.

We have all the resources to make these changes.  All we need is the will.

chrisonabike wrote:

I don't believe it will do most of the things I think are interesting (mass cycling etc.).  And if you are solely interested in eliminating all cycle casualties from motoring just stop people cycling or confine them to parks, velodromes etc - even cheaper!  Preferably with EMT on standby for when they fall off.  (Again - I'm a little unclear on your views here - what about people who just fall off their bikes?  That's a significant contributor to the numbers in NL ** because e.g. a higher proportion of older people are cycling!)

This is a roller coaster example.  Why on Earth would I, or anyone reasonable, want to ban cycling  People who fall off their bikes are largely irrelevant to this discussion -- unless they fell because they were unable to navigate a narrow segement of bike lane, or similar.

chrisonabike wrote:

As a final proposal - an exchange!  Let's say you're entirely right - and not only that, you've achieved what you're proposing.  For us benighted believers that this is likely only realistically possible via some dedicated infra for cyclists (not only that of course - necessary but not sufficient...)

Another coaster swerve.  We've just spent a week discussing how and why dedicated infrastructure does not work, and you're still calling it "necessary"... despite all the evidence which illustrates that it has yet to work anywhere on the planet.

chrisonabike wrote:

- and indeed pedestrians and even trains(!) - are there any videos, images (perhaps "artists' impressions) of how it looks in such a place?  And / or what should we be looking at to explain this / persuade us this is the right way forward?

Hop in your car, or rent one, if need be.  Go for a drive.  When you come upon a cyclist, pass them safely and respectfully.  That's what it would look like.

chrisonabike wrote:

In return, (not that I suspect you're interested, you seem to have a strongly-held view) I'd propose the videos of NotJustBikes since they appear to cover many of the exact points you raise (e.g. "Cities aren't loud, cars are loud").  Not surprising since (though not American) they've lived and travelled extensively there - and indeed around the world.  On the other hand they agree with the Strong Towns folks and that you have dismissed that!  In which case perhaps the relaxing videos of NotJustBikes (mostly in the Netherlands, but they've pieces on other places around Europe, Australia and including a couple in the US e.g. NYC).

I am very familiar with both 'Not Just Bikes' and StrongTowns, and am aware of their nonsense.  In this specific case, we just had a thing called a pandemic, of which you might've heard.  It decimated automobile traffic suffiently that I could walk down the middle of streets, during Rush Hour, in one of the larger cities in the world.  It still wasn't quiet.  Trains were still running.  Every building still has a roof-top mechanical unit roaring away.  Sirens of various types are still blaring.  Everything still echoes off the glass and steel.

chrisonabike wrote:

Your comment about the low UK modal share(!)  I think I noted that the UK has at best patches of 2nd or 3rd class cycle infra saying "but the UK has cycle infra AND the entire UK has a low modal share for cycling" that's not paying attention (understandable I guess, long thread). 

What would that modal share be if you removed dangerous drivers, and let cyclists be certain that their odds of a safe trip were exceedingly high?  That's why Japan's modal share is 8-fold higher.

That said, there's a point which has not yet been covered here ( unbelievably, as we've hit most of them five times ).  Within a few years, it is going to be impossible for a newly-built automobile to strike a cyclist.  I'm not (at all) one of those "technology will fix everything tech bros", but automatic detection and braking systems are already here, and required.  They don't work very well yet, but that will change.  Not long after that, it will be illegal to drive without such a system in most places.  Or your insurance premium will be sufficiently-high as to make doing so nonsensical, compared to replacing the vehicle.

So, in the meantime, you and your colleagues are proposing that we spend a trillion or so on billions of yards of concrete and paint, all of which will be rendered completely obsolete -- if they worked at all, which they don't -- when the events I just described occur.  Why, exactly?  Please to explain.

chrisonabike wrote:

*** I was interested in why you seem so allergic to how things are in NL. 

 

Because those "things in NL" do not accomplish the goals we are discussing.  If the Dutch were not currently having a national panic about the safety of their cyclists, you might have a point -- but since they are, why would anyone suggest following that path?

That makes about as much sense as suggesting removing all traffic enforcement like the US has, because "Look how well it works!"

Neither of those strategies work at all, so let's try something that does.

mctrials23 wrote:

From spending too much time on Reddit the US is absolutely a horrible place to ride in general. Outside of specific locations you have to deal with people throwing stuff at you, shouting at your, rolling coal, actively trying to run you off the road and run the risk of someone pulling a gun on you, It sounds like is much worse than the UK in general. 

Definitely worse than the UK, but I'm in the suburbs of a mid-size city in Illinois not known for being bike friendly, and I have very few problems as long as I route around the four or five worst stroads. In over a decade of cycling a lot, I've been coal rolled once. I probably average one scary close pass a year, and get shouted at or obnoxiously honked at once or twice a year.  I had a water balloon thrown at me and some friends once, but it missed.