http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26661390
Worthwhile reading.
Pretty much saying you can’t analyze what you don’t have the right data sets for.
Also, pretty clear that all the moneys being spent by communities, states, government to “improve” cycling infrastructure are nothing less than just a giant experiment in progress.
There are also studies saying that unless you got a HUGE increase in bicycle commuting, bike lanes actually have a higher carbon footprint than driving. I’m all for bike infrastructure but it is interesting when some of the headlines the bike industry uses are proven to be false.
I have lived in the great state of CA (lots of bike lanes) and also the pit of TX (sparse bike lanes).
My experience is that the bike lanes make no difference in safety, but rather bike lanes are indicative of a larger cycling community and/or a culture that knows to be on the lookout for cyclists- which makes a tremendous difference in safety.
Also, pretty clear that all the moneys being spent by communities, states, government to “improve” cycling infrastructure are nothing less than just a giant experiment in progress.
What’s wrong with experimentation. No way to figure out what works and what doesn’t unless you experiment.
Its also one of those chicken and egg scenarios. Without large numbers of cyclists, drivers aren’t trained to be on the lookout for them. Without drivers looking out for cyclists, fewer people take up cycling.
What’s wrong with experimentation?
Like uhhh…
Wasting my tax dollars, actually worsening bike/car traffic flow and cyclist safety etc…?
Last year my community this year spent six figures for consulting and this year another six figures to paint a couple of bike lanes on a high traffic, high speed road…(because they did see that in a European city?).
Waste of money…
…last week another cyclist was seriously hurt being hit on that barely dry paint.
Also, pretty clear that all the moneys being spent by communities, states, government to “improve” cycling infrastructure are nothing less than just a giant experiment in progress.
What’s wrong with experimentation. No way to figure out what works and what doesn’t unless you experiment.
Hello windschatten and All,
The referenced study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26661390 ] is from University in Nottingham, UK. The area studied is not noted (In England?) in abstract which states: “AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Generally, there is a lack of high quality evidence to be able to draw firm conclusions as to the effect of cycling infrastructure on cycling collisions. There is a lack of rigorous evaluation of cycling infrastructure.”
There are several studies in the USA where data was available before and after bicycle infrastructure was installed that show a positive result after bicycle infrastructure was installed … more safety, (including pedestrians), more cyclists.
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/protected-bike-lane-statistics
New York City’s protected bike lane on 9th Avenue led to a 56 percent reduction in injuries to all street users, including a 57 percent reduction in injuries to people on bikes and a 29 percent reduction in injuries to people walking, as well as an 84 percent reduction in sidewalk riding.
NYC DOT, 2012 - Measuring the Street
Streets with protected bike lanes saw 90 percent fewer injuries per mile than those with no bike infrastructure.
Teschke, K., et al., 2012 - Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study
Streets with protected bike lanes saw 28 percent fewer injuries per mile than comparable streets with no bike infrastructure. People were also 2.5 times more likely to bike on the protected lanes than in general travel lanes.
Lusk, A., et al., 2010 - Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street, Injury Prevention, December 1, 2010
When protected bike lanes are installed in New York City, injury crashes for all road users (drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists) typically drop by 40 percent and by more than 50 percent in some locations.
Wolfson, H., 2011 - Memorandum on Bike Lanes, City of New York, Office of the Mayor, 21 March 2011
After New York City installed a protected bike lane on Columbus Avenue, bicycling increased 56 percent on weekdays, crashes decreased 34 percent, speeding decreased, sidewalk riding decreased, traffic flow remained similar, and commercial loading hours/space increased 475 percent.
New York City Department of Transportation, 2011 - Columbus Avenue parking-protected bicycle path preliminary assessment
Other US cities report similar findings after installing bicycle infrastructure.
http://grist.org/list/portland-made-it-through-2013-with-zero-bike-fatalities/
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/407660
http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/1828-14
.
Neal,
It is a mega study, meaning they analyzed several/many studies and probably also the ones you cited.
Sorry, it is a subscription only article from the Cochrane library (which is worth browsing B.T.W.).
So you may have to take my word for it, but on the linked page they use the term “worldwide” and “up to 2015”:
Hello windschatten and All,
The referenced study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=26661390 ] is from University in Nottingham, UK. The area studied is not noted (In England?) in abstract which states: “AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Generally, there is a lack of high quality evidence to be able to draw firm conclusions as to the effect of cycling infrastructure on cycling collisions. There is a lack of rigorous evaluation of cycling infrastructure.”
There are several studies in the USA where data was available before and after bicycle infrastructure was installed that show a positive result after bicycle infrastructure was installed … more safety, (including pedestrians), more cyclists.
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/...bike-lane-statistics
New York City’s protected bike lane on 9th Avenue led to a 56 percent reduction in injuries to all street users, including a 57 percent reduction in injuries to people on bikes and a 29 percent reduction in injuries to people walking, as well as an 84 percent reduction in sidewalk riding.
NYC DOT, 2012 - Measuring the Street
Streets with protected bike lanes saw 90 percent fewer injuries per mile than those with no bike infrastructure.
Teschke, K., et al., 2012 - Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study
Streets with protected bike lanes saw 28 percent fewer injuries per mile than comparable streets with no bike infrastructure. People were also 2.5 times more likely to bike on the protected lanes than in general travel lanes.
Lusk, A., et al., 2010 - Risk of injury for bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street, Injury Prevention, December 1, 2010
When protected bike lanes are installed in New York City, injury crashes for all road users (drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists) typically drop by 40 percent and by more than 50 percent in some locations.
Wolfson, H., 2011 - Memorandum on Bike Lanes, City of New York, Office of the Mayor, 21 March 2011
After New York City installed a protected bike lane on Columbus Avenue, bicycling increased 56 percent on weekdays, crashes decreased 34 percent, speeding decreased, sidewalk riding decreased, traffic flow remained similar, and commercial loading hours/space increased 475 percent.
New York City Department of Transportation, 2011 - Columbus Avenue parking-protected bicycle path preliminary assessment
Other US cities report similar findings after installing bicycle infrastructure.
http://grist.org/...ero-bike-fatalities/
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/...ation/article/407660
http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/1828-14
.
What’s wrong with experimentation?
Wasting my tax dollars, actually worsening bike/car traffic flow and cyclist safety etc…?
Worsening? From reading the abstract of the article you posted, the only evidence of “worsening” was the conversion of intersection to roundabouts. So you could certainly lobby your community against that, if it’s proposed.
But there’s no evidence that money is “wasted.” (excepting, possibly, roundabout conversion with painted lanes in the roundabout) Just no evidence that it isn’t. There’s no more evidence that “doing nothing” is any more cost-effective than “spending money doing something.” That’s the point of the article.
And for these epidemiological studies it’s a chicken-egg problem. You have to do some well-designed, large-scale experiments to get quality data. And then refine from there. If you’re particularly risk averse and don’t think your community should take part, that’s fine, though.
Waste of money…
That’s your emotion-based opinion. The article you posted provides no basis for concluding the money spent was either productive or a waste.
…last week another cyclist was seriously hurt being hit on that barely dry paint.
And last night I road on a new bike lane and was uninjured. So what? I don’t think anyone has claimed that bike infrastructure prevents all injury everywhere. Far from it.
To be fair though, if people aren’t sure whether spending money will improve the situation, the default choice should be to not spend it. The burden of proof, as it were, should be on efficacy
To be fair though, if people aren’t sure whether spending money will improve the situation, the default choice should be to not spend it.
Maybe, maybe not. You’re making an underlying assumption that the default choice, “do nothing,” is more cost-effective. But there’s no evidence to substantiate that. So some targeted changes, e.g. paying six figures for a consultant, changing some infrastructure, and measuring changes, may be the most prudent use of resources.
It depends on a judgment call about how satisfied the community is with the status quo. If there are lots of injuries/deaths, than a measured experiment may be attractive. If large numbers of motorists, cyclists, or pedestrians are complaining, same thing.
If everyone seems reasonably happy (except for maybe some uppity hipsters!) , then, yes, I’d agree, the default choice should probably be not to spend anything.
Edit: My community, San Diego, has recently spent 7 figures painting “sharrows” in a shit-ton of low-speed surface streets. No rock-solid evidence that it was beneficial. But it might be. We’ll see. Just from an n=1 perspective, I feel a shit-ton more comfortable “taking the lane” on a lane with sharrows than one without. And I’ve yet to be screamed at or brushed-by. All drivers I’ve experienced so far just calmly change lanes and move on by. I have only n=1 anecdotal evidence that it’s a difference from doing the same thing without any sharrows. But I still like it. I consider it prudent government spending. Certainly a lot cheaper than digging up concrete to expand roads for full-up bike lanes.
Hello Nonojohn and All,
Looks like San Diego may be moving forward with this plan:
"Action Plan
*The Bike Coalition joined forces with several environmental advocates including the Climate Action Campaign to support a precedent-setting plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2035 in the city of San Diego. *
*The Climate Action Plan http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/cap/pdf/CAP%20Adoption%20Draft%202015.pdf ] **also calls for legally binding bicycle commuting mode share targets of 6% by 2020 and 18% by 2035 *(the current mode share is 1%). As Executive Director Andy Hanshaw stated at the Council hearing, "It’s going to take an investment and commitment by the city to implement more than standard bike lanes in order to reach those goals. Protected bike lanes have proven to be successful in increasing bicycle mode share and San Diego must implement them now if we are serious in our commitment to this plan".
*We applaud the City Council for taking the lead in the region on climate change and offer our support with implementation of the plan and increasing bicycle ridership." *
There are funds appropriated by the CA state agencies and cities to improve the cycling infrastructure with many projects moving forward.
The goals stated for increased cycling mode share for San Diego are very ambitious for the time frames stated and I certainly support the effort … but would not bet on achieving those goals so quickly. Portland has worked long and hard to get their mode share up to 6%,
Good news for cyclists (and bike shops) in any event.
.
What’s wrong with experimentation?
Like uhhh…
Wasting my tax dollars, actually worsening bike/car traffic flow and cyclist safety etc…?
Last year my community this year spent six figures for consulting and this year another six figures to paint a couple of bike lanes on a high traffic, high speed road…(because they did see that in a European city?).
Waste of money…
…last week another cyclist was seriously hurt being hit on that barely dry paint.
Also, pretty clear that all the moneys being spent by communities, states, government to “improve” cycling infrastructure are nothing less than just a giant experiment in progress.
What’s wrong with experimentation. No way to figure out what works and what doesn’t unless you experiment.
Experiments are essential. However they should be well planned, lessons should be learned and the experiment modified and repeated as appropriate to come to a useful conclusion. Many governments seem to do this sort of thing very poorly.
I have lived in the great state of CA (lots of bike lanes) and also the pit of TX (sparse bike lanes).
My experience is that the bike lanes make no difference in safety, but rather bike lanes are indicative of a larger cycling community and/or a culture that knows to be on the lookout for cyclists- which makes a tremendous difference in safety.We’re seeing this in New York City - a lot of pretty poor bike lanes, big increases in amount of riding, and increased safety rates.
Worth mentioning that bike lanes with very serious separation from other traffic can improve safety.