On Behalf Of Michael Yeates
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:13 AM
Subject: World Streets] Greening New York: Bicycle safety and infrastructure (Europea...
Thanks for those thoughts and experiences Eric.
There are two aspects which my experiences in Europe but also here in Australia have led me to pursue and if not promote, then at least try to get others to quietly but seriously consider.
1. Convenience is as important as safety if not more important: At first this seems completely wrong but in fact if safety is pursued, in most cases, practice shows that convenience is reduced, often to the point where a barrier is created for some if not most. So it may be that in some circumstances where a proposal is made to improve the safety of cyclists or pedestrians that a trade-off for increased convenience and reduced safety may be needed.
But have a look at points #1-5 below and it becomes more clear that reducing the danger while improving (or not reducing) the convenience while highly desirable, is not essential. It is maintaining and improving convenience which is both achievable and feasible ... and essential ... albeit not by itself. Improved safety is a likely if not inevitable outcome as can be seen from the following point and other points below.
2. Reclaiming the streets (or reclaiming street space) is not about banning motor vehicles: The 30/20/10 (preferably in km/h NOT mph?) illustrates that there is no need to reclaim street space IF motor vehicles are much less of a problem or threat. More to the point, the speed advantages of motor vehicles are so reduced (ie the "convenience" of motoring is so reduced) that other modes (and what better than cycling?) are then much more likely to be preferred. And when that occurs as it does in many many places world-wide, it becomes obvious that there is no need to "ban" motorists as is implied by "car free" campaigns. Indeed why ban motorists may well be one way to consider this in detail in order to see how other strategies can, and do, work to achieve better outcomes.
Of course these and the five below are inter-related but the issue is about getting support for rather getting support against. So why ban motorists if that isn't necessary ie if the desired outcomes can be achieved by sharing the roads/streets?
It may come as a bit of a shock to some traffic planners and advocates but there is barely a street, road or freeway on the planet that isn't convenient to use for cyclists so why try to build a separate network other than to allow business as usual in the adjacent road space?
Of course it is never quite as simple as that and nothing is ever perfect. Indeed one idea that doesn't get much promotion is the idea of CYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY on roads and streets. It simply reverses the legal onus and responsibility in favour of peds and cyclists rather than motorists.
So if like the hierarchy that places pedestrians first, cyclists second, etc etc, we argue consistently that in principle, urban roads are the spaces for cyclists, as well as for motorists and pedestrians, to share, then solutions such as those in much of Europe but also many places elsewhere become rather self-obvious ... and those that oppose these ideas, more obvious in their motives also. Both good outcomes....!
Put another way, there is very little needs be done or money spent on the roads. And what is done can be implemented incrementally ... although the bigger the area, the better because consistency matters.
The effort and money is needed to change how we have allowed roads (in particular urban roads) to be used.
Indeed the emphasis on changing the roads, being so costly, is almost inevitably counter-productive. We provide reasons for NOT changing how the roads are or could be used.
This might still result in some necessary changes to the roads.
But then lets not so quickly forget the lessons we learned from Hans Monderman which if applied to cyclists may well necessitate removing some of those comfortable and reliable old "separation" techniques such as separate paths and bike lanes in favour of "sharing the road"?
Michael Yeates
- - - -
Click to http://newmobilityagenda.blogspot.com/2009/03/greening-new-york-bicycle-safety-and_13.html for article to which the author refers here.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Greening New York: Bicycle safety and infrastructure (Australian perspectives)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Good points, Michael
ReplyDeleteI agree on most of your points, including the praise to Eric.
One thing that I would have formulated differently in the text, Eric, is:
" make cycling even more dangerous"
This seems to presuppose that cycling is indeed dangerous, and for some readers, that underscores what many transport experts have indirectly told them, that there is something intrinsically dangerous about cycling. I think that since the statement is not further explained, it would have been better to drop it. Of course the problem is there is something intrinsically dangerous about cars, first and foremost.
The EU booklet "Cycling the way ahead for towns and cities" - available as a PDF on the net - bursts that myth. FUBicy the French member of ECF has provided data showing that
cyclists have no larger proportion of serious accidents than other groups in relation to their weight in traffic. ( Possibly calculated on a per hour basis or per trip, instead of the pr. kilometer, including motorways/dual carriageways that often is used )
The Conference of European Transport Ministers has published a report on how to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists without using restrictive methods. Builds in part on a research programme called "PROMISING". In it even the promotion of bicycle helmets by official bodies is mentioned as a restrictive safety measure. ( Additionally, not mentioned in the above report, research has shown that countries that have increased helmet usage have not seen any benefits. Rather the result has been a decline in cycling )
Best Regards,
Morten Lange
Iceland
Michael,
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you have read it already, but I think that you would be interested in Peter Norton's book: Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American city. I am reading it now (amongst many other things), and I expect that you would find it fascinating.
From one of the reviewers: "This book is provocative, exceptionally enlightening, and a must-read for all pedestrian and bicycle professionals, urban designers, traffic engineers, elected and appointed officials....
The book is an analysis of how the American street, its perceived purpose, and its design paradigm has been transformed over the past century. Up until the dawn of the 20th Century, the rights of and sympathy for the pedestrian were supreme. Street rules (to the extent that any existed) and street design were focused on pedestrian travel...."
Eric, feel free to pass this on if you wish.
Best,
Zvi
Michael,
ReplyDeleteThanks for a useful post.
Quite often social problems are a lot easier to resolve if the discourse surrounding them is changed - so that lines of responsibility are changed, which seems to be your suggestion here.
But this also needs 30/20/10 kph speed zones to be taken seriously, either by the authorities or (better) through social pressure on miscreants. The discourse in people's heads matters as well.
Best
Andrew
Agreed Andrew ...
ReplyDeleteIndeed I could easily and quite justifiably have also included Claes Tingvall where I mention Hans Monderman ... as a complete refocus is needed ... see http://newmobilityagenda.blogspot.com/2005/02/sweden-vision-zero.html
In another paper ... see http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/papers/visionzero.html ... it is clear why pedestrians and cyclists are essential if road "safety" is to be achieved, and why it is crucial to design road "safety" so that it is the safety AND convenience, or perhaps the CONVENIENCE with safety of pedestrians and cyclists that is considered most important in urban and suburban areas ...NOT motorised traffic.
Michael Yeates
Australia
I pretty much agree with this. As I said in my 1997 article on the matter:
ReplyDelete"Given the enormous amounts of political and emotional effort, as well as increasingly scarce public cash, given over to justifying and building bikepaths in the name of urban ecology, I think it is worth asking whether that effort and that money are, in fact, actually useful or beneficial.
People often presume that you have to build bikepaths before you can use bicycles effectively for urban transit.
However, there already exists an intricate and comprehensive system of bikeways that extends throughout the length and breadth of every urban agglomeration on earth, and it is called 'city streets.'
Rather than pour money into glorified sidewalks that, as someone once said of yachting, 'go slowly nowhere at great expense,' or into putting up signs that are ignored by motorists and bicyclists alike, spend it wisely on educational programs that will teach bicyclists (who are people on bicycles) how to ride safely and politely in traffic, and that will remind motorists (who are people in cars) of their obligations in regard to the rights of cyclists."
http://bicyclefixation.com/bikepaths.htm