"A cycle route is judged based on its weakest point and people will not get out of their cars and onto their bikes if they do not feel that they have a safe route to follow … Instead, the quality of the route is often sacrificed to minimize the perceived impact on car users. This results in the route being unattractive to potential new users and therefore not likely to generate modal shift.”
Fatalities from traffic and non-traffic are not mixed. Those numbers in that report are traffic fatalities.
You're right George. Merely because there's a hard surface somewhere doesn't mean it is safe to mix different forms of transportation on it. We don't want cars driving up and down the lake-front trail, nor bikes and rollerbladers on Lake Shore Drive.
Scooters, roller-blader, bikes, skateboards, pedestrians and horses don't necessarily belong together in one place merely because there's an improved surface.
For instance, people could put a hard strip down a train track and suggest we open up the train lines for mixed modal use, noting the consistency of speed and direction of the train is about the most predictable for of transportation there is, with no swerving and no rapid acceleration. But this mixing is unsafe, and we wouldn't accept roller-bladers waging a war on trains because it isn't safe.
Transit/CTA's own record demonstrates the hazards of mode-mixing too:
I don't accept the take that our streets are what they are and the faster we accept that and the deaths of cyclists and pedestrians, the better off we are. Insisting on a bike license sounds like a huge failure and a false equivalence. Biking is for everyone including children and their parents taking them to school. If we can't do that safely, as a society we have failed ourselves. The idea that parking should taking priority over protected bike lanes is absurd and backwards. If you look at London, they have added wide bike lanes and what happened? Their population of cyclists went way up because people could ride safely.
When most trips are 1-2 miles, why do we accept that the car is the only vehicle? There's an obesity problem, a climate crisis, and a dangerous lack of priority to the safety to pedestrians, scooter riders, and cyclists. This is all related. How do we expect to make any headway on the climate crisis by taking the stance, "this is the way it's always been" and giving up to the car culture?
People aren't happy in their cars. When is the last time you rode your bike somewhere safely and didn't have a smile on your face? I have grown to need that "high" every day, twice day at the very least.
It's up to 18 as of the bike death today in NYC. It's not a perfect world but at some point change has to be made and yes, there will be the NIMBYs but there is too much at stake. The mayor of NYC is fine with cars dropping off people in bike lanes and has said so. He thinks he can just throw money at the problem and that will magically make it all go away. But it won't. If you refuse to address enforcement, only add painted lines, and continue to blindly support the car culture (including parking) in refusing to make real changes, sure it will fail. The parking prioritization just continues to feed the same car-centric problem. At some point you have to make the shift that will open cycling up to support everyone. Including children. What's the point otherwise?
We act like it isn't a climate crisis and we're just fine with having all of these huge SUVs on the roads. I'm not. It doesn't require any additional training or special license to take a massive Yukon out on the road vs. a compact Toyota. When did it become cool again to drive beasts with terrible MPG that are dangerous because drivers don't really see everything around them? Studies show that the bigger vehicles create a separation so that drivers are so removed from their surroundings, they are more inclined to hit someone or something. Think about that. When I hear people getting so angry about scooters, I can't help think but the SUVs and trucks are really what kill people. Why aren't we more upset about that? Pollution + deadly = a terrible vehicle. Now just have one person in it. Now add thousands exactly like it. Tooling around the cities, driving and parking in bike lanes, idling to run their A/C.
I often approach gigantic trucks with signs on the back to the effect that "If you can't see my mirrors, I can't see you." To which I think, "If you can't see me, you shouldn't be allowed on city streets." Why is it that new cars today have all kinds of cameras and proximity warnings, but the most dangerous trucks just have major blind spots?
Any time I approach an intersection I try and put myself in a spot that allows me to see as many drivers faces, in their mirrors or thru their windshield or side or rear glass, as possible; In all directions. Like the trucks say I gotta see them if I want them to see me.
Being seen is important, and while I see plenty of cyclists with reflective clothing and flashing lights, many of those same cyclists will ride, unconcerned, into a vehicles blind spot.
I see no need for a permit, but with Drivers Ed and Traffic School and Drivers License renewals there are plenty of opportunities for the State to promote a bicycles place in traffic and bicycle safety to new and old drivers alike.
Private Driving Schools should also be mandated to teach the laws regarding bicycles.
Good news, from the sample test:
26. When a motorist is turning right and a bicyclist is approaching on the right, the motorist must allow the bicyclist to go through the intersection first before making the turn. ■ True ■ False
For sure George. The death wave. (Happens to car drivers too) Somebody stops and waves you across while someone else goes around them. Now for the other hazard: Cyclists :( Cars stop, pedestrian crosses, and then a cyclist traveling along to the right of a car nails them. West-bound Fullerton on the north side of the street across from DePaul a few blocks west of the 'el is a hot spot for this, as pedestrians cross walking north.