Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: Car driver asks for advice from bicyclists
Message-ID: <9@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Oct-85 12:23:57 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.9
Posted: Wed Oct 30 12:23:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 03:06:03 EST
References: <354@sol1.UUCP> <55@noscvax.UUCP> <1023@druxo.UUCP> <95@utastro.UUCP> <153@nitrex.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 59

> In article <95@utastro.UUCP> bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) writes:
> >I don't object to bike paths as long as they are part of the road.  I
> >refuse to use a bike path that is separated from the roadway, since
> >they subject me to the same dangers that sidewalks do.  The dangers
> >of separate bike paths have been well documented.
> 
> I lived in the Netherlands for four year.  They had bike paths and
> they worked GREAT.  The path was right next to the sidewalk, usually
> with a grass median between the bike path and the road.  The bike
> paths week bricked/tiled and were very smooth and clean.  It beats
> the H*ll out of riding in the roads.
> 
> I think that bike paths are not inherantly dangerous, I think it is
> more the way drivers have been educated in this country ("thar's cars,
> and kids shouldn't be riding their bikes in our road, they may get 
> hurt").  Overall, I'd like to compare Dutch bicycle accident stats with
> American ones.

While it may seem obvious that separate bike paths are safer than 
riding on the road, the statistics we have in this country do not
bear this out.  The National Traffic Safety Commission
made a study some years ago that showed that *in the U. S.*,
the accident rate among *experienced* cyclists riding on bike paths
that were completely separate from the traffic was equal to that
on the *most heavily trafficked roads*.  No one knows why this is
so.  Perhaps it is the generally poor engineering of such
facilities; perhaps it is the difficulty of keeping pedestrians
and dogs off of them.  But the bottom line is, they are not safe.
You are far better off on a lightly or moderately travelled road 
with no bike path.

Bike paths that are partially separated from the road (for example
with a berm or other barrier), but which force the cyclist to cross
traffic at intersections, or which are themselves crossed by
driveways, are extremely unsafe and should be avoided at all cost.

I agree it would be interesting to compare the Dutch and American
experience, but it is not clear to me that such a comparison would
be very meaningful, because there are many other variables.

I did read an article several years ago by a cyclist who was very
anti-bikepath, but found the Dutch paths to be an entirely
different situation.  So your experience is not unusual.  The
question is, with the attitudes towards cycling in the U. S., 
can the Dutch experience be transplanted here (assuming it can
be demonstrated that it is worthy of emulation)?  Would it be 
cost-effective, compared to other uses of the money such as in
education programs, considering the great differences in traffic mix 
between here and there?  The answers aren't obvious.

-- 
Glend.	I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot.	Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
	do call for them?    --  Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(UUCP)
	bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU.				(Internet)