The Seville study on bike ridership and bike safety

by on June 5, 2017 at 3:57 pm in Data Source, Travel | Permalink

Here are some of the results:

Here’s what they found: bike network connectedness seems to immediately pay off in the form of lower risk to people biking. The risk of a biking trip in Seville seems to have fallen dramatically in 2007 and stayed mostly flat afterward. No other single variable predicted bike safety as well as that single yes/no question: Has a network been built yet?

More accurate still was a formula that took into account both variables — the length of bikeways built and that yes/no question about whether or not the network had been connected.

In other words: Generally speaking, every additional mile of protected bike lane somewhere in the city improved safety. But network connections improved safety most.

Here is a summary, here is the study itself.  For the pointer I thank Roland Stephen.

1 Bob from Ohio June 5, 2017 at 4:29 pm

Sorry roads are FOR CARS not bikes. Bikes are toys for children and need to be treated as such!

Reply

2 JWatts June 5, 2017 at 4:35 pm

“Sorry roads are FOR CARS not bikes.”

If you look at the pictures on the study, the biking lanes are actual bike lanes. Not the shoulder of the road with some painted strips. All but one of the pictures shows a physical barrier between the road traffic and the bike lane.

Reply

3 Bob from Ohio June 5, 2017 at 4:39 pm

These lanes are almost certainly removing land that could be used for car road expansion in order to cater to people who confuse a child’s toy for a mode of transportation. Europe will never be a serious economic unit if they continue to indulge childishness.

Reply

4 Borjigid June 5, 2017 at 9:33 pm

You are commenting on the blog MARGINAL revolution.

Learn to think at the margin.

Reply

5 A shagbark tree called Paco June 5, 2017 at 11:28 pm

“Do not swear by the moon, for she changes constantly. then your love would also change.”

For about as bad as it gets, after all this, to be banned from the barnes and noble on 4015 Medina Rd, Akron, OH 44333 for insensitive joking, another in a long line of banishment.

“Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast.” “I defy you, stars.”

Mercutio: That dreamers often lie.

Reply

6 Axa June 6, 2017 at 1:51 am

Imagine low salary workers could arrive in a bicycle to work instead of being serious and spend half their income in a car.

So, what fraction of US adults can afford a car without compromising their financial stability? What’s the point of being serious and end up in bankruptcy?

Reply

7 Hazel Meade June 6, 2017 at 9:29 am

Riding one’s bike to work is a good way to get in a decent amount of exercise per day as recommended by physicians.
People riding bikes are not necessarily being childish, they are making an efficient use of time to integrate exercise into their daily routine.

Reply

8 JonFraz June 6, 2017 at 2:55 pm

Oh, good grief, sidewalks and even buildings take away space from roadways too. So what? Where is it written that cars should have unlimited space for their travel?

Reply

9 GoneWithTheWind June 6, 2017 at 10:41 am

The problem for bikes on roads is that the cars weigh a couple of tons and the bike always loses when they contact each other. The second problem is that bikers don’t believe the laws apply to them, They don’t stop at stop signs and red lights. The third problem is that the bike lane has the right of way (either by law or assumption) and they will freely pass cars on the right includiing cars who intend to make a right hand turn. The car driver is not expecting a bike to appear out of no where and pass them on the right just as they turn right.

Reply

10 JonFraz June 6, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Bikes do not “appear out of no where” any more than cars do. The lesson for drivers is to PAY ATTENTION.

Reply

11 George Hayduke June 5, 2017 at 4:40 pm

I’m not sorry to tell you that you’re wrong about this, Bob. And you make yourself look very silly by saying such factually incorrect things.

Reply

12 Bob from Ohio June 5, 2017 at 4:46 pm

Serious societies drive cars. Places that people actually want to live cater heavily to cars. Places that make it difficult to drive, do not offer sufficient parking or road access typically see low growth and plummeting populations. Here is Ohio you don’t see people wasting time with bikes because we actually work here and need to get to our jobs efficiently. It’s not hard to see why people actually want to move to Ohio…those European cities with bike lanes….ummmm….not so much.

Reply

13 Curt F. June 5, 2017 at 4:55 pm

Big cities like NYC, SF, Singapore, London etc. are the places with the highest rents, the highest property values, and the largest per-capita contributions to GDP, are known for difficult parking, expanding bike lanes, and in some cases, congestion pricing that charges car drivers for merely entering the cities. Bob, I’m someone that’s sympathetic to many of your points but it is safe to say that you are 100% wrong on this one.

Reply

14 Guy From 1850 June 5, 2017 at 5:00 pm

I can’t wait until cars are invented. Society is so unserious.

Reply

15 Cptn Obvious June 5, 2017 at 5:44 pm

+1 million , thread winner.

16 Butch Cassidy June 5, 2017 at 6:08 pm

Future’s all yours, ya lousy bicycles!

17 Blaise June 5, 2017 at 6:23 pm

What is Ohio?

Reply

18 Pshrnk June 5, 2017 at 7:42 pm

What is Ohio?

Its where you can find the GOD

19 Thiago Ribeiro June 5, 2017 at 8:17 pm

It is the place where the steal Brazilian inventions. For money!!

20 Thiago Ribeiro June 5, 2017 at 8:16 pm

Mao’s China rode bikes and it was serious enough to crush America, expel its soldiers from North Korea, defeat the Russian invader and force the American regime to sell Taiwan out.

Reply

21 BDK June 5, 2017 at 10:26 pm

Y’all realize this is sarcasm, right (i hope)?

– someone who lives in an expensive (and thus as a matter of evidence, place where people want to live) zip code with lots of bike options and very pricey parking lots for the few of us who have cars that we don’t ever use on weekdays anyway.

Reply

22 Ethan Bernard June 6, 2017 at 1:33 am

For example, Portland embraces cycling, and nobody wants to live in Portland.

Reply

23 JonFraz June 6, 2017 at 2:58 pm

Um, I biked a lot when I lived in Akron Ohio.

Reply

24 Miguel Madeira June 5, 2017 at 7:58 pm

Roads are FOR HORSES not cars. Cars are toys for rich people and need to be treated as such!

Reply

25 CorvusB June 5, 2017 at 8:39 pm

Roads are for BICYCLES, not cars.

I’ve corrected your mistake for you.

Hint: Check out the historical role of the League of American Wheelmen in the building of our American road system.

Reply

26 joe June 6, 2017 at 7:46 am

Cars today are ridiculously over-engineered for their purpose, most especially in high density zones. If it were possible to have cars be severely restricted in terms of speed, acceleration and horse power based on GPS coordinates, cars and bikes could then share the road much more equally.

Cars should be restricted to the profile of basically golf cars within city limits. There’s virtually no reason for a car to go over 25 km/hr in the city.

Reply

27 Andrew in Cincinnati Ohio June 6, 2017 at 9:08 am

Bob, go home, you’re drunk. Just make sure you don’t use a car.

Reply

28 Hazel Meade June 6, 2017 at 9:35 am

I certainly prefer off-road bike lanes. For one thing they can double as walking paths which are an amenity especially when the path winds away from the road, making it scenic, as it does in a lot of modern suburban developments. At my previous job, there was a converted railroad that went almost directly next to my work, passing through open country and suburban developments on the way. It was a good 10 miles to get to work, and too a little over an hour each way, but the traffic congestion makes the commute 40 minutes anyway, so it only cost me 40 minutes to get 2 hours of exercise if I chose to ride my bike. Otherwise I would basically waste 1 hour 20 minutes sitting on my ass listening to NPR or something.

Reply

29 Seth June 6, 2017 at 12:47 pm

Off-road bike lanes are FOR BIKES not for walking. Walking is for buffoons and should be treated as such!

Reply

30 Hazel Meade June 6, 2017 at 3:07 pm

Can we compromise and just ban Segways?
Segways are for overweight dorks who can’t be bothered to bike or even walk, but enjoy wearing helmets nonetheless.

Reply

31 JonFraz June 6, 2017 at 2:54 pm

True of some roads– freeways most obviously. Not true of urban streets.

Reply

32 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 4:56 pm

I like bicycles, but they are awfully dangerous by 21st Century standards of safety unless you have separated bike paths like in this Seville study. Bikes are similar to motorcycles, which have gotten relatively far more dangerous than cars as car safety has improved dramatically with seatbelts, airbags, etc.

Bicycles strike me as 20th Century Fun, like backyard trampolines.

Reply

33 KWebb June 5, 2017 at 5:25 pm

Cyclists can avoid most collisions with vehicles by riding in the middle of the right hand lane, making left turns from left turn lanes, not running stop lights and stop signs, using head and tail lights at night, and by not riding drunk. Generally the sorts of things expected from any thirteen year old on an under powered moped.

Reply

34 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 6:31 pm

So can motorcycles, but motorcycles aren’t terribly fashionable anymore because they are so dangerous by 21st Century safety standards. So why are bicycles largely exempt from scrutiny about safety?

Reply

35 Cyrus June 5, 2017 at 6:41 pm

Collision with stationary object or with ground at motorcycle speeds is an entirely different world of hurt than at bicycle speeds. These really aren’t comparable risks.

Reply

36 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 6:47 pm

I’m not much worried about me running into a bridge abutment on my bike, I’m worried about an SUV running into me.

37 Cyrus June 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm

I think we’re enough of Coaseans here to admit the point of view that this is a bike problem, the point of view that this is an SUV problem, and intermediate points of view, can all lead to reasonable policy outcomes.

38 Thor June 5, 2017 at 7:25 pm

Just spoke to a mechanic at dinner last night who is also a high speed motorbike aficionado. I don’t recall the figures but we are talking about 0 to 60 some kinda crazy time.

I on the other hand race my mountain bike (or did, until I got older) or I commute through the forest to my job. I can probably at worst break my collarbone or knock a few teeth out. Or sprain a knee.

Bikes are great and I say this as someone moderately right of centre. And fairly fit. (I’ve ridden in many countries. Stay off the crazy narrow roads and the highways and you will be fine.)

Reply

39 MaxUtil June 5, 2017 at 9:09 pm

Bicycles have much better safety stats than motorcycles and are far safer than typically assumed. When you account for the health benefits of active transportation, they come out even better and that’s in the US. In cities worldwide that have put even a small amount of effort into designing roads to accommodate cyclists, their safety record is outstanding. That is all beyond their benefits for reducing pollution, congestion, parking limitations, etc.

Reply

40 P Burgos June 6, 2017 at 1:31 am

I agree with Cyrus. Motorcycles are a whole lot more dangerous because they go much faster than bicycles, though bicycles are certainly more dangerous than cars. The added speed of a motorcycle means that when an SUV hits a motorcycle, the relative speed of the two is much greater (for head on collisions) or the rider goes flying much further and faster when the rider is hit from the side, or runs into the side of another vehicle.

Reply

41 mkt42 June 6, 2017 at 1:08 am

When I think of all of the people I know who’ve been hospitalized due to bicycle accidents and automobile accidents (limiting it to people who I know personally, so excluding accident victims that I merely read about such as former LA mayor Villaraigosa, James Dean, etc.), the number of bike and auto victims is about the same.

But the degree of exposure (whether measured by trip, by hour, by mile, or whatever) is surely at least 100 or 200 times higher for the automobile riders, and so their level of risk is at least 100 or 200 times lower.

The caveat is that I’ve spent more years of my life living in the Los Angeles area than in any other area, and it’s a particularly unsafe area to be a bike rider. But even now that I live in Portland, none of the Portlanders who I know has been hurt in an automobile accident (yet). But a bicyclist from my college was killed by a truck driver who didn’t see him.

Other cities will have different risk levels. But I won’t be bicycle commuting until safer bikeways are created.

Reply

42 MaxUtil June 6, 2017 at 3:13 pm

I think statistics generally show that bikes are safer for “time traveled” (so safer for each hour spent on the road) but more dangerous for distance traveled. People interpret that however they want to argue that bikes are safe/deadly. At the end of the day, they are not much different from driving safety wise, especially when used for the typical short, couple mile trip in your neighborhood. And the good news is that it’s not that hard to make them much safer with even basic infrastructure. Even the presence of other cyclists makes cycling safer. So anything that encourages more riding improves safety for everyone.

Reply

43 mkt42 June 6, 2017 at 7:22 pm

Agreed, but even Portland has a long way to go. There are a few routes which meet the criteria that we’ve been mentioning, but in most of them the bicyclists are still too vulnerable, or they do have the critical mass so that even the most inattentive driver can see them a block away — and because there’s some many of them, the already crowded traffic gets slowed down further. (Admittedly if those hordes of bicyclists were in cars, maybe the congestion would be worse still.)

44 JonFraz June 6, 2017 at 3:00 pm

And most importantly by not riding against traffic. I see that all the time here in Baltimore. It’s dangerous as can be.

Reply

45 MaxUtil June 6, 2017 at 3:17 pm

Agreed. A lot of the danger in cycling is made worse by bad riding behavior. What I don’t think a lot of people get though is that cyclists often ride in odd, unpredictable ways now because the roads are so hostile to them. So they do things like shoot on and off the sidewalks because it seems safer to get off the street when they can, but really this makes them harder to see, etc. Part of the safety improvement from bike lanes and other designs is that it pushes cyclists to ride in safe, predictable ways so cars see them, accept the legitimacy of them being on the road, and don’t do some of the stupid aggressive stuff drivers do all the time.

Reply

46 Cptn Obvious June 5, 2017 at 5:48 pm

Steve, in the Netherlands people use bikes to go to work. And in London the biking culture is growing massively… I guess this holds true in certain US cities as well… Even in the place where I come from in Europe which is supersuper hilly, people have started using bikes too!

Reply

47 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 6:28 pm

Like I implied, bicycles seem to get an exemption from 21st Century safety consciousness. In contrast, backyard trampolines aren’t fashionable anymore because they are dangerous, but a lot of effort continues to be put into making bicycles fashionable via the media ignoring the risks.

It’s not that bikes have gotten more dangerous, it’s that cars have gotten so much safer that it seems unconscionable to act like bicycle riding on city streets is safe by 21st Century standards.

Reply

48 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 6:48 pm

By the way, it could be that in the future, cars will have so many sensors that drivers running over bike riders won’t be much of a danger anymore. But that days hasn’t arrived yet.

Reply

49 Colin June 5, 2017 at 6:54 pm

I’d love to see the data here. I wonder how many deaths there are per mile traveled with bicycles vs. cars in a country like the Netherlands which has well-developed infrastructure for both?

Reply

50 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 8:02 pm

It’s not that easy to find bike safety data, which is kind of my point.

Rent-a-horse riding used to be popular when I was a kid, but then the insurance companies figured out how dangerous it is. So I mostly see it now up at Hansen Dam with fly-by-night rentals of horses to Mexican picnickers.

Anyway, maybe there is some magic reason why bikes are so much safer than motorcycles and horses, but I don’t seem to read it much in the press.

51 MaxUtil June 5, 2017 at 9:17 pm

It’s not all Netherlands, but Amsterdam has an average of 5 cycling deaths per year. Cyclists travel roughly 2 million km per day in the city. They see roughly 15 auto related deaths per years. Trips in the city are typically about 1/3 by bike.

52 Colin June 5, 2017 at 9:20 pm

Well, I just figured bikes would be safer as the consequences of getting in an accident with one would seem to be less severe than with a car. Drinking and biking would seem much less consequential from a safety perspective than drinking and driving. I’ve always felt a lot safer riding a bike around the Netherlands versus driving at high speed in a big hunk of metal.

53 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 9:32 pm

The Netherlands has a culture oriented toward bike safety. For example, every kid who goes through driver’s ed is taught to always open the car door (from the inside) with the right hand so that your head automatically turns to see if a bike is coming so you don’t open the door into a cyclist’s face.

That’s a great idea, and if we implemented that in America tomorrow, cycling would be a lot safer within several decades.

54 P Burgos June 6, 2017 at 1:45 am

A law firm by the name Lewis and Tompkins claims that “the motorcycle fatality rate is over 17 times greater, and bicycle fatality rates are nearly 10 times greater than that for automobiles.” Granted that the website of a law firm making its money representing people involved in motor vehicle accidents may not be the most reliable source of information, but I have seen the same comparative statistics elsewhere on the web. Interestingly, the law firm claims to take data from Virginia from 2013 to find that over 90% of all bicycle and motorcycle accidents resulted in serious injury, but 3% of reported motorcycle accidents resulted in death versus 1.3% for reported bicycle accidents, versus a 73% injury rate and .8 percent fatality rate for reported car accidents in the same year. Again, I am not certain I would trust this information, but it is more precise than anything else anyone has come up with.

55 byomtov June 6, 2017 at 12:49 pm

In Amsterdam, or at least the canal/tourist areas, which is what I’ve seen, bicycle lanes are the outer part of the sidewalk, separated from auto traffic by parked cars, or at least the curb. In other words, the sidewalk has two parts, with different textures. The part near the buildings is for walking and the part near the road is for bicycling. That has to make them a lot safer.

(I got yelled at once or twice for walking in the bike lane.)

56 chuck martel June 5, 2017 at 7:37 pm

Bicycles aren’t a recreational device, they’re a means of transportation. Trampolines became “unfashionable” because one can’t go anywhere on them except to the hospital and that requires the use of an ambulance. Homeowners insurance underwriters aren’t too crazy about trampolines, either.

Maybe there is such a thing as 21st Century safety standards. After all, those highly flammable hockey rinks are equipped with sprinkler heads far up in the ceiling which couldn’t be tripped unless the building actually exploded. It seems interesting that people are worried about exposing themselves to the remote chance of a hockey rink conflagration, ebola epidemic or a lightning strike but are blissfully unconcerned about their life savings being stored in an ephemeral digital form to which they have no guaranteed access.

Reply

57 Blaise June 5, 2017 at 6:26 pm

What is dangerous is to be inactive most of the day. Cycling is a smart way to use your commute to exercise.

Reply

58 Anonymous June 5, 2017 at 6:39 pm

I am an experienced bicyclist. One thing an experienced bicyclist tends not to is say “bicycles are/are-not dangerous.” Why? Well, because there are hundreds of different bicycles and millions of different places to ride them.

If your day to day experience is in The Valley, you might be making a good call not to ride road bikes there. The Sepulveda Dam area is safe, but very boring. Roads are crap for cars in The Valley, let alone bicycles. But that isn’t the world. Biking through Irvine, say, is a completely different world. It is relaxing for cars and bicycles both. Etc.

You’d be making a big mistake to go further afield, and apply Valley experience for biking in say a Bend Oregon summer day.

Reply

59 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 6:53 pm

Right. I used to ride my bike to high school in Sherman Oaks, CA every day back in the early 1970s. I only got flattened by a car once. But the population is a lot denser today and the roads haven’t gotten any better.

When I lived in Chicago, I used to bike to work on weekends down the lakefront bike path and then along the huge Wacker Drive sidewalk. But I wouldn’t ride in Chicago on regular surface streets.

Reply

60 Anonymous June 5, 2017 at 7:55 pm

Thus, I have no reason to doubt this study. I have biked places easy and safe. I have biked places sketchy and worrying.

I’d be happy to bike Seville and see how it feels.

As far as bicycling and the political economy, pfft. Bicycles are quite cheap compared to true boondoggles like the Hydrogen Highway or California’s High Speed Rail to Nowhere. Chump change.

Reply

61 Steve Sailer June 5, 2017 at 11:13 pm

A key point of this study is that if your city can link up bike paths into a connected network, that will be much better for all than disconnected bike paths.

For example, Los Angeles has been building a bike path along segments of the Los Angeles in the San Fernando Valley, but it has been a flop so far because each half-mile segment doesn’t connect conveniently to the next half mile segment because they couldn’t drill through the bridge abutments of streets like Laurel Canyon that bridge the concrete river. There is so little bike traffic on this awkward bike path that they are becoming homeless encampments.

62 JonFraz June 6, 2017 at 3:08 pm

I actually feel safer on congested roads here in Baltimore than I do on uncongested roads in suburbia. When the traffic has slowed to a crawl and drivers need to be constantly alert they are less likely to hit a bike, and if they do the collision will most likely not cause death or serious injury.
Overall I’ve had more trouble with clueless nose-in-cell-phone pedestrians stepping out into my path than I have with cars here.
Oh, and cabs. I would sooner share the road with a drunk driver than a cab.

Reply

63 ladderff June 5, 2017 at 6:45 pm

Steve,

I wonder if some of the reason for what you are talking about is that to do otherwise would prompt our glorious leaders to explain why mass transit options in places like New York keep getting lousier and lousier. Less reliable, more expensive, slower, and more dangerous, with the same old levels of noise and air pollution, etc.

“The day of the iron horse is past!” Long live the wire donkey?

Reply

64 Slocum June 5, 2017 at 7:59 pm

I prefer low-speed, low-traffic dirt roads to bike paths. Living where I do, I can pedal out of the city and into the countryside in a few miles — yet another reason life’s too damn short to live in the middle of a megalopolis.

Reply

65 Hazel Meade June 6, 2017 at 9:45 am

I’m conflicted about this. I enjoyed living out in the exurbs but missed having access to urban amenities like high quality restaurants, art, and culture.

I think I prefer smaller cities, where you can get in an out of town easier. The megalopolis forces one to choose an almost purely urban or rural lifestyle – or be confined to a suburban area where both are unreachable. If it takes more than an hour to get into or out of the city the city is too fucking big.

Reply

66 Axa June 6, 2017 at 5:33 am

This is not a safety issue. It’s an insurance claim issue.

Expenses generated by a bike accident are covered by health insurance. In contrast, most of car accidents claims are just for a damaged car.

Reply

67 Philip Crawford June 6, 2017 at 8:14 am

Some of us aren’t optimizing our life around being safe. We go rock climbing, surfing, and even biking. Saying an activity is dangerous without describing any benefits to that danger is a one sided view. It’s dangerous to get in a car, but kinda great to be able to drive yourself to another place in this world to meet friends, surf, whatever.

Also, there are known health benefits to biking.

Reply

68 rayward June 5, 2017 at 5:12 pm

Cyclists are the world’s greatest athletes. It’s something I have suspected for awhile, but it was confirmed Saturday. I was riding up the island at my gentleman’s pace of 18 mph when a cyclist on a Cannondale flew past me at between 25 mph and 30 mph. I wouldn’t travel 30 mph on my cycle ever, even if I had a 40 mph tail wind; I’d brake rather than go that fast on my cycle. If I could be young again I could go 30 mph. And compete in the Tour de France. My idea of a good ride is one without injury to me or my cycle. I don’t know why so many people driving cars resent cyclists. I suspect that being a slug breeds resentment of anyone who isn’t. I’m no slug but I pass the threshold of old age in a few months. Running is a distant memory; indeed, the only memories are the chronic pain from all those years of running. Cycling is so much easier on the body. Except when some slug runs me off the road. In these parts, it’s the diesel powered pick up truck which is the cyclist’s nuisance, the slug behind the wheel accelerating as he passes so as to dump all that diesel exhaust in my face. He likely thinks it’s funny. He likely voted for Trump. A typical double d.

Reply

69 Ray Lopez June 5, 2017 at 5:51 pm

18 mph is very good for your age rayward. In my twenties, before I got scared my nuts would go numb with those skinny bicycle seats (they’ve since cut in those grooves, but this was back then), I would average about low 20 mph for about one hour over mostly level terrain, and that was fast (my bike was a heavy steel frame but still that’s fast). But 30 mph unless going downhill is not easy to reach on average, unless you are a real athlete.

As for this study, all it’s saying is pretty obvious: most bike accidents happen when you mix cars and bikes.

Reply

70 CorvusB June 5, 2017 at 7:10 pm

Averaging 18-22 mph on a steel frame was excellent for an average cyclist on those “old steel frames”. (So, Ray, you were doing good!) 22-24 mph was decent local level athlete. 25 mph and up – was entering the levels of top local athletes and athletes capable of competing on the national scale. When I was racing (top local level), I was doing good to hit 30-31 in a sprint effort. I couldn’t maintain 25 undrafted for long. We would do 26 or more in races, but that was a pack of top level guys.

BTW, notes of interest.
Bicycles are a 19th century source of fun, not 20th century.
Bicycles are the most efficient transportation ever invented.
Bicycles are one of, if not the, most efficient machines ever invented.
We still do not fully understand the physics and dynamics of a bicycle turn (although we have made significant progress in the last 10 years. I don’t have a link to an online source, but I have a published study that moves this field forward should anyone be interested. Authors Cain and Perkins, presented 2010 Delft, Netherlands)

Reply

71 Cptn Obvious June 5, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Cycling is a beautiful sport. Unfortunately, Americans mostly know the Tour de France, which is a bit boring and predictable, where I would really advise the one-day classics (Paris-Roubaix, Tour de Flandres, Strade Bianchi etc.).

Reply

72 Jeff R June 5, 2017 at 6:04 pm

How long are they? Watching somebody ride a bike for any length of time doesn’t sound very entertaining.

Reply

73 Cptn Obvious June 5, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Hmmm depends on the race. The so-called “classics” have a duration of about 260 km. “Semi-classics” about 200 km. Mostly TV coverage starts about 100 km to go. In the best classics like Paris-Roubaix, you cant take your eyes off-screen trust me!

Reply

74 Cptn Obvious June 5, 2017 at 6:17 pm

And of course, is not just about the a dude riding a bike. Theres a lot of history, some of this races go back to early 1900’s or even 1890’s, the landscapes are usually chosen to maximize touristic potential for viewers etc. The roads in “classics” are usually quite narrow and may contain cobblestones…

75 Mark Thorson June 5, 2017 at 8:29 pm

Maybe if they mixed in a few cars it would get interesting.

Reply

76 The Other Jim June 5, 2017 at 9:56 pm

+100,000

77 CorvusB June 5, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Concur on the classics. But don’t forget the Giro and La Vuelta – much more entertaining these past several years than the TdF. This year was a barn-burner!

Reply

78 Thor June 5, 2017 at 7:30 pm

I don’t agree with you about much, rayward. You try to needle people with whom you have political disagreements. And you lower the quality conversation with your simplistic attacks on people you don’t like or care to understand (Trump voters). You may not like them but there are reasons why someone would prefer Trump to Hillary. That said, Trump can certainly be a ridiculous troll, who could probably get more done if he wasn’t a jerk.

But as am ex-athlete (bicycling), you are pretty spot on here.

Reply

79 Anonymous June 5, 2017 at 6:14 pm

Obviously the answer is to block all bicyclists a the border, to keep our people safe.

Reply

80 Thanatos Savehn June 5, 2017 at 7:23 pm

Man, the NHST racket never gets old does it? This is not a replication but rather the product of a variety of QRPs. For example, is “implemented” really dichotomous? Was Houston’s Grand Parkway implemented when the decision was made to undertake the project (whereupon developers immediately began developing adjacent land which altered traffic patterns even before the first section was opened), when the first segment/reach was opened, when I-10, I-45 and US 59 were connected, or has it yet to be implemented since it’s not finished? How much of the 184 mile loop needs to be implemented before we can start attributing changes to it? Seems like an easily moveable fulcrum for lifting your favorite traffic hypothesis. Oh, and the gambit of going from an “implemented” dichotomous variable input to a continuous (per mile) output is sketchy, at best. And what’s with all the regression analyses when a network -> road -> accident model is what appears to be driving their claim? But wait! There’s more! Just because the only variables they could think of (how convenient, right?) more or less fit, and together fit a bit better, doesn’t mean they’re the only variables possible and that others don’t fit better models better. Finally, the decision to erect physical barriers to prevent crossover head-on highway collisions didn’t need NHST “science” to justify the decision. Physics was enough. And it ought to be enough for bike/car collisions.

Reply

81 Bryce June 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm

Next on MR: Shocking new study shows that sidewalks increase pedestrian safety.

Reply

82 Mark Thorson June 5, 2017 at 8:33 pm

Until the package delivery bots crowd out the pedestrians.

Reply

83 MaxUtil June 5, 2017 at 9:25 pm

There’s a genuine debate about the best way to improve cycling numbers and safety. Whether it is best to build as many miles of bike infrastructure as possible, to focus on higher quality infra, like protected bike lanes, or whether to focus on a smaller, but better interconnected system. Obviously, more bike lane are “better”. But it is actually useful to have some real data on what the best strategy to build out a bike system is.

Reply

84 The Other Jim June 5, 2017 at 9:54 pm

50,000+ Americans dying from heroin every year, but MY GOD WE NEED BIKE NETWORKS!!! FOR SAFETY!!!

Reply

85 BDK June 5, 2017 at 10:44 pm

1. 50k is all drug related deaths including, among several others, heroin OD. Why not be honest at least? Shows weakness.

2. If we are going to ignore a cause of death because someone can name another cause with a higher death toll, then I imagine we’ll only ever try to alleviate heart disease.

3. I trust you have always been sympathetic to people suffering harm from what others assume are their own choices — like ODing on heroin.

Reply

86 Happy Room June 5, 2017 at 10:28 pm

Bicycles aren’t a recreational device, they’re a means of transportation. That’s true..

Reply

87 Michael June 6, 2017 at 4:15 am

Making roads safer for cyclists often has the consequence of making them safer for everyone. Steve Sailor makes good point about cyclists accepting more danger than is usual in risk-averse times. The differential in road safety between cities is striking, too. And often cities that make it easiest to drive have high death rates, despite low levels of cycling and walking. NYC is roughly twice as dangerous as London; Detroit is about three times as dangerous as NYC. There are lots of easy marginal gains. Trouble is, they’ll upset Bob from Ohio.

Reply

88 Sam Haysom June 6, 2017 at 6:06 am

Crazy right. It’s almost like if you inconvenience one group of people in order to cater to a group of hobbyists the inconvienced group might not find the hobbyists quite as charming as they find themselves.

I don’t think bikers understand the level of hatred for them in society- mostly because it tends to attract a certain type of aspergy loner who isn’t good at reading people.

Reply

89 Michael June 6, 2017 at 7:27 am

Ironic that you criticise others’ reading skills, when you seem not to have read my post before replying. Main point is that cycling provision can make streets safer for *all road users*. Astonishing that you then note that a group is hated, yet make a snarky comment about the hated group, implying that hatred is right. No attempt to weigh evidence, value rival claims or assess possible changes. You are right that emotional responses make implementation of change difficult. But it doesn’t mean that we can’t try to rise above that and try to be rational when we debate the merits.

Reply

90 Sam Haysom June 6, 2017 at 11:49 am

The claimed win win scenario is illusory (most likely in your case flat out mendacious). Any gains for bikers come at the expense at the far numerous and traffic rule abiding drivers. For this reason bikers are pretty much universally seen as self-indulgent aholes.

Reply

91 Michael June 6, 2017 at 12:02 pm

Google’s self-driving cars had to be designed to break the speed limit, because essentially all drivers break the speed limit and might behave dangerously if they thought the Google car was going ‘too slow’. You are noticing some forms of rule-breaking, and ignoring others. Your assumptions about my mendacity won’t move the debate forward. Engaging with the evidence might. For example: https://www.fastcompany.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-bike-lanes-have-actually-sped-up-its-car-traffic

92 MaxUtil June 6, 2017 at 3:03 pm

This is patently not true. There are huge numbers of cases where reorienting street design to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety also makes the road safer for drivers. Typically the trade off is in high peak speed driving. While the average speed for drivers stays similar or sometimes even improves, it’s not uncommon that the ability to hit 50 on a medium sized street is reduced. This gives many drivers the impression that they are being delayed when they are not. They’re just used to racing from red light to red light.

As to cyclists be self indulgent aholes…yeah, there’s a lot of that going around.

93 JonFraz June 6, 2017 at 3:15 pm

Um, how are cars being made unsafer?

94 Sam Haysom June 6, 2017 at 5:37 pm

Um who taught you how to read? Who said anything about making cars unsafer (sic)?

Bike lanes tremendously inconvenience the vast bulk of tax payers in order to privilege a minuscule almost entirely White segment of the population.

95 Clay June 6, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Makes sense. One would assume most riders don’t live and work directly on a given bike lane/route (even in places that have lots of lanes), so one has to account for getting to a main route, switching between major routes, and getting from the last main route to the destination. Reduce the amount of time/distance spent on unlprotected streets getting to and from the bike routes, and you take a cut out of the most dangerous parts of the commute

Reply

96 MaxUtil June 6, 2017 at 6:00 pm

Bike lanes rarely “inconvenience” anyone, typically make road conditions safer for all users including drivers, are used by tax payers, encourage people to use a vehicle that puts less wear and tear on roads, improves local business and residential conditions. And at least where I am, the majority of people using bikes are non-white.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: