I’m concerned about the results of a recent survey sponsored by Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. The survey of 1,065 cyclists in Texas by the Center for Transportation Research at The University of Texas at Austin shows that
70 percent of the survey respondents feel bicycling is “very dangerous” or “somewhat dangerous” in terms of traffic accidents. In contrast, only 21 percent of respondents feel bicycling is “somewhat dangerous” or “very dangerous” in the context of crime.
…
Other survey findings:
- Individuals living in Austin, Bryan and Fort Worth are more satisfied with the quality of bicycle facilities than bicyclists living in the rest of the state.
- Bicyclists prefer no parking on their route, which is logical because parking reduces sight distance. If parking is necessary, they prefer angled parking over parallel parking.
- Men and young bicyclists perceive the bicycle facilities in their community to be better than do women and older bicyclists.
- The commute distance of those who bicycle to work ranges from one-fourth of a mile to 35 miles. The average is about 6.5 miles.
- Bicycling is more common for non-commute reasons than for commuting. Those who bicycle to work tend to be young and environmentally conscious. Also, men are more likely to bike than women, regardless of the purpose of the bicycle trip.
- Fitness and health concerns, followed by leisure, are the most compelling reasons for bicycling.
What concerns me is this part: “The results should help establish planning guidelines for the design of safe and efficient bicycle facilities and environments in Texas and around the country.”
I’m all for safe and efficient bicycle facilities — of a particular kind. While it’s no secret to Carbon Trace readers that I admire the Dutch system and wish we had cycle-superior systems here, that day may never arrive for cultural reasons. I think we must be very careful about what we propose as safe and efficient bicycle facilities. Paint and signs do not get the job done if such projects lead to dangerous mistakes that fool novice cyclists into thinking they are safe.
At this time, in Springfield, I think we should be looking into:
1. Correcting the problems on our dedicated bicycle lanes.
2. Making connections among existing routes.
4. Encouraging the 1-mile Solution.
5. Making downtown a cycling destination.
6. Encouraging employers to give the $20 tax credit.
7. Reaching out to the working poor who are now cycling in greater numbers because of economic stress.
Comments 8
Most bicycle survey results are troubling to me. The results are always steeped in cultural ignorance of safe cycling. The majority of cyclists (let alone non-cyclists) do not understand where the dangers come from, and where they do not. This leads to a skewed perspective.
My own observations of my own perceptions over time:
As I motorist, I thought nearly every road was too dangerous for cycling. Even knowing what I know, when I observe the road from behind the wheel I can totally understand why people think I’m nuts for riding in places where, as an educated cyclist, I feel completely safe.
When I rode dutifully on the edge of the road, I thought I was some kind of super-person in that I had learned to put up with the close passing and the constant violations of my right-of-way by motorists who didn’t see me. Bike commuting was a badge of honor, you know. Riding on the edge is not for the faint of heart.
But I got sick of it. One day I was almost nailed by a utility trailer and that was it. I went off the reservation.
I moved out into the lane. I steeled myself and prepared for the abuse. The abuse didn’t happen. Miraculously, everyone just changed lanes and passed. No more buzzing. No more right hooks. No more drive-outs. Very few left turns across my path… heck, people wait even when they could actually make it without violating my ROW. Oh, and less honking, too! Turns out that, while this seems entirely counter-intuitive, riding in the lane is far less scary that riding on the edge… once we will ourselves to do it.
I tell that story to define how utterly worthless public surveys are in the age of ignorance. They are used to justify a desired, pre-determined conclusion, NOT to actually help cyclists.
One classic FDOT survey was conducted after a 3 foot shoulder was added to a 9 foot lane on a scenic lakefront road. Personally, I don’t share a 12 foot lane, I ride far enough left to make sure motorists know they can’t squeeze past me. But 9 foot lanes are even better because the presence of a cyclist a couple feet from the edge is enough to make motorists change lanes. Nonetheless, the cyclists loved the 3 foot shoulder. They were tricked by the illusion. They got passed closer and faster than they did in the 9 foot lane, but they actually perceived the opposite.
This is a fantastic study in how people mindlessly accept memes without actually paying attention to what’s going on around them.
How was this treated by the conductors of the study? Adding substandard shoulders to a substandard lane to create a lane width less than the legal shareable width of 14 feet was determined a success because the cyclists were fooled!
I’m not kidding.
If you’d like to learn more about bicycling studies and surveys, I highly recommend Bicycling Matters.
Your list of priorities is excellent! I might add encouraging employers to install shower facilities. That’s a big one. Maybe not as much there as here… a person can’t go 20 feet without being a sweaty mess here.
Posted 16 Dec 2008 at 6:32 pm ¶Keri… You story and mine are similar. When I arrived in Springfield almost five years ago, I wanted to make a lifestyle change. I chose to live close to work and downtown so I could walk and bike. Wow. What a change has occurred! So, yes, excellent point, the surveys are always off because they represent many who just haven’t learned.
Posted 16 Dec 2008 at 8:34 pm ¶I think that’s the problem though. I’ve experienced the same as you here: when you drive a bike like a car, you get more respect, but you aren’t going to persuade an 80 year old granny of this, nor will she be capable of it: you need to be decisive and move fast. To get more people on bikes we need to make it possible for everyone, regardless of age or experience, to ride bikes.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 1:18 am ¶Hi Andy in Germany,
We hear the 8-80 argument a lot here. The problem comes back to the quality of the facilities built and the attitudes of the culture, reflected in the behavior of motorists. These are fundamental differences between the U.S. and Europe.
First of all, you need to recognize that most 80-year-olds have not been riding bikes for 80 years. My mother is in her 60s, Dad is 71. They are just beginning to ride bikes as adults. One of the things that has facilitated them is an on-road wayfiding system that uses residential streets. There is no added complication to that system, they are in the most predictable place, following the rules they know.
I have seen very few facilities I would feel comfortable for my parents, an elderly person or a child to use. Separating bicycle traffic from car traffic along a roadway complicates the system (in an urban setting). That complication must be mitigated by design, traffic control devices, awareness and compliance by both motorists and cyclists. That works in Germany.
In everyday urban life in car-centric American cities, it has way too many points of failure built into it—all exacerbated by a fundamental lack of respect for cyclists and cycling.
I am not opposed to separated paths along highways where there are few crossings. I don’t believe they are necessary in an urban environment where speeds are slow and there are many options in the grid of streets. They are certainly not worth the cost, increased complication and risk to the very people they are used to entice. I believe mode share in those environments is more likely to grow from social marketing and culture change than from facilities.
One additional comment: “you need to be decisive and move fast”
This is not true of vehicular cycling. It is true of messenger cycling, but that is entirely different. I can think of only 1 skill that requires some agility and decisiveness and that is merging for a left turn. Merging for a left is optional. A cyclist can make a box turn instead. In general, speed is not a requirement.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 8:37 am ¶Keri… re: “In everyday urban life in car-centric American cities, it has way too many points of failure built into it—all exacerbated by a fundamental lack of respect for cyclists and cycling.”
I think this is a compelling argument.
Posted 17 Dec 2008 at 3:18 pm ¶Do a google search for Chandra Bhat’s UT web page & click on “papers.” Not only is the entire paper in question there, but several others.
Web surveys are notoriously unreliable, but still, there are many gems hidden in the papers that track exactly with claims in Forester’s book. Some of the results seem to conflict with those in his other papers.
Besides, how can one quarrel with a survey that shows Fort Worth to be highly superior to Dallas for cyclists?
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 8:57 pm ¶By the way, the paper itself said NOTHING about the results being used for planning guidelines. That was the article about the paper.
Posted 18 Dec 2008 at 9:02 pm ¶Steve… re: planning guidelines
Yes. But it’s still the troubling part. People do interpret academic work and put it to use — sometimes in ways not intended by the academic.
Thanks for the heads-up on Bhat’s website. I’ll check it out.
Posted 19 Dec 2008 at 8:38 am ¶