From: Charlie Stross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 15:23:30 MST
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 09:34:56AM -0700, Terry W. Colvin wrote:
> The method adopted to achieve these goals is building bikeways
> everywhere. The casual thinker concludes that this is a good thing;
> separating bikes from cars means that there won't be any accidents, or at
> most very few.
> ..... Bikeways do not
> provide any protection against that traffic.
Not true; it depends how you implement them. In the UK, bikeways are being
built by turning over former single-track railways -- closed during the
early 1960's and otherwise unused -- into dedicated cycle roads. This
provides a network that is (a) flat, (b) segregated from traffic, and
(c) equipped with bridges and tunnels to keep it away from the traffic,
except at designated intersections.
Again, Holland has a different approach. If you visit Amsterdam you'll
see that roads are actually quite complex -- there are public transport/-
emergency/tram lanes, car lanes, cycle lanes, and pedestrian sidewalks.
Interestingly, the traffic signals integrate all of these, so that
bicycles are expected to obey stop signs on the cycle lanes -- but in
return, are guaranteed a traffic-free crossing.
Caveat: of course the US government may be applying 'Not Invented Here'
to all the cool ideas other countries have come up with for ensuring that
cycle networks don't result in carnage -- but on the other hand, the
quoted figures don't reflect what can be achieved using a properly
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST