Comments on: Market/Octavia Debate: Safety by Numbers or Safety in Numbers? http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/23/marketoctavia-debate-safety-by-numbers-or-safety-in-numbers/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Fran Taylor http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/23/marketoctavia-debate-safety-by-numbers-or-safety-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-3292 Fran Taylor Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:47:24 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1354#comment-3292 "The simplest and most proven way to decrease the number of injured pedestrians is to get fewer people walking." Yes, the MTA seems to be using Marxist thinking, Groucho tendency. In "Room Service," Groucho, as the manager of a shady hotel, is beseiged by his workers -- desk clerks, bell hops, and so on -- who haven't been paid in weeks. He whirls on them and asks, "You don't want to be wage slaves, do you?" "No, of course not," they answer. "Well," Groucho responds, "what makes a wage slave? Wages! That's why I'm not paying you." MTA: "What makes cyclist injuries? Cyclists!" “The simplest and most proven way to decrease the number of injured pedestrians is to get fewer people walking.”

Yes, the MTA seems to be using Marxist thinking, Groucho tendency. In “Room Service,” Groucho, as the manager of a shady hotel, is beseiged by his workers — desk clerks, bell hops, and so on — who haven’t been paid in weeks. He whirls on them and asks, “You don’t want to be wage slaves, do you?” “No, of course not,” they answer. “Well,” Groucho responds, “what makes a wage slave? Wages! That’s why I’m not paying you.”

MTA: “What makes cyclist injuries? Cyclists!”

]]> By: Donovan b http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/23/marketoctavia-debate-safety-by-numbers-or-safety-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-3291 Donovan b Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:42:10 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1354#comment-3291 Wait, has anyone from the MTA been to Copenhagen?! If they had, they would never site a Copenhagen design as the inspiration for removing a bike lane. They have completely misinterpreted what it means to "pull the lane back" at the intersection. The Danes don't remove the lane, they simply bring the cycle track down to grade about 20m from the intersection, and paint it bright blue through the intersection. The cyclist continues to have an exclusive lane, but at the same grade as the car. At no point do they ever force a cyclist into the same lane as a car. In cases when right turns are prohibited, the Danes often carry the grade-separated cycle track all the way to the intersection, then bring it down to grade and paint it blue. Wait, has anyone from the MTA been to Copenhagen?! If they had, they would never site a Copenhagen design as the inspiration for removing a bike lane. They have completely misinterpreted what it means to “pull the lane back” at the intersection. The Danes don’t remove the lane, they simply bring the cycle track down to grade about 20m from the intersection, and paint it bright blue through the intersection. The cyclist continues to have an exclusive lane, but at the same grade as the car. At no point do they ever force a cyclist into the same lane as a car. In cases when right turns are prohibited, the Danes often carry the grade-separated cycle track all the way to the intersection, then bring it down to grade and paint it blue.

]]> By: Marc http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/23/marketoctavia-debate-safety-by-numbers-or-safety-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-3289 Marc Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:24:58 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1354#comment-3289 As the Chair of the BAC, Bert Hill, pointed out to Jack Fleck last night, the Copenhagen Study is based on a 30% mode-share of cyclists. SF is nowhere near that-- and the only way to get there is to build for the 'next 1,000 cyclists'-- those who don't currently ride, but say they would if they felt safer (Gil Penalosa's terms...). It's a chicken and egg argument. Removing a lane at Market & Octavia is a step backwards to increasing mode share- as MTA's goals state. And until we get to a higher mode share, citing the Copenhagen Study might as well be like citing space shuttle data. (Or, as Mr. Fleck did last night, car/car merge patterns to justify car/bike merge patterns...) Anecdotal citations and loose facts doesn't cut it- this is about people's life and limbs. As the Chair of the BAC, Bert Hill, pointed out to Jack Fleck last night, the Copenhagen Study is based on a 30% mode-share of cyclists.

SF is nowhere near that– and the only way to get there is to build for the ‘next 1,000 cyclists’– those who don’t currently ride, but say they would if they felt safer (Gil Penalosa’s terms…).

It’s a chicken and egg argument. Removing a lane at Market & Octavia is a step backwards to increasing mode share- as MTA’s goals state. And until we get to a higher mode share, citing the Copenhagen Study might as well be like citing space shuttle data. (Or, as Mr. Fleck did last night, car/car merge patterns to justify car/bike merge patterns…)

Anecdotal citations and loose facts doesn’t cut it- this is about people’s life and limbs.

]]> By: Charles Siegel http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/23/marketoctavia-debate-safety-by-numbers-or-safety-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-3288 Charles Siegel Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:22:17 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1354#comment-3288 "Both types may be supplemented with a blue marked crossing, which significantly improves safety." It seems this is a better argument for adding the blue marked crossing than for removing the bike lane. “Both types may be supplemented with a blue marked crossing, which significantly improves safety.”

It seems this is a better argument for adding the blue marked crossing than for removing the bike lane.

]]> By: Josh http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/23/marketoctavia-debate-safety-by-numbers-or-safety-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-3287 Josh Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:19:36 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1354#comment-3287 The problem is that the absolute "number of collisions" should not be what we're focussed on solving for. That's ludicrous! The simplest and most proven way to decrease the number of injured pedestrians is to get fewer people walking. The attitude has always been - well, if we can prevent people from crossing the street they won't get hit. Well, if you make it uncomfortable and unattractive for people to cycle, you'll get fewer cyclists and fewer collisions in an absolute sense. With more cyclists, you'll have more accidents overall, but fewer per capita and per trip. The surest way to discourage people from cycling is to revert back to an unpleasant and uncomfortable situation -- forcing cyclists to jockey for position in heavy traffic on a major street. No one enjoys doing that. There's a reason why cycling increases when you provide bicycle lanes -- because it makes people feel more comfortable and feel like they don't have to be a gladiator, even if it doesn't improve their safety in an academic sense. The problem is that the absolute “number of collisions” should not be what we’re focussed on solving for. That’s ludicrous! The simplest and most proven way to decrease the number of injured pedestrians is to get fewer people walking. The attitude has always been – well, if we can prevent people from crossing the street they won’t get hit. Well, if you make it uncomfortable and unattractive for people to cycle, you’ll get fewer cyclists and fewer collisions in an absolute sense. With more cyclists, you’ll have more accidents overall, but fewer per capita and per trip. The surest way to discourage people from cycling is to revert back to an unpleasant and uncomfortable situation — forcing cyclists to jockey for position in heavy traffic on a major street. No one enjoys doing that. There’s a reason why cycling increases when you provide bicycle lanes — because it makes people feel more comfortable and feel like they don’t have to be a gladiator, even if it doesn’t improve their safety in an academic sense.

]]> By: CBrinkman http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/23/marketoctavia-debate-safety-by-numbers-or-safety-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-3286 CBrinkman Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:17:08 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1354#comment-3286 I wish I felt that Jack Fleck was looking at a bigger picture before deciding on the shared lane. I wish I felt the tools the MTA is willing to use to make cycling a better transportation option were modern and up to date. He is picking one part of the Copenhagen road design and saying "See, it works." It works because of the HUGE numbers of cyclists, and that drivers are also cyclists and understand the cyclists rights to the road. It works because cyclists are treated with dignity and have a place in the transportation network. And it works because cycling becomes a BETTER option then driving when the streets are well designed. I wish I felt that Jack Fleck was looking at a bigger picture before deciding on the shared lane. I wish I felt the tools the MTA is willing to use to make cycling a better transportation option were modern and up to date. He is picking one part of the Copenhagen road design and saying “See, it works.” It works because of the HUGE numbers of cyclists, and that drivers are also cyclists and understand the cyclists rights to the road. It works because cyclists are treated with dignity and have a place in the transportation network. And it works because cycling becomes a BETTER option then driving when the streets are well designed.

]]>