They both have a point, and miss one, in my opinion.

It’s a very good point that most of the info disseminated by bicycle advocates about cycling in the snow really orients [...]]]>

The excellent Copehnagenize has an excellent post on how most posts on cycling in winter complicate the issue and emphasize subculture instead of mainstreaming the notion.

They both have a point, and miss one, in my opinion.

It’s a very good point that most of the info disseminated by bicycle advocates about cycling in the snow really orients to lifestyle cyclists and not people who ride bikes. At the same time, even somewhere like Minneapolis, riding in the snow isn’t yet considered normal, and all the gung-ho promotion of it as normal is not going to win over most people. In addition, even when you deal with a bikeway like the Midtown Greenway, which is plowed regularly, the relative normalcy of cycling in winter is also influenced by how a city approaches snow/ice removal in general, and how a city’s drivers approach cyclists in general.

In winter, in Minneapolis, drivers are less likely to look for and expect cyclists than they are normally. This is just a truth.

In winter, snow removal practices influence cycling possibilities more than usual. Snow removal focuses on major routes first, which are often not ideal bike routes, especially in snow. The artery streets that get priority are often faster, with limited shoulder/bike facility, and even if plowed to the curb, end up a little narrower than usual.

I try to avoid the cyclist elitist approach, but there are places that there is reason to emphasize certain approaches. Yes, they’re right that if “dressing in layers” is news to you, you’re likely to be dead before the end of your first Minnesota winter. But issues like how to handle in snow, how black ice mucks with bike handling, why maybe the bike you have in your garage ISN’T a good idea in some conditions (the idea of riding my Giant OCR1 on ice? Oh dear god no!), how route selection may need to vary in snow… all real. All legitimate in cities that don’t take cyclists for granted, and whose infrastructure is a hodge-podge of accommodation and suitability at the BEST of times, let alone when said streets and accommodations need to be plowed and salted.

The subculture can promote winter cycling in ways that don’t stink of subculture. But right now, cycling in winter remains subcultural. And we’d all be lying if we said that riding in winter was just like riding at any other time, or that the behaviors of June translate on a 1-to-1 basis to the behaviors of  January after 3-5″, a clear, a partial melt, and another 2″ fall. Because we’d be lying heinously in ways that if anyone were dumb enough to believe us could cause injury, confusion, and delay.

Should winter cycling be a circle-jerk? No. Does it require some extra thought processes? Hell yeah.

Data suggests that men outnumber women on bicycles in the United States by a ratio of two-to-one. In many European nations, the ratio [...]]]>

On this International Women’s Day, I thought I’d address one of the skeletons in the room when we discuss bicycle-friendly infrastructure and the interested-but-hesitant cyclist: A pretty good portion of that 60% is female.

Data suggests that men outnumber women on bicycles in the United States by a ratio of two-to-one. In many European nations, the ratio is far closer to one-to-one.

One reason for a lower incidence of women on bikes: Women generally have a greater share of responsibility for care of children. Women do more of the household shopping. The study in Scientific American suggests that bicycle routes need to be structured around “practical” destinations to support this gender role behavior. It’s hard to see a lot of average suburban moms hitting Costco on a bike. As I’ve said before: I get it. You won’t be bringing home diapers for two kids, a turkey, and several gallons of milk on a bike while also caring for a child regardless of infrastructure. (SA suggests this can be addressed via education. What?)

Another reason for women to bicycle less than men: Safety concerns. Women are typically found by studies to be more risk averse. The Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals did a survey in 2010 about women on bicycles. The report is very clear that the sample was not representative of population and also self-selecting — which is to say drawing strong conclusions on the data is fraught with issues. However, the data collected supports assertions that women are risk-averse: Women cited such concerns about cycling as motorist behavior, distracted driving, and stranger attacks.

The APBP study also asked respondents what would get them cycling more. The answers? More than 60% said bike lanes, and another 46% responded with completely separated bike paths/tracks. Better direct routes was also cited by more than 40% of respondents.

I’ve written about this before. Many special facilities lead inexperienced cyclists into a false sense of safety, and actually guide them into hazardous scenarios. I’ll quote myself, here:

Under most state laws, roads are bicycle facilities. We need to find ways to empower the 60% of reluctant cyclists to feel safe on these facilities, and we need to educate drivers not to be jerks. Additional segregated facilities need to be developed based on context — because, yeah, there are some routes on which they make lots of sense — and not based on a knee-jerk belief that they are “safer” or “better.” Segregating cyclists as a matter of policy doesn’t productively further a goal of having bicycling be considered a transport mode, and not a cute little way to get around for hipsters, hippies and people who just aren’t cool enough to have cars.

The challenge is how to calm streets so that all potential users — cyclists, pedestrians, women, kids, the elderly, dogs, etc. — can use them safely and confidently. An additional challenge is continued education to these groups. Bike/Walk Twin Cities have done a number of cycling seminars targeted specifically to women, and many other groups have done similarly.

I happen to believe that improving programs like Safe Routes to Schools could help influence women’s participation in cycling. Enabling those who are providing childcare with the means to choose active transport to get to school, athletics/extracurriculars, and even church will help cut down on the number of car trips under two miles.

I think [the bicycle] has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives a woman a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. The moment she takes her seat she knows she can’t get into harm unless she gets off her bicycle, and away she goes, the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. — Susan B. Anthony

Amen.

Per the article:

Petrol prices in America are substantially below levels elsewhere in the rich world, and this is almost entirely due [...]]]>

Simple economic wisdom suggests that as prices for any commodity go up, price helps dictate demand. The Economist took a look at gas taxes and relative gas use, specifically in light of current rising oil prices.

Per the article:

Petrol prices in America are substantially below levels elsewhere in the rich world, and this is almost entirely due to the rock bottom level of petrol tax rates. The low cost of petrol encourages greater dependence; the average American uses much more oil per day than other rich world citizens. This dependence also impacts infrastructure investment choices, leading to substantially more spending on highways than transit alternatives. And this, in turn, reduces the ability of American households to substitute away from driving when oil prices rise.

Obviously, there are a few challenges to comparing the US to many of the countries in the graph — the geographic scope of the US creates issues not necessarily in scale to those experienced in smaller nations like Japan, the Netherlands, or (yeesh) Luxembourg. Some of the nations on this list also were able to significantly retool systems after WWII as a result of their infrastructure being rather trashed by the whole affair.

The Economist suggests that raising the gas tax — and not even so high as that seen in other rich, first-world nations — would provide valuable funds for highway construction and infrastructure investment. A rise in the gas tax would hit consumers, but as gas prices rise consumers generally try to minimize usage.

Tom Friedman of the New York Times suggests a $1/gallon gas tax, phased in at 5 cents a month beginning in 2012 — although he suggests that all funds be used to reduce the federal deficit. He calls unrest in the Arab world a wake-up call to reduce foreign oil dependence.

Of course, the challenges to such a plan are many, not the least of which is that it is, yes, a tax — and many elected representatives have no stomach for raising taxes, even if there is clear economic benefit to doing so. And no one would suggest going straight to European-style taxation overnight — the chart above shows that even $1/gallon would not bring US taxation up to similar levels — as the infrastructure isn’t there in most of the country to fully support movement away from gas usage. At the same time, it’s clear that the present demand for gas is unsustainable in the long-term, so action needs to happen now to prepare for the inevitable.

Speed limits in much of the city are already 30km, but drivers often accelerate when reaching new speed zones, causing accidents. The mayor describes the proposal thusly:

The public [...]]]>

This is pretty cool. Strasbourg, France, is planning to reduce speed limits throughout the city to 30km/hour, or about 18mph, as an initiative to protect cyclists and pedestrians.

Speed limits in much of the city are already 30km, but drivers often accelerate when reaching new speed zones, causing accidents. The mayor describes the proposal thusly:

The public roads no longer belong to automobiles alone. They must be reimagined to be redistributed in a fairer manner between all forms of transportation. The protection of the most vulnerable is thus reinforced in zones in which all users have access but in which the pedestrian is king.

The move will be voted upon by city residents, who have the final decision on the initiative. Strasbourg is already considered bicycle-friendly: Fewer than half of all residents use a car to get around, and there are over 300 miles of striped bikeway.

This attempt to slow down motorized traffic in favor of balanced safety is also reflected in the work of organizations like 20′s Plenty For Us in the UK. The founder of that group says:

A city that permits 30 mph on residential roads will never be child friendly and will always deter physical activity. Speed becomes greed when it stops us and our children from walking or cycling on our roads through fear of traffic.

This attitude is being adopted in various ways by many American advocates for active transportation via initiatives like street diets (reducing lanes to add cycle facilities), medians, and other facilities to protect pedestrians and cyclists. A common pushback for these initiatives tends to be concerns about increasing travel times and inconvenience for motorists – this has been a theme in some of the Jefferson Avenue kerfuffle. Some of the information provided in the 20′s Plenty FAQ is great fodder for advocates trying to create more opportunities for neighborhood cycling, Safe Routes programs, and more. As it is, most US communities default to 30mph unless in a school zone — right near the school facility — or a park, neglecting to factor in how children and others get from their homes to those highly limited areas!

Protecting the needs of vulnerable streets users and encouraging freedom of modal choice are two goals that should be a part of urban planning initiatives. Complete Streets is one approach to the issue, but may not address the entire psychology of calming traffic and getting people to slow down for the good of the community.

Cycle tracks are fairly common in Montreal and throughout Europe, particularly in the Netherlands. These are generally segregated from the traffic in the street, but still essentially part of [...]]]>

A new study published in the journal Injury Prevention reports that cyclists in Montreal using dedicated cycle tracks have lower incidence of injury than cyclists using the street.

Cycle tracks are fairly common in Montreal and throughout Europe, particularly in the Netherlands. These are generally segregated from the traffic in the street, but still essentially part of the street. Perhaps more importantly, cycle tracks are typically dedicated for use by bicyclists – unlike mixed-use trails that feature a changing cast of runners, skaters, dogs, kids and other users.

The study concluded that “These data suggest that the injury risk of bicycling on cycle tracks is less than bicycling in streets. The construction of cycle tracks should not be discouraged.” However, there are challenges to this conclusion: In a city with significant cycle track mileage, are motorists unused to watching for cyclists in the street? Given recent safety in numbers studies, this is a factor not to be discounted, and the study’s user counts showed higher incidence of use of cycle tracks versus reference streets.

It is, however, true that saying that cycle tracks are less safe may be a red herring.

One area of challenge for cycle tracks in many road projects in the US is right-of-way and the space to implement. Some streets require ‘road diets’ to achieve even a non-segregated bike lane, let alone a cycle track. In many communities, getting buy-in to reduce motorist traffic by a full lane to accommodate cyclists is a hard sell, as you might imagine.

Another challenge, and one which I have covered at length previously, is the perception that comes with bike lanes and sidepaths that cyclists should only be using such facilities, and are not legal users of other streets (or, in municipalities without mandatory sidepath rules, that cyclists may choose to use the road rather than the sidepath!).

Still, this study supports the idea that building cycle tracks may have merit as an encouragement to cyclists and as an urban amenity.

Photo by itdp, via Flickr.

The League [...]]]>

Legislation often has weird clauses, but this one is super-weird. The most excellent StreetsBlog reports that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) inserted a stipulation in the federal aviation reauthorization (SB 223) that could bar airports from using passenger facility charges for bike parking facilities if it stays in the bill and the bill is passed.

The League of American Bicyclists calls this “a singularly mean-spirited and unnecessary thing to do.”

As Andy Clarke of the LAB points out, cycling to the airport may not be a huge thing in this country. However, part of that may be infrastructure-related. It’s certainly popular in other places. Schipol Airport in Amsterdam (AMS) has abundant bicycle parking, and bicycle routes into the airport. It’s a popular means for airport workers to arrive at work, and for others to connect to the airport transit hub. Portland Airport in Oregon offers employee bicycle parking (pictured).

The League is working to have the language removed from the authorization.

Randonneuring is ta form of long-distance cycling that demands both endurance and self-sufficiency. Riders typically cover 100k – 1200k over designated routes, within specified time limits. It is not a [...]]]>

For those cyclists interested in a unique long-distance touring experience, the Minnesota Randonneurs are holding a conference on Saturday, February 19 from 10 am – 3 pm.

Randonneuring is ta form of long-distance cycling that demands both endurance and self-sufficiency. Riders typically cover 100k – 1200k over designated routes, within specified time limits. It is not a race, however.

The conference will discuss how to start randonneuring, as well as discuss the most famous long-distance randonneur events in the world – the Paris-Brest-Paris 1200k.

For more information, check out the Minnesota Randonneurs flyer.

Much like the League of American Bicyclists’ Traffic Skills 101 curriculum, the “Cycling for Everyone” course is designed for use with adults. One difference is [...]]]>

The Swedes are good for more than just delish meatballs, lingonberries, and glögg. Club Global has published a manual from their “Cycling for Everyone” program. It’s available in both English and Swedish.

Much like the League of American Bicyclists’ Traffic Skills 101 curriculum, the “Cycling for Everyone” course is designed for use with adults. One difference is that TS101 is intended for individuals who already know how to ride a bicycle (the mechanics) who want to learn more effective practice of cycling, and the “Cycling for Everyone” addresses adults who have never learned to cycle, or who have been off the bike so long they need a refresher.

The published manual is intended for instructors of cycling more than it is for students of cycling. There are a number of interesting passages in the manual, but this in particular struck me given my recent musings on fear and safety:

Despite everything we read in road safety campaigns, it is important to remember one thing – cycling is not dangerous. Obviously, make sure the bike lessons take place in a safe manner. We hope this goes without saying, but to teach an adult to ride a bike is not a high risk activity. Its not like teaching parachuting or deep sea diving. In all probability the biggest obstacle for the prospective cyclist is their own fear. You should definitely not start the course by citing fear-provoking examples of how dangerous it can be to cycle. That would be downright counter
productive.

Right now, the “Cycling for Everyone” program is in its infancy in Sweden, but it may serve as an interesting model for advocates in the United States looking to reach immigrant populations and other underrepresented groups in which many children and adults may never have learned the basic skills of bicycling – let alone rules of the road or other niceties of effective cycling courses.

Photo by Dave Glad, via Flickr

Go read it, for it is super awesome.

Generally speaking, every type of bicycle facility has its own drawbacks. Frequently, [...]]]>

Regular readers of this site will know that I can be a bit of a crank about certain types of bicycle facilities:

• Signage alone doesn’t make a route ‘bicycle-friendly.’

• Paint jobs sometimes just indicate what the knowledgeable already know.
• Bike lanes as backfill can create their own hazards.

Generally speaking, every type of bicycle facility has its own drawbacks. Frequently, the choice of implementation is based on familiarity or ease, rather than a real evaluation of the different drawbacks.

That’s why this article on Bikeway Network Recipes is interesting. The author rightly views all of the options as part of a toolkit. She specifically cites the Copenhagen cycling network – often held up as a model by others – and calls out the drawback found by some residents of that city: That inexperienced cyclists (and parents of small children!) are uncomfortable with them and thus don’t use them!

Her recommended recipe is to take advantage of the relatively easy-to-implement bike lanes and boulevards while also working on some of the high-profile, harder to implement and more expensive projects. In the Twin Cities, examples of this kind of split would be the Jefferson Avenue bicycle boulevard in St. Paul (fairly cheap, and really just a paint job indicating what locals already know to be true), and the Cedar Lake Trail extension (years in the making, fiercely expensive, but a needed piece of the network).

I especially like her thought to start wherever you can – and to keep going. The money quote, though:

…if there’s no reaction in the media, business community, or neighborhoods, you probably haven’t done enough – because you need to have the changes be visible enough to provoke a spirited conversation about bicycling as a mainstream form of transportation.

And that’s really what we need – a view of cyclists as the norm, and not freaks or fringe.