Does Hi-Viz clothing really make a difference?

---

These folks challenge the assumption.

On a first quick read-through, one of the ways that the authors were trying to minimize variables was to keep between 0.5 and 0.8 metres (or meters, if you prefer) from the kerb (or curb, for those of us on this side of the pond--it would perhaps be an acceptable assumption that if there was no curb as I know it, the fog line would have been a comparable marker).

Some folks I know criticize this study (admittedly not to the level of scientific, according to the authors) for not having a variable for driver behavior compared to edge-riding behavior (0.8 meters being less than three feet from the road edge, and far closer to the edge than I ride as a general rule). One reason could be that in the earlier paragraphs, the authors cite the Walker (2007) work suggesting that cyclists who ride centered in a lane get less passing clearance (which contradicts tests by Gutierrez, et al, and the results of many of us who ride well left in the lane in drive in the right lane countries).

At any rate, I'm not sure what this study means to me, if anything. It doesn't give me any reason to doubt that being visible and relevant at greater distance is important to my own safety, and I continue to hold that the relevance is more important than simply being visible (there are many signs along my commute route that are quite visible, but are irrelevant to my commute, so I ignore them with regard to whether I use my brakes or change lane positions--being viewed as relevant at greater distance gives overtaking road users more time to adjust their speed and lane choices, as you've seen me post before).
 

I'm reminded of a post I saw a couple years ago, from "The Lazy Rando Blog."

MoveLouisville

As disappointed as I am with the local engineers and others within Public Wrecks (sic), including the "bike/pedestrian coordinator" who trumpets that his survey mirrored the Geller whackonomy,* I wonder how much of their fealty to bike lanes is driven by their bosses, who look at stuff like mode share for the sake of mode share or as a metric of how friendly a place is to those using that particular mode of travel (without realizing that individual safety is a prime component of how to build mode share)?

Louisville's "next big thing" (without even finishing the last "next big things"--those being the $300,000 in paint spillage that *might* include some decent bike boulevards, locally defined as quieter streets where cyclists are encouraged and motor traffic is all but discouraged and the boondoggle called the Ohio River Bridges Project--is being called "MoveLouisville."

I attended an informational presentation recently, and aside from being another opportunity to get involved at the planning level, I am warned that there will be a push for "Bike Infrastructure" as part of this 20- to 25-year plan.

Louisville is one of those cities that has little in the way of a grid system--many of our primary arterials are radials from near downtown, and there are not many good arcs between those radials. It doesn't help that well over half of the county was farmland or fallow until after that world-wide dustup in the 1940s, and was developed in the 1950s and beyond with the assumption that if one is anybody at all, one would not deign to use a bus or bicycle (or even walk) to get to anything more distant than one's next-door neighbor's patio. It will be exceedingly difficult to rework our street network to correct that, considering that there are several physical barriers (cemeteries, creeks, wetlands, single-family housing developments, etc.) to get around to get from one radial to the next.

"MoveLouisville" is a multi-modal approach to changing the way we as citizens get around town. It's a recognition that things are in some disarray now, and wanting to help our community build intelligently (we could spend time grousing that it's already too late for that, or work to undo the damage to the extent that we can).

One comment I heard that was encouraging to me was along the lines of, "we need to think of our streets as public space, not as hard-set asphalt or concrete streets or roads. We can change how they look--add trees, add curbs, subtract or reallocate parking spaces. The current configuration is not forever."

I must admit that my own imagination is not up to but so much of that task, but I hope to help shape things for the better--better for the community, not just for cyclists or folks who walk instead of drive, but for all of us.


* The Geller "taxonomy" is famous--or infamous--depending on one's outlook. It seeks to categorize people on a scale of whether they would ride bicycles, and is often used by people who think that mode share is of paramount importance as a way to guide spending on projects that would lure folks onto bicycles.

Never mind that rider safety is a product of individual riders' behavior, supported by well-designed infrastructure that doesn't violate the rules of motion that underlie well-written traffic law. I can teach a neophyte rider successful behaviors that obviate any perceived need for special bike facilities.

Never mind, either, that those who fall into the "interested but concerned" category will quite often find other excuses for not riding. Or that those who currently ride on sidewalks will continue to do so right beside a painted bike lane (as I see at least a couple times a month along Westport Road), suggesting that even they realize that the bike lane is a bad place to be.

'Tis the season

Well, not quite, but it's getting disgustingly close--close enough that some of the extreme whack-job pseudo-politicians and talk-show goofballs are, again, trumpeting on about this country's "war on christmas."



Warning: This is a long post, even from me. It's not exactly a positive post, either. My inner curmudgeon is bursting through. If you read this whole post, you'll learn a lot about why I am who I am. I've inserted a break so that you can be warned.

Cyclist Syndromes

One of my stepdaughters recently took a new job. Her first day at work is later this week.

When she announced that she had gotten the position, one of her comments to me was along the lines of, "I want you to help me find a good bike route there."

At first, I wanted to celebrate--at least to myself--that she was making such a plan. Then I remembered that we have one car for our three-adult household, and she was simply being realistic about the availability of the car. "Smugness level = off."

We got to chat about the options today. Her first route choice was to ride from our house in Westport Road to the Kroger store at Hubbards and Westport, then get into Beechwood Village to cross Shelbyville Road at Bramton Road (using the traffic light). Her job is at one of the stores in the Shelbyville Road Plaza. The Google Maps "get directions" function shows this as something like three and a quarter miles, for a six- to seven-mile round trip.

When I drive my bike to stores there (I frequent the Feeders Supply location there, for example), I use New LaGrange Road to get to Shelbyville Road, then enjoy having Shelbyville Road almost to myself for a good while as I near the bridge supporting the Watterson Expressway and its access ramps, then usually occupy the left lane so that I can make a timely turn off Shelbyville. I will sometimes, depending on traffic volume, stay in the right lane until I reach Stonehenge Drive, then turn right into Beechwood Village and cross at the light on Bramton. This gives me a round-trip distance of less than four miles.

When I mentioned this route to my stepdaughter, she refused to ride that way. I tried to be gentle in asking why she objected to my choice, she responded that she gets irked at cyclists if she is on Shelbyville Road, so doesn't want to irk motorists.

I find her reaction interesting, and thought-provoking. Sad, too, as it's a theme I've heard elsewhere in society, sometimes cited as a reason why a person won't ride instead of driving a car.