![Boston Mayor Walsh announces a new traffic-fatality plan](https://universalhub.com/files/styles/main_image_-_bigger/public/images/2015/walshparkingmeter.jpg)
Mayor Walsh, other city officials and an old parking meter today.
Mayor Walsh said today the dedicated bike lanes planned for Comm. Ave. between the BU Bridge and Packards Corner are only part of a long-term "Vision 0" plan to curb crashes and traffic-related deaths through a combination of street reconfiguration and tougher enforcement.
At a City Hall press conference today, Walsh said he will start a nationwide search for a city "active transportation director" to spearhead efforts over the next few years to make Boston streets safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers. Boston's bicycle director, Nicole Freedman, is leaving to take on that very job in Seattle, which Walsh pointed to as an example of a city that is trying to make streets safer.
The new director will be in charge of a citywide master plan, he said. He added this will include not just major thoroughfares but neighborhood side streets. He said that as a state rep, he tried to get speed limits lowered on such streets and said the BPD flashing speed signs might get even greater use in those areas.
Walsh said the Comm. Ave. project is a perfect example of how to make streets safer, on a road that has high concentrations of pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers and trolleys - but that is currently "one of the highest crash areas" in the city.
BTD Director Gina Fiandaca said the project could go out to bid this fall and take six to eight months to complete. DPW Director Mike Dennehy said he is already looking for specialized equipment to plow the lanes after snowstorms.
Walsh predicted the city will follow up with even more "cycle track" lanes elsewhere.
"For bicyclists, [the state of Boston roads] is pretty dangerous," he said, adding they have the same rights to use the roads as motorists.
At the same time, he acknowledged bicyclists and pedestrians need more education to follow traffic laws as well. "People aren't darting across 45th Street" in Manahattan, and they shouldn't be doing that on Boston thoroughfares, either, he said.
Walsh downplayed at-large Councilor Michael Flaherty's contention that the loss of 73 parking spaces along that stretch of Comm. Ave. will harm businesses there. Walsh said experience in New York, which already has several dedicated bike lanes, is that business actually increases, because it turns out bicyclists buy as much from small shops as motorists.
He said he doubted all of the 73 people parking in those spaces were really shopping, anyway - many probably use the spaces for long-term parking.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
many probably use the spaces
By Scratchie
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 11:36am
The deuce you say.
Compare municipalities!
By theszak
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 6:05pm
Compare Boston and Cambridge http://rwinters.com/
What Brookline weblinks and Somerville weblinks are there?... similar to UniversalHub and rwinters.com
Walsh drank the Kool Aid
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 11:52am
judging from his mention of "Vision Zero", a plan to deny human behavior, thinking its possible to thwart Darwin. Firstly, about a third of drivers in fatal crashes are drunk. A third of pedestrians getting killed are drunk, and 24% of bicyclists getting killed are drunk. So, right off, zero is an unattainable goal. Roads would need to be fenced off like railroad tracks are to make much improvement, and that's not practical or affordable.
Vision Zero seems to match the mindset of security theater, where huge piles of money are thrown at a problem. This time though risks to you and me on the street are much greater than from terrorists.
Citation on drunks: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
Site is down for maintenance at the moment.
Yawn
By spin o rama
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 11:59am
You're car culture paradigm is going the way of the dodo Markky.
Just embrace it dude, the time of the car is ending. :)
As little as Mark and I have in common...
By b from Ros
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:07pm
I think you may have been a little unfair, the time of the car is not ending. It probably shouldn't end either. These plans are good and significant steps in re-balancing the available modes of transit.
Fortunate or not, cars are likely to be a part of this mix for quite some time.
Totally agree, no true extremism here
By spin o rama
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 3:07pm
Cars will be a huge part of our transportation future but I'm really excited for a future that doesn't focus on them as being the only answer. Markky, not so much.
Just embrace the car, dude...
By whyaduck
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:53pm
for it is with us.
Tinfoil is on sale at
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:07pm
Tinfoil is on sale at StarMarket this week! Get it before FEMA/the EPA bans it!
Translation
By BostonDog
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:24pm
"So some people are killed. Big deal. People die all the time; it's a fact of life. It's more important that I'm not slightly inconvenienced while driving. "
Vision Zero is nothing like the mindless security theater. Vision Zero is also really cheap as it normally consists of road paint and in some cases some fancy jersey barriers.
For the record I'm opposed to the cycle track -- the Allston style bike-lane-in-driving-lane is better for everyone. But I'm really opposed to anyone who believes their personal convenience is more important then someone's life.
Wait, what? I hate biking in
By Eric
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:13pm
Wait, what? I hate biking in that thing, drivers hate being behind me while I'm biking in it, and as a result of those two things, it does almost nothing to encourage more people to bike. How is that in any way better?
Safer
By BostonDog
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 3:54pm
It removes any legitimate question to drivers if bikes should be in the middle of the lane. (They should, least they want to get doored.) When a car double parks they still don't block the bike lane.
You are correct that it might not encourage people to cycle as much as a dedicated track but in the long run it's more usable and safer then a bike lane nearly always blocked by double-parked cars or a cycle track which is unusable due to snow or people considering it an extension of the sidewalk.
It does not feel safe
By spin o rama
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:06pm
And often drivers will buzz cyclists that take the lane here. I've been buzzed several times and that single stretch from Allston Center to Packards is the second most scary part of my commute, next to the BU Bridge.
Cars do double park but with the potholes on the road, it is difficult to navigate around the double parked car, avoid the pothole AND keep an eye for the car barreling by in the left lane.
Bike lanes or cycle tracks or removing a lane, I dunno what to do but the sharrows on this stretch are not protecting us, they just encourage drivers to speed up and pass us at a minimum distance of 3 inches.
Not sharrows
By BostonDog
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:22pm
I mean the fully painted lane in the middle of the road.
It feels not less safe to me then riding in a bike lane which is entirely in the door zone and/or is useless with double parked cars and trucks.
A left painted bike lane down Comm Ave (like in back bay) would be better then this cycle track.
Those officially are sharrows
By jeffkinson
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:31pm
The design on Brighton Ave is considered sharrows - sometimes called "super sharrows" or officially "priority shared-lane markings".
Source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/blogs/starts-and-...
They're better than nothing, but a well-designed protected bike lane is many times better for both safety and convenience.
Sharrows with dashed outlines
By spin o rama
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 5:12pm
Those are not lanes.
It just encourages unsafe passing, like this: http://imgur.com/R4cGvVn
EDIT: And look! I stopped at the red!
The dashed lines tend to imply "optional" in drivers minds, so they frequently ignore that on this stretch. Similar to when bike lanes approach intersections, dashed lines indicates that cars can pass through those portions.
The left lane down Comm Ave Back Bay is better, agreed. That stretch is very safe and there are fewer left turns along the BU stretch, so it would work.
If you ride towards the right
By frojoe
Thu, 03/26/2015 - 12:14pm
If you ride towards the right edge of the lane like that you inviting drivers to try passing without fully switching lanes. Not legally of course, but it looks like they can squeeze by so they try. You would probably be safer if you ride dead center or even a little to the left of center so there is no choice but to fully switch lanes to go around you.
Cars tailgate me if I take the lane
By spin o rama
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 1:36pm
Thats why these sharrows are not safe. I drive too far to the right, I risk getting doored or buzzed. Ride more to the center and they tailgate me.
Damned either way.
Cycletracks are safer
By jeffkinson
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:25pm
As swirly posted above, there's a wealth of research showing major safety benefits of cycletracks/protected bike lanes, whereas sharrows simply don't make a huge difference in anyone's behavior.
Regarding your two criticisms of cycletracks, the issue of snow removal came up at last night's meeting. BTD didn't have a specific plan yet, since they've been focused on construction details, but acknowledged the issue and promised they would. Cambridge certainly managed to plow most of its cycletracks quite well, so it's very doable.
And to keep pedestrians out of the cycletrack, the plan for Comm Ave has a number of details to differentiate it from the sidewalk. Most notably, it will usually be a few inches lower than the sidewalk and curb-separated. There will also be lots of street furniture between the cycletrack and the usable sidewalk.
Pensacola, FL beckons to you,
By Irmo
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:00pm
Pensacola, FL beckons to you, Marky.
I know why Markk hates cyclists.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:26pm
Check out this video of him from a few years ago!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Lm9TPym9A4
Bad salmon cyclist...
By MC Pee Pants
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:35pm
"Markk" in that video is right. At least he was cool about it. I bet the real Markk would be screaming BFM.
More tired BS from Mr Road Rage Bully
By MC Pee Pants
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:31pm
Mark K- any thoughts on the poor old gentleman who was hit and killed in your town this week?
He made his comments in the paper
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:19pm
Tried to explain that it would have been safer with four lanes of speeding traffic and no bike lanes, naturally.
Presumably the victim's fault
By Scratchie
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:33pm
Presumably the victim's fault for not wearing bright clothing, not walking fast enough, not being in a nice safe car, etc.
Is there a link to Marky's droolings online? I'm a glutton for punishment.
Scroll Down
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:41pm
Markinarl are the ones that you are looking for.
http://patch.com/massachusetts/arlington/pedestria...
Thanks
By Scratchie
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 5:30pm
Those are some impressive contortions. I'm surprised he hasn't thrown his back out.
It was tragic given demands for pedestrian crossing lights
By Markk02474
Thu, 03/26/2015 - 2:08pm
Starting in 2009 a group of residents called the East Arlington Concerned Citizens Committee (EACCC) demanded that Selectmen include pedestrian activated traffic lights at busy crosswalks in the Mass Ave. where there weren't any. Despite 3,000 signatures from residents, our alternate plan for the street was ignored by selectmen, their traffic and bicycle advisory committees, and MassDOT. We fought for years for a safer, better road.
What they disliked most about our plan was that it advocated keeping 4 travel lanes with shared space for bicyclists as has been working well for decades. Since the Minuteman bike path is right nearby, more timid cyclists already have accommodation and there isn't a need for bike lanes. I remind people that Arlington isn't a college town, so bike lanes in Arlington make far less sense than on Comm Ave. through BU. Bike lanes in Arlington are to serve the traditional white, male, educated, professional commuting to work in Cambridge and perhaps Boston, and few others. Parents still much rather have their children ride on the bike path even if bike lanes were put on Mass Ave.
Advocates of bike lanes made bad claims that the travel lane forfeiture needed to make the two 5' bike lanes would make pedestrians safe. Plan designers even lied to residents about reduced pedestrian crossing distances (I've yet to file a complaint to the state to get their civil engineering licenses suspended for those lies), and claiming they made pedestrians safer. Just today I noticed Cambridge put a high intensity pedestrian activated crossing light on a two lane road (Concord Ave. by Alewife Gas), so narrow roads don't make them safe.
Anyway, the cost of putting in pedestrian crossing lights would not fit in the budget because priorities of the insiders was for sidewalk widening of already wide sidewalks, and adding $700,000 of landscaping to the one mile project. The widened sidewalks are to be taken up with shrub planters, sapling plantings, benches, bike racks, and forty $4,000+ cast iron, LED illuminated "pedestrian scale" streetlamps in an area with zero street crime.
Selectmen were in a little bit of a squeeze on putting in bike lanes. The Boston MPO and MassDOT have now adopted anti-car policies so that projects without bike lanes become unlikely to get funded. Bicyclists both within Arlington (like MassBike's former director) and state agencies had backed Arlington's project as key to their desire to expand bike lanes on major routes. If bike lanes were not part of this project next to a bike path, it wouldn't get funded.
I'm also upset at the double standard from Arlington Police (APD). They have STILL not released the name of the driver, only identifying her as 60 years old from Woburn driving a black Honda Civic. In December of 2013 when an elderly woman was killed crossing another unsignalized crosswalk on Mass Ave in east Arlington, Chief Ryan released the name right away. It also happens that that elderly driver had owned a gun shop in Arlington that was forced to close. APD seized his inventory of guns, and was sued for their return. So, there was bad blood and APD seems to have released his name out of vengeance.
The tragic cause of the crash can be found in accident data. Unsignaled crosswalks with no center median are more dangerous than no crosswalk at all. When jay walking, pedestrians don't automatically assume drivers see them and will stop. A little faded road paint pedestrians can see, but not drivers from a distance lure pedestrians into a sense of false security that is sometimes tragic.
So the science says to always augment unsignalized crosswalks with other more visible measures to alert drivers. They start with day-glow green-yellow retro reflective signs indicating the location of crosswalks, bump outs (which show little/no accident reduction), raised medians (showing 30-50% accident reduction, and finally high intensity pedestrian activated crossing signals (showing 69% accident reduction).
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/
So, while I'm just getting to writing this, I am still angry at people who rather use policy agenda and debate than use science to increase safety and efficiency.
I am still angry at people
By Scratchie
Thu, 03/26/2015 - 5:29pm
Look in the mirror.
I actually agree with you about the intersection at Sabatino's. It's idiotic that there is money budgeted for planters and new streetlights but not for significant safety features at that crosswalk.
But nobody will ever take you seriously because you're such a strident crackpot.
That one gets OK treatment
By Markk02474
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 1:35am
Orvis/Grafton is to get a raised median and bump-outs on either side. That will form a choke point for traffic, but the raised median there improves pedestrian safety.
The overhead street lighting still sucks at that location, like the others on Mass Ave in Arlington. When Cambridge put in new LED lighting, they made the ones on Mass Ave brightest of the three levels of light heads. Oh, and they got ones with wireless dimming control so they could be dimmed in the wee hours etc..
I hope the added sidewalk lighting casts some light on to crosswalks because the overhead ones are too dim and widely spaced.
A solution for you
By MattyC
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:32pm
Just don't vote for Marty next time.
What's that you say? You don't live in Boston? Not that that's stopped anyone before, but... if you don't live in Boston then your sad, misguided, ignorant, autofascist opinion on the matter DOESN'T MATTER. Suck it. Go lose another election. Try running on the platform. Not politically, but but literally running on a red line platform somewhere.
"they have the same rights to
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 11:52am
"they have the same rights to use the roads as motorists" minus the need for registering, inspecting, & requiring insurance.
When cyclists kill 30,000+ people per year
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:22pm
... and cause billions in property damage, well, we'll talk.
because they represent virtually zero public danger
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:36pm
The amount of injuries or deaths caused by cyclists amounts to less than a tenth of a percentage point. The rest are caused by drivers in motor vehicles.
Registration, inspection, and insurance were all required as a result of the massive injuries, deaths, and destruction
Cyclists don't plow through shop windowfronts, traffic lights, telephone poles, brick walls, etc.
Cyclists don't end up in people's living rooms, swimming pools, back yards
Cyclists don't drive into crowds and cause mass casualty events.
When a cyclist kills a pedestrian it's so rare that it ends up being a national news event - and in the space of 24 hours, roughly 110 people die because of drivers.
Great point
By anonamonster
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 3:28pm
And despite all those facts, you still opt to cycle through a city that, infrastructurally speaking, is a disaster for all modes of transportation.
Are you hoping to win the Darwinian lottery? Just to prove your point that cars are 2 ton pieces of steel being operated by distracted drivers at a speed more than necessary to be lethal when impacting another car, let alone a bicycle? Well, guess what, you're right!
I see no one putting a gun to your head forcing you to bike through this city, yet you do it anyway.
Good luck playing the lottery. I'll be rooting for you.
Wrong mindset
By fox_orian
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:12pm
So instead of trying to improve conditions to be more balanced for more than JUST cars, you're just going to write the whole situation off as being "terrible for all modes of transportation"? That won't get us anywhere, man. have you stopped to consider that if it becomes safer for people to use bicycles, then more people would and reduce traffic congestion?
Nah, man
By anonamonster
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 7:46pm
Nope, I think I'm entirely of the correct mindset.
Like I said, if you want to martyr yourself by cycling these Boston streets and getting smoked by a semi, be my guest.
For me, my innate desire for self preservation is a greater motivator than reducing traffic congestion is.
So Vision Zero just another anti-car campaign
By Markk02474
Thu, 03/26/2015 - 2:29pm
So, why not just call it that? Its all about continuing to treat drivers as second class citizens, just above cigarette and crack smokers.
If it were a real concept, people would laugh at it for being in conflict with reality. People are fallible so accidents happen. Pedestrian deaths on subway and train lines are written off as suicides, yet anti-car people assume none happen on roads either. Very intentionally, or by getting drunk/drugged and playing in traffic.
If we take the content of what anon is saying...
By b from Ros
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:39pm
And ignore the intent of what (we think) he is saying...
He is correct. :)
Not correct
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:01pm
Use of the public roadways accrues to people, not vehicles.
You get those permissions to use a motor vehicle on a public way because "motor vehicle" not because "person".
Also, the vast majority of cyclists are licensed to drive, as the vast majority of people over 17 are licensed to drive.
Cyclists aren't nearly the
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:20pm
Cyclists aren't nearly the same risk but they should still have some accountability in the form of license plates for identification & insurance on par to their risk (cyclist + record). Cyclists make infractions just like drivers that can cause motor vehicle accidents and personal harm.
Agree that separate licensing
By roadman
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:32pm
and insurance is not necessary. But registration of bicycles is a perfectly logical and reasonable requirement.
As is the requirement that, if an adult cyclist stopped for a traffic violation is a licensed driver, that said violation should go on their record.
What's not clear to me here
By Eric
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:28pm
What's not clear to me here is exactly what problem bicycle registration is supposed to solve. The rampant property damage expenses being incurred by bicyclists? Most bike accidents occur when the bicyclist is obeying the law, and when they aren't the result is rarely more serious than a minor inconvenience. Also, where would you start, exactly? Would 4-year-olds be required to take a test before riding alongside their parents?
And we'll have to retrofit
By Irmo
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:32pm
And we'll have to retrofit the Hubway stations with biometric sensors to make sure frob owners aren't sharing them with unregistered users.
People?
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:52pm
Go walk in the traffic lane of Morrisey Blvd and let us know how it turns out.
Yes, cyclists have lower
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:03pm
Yes, cyclists have lower risks but they should be required to have and carry insurance on par with that risk.
Cycling is only going to increase and, in this capitalist society, insurers will eventually come knocking due to losses in car insurance revenue. Rather than debate the need for accountability (cyclist insurance and license plates), cyclist should push to assume the responsibility and dictate the initial policy before those insurers beat them to it.
Relative risk is too small to trigger "required"
By dr2chase
Sun, 03/29/2015 - 12:07am
We require liability insurance for car drivers because they present a large enough risk that it matters. Cycling doesn't present a large enough risk to matter; it's not as if we would be risk-free to others if we neither drove nor biked, but we're not required to buy insurance for that small risk either. If I owned a dog, it might get loose and bite someone, but I am not required to own insurance for that risk (30-40 deaths per year, it's not nothing). A tree on my property my fall or drop a limb and kill someone (30-some deaths per year, again not nothing), but again, I am not required to purchase tree insurance.
Even a broken clock is "right" twice a day
By lbb
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:42pm
...but it's still broken.
freakonomics
By Refugee
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:04pm
When you increase the number of bicycles on the road, you may actually increase bike deaths. Accident safety for bikes is nowhere near safety for motor vehicles. This is the elephant in the room which bicycle advocates never want to talk about.
All it takes is one minor accident on a bicycle and you can be permanently injured. Tom Menino is the poster child for that. Most of his life he zigzagged all around the city in a car and never got injured in a traffic accident. Late in life he discovered bicycling, got in one little accident, and even after multiple surgeries his knee never fully healed.
Cars are sooooo much safer and healthier.......
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:09pm
Because the obesity epidemic from driving everywhere and not walking isn't killing millions of Americans each year.
No, cars are safer because a
By Refugee
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:37pm
No, cars are safer because a steel cage offers more protection than a layer of Spandex.
And obesity doesn't kill millions of 20-year old Americans. It kills millions of 60-year old Americans. That makes a huge difference.
Wrong
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:42pm
Cars may be safer for the people in the steel cage, but they are far more dangerous to others, including those inside buildings.
Obesity does kill people who are younger, and has measurable mortality effects across the entire lifespan. Source
I'd need a comment space the size of an encyclopedia to discuss traffic-related pollution and mortality effects ... and the exposures to those in the cages are actually higher than they are for cyclists, particularly when cycletracks are employed.
The other elephant in the room
By roadman
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:09pm
bicycle advocates don't seem to want to address is this: Does providing separate facilities for cyclists give them a false sense of security, thus increasing the probability of their being in a crash when they're riding on streets that don't have those facilities?
Ask NYC
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 12:30pm
They have had such facilities in place for much of the last decade. The results: safer for pedestrians, safer for cyclists.
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/category/...
(yes, advocacy organization, but they do provide links)
Also, a peer-reviewed assessment concluded that:
Source: Am J Public Health. 2012 Jun;102(6):1120-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300319
TL/DR: there have been MANY evaluations of such questions as you ask - nobody is avoiding them, they just haven't done your (very easily done) research for you.
Cyclists are terrorizing pedestrians in NYC
By Markk02474
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:46pm
Cyclists are terrorizing pedestrians.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/bicycle-cr...
TERRORIZING!!!
By Scratchie
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:49pm
One article from last September... that terror must explain why the streets of New York are empty of pedestrians these days.
Oh, you're funny!
By Sally
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:53pm
Why don't you peruse the actual list of the 269 traffic fatalities in NYC last year and let us know how many New Yorkers were actually killed by bikes as opposed to cars? http://project.wnyc.org/traffic-deaths/ and THEN tell us who's terrorizing who?
Just for you, MarKKK!
By lbb
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:16pm
TIN FOIL ON SALE AT THE STOP AND SHOP!
Eight Million People
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:31pm
One ... ONE collision resulting in a fatality = "terrorism"? Try again.
Having actually cycled in NYC some, I'm surprised that it doesn't happen more often due to rampant pedestrian jaywalking (and the odd cow meandering blindly into a cycle track) alone.
Now Mark
By spin o rama
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 3:12pm
Are you forgetting our conversation from the summer? The one where I pointed out that 80+ pedestrians had already been killed in NYC that year?
So 1 death caused by bike compared to 80 caused by cars in the same period of time.
Separate facilities
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:57pm
Is exactly what they need - stick them in their bike lanes and ban them from traffic lanes. Hipster on a fixie is essentially just a slightly faster-moving pedestrian, he/she does not belong in a lane full of 5000lb chunks of metal flying around at 50mph. Ride in your dedicated lanes, and cross the road like pedestrians do - stop, get off your bike and walk.
If your mother had wheels instead of legs...
By lbb
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:43pm
...she'd be a bicycle.
Bicycles aren't pedestrians, they're vehicles.
Now stop being a ninny.
A lane full of
By Sock_Puppet
Thu, 03/26/2015 - 7:21am
5000 pound chunks of metal flying around at 50mph doesn't belong anywhere in the city except a limited-access highway. Anybody found to be going 50mph on a normal city street should have their car impounded and license revoked.
Less reliance on cars means safer streets for everyone
By jeffkinson
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:48pm
[img]http://usa.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/site...
Your concern theoretically could happen, but worldwide we've seen the opposite effect. The Netherlands, home to a higher percentage of cyclists than anywhere in the world, is also one of the safest for all road users. Bike-friendly Denmark is also very safe, as is the rest of Northern Europe, with a high percentage of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.
Sweden, the inspiration for Vision Zero, has become one of the safest countries. Meanwhile, the US remains one of the most dangerous first world countries for traffic fatalities.
Dutch Driver's License
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:31pm
This license is notoriously difficult to attain. Perhaps the US Driver's License should be equally difficult? Then we might see a decrease in car crashes.
Licenses have always been
By Eric
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:37pm
Licenses have always been difficult to obtain in Sweden (and indeed most of Europe). It wasn't until the infrastructure changes that came along with Vision Zero were introduced that fatalities really started to fall.
Have you ever been to Finland
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:52pm
Have you ever been to Finland, Italy or Portugal? Driving there is extremely dangerous.Especially in Italy. Yet they are listed safer than the US.
I call BS on that grid.
Italy
By ElizaLeila
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 4:33pm
It's where I learned how to cross the street. ;-)
Its bad use of data saying little
By Markk02474
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 6:09pm
The graph provides little information when factors of vehicle ownership levels, cars vs scooter vs bicycle ownership, speeds traveled, vehicle miles traveled, infrastructure quality, driver competence, public inebriation levels, jaywalking levels, and who knows what else are rolled into one graph.
Correlation does not imply
By anon
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 3:58pm
Correlation does not imply causation.
Remember that the mayor was
By Eric
Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:35pm
Remember that the mayor was hit by a car, not by another bicyclist. It is the presence of the cars in the system that creates the danger. Traffic fatalities were a relative rarity even in very populated areas until the car was introduced. There are really three ways we can change the system that will likely reduce fatalities: 1) Everyone drives (practically impossible: not everyone can drive), 2) Eliminate cars from the system entirely (not likely to happen any time soon) or 3) Redesign the system so that the cars drive more slowly and interactions with bicyclists and pedestrians are scarce and carefully controlled. #3 is what the new Comm Ave was designed to do, and the city should be applauded for making a bold effort on this front.
Pages
Add comment