From:	USU::BOB          "Bob Bayn, USU Computer Services"  9-SEP-1997 12:11:22.34
Subj:	response to Jan Yeckes, et al.

Jan Yeckes replied to me (with cc's):
>With respect to keeping the B/C population small by educating cyclists to the A
>level, you may be preaching to the choir, but not whistling in the wind!  I
>think that's a terrific goal and worth as much effort as we can put into it.  I
>consider education to be a serious part of our program, ...

I'm pleased to know this and was happy to see this approach already
embraced in the draft plan.

>UDOT's focus as an agency, though, is not education.  Our primary purpose is
>providing transportation facilities - for as many users as we can accommodate. 

I recognize that UDOT is in the facilities business, but I'm hoping that
the plan under development is a "state" plan, not just a UDOT plan, and
so will include plans for other agencies and levels of government (like
the Highway Safety office mentioned later, but maybe also public
education).

>FHWA provides guidance on the users we are to serve, and that includes the B/C
>population as it exists.  

But, to the extent that the B/C population (as FHWA describes it)
exists, it has been thoroughly neglected in facilities development for
as long as UDOT has existed.  Are there any other options besides total
neglect and following FHWA's current guidance?

>                          One of the E's is also encouragement.  Studies
>conducted (as part of the efforts to develop a system for determining the
>cycling suitability of urban roads) have found that bicycle lanes have the
>greatest  impact on many people's comfort level and willingness to bike on the
>roads.  The conclusion is not that bike lanes are the only good approach, but
>that they can be useful within a network of bicycle-friendly roads that serves a
>variety of users.

I'm afraid I'm not going to be satisfied to just "agree to disagree" on
this point.  I struggle with the concept of trying to meet the comfort
level and appeal to the willingness of the current population of B/C
cyclists (where FHWA defines them as simply the 100 million Americans
who own a bike) when that population suffers from some very damaging
misconceptions about the proper, safe and effective role of bicycles
in the transportation system.

Essentially everyone over 16 who owns a bike also has a drivers license
and has been through some sort of drivers education process.  They know
the "rules of the road" but for some reason believe that those rules
don't apply to them when riding a bike.  Their fears are a great
distortion of the real risks and they act like they believe they are
governed by a completely different set of rights and obligations.

Building facilities to provide encouragement under those circumstances
I believe to be a significant mistake.  FHWA agrees that bike lanes are
NOT SAFER (after a long history of claiming otherwise).  Traffic
engineering principles would suggest that they are LESS SAFE, because
of increased complexity of traffic flow patterns.  Encouraging more
people to cycle by providing facilities which they believe to be safer
(what other kind of "more comfortable" is there in this situation?) while
we know that those facilities are not safer seems like it will create
a group of temporary cyclists.  When they actually experience hazardous
traffic flow conflicts in these facilities which they believe to be
safer, won't they conclude that cycling maybe _is_ too risky after all?

....
>You took issue earlier with the statement in the draft ped/bike plan that it is
>incumbent upon the user to be proactive in learning the skills needed to use
>biking facilities.  

I didn't mean to give quite that impression.  Everyone should learn what
is needed to use transportation facilities.  But the government should
recognize that it's just as advantageous to offer learning opportunities
for potential cyclists as for potential motorists.  This doesn't need to
involve a separate education program if the motorist education program
were slightly more diversified to address transportation as a whole. 
Right now, the drivers ed program I see treats cyclists as obstacles
(that you expect to be unpredictable) rather than as fellow travellers. 
Right now, the state seems to say: "Hey, if you want to drive a car,
we'll help you learn with these programs.  But if you want to learn to
ride your bike safely and effectively for transportation, you're on your
own."

>                  For all the educational materials that have been
>distributed, articles that have been submitted to newspapers in hope that the
>message will be published, contacts with the media and with the public through
>special events, bike rodeos in schools, posting information on the internet,
>etc., we still have a tremendous population of people with terrible riding
>skills and behavior.   

So... what are we doing wrong?  What makes the same person an adequate
motorist and a terrible cyclist when the same rules and rights apply? 
As a cyclist, they either don't know that the same rules and rights
apply, or they don't believe that those rules and rights give them the
protection they want in order to ride their bike.  The solution is not
to give them distinct facilities that do not (as the FHWA acknowledges)
give them better protection.

...
>You will see your comments reflected in the final Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan.  I
>don't believe you will be completely happy with the "final" document, but your
>efforts are having a positive effect, both on the plan and on our understanding
>of important issues.  You have sometimes provided an entirely new
>perspective.  ...

If I couldn't experience happiness until everyone agreed with me about
everything, I'd be an irretrievably grumpy person; and I'm not that. 
I'm _real_ happy that my comments are heard and have some impact on
the result.   Logan doesn't have the magnitude of traffic problems that
you see in the SLC area, but the cars up here are the same size as yours
and the bikes are, too.  The roads and the rules are the same.  Our rush
hours and congestion are just smaller and shorter.  When the pioneers made
those wide streets so that they could turn a wagon around, they did
exactly the right thing for transportation cycling here.  As long as we
can keep wide curb lanes and incorporate them as a cycling-friendly
design standard, I'll be quite happy with the infrastructure that has
allowed me to log over 50,000 miles of local transportation cycling in
the last 25 years.  

I just hope for the help of you, Jan, and the others in planning, to
protect these great transportation cycling conditions here from
deteriorating due to the well intentioned, but misdirected, efforts of
non-cyclists among our local planners, designers and engineers.  With
these conditions and a little policy and education support, those of us
who cycle can demonstrate by our actions and mentor and encourage others
to take to the roads in our chosen, healthy, economical, low impact, low
congestion, low pollution way.

Thanks for listening.

--
Bob Bayn  bob.bayn@usu.edu  http://cc.usu.edu/~bob/index.html          o
Computer Services       Welcome to Cache Valley; please set your       \__^\=*
Utah State University   chronometer back 20 years and ten minutes.   (O)""""o