tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post3584816365747829353..comments2023-04-03T03:29:32.895+01:00Comments on The Desegregated Cyclist: 'Safety in Numbers' or a 'Target Rich Environment'?Ian Brett Cooperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-18754274194290612692012-12-01T12:35:54.154+00:002012-12-01T12:35:54.154+00:00I agree that there probably is a 'safety in nu...I agree that there probably is a 'safety in numbers' effect. The studies I've seen seem to bear it out. The problem I have with it is that it's used by 'bicycle advocates' as a reason to make their prime directive getting more bottoms on saddles. When that's the main thing advocacy groups care about, it tends to create a situation in which people come into cycling unaware of the need to learn the skill. In fact, I've been scorned by 'bicycle advocates' for suggesting that cycling even IS a skill. They seem to believe cycling is something that anyone is able to do well, but it never will be, because (as we know) there's a huge amount more to transportation cycling than being able to ride a bike.<br /><br />In terms of this blog post though, the thing is, in London, the 'safety in numbers' effect doesn't seem to be there. So if safety in numbers is a real phenomenon, it means the effect (which is always small) is being overwhelmed by some other force or forces. I suspect London's 'traffic smoothing' program has something to do with it, and I think the resulting higher road speeds may be contributing to the tendency for 'safety in numbers' to be morphing into the 'target rich environment'.Ian Brett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11144195897514392433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-75255121067977624602012-12-01T07:39:29.233+00:002012-12-01T07:39:29.233+00:00My traffic engineer says something similar, Steve....My traffic engineer says something similar, Steve. There is apparently a "warrant" needed to put in a crosswalk, for example. A minimum no. of people must cross the street per some period to demonstrate a need. He explained it by saying if a crosswalk is never used, motorists assume there are no peds so they become complacent. So I am sure there is something to safety in numbers, i.e., if there is an expectation of seeing cyclists, motorists will notice them, just as there is an expectation up here to see deer jumping into the road at dusk. But I'd rather not have cyclists acting like deer. Sucks to hit a deer, too.Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-79074595641732597832012-12-01T03:11:53.774+00:002012-12-01T03:11:53.774+00:00IMO, there probably IS something to the safety in ...IMO, there probably IS something to the safety in numbers theory. Motorists generally do not want to run into cyclists or anything else. If these typical motorists encounter cyclists more often, they simply get better at avoiding running into the cyclists, just as they'd get better at avoiding deer if they encountered deer enough for that to become routine. Neither the deer, nor most of the cyclists follow the rules motorists expect of each other on roads.<br /><br />As for the cyclists, I suspect that if there are more, it is entirely possible that a higher fraction have accumulated enough experience not to ride as if they were drunken children. WW1 pilots demonstrated the same trend.<br /><br />Of course, neither trend matches the Jacobsen hypothesis which was entirely unsupported by any real test of validity in his paper. He might as well hypothesized that the effect could be explained by pixie dust, except that would have probably not been accepted as "settled science" by the media.Steve Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650405341304401203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5353875138735331560.post-86030547807165960032012-11-30T17:14:42.341+00:002012-11-30T17:14:42.341+00:00I'd not be so hard on traffic engineers. Actua... I'd not be so hard on traffic engineers. Actually, the traditional engineering societies (AASHTO, the folks who write the MUTCD) are the least likely to uncritically accept some of these newfangled designs proposed by the avante garde (NACTO) folks, which is why the avante garde folks formed their own society, NACTO. My own traffic engineer is very conservative in adopting new designs, but one criticism I have of the county is that it installs old designs with less critical thought to "what if..."<br /><br />Otherwise, could not agree more. Where I work, one is considered a fool to think that engineering controls, even good ones, used alone, will protect people. One has to be trained to understand and respect the engineering controls and work within their safety envelope.<br /><br />Where I work (in a facility that handles the actinide row of the Periodic Table) one does not casually ignore proficiency and rules--such a casual disregard of the rules as we see on the roads could lead to a very short career, if not life. Lots of overlap here with driving a vehicle. Both can cause harm if not taken seriously.Khalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866897914538110672noreply@blogger.com