Safety of biking hasn’t changed, only our realization on what it takes to improve safety

[flickr]photo:8028883286[/flickr]

This photo exhibits many risks we take because of our current and unchanging designs, a potential dooring scene similar to that which led to the death of Neill Townsend on Friday. Photo by Mike Travis. 

I hate car-centric design. I equate it with theft. It takes away space for efficient and free modes of travel and reduces the quality of air and aural serenity, not to mention the danger to those within and without a car. Improving bike infrastructure is secondary in making a bike culture: the most important task is to highlight the irresponsibility, risk, damage, inefficiency, and death that Chicago’s car culture brings to the city.

Mary Schmich, a Chicago Tribune columnist, asks in the headline of her column today, “Is biking less safe, or does it just seem so?” Data is missing so we cannot answer this question empirically; there’s data for reported crashes, but no information on how many people are cycling and for how many miles. Continue reading Safety of biking hasn’t changed, only our realization on what it takes to improve safety

Does Chicago want to be a bike friendly city or what? (video)

[flickr]photo:2780428291[/flickr]

A depiction of what wouldn’t have happened. Photo by flickrknufflo. 

Share the road? What a terrible idea.

The Netherlands is the safest place to travel, on any mode, because they’ve a road design philosophy called “sustainable safety”. One of the principles is to homogenize modes by mass, speed, and direction:

Large differences in speed and mass of different road users in the same space must be eliminated as much as possible. Where speed differences cannot be eliminated types of traffic must be separated. [Read about the four other principles.]

In Chicago and most places in the United States, the philosophy is “share the road” and “good luck”. Continue reading Does Chicago want to be a bike friendly city or what? (video)