Cyclists create more traffic?

[Cyclone]

Not really. As the paper says, assuming junctions modifies the distribution of arrival times from (assumed) Poissonian to decaying platoon which I believe wouldn't change the actual result of the study (just calculate the times more precisely). But I'd need some expert to explain it to me thoroughly

 

Yeah, but it's far more fundamental than that.

The majority of time spent on most journeys is AT junctions or other pinch points. The capacity of any section of road network is determined by the capacity of the pinch points.

If there's any congestion at all, just 2 cars queueing, at the junction being approached then any 'delay' on the approach is entirely irrelevant.

So whilst a cycle might slow down the traffic on a straight road with no junctions, it's entirely irrelevant to the entire journey time, because as already described multiple times (by various people), if the cycle weren't there, the vehicles would simply reach the queue for a junction or traffic light a few seconds earlier.

 

Oh, and there's also the point that if the cycle weren't there, there'd be another car (most likely) instead, actually increasing congestion.

[altus]

Not really. As the paper says, assuming junctions modifies the distribution of arrival times from (assumed) Poissonian to decaying platoon which I believe wouldn't change the actual result of the study (just calculate the times more precisely). But I'd need some expert to explain it to me thoroughly

The simulation, it wasn't even based on studying a real road, only covered a section of road without any junctions (or driveways). How many real journeys do you know like that?

 

Suggesting it was "a hypothetical exercise that bares no resemblance to the reality of real journeys" is entirely the correct thing to do.

[TimmyR]

The simulation, it wasn't even based on studying a real road, only covered a section of road without any junctions (or driveways). How many real journeys do you know like that?

 

Suggesting it was "a hypothetical exercise that bares no resemblance to the reality of real journeys" is entirely the correct thing to do.

 

This sort of badly performed analysis can be really damaging. They should be forced to take it down.

[Branyy]

This sort of badly performed analysis can be really damaging. They should be forced to take it down.

 

It's published in peer-reviewed paper and explained why conclusions are valid. If you're able to disprove the paper, good for you - submit your reply to the journal, it'll be reviewed too and maybe you'll have your own publication However, we haven't seen any calculations from you proving the opposite.

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2018 at 11:41 ----------

 

...

 

Thanks, I really need to have a closer look.

[altus]

It's published in peer-reviewed paper and explained why conclusions are valid. If you're able to disprove the paper, good for you - submit your reply to the journal, it'll be reviewed too and maybe you'll have your own publication However, we haven't seen any calculations from you proving the opposite.

Nobody is actually arguing that waiting a few seconds before passing a cyclist safely will slow down a motorist very slightly on that particular section of road (i.e. before the next junction). We are just pointing out that it at worst provides a negligible effect of overall journey time and in many cases no effect at all.

 

The paper might have some value in convincing a car centric road planner or politician who doesn't consider journeys as a whole that cycle lanes should be built so cycles don't slow down traffic. Of course, those people would probably rather just build an extra car lane instead and do nothing about the pinch points that are the things that really slow cars down.

[Cyclone]

The paper doesn't need to be disproven, I'm sure it's an entirely valid analysis for THE SCENARIO THEY CREATED.

Unfortunately that scenario bares no relationship at all to the real world and so tells us nothing about whether cycles actually cause real delays to real journeys on real roads.

[Pyrotequila]

Well, now that we've established that you're very lucky in where you live, care to address any of the valid points that have been made about the assertion that cycles contribute to congestion?

 

Not particularly.

The level of hostility in some posts is amazing and I don't feel like being belittled or singled out any more.

I'm all for a good discussion, but Jesus Christ people need to relax.

[Cyclone]

Drivers attacking cyclists, sometimes physically with cars is a real problem. The level of ignorance is astounding. It unsurprisingly gets the back up of people who cycle.

I personally in the last few years have had two drivers left hook me, and one run straight into the back of me, knock me off and make my bike unrideable and then drive away. I've had to take evasive action many more times than that to avoid people pulling out on me and I'm routinely passed by people who are driving far too close.

[Pyrotequila]

I see a lot of that on YouTube, helmet cams and dash cams... The insane, instant road rage that comes from nowhere.

People passing so close that they can hit their cars.

It's scary how some of these people even have driving licences, and how casual some of them are about the fact that they nearly just killed someone.

It's one of the reasons I wouldn't want to cycle on the roads... I trust my own skills, but I can't say the same for everyone else on the road

[altus]

Not particularly.

The level of hostility in some posts is amazing and I don't feel like being belittled or singled out any more.

I'm all for a good discussion, but Jesus Christ people need to relax.

If you're all for a good discussion then why haven't you responded to multiple people's point about any slight delays caused by motorists having to wait to pass cyclists safely are dwarfed by, and in some cases entirely counteracted by, other factors - such as queues of car at junctions?