There is an issue of priorities here. The detail of
bicycle and pedestrian policies for safety and promotion-
-all tied to a comprehensive approach in urban areas--is
finely detailed in explicit and simple to understand
English (complete with graphs and tables of safety over
time) by John Pucher (his book with Christian Lefebvre,
"The Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe North
America" is a primer for all forms of transportation--pricy
at Amazon, perhaps check McMillan in England). (Find
some of his papers at:
The first question is how to you cross the street and intersection
safety with no delay and maximum comfort?
Go then to first principles--we must recall the Michael J.
Wallwork priorities for non-motorized traffic (he is "Mr.
Roundabout" from Jacksonville). Yes, primarily, you
take care of pedestrians then if context permits,
Second, as Prof. Pucher's seminal works clearly
indicate, you must have a comprehensive approach to
urban (and overall) non-motorized transportation:
infrastructure, education and enforcement. A conscious
policy means car free networks of space for walking and
biking in urban areas. This is not some fanciful dream
but a successful public policy measured and reported by
Prof. Pucher in Germany and Holland during the 90s.
My contention is that central to the success in both
Germany and Holland--or in any other undertaking
aimed at faclitating biking and walking at the same time
reducing injuries--is that you cannot accomplish this
objective without installing lots of roundabouts. The
French experience--reported in May--of growing from
10,000 to 27,000 roundabouts over 10 years
experiencing a 60% reducing in fatality and injury rate
absolutely and incontrovertably confirms my hypothesis
as does the overall downtrend in U.S. highway safety
compared to countries heavily investing in roundabouts
during the end of the last century.
Today the Agency of Transportation argues with itself as
to whether to put a roundabout at US 7/VT 103 desired
by the Town, the Region, and the free $1 million Sen.
Jeffords earmark which became available last week.
This is not an intersection with a lot of bike/ped activity.
But it is a critical battle in our mutual effort to get
roundabouts off the grounding Vermont where they are
stuck with a generally hostile legislative and AOT
administrative atmosphere (Sen. Phill Scott, R-
Washington and Rep. Sue Minter, D-Waterbury, being
two noteworthy exceptions on our legislative
My sense is we should go for a Germany/Holland
approach to bike/ped policy and investment in Vermont
as one policy thrust--meaning a task force with a report
containing the necessary policy initiatives--and, second,
flat out support roundabout development everywhere
there is a high speed or busy pedestrian environment.
A target would be 10-15% of total non-bridge/non-
paving construction program roundabout investment or
something like 10-20 roundabouts per year with full
prioritization of where these will go in each of our
regions through the "transportation planning initiative"
process where we as citizens and as an organization
and have input.
Let's get the Agency of Transportation to stop arguing
with itself in regard to roundabouts as well as with
On 3 Aug 2005 at 9:29, Anne Lusk wrote:
> Which speaks again to the issue, why can't we in the U.S. build the same
> facilities they have in Germany and Holland, namely
street parallel cycle tracks
> separated from car traffic. Additionally,in Europe,
some sidewalks have become
> bike paths, somestreets made one way for a path,
other streets become
> Woonerfs for only residential traffic....the list goes on
and I know all of you know
> this list.
> These facilities are not in AASHTO and therefore can't
bebuilt using federal
> funds. The sidepath on Vassar Street in Cambridge
was built using MIT funds
> because itwasn't in AASHTO.
> To have a path parallel to the road in the U.S., it has
to be separated by 5 feet
> (grass, trees, etc.) or by a 40 inch high solid barrier.
The later precludes parallel
> parking besidethe shared-use path because you can't
open a door beside a40
> inch high concrete wall.
> What will it takefor us to startexploring some of the
> and say, "Yes, we can build these in the U.S."
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:17:08 +0200
> Subject: Re: [VTBIKEPEDPOLICY-L] US Bicycle
Fatalities Higher than
> Living presently in Denmark I would certainly agree
with the policies
> mentioned in the short report. I would especially agree
with the " traffic
> regulations and enforcement that are pro-pedestrian
and pro-cycling" as in
> Denmark if an automobile and bicycle hit each other
> assumed the automobile driver is at fault and his/her
license is taken away
> for a year. Of course it certainly helps to have good
> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> > -----------------------
> > Sender: Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy
> > Subject: US Bicycle Fatalities Higher than
> ³ OThere isn¹t as muich pain in life if you don¹t let
> entangled with others.¹ He paused. OBut is that really
> Page 410, The Novice, The Black Magician Trilogy,
Book Two by Trudi Canavan.
> =========VTBIKEPEDPOLICY-L: The Vermont
Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Discussion List
> Subscription control:
> ========== VTBIKEPEDPOLICY-L: The Vermont
Bicycle and Pedestrian
> Policy Discussion List Subscription control:
> http://list.uvm.edu/archives/vtbikepedpolicy-l.html. For
Montpelier, VT 05602
Northeast Area Roundabout Coalition-VT
VTBIKEPEDPOLICY-L: The Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Policy Discussion List
Subscription control: http://list.uvm.edu/archives/vtbikepedpolicy-l.html.
For help: email [log in to unmask] with the word "help" in the message body.