tandempower

This article describes an interesting research project where the relative stress level of pathways connecting lower-stress biking routes is considered as influencing people's willingness to get around by bike. Basically, it's saying that there can be low-stress bike corridors, but when those corridors are connected by higher stress roads, people tend to avoid bridging those high-stress gaps. This is an interesting perspective that is a lot different from the "suck-it-up-and-just-bike" mentality of vehicular cycling and the like. For die-hard LCF'ers, we manage to bridge the gaps despite the stress, but I think this research is tuned into what can tip the scale in either direction for a more general public who would like to bike more for transportation but gets stressed out in certain situations and then avoids biking altogether as a result.
https://phys.org/news/2018-06-bike-l...ss-riders.html

indyfabz

Filed under "N' for "No Duh."

tandempower

Yes, but to translate it into a concrete method for analyzing infrastructure-use patterns and predict growth in transportation cycling as a function of how much stress people go through at specific route nodes is big. What the researcher seems to be saying is that many more people would use bikes as transportation if it weren't for certain areas that cause them stress, which result in them giving up completely. That is different than for those of us who make bikes work as transportation because we want to LCF. We are always assuming that most people are not interested in getting around by bike at all, but the reality may be that a lot of people would like to but they are deterred by hurdles we experienced LCFers have all but forgotten about because we dealt with them so long ago.

mconlonx

Again, this is an already known quantity. Where it is important is its ability to influence decision making where traffic planning is concerned, as a data point when arguing for more dedicated cycling infrastructure.

tandempower

It can't be a 'known quantity' because humans are subjective and their opinions and desires often change as various other factors change.

indyfabz

You'd be better served by speaking for your self instead of "we." I have never made such an assumption, and I have had plenty of people express a desire to get around by bike, but they don't because of the hurdles mentioned in the article. Hence the no duh.

tandempower

It's a figure of speech. The 'we' doesn't refer to everyone or no one, or even any people in particular. It is just an open 'we' that you can identify with if you share the opinion. Apparently you don't so you were never included in that 'we' to begin with. Nevertheless, I have read your post and noted your opinion and dissent from my use of 'we' there. Sorry it caused you problems to read it.

indyfabz

Quite weak. Welcome to my iggy list.

mconlonx

No, really, the concept has been around for years and is widely used to justify addition of cycling infrastructure. Everything from infrastructure efforts at the national, state, and municipal level, to what is taught by LAW instructors -- the concept is not new. What is new is that it has been studied and codified, which is better than anecdotes and is another tool to be used politically when lobbying for cycling infrastructure.