Increasing ridership might be one benefit of lighting. We should also consider the value of avoiding collisions -- between bikes and pedestrians (or pedestrians and dogs) and between bikes and "stealth bikes." Medical costs for concussions and broken bones add up pretty quickly, so they might justify spending some money on lighting.
Of course, I don't know how many crashes are happening now on the unlighted path. If nobody is getting hurt now, lighting won't save money (though it might be justified for other reasons). Does the city track crashes and injuries on bike paths? George Perkins wrote: > The discussion seems to have come full circle. If I may summarize: > > :: Identification of a helpful convenience lighting is on most of the > city's > other paths, but not this dark segment of SW path. > :: Preservation of the night sky, neighbors' dark back yards, solitude, > tranquility of this area. > :: Sidebar nerd conversations about the best lighting equipment and > protocols. > :: Brainstormed suggestions for reflective striping, light give-aways, > markers, low-lighting options, etc. > :: Cost estimates of a typical lighting designs. > > Will lighting increase the number of commuters on this path, or are the > dedicated commuters (who already know a thing or two about lighting > equipment) pretty much the maximum to be expected in a four-season > climate? > I'm not a wonk on bike statistics and can't say that a $200,000 - $300,000 > investment will result in more cyclists. In other words, what is it worth > to > increase ridership? Is this too much to spend to get 100 more seasonal > round-trips? 1,000 more round-trips? > > I am at a loss to identify a major auto thoroughfare that is not lighted. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
