 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General bicyclingRacingOff-road CyclingRidesTechnicalUnicyclesRecumbent CyclesCountry Specific Australian CyclingUK CyclingCyclingCrowd.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cycling Forum / General / Technical / March 2010Boston bike advocacy has tectonic shift -- supports facilities
http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infrastructure/ Well, it's a step. > http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infrastructure/ > > Well, it's a step. How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every time a motorist is at fault for maiming or killing a cyclist, but is not charged with a serious offense?  SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infrastructure/ >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > motorist is at fault for maiming or killing a cyclist, but is not > charged with a serious offense? I like my pound of flesh as much as the next guy, but I'd still rather work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic in thickly settled areas gets my vote. > >>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic in thickly > settled areas gets my vote. I like wide, well paved roads. All this bicycle infrastructure often makes things worse, with the exception of bike lanes ON the roadway. Dedicated off-road facilities turn in to pedestrain trails. Bicycle boulevards often have spurious hard-scape devices that turn in to hazards. Bicycle shelters -- bike lanes between the curb and parked cars -- are plain dangerous. Applied boxes and three-point lines and what have you get slippery after the second snow and a little scraping. All this worry about riders "feeling comfortable" or "less stressed" is psychotic -- and it assumes there are hundreds and millions of people who really want to ride except for being afraid (afraid in a way that a green bike box will fix). That's BS. The people who tell me that they would ride if it were only more safe are typically fatties with no history of riding, even at beach resorts. We should just make the roads wider, fix them and put on a stripe. Everybody wins. -- Jay Beattie. >>>> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... >>>> Well, it's a step. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > just make the roads wider, fix them and put on a stripe. Everybody > wins. -- Jay Beattie. I like wide roads, too. Problem is, around here (Boston) there isn't any more room. What typically has happened is that more car lanes have been added to the same road width, making life more difficult for cyclists. I'd like to get some back. If that necessitates bike lanes, I'm for it. Portland has managed to double cycling in the last decade. It seems they're doing something right, even if they're doing it wrong. > >> Tom Sherman _ wrote: > >>>>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Portland has managed to double cycling in the last decade. It seems > they're doing something right, even if they're doing it wrong.- Hide quoted text - Demographics, increased population and high gas prices and a lot of press. I'm not sure how much of it is infrastructure changes -- some probably, but not enough to justify the $600 million price tag for our new 2030 Bicycle Plan. I know a lot of this planning stuff is to stake out federal funds made available for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and not for filling pot holes, so I'm not that shocked by the plan or the price tag. But if those projects are funded by increased taxes (property, business, income, sales), I'm going to scream bloody murder. I'm not going to pay for fussy bicylcle infrastructure when we need so much road repair around here. That will piss off motorists and cause a backlash.-- Jay Beattie. >Demographics, increased population and high gas prices and a lot of >press. I'm not sure how much of it is infrastructure changes -- some [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >infrastructure when we need so much road repair around here. That >will piss off motorists and cause a backlash.-- Jay Beattie. Around here the way it works is that they pass the bill claiming that a major portion will be federally funded (as if that's somehow "free" money). Then the Federal money doesn't come through, often via State incompetence managing the project planning and progress. Taxpayers end up picking up the tab, but by then it's out of the public eye and they are on to the next boondoggle discussion. But, the unions stay happy, and that's what really counts! * Still Just Me * <noEmailtodah@stillnodomainey.com> considered Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:53:14 -0500 the perfect time to write: >>Demographics, increased population and high gas prices and a lot of >>press. I'm not sure how much of it is infrastructure changes -- some [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >But, the unions stay happy, and that's what really counts! We get money from developers to pay for the cost of mitigating the effect their developments have on the surrounding roads infrastructure. >>>> Tom Sherman _ wrote: >>>>>> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Demographics, increased population and high gas prices and a lot of > press. Cycling has increased over 100% since 2000, population more like 5%. Gas prices were low through much of the decade, while cycling in Portland grew steadily (compare cycling growth to gas prices 2000-2006, you won't see much correlation). I'm not sure what you mean by "demographics" -- bunch of Danes moved in? Income? Portland family median seems about the same, or a little lower than the national average. Age? Same as income. Portland is pretty white -- is that it? > I'm not sure how much of it is infrastructure changes -- some > probably, Well, that is the question, isn't it? > but not enough to justify the $600 million price tag for our > new 2030 Bicycle Plan. I thought you didn't know. Where did you get that "price tag"? The latest estimates I've seen are $223M for an "80% plan" and $335M for a "world class" plan. Even at $600M, I'd point out that Boston, a similarly sized city, just spent over 25x that amount on a single road construction project. Portland is aiming for a 25% share of total trips by bike. Quoted studies in Denmark claim a $1/mile cycled health care cost benefit and a 200% rate of return (reduced health costs) on cycling infrastructure. It's been interesting that in this year of intense debate over what to do about the health care *cost* crisis in the US, very little attention has been paid to the obvious lifestyle issues. The projected costs of diabetes alone are predicted to break the bank. As a part of the boomer bulge that's said to represent a huge unfunded (unfundable?) medical liability, I feel that we're running out of time -- it's our lifestyle that's not economically sustainable, and obesity will get us before climate change does. Just a glance will reveal why it's not an equally hot topic for Big Al Gore. People have to be moved around the city one way or another. Money spent on one facility is money that doesn't have to be spent on another. On a per-capita basis, infrastructure costs for cycling facilities are relative peanuts compared to private car and/or mass transit. Bikes won't do the majority of people moving, even in a cycling utopia, but they're transportational low hanging fruit and should be picked first. To do otherwise is just dumb. To quibble over these relatively modest costs is just dumb. > I know a lot of this planning stuff is to stake > out federal funds made available for bicycle and pedestrian [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > infrastructure when we need so much road repair around here. That > will piss off motorists and cause a backlash.-- Jay Beattie. Even the large number you cite only amounts to $50/capita/year. Whether that comes from the Feds, the state or local revenue sources makes little difference. It's a pittance compared to the existing subsidies (from all those sources) for the alternatives. Besides the compelling health cost argument, a dollar spent on cycling saves more than a dollar elsewhere. Of course, this is only true if the facilities get used. The "Field of Dreams" argument ("build it and they will come") is what is usually proffered. That argument requires a bit of faith, but what major public works project doesn't? I'm sure that if the predicted cycling numbers don't track projections that the budget will get reevaluated over the 20 year projected term. Lipitor and gym memberships aren't going to do it. Americans have to get off their fat butts and get the blood pumping through their clogged and brittle arteries. Obesity and related diseases is the health care crisis of the century. The benefits of transportational cycling to health and overall urban quality of life are not hypothetical. Neither is the impact of infrastructure investment on the growth of cycling trip share. There are ample examples. Portland is, quite sensibly, following the lead of other, more progressive, communities. I hope Boston catches up. Coincidentally, the major paper here in Boston had an article on obesity rates by community today. Not surprisingly, many urban communities had significantly lower rates than their outer suburban counterparts. Experts felt the bulk of the difference was determined by the much greater prevalence of walking and cycling over driving in the more densely populated districts. This is not rocket science. The best way to reduce the cost of medical care is to lower the need for it in the first place. I'd rather be taxed for bike infrastructure than taxed for medications and treatments for fat-related illness -- don't kid yourself, that's the choice. > >>>> Tom Sherman _ wrote: > >>>>>>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > medications and treatments for fat-related illness -- don't kid > yourself, that's the choice. I've biked and lived in both cities that has been mentioned. Boston, MA and Portland, OR. In addition, I grew up in NYC, and did a few stints as a (full time) bike messenger there for a few summers. Quite frankly I don't know where the statistics for bike ridership in Portland come from. I think somebody in charge there is cooking the books. I've never been more scared biking anywhere else in the US as I was in Portland. Why? Because the roads in Portland were CRAP, and most roads only had one lane each way, graced by ditches on both sides (no sidewalks either). Without putting to fine a point on it, it was typical redneck rural. And even though there were plenty of separate bike facilities, they didn't go everywhere that the roads did, and they also had pedestrians. In short, I felt the bike facilities where being ghettoized. My neighbor's daughter was attending community college less than 2 miles away, and I didn't feel safe biking there, never mind my neighbor's daughter. FWIW, in NYC they've taken away car lanes and converted them into bike lanes. While I'm not so sure this method would be quite as practical in Boston because it historically didn't have as much urban planning as NYC, there is no doubt in my mind that's the solution that ultimately makes the most sense if bikes are to become a practical form of transportation. > > >>>> Tom Sherman _ wrote: > > >>>>>>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > ultimately makes the most sense if bikes are to become a practical > form of transportation.- Hide quoted text - The deal is "Portland" is a lot of real estate. There are portions of the city in east and west county that are a wreck, and then there are places that are a pleasure to ride. My son's route to his middle school was scary narrow, not to mention he had a pretty good 8% climb. It's all bike lane to highschool, although it is close enough to walk. This is a portion of my commute: http://www.flickr.com/photos/major_clanger/2466546512 -- I don't do the bit through Hillsdale. Note when he hits that broken concrete -- when I go over the hills home, that is what I descend down. It's enough to throw you OTB. Check this out -- amazing what you will find on YouTube. He's going through my cemetary at 2:43 -- my most common way home. At 1:25, look at the traffic over the Hawthorne Bridge -- not staged. The film makes no sense because he's going up and down the cemetary hill. Maybe he just wants to put in some miles. -- Jay Beattie. <big snip> > The deal is "Portland" is a lot of real estate. There are portions of > the city in east and west county that are a wreck, and then there are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the Hawthorne Bridge -- not staged. The film makes no sense because > he's going up and down the cemetary hill. ... Oops. I forgot my link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI7T2iuGjjc -- Jay Beattie. > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > <big snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Jay Beattie. >> read more »- Hide quoted text - Wow, nice jersey. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Andrew Muzi wrote: > [...] > Wow, nice jersey. I thought you preferred the Holstein-Friesian? SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 > Andrew Muzi wrote: >> [...] >> Wow, nice jersey. > I thought you preferred the Holstein-Friesian? shhhhh. we call her a Jersey. She doesn't know that Holsteins are cute while Jerseys are, uh, pulchritudinally challenged. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > <big snip> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - Hey Jay, I don't mean to be argumentative but you do realize "greater Portland" doesn't just consist of Hillsdale/Terwilliger Blvd? Anyone thinking that video is somehow representative of biking all across Portland is going to be in for a rude surprise. I don't deny that route is very nice but it's virtually the ONLY route in Portland! I forgot to add earlier that I barely feel safe driving in Portland, never mind riding. It's the only town where I've been rear ended twice (accident-free in all other towns). And what's the deal with the dualie SUVs per capita? Besides, aside from the summer, you can count the number of sunny days per year in Portland on the fingers of one hand. :) > > <big snip> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - We are not the sunshine capitol of the world, that's for sure -- but this year, our weather is pretty damn good compared to California! Anyway, the second video is of a rider going from Ladd's Addition on the eastside up to OHSU, and the first video is going south from town to Hillsdale and Burlingame -- both under five miles and representative of the usual commutes. I would say most sub-ten mile commutes in to town are going to be pretty good for cyclists -- if they pick the right roads. My co-worker commutes all east side about 12 miles on the Springwater trail -- not my cup of tea, but he likes it. Another goes straight over the hills and down Thompson. You are not going to get Joe couch potato to do 1,000 feet of climbing, but it is a peacefull route for the most part. Mileages beyond five or ten miles also put riders in other counties and cities with their own infrastructure issues -- Washington county, for example, with notoriously nasty drivers, narrow roads and lack of bicycle facilities, but even that is changing slowly. The real problem around here is congestion and old infrastructure, which is why I think we should spend our money on roads with wide shoulders and not magical boxes, bike trails and other special bicycle infrastructure. -- Jay Beattie. > The real problem around here is congestion and old infrastructure, > which is why I think we should spend our money on roads with wide > shoulders and not magical boxes, bike trails and other special bicycle > infrastructure. -- Jay Beattie. The only special bike facilities near hear are in Cork City, where all bike routes, as far as I can see, lead directly to Cork University Hospital. Literally. All the bike routes I've seen peter out in front of the hospital. We have a law, or an accepted usage, which here is much the same, about what you call 'wide shoulders' and here are called 'hard shoulders, which is a tarmac area beyond a yellow line. This area is by law or custom reserved for pedestrians or bicyclists; motorists are supposed to enter it only for an emergency. Furthermore, it is part of the formal test for driving licences that motorists must give bicyclists at least 3 feet of space. Now, if we could only get these two laws (or equivalent usages) as strictly enforced as the drink-driving laws, cyclists could recover the use of our main roads. As it is, the cyclepals won't go on the main roads because trucks whizz past less than a foot from one's shoulder...These are roads that less than twenty years ago I used to cycle in the evenings after dark, because the traffic was so much lighter and the cars travelled so much slower that they paid attention to cyclists, and the speed differential was not so much that it was dangerous for cyclists to take the lane in the a couple of very narrow places. Now... It would be suicide. Also, the preservation of the hard shoulder should be enforced on road planners and builders. We have a rather nice formal walk and cycle path nearby along the bed of a disused railway, which now can be reached only by car because the idiots have taken the hard shoulder to widen the road. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review Per Andre Jute: >As it is, the cyclepals won't go on the main roads because trucks >whizz past less than a foot from one's shoulder...These are roads that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >take the lane in the a couple of very narrow places. Now... It would >be suicide. I see a lot of the same here in Southeastern Penna (USA). Having grown up here in the fifties and having gone almost everywhere on a bike and, later, on a Vespa motor scooter during those years; I have a pretty good standard of comparison. What is it with speed? People are driving 25 mph-zoned roads with no shoulder (sometimes with the shape of passing vehicles sort of worn into the brush on the side of the road) at 50+. Are today's cars *that* much easier to drive at speed? Maybe so, bc just yesterday I was driving a stretch of road where a cop wrote me a citation for driving my VW bug 45 mph back in 1963... and noticed that the currently-posted speed limit was 45. (it was something like 30 or 35 back then) OTOH, I broke a connecting rod in that same VW cruising something called "The Atlantic City Expressway" at an indicated 72 with four 250-pounders in the car - and the speed limit back then was 70. Today it's 65.... go figure. SignaturePeteCresswell > <big snip> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - You call that an urban bike commute? Where are the cars? > > >>>> Tom Sherman _ wrote: > > >>>>>>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... [quoted text clipped - 147 lines] > ultimately makes the most sense if bikes are to become a practical > form of transportation. FWIW, I do ~200-300 miles a week in absoute redneck rural - about 60-75 of that in lardass city. Right now I don't know what to say about it though. Read my archives here, I guess. > I'm not sure what you mean by "demographics" -- bunch of Danes moved in? > Income? Portland family median seems about the same, or a little lower > than the national average. Age? Same as income. Portland is pretty white > -- is that it? I think what he meant was that tons of bike-loving people have moved to Portland from all over the place in the past 10-15 years. Therefore, there is a lot of bike riding going on in Portland. And it has been a positive feedback loop. Portland's bike-specific infrastructure leaves much to be desired actually. They are headed down a dead end alley with this whole 'cycle track' thing. Instead of sidepaths, they should concentrate on bike highway-like MUPs in their own rights-of-way. > >> Tom Sherman _ wrote: > >>>>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Portland has managed to double cycling in the last decade. It seems > they're doing something right, even if they're doing it wrong. Well, I don't think it was the City of Portland that did it, I think it was bike riders. Now, the city appears poised to create lots of facilities in response. One thing I really don't want is having where and how I can ride substantially dictated. To be planned and managed traffic. Blech! No fun. Sometimes I need to just wing it - make sort of like an Enduro out of it. (Of course, I don't ride in Portland, although I guess I'll have to pedal on up there and give it a whirl sometime.) I do like to hear about facilities happening, though - tells me the straight people calling the shots don't all have their heads up the tailpipe of the failed American Way. Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:38:14 -0500 the perfect time to write: >>>>> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... >>>>> Well, it's a step. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Portland has managed to double cycling in the last decade. It seems >they're doing something right, even if they're doing it wrong. We recently (Cambridge, England) managed to get 2 car lanes (1 of 2 each way) turned into bike lanes. It's made that section of road a lot more pleasant. [...] > We recently (Cambridge, England) managed to get 2 car lanes (1 of 2 > each way) turned into bike lanes. It's made that section of road a > lot more pleasant. Where's that? Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> considered Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:08:59 -0600 the perfect time to write: >[...] >> We recently (Cambridge, England) managed to get 2 car lanes (1 of 2 >> each way) turned into bike lanes. It's made that section of road a >> lot more pleasant. > >Where's that? Hills Road Bridge. On Mar 7, 2:19 am, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > We recently (Cambridge, England) managed to get 2 car lanes (1 of 2 > each way) turned into bike lanes. It's made that section of road a > lot more pleasant. With regard to bike lanes, the question is always this: Would the situation be better or worse with the _same_ total width of pavement, but without the separating stripe? In almost all cases, it would be better without the stripe. Stripes cause traffic conflicts and accumulation of road debris. If you want to encourage the timid riders who feel they need painted permission to ride, I think sharrows are a far better idea. - Frank Krygowski > On Mar 7, 2:19 am, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > In almost all cases, it would be better without the stripe. Stripes > cause traffic conflicts and accumulation of road debris. Also cars drive right next to the stripe. If there isn't one, they actually tend to give you more room. The only time a stripe can be useful is in traffic jams because it can leave you a clear path to get up the inside. Otherwise you get cars higgledly-piggedly across the road which you have to keep weaving in and out of. > If you want to encourage the timid riders who feel they need painted > permission to ride, I think sharrows are a far better idea. What's a sharrow? > > On Mar 7, 2:19 am, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > What's a sharrow? Dear Ben, A big sign painted on the middle of an ordinary traffic lane with chevrons (the arrow) and a bicyclist figure (the share-the-lane part): http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html I haven't seen any in Colorado, but we recently put up faintly related yellow metal signs by some roads that show a bicycle (with no rider) and say "share the road". Cheers, Carl Fogel >>> On Mar 7, 2:19 am, Phil W Lee<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Carl Fogel I don't really feel the need for bike lanes, although we do have some here (usually on roads where there's not a whole lot of traffic, at least when I'm on them) the SINGLE thing that I think should be done that would make the biggest difference to me personally would be to mandate that all new roads with a speed limit greater than, say, 30 or 35 MPH constructed either have paved shoulders or wide enough lanes that a bicycle and a car can safely coexist without the car having to cross the center line (e.g. outlawing construction of any more roads like the one that goes by my office, which has a 45-55 MPH speed limit, depending on exactly where we're talking about, but there is a minimum-legal-width lane in each direction, and only a couple inches of pavement to the right of the white stripe, in some areas with a curb and sidewalk. Now the 55 MPH section could be "fixed" simply by widening the pavement by 6 feet or so, were there a will to do it.) If only that were done, I'd be riding a heck of a lot more, simply because there'd be more places that I'd consider safely accessible by bicycle. On the upside, most of the places that I consider really unsafe to ride a bicycle aren't that close to my house. Unfortunately, one of them is my place of work :/ win some, lose some. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>> On Mar 7, 2:19 am, Phil W Lee<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > paved shoulders or wide enough lanes that a bicycle and a car can safely > coexist without the car having to cross the center line Fine, what about old roads? > (e.g. outlawing > construction of any more roads like the one that goes by my office, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > section could be "fixed" simply by widening the pavement by 6 feet or > so, were there a will to do it.) And the room, and the money. > If only that were done, I'd be riding a heck of a lot more, simply > because there'd be more places that I'd consider safely accessible by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a bicycle aren't that close to my house. Unfortunately, one of them is > my place of work :/ win some, lose some. Utility cycling isn't too practical in most low density areas, distances are just too great. The whole facilities debate is really an urban issue for the most part. > > On 03/07/2010 02:03 PM, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Mar 7, 10:00 am, Ben C<spams...@spam.eggs> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > And the room, and the money. There's definitely room; not sure about the money... > > If only that were done, I'd be riding a heck of a lot more, simply > > because there'd be more places that I'd consider safely accessible by [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are just too great. The whole facilities debate is really an urban issue > for the most part.- Hide quoted text - This isn't a low density area, I'm talking specifically here about eastern Loudoun County. They've just done piss poor planning for any modes of travel other than by automobile (and not very good at that; they've got one of the handful of privately owned toll roads because it was so difficult to get around.) The point that I was trying to make is that the impression I get is that the bike lanes are being proposed for roads that people are cycling on already. Why not then concentrate the money and effort on roads where cyclists *won't* ride because they feel that it's too dangerous? Obviously I'm not advocating allowing cyclists on Interstate highways, but there are a few places where if you avoid roads that appear to be dangerous, you "can't get there from here" due to the way the roads are laid out. As an aside, I also think dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are crap. Sure, they stop "cut-through" vehicular traffic, but they *also* force cyclists to use the main roads because there's no alternate path. I bet emergency responders think they're just great as well. nate >> Utility cycling isn't too practical in most low density areas, distances >> are just too great. The whole facilities debate is really an urban issue [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they've got one of the handful of privately owned toll roads because > it was so difficult to get around.) According to Wikipedia, Loudoun county has grown over 3x since 1990, still has a population density of only 326/mi^2 (2000, so maybe 500 now?), and has the highest median income in the country. Doesn't sound like a candidate for a cycling mecca. > The point that I was trying to make is that the impression I get is > that the bike lanes are being proposed for roads that people are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > roads that appear to be dangerous, you "can't get there from here" due > to the way the roads are laid out. Yes, that's true. It's particularly true in Boston on the coastal routes north and south of the city. Because of lack of room and pressure to accommodate commuting motorists, existing roads have been crammed with minimum width lanes and high speed limits have been maintained. As much as cyclists would often like to get to the shore and the beaches, "you can't get theah from heah" (as we say). On roads where commuting congestion is present, there usually is little political support to widen without generating additional (MV) capacity, even if there is room and money. For suburban commuting, the biggest winner around the world (esp. Japan) is rail to bike, but that's often only biking the last mile at one, sometimes both, ends. I grew up in a typical suburb -- a onetime small mill town that suburbanized after the war. Typically, the modest town center fell into disuse, and most services and shopping moved to strip malls lining the local highway (way on one edge of town) or, finally, mega-malls and big box stores. Commuting to work might be feasible for some hardy souls, but shopping and general errand running isn't, and I doubt will ever be. I don't know what the transportation future is for suburban America, but I don't think the bicycle will play much of a part. My current community is an older "street car" neighborhood, with a still vital retail district and a couple of urban mini-malls and big box outlets within short bike rides, importantly with "back door" bike routes bypassing the main drags (widened, maximally laned, high speed cycle hells -- OK, purgatories, anyway). We often combine pleasure and errands with trips into the city (5 miles as the crow flies or 8 wending along the river path), as we did yesterday, combining the ride with lunch and buying a prom dress for my daughter. My wife's crosstown commute takes 20 minutes by car, 25 by bike and 45 by mass transit. Our city (Newton, MA) has a population of 80-90K, with a density of around 5K/mi^2 average, our particular part of the city being much higher than that average. I consider even that density to be on the margin for utility cycling. It would be possible to be car-free, but there'd be a few compromises and adjustments. I doubt that my neighborhood will become Amsterdam-ish any time soon, but there are many who don't commute by car, and teenagers often don't bother driving here, which I gather is somewhat rare around the country. As progressive as my city likes to believe it is, it has done very little to accommodate cycling, and utility cycling remains quite unusual. The greenwashed Whole Foods market doesn't even have adequate bike parking (no matter, because what they have doesn't get used), and the elementary school at the end of the street actually prohibits biking. > As an aside, I also think dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are crap. > Sure, they stop "cut-through" vehicular traffic, but they *also* force > cyclists to use the main roads because there's no alternate path. I > bet emergency responders think they're just great as well. This is just one of the more recent manifestations of car-centric planning. People (themselves motorists, usually) don't like motorists cutting through their neighborhoods. This is a big problem for communities laid out before auto dominance. As you point out, it has severe (and unfortunately probably permanent) drawbacks. I have friends who have moved from here to sun belt areas where they claim there are no local roads to cycle on at all -- freeways essentially off-ramping into residential cul-de-sacs. Grim. > >> Utility cycling isn't too practical in most low density areas, distances > >> are just too great. The whole facilities debate is really an urban issue [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > now?), and has the highest median income in the country. Doesn't sound > like a candidate for a cycling mecca. Just looking at the statistics is a bit misleading... there's still lots of farmland, but the eastern portion and the corridor along the Dulles Greenway is definitely squarely in "suburban" territory, e.g. Ashburn, Sterling, etc. Basically people working in DC, Arlington, etc. are moving out there because Arlington and Fairfax counties are running out of attractive, affordable housing. And businesses are moving out there as well, because of high rents in the more urban areas - that's my specific problem, unless I want to try to find another job, which due to the current economy I am not motivated at all to do. > > The point that I was trying to make is that the impression I get is > > that the bike lanes are being proposed for roads that people are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > political support to widen without generating additional (MV) capacity, > even if there is room and money. And that is where I think a true cycling advocate would concentrate his efforts - of course this is just my opinion, but let's just use me as an example. If I wanted to ride to work, the infrastructure is already there for me to get maybe 2-3 miles away from my office with no problems at all - the total distance is something like 30 miles, and I can get on a MUP maybe 2 miles from my house, parallel the Dulles Toll Road, and end up in Herndon without any major challenges. But those last few miles are what's keeping me from seriously attempting it; it appears just flat out suicidal. If that "problem" were solved, I can't say that I would ride *every day* or even most days - but even a handful of days every month would be that much less fuel that I'm burning, and that much better shape that I'd be in, with consequent lower HC costs etc. > For suburban commuting, the biggest winner around the world (esp. Japan) > is rail to bike, but that's often only biking the last mile at one, > sometimes both, ends. And again that is an area where around here things could easily be improved - they're building Metro out to Dulles Airport which would in one fell swoop cut my cycling distance to work from 30 miles to more like 4 or 5 - if only I could take a bike on Metro. Unfortunately, bicycles are prohibited on Metro during rush hour; guess when I typically go to work. Dumb, dumb, dumb. I suppose I could buy another beater bike and leave it stashed either in Herndon or the airport, but that seems like an extreme solution; then I'd also have to leave my good bike locked up at the Metro station all day, which I'm not 100% comfortable with. Or buy two beater bikes. I guess my point is, that it's not the lack of bike lanes that is keeping me from riding more - it's the complete unsuitability of a few roads, which are the *only* roads that serve places that I want to go, for bicycle traffic, and also to a lesser extent the inability to mix cycling with public transportation use. > I grew up in a typical suburb -- a onetime small mill town that > suburbanized after the war. Typically, the modest town center fell into [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > because what they have doesn't get used), and the elementary school at > the end of the street actually prohibits biking. That's another peeve, but typically where there is not a bike rack, I've usually been able to find a railing, metal fence, etc. to lock up to. My office doesn't have a bike rack, but again, nobody rides to work, so it's a non-issue (could fit a bike in my office anyway.) > > As an aside, I also think dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are crap. > > Sure, they stop "cut-through" vehicular traffic, but they *also* force [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > local roads to cycle on at all -- freeways essentially off-ramping into > residential cul-de-sacs. Grim. Yup, but when I become World Dictator I will mandate that every new subdivision have at least two connections to main roads, and that they be two different roads. Wait for it. nate >> According to Wikipedia, Loudoun county has grown over 3x since 1990, >> still has a population density of only 326/mi^2 (2000, so maybe 500 [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > another job, which due to the current economy I am not motivated at > all to do. I understand, but what I'm saying is that I hold no hope for utility cycling in the suburbs, with or without facilities, and I very much doubt that any significant facility would be justifiable. Just do what everybody else does, put you bike on the car rack and drive to an area to bike. If you're rural enough to ride from your house, so much the better. They call them "training rides", but no one ever says what they're training for. > >> According to Wikipedia, Loudoun county has grown over 3x since 1990, > >> still has a population density of only 326/mi^2 (2000, so maybe 500 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > much the better. They call them "training rides", but no one ever says > what they're training for. No, I'm not rural at all, I actually live in a borderline urban area where cycling is no problem. I *work* in suburban hell :( nate > >> According to Wikipedia, Loudoun county has grown over 3x since 1990, > >> still has a population density of only 326/mi^2 (2000, so maybe 500 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > much the better. They call them "training rides", but no one ever says > what they're training for. I don't think you realize how good you have it. Quite frankly I don't understand your (arbitrary) demarcation of rural, suburban, or urban. When I lived in Boston I didn't have a car, and I didn't ever feel the need for a car. I'm not going to go as far as saying Boston currently has an environment that's conducive for biking, but it's certainly nowhere near as bad as you seem to suggest. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I consider myself living in the 'burbs now (in CA), and I see plenty of people riding for utilitarian (and recreational) purposes. My neighbors and I ride to work directly from our houses (~15 miles each way), and trust me, it's not "rural" on any sense. I'm not car free but I'm damn close to it (I gas up about once about every 6 weeks, and no, it's not a Prius but a 14 year old Ford.) I think the most dangerous roads are (generally) the narrow rural ones with no sidewalks, flanked by drainage ditches, that just happen to be within city limits. > >> According to Wikipedia, Loudoun county has grown over 3x since 1990, > >> still has a population density of only 326/mi^2 (2000, so maybe 500 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > much the better. They call them "training rides", but no one ever says > what they're training for. I know that I'm replying to a post to which I've already replied, but I meant to add, but did not, that while I will perhaps set out on one or two long rides per week just to log some miles, part of the appeal of cycling to me is that I can get that good healthful exercise while going somewhere that I need to go anyway. "Training" is something that I gave up after I stopped swimming competitively, oh, 15 years or so ago. Exercise just for the sake of exercise is something that I have a hard time convincing myself to do. Yes, I do have a bike rack, but even so, I don't get the whole "drive to where you're going to ride" thing. If it works for you, more power to you, but it's not for me. nate > [...] > And again that is an area where around here things could easily be > improved - they're building Metro out to Dulles Airport which would in > one fell swoop cut my cycling distance to work from 30 miles to more > like 4 or 5 - if only I could take a bike on Metro. Unfortunately, > bicycles are prohibited on Metro during rush hour[...] Does Metro prohibit bikes that look like this? <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3640075056/sizes/l/in/set-721576198571 16687/> (Adorable kitty not included) SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 > I grew up in a typical suburb -- a onetime small mill town that > suburbanized after the war. Typically, the modest town center fell into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't know what the transportation future is for suburban America, but > I don't think the bicycle will play much of a part. Right. Even with the addition of lots of bike facilities. You can't change America into Denmark by just adding bike lanes - just as you couldn't do it by teaching all Americans to speak Danish. > Our city (Newton, MA) has a population of 80-90K, with a density of > around 5K/mi^2 average, our particular part of the city being much > higher than that average. I consider even that density to be on the > margin for utility cycling. It would be possible to be car-free, but > there'd be a few compromises and adjustments. I doubt that my > neighborhood will become Amsterdam-ish any time soon... Right. And if you put a bike box at every intersection, it still would not become Amsterdamish anytime soon. Similarly, it's not going to become Portlandish any time soon. Or rather, the vast majority of American cities won't. I don't know the demographics of Newton, but few cities match Portland for climate, hipness, "green" consiousness, compactness, etc. How many cities have consciously tried to stop suburban sprawl, as Portland has? In Europe, that's common; city limits actually limit the city, in places I've been. And despite your fantasies, cycling outside Portland proper is little different than cycling outside Cleveland. - Frank Krygowski > Right. Even with the addition of lots of bike facilities. You can't > change America into Denmark by just adding bike lanes - just as you > couldn't do it by teaching all Americans to speak Danish. No, but if you want to have Danish-style success, you might study what the Danes did to get there. > Right. And if you put a bike box at every intersection, it still > would not become Amsterdamish anytime soon. Is this your idea of a serious comment? > Similarly, it's not going to become Portlandish any time soon. Or > rather, the vast majority of American cities won't. I don't know the > demographics of Newton, but few cities match Portland for climate, > hipness, "green" consiousness, Now we need a "hipness" and "consciousness" index? Frank -- you New Ager, you! > compactness, etc. How many cities have > consciously tried to stop suburban sprawl, as Portland has? In > Europe, that's common; city limits actually limit the city, in places > I've been. Yes, and for people who live in the city, work, shop and seek entertainment in the city, cycling can easily provide 10-25% of trip modal share. > And despite your fantasies, cycling outside Portland > proper is little different than cycling outside Cleveland. Why would I expect suburban Portland to be different than suburban anywhere in the US? But if Portland is like Cleveland, then it isn't a "fantasy" to imagine Cleveland with a 9% trip modal share, either. Per N8N: >As an aside, I also think dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are crap. >Sure, they stop "cut-through" vehicular traffic, but they *also* force >cyclists to use the main roads because there's no alternate path. I >bet emergency responders think they're just great as well. I'm in the Philadelphia PA (USA) area - i.e. old infrastructure. Spent the last three days working out a bike route between Radnor/Villanova and Conshohocken. Finally got it with only a couple tenths of a mile of questionable safety, but only by cutting though a green area whose owner remains unknown. For my money, the single biggest improvement they could make around here would be a system of right-of-ways joining cul-de-sacs. It would instantly create an entire network of bike routes without building a single bike lane or painting a single white line. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per N8N: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > routes without building a single bike lane or painting a single > white line. Absolutely. And you could keep the "I don't want vehicles cutting down *my* street" busybodies happy by making them suitable for walkers or cyclists but *not* cars, although that doesn't address the issue of quick access by ambulances, fire trucks, etc. If that is the case, it doesn't even necessarily have to be paved; just throw down some gravel to define the path and call it good. IOW, I'm with you bro, let's make it happen! Unfortunately, where I encounter these issues are not so much where I live, but in other jurisdictions where I do not vote :/ nate > Per N8N: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > routes without building a single bike lane or painting a single > white line. I agree. In my experience, the most pleasant cities for cycling are old cities with full grids of streets. There are always quiet parallel routes for those who want them. Expert cyclists can do fine on collectors or arterials, if they prefer. In such cities, I think bike maps and bike routes can help. I'm always amazed by motorists who don't realize there are more streets than one connecting important destinations. Pointing out the alternatives to cyclists is sometimes all that's necessary. And incidentally, I find bike boulevards are generally a fine idea. - Frank Krygowski > With regard to bike lanes, the question is always this: Would the > situation be better or worse with the _same_ total width of pavement, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you want to encourage the timid riders who feel they need painted > permission to ride, I think sharrows are a far better idea. Again, I know of a couple of striped ROW's, whose widths were not altered, where the stripes are a big plus for cyclists. If you want to learn something, Frank (O Man of Science), you'll have to get your undies unknotted IRT to responding to me even though I've met your rudeness with my own (and plan to continue where needed) (just like you get to do!). Funny, the anti-car bike nuts don't like the striping layout I'm thinking of, but it nonetheless works great, real world (meaning, with people using cars, bikes, baby strollers, etc. in a ROW with no barriers). Sharrows? In my limited experience (sharrows are new here), I've noticed that they are paint pertaining to ROW (wall-to-wall pavement) usage. They are "dividers"! They are a bike facility! <g> And you can't see them very well at all, given any amount of traffic... As long as the pavement is marked for bike usage, and the MV operators know and respect this, and the cops (O Happy Day!) acknowledge (don't hold your breath!) that cyclists have a right to safe usage of the areas marked for cyclists' use, then what's the difference? I mean, you don't think there will be "conflicts" in sharrows lanes, Frank? I don't see any truth in "piling up road debris"-- not by a painted line. Dividers, sure, because water flow is impeded, and street sweepers can't deal with obstacles. But paint? Phooey (in most cases, at least). --D-y >> With regard to bike lanes, the question is always this: Would the >> situation be better or worse with the _same_ total width of pavement, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > at least). > --D-y Once you paint a line and call it a "bicycle lane", you create the expectation among motorists that cyclists should ONLY be in the bicycle lane. Nice for the motorists who promote bicycle apartheid, but not good for cyclists. Segregated facilities are inherently unequal. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>> With regard to bike lanes, the question is always this: Would the >>> situation be better or worse with the _same_ total width of pavement, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > expectation among motorists that cyclists should ONLY be in the bicycle > lane. Yes, and the counter expectation that motorists never should. but like most things, that's an ideal, and most of us deal with practical compromises every waking moment, we're not that rigid (most of us). > Nice for the motorists who promote bicycle apartheid, but not good for > cyclists. Segregated facilities are inherently unequal. But which side is the ghetto is a matter of taste. On Mar 11, 6:11 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: <snip> > I don't see any truth in "piling up road debris"-- not by a painted > line. Dividers, sure, because water flow is impeded, and street > sweepers can't deal with obstacles. But paint? Phooey (in most cases, > at least). Moving cars blow debris to the sides, sweeping the road under them clean. Bikes (being more efficient) do not. With cars blowing debris sideways into the bike lane, and cars being excluded from driving over the bike lanes, debris that didn't originate there does accumulate there. ("Piling up" is probably some hyperbole, though.) Do they sand roads in winter where you live? Check out the shoulders after sanding. The straightaway traffic lanes are clear in sort order - including a narrow strip of the adjacent paved shoulder. The outside of curves remain covered with sand (nobody drives out there). The inside shoulder is clean where the cars cut the corner. > On Mar 11, 6:11 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > outside of curves remain covered with sand (nobody drives out there). > The inside shoulder is clean where the cars cut the corner. I have lived where they sand, salt, cinder roads. Yup, the crap piles up where the MV tires don't go. On the favorite bike path road I use all the time, a tree-lined street, tree dropout stuff can be more common in the bikepath, but that's how far the branches stick out <g>. And tree stuff used to be common even before the street was re-striped for bike lanes. So yeah, it's just an attack, mostly, from someone who doesn't favor bike lanes with painted boundaries. In any case, the idea is that, without actual physical dividers, the street sweepers don't have a problem getting to the junk at the side of the road. --D-y > On Mar 11, 6:11 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > ("Piling up" is probably some hyperbole, though.) I've seen the piling up most frequently at low spots in the road. I believe the cars have the effect of throwing the stuff laterally toward the curb, then rainstorms move it longitudinally to the low spots. But I've seen piles in other places as well. I suppose if you're in a city that's rich enough and concerned enough, they might sweep the bike lanes weekly, and the debris problem would then be minor. But (for one example) I remember a pile of gravel in a bike lane in Missoula, MT - the home of Adventure Cycling. If they can't keep the bike lanes clean, our rust belt cities sure can't. - Frank Krygowski >> On Mar 11, 6:11 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > bike lane in Missoula, MT - the home of Adventure Cycling. If they > can't keep the bike lanes clean, our rust belt cities sure can't. The exact same thing happens on roads with paved shoulders and fog lines. Drivers usually don't cross the fog lines and as a result don't sweep the area with their tires. You have to make a choice whether to ride inside or outside the fog line. It's a situation I encounter almost everywhere I ride. It's not that difficult. Per Peter Cole: >The exact same thing happens on roads with paved shoulders and fog >lines. Drivers usually don't cross the fog lines and as a result don't >sweep the area with their tires. You have to make a choice whether to >ride inside or outside the fog line. It's a situation I encounter almost >everywhere I ride. It's not that difficult. Riding 'cross tires, I kind of like the debris field: lets me know where the least chance of getting nailed by a car is. OTOH, I'm guessing it would be hazardous to the health of 23mm high-pressure slicks. SignaturePeteCresswell > OTOH, I'm guessing it would be hazardous to the health of 23mm > high-pressure slicks. Nope, not particularly. >> OTOH, I'm guessing it would be hazardous to the health of 23mm >> high-pressure slicks. > Nope, not particularly. Might be helpful to know what "it" is. HTH, BS > >> On Mar 11, 6:11 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ride inside or outside the fog line. It's a situation I encounter almost > everywhere I ride. It's not that difficult. The question is, given (say) 14 feet of paved lane width, should the rightward four feet be striped as a bike lane, to prevent motorists from ever traveling over it? Or should it be left unstriped and shared? In the former case, any bits of gravel, glass or debris that land in the road get moved to the bike lane by the cars that are passing. They move no further. There they sit until the street sweeper comes by. In our area, that's once every six months - no exaggeration. In the latter case, normal traffic movements mean cars will occasionally pass over the rightward four feet of pavement as long as no bike is present. That occasional passage sweeps the gravel, glass and debris further off to the side, out of the way of cyclists who choose to ride there. So in the bike lane case, the cyclists either ride over the junk, or they hug the bike lane stripe, where trash is minimal. Because of that, and because motorists expect that the cyclists won't ever leave the lane, then motorists pass closer to cyclists. In the shared lane case, cyclists have less debris to avoid. They can ride further right, if they choose, without risking flats. And motorists are less sure of the cyclist's path, so they tend to give more clearance. It's all very understandable. And there have been studies that measured the closer average passing I described. Oddly enough, even in those cases, the bicyclists were convinced they were being passed with _more_ clearance, despite the measurements. Admittedly, the debris problem is less in certain areas. For example, I found Portland's downtown to have much cleaner bike lanes than its eastern and western suburbs. And the first bike lane that appeared in our area (about ten miles from me) is among the worst I've seen for debris accumulation. In any case, I try to avoid riding through fields of glass shards. It's one of the things I don't like about bike lanes. - Frank Krygowski >> The exact same thing happens on roads with paved shoulders and fog >> lines. Drivers usually don't cross the fog lines and as a result don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from ever traveling over it? Or should it be left unstriped and > shared? What I'm saying is that on many roads around here it doesn't make any difference because the outer edge of the car lane is marked with a fog line. Many motorists seem to expect cyclists to ride on the outside of the fog line, too. If there's a "debris line" I always ride inside of it, whether the paint is a bike lane or fog line, I don't care. It's not too difficult. > > The question is, given (say) 14 feet of paved lane width, should the > > rightward four feet be striped as a bike lane, to prevent motorists [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > line. Many motorists seem to expect cyclists to ride on the outside of > the fog line, too. Your math doesn't make sense. If the lane is 14 feet from left line to fog line, the cyclist has maybe 14.5 debris-free feet in which to ride. He can safely share with a motorist driving a 7-foot-wide car within the lane. If the right four feet are striped off as a bike lane, the cyclist has 10.5 feet of debris-free pavement. A 7-foot-wide car with its left mirror one foot within the lane will have its right mirror at 8 feet from the lane's left line. If the cyclist rides just 6" from the debris, he gets less than a foot of clearance. One foot of clearance is not acceptable unless both car and bike are nearly stationary. I think you need an absolute minimum of 13 debris- free feet to safely share a lane. - Frank Krygowski >>> The question is, given (say) 14 feet of paved lane width, should the >>> rightward four feet be striped as a bike lane, to prevent motorists [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski 14' lanes may be common where you ride, but I can assure you they're not at all common in Boston. If you doubt me, just Google street view and look around. As for debris, again, I don't know what kind of post-apocalyptic landscape you're talking about. Here's a link showing lots of close-ups of bike lanes in the urban Boston area, you'll note the complete lack of "debris". http://boston.mybikelane.com/ > >>> The question is, given (say) 14 feet of paved lane width, should the > >>> rightward four feet be striped as a bike lane, to prevent motorists [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > at all common in Boston. If you doubt me, just Google street view and > look around. Peter, if you don't have 13 or 14 feet of pavement to work with, you can't have room for a bike and a typical car, whether or not you've got a bike lane stripe. The stripe adds no pavement width! Isn't it obvious that with less than 13 feet, the proper solution is a set of sharrows? You have to convince the cyclists to take the lane, and you have to convince the motorists to allow it. It's another example of education - something we obviously need more of. > As for debris, again, I don't know what kind of post-apocalyptic > landscape you're talking about. Here's a link showing lots of close-ups > of bike lanes in the urban Boston area, you'll note the complete lack of > "debris". > > http://boston.mybikelane.com/ I see _several_ examples of lanes with debris, despite the fact that the photographers were shooting other problems entirely. I see far more examples of door zone bike lanes, which are known to cause serious injuries and fatalities. And I see even more examples of bike lanes that don't deliver on their promise of safe, unobstructed travel because, obviously, cars get parked in them. So even with bike lanes, a cyclist has to negotiate with motorists and share lanes. Again, the cartoon world of smiling people really doesn't exist, even when the stripes get painted. - Frank Krygowski >>>>> The question is, given (say) 14 feet of paved lane width, should the >>>>> rightward four feet be striped as a bike lane, to prevent motorists [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > It's another example of education - something we obviously need more > of. The problem with the vehicular cycling approach of "lane sharing" is that 99% of potential cyclists just won't do it, no matter how much "education" you do. That's the typical attitude of vehicular cycling proponents, they assume people are ignorant, but that's not the issue, people know what they don't like and won't do it. 50 years of "education" hasn't put a dent in it. Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and people start using bicycles. If you ask them what they like and dislike they'll tell you. Bike lanes are extremely popular even among experienced cyclists. I agree that it's improper to squeeze a bike lane in where there's no room, and that is often a compromise that is reached when urban planners just don't want to give up parking or motor vehicle lane space. You can't have your cake and eat it too, at least not in the confines of older cities. I'm personally not in favor of such half-measures. I think that car lanes or street parking should be eliminated at least on some routes to provide enough width to get a reasonable bike lanes. That is *not* what they did in Cambridge, but is what they did for the new lane in Boston that Carl linked to. There are bad bike lanes, but not all bike lanes are bad. Are bad lanes worse than no lanes? In my opinion, yes, they can be. >> As for debris, again, I don't know what kind of post-apocalyptic >> landscape you're talking about. Here's a link showing lots of close-ups [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I see _several_ examples of lanes with debris, despite the fact that > the photographers were shooting other problems entirely. I don't see them, list them, please.I saw only one instance where there was some scattered gravel, but there was obvious construction in the immediate vicinity (pallets of paving stones). > I see far > more examples of door zone bike lanes, which are known to cause > serious injuries and fatalities. Yes, but the burden of proof is that bike lanes cause more, and if that's true, the solution is to paint the lane outside of door reach. > And I see even more examples of bike > lanes that don't deliver on their promise of safe, unobstructed travel > because, obviously, cars get parked in them. So even with bike lanes, > a cyclist has to negotiate with motorists and share lanes. Yes, but that's a simple matter of enforcement. Nobody can make a promise of unobstructed travel in the city unless they're building a monorail. > Again, the cartoon world of smiling people really doesn't exist, even > when the stripes get painted. I don't see any "smiling people", what are you talking about? Per Peter Cole: >Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and >people start using bicycles. If you ask them what they like and dislike >they'll tell you. Bike lanes are extremely popular even among >experienced cyclists. Maybe I shouldn't be jumping in to something I don't know diddly about, but something occurs to me that nobody else has brought up: Cyclists who are enthusiastic about sharing the road with motor vehicles are a self-selecting population (if that's even a proper term...). To wit, when one gets killed or maimed, they just quietly disappear from the discussions - instead of bringing a possibly-revised viewpoint to the table. I'm not trying to take a side here - having ridden in heavy city traffic for quite a few years - but it does seem pretty clear that people who ride in traffic are exclusively people who haven't been killed or maimed by same.... SignaturePeteCresswell > Per Peter Cole: >> Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that people who ride in traffic are exclusively people who > haven't been killed or maimed by same.... And most "bicycle facilities" force cyclists to share with motor vehicles at intersections, often in a much more dangerous way than riding as a vehicular cyclist. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 > Per Peter Cole: >> Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that people who ride in traffic are exclusively people who > haven't been killed or maimed by same.... OK, I'm with you. OTOH the "I'd ride if only..." crowd mostly will not. No matter what. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 >> Per Peter Cole: >>> Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > OTOH the "I'd ride if only..." crowd mostly will not. No matter what. That's what they said in Denmark. It turned out not to be true. > Per Peter Cole: >> Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > that people who ride in traffic are exclusively people who > haven't been killed or maimed by same.... I agree that the current population of cyclists is largely self-selected, but not on mortality, more on risk-aversion. Of course cycling is a relatively low risk activity, so it would be more accurate to say perceived risk aversion. How much of that perception can be "educated away" is the basis for my vehicular cycling skepticism. I'll even agree that the perception is irrational, but so are most phobias, and good luck trying to talk people out of those. > To wit, when one gets killed or maimed, they just quietly > disappear from the discussions - instead of bringing a > possibly-revised viewpoint to the table. Same can be said of bike-path proponents who get run over in intersections that the driver didn't know was there. Joy Beeson Signaturejoy beeson at comcast dot net http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange The above message is a Usenet post. I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site. "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:47:33 -0500 the perfect time to write: >Per Peter Cole: >>Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >disappear from the discussions - instead of bringing a >possibly-revised viewpoint to the table. You mean, just like the farcility users? >I'm not trying to take a side here - having ridden in heavy city >traffic for quite a few years - but it does seem pretty clear >that people who ride in traffic are exclusively people who >haven't been killed or maimed by same.... Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 12:13:12 -0500 the perfect time to write: >>>>>> The question is, given (say) 14 feet of paved lane width, should the >>>>>> rightward four feet be striped as a bike lane, to prevent motorists [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >people know what they don't like and won't do it. 50 years of >"education" hasn't put a dent in it. Of course, we don't know yet, because it's nothing like 50 years since riders were advised or even forced to ride in the gutter - they still are, in some places. >Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and >people start using bicycles. If you ask them what they like and dislike [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >can't have your cake and eat it too, at least not in the confines of >older cities. I think the European cities that have managed it are far older than any American cities. That demonstrates it just needs the willingness to do it. > I'm personally not in favor of such half-measures. I think >that car lanes or street parking should be eliminated at least on some [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >Yes, but the burden of proof is that bike lanes cause more, and if >that's true, the solution is to paint the lane outside of door reach. No, it's that you need to remove the parking before it's safe to put a bike lane there. >> And I see even more examples of bike >> lanes that don't deliver on their promise of safe, unobstructed travel [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >promise of unobstructed travel in the city unless they're building a >monorail. So we need to educate drivers not to expect it, not encourage them to believe it by getting the cyclists out of their way onto separate lanes. This education may (and probably will have to) include fining, banning or even imprisoning drivers who try to insist it is their right to bully more vulnerable road users out of their way. >> Again, the cartoon world of smiling people really doesn't exist, even >> when the stripes get painted. > >I don't see any "smiling people", what are you talking about? -snip- >>> Again, the cartoon world of smiling people really doesn't exist, even >>> when the stripes get painted. >> I don't see any "smiling people", what are you talking about? It's a grimace. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:26:06 -0600 the perfect time to write: >-snip- >>>> Again, the cartoon world of smiling people really doesn't exist, even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >It's a grimace. Oh no I didn't > Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 > 12:13:12 -0500 the perfect time to write: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > riders were advised or even forced to ride in the gutter - they still > are, in some places. I don't think that's true. While Forester's book was first published in 1976, the idea of vehicular cycling was hardly new. Here's a clip from 1954: Full: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvemsrxpSow brief: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1782826/drive_your_bike_california_state_history_s afety_movie/ >> Time and time again, around the world, facilities get provided and >> people start using bicycles. If you ask them what they like and dislike [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > any American cities. That demonstrates it just needs the willingness > to do it. I think so. I don't know how any other conclusion can be reached. Cycling rates may never reach European levels in America outside of a few metro areas, but the evidence seems to support perhaps a 10x mode share and decline in crash rate could be achieved. Right now, I think almost everyone who would cycle "vehicularly" does. >> I'm personally not in favor of such half-measures. I think >> that car lanes or street parking should be eliminated at least on some [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > No, it's that you need to remove the parking before it's safe to put a > bike lane there. That's an obvious way. Another would be to use physical barriers. >>> And I see even more examples of bike >>> lanes that don't deliver on their promise of safe, unobstructed travel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> promise of unobstructed travel in the city unless they're building a >> monorail. > So we need to educate drivers not to expect it, not encourage them to > believe it by getting the cyclists out of their way onto separate > lanes. > This education may (and probably will have to) include fining, banning > or even imprisoning drivers who try to insist it is their right to > bully more vulnerable road users out of their way. There's a lot of "blame the victim", even on this NG. American car culture is deeply rooted, it's hard to get concessions for pedestrians and cyclists even in places like NYC where only half own cars. Motor vehicles are indispensable in rural areas, most suburbs were literally made to order for them, but the practicality in urban areas -- particularly older ones, has always been questionable. Things go in cycles. During the 50's and 60's, urban planners successfully argued for redevelopment that included highways transecting nearly all American cities. It took decades to realize what a mistake that was. Many still consider the auto a matter of manifest destiny. > Cycling rates may never reach European levels in America outside of a > few metro areas, but the evidence seems to support perhaps a 10x mode > share and decline in crash rate could be achieved. What evidence is there for that 10x mode share? > Right now, I think > almost everyone who would cycle "vehicularly" does. Most people have never heard the terms "vehicular cycling." Instead, most people hear that cycling is terribly dangerous, and that "we need" stripes and paths and barriers to make it safe. The companies that sell nearly-useless consumer goods to Americans know that publicity and advertising are powerful. If we had a competent bike advocacy organization in the U.S., it would be using such tools to let people know that they can cycle right now, with perfectly acceptable safety, on almost all existing roads. They would be using media effectively to educate the public about the safety of cycling, and the techniques of proper riding and road sharing. Unfortunately, this is not being done. Unfortunately, our only national organization is dominated by your sort of thinking - that any bike facility is a good bike facility. - Frank Krygowski >> Cycling rates may never reach European levels in America outside of a >> few metro areas, but the evidence seems to support perhaps a 10x mode >> share and decline in crash rate could be achieved. > > What evidence is there for that 10x mode share? Portland, for one. >> Right now, I think >> almost everyone who would cycle "vehicularly" does. > > Most people have never heard the terms "vehicular cycling." Perhaps not, it's just the way we always cycled, because it was how cycling was taught (and remains to be taught). > Instead, > most people hear that cycling is terribly dangerous, and that "we > need" stripes and paths and barriers to make it safe. People perceive cycling as dangerous. They form those perceptions mostly as drivers, since so few ride bikes by comparison. It's hard to disabuse people of that idea when they self-identify with the threat. What really needs to be taught is how to *drive* around cyclists. It doesn't take too much exposure to drivers to see they're mostly clueless. Some refuse to pass without moving entirely out of the lane, others nearly clip you. Drivers constantly underestimate cyclist's speed and don't expect merges and lane takings. Cyclists make most drivers extremely uneasy. They tend to scapegoat cyclists for this anxiety ("All cyclists are reckless law breakers") covering up their own incompetence ("He shouldn't have been there in the first place"). These attitudes are usually the official police ones, too. > The companies that sell nearly-useless consumer goods to Americans > know that publicity and advertising are powerful. If we had a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be using media effectively to educate the public about the safety of > cycling, and the techniques of proper riding and road sharing. You place too much faith in Madison Ave. Almost all consumerism is based on conspicuous consumption and luxury. Advertising is selling with that grain, not against it. The idea of a status symbol or luxury bicycle is hilarious to most Americans. Anti or contra-consumerism movements do happen, but they are always grass roots, like the environmental movement. Everybody knows they can bicycle on most roads, they just don't want to. > Unfortunately, this is not being done. Unfortunately, our only > national organization is dominated by your sort of thinking - that any > bike facility is a good bike facility. I think you're putting words in mouths (again). The "tectonic shift" I referenced in the title is apparently happening in advocacy groups around the country. It marks a reversal from cyclists telling non-cyclists what they should want, to listening to them. This sea change came equally from the utter failure of the American cycling programs and the stunning successes of Europe. Those American communities, like Portland, who have borrowed from European lessons, have achieved similar growth in mode share and improvement in safety. Most importantly, they've created happier cyclists who spread the gospel, that's the best form of advertising. <snip> > What really needs to be taught is how to *drive* around cyclists. It > doesn't take too much exposure to drivers to see they're mostly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ("He shouldn't have been there in the first place"). These attitudes are > usually the official police ones, too. Bingo! <snip> Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sun, 14 Mar 2010 12:14:23 -0400 the perfect time to write: >>> Cycling rates may never reach European levels in America outside of a >>> few metro areas, but the evidence seems to support perhaps a 10x mode [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Perhaps not, it's just the way we always cycled, because it was how >cycling was taught (and remains to be taught). It never was here. Kerb hugging is STILL taught in many areas, that haven't had the light of BikeAbility shone upon their training organisations. Within the last 18 months I was at an instructor training course where they stated that the only limit to how close you should cycle to the kerb was the risk of a pedal strike! I re-educated them, of course, using Cyclecraft as the sourcebook, but they really didn't want to be told, and clearly considered it some kind of wacky extremist position. >> Instead, >> most people hear that cycling is terribly dangerous, and that "we [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >as drivers, since so few ride bikes by comparison. It's hard to disabuse >people of that idea when they self-identify with the threat. The course presenters (County Council) were adamant that you could not run a children's cycling course without scaremongering about foam hats and giving loony demonstrations with tiny bits of foam and raw eggs to grind the lesson in. I was deeply unpopular for explaining the facts, as it undermined their deeply held religion. I'm amazed at ANY kids wanting to cycle after they've been lectured to about how dangerous it is and how you're only a slip away from having your brains splashed all over the pavement for an entire lesson out of the 4 lesson course. >What really needs to be taught is how to *drive* around cyclists. It >doesn't take too much exposure to drivers to see they're mostly [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Everybody knows they can bicycle on most roads, they just don't want to. I'm not sure they do know that. I've heard plenty of drivers saying "what on earth is (s)he doing cycling along here, don't they know it's a major road?" And gems like "you can't use a road where you can't keep up with the flow of traffic" (they should stay out of town in their cars then, 'cos they sure as hell can't keep up with the cycling traffic there). >> Unfortunately, this is not being done. Unfortunately, our only >> national organization is dominated by your sort of thinking - that any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Most importantly, they've created happier cyclists who spread the >gospel, that's the best form of advertising. And it can spread, too - see the first article in: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?TabID=0&ItemID=3 83&mid=13417#link1 We had a visit from MPs and Lords to Cambridge, to examine how the lessons can be passed from there to other places. Some good stuff was looked at, and an intelligent follow-up meeting was held at the Houses of Parliament on the 3rd of March. Members of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group actually listened to the experience of Cambridge cyclists (which I know because I was one of the ones invited). I'm not sure whether the motoring tide has actually turned yet, but it appears to be reaching slack water, at any rate. > I'm amazed at ANY kids wanting to cycle after they've been lectured to > about how dangerous it is and how you're only a slip away from having > your brains splashed all over the pavement for an entire lesson out of > the 4 lesson course. I'm afraid it's part of a larger trend to (over) protect children. Virtually no children bicycle in my town (just outside Boston, pop 90K), maybe a half-dozen at a high school with a 2K student enrollment, cycling banned at the local elementary school, etc. >> Everybody knows they can bicycle on most roads, they just don't want to. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > flow of traffic" (they should stay out of town in their cars then, > 'cos they sure as hell can't keep up with the cycling traffic there). I'm surprised that there is still such ignorance in a place like Cambridge with a 20% share. >> Most importantly, they've created happier cyclists who spread the >> gospel, that's the best form of advertising. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm not sure whether the motoring tide has actually turned yet, but it > appears to be reaching slack water, at any rate. I viewed the presentations & video. Impressive. Looks like people are being open minded and creative -- and spending some money, too. I was particularly taken by the conclusion that you have to take bold steps to really make something that works. Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:45:47 -0500 the perfect time to write: >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 >> 12:13:12 -0500 the perfect time to write: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >Full: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvemsrxpSow Oh yes - ride in the door zone, and stop and give way for opening doors. I think that makes my point. >brief: >http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1782826/drive_your_bike_california_state_history_s afety_movie/ [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >share and decline in crash rate could be achieved. Right now, I think >almost everyone who would cycle "vehicularly" does. I don't think that's the case - as cycle use increases, more and more people learn to cycle "vehicularly", and more drivers get used to cyclists (or even become cyclists, some of the time), so the cyclists get less bullying from motorists when ride that way. >>> I'm personally not in favor of such half-measures. I think >>> that car lanes or street parking should be eliminated at least on some [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >That's an obvious way. Another would be to use physical barriers. But they make life difficult for the cyclists in themselves. Right now, there's campaigning going on to remove roadside barriers, because they block escape routes for cyclists that are sideswiped and make life much more difficult for pedestrians wishing to cross the road. >>>> And I see even more examples of bike >>>> lanes that don't deliver on their promise of safe, unobstructed travel [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >made to order for them, but the practicality in urban areas -- >particularly older ones, has always been questionable. Well, of course - suburbs were invented when commuters were able to take the train into town, and guess how they got to the station? >Things go in cycles. Badoom, Tish :) > During the 50's and 60's, urban planners >successfully argued for redevelopment that included highways transecting >nearly all American cities. It took decades to realize what a mistake >that was. Many still consider the auto a matter of manifest destiny. > Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 > 14:45:47 -0500 the perfect time to write: >>> Of course, we don't know yet, because it's nothing like 50 years since >>> riders were advised or even forced to ride in the gutter - they still [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > doors. > I think that makes my point. (Ref section at 3:45) It may seem to visually, if you want to put that spin on it, but the accompanying dialog isn't quite as clear. It mentions staying to the right and watching out for opening doors. Not exactly modern advice for avoiding dooring, but still common enough, unfortunately. I don't see that one point as making the whole presentation "non-vehicular", particularly when vehicular cycling is the consistent theme from the title onwards. >> Cycling rates may never reach European levels in America outside of a >> few metro areas, but the evidence seems to support perhaps a 10x mode [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cyclists (or even become cyclists, some of the time), so the cyclists > get less bullying from motorists when ride that way. The big growth in cycling mode share in Europe and the few US cities that have anything near comparable have only come after significant investment in facilities. Facilities don't (generally) completely isolate cyclists, so yes, there's the safety in numbers phenomenon, but that's a matter of motorists becoming more skilled/experienced at dealing with cyclists, not the other way around. By definition, the more special facilities, the less need there is for cyclists to behave like motorists -- AKA "vehicular" cycling. which, given the big differences between bikes and cars means "unnatural" cycling. >>>>> I see far >>>>> more examples of door zone bike lanes, which are known to cause [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > make life much more difficult for pedestrians wishing to cross the > road. There are a variety of methods to physically separate lanes, not all (or even most) have those drawbacks. >> There's a lot of "blame the victim", even on this NG. American car >> culture is deeply rooted, it's hard to get concessions for pedestrians [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, of course - suburbs were invented when commuters were able to > take the train into town, and guess how they got to the station? Sure, that's where the term "station wagon" was borrowed for autos from earlier horse drawn versions. In the US, most suburban expansion happened after WWII and coincided with an explicit policy of building the US highway system. This allowed people to buy homes in areas that weren't served by rail. It also pressured cities to provide direct access from those highways. That development went on around here (Boston) through the 50's & 60's and was finally stopped (by citizen protests) in the 70's. We still have segments of ghost highway and cloverleafs to nowhere as reminders of that sudden shift. Boston has one of the largest commuter rail systems in the country, but it carries only a small fraction of commuter traffic. Even that small amount is up over 5x from what it carried in the 60's. Intermodal bike support (so common in many places, e.g. Japan) is pretty much still non-existent here. Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:45:01 -0400 the perfect time to write: >> Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 >> 14:45:47 -0500 the perfect time to write: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >that's a matter of motorists becoming more skilled/experienced at >dealing with cyclists, not the other way around. I think it's both - as people gain confidence in cycling, they start riding roads that are more heavily used. You pretty much have to, because almost nowhere has cycle specific infrastructure that goes everywhere the road network does. >By definition, the more special facilities, the less need there is for >cyclists to behave like motorists -- AKA "vehicular" cycling. which, >given the big differences between bikes and cars means "unnatural" cycling. Only up to a point. The more facilities there are, the more cyclists (unless the facilities are REALLY crap), and the more people there will be wishing to get to places that the cycle specific facilities just don't reach. I'd also dispute that vehicular cycling is unnatural - cycles were vehicles before cars were. >>>>>> I see far >>>>>> more examples of door zone bike lanes, which are known to cause [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >There are a variety of methods to physically separate lanes, not all (or >even most) have those drawbacks. They all have the drawback of making it difficult for cyclists to use the road. Even when there's no physical obstruction, they promote the moton attitude that cycles don't belong on the road. >>> There's a lot of "blame the victim", even on this NG. American car >>> culture is deeply rooted, it's hard to get concessions for pedestrians [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >protests) in the 70's. We still have segments of ghost highway and >cloverleafs to nowhere as reminders of that sudden shift. Ah, we had about a century head start on you then. >Boston has one of the largest commuter rail systems in the country, but >it carries only a small fraction of commuter traffic. Even that small >amount is up over 5x from what it carried in the 60's. Intermodal bike >support (so common in many places, e.g. Japan) is pretty much still >non-existent here. And here. People who use inter-modal cycling do it in spite of the facilities, not because of them. > Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sun, 14 Mar 2010 >> The big growth in cycling mode share in Europe and the few US cities >> that have anything near comparable have only come after significant [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I think it's both - as people gain confidence in cycling, they start > riding roads that are more heavily used. Yes, but cyclists get better with time, motorists get better with numbers (of cyclists). > You pretty much have to, because almost nowhere has cycle specific > infrastructure that goes everywhere the road network does. Sure, but good facilities improve the most challenging parts of a trip. >> By definition, the more special facilities, the less need there is for >> cyclists to behave like motorists -- AKA "vehicular" cycling. which, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > facilities are REALLY crap), and the more people there will be wishing > to get to places that the cycle specific facilities just don't reach. Yes, more in absolute numbers, fewer in percentage. > I'd also dispute that vehicular cycling is unnatural - cycles were > vehicles before cars were. "Vehicle" status is pretty broad. I was thinking more in terms of physics than history. >> There are a variety of methods to physically separate lanes, not all (or >> even most) have those drawbacks. > > They all have the drawback of making it difficult for cyclists to use > the road. Perhaps in the sense of switching back and forth. > Even when there's no physical obstruction, they promote the moton > attitude that cycles don't belong on the road. Maybe, but I'm not going to attempt mind reading. > > Peter, if you don't have 13 or 14 feet of pavement to work with, you > > can't have room for a bike and a typical car, whether or not you've [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > people know what they don't like and won't do it. 50 years of > "education" hasn't put a dent in it. 50 years of _what_ education? How much education in cycling can you really point to? For the past 20 years, bicycling "education" has been dominated by the "always wear your helmet" message. Relatively little has been about obeying important traffic laws, and almost none has been about "you have a legal right to the road." I think it's P.M. Sumner who said "It's not that vehicular cycling has been tried and found too difficult. It's that it has been assumed too difficult, and not tried." At least, by most Americans. And yet, I recall a recent vacation in Washington DC, when my wife and I rode our bikes all around the city. Our B&B host actually pleaded with us not to do so, especially without helmets. But we rode everywhere, along with hundreds and hundreds of other cyclists, and like them we calmly controlled the lanes when necessary. In five days I was never even honked at, and never saw another cyclist honked at. People just cooperated. How many Americans would expect that? The problem is, they've been told for decades that riding a bike is terribly hazardous. > >... door zone bike lanes, which are known to cause > > serious injuries and fatalities. > > Yes, but the burden of proof is that bike lanes cause more [doorings],... Isn't that like saying the burden of proof is on those who think the sun rises in the east? If a bike lane stripe instructs people to ride within reach of opening car doors, how do you pretend it's not likely to cause doorings? > ... and if > that's true, the solution is to paint the lane outside of door reach. And where does Massbike say that should be done? For example, do they say it should be done where Dana Laird was killed by dooring? My main point is that the Massbike site, with which you started this thread, says nothing about keeping bike lanes outside door zones. It says nothing about evaluating experimental bike facilities to see if they're really safe. It just says "We're in favor of all bike facilities." IOW, "There is no such thing as a bad bike facility." And so far, you've been saying the same thing - just as you've done in the past. - Frank Krygowski >>> Peter, if you don't have 13 or 14 feet of pavement to work with, you >>> can't have room for a bike and a typical car, whether or not you've [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 50 years of _what_ education? How much education in cycling can you > really point to? I pointed to a CA state cycling video from the 50's. It was all about "vehicular cycling". Being a child in that era, I recall riding my bike on fairly long road excursions without a thought about whether I "belonged", ditto for riding in the city during college in the 60's. We all did it, it was no big thing. Sheldon Brown details similar memories. > For the past 20 years, bicycling "education" has > been dominated by the "always wear your helmet" message. Relatively > little has been about obeying important traffic laws, and almost none > has been about "you have a legal right to the road." Nonsense. There has been more information than ever available. State governments in particular have made materials available. Street cycling and rules of the road continues to be taught in elementary schools around here (Boston), my wife and I participated when out kids were that age. > I think it's P.M. Sumner who said "It's not that vehicular cycling has > been tried and found too difficult. It's that it has been assumed too > difficult, and not tried." At least, by most Americans. I have no idea who he (or she) is, and while it's easy to make such a sweeping claim, it doesn't match my experience or memories. > And yet, I recall a recent vacation in Washington DC, when my wife and > I rode our bikes all around the city. Our B&B host actually pleaded [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How many Americans would expect that? The problem is, they've been > told for decades that riding a bike is terribly hazardous. No they haven't. They may believe it's dangerous, but that's not because they've been told that, it just appears dangerous. People are notoriously bad at assessing risk. Often when I get the "you're very brave/crazy to be riding a bike in traffic" reaction it's accompanied by anecdotes of the "I almost hit a cyclist (doing something crazy)" ilk. It's hard to argue the hazard issue in that context. >>> ... door zone bike lanes, which are known to cause >>> serious injuries and fatalities. >> Yes, but the burden of proof is that bike lanes cause more [doorings],... > > Isn't that like saying the burden of proof is on those who think the > sun rises in the east? No. I wonder whether someone who is wise enough to avoid the door zone without lanes wouldn't be also wise enough with them. > If a bike lane stripe instructs people to ride within reach of opening > car doors, how do you pretend it's not likely to cause doorings? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And where does Massbike say that should be done? For example, do they > say it should be done where Dana Laird was killed by dooring? As I said, bad facilities can be worse than no facility, but I don't generalize from that to conclude all bike lanes are bad. > My main point is that the Massbike site, with which you started this > thread, says nothing about keeping bike lanes outside door zones. Yes, they do. Didn't you read it? Here's another link: http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infrastructure/ "Where bike lanes are implemented, MassBike encourages more generous spacing than the minimum or standard bike lane widths found in national and state design manuals whenever possible. Wider bike lanes, or painted buffers next to the bike lane, improve bicyclist safety by providing greater clearance from parked cars on the right and from moving traffic on the left. Often, the extra roadway space that can make a lot of difference for bicyclist safety can be found by making small reductions in the width of travel lanes and other roadway elements with no impact on motorist safety or road capacity." > It > says nothing about evaluating experimental bike facilities to see if > they're really safe. It says: "MassBike also encourages the use of innovative bicycle facility treatments that have proven successful elsewhere, and experimentation with innovative facilities designed to improve bicyclist safety and comfort, such as bike boxes, contraflow lanes, colored bike lanes, separated paths or “cycle tracks,” and marking the bicyclist’s line of travel within shared lanes." > It just says "We're in favor of all bike > facilities." IOW, "There is no such thing as a bad bike facility." > And so far, you've been saying the same thing - just as you've done in > the past. No, that's not what they said, nor what I've said. I'm all for discussing this stuff, Frank, but your name-calling and distortions make it kind of a waste of time. > Often when I get the "you're very brave/crazy to be riding a bike in > traffic" reaction it's accompanied by anecdotes of the "I almost hit a > cyclist (doing something crazy)" ilk. It's hard to argue the hazard > issue in that context. Well, they're probably ASSuming that you ride like the cyclists that they see. I'd agree with them that a lot of cyclists survive only because of the awareness and reflexes of other road users. (the same can be said of a lot of motorists as well, however.) nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> Often when I get the "you're very brave/crazy to be riding a bike in >> traffic" reaction it's accompanied by anecdotes of the "I almost hit a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, they're probably ASSuming that you ride like the cyclists that > they see. They might, but they have very little understanding of cycling behaviors. This is easy to see from either conversation or direct observation. I don't hold them particularly responsible for this, in most places cyclists aren't enough of a presence for motorists to ever get competent at dealing with them. Not surprisingly, as the number of cyclists rises, the number(rate) of collisions goes down. If they ever are taught anything about cyclists (which is doubtful in the first place), they still never get the opportunity to develop the skills. It's like Southern drivers in snow storms. > I'd agree with them that a lot of cyclists survive only > because of the awareness and reflexes of other road users. That's what they're saying, basically attributing the danger to the incompetence or (more likely) lawlessness of the cyclists, but this doesn't agree well with reality, where the majority causes of bike car collision are motorist misjudgments or misbehaviors. > (the same > can be said of a lot of motorists as well, however.) With far more truth, as it turns out. One of the presumptions behind vehicular cycling is that cyclists are familiar with driving, so from that point of view it makes sense for driving standards to be the common denominator. The problem is that the natural behavior of cyclists is different enough from drivers that you wind up trying to coerce cyclists into unnatural behaviors and you still have a major problem with motorists making judgmental mistakes. Fine in theory, but not so good in practice. People understand this intuitively. Drivers realize they're not very good at dealing with cyclists and so are not eager to swap places with them. > One of the presumptions behind vehicular cycling is that cyclists are > familiar with driving, so from that point of view it makes sense for > driving standards to be the common denominator. It seems you really know very little about vehicular cycling. The reason it makes sense is because of fundamental geometry and psychology, the latter having to do with human capability for observation. For example, in many places, bike lane fans put straight-ahead riders to the right of right turning motor vehicles. They somehow miss the obvious geometric problem - that their paths must intersect - or they attribute super-human observation powers to the motorists - that they will easily check over their nearly blind right shoulders to see if anyone is passing them on the right as they turn. Vehicular cycling would say instead: Don't cross paths that way. If you're riding straight, don't put yourself to the right of cars that may turn right. Which is more sensible? Facilities fans often think it's fine to put a bike lane in a door zone. They ignore the simple math that shows how much room a suddenly opened door consumes, or they imagine a cyclist will have the ESP to tell when a door will pop open. Vehicular cycling says don't ride in the door zone. Facilities fans say stay out of the way of cars, even if you have to ride in the gutter to let them squeeze by, or even if you have to risk flat tires or worse from bike lane debris. Vehicular cycling says you have a legal right to safe use of the road, which trumps a driver's "right" to get to the next traffic light as fast as he can. So if there's not enough room for safe passing, get well out in the lane to prevent unsafe passing. In those three instances (as well as many others) I don't see how someone can logically argue against vehicular cycling. >The problem is that the > natural behavior of cyclists is different enough from drivers that you > wind up trying to coerce cyclists into unnatural behaviors and you still > have a major problem with motorists making judgmental mistakes. The vehicular cycling behaviors I described are not unnatural. They may have to be learned, but IME that usually takes very little time, once they're properly explained. To me, what's unnatural is choosing to ride in a way that exposes oneself to right hook crashes, to doorings, or to elbow-brushing passes. - Frank Krygowski >> One of the presumptions behind vehicular cycling is that cyclists are >> familiar with driving, so from that point of view it makes sense for >> driving standards to be the common denominator. > > It seems you really know very little about vehicular cycling. Thanks for another gratuitous insult, Frank. I read the book. > The reason it makes sense is because of fundamental geometry and > psychology, the latter having to do with human capability for > observation. Why not drag spirituality in too, while you're at it? > For example, in many places, bike lane fans put straight-ahead riders > to the right of right turning motor vehicles. They somehow miss the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Vehicular cycling says don't ride in the door zone. "many places", "often"... these are weasel words. We've already beaten bad bike lanes to death, we agree they exist, we agree they shouldn't, they don't really affect the argument pro or con. > Facilities fans say stay out of the way of cars, even if you have to > ride in the gutter to let them squeeze by, or even if you have to risk > flat tires or worse from bike lane debris. No they don't. Now you're making stuff up again. > Vehicular cycling says you have a legal right to safe use of the road, > which trumps a driver's "right" to get to the next traffic light as > fast as he can. So if there's not enough room for safe passing, get > well out in the lane to prevent unsafe passing. Good for them, but you're hinting at a straw man. Facilities don't preclude the right to use the road. That's Forester's bugbear. > In those three instances (as well as many others) I don't see how > someone can logically argue against vehicular cycling. No, you're just saying all facilities are bad facilities and any facilities mean loss of road rights. Just propaganda. >> The problem is that the >> natural behavior of cyclists is different enough from drivers that you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > may have to be learned, but IME that usually takes very little time, > once they're properly explained. There will always be conflict between faster and slower traffic. Natural behavior is for the slow to yield to the fast, this is codified in law and accepted in custom. You expect cyclists to understand and practice behaviors that go against all that by training them, when the training is really needed by the 99% of the fast traffic, not the 1% of the slow. Traffic engineering aside, it's a recipe for failure, culturally. It's not on entirely firm ground engineering-wise, either. It's impossible to really discuss these things quantitatively. Cyclists may be over or under assertive in taking road position, "effective cycling" or not. There's no way to effectively prove the safety case, either. It comes down to a matter of faith and dogma. Again, I'm struck by the paradox of you claiming on the one hand that cycling is inherently safe, and on the other that facilities are invalid because of safety issues. > To me, what's unnatural is choosing to ride in a way that exposes > oneself to right hook crashes, to doorings, or to elbow-brushing > passes. Avoiding the door zone is not vehicular cycling, since bicycles are the only "vehicles" that need to worry about this. Riding in mid-lane doesn't prevent too close passing or right hooks, it may discourage them in some circumstances, but it also can generate hostility and aggressive responses. You are entitled to your opinions, but they are just that, not science. The singular problem with facilities is that good facilities require substantial concessions from motorists. Where there isn't the will to get these, half-baked facilities are implemented, which often are worse than nothing, giving both facilities and utility cycling a bad name. Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:46:39 -0400 the perfect time to write: >>> One of the presumptions behind vehicular cycling is that cyclists are >>> familiar with driving, so from that point of view it makes sense for [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >No they don't. Now you're making stuff up again. Then you go on to say that cyclists should stay out of the way of cars. . . >> Vehicular cycling says you have a legal right to safe use of the road, >> which trumps a driver's "right" to get to the next traffic light as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Good for them, but you're hinting at a straw man. Facilities don't >preclude the right to use the road. That's Forester's bugbear. Except when they do, which I've never seen an example of them failing to. Even when they don't in law, the moton attitude is encouraged. >> In those three instances (as well as many others) I don't see how >> someone can logically argue against vehicular cycling. > >No, you're just saying all facilities are bad facilities and any >facilities mean loss of road rights. Just propaganda. Just facts. Put a bike facility there, and drivers WILL try and "encourage" (i.e. intimidate, bully and threaten) cyclist into using it. And the police will respond to their deliberate attacks with "well, why weren't you on the cycle path", even when they use a 2 tonne (or more) vehicle as a weapon to "teach you a lesson". >>> The problem is that the >>> natural behavior of cyclists is different enough from drivers that you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >behavior is for the slow to yield to the fast, this is codified in law >and accepted in custom. Only if you live in a completely uncivilised society. In most countries, drivers are responsible for ensuring that they overtake other traffic safely and responsibly, and the speed limit is not intended to be a target but the maximum allowable speed. Drivers are almost universally expected to take the responsibility for ensuring they don't run into the back of slower traffic, and the presence of the eyes on the front of the head instead of the back underlines that this is the natural order of things. I don't think survival of the fattest is natural, either. > You expect cyclists to understand and practice >behaviors that go against all that by training them, when the training >is really needed by the 99% of the fast traffic, not the 1% of the slow. Who here has said that the motorists don't need better training? And that the benefits are greater from that than from training cyclists? I know you're short of arguments, but you could at least come up with a slightly less obvious strawman than that, >Traffic engineering aside, it's a recipe for failure, culturally. It's >not on entirely firm ground engineering-wise, either. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Avoiding the door zone is not vehicular cycling, since bicycles are the >only "vehicles" that need to worry about this. You don't bother if you knock doors off parked vehicles in your car? I know the risk to you is lower, but barging through despite all obstructions is really not a sensible way to drive any vehicle. It's usually illegal, too. > Riding in mid-lane >doesn't prevent too close passing or right hooks, it may discourage them >in some circumstances, but it also can generate hostility and aggressive >responses. Only among idiots and bullies, and they will find some other excuse if you don't give them that one. Maybe they are just believers in your "faster traffic should have priority" fantasy? > You are entitled to your opinions, but they are just that, >not science. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >get these, half-baked facilities are implemented, which often are worse >than nothing, giving both facilities and utility cycling a bad name. > Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Mon, 15 Mar 2010 > 10:46:39 -0400 the perfect time to write: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Then you go on to say that cyclists should stay out of the way of > cars. . . No, around here the exact wording is "stay as far to the right as practicable". >>> Vehicular cycling says you have a legal right to safe use of the road, >>> which trumps a driver's "right" to get to the next traffic light as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > why weren't you on the cycle path", even when they use a 2 tonne (or > more) vehicle as a weapon to "teach you a lesson". Your drivers seem more homicidal than mine. >>>> The problem is that the >>>> natural behavior of cyclists is different enough from drivers that you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > underlines that this is the natural order of things. > I don't think survival of the fattest is natural, either. All true, so? >> You expect cyclists to understand and practice >> behaviors that go against all that by training them, when the training [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I know you're short of arguments, but you could at least come up with > a slightly less obvious strawman than that, My problem (one of them, anyway) with things like "effective cycling" is it puts the onus on the cyclists (long course to teach cycling "vehicularly") >> Traffic engineering aside, it's a recipe for failure, culturally. It's >> not on entirely firm ground engineering-wise, either. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You don't bother if you knock doors off parked vehicles in your car? Haven't yet, and I usually drive in the "door zone". > I know the risk to you is lower, but barging through despite all > obstructions is really not a sensible way to drive any vehicle. > It's usually illegal, too. In the case of dooring, the law breaker is the driver who opens the door, at least around here, I don't know how things work where you ride/drive. > My problem (one of them, anyway) with things like "effective cycling" is > it puts the onus on the cyclists (long course to teach cycling > "vehicularly") As I've said before, I think your knowledge of vehicular cycling is very shaky. I'm nationally certified to teach those classes. Although I've not been very active lately, I've taught them many times. Total class time is about ten hours, including parking lot exercises and road riding, and that includes lots of stuff (like explaining gearing to novices, adjusting bikes, practicing emergency maneuvers, etc.) that has very little to do with the traffic principles. The traffic principles are explained in perhaps one hour, and practiced sufficiently in perhaps one or two more. Traffic principles are fundamentally simple and logical, which is why the principles work as well as they do. I've taught kids age 14 or younger to ride safely in traffic as vehicle operators. It doesn't take long even for kids, and anyone who's ridden much while awake in the front seat of a car can learn it even more quickly. I should also note that the classes always seem to get rave reviews from students. They become much more competent and they feel safer. - Frank Krygowski >> My problem (one of them, anyway) with things like "effective cycling" is >> it puts the onus on the cyclists (long course to teach cycling [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > explained in perhaps one hour, and practiced sufficiently in perhaps > one or two more. The courses I've seen advertised are in the 10-20 hr range. They have not exactly been popular. I have no quibble with cycling education. I believe to get any sort of real penetration, it would need to be compulsory, at least for children. In our (US) current climate, that's about as practical as compulsory horsemanship. As for the non-traffic to traffic curriculum ratio, that's not surprising since something like 85% of cyclist crashes are single vehicle (bicycle only). > Traffic principles are fundamentally simple and logical, which is why > the principles work as well as they do. I've taught kids age 14 or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I should also note that the classes always seem to get rave reviews > from students. They become much more competent and they feel safer. From: http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html#forester_principles "Forester’s “basic principles of traffic cycling” * Drive on the right side of the roadway, never on the left and never on the sidewalk. * When you reach a more important or larger road than the one you are on, yield to crossing traffic. Here, yielding means looking to each side and waiting until no traffic is coming. * When you intend to change lanes or move laterally on the roadway, yield to traffic in the new lane or line of travel. Here, yielding means looking forward and backward until you see that no traffic is coming. * When approaching an intersection, position yourself with respect to your destination direction—on the right near the curb if you want to turn right, on the left near the center line if you want to turn left, and between those positions if you want to go straight. * Between intersections, position yourself according to your speed relative to other traffic; slower traffic is nearer the curb and faster traffic is nearer the centerline (Forester, 1993, p. 246)." This is pretty basic stuff. Hardly anything new, nothing that wasn't common knowledge and practice when cycling was more popular and taught. Where it deviates from historical advice is the "dancing" and "negotiating" part: "Negotiating with traffic Choosing the best road position takes more than a little know-how at some intersections. It takes practice to be able to choose quickly on the fly. Choosing is the easy part, though. Getting yourself there in heavy traffic, moving away from the side of the road and across the lane(s), takes skill and courage. First, without swerving, you have to turn your head and look behind you. This not only allows you to look for an opportunity to move over, it communicates to motorists—it gets the point across more effectively than a hand signal, Forester says—that you want to move over. When a motorist slows to let you in, then you have successfully “negotiated” a lane change:" "As a competent cyclist, you persuade motorists by negotiation; you ask, and you watch for the answer, be it yes or no. Generally it is yes, because motorists often find themselves in exactly your position, wanting to change lanes through crowded traffic. they agree because they know that if nobody allowed anyone else to change lanes, traffic would stop and nobody would get home" "…cyclists must think for and control the overtaking driver to some extent, even though this is not in the rules of the road." (Forester, 1993, p. 309). "The cyclist rides as one among equals, able to persuade other drivers to leave room to change lanes safely (Forester 1993, pp. 308-309)" "When the traffic is moving more than 15 mph faster than you, negotiation is impossible…. You have to play the road sneak and move left only if there is a gap in traffic long enough that you won’t affect any vehicles” (1993, p. 311). Critics counter: "Forester’s system relied upon a high level of skill and (especially) strength. So much so, in fact, that he used average sustainable speed as the indicator of a cyclist’s skill level. In Forester’s judgment, a competent cyclist was one able to maintain a speed of 18 mph for a lengthy period of time, despite the fact that only two to three percent of the population can sustain the requisite 120 watts of energy output for more than a few moments (Epperson, 1994, P. 6)." Forester's philosophy is just that, a philosophy. I consider it a cranky, elitist and often impractical one. I have no difficulty understanding why it's an uphill sales job. A good deal of effective cycling training seems to be concerned with disabusing trainees of the notion that cycling is hazardous by appealing to reason with statistics. Again, I have no quibble with education, but this ignores what I consider a larger issue for would-be cyclists particularly -- competence and confidence doesn't make the experience necessarily attractive, just possible. It's all too common to complete a bike ride with your nerves as frazzled as a bumper to bumper car commute -- not necessarily from fear but irritation and annoyance. The primary purpose of facilities is not to make cycling more safe, but more pleasant. Opponents argue that bike lanes significantly reduce safety, but for implementations according to current best practices, I haven't seen evidence that those changes in safety are statistically significant. http://bicycledriving.org/bikeways/bike-lanes "No study has shown that bike lanes improve safety. Since few car-bike collisions are the result of improper overtaking by motorists, it is not surprising that this is so. However, if there is increased danger from bike lanes, it is not large enough to show up clearly in the studies performed to date." (Paul Schimek) > > I'm nationally certified to teach those classes. ... Total class time > > is about ten hours, including parking lot exercises and road riding, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The courses I've seen advertised are in the 10-20 hr range. They have > not exactly been popular. Peter, at some point you've got to admit that you don't know what you're talking about! Again: I'm a certified instructor of those classes. I have my copies of the class material. Official time for the entire first class is 9 hours, and as I said, the sections on dealing with traffic are much less than half. I don't know what you've seen advertised, but it's not what's officially required. > As for the non-traffic to traffic curriculum ratio, that's not > surprising since something like 85% of cyclist crashes are single > vehicle (bicycle only). Right. That fact is covered in about 30 seconds in class. The means to avoid those crashes take probably less than half an hour. Really, riding a bike competently isn't very difficult. To my mind, the most valuable parts of the course are the notions that cyclists have a legal right to the road; that they should not let motorists squeeze by unsafely; that they must position themselves properly for their destination (i.e. leftward before left turns, rightward before right turns, and never where motorists will be likely to turn across them); and that communicating and negotiating work. Many cyclists do not know these things when they come into the course, but most learn them quickly. > > I should also note that the classes always seem to get rave reviews > > from students. They become much more competent and they feel safer. > ... > > This is pretty basic stuff. Hardly anything new, nothing that wasn't > common knowledge and practice when cycling was more popular and taught. Correct. But American cycling, in particular, went through a decades- long dead time during which only kids rode bikes. Adults who began riding in the '70s bike boom didn't know those things, and had to be taught. Forester claimed he was merely telling Americans what he'd learned in Britain as a kid. > In Forester’s judgment, a > competent cyclist was one able to maintain a speed of 18 mph for a > lengthy period of time... Sorry, but I don't believe that's in Forester's book. It's certainly not in the official curriculum, it's never been in my class material, and it's not part of the course's written test or road test. Again, this is evidence that you really don't understand what you're criticizing. > A good deal of effective cycling training seems to be concerned with > disabusing trainees of the notion that cycling is hazardous by appealing > to reason with statistics. <sigh> Wrong again, Peter. I just checked the current version and the previous version of the student handbooks. Neither contains anything like that. The only statistics I see are in a table listing the causes of bike crashes, by percentage. I'm the guy who's probably written the most about the sort of comparison you described, and even I haven't put that into my classes. Maybe you should take the class so you know what it's really about? - Frank Krygowski >>> I'm nationally certified to teach those classes. ... Total class time >>> is about ten hours, including parking lot exercises and road riding, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > dealing with traffic are much less than half. I don't know what > you've seen advertised, but it's not what's officially required. What's "official"? >> As for the non-traffic to traffic curriculum ratio, that's not >> surprising since something like 85% of cyclist crashes are single [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to avoid those crashes take probably less than half an hour. Really, > riding a bike competently isn't very difficult. Really? I've ridden a bike as an adult for 40 years or so and still learning new stuff. I could write a fair sized booklet of what not to do just observing fellow club riders. The reality is that most of those riders have been in plenty of crashes ("broken collarbone club"), virtually 100% due to dumb things they did and continue to do. I was just reading an eye witness post on a fatality involving Portland bike activist Bonnie Tinker and a truck last year, sounded like a familiar loss of control accident. Bike handling is not trivial. > To my mind, the most valuable parts of the course are the notions that > cyclists have a legal right to the road; that they should not let [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > taught. Forester claimed he was merely telling Americans what he'd > learned in Britain as a kid. I was one of those adults and knew those things (I'm not British). >> In Forester’s judgment, a >> competent cyclist was one able to maintain a speed of 18 mph for a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this is evidence that you really don't understand what you're > criticizing. I am quoting from a site (linked). The author seems overall a fan of Forester and his effective cycling. >> A good deal of effective cycling training seems to be concerned with >> disabusing trainees of the notion that cycling is hazardous by appealing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Maybe you should take the class so you know what it's really about? C'mon, Frank, be real. Here's a link to "seminar" material from Fred Oswald, LCI 947, directly off the LABReform web site (the official, Forester-approved, I'm assuming): http://www.labreform.org/education/BikeEd-Intro.pdf It's a diatribe against facilities, and loaded with statistics. > >>> I'm nationally certified to teach those classes. ... Total class time > >>> is about ten hours, including parking lot exercises and road riding, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What's "official"? ??? The curriculum developed by the LAB, the organization that oversees the courses, prints the course materials, certifies the instructors, etc. Isn't that obvious? > >> As for the non-traffic to traffic curriculum ratio, that's not > >> surprising since something like 85% of cyclist crashes are single [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Really? I've ridden a bike as an adult for 40 years or so and still > learning new stuff. So am I. So are all intelligent riders. What's your point? You claimed the courses were up to 20 hours long. They're not. Despite your claims and implications, it's not difficult to teach a cyclist to ride safely as a vehicle operator, just as it's not difficult to teach a person to cook. The fact that there are top- notch expert cyclists (or gourmet chefs) does not change that fact. Once a person can ride safely as a vehicle operator, they can ride whereever they like, with no particular need of special facilities. It opens the entire world - not just the bike path - to their exploration and enjoyment. It's worth learning, and it works far better than waiting for bike paths and bike lanes to be built. > I was just reading an eye witness post on a fatality involving Portland > bike activist Bonnie Tinker and a truck last year, sounded like a > familiar loss of control accident. Bike handling is not trivial. Yet she was "protected" in a bike lane. Would she have fared better if the facility was more "innovative" - painted green, perhaps? Or is there a chance the bike inspection taught in a cycling class might have caught the problem that caused her crash? I think there's more chance of the latter working, don't you? > > Forester claimed he was merely telling Americans what he'd > > learned in Britain as a kid. > > I was one of those adults and knew those things (I'm not British). Did you really think I meant "ONLY Brits knew these things"? Sheesh. > >> In Forester’s judgment, a > >> competent cyclist was one able to maintain a speed of 18 mph for a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I am quoting from a site (linked). The author seems overall a fan of > Forester and his effective cycling. Peter, you're descending into absurdity! You can't logically claim that something qualifies as part of the official course material because it was posted somewhere by someone who _seems_ to be a fan of Forester! > >> A good deal of effective cycling training seems to be concerned with > >> disabusing trainees of the notion that cycling is hazardous by appealing [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It's a diatribe against facilities, and loaded with statistics. Answer yes or no, Peter: Is it part of the LAB curriculum? It's fine information, and Fred's a fine person. But the stats you referred to are just not part of a normal road cycling course. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. At this point, you are flailing about, hoping to find some effective complaint against what I write, whether its substantive or not. But over and over, you're posting mistakes or nonsense. Not only do you need to quit while you're behind, you need to re- examine your belief system. It's literally out of touch with reality. - Frank Krygowski > > I was just reading an eye witness post on a fatality involving Portland > > bike activist Bonnie Tinker and a truck last year, sounded like a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > have caught the problem that caused her crash? I think there's more > chance of the latter working, don't you? What problem caused her crash? Excuse me, I read one account, didn't see "mechanical failure" mentioned. Was "the real problem" that she already long since knew she needed to "pre-flight", and didn't? Was this a borrowed bike? You were asking someone else, but I for one would not totally discount the green paint. Goes back to your "can't imagine where paint could make anything better" *bias* (however aquired, still a bias unsupported by real events). --D-y >>>>> I'm nationally certified to teach those classes. ... Total class time >>>>> is about ten hours, including parking lot exercises and road riding, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > oversees the courses, prints the course materials, certifies the > instructors, etc. Isn't that obvious? Not at all. >>>> As for the non-traffic to traffic curriculum ratio, that's not >>>> surprising since something like 85% of cyclist crashes are single [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So am I. So are all intelligent riders. What's your point? You > claimed the courses were up to 20 hours long. They're not. I said 10-20. You said 9. Forester says 20. OK, I'll change my statement: 9-20. Happy? Now that you've clarified you're specifically referring to current LAB offerings, I'd point out that LAB offers "Traffic Skills 101" for the 9 hours you cite, but also "Traffic Skills 201" for 12 hours. You can cherry pick and say that there's a separate "vehicular cycling" subset, so that 9-12 (or even 20) hours is a gross overstatement, but I'd counter-argue that the specific VC skills require a larger set of basic skills. You may disagree, but I'm sure Forester and lots of other cycling instructors wouldn't. > Once a person can ride safely as a vehicle operator, they can ride > whereever they like, with no particular need of special facilities. > It opens the entire world - not just the bike path - to their > exploration and enjoyment. It's worth learning, and it works far > better than waiting for bike paths and bike lanes to be built. Lots of people "ride where ever they like" with neither VC training or facilities. Facilities are preferred by those people because they make those rides more pleasant. >> I was just reading an eye witness post on a fatality involving Portland >> bike activist Bonnie Tinker and a truck last year, sounded like a >> familiar loss of control accident. Bike handling is not trivial. > > Yet she was "protected" in a bike lane. Nobody claims bike lanes are "protective". > Would she have fared better > if the facility was more "innovative" - painted green, perhaps? Well, there's little doubt that she would still be alive if she had been on a bike path, but that's rather beside the point I was attempting to make. I don't mean to exploit her death to support the facilities argument, only to illustrate the unique (in vulnerability) status of cyclists in the road. > Or is > there a chance the bike inspection taught in a cycling class might > have caught the problem that caused her crash? I think there's more > chance of the latter working, don't you? I don't know. For all I know she may have taken such a class. It's not obvious that a mechanical fault caused the described loss of control. The only point I was trying to make was that a cyclist (or pedestrian for that matter) has little protection in traffic, and a simple thing (a blowout, skid, or loss of balance, for instance) may be easily fatal. The dangers are real, and people perceive them, even when statistics describe them as somewhat rare. You may dismiss those anxieties as irrational, but human nature isn't entirely rational. Good traffic engineering accepts and addresses that. It's not all physics. As much as I'm as guilty as anyone for having an engineering-centric perspective, and recognize kindred spirits and similar perspectives among the vehicular cycling community (including, although I hate to admit it, Forester), I've come to the realization, after many years and much reading and thinking, that vehicular cycling is a solution to the wrong problem. Solving the wrong problem is a common engineering gaffe. In those instances, the engineering may be flawless, but the solution worthless. The first step in avoiding the solve-the-wrong-problem pitfall is to define the problem to be solved. My "problem to be solved" is to achieve a much larger utility cycling participation in urban areas -- particularly dense, older cities not well served by the automobile. Some may differ on priorities, but this seems to be a widely sought objective. It is rationalized by practical arguments that I won't repeat here. Vehicular cycling proponents claim that their techniques are sufficient to achieve this goal, and that the development of facilities may actually retard it. I am skeptical, to say the least. My claim is that the mounting evidence supports the prediction, which was based on expressed preferences, that facilities contribute significantly to the increased adoption of utility cycling in urban areas. In other words, people request facilities and bicycle more when they get them. I make no claims about increased safety or shortened trip times, although I contend that well designed facilities have negligible effect on those issues. I believe that current collected data supports those views, in other words they are backed by science, not faith. I do not claim that cycling facilities are the most important technique in achieving what I consider the problem to be solved, only that they are helpful and need to be planned within a larger context that includes urban planning, traffic calming and intermodal accommodation. >>> Forester claimed he was merely telling Americans what he'd >>> learned in Britain as a kid. >> I was one of those adults and knew those things (I'm not British). > > Did you really think I meant "ONLY Brits knew these things"? Sheesh. Why bring it up then? You invited the unfavorable comparison between American and British cycling training standards, I claim that was not true. I cited a CA cycling video from 1954, you cite Forester. >>>> In Forester’s judgment, a >>>> competent cyclist was one able to maintain a speed of 18 mph for a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > because it was posted somewhere by someone who _seems_ to be a fan of > Forester! The author and his piece are well known. It's a relatively balanced piece, putting VC in a fairly favorable light. I have also read Forest's response to it. All this is really a lot more work than one should be expected to do, so your attempts to paint me as naive or "absurd" are, in addition to being as insulting as many of your responses, simply not true. >>>> A good deal of effective cycling training seems to be concerned with >>>> disabusing trainees of the notion that cycling is hazardous by appealing [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > referred to are just not part of a normal road cycling course. Again, > you don't know what you're talking about. You used words like courses and curriculum without qualification, the tacit assumption being that it should be obvious to everyone that you were referring to current LAB course ware. Given the rather twisted history of cycling courses in LAB and the current controversy and divergence from the original tenets, you should not make such assumptions. Again, slander doesn't improve your response. > At this point, you are flailing about, hoping to find some effective > complaint against what I write, whether its substantive or not. But > over and over, you're posting mistakes or nonsense. > > Not only do you need to quit while you're behind, you need to re- > examine your belief system. It's literally out of touch with reality. You argue as if there is some ultimate reference for vehicular cycling. The "reality" (as you are so fond of citing without definition) appears to be a spectrum of opinion and claims. You claim that vehicular cycling is easily taught and advanced cycling skills are not necessarily a prerequisite -- at least that's my best guess at what you're saying, you're not as clear in your claims as you are in your insults -- Forester and many other former LAB instructors would seem to disagree. Again, this is a digression on a digression. Both your sect and the Forester sect are vehemently anti-facility, and neither of you present much in the way of scientific evidence to support your claims. As experience accumulates of the increased popularity and attendant improvements in safety statistics with those numbers in only those areas where significant investments in facilities have occurred, the long-standing "intuitive" claims by vehicular cyclists -- including all of its sects -- have come into increasing disrepute. Slander and name calling doesn't change that, and makes you the one who looks "flailing" and "desperate". > Nobody claims bike lanes are "protective". That statement is very obviously false. Again, Peter, you need to realign your arguments with reality. - Frank Krygowski >> Nobody claims bike lanes are "protective". > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski Sorry, I should have qualified my remark to the context, as in "nobody would have expected a bike lane to be protective in that circumstance". In the broader context, sure, lots of people claim bike lanes are safer. I don't, although I think they could be, but that's speculation, I don't think there's enough evidence to say one way or another. > [PC:] > Now that you've clarified you're specifically referring to current LAB [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > basic skills. You may disagree, but I'm sure Forester and lots of other > cycling instructors wouldn't. Again, I'm speaking as a nationally certified instructor for these courses. Although nobody remembers this, I was the instructor who first proposed a private e-mail list for instructors to discuss teaching techniques and course material. I still read those discussions daily, contribute frequently, and (I think) have a pretty good handle on the state of the project. This probably covers 99% of the bicycling classes taught in America. AFAIK, _nobody_ teaches according to Forester's blueprint, which was designed to vaguely resemble a college course. Furthermore, almost all the classes actually taught are TS101. In fact, there are more "abbreviated" classes (even shorter versions) of TS101 than there are TS201. Those abbreviated classes typically omit things like choosing and adjusting a bike, choice of accessories, adjusting derailleurs, etc. and concentrate on the high-value stuff: how to ride as a vehicle operator. And again, the high-value stuff is not difficult to learn, despite your implications. That's the reality. If you've never taken nor taught a class, I can understand how you might not know that. But you do need to realize you do not know what you're talking about! > > ... Would she have fared better > > if the facility was more "innovative" - painted green, perhaps? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > argument, only to illustrate the unique (in vulnerability) status of > cyclists in the road. Which is, of course, the 'idee fixe' of the facilities proponents - that we are so very vulnerable we need separate bike paths, stripes, colored pavement, boxes, barrier separation and all the rest. "Danger! Danger!" Fortunately (once again) reality is different, and data shows that. (Yes, that data isn't part of the TS101 class, but the data is still very real.) > ... I've come to the realization, after many years and > much reading and thinking, that vehicular cycling is a solution to the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sufficient to achieve this goal, and that the development of facilities > may actually retard it. I am skeptical, to say the least. There are two points to address here. First, you're proclaiming vehicular cycling to be a failure because it doesn't solve _your_ chosen problem. That's like saying "nobody should ever use a wrench, because it's the wrong tool to measure my voltage." The goal of vehicular cycling is not to get every housewife on a bike, although that may be laudable. The goal is to allow cyclists to safely operate wherever they want to ride, within reason - and not just where there are bike paths and bike lanes. As a sub-category of that goal, most vehicular cyclists want to retain the _right_ to operate on ordinary roads. (They decry things like "bicycle friendly" cities that have bike bans on important city streets.) The second point is, what's the best way to achieve your goal? You claim it is the "paint & path" method, no matter whether the paint or the paths meet elementary engineering standards. In my mind, the problems are that the "paint & path" sales pitch always seems to include statements like "because cyclists are so vulnerable, and the road are so dangerous." There is deception inherent in the campaign, especially since the supposed solutions are sometimes _more_ dangerous; and there is the downside that the "vulnerable, dangerous" message actually dissuades cycling until the paint & paths are installed - if they ever are. Why don't we try telling the truth, with as much energy as the P&P people tell their misleading tales? Why not say that riding is so easy a child can do it, and is safer than walking, and that it's healthy and energy efficient and often the fastest way to get around? Why not try some _honest_ promotion? It would be a completely new approach for most Americans. Your paint & path approach has other problems. It's damned difficult to fit proper bike lanes and safe bike paths into dense older American cities, because the city is already built, and the limited road space is needed for vast numbers of cars coming in from suburbs. Shoehorning in door zone bike lanes and sidewalk bike paths increases danger, and is internally inconsistent and dishonest. And no matter what, there will always be city streets that cyclists need to ride, but which will have no special stripes, for lack of room. The cyclists have to learn to ride as vehicle operators anyway. > > At this point, you are flailing about, hoping to find some effective > > complaint against what I write, whether its substantive or not. But [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you're not as clear in your claims as you are in your insults -- > Forester and many other former LAB instructors would seem to disagree. It's common for certain people to paint all their opponents as one uniform, monolithic batch of robots. It's done by calling people "liberals" or "Islamists" or "gun nuts" or - in this case - "vehicular cyclists." It's a dishonest approach. You should know better. So of course there is a spectrum of claims. Those who favor vehicular cycling are not identical in their ideas nor in their arguments. On some points, enthusiastic debate continues - and it shouldn't surprise you that I've been in some of those debates. However, I understand that you have not come across those debates or those differences of opinion. You're arguing against vehicular cycling based on your imperfect understanding of it. Once again, you'd benefit from learning a lot more before you begin typing. - Frank Krygowski >> [PC:] >> Now that you've clarified you're specifically referring to current LAB [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski Frank, you don't address any of my points, you just go off on your tirades and call me names, too. Having a discussion is impossible with you. I'm out. > Frank, you don't address any of my points, you just go off on your > tirades and call me names, too. Having a discussion is impossible with > you. I'm out. Which points have I not addressed, Peter? ISTM that most points you've posted have been flat out mistakes, and I have addressed them. I've addressed your mistaken idea about the length of the courses that teach vehicular cycling. And the mistaken ideas about what all vehicular cyclists believe. I've addressed your mistake that the goal of VC is to get everyone on bikes, and about how difficult it is to learn to ride as a legitimate vehicle. I pointed out that your chosen fatality would not have been prevented by a bike lane (or really, any reasonable facility). I've pointed out that your chosen method of getting everyone on bikes is based on misleading everyone, both on the supposed danger of biking, and on the supposed extra safety of special bike facilities. Oh, and I have pointed out that I'm not against all bike facilities; I'm merely against dangerous ones, and not a fan of useless ones. What have I left out? The fundamental disagreement is simply this: You have proclaimed that you believe bike facilities need not meet any safety standards, and that it's OK to have built-in dangers if it will get lots of people riding. I believe bike facilities should not directly endanger riders, and that it's more important for their design to be safe than "innovative." That's the heart of it. - Frank Krygowski >>> I'm nationally certified to teach those classes. ... Total class time >>> is about ten hours, including parking lot exercises and road riding, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > dealing with traffic are much less than half. I don't know what > you've seen advertised, but it's not what's officially required. Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Education/ECHistory.htm "The second controversy concerned trying to shorten the course because the general public would not bother with a course that took ten Saturday mornings. I always said that nobody wants to take "bike-safety" courses; that you had to provide enjoyment and the prospect of learning about more enjoyment to entice people into a course that contained more serious cycling. Well, that's all still a subject for controversy. Then the League went right to the cyclist-inferiority, bikeway-building, "more butts on bikes" advocacy, and went broke in consequence for the second time. EC largely fell apart. " As for "no statistics": "Effective Cycling Instructor's Manual" http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ECIM6.pdf A whole section: "4 Accident Statistics and Prevention" 5 pages. I could go on... Interesting publication on Portland crash analysis: http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?a=185776&c=46717 > >>> I'm nationally certified to teach those classes. ... Total class time > >>> is about ten hours, including parking lot exercises and road riding, [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > I could go on... You could, but that length of course, and that inclusion of statistics, is no longer part of the course being taught. It hasn't been part of it for many, many years. Forester may not like that, but that's the reality of it. His manual is not the one officially in use by the League. In fact, AFAIK nobody is teaching according to his specifications. And in fact, although I've contacted Forester for advice and he has contacted me for advice, we disagree on several issues, and have done so enthusiastically in the r.b.* Usenet groups. IOW, your attempt to portray all vehicular cyclists as Forester clones is as unrealistic as your other arguments. Give it a rest. - Frank Krygowski > IOW, your attempt to portray all vehicular cyclists as Forester clones > is as unrealistic as your other arguments. Give it a rest. If your support of vehicular cycling and the science behind it is based on sources other than Forester, then you should cite them, otherwise be content with being painted with the same brush. The nuances of position among the various sects of vehicular cyclists may be obvious to you, but not the world at large. I find them confusing and I've spent a great deal of time trying to unravel them. I'd love to give it a rest, actually. > Peter Cole<peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Mon, 15 Mar 2010 > [...] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > why weren't you on the cycle path", even when they use a 2 tonne (or > more) vehicle as a weapon to "teach you a lesson".[...] I have had USian police tell me to ride on the sidewalk. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 Per Peter Cole: >There will always be conflict between faster and slower traffic. Natural >behavior is for the slow to yield to the fast, this is codified in law >and accepted in custom. I wonder if someday we will see signs on some local roads/streets that read "Controlled Roadway" - indicating that motor vehicles' maximum speed is electronically regulated by transponders within the vehicles that respond to signals from boxes along the road. Seems like the technology is there.... and limiting IC vehicles to, say, 25 mph would make all sorts of affordable alternative vehicles practical. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per Peter Cole: >> There will always be conflict between faster and slower traffic. Natural [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to, say, 25 mph would make all sorts of affordable alternative > vehicles practical. The issue is similar to governors on top end speed. What have a car that can do 100-140 mph when there's nowhere that speed (or anything close) is legal? Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, signal violations) and meeting a great deal of resistance -- in the minority of places they can even get installed. Bring up traffic calming and be ready for the outrage... Per Peter Cole: > Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, >signal violations) and meeting a great deal of resistance -- in the >minority of places they can even get installed. My take on those is that people are already caught between a rock and a hard place - speed limit says 55, right lane is moving at 70+ - and normal people are just trying to move with the flow of traffic. At least some of them would be more comfortable going at a lower speed if it didn't put them so out-of-synch with the rest of traffic. I experience this every so often when I drive the Atlantic City Expressway to the Jersey shore with a 20' surfski on top of my vehicle. Just doesn't feel right at 70, so I set the cruise to 65 (the posted limit). But the right lane is moving at a little over 70 and people are continually overtaking me. Sometimes I count... last time it was 130 people overtaking me on a 60-mile trip... and I overtook two (a clapped-out maxivan leaning to one side, and a rented cab-over six-wheeler that was having trouble with the wind gusts). Problem is that out of those 130 people, some of them seem to be impatient with somebody only going 65 and they whip in very close to one's front bumper after passing. Seems to me like sooner or later, one of them is going to misjudge and clip a steering tire; therefore 70 feels safer. Just for the record, I would *not* advocate controlling speeds on a highway like that: it would be a nightmare, similar to Maryland back in the fifties where the speed limit was sixty and they wrote tickets for 61 - no room for people to space out, they collected in massive clots of traffic. But for certain local roads that are already zoned for 25, I think it would be a winner - and appreciated by many drivers/pedestrians. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per Peter Cole: >> Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > vehicle. Just doesn't feel right at 70, so I set the cruise to > 65 (the posted limit). And there we see the cause of accidents. Lazy drivers using Cruise Control. Keeping powerful cars muzzled at 70 is ridiculous on open highways. > > Per Peter Cole: > >> Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Keeping powerful cars muzzled at 70 is ridiculous on open highways. I love cruise control. Keeps the cops from pulling me over. Set the cruise to exactly the speed limit - spot a cop, hit the button, downshift, he can stay there behind me all day, I don't care :) The funny thing is watching the cop who's stuck behind you on a 2- lane, you can tell he's getting agitated because he wants you to go faster, but you're doing exactly the speed limit :) nate >>> Per Peter Cole: >>>> Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > nate Pity you need a "mechanical computer" to do such a complex task. Bill "can't stand cruise control" S. > >>> Per Peter Cole: > >>>> Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Bill "can't stand cruise control" S. *you* drive across the YooPee on M-28 at exactly 55 MPH with a cop tailgating you, without cruise control, then. BTDT, cop pulled me over anyway because he ran my plates and said that they didn't come up in his system... (UP cops didn't like automotive engineers. At all. Probably because some of 'em drove like Mario Andretti on crystal meth) nate >>> I love cruise control. Keeps the cops from pulling me over. Set the >>> cruise to exactly the speed limit - spot a cop, hit the button, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> lane, you can tell he's getting agitated because he wants you to go >>> faster, but you're doing exactly the speed limit :) >> Pity you need a "mechanical computer" to do such a complex task. >> >> Bill "can't stand cruise control" S. > *you* drive across the YooPee on M-28 at exactly 55 MPH with a cop > tailgating you, without cruise control, then. BTDT, cop pulled me > over anyway because he ran my plates and said that they didn't come up > in his system... (UP cops didn't like automotive engineers. At all. > Probably because some of 'em drove like Mario Andretti on crystal > meth) But...but...how would cruise control have prevented this? Bill "non sequitur much?" S. Pete Cresswell wrote: >> Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, >> signal violations) and meeting a great deal of resistance -- in the >> minority of places they can even get installed. > My take on those is that people are already caught between a rock > and a hard place - speed limit says 55, right lane is moving at 70+ > - and normal people are just trying to move with the flow of > traffic. > At least some of them would be more comfortable going at a lower > speed if it didn't put them so out-of-synch with the rest of > traffic. > I experience this every so often when I drive the Atlantic City > Expressway to the Jersey shore with a 20' surfski on top of my > vehicle. Just doesn't feel right at 70, so I set the cruise to 65 > (the posted limit). > But the right lane is moving at a little over 70 and people are > continually overtaking me. Sometimes I count... last time it was > 130 people overtaking me on a 60-mile trip... and I overtook two (a > clapped-out maxivan leaning to one side, and a rented cab-over > six-wheeler that was having trouble with the wind gusts). > Problem is that out of those 130 people, some of them seem to be > impatient with somebody only going 65 and they whip in very close to > one's front bumper after passing. Seems to me like sooner or later, > one of them is going to misjudge and clip a steering tire; therefore > 70 feels safer. > Just for the record, I would *not* advocate controlling speeds on a > highway like that: it would be a nightmare, similar to Maryland back > in the fifties where the speed limit was sixty and they wrote > tickets for 61 - no room for people to space out, they collected in > massive clots of traffic. > But for certain local roads that are already zoned for 25, I think > it would be a winner - and appreciated by many drivers/pedestrians. Last weekend I rode in my son's car and watched his speedometer display showing 73mph on a freeway posted for 65. What struck me as needing more patrolling is the cars passing us at speeds greater than what must have been over 80mph. This may be a response to the traffic jams that permit less than 55mph at higher traffic volume times. I suspect that some people feel they are entitled to greater speeds considering the money they spent on optional special equipment for their cars/trucks or maybe it is in response to the mundane and dense barely affordable housing developments in which they live. Jobst Brandt > Pete Cresswell wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Jobst Brandt hey! I resemble that remark! (hot cam, multiple carbs, 1904 house, crushing tax load...) SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > Pete Cresswell wrote: > >> Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Jobst Brandt There's some who undoubtedly see their car as an extension of their persona and therefore give it greater significance than simply a piece of machinery used for transport (and YT might at times fall into that category, although I bet that I actually spend *less* per annum on cars than your average American...) however there's also the fact that we *have* an excellent superhighway system, inspired by and in some ways superior to the German Autobahnen; your average consumer-grade car is far more capable in acceleration, braking, and handling than a similar model of 30 or 40 years ago and at the same time has many more passive safety features, so most drivers don't feel the need to obey speed limits that are substantially the same as if not less than the speed limits in place on comparable roads, back in the Bad Old Days ("bad" depending on your perspective) of 300HP family sedans with bargetastic suspensions, skinny bias-ply tires, and four-wheel drum brakes. Or, in other words, I don't really see the problem with having people driving 80 MPH on an Interstate highway, so long as they are doing so safely and considerately. I've long argued that raising Interstate speed limits to reasonable levels ("reasonable" being defined in an engineering sense as something around the 85th percentile speed) we would possibly see a return of respect for the law; as it is drivers are so used to viewing speed limits as unreasonable and not applicable to real world conditions that they automatically tack on 10-15 MPH to *all* speed limits - even those that have a real purpose (e.g. a 25 MPH in-town speed limit) Unfortunately in this age where municipalities seem to think that photo enforcement combined with underposted speed limits are a fabulous way to balance their budgets without raising taxes, I don't think that that idea will gain much traction. nate > Pete Cresswell wrote: > >> Automated ticketing systems are being deployed now (speeding, [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > their cars/trucks or maybe it is in response to the mundane and dense > barely affordable housing developments in which they live. No need to psychoanalyze. People just want to get the hell to where they're going. The "average car" today has power, brakes, and handling that are far superior to the old sleds of the 50's and 60's. 65 is for the slow lane. I've seen reference to "driving habits" IRT speed where "studies show" that people drive at a speed-- maybe the highest <g>-- where they feel comfortable. I've been in convoys doing 90+ on the highway. NBD. Freeways are geared for 85, why waste time? OTOH, there is a trend in some places to reduce the limit to 25 mph for neighborhood streets. Good deal, there. I've tried it myself and like it. Otherwise, I drive as fast as I feel comfortable with, including "getting away with it". --D-y >I've seen reference to "driving habits" IRT speed where "studies show" >that people drive at a speed-- maybe the highest <g>-- where they feel >comfortable. I've been in convoys doing 90+ on the highway. NBD. >Freeways are geared for 85, why waste time? US highways are NOT designed for 85mph. Neither are they safe with most drivers doing that speed in most cars. Most drivers going that speed are a danger to others. You might be a non-danger, but it doesn't make sense to allow it universally. >OTOH, there is a trend in some places to reduce the limit to 25 mph >for neighborhood streets. Good deal, there. I've tried it myself and >like it. I slow down on residential streets too. There's a place for speed and that isn't it. Again, most drivers aren't qualified to decide. >Otherwise, I drive as fast as I feel comfortable with, including >"getting away with it". Nice, but that doesn't mean you aren't a danger to others around you. Per * Still Just Me *: >US highways are NOT designed for 85mph. Neither are they safe with >most drivers doing that speed in most cars. Most drivers going that >speed are a danger to others. You might be a non-danger, but it >doesn't make sense to allow it universally. The Atlantic City Expressway in New Jersey opened sometime in the fifties with a posted limit of 70. I even broke a connecting rod on my VW bug holding that speed with four 250-pounders in the car. I'd guess that the design speed was somewhat higher than the posted speed - how much higher, I have no clue... but it's got tb higher. Merge that with Dustoyevsky's observation that today's equipment can be run faster with the same control - which rings true to me - and I wouldn't be surprised if it's design speed approached 80 or 85 using today's equipment. Certainly the left and middle lanes move consistently at 75+ in heavy traffic and in lighter traffic I estimate that a lot of people are cruising at 80-85 based on how fast they blow past me when I'm doing 70 or 75. Accidents are rare enough on that thing that I've never seen one - although they do happen... and my perception from reading the news is that the ones that do happen are skewed towards people driving home from the casinos in the wee hours. SignaturePeteCresswell Per (PeteCresswell): >Merge that with Dustoyevsky's observation that today's equipment >can be run faster with the same control - which rings true to me >- and I wouldn't be surprised if it's design speed approached 80 >or 85 using today's equipment. OTOH, in the piece of junk that I drive, my comfort zone ends at 70. I'll crank it up to 75 or a little higher when I pull out to pass so I don't gum up the left lane any more than I have to, but the sooner I get back in the right lane, the better I feel. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per * Still Just Me *: >> US highways are NOT designed for 85mph. Neither are they safe with [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > news is that the ones that do happen are skewed towards people > driving home from the casinos in the wee hours. Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced river in a well maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish on modern divided highways. It's the occasional distracted/ addled/ impaired idiot (and there is always one. Or more). One's reaction time/ space/ etc can be insufficient to avoid the predictable mess. You're depending on actions of a few hundred randomly selected humans to arrive safely. Sobering thought for cycling or driving. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 >Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced >river in a well maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish >on modern divided highways. Strongly disagree with the inference that most drivers are competent or that most modern vehicles are qualified to be run at high speeds. A large percentage of the cars on the road are under-tired, under suspended, and under braked. On a daily basis I see people driving skinny tired econo-boxes at high speeds, cars with a serious CoG issues, SUV's, mini-vans, pickup trucks, and American sedans designed to float instead of hug the roads. They are all a danger in a high speed maneuver situation. Meanwhile a majority of the drivers on the road don't have the experience required. About the only evidence you need is the fact that they will drive 20' off the rear bumper of another car at highway speeds. Not only don't they have a clue about reaction times or stopping distances, they aren't even knowledgable enough to be thinking about it. Forget about issues like tire adhesion in wet weather. Forget about knowing what their car does at the limit in an emergency situation, whether it will understeer or oversteer. Forget about having the cool reactions necessary to deal with an emergency situation. The large majority of accidents involve excessive speed. There's a reason. >>Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced >>river in a well maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > about having the cool reactions necessary to deal with an emergency > situation. Don't need 'em any more. Just yank the wheel and stamp the brakes and the computers sort it all out. Per Ben C: >Don't need 'em any more. Just yank the wheel and stamp the brakes and >the computers sort it all out. I suspected I'd been mountain biking too much when, couple years back, I got caught in a traffic backup at a bridge toll plaza. Suddenly I got this impulse to yank back on the steering wheel, jump a curb on my right, and go around the backup. SignaturePeteCresswell > Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced > river in a well maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish > on modern divided highways. Hmm. An empty, straight, flat divided highway, perhaps. The other extreme would be trying to do 90 on the twisty PA Turnpike among a gaggle of distracted drivers who can't quite stay entirely in their lane. No matter how competent you are, you'd be in trouble when one of them pops out without checking to pass a slow truck. > It's the occasional distracted/ addled/ impaired idiot (and > there is always one. Or more). "Occasional"?? - Frank Krygowski > > Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced > > river in a well maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lane. No matter how competent you are, you'd be in trouble when one > of them pops out without checking to pass a slow truck. I'm reminded of the old Goodrich tire ad, "you only have to slow down to 90 for the curves" (in reference to the then-new PA Turnpike.) Once upon a time we were more interested in providing rapid transportation for the competent rather than accomodating poor drivers... nate >>> Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced >>> river in a well maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > nate That all went out the window with the last energy crisis (along with the air equivalent -- SST's). >> > Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced >> > river in a well maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >transportation for the competent rather than accomodating poor >drivers... No, once upon a time we just ignored the fact that the cars of the day were unsafe at those speeds (with archaic and/or crappy, poorly designed suspensions, brakes, tires, and no seat belts or crumple zones) and with drivers had no business driving at them as they were a danger to everyone else. There's a difference. > Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced river in a well > maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish on modern divided highways. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of a few hundred randomly selected humans to arrive safely. Sobering > thought for cycling or driving. That's the rub. A single (or even group) driver may be perfectly safe with those qualifications, but it's really a "lowest common denominator" that has to be accommodated, not the average or best. Differences in relative speed, vehicle and driver performance, traffic and weather conditions all factor in, it's just too complex to have rules for every situation, and fuzzy rules (of which there are still plenty by necessity) are problematic to enforce. A simple single speed limit for most drivers, vehicles and conditions is very much a compromise, but arguably better than the next best compromise. Cycling is somewhat unique in that you are commonly being passed continuously by vehicles at lethal speeds, requiring more than most other road users total faith in the competence of those drivers. Driving and walking also require faith, but not generally to the degree cycling does. Statistics assures your thinking brain that's nothing to really worry about, but your reptilian brain freaks out anyway. Per Peter Cole: >Cycling is somewhat unique in that you are commonly being passed >continuously by vehicles at lethal speeds, requiring more than most >other road users total faith in the competence of those drivers. That goes to the heart of a matter that I always felt, but never managed to articulate. It also seems tb an increasingly big deal in light of cell phones, texting, navigation screens, and even eMail competing for drivers' attention. SignaturePeteCresswell >> Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced river in a well >> maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish on modern divided highways. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > most drivers, vehicles and conditions is very much a compromise, but > arguably better than the next best compromise. It tends to make the traffic flow better if it's relatively busy if everyone's going in the range 60-80mph rather than 60-150mph like you get in Germany. That's why I think you want variable limits based on traffic flow like we have on the M25 in GB, going to completely unrestricted late at night when there is very little traffic (we aren't quite enlightened enough to have that last bit). On Mar 16, 6:39 pm, * Still Just Me * <noEmailto...@stillnodomainey.com> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:02:53 -0700 (PDT), "dustoyev...@mac.com" > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Nice, but that doesn't mean you aren't a danger to others around you. I've been in one accident since I started driving in 1966-- semi T- boned by a young woman late for an appointment when I did a U-turn after seeing her "stopped" at a stop sign. IOW, she didn't much stop and got to me long before I anticipated her being there. I'll only admit to partial fault at most and if I could prove I had my turn signal on (as almost always without exception...) I'll average out my close calls with "saves" I've donated to others. My secret? I pay attention <g>. My 16 year old daughter says I'm one of the few people she feels safe with as a passenger. Nuff? I'll stick with the 85 thing as something I read somewhere sometime and because I have driven and been in various modern vehicles on various interstates and highways where 85 might be the top comfy range (for me and apparently lots of others), but as long as access is really controlled, no sweat. I'm not talking surfing the beltline at rush hour, OK? --D-y >> I've seen reference to "driving habits" IRT speed where "studies show" >> that people drive at a speed-- maybe the highest<g>-- where they feel >> comfortable. I've been in convoys doing 90+ on the highway. NBD. >> Freeways are geared for 85, why waste time? > > US highways are NOT designed for 85mph. most of them 70 or 75, but you could certainly make the argument that the design speed for a straight, flat Western highway where the limit of your visibility is the horizon would be "nearly infinite." > Neither are they safe with > most drivers doing that speed in most cars.Most drivers going that > speed are a danger to others. You might be a non-danger, but it > doesn't make sense to allow it universally. If that's true, it's because we let windowlicking morons drive, not because there's something inherently unsafe about driving 85 MPH in any decent car built in the last 50 years or so. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Per Peter Cole: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > cab-over six-wheeler that was having trouble with the wind > gusts). But you are doing exactly what you need to do, as are the over-taking cars. I wish I lived in a place where the slow lane moved too fast. Like Damyth noted, Oregon has a lot of two-lane roads, and what drives me nuts are people who are not even close to the speed limit who fail to pull over -- ever, even when there are turn outs. It can add an hour to trip over the mountains to Central Oregon. Then there are the people who floor it on the straight-aways, so you can't pass and then choke in the turns -- practically stopping for each turn when the road starts to twist. I hate them even more descending on a bike. It would be fun to follow this guy down one of the local descents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPqQptjbF0 -- Jay Beattie. > Then there are the > people who floor it on the straight-aways, so you can't pass and then > choke in the turns -- practically stopping for each turn when the road > starts to twist. I hate them even more descending on a bike. It > would be fun to follow this guy down one of the local descents. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPqQptjbF0 -- Jay Beattie. This is a pet peeve of mine. Being a big rider who folds up reasonably well, I descend like a tandem (or brick). Those little skinny guys on light bikes beat me up the hill but then really spoil my fun on the descents. The guys I ride with often just clear a path and latch on, drafting me is kind of like motor pacing. Some have told me they've improved their fastest downhill speed on our loop by over 5 mph, they get irritated also when the "kites" get in the way. >> Per Peter Cole: >>> There will always be conflict between faster and slower traffic. Natural [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > can do 100-140 mph when there's nowhere that speed (or anything close) > is legal? Legal in Germany. Also I thought there were some American states with unrestricted roads-- Montana? > >> Per Peter Cole: > >>> There will always be conflict between faster and slower traffic. Natural [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Legal in Germany. Also I thought there were some American states with > unrestricted roads-- Montana? Not for a while now, "reasonable and prudent" was changed to a 75 MPH limit, I believe, a few years ago. That said, we spend far more emphasis on limiting speed than we should, and not nearly enough on educating people on how to properly interact with both faster and slower traffic, and enforcing proper behavior. nate > [...] > Good for them, but you're hinting at a straw man. Facilities don't > preclude the right to use the road. That's Forester's bugbear.[...] Not using facilities/farcilites is a good way to evoke hostile/aggressive behavior from motorists. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >> Good for them, but you're hinting at a straw man. Facilities don't >> preclude the right to use the road. That's Forester's bugbear.[...] > > Not using facilities/farcilites is a good way to evoke > hostile/aggressive behavior from motorists. So is riding a bike at all. > >> One of the presumptions behind vehicular cycling is that cyclists are > >> familiar with driving, so from that point of view it makes sense for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thanks for another gratuitous insult, Frank. I read the book. Peter, what can I say? The principles of VC are not based only on how one drives a car. They are based on how all vehicles interact on the roads. The same principles are used by the Amish with their buggies! VC is based on principles like "right of way" (i.e. you can't be forced off the road by someone who wants to enter your space); "Destination positioning" (e.g. you shouldn't turn left from the right edge of the road; you shouldn't go straight from a right turn position); "Operate on the proper side of the road" and the like. These principles existed before cars were invented. They work. > > For example, in many places, bike lane fans put straight-ahead riders > > to the right of right turning motor vehicles. ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bad bike lanes to death, we agree they exist, we agree they shouldn't, > they don't really affect the argument pro or con. Bad facilities are the essence of this argument. You're on record as saying there need be no standards, despite teaching your children to avoid bad facilities. That's quite inconsistent with what you just wrote above! > > Vehicular cycling says you have a legal right to safe use of the road, > > which trumps a driver's "right" to get to the next traffic light as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Good for them, but you're hinting at a straw man. Facilities don't > preclude the right to use the road. That's Forester's bugbear. There was recently a case in southern Ohio where a cyclist was tasered, then arrested and jailed, for the "crime" of riding on the highway (he won the case; we'll see about the lawsuit). There was recently a similar case in Texas where the cyclist now seems to get arrested whenever he's seen on a bike in town, and he happens to be car-free, with the bike as his normal transportation. There was an "obstructing traffic" charge that was beaten in a community about an hour from my home, where the cyclist was ticketed because he was not squeezing over the right fog line on a narrow road. I'm sure that, like right-hook fatalities in bike lanes, these don't matter to you. But they do matter to many of us. > Again, I'm struck by the paradox of you claiming on the one hand that > cycling is inherently safe, and on the other that facilities are invalid > because of safety issues. It's a paradox only in your mind. Ordinary cycling is very safe. But being to the right of a right turning vehicle is not safe. Surprising a motorist by suddenly appearing in an unusual road position is also not safe. Violating normal rules of the road is generally unsafe. Facilities that encourage such behavior cannot be called safe, and should not be endorsed. - Frank Krygowski > Peter, what can I say? The principles of VC are not based only on how > one drives a car. They are based on how all vehicles interact on the > roads. The same principles are used by the Amish with their buggies! I'll take your word for it, I haven't visited Amish country, but I'd be surprised if I saw buggy drivers "dancing and negotiating" with traffic. > VC is based on principles like "right of way" (i.e. you can't be > forced off the road by someone who wants to enter your space); > "Destination positioning" (e.g. you shouldn't turn left from the right > edge of the road; you shouldn't go straight from a right turn > position); "Operate on the proper side of the road" and the like. > These principles existed before cars were invented. They work. They were also common practice pre-Forester, even in his home state, as the 1954 film I linked to showed. > Bad facilities are the essence of this argument. You're on record as > saying there need be no standards, despite teaching your children to > avoid bad facilities. That's quite inconsistent with what you just > wrote above! You misrepresent me. I differentiate between on road facilities and facilities in parks. >>> Vehicular cycling says you have a legal right to safe use of the road, >>> which trumps a driver's "right" to get to the next traffic light as [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > hour from my home, where the cyclist was ticketed because he was not > squeezing over the right fog line on a narrow road. Anecdotes don't prove principles. Laws can be bad, laws can be abused. The claim that facilities encourage anti-bike hostility or endanger bicycle access strike me as hysterical. Forester has been warning about this sky falling for decades, and yet it hasn't -- which he takes credit for (or is given credit by followers). It all strikes me as a little witch doctor-ish. > I'm sure that, like right-hook fatalities in bike lanes, these don't > matter to you. But they do matter to many of us. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's a paradox only in your mind. According to Paul Schimek, the anti-lane case based on safety remains to be made. I posted the link upthread. He's no bike lane fan-boy. > Ordinary cycling is very safe. But being to the right of a right > turning vehicle is not safe. Surprising a motorist by suddenly > appearing in an unusual road position is also not safe. Violating > normal rules of the road is generally unsafe. Facilities that > encourage such behavior cannot be called safe, and should not be > endorsed. Again, bad facilities are dangerous, but not all facilities are bad facilities. > > One of the presumptions behind vehicular cycling is that cyclists are > > familiar with driving, so from that point of view it makes sense for [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you're riding straight, don't put yourself to the right of cars that > may turn right. Which is more sensible? The bike lane doesn't say, "Blithely ride straight through intersections with completely abandon and disregard for whatever else is happening on the road." Obviously - bike lane or no - you assess the constantly developing traffic situation all around at all times. I bop out of the bike lane to go left around right-turning cars all the time, then bop right back over into the bike lane. > Facilities fans often think it's fine to put a bike lane in a door > zone. They ignore the simple math that shows how much room a suddenly > opened door consumes, or they imagine a cyclist will have the ESP to > tell when a door will pop open. It is fine to put a bike lane in a door zone, but only an idiot would ride in the door zone if cars are parked there. > Vehicular cycling says don't ride in the door zone. So does any form of simple common sense. > Facilities fans say stay out of the way of cars, even if you have to > ride in the gutter to let them squeeze by, or even if you have to risk > flat tires or worse from bike lane debris. Some facilities fans might say that. Others might not. > Vehicular cycling says you have a legal right to safe use of the road, > which trumps a driver's "right" to get to the next traffic light as > fast as he can. The law says that. Vehicular cycling might agree, but vehicular cycling includes a lot of other baggage. > So if there's not enough room for safe passing, get > well out in the lane to prevent unsafe passing. > > In those three instances (as well as many others) I don't see how > someone can logically argue against vehicular cycling. Isn't vehicular cycling supposed to mean that you handle traffic using the same maneuvers as cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc.? I don't know that I'd keep riding if I had to do it that way. That would really suck. > >The problem is that the > > natural behavior of cyclists is different enough from drivers that you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > may have to be learned, but IME that usually takes very little time, > once they're properly explained. The suggested behaviors above are not unique to vehicular cycling. They are simple common sense however else you might ride. You're killing me with this "properly explained" business :-) > To me, what's unnatural is choosing to ride in a way that exposes > oneself to right hook crashes, to doorings, or to elbow-brushing > passes. Avoiding exposure to doorings and right-hooks is simple enough in any case, but - painted bike lane or no - how can you ride bike without exposing yourself to elbow-brushing passes (short of physically separated facilities)? Dan O <danoverman@gmail.com> considered Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:27:30 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: >> > One of the presumptions behind vehicular cycling is that cyclists are >> > familiar with driving, so from that point of view it makes sense for [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >It is fine to put a bike lane in a door zone, but only an idiot would >ride in the door zone if cars are parked there. If cars AREN'T parked there, it isn't a door zone. >> Vehicular cycling says don't ride in the door zone. > >So does any form of simple common sense. But not the facilities that are painted there. >> Facilities fans say stay out of the way of cars, even if you have to >> ride in the gutter to let them squeeze by, or even if you have to risk [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >exposing yourself to elbow-brushing passes (short of physically >separated facilities)? Driver education, partly from the cyclists (road position telling the MVs where it's safe to pass) and partly from police and courts. On Mar 15, 3:50 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> considered Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:27:30 > -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > If cars AREN'T parked there, it isn't a door zone. And if cars aren't parked there despite parking being legal, the bike lane serves no useful purpose. (I might add the phrase "as usual.") There must be plenty of pavement to safely share. But this illustrates one of the major fallacies of bike lane thinking. It's the idea that some traffic person - often, a non- cyclist - can judge and mark where it's ALWAYS best for a cyclist to position himself on the roadway. It's typically assumed that cyclists should stay in the bike lane, whether or not someone's turning right across it; or whether or not there's plenty of space to its right; or whether or not it's filled with debris; or whether or not traffic conditions require an early merge to a left turn position. More on the last example: Sometimes one can merge left exactly where traffic planners dashed the bike lane stripe (in those jurisdictions where they do so). Other times it's necessary to merge left far in advance because of traffic conditions. But novice cyclists and most motorists probably don't know this. They think bikes should be within the stripes. Similarly, the fatally injured right-hooked bike lane cyclists probably thought the lane striper knew they'd be safe passing on the right. They were dead wrong. You have to think for yourself, not just stay between stripes. The thinking's not hard, but bike lane stripes tell people not to try it. - Frank Krygowski > But this illustrates one of the major fallacies of bike lane > thinking. It's the idea that some traffic person - often, a non- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whether or not it's filled with debris; or whether or not traffic > conditions require an early merge to a left turn position. If standards are not used for on road facilities, they should be. If the standards are bad, they should be changed. This is not difficult, it is the way standard road design practices have evolved. > More on the last example: Sometimes one can merge left exactly where > traffic planners dashed the bike lane stripe (in those jurisdictions [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The thinking's not hard, but bike lane stripes tell people not to try > it. While it's certainly understandable that guide lines (lane markings of any sort) can direct road users into danger, the converse is also true (and widely accepted) that guide lines can help direct users away from danger, indicate hazards and reduce conflicts. Citing examples of egregiously bad designs and then concluding that all facilities must therefore be bad is fallacious. >> One of the presumptions behind vehicular cycling is that cyclists are >> familiar with driving, so from that point of view it makes sense for [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski What Frank wrote. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:08:33 -0400 the perfect time to write: >>> Often when I get the "you're very brave/crazy to be riding a bike in >>> traffic" reaction it's accompanied by anecdotes of the "I almost hit a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >place), they still never get the opportunity to develop the skills. It's >like Southern drivers in snow storms. That's true enough, but it only takes a generation to change. >> I'd agree with them that a lot of cyclists survive only >> because of the awareness and reflexes of other road users. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >have a major problem with motorists making judgmental mistakes. Fine in >theory, but not so good in practice. I don't see what's unnatural about cyclists just using the roads in the way that the roads are intended to be used, and making way for overtaking traffic when it's safe to pass. The unnatural thing is motorists expecting to travel at speeds limited only by the law, with no consideration for slower traffic. > People understand this intuitively. >Drivers realize they're not very good at dealing with cyclists and so >are not eager to swap places with them. But the place to recruit the cyclists is BEFORE they get to be drivers. The habits formed in youth are far more durable. This is also a good argument for not letting people loose with a driving licence until they've shown they can use the roads safely with a vehicle with less potential for destruction than a car. You wouldn't dream of giving someone a truck licence without them having a basic car licence would you? [...] > I don't see what's unnatural about cyclists just using the roads in > the way that the roads are intended to be used, and making way for > overtaking traffic when it's safe to pass. That's reasonable yes, and cyclists are not a great inconvenience to cars, but that's only because there are relatively few of them. If we had Dutch levels of cyclists on the roads they kind of would slow the traffic to 10mph, and we'd need something like the system they have over there. Speaking selfishly, that's a mixed blessing. You get pretty good facilities but you do have to wait a long time at junctions, mess around with little bicycle traffic lights, ring your bell at slower bikes, etc. Sharing the road with slower traffic is always a bit frustrating, and sharing it with faster traffic always a bit scary, but at least you get to go flat out all the time. It's always a compromise. > The unnatural thing is motorists expecting to travel at speeds limited > only by the law, with no consideration for slower traffic. So why not walk down the middle of the road and make everyone go at 3mph? What could be more natural than that? Why should anyone expect to travel faster? Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> considered Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:30:09 -0500 the perfect time to write: >[...] >> I don't see what's unnatural about cyclists just using the roads in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the traffic to 10mph, and we'd need something like the system they have >over there. Or do what they do if motor traffic levels increase - add more lanes or put up with the congestion. It's a trade off anyway - the cars slow the cyclists in town, and the cyclists slow the cars in the country. There's generally more space to make a safe pass in the country though. >Speaking selfishly, that's a mixed blessing. You get pretty good >facilities but you do have to wait a long time at junctions, mess around [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >3mph? What could be more natural than that? Why should anyone expect to >travel faster? They shouldn't EXPECT to, just avail themselves of the chance to travel faster when conditions (weather, other traffic, speed limits) allow it. I don't expect to travel all the way into Cambridge at my maximum speed on a cycle, and it's entirely other traffic that prevents me. > Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sun, 14 Mar 2010 >> They might, but they have very little understanding of cycling >> behaviors. This is easy to see from either conversation or direct [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That's true enough, but it only takes a generation to change. Well, as the man said: "In the long run, we're all dead". > I don't see what's unnatural about cyclists just using the roads in > the way that the roads are intended to be used, and making way for > overtaking traffic when it's safe to pass. > The unnatural thing is motorists expecting to travel at speeds limited > only by the law, with no consideration for slower traffic. The speed difference is the biggest difference, although size affects visual perception, motorcycles have their problems, too. > But the place to recruit the cyclists is BEFORE they get to be > drivers. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You wouldn't dream of giving someone a truck licence without them > having a basic car licence would you? I'm all for cycling education, but I don't think it really addresses the problem of motorist ignorance about cyclists.What cyclists need to know about motorists and motorists about cyclists only overlap somewhat. >> Often when I get the "you're very brave/crazy to be riding a bike in >> traffic" reaction it's accompanied by anecdotes of the "I almost hit a >> cyclist (doing something crazy)" ilk. It's hard to argue the hazard >> issue in that context. > Well, they're probably ASSuming that you ride like the cyclists that > they see. I'd agree with them that a lot of cyclists survive only > because of the awareness and reflexes of other road users. (the same > can be said of a lot of motorists as well, however.) Despite these sorts of things: http://video.ap.org/?t=By%20Section/U.S.&p=&f=WBBMAM&g=0313dv_mo_police_crash which are remarkable and "newsy", they are rare events. Your average non cyclist thinks they are real and frequent risks, often cited as, "it's too dangerous". As Mr Cole noted, humans are generally lousy at risk assessment. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > >> The problem with the vehicular cycling approach of "lane sharing" is > >> that 99% of potential cyclists just won't do it, no matter how much [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "belonged", ditto for riding in the city during college in the 60's. We > all did it, it was no big thing. Sheldon Brown details similar memories. And I did such riding as well. But there was no significant education effort. In the 1950s & 1960s, the typical safety advice was "Be careful. Watch out for cars." My friends and I got zero instruction beyond that. I recall debates about which side of the road we were supposed to ride. > > For the past 20 years, bicycling "education" has > > been dominated by the "always wear your helmet" message. Relatively [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > around here (Boston), my wife and I participated when out kids were that > age. In the late 1970s and through the 1980s, I was part of a team involved in putting on bike rodeos and bike safety talks at local schools, through my bike club. I know that nobody else was doing it - we had no competition. Some information was available, but we were the only ones who knew that, and how to get it. It was by my contacting the state DOT's Bicycle Coordinator that I got it, and became known to those people in the state capitol. In the 1990s, we suddenly had competition, and a flood of new competing materials. The competition was Safe Kids Inc. (with the generous support of Bell Helmets), and the focus changed completely. They showed up at "Safety Days" in the mall, they got articles in the newspaper, they spoke at village council meetings, and their focus and that of the new material was all on how deadly bicycling was. Of course, their solution was prohibiting riding without a helmet. And for the next 10 to 15 years, that "danger! danger!" mentality was all you heard. It was during that time, for example, that the useless League of American Bicyclists began dunning for donations by sending out letters with collages of headlines like "Bicyclist struck by car" and "Bicyclist killed in accident." > > I recall a recent vacation in Washington DC, when my wife and > > I rode our bikes all around the city. Our B&B host actually pleaded [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they've been told that, it just appears dangerous. People are > notoriously bad at assessing risk. So you think there's been no effect on the public's perception due to things like the following: * Laws that prevent riding without special protective gear, and constant pleading for more such laws * Stickers on almost all department stores saying "Never ride without a helmet. Never ride at night. Never ride in the rain..." * Articles and websites saying "We need bike lanes and bike paths so we have a _safe_ place to ride" * Waiver forms for countless organized bike rides that say "I recognize the hazardous nature of bicycle riding, and that I may die..." If so, I think you're gravely underestimating the effect of such publicity efforts. > Often when I get the "you're very brave/crazy to be riding a bike in > traffic" reaction it's accompanied by anecdotes of the "I almost hit a > cyclist (doing something crazy)" ilk. It's hard to argue the hazard > issue in that context. Well, I've _never_ gotten that "I almost hit a cyclist" statement. All I've gotten is "Oh, please be careful!!!" along with a couple of statements like "I can't believe you ride through that intersection without a helmet!" > >>> ... door zone bike lanes, which are known to cause > >>> serious injuries and fatalities. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No. I wonder whether someone who is wise enough to avoid the door zone > without lanes wouldn't be also wise enough with them. Again, your arguments rest heavily on the idea that people are not influenced by what they see. Above, you implied that all the "Bicycling! Danger!" warnings don't make people think bicycling is dangerous. Now you're implying that the "Ride your bike here" stripe won't lead people to ride their bike where the stripe says. You're being very unrealistic. > >> ... and if > >> that's true, the solution is to paint the lane outside of door reach. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > As I said, bad facilities can be worse than no facility... Progress! > ... but I don't > generalize from that to conclude all bike lanes are bad. Strictly speaking, neither did I. As I said, I think most only imaginary benefits. I think some are actively bad. It's possible some might provide real benefit, but I think those are rare. > > My main point is that the Massbike site, with which you started this > > thread, says nothing about keeping bike lanes outside door zones. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in the width of travel lanes and other roadway elements with no impact > on motorist safety or road capacity." That first sentence is good, I admit, but the overall statement is not strong enough. The "whenever possible" is a foolish inclusion. Regarding door zones, I think the proper statement is "A bike lane must NEVER be striped so it encourages riding in the door zone." If you haven't got room to abide by that (and if you feel you _must_ have paint on the road) the proper marking is a sharrow, well away from the car doors. And you need far more room than most cycling advocates seem to think. Everyone reading here should see the video at http://tinyurl.com/ybcghce > > It > > says nothing about evaluating experimental bike facilities to see if [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > separated paths or �cycle tracks,� and marking the bicyclist�s line of > travel within shared lanes." That most certainly does NOT restrict its endorsement to facilities that are really safe. For one thing, the "proven successful elsewhere" may mean the facility (like a bike box) was successful in far different conditions, like a foreign city that used separate signal phases for bicyclists, whereas the American installation would not. And you need to remember (and admit) that right now, I'm corresponding with a person who's posted that blatant violations of accepted design standards are just fine. You've specifically endorsed bike facilities that have (IIRC) hard collision hazards in the path of cyclists, blind corners in tight spaces where cyclists approaching head-on would not see each other, pavement drop-offs rather than smooth safe shoulders, etc. The essence of our disagreement is not that I like no bike facilities. Again, I've worked successfully to implement some in my area, and I've officially approved many more statewide. The essence of our disagreement is that I believe bike facilities must be carefully and safely designed, and I think that if they must not be installed if they cannot meet rational standards. I also think that "innovation" needs to be handled very, very carefully - not in Portland's "Let's try it and hope we don't get caught" mode. I've seen the alternatives. For years, our local bike club has been fighting and pleading to have changes made in an absolutely terrible bike lane set, within a local park. The "innovative" landscape architect that designed it took your attitude from the start - that we need to do something to accommodate bicyclists, that anything we do to protect them from cars is good, that collision hazards and other blatant violations of design standards don't matter. And of course, that the people that have crashed and gone to ER (and the one person permanently paralyzed) on his facility are just unfortunate occurrences, but are somehow "worth it." - Frank Krygowski >> I pointed to a CA state cycling video from the 50's. It was all about >> "vehicular cycling". Being a child in that era, I recall riding my bike [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > beyond that. I recall debates about which side of the road we were > supposed to ride. To tell the truth, I don't remember what education we got, but we didn't hesitate to take our bikes out. We rode with traffic and obeyed the signs and signals. That's about it. How much more do you need to know? >>> For the past 20 years, bicycling "education" has >>> been dominated by the "always wear your helmet" message. Relatively [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > out letters with collages of headlines like "Bicyclist struck by car" > and "Bicyclist killed in accident." I'm not surprised that helmet manufacturers attempt to sell helmets. Since most people believe that helmets can cause no harm, they don't object to the message. Helicopter parenting has become the norm, kids just aren't allowed to take the risks we were. In most cases, the risks are being exaggerated. This is true across the board, cycling just follows the pattern. The helmet issue is a symptom, not a cause. As for advocacy groups, the question I always ask before joining is what I want from them. If they are supporting changes to the law, I'll want to look at the specifics. I stopped paying membership to my club years ago because they we're simply kicking in 50% of that to LAB, and I didn't see anything in the LAB charter that was worth $20/year. Ditto for MassBike, in fact I actively opposed most of their initiatives. >>> How many Americans would expect that? The problem is, they've been >>> told for decades that riding a bike is terribly hazardous. >> No they haven't. They may believe it's dangerous, but that's not because >> they've been told that, it just appears dangerous. People are [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If so, I think you're gravely underestimating the effect of such > publicity efforts. I'm used to generic warnings on virtually every product I buy. Some of them are truly absurd. It's a sign of the times, and by no means specific to bicycles. >> Often when I get the "you're very brave/crazy to be riding a bike in >> traffic" reaction it's accompanied by anecdotes of the "I almost hit a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > statements like "I can't believe you ride through that intersection > without a helmet!" What is the hazard they are cautioning you about if not cars? And do those cars drive themselves? >>>>> ... door zone bike lanes, which are known to cause >>>>> serious injuries and fatalities. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > won't lead people to ride their bike where the stripe says. You're > being very unrealistic. I think people are *very* influenced by what they see. They see very few cyclists, and the ones they see don't resemble them. The see lots of cars and trucks and they see lots of aggressive driving. They see nothing between the cyclists and motorists, they don't understand the behavior of cyclists, so they find them unpredictable. That unpredictability they sense makes cyclists appear vulnerable. Sometimes they are right. They understand stripes and lane markings, they use those visual cues constantly to drive. >>>> ... and if >>>> that's true, the solution is to paint the lane outside of door reach. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Progress! It's not "progress", in the sense that there's no change in my opinion. It's a simple remark of obvious truth, only an obnoxious zealot would make a response like yours. >> ... but I don't >> generalize from that to conclude all bike lanes are bad. > > Strictly speaking, neither did I. As I said, I think most only > imaginary benefits. I think some are actively bad. It's possible > some might provide real benefit, but I think those are rare. There's a very real benefit in getting through rush hour traffic. Motorists often split lanes at intersections and block them to the curb. >>> My main point is that the Massbike site, with which you started this >>> thread, says nothing about keeping bike lanes outside door zones. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > paint on the road) the proper marking is a sharrow, well away from the > car doors. Obviously a lot of people don't agree with you. I find that lanes of reasonable width are OK if you ride on the outside edge. I just ignore narrow ones. I don't think they should be put in at all. I make sure to take my kids on them to acquaint them with the hazard, so I feel in this respect that the advocates have done me a disservice. > And you need far more room than most cycling advocates seem to think. > Everyone reading here should see the video at > http://tinyurl.com/ybcghce I think they're exaggerating a bit. I've ridden for years around the threat & had doors flung open many a time without contact. It's a tough problem, though. In areas where space is at a premium it seems impractical to simply mark off 3-5' of road as being unusable for anything because of open door clearance, particularly when this isn't done for any other vehicle than bikes. It really is another example of externalized auto costs, the parking footprint is a good deal larger than people admit. All this enlarges the gap between doing facilities "right" and doing them cheap. Doing them right means admitting that most or all of that proposed lane is effectively unusable. In that case, lanes become like sharrows, indicators of the presence of bikes but not segregating them reliably. I agree that they're effectively bad advice to the ignorant, but usually the ignorant would be riding there without the lane, anyway. Some people might know better but get lulled or coerced into riding where they shouldn't, but again, I think that happens with or without lanes. >>> It >>> says nothing about evaluating experimental bike facilities to see if [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > signal phases for bicyclists, whereas the American installation would > not. Yes, they could be complete idiots, but then they're only endorsing, not actually selecting. > And you need to remember (and admit) that right now, I'm corresponding > with a person who's posted that blatant violations of accepted design [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > see each other, pavement drop-offs rather than smooth safe shoulders, > etc. Yes, you and I disagree with the need for formal bike sidepath standards. So what? > The essence of our disagreement is not that I like no bike > facilities. Again, I've worked successfully to implement some in my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "innovation" needs to be handled very, very carefully - not in > Portland's "Let's try it and hope we don't get caught" mode. I think that's a typically belittling remark you make towards those you disagree with. > I've seen the alternatives. For years, our local bike club has been > fighting and pleading to have changes made in an absolutely terrible [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > permanently paralyzed) on his facility are just unfortunate > occurrences, but are somehow "worth it." Life is fraught with hazards. Some of them could reasonably be expected to be mitigated, some not. Where you draw the line is a subject of debate in many areas, not just cycling. I'm not going to respond to your (typically) childish attempt to smear me along with some clueless and criminal (apparently) "landscaper". I'll just repeat what I've said since the beginning, despite all your torturous arguments and twisted misrepresentations, that those (comparable) societies that see a large mode share in urban utility bicycling do so by deploying a variety of facilities and they simultaneously achieve far better safety records. Vehicular cycling took as a premise that special bicycle facilities were neither warranted nor welcome, and that ideology, being dominant among advocacy groups, put the US decades behind practical urban cycling. That seems to be changing and I am happy about it. -snip- > Helicopter parenting has become the norm, kids just aren't allowed to > take the risks we were. In most cases, the risks are being exaggerated. > This is true across the board, cycling just follows the pattern. The > helmet issue is a symptom, not a cause. Amen. Although we differ in some opinions, that's well written. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > > ... their focus and > > that of the new material was all on how deadly bicycling was. Of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm not surprised that helmet manufacturers attempt to sell helmets. You're concentrating on one phrase - that Bell Helmets sponsored Safe Kids - and ignoring all else. Again, even the LAB was shouting that bicycling is dangerous. And it was - and still is - giving negligible support to its education program. My point is, people have been told for 20 years now that bicycling is dangerous. There has been negligible education on proper cycling as legitimate vehicle operators. Vehicular cycling has not failed. In most cases, it has not been tried. > Helicopter parenting has become the norm, kids just aren't allowed to > take the risks we were. In most cases, the risks are being exaggerated. > This is true across the board, cycling just follows the pattern. The > helmet issue is a symptom, not a cause. But are you saying it's impossible to point out that bikes can be (and almost always are) safely operated without special facilities? > > So you think there's been no effect on the public's perception due to > > things like the following: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > them are truly absurd. It's a sign of the times, and by no means > specific to bicycles. And again: Are you therefore saying all those warnings about bicycling had no effect? I think that's literally not believable. > > Again, your arguments rest heavily on the idea that people are not > > influenced by what they see. Above, you implied that all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I think people are *very* influenced by what they see... They understand stripes and lane markings, they use > those visual cues constantly to drive. Yet you claimed that striping a bike lane in a door zone would make no difference - that timid riders would ride their anyway. If you really think bike lanes are so valuable, why not at LEAST argue for striped buffer zones to keep the cyclists out of door zones? Wouldn't that satisfy your craving for stripes, while satisfying at least my objection to designed-in danger? > >> As I said, bad facilities can be worse than no facility... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's a simple remark of obvious truth, only an obnoxious zealot would > make a response like yours. And yet, you continue to argue for unsafe facilities later in this post of yours! > > Regarding door zones, I think the proper statement is "A bike lane > > must NEVER be striped so it encourages riding in the door zone." If [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > take my kids on them to acquaint them with the hazard, so I feel in this > respect that the advocates have done me a disservice. In essence, you're simultaneously saying these lanes are so dangerous that you train your kids to avoid them; but you don't object to installing them and endangering other cyclists. - Frank Krygowski >>> ... their focus and >>> that of the new material was all on how deadly bicycling was. Of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bicycling is dangerous. And it was - and still is - giving negligible > support to its education program. Is cycling dangerous or not? > My point is, people have been told for 20 years now that bicycling is > dangerous. There has been negligible education on proper cycling as > legitimate vehicle operators. Vehicular cycling has not failed. In > most cases, it has not been tried. "Vehicular cycling" didn't bring anything new to the table, it's just a collection of common sense principles that were well known, slanted as an anti-facility argument. >> Helicopter parenting has become the norm, kids just aren't allowed to >> take the risks we were. In most cases, the risks are being exaggerated. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But are you saying it's impossible to point out that bikes can be (and > almost always are) safely operated without special facilities? If I'm parsing that correctly, no. You keep returning to the safety argument. which I have little interest in discussing. Sure, bad facilities can be unsafe, and good facilities may have a negligible effect on safety, but so what? The big deal about facilities is that they make cycling more pleasant for most cyclists. >> I'm used to generic warnings on virtually every product I buy. Some of >> them are truly absurd. It's a sign of the times, and by no means >> specific to bicycles. > > And again: Are you therefore saying all those warnings about > bicycling had no effect? I think that's literally not believable. In this day and age, warnings are everywhere. Have people stopped taking risks? Parents seem to be much more risk-averse with their children these days, that's about all I see. > If you really think bike lanes are so valuable, why not at LEAST argue > for striped buffer zones to keep the cyclists out of door zones? > Wouldn't that satisfy your craving for stripes, while satisfying at > least my objection to designed-in danger? I have no "craving for stripes". C'mon Frank, try to be a little less obnoxious. As I said, door zones are a problem. Some believe that penalties and driver education can mitigate the problem enough, I don't. Perhaps an "honest" bike lane would have the door zone hashed for a no-bike area. Perhaps educating cyclists to avoid the zone with or without lanes would be sufficient. Perhaps the presence of the lane deters drivers from doorings in the first place, I honestly don't know, nor, I suspect, do you. >> Obviously a lot of people don't agree with you. I find that lanes of >> reasonable width are OK if you ride on the outside edge. I just ignore [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that you train your kids to avoid them; but you don't object to > installing them and endangering other cyclists. No. What I said was that bad (too narrow) lanes should not be installed, but that's my opinion, I have no evidence to support it. > > ...Again, even the LAB was shouting that > > bicycling is dangerous. And it was - and still is - giving negligible > > support to its education program. > > Is cycling dangerous or not? No! Unless, that is, you do things like stay in a bike lane that runs you into an opening car door; or stay in a bike lane that runs to to the right of a right-turning truck; or ride into a pole or another cyclist just around a blind corner in a bike path. So it's possible to make bicycling dangerous in certain situations. But overall, riding a bike is safer than being a pedestrian. > "Vehicular cycling" didn't bring anything new to the table, it's just a > collection of common sense principles that were well known, slanted as > an anti-facility argument. You have a very poor understanding of its principles. But what it brought to the table was the explanation that operating a bike as a vehicle really is the most practical, and probably safest, way to cycle. And you might say its principles were well known; but at the time vehicular cycling was first touted by John Forester, people in California were calling for mandatory use of bike lanes and bike paths. In that situation, I think it's necessary for someone to fight for road rights. Forester did that, with notable success. > Sure, bad > facilities can be unsafe, and good facilities may have a negligible > effect on safety, but so what? So you're on record as endorsing bad facilities. Some of us think that's significant, even if you don't. > >> I'm used to generic warnings on virtually every product I buy. Some of > >> them are truly absurd. It's a sign of the times, and by no means [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > risks? Parents seem to be much more risk-averse with their children > these days, that's about all I see. To me, that's a three sentence evasion. And I think it's either very naive, or willfully blind, to claim that constant warnings about bicycling have no effect on the willingness of people to ride, and on parents to let their children ride. > >> I just ignore > >> narrow ones. I don't think they should be put in at all. I make sure to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No. What I said was that bad (too narrow) lanes should not be installed... Again, I think that's a more reasonable statement than many you've made. It certainly jibes with what I'm saying - which is that any facilities must be properly designed, and not lead novices into danger. If a parent has to teach his child to avoid a bike facility, I think it qualifies as a bad one. - Frank Krygowski >>> ...Again, even the LAB was shouting that >>> bicycling is dangerous. And it was - and still is - giving negligible [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the right of a right-turning truck; or ride into a pole or another > cyclist just around a blind corner in a bike path. OK, you're beating that dead horse again. I'm not denying that a badly designed facility can increase danger. I've said so repeatedly. > So it's possible to make bicycling dangerous in certain situations. > But overall, riding a bike is safer than being a pedestrian. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > bike as a vehicle really is the most practical, and probably safest, > way to cycle. "As a vehicle" covers a lot of ground. Some, I believe, was common practice -- pre-Forester, some was an (dubious and non-scientific) invention of his. > And you might say its principles were well known; but at the time > vehicular cycling was first touted by John Forester, people in > California were calling for mandatory use of bike lanes and bike > paths. In that situation, I think it's necessary for someone to fight > for road rights. Forester did that, with notable success. So he claims. I claim he's still swinging -- long after the bell. His philosophy is equal parts traffic theory and anti-facility rant, more quirky and colorful than persuasive. >> Sure, bad >> facilities can be unsafe, and good facilities may have a negligible >> effect on safety, but so what? > > So you're on record as endorsing bad facilities. Some of us think > that's significant, even if you don't. There you go again... >> In this day and age, warnings are everywhere. Have people stopped taking >> risks? Parents seem to be much more risk-averse with their children [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bicycling have no effect on the willingness of people to ride, and on > parents to let their children ride. It's your claim and opinion, but since it's impossible to (dis)prove, it's faith on your part. Accusing me of dishonesty on an article of faith is zealotry, by definition. It's an adage that correlation doesn't prove causation. I do believe it is more dangerous for children to bicycle these days, because of the inverse of safety in numbers effect. As to the effect of MHL's and other helmet advocacy and advertising, I'm not so sure. Clearly physical activity has dropped across the board with today's kids, cycling isn't unique. Besides, as a parent, if I believed in a strongly protective effect of helmets, I might conclude that cycling today is much safer than when I was a kid, and even then everybody did it... > If a parent has to teach his child to avoid a bike facility, I think > it qualifies as a bad one. No argument. That's exactly what I said. > > [Massbike] most certainly does NOT restrict its endorsement to facilities > > that are really safe. For one thing, the "proven successful [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, they could be complete idiots, but then they're only endorsing, not > actually selecting. That's a very weak attempt at a whitewash. > > And you need to remember (and admit) that right now, I'm corresponding > > with a person who's posted that blatant violations of accepted design [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I think that's a typically belittling remark you make towards those you > disagree with. Let's review the previous few paragraphs. You admit that you see no need for standards to keep bike paths safe. I say that I think these things must be done properly - but you find that remark belittling? Or was the "belittling" remark the one about Portland? Do you not know about the administrative history of their bike box "experiment"? It really was done illegally, with no registered Professional Engineer on board. It really was caught by a PE who recognized its problems. Once caught, they really did pull political strings to avoid penalties. I think that qualifies as "Let's try it and hope we don't get caught." And BTW all that is bad enough without the punch line - that the data they were forced to collect is now showing that their "innovative" bike boxes are not reducing traffic conflicts at all, just as the skeptical PEs claimed. > > I've seen the alternatives. For years, our local bike club has been > > fighting and pleading to have changes made in an absolutely terrible [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > (typically) childish attempt to smear me along with some clueless and > criminal (apparently) "landscaper". Let's see: The landscape architect (which is a profession much different from a landscaper) violated the AASHTO design manual recommendations by the placement of his bike lanes. He also included dozens of in-lane poles for cyclists to run into. He also violated normal traffic rules by trying to force cyclists to stop at every place a car might pull into a parking place, and more. You have agreed with his philosophy in what you've written above, which I quote: "Yes, you and I disagree with the need for formal bike sidepath standards. So what?" And now you're accusing me of a "childish smear"? Peter, you're simply not making sense. - Frank Krygowski >>> [Massbike] most certainly does NOT restrict its endorsement to facilities >>> that are really safe. >> Yes, they could be complete idiots, but then they're only endorsing, not >> actually selecting. > > That's a very weak attempt at a whitewash. I don't think so. They aren't designing facilities. > Or was the "belittling" remark the one about Portland? Yes. > Do you not > know about the administrative history of their bike box "experiment"? No. > It really was done illegally, with no registered Professional Engineer > on board. It really was caught by a PE who recognized its problems. > Once caught, they really did pull political strings to avoid > penalties. I think that qualifies as "Let's try it and hope we don't > get caught." Those are pretty serious allegations, do you have sources to back them up? > Let's see: The landscape architect (which is a profession much > different from a landscaper) violated the AASHTO design manual [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You have agreed with his philosophy in what you've written above, No, I didn't. > which I quote: > "Yes, you and I disagree with the need for formal bike sidepath > standards. So what?" > > And now you're accusing me of a "childish smear"? Peter, you're > simply not making sense. Only because you're not listening. >> Or was the "belittling" remark the one about Portland? > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Those are pretty serious allegations, do you have sources to back them up? Any additional information on this, Frank? From what I've read, Portland got permission to experiment with bike boxes from the FHWA. It's received widespread attention, I'm having difficulty believing it was covert or underhanded, > [...] > Let's see: The landscape architect (which is a profession much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > normal traffic rules by trying to force cyclists to stop at every > place a car might pull into a parking place, and more.[...] Would that not incur professional liability - landscape architects are licensed in most states? I would NOT be willing to put my PE stamp to 99% of the bicycle "facilities" I have seen. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >> Let's see: The landscape architect (which is a profession much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> normal traffic rules by trying to force cyclists to stop at every >> place a car might pull into a parking place, and more.[...] > Would that not incur professional liability - landscape architects are > licensed in most states? > I would NOT be willing to put my PE stamp to 99% of the bicycle > "facilities" I have seen. Could be. They mostly appear "designed by committee". SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 On Mar 15, 9:08 pm, Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: > > [...] > > Let's see: The landscape architect (which is a profession much [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I would NOT be willing to put my PE stamp to 99% of the bicycle > "facilities" I have seen. I don't think they have licensing requirements. This guy works for a big park system. At the time the facility was designed, the system was run by a famously obnoxious and dictatorial superintendent who had a big hand in the design. Since then the landscape architect has defended his work, even though that superintendent was essentially fired. The sad part is, the landscape architect is a really nice guy who's convinced he's doing cyclists a great favor with that facility - even though we've had up to 20 cyclists at board meetings pointing out the dangers! I've since come across a little article by an association of landscape architects, bragging that they do much more than just decide where to plant trees. Unfortunately, they seem to get very little training in traffic fundamentals. The latest little battle in that park system is this: A different landscape architect has sketched up a plan for a separate 8 foot (?) wide two-way bike path up a roughly 12% grade, immediately next to the existing road that climbs the grade to a parking lot. There is very little traffic on that road, but they want to "do something" to keep bikes separate from cars. (Our weekday club rides used to climb that 1/4 mile grade twice a week with no problems.) I can just see one novice wobbling up that path while another zooms down at 25 mph. But the sketch looks so pretty on paper! (They haven't yet added the drawings of the smiling bicyclists.) - Frank Krygowski > On Mar 15, 9:08 pm, Tom Sherman °_° > <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I don't think they have licensing requirements. >[...] There is the problem. Require the facilities to be designed by a PE - who will be financially liable for a design that does not meet applicable standards or is otherwise unsafe. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 > The latest little battle in that park system is this: A different > landscape architect has sketched up a plan for a separate 8 foot (?) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > down at 25 mph. But the sketch looks so pretty on paper! (They > haven't yet added the drawings of the smiling bicyclists.) Well, Frank, this would seem to be a matter of getting yourself into the process. Which, it seems to me, is what the "Boston bike advocacy" is trying to do. "Can't beat them, join them"-- and then subvert them. KnowwhatImean, Vern? Yup, someone who (credentials, experience, blah blah are as givens) rides and still has a brain needs to "get their ear". *Then* the smiling cyclists' pictures can be pasted into the happy scene, and it can be beautiful <g>. "We had a nationally recognized expert consult on this bike path arrangement". And hell, maybe the tree-locators can even learn something. You think? What can I say-- I rode another loop on Shoal Creek yesterday (and only slightly beyond, due to time constraints) and more people (MV operators) waited for me to get around parked vehicles, cooperating (as I most deliberately and obviously was also doing), sharing the road. Stripes can work wonders; again, it wasn't like this "pre-stripe" on SCB. BTW, another really, really smart thing the city did while pulling out the dragons' teeth, when they "had to work on the pavement anyhow" was to do some fairly big-time work on the sidewalks, extending on both sides (Austin has very patchy sidewalks in many areas of the "inner suburbs") and putting in some very nice limestone (native) retaining walls, including ramps and dodges around the big shade trees that line SCB. There were some feathers ruffled, no doubt, as old flower beds and whatnot were uprooted, but new sewer taps went in at least in some houses (memory is foggy on this point but there were at least some stretches where it was "all new sewer taps"), and I saw some new house sewer lines going in to take advantage in this (approx.) 1960's neighborhood, where many of those lines are needing to be "modernized". So, excuse me for omitting previously, but this is more of the "back story" but applicable in that the residents, some of them very long-term, "got things"-- I don't know what $$$ arrangements if any were made for new house sewer lines (homeowner responsibility, usually) and, probably first and foremost, residents didn't lose their curbside parking. This is something some of the "experts" (and yahoos) just don't get. Including one resident cyclist I talked to, most amazingly willing to see (according to one proposed "solution") the ROW snake back and forth across the roadway, eliminating half of the curb parking and screwing up otherwise, too. This is a model project IMHO-- nothing much to look at, now that the stonework has seen a year or so of weathering, it just all kind of fits into what was there before. No flashing neon lights and green and yellow paint all over the place and NEW NEW NEW and IMPROVED!!! Just a few rectangular "info" signs and a couple of stripes of paint, some overdue infrastructure work, and all kinds of "problems" were solved all at once. I think they call that smart planning and I don't know how it happened <g>. Yes, bikers (and other users of the bike/parking lane) have to beware of parked cars. I've shown a few obvious newbies how to anticipate the "get around" by glancing behind them well before they get to the parked vehicle, moving over to the left if safe to do so while still some distance from the car so they don't wait till the very last second and then angle way out into the MV ROW while they go around-- and more IRT "positioning" and taking the lane, when I have time. I'm in my club kit and funny how that seems to have a little positive clout, sometimes at least. This is EZ stuff that many newbies (probably including me, I don't remember if I figured that one out by meself) need to be shown. It's just "bicycle drivers education"; none of us were born knowing this stuff. (This last bit of lengthy-ness included to refute the assertion"if there's a car parked in the bike lane the bike lane is obviously no good". Not so.) --D-y Per Frank Krygowski: >> I pointed to a CA state cycling video from the 50's. It was all about >> "vehicular cycling". Being a child in that era, I recall riding my bike [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And I did such riding as well. Me too. My take is that conditions were different back then: mainly people didn't drive nearly as much over the speed limit as they do now. Today, on the same roads around here, even the speed limits are higher than they were in the sixties - not to mention that people are routinely exceeding them by 15-20 mph. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per Frank Krygowski: >>> I pointed to a CA state cycling video from the 50's. It was all about [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > higher than they were in the sixties - not to mention that people > are routinely exceeding them by 15-20 mph. Most places I've lived, speed limits, at least on highways, aren't even back up to their pre-1974 levels - so there's definitely regional variances. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Per Frank Krygowski: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > people didn't drive nearly as much over the speed limit as they > do now. There were just less people and less cars. In 1967 (at age 8), I was cited for riding my bicycle the wrong way on an empty street and required to attend safety classes -- with my mother, of course. That empty street is now clogged with non-stop traffic. My "technique" (or lack thereof) in 1967 would have gotten me killed 2010. I used to ride with my eyes closed when I was a kid (which resulted in the death of a Schwinn single speed that I plowed in to a parked car). But traffic is so bad now that I can't ride with my eyes closed. I don't know what this world is coming to.-- Jay Beattie. > I don't know what > this world is coming to.-- Jay Beattie. "Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?" - Frank Krygowski > > I don't know what > > this world is coming to.-- Jay Beattie. > > "Where are we going? And why are we in this handbasket?" I even screwed up my own age. I was eight in 1965 not 1967. Life was good back in 1965, primarily because I was only eight years old and didn't have to go to work every day. I could ride my bike down the middle of Main St. (literally, main street was called Main St.) with impugnity and bar-end streamers. We had a Schwinn shop where I could ogle the Apple Krates. Penny candy was a penny! Hershey bars were the size of Chrysler LeBarons! Everyone smoked! (O.K., so it was not all roses). -- Jay Beattie. > Per Frank Krygowski: >>> I pointed to a CA state cycling video from the 50's. It was all about [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > higher than they were in the sixties - not to mention that people > are routinely exceeding them by 15-20 mph. I think people drove as fast (although it's just an opinion, perhaps based on my own habits), but there was a good deal less traffic. I'm not sure whether or not there was more or less tolerance for cyclists, street riding seemed to garner a fair amount of aggression/hostility, but so did looking hippie-ish during the Nixon administration and it was generally hard to identify the motive behind the tossed beer bottle -- the incoherent obscenities didn't shed much light, either -- and this was Massachusetts, I can only imagine what Texas was like. Per Frank Krygowski: >And yet, I recall a recent vacation in Washington DC, when my wife and >I rode our bikes all around the city. Our B&B host actually pleaded [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >How many Americans would expect that? The problem is, they've been >told for decades that riding a bike is terribly hazardous. I think you lucked out. Another place, another time somebody might have deliberately struck you with their car. Seen it done firsthand from the safety of my own car. Even flagged down a cop and reported it - and the cop pulled the guy over. The guy walked - didn't even get a ticket. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per Frank Krygowski: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Another place, another time somebody might have deliberately > struck you with their car. If so, there were many hundreds of cyclists "lucking out" simultaneously. Bicyclists were everywhere. Don't lose sight of the fact that being a pedestrian is over three times as dangerous per hour, and even worse per mile. Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is. - Frank Krygowski Per Frank Krygowski: >If so, there were many hundreds of cyclists "lucking out" >simultaneously. Bicyclists were everywhere. I think there's something to the "Bicyclists...everywhere" angle. I definitely felt vastly safer (reasonably safe, even) racing rush-hour traffic in Philadelphia than I do riding in the 'burbs. Ditto the shore towns like Ocean City, NJ, even a city like Atlantic City: there are enough people riding bikes down there that the drivers are habituated to cyclists. SignaturePeteCresswell >> [...] >> Again, the cartoon world of smiling people really doesn't exist, even >> when the stripes get painted. > > I don't see any "smiling people", what are you talking about? Frank is likely referring to architectural renderings of the proposed facilities/farcilities. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>> [...] >>> Again, the cartoon world of smiling people really doesn't exist, even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Frank is likely referring to architectural renderings of the proposed > facilities/farcilities. OK, I guess it's a Frank's world reference. Forgive me for not being in on the joke. >>> On Mar 11, 6:11 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ride inside or outside the fog line. It's a situation I encounter almost > everywhere I ride. It's not that difficult. Oddly, I've noticed when driving, that the same thing occurs on freeway on/offramps. That's not the odd bit, the odd bit is that judging from the location of the debris, the vast majority of drivers do not take the correct line, but turn in way too early. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > On Mar 11, 6:11 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > bike lane in Missoula, MT - the home of Adventure Cycling. If they > can't keep the bike lanes clean, our rust belt cities sure can't. My favorite example, Shoal Creek Blvd, used to have a narrow bike lane striped "off" (ha ha). As a residential "artery", with curbside parking common if not at all the rule, there would be times, especially after storms, when the bike lane (and beyond) would gather branches, leaves, and also trash, even though, before the wider lanes for shared parking and bike use went in, the traffic patterns (ahem) were such that motor vehicle drivers felt no qualms about using every bit of the road, plus a little, when overtaking cyclists or at other times. Bike lanes need to be swept, true enough. But does the paint stripe make all the difference, universally? Again, I think you have a bias against striping. --D-y On Mar 12, 9:40 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > Bike lanes need to be swept, true enough. But does the paint stripe > make all the difference, universally? I'm not sure of your meaning. "Universally" seems to mean "Is there nothing else that ever makes a difference?" And of course, nobody here has claimed such an extreme position. > Again, I think you have a bias against striping. Yes, in much the same way that astronomers, psychologists and sociologists tend to have a bias against astrology. After a certain amount of reading, analyzing, testing and measuring gets done, some people tend to favor the results of the science. - Frank Krygowski > On Mar 12, 9:40 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > > Bike lanes need to be swept, true enough. But does the paint stripe > > make all the difference, universally? > > I'm not sure of your meaning. "Universally" seems to mean "Is there > nothing else that ever makes a difference?" And of course, nobody > here has claimed such an extreme position. I think, from reading your posts, that you do think striping is bad. I'm not at all sure this opinion is entirely formed from seeing road debris accumulate in unswept bike lanes. > > Again, I think you have a bias against striping. > > Yes, in much the same way that astronomers, psychologists and > sociologists tend to have a bias against astrology. After a certain > amount of reading, analyzing, testing and measuring gets done, some > people tend to favor the results of the science. I think you and I would see road debris accumulations, whether in striped bike paths or not, through different perspectives. I doubt your "science"-- just as with helmets, you have a bias that colors your perspective while all the reading, analyzing, testing, and measuring gets done. Just my take, and don't forget, I'm just an old retired plumber who happens to ride a bicycle. One thing I do agree with you on: at least in ordinary conditions, sh.t will definitely *not* roll uphill-- at least, not very far before it rolls down again! BTW, our Bicycle Coordinator has worked with COA to institute a revolving schedule for street (bike path) sweepers. And there's a city employee who sets and adjusts stop light sensors (where so equipped) so bicycles can take full vehicular advantage of said stop lights --D-y On Mar 12, 12:29 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > I think, from reading your posts, that you do think striping is bad. > I'm not at all sure this opinion is entirely formed from seeing road > debris accumulate in unswept bike lanes. It's not entirely for that reason. There are many potential problems with bike lane stripes. However, I'm not 100% against them. Maybe 90%, but not 100%. There may be situations where they provide real benefit to cyclists (as opposed to imaginary benefits). But I do have a hard time imagining what those situations might be. > I think you and I would see road debris accumulations, whether in > striped bike paths or not, through different perspectives. > I doubt your "science"-- just as with helmets, you have a bias that > colors your perspective while all the reading, analyzing, testing, and > measuring gets done. You need to understand thqt my skepticism of both bike lanes and helmets came gradually. At one time I was in favor of both. In both cases, my curiosity was aroused by discussions that included skeptics who explained their reasoning and provided data. In both cases, I searched out more information on my own. Eventually, I reached conclusions that were different from my original - and less informed - positions. I think that's what they call "education." When someone does that, learns a lot, and adopts a well-informed position based on evidence, it's not accurate to call the results "bias." > BTW, our Bicycle Coordinator has worked with COA to institute a > revolving schedule for street (bike path) sweepers. And there's a city > employee who sets and adjusts stop light sensors (where so equipped) > so bicycles can take full vehicular advantage of said stop lights Those are good things. Many cities could use the same. - Frank Krygowski > However, I'm not 100% against them [bike lanes]. Maybe 90%, but not 100%. There > may be situations where they provide real benefit to cyclists (as > opposed to imaginary benefits). But I do have a hard time imagining > what those situations might be. There are a couple of local examples. Shoal Creek Blvd. had a narrow, curbside stripe when I arrived here (Austin Tx) in '84. MV traffic tended to drive "wall-to-wall", using the full width of their side of the ROW around the curves, some quite blind, on SCB. I saw lots of aggressive ("get out of my way, you don't have a right to be here") attitudes in action. Back then, and for 15-20 years or so, SCB was a pleasant place to ride only in the absence of nasty drivers. (There is some "story" here): SCB saw neighborhood strife IRT proposed "traffic calming" proposals, and small islands (curbs with areas for new- planted crepe myrtles) were installed, and were found to be so awful that they were actually taken out. More turmoil, and saner heads somehow prevailed, as a simple stripe for a shared parking and bike lane was painted on the ROW. This works for at least a couple of reasons: the MV traffic is squeezed toward the center of the roadway, where passing closely restricts speed (they are chickenshits, most of them, after all! <g>), and residents basically have no bitch because they didn't lose one bit of curbside parking. Motorists (almost without exception IME) respect the arrangement that time and time again, I've had people wait for me to clear parked cars before proceeding around. This is something new on Shoal Creek Blvd. You'll have to take my word for that, I guess, but there we are. Another example is one bikepath alteration I've seen only one example of so far-- new striping that outlines a special "bikepath" crossing through an "on-ramp" (not quite at the actual onramp but effectively a part of it) on Dean (Diane) Keeton Street, heading west under IH35. IOW, you are riding on a bikepath, right edge of the pavement, and a right turn you cross by to continue going straight is effectively an on-ramp to a major highway. I've been "brushed back" a few times there, where you can hear (and see!) the MV behind you is most definitely *not* going to slow down to prevent an accident with you as the meat in the sandwich. During one recent passage, I was amazed to see a large utility truck back off and wait for me to cross in my new lane. (Even if it was late Sunday morning <g>). Background here includes "gentrification" of this near-east side neighborhood, as well as an active Bicycle Coordinator who has been effective in moving things forward for cyclists in Austin. That's a place, and I understand there are at least a few others locally, where all riders, and especially the inexperienced and or naive, really need protection from the "I didn't see him" crowd. Sharrows, as you've allowed, might also afford some protection, along with the 3 Foot Rule (recently passed here, with apparently little bite in it, so far). One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to occupy a place on the ROW. By whatever "logic", reasoning, whatever, if a stripe or other painted "rule" provides recognition, then it's a good thing IRT at least that specific point. Like I said, Frank, the blind acceptance of "any facility" isn't necessarily positive per se; but at least it legitimizes "facilities", and then, as with Shoal Creek Blvd., the bad (stupid, pie-in-the-sky, Dragons teeth, etc.) can be weeded out to give way to arrangements that work in particular situations. And the simpler the better, of course, which is why "one little stripe" can be a really effective device. SCB (and perhaps other similar setups), to think of it in something of a New Age linkage, is the only "traffic calming" device I've seen that seems to actually calm traffic <g>. BTW, and repeating: the anti-car people hate SCB's stripes because one of their most important objectives is removing MV's from bike lanes, but other, more sensible users have also noted a "new age" (forgive me) in bike-MV relations on SCB, post- stripe. > You need to understand thqt my skepticism of both bike lanes and > helmets came gradually. At one time I was in favor of both. In both [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > conclusions that were different from my original - and less informed - > positions. > I think that's what they call "education." Your credibility is rendered doubtful on occasion-- such as comparing helmets to cowboy hats while ridiculing cowboy hats (maybe you should move to Hat Country for awhile; they can be practical garments, after all <g>), and "not being able to imagine" where a painted bike lane might render benefit for cyclists-- and actually, all roadway users. That's not being open-minded and that's why I give it to you IRT the Man of Science thing. > > BTW, our Bicycle Coordinator has worked with COA to institute a > > revolving schedule for street (bike path) sweepers. And there's a city > > employee who sets and adjusts stop light sensors (where so equipped) > > so bicycles can take full vehicular advantage of said stop lights > > Those are good things. Many cities could use the same. As we say in Texas: "Y'all should elect yourselves some". --D-y On Mar 13, 10:15 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > > You need to understand thqt my skepticism of both bike lanes and > > helmets came gradually. At one time I was in favor of both. In both [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Your credibility is rendered doubtful on occasion-- such as comparing > helmets to cowboy hats while ridiculing cowboy hats... :-) To me, that's funny. "You once [when??] said something I didn't like about cowboy hats, so it's doubtful you're credible on bike helmets." Perhaps you should read some of the papers I've cited or data I've presented. That's how to judge credibility - with data. On the present topic, I'll repeat: I've never said all bike facilities are bad. In fact, I have personally worked for some and professionally endorsed others. I've never said all bike lanes are bad, although I think most are practically useless, and some are terrible. (Unfortunately, it's not possible for me to judge the usefulness of the ones you cited.) I do condemn the attitude that some people have expressed (although they've used other words); that "Any bike facility is a good bike facility." We have design standards for everything from automobiles, to stepladders, to house construction, to plumbing, to sidewalks, to lawnmowers and more. I can't see why some "advocates" want to, effectively, remove all standards for places where people ride bikes. - Frank Krygowski > On Mar 13, 10:15 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > helmets." Perhaps you should read some of the papers I've cited or > data I've presented. That's how to judge credibility - with data. When you say "helmets look as stupid as cowboy hats", you show you just don't understand cowboy hats IRT their functionality. > On the present topic, I'll repeat: I've never said all bike > facilities are bad. In fact, I have personally worked for some and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lawnmowers and more. I can't see why some "advocates" want to, > effectively, remove all standards for places where people ride bikes. OK, now we've finally got the objection-- "removing standards". I don't see that happening, following "acceptance of facilities". This is "half empty or full"-- bad facilities can be changed or simply yanked out. In my book, that's better than "no facilities" as a policy (going back to the first post). Like getting where you're going on a trip, this area of life requires some cooperation, some intelligent (whoa there!) give and take, and some enlightened leadership. I do understand a resistance to "opening the door" to the opportunists, politicians, advocates, etc. etc. Shoal Creek Blvd. was and probably still is in the sights of at least one of these for "further experiments". I sincerely hope not, except for maybe some sharrows near intersections, where the road narrows (turn lanes) and the bike lane disappears, and some of our fellow travelers insist on "the letter of the law"-- as in "Your lane ended, bub, you're outta here!" (AKA "I can run over your a.s and get away with it and we both know it, so scram!) After the Dragons Teeth (which cost a lot of money) were yanked, and the simple stripe went in, I turned into something of an optimist, I guess, if not a Pollyanna <g>. The latest project here seems to be turning a short-ish section of N-S near-downtown street into something of a bike thoroughfare-- not bike exclusive, but a place where "bikes belong" (my words). This is a natural route choice as it avoids a pretty good little hill and is where car-averse commuters and other bike traffic naturally gravitate to. This project should be a good one, as the impacted business owners have already had their day on local TV coverage. Whatever it takes to get a place in the sun, as far as I'm concerned; and yeah, if I had a business on that street, I wouldn't want to lose one parking space or have it made one bit more difficult for customers to arrive in my venue. If this flies, and it works, there's one more "good facility". We're never going to be Amsterdam (nowhere near flat enough) but "legitmacy" is the goal. I hope you got a picture of a couple of examples where stripes are working. Again, these are not the red bricks of Amsterdam, but are at least one giant step forward IMHO. --D-y "dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 07:15:29 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: >> However, I'm not 100% against them [bike lanes]. Maybe 90%, but not 100%. There >> may be situations where they provide real benefit to cyclists (as [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >if a stripe or other painted "rule" provides recognition, then it's a >good thing IRT at least that specific point. Unfortunately, the presence of a farcility tells the moton the exact opposite - that cycles have no right on the road, because they have their own place. >Like I said, Frank, the blind acceptance of "any facility" isn't >necessarily positive per se; but at least it legitimizes "facilities", >and then, as with Shoal Creek Blvd., the bad (stupid, pie-in-the-sky, >Dragons teeth, etc.) can be weeded out to give way to arrangements >that work in particular situations. Totally bassackwards. Unless a facility is going to be beneficial, it shouldn't be there in the first place. > And the simpler the better, of >course, which is why "one little stripe" can be a really effective [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >As we say in Texas: "Y'all should elect yourselves some". >--D-y > "dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar >> One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to >> occupy a place on the ROW. By whatever "logic", reasoning, whatever, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > opposite - that cycles have no right on the road, because they have > their own place. Of course, that's why nobody ever drives or parks in bike lanes. >> Like I said, Frank, the blind acceptance of "any facility" isn't >> necessarily positive per se; but at least it legitimizes "facilities", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Unless a facility is going to be beneficial, it shouldn't be there in > the first place. I agree, in theory, but to know what's "beneficial" you first have to agree on that term, then you have to collect the data. On top of all that, the whole idea (despite some early implementations) of bike facilities is rather new, things are still somewhat fluid. My argument is that the safety argument isn't primary so long as safety levels are relatively high and cycling is a small niche activity. We tolerate a pretty high level of death, injury and property damage to get the convenience of the auto, and safety principles and trade offs are still vigorously debated. >> "dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the convenience of the auto, and safety principles and trade offs are > still vigorously debated. IMHO not nearly as much as they should be. ISTM that even when strictly speaking of automobiles we have lots of "safety" initiatives that really seem to be designed to trick people into owing fines, but not a whole lot of effort on really making our roads safer. Rather than expecting people to actually obey all the rules of the road, we set up speed traps and red light cameras (usually at intersections with yellow lights not timed to ITE guidelines) and call it a day. Meanwhile, people drive in any lane they please, their directional signal switch has frozen up from disuse, and their rearview mirrors are perfectly adjusted to help with commute-time personal grooming, and that's apparently just life in the big city, so we have to deal. We do get lots of airbags, crumple zones, and side impact beams to try to keep us alive in the event of the inevitable (snork) crash (I refuse to use the word "accident" except in very unusual circumstances) however, so we got that going for us. Anyone who disagrees with the priorities of law enforcement and/or questions the value of lower speed limits, red light cameras, 0.01% BAC levels for DUI, etc. is immediately shouted down as being "anti-safety" however... nate (wishing I was working on my dethmobile with non-collapsible steering column, manually operated everything, and owner-added lap belts today, but I settled for a fairly moist ride on my bike instead) Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar > >> One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Of course, that's why nobody ever drives or parks in bike lanes. We have exactly that right to the road that local planning authorities and state legislatures give us. It's not like it's some God given right to occupy the roadway. For those cyclists who cannot go the speed of traffic, bike lanes are a good idea. For those who are going the speed of traffic, they can take a lane. The notion that bicyclists can be vehicles and take the lane and be just like a car -- all at 12mph -- is astounding to me. I'm for keeping traffic flowing -- all of it. I think, however, that facilities separated by physical barriers are inefficient and dangerous for a number of reasons. Simple bike lanes that are maintained and alligned with the road surface are just wide shoulders with established rules of right of way that favor bicyclists. I can pass long lines of traffic on the right, something that is totally illegal for a car. -- Jay Beattie. >>> "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar >>>> One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and state legislatures give us. It's not like it's some God given > right to occupy the roadway. I'm not sure this is entirely true, but you're the lawyer. > For those cyclists who cannot go the > speed of traffic, bike lanes are a good idea. For those who are going [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- all of it. I think, however, that facilities separated by physical > barriers are inefficient and dangerous for a number of reasons. For a positive POV: http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ > Simple bike lanes that are maintained and alligned with the road > surface are just wide shoulders with established rules of right of way > that favor bicyclists. I can pass long lines of traffic on the right, > something that is totally illegal for a car. -- Jay Beattie. I particularly like the idea of lanes when it comes to getting through rush hour gridlock. Those are times when I definitely want to be "non-vehicular". I also really like "bike boulevards": http://www.streetfilms.org/bicycle-boulevards4nyc/ I don't think urban cycling is a silver bullet problem, multiple techniques will be needed for different situations, each with its place. > >>> "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar > >>>> One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > For a positive POV:http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ That video is the prime example of intellectual dishonesty. It cites the Greenway (more specifically the West End Greenway in the video) as a shining example of success. And it is definitely a success, no quibbles from me about that. But guess what, since the Greenway borders the water, it obviates the intersection issue, which separated bike bike paths will never solve by itself. Not to mention that there are studies that have since discredited separated bike paths as "safe," never mind effective. > > Simple bike lanes that are maintained and alligned with the road > > surface are just wide shoulders with established rules of right of way [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't think urban cycling is a silver bullet problem, multiple > techniques will be needed for different situations, each with its place. >>>>> "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar >>>>>> One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > intersection issue, which separated bike bike paths will never solve > by itself. I think you mean the West Side Greenway, AKA the Hudson River Greenway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Waterfront_Greenway). You mis-characterize the video, there is just one brief comment on the popularity of the Greenway in the context that physically separated facilities are better liked than bike lanes. Given that "The Hudson River Greenway is the most heavily used bikeway in the United States." (from above link), I think the point is well made. It's true that opportunities for long stretches of bike path without road crossings aren't the rule, they aren't all that rare, either. Many natural and man made boundaries exist. Physical separation of bike lanes in a typical grid street layout doesn't do anything to mitigate intersection problems, but that's not the claim of the video. Many of the problems of bike lanes filmed were mid-block issues. Of course most cyclists would prefer facilities that were physically buffered at intersections, too, but I think it's a stretch to call this video dishonest. > Not to mention that there are studies that have since discredited > separated bike paths as "safe," never mind effective. I'd be interested in any recent citations you might have. The Danes have done quite a bit of research and data collection in this area. While it's true the results have been mixed, last I heard it's not fully understood why, and mitigations are being proposed. > >>>>> "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar > >>>>>> One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > it's true the results have been mixed, last I heard it's not fully > understood why, and mitigations are being proposed.- Hide quoted text - I also wonder if NYC is a special case since a simple marked lane on any of the major streets would be pretty ineffective because of cabs and double parking, something we don't have a lot of here in PDX. I did not put much thought in to the need for separate bicycle facitlities based on local driver conduct. -- Jay Beattie. > I also wonder if NYC is a special case since a simple marked lane on > any of the major streets would be pretty ineffective because of cabs > and double parking, something we don't have a lot of here in PDX. I > did not put much thought in to the need for separate bicycle > facitlities based on local driver conduct. -- Jay Beattie. We also (here in the Northeast) have the problem with plowed snow. Bike lanes often provide the space for that. > >>>>> "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar > >>>>>> One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > aren't the rule, they aren't all that rare, either. Many natural and man > made boundaries exist. Yes, I did mean the West Side Greenway. I was temporarily distracted, Manhattan has a Street called West End Ave, and I formed a mashup. I'm not mis-characterizing the video at all. Either it was intellectually dishonest, or the producers were badly informed (you don't get points for claiming either). The effect of that video was calculated to give the casual but uninformed viewer the impression "separated bike paths are a damn great idea, we should build ones in our city!" What they don't tell you is _why_ the NYC planners (who I have a lot of respect for and aren't stupid) decided to place the Greenway right on the waterfront. Answer: Intersections. The video ends with a long shot of cyclists enjoying the Greenway, as if to convey your city can be part of this utopia too. I'd also be willing to bet money that the video spliced the bike advocate interviews so badly that they left out all caveats. There's no way bike advocates are ignorant of studies showing separated bike lanes are not safe. Yes, painted bike lanes are crap in NYC, but anyone who has ever biked in Manhattan for more than 10 minutes knows that you don't use the painted bike lanes. It's obvious to anyone who has lived in NYC the video picked the most clueless riders. Who'd sandwich themselves between trucks? The average Manhattan avenue consists of 7 car lanes: 2 for legal parking, 2 for illegal double parking, which leaves 3 lanes for "serviceable" traffic. Of these three lanes the outer two gets used for turning, which leaves the center lane as the only safe one to use. Anyone who pays attention to where NYC bike messengers actually bike would understand this. It's a simple case of monkey see monkey do. I was able to grasp this concept as a freshman in high school, it ain't rocket science. > Physical separation of bike lanes in a typical grid street layout > doesn't do anything to mitigate intersection problems, but that's not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it's true the results have been mixed, last I heard it's not fully > understood why, and mitigations are being proposed. It's understood why all right. Just ask the Germans why they've stopped building or recommending separated bike lanes. I'm too lazy to enumerate the voluminous "whys" they aren't safe, but it'd be obvious if you gave it 5 minutes of thought or had experience riding one. (The not-so-obvious one is poor water drainage which leads to icing.) Your view of biking utopia is completely devoid of meaningful and required context. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. >>>> For a positive POV:http://www.streetfilms.org/physically-separated-bike-lanes/ >>> That video is the prime example of intellectual dishonesty. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > have a lot of respect for and aren't stupid) decided to place the > Greenway right on the waterfront. Answer: Intersections. I think you need to watch it again. There's just one brief shot of the greenway and one brief comment. The video isn't pushing greenways. Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:42:38 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: >> > "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar >> >> One "what it's all about" thing is having a recognized legal right to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >We have exactly that right to the road that local planning authorities >and state legislatures give us. Which means on any PUBLIC highway. > It's not like it's some God given >right to occupy the roadway. I don't think he built the roadway - the taxpayer did that, and we ARE taxpayers. > For those cyclists who cannot go the >speed of traffic, bike lanes are a good idea. For those who are going >the speed of traffic, they can take a lane. Why do you have so much difficulty in recognising that bicycles ARE traffic? > The notion that >bicyclists can be vehicles and take the lane and be just like a car -- >all at 12mph -- is astounding to me. Why? Do you rally believe that ALL vehicles should always travel at the speed of the fastest? > I'm for keeping traffic flowing >-- all of it. No matter what the cost in safety? That's how we got into this mess. > I think, however, that facilities separated by physical >barriers are inefficient and dangerous for a number of reasons. >Simple bike lanes that are maintained and alligned with the road >surface are just wide shoulders with established rules of right of way >that favor bicyclists. I can pass long lines of traffic on the right, >something that is totally illegal for a car. -- Jay Beattie. On Mar 14, 1:07 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 > 16:42:38 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Why? Do you rally believe that ALL vehicles should always travel at > the speed of the fastest? Yes. Absolutely, go as fast as possible.If the posted speed limit is x mph (or kph) then anything travelling less than x mph needs to get out of the way. That's the fundamental premise of the UVC -- ride far right, don't block traffic, take the road when necessary and cars can cross double yellow to get around you. Works perfectly if people follow the rules. When I ride in traffic, I'm going the speed of traffic -- which usually isn't too tough in city congestion. I'm not one of those dorks who sits in the middle of the lane going 12 mph, looking all pissed off because the cars keep whipping around me. I find no joy in gratuitously pissing off motorists. I have to drive a car myself one day a week (and more depending on my schedule out of the office), and I hate getting stuck in the bicycle promenade. > > I'm for keeping traffic flowing > >-- all of it. > > No matter what the cost in safety? > That's how we got into this mess. What it so unsafe about staying out of the way of cars? If there is no shoulder or riding far right (or left) is dangerous, then I take the road, but only for as long as is necessary. -- Jay Beattie. > On Mar 14, 1:07 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > shoulder or riding far right (or left) is dangerous, then I take the > road, but only for as long as is necessary. -- Jay Beattie. There you go again with your sensible advice based on actually riding bicycles. Now, back to various theories of how the future ought to look. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > > On Mar 14, 1:07 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Now, back to various theories of how the future ought to look. Monorail! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw -- Jay Beattie. Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:55:22 -0500 the perfect time to write: >> "dustoyevsky@mac.com" <dustoyevsky@mac.com> considered Sat, 13 Mar > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Of course, that's why nobody ever drives or parks in bike lanes. You now owe me half a glass of coke and a couple of screenwipes. >>> Like I said, Frank, the blind acceptance of "any facility" isn't >>> necessarily positive per se; but at least it legitimizes "facilities", [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >that, the whole idea (despite some early implementations) of bike >facilities is rather new, things are still somewhat fluid. The problem is that there are PLENTY of examples of cycling infrastructure that completely ignore basic safety factors, like dooring zones. There are massive problems with enforcement (parking or driving in bike facilities), which until they are addressed make any further facilities a futile gesture. There are facilities being installed with no plan for maintenance, or even any equipment available which is capable of sweeping them. >My argument is that the safety argument isn't primary so long as safety >levels are relatively high and cycling is a small niche activity. I suppose that may be true - if your only aspiration is for it remaining a small niche activity. > We >tolerate a pretty high level of death, injury and property damage to get >the convenience of the auto, and safety principles and trade offs are >still vigorously debated. On Mar 13, 1:27 pm, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > Unfortunately, the presence of a farcility tells the moton the exact > opposite - that cycles have no right on the road, because they have > their own place. Your use of the word "moton" is telling. Us/them dichotomy, anyone? Some motorists are quite sure cyclists have no rights whatsoever. The stripe is just a talking point (IME) with them. I offer a spirit of cooperation and have it returned most of the time. Some people are pricks, what can I say. It's a cruel world out there and some people spend a lot of time on the receiving end. I usually don't insist on the point IRT right of way, but I do sometimes (debris in the bike lane), after signaling that I need some slack. The worst "feedback" I've gotten recently was big revs and a fast, but not shaving close, pass. Maybe the attitude you hand out comes back at you? Just sayin'. > Totally bassackwards. > Unless a facility is going to be beneficial, it shouldn't be there in > the first place. Well, the facilities (going back to the OP) are there. Some of them are a.s-backwards (i.e., dangerous for cyclists). Those can be changed or eliminated altogether. I think the Boston bike advocacy has decided to get moving forward... --D-y On Mar 11, 9:11 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > I don't see any truth in "piling up road debris"-- not by a painted > line. Dividers, sure, because water flow is impeded, and street > sweepers can't deal with obstacles. But paint? Phooey (in most cases, > at least). Apparently, my experience is much different than yours, and my area has blessedly few bike lanes. My best example happened on a coast-to-coast bike tour when we rode into Portland from the east. As soon as we hit the eastern suburbs and their bike lanes, we were continuously warning each other "Glass!" or "Trash!" or "Gravel!" We eventually checked a bike map to search out a road _without_ a bike lane, for much better riding. I've taken photos of trash in bike lanes in the adjoining suburban township; in another about ten miles away; in my daughter's town, about 50 miles away; and in many other places. The mechanism is obvious - one shouldn't need a degree in science or engineering to understand it. - Frank Krygowski > The people who tell > me that they would ride if it were only more safe are typically > fatties with no history of riding, even at beach resorts. Now you've gone and hurt my feelings. > We should > just make the roads wider, And the airplane seats too while we're at it. SignatureTad McClellan email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/" The above message is a Usenet post. I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site. Peter Cole <peter_cole@verizon.net> considered Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:22:33 -0500 the perfect time to write: >>> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infrastructure/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic in thickly >settled areas gets my vote. Getting errant drivers properly prosecuted IS prevention. They are (just) capable of learning. > Tom Sherman wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic in thickly > settled areas gets my vote. Of the two, do you think calming and reduction of gun ownership, or zealous enforcement of gun crimes, has had a more pronounced effect on gun violence? I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard for the welfare of others. Treating their crimes at least as harshly as if they had been committed with some other kind of weapon would probably be the single most effective thing we could do to improve road safety. Chalo >> Tom Sherman wrote: >>> How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every time a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Chalo It's just too hard to prove negligence or malfeasance. >>> Tom Sherman wrote: >>>> How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every time a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It's just too hard to prove negligence or malfeasance. It is not hard when someone gets shot with a gun. So why should it be any different for an equally deadly weapon? SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 Tom Sherman wrote: >>>>> How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every >>>>> time a motorist is at fault for maiming or killing a cyclist, >>>>> but is not charged with a serious offense? >>>> I like my pound of flesh as much as the next guy, but I'd still >>>> rather work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic >>>> in thickly settled areas gets my vote. >>> Of the two, do you think calming and reduction of gun ownership, >>> or zealous enforcement of gun crimes, has had a more pronounced >>> effect on gun violence? >>> I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but >>> American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard for >>> the welfare of others. Treating their crimes at least as harshly >>> as if they had been committed with some other kind of weapon would >>> probably be the single most effective thing we could do to improve >>> road safety. >> It's just too hard to prove negligence or malfeasance. > It is not hard when someone gets shot with a gun. So why should it > be any different for an equally deadly weapon? A weapon is made to kill while a car is seen as a benevolent mechanism that most of us use often. Therefore, the perception of the incident is vastly different. The operator of the car was not assumed to be driving for the purpose of killing a bicyclist, although that might be true in rare incidents. Jobst Brandt >>>> Tom Sherman wrote: >>>>> How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every time a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It is not hard when someone gets shot with a gun. So why should it be > any different for an equally deadly weapon? I think if you reflect for a moment or two you'll see the difference. > > I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but > > American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard for the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's just too hard to prove negligence or malfeasance. You don't have to prove those things. Presume them, treat the offenders accordingly, and people will drive with more care and discretion. Just like that. Or do nothing, and the problem will continue to grow just like it has since the advent of the automobile. Cars keep getting safer-- for drivers. They remain as deadly as ever for those outside the vehicle. Chalo >>> I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but >>> American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard for the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Chalo I don't advocate a "do nothing". I'm in favor of putting more burden of responsibility/proof on the driver, as is currently the practice in some European countries. I don't find the comparison to weapon policies helpful. Motor vehicles are in a special category, but I agree they're under-regulated. Right now, I'm more inclined to simple speed and volume (access) reductions as the primary approach to improving safety, but my opinions are really limited to urban areas. Again, that seems to be an approach that's being widely adopted around the world with encouraging results. We're (in the US) just a little backward. >> > I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but >> > American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard for the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > drivers. They remain as deadly as ever for those outside the > vehicle. They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to get impaled on mainly. >>>> I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but >>>> American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard for the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to get > impaled on mainly. Then there are steel "bull bars" on SUVs and pickups that never go in the bush, that make the vehicles approximately 8 times more deadly to pedestrians and cyclists in a collision. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 Tom Sherman wrote: >>>>> I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but >>>>> American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard >>>>> for the welfare of others. Treating their crimes at least as >>>>> harshly as if they had been committed with some other kind of >>>>> weapon would probably be the single most effective thing we >>>>> could do to improve road safety. >>>> It's just too hard to prove negligence or malfeasance. >>> You don't have to prove those things. Presume them, treat the >>> offenders accordingly, and people will drive with more care and >>> discretion. Just like that. >>> Or do nothing, and the problem will continue to grow just like it >>> has since the advent of the automobile. Cars keep getting safer-- >>> for drivers. They remain as deadly as ever for those outside the >>> vehicle. >> They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to >> get impaled on mainly. > Then there are steel "bull bars" on SUV's and pickups that never go > in the bush, that make the vehicles approximately 8 times more > deadly to pedestrians and cyclists in a collision. Around here they make sure they get off-road to put some mud on those macho trucker features of their mount. There are plenty of unpaved turnouts along the major roads in the Santa Cruz mountains and they are all dug up from adults bodying with 4WD and lots of rumble. The they can park downtown and look like they just came back from a wild west outing. Their four inch dual pipes make hot rod noises the way bad guys did when I was in high school. I guess they never got over it and some passed it on to their offspring, judging from their age. To bad this is so acceptable so the Highway Patrol doesn't ticket drivers who churn up the roadside. In many places roadsides are lined with logs to keep mudders out. These guys don't like bicyclists. http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg Jobst Brandt Tom Sherman wrote: >>>>> I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but >>>>> American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard >>>>> for the welfare of others. Treating their crimes at least as >>>>> harshly as if they had been committed with some other kind of >>>>> weapon would probably be the single most effective thing we >>>>> could do to improve road safety. >>>> It's just too hard to prove negligence or malfeasance. >>> You don't have to prove those things. Presume them, treat the >>> offenders accordingly, and people will drive with more care and >>> discretion. Just like that. >>> Or do nothing, and the problem will continue to grow just like it >>> has since the advent of the automobile. Cars keep getting safer-- >>> for drivers. They remain as deadly as ever for those outside the >>> vehicle. >> They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to >> get impaled on mainly. > Then there are steel "bull bars" on SUV's and pickups that never go > in the bush, that make the vehicles approximately 8 times more > deadly to pedestrians and cyclists in a collision. Around here they make sure they get off-road to put some mud on those macho trucker features of their mount. There are plenty of unpaved turnouts along major roads in the Santa Cruz mountains and they are dug up from adults brodying with 4WD and lots of rumble. Then they can park downtown and look like they just returned from the wild west. Their four inch dual pipes make hot rod noises the way bad guys did when I was in high school. I guess they never got over it and some passed it on to their offspring, judging from their middle age. To bad this is so acceptable that the Highway Patrol doesn't ticket drivers who churn up the roadside. In many places roads are lined with logs to keep mudders out. These guys don't like bicyclists. http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg Jobst Brandt >Tom Sherman wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, I just deleted the twin brother of this post. What causes your frequent double posting of these rants? Cheers, Carl Fogel Carl Fogel wrote: >>>>>>> I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but >>>>>>> American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard >>>>>>> for the welfare of others. Treating their crimes at least as >>>>>>> harshly as if they had been committed with some other kind of >>>>>>> weapon would probably be the single most effective thing we >>>>>>> could do to improve road safety. >>>>>> It's just too hard to prove negligence or malfeasance. >>>>> You don't have to prove those things. Presume them, treat the >>>>> offenders accordingly, and people will drive with more care and >>>>> discretion. Just like that. >>>>> Or do nothing, and the problem will continue to grow just like it >>>>> has since the advent of the automobile. Cars keep getting safer-- >>>>> for drivers. They remain as deadly as ever for those outside the >>>>> vehicle. >>>> They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to >>>> get impaled on mainly. >>> Then there are steel "bull bars" on SUV's and pickups that never go >>> in the bush, that make the vehicles approximately 8 times more >>> deadly to pedestrians and cyclists in a collision. >> Around here they make sure they get off-road to put some mud on >> those macho trucker features of their mount. There are plenty of >> unpaved nturnouts along major roads in the Santa Cruz mountains and >> they are dug up from adults brodying with 4WD and lots of rumble. >> Then they can park downtown and look like they just returned from >> the wild west. >> Their four inch dual pipes make hot rod noises the way bad guys did >> when I was in high school. I guess they never got over it and some >> passed it on to their offspring, judging from their middle age. To >> bad this is so acceptable that the Highway Patrol doesn't ticket >> drivers who churn up the roadside. In many places roads are lined >> with logs to keep mudders out. >> These guys don't like bicyclists. http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg > I just deleted the twin brother of this post. > What causes your frequent double posting of these rants? I'm sorry. I have been using this link to wreck.bike a long time. I don't see double postings but you do because your version of wreck.bike or other newsgroups is not the one on the newsgroup home page, the only one I see and reply to. The UNIX software has a "D" command and following has an "s" command the allows editing and replacing the original post. When I review the posted one and it has a typo or fuzzy sentence that I want to correct, I use the "D" command that comes back with a menu from which I use "s" (supersede). When I ring up wreck.bike only the later version exists. If you reloaded you would also get only the edited one. This occurs because sometimes when spell checking I hit the wrong choice and a correctly spelled foreign word moves in and I don't catch it until I read it after it is posted... and sometimes these errors slip through in spite of spell check, I being a four finger typist. Jobst Brandt >Carl Fogel wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > >Jobst Brandt Dear Jobst, Your approach may kill the post on your news server, but it doesn't kill it on most other news servers. The double posts still appear on google groups, motzarella, x-privat, and other servers. Pretty much, you can't kill or edit a post after you push the send button, at least not for the rest of the world, whose news servers have already grabbed it. You might try just replying to your own post with a correction, if it's worth the trouble. Cheers, Carl Fogel On 10 Mar, 02:17, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >Carl Fogel wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > You might try just replying to your own post with a correction, if > it's worth the trouble. That's a bit left handed. >> Carl Fogel wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Carl Fogel Who among us has not reflected and thought better of some once-pithy missive? In years past a 'delete' would appear as a header with srikeouts in the title. Now the item gets mirrored such that 'delete' has no real meaning. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > Carl Fogel wrote: >> I just deleted the twin brother of this post. > >> What causes your frequent double posting of these rants? > I'm sorry. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jobst Brandt Wow. I recall asking about your double posts long ago, and all I got was a snarky remark about my newsreader not being capable of handling cancellations/edits. Bill "choosing to think of this as progress" S. >These guys don't like bicyclists. > > http://i1.tinypic.com/505ukc2.jpg Is that a bike or a step stool? On Mar 9, 4:28 pm, Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: > >>>> I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but > >>>> American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard for the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the bush, that make the vehicles approximately 8 times more deadly to > pedestrians and cyclists in a collision. What feature makes them so much more dangerous? I figured that if I were hit by one of those Land Rovers, the rhino guard wouldn't make much of a difference. -- Jay Beattie. > [...] > What feature makes them so much more dangerous? I figured that if I > were hit by one of those Land Rovers, the rhino guard wouldn't make > much of a difference. -- Jay Beattie. Much less deformation in a thick wall steel tube than a thin steel sheet. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 > They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to get > impaled on mainly. Correct. Although a notable exception are those "bull bars" - intended, I suppose, to protect the delicate SUVs when they run into pedestrians. They bear a disturbing resemblance to french fry cutters. Fortunately, they're not common - at least, where I live. OTOH, the fact that the most fashionable vehicles have added about a foot of front end height is, I think, bad for pedestrians and cyclists that get hit. For a cyclist in a left cross accident, there's less chance of flying over the too-tall hood and impacting only the ground. - Frank Krygowski >> They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to get >> impaled on mainly. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >- Frank Krygowski Dear Frank, http://www.myextralife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/flying-bull-fighter.jpg Cheers, Carl Fogel >>> They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to get >>> impaled on mainly. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Carl Fogel or even: http://www.kval.com/news/local/25725569.html SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 >>>> They have got a bit safer for those outside-- fewer sharp things to get >>>> impaled on mainly. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >or even: >http://www.kval.com/news/local/25725569.html Dear Andrew, Let's hope for the sake of Frank's blood pressure that he doesn't follow the links to the "news conference": http://www.kval.com/news/local/19731779.html I love the direct costs of failing to wear helmets being estimated at $0.083 billion, with indirect costs estimated at $2.100 billion (25 times as much). Cheers, Carl Fogel > http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... > > Well, it's a step. So is walking off a cliff. Shouldn't we make sure the step is in the right direction? I'm not against all bike facilities. But I'm certainly against people who claim any bike facility is a good bike facility. Suddenly, that's what Massbike seems to be doing. Sounds like their "technical committee" might have consisted of two poets, a painter, a yoga teacher and a performance artist. "Anything is good. Ommmmmmmmm...." - Frank Krygowski > >http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie. >>> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... >>> Well, it's a step. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is > coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie. OMG, "Safe Routes to School" -- what a nightmare! Bike paths and lanes! Bike parking! Intermodal facilities! What a world! Aieeee..... I'm melting.... ISTEA begat TEA-21 which begat SAFETEA-LU. All were principly highway funding bills. For instance CA got $23.4B (2005-2009) SAFETEA-LU money, $18B for highways, $5B for transit, $0.5B for "safety". In all, SAFETEA-LU allocated a maximum of $4B out of almost $300B for bicycle infrastructure. Under $3/capita/year. Cycling is way underfunded in this country. > > This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is > > coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie. > > OMG, "Safe Routes to School" -- what a nightmare! Bike paths and lanes! > Bike parking! Intermodal facilities! What a world! Aieeee..... I'm > melting.... As usual, all emotion and no analysis. Safe Routes to School has its good points. Kids should have sidewalks, and neighborhood access to schools (as alternatives to only four-lane access) makes sense. Nobody here has ever argued against bike parking. Intermodality is great, including bike racks on buses and bike space in trains. But that's hardly the thrust of the "trendiest" advocates. Their newest darlings are the bike box and the barrier-separated bikeway - both of which are obviously problematic, if you've got any capacity for motion analysis or any experience riding them. And of course, the belief in the necessity of, and benefits of, bike lanes is totally religious. As is the faith that completely separated bike trails will one day take us everywhere we want to go. > Cycling is way underfunded in this country. If the money spent on one mile of our recreational rail-trail (falsely claimed to be "transportational") were spent on traffic light sensors, every light in my metro area would detect every bicycle. The money that paid for the next mile of path would have put good bike parking at every public building. The third mile of path would pay for racks on every bus. The fourth mile would have paid for educational billboards and public service announcements so motorists would begin to learn respect for our rights. And that path goes on for many miles. The problem isn't the level of funding. It's the misdirection into bad projects, at the pleading of starry-eyed dreamers. - Frank Krygowski >>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is >>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. >> OMG, "Safe Routes to School" -- what a nightmare! Bike paths and >> lanes! Bike parking! Intermodal facilities! What a world! >> Aieeee... I'm melting... > As usual, all emotion and no analysis. > Safe Routes to School has its good points. Kids should have > sidewalks, and neighborhood access to schools (as alternatives to > only four-lane access) makes sense. Nobody here has ever argued > against bike parking. Intermodality is great, including bike racks > on buses and bike space in trains. > But that's hardly the thrust of the "trendiest" advocates. Their > newest darlings are the bike box and the barrier-separated bikeway - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > totally religious. As is the faith that completely separated bike > trails will one day take us everywhere we want to go. >> Cycling is way underfunded in this country. > If the money spent on one mile of our recreational rail-trail > (falsely claimed to be "transportational") were spent on traffic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > motorists would begin to learn respect for our rights. And that > path goes on for many miles. > The problem isn't the level of funding. It's the misdirection into > bad projects, at the pleading of starry-eyed dreamers. Locally bicycle lane and trail designers show their misunderstanding of bicycling by making new bicycle paths with series of Ess curves to help riders play with their bicycles that are only entertainment anyway. They have done this where formerly there were straight bicycle paths, the kind riders like to use. Also, bicycle crossings of major multi-lane roads now have detector loops rather than a large area push button for bicyclists, in the direction of travel... so many riders cross the detector and ride to the pedestrian "micro button" to get the light to change. Unfortunately the pedestrian button turns on the green traffic light AND the white pedestrian walk sign... for one minute while the bicycle detector loop turns on only the green light for 30 seconds. Of course that doesn't occur often because most bicyclists don't trust the detector and press the pedestrian button. Jobst Brandt >>>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is >>>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > anyway. They have done this where formerly there were straight > bicycle paths, the kind riders like to use. I'm not familiar with anything like that. Around here (Boston), we have a "rail trail", which doesn't have any sharp curves, gratuitous or otherwise. It also doesn't have any significant grades. I rode it once and found it boring. The other trail follows the river. That's not very efficient, but pleasant. I use it a lot when I'm not in a hurry. I often prefer to mix pleasure and utility when cycling, something I almost never do with a car. > Also, bicycle crossings of major multi-lane roads now have detector > loops rather than a large area push button for bicyclists, in the > direction of travel... so many riders cross the detector and ride to > the pedestrian "micro button" to get the light to change. Many of the detectors around here don't reliably detect bicycles. > Unfortunately the pedestrian button turns on the green traffic light > AND the white pedestrian walk sign... for one minute while the bicycle > detector loop turns on only the green light for 30 seconds. Of course > that doesn't occur often because most bicyclists don't trust the > detector and press the pedestrian button. Same here, usually the distrust is well deserved. > >>>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is > >>>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Same here, usually the distrust is well deserved. Around here, even the frickin' pedestian butoons don't work. >>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is >>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > religious. As is the faith that completely separated bike trails will > one day take us everywhere we want to go. Frank, you're just making stuff up. >> Cycling is way underfunded in this country. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > to learn respect for our rights. And that path goes on for many > miles. You paint false choices. > The problem isn't the level of funding. It's the misdirection into > bad projects, at the pleading of starry-eyed dreamers. Label away, like a good redneck. > >>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is > >>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yikes Peter -- pot, kettle, black? Anyway, Frank is right about bike boxes and barrier separated bikeways, both of which I live with daily and either hate or think are unnecessary, and I was an original board member of the BTA, winner of the Alice B. Toeclips Award and generally a dyed in the wool infrastructure advocate. The boxes can be downright dangerous after a few seasons. As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the Springwater Corridor that many people do use for commuting, including one of my co-workers. I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and dangerous with people and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. -- but the slow-moving upright bar set seems to like it. The chip seal also sucks, but that is a different issue. Frank and I part company on bike lanes. -- Jay Beattie. >>>>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is >>>>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Yikes Peter -- pot, kettle, black? Absolutely, but I'm calling a name for name calling. > Anyway, Frank is right about bike > boxes and barrier separated bikeways, both of which I live with daily > and either hate or think are unnecessary, and I was an original board > member of the BTA, winner of the Alice B. Toeclips Award and generally > a dyed in the wool infrastructure advocate. The boxes can be > downright dangerous after a few seasons. I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still overwhelmingly popular. Bike safety is an issue, but sedentary lifestyle is a much bigger one. > As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the > Springwater Corridor that many people do use for commuting, including > one of my co-workers. I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and > dangerous with people and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. -- > but the slow-moving upright bar set seems to like it. But that "set" is really the set of (potential) mainstream cyclists. That's who the facilities are for. If you don't accommodate average middle-aged women, you don't have a viable bike plan. > Frank and I part company on bike lanes. -- Jay Beattie. Me too, obviously, but the biggest difference is that I don't think that what's good for Peter Cole is good for everybody. > I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From > what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still > overwhelmingly popular. First, the jury is still out for those people who are so enamored of bike boxes that they refuse to analyze the traffic movements. Those of us who have considered how vehicles move at intersections seem to be pretty uniformly skeptical. Those who have begun to measure their effects are struggling to hide their failure. And BTW, I didn't start out against bike boxes; I started out unsure, trying to understand how they would help. After much reading and thinking, I decided they would not. And they are "overwhelmingly popular" for two reasons: A) There is a large group of fuzzy thinkers who believe there is no such thing as a bad bike facility; and B) bike boxes have been rabidly promoted as being wonderful. Portland's "experimental" boxes were never treated as an unbiased experiment. The "Get behind the bike box!" flyers in bike shops were (and probably still are) pure sales pitch. > Bike safety is an issue, but sedentary lifestyle is a much bigger one. So it's considered moral to lure people into activity by using false promises of greater safety, even if analysis and data show the opposite? And isn't it counterproductive to further discourage people who don't have these oddball facilities, by reinforcing the false message that cycling is dangerous without them? Why not just tell the truth - that cycling is extremely safe, that it's easy to do it well, and that you rarely need special stripes or special facilities? Wouldn't that be more cost effective and more honest? - Frank Krygowski >> I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From >> what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > special facilities? Wouldn't that be more cost effective and more > honest? Continue the lecture with: Cycling in this country is a failure. It is both far more dangerous than it should be and has become vanishingly rare, and even then, 80% of it is non-utility, most of that by athletic (or wannabe) young (or wannabe), men on expensive toys. A UK study estimated that the positive health effects of cycling on mortality rates overcome the negative (from car crash) by an order of magnitude or so. Insisting on a hugely unpopular approach to cycling (vehicular, aka defective cycling), effectively sentences many thousands to early deaths from sedentary lives. A Danish study estimated the return on investment from heath care cost reduction to be $2 for every $1 spent on infrastructure. It more than pays for itself. It is you who are causing unnecessary deaths with your rigid and unscientific ideology -- and you're arrogant to boot. Vehicular cyclists are always harping on safety issues (to block things they don't like), while at the same time claiming cycling to be too safe to be concerned about it. Typically, they answer the wrong question and solve the wrong problem. The problem is getting a significant part of the population to use bicycles for utility purposes. The question is why more people don't do it. Ask the people who could, and don't, and they'll tell you why. Of course *you* don't believe them. *You* think they're ignorant. *You* think you can preach them into cycling. Well, maybe you can, but that hasn't worked *anywhere in the world* yet, so good luck with your mission. Meanwhile, couch potatoes continue to die early deaths, and Americans continue to live the heartbreak of chub rub. [...] > Vehicular cyclists are always harping on safety issues (to block things > they don't like), while at the same time claiming cycling to be too safe [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > good luck with your mission. Meanwhile, couch potatoes continue to die > early deaths, and Americans continue to live the heartbreak of chub rub. Why do we have to preach to anybody? If these people don't want to cycle, let them stay on the couch. Your position is that you don't mind ruining cycling for the people who actually like it based on what you think couch potatoes say they want. > [...] >> Vehicular cyclists are always harping on safety issues (to block things [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Why do we have to preach to anybody? If these people don't want to > cycle, let them stay on the couch. For one reason, federal health insurance or no, we all bear large current costs and looming catastrophic costs for medical expenses. That's my bread and butter reason. I also think it would make for much better quality of life in densely settled areas (as well as perhaps reducing the growth of sprawl), but I'll keep that under my hat lest I be accused of social engineering, but I think the two issues are inexorably linked. I like to cycle, a world I like to cycle in is a world I probably like to live in. > Your position is that you don't mind ruining cycling for the people who > actually like it based on what you think couch potatoes say they want. No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's easily achievable, but I think it will involve investment in infrastructure. Cycling infrastructure is cheap as transportation infrastructure goes, and since it both draws away from other modes and reduces other social costs (health, pollution), it's a win-win economically. I don't rely on polls of non-cyclists, I read polls of cyclists in places where cycling has had a resurgence, where they express what they like and don't like. These preferences are very closely watched in European countries where utility cycling is taken seriously. The results are impressive. As to "ruining" cycling for those who like it already, I think that's just a lot of hot air. In the US, 80% of cycling is recreational. I'm not interested in that segment, nor whatever cycling exists outside of urban areas. I find it difficult to believe that infrastructure improvements would "ruin" things for existing urban utility cyclists, when that very group, from the polls I've read, is typically very much in favor of facilities. It's a stretch to believe urban American cyclists are wired completely differently than urban European cyclists. It's an even greater stretch to believe that facilities would inconvenience those who would like to avoid them in an urban area, since that would require a more or less total makeover of a city to put mandatory facilities on every single parallel route. You really think that's going to happen? Even in Copenhagen? It may happen that cities built on rivers (many, I'll admit) might, in a fit of facilitation, stripe bike lanes on all their crossing bridges, and insist cyclists use them. If that's such a dark prospect as to "ruin" cycling for you, I'll guess you'll have to move or take up bowling. Me, I'd just suck it up, at least for the length of the span. >No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's >easily achievable . . . Dear Peter, I think that this is where you lose most readers. Cheers, Carl Fogel >> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Carl Fogel Portland is already at 10x US average. Their plan is to increase that by a further 2.5x. >>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Portland is already at 10x US average. Their plan is to increase that by >a further 2.5x. Dear Peter, To be more specific, I think that you lose most readers when you speak of increasing anything an order of magnitude _easily_. I doubt that the people who have been trying to increase bicycle riding in Portland would call their work easy. And _planning_ to increase ridership by 2.5x is not the same as doing it, much less doing it easily. Portland, of course, is more appealing most US cities to bicyclists simply because it has such a mild climate--it's neither as hot nor as cold as much of the urban US. You can ride in hot or cold weather, but the milder the climate, the more likely people are to ride bicycles in the urban US. Even a few degrees makes a big difference in how willing people are to switch to bicycles. Most cities show hotter or colder average temperatures, winter and summer, than Portland. (Their extremes are even worse than Portland's extremes if no nearby ocean damps the mercury swings.) Portland, 34~45F to 57~81F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KPDX&StateCode=OR &SafeCityName=Portland&Units=none&IATA=PDX&normals=on *** NYC, 28~39F to 70~85F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KNYC&StateCode=NY &SafeCityName=New_York&Units=none&IATA=EWR&normals=on Los Angeles, 48~68F to 68~85F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KCQT&StateCode=CA &SafeCityName=Los_Angeles&Units=none&IATA=LAX&normals=on Chicago, 15~30F to 65~82F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KORD&StateCode=IL &SafeCityName=Chicago&Units=none&IATA=ORD&normals=on Houston, 40~60F to 72~93F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KHOU&StateCode=TX &SafeCityName=Houston&Units=none&IATA=IAH&normals=on Phoenix, 45~65F to 85~105F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KPHX&StateCode=AZ &SafeCityName=Phoenix&Units=none&IATA=PHX&normals=on Philadelphia, 21~35F to 65~82F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KPNE&StateCode=PA &SafeCityName=Philadelphia&Units=none&IATA=TTN&normals=on Detroit, 18~28F to 68~82F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KDET&StateCode=MI &SafeCityName=Detroit&Units=none&IATA=DTW&normals=on Denver, 15~42F to 60~89F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KDEN&StateCode=CO &SafeCityName=Denver&Units=none&IATA=DEN&normals=on Miami, 60~77F to 75~91F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KMIA&StateCode=FL &SafeCityName=Miami&Units=none&IATA=MIA&normals=on Pueblo, 12~42F to 60~91F http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayNORMS.asp?AirportCode=KPUB&StateCode=CO &SafeCityName=Pueblo&Units=none&IATA=PUB&normals=on Cheers, Carl Fogel >>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I doubt that the people who have been trying to increase bicycle > riding in Portland would call their work easy. Easy in comparison to making changes of similar magnitude in transportation. > And _planning_ to increase ridership by 2.5x is not the same as doing > it, much less doing it easily. No, but who would be the best judge of the feasibility of that, the people running the bike programs in Portland or you (or me)? > Portland, of course, is more appealing most US cities to bicyclists > simply because it has such a mild climate--it's neither as hot nor as > cold as much of the urban US. Sure, but it rains a lot. Personally, I find that more of a challenge than cold or heat. > You can ride in hot or cold weather, but the milder the climate, the > more likely people are to ride bicycles in the urban US. Even a few [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > summer, than Portland. (Their extremes are even worse than Portland's > extremes if no nearby ocean damps the mercury swings.) Most cities don't have the temperature swings of Fargo, sure, but Japan is as hot and humid as about anywhere in the US, and Northern Europe gets pretty cold. Utility cycling isn't an all or nothing proposition. It's quite acceptable, believe it or not, to give up the bike for some days or even seasons. My wife, for instance, just resumed commuting after stopping in December. It isn't the temperature that stops her, even here in Boston, she just doesn't like riding home in the dark. She also typically doesn't ride in our typical Nor'easters, with 45 mph sideways rain. Of course many people do use mass transit in conditions like that and worse. As those who use such facilities (apparently not many here) realize, you may spend quite a bit of time out in the elements. >>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Easy in comparison to making changes of similar magnitude in >transportation. Dear Peter, Now you're just waffling. Cheers, Carl Fogel >>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Now you're just waffling. No, I'm assuming that paying for 10% trip share with cycling is cheaper than moving the same number of people any other way, considering how modest the facilities are. I could be wrong, I don't have figures. I'm also assuming the "Field of Dreams" model. That may be Pollyannic, but it seems to have worked elsewhere. >>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >I'm also assuming the "Field of Dreams" model. That may be Pollyannic, >but it seems to have worked elsewhere. Dear Peter, When you first say that you can increase something easily by an order of magnitude and then switch to saying that it would be easy compared to something else, you're waffling. Cheers, Carl Fogel >>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Carl Fogel OK, then consider my second statement a clarification of my first. Sorry for my hasty language. >>>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >OK, then consider my second statement a clarification of my first. Sorry >for my hasty language. Dear Peter, Done--and sorry because I think that your response is better than mine was. To shift to a more concrete question, does anyone know what Portland's ridership looks like over time and population? That is, Portland has lots of bicyclists, but is that a matter of recent or steady growth, or has ridership been roughly as high for decades? This article: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/bike_commuting_surges_in_portl.html suggests these figures for bike-to-work in Portland 2007 10,987 ~4% of workers 2009 17,365 ~6% of workers (judging by ~557,000 population) Wikipedia suggests that Portland's population held fairly stead from 1950 to 1980, hovering between 366,xxx and 382,xxx. But then it climbed 50% from 1990 to 2008 to 557,xxx. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon#Demographics It looks as if Portland ride-to-work expanded ~55% in about 2 years, but I don't see details of the study dates or anything about how accurate they are. I think that people have been working hard in Portland to increase ride-to-work, but I'm curious about how things have been counted and whether we're about to see the top of a sigmoid curve. Cheers, Carl Fogel >>>>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Carl Fogel And then there are cultural biases: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/bicycle-inflation-in-paradise/ SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 >>>>>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >And then there are cultural biases: >http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/bicycle-inflation-in-paradise/ Dear Andrew, Interesting article--thanks! I loved this: "Even to rent a bike for one week from the Recyclery costs $175 more than I paid for my weekly rental car the previous time I was in Portland." Yikes! As usual, no one thinks of just buying the $70 WalMart successor to the Fury RoadMaster mtb--front suspension & 18 gears! Cheers, Carl Fogel >>>>>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd >>>>>>>>>>> like to see a 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > And then there are cultural biases: > http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/bicycle-inflation-in-paradise/ I don't see "cultural bias", I just see supply and demand and the "invisible hand" adjusting the price of used bikes. The writer seemed surprised to find no $100 bikes in bike shops, and drew Portland-specific conclusions from that, but I'd be surprised to find a $100 bike at a bike shop anywhere. Bike rentals always seem to be shockingly high, too. I guess there must be a reason for that. He did mention that Portland had a Costco, it also has a Walmart, so I don't see the big cultural chasm. The fact that big old clunker comfort bikes aren't flying off the shelf may have more to do with gravity than hipness. Having read both Freakonomics books (gifts) and occasionally the column online, I think the franchise has been scraping the bottom of the story barrel for some time. >>>>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Carl Fogel Lots of information here: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/PortlandCountData2006.pdf >>>>>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > >http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/PortlandCountData2006.pdf Dear Peter, Thanks, interesting pdf. The first thing that I notice is that the count is done in summer and early fall, so I wonder how far the figures would drop in winter. The next thing that strikes me is that the counts were performed during the 2-hour morning and evening peak times, 7-9am and 4-6pm. I wondered for a moment if "hose count" was some odd typo, but then I realized that it's just the same air-hose that counts cars laid across a bike path. I couldn't see any details about how many 24-hour hose counts were used versus data extrapolated from the pair of 2-hour peak counts. Finally, the pdf makes no claims about the bicyclists being commuters heading for work. I suppose that the locations and times could be picked to make it likely that the riders were heading for work, but I wonder how many riders were just out for fun? It does look as if ridership kept increasing after the city stopped building more miles of bikeway--graph on page 8--so your hopes for explosive growth may prove true. Cheers, Carl Fogel >>>>>>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > Carl Fogel Who knows? Numbers last year (2009) appear to be slightly lower than the year before: http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/01/its_official_portland_says_num.html The 2009 report goes into more detail: http://media.oregonlive.com/commuting/other/Bike%20Count%20Report%202009.pdf I found this tidbit interesting: "Female riders represented 31 percent of bicyclists citywide, a one percentage point decrease from 2008." Interesting graph of Copenhagen (1970 - today) also, they've had some ups and downs. I like their categories of (actual & potential) cyclists: "Strong & Fearless" (1%) "Enthused & Confident" (6%) "Interested but Concerned" (60%) "No Way, No How" (33%) The biggest group is characterized by "not interested in bicycle lanes; Not comfortable in traffic". It looks like they're saying that counts may plateau unless they can put in boulevards and off-street facilities. >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] >Not comfortable in traffic". It looks like they're saying that counts >may plateau unless they can put in boulevards and off-street facilities. Dear Peter, Again, thanks for the interesting pdf. I'm not sure, but it sounds as if Portland-- --takes two 2-hour peak counts --averages them into one 2-hour count --multiplies that by 5 to extrapolate a daily average Which they say is a traffic engineering rule of thumb and is confirmed by five 24-hour hose counts out of 130+ sites. That sounds a bit optimistic to me, since bicycle traffic is likely to drop far more than car traffic when it gets darker and colder. Maybe 5 24-hour hose counts is enough for statistical significance, but hose counts are cheap enough that it's odd to rely on observers and extrapolations and so on. Perhaps it's hard to find a place where only bicycles roll over the hoses? The other thing that seems odd is that overall traffic dropped in 2009, even though they expanded from 121 to 139 counting locations. Maybe they adjusted for counting the same riders while increasing the counting locations by 15%, but it sounds tricky. Cheers, Carl Fogel > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > I'm also assuming the "Field of Dreams" model. That may be Pollyannic, > but it seems to have worked elsewhere. I think so. As it now stands we have big, strong men afraid to get out and ride along with the cars on Sunrise Valley Drive. If cagers see dedicated bike lanes everywhere they go, some of them are bound to get out and Ride Bike. More cagers see the smiling, healthy people using the the bike lanes... > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Portland is already at 10x US average. Their plan is to increase that by > a further 2.5x. Peter, Have you ever visited Portland? If so, did you ride a bike there? More importantly, did you try bike north-south, or more than 8 miles? If not, you don't comprehend the misery that is Portland. I can't read your mind, I don't know what you imagine Portland biking life to be like. I think you've drunk too much of the Buy-cycling kool-aid. To even compare Portland (still growing in area & population) to historic Boston is LUDICROUS. That's like saying the octogenarian (Boston) is healthy as a baby (Portland). It's just never going to be the case. You'll just have to trust me when it comes to biking cities, Portland is no bike Nirvana, and it's certainly not "utilitarian." It's laughable you hold up Portland as some shining example of "utilitarian" bike city in the US. That's like saying biking on Mass Ave. is "utilitarian." If the road infrastructure in NYC, LA, SF, or even Boston were like Portland I'd be the first one to move my fleet of bikes to Europe. > > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > If the road infrastructure in NYC, LA, SF, or even Boston were like > Portland I'd be the first one to move my fleet of bikes to Europe.- Hide quoted text - Dang, you are so harsh on us poor Portlanders. It is far easier to ride around Portland than downtown LA, SF or NYC (although I have never ridden a bike in NYC, I have driven a car -- which was scary enough). I thought I was going to get killed in Hunters Point, and LA is a wreck -- and their road surfaces are as bad as Portland easy. Here's our close-in commute map. http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Bicycles/images/MapFinal.gif These streets are fine. It is not a bicycle Nirvana -- that would be some development in OC with a cute little town square and people in summer wear all year. But for the biggest city in our wet state, it's O.K. -- and the powers-that-be are at least trying (sometimes way too hard). -- Jay Beattie. PS For recreational riding, I'm out here or up in the West Hills: http://www.martres.com/portfolios/lakes/content/crown_point_large.html > > > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > PS For recreational riding, I'm out here or up in the West Hills:http://www.martres.com/portfolios/lakes/content/crown_point_large.html Jay, Let me be very clear about this. I'm not clear who funds what in Oregon, so I can't actually assign appropriate blame. I can only discern what works and doesn't work based on what I see. Right now I'm not even going to talk about biking, just what I consider failures in the driving infrastructure. You've served on various boards so I'm sure you have greater visibility for the reasons behind the problems. The primary failure in Oregon is their refusal to build sufficiently wide lanes and roads. I don't know what the actual percentage is, but a SIGNIFICANT percentage of roads are two lane (one lane each direction), no (paved) shoulder, drainage ditch on each side, no sidewalks (even in the city). Oregon is the only place in the US where I've lived, where day in and day out, construction crews rely on human semaphores for traffic control. I see this even within Portland city limits. This is a sign of a very deep flaw when you don't have sufficient space to simultaneously route traffic both ways, or have other road alternatives to detour traffic. IOW: hint, it doesn't get any more hick than this. This problem is further exacerbated by what I call cul-de-sac neighborhoods (especially in Washington County). You all probably know what I'm talking about, neighborhoods that are virtual mazes, designed to abate traffic. This itself wouldn't be a big deal, but they've made no provisions for bikes on the arteries through such neighborhoods, where all the car traffic is concentrated. To it's credit, Portland has since banned construction of cul-de-sac neighborhoods, but Washington County is a lost cause. Then there are the brilliant minds at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Look up "Unusual events" on the following wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Department_of_Transportation ODOT apparently doesn't understand the concept of signage BEFORE the place of interest. By the time you see the sign, you've passed the exit. I'm not even going to mention the absurd use of studded tires by Portland residents within city limits, or the articulated trailer trucks which cause even more damage to roads. I could go on and on, but unless Oregon is willing to address these fundamental issues, biking will just be some fringe activity. And I'm not optimistic because Portlanders still keep going on about "quality of life," a schizo denial that they've already become a big city, and that they need to face up to the management issues of big cities. > > > > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > of life," a schizo denial that they've already become a big city, and > that they need to face up to the management issues of big cities.- Hide quoted text - All true, but your view of the world is wharped by living in the SCV. The South Bay and Los Angeles have super-highway sized roads going through residential neighborhoods. The SCV is flat and wide and was built for cars. The same is true of LA. Oregon is more like New Hampshire or Vermont -- similar roads and similar topography. Our downtown is compressed, and the blocks are half the size of NYC blocks. The place looks like a set piece from a department store window. There is no getting around that. We will never have a super highway going over Mt. Hood (or around Detroit Lake and over Santiam Pass), and we already have HWY 5 going north and south down the Willamette Valley -- which is narrow in places, but not unlike HWY 5 north of Sacramento or in Northern California in general. HWY 84 going east is adequate outside city limits, and in fact, you could camp in the middle of most roads in far eastern Oregon since there is no one out there -- except cows. There are some highways I never want to get bigger, too. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/steven_king/2798303597/ I'll switch out my studded tires this week -- and will give them up altogether when something better comes along. I drive up to the mountain every week during ski season, and there is no way in hell I'm going to slap on chains and get in that ridiculous rhumba line behind the dorks in the Tauruses. -- Jay Beattie. >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Have you ever visited Portland? Yes. > If so, did you ride a bike there? No. > More importantly, did you try bike north-south, or more than 8 miles? > If not, you don't comprehend the misery that is Portland. I guess you're saying it's hilly? > I can't read your mind, I don't know what you imagine Portland biking > life to be like. I think you've drunk too much of the Buy-cycling > kool-aid. To even compare Portland (still growing in area & > population) to historic Boston is LUDICROUS. That's like saying the > octogenarian (Boston) is healthy as a baby (Portland). It's just > never going to be the case. Boston has been named "worst cycling city" a couple of times. Its utility cycling trip share hovers around the national average despite it being a college and university hub. Portland beats it by a factor of 10. Unless someone is holding a pistol to the heads of all those cyclists, they're doing something right. > You'll just have to trust me when it comes to biking cities, Portland > is no bike Nirvana, and it's certainly not "utilitarian." It's > laughable you hold up Portland as some shining example of > "utilitarian" bike city in the US. That's like saying biking on Mass > Ave. is "utilitarian." That would be "wicked" utilitarian in Boston. > >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I guess you're saying it's hilly? Portland is virtually flat as you bike north-south. The only hill of any consequence is on the west side, through Hillside/Washington Park area. I suggest you visit Portland again. Beg, borrow or steal a bike if you have to while you are there. Then try to get from one part of town to another. Only then will you discover why Portland biking is "broken." > > I can't read your mind, I don't know what you imagine Portland biking > > life to be like. I think you've drunk too much of the Buy-cycling [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Unless someone is holding a pistol to the heads of all those cyclists, > they're doing something right. Let's assume, for the moment, that Portland is doing everything right (not a view I happen to share, btw.). You probably don't realize there is still farmland with Portland city limits (and conceivably they can grow their boundary to "acquire" more farmland, but that's another discussion). If the farmer cashes out, for that particular piece of land, Portland has the luxury of starting from a virtual blank slate. Whatever Portland chooses to do there, how much of that would apply to a town like Boston, which has been around before Paul Revere? In short, you have some romantic notions of Portland that doesn't correspond to any reality. You haven't even figured out the reasons why Portland does certain things and the reasons they work (or don't work). You think a blind copy of those ideas will just work in Boston. Guess what, there's a term for that, it's called "blind faith." > > You'll just have to trust me when it comes to biking cities, Portland > > is no bike Nirvana, and it's certainly not "utilitarian." It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That would be "wicked" utilitarian in Boston. Nobody in their right mind would willingly _choose_ to bike on Mass Ave. They do it largely because that's the only choice available to them, and that's my point. > > >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > >>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > would apply to a town like Boston, which has been around before Paul > Revere? I have come to the conclusions that you don't know what you are talking about or have not been here in 20 years. "Luxury of starting from a virtual blank slate?' Are you kidding? The nearest farm is on Sauvie Island. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauvie_Island (nice place for a flat TT). We're building in-fill here in PDX not sprawling Central Valley gated commuties. Here is our zoning map for PDX. Find me the farms! http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=30426&a=59266 (hint, there is some farm land west of the West Hills, but that is like Christmas trees). The farm land is in unicorporated Washington, Clackamas and Multinomah Counties -- some of it far out near Boring and Damascus. The fact that someone can throw up houses on a former farm in Unhappy Valley does not mean there is room for a bike lane on S.W. Broadway in downtown PDX (which does have a bike lane, BTW). -- Jay Beattie. >The farm land is in unicorporated Washington, Clackamas and Multinomah >Counties -- some of it far out near Boring and Damascus. The fact that >someone can throw up houses on a former farm in Unhappy Valley does >not mean there is room for a bike lane on S.W. Broadway in downtown >PDX (which does have a bike lane, BTW). -- Jay Beattie. Dear Jay, Please reassure me that Boring and Unhappy Valley are real names that just look like something out of the Simpsons (which names some characters for Portland streets). Cheers, Carl Fogel > > > >> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > > >>>> No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > not mean there is room for a bike lane on S.W. Broadway in downtown > PDX (which does have a bike lane, BTW). -- Jay Beattie. Jay, I left Portland in 2003. The farms I'm referring to are right next to PCC (West Side). There is NO comparison between Boston and Portland. There are plenty of rural roads in Portland. There are no rural roads in Boston. There's also plenty of open space in West Side Portland (although it might be owned by somebody). Good luck finding open space in Boston. -snip much- > Guess what, there's a term for that, it's called "blind > faith." one of the classic images form my youth http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/4/46685/Blind_Faith.JPG Thanks! SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > -snip much- >> Guess what, there's a term for that, it's called "blind [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://usr.audioasylum.com/images/4/46685/Blind_Faith.JPG > Thanks! I wouldn't store that image on your computer, just sayin.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_faith#Album_release_and_controversy >>> You'll just have to trust me when it comes to biking cities, Portland >>> is no bike Nirvana, and it's certainly not "utilitarian." It's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ave. They do it largely because that's the only choice available to > them, and that's my point. I ride Mass Ave all the time, it's one of my favorite routes. Harvard to Central to Copley, very interesting neighborhoods all the way. I've trained my kids urban riding there, usually when they're 12-13, usually on a weekday rush hour. Now we do it for fun. If you want kids to ride bikes, you've got to show them interesting things. Cows don't do it for most teenagers -- nor me. > [...] > I ride Mass Ave all the time, it's one of my favorite routes. Harvard to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bikes, you've got to show them interesting things. Cows don't do it for > most teenagers -- nor me. No wonder you have issues! I ? Cows! SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >> I ride Mass Ave all the time, it's one of my favorite routes. Harvard [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I ? Cows! I [heart symbol] Cows! SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 On Mar 10, 7:53 pm, Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: > >> [...] > >> I ride Mass Ave all the time, it's one of my favorite routes. Harvard [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I [heart symbol] Cows! At the risk of the incredibly lame "me too" post - me, too. (I even talk to them.) > On Mar 10, 7:53 pm, Tom Sherman °_° > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - So long as they don't talk back. Cold isn't it? My commute yesterday was a lot shorter than yours, but also wet and windy. I hate it when winter comes back unexpectedly. -- Jay Beattie. > > On Mar 10, 7:53 pm, Tom Sherman °_° > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Cold isn't it? My commute yesterday was a lot shorter than yours, but > also wet and windy. I hate it when winter comes back unexpectedly. -- Yeah. I don't like wetness right on the cusp of freezing. (I climbed and descended in that the other morning.) Miserable *and* nerve wracking. Per Tom Sherman °_°: >I [heart symbol] Cows! The most scared I've ever been in my life was from a cow. Beautiful night in Germany, walking across a field between my sister-in-law's place and the in-law's. Dead quiet, not a breath of air stirring. Stopped to sit on a rock and admire the sky. Suddenly there's this blast of warm air on the back of my neck kind of a "poooooogggggggh" sound. It was just a big old cow that had wandered over to see what was going on - and exhaled about eight inches from the back of my head. But I almost fainted from fear. SignaturePeteCresswell > The most scared I've ever been in my life was from a cow. Family newsgroup, Pete. Bill "it was either that or a smart-a.s crack about a pregnancy test" S. Per damyth: >You'll just have to trust me when it comes to biking cities, Portland >is no bike Nirvana, and it's certainly not "utilitarian." It's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If the road infrastructure in NYC, LA, SF, or even Boston were like >Portland I'd be the first one to move my fleet of bikes to Europe. Would anybody here venture an opinion on the bikability of Philadelphia PA (USA)? My limited experience suggests that it's pretty good. SignaturePeteCresswell [...] > As to "ruining" cycling for those who like it already, I think that's > just a lot of hot air. In the US, 80% of cycling is recreational. I'm > not interested in that segment, nor whatever cycling exists outside of > urban areas. OK I think that's where you lost me. Cycling in urban areas is always going to suck, it's just a question of whether it sucks less than other ways of getting around. > I find it difficult to believe that infrastructure improvements would > "ruin" things for existing urban utility cyclists, when that very > group, from the polls I've read, is typically very much in favor of > facilities. This is the kind of fuzzy thinking Frank mentioned. Most existing urban utility cyclists who are not insane are probably in favour of well-designed facilities, and not in favour of lousy ones, especially if they're compulsory. Of course lousy compulsory facilities ruin things for cyclists. You find it difficult to believe that could happen? You must have seen this link before: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/ > [...] >> As to "ruining" cycling for those who like it already, I think that's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > going to suck, it's just a question of whether it sucks less than other > ways of getting around. Many people like it a lot, personally it's about my favorite place to ride. If you've given up on the idea of urban cycling, then perhaps you shouldn't be participating in this thread, or at least being so quarrelsome with me, as I've repeatedly stated my interests are only with respect to urban utility cycling. >> I find it difficult to believe that infrastructure improvements would >> "ruin" things for existing urban utility cyclists, when that very [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > well-designed facilities, and not in favour of lousy ones, especially if > they're compulsory. That goes without saying. But lousy is in the eye of the beholder. > Of course lousy compulsory facilities ruin things for cyclists. You find > it difficult to believe that could happen? > > You must have seen this link before: > > http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/ There is no shortage of bad facilities to "poster boy". That doesn't make a case. You and Frank are both entirely missing the point. If you want people to ride, you need to give them what they want, not what you want. I'd like to see lots more urban utility cyclists. More recreational cyclists would be fine too, but I don't know of any way to encourage that. > > . Cycling in urban areas is always > > going to suck, it's just a question of whether it sucks less than other > > ways of getting around. > > Many people like it a lot, personally it's about my favorite place to ride. I'd better grab a chance to agree with Peter. I love exploring cities by bike. I love using a bike for transportation, especially in an older city. > If you've given up on the idea of urban cycling, then perhaps you > shouldn't be participating in this thread, or at least being so > quarrelsome with me, as I've repeatedly stated my interests are only > with respect to urban utility cycling. Um... so bike lanes are to be squeezed into narrow old streets, but with no increase in pavement width? And bike trails are to be shoehorned into existing urban real estate? Are you _sure_ this will be helpful, or even possible? > > You must have seen this link before: > > >http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/ > > There is no shortage of bad facilities to "poster boy". That doesn't > make a case. I think it's far easier to find bad bike facilities than it is to find ones that are really beneficial. As I've mentioned, the newest bike lane I know of is in my daughter's town. It's intended to give kids a nice safe route to a new BMX and skate park. And it runs the straight- ahead cyclists to the right of cars turning right. I think the best we can hope for is bike facilities that are safety- neutral. Most seem to fail that, and many fail it badly. > You and Frank are both entirely missing the point. If you want people to > ride, you need to give them what they want, not what you want. You're painting an incomplete picture. First, you tell them that riding a bike is terribly dangerous. Tell them they're likely to be brain-dead without a special hat, and that they'll be run over from behind without a special paint stripe, and that they'll be run over by right-turning trucks unless there are green bike boxes. Tell them they need at least lots of paint, and preferably maximum barrier separation, to be safe. And never, never give them real information on actual levels and causes of danger! Tell them that for years and years. Then you can sell them fancy helmets at great profit, and you can "do something" for them by using lots of white, and blue, and green paint on the roads. And especially if you happen to be a consultant who dreams up interesting things to do with white, or blue, or green paint, you can draw lots of pretty cartoons, show them all around and earn lots of business. Of course, you may have to vilify people who actually analyze and measure these things. But that's OK. Engineers are such geeks. They're all about numbers and reality. They just don't have the proper vision. - Frank Krygowski > Um... so bike lanes are to be squeezed into narrow old streets, but > with no increase in pavement width? That's one of the approaches, yes. > And bike trails are to be > shoehorned into existing urban real estate? Rarely, because there usually just aren't potential right of ways. > First, you tell them that riding a bike is terribly dangerous. Tell > them they're likely to be brain-dead without a special hat, and that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > preferably maximum barrier separation, to be safe. And never, never > give them real information on actual levels and causes of danger! Earth to Frank: you're just off on a rant... > Tell them that for years and years. Then you can sell them fancy > helmets at great profit, and you can "do something" for them by using > lots of white, and blue, and green paint on the roads. And especially > if you happen to be a consultant who dreams up interesting things to > do with white, or blue, or green paint, you can draw lots of pretty > cartoons, show them all around and earn lots of business. Now you're tripping... > Of course, you may have to vilify people who actually analyze and > measure these things. But that's OK. Engineers are such geeks. > They're all about numbers and reality. They just don't have the > proper vision. Ouch, time to seek help with that persecution complex... Per Peter Cole: >No, my position is, for the reasons stated above, that I'd like to see a >10 or 20 fold increase in urban utility cycling in the US. I think it's >easily achievable A few years of double-digit inflation and I can see that happening. A year or so ago one of the major bicycling mags had an article purporting that the majority of cyclists in one California urban area were people who had to get to work but could not afford public transportation. SignaturePeteCresswell >A year or so ago one of the major bicycling mags had an article >purporting that the majority of cyclists in one California urban >area were people who had to get to work but could not afford >public transportation. Dear Pete, The typical urban Californian worker can afford public transportation. If the majority of the bicyclists in one urban area of California are people who can't afford public transportation to get to work . . . Then that might explain why there are so few bicyclists. Cheers, Carl Fogel >> A year or so ago one of the major bicycling mags had an article >> purporting that the majority of cyclists in one California urban [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The typical urban Californian worker can afford public transportation. California has public transportation? Who knew! >>> A year or so ago one of the major bicycling mags had an article >>> purporting that the majority of cyclists in one California urban [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >California has public transportation? Who knew! Dear Peter, Anyone with ten seconds and google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_transport_in_California_by_county Cheers, Carl Fogel > [...] >> Vehicular cyclists are always harping on safety issues (to block things [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> good luck with your mission. Meanwhile, couch potatoes continue to die >> early deaths, and Americans continue to live the heartbreak of chub rub. > Why do we have to preach to anybody? If these people don't want to > cycle, let them stay on the couch. > > Your position is that you don't mind ruining cycling for the people who > actually like it based on what you think couch potatoes say they want. Great summary! SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 A. Muzi wrote: >> [...] >>> Vehicular cyclists are always harping on safety issues (to block [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Great summary! Agreed. Of course, there are those degenerates who want to ride their bicycles in a couch potato position. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>> I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From >>> what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > good luck with your mission. Meanwhile, couch potatoes continue to die > early deaths, and Americans continue to live the heartbreak of chub rub. Then why does riding vehicularly on the streets not scare me, but trying to use bicycle farcilities put me in dangerous, nerve wracking situations? Bicycle farcilities are separate and unequal, and are primarily intended to get bicycles "out of the way" of cagers. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 > Then why does riding vehicularly on the streets not scare me, but trying > to use bicycle farcilities put me in dangerous, nerve wracking situations? I honestly have no idea. High strung? > Bicycle farcilities are separate and unequal, and are primarily intended > to get bicycles "out of the way" of cagers. Perhaps, but more often than not the inverse -- keeping "cagers" out of my way. I detest being held up in urban gridlock when cycling. Why should I? > > Why not just tell the truth - that cycling is extremely safe, that > > it's easy to do it well, and that you rarely need special stripes or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Continue the lecture with: Cycling in this country is a failure. It is > both far more dangerous than it should be... .. with a minimum of 8.5 million miles between fatalities? And an average of 11 years of cycling between even $50 crashes for dedicated commuters? Your statement is fear mongering. It's true only if _everything_ is "far more dangerous than it should be." > and has become vanishingly > rare, and even then, 80% of it is non-utility, most of that by athletic > (or wannabe) young (or wannabe), men on expensive toys. My problem with your attitude - and that of Massbike - is the blind acceptance of the ideas that A) bike facilities will certainly change that; B) bike facilities are more important than any other possible C) worst of all, "any bike facility is a good bike facility." Remember, that was really the source of my complaint. Massbike and you are endorsing things that are hazardous, as shown by traffic engineering analysis and by accident measurement. There was no indication by either Massbike or you that design or evaluation should proceed with care. You claim that doesn't matter - essentially, that luring couch potatoes onto bikes is worth killing a few cyclists via doorings, right hooks, or other incidents generated by artsy designs. I find that attitude reprehensible. > A UK study estimated that the positive health effects of cycling on > mortality rates overcome the negative (from car crash) by an order of > magnitude or so. Mayer Hillman found the ratio to be 20 to one, in terms of years of life gained to lost. But AFAIK, he did not say it's therefore OK to kill off a few cyclists. > Insisting on a hugely unpopular approach to cycling > (vehicular, aka defective cycling)... What is "defective" about cycling according to existing laws, in a way that's proven to be safer than its alternatives, and can be easily used on almost all existing roads? > ... effectively sentences many thousands > to early deaths from sedentary lives. Oh good grief. Why not just call those of us that ride as vehicle operators "Nazis"? > Vehicular cyclists are always harping on safety issues (to block things > they don't like), while at the same time claiming cycling to be too safe > to be concerned about it. Read this carefully: Cycling properly on existing roads is extremely safe. It's far safer than "average" American cycling. And it's easy to learn. Subjecting cyclists to facilities that increase danger, while pretending they are safer, is fundamentally dishonest. So is claiming that cycling is unusually hazardous. Cyclists should not be treated as foot soldiers, expected to put themselves at increased risk for some purported societal good. Consequently, the idea that "any bike facility is a good bike facility," as implied by Massbike, is not only foolish, it's immoral. Note that does not disallow _good_ bike facilities or amenties. Not all are dangerous. Some can be very handy. I've personally worked for some of those, and am still working on others. But it takes immense close-mindedness to endorse ALL bike facilities, and that's what I'm hearing from you. - Frank Krygowski >>> Why not just tell the truth - that cycling is extremely safe, that >>> it's easy to do it well, and that you rarely need special stripes or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > commuters? Your statement is fear mongering. It's true only if > _everything_ is "far more dangerous than it should be." No, it's not particularly dangerous in an absolute sense (else why would I do it and encourage others to -- including my family?), but it is more dangerous than it should be -- compared to injury and fatality rates in similar societies. >> and has become vanishingly >> rare, and even then, 80% of it is non-utility, most of that by athletic [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > B) bike facilities are more important than any other possible > C) worst of all, "any bike facility is a good bike facility." Facilities have been judged to have been critical to success in those areas where urban utility cycling has been a success. Massbike is just imitating successful strategies. The planners in Denmark and the Netherlands spend a great deal of time and money collecting feedback and statistics, and they've been doing it for decades. There's no point in reinventing the wheel. > Remember, that was really the source of my complaint. Massbike and > you are endorsing things that are hazardous, as shown by traffic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > right hooks, or other incidents generated by artsy designs. I find > that attitude reprehensible. The "safety" argument is a red herring. Safety rates in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and other highly facilitated countries put ours to shame. Rates of urban utility cycling put ours to shame. You can argue that correlation is not causality, but these cyclists are not inanimate objects, you can ask them what they need to cycle, and they will tell you, and when you provide it they will ride. All the rest is just an ideological rant. >> A UK study estimated that the positive health effects of cycling on >> mortality rates overcome the negative (from car crash) by an order of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > life gained to lost. But AFAIK, he did not say it's therefore OK to > kill off a few cyclists. No, but by keeping cycling unpopular by not providing what people want to cycle, you're (in effect, albeit indirectly) shortening the lives of many would-be cyclists. That is inescapable. >> Insisting on a hugely unpopular approach to cycling >> (vehicular, aka defective cycling)... > > What is "defective" about cycling according to existing laws, in a way > that's proven to be safer than its alternatives, and can be easily > used on almost all existing roads? Nobody wants to do it. People get it, Frank, they just don't like it. It's not a workable solution for urban cycling. Never was, never will be. >> ... effectively sentences many thousands >> to early deaths from sedentary lives. > > Oh good grief. Why not just call those of us that ride as vehicle > operators "Nazis"? While also absurdly extreme, that wouldn't be logical, either. People who set policy that discourages wide adoption of cycling do contribute to health problems, yes. >> Vehicular cyclists are always harping on safety issues (to block things >> they don't like), while at the same time claiming cycling to be too safe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cycling properly on existing roads is extremely safe. It's far safer > than "average" American cycling. And it's easy to learn. You speak in absolutes, which is meaningless. > Subjecting cyclists to facilities that increase danger, while > pretending they are safer, is fundamentally dishonest. Two flaws: - you don't prove, or quantify the added danger (yes, I've read the same papers) - the "safer claim" argument is a straw man. > So is claiming > that cycling is unusually hazardous. Again, absolutes are meaningless. > Cyclists should not be treated as foot soldiers, expected to put > themselves at increased risk for some purported societal good. > > Consequently, the idea that "any bike facility is a good bike > facility," as implied by Massbike, is not only foolish, it's immoral. You might want to take off the crazy glasses and give your eyes a rest. > Note that does not disallow _good_ bike facilities or amenties. Not > all are dangerous. Some can be very handy. I've personally worked > for some of those, and am still working on others. But it takes > immense close-mindedness to endorse ALL bike facilities, and that's > what I'm hearing from you. I'm not "endorsing" anything. I'm merely stating my approval and pleasure that the local bicycling advocacy group, that pretty much opposed all facility improvements, has become more open-minded. I doubt that I will rejoin them yet. I still consider them to be pretty backward, although not now as hopelessly backward as the previous group of vehicular cycling ideologues. Rome, (or Copenhagen) wasn't built in a day. > >>> Why not just tell the truth - that cycling is extremely safe, that > >>> it's easy to do it well, and that you rarely need special stripes or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No, it's not particularly dangerous in an absolute sense... Then why is that not commonly known? Why is the public frequently told that cycling is dangerous? Why the dishonesty? > > My problem with your attitude - and that of Massbike - is the blind > > acceptance of the ideas that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > areas where urban utility cycling has been a success. Massbike is just > imitating successful strategies. It appears to be a bad imitation, and/or an imitation of a bad example. Once again, it's folly to pretend that (say) Copenhagen's cycling level is due only to facilities. There are many other factors at work, and I've listed some important ones. You downplay the effect of European gas prices; yet when America's gas prices temporarily reached roughly half of Europe's, there was a surge in American utility cycling. That was not due to a sudden increase in bike facilities. > The planners in Denmark and the Netherlands spend a great deal of time > and money collecting feedback and statistics, and they've been doing it > for decades. There's no point in reinventing the wheel. Then build what they've built, not some vague imitation. Their "wheels" include the things I listed: high density, high gas prices, high vehicle taxes, taxes linked to engine displacement, lots of effective mass transit, disincentives to sprawl, vibrant city centers, car-free zones, much lower urban speed limits, laws that presume motorist liability, fewer single-family dwellings, and a culture that values environmental efforts more than the US does. And regarding the data: I'm aware of only one good study of their bike facilities, and it found an increased crash risk from bike lanes and bike tracks. The increase was largely due to more complicated intersections, not surprisingly. What's true (in Europe and in America) was that many people incorrectly _feel_ that they are safer if there's a bike facility - any bike facility. "Oh, good, they've done something for us!" is pretty much all the analysis the typical bicyclist does. Bike lanes, colored pavement, bike boxes and barrier-separated tracks have all been shown to elicit this response - while actual measurements have shown things to be no better or actually worse. But I guess it's too much to expect honesty from some bike advocates, right? > > Remember, that was really the source of my complaint. Massbike and > > you are endorsing things that are hazardous, as shown by traffic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Germany, the Netherlands and other highly facilitated countries put ours > to shame. Is it a red herring when Portland stripes bike lanes right up to an intersection? When a rider who's been taught that the bike lane keeps him safe passes on the right, and gets killed by a right turning truck? Is it a red herring when a bike lane is striped in the door zone, and a door pops open and knocks a cyclist under a passing vehicle? Do you _really_ condone advocating facilities with such obvious safety problems? Do you really think it's OK to actively cause some cyclists to die, in hopes of getting more couch potatoes on bikes? And yes, Denmark's fatality count per mile cycled is way lower than the US's. But it's also lower than that of Germany. Should we thus say that cycling in Germany is far too dangerous? By that thinking, only one country in the world could be considered adequately safe. It's a specious argument. > > What is "defective" about cycling according to existing laws, in a way > > that's proven to be safer than its alternatives, and can be easily > > used on almost all existing roads? > > Nobody wants to do it. People get it, Frank, they just don't like it. > It's not a workable solution for urban cycling. Never was, never will be. Some of your statements astound me. I've ridden in many cities where I saw lots of vehicular cycling. Those doing it were not "nobodies." Washington DC is one example. Yes, there were some bike lanes; but plenty of streets had none, and plenty of cyclists were doing precisely what they should have been - riding along as proper vehicle operators, well-respected by motorists. These people included my wife and I, plus everyone from hipsters on fixies to middle-aged men in suits to women in conservative clothes. Most people have simply never heard that vehicular cycling is possible. And the people selling weird facilities are certainly not telling them! Those that do it generally have to discover it on their own, as I did. - Frank Krygowski > Once again, it's folly to pretend that (say) Copenhagen's cycling > level is due only to facilities. Yes, and I didn't say that. > But I guess it's too much to expect honesty from some bike advocates, > right? Sure, all a bunch of liars. > And yes, Denmark's fatality count per mile cycled is way lower than > the US's. But it's also lower than that of Germany. Should we thus > say that cycling in Germany is far too dangerous? No, only that it's probably not as safe as it could be. > Some of your statements astound me. I've ridden in many cities where > I saw lots of vehicular cycling. Those doing it were not "nobodies." They are apparently a small group compared to the potential riders. > Most people have simply never heard that vehicular cycling is > possible. I guess vehicular cyclists need another 50 years to get the word out. > > Note that does not disallow _good_ bike facilities or amenties. Not > > all are dangerous. Some can be very handy. I've personally worked [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > of vehicular cycling ideologues. Rome, (or Copenhagen) wasn't built in a > day. Your open-minded group is open to facilities that have been proven hazardous. That doesn't bother you? Let's take an example in detail: Portland's "open-minded" bike advocates decided bike lanes everywhere were necessary. They pushed that idea through. And their bike lanes run right up to intersections. So, having been told that the bike lanes kept them safe, cyclists naturally began doing odd traffic moves - specifically, passing on the right where motor vehicles could and did turn right. That's logically a very bad move - but logic isn't important to advocates, I guess. So some cyclists got killed. What was the advocate's solution? Green bike boxes! Paint those suckers in, and promote the heck out of them! Tell all the cyclists that they'll magically prevent right hooks even if you pass on the rightbecause they're green! Tell them they're wonderful, and to "get behind" the idea, because they're used in Europe! That's all you need to know! But in Europe, they're normally tied to separate traffic signal phases for bikes. We won't do that. We'll just slap them in and see how it goes. Oops, but they're illegal! Turns out there are laws governing what you can slap on the road - not surprising, since you can't have different road markings, signs and rules in every city. And there are rules about how you do such "experiments" - about getting prior permission (since some traffic departments are staffed by morons), about collecting data, about having licensed engineers in charge, etc. And Portland had done none of those things. And someone noticed. And complained about the weird, illegal experiment. So Portland pulled political strings at the national level, and dragged an engineer in after the fact, and politically avoided censure. And it began selling the hell out of bike boxes. Oh, and to stack the deck, it made right turns on red illegal where there are bike boxes. Wouldn't that be a confounding factor in the experiment? No matter! Pay no attention to the rule-change behind the curtain! But those darned rules required collecting data. And the data's not looking so good. Despite the prohibition of RTOR, Portland's bike boxes do not seem to have reduced the car-bike conflicts. Data so far shows they're not working - just as most traffic engineers and vehicular cyclists have claimed all along, based on simple analysis of traffic moves. So how does this affect Massbike and Peter Cole? Why, they're still in favor of bike boxes and other "experimental" facilities! Not "if they're proven to work," mind you. They're not just in favor of investigating them. They're completly in favor of them, whether they work or not! Same goes for bike lanes to the right of right-turning cars, barrier-separated bike tracks, and apparently any other scheme someone might dream up - no matter how illogical. Because, you see, ANY bike facility is a good bike facility. Bike paths with poles in the middle for collisions? Good! Bike lanes in door zones? Good! Bike paths with blind corners? Good! And killing and injuring a few cyclists so as to promote cycling? Hey, you can't make a public health omelet without breaking some eggs. - Frank Krygowski >> I'm not "endorsing" anything. I'm merely stating my approval and >> pleasure that the local bicycling advocacy group, that pretty much [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > they're wonderful, and to "get behind" the idea, because they're used > in Europe! That's all you need to know! According to the statistics I have seen, while Portland's bike traffic has increased by around a factor of 4 over the past decade or two, crashes have been flat (constant count). If Portland's bike policies have been so homicidal, where's the (dead) beef? The numbers may show a validation of "Jacobsen's law", or "safety in numbers": http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.abstract In fact, the recorded crash rate is substantially better than Jacobsen's prediction, which should, from what I can gather, have called for a 1.75x increase in crashes for a 4x increase in bicycle traffic. Now, perhaps a 4x cycling increase could have been achieved with less than flat crash rates if the diabolical facilities had been omitted, but we'll never know, since without the facilities many of the extra riders probably wouldn't have shown up. That claim doesn't require speculation, you can simply ask the riders who are there now what they like and dislike. Everybody doesn't like all the facilities, but most riders like most of them. This is quite similar in Europe, and should come as no surprise. Studies in Europe also indicate the bellwether of cycling popularity is the percentage of female riders. Portland is heading in the right direction, but still has a way to go. The accepted explanation for this is that females are more risk-averse, a claim that agrees with my personal experience. When you see cycling demographics approximately matching population demographics for age and sex, you've got a working cycling infrastructure. Until then, you're not accommodating needs adequately. It's that simple. The "safety" arguments are merely simple-minded. It's more a social engineering problem than a traffic engineering problem. People are complicated. [...] > Studies in Europe also indicate the bellwether of cycling popularity is > the percentage of female riders. Portland is heading in the right [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > simple-minded. It's more a social engineering problem than a traffic > engineering problem. People are complicated. So why not fix the root cause of the social problem by investing in more propaganda to make females less risk-averse? > [...] >> Studies in Europe also indicate the bellwether of cycling popularity is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So why not fix the root cause of the social problem by investing in more > propaganda to make females less risk-averse? It's interesting that you see the female attitude as needing to be fixed -- the historical "why can't women be more like men" (i.e. *me*) response. It's statistically obvious that women are less physically aggressive than men. This has alternately been explained by social and biological factors. When it comes to stress response, it may well be that males and females just have different biologies: http://www.genderdifferences.org/autonomic.htm "Many studies over the past 20 years have consistently shown dramatic sex differences in the biobehavioral response to stress. The female autonomic nervous system in humans has been shown to be influenced more by the parasympathetic nervous system, the system which is energized by acetylcholine rather than adrenalin, and which causes an unpleasant, nauseated feeling, rather than the “thrill” of the sympathetic nervous system. For example, Professor Joyce Evans and her associates, studying young women and young men, found “a predominance of sympathetic vascular regulation in men compared with a dominant parasympathetic influence in women.” Joyce Evans and associates, Gender differences in autonomic cardiovascular regulation: spectral, hormonal, and hemodynamic indexes. Journal of Applied Physiology, 91:2611-2618, 2001. " "When most young boys are exposed to threat and confrontation, their senses sharpen, and they feel an exciting thrill. When most young girls are exposed to threat and confrontation, they feel dizzy and “yucky.” They may have unaccustomed trouble expressing themselves with just the right words. They may experience nausea or an urge to use the bathroom. Many young boys get a thrill from violent or quasi-violent confrontation. Most young girls don’t. Some 10-year-old boys will spend their last penny to play video arcade games in which enemies are shooting at them. Few 10-year-old girls find simulated combat worth spending their last pennies on." >> [...] >>> Studies in Europe also indicate the bellwether of cycling popularity is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's interesting that you see the female attitude as needing to be fixed > -- the historical "why can't women be more like men" (i.e. *me*) response. On the whole I like women the way they are and don't want them to more like me. But we were discussing how to make them less scared of cycling on the road (something that you claimed they were). > It's statistically obvious that women are less physically aggressive > than men. Is it? > This has alternately been explained by social and biological factors. > When it comes to stress response, it may well be that males and > females just have different biologies: > > http://www.genderdifferences.org/autonomic.htm Interesting article. I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and others don't, however that may be correlated with acetylcholine and adrenalin or gender, but that shouldn't be relevant to riding a bike on the roads. Ordinarily there just shouldn't be a stress response involved with that at all. In fact the opposite: it's a very relaxing and unstressful way of getting around. >>> [...] >>>> Studies in Europe also indicate the bellwether of cycling popularity is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > like me. But we were discussing how to make them less scared of cycling > on the road (something that you claimed they were). I believe I said risk-averse, there's a difference. Men and women could experience fear to the same degree, but men could enjoy it, women not. >> It's statistically obvious that women are less physically aggressive >> than men. > > Is it? Sure. Just one metric, but typical: http://www.deathreference.com/Gi-Ho/Homicide-Epidemiology-of.html "Richard Hernstein has noted that the more heinous the crime, the greater the disproportion between men and women. This certainly holds true for homicide. According to statistics published by the U.S. Department of Justice, men committed 87.5 percent of murders in 1999. The ratio of male to female homicides was approximately nine to one. Almost three-fourths of male homicides and 80 percent of female homicides were perpetrated against men. Males were more likely to choose a gun as their weapon, but women preferred a cleaner means of killing, such as arson or poisoning (Fox and Levin 2001). " >> This has alternately been explained by social and biological factors. >> When it comes to stress response, it may well be that males and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with that at all. In fact the opposite: it's a very relaxing and > unstressful way of getting around. Not typically in the city or where there's close proximity to motor vehicles. Even if you have no intellectual fear of traffic, the noise and motion continually set off your startle reaction. If the article is correct, males tend to enjoy the reaction, women are repelled by it. [...] >> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and >> others don't, however that may be correlated with acetylcholine and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and motion continually set off your startle reaction. If the article is > correct, males tend to enjoy the reaction, women are repelled by it. Guess I must be a bit of woman because I hate the noise and stress of the big city. Give me fields and cows any time. > [...] >>> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Guess I must be a bit of woman because I hate the noise and stress of > the big city. Give me fields and cows any time. There is something warped about preferring the dirty and noisy big city over cows grazing in a pasture. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >>>> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > There is something warped about preferring the dirty and noisy big city > over cows grazing in a pasture. "Noisy", perhaps, but that's mostly motor vehicle noise, ditto for much of the "dirt". Still not as dirty as a bunch of cows in a pasture. > >> [...] > >>>> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "Noisy", perhaps, but that's mostly motor vehicle noise, ditto for much > of the "dirt". Still not as dirty as a bunch of cows in a pasture. That's good honest "dirt" though and can be repurposed to make your garden look nicer. I still get all stabbity whenever I see an empty bag of potato chips or a can of something that I know I didn't eat/ drink in my front yard. nate On Mar 11, 1:05 am, Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: > > [...] > >>> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 I haven't read the cited study but I certainly don't find anything perverse about preferring the "dirty and noisy" big city over cows grazing in a pasture. In any city with an open grid, traffic is almost always self- limiting. In most urban streets you'd be hard pressed to find traffic that goes over 35mph. In fact the more cars the slower the average speed. This gives bicycle riders a distinct advantage. As a kid my friend and I commuted by bike to high school in NYC, about 13 miles away (school was in Manhattan), I lived on the outskirts of NYC. Biking became easier the closer we got to Manhattan because traffic flows became calmer (and this was way before the days Manhattan infrastructure even acknowledged the existence of bikes). This is why bike messengers can actually reasonably operate in NYC. The concept may be totally foreign and counterintuitive to non- bikeriders but as soon as you overcome the initial fear you understand that it works. No different than a kid, learning to ride a bike, that he won't fall over if he does it "right." Contrast this to rural roads, where speed limits aren't enforced, you've got narrow lanes, bad surfaces, no shoulders, no traffic abatement, unpredictable traffic flow, and you're more likely to encounter redneck drivers. Which would you think is actually more dangerous if you were on a bike? Per damyth: >In any city with an open grid, traffic is almost always self- >limiting. In most urban streets you'd be hard pressed to find >traffic that goes over 35mph. In fact the more cars the slower the >average speed. This gives bicycle riders a distinct advantage. I'll second that. I commuted a 23-mile round trip to work in Philadelphia PA for don't-know-how-many years and always felt the risk factor was reasonable. Then we moved to the 'burbs and I can list road after road where my take is that riding there would be suicide. Might take a year or two to get it, but in the end the rider would be killed. SignaturePeteCresswell > On Mar 11, 1:05 am, Tom Sherman °_° > <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > encounter redneck drivers. Which would you think is actually more > dangerous if you were on a bike? The point is to get away from the crush of (in)humanity. Cities kill the spirit, which nature restores. I prefer rural roads with almost no traffic and plenty of cows grazing in the pastures. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> On Mar 11, 1:05 am, Tom Sherman °_° >> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > The point is to get away from the crush of (in)humanity. Cities kill the > spirit, which nature restores. Funny, I thought isolation killed the spirit and camaraderie restored it. > I prefer rural roads with almost no traffic and plenty of cows grazing > in the pastures. Maybe you're just a misanthrope. >>> On Mar 11, 1:05 am, Tom Sherman °_° >>> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Funny, I thought isolation killed the spirit and camaraderie restored it. The "camaraderie" of a huge crush of mostly rude strangers? >> I prefer rural roads with almost no traffic and plenty of cows grazing >> in the pastures. > > Maybe you're just a misanthrope. I have exceptionally sensitive hearing and little tolerance for noise. Pre-morning twilight rides are the best, since the singing birds are out in force. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>>> On Mar 11, 1:05 am, Tom Sherman °_° >>>> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> > The "camaraderie" of a huge crush of mostly rude strangers? Sure, rush hour in Tokyo, or post game at a stadium, or the arcade at a state fair, or a big mall sale event. People are people, mobs are mobs, mobs aren't a fixture of cities. I don't like mobs, either, but lots of people do. Witness Times Square or any mosh pit. Obviously, for lots of people, those are positive experiences. >>> I prefer rural roads with almost no traffic and plenty of cows >>> grazing in the pastures. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Pre-morning twilight rides are the best, since the singing birds are out > in force. I wouldn't generalize from your tastes then. > On Mar 11, 1:05 am, Tom Sherman °_° > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > encounter redneck drivers. Which would you think is actually more > dangerous if you were on a bike? I get the gamut every day. In the morning I start off in pitch dark (this time of year) and might ride twenty miles without seeing twenty cars. I go by many fields and pastures and encounter many different animals - wild and domestic. I go through a couple or few small towns, and eventually wind up in a city. Then I ride all the way across the city before I get to work, then turn around after work and go the reverse. The city is kind of fun and exciting - bright lights, big city - with lots of variety and very little churning out the miles. And yes, the common opportunities to leave cagers way behind can be satisfying. The countryside, OTOH, is glorious! In the morning I'm well ahead of rush hour traffic, relatively well rested, and tend to have a good time all the way. In the afternoons, I face a lot of rush hour type traffic, am usually more tired and just wanting to get home, and the ride home can become an exercise in just making it (which can be satisfying, too). I can say that - on the afternoon ride home - the getting through and out of town amongst all the stressed out cagers can be exceedingly stressful, and the relief is palpable as I get farther and farther out of town. Per Dan O: >In the morning I start off in pitch dark >(this time of year) and might ride twenty miles without seeing twenty >cars. I go by many fields and pastures and encounter many different >animals - wild and domestic. I go through a couple or few small >towns, and eventually wind up in a city. Then I ride all the way >across the city before I get to work.... How many miles is your commute one-way? SignaturePeteCresswell > Per Dan O: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How many miles is your commute one-way? It's right around 28 miles (traced with Google Maps Distance Measurement Tool). There's at least one feasible route that's closer to 27. The Google Bicycle Directions thing produced a route closer to 30. Some optional routes that I use go up around 33. Yeah it eats up a big chunk of the day, but it's time well spent. > [...] >>> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Guess I must be a bit of woman because I hate the noise and stress of > the big city. Give me fields and cows any time. The "noise and stress" of the big city is nearly 100% due to motor vehicles. What you're actually saying is you don't like motor vehicles in close quarters. That's a nearly universal feeling. >> [...] >>>> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > vehicles. What you're actually saying is you don't like motor vehicles > in close quarters. Correct. A city without cars would certainly be much more agreeable, although I still prefer the countryside. > That's a nearly universal feeling. >> [...] >>>> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > vehicles. What you're actually saying is you don't like motor vehicles > in close quarters. That's a nearly universal feeling. Get rid of the people and buildings along with the cars, and the cities would be just fine. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>> [...] >>>>> I understand that some people do enjoy the thrill of taking risks and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Get rid of the people and buildings along with the cars, and the cities > would be just fine. People and buildings are both wonderful. > Tom Sherman _ wrote: > >>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > People and buildings are both wonderful. Not when you've got too many of 'em too close together. Or you could rephrase that by adding "but trees and squirrels are better" nate >> Tom Sherman _ wrote: >>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Not when you've got too many of 'em too close together. Why is that? > Or you could rephrase that by adding "but trees and squirrels are > better" I like trees well enough, but what passes for woodlands is but a pale shadow of what forested land was once like. I've had the fortune of visiting one of the very rare and tiny remnants of virgin forest in Massachusetts, it's astonishing, but even that can't compare to what it must have been like when the complete ecosystem was functional. I hate squirrels, particularly the suburban/urban overpopulations that come from feeding on trash and shortage of predation. -snip- >>> Tom Sherman _ wrote: >>> People and buildings are both wonderful. >> >> Not when you've got too many of 'em too close together. > > Why is that? Difference between a pasture and a feedlot. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > -snip- >>>> Tom Sherman _ wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Difference between a pasture and a feedlot. Not when you have indoor plumbing. A. Muzi wrote: > -snip- >>>> Tom Sherman _ wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Difference between a pasture and a feedlot. Well put. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>> Tom Sherman _ wrote: >>>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Why is that? People get edgy when they don't have enough personal space. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >>>> People and buildings are both wonderful. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > People get edgy when they don't have enough personal space. Yes, when they're driving, and that's a frequent occurrence. Driving in a city is often a frustrating, claustrophobic experience. Walking or cycling provide quite a different atmosphere. People live in high densities (e.g. Manhattan >70K/mi^2) quite happily, which is good, considering that much of the world's population is expected to move to cities, the rate of urbanization is rising. Other than driving, when people say "personal" space they're usually referring to "private" space. I think a better measure of personal space is "public" space. Urban areas tend to be well endowed with public spaces, suburban/rural areas not so much since it's assumed that private space makes that unnecessary, which is often not true. >>>>> People and buildings are both wonderful. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > spaces, suburban/rural areas not so much since it's assumed that private > space makes that unnecessary, which is often not true. I disagree, if I'm too close to too many people or buildings, I just want everyone to get the hell out of my way so I can get to where I'd prefer to be without running into anyone. I'd last about two days in NYC before succumbing to claustrophobia. I do live in what's technically a "city," but at least I have a detached house and a small yard. I'd really prefer to live elsewhere, but I have this odd need to remain gainfully employed, and now's not a good time to be making career changes. I hate sprawling suburbs, too, but for other reasons. At least where I live, my neighbors are too close, but I don't *have* to drive to get most of the necessities of life. I can understand putting up with one or the other, but not both at the same time. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > I disagree, if I'm too close to too many people or buildings, I just > want everyone to get the hell out of my way so I can get to where I'd [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > most of the necessities of life. I can understand putting up with one > or the other, but not both at the same time. Personally, I think most people might be happiest in small, lightly- separated villages. I think this environment would give us daily social contact (something lacking in American suburbs, IME), easy accessible close friends, and enough occasional contact with interesting people we don't know well. I think humans evolved to deal with those conditions many thousands of years ago. I think cities overloaded with strangers are still a bit new for our genes. But it certainly varies with the individual. I have one friend who grew up to adulthood in a big European city. He moved to American suburbs, then to his own rural hobby farm with horses and other animals. But he said he still feels a need to get into a crowded city once in a while, to relax and feel truly at home. Me, I used to want to live in the country. No more. A metro-edge village works very well for me, and I _love_ the stimulation of occasionally visiting and biking around a big city. - Frank Krygowski >>>>>> People and buildings are both wonderful. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > want everyone to get the hell out of my way so I can get to where I'd > prefer to be without running into anyone. Driving, cycling or walking? >>>>>>> People and buildings are both wonderful. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Driving, cycling or walking? yes. Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > The "noise and stress" of the big city is nearly 100% due to motor > vehicles. Before motor vehicles came along, the noise and stress of the big city was nearly 100% due to horses and carriages or wagons. So were the traffic fatalities - which were very numerous, even then. Horses are as dangerous as cars. Wagons frequently ran over people. And then there were the mountains of horse dung to deal with. Automobiles were welcomed partly because they would reduce pollution! The fact is, cities need transportation of people and goods. That requires moving vehicles. And that introduces a certain amount of danger. Let's just keep in mind that, per hour or per mile, cycling is safer than being a pedestrian. - Frank Krygowski >> The "noise and stress" of the big city is nearly 100% due to motor >> vehicles. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > traffic fatalities - which were very numerous, even then. Horses are > as dangerous as cars. Wagons frequently ran over people. You omit the age where most of the transport (of people) was by electric streetcar. > And then there were the mountains of horse dung to deal with. > Automobiles were welcomed partly because they would reduce pollution! "Pollution" of a different sort, although TS wouldn't call it that. > The fact is, cities need transportation of people and goods. That > requires moving vehicles. And that introduces a certain amount of > danger. Sure, but platitudes aside, there are differences, auto don't move people as safely as subways. > Let's just keep in mind that, per hour or per mile, cycling is safer > than being a pedestrian. Both are much more dangerous and much less pleasant than they need be because of the over-use and under-regulation of the automobile in urban areas. European cities are finally starting to rethink this, America is very backward on this issue. It is enormously important to the future of urban cycling. >> I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From >> what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still >> overwhelmingly popular. > First, the jury is still out for those people who are so enamored of > bike boxes that they refuse to analyze the traffic movements. Those [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > special facilities? Wouldn't that be more cost effective and more > honest? I think I'm confused. What is a "bike box" ? I thought it meant an overpriced overdone bicycle storage/parking locker. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Andrew Muzi wrote: >>> I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From >>> what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > I thought it meant an overpriced overdone bicycle storage/parking locker. I think a "bike box" is this thingy-dingy: <http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bikeboxjaylawrence.jpg>. Of course, a "bike box" might also be a cardboard carton: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3601423733/sizes/l/in/set-721576192698 76565/>. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 > Andrew Muzi wrote: >>>> I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Of course, a "bike box" might also be a cardboard carton: > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3601423733/sizes/l/in/set-721576192698 76565/>. Yikes! It's like wearing a shirt with a target on the back! SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 >>> I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From >>> what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >I thought it meant an overpriced overdone bicycle >storage/parking locker. Dear Andrew, Explanation and illustration: http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=46717 Cheers, Carl Fogel Carl Fogel wrote: >>>> I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of >>>> facility. From what I've read, the safety jury is still out on >>>> boxes, but they're still overwhelmingly popular. >>> First, the jury is still out for those people who are so enamored >>> of bike boxes that they refuse to analyze the traffic movements. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> trying to understand how they would help. After much reading and >>> thinking, I decided they would not. >>> And they are "overwhelmingly popular" for two reasons: A) There is >>> a large group of fuzzy thinkers who believe there is no such thing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> box!" flyers in bike shops were (and probably still are) pure >>> sales pitch. >>>> Bike safety is an issue, but sedentary lifestyle is a much bigger >>>> one. >>> So it's considered moral to lure people into activity by using >>> false promises of greater safety, even if analysis and data show >>> the opposite? >>> And isn't it counterproductive to further discourage people who >>> don't have these oddball facilities, by reinforcing the false >>> message that cycling is dangerous without them? >>> Why not just tell the truth - that cycling is extremely safe, that >>> it's easy to do it well, and that you rarely need special stripes >>> or special facilities? Wouldn't that be more cost effective and >>> more honest? >> I think I'm confused. >> What is a "bike box" ? >> I thought it meant an overpriced overdone bicycle storage/parking >> locker. > Explanation and illustration: http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=46717 Interesting. Formerly a bike box, as we have at many transit terminals, are covered, lockable bicycle parking containers. They protect from weather and theft. To usurp that word to mean a safe zone in a street is as confusing as the "plumber's tape" crossfire. So today they are caled bicycle lockers even though they were bike boxes for a long time. Jobst Brandt >> >>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is >> >>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >Frank and I part company on bike lanes. -- Jay Beattie. Dear Jay, I understand your dislike of mixed use: "I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and dangerous with people and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. -- but the slow-moving upright bar set seems to like it." But . . . Lots of drivers hate letting bicycles onto the roads because it's mixed use and dangerous, though drivers who don't mind going as slowly as bicycles seem to like it. Mixing cars and bicycles on the roads is a tough problem. I sometimes think that a central two-way bike lane would better than lanes on the side. A central two-way bike lane wouldn't take up any more room than lanes on the sides, and the slower bikes would be responsible for turning out into the faster traffic. They wouldn't be any closer to the traffic, they'd avoid parked car doors opening, and there'd be no problem with cars turning right at intersections through the bike lane. I wonder if any ever tried such a thing, or if there's just something obviously wrong with it that I'm missing? Cheers, Carl Fogel [...] > Lots of drivers hate letting bicycles onto the roads because it's > mixed use and dangerous, though drivers who don't mind going as slowly > as bicycles seem to like it. > > Mixing cars and bicycles on the roads is a tough problem. My favourite kind of facility is where you get a bridleway or lane or something, put a bit of tarmac on it, and make a whole bicycles-only road, no cars in sight. > I sometimes think that a central two-way bike lane would better than > lanes on the side. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > problem with cars turning right at intersections through the bike > lane. No, but left-turning cars would have to cross both bike lanes. Still, the bikes would be in quite a visible position. > I wonder if any ever tried such a thing, or if there's just something > obviously wrong with it that I'm missing? One problem is the bicycle would have to cross a lane of traffic for left and right turns. But then as it is, you have to cross two lanes for one of them, and none for the other, so it isn't really any worse. I think it sounds like a very good idea. > [...] >> Lots of drivers hate letting bicycles onto the roads because it's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > something, put a bit of tarmac on it, and make a whole bicycles-only > road, no cars in sight. In very dense locales it may be feasible to just exclude cars from certain streets, in some cases linking them to form a continuous corridor. Much of the benefit can be equally achieved simply by drastically lowering motor vehicle speeds on such roads and giving other traffic extreme right of way. In less dense areas, such cycle tracks have some utility, but usually only if they link popular destinations. It's tough to find right of ways that qualify, and then, as pointed out, there's usually the requirement to share with a variety of others. >> I sometimes think that a central two-way bike lane would better than >> lanes on the side. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I think it sounds like a very good idea. John Allen describes what he sees as the advantages and disadvantages of center of the street lanes: http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/midstreet.htm Another: http://www.streetfilms.org/sands-street-gets-a-sassy-center-median-cycletrack/ Per Ben C: >My favourite kind of facility is where you get a bridleway or lane or >something, put a bit of tarmac on it, and make a whole bicycles-only >road, no cars in sight. Lotta that around where my in-laws live in Germany. To me, it's cyclist's heaven. SignaturePeteCresswell > Per Ben C: >>My favourite kind of facility is where you get a bridleway or lane or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > To me, it's cyclist's heaven. It is. The peace and quiet and lack of stress of having no cars around has to be experienced to be believed. They have them in NL too. The only downside is you do sometimes have to share the road with a few sheep and of course pesky slow middle-aged women clanking around on utility bikes. > > Per Ben C: > >>My favourite kind of facility is where you get a bridleway or lane or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > share the road with a few sheep and of course pesky slow middle-aged > women clanking around on utility bikes. 'round here, you also have dog-walkers, people riding or walking side- by-side, etc. - probably more of them than you do cyclists. I honestly can't say whether that's better or worse than riding on the road, makes no real difference to me. The difference is that when on a path, I'm generally "faster" traffic and am avoiding the slower traffic; on a road, I'm the "slower" traffic and need to be considerate of the faster cars approaching from behind. Either way there's conflict. Now if you could have a "transportational cyclist only" path that would be nice, but I ain't gonna hold my breath waiting for that to happen... (just like it would be nice to have a "people who can drive properly" only system of roads...) nate On Mar 7, 2:11 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:48:40 -0800 (PST), Jay Beattie > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > I wonder if any ever tried such a thing, or if there's just something > obviously wrong with it that I'm missing? Many reasons -- if it is separated from traffic by barriers, that means that it is a bicycle equivalent of a Habitrail -- you can only get on or get off at designated points. It also means that it is hard to clean; snow is never removed; it can't be cleaned by ordinary street sweepers and repaving is very difficult. Any "cattle chute" approach to bike lanes has these difficulties. One problem for me is passing other cyclists. Everyone gets slowed down. I ride a chute across the 205 bridge that is very interesting -- highway traffic on both sides. http://www.flickr.com/photos/60961560@N00/3660962141/ This is one of the few places where the chute works. I hate this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/28031838@N03/4118176011/ Note all the people wandering in to the lane either from the curb or out of parked cars. This is in front of a University populated by distracted kids. The car with the brake lights on is parking in the strip that creates the "shelter" (viz. trap) for bicyclists. Another shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/28031838@N03/4118176011/ At least the are can be cleaned when there are no cars parked in the strip. Mixing bikes with walkers is worse than mixing bikes with cars because cars and bikes are all vehicles and subject to clearly defined rules. Walkers do what they do -- so do dogs on 30 foot leashes, kids on trikes, guys on roller skis, skateboarders, etc. I was practically wiped out by some kid on a skateboard (little did I know that some group of thugs had condemned a road for impromptu skateboard races) and by people stepping off curbs in to traffic. Why do pedestrians always look the other way -- the way traffic is not coming. It is totally amazing. -- Jay Beattie. > [...] > As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the > Springwater Corridor that many people do use for commuting, including > one of my co-workers. I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and > dangerous with people and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. -- > but the slow-moving upright bar set seems to like it.[...] How are trikes dangerous to other users? SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >> As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How are trikes dangerous to other users? Choking hazard. Mostly that's what you want to do to the parent. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Andrew Muzi wrote: >>> [...] >>> As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mostly that's what you want to do to the parent. "Trike" generally refers to a rather expensive 3-wheel human powered vehicle (HPV) ridden (mostly) by adults, while "tricycle" is used for a small HPV ridden by annoying munchkins. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 > >http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski Dear Frank, At least they're not insisting that it's for the sake of sheep instead of bicyclists: "A letter was submitted from Mr. Baxter, Dundee, Hon. Secretary of the Scottish Cyclists' Union, stating that numerous complaints had been made regarding the leaving of hedge cutting on the highways, the complaints being made more particularly with regard to the Dundee and Arbroath Road, and stating that cyclists would feel obliged if the attention of the Surveyor was called to the matter. It was agreed, on the suggestion of Mr. Whyte Hatton, of Eassie, that the Surveyors be asked to try to keep the roads as free from thorns as possible, for the benefit of sheep passing, however, and not for the benefit of cyclists." --C.T.C. Monthly Gazette, June, 1895, p. 178 http://tinyurl.com/y8elxym Cheers, Carl Fogel >> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Frank Krygowski They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and The Netherlands. Not very controversial. You're essentially using the "socialized bicycling" argument. That's swayed opinion for 40 years or more, but fortunately the tide is turning. Don't fear, you won't have to use facilities if you don't want, I'm sure there'll remain plenty of unimproved roads, especially in your (red) neck of the woods. > >>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > use facilities if you don't want, I'm sure there'll remain plenty of > unimproved roads, especially in your (red) neck of the woods. Nice finish with the insult to my area, Peter. A lot of people would consider that lowbrow. But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a goat. In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads, and they're ignoring cyclists' campaigns in places like Germany to treat cyclists as legitimate vehicle operators. Massbike's site says "...the new policy definitively says “YES!” to bicycle facilities – whether they are traditional, innovative, or even experimental" and "... experimentation with innovative facilities designed to improve bicyclist safety and comfort, such as bike boxes, contraflow lanes, colored bike lanes, separated paths or cycle tracks...” Do you see anything in there that calls for careful analysis to be sure the "innovative" or "experimental" facilities won't do more harm than good? That they won't subject novice cyclists to additional hazards? For just one example, why the love of bike boxes? Do you and Massbike not know that the preliminary data out of Portland is that they don't help? Are you not aware that without additional delays from separate traffic signals and special rules, the crossing movements that kill cyclists are still likely? The problem with the dreamy-eyed facilities lovers is that they don't think in engineering terms. They think facility design is as easy as drawing up an idealized cartoon of a "green" city, with no cars in sight and all the cartoon people smiling in the sun. By contrast, traffic engineers - good ones, anyway - get into details analyzing how traffic moves, what motorists and cyclists expect, what they are capable of, and how they will likely behave. When something unusual is proposed, they like to be sure it's not blatantly stupid, and if it's questionable, they prefer to follow proper experimental protocols to test it and validate it. I see none of that from Massbike, from Alta Design, from John Pucher, from Portland's BTA, or from you. In your posts to this group, you've repeatedly claimed that collision hazards for cyclists, blind corners, mixing peds and cyclists, and other hazards are just fine. IOW, that any bike facility is a good bike facility, and those dumb engineers are just too damned careful. That's a very pretty world, but it's imaginary. That will become clear with the first fatality from dooring in a bike lane, or from a head-on collision of a contraflow rider, or from riding into the blind right side of a right turning truck - bike box or no. Wait. I take that back. It's too optimistic. IIRC, the Boston area already had a famous bike lane dooring fatality, so even that won't shake sense into some heads. - Frank Krygowski [...] >> They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and >> The Netherlands. Not very controversial. You're essentially using the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > goat. In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European > facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads, Even in NL I've heard. The problem is apparently you get hit at the intersections between the bike lanes and roads. Some facilities can be a positive benefit, but the main point IMO is to fiercely oppose making them compulsory. If they're any good, they don't need to be compulsory, because people will use them anyway. In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_ compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly death traps, it would kill cycling overnight. There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them because they are badly designed and suck, and then in the future someone decides to make them compulsory. Op 7-3-2010 17:55, Ben C schreef: > [...] >>> They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Even in NL I've heard. The problem is apparently you get hit at the > intersections between the bike lanes and roads. Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime. > Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two way > bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. What's a "serious" cyclist (rhetorical question). Whoever they are, they're a distinct minority. They're free to ride elsewhere. > Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime. Good luck finding those in a city. Op 7-3-2010 22:06, Peter Cole schreef: >> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two >> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. > > What's a "serious" cyclist (rhetorical question). Everyone riding faster than 20 km/hr. > Whoever they are, > they're a distinct minority. In rush hour bikepaths are a warzone over here in the Netherlands. The same goes for a nice weekendday. I strongly belief that bikepath here are for the benifit of the cars. Give them a free go. > They're free to ride elsewhere. Not always. >> Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime. > > Good luck finding those in a city. Riding in the city is no fun. If I lived in a US city cycling would not be my hobby. Lou > Op 7-3-2010 22:06, Peter Cole schreef: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Everyone riding faster than 20 km/hr. That would only include half of my household, and we're relatively young and fit. >> Whoever they are, >> they're a distinct minority. > > In rush hour bikepaths are a warzone over here in the Netherlands. The > same goes for a nice weekendday. I strongly belief that bikepath here > are for the benifit of the cars. Give them a free go. Streets are a warzone everywhere during rush hour. >>> Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime. >> >> Good luck finding those in a city. > > Riding in the city is no fun. If I lived in a US city cycling would not > be my hobby. Well then we are having parallel, but unconnected, conversations. >> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two >> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Good luck finding those in a city. It's just a block over. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > >> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two > >> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It's just a block over. But usually with lots of stop sign to blow. >> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two >> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Good luck finding those in a city. What cyclist lives in a big city by choice? SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two >>> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What cyclist lives in a big city by choice? moi SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 Andrew Muzi wrote: >>>> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two >>>> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > moi When did Madison become a big city? SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two >>> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What cyclist lives in a big city by choice? Me. >[...] >>> They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >because they are badly designed and suck, and then in the future someone >decides to make them compulsory. Dear Ben, Years ago, the well-meaning Pueblo city traffic department painted bike lanes down Union Avenue: http://i10.tinypic.com/4ti4j92.jpg Every block follows the same weird pattern in that photo. For most of the block, a bike lane runs between the traffic lane and the parking strip. At the end of the block, a sign announces that the bike lane simply ends about fifty feet before the intersection. Another sign announces that a mandatory right-hand turn lane takes the place of the bike lane. (The parking strip vanishes, too.) Damned if I know what a bike is supposed to do. Maybe the bikes are supposed to merge with the cars turning right every block at the traffic light? Maybe the bikes are supposed to stop before the car lane takes over, get off the road between the parked cars and onto the sidewalk, push across the intersection in the pedestrian crosswalk, and then get back on to pedal another block in the bike lane that reappears? Maybe the bikes are supposed to swerve left into the main traffic lane at every intersection, ride through the light, and then swerve back to the right when the bike lane reappears? The bicyclist in the photo shows the other problem. The bike obviously has to go out into the traffic lane to turn left, while drivers honk and shout at him to get back in the bike lane (which has vanished). *** On my daily ride (nowhere near Union Avenue), I used to stop well over to the right at the single traffic light. Cars would drive up to the light, stop, and turn right. After two of them hit me with their mirrors as they turned right, I began to stop in the middle of the lane. Having one set of vehicles turn right across a lane devoted to another set of vehicles seems like a bad idea. *** Bike lanes are well-meant, but I don't see how they handle intersections. If the bike tries to make a left turn, it has to leave the prescribed bike lane and use the dmain traffic lane, right at an intersection, the worst possible place. If the bike tries to go straight through the intersection, the bike risks an accident with a car turning right across the bike lane--again, right at a traffic light, the worst possible place. If the bike stays in the bike lane between the intersections, the doors opening from parked cars are a constant threat, and so are cars that have to cross the bike lane both ways between the main traffic lane and the parking strip. All these problems disappear if the bike just uses the same traffic lane as other traffic, but the complaint is that the bikes slow the traffic down. Maybe someone has a photo that shows a bike lane that handles intersections well? Cheers, Carl Fogel [...] > Years ago, the well-meaning Pueblo city traffic department painted > bike lanes down Union Avenue: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > After two of them hit me with their mirrors as they turned right, I > began to stop in the middle of the lane. That's why I think it's safer to run the red light in that situation, provided you're not getting in anyone's way. > Having one set of vehicles turn right across a lane devoted to another > set of vehicles seems like a bad idea. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Maybe someone has a photo that shows a bike lane that handles > intersections well? Here's one that's better, but the cycle lanes are terribly narrow: http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.212353,0.162992&spn=0.001302,0.002395&t= k&z=19 Crossing this picture from left to right, the rider who wants to go straight on gets himself into the bike lane in the middle of the road, which then continues the other side of the roundabout, also in the middle of the road, between the two lanes of cars. Basically with this idea you end up having to have one cycle lane per lane of traffic. So in Union Ave., you'd put another parallel lane between the right-turn-only lane and the straight-on lane. Then bikes would filter across the traffic to change between these lanes as it suited them, perhaps psychologically assisted by sharrows painted in the middle of the regular traffic lanes. But then it seems you might as well just not have any lanes at all and save on a bit of paint. There's no point in road signs that just state the obvious. Op 7-3-2010 23:00, Ben C schreef: > [...] >> Years ago, the well-meaning Pueblo city traffic department painted [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.212353,0.162992&spn=0.001302,0.002395&t= k&z=19 Here is a roundabout in my neighbourhood. Seperate bikepath. I'm comming from the (north)east and I want to go south east.. <http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.212353,0.162992&spn=0.001302,0.002395&t= k&z=19> Lou Op 7-3-2010 23:24, Lou Holtman schreef: > Op 7-3-2010 23:00, Ben C schreef: >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > > Lou Oops that went wrong. Here is the correct link (I think): <http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.356705,6.057678&spn=0.002388,0.00544&t=k&z=18> Lou > Op 7-3-2010 23:24, Lou Holtman schreef: [...] >> Here is a roundabout in my neighbourhood. Seperate bikepath. I'm comming >> from the (north)east and I want to go south east.. [...] > Oops that went wrong. Here is the correct link (I think): > ><http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.356705,6.057678&spn=0.002388,0.00544&t=k&z=18> So do you turn left, cross one car-road, go down the bikepath, over that canal, and then feed out into the SE road? Or do you have to go all the way round the roundabout, so crossing two car roads? > > Op 7-3-2010 23:24, Lou Holtman schreef: > [...] [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Or do you have to go all the way round the roundabout, so crossing two > car roads? Yep, the last. Crazy. 1,2,3,4,5,6 almost 90 degree turns and crossing for lanes for the cyclist to go left. We get more and more of those little roundabouts. They are for slowing down car traffic, but in reality it is more dangerous for cyclists. Lou Lou >> > Op 7-3-2010 23:24, Lou Holtman schreef: >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > little roundabouts. They are for slowing down car traffic, but in > reality it is more dangerous for cyclists. In that picture it looks like there is no bike path on the left hand side of the road going SE. So if you went the short way, then you would have to cross that road. So maybe that's why they make you go the long way round. But certainly it's a pain, because you have to stop and wait for the cars twice. If you just ride on the roundabout like a car, you feed on in the normal way and can just get straight off. When I ride in NL it's on slow touring holidays so I don't mind all this stuff, but sometimes you meet large groups of people on weekend rides all crammed onto the bike path, probably just trying to connect to a smaller road with no bike path, which must be quite disruptive. When I go for a ride here in UK on my fitness toy, I can go out of the house and ride 80km pretty much flat-out the whole way. > >> > Op 7-3-2010 23:24, Lou Holtman schreef: > >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > go for a ride here in UK on my fitness toy, I can go out of the house > and ride 80km pretty much flat-out the whole way.- Hide quoted text - Fitness toy? Sniff, sniff -- it sounds so unimportant. I call mine the "beacon of wold peace and planetary salvation." I frequently stop at the store on my way home from fitness rides, so my erstwhile racing bike is magically transformed in to a utility bike capable of saving the world from cars -- at least to the extent that I can cram a pound of coffee in to my jersey pocket and stick some French bread in the front. I can even manage a gallon of milk in one hand for the short ride home -- but steering gets really twitchy. -- Jay Beattie. >I frequently stop at the store on my way home from fitness rides, so >my erstwhile racing bike is magically transformed in to a utility bike [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >hand for the short ride home -- but steering gets really twitchy. -- >Jay Beattie. Dear Jay, Admitting that you're twitchy is the first step to facing your problem. Now put down that pound of coffee and stop blaming the milk. Cheers, Carl Fogel [...] >> When I ride in NL it's on slow touring holidays so I don't mind all this >> stuff, but sometimes you meet large groups of people on weekend rides [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Fitness toy? Sniff, sniff -- it sounds so unimportant. I was using Cole's term just for a joke. > I call mine the "beacon of wold peace and planetary salvation." I like it. How about "Wheels of Justice"? >Op 7-3-2010 23:00, Ben C schreef: >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > >Lou Dear Lou, Did you accidentally paste Ben's link instead of the one to your roundabout? I'm bitter because Ben seems to have better resolution than I do: http://tinyurl.com/yd7279s I come from the left and stop and wait at the traffic light where the car is at the hatch-marked intersection. Cheers, Carl Fogel >> On my daily ride (nowhere near Union Avenue), I used to stop well over >> to the right at the single traffic light. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >That's why I think it's safer to run the red light in that situation, >provided you're not getting in anyone's way. Dear Ben, Sorry, maybe I didn't make things clear. I ride up on a quiet two-lane road to a traffic light at a 5-lane beltway. The light is red, but lots of traffic is going through both ways at 45 mph. There's no way to run this red light. I used to stop on the right-hand side of the road to wait for the green light. It can take up to two minutes. Cars would pull up next to me, stop for the red light, wait for a gap in traffic, and then turn right on red, which is legal here. A few of them turned so sharply that they hit me with their mirrors as they pulled out from waiting at the light. Just plain bad driving. They were so busy looking for traffic coming from their left that they forgot the bicycle on their right. (They even hit the curbs.) So now I hog-- Er, so now I take the whole damn lane at the light and let them sit behind me. Sometimes they squeeze through on my right to turn right through the red light, which is fine with me. Cheers, Carl Fogel >>> On my daily ride (nowhere near Union Avenue), I used to stop well over >>> to the right at the single traffic light. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The light is red, but lots of traffic is going through both ways at 45 > mph. There's no way to run this red light. OK, that's the part I missed. My point is that waiting on the right (left here) in a line of traffic is always hazardous because people do turn across you and often cut the inside of the corner. If you can't run the light, then what you're doing is the best thing-- get in the middle of the lane. I also would try to get as far forward as possible, and in this country, we often have "advanced stop lines" for bicycles to encourage that. We don't have cars turning left on red, so that complication doesn't exist. > I used to stop on the right-hand side of the road to wait for the > green light. It can take up to two minutes. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sometimes they squeeze through on my right to turn right through the > red light, which is fine with me. On Mar 7, 5:29 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > Er, so now I take the whole damn lane at the light and let them sit > behind me. > > Sometimes they squeeze through on my right to turn right through the > red light, which is fine with me. That's what I generally do in that situation. If necessary, when I see their right turn signal is on, I'll wave them by on my right. They're always politely grateful for that. If I can't do that, because of too-narrow width or other reasons, I figure it's no different than if I were in a car in front of them. They can just be patient. - Frank Krygowski >> [...] >>>> They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > Carl Fogel If there is one, I haven't seen it. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 >> But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are >> following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Even in NL I've heard. The problem is apparently you get hit at the > intersections between the bike lanes and roads. Intersections are always the main problem with or without lanes. > Some facilities can be a positive benefit, but the main point IMO is to > fiercely oppose making them compulsory. If they're any good, they don't > need to be compulsory, because people will use them anyway. I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe there'd be a justification for such fearmongering. But as it is, and is ever likely to be, there will always be an abundance of routes without facilities, which those who have a dislike of facilities can always use. Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who don't ride elsewhere. > In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_ > compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly > death traps, it would kill cycling overnight. > > There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them Yes, theoretically, but they have been being built for quite some time now -- around the world, and they get used -- usually heavily. [...] > I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe > there'd be a justification for such fearmongering. But as it is, and is > ever likely to be, there will always be an abundance of routes without > facilities, which those who have a dislike of facilities can always use. It's pretty annoying if you have to go twice the distance to get to work in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been ruined by facilitization. > Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who > don't ride elsewhere. The majority of whom? Actual cyclists, or would-be cyclists? >> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_ >> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, theoretically, but they have been being built for quite some time > now -- around the world, and they get used -- usually heavily. Yes and they've been made compulsory in some places too. > [...] >> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been > ruined by facilitization. That would be annoying -- if it happened anywhere other than your fevered imagination. >> Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who >> don't ride elsewhere. > > The majority of whom? Actual cyclists, or would-be cyclists? That would (obviously) be "would be" cyclists (in the US), since now, hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway). >>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_ >>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes and they've been made compulsory in some places too. Sure, but most of the users find the whole question silly, since they wouldn't be riding without the facilities. >> [...] >>> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That would be annoying -- if it happened anywhere other than your > fevered imagination. _My_ fevered imagination? You were the one glibly suggesting that people who don't like the facilities can just take a different route. >>> Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who >>> don't ride elsewhere. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes > for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway). Right, so by "those who use bikes for fitness toys", you mean actual cyclists? And you don't claim that the majority of these actual cyclists want facilities? >>> It's pretty annoying if you have to go twice the distance to get to work >>> in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been >>> ruined by facilitization. >> That would be annoying -- if it happened anywhere other than your >> fevered imagination. > > _My_ fevered imagination? You were the one glibly suggesting that people > who don't like the facilities can just take a different route. Yes, and I find it not credible that you would have to double your distance to use a road without a bike lane. >>>> Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who >>>> don't ride elsewhere. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Right, so by "those who use bikes for fitness toys", you mean actual > cyclists? I meant what I said. Those who you categorize as "actual cyclists" are very much in the minority in those places where utility cycling has a significant modal share. > And you don't claim that the majority of these actual cyclists > want facilities? I don't know or really care very much. Since these cyclists are a minority, or would be in a society that had a high level of cycling, their wishes aren't my primary concern. As I said, a plan that doesn't get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan. > As I said, a plan that doesn't > get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan. If you want to get the average middle-aged American woman on a bike, I think you'll need to do _all_ the things they do in northern Europe. First, raise the price of gas to their level. That would require a gas tax immense by American standards. Second, make attaining a driver's license as difficult and costly as it is over there. Third, increase the taxes on car purchases to a level equal to theirs. Ignore any political repercussions. Fourth (and maybe most important) re-design American cities so they are as dense and as commercially healthy as those European cities. That means doing away with most of American suburban sprawl, and getting those American housewives to enjoy living in inner-city housing. That will do most of the job. After that, you can start with big promotional efforts, telling those housewives how beneficial and stylish and responsible it is to ride a bike. As I understand, all those things happened in places like Copenhagen. On top of that, they had a long history of biking even before those factors came into being, so you may want to go back and change American history. Oh, and at some point, you may want to change the contours of the land to mimic those cities where cycling is really popular. I recall reading that flatness correlated particularly well with cycling modal share. If you do all those things, you probably won't even need bike lanes. In fact, sharrows would probably work just fine. - Frank Krygowski >> As I said, a plan that doesn't >> get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan. > > If you want to get the average middle-aged American woman on a bike, I > think you'll need to do _all_ the things they do in northern Europe. Oh, here we go with the "it can't happen here" argument. > First, raise the price of gas to their level. That would require a > gas tax immense by American standards. Right, because the Scandinavians are too poor to afford gas. > Second, make attaining a driver's license as difficult and costly as > it is over there. Right, because its so strict and expensive that nobody has a driving license in Europe. > Third, increase the taxes on car purchases to a level equal to > theirs. Ignore any political repercussions. Right, car ownership is rare in Scandinavia and Germany (and all the cars are cheap junk, too). > Fourth (and maybe most important) re-design American cities so they > are as dense and as commercially healthy as those European cities. > That means doing away with most of American suburban sprawl, and > getting those American housewives to enjoy living in inner-city > housing. Cities are dense, everywhere, else they wouldn't be called cities. I'm not interested in, or advocating, utility cycling in the American suburbs. I don't think it is a practical alternative. Commuting in and out of the city, either from nearby districts or intermodal hubs is practical, that's about it. Believe or not, many people actually live in cities, even here in the US! Also, believe it or not, many (if not most to nearly all, I'd imagine) middle-aged American women, urban-living or not, but certainly urban, are not "housewives". Did you miss the last half-century or do you live in a time capsule? Update: after Beaver grew up, Ward let June go back to work. > That will do most of the job. After that, you can start with big > promotional efforts, telling those housewives how beneficial and > stylish and responsible it is to ride a bike. No, as you love to point out, people are sheep, they'll just follow what they see others doing. It would never occur to people to ride a bike because it's pleasant and efficient. You could ask any middle-aged female cyclist in Amsterdam or Copenhagen (lots to pick from), or you could simply read the answers from people who have asked the questions, listened to the answers, and implemented the plans accordingly (with the consequent adoption of utility cycling by those very people). > As I understand, all those things happened in places like Copenhagen. > On top of that, they had a long history of biking even before those > factors came into being, so you may want to go back and change > American history. You might want to review the history of cycling in those countries. It's now what you think you know (not surprising). Time travel is not really necessary to establish utility cycling. > Oh, and at some point, you may want to change the contours of the land > to mimic those cities where cycling is really popular. I recall > reading that flatness correlated particularly well with cycling modal > share. Right, Portland has doubled its modal share in a decade. Everyone knows what a flat city it is, and absolutely nobody cycles in SF. If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I could go on) -- just to cycle, why not just claim all hills have to be downhill both ways? Of course it is known to be a little windier in flat areas (particularly stuck out in the frickin North Sea). You have ridden in the wind, right? You have seen the windmills, right? Next you'll be claiming you can't ride where it gets cold in the winter. Read "Hans Brinker"? > If you do all those things, you probably won't even need bike lanes. > In fact, sharrows would probably work just fine. Why don't you ask people what they want instead of telling them what they need? [...] > If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I > could go on) -- just to cycle, why not just claim all hills have to be > downhill both ways? Of course it is known to be a little windier in flat > areas (particularly stuck out in the frickin North Sea). You have ridden > in the wind, right? You have seen the windmills, right? Wind bothers the overweight and underpowered sub-20mph cyclist less than hills. The slower you go, the less the wind hurts you, and the heavier you are, the more hills do. > [...] >> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hills. The slower you go, the less the wind hurts you, and the heavier > you are, the more hills do. I'm sorry, "hurts you"? It's hard to address that claim with any formality (i.e. anything other than arm flailing). No matter what the speed, the same amount of work is done climbing a hill for a given bike and rider weight. Wind will completely overpower any cyclist at some velocity. The amount of work done over a given course rises quickly with wind speed. For instance, consider the effect of a 5 m/s headwind on 2 riders, one a 10 m/s rider, the second a 5 m/s rider. The first will be slowed to 5 m/s (at same power output), halving the speed and doubling the duration and work for the trip. The second rider is slowed to less than 1 m/s, increasing the duration and work to over 5x. As anyone who has cycled much will observe, wind makes fast riders slow and slow riders crawl. I'd rather ride in hills than wind any day. >> [...] >>> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >As anyone who has cycled much will observe, wind makes fast riders slow >and slow riders crawl. I'd rather ride in hills than wind any day. Dear Peter, To use your phrase, anyone who has cycled much knows that your speed does not drop like that when you head into the wind. Your 10 m/s rider goes 22.37 mph. Your 5 m/s rider goes 11.185 mph. Your 5 m/s wind blows 11.185 mph. You predict that the wind will slow the fast rider to 5 m/s. No, it doesn't. An 11 mph wind doesn't knock 11 mph off a 22 mph rider. It knocks him down to about 16 mph. You predict that the wind will slow the slow rider to < 1 m/s. No, it doesn't. An 11 mph wind doesn't knock an 11 mph rider down to less than 0.5 mph. It knocks him down to about 6.3 mph *** Here's a side-by-side bicycle speed calculator: http://bikecalculator.com/veloUS.html Plug in 227.4 watts and on-the-drops for the defaults, and it predicts 22.37 mph (10 m/s). Add an 11.185 mph headwind, and the predicted speed drops only to 16.03 mph, about 43% faster than the 11.185 mph that you predicted. Plug in 43.5 watts for the same on-the-drops default rider, and the predicted speed is 11.18 mph. Add an 11.185 mph headwind, and the predicted speed drops only to 6.29 mph, an order of magnitude greater than the < 0.5 mph that you predicted. Varying the position, weight, and tires won't make much differerence in the outcome. Bicycle speed does not drop directly for headwinds. Cheers, Carl Fogel >>> [...] >>>> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > >Carl Fogel Arrgh! Sorry, my mistake on one figure. Your prediction of < 1 m/s is less than 2.2 mph (not 0.5 mph). You were still simply wrong, but my mistake exaggerated your error. The predicted speed for the ~11 mph rider drops to ~6 mph with the ~11 mph headwind, not the less than ~2 mph that you predicted. Cheers, Carl Fogel >>> [...] >>>> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Carl Fogel Sorry, you're right. I knew my numbers were fishy, but I made the mistake of equating force to power. Rookie error. Brain is slow today. In any case, accepting your corrected numbers, the fast rider takes about 1.4 times as long to complete the route with the headwind. The slower rider takes almost 1.8 times as long. In absolute velocity, the fast rider has the greater change (6.3 mph change vs. 3.7 mph change), but in terms of relative work done with or without wind, the slow rider has it worse, their hour ride becomes 1.8 hr as opposed to 1.4. I'd argue that the actual difference would be even greater if you give the slow rider a larger coefficient of drag, which is almost certain in the real world. As to which "hurts" more, the fast rider's pride probably hurts more, but the slow rider's legs are probably killing him. >>>> [...] >>>>> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > As to which "hurts" more, the fast rider's pride probably hurts more, > but the slow rider's legs are probably killing him. Winds are hard work, but because wind resistance force is proportional to speed squared, if you slow down, the wind pushes you less. Gravity on the other hand doesn't care how slowly you go. Watch fat people on bikes: they walk up the hills, even quite gentle ones, even when they have granny-cogs. I've never seen anyone walking into a headwind, not here in Cambridge (where it is very flat and windy) nor in NL. Nobody cares that much if their ride takes 1.8hr instead of 1.4hr if it's comfortable and they can sit on the bike, but hills really hurt if you're unfit and/or overweight. > > carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > it's comfortable and they can sit on the bike, but hills really hurt if > you're unfit and/or overweight. As impediments go, I much prefer climbing hills to being battered by capricious headwinds. >>>>> [...] >>>>>> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > Winds are hard work, but because wind resistance force is proportional > to speed squared, if you slow down, the wind pushes you less. Then it just takes you longer. Utility cyclists generally have fixed distances to travel, not a "workout" time limit. > Gravity on the other hand doesn't care how slowly you go. Watch fat > people on bikes: they walk up the hills, even quite gentle ones, even > when they have granny-cogs. I've never seen anyone walking into a > headwind, not here in Cambridge (where it is very flat and windy) nor in > NL. Utility cyclist doesn't equal fat cyclist. Your arrogance is showing (again). A hilly route will take the same work every time, a windy one not, perhaps by a large margin. > Nobody cares that much if their ride takes 1.8hr instead of 1.4hr if > it's comfortable and they can sit on the bike, but hills really hurt if > you're unfit and/or overweight. You're thinking like a recreational cyclist again. >>>>> [...] >>>>>> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > it's comfortable and they can sit on the bike, but hills really hurt if > you're unfit and/or overweight. Flat and windy conditions can be made much more pleasant by being low and reclined. No such fix for hills, as even a reduction from a 30-lb to a 15-lb bike does not help that much. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >>>> [...] >>>>> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >As to which "hurts" more, the fast rider's pride probably hurts more, >but the slow rider's legs are probably killing him. Dear Peter, I've made far bigger goofs and been corrected more tactfully, so I should have tried harder to be tactful myself--and I goofed one of your figures, anyway, putting 0.5 mph where it should have been 2.2 mph. As to "what hurts more,", Ben's comment never addressed 20 mph riders in the first place: "Wind bothers the overweight and underpowered sub-20mph cyclist less than hills. The slower you go, the less the wind hurts you, and the heavier you are, the more hills do." That seems reasonable, as do your counter-arguments, but it's hard to tell whether the overweight and underpowered should fear hills or wind--both disadvantages are disadvantages. I've been knocked down to about 10 mph by a nasty headwind where I normally expect to do about 20 mph, but I get knocked down to 10 mph every day on the highway up the ridge west of town. If you're used to strong headwinds, grinding up unfamiliar hill probably seems to hurt more. If you ride up hills all the time, you probably find unexpectedly strong headwinds annoying. Cheers, Carl Fogel [...] > "Wind bothers the overweight and underpowered sub-20mph cyclist less > than hills. The slower you go, the less the wind hurts you, and the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you ride up hills all the time, you probably find unexpectedly > strong headwinds annoying. OK, but have you ever seen anyone getting off and walking because of a headwind? BTW, I personally prefer hills, but then I am reasonably fit and can ride up them. I'm also one of the future minority of 80% of "recreational" cyclists Peter doesn't care about. > [...] >> "Wind bothers the overweight and underpowered sub-20mph cyclist less [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > ride up them. I'm also one of the future minority of 80% of > "recreational" cyclists Peter doesn't care about. Sorry to hurt your feelings. Of course I care about you Bunky, just not in the context of facilities (see title). Facilities don't add much to recreational cycling in the sense that they won't dramatically increase ridership. Cycle paths are popular for weekend rides to nowhere, but by themselves probably don't measurably improve a societies fitness levels. Nice, but not necessary. Other countries have shown that facilities are critical to establish utility cycling in urban areas. The US has a big health problem. Utility cycling can help with that. It would also significantly lower pollution and congestion in densely settled areas. It's a pragmatic component of urban planning. In suburban and rural areas, it's simply a pastime, benign as pastimes go, but it won't solve social ills, even modestly. > [...] > The US has a big health problem. Utility cycling can help with that. It > would also significantly lower pollution and congestion in densely > settled areas. It's a pragmatic component of urban planning. In suburban > and rural areas, it's simply a pastime, benign as pastimes go, but it > won't solve social ills, even modestly. If you really want to improve USian health, stop treating workers [1] as fungible items, to be used and abused. [1] This is of course directed as society in general, not Peter personally. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >> The US has a big health problem. Utility cycling can help with that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If you really want to improve USian health, stop treating workers [1] as > fungible items, to be used and abused. I'm for universal care, one of the reasons for my support is that it removes health coverage from employment. Of course the problem with that is paying for a large fraction of the population needing expensive long term care for illnesses like diabetes. Most of our health care burden is self-inflicted. > [1] This is of course directed as society in general, not Peter personally. Direct away. If not for the impossibility of sustaining our current national health standards, I wouldn't be quite so evangelical about urban cycling. >>> [...] >>> The US has a big health problem. Utility cycling can help with that. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > population needing expensive long term care for illnesses like diabetes. > Most of our health care burden is self-inflicted. Is diabetes expensive? Most diabetes is Type 2, which I thought you mainly controlled by diet. Also diabetes isn't self-inflicted. Although it's correlated with obesity, it hasn't been established which causes which. In any case, utility cycling doesn't do a lot for obesity, although it probably is better for your health overall than not doing it. Go to NL and you'll see a lot of fat people on bikes. >> [1] This is of course directed as society in general, not Peter personally. > > Direct away. If not for the impossibility of sustaining our current > national health standards, I wouldn't be quite so evangelical about > urban cycling. More urban cycling is not a substitute for universal health care! The latter is a necessity, the former just something that would be nice. >>>> [...] >>>> The US has a big health problem. Utility cycling can help with that. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Is diabetes expensive? Most diabetes is Type 2, which I thought you > mainly controlled by diet. It's expensive because it requires life long treatment and the complications can be severe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus_type_2 "There are an estimated 23.6 million people in the U.S. (7.8% of the population) with diabetes with 17.9 million being diagnosed,[2] 90% of whom are type 2.[3] With prevalence rates doubling between 1990 and 2005, CDC has characterized the increase as an epidemic.[4] Traditionally considered a disease of adults, type 2 diabetes is increasingly diagnosed in children in parallel to rising obesity rates [5] due to alterations in dietary patterns as well as in life styles during childhood.[6]" > Also diabetes isn't self-inflicted. Although it's correlated with > obesity, it hasn't been established which causes which. Type 2 was called adult onset because it was virtually unknown among children, that changed. Childhood obesity is epidemic, type 2 is epidemic. The two are related. That's the CDC talking, not me. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html > In any case, utility cycling doesn't do a lot for obesity, although it > probably is better for your health overall than not doing it. Go to NL > and you'll see a lot of fat people on bikes. It is a combination of obesity and sedentary behavior. Merely increasing regular exercise by fairly modest amounts can have a significant impact on diabetes, regardless of obesity. The same thing is true for cardio-vascular disease. Both diseases become chronic without lifestyle changes, generally requiring long-term medical treatment. >>> [1] This is of course directed as society in general, not Peter personally. >> Direct away. If not for the impossibility of sustaining our current [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > More urban cycling is not a substitute for universal health care! The > latter is a necessity, the former just something that would be nice. The two topics are related. To a certain extent today bad lifestyle choices affect us all economically even if we don't make them ourselves. When and if the taxpayer picks up the whole tab (universal Medicare), the connection is complete. Right now, we're about 40% direct and some additional indirect (shared pool) cost sharing. http://reinventingyourhealthafter50.com/diabetes-epidemic-and-the-impact-on-heal th-care-costs/ "Diabetes is a chronic disease which is associated with various complications that leads to increased cost burden both at individual and national levels. About 70% of the cost associated with diabetes has been attributed to complications such as cardiovascular diseases . About 75% of the patients suffering from diabetes tend to suffer from heart disorders at some point of their life. Increased risk of complications has led to aggressive treatment which has also contributed to the increasing healthcare costs.2, 3, 4 Economic burden is the major concern for many developing and developed countries. Total cost of diagnosed diabetes patients in United States was $174 billion in 2007 which included $116 billion as direct costs and $58 billion as indirect costs such as disability, work loss, and premature mortality. In U.S., the healthcare cost of each patient related to diabetes is around $ 11,157 per year . Total cost of diabetes with undiagnosised, prediabetes and gestational diabetes in U.S. is about $218 billion . Individuals with diabetes spent twice that of healthy individuals for healthcare related needs." Some experts fear that diabetes rates could rise from the current ~8% to as high as 25-30%. Barring a miracle cure, the cost burden would be crushing. http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20060911/diabetes-forecast-gets-scarier "Sept. 11, 2006 -- Greatly increasing a prediction made just three years ago, the CDC now predicts 48.3 million Americans will have diabetes by 2050. That's triple the number of people living with diabetes today -- and 9.3 million more than the CDC forecast in 2003." http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/12/2225.full "CONCLUSIONS The diabetes population and the related costs are expected to at least double in the next 25 years. Without significant changes in public or private strategies, this population and cost growth are expected to add a significant strain to an overburdened health care system. The high cost of caring for individuals with chronic diseases is one of the most pressing issues in health care in the U.S. today (1). The baby boom generation is aging, and advanced age is accompanied by costly chronic illnesses. As a result, Medicare and other health-related governmental programs will face demographic and epidemiological forces that will challenge their financial viability. In light of the sheer magnitude of costs associated with diabetes, policymakers and the public need to understand how these costs will change over the next decades and how new policies may alter these trends in costs. Policymakers already are keenly interested in developing and pursuing policies that can prevent the expected rise in disease burden and head off expensive public commitments to care for the chronically ill. " Any other questions? [...] >> More urban cycling is not a substitute for universal health care! The >> latter is a necessity, the former just something that would be nice. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 75% of the patients suffering from diabetes tend to suffer from heart > disorders at some point of their life. What percentage of people without diabetes get heart disorders at some point of their life? > Increased risk of complications has led to aggressive treatment which > has also contributed to the increasing healthcare costs.2, 3, 4 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and $58 billion as indirect costs such as disability, work loss, and > premature mortality. How can premature mortality be considered a financial cost? >[...] >>> More urban cycling is not a substitute for universal health care! The [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >How can premature mortality be considered a financial cost? Dear Ben, They stop paying taxes, curse them! Of course, premature diabetic deaths are entirely different from premature tobacco deaths: "It's been shown that, if those extra 100,000 people a year had lived to a ripe old age, they would have cost us even more in pensions and social security than they did in medical treatment. So, financially, it is unquestionably better that they continue to die [from tobacco] at about the present rate. . . . The benefits of smoking greatly outweigh the ill-effect; cigarettes pay for one-third of the total cost of the National Health Service. We are saving many more lives than we otherwise could because of those smokers who voluntarily lay down their lives for their friends. Smokers are national benefactors. . . . And when they die they save the rest of us a lot of money." --The Smokescreen, Yes Prime Minister Cheers, Humphrey Appleby [...] >>> Increased risk of complications has led to aggressive treatment which >>> has also contributed to the increasing healthcare costs.2, 3, 4 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > They stop paying taxes, curse them! I had no idea merely being dead was allowed as a reason to stop paying taxes. > [...] >>>> Increased risk of complications has led to aggressive treatment which [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I had no idea merely being dead was allowed as a reason to stop paying > taxes. Only after you've paid the socialist's "death tax". >[...] >> "Wind bothers the overweight and underpowered sub-20mph cyclist less [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >ride up them. I'm also one of the future minority of 80% of >"recreational" cyclists Peter doesn't care about. Dear Ben, We sometimes get +60 mph chinook winds in Pueblo. The first 6 miles of my daily ride heads right into them. So I've seen winds where sensible people didn't just get off and walk--they turned around and quit. There have been days when I was smart enough to skip my daily ride. On a less intelligent day, I was straining on the drops in low gear up the Arkansas river, trying to stay above 6 mph, and admiring a small stream of gravel bouncing down the level pavement toward me. Fortunately, the climb up the ridge west of town is sheltered. I doubt that I could have handled the climb against that headwind. Cheers, Carl Fogel > We sometimes get +60 mph chinook winds in Pueblo. The first 6 miles of > my daily ride heads right into them. > > So I've seen winds where sensible people didn't just get off and > walk--they turned around and quit. I once considered a bike tour in Patagonia, but first read some tour descriptions on the web. One person described how the wind was so strong that he gave up and spent the day in a culvert beneath the road. After reading that I decided that Patagonia wasn't for me. Ned in Zurich > [...] >> "Wind bothers the overweight and underpowered sub-20mph cyclist less [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > ride up them. I'm also one of the future minority of 80% of > "recreational" cyclists Peter doesn't care about. Peter also does not care about cyclists outside of the central urban areas. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >>> "Wind bothers the overweight and underpowered sub-20mph cyclist less [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Peter also does not care about cyclists outside of the central urban areas. Just not facilities. Why not just say we're in agreement except in urban areas, which you don't like anyway. We're totally compatible, in a disjoint way -- bikes and courses. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > BTW, I personally prefer hills, but then I am reasonably fit and can > ride up them. I just got home from work about an hour ago. The usual 1 3/4 to 2 hour trip took around 2 1/2 hours. Leaving the city the temperature was in the mid to upper 40's F. The prevailing headwind was 20 mph gusting to 30. As I got out of town the headwinds continued, and the temperature plummeted as the biting wind was joined by cold, stinging rain. The wind was a misery. I'll be back on the bike tomorrow, of course, but a newbie... more probably not. Newbies can know what to expect with hills, and be rewarded for climbing them with a sense of accomplishment, a view from the top, and the descent.. Every kid with a bike and a hill knows that's where the fun is. >I just got home from work about an hour ago. The usual 1 3/4 to 2 >hour trip took around 2 1/2 hours. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >As I got out of town the headwinds continued, and the temperature >plummeted as the biting wind was joined by cold, stinging rain. Dear Dan, A daily ~4-hour commute in the rain at 40F may appeal to a hard-core bicycle enthusiast, but most people will try to find an alternative. Cheers, Carl Fogel >>>>> [...] >>>>>> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > > Carl Fogel OK, but if you are a utility cyclist, you're not likely to run into unexpected hills. Cities like Portland and SF are unusual, lots more cities are flat than hilly, but Portland is a good counter-example -- like SF, not all hills by any means, but hillier than most and still leading the country in urban utility cycling. > >> As I said, a plan that doesn't > >> get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Right, because the Scandinavians are too poor to afford gas. They're probably not "too poor," but fuel is *significantly* more expensive in most European countries than it is here, by at least 2 or 3x. > > Second, make attaining a driver's license as difficult and costly as > > it is over there. > > Right, because its so strict and expensive that nobody has a driving > license in Europe. They have them... I can't speak to Scandinavian countries, but in Germany acquiring a driver's license requires a lot more training, testing, etc. and the whole process can cost several thousand dollars. Compare and contrast with here, where if you have a birth certificate or passport, can pass an easy multiple-choice test, and can demonstrate that you can handle a car in a parking lot, you are licensed to drive. Seriously, proving legal residency is the hardest part of getting a driver's license in the US. I'm not going to bother jumping into this argument because I don't have any strong opinions either way, but Frank's points which you are dismissing actually do have some validity. (did I just post that?) nate >>>> As I said, a plan that doesn't >>>> get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > have any strong opinions either way, but Frank's points which you are > dismissing actually do have some validity. (did I just post that?) The question is whether the 10x rate of cycling in Germany, or 25x rate in the Netherlands relative to the US is primarily due to economic considerations. While licensing and operation costs may well be higher, actual car ownership per capita in Europe and Japan is not very different than the US, even though the US exceeds 1 car per licensed driver. Mileage in the US has been shown to be not too cost elastic. There are a number of economic differences, but polls of European cyclists don't indicate economics as being a big factor, neither do car ownership rates. >>>> As I said, a plan that doesn't >>>> get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > have any strong opinions either way, but Frank's points which you are > dismissing actually do have some validity. (did I just post that?) Make that "a birth certificate, not necessarily yours, without too much whiteout". Ability to read English street signs optional. The last guy to run me over was from No Insurance, China and the cop had to wait for an interpreter at the scene. Yup, valid license too. Whatever 'skills' are needed to get the examiner out of the car are promptly forgotten the next morning. Texting, coffee and applying eye liner are just sprinkles on the top. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 > Make that "a birth certificate, not necessarily yours, without too much > whiteout". Ability to read English street signs optional. > > The last guy to run me over was from No Insurance, China and the cop > had to wait for an interpreter at the scene. Yup, valid license too. My state has a reciprocal license agreement with Germany. How many Bostonians do you think sprechen Deutsch? You better just stay home & watch Fox, this isn't going to be your millennium. >> Make that "a birth certificate, not necessarily yours, without too >> much whiteout". Ability to read English street signs optional. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Bostonians do you think sprechen Deutsch? You better just stay home & > watch Fox, this isn't going to be your millennium. I couldn't have cared less had he stayed in his lane. You snipped my inattentive driving rant. SignatureAndrew Muzi <www.yellowjersey.org/> Open every day since 1 April, 1971 >>> Make that "a birth certificate, not necessarily yours, without too >>> much whiteout". Ability to read English street signs optional. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I couldn't have cared less had he stayed in his lane. You snipped my > inattentive driving rant. I did, I have no thoughts on that. > > [...] > >> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes > for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway). This is rich. You have any evidence to back up the claim that facilities would encourage "utilitarian" or even recreational bike riding? While this assertion might be "obvious" to you it sure is not what I've observed. I can tell you why virtually no bicyclists around here don't ride separated bike paths at all: 1. They don't go everywhere where roads go 2. They aren't maintained as regularly as roads (swept or repaved) 3. They have blind corners due to geometry & shrubbery 4. They've been "appropriated" for every use other than bicycling 5. There are no ESTABLISHED norms of behavior for separate bike paths such as right of way, passing, etc. (as there are for roads) Another reason most bicyclists here prefer riding roads is we have nice wide roads; in a sense, the roads are more utilitarian (and nicer) than separate bike paths. Lest you think I'm a "competitive" rider, these days I'm not physically capable of riding over 15mph if I tried. Riding a bike on a bike path here would be the equivalent of hot-dogging my dune buggy on a schoolyard playground full of kids. I couldn't cause more terror if I tried. > >>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_ > >>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sure, but most of the users find the whole question silly, since they > wouldn't be riding without the facilities. Prove it. >>> [...] >>>> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > nice wide roads; in a sense, the roads are more utilitarian (and > nicer) than separate bike paths. All of that is true. My interest promoting in utility cycling is only in thickly settled areas, and those typically don't have the real estate for bike paths. I like bike paths sometimes, but I don't think they have much of a role in establishing a culture of utility cycling. >>>>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_ >>>>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Prove it. Ask them. > >>> [...] > >>>> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > for bike paths. I like bike paths sometimes, but I don't think they have > much of a role in establishing a culture of utility cycling. As I said earlier, when it comes to urban living, you aren't going to get more denser than NYC. In NYC they've taken away car lanes and converted them into bike lanes. I see no reason why this approach wouldn't also work in Boston. As an example, every third street could be "bike only" aside for delivery vehicles. Think about it. In really densely populated areas, where there are nice alternatives like subways (like MBTA) and buses, why would anyone NEED to drive aside from making pickups/deliveries? You ask any New Yorker whether they should drive and most would find the idea laughable. I find the idea of building new (as opposed to converting existing) facilities ludicrous, since you haven't even been able to demonstrate safety, never mind utility. > >>>>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_ > >>>>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ask them. I don't need to ask. As I said, I see evidence right in my neighborhood why separate bike paths don't get used by cyclists, and I've enumerated the reasons why. They get "used" by everybody else. >>>>> [...] >>>>>> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > neighborhood why separate bike paths don't get used by cyclists, and > I've enumerated the reasons why. They get "used" by everybody else. I think you're confused as to my position. > > [...] > >> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes > for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway). This is rich. You have any evidence to back up the claim that facilities would encourage "utilitarian" or even recreational bike riding? While this assertion might be "obvious" to you it sure is not what I've observed. I can tell you why virtually no bicyclists around here ride separated bike paths at all: 1. They don't go everywhere where roads go 2. They aren't maintained as regularly as roads (swept or repaved) 3. They have blind corners due to geometry & shrubbery 4. They've been "appropriated" for every use other than bicycling 5. There are no ESTABLISHED norms of behavior for separate bike paths such as right of way, passing, etc. (as there are for roads) Another reason most bicyclists here prefer riding roads is we have nice wide roads; in a sense, the roads are more utilitarian (and nicer) than separate bike paths. Lest you think I'm a "competitive" rider, these days I'm not physically capable of riding over 15mph if I tried. Riding a bike on a bike path here would be the equivalent of hot-dogging my dune buggy on a schoolyard playground full of kids. I couldn't cause more terror if I tried. > >>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_ > >>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sure, but most of the users find the whole question silly, since they > wouldn't be riding without the facilities. Prove it. > > > [...] > > >> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > nice wide roads; in a sense, the roads are more utilitarian (and > nicer) than separate bike paths. Where do you live? -- Jay Beattie. > > > > [...] > > > >> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Where do you live? -- Jay Beattie. Santa Clara County, CA. Jobst lives probably lives one county further west, over in San Mateo County. I've also lived in Los Angeles, which I think has even better "utilitarian" biking conditions than Northern California. And as absurd as it might seem to a lot of folks, as dependent as Californians are on automobiles, I don't think it's an accident that California has some of the best roads in the United States for bikes. I'm not going to pretend to understand all the vagaries of road maintenance financing in CA. The lack of severe weather obviously contributes to the longevity of road surfaces compared to most other areas in the country. When it comes to road infrastructure, Oregon might as well be a third world country. I've seen better roads in California Baja (Mexico) than Oregon. There's no doubt in my mind that shared facilities is the most effective use of limited money/ resources for all concerned. Just say no to developers who want to build the narrowest roads possible. > > > > > [...] > > > > >> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I was born and raised there -- LGHS, SJSU. I raced for the SJBC for years. That is a great area for riding. I also drove ambulance in SJ for six years and know a lot of the roads. The deal is that California built huge roads, and in SCV, most of them are flat. Bascomb Ave is like a super-highway (although I got hit twice by cars on that road). Foothill Expressway, etc. -- flat or rolling ribbons of road. I wish we had those up here, but PDX was built small, and our topography is a lot different, at least on the west side. But I don't know what roads you are talking about in Oregon that are so bad -- it's a big state. HWY 1 is better in Oregon than Northern California. Larch Mountain is smoother than Hamilton with none of that ridiculous crack sealer cum banana peel. Check out Timberline road -- no sealer in sight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-DdSdi2LOs Barbur or Terwilliger is calmer than Bascomb. The PDX east side basically sucks, so I'm with you there -- and Washington County is treacherous. I love sunny SCV and if someone wants to give me a house there, I would move back -- except my son would be really, really pissed off because he loves to ski. In fact, during the summer, I ride up to Timberline and go skiing on Palmer with him -- both sports in one day. -- Jay Beattie. >>>> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... >>>> Well, it's a step. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Nice finish with the insult to my area, Peter. A lot of people would > consider that lowbrow. If you want to continue to slander facility advocates, be my guest, but you sound like an ignorant person -- i.e. a redneck, or a hick, if you'd prefer. > But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are > following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a > goat. Nice. > In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European > facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads, and they're > ignoring cyclists' campaigns in places like Germany to treat cyclists > as legitimate vehicle operators. Oh, Germany doesn't have bike facilities, I wasn't aware of that. > Massbike's site says "...the new policy definitively says “YES!” to > bicycle facilities – whether they are traditional, innovative, or even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > than good? That they won't subject novice cyclists to additional > hazards? The alternative is to continue to follow the defective cycling dogma and finally wipe out cycling altogether. 50 years to make a case (i.e. experiment) should be sufficient. > For just one example, why the love of bike boxes? Do you and Massbike > not know that the preliminary data out of Portland is that they don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The problem with the dreamy-eyed facilities lovers Nice. > is that they don't > think in engineering terms. Except perhaps those of us who are engineers... > They think facility design is as easy as > drawing up an idealized cartoon of a "green" city, with no cars in > sight and all the cartoon people smiling in the sun. Continuing your crude caricatures and name calling doesn't add any weight to your claims -- redneck. > By contrast, traffic engineers - good ones, anyway - get into details > analyzing how traffic moves, what motorists and cyclists expect, what [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > already had a famous bike lane dooring fatality, so even that won't > shake sense into some heads. You are really a Johnny one note on all of this. Your way has been tried. It failed. If you don't like facilities, don't use them. Meanwhile, the rest of the world seems to be moving on. > But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are > following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a > goat. In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European > facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads, and they're > ignoring cyclists' campaigns in places like Germany to treat cyclists > as legitimate vehicle operators. Some years ago when this subject was being discussed, I was surprised to learn that the problems at intersections of bike paths and motor vehicle paths (namely, collisions <g>) were so severe as to skew overall safety stats. In other words, I see an anti- bike facilities bias operating here and telling the truth (whole truth) not being served in one respect, at least. > Do you see anything in there that calls for careful analysis to be > sure the "innovative" or "experimental" facilities won't do more harm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > traffic signals and special rules, the crossing movements that kill > cyclists are still likely? How long have bike boxes been in use in enough number and in different geographic locations to eliminate local custom and usage influence in "the numbers", IRT accident rates? > The problem with the dreamy-eyed facilities lovers is that they don't > think in engineering terms. They think facility design is as easy as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and if it's questionable, they prefer to follow proper experimental > protocols to test it and validate it. Or engineers come into a situation with their minds made up IRT what works and what doesn't, and try to dictate to others from that stance? You have a problem with "facilities", Frank. Maybe, to put this in the most positive light I can think of, your ideal (dream on!) is a car- toon where motorists and cyclists are held to the same standard of responsibility and respect-- a transportation utopia of sorts where cyclists wouldn't need "facilities". And pedestrians wouldn't need crossing zones and WALK ("Run Like Hell!!!") lights..? I could show you a couple of streets in Austin, Texas where bikelane stripes are working wonderfully. What is funny is, one is New!!! Improved!!! having been the center of quite a storm of controversy (and failed "facility experiment" <g>) while the other, very similar if not exactly the same in execution, has just been quietly working pretty well for a good long time without the publicity. --D-y On Mar 11, 8:57 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote: > > But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are > > following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > telling the truth (whole truth) not being served in one respect, at > least. That was a giant non sequitur. Yes, the problems with bike paths are worst where they intersect motor vehicle travel paths. How does that indicate bias? > > The problem with the dreamy-eyed facilities lovers is that they don't > > think in engineering terms. They think facility design is as easy as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Or engineers come into a situation with their minds made up IRT what > works and what doesn't, and try to dictate to others from that stance? You misunderstand engineering. To put it in terms you might find more familiar: How would you react if a new-age feng shui practitioner said "The most auspicious placement of the toilet would be in the basement. We'll just slant the main drain uphill to get the sh.t to flow up to the sewer"? And when you objected, and she said "Oh, you just have your mind made up as to what works," how would you react? > You have a problem with "facilities", Frank. You misunderstand that too. You have forgotten, or perhaps never read, that I'm personally responsible for the installation of one paved bike path, and I worked hard on a committee that got a federal grant to rehab a historic bridge to use for bike & ped shortcut access. I also served on a statewide committee to evaluate bike & ped grant applications, and approved many of them. I have a problem with facilities that make cycling worse, or more dangerous. I have encountered many of them, despite the fact that elementary traffic motion studies should have predicted their problems. I have also encountered many cycling advocates who feel that cycling is impossibly dangerous without some special facility, and many cycling advocates who think there is no such thing as a bad cycling facility. Peter Cole is one of those. He's enthusiastically defended facility features that have, (unsurprisingly) seriously injured cyclists - like collision obstacles in bike paths, for one example - as long as it entices people to ride. I find that attitude to be either ignorant or unethical. - Frank Krygowski > Peter Cole is one of those. He's enthusiastically defended facility > features that have, (unsurprisingly) seriously injured cyclists - like > collision obstacles in bike paths, for one example - as long as it > entices people to ride. I find that attitude to be either ignorant or > unethical. Nice gratuitous slap shot, Frank. While your opinions are endlessly fascinating, that's about all you've expressed. Those zany Europeans should have listened to you before embarking on their suicide mission decades ago -- and now Portland! Where will it end? > You misunderstand engineering. WOW. What a whopper. Breathtaking! > To put it in terms you might find more familiar: How would you react > if a new-age feng shui practitioner said "The most auspicious > placement of the toilet would be in the basement. We'll just slant > the main drain uphill to get the sh.t to flow up to the sewer"? And > when you objected, and she said "Oh, you just have your mind made up > as to what works," how would you react? Well, my favorite coffee cups are feng shui. Which (feng shui, of course, not my cups), in one form or another, can be seen influencing the positioning of buildings and so forth in relation to natural geographic features. Now, "new-age", I might go with you on that because I don't much trust those guys, either. There's a phrase: "Per customer request", which of course won't make waste flow uphill. You need a lift station for that and those are pretty straightforward to install and maintain, actually. But, of course, in areas where houses do have commodes in the basement, the soil pipe is generally located low (or deep) enough that normal fall can be employed to drain sewer lines. > > You have a problem with "facilities", Frank. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > access. I also served on a statewide committee to evaluate bike & ped > grant applications, and approved many of them. I'd never have guessed. > I have a problem with facilities that make cycling worse, or more > dangerous. I have encountered many of them, despite the fact that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > entices people to ride. I find that attitude to be either ignorant or > unethical. We have a big mess in the USA, is what we have, from what I've seen. Not enough riders makes for cyclists being the lowest item on the food chain. I understand your objections to bad (silly, stupid bad) facilities, and to "advocates" who aren't helping the cause, or are making things worse, for more than one reason, chief of which IMHO is demanding special, car free pathways. I'd rather see "acceptance of facilities", as this thread started, for the simple reason that then we can work on getting facilities that work, and also get to work on removing those that don't. To my very great surprise, Shoal Creek Blvd., Austin Tx, saw expensive obstacles (aka "dragons teeth") installed and then removed. Now, there's just a paint stripe. Best it's been in the time I've been riding there, since 1984. Meaning, respect from motorists, with cyclists being given room to get around the cars parked in the shared bike/curbside residential parking lane. The bike-only "advocates" mostly seem to HATE SCB's layout, regarding it as a great political loss. Funny thing is, there's another nearby "neighborhood artery" that has been similarly marked for years and years, which has quietly functioned much like SCB-- it is busier and faster, but still far from a No Man's (on a bicycle) Land. IOW, one "bike lane" that works very well, in no small way because residents were not denied ("suddenly had taken away") their front-of-their-house curbside parking. Imagine that, a compromise that is generally respected, for the benefit of all! Never thought I'd live to see the day. --D-y > > >>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > already had a famous bike lane dooring fatality, so even that won't > shake sense into some heads. As was mentioned, the presumption is that "if you build it, they will come," viz., less stressful, bicycle-only facilities will get people on their bikes and commuting to work. So, I was talking to a co-worker who I knew to ride on occaision and who is fit and an environmentalist of sorts, and I asked her why she did not commute to work. She told me that she was afraid of all the other bicyclists, and particularly those passing at high speed. She says "I am just not that stable" on a bike, and that she is put-off (if not frightened) by bicycle traffic. There are lots of bike lanes and facilities (and lots of bicyclists) coming in to town from her close-in neighborhood. I guess that means we need individual bike lanes, or bicycle passing lanes. We need a bicycle superhighway ala LA! http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/front_website/gallery.php?o=1&id=223814 I'll tell you, my close calls in the last two years (excluding busses, which are a perpetual problem), have been with other cyclists. -- Jay Beattie. > > > >>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > which are a perpetual problem), have been with other cyclists. -- Jay > Beattie. I agree with that to an extent; nearest MUP to me is basically wide enough to accomodate two bikes, *maybe* three if all cyclists are very confident. So passing when there's oncoming traffic, similar to a two- lane rural road in a car, is difficult. Now if it were slightly wider... human nature being what it is, I expect that there would be a significant subset of riders who through selfishness, lack of attention, or lack of being taught how to drive/ride properly will continue to ride two abreast just perpetuating the problem :( See your local freeway for a demonstration... So what really needs to be done is that people need to be taught to "keep right except to pass" whether they're driving, cycling, or even walking on a sidewalk. Concentrating on driving might yield the best results, because pretty much everyone drives and there's already a system in place to fine drivers who don't play by the rules. However, there seems to be no will to cite drivers for anything other than speeding... nate > > > >>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra... > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > did not commute to work. She told me that she was afraid of all the > other bicyclists, and particularly those passing at high speed. I spent most of four years riding bike/pedestrian paths in Houston because it was not safe to ride solo on the surface streets. Some people make a hobby out of scaring the whee out of anyone they pass-- overtaking or oncoming. IOW, very few call out "passing on your left" to let someone know they are coming around. Plus, riding at "high speed" on the path is BS in the first place. Frankly, human behavior is a good reason to fight against dedicated, compulsory bike paths. > She > says "I am just not that stable" on a bike, and that she is put-off > (if not frightened) by bicycle traffic. There are lots of bike lanes > and facilities (and lots of bicyclists) coming in to town from her > close-in neighborhood. I guess that means we need individual bike > lanes, or bicycle passing lanes. Education. Plus, you know, a little humility, consideration for our fellow travelers, etc. etc. Not holding my breath. > I'll tell you, my close calls in the last two years (excluding busses, > which are a perpetual problem), have been with other cyclists. My closest in memory was with a "wrong-wayer" (Hey! I'm riding a bike, I don't have to follow rules!) who turned *left* (of course!) right in front of me, in some weird way expecting me to do the same. Maybe my best save ever. It won't reach everyone, but education incl. basic etiquette would help a lot. --D-y > [...] > So, I was talking to a co-worker who I knew to ride on occaision and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > says "I am just not that stable" on a bike, and that she is put-off > (if not frightened) by bicycle traffic.[...] A velomobile would solve those problems. SignatureTom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007 >> [...] >> So, I was talking to a co-worker who I knew to ride on occaision and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >A velomobile would solve those problems. Velomobile? That's the recumbent's evil brother (As if the recumbent wasn't evil enough to begin with). On Mar 12, 6:11 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 12:29 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > position based on evidence, it's not accurate to call the results > "bias." I like bike lanes a lot -- at least the simple striped lanes adjacent to the road way. Call them a wide shoulder or whatever you want. It means more room to ride. Ours get cleaned, and in fact, my primary bike lane got cleaned two days ago. I have been riding the same strip of road in to town for 25 years -- 10 of those years hugging a fog line and trying to avoid heavy, fast moving traffic and buses. The road was reconstructed, and I got a bike lane. My life is much easier now -- except that over the last few years, bicycle traffic has increased dramatically, and I have to deal with bike traffic. Simple striped bike lanes are the only bicycle infrastructure I like. With that said, there are some very bad bike lanes around here that run you up on side walks, adjacent to streetcar tracks, in front of turning traffic. Riding the new bike lane up SW Fifth in downtown PDX is like running the gauntlet. Jay Beattie. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.