Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of Vehicular Cycling.

[sms]

Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
Vehicular Cycling.

Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
<https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/> yesterday. The keynote was
entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
but the event improved from there.

The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
<http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/>

The statistic that they both harped on was the <1%/7%/5%/60%/33%
breakdown, from a Portland study
<https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/158497>. <1% of
people will cycle no matter what, whether or not there is good
infrastructure, bad infrastructure, or no infrastructure—these people,
like Jay, are referred to as “Strong and Fearless.” 7% are “Enthused and
confident, and will cycle with just a minimum of infrastructure such as
sharrows and “bike routes.” 33% of people will not cycle no matter what,
no matter how good the infrastructure might be. 60% are “interested but
concerned,” and would do transportational cycling if there was good
infrastructure, with the percentage increasing as the infrastructure
moved toward Class IV. As infrastructure improves, collision, injury,
and fatality rates fall dramatically, partly due to the infrastructure
and partly due to the increased number of cyclists.

The Class IV infrastructure had a lot of appeal to the “interested but
concerned” group for several reasons. They felt safer in protected
bicycle lanes, not only because of the physical barrier from vehicles,
but because there was no way for vehicles to block the bicycle lane for
parking or loading/unloading (which is also a big pet peeve of mine!).

The bottom line was that to get more “butts on bikes,” cities have to go
after the 60% of “interested but concerned.” We need to follow the
example of the Netherlands, where bicycle infrastructure is directly
responsible for the 38% trip share for bicycles. Silicon Valley, which
is flat, and has mild climate, is particularly well suited for this
transformation
<https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord>.


The whole event seemed to be a lot of “preaching to the choir,” most of
the people there were already transportational cyclists and planners
that understood what was being talked about. I rode there with my city’s
Public Works director. In my city, we have a chance to move a lot of
projects forward since when I was elected I replaced a termed-out
council member who was not interested at all in increasing
transportational cycling. We’ve already pushed through several stalled
projects.

[jbeattie]

I know this is just bait for Frank, but the 60% number is fantasy. I've been talking to the supposed "interested but concerned" set for decades, and with each new piece of over-priced and fundamentally misguided bicycle infrastructure, they find some other reason not to ride. It's too hot. It's too cold. My tire is flat, etc., etc. My favorite is my work co-hort who is afraid of other cyclists.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

Well in city after city, the increase in cycling mode share has occurred
due to rejecting the precepts of vehicular cycling and adding
infrastructure. The goal isn't to get people like you to ride, it's to
attract that 60%. The people you talked to were in the 33% but would not
admit it.

My wife said "I'm one of that 60%." She rides to work because of the
infrastructure of bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, and and would
otherwise not ride.

The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank
could deny. What happened in Montreal,
http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/,
is a very good example.

[Joerg]

I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
"vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
there on the horizon? And so on.

We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above
3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
or not, considering all "side effects".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[jbeattie]

Read the comments here: https://bikeportland.org/2015/06/12/portland-bike-counts-keep-rising-in-eastside-grid-but-east-and-southwest-are-down-144330

Including: "Don’t forget 'efficient'. PBOT has really dropped the ball here with nonsense like Moody, SW Multnomah, and the new bit on SW Terwilliger and Capitol Hwy. I think people need to be able to *average* 12mph on bike trips for it to be a compelling option, which means flat and straight parts need to be easy and relaxing at 15-20mph. A separated facility littered with peds, curb cuts, and red lights won’t give you that."

Chutes are dangerous (cars/pedestrian obstructions) and frustrating because of bike traffic. Here is a classic example of new chute infrastructure in Portland that is demonstrably worse than riding on the road: https://bikeportland.org/2017/02/14/first-look-new-separated-path-on-se-17th-between-sellwood-to-milwaukie-217696

Scroll down to here: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2324/32880899315_b81aab9f0f_c.jpg It builds-in conflicts with turning cars -- both entering and leaving traffic. As a cyclist, you now have to stop every 50-100 yards to cross roadways and driveways that previously you just sped-by on the road. https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3726/32727621422_0fafc2e7f7_c.jpg And the new path was totally unnecessary, at least for cyclists. There was a good shoulder for those who were afraid of the roadway, and not withstanding the breathless rhetoric in the story, I was never afraid riding down this road and neither were any of my riding companions. It was a total snooze of a ride that I had done for decades on my way to other places. This was a monumental step backwards in the name of progress. The perfect solution would have been to put in a nice sidewalk and an on-road bike lane that did not need stops at every bisecting road, driveway, ant trail, deer track, etc., etc. I am positive that there will be more injuries in this new facility than there ever were without it.


-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/9/2017 3:29 PM, sms wrote:
> On 8/9/2017 10:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 8:37:05 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
>>> Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bicycle Summit and the Failure of
>>> Vehicular Cycling.
>>>
>>> Attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bike Summit
>>> <https://bikesiliconvalley.org/summit/> yesterday. The keynote was
>>> entertaining, but very strange, and had nothing to do with bicycling,
>>> but the event improved from there.
>>>
>>> The most interesting thing was to hear two different transportation
>>> planners, in separate presentations, lambast the “vehicular cycling”
>>> movement, as an impediment to increasing the number of transportational
>>> cyclists. As we now know, the vehicular cycling movement was a dismal
>>> failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share, but for years
>>> transportation planners bought into the idea of treating bikes like
>>> cars, an idea which was promoted by people like John Forester. “Here’s
>>> what happened when one city rejected vehicular cycling,”
>>> <http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/>

That's an ignorant and deceptive propaganda piece.

Ignorant? Yes, because as explained by many people in the comments, even
its first mention of John Forester is mistaken. He did not "come up
with an idea for keeping cyclists safe on busy roads." He simply
publicized what was already standard bike riding technique in European
countries, where far more people used bikes than in America. Americans
had (and mostly still have) no concept of how bikes should be used. He
simply described to Americans what already worked, and what was known by
millions of other bike users.

The ignorance continues, with people like Scharf (or SMS) and his heroes
demonstrating it regularly. Scharf says "the vehicular cycling movement
was a dismal failure in terms of increasing the bicycle mode-share." But
_nowhere_ has Forester ever pretended that bigger mode share was his
objective. The objective of Vehicular Cycling techniques is simply to
improve the capabilities, enjoyment and safety of those who choose to
use those techniques. And those techniques work. They just work.

Scharf's heroes pretend that Vehicular Cycling (i.e. cycling with
reasonable skill according to the rules of the road) is only for the
"fearless." Yet very normal women and men manage to use VC techniques
every effectively. They are easy to learn, they work at any speed, they
don't require heroism. See
http://cyclingsavvy.org/2017/05/ride-big-and-carry-a-great-bag/ for example.

In a nutshell, if a person wants to use their bike practically and
enjoyably for transportation or recreation, they have two choices: They
can lobby for massive public spending on separated bicycle facilities
everywhere they may ever wish to ride; or they can learn to ride a bike
correctly using skills and techniques that are sanctioned by existing
laws. The latter strategy allows you to ride essentially anywhere,
right now. The former strategy tells you to wait for some tax-funded
fairyland to appear.

True, Forester and those who understand his ideas point out that many
elements of the fantasy fairyland are crappy designs and impose risks
that normal riding doesn't. Forester's opponents have lobbied hard for
door zone bike lanes, cattle chutes that send fast cyclists wrong-way
into intersections, straight-ahead bike lanes to the right of right
turning cars, etc. This is frustrating to the crowd that believes "any
bike facility is a good bike facility." But reality is often
frustrating to ignorant daydreamers!

The 60% claim is bullshit, unless you use unreasonable standards for
"interested." The survey that got that number essentially asked "would
you be interested in riding if there were amazing bike facilities?" If a
person said "I'd be interested" they count.

But several of us here are engineers. Engineers are supposed to be able
to do numbers. Where in North America have 60% of the population taken
to riding bikes to get around? Where has that number actually been
proven true? Nowhere, Stephen. You can't even point to a large
neighborhood where installation of bike facilities generated 60%
ridership. As Jay said, the best you'd get after producing an amazing
array of bike/cattle chutes is "Oh, that's interesting."

> The evidence is overwhelming, and it's something that not even Frank
> could deny. What happened in Montreal,
> http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/,
> is a very good example.

Yes, the evidence IS overwhelming! We're engineers, right? We
understand numbers, right? So let's look at the amazing success Montreal
has had in getting those 60% on bikes. What's its bike mode share?

Oh... hmm. http://www.cityclock.org/urban-cycling-mode-share/ says it's
somewhere between 1.3% and 2.4%.

Time for a question, Stephen: Is 2.4 greater or less than 60?

Take your time. I know it takes a while to count to 60 on your fingers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/9/2017 4:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> I am positive that there will be more injuries in this new facility than there ever were without it.

On that note: I have a colleague in Columbus, Ohio. The city installed
a bi-directional cycle track on something like 15 blocks (IIRC) of
mostly residential streets north of the university.

She reports that in the year before the installation, there were two
car-bike crashes in that stretch. In the year after, there were 15.

Somehow, the cycle track fans are not trumpeting those crash statistics.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:

> As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
> we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
> the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
> it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
> there on the horizon? And so on.

That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like Amsterdam or
Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If it's only green paint
then you're right. And it's not getting them to make 100% of their
commutes or shopping trips or whatever, even just a small amount is
better than nothing.

The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY of that
60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding, and the
vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to 7%, is not
going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars.

Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/9/2017 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
> I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
> "vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
> and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
> Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
> stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
> where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

Oh, bullshit. When I ride lane center, I'm not pretending to be a car.
I'm using the legal right to the road that is specifically given to the
operator of a bicycle. It's clearly written in the state laws. No
pretending is necessary.

And only the ignorant would claim it's stupid to ride according to those
laws. We did 25 miles today, mostly on narrow country roads and
highways, meaning there was really not a single place where the lane was
wide enough to be safely shared with a passing motor vehicle. My wife
and I and the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always
near lane center. We were passed by many dozens of cars. As usual,
there was no drama, no hostility, no close calls, no terror. The same
happens when I ride in the city and suburbs, including the 35,000
vehicle per day road I use to get to the hardware store.

I know there are people too timid for such riding. They tend to hide
their timidity by bragging about their "gnarly" heroics, and spice it
with tales of their beer drinking prowess. But those on today's ride
would probably laugh behind their backs.

> As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
> we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
> the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
> it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
> there on the horizon? And so on.
>
> We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
> largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above
> 3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
> the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
> means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
> We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
> or not, considering all "side effects".

Is a 1% - 2% bike mode share worth it? Joerg, it depends greatly on
"worth WHAT?"

Is it worth increasing the crash count from 2 per year to 15 per year,
as happened recently on one stretch of road in Columbus? Is it worth
spending public money on trial-and-error bike facility designs, as
Portland has done for years, then re-doing them to try to make them
work? Is it worth delaying the travel of competent cyclists, or
ticketing them for refusing to use faulty designs? Is it worth telling
people that bicycling is so hazardous that one should not do it until
there are segregated facilities everywhere?

Why is it not worth it to begin educating both bicyclists and motorists
about how to properly and safely share existing roads? After all,
that's _really_ what Vehicular Cycling is about.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

Portland has another big problem--relatively good public transportation
with a very high rate of public transit use, even though it's fallen
slightly, like many cities, due to Uber and Lyft. Good public transit
drives down bicycle usage because the same people willing to bicycle are
also willing to use public transit.

[Joerg]

Must have been at least some of the 60% group because there was partial
success. "You mean, there is a bike path after we hacking it through the
field towards Folsom? Really?" ... "Yeah, promise. Only 500 yards of
residential roads, then bike paths all the way to Sacramento" ... "Ok,
I'll go".

When walking our dogs I come by a lot of properties, sometimes with
people working out there and the garage doors open. When I see bicycles
in there I try to strike up a conversation.

[Joerg]

Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

[...]

[jbeattie]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-08-09 14:10, sms wrote:
> > On 8/9/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
> >
> >> As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling
> >> once we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that.
> >> However, the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find
> >> excuses. Oh, it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining,
> >> see that cloud there on the horizon? And so on.
> >
> > That 60% is a big group. If there were infrastructure like Amsterdam or
> > Montreal, you could get a lot of them to ride. If it's only green paint
> > then you're right. And it's not getting them to make 100% of their
> > commutes or shopping trips or whatever, even just a small amount is
> > better than nothing.
> >
> > The point the two speakers made was that you won't even get ANY of that
> > 60% unless you take steps to get them comfortable riding, and the
> > vehicular cycling philosophy, while it may work for up to 7%, is not
> > going to get any of the other 93% out of their cars.
> >
> > Like Jay, you were probably talking to the 33% and not the 60%.
>
>
> Must have been at least some of the 60% group because there was partial
> success. "You mean, there is a bike path after we hacking it through the
> field towards Folsom? Really?" ... "Yeah, promise. Only 500 yards of
> residential roads, then bike paths all the way to Sacramento" ... "Ok,
> I'll go".

The American River Trail is a linear park -- probably a pretty ride but not too efficient with a 15mph speed limit, dog walkers, sight-seers, wobbly kids, etc. http://www.americanriverbiketrail.com/sacramento-ca/sacramento-county-to-enforce-15-mph-american-river-bike-trail-speed-limit/ I'm sure it has attracted some commuters, but anyone willing to ride to Sacramento and back is probably not in the "60%."

Some MUPs are mostly used by bikes, and those can be convenient. We have some dedicated bike trails that are convenient (mostly along highways), although the I-205 bike trail and parts of the Springwater (MUP) are pretty scary now. Here's a fine fellow who can help you with some repairs! http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/chops1-skeel.jpg

Segregated facilities may attract some riders, but it's hard to tell -- particularly since many facilities were created as part of much larger housing construction projects, including the facility I constantly malign in the south waterfront. https://www.southwaterfrontdental.com/images/south-waterfront.jpg All of those condo towers are new. So is the OHSU Hospital complex and all of its employees. Sure, nobody road on S.W. Moody 20 years ago . . . but look now! What they don't mention is that 20 years ago, that area was an abandoned shipyard and mini-storage. I and five other people rode through there with any regularity. It was very convenient back then. Not so much now with the traffic and "cycle track." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HpCGyr61Do&t=47s

The most heavily used facilities are just on-street bike lanes. https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/observing-portlands-bike-traffic-photo-essay-182506 No, that's not an event. That's normal bike traffic. But on-street bike lanes are boring and so un-Amsterdam-ish. We need style! We need panache! The "60%" will not use a bland bike lane.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 8/9/2017 4:40 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The Stevens Creek Trail has all of that as well, but it is used heavily
by commuters. The speed limit is routinely ignored. Yesterday I saw two
electric bicycles go by me at high speed. The trail goes straight to the
industrial park where Google is located, as well as many other
companies, including Microsoft (who hosted the SVBC Summit yesterday).

<snip>

> But on-street bike lanes are boring and so un-Amsterdam-ish. We need style! We need panache! The "60%" will not use a bland bike lane.

Even though you say that sarcastically, it's actually true.

[Frank Krygowski]

Yep, the people who whined since the 1970s about the need for bike lanes
now have them. So now they're whining that bike lanes aren't good
enough, they need "protected" cycle tracks.

Whiners will whine, I guess. Me, I learned how to ride. I can ride
anywhere I want.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
slackers!

So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
you over? Really??

Is that what you advocate for Americans?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 8/9/2017 2:31 PM, Joerg wrote:

> Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
> and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
> not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.

But if you're a tourist they just ignore you, and assume that you don't
know the law.

In the UK you can take the lane when necessary, other times you can't.
Are you saying it's different in other European countries? No one said
that it's customary to ride lane center, you only do it when there is no
other option.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 3:58:36 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

> I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
> "vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
> and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
> Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
> stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
> where a Boeing 747 is about to land.

Bloody nonsense! I've been a vehicular bicyclist for over 50 years and I even ride from city to city a lot of times because it's far faster than riding the inter-city buses tht have a really great-circle route. One city I ride to is 2 HOURS away by bicylce and FIVE HOURS away by bus. That's a total of 4 hours riding vesus 10 hours of busing.

Many other cities around here do not have bus service to them or the bus takes just as long proportionally as does that other route = twice as long by bus as by bicycle and then there's the transferring onto a city bus if there is even public transportation and the time to wait forthose buses. Sometimes the inter-city bus does not run except in the morning and the evening.

MAny times my rides to a city are longer than 2 hours but still far faster and less timethan a bus is.

Again, in your world YMMV but that doesn't mean what doesn't work for you won't work for others.

Cheers

[John B.]

My guess is that bicycle use, as a percentage of the population is not
and never will increase.

According to the National Bike Dealers Association in 1973 there were
some 15.2 million 20" and larger wheel bicycles sold in the U.S. which
is asterisked as "Record High". In 1981 there were 8.9 million sold
and in 2015 there were 12.5 million sold.

The U.S. population figures for the same years are
1973 - 311.9 million
1981 - 229.47
2015 - 320.0

Bicycle use per capita is then:
1973 - 1 bike/20.5 people
1981 - 1/25.7
2015 - 1/24.9

In short, other then the one year, 1973, there is a smaller percentage
of USians on bicycles every year.

Over the past 20 years from 1995 - 2015 the numbers are:

1995 - 12 million bikes, 20 inch or larger wheels size, sold versus a
population of 266.28 million. Or 1 bike per 22.19 people

2015 - 12.5 bikes versus 320.9 million or 1/25.6

Obviously bicycle sales vary from year to year and in the 20 year
period (above) the high point was in 2005 when 14.0 million bikes were
sold in a population of 295.8 million or 1 bike/21.12 people.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
you are on a bicycle) :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

Last we herd, 40 years ago, group size of the population for effective movement of a new idea was 10%.

I had not researched background for that number. My understanding was historical data for successful motion tended to coalesce at 10%.

Both killing the Czar's extended family and court decisions eg on methane recently on the news, are examples of 10%

Many examples are countable ... as winners lined up for 'spoils"


1... 2 ... 3 n so forth

[cycl...@gmail.com]

John Forester was an extremely persuasive voice. He was a mainstay on this group and convinced most of us.

In my late 30's I was a crippled old man with a back so bad that I walked stooped over a great deal of the time and the slightest strain would kick my back out again.

Then someone suggested cycling. Like most I returned with hesitation but the more I cycled the less problems I had with my back. So John certainly made an impression on me and I immediately became part of the 1%.

Now I'm almost 73 and haven't had a twinge except the occasional crash.

The reasons it might be hard to convince many people to ride that would be in the 60% of because of weather conditions. If I were to get a job within a couple of miles of my house would I ride? Probably not because I have to wear a suit and tie. Smelling like a racehorse isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to communicate with.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Somebody forgot to take his meds this morning - FRANK. You and I remember John but in many ways he was wrong. Tell me - on a busy 6 lane road do you pull across into the left turn lane without sweating blood? Very often I'm forced to stay to the right and wait for the opposite light and go across with the cross traffic.

I really do have to admit that bicycle lanes really does improve cycling and I'm probably more of the 1% than you are. The weakness of the idea is that we already commit too much room for roads. Expanding bicycle lanes will NEVER come at the expense of cars. Even on Market St. in San Francisco the removal of most car lanes wasn't because of bicycles but because of the buses and trolleys etc. And its safety record is abominable.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I just said that because of traffic I am often forced to pull around on the side road and cross with the traffic from the side road. This is what I saw in Paris as well.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

How many people do you think commute to work over 15 mph in Amsterdam?

[cycl...@gmail.com]

The last two times I've gone to my neurologist in Palo Alto 25 miles away I could have gone faster by bike than in the traffic via the fastest route. But I would have arrived covered in sweat.

[AMuzi]

As regards 1981, roughly 1/3 of all US bicycle stores open
in 1980 were closed by the end of 1982. That short severe
recession hurt more than bike shops too.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Duane]

Amazing how stats can be misinterpreted, especially when making a point...

[Joerg]

On 2017-08-09 19:21, sms wrote:
> On 8/9/2017 2:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>> Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for
>> decades and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane
>> center is not at all customary there and would quickly result in a
>> citation and fine.
>
> But if you're a tourist they just ignore you, and assume that you don't
> know the law.
>

Sometimes.

> In the UK you can take the lane when necessary, other times you can't.

That's how it is in most countries. Meaning if you are out there on a
rural road riding lane center you can be ticketed. Or get killed.

> Are you saying it's different in other European countries? No one said
> that it's customary to ride lane center, you only do it when there is no
> other option.

Frank said in another post yesterday in this thread "My wife and I and

the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always near lane
center".

Not the words "almost always". Today he wrote, quote " My wife and I

rode lane center there whenever it was necessary or desirable".

I don't know what to believe of his writing. Do you?

[Joerg]

It's really a bike path, was always meant to be but then mutated into an
MUP. However, people adhere to the "Walk left - ride right" rule quite well.

Then we have this bike path which connects to my former work place:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-3gnLIUum0

No speed limit! Riders much slower than 15mph should ride AFRAP here and
be prepared to have others blow by race car style.


> http://www.americanriverbiketrail.com/sacramento-ca/sacramento-county-to-enforce-15-mph-american-river-bike-trail-speed-limit/


Got to know where Smokey is.

> I'm sure it has attracted some commuters, but anyone willing to ride
> to Sacramento and back is probably not in the "60%."
>

At least some were in the 60%. We often get to talk to each other.
Sometimes while riding, like when people pick up a tune from my MP3
player and want to know what it is, on breaks, helping with a repair or
lately while gazing at the "progress" with the rock slide.

> Some MUPs are mostly used by bikes, and those can be convenient. We
> have some dedicated bike trails that are convenient (mostly along
> highways), although the I-205 bike trail and parts of the Springwater
> (MUP) are pretty scary now. Here's a fine fellow who can help you
> with some repairs!
> http://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/chops1-skeel.jpg
>

We now have that problem in Sacramento with cyclists getting attacked
and all. They have a new mayor who IMHO doesn't have a real clue
regarding the situation and by his promises of free housing and free
whatever has attracted lots more homeless folks. Meaning many cyclist
still use that path but not all the way into town anymore.

We have a bike path up here called the El Dorado Trail. Homeless there
were never aggressive towards me but, no surprise there, their numbers
have greatly dwindled. I guess they migrated to Sacramento and the city
leaders simply don't get it.

> Segregated facilities may attract some riders, but it's hard to tell
> -- particularly since many facilities were created as part of much
> larger housing construction projects, including the facility I
> constantly malign in the south waterfront.

It's not very hard to tell once you take time and talk to people.
Because I am self-employed I have the luxury of being able to take a few
hours off here and there to ride. Sometimes I ride full bore, other
times I take it easy and occasionally talk to other riders. I met people
who bought a house in Folsom because of the bike path system. That was
their stated #1 reason. Mostly Bay Area retirees, meaning people with
lots of disposable income -> ka-ching!

> https://www.southwaterfrontdental.com/images/south-waterfront.jpg
> All of those condo towers are new.

Eeuuuw! In Germany they call that something like grain elevator living
or residential silo.


> ... So is the OHSU Hospital complex

> and all of its employees. Sure, nobody road on S.W. Moody 20 years
> ago . . . but look now! What they don't mention is that 20 years
> ago, that area was an abandoned shipyard and mini-storage. I and five
> other people rode through there with any regularity. It was very
> convenient back then. Not so much now with the traffic and "cycle
> track." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HpCGyr61Do&t=47s
>

Just another confirmation why urban living is not my thing and never
will be.

> The most heavily used facilities are just on-street bike lanes.
> https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/observing-portlands-bike-traffic-photo-essay-182506

Thanks, I have bookmarked that because there are Europeans (and some
folks here ...) who are of the firm belief that a decent mode share can
never be achieved in America.

A place that is more extreme is Davis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHdbIhL0eso

> No, that's not an event. That's normal bike traffic. But on-street
> bike lanes are boring and so un-Amsterdam-ish. We need style! We
> need panache! The "60%" will not use a bland bike lane.
>

There are probably some 60-percenters among those many riders but yes,
some want to be totally cradled all the time. They typically cart their
bikes to the bike path, unload and then ride. We have mixed-mode
commuters who do this. Better than nothing because they at least shave
off half of the usual car commute and have shifted that part to their
bicycles.

Occasionally I also do that because there are many people who absolutely
positively will not cycle on roads. But they ride and some are quite
sporty so they don't hold me back. I normally rather ride right from our
garage but that requires many miles of county road cycling to get to
"the good stuff".

[Joerg]

Wow. Mine wasn't that bad but I had times where for days I could only
get out of bed by pulling myself up on a clothes pole, or not at all.

> Then someone suggested cycling. Like most I returned with hesitation
> but the more I cycled the less problems I had with my back.

Same here. L4-L5-L6 are pretty hose in my spine. Cycling and evben more
so mountain biking helped that a great deal. Builds back muscle.


> ... So John

> certainly made an impression on me and I immediately became part of
> the 1%.
>

I didn't need anyone to tell me that, I just needed a safe way to cycle
and when they widened the shoulder on a major country road here I had
that. Well, at least safe enough. Plus they opened some MTB trails and
that was what really triggered me to cycle again. Before that there were
some gruesome accidents and the occasional cross with a spoked wheel.

A guy who really helped me was a CPA at our church who suggested I may
also have a magnesium deficiency. So I take supplements now which help a
lot. None of the fancy medical doctors ever figured that out.

> Now I'm almost 73 and haven't had a twinge except the occasional
> crash.
>
> The reasons it might be hard to convince many people to ride that

> would be in the 60% of because of weather conditions. ...


Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and occasionally
ride the residential streets here. They will not even venture out into
the village center 2mi away for errands and such because they will not
ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane. Understandably so. I ride
those a lot but it's not fun.


> ... If I were to

> get a job within a couple of miles of my house would I ride? Probably

> not because I have to wear a suit and tie. ...


The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and in
summer loosen the tie for the ride).


> ... Smelling like a racehorse

> isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
> communicate with.
>

Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
our medical device company.

[Joerg]

Sorry, I meant engineering company. Jay would be the one heading for the
law office to work.

[Duane]

Having a shower and locker at the office definitely makes things easier
for commuting by bike.

[Andre Jute]

Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is.

Andre Jute
Demographics are often counter-intuitive

[Duane]

Not the US but bike facilities get pretty crowded in Montreal. If I
leave early enough in the morning to get to work I can use some bike
paths but if I'm a bit later, I stick to the road. On the way home it's
mostly on the road. On rec rides, I head out of town to avoid the
crowds on paths and city streets. Riding through rural Quebec is a lot
more pleasant than fighting traffic (car or bike) in the city.

Even so, I see a lot of people commuting on the bike path. But I think
it will be some time before it ever reaches this break point that you
talk about. The car culture here is too prevalent.

[Andre Jute]

Slow Johnny's screed below is a fine example of what happens when jumped-up mechanics (1) mess with statistics.

Yo, Slow Johnny, the rise and fall of per capita adult bicycle unit sales don't tell you shit (2) unless you already know how many bicycles are held from previous years' sales by the target market. Even then, you will need to ask how many are in use,and how regularly (3). Both these numbers exist on a national scale and I have quoted them on this forum before.

BTW, not that it matters after you've made such a newbie mistake in the statistics, your conclusion that the bike share in America is unlikely to increase is cockeyed, the same sort of arrogant hubris that drives the global warming clowns. The US bike share could double or treble and that would already be a tremendous result for the committed people at Scharfie's conference (4). If you meant to say that a doubling or trebling of American bike usage in a few cities would still result in a near-insignificant national bike share (5), you should make an effort to say what you mean. As stated your conclusion isn't supported by your number.

(1) ...except the success of promotional efforts or accidents like having an American in the Tour de France...

(2) In which I include constant overreachers like Frank Krygowski who call themselves "engineers". I find it amazing that, after his statistical grotesqueries have been unmasked so often, Franki-boy can still claim to understand mathematics. Statistics aren't about the math, Franki-boy, they're about reducing large blocks of chaotic but obtainable knowledge to a manageable form and extract the kernel useful to decision-making; it's not so much a technical manipulation (the chi squares can safely be left to the technicians from the better universities) but an art form in which you must first learn to ask the most illuminating question (what a ponce like you might call "formulate the hypothesis").

(3) Vide Joerg walking his dogs and seeing more bicycles in garages than he ever sees on the street.

(4) It is typical of the bullshit on this conference that Scharfie, disdained by almost everyone except me, is the one who gets things done in his city, who has the planner with yes-power to do cyclists some good marching in lockstep with him. Hey, Franki-boy, when did you last get anything done in your city? If you had any manners, you would congratulate Scharfie on achieving what you can't, instead of bitching and denigrating.

(5) Hey, Scharfie, public transport isn't a "problem" anywhere in the world except California, where it is a monument to your governor's ego – and incompetence.

Andre Jute
Perfection is the enemy of achievement

[Joerg]

On 2017-08-10 08:12, Duane wrote:
> On 10/08/2017 11:00 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2017-08-10 07:59, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2017-08-10 04:12, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

>>>> ... Smelling like a racehorse
>>>> isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
>>>> communicate with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
>>> our medical device company.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I meant engineering company. Jay would be the one heading for
>> the law office to work.
>>
>
> Having a shower and locker at the office definitely makes things easier
> for commuting by bike.

Absolutely. It also doesn't cost more time like many think. I always
take a shower in the morning to start the day nice and fresh. If a
strenuous bike ride is ahead there is no problem moving that shower to
after the ride. Hence no time is lost.

What helps me a lot on rides in more populated areas is to pick routes
where some refreshing is possible. Once more that is where bike paths
shine. A short stop at Nisenan Park, hit a button and stand inside this:

https://www.folsom.ca.us/images/Departments/ParksAndRec/Parks/Spray_Play.jpg

Recycled water, so no wasting of resources. I stand underneath until my
T-shirt is completely soaked. That affords me free evaporative cooling
that lasts almost 1/2 hour and by that time I have reached Lake Natoma.
There, a re-purposed cleaned old yoghurt beker is pulled out of the
right pannier. Dunk it in ... pour it over me ... dunk in again ... pour
-> Another 1/2 hour of free evaporative cooling.

On MTB trail rides there are creeks, springs and little lakes where the
little yoghurt pot gets used. For the people who think that cyclists
should always ride on roads in Diesel soot and all there is usually ...
nothing.

[jbeattie]

Probably none on the bike paths. That kind of Conga line would drive me crazy, particularly with a commute that is in excess of the average 3.2km (2 mile) trip in Amsterdam. Trip distances in Amsterdam are short and often walkable. They are also dead flat. My commutes have ranged from 14 miles each way down to just a few -- and currently 5-6 miles depending on route and assuming I'm not throwing-in gratuitous miles through the West Hills. I've always tried to live near work or school.


-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 8/9/2017 8:06 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> My guess is that bicycle use, as a percentage of the population is not
> and never will increase.

They said the same thing about The Netherlands before the country
decided to change their ways. So your guess is not based on any actual
data. We all know what caused the change in The Netherlands.

[sms]

Was it just the recession? Or was it also a change in the retail market
for bicycles? The expansion of stores like REI which didn't sell the
low-end stuff like K-Mart, Sears, etc., and mail order outfits like Bike
Nashbar, first for high-margin clothing, parts, and accessories, and
later for private-label complete bicycles with higher margins than name
brand bicycles.

Shrinking margins on complete bicycles, and

[sms]

On 8/10/2017 10:23 AM, jbeattie wrote:

> Probably none on the bike paths. That kind of Conga line would drive me crazy, particularly with a commute that is in excess of the average 3.2km (2 mile) trip in Amsterdam. Trip distances in Amsterdam are short and often walkable. They are also dead flat. My commutes have ranged from 14 miles each way down to just a few -- and currently 5-6 miles depending on route and assuming I'm not throwing-in gratuitous miles through the West Hills. I've always tried to live near work or school.

Reminds me of riding in China in the 1980's. Very slow, probably about
10 KM/H, and no sudden stops (since those Phoenix and Flying Pigeon
bicycles had mostly non-functional rod brakes) or unexpected moves. Go
with the flow. I was 31 and it was an effort to not try to go faster.
Wide separated bike lanes too.

It's not rocket science. We know what gets more people on bicycles:

1. Infrastructure
2. Traffic congestion
3. Lack of mass transit

We have #2 & #3 in my area. If we could do more of #1 we'd get some of
that 60%. No one expects to get 100% of that 60% instantaneously. It's a
long process.

[sms]

On 8/10/2017 7:47 AM, Joerg wrote:

> Occasionally I also do that because there are many people who absolutely
> positively will not cycle on roads. But they ride and some are quite
> sporty so they don't hold me back. I normally rather ride right from our
> garage but that requires many miles of county road cycling to get to
> "the good stuff".

I have relatives who are willing to ride on roads with bike lanes, but
get very uneasy when there is a break in the bicycle lane. Explaining to
them that it's not that dangerous is futile. They are in that 60%.
They'd prefer separated lanes but at least they're willing to ride where
there's painted lanes.

[AMuzi]

On 8/10/2017 2:16 PM, sms wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 5:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 8/9/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:13:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/9/2017 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a
>>>>> teenager that
>>>>> "vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work.
>>>>> Being in traffic
>>>>> and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I
>>>>> always do.
>>>>> Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be
>>>>> in a car is
>>>>> stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on
>>>>> the same runway
>>>>> where a Boeing 747 is about to land.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, bullshit. When I ride lane center, I'm not
>>>> pretending to be a car.
>>>> I'm using the legal right to the road that is
>>>> specifically given to the

>>>> operator of a bicycle. It's clearly written in the

>>>> state laws. No
>>>> pretending is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> And only the ignorant would claim it's stupid to ride
>>>> according to those
>>>> laws. We did 25 miles today, mostly on narrow country
>>>> roads and
>>>> highways, meaning there was really not a single place
>>>> where the lane was
>>>> wide enough to be safely shared with a passing motor

>>>> vehicle. My wife

>>>> and I and the other dozen or so people on the ride were
>>>> almost always

>>>> near lane center. We were passed by many dozens of
>>>> cars. As usual,

>>>> Columbus? Is it worth

>>>> spending public money on trial-and-error bike facility
>>>> designs, as
>>>> Portland has done for years, then re-doing them to try
>>>> to make them
>>>> work? Is it worth delaying the travel of competent
>>>> cyclists, or
>>>> ticketing them for refusing to use faulty designs? Is it
>>>> worth telling
>>>> people that bicycling is so hazardous that one should
>>>> not do it until
>>>> there are segregated facilities everywhere?
>>>>
>>>> Why is it not worth it to begin educating both
>>>> bicyclists and motorists

>>>> about how to properly and safely share existing roads?Â

I do not know.

When things go well, it's always attributed to management
genius. By management, anyway.

When things go awry, the list of reasons/excuses is a mile
long, just as in every other business.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/10/2017 10:08 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-08-09 19:21, sms wrote:
>> On 8/9/2017 2:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for
>>> decades and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane
>>> center is not at all customary there and would quickly result in a
>>> citation and fine.
>>
>> But if you're a tourist they just ignore you, and assume that you don't
>> know the law.
>>
>
> Sometimes.
>
>
>> In the UK you can take the lane when necessary, other times you can't.
>
>
> That's how it is in most countries. Meaning if you are out there on a
> rural road riding lane center you can be ticketed. Or get killed.

Yes, yes, Joerg, we know. Your universe is a terribly, terribly
dangerous place. (BTW, the Perseid meteor shower is coming soon. Be
careful! You could get killed!)

>> Are you saying it's different in other European countries? No one said
>> that it's customary to ride lane center, you only do it when there is no
>> other option.
>
>
> Frank said in another post yesterday in this thread "My wife and I and
> the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always near lane
> center".

True. Same on today's ride.

> Not the words "almost always". Today he wrote, quote " My wife and I
> rode lane center there whenever it was necessary or desirable".
>
> I don't know what to believe of his writing. Do you?

Your basic problem is understanding, not believing. To explain: As
usual, it was almost always necessary or desirable.

30 miles today, probably 20 people on the ride. I'd say about one mile
of the ride had a lane wide enough to safely share. The rest was on
roads with lanes no more than 9 feet wide. Most of the roads had low
traffic.

If you're on a low traffic road riding with friends, how do you ride?
On fairly level ground, we normally ride two abreast and converse.

If a car approaches behind us, someone will say "Car back." Depending on
the situation, we may or may not "single up" to make it easier for the
motorist to pass. Sometimes it's simply not necessary because they can
easily go around in the other lane. Sometimes it's unwise because they
should not pass, because of oncoming traffic. Riding two abreast is
definitely legal in any case.

Now there is one common way I violate state law: If I'm on an empty
street or road, I will almost always violate the "AFRAP" portion of the
law even if the lane is wide enough to theoretically share. Instead of
riding at far right, I'll aim for the smoothest part of the lane;
because after all, why should I move right to help an imaginary motorist?

Perhaps you cower near the gutter even in that situation. It wouldn't
surprise me, because you certainly seem to be a timid and fearful person.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I think you can say that about anyone, Tom - yourself certainly
included. And for the record, a diligent searcher can find times when
Forester and I disagreed publicly in certain online arguments. (A mutual
friend told me he enjoyed debating me.) But despite some disagreements,
he and I have gotten along very well face to face; and he's asked me to
contribute advice on some of his writing.

But most of the "wrong" ideas credited to John Forester are effectively
straw man statements, as in the article linked above. Right at the top
is the idea that Vehicular Cycling's intent is to greatly increase mode
share. Others falsehoods posted here have been the idea that VC pretends
bad things never happen, or emergency maneuvers are never necessary, or
one doesn't need to observe motorist behavior. All those are bunk.

So if you want to talk about ways he's wrong, you'll need to get
specific. You may very well be thinking of something he never said.

> Tell me - on a busy 6 lane road do you pull across into the left turn lane without sweating blood? Very often I'm forced to stay to the right and wait for the opposite light and go across with the cross traffic.

Actually, I have almost no experience riding a bike on six lane roads.
We have none that allow bikes anywhere near me. But four lanes with
center bi-directional turn lanes are very common, with the closest one
being 1/10 of a mile from my house. When busy, they're not fun. But I
have successfully merged to the center turn lane literally thousands of
times.

Also, if you were to actually read _Effective Cycling_ by Forester, it
(as well as the cycling education programs that use its principles) will
tell you that there are times you should move to the right and wait for
a gap in traffic. IOW, the idea that Forester forbids such a move is
yet another straw man.

>
> I really do have to admit that bicycle lanes really does improve cycling and I'm probably more of the 1% than you are.

I have said that some bike lanes can be valuable. I feel the same about
side paths. I do, however, think that most bike lanes are not
particularly valuable. In fact, I think most would be more pleasant
with the same pavement width but without the stripe. Most are sops for
needlessly fearful cyclists.

But we can discuss this in detail if you like.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 8/10/2017 1:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:

> When things go well, it's always attributed to management genius. By
> management, anyway.
>
> When things go awry, the list of reasons/excuses is a mile long, just as
> in every other business.

In my area, the cost to lease space is so high that low-margin
businesses have a very hard time. We have some bike shops that do well,
like two Trek tied shops, because they sell a lot of high-cost CF bikes
to persons with very high disposable income. But selling mainly
$300-$500 bicycles with only 35-40% margins is not going to work unless
you own your building.

When I see boomers like me, they're typically on road bikes that they've
been riding for a very long time. I went on a training ride a couple of
weeks ago with someone, and I thought she'd show up on a recent vintage
CF bike, but she showed up on an old Bridgestone road bike even older
than my Specialized road bike. She wanted a new bicycle but not CF, and
was looking into a custom Dean titanium.

[sms]

On 8/10/2017 4:26 AM, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> I just said that because of traffic I am often forced to pull around on the side road and cross with the traffic from the side road. This is what I saw in Paris as well.

I often do that on six lane divided roads like De Anza Blvd. It's much
less stressful, and often faster, to wait for the traffic light to cross
the arterial, than to get to the left turn lane and wait for a left turn
arrow.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/10/2017 11:12 AM, Duane wrote:
>
> Having a shower and locker at the office definitely makes things easier
> for commuting by bike.

I suppose a shower and locker make bike commuting easier, but I think
the need for a shower is greatly overestimated.

My first bike commuting job was 2.6 miles away. Even in Georgia summers
I never needed a shower when I arrived. I usually took it easy on the
way in, and mornings are the coolest part of the day.

When I moved to Ohio, a firm criterion for our house purchase was that
it had to be within 10 miles of the new job. I found this one, seven
miles from work. Again, I took things easy on the way in (and was lucky
that most of the way in was level or downhill).

I rode in business casual clothes, except when arriving at noon for
summer evening classes. Then I'd wear shorts and have a change of
clothes on board. But showering before cycling meant my sweat wasn't
stinky, so I'd just wait and cool down a few minutes before entering the
office complex.

And I guarantee nobody could tell which days I rode in and which days I
drove or took the motorcycle, because they would frequently ask. That
included students who came to my office for help and were sitting two
feet from me at my desk.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/10/2017 11:20 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
>
> Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is.

The laughable Mr. Jute is obviously unaware that I've been saying that
bike mode share in the U.S. will NEVER exceed 10%. At least, barring
some sort of unpredictable global catastrophe.

It's people like Joerg and SMS who are claiming that bike lanes can
transform America into Amsterdam. I've been arguing against that
foolishness.

Do try to stop posting out of ignorance, Jute!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/10/2017 3:22 PM, sms wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 10:23 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>> Probably none on the bike paths. That kind of Conga line would drive
>> me crazy, particularly with a commute that is in excess of the average
>> 3.2km (2 mile) trip in Amsterdam. Trip distances in Amsterdam are
>> short and often walkable. They are also dead flat. My commutes have
>> ranged from 14 miles each way down to just a few -- and currently 5-6
>> miles depending on route and assuming I'm not throwing-in gratuitous
>> miles through the West Hills. I've always tried to live near work or
>> school.
>
> Reminds me of riding in China in the 1980's. Very slow, probably about
> 10 KM/H, and no sudden stops (since those Phoenix and Flying Pigeon
> bicycles had mostly non-functional rod brakes) or unexpected moves. Go
> with the flow. I was 31 and it was an effort to not try to go faster.
> Wide separated bike lanes too.
>
> It's not rocket science. We know what gets more people on bicycles:
>
> 1. Infrastructure
> 2. Traffic congestion
> 3. Lack of mass transit
>

Nope. You left out the most important item: Dissuading car use. As long
as motoring is more convenient, very few people will choose to bike.
Traffic congestion by itself is not sufficient disincentive to driving.

You also left out short travel distances. And flat terrain. And a
historic culture of utility bicycling. And fashion. And much else.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/10/2017 11:59 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> Hey, Franki-boy, when did you last get anything done in your city?

Like changing the design of a million dollar bridge over a freeway to
allow an extra 8 feet of width for pedestrian and bicycle passage? I
forget the exact date, but I think it was about five years ago.

Another was to get all the bicycle-hostile ordinances in my village
repealed. I think that was three years ago.

Then there's the actually useful bike-ped shortcut path through former
cul-de-sacs into the village center. And the restoration of a historic
bridge and opening it for non-motorized transportation. And the bike
transportation maps first of the major city in our area, then of the
entire two county area.

I'll stop there only because Jute isn't worth much of my time. I don't
generally read much of his posts.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/9/2017 11:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 21:31:01 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/9/2017 5:31 PM, Joerg wrote:

>>> Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for decades
>>> and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane center is
>>> not at all customary there and would quickly result in a citation and fine.
>>

>> How odd. My wife and I rode lane center there whenever it was necessary
>> or desirable. The citation and fine crew somehow skipped us, those
>> slackers!
>>
>> So about the citations: If you're in a ten foot lane in your country,
>> and a truck that's 8.5 feet wide is wanting to pass, are you supposed to
>> ride on the ragged edge of the pavement and hope that it doesn't knock
>> you over? Really??
>>
>> Is that what you advocate for Americans?
>
> I've lived in (lets see) ten of the 50 states and every one of them
> had a verse in the highway rules that said "thou shall not impede
> faster traffic". I didn't see any that were amended to say (except if
> you are on a bicycle) :-)

You should look up the current laws. And the relevant court cases.
You're way behind.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

The Cycling Savvy bike education program (which is based on vehicular
cycling principles) teaches the skill of using the spaces between
"platoons" of cars to make such maneuvers easier.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

Yes, Franki-boy, but all of that happened (if it happened) in prehistory. What did you do this year to match Scharfie's sterling work for cyclists, even the ones who voted Republican?

Andre Jute
God, some people shouldn't be allowed to cross the street by themselves, never mind cycle on the road

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:20:30 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>You left out the most important item: Dissuading car use. As long
> as motoring is more convenient, very few people will choose to bike.
> Traffic congestion by itself is not sufficient disincentive to driving.
>

> - Frank Krygowski

Frank-boy's tagline should be:
Compulsive Fascist Compeller.

Read his post again:

> Dissuading car use. As long
> as motoring is more convenient, very few people will choose to bike.

Franki-boy not only wants to compel people to cycle, he's tell them to their faces that it is inconvenient and that he knows it is a pain, but he has decided, in his wisdom, that they should be inconvenienced for reasons that made no sense to them when they were first mooted, and some of which (fuel shortage -- what fuel shortage? -- I've been saying since the 1960s that there will never be a fuel shortage unless Americans are dumb enough to give a bunch of camelfuckers a cartel -- which is exactly what Americans did in 1973) now make even less sense than when the Krygowski Facisti first cited them as reasons for their compulsion to compel others to be as joyless as they are.

One major reason a lot of people, including many, many opinion-formers, don't cycle is that the only cyclists they meet are a bunch of fascist purse-mouths (what do you think Franki-boy looks like in the flesh?) who want to decide what is good for everybody else, and to enforce that on them regardless of their wishes.

The irony is that, if Krygowski weren't such an offensive asshole all the time, and overtime on Sundays, I would agree with some of his positions (not the compulsion, but the need not to waste). For instance, I haven't owned a car since 1990, and I did all my business since 1980 by telecoms, telling people who insisted on seeing me that they could come here.

Andre Jute
Put your mind in gear before your mouth, Franki-boy, and you might even make a few converts

[Andre Jute]

Two breakpoints, actually. The lesser one is outlined above by Scharfie: when the cyclists and their allies in the press get to be a large enough number and loud enough, despite being a tiny minority they get visibility out of proportion to their numbers, and may have a few bones thrown their way. The big breakpoint is when they get the number to get national politicians onside, the Dutch case so often cited, where an entire culture is changed because a majority habit has changed. We can dream.

But I think that it's a good sign when the cycling numbers have visibly outgrown the usually optimistic forecast when the bicycle facilities were installed x years ago. I just wish other cyclists would stop describing those with legitimate complaints about the quality of the facilities as "whiners"; that sort of negativity does nobody any good.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 10:15:15 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 11:20 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> > Some Americans can speed to work on road bikes precisely because there are so few cyclists. If there were a mass of cyclists, you'd soon hear political ructions to have the corralled in a bike lane. There will of course be a breakpoint somewhere, where the mass of cyclists is so large that they get the first consideration in law and infrastructure, as in The Netherlands, but does anyone (except Crazy Frank Krygowski) actually believe that America's bike share will ever approach that breakpoint, whatever it is.
>
> The laughable Mr. Jute is obviously unaware that I've been saying that

Happy to entertain even you, Franki-boy, but I don't know why you assume I know what you've been saying. I have things to do, so you'll forgive me if I don't sit here with bated breath waiting for your posts to fall like lead slippers. It's pretty arrogant and immodest of you to assume I know what you've been saying. All I know of what you say is what learned in this thread where others quoted you, in which case I scrolled back to your posts and trolled you a little just for the hell sticking needles in a permanent asshole.

Andre Jute
Are we clear now?

[John B.]

I suggest that you are asking the impossible :-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:34:36 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 8/9/2017 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:

>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 17:13:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/9/2017 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I could have told them already in the 70's when I was a teenager that
>>>> "vehicluar cycling" is a bad idea and will not work. Being in traffic
>>>> and using the proper turn-off lanes, yes, that's what I always do.
>>>> Riding lane center at a whopping 15mph pretending to be in a car is
>>>> stupid. It's the same as wanting to ride on a moped on the same runway
>>>> where a Boeing 747 is about to land.
>>>
>>> Oh, bullshit. When I ride lane center, I'm not pretending to be a car.
>>> I'm using the legal right to the road that is specifically given to the

>>> operator of a bicycle. It's clearly written in the state laws. No

>>> pretending is necessary.
>>>
>>> And only the ignorant would claim it's stupid to ride according to those
>>> laws. We did 25 miles today, mostly on narrow country roads and
>>> highways, meaning there was really not a single place where the lane was

>>> wide enough to be safely shared with a passing motor vehicle. My wife

>>> and I and the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always

>>> near lane center. We were passed by many dozens of cars. As usual,

>>> there was no drama, no hostility, no close calls, no terror. The same
>>> happens when I ride in the city and suburbs, including the 35,000
>>> vehicle per day road I use to get to the hardware store.
>>>
>>> I know there are people too timid for such riding. They tend to hide
>>> their timidity by bragging about their "gnarly" heroics, and spice it
>>> with tales of their beer drinking prowess. But those on today's ride
>>> would probably laugh behind their backs.
>>>
>>>> As for those 60% I side with Jay. Some of those will start cycling once
>>>> we have a decent infrastructure and I have seen proof of that. However,
>>>> the majority of the "interested but concerned" will find excuses. Oh,
>>>> it's too cold. Oh, it's too hot. It could start raining, see that cloud
>>>> there on the horizon? And so on.
>>>>
>>>> We have indeed missed a lot of opportunity because bike paths were
>>>> largely not built. We can lament all day long that we'll never get above
>>>> 3% or whatever of mode share in most areas like Frank keeps saying. At
>>>> the same time he touts the health benefits of cycling and what that
>>>> means for the economy. I agree with him there but it's a contradiction.
>>>> We have to ask ourselves whether a 1-2% mode share increase is worth it
>>>> or not, considering all "side effects".
>>>
>>> Is a 1% - 2% bike mode share worth it? Joerg, it depends greatly on
>>> "worth WHAT?"
>>>
>>> Is it worth increasing the crash count from 2 per year to 15 per year,

>>> as happened recently on one stretch of road in Columbus? Is it worth

>>> spending public money on trial-and-error bike facility designs, as
>>> Portland has done for years, then re-doing them to try to make them
>>> work? Is it worth delaying the travel of competent cyclists, or
>>> ticketing them for refusing to use faulty designs? Is it worth telling
>>> people that bicycling is so hazardous that one should not do it until
>>> there are segregated facilities everywhere?
>>>
>>> Why is it not worth it to begin educating both bicyclists and motorists

>>> about how to properly and safely share existing roads? After all,

Yes, I was aware of that but the numbers were there and I thought that
not mentioning it might be misleading.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 12:12:27 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Tell us about the "change in the Netherlands".

According to what I read, comparing bicycle use in the Netherlands
from 1920 until the late 1990's, the high point in bicycle use in the
Netherlands was in the 1950's when the ~85% of all trips in Amsterdam
was by bicycle. This figure dropped to about 25% of trips by 1970 and
increased to nearly 30% by the late 1990's.

This is an "increase"? From 85% to 30%?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:39:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Probably. After all I've been gone from there for years.

So, the "thou shall not impede" laws have been removed from the
traffic code?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Here's Ohio's bike-relevant law:
------------------------------------------------
4511.55 Operating bicycles and motorcycles on roadway.

(A) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near
to the right side of the roadway as practicable obeying all traffic
rules applicable to vehicles and exercising due care when passing a
standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

(B) Persons riding bicycles or motorcycles upon a roadway shall ride not
more than two abreast in a single lane, except on paths or parts of
roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles or motorcycles.

(C) This section does not require a person operating a bicycle to ride
at the edge of the roadway when it is unreasonable or unsafe to do so.
Conditions that may require riding away from the edge of the roadway
include when necessary to avoid fixed or moving objects, parked or
moving vehicles, surface hazards, or if it otherwise is unsafe or
impracticable to do so, including if the lane is too narrow for the
bicycle and an overtaking vehicle to travel safely side by side within
the lane.
-------------------------------------------------------

The general slow vehicle law is this (I'll omit one paragraph):

4511.22 Slow speed.

(A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle, trackless trolley, or
street car at such an unreasonably slow speed as to impede or block the
normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when stopping or
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or to comply with law.

(B) ...

(C) In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact,
in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably
slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its
operator.
------------------------------------------------------

That last paragraph figured heavily in a prominent case that established
that bikes are allowed to operate at bicycle speed, even if the poor
motorist behind the bike has to wait a few seconds.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

IIRC in Ontario Canada if there are 4 or more vehicles backed up behind any slow moving vehicle bicycle or motorised then the slow moving vehicle MUST MOVE TO THE RIGHT TO LET TRAFFIC PASS when it is safe for the slow moving vehicle to do so. Thus if you are impeding trafic because there is a shoulder you can move onto then you're liable to get a ticket for impeding traffic.

Cheers

[John B.]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 22:39:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski

That is essentially what I had said (perhaps in more poetic terms),
that essentially slower traffic is not to impede faster traffic. And
adds the notation that bicycles don't have to ride in the ditch, or
other unsafe places.

But your 4511.22 (A) and (B) is not an authority to ride lane center,
(as so often advocated) in any and all instances. In fact it would
appear that riding lane center could well be deemed illegal in many,
perhaps most, instances.

And, I might add, that from memory, the "prominent case" you mention
above did not rule that cars have to wait for bicycles. If memory
serves, you originally described it as a specific road condition that
limited viability, and in that case it was ruled that one did not have
to ride on the edge of the roadway.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:08:45 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-08-09 19:21, sms wrote:
> > On 8/9/2017 2:31 PM, Joerg wrote:
> >

> >> Sorry but that is not correct. I grew up and lived in Europe for
> >> decades and rode more than 100k miles there on bicycles. Riding lane
> >> center is not at all customary there and would quickly result in a
> >> citation and fine.
> >

> > But if you're a tourist they just ignore you, and assume that you don't
> > know the law.
> >
>
> Sometimes.
>
>
> > In the UK you can take the lane when necessary, other times you can't.
>
>
> That's how it is in most countries. Meaning if you are out there on a
> rural road riding lane center you can be ticketed. Or get killed.
>
>

> > Are you saying it's different in other European countries? No one said
> > that it's customary to ride lane center, you only do it when there is no
> > other option.
>
>

> Frank said in another post yesterday in this thread "My wife and I and

> the other dozen or so people on the ride were almost always near lane
> center".
>

> Not the words "almost always". Today he wrote, quote " My wife and I
> rode lane center there whenever it was necessary or desirable".
>
> I don't know what to believe of his writing. Do you?

I suggest that what you make of that is that people do not write in faultless English at all times and they do not always make their thoughts clear.

I think that as a group we're getting too critical of things like that an should back off a bit. Frank rides his share. He has also made more than his share of less than friendly comments and I'm not forgetting me. Recovering from a concussion isn't easy and too many people do not realize just what it's like to lose half of your life with disappeared memories. Many of my stupid comments are probably some sort of fear that I've lost more than memories but my intellectual edge.

I was just reading through my resume and discovered that I had designed and programmed VME boards used in the International Space Station and by Lockheed Aerospace. And I can't remember an F-ing thing about it.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>
> Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and occasionally
> ride the residential streets here. They will not even venture out into
> the village center 2mi away for errands and such because they will not
> ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane. Understandably so. I ride
> those a lot but it's not fun.

Most of this is probably nothing more than unfamiliarity. You should see the looks on people's faces when they ask how far I've gone today and I tell them "only 40 miles". It never even occurred to them that you could go over a mile on a bicycle.

> > get a job within a couple of miles of my house would I ride? Probably
> > not because I have to wear a suit and tie. ...
>
>
> The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and in
> summer loosen the tie for the ride).
>
> > ... Smelling like a racehorse
> > isn't particularly attractive to some of the people I would have to
> > communicate with.
> >
>
> Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that at
> our medical device company.

Remember that this is the bay area - it's either too hot and humid or too cold and humid. Though it is certainly something I could consider.

[Joerg]

On 2017-08-11 04:55, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 7:59:34 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>>
>> Seriously, I talk to a lot of people who have bikes and
>> occasionally ride the residential streets here. They will not even
>> venture out into the village center 2mi away for errands and such
>> because they will not ride on a major thoroughfare sans bike lane.
>> Understandably so. I ride those a lot but it's not fun.
>
> Most of this is probably nothing more than unfamiliarity. You should
> see the looks on people's faces when they ask how far I've gone today
> and I tell them "only 40 miles". It never even occurred to them that
> you could go over a mile on a bicycle.
>

That happened to me again yesterday when re-filling a bottle at a
playground. Probably also because I ride in regular clothes and on a
vintage road bike. You came from WHERE?

I needed fresh bottling caps before I run out so there was the perfect
excuse for a long ride. 38 miles of mostly pure fun.

>>> get a job within a couple of miles of my house would I ride?
>>> Probably not because I have to wear a suit and tie. ...
>>
>>
>> The Dutch do that. The ones in suit and tie just ride slower (and
>> in summer loosen the tie for the ride).
>>
>>> ... Smelling like a racehorse isn't particularly attractive to
>>> some of the people I would have to communicate with.
>>>
>>
>> Install a shower and changing locker at your law firm. We had that
>> at our medical device company.
>
> Remember that this is the bay area - it's either too hot and humid or
> too cold and humid. Though it is certainly something I could
> consider.
>

Too hot is like here, after 10-15mi my T-Shirt is drenched in sweat. At
the playground I used to fill a bottle there is a water feature and I
let myself get soaked in it. This provides almost 1/2h of no cost
evaporative cooling. On stretches without such features or without
creeks I carry a 2nd sweat band which helps keeping the salt out of the
eyes.

There is no such thing as too cold, only wrong clothes, as Northern
Germans always say.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Joerg]

On 2017-08-10 12:25, sms wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 7:47 AM, Joerg wrote:
>
>> Occasionally I also do that because there are many people who
>> absolutely positively will not cycle on roads. But they ride and some
>> are quite sporty so they don't hold me back. I normally rather ride
>> right from our garage but that requires many miles of county road
>> cycling to get to "the good stuff".
>
> I have relatives who are willing to ride on roads with bike lanes, but
> get very uneasy when there is a break in the bicycle lane. Explaining to
> them that it's not that dangerous is futile. They are in that 60%.
> They'd prefer separated lanes but at least they're willing to ride where
> there's painted lanes.
>

That's why even bike lanes are worth it. They don't protect against
inattentive drivers who let the vehicles drift off (happened to me a few
months ago) but those are rare. Even more rare when there are bright
lights on the bike. They protect against most rear-end accidents. A few
weeks ago a car stopped at a crosswalk here because pedestrians were
about to cross. Bikes also have to stop, of course, but got their own
lane. Screeeech ... *POOF* ... pushed the car clear past the crosswalk
where luckily the pedestrains hadn't entered yet. Just imagine if that
driver up front had been a cyclist.

[Frank Krygowski]

Some jurisdictions have that "four or more" law (sometimes it's "five or
more") and some do not. Ohio does not.

> Thus if you are impeding trafic because there is a shoulder you can move onto then you're liable to get a ticket for impeding traffic.

Again, not in my state. If I got such a ticket (because some cops
enforce imaginary laws) fighting it would be an easy win. However, the
(very) few times I've held up a string of cars, I have pulled over when
it was reasonable to do so.

In practice, I think the issue comes up relatively rarely. Certainly, as
a motorist, I've been delayed FAR more often by other motorists than by
bicyclists. And in fact, as a bicyclist, I think I've been delayed by
motorists far more than I've delayed them.

It's rare for a motorist to wait behind me for more than ten seconds.
But I've spent many minutes at traffic lights, caught there because the
first drivers at the traffic light's queue are dozing, texting or
looking elsewhere when the light turns green. I've missed many chances
to pull into a traffic lane because oncoming motorists didn't bother to
signal that they'd be turning, thus giving me an opening.

In the grand scheme of things, if some evil sorcerer magically removed
all bicyclists from North American roads, there would be no detectable
increase in traffic throughput.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Again, if nobody's around, I generally ride wherever it's smoothest.
That's usually lane center.

When motor traffic or parked cars are around, I choose my lane position
based first on my safety and convenience, and secondly on cooperation.
If the lane is safe to share, I share it. Most often it's not safe
enough to share, and that's pretty easy to understand given the width of
a typical lane, the width of a typical car, the width of a bike and our
state's three foot passing clearance law. (Some jurisdictions require
more clearance than three feet.)

> And, I might add, that from memory, the "prominent case" you mention
> above did not rule that cars have to wait for bicycles. If memory
> serves, you originally described it as a specific road condition that
> limited viability, and in that case it was ruled that one did not have
> to ride on the edge of the roadway.

Nope. It was the Selz case. It was a city street, and the commuting
cyclist was ticketed because the cop conjured up an imaginary law saying
slow vehicles couldn't slow down other vehicles. Really, the cop thought
riding a four lane was just dangerous so he kicked his imagination into
gear.

Here's more info:
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/

I got the same treatment from an Idaho state patrolman once. He was
saying things like "Can we agree on safety first? Can we at least agree
on that??" But by showing him passages in his own book of state laws, I
talked sense into him and avoided any more hassle.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
> Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.

"Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One can
imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain lions.

The Renaissance happened long ago. We're supposed to use data instead
of imagination.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Yes, bright lights protect against most rear end collisions. That's why cars never rear-end each other, including the one in Joerg's cross-walk story.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
> wrote:
>> On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>> Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.
>>
>> "Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
>> can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
>> lions.
>>

http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/EBC_report_final.pdf

Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

>> The Renaissance happened long ago. We're supposed to use data
>> instead of imagination.
>
> Yes, bright lights protect against most rear end collisions. That's
> why cars never rear-end each other, including the one in Joerg's
> cross-walk story.
>

a. It was daytime.

b. The car did not had lights on. I always have mine on.

c. Cars do not have bright flashing rear lights. My bicycles do.

[Joerg]

On 2017-08-10 14:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 8/10/2017 11:12 AM, Duane wrote:
>>
>> Having a shower and locker at the office definitely makes things
>> easier for commuting by bike.
>
> I suppose a shower and locker make bike commuting easier, but I think
> the need for a shower is greatly overestimated.
>

Not having one could make for a smelly situation in meetings and such.


> My first bike commuting job was 2.6 miles away. Even in Georgia summers
> I never needed a shower when I arrived. I usually took it easy on the
> way in, and mornings are the coolest part of the day.
>
> When I moved to Ohio, a firm criterion for our house purchase was that
> it had to be within 10 miles of the new job. I found this one, seven
> miles from work. Again, I took things easy on the way in (and was lucky
> that most of the way in was level or downhill).
>

We had people cycle in from 20+ miles away.

[...]

[Radey Shouman]

d. The driver stopped for a pedestrian (who knew? people in the
streets). The following driver couldn't see the reason he stopped, his
internal picture didn't develop. Perhaps if it had been a cyclist
stopped for a pedestrian the driver behind would have seen the
pedestrian, understood the situation, and acted appropriately.

--

[Joerg]

Normally when one sees brake lights lighting up that means one shall
also engage the brakes. Whatever the reason, it could be as simple as a
major pothole.

A lot of times rear-ending drivers were distracted.

[cycl...@gmail.com]

These days I see so many people driving while talking or even texting on the cell phones that it's not surprising that pedestrian deaths have been rising like 10% per year and California, New York, Texas and Florida account for almost half of them.

I'm also seeing more and more people running red lights - often accelerating through them.

[Joerg]

And now CA drivers can consume those funny-smelling cigarettes.

> I'm also seeing more and more people running red lights - often
> accelerating through them.
>

Which is why I always look even if I have green. My driver's ed
instructor in Germany yelled "That should be of no interest! You have
the right of way!". Stupid. Me not stepping on it upon green has saved a
motorcyclist from major grief recently. He must have completely not even
seen that red light or was looking at the next light right behind which
was green.

[Radey Shouman]

I agree, and have ever since I rolled through a green light and some
drunk totaled my Pinto. He didn't see any red lights because he was
driving the wrong way on a one way street.

--

[AMuzi]

As when a friend called (while driving!) to say she was on a
brand new street- even the signs were all blank...

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[John B.]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 11:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Which is a totally different matter from the often voiced advice of
"take the lane" which seems to be considered as a panacea for any and
all traffic problems.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped

> Again, if nobody's around, I generally ride wherever it's smoothest.
> That's usually lane center.
>

Snipped

Funny, a lot of the roads I ride on are a heck of a lot rougher in the center of the lane than they are in either the right hand or left hand tire track. Also, center of the lane around here is where many of the steel utility access hole covers are and hitting the edge of one of the sunken ones (that is the ones a couple of inches below the road surface) with your front wheel is an excellent way to get a front wheel deflected.

Riding lane center is contingent on the locale and is not a hard and fast rule.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/11/2017 12:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-08-11 09:06, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 8:56:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2017 10:54 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> Just imagine if that driver up front had been a cyclist.
>>>
>>> "Just imagine" is a Medieval way of choosing safety strategies. One
>>> can imagine anything - "Here there be dragons" - or maybe mountain
>>> lions.
>>>
>
>
> http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/EBC_report_final.pdf
>
> Permission to stick your head back into the sand now.

First, Joerg, the techniques used in that "study" are laughable and have
earned much derision. As they say, "The majority of the information
captured by Every Bicyclist Counts came from newspaper reports (56% of
all reported sources), TV reports (25%) and blogs (19%)." Those are
hardly reliable sources of details necessary to determine crash
mechanisms. The very fact that their "hit from behind" category is so
much larger than any other study should raise red flags, even if the
"study" were not done by an organization that these days, devotes most
of its energy to promoting segregated facilities.

Second, there is little or no indication of whether or not most of the
cyclists were using techniques advocated by me, by _Effective Cycling_,
by _Cyclecraft_, by the League's own cycling classes, by CAN-BIKE, by
BikeAbility etc. I'd say it's very likely they were not. IOW, those
cyclists were probably riding like you do. Ponder that, please.

Third, in the sample of "such a wonderful guy/girl" personal stories,
there were at least two killed while riding in bike lanes and two while
riding shoulders. A person could use those tales to say the bike lanes
and shoulders you tout are completely useless. Also, note there are no
heartwarming stories about people riding at night without lights, or
riding drunk, despite their severe over-representation in other data on
bike fatalities.

What I do agree with is probably most often missed by readers: the need
to gather better data. Good data doesn't come from scanning blogs.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I think we're better off discussing actual statements, preferably with
quotes. As I stated upthread, many people misquote or seriously
misinterpret what John Forester and vehicular cycling information have said.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/11/2017 7:42 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:48:11 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Snipped
>> Again, if nobody's around, I generally ride wherever it's smoothest.
>> That's usually lane center.
>>
> Snipped
>
> Funny, a lot of the roads I ride on are a heck of a lot rougher in the center of the lane than they are in either the right hand or left hand tire track. Also, center of the lane around here is where many of the steel utility access hole covers are and hitting the edge of one of the sunken ones (that is the ones a couple of inches below the road surface) with your front wheel is an excellent way to get a front wheel deflected.

Perhaps our areas are different. On yesterday's club ride on mostly
country roads, I was piloting a tandem. Out of charity toward my wife, I
spent lots of time looking for the smoothest parts. They were usually at
lane center, because the pavement was often showing cracks in the tire
tracks. (Stokers are notoriously sensitive to bumps, BTW.)

Those roads had no utility hole covers. Here in my suburban village, I
rode to the store and back a while ago. On South Main Street, the steel
covers are in the right tire track. I know because I generally
negotiate my way to lane center to clear them. Farther south (past my
turnoff) there's one in lane center; so it varies. It helps to watch
ahead for them so there's time to adjust lane position.

When I return home from the south side, that lane center one is on one
of my favorite downhills, and it's pretty rough. Riding with others, I'm
always careful to point it out.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joy Beeson]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:01:45 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

> Not having one could make for a smelly situation in meetings and such.

A shower is quicker and more pleasant than a sponge bath, but it's far
from essential to hygiene.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[cycl...@gmail.com]

Frank - are you suggesting that the government hire bicycle counter to stand on every corner and make a count of the bicycles? Or perhaps require licenses?

Get a hold on yourself and no I don't mean there.

[Joerg]

On 2017-08-11 18:48, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:01:45 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Not having one could make for a smelly situation in meetings and such.
>
> A shower is quicker and more pleasant than a sponge bath, but it's far
> from essential to hygiene.
>

That may be but one has to consider others during meeting. Smelling like
an open gym bag is not very pleasant to others. That is one of the
problems I have during summer rides and where I can I drench myself with
water during the ride. Like here:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-U-1Y9W-u2qM/UVm1ytVyjZI/AAAAAAAAAPY/yxNrsaVmefY/s1600/DSC_3768.JPG

When the T-shirt is completely soaked it's nice and cool and I won't
sweat much for almost 1/2h. By that time I have reached Lake Natoma
where a cleaned empty yoghurt beker comes out of the right pannier and I
dump on more water.

[Frank Krygowski]

Sorry, Tom, you seem to have lost track of the conversation. The publicity
document under discussion was a laughable attempt to analyze bike crash causes by
reading blogs, news articles and listening to TV reports. I'm saying that
doesn't produce good data.

I've seen the standard forms cops use to record crash details. (I serve on
two committees that deal with fatal crashes.) The forms are in serious need of
improvement, at least regarding bike crashes. As just one example, it's
often difficult to tell whether the cyclist was using legally required lights
at night. It's very difficult, often impossible, to discern the cyclist's
lane position... and so on.

I have one friend who was grazed by a passing car. Immediately after, she
managed to stop a cop car and get them to take a crash report, even though she
did not fall and was just slightly bruised on the arm. The cops said that
they would have given the guy a ticket if she had been a pedestrian. (And of
course they would have if he had sideswiped a car.) But they said "You were
just riding a bicycle." IOW, they don't take car-bike crashes very seriously.
This leads to less good data on how to prevent them.

- Frank Krygowski

[cycl...@gmail.com]

I know that it doesn't produce "good" data but it produces data and far better than spending tax dollars for the government to generate better data.

Don't complain that Joerg is whining when all you have to do is bring the same subject up at any bike club meeting and you're assaulted by 2/3rds of the group with exactly the same sort of complaints. You and I are the 1% but remember that makes us outcasts from the 99%.

[Frank Krygowski]

That's nonsense.

I've mocked the contingent that says "any bike facility is a good bike
facility." I guess now I have to add the contingent that says "any data is good

data."

>
> Don't complain that Joerg is whining when all you have to do is bring the same subject up at any bike club meeting and you're assaulted by 2/3rds of the group with exactly the same sort of complaints.

Not my bike club.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Back in 1930 Amsterdam did just that as a part of their traffic
planning. They counted every bicycle that passed an intersection for a
12 hour period.

Why not in America?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Duane]

In Montreal they use cameras and software.

--
duane

[cycl...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 9:53:50 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> > Don't complain that Joerg is whining when all you have to do is bring the same subject up at any bike club meeting and you're assaulted by 2/3rds of the group with exactly the same sort of complaints.
>
> Not my bike club.

Then you're in a club of one. I've belonged to three different clubs over 40 years and heard the same complaints over and over.

[Frank Krygowski]

That works if you're trying to evaluate bike use. I was talking about
what the LAB effort pretended to determine, which was the cause of
crashes. For that you need good collection of info about the crash,
preferably by cops immediately after the crash happens.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 09:55:53 -0000 (UTC), Duane <sp...@flarn.com>
wrote:

Costs more money than hiring a student. In Denmark, was it, they just
gave the students a dinky little magneto powered light to put on their
bicycle (and probably got a tax write off for the cost) :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

As far as I can determine there is no accurate count of bicycle
accidents and or deaths. In fact I've read mention of this in a number
of studies as (the studies say) some? many? bike accidents are either
not reported or do not result in a visit to a clinic, or even if a
clinic is visited the injury may be recorded but not the fact that it
was a "bicycle accident".

Even where, it appears, that an effort was made to acquire accurate
information, such as the L.A. county study (that reported that more
then half of the bike - auto crashes were the fault of the cyclist)
only the initial cause was recorded. If a bicycle was riding the wrong
way the blame was attributed to the bicycle regardless of any other
actions that might have added to the severity of the crash.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 8/13/2017 8:07 PM, John B. wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Aug 2017 12:15:13 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> I was talking about
>> what the LAB effort pretended to determine, which was the cause of
>> crashes. For that you need good collection of info about the crash,
>> preferably by cops immediately after the crash happens.
>
> As far as I can determine there is no accurate count of bicycle
> accidents and or deaths. In fact I've read mention of this in a number
> of studies as (the studies say) some? many? bike accidents are either
> not reported or do not result in a visit to a clinic, or even if a
> clinic is visited the injury may be recorded but not the fact that it
> was a "bicycle accident".

That's true of almost everything. There's probably no really accurate
count of chair accidents, stairs accidents, shoe accidents etc.

> Even where, it appears, that an effort was made to acquire accurate
> information, such as the L.A. county study (that reported that more
> then half of the bike - auto crashes were the fault of the cyclist)
> only the initial cause was recorded. If a bicycle was riding the wrong
> way the blame was attributed to the bicycle regardless of any other
> actions that might have added to the severity of the crash.

Right. If we really want to understand the situations and behaviors that
cause bike crashes, we need better data.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I just came across a site that claims that beds are more dangerious
than firearms, with 835 deaths from falling out of bed in 2014 versus
only 364 due to mass shootings :-)
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4srkeq/more_people_die_from_falling_out_of_bed_in_us/

Given that U.S. bicycle deaths were only 749 in 2014 it becomes
obvious that we don't need bike paths to be safe. What we need are
lower beds - Japanese futons? :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I've noted before that falling out of bed deaths frequently exceed bike
deaths. It illustrates how rare bike deaths really are; yet many people
worry so much about getting killed while riding.

--
- Frank Krygowski