info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Infra skeptics
16 views
Skip to first unread message
James
Jul 18, 2016, 8:43:34 PM7/18/16
to
Andre Jute
Jul 19, 2016, 1:41:53 PM7/19/16
to
On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:43:34 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/07/12/westergaard-the-key-to-bike-progress-in-denver-is-to-give-up-on-bike-lanes/
>
> --
> JS
That's not a two-way bike lane, that's a one way bike lane for a single bike with unlimited passing.
I didn't read the whole article, but that surely doesn't look like a solution to anything, unless a single very low speed (9 or 10kph) is enforced on all cyclists.
It sure as hell doesn't look like a Copenhagen solution, and in that respect the writer of the article is abusing the editor of the more important paper for the wrong reason. That guy, who has been to Copenhagen, got the point right: there isn't anything that stupid in Copenhagen. The lesser writer is just scratching the chip on his shoulder with a knee-jerk reflex (anyone who questions cycle facilities is evil, evil, evil) -- hell, just one more layer of mixed metaphor, and it will be a local pub record.
I'm not against separate facilities for bicyclists as a matter of principle, like some here definitely are, but I'm against token gestures and stupidities. And, on the other side of the question, while I'm not convinced mixed facilities work well, or in some cases at all, outside of places where bike-favourable attitudes have been forming for decades, I do think it is high time for pedestrians and cyclists in the rest of the world to take the roads back from the SUV drivers.
That illustration in the referenced article should be called "Drive-Through Blight".
Andre Jute
Ride tall
> http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/07/12/westergaard-the-key-to-bike-progress-in-denver-is-to-give-up-on-bike-lanes/
>
> --
> JS
That's not a two-way bike lane, that's a one way bike lane for a single bike with unlimited passing.
I didn't read the whole article, but that surely doesn't look like a solution to anything, unless a single very low speed (9 or 10kph) is enforced on all cyclists.
It sure as hell doesn't look like a Copenhagen solution, and in that respect the writer of the article is abusing the editor of the more important paper for the wrong reason. That guy, who has been to Copenhagen, got the point right: there isn't anything that stupid in Copenhagen. The lesser writer is just scratching the chip on his shoulder with a knee-jerk reflex (anyone who questions cycle facilities is evil, evil, evil) -- hell, just one more layer of mixed metaphor, and it will be a local pub record.
I'm not against separate facilities for bicyclists as a matter of principle, like some here definitely are, but I'm against token gestures and stupidities. And, on the other side of the question, while I'm not convinced mixed facilities work well, or in some cases at all, outside of places where bike-favourable attitudes have been forming for decades, I do think it is high time for pedestrians and cyclists in the rest of the world to take the roads back from the SUV drivers.
That illustration in the referenced article should be called "Drive-Through Blight".
Andre Jute
Ride tall
James
Jul 19, 2016, 8:47:09 PM7/19/16
to
On 20/07/16 03:41, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:43:34 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>> http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/07/12/westergaard-the-key-to-bike-progress-in-denver-is-to-give-up-on-bike-lanes/
>>
> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:43:34 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>> http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/07/12/westergaard-the-key-to-bike-progress-in-denver-is-to-give-up-on-bike-lanes/
>>
> That's not a two-way bike lane, that's a one way bike lane for a
> single bike with unlimited passing.
I agree, it is a good width for a one way bike lane. It would be narrow
> single bike with unlimited passing.
for bidirectional use. Cyclists all want to ride at their own speed,
and that requires lane width that facilitates easy passing. Not only
that, but people often want to ride next to a friend, so the space
required increases.
> I didn't read the whole article, but that surely doesn't look like a
> solution to anything, unless a single very low speed (9 or 10kph) is
> enforced on all cyclists.
>
but makes bicycling impracticable for general use if dedicated
infrastructure is so poorly designed as to require such a limit.
In Brisbane there are some 10km/h shared zones. That's find, but I
don't agree with some cases of heavy handed policing when there were no
pedestrians around that I've heard of. Some cops don't know when to
turn a blind eye.
> It sure as hell doesn't look like a Copenhagen solution, and in that
> respect the writer of the article is abusing the editor of the more
> important paper for the wrong reason. That guy, who has been to
> Copenhagen, got the point right: there isn't anything that stupid in
> Copenhagen. The lesser writer is just scratching the chip on his
> shoulder with a knee-jerk reflex (anyone who questions cycle
> facilities is evil, evil, evil) -- hell, just one more layer of mixed
> metaphor, and it will be a local pub record.
>
> I'm not against separate facilities for bicyclists as a matter of
> principle, like some here definitely are, but I'm against token
> gestures and stupidities. And, on the other side of the question,
> while I'm not convinced mixed facilities work well, or in some cases
> at all, outside of places where bike-favourable attitudes have been
> forming for decades, I do think it is high time for pedestrians and
> cyclists in the rest of the world to take the roads back from the SUV
> drivers.
>
> That illustration in the referenced article should be called
> "Drive-Through Blight".
>
--
JS
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
Jul 19, 2016, 9:15:15 PM7/19/16
to
I herd Lieb is out playing pokeman in SF
Frank Krygowski
Jul 19, 2016, 10:09:54 PM7/19/16
to
On 7/19/2016 8:47 PM, James wrote:
> On 20/07/16 03:41, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:43:34 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>>> http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/07/12/westergaard-the-key-to-bike-progress-in-denver-is-to-give-up-on-bike-lanes/
>>>
>>>
>
>> That's not a two-way bike lane, that's a one way bike lane for a
>> single bike with unlimited passing.
>
> I agree, it is a good width for a one way bike lane. It would be narrow
> for bidirectional use. Cyclists all want to ride at their own speed,
> and that requires lane width that facilitates easy passing. Not only
> that, but people often want to ride next to a friend, so the space
> required increases.
I note that Mikael Colville-Andersen, of the "Copenhagenize" blog and
> On 20/07/16 03:41, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:43:34 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
>>> http://denver.streetsblog.org/2016/07/12/westergaard-the-key-to-bike-progress-in-denver-is-to-give-up-on-bike-lanes/
>>>
>>>
>
>> That's not a two-way bike lane, that's a one way bike lane for a
>> single bike with unlimited passing.
>
> I agree, it is a good width for a one way bike lane. It would be narrow
> for bidirectional use. Cyclists all want to ride at their own speed,
> and that requires lane width that facilitates easy passing. Not only
> that, but people often want to ride next to a friend, so the space
> required increases.
consulting company, detests bi-directional on-street bike lanes.
In
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
he says:
"In Denmark, the on-street, bi-directional facility was removed from
Best Practice for bicycle infrastructure over two decades ago. That in
itself might be an alarm bell to anyone paying attention. These two way
cycle tracks were found to be more dangerous than one-way cycle tracks
on each side of the roadway. There is a certain paradigm in cities...
I'm not saying it's GOOD, but it's there. Traffic users all know which
way to look when moving about the city. Having bicycles coming from two
directions at once was an inferior design."
And before the usual peanut gallery sneers "Oh, Krygowski just hates all
bike facilities," they should understand that Colville-Andersen lives to
promote bike facilities. He simply agrees with me that these things are
an example of terrible engineering.
Yet they are the current darling design of many American bike advocates.
Go figure!
--
- Frank Krygowski
DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH
Jul 19, 2016, 10:32:12 PM7/19/16
to
No prob.... ring bell...overtaken turns countersteers wrong direction falling directly into your path.
JB's lament
JB's lament
W. Wesley Groleau
Jul 22, 2016, 10:35:12 PM7/22/16
to
On 07-19-2016 21:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> .... Traffic users all know which
When the street has a twenty-meter median with a two-way bike line in
the middle of it, it works very well. Avenida Arequipa in Lima, Peru.
Seen similar in Spain but I can't remember the city.
Logroño and Dublin have nice bike routes, but not as nice as Lima.
--
Wes Groleau
> .... Traffic users all know which
> way to look when moving about the city. Having bicycles coming from two
> directions at once was an inferior design."
If it's two-way along one side of a street, I agree.
> directions at once was an inferior design."
When the street has a twenty-meter median with a two-way bike line in
the middle of it, it works very well. Avenida Arequipa in Lima, Peru.
Seen similar in Spain but I can't remember the city.
Logroño and Dublin have nice bike routes, but not as nice as Lima.
--
Wes Groleau
0 new messages