New bike path

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

On todays route, to Dutch standards through the middle of nowhere, I noticed that a new bike path is constructed (about 3-4 km long) along a quiet road. Even I was surprised that we go to this kind of trouble.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gAFqDSnOECBcxETP2

Lou

[jbeattie]

Wow, I guess that's what you get when you don't have to pay for cruise missiles. I think we should conquer NL and take the bike paths.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-09 16:47, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:22:52 PM UTC-8, lou.h...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On todays route, to Dutch standards through the middle of nowhere,
>> I noticed that a new bike path is constructed (about 3-4 km long)
>> along a quiet road. Even I was surprised that we go to this kind of
>> trouble.
>>
>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/gAFqDSnOECBcxETP2
>>

That almost looks like an American width path. I don't know the laws and
regulations in NL but California and many of its cities have rules about
that. If you build a road or part of it anew (tear out, re-routing, new
intersection and similar) you have to install bike facilities of at
least class II (bike lanes). If you plop down a major housing
development you must include class I facilities (bike paths or MUP) to
that. Which is great.

>> Lou
>
> Wow, I guess that's what you get when you don't have to pay for
> cruise missiles.

That's what you get when other people pay for most of the cruise missiles.


> ... I think we should conquer NL and take the bike paths.
>

Vladimir will do that after holding a "referendum", if he finds there's
Russians riding on those bike paths.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

I will trade some bike paths for some mountains. Yesterday for an almost 85 km ride an elevation gain of less than 50 meter. Highest point 40 meters, lowest point 20 meter....sigh...

Lou

[Joerg]

Move to Zuid Limburg. I did frequent rides into Belgium from there with
lots of hills. And best of all, good pubs with Abbey Ales. The roads
were quite bad though. Cracks, potholes, missing asphalt pieces.

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

I live in Noord Limburg. Moving 70 km to the south means a daily commute by car of 1 hour one way. No thanks.

Lou

[Gregory Sutter]

On 2018-03-10, jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:22:52 PM UTC-8, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On todays route, to Dutch standards through the middle of nowhere, I noticed that a new bike path is constructed (about 3-4 km long) along a quiet road. Even I was surprised that we go to this kind of trouble.
>>
>> https://photos.app.goo.gl/gAFqDSnOECBcxETP2
>

> Wow, I guess that's what you get when you don't have to pay for cruise missiles. I think we should conquer NL and take the bike paths.

Jay, you win the Internet today. Here's your Unca Sam chapeau.

r==i
|**|
L==|
-======-

--
Gregory S. Sutter Mostly Harmless
mailto:gsu...@zer0.org
http://zer0.org/~gsutter/

[jbeattie]

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 5:47:04 PM UTC-8, Gregory Sutter wrote:
> On 2018-03-10, jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 12:22:52 PM UTC-8, lou.h...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On todays route, to Dutch standards through the middle of nowhere, I noticed that a new bike path is constructed (about 3-4 km long) along a quiet road. Even I was surprised that we go to this kind of trouble.
> >>
> >> https://photos.app.goo.gl/gAFqDSnOECBcxETP2
> >
> > Wow, I guess that's what you get when you don't have to pay for cruise missiles. I think we should conquer NL and take the bike paths.
>
> Jay, you win the Internet today. Here's your Unca Sam chapeau.
>
> r==i
> |**|
> L==|
> -======-

Aw right! A new hat! I'll wear it leading the charge into Amsterdam! Which way to the coffee shop?

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

If I recall, 'coffee shop' in Nederlanderese means 'pot
vendor'. You needn't bother since you're in Oregon already.
Dutch buy coffee in an 'espresso bar' I think.

Lou, is that right?


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

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

That is correct Andrew, but you can get good coffee in any cafe or restaurant even in a coffee shop ;-)

Lou

[jbeattie]

Yes, I was using the term "coffee shop" to mean dispensary of the evil weed with its roots in hell. Invading foreign countries is stressful. You need something to take the edge off.

Speaking of getting high in NL, the flatness there is staggering. 50 meters in 85km? Dang.

My son JUST GOT OUT OF HIS WHEELCHAIR! He was cleared to stand last Wednesday, and one of the first things he did was get on his trainer. If you forgot, he shattered both of his ankles skiing on Christmas Eve.

I set him up with the recovered Roubaix -- complete with the flat pedals the meth tweakers had put on the bike. I also put some bright blue duct tape on the crank arms to keep them from being scuffed the ortho boots. The bike looks like something right out of a homeless camp.

Today, he rode outside for the first time. A few times around the neighborhood streets. 3.5km and 80 meters of climbing -- in ortho boots. I think he can still beat me even with two surgically repaired ankles.

The weather was perfect today -- 65F, blue skies. I was headed out to the Columbia River Gorge but turned back before Crown Point because the f****** wind. I got tired of thrashing myself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcP8qK_CSZA 00:39 is why you don't want a light bike.

What I hate about the wind is that it often shifts after mid-day when central Oregon warms up. If you mis-time your ride, you can end up with a headwind both ways. The wind remained out of the east for me today, and I had a screaming tail wind going home down Marine Drive -- which made me feel like Cancellara with a Gruber assist. It was great until I ran over a cement board screw and tore up my front tire. I had to boot it with a $1. I think Park sells $1 bills as tire boots. They're $2.

And not to sound too cranky, but I get tired of guys riding by and asking if I'm O.K. One guy actually stopped and was cross-examining me about the flat. Do you have this, do you have that? I just kept saying, "I've got it. I'm O.K.; I've got it." He wouldn't go away. He was wearing tights with pink flamingos on them. I kid you not. I once had a guy stop and basically take over fixing a flat -- it was so surrealistic that I just stood there and let it happen. It the officious flat fixing people. Another Portland trope.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

Maybe for your Portland homeless camps. The pros are in LA:

http://ktla.com/2018/03/10/eye-popping-number-of-hypodermic-needles-pounds-of-waste-cleared-from-o-c-riverbed-homeless-encampment/

[Joerg]

Within weeks all that will probably be back :-(

[John B.]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 09:38:15 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

Out of curiosity where do the "homeless" go when they are "cleared
out", as the article describes?

After all they are "homeless" so they don't have a home and one
assumes that they can't pay for a hotel room. So where do they go?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

They are what Hitchcock called 'the McGuffin', a device to
move the plot along. Doesn't really matter.

In this case, the important principle of governance is,
"Once the problem's solved, the money stops."

https://nypost.com/2018/03/06/everyones-trying-to-solve-the-mystery-of-de-blasios-homeless-policy/

https://nypost.com/2018/02/24/de-blasios-homeless-spending-explosion/

Solving problems is anathema to anyone in politics.

[John B.]

Back when I was a young Airman I worked with a guy - probably had 10
or 12 total years service - but he had mentioned that his first hitch
he had been in the Horse Drawn Field Artillery which was pretty far
back. I asked him about that and he said yes, that his first
enlistment was in 1930-something. When I asked him why he wasn't
already retired he said that when he'd finished an enlistment he'd get
out and work for a while but when he couldn't find a job he had
reenlisted.

Maybe we should re-discover this solution for the problem of the
homeless.


--
Cheers,

John B.

[avag...@gmail.com]

I escaped Yuma's prison of dwarf Nazis waking g me ever 2 hours while the curre cb ntly old man battled in an antibiotic fog battling black spot n ran the biggie or biggie as the wp vacillate heading easteast over BG for a days crossing TX for another drop the ball to break up the monotony.

The JOURNEYS eetğxperimental success belies me my furbearers were on Blights boat.
The oil patch a previously mentioned was passing experience, that mechanical fluidity of everyone meshing.

The outside of the inside was Parkland. When I tried

[jbeattie]

The armed services used to be an alternative to serving time for petty crimes, but I don't think any branch wants known drug addicts, psychotics, schizophrenics, etc., etc. I would guess than only a small fraction of the homeless are there because they lost a job -- at least based on my observations.

-- Jay Beattie.

[avag...@gmail.com]

I'm in it now .... I am back in caws when ● tried beg inning cleaning the van I sat resting afet 30m I could not rise eventually. ending aside the truck on cleran beach rinsed asphalt for 30 minutes before duggie, Berlins grandson trucker came by to ask abt the holdup.

Bad well water
.

[avag...@gmail.com]

Avh...bad con ection dropping the story line ..Parkland was geography neath my path home.

Whew

[John B.]

My last assignment in the A.F. I had a confessed drug addict assigned
to the shop. He went to the Hospital every morning for a shot and as
he was a dope addict had no security clearance which meant he couldn't
work on any of the aircraft. As a result he could only work straight
days and on projects that were not associated with either the B-52's
or the Tankers. Not a really welcome addition to a shop that is
working days, nights, and Sundays fixing airplanes :-)

I spent considerable effort on trying to get him removed from the shop
so I could indent for a replacement who could work on the flight line
but the guy finally solved my problem by deserting.


>-- Jay Beattie.

But even people sleeping on a park bench have to eat. Where does that
money come from? Unemployment payments?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joerg]

Into other similar areas until they are either kicked out there or the
old turf is low enough in the police presence to move back.

Sometimes. Also welfare payments, food pantries, soup kitchens,
shelters, begging, theft. Many older homeless also get social security
payments. For a long time our church members cooked for homeless and
brought dinner to a "tolerated camp".

Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so along the
American River bike path. To the point where it isn't always safe riding
there anymore. It is largely a homemade problem. The mayor they have now
doesn't understand that with all his throwing moeny and resources at
this he is enticing ever more homeless to move to Sacramento. Free
stuff! When he started this I could notice a substantial drop in the
number of homeless I see along the El Dorado Trail yet the guy does not
get it.

[jbeattie]

Don't forget picking through trash cans. Lots of good eats there.

>
> Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so along the
> American River bike path. To the point where it isn't always safe riding
> there anymore. It is largely a homemade problem. The mayor they have now
> doesn't understand that with all his throwing moeny and resources at
> this he is enticing ever more homeless to move to Sacramento. Free
> stuff! When he started this I could notice a substantial drop in the
> number of homeless I see along the El Dorado Trail yet the guy does not
> get it.

I've been buying bus tickets to Sacramento for the dudes camped along our giant MUP, the Springwater Corridor. I'm glad to see its paying off -- that and the periodic "sweeps." http://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/321115-200827-portland-begins-springwater-sweep

I was riding back from the Gorge on Sunday and cut over on the 205 bike path and hit a spot under an over-pass where I could barely squeeze by all the tents -- and garbage and needles, etc., etc. F****** incredible pigsty.

Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't have one -- at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic matter.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-12 22:26, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:55:30 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
>>> <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 7:32:27 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 19:58:03 -0500, AMuzi
>>>>> <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/12/2018 7:35 PM, John B. wrote:

[...]

So far I have only seen folks looking for booze in there.

>>
>> Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so along the
>> American River bike path. To the point where it isn't always safe
>> riding there anymore. It is largely a homemade problem. The mayor
>> they have now doesn't understand that with all his throwing moeny
>> and resources at this he is enticing ever more homeless to move to
>> Sacramento. Free stuff! When he started this I could notice a
>> substantial drop in the number of homeless I see along the El
>> Dorado Trail yet the guy does not get it.
>
> I've been buying bus tickets to Sacramento for the dudes camped along
> our giant MUP, the Springwater Corridor. I'm glad to see its paying
> off -- that and the periodic "sweeps."
> http://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/321115-200827-portland-begins-springwater-sweep
>
> I was riding back from the Gorge on Sunday and cut over on the 205
> bike path and hit a spot under an over-pass where I could barely
> squeeze by all the tents -- and garbage and needles, etc., etc.
> F****** incredible pigsty.
>
> Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't have one --
> at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
> Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic matter.
>

The solution would be our country becoming more conservative. Work
requirements for welfare, less unconditional free stuff, and so on. The
difference in the rate of homelessness in liberal versus conservative
states is striking and Oregon looks worse than even California (which I
hadn't thought was possible).

http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest-and-lowest-rates-homelessness-state-2012

Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of hermits and
loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and the low amount of
regulations and little enforcement allows them to spend their days
baking in a dilapidated trailer out in the desert.

The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High tax
states make housing so expensive that too many people are forced to drop
out into the streets. California is a prime example of that. Try getting
a building permit out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.

[AMuzi]

Who are you and what have you done with The Real Joerg, who
likes high taxes for expensive elaborate kiddy paths paid
for by the long suffering working man?

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-13 13:21, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/13/2018 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

[...]

I never liked high taxes. All I want is that taxes are invested wisely.
Investment in bikes paths and bike lanes is wise, investment in a bullet
train to nowhere is not.

[jbeattie]

This map gives Oregon better numbers: https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1500&fn[]=2900&fn[]=6100&fn[]=10100&fn[]=14100&all_types=true&year=2017

> The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High tax
> states make housing so expensive that too many people are forced to drop
> out into the streets. California is a prime example of that. Try getting
> a building permit out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.

Hmmm. Referring to my map, how do you explain Texas and Florida -- or even Pennsylvania?

You're not going to "tough love" a bunch of schizophrenics or drug addled or brain injured people into getting work. You just push them further into criminality or they do nothing and die off due to starvation or exposure. I mean those are options. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/11/homeless-deaths-winter-portland-oregon

But, for some reason, those options tend to turn people off. Bunch of snowflakes! What we need is a longer snow season!

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

[...]

It doesn't. Oregon has about 10% of inhabintants versus California so
its homeless rate is higher. But only slightly. California is quite bad
in that domain, as evidenced during most of my bike rides.

>
>
>> The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High
>> tax states make housing so expensive that too many people are
>> forced to drop out into the streets. California is a prime example
>> of that. Try getting a building permit out here, let alone pay for
>> it. Socialism does not work.
>
> Hmmm. Referring to my map, how do you explain Texas and Florida --
> or even Pennsylvania?
>

Simple: You need to look at the total population and then divide the
number of homeless by that. Texas has almost the number of inhabitants
as California but only a fraction of our number of homeless.

Same with Florida. Half the number of people as in California but less
than a quarter of our homeless.

> You're not going to "tough love" a bunch of schizophrenics or drug
> addled or brain injured people into getting work. You just push them
> further into criminality or they do nothing and die off due to
> starvation or exposure.

We have to take a look at how states with a much lower homeless
percentage do it. They usually have a much less generous welfare system
and that is part of the reason. The other is smaller government, lower
taxes and thus more affordable housing. You can buy the same kind of
house for half in Texas versus California.

Not all homeless are druggies. The topper so far was a homeless man whom
I gave some money. It was in Washington D.C., he was well-mannered, a
bit dirty but wore an old suit, with tie!

> I mean those are options.

Sure, but out-of-control welfare isn't. Neither is legalizing marijuana
which will backfire, big time.

> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/11/homeless-deaths-winter-portland-oregon
>
> But, for some reason, those options tend to turn people off. Bunch
> of snowflakes! What we need is a longer snow season!
>

That's the problem, there are shelters but often homeless do not use
them. One thing shelters must do though is to also provide for their
animals. Nobody would go into a shelter and leave their dog to die
outside in a snow storm. I know you don't hold dogs in high regard but
other people do, just as I do.

[John B.]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:26:50 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

I see, you feel that building expensive bike paths for an almost
infinitesimal portion of the road users is wise investment?

After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents and
studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up about 1% of
the total traffic.

Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group that
comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

When you get your California temps down to minus 21F the
problem may resolve itself:

http://www.inforum.com/content/homeless-mans-death-fargo-caused-exposure

[Frank Krygowski]

I've looked for data proving that conservative politics cures
homelessness. I haven't found it yet. Give me a link if you have one.

Regarding your little list of cities, I suspect the differences in rates
may be caused by other factors. Not that politics has negligible effect
- but how about weather? If I were a bum with no family connections, I
might easily decide that sleeping outside in California or Oregon beats
sleeping where the wind chill goes into negative Fahrenheit. (A song
from _Midnight Cowboy_ mentioned "Going where the weather suits my
clothes.")

And big cities are probably easier than tiny towns as sources for
shelter of all kinds, sources of temporary jobs, blending into crowds,
etc. If there's a homeless person in my little village of 3000 (which
one poster mocked as "Mayberry") I certainly don't know about him.

I get very skeptical of people who think their political ideology is the
answer to every problem. Except, as several others have pointed out, you
abandon your conservative principles when you whine for bike ghettos.
You suddenly lose your courage and individualism, and want to socially
engineer people's transportation choice by spending tax funds.
--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Both states have cities with some of the highest homeless rates in the US -- notwithstanding regressive social policies.

"More than half of the homeless population in
the United States was in five states: CA (21%
or 115,738 people), NY (16% or 88,250 people),
FL (6% or 35,900 people), TX (4% or 23,678
people), and MA (4% or 21,135 people)"

https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/13/which-cities-have-most-homeless-people-10300

States with high and low homeless rates are all over the country. The highest rates of homelessness among states are in Hawaii (465 per 100,000), followed by New York (399) and California (367).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/08/08/which-states-have-the-highest-levels-of-homelessness/?utm_term=.34cbc2a1b7a3

>
> > You're not going to "tough love" a bunch of schizophrenics or drug
> > addled or brain injured people into getting work. You just push them
> > further into criminality or they do nothing and die off due to
> > starvation or exposure.
>
>
> We have to take a look at how states with a much lower homeless
> percentage do it. They usually have a much less generous welfare system
> and that is part of the reason. The other is smaller government, lower
> taxes and thus more affordable housing. You can buy the same kind of
> house for half in Texas versus California.
>
> Not all homeless are druggies. The topper so far was a homeless man whom
> I gave some money. It was in Washington D.C., he was well-mannered, a
> bit dirty but wore an old suit, with tie!
>
>
> > I mean those are options.
>
>
> Sure, but out-of-control welfare isn't. Neither is legalizing marijuana
> which will backfire, big time.
>
>
> > https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jan/11/homeless-deaths-winter-portland-oregon
> >
> > But, for some reason, those options tend to turn people off. Bunch
> > of snowflakes! What we need is a longer snow season!
> >
>
> That's the problem, there are shelters but often homeless do not use
> them. One thing shelters must do though is to also provide for their
> animals. Nobody would go into a shelter and leave their dog to die
> outside in a snow storm. I know you don't hold dogs in high regard but
> other people do, just as I do.

How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical question. Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether that accounts for increased homelessness in California. Track the changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you can determine what social policies make a difference. Personally, I see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and became economically displaced.

Washington has had legalized MJ since 2012. Crime rate has dropped. The number of traffic fatalities in Washington dropped after the first year of legal marijuana possession and use. I'm sure there are some consequences to legalization, but there have been no catastrophes in Washington or Oregon.

As for dogs, if I were living on the edge, I would not own a pet, unless I were a woman and needed the protection.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

>>>> The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).
>>>> High tax states make housing so expensive that too many people
>>>> are forced to drop out into the streets. California is a prime
>>>> example of that. Try getting a building permit out here, let
>>>> alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Referring to my map, how do you explain Texas and Florida
>>> -- or even Pennsylvania?
>>>
>>
>> Simple: You need to look at the total population and then divide
>> the number of homeless by that. Texas has almost the number of
>> inhabitants as California but only a fraction of our number of
>> homeless.
>>
>> Same with Florida. Half the number of people as in California but
>> less than a quarter of our homeless.
>
> Both states have cities with some of the highest homeless rates in
> the US -- notwithstanding regressive social policies.
>
> "More than half of the homeless population in the United States was
> in five states: CA (21% or 115,738 people), NY (16% or 88,250
> people), FL (6% or 35,900 people), TX (4% or 23,678 people), and MA
> (4% or 21,135 people)"
>

Again, the rate matters, not absolute numbers. "4% of the country" is
not a "rate". Journalism at its finest, I guess.

> https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/13/which-cities-have-most-homeless-people-10300
>
> States with high and low homeless rates are all over the country.
> The highest rates of homelessness among states are in Hawaii (465 per
> 100,000), followed by New York (399) and California (367).
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/08/08/which-states-have-the-highest-levels-of-homelessness/?utm_term=.34cbc2a1b7a3

That depends on which sources one believes.

But it doesn't matter, in the end it confirms that the problem is more
prevalent in left-leaning states. Which is not a surprise at all.

That has already been studied at nauseam and the conclusions are
generally always the same:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

On purpose I have brought a link from a somewhat left-leaning paper.
Even they admit to what the root causes for the increase (and decrease
in other regions) in homelessness are.

> Washington has had legalized MJ since 2012. Crime rate has dropped.
> The number of traffic fatalities in Washington dropped after the
> first year of legal marijuana possession and use. I'm sure there are
> some consequences to legalization, but there have been no
> catastrophes in Washington or Oregon.
>

That is not what I read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/26/what-marijuana-legalization-did-to-car-accident-rates/?utm_term=.2ff35e19e705

There is more. I lived in NL where the stuff became legal decades ago.
That was one sad story and in sharp contrast to Germany where I alsio
live and later commuted into daily. In our small village we had lots of
zombies running around. People with hardcore brain damage from drugs.
The story was nearly always the same. First "harmless' drugs, then peer
pressure to try some of the "real stuff". The stuff that the shady guy
in the long coat at the bar over there was pushing. The young son of my
landlady who otherwise had everything going for him (good education,
very pretty girlfriend, etc.) died from an overdose. The police found
his body in a canal. Legalized pot? No thanks. I am squarely against it
and will ever be.

> As for dogs, if I were living on the edge, I would not own a pet,
> unless I were a woman and needed the protection.
>

They sometimes do. But yeah, I wouldn't have a pet either no matter how
much I like dogs. Once you have one though you are fully responsible for
it. Sometimes they are inherited because someone died and begged a
friend to take care of Fido who would otherwise likely die or be killed
in the shelter.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-13 19:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/13/2018 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't have one --
>>> at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
>>> Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic matter.
>>>
>>
>> The solution would be our country becoming more conservative. Work
>> requirements for welfare, less unconditional free stuff, and so on.
>> The difference in the rate of homelessness in liberal versus
>> conservative states is striking and Oregon looks worse than even
>> California (which I hadn't thought was possible).
>>
>> http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest-and-lowest-rates-homelessness-state-2012
>>
>>
>> Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of hermits and
>> loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and the low amount of
>> regulations and little enforcement allows them to spend their days
>> baking in a dilapidated trailer out in the desert.
>>
>> The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High tax
>> states make housing so expensive that too many people are forced to
>> drop out into the streets. California is a prime example of that. Try
>> getting a building permit out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism
>> does not work.
>
> I've looked for data proving that conservative politics cures
> homelessness. I haven't found it yet. Give me a link if you have one.
>

I just did in my answer to Jay.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

It is less about conservative principles reducing homelessness (although
some do, as pointed out) but more about how liberal priniciples such as
free spending foster homelessness. Because they do.

> Regarding your little list of cities, I suspect the differences in rates
> may be caused by other factors. Not that politics has negligible effect
> - but how about weather? If I were a bum with no family connections, I
> might easily decide that sleeping outside in California or Oregon beats
> sleeping where the wind chill goes into negative Fahrenheit. (A song
> from _Midnight Cowboy_ mentioned "Going where the weather suits my
> clothes.")
>
> And big cities are probably easier than tiny towns as sources for
> shelter of all kinds, sources of temporary jobs, blending into crowds,
> etc. If there's a homeless person in my little village of 3000 (which
> one poster mocked as "Mayberry") I certainly don't know about him.
>
> I get very skeptical of people who think their political ideology is the
> answer to every problem. Except, as several others have pointed out, you
> abandon your conservative principles when you whine for bike ghettos.
> You suddenly lose your courage and individualism, and want to socially
> engineer people's transportation choice by spending tax funds.

Nonsense. I want tax Dollars to be spent wisely. For example, building a
bullet train from nowhere to nowhere at totally out-of-control costs
like California does right now is not wise. Building bike path for a
small fraction of that money is wise.

Also, if the cyclists' (or any others') right of way is curtailed such
it is here by prohibiting bicycle use on Highway 50 these constituents
must be commensurately compensated by providing another path. Which we
finally have at least to the east (though you need a mountain bike).
That is a rather conservative view.

[Joerg]

It is, because

1. They are not expensive. The bullet train just went to $68B and I am
sure when t's all said and done it will be north of $150B or a whole
year's state budget.

2. The number is not infinitesimal. If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfuxptI2uU

> After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents and
> studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up about 1% of
> the total traffic.
>
> Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group that
> comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?
>

So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.

[Radey Shouman]

jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:

[...]

> How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical
> question. Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether
> that accounts for increased homelessness in California. Track the
> changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you
> can determine what social policies make a difference. Personally, I
> see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by
> choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and
> became economically displaced.
>
> Washington has had legalized MJ since 2012. Crime rate has
> dropped. The number of traffic fatalities in Washington dropped after
> the first year of legal marijuana possession and use. I'm sure there
> are some consequences to legalization, but there have been no
> catastrophes in Washington or Oregon.
>
> As for dogs, if I were living on the edge, I would not own a pet,
> unless I were a woman and needed the protection.

Men are immune from assault and theft? News to me. One of the big
problems of being homeless is that there is no secure place to put your
stuff, so it gets stolen by other homeless people, or destroyed by
police. Another problem is that if you are assaulted it's very unlikely
that anyone in authority will care.

Dogs are a rational response to both problems, but they make it a lot
harder to get any kind of normal housing. There is enough free or low
cost food in the US that feeding a dog is possible for almost anyone, if
the highest standards in dog chow are not insisted upon.

--

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/14/2018 11:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote:
>>
>> How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical
>> question.  Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether
>> that accounts for increased homelessness in California.  Track the
>> changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you
>> can determine what social policies make a difference.  Personally, I
>> see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by
>> choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and
>> became economically displaced.
>>
>
> That has already been studied at nauseam and the conclusions are
> generally always the same:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html
>
>
> On purpose I have brought a link from a somewhat left-leaning paper.
> Even they admit to what the root causes for the increase (and decrease
> in other regions) in homelessness are.

The discussion is about homelessness, Joerg. In your zeal to condemn
welfare policies you linked to an article about poverty written by a
"free market" evangelist. But poverty and homelessness are not the same.

I really am interested in data demonstrating a cause & effect
relationship between state politics and homelessness. You haven't
provided that. Please try again.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with a person who doesn't
understand what "data" is.

One clue, Joerg: If it's published under the heading "opinion" it
probably doesn't contain much scientific data. Quoting a few percentages
isn't enough.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

That's not what the video shows. Instead, it shows if you greatly
restrict the use of motor vehicles, the bicycles will come.

(You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C.
Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)

Oh, and here's a thorough article on a place that built it, yet they
didn't come:
http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/

And that's written by a VERY pro-bicycle author.

Why didn't they come? Because they didn't discourage the use of cars.
Deal with it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not the
slightest problem. They actually accommodate cars better than the city
of Sacramento.

> Oh, and here's a thorough article on a place that built it, yet they
> didn't come:
> http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/
>
> And that's written by a VERY pro-bicycle author.
>
> Why didn't they come? Because they didn't discourage the use of cars.
> Deal with it.
>

Nonsense. We have discussed this ad nauseam and you wouldn't understand.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> (You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C.
>> Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)
>>
>
> Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
> distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not the
> slightest problem.

"Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever
allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in
its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an
emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc.
Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from
letting anyone drive wherever they want.

From
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/03/davis-california-the-american-city-which-fell-in-love-with-the-bicycle

"The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free." [Yes, as
explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.]

"Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on
student car ownership (this is still in force)."

From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community

"The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use
from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic
from off campus."

That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike
lanes":

"Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in
this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less
successful than others. One such example was the construction of
"protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was
separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane
was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e.
cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say,
any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by
the many hazards created for their users."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

Did you read it all? It links to this: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303848 The numbers are equivocal and certainly do not show an epidemic of car accidents after the legalization of MJ.

>
> There is more. I lived in NL where the stuff became legal decades ago.
> That was one sad story and in sharp contrast to Germany where I alsio
> live and later commuted into daily. In our small village we had lots of
> zombies running around. People with hardcore brain damage from drugs.
> The story was nearly always the same. First "harmless' drugs, then peer
> pressure to try some of the "real stuff". The stuff that the shady guy
> in the long coat at the bar over there was pushing. The young son of my
> landlady who otherwise had everything going for him (good education,
> very pretty girlfriend, etc.) died from an overdose. The police found
> his body in a canal. Legalized pot? No thanks. I am squarely against it
> and will ever be.

If MJ were such a powerful gateway drug, most everyone I know would be a drooling heroin addict. Even my wife has tried it, and she's as Lutheran as they come. When it comes to my son, I'm more worried about alcohol.

I haven't seen an appreciable difference in driver behavior in the years since MJ was legalized. It may happen, who knows -- and I really could care less if MJ were legal. It's not y deal, but I think other things have made my life more dangerous as a cyclist.

I've had more problems with motorists because of cell phones and increased traffic (and the rage that goes along with that). If you want to stomp your feet about something, try cell phones and distracted driving -- and alcohol. I think plain old ETOH is the cause of more accidents than any other intoxicant by a long shot.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

On 3/14/2018 4:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:21:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
>> [...]

-snippity snip snip-

> I've had more problems with motorists because of cell phones and increased traffic (and the rage that goes along with that). If you want to stomp your feet about something, try cell phones and distracted driving -- and alcohol. I think plain old ETOH is the cause of more accidents than any other intoxicant by a long shot.
> -- Jay Beattie.

+1

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-14 14:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> (You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C.
>>> Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)
>>>
>>
>> Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
>> distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not
>> the slightest problem.
>
> "Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever
> allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in
> its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an
> emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc.
> Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from
> letting anyone drive wherever they want.
>
> From
> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/03/davis-california-the-american-city-which-fell-in-love-with-the-bicycle
>
>
> "The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free."

I have told you before that that is fake news. Simply repeating it does
not make it any less fake.


> ... [Yes, as

> explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.]
>
> "Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on
> student car ownership (this is still in force)."
>
> From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community
>
> "The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use
> from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic
> from off campus."
>

They do not.

> That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike
> lanes":
>
> "Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in
> this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less
> successful than others. One such example was the construction of
> "protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was
> separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane
> was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e.
> cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say,
> any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by
> the many hazards created for their users."
>

We all know that there were a lot of messed up bike path and bike lane
designs. Davis is no exception. Time has progressed, people have
learned, even traffic engineers.

[Joerg]

+2

I agree that distracted driving is a higher danger. However, marijuana
also has consequences. Two days after the stuff was legalized in
California a cop was killed by a driver high on marijuana.

[Joy Beeson]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

> If you provide proper infrastructure
> they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[Frank Krygowski]

Yeah, yeah, fake news. Who are you going to believe, professional
journalists who have no strong agendas? Or one guy on the internet who
wants to spend public money to turn America into Amsterdam?

>> That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike
>> lanes":
>>
>> "Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in
>> this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less
>> successful than others. One such example was the construction of
>> "protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was
>> separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane
>> was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e.
>> cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say,
>> any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by
>> the many hazards created for their users."
>>
>
> We all know that there were a lot of messed up bike path and bike lane
> designs. Davis is no exception. Time has progressed, people have
> learned, even traffic engineers.

Some people have not learned, such as the countless "bike advocates" who
are claiming we MUST have "protected cycle tracks" everywhere because
nothing else is safe enough. Oh, and then there are people who get paid
as consultants, marching into a city and offering to design that
garbage. They may have learned, but they don't care. "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something when his job depends on not
understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

The advocates and the traffic engineers showed what they had learned by
the design of the Columbus "protected cycle track" completed a couple
years ago. After the cycle track went in, the crash rate increased over
600%. Oddly enough, Streetsblog and other pro-segregation propaganda
sources don't highlight that fact.

So these things were found to be dangerous in the 1970s. They're still
dangerous in the 2010s. Forty years, and still the know-nothings demand
them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you provide proper infrastructure
>> they will come:
>
> That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting
> at the computer.
>
> I don't *do* that sort of thing.
>

I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like to do from my
house in Montreal West Island area to the old port. It's ~100k and
really nice. About 80k of it is on bike paths. These paths follow the
river and then the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections. Along the canal where the path crosses city streets the
path has under or overpasses.

Here's the thing. I take the day off work on my birthday and do this
ride with some friends because there's no one on the paths outside of
the commute hours. At commute time it's too crowded. On weekends and
holidays it's packed.

So I guess my point is that if they make these things people use them.
In Montreal, a lot of people use them. Whether or not they make sense
for commuters is another story. And group riding on bike paths is a bad
idea in any case if the paths aren't empty.

[Joerg]

I believe myself. I was there a lot so I know. Seems you can't even
operate Google Maps. Almost everyone knows that their Google mapping
vehicles do not enter restricted areas such as closed campuses or gated
communities, meaning there wouldn't be a street view. Since UC Davis has
no restriction for on-campus driving you can virtually drive through.
See this huge parking lot?

https://goo.gl/maps/Ntm7kfRtHfD2

Now why would that be there is traffic was restricted? Quote "banning
almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways" is,
therefore, obviously a false statement.

[...]

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-15 05:47, Duane wrote:
> On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you provide proper infrastructure
>>> they will come:
>>
>> That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting
>> at the computer.
>>

Probably because you never lived in a country with a very extensive bike
path system. I have.

>> I don't *do* that sort of thing.
>>
>
> I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like to do from my
> house in Montreal West Island area to the old port. It's ~100k and
> really nice. About 80k of it is on bike paths. These paths follow the
> river and then the Lachine canal so there are basically no
> intersections. Along the canal where the path crosses city streets the
> path has under or overpasses.
>

We have a similar bike path along the American River towards Sacramento.
I use that almost weekly.

> Here's the thing. I take the day off work on my birthday and do this
> ride with some friends because there's no one on the paths outside of
> the commute hours. At commute time it's too crowded. On weekends and
> holidays it's packed.
>

Same here.

> So I guess my point is that if they make these things people use them.

Absolutely. I once had an experience I almost could not believe. Ran
some errands down in the valley and it became late. When I wanted to get
back onto the American River bike path it was almost like trying to
merge into traffic on a fairly clogged highway.

While living in the Netherlands I experienced a lot of bicycle traffic
jams. It seemed the whole town sat on these green or blue behemoths.

> In Montreal, a lot of people use them. Whether or not they make sense
> for commuters is another story. And group riding on bike paths is a bad
> idea in any case if the paths aren't empty.

It's not that bad if the group does not absolutely insist on remaining
together. Just agree on the next pub, cafe or whatever where you want to
meet for a stop.

[Frank Krygowski]

Most of us probably enjoy a segregated path that's well-maintained,
scenic, and mostly empty. Probably few of us enjoy a MUP when it's
seeing heavy use. And with good reason! With widely varying users,
narrow spaces and a "no rules" environment, movements are often chaotic.

So Joerg should lobby for paths that will be unpopular, because those
make for the best riding. Of course, that's a tough sell. Can you
imagine asking for tax money for a new freeway, by saying "It will be
great! Hardly anyone will use it!"

Nationwide, only a tiny percentage of these facilities can be justified
as shifting mode share from cars to bikes. Despite the cherry-picked
examples, most miles of MUP connect nowhere to nowhere, for obvious
reasons.

So almost all are linear parks, even though they're "sold" as being
transportation facilities. They should be paid for from park taxes, not
federal or state transportation tax dollars.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 3/15/2018 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/15/2018 8:47 AM, Duane wrote:
>> On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
>>> <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you provide proper infrastructure
>>>> they will come:
>>>
>>> That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud
>>> while sitting
>>> at the computer.
>>>
>>> I don't *do* that sort of thing.
>>>
>>
>> I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like
>> to do from my house in Montreal West Island area to the

>> old port. It's ~100k and really nice. About 80k of it
>> is on bike paths. These paths follow the river and then

>> the Lachine canal so there are basically no

>> intersections. Along the canal where the path crosses

>> city streets the path has under or overpasses.
>>

>> Here's the thing. I take the day off work on my birthday

>> and do this ride with some friends because there's no one

>> on the paths outside of the commute hours. At commute
>> time it's too crowded. On weekends and holidays it's

>> packed.
>>
>> So I guess my point is that if they make these things

>> people use them. In Montreal, a lot of people use them.Â

>> Whether or not they make sense for commuters is another

>> story. And group riding on bike paths is a bad idea in

>> any case if the paths aren't empty.
>
> Most of us probably enjoy a segregated path that's
> well-maintained, scenic, and mostly empty. Probably few of
> us enjoy a MUP when it's seeing heavy use. And with good
> reason! With widely varying users, narrow spaces and a "no
> rules" environment, movements are often chaotic.
>
> So Joerg should lobby for paths that will be unpopular,
> because those make for the best riding. Of course, that's a
> tough sell. Can you imagine asking for tax money for a new
> freeway, by saying "It will be great! Hardly anyone will use
> it!"
>
> Nationwide, only a tiny percentage of these facilities can
> be justified as shifting mode share from cars to bikes.
> Despite the cherry-picked examples, most miles of MUP
> connect nowhere to nowhere, for obvious reasons.
>
> So almost all are linear parks, even though they're "sold"
> as being transportation facilities. They should be paid for
> from park taxes, not federal or state transportation tax
> dollars.
>

Some citizens use and appreciate them, just not for cycling:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=assault+on+bike+path&t=hg&ia=web

[Frank Krygowski]

:-) Oh really?

How odd that Google Street View (so to speak) is available for places
like Petra in Jordon! https://goo.gl/maps/Y1DrTnGKC5N2
Do you imagine some Google contractor stole a 4x4 and ran it through there?

Here's a clue, Joerg:
https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/eco-tourism/stories/how-become-next-google-street-view-trekker

There are countless places that cars cannot access, but Street View can.

Which is not to say that Google didn't get permission to send a Street
View car through the U.C. Davis campus, just as a person could get
permission to make a delivery.

But if driving is not restricted through campus, where are all the cars?
https://goo.gl/maps/1U8Gzoa39hu
And why do so many articles claim driving is restricted through campus?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Yes, I suppose they can have financial benefit, if you're of the right
mindset.

Around here, I know of only one such incident, and there wasn't much
profit, because the victim was just a young teenage kid. But a dollar is
a dollar, I guess.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

There are easy clues to see if it was the Google vehicle or someone on foot.

1. Middle of the lane use in traffic. It is illegal in California to
walk or cycle lane-centered unless there is an exceptional situation. In
my example that clearly is not the case.

2. Shadows that clearly show a vehicle when you zip around the circular
view.

>
> There are countless places that cars cannot access, but Street View can.
>
> Which is not to say that Google didn't get permission to send a Street
> View car through the U.C. Davis campus, just as a person could get
> permission to make a delivery.
>
> But if driving is not restricted through campus, where are all the cars?
> https://goo.gl/maps/1U8Gzoa39hu
> And why do so many articles claim driving is restricted through campus?
>

Go back to my link, that's where many of them are. They have numerous
other huge parking lots. Duh.

[Radey Shouman]

I don't know which of you is right, but Google is not restricted to cars
for street view. See:

http://www.viralblog.com/viral-social-videos/meet-google-street-view-camel/

Notice the picture of the street view trike -- seems to be pedal-only,
at least according to:

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/google-street-view-trike-captures-the-roads-less-driven/

--

[Duane]

Well my point was that even though some of us don't use crowded
segregated paths, the fact that they are crowded indicates that many
people do use them.

[Joerg]

Last Sunday it was a joy to see a very full paved section of the El
Dorado Trail from Placerville to Camino (California). It seems that the
New Year's resolutions of many people have stuck this year.

Yeah, we can all complain about having to slow down for kids, dogs or
slow riders. Yet for some reason cyclists who complain about that do not
complain if they spend minutes in slow traffic behind a crawling conga
line of trucks.

I see it this way: Every slow down is followed by an acceleration event
and that builds muscle. Plus I might get to pet a dog or encourage a kid
on a tricycle to keep on mashing the pedals. It means a lot to them when
an adult says "Good job!".

[jbeattie]

I complain if I have to sit in slow traffic, but the beauty of being on a bike is that I rarely have to do that, except where passing is impossible. Bicycles may permissibly pass on the right when safe in Oregon. I sit in traffic in the mornings, but I'm still making better time than the cars and passing on either side when possible and safe.

>
> I see it this way: Every slow down is followed by an acceleration event
> and that builds muscle. Plus I might get to pet a dog or encourage a kid
> on a tricycle to keep on mashing the pedals. It means a lot to them when
> an adult says "Good job!".

Out of curiosity, do you have kids? Half of them will think you're a creep or just in their way. The other half might think you're mildly amusing. Kids are accustomed to hearing "good job" -- little Jimmy on the trike probably hears it ten times a day. It's not like he's going to ride over to his parents and say, "geepers, mom and dad, that creepy man over there said I did a good job! That makes me feel so good! It means a lot to me!" In reality, dealing with kids on trikes on a MUP is usually just a matter of giving them a wide berth. It's kind of like dealing with squirrels -- well, strike that. I'll run over squirrels.

Linear parks are fine and some can be useful travel routes for bikes, but mixing bikes and walkers always results in a sub-optimal experience for both -- particularly when you have parents with walkers, dogs and kids on trikes (common around here) and sometimes steep grades. I walk and ride the same local trail, and descending bikes are a menace. I always take the adjacent road when on a bike.


-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/15/2018 8:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Linear parks are fine and some can be useful travel routes for bikes, but mixing bikes and walkers always results in a sub-optimal experience for both -- particularly when you have parents with walkers, dogs and kids on trikes (common around here) and sometimes steep grades. I walk and ride the same local trail, and descending bikes are a menace. I always take the adjacent road when on a bike.

Related: A committee I'm on for the local metropark presented policy
recommendations to the commissioners Monday and got them approved. That
includes policies like "Check with knowledgeable bicyclists before you
design another [insane] bicycle facility" and "Follow the design manuals
[because landscape architects that don't ever ride bikes are not geniuses].

But afterwards, in the public comments segment, one guy stood up and
asked if they could please paint some stripes on the road that's closed
to motor vehicles, to separate the bikes from peds, dogs, etc. This is
on pavement that's 18 feet wide, IIRC.

The commissioners gave their usual concerned "we hear you" looks, but I
doubt anything will be done. But the guy was justifiably worried about
cyclists coming close to pedestrians, dogs, etc. However, we cyclists
know that almost all of that is triggered by the peds. We had a club
member in the hospital because of a jogger's sudden U-turn. It's common
for peds to walk four abreast, with the leftmost straddling the center
line, which makes passing on either side a gamble. Many have earbuds.
Dogs are on long leashes... etc.

The facility supposedly has a 10 mph speed limit for bikes. Someone can
say that therefore any crash is the cyclist's fault - but it's odd that
roller bladers and runners are allowed to exceed 10 mph. And of course,
there's no law requiring a bike to have a speedometer anyway.

I do what I can to keep things safe. Specifically, I do that by avoiding
the facility whenever it's reasonable to do so. I'll go a mile out of my
way to minimize my riding on it. If it were ten feet wide instead of 18,
I doubt I'd ever use it unless it was deserted.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

In Quebec there is not rider to allow cyclists to pass on the right so
they're restricted to the regular vehicle laws. On my commute there are
not many roads I take without a bike lane though so that helps get me by
the traffic. Where there are no lanes I sit in the traffic like the cars.

>>
>> I see it this way: Every slow down is followed by an acceleration event
>> and that builds muscle. Plus I might get to pet a dog or encourage a kid
>> on a tricycle to keep on mashing the pedals. It means a lot to them when
>> an adult says "Good job!".
>

Bike paths in Quebec have a speed limit of 20km/h so doesn't allow for
much of an acceleration event. And anyway they're usually crowded
enough that slow downs are that sporadic.

> Out of curiosity, do you have kids? Half of them will think you're a creep or just in their way. The other half might think you're mildly amusing. Kids are accustomed to hearing "good job" -- little Jimmy on the trike probably hears it ten times a day. It's not like he's going to ride over to his parents and say, "geepers, mom and dad, that creepy man over there said I did a good job! That makes me feel so good! It means a lot to me!" In reality, dealing with kids on trikes on a MUP is usually just a matter of giving them a wide berth. It's kind of like dealing with squirrels -- well, strike that. I'll run over squirrels.

It's chipmunks here. They're suicidal.

>
> Linear parks are fine and some can be useful travel routes for bikes, but mixing bikes and walkers always results in a sub-optimal experience for both -- particularly when you have parents with walkers, dogs and kids on trikes (common around here) and sometimes steep grades. I walk and ride the same local trail, and descending bikes are a menace. I always take the adjacent road when on a bike.

The way I look at it is that the linear parks are pretty much not for
me. The people that fill them up seem to get along ok as long as some
group of MAMILs doesn't terrorize them. My club rides tend to avoid
paths. For morning commuters they're not bad as most recreational users
aren't out at 6am. On the ride home it's a different thing.

Same here regarding steep roads.


>

[Joerg]

Until some day a passenger in an Uber or Lyft vehicle suddenly decides
he'll walk the rest and swings the door open with gusto.

I also pass on the right but then at slow speed and not like crazy
lane-splitting motorcyclists.

>>
>> I see it this way: Every slow down is followed by an acceleration
>> event and that builds muscle. Plus I might get to pet a dog or
>> encourage a kid on a tricycle to keep on mashing the pedals. It
>> means a lot to them when an adult says "Good job!".
>
> Out of curiosity, do you have kids?

Unfortunately not.


> ... Half of them will think you're a

> creep or just in their way. The other half might think you're mildly
> amusing. Kids are accustomed to hearing "good job" -- little Jimmy
> on the trike probably hears it ten times a day. It's not like he's
> going to ride over to his parents and say, "geepers, mom and dad,
> that creepy man over there said I did a good job! That makes me feel
> so good! It means a lot to me!"

My experience is different. Mostly it elicited a big smile, maybe
because this did not come from a parent or close relative. Also, in the
more rural regions of America kids are often brought up the
old-fashioned way, with proper expectations of them and without
pampering or excessive praise.

It's also good to praise a horse or a dog for good trail etiquette. They
often notice it favorably and it costs the cyclist nothing. One rider
thanked me saying "Sam really likes that".


> ... In reality, dealing with kids on

> trikes on a MUP is usually just a matter of giving them a wide berth.

I do that regardless.

> It's kind of like dealing with squirrels -- well, strike that. I'll
> run over squirrels.
>

I don't like hitting animals, ever. Couldn't avoid running over some
though, squirrels and ... rattlesnakes. Once almost a deer but he'd have
won.

> Linear parks are fine and some can be useful travel routes for bikes,
> but mixing bikes and walkers always results in a sub-optimal
> experience for both -- particularly when you have parents with
> walkers, dogs and kids on trikes (common around here) and sometimes
> steep grades. I walk and ride the same local trail, and descending
> bikes are a menace. I always take the adjacent road when on a bike.
>

Many of our routes are not park routes but for cyclists with a purpose,
folks who commute or have another set destination like I often do. Many
bike path started to flourish in this area around 10 years ago and
initially pedestrians walked willy-nilly. Now they largely stick to the
rule "walk left" which makes things easy. These paths connect
residential areas to business parks and I often cycle through on of
those. Lunchtime walkers are almost professionals when it comes to trail
etiquette.

It's funny, after a while one recognizes each other. Oh, the guy with
the Fedora and the electric cigarette is already this far? I must be late!

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/13/2018 3:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
>

> The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).

Speaking of starving the beast:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-confronts-another-failed-tax-experiment-oklahoma-155508531--election.html

And of course
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-steyer-kansas-tax-cuts-brownback-california-20170622-story.html


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Right. Neither austerity nor profligacy helps:
http://amp.sacbee.com/news/business/article204345249.html
We're just doomed either way.

[jbeattie]

Rural? Cameron Park? https://www.trulia.com/p/ca/cameron-park/3236-chasen-dr-cameron-park-ca-95682--2085622330 I'm sure the milk cows are around back.

> It's also good to praise a horse or a dog for good trail etiquette. They
> often notice it favorably and it costs the cyclist nothing. One rider
> thanked me saying "Sam really likes that".

Yes, because the owner can read the horse's mind. I'm going to start an institute with the sole purpose of stamping out anthropomorphism. It prevents us from really understanding animals. https://www.marketingfirst.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/gary-larson-what-we-say-to-dogs-what-dogs-hear.jpg

>
>
> > ... In reality, dealing with kids on
> > trikes on a MUP is usually just a matter of giving them a wide berth.
>
>
> I do that regardless.
>
>
> > It's kind of like dealing with squirrels -- well, strike that. I'll
> > run over squirrels.
> >
>
> I don't like hitting animals, ever. Couldn't avoid running over some
> though, squirrels and ... rattlesnakes. Once almost a deer but he'd have
> won.

Yah, I'm not aiming for the squirrels, but I'm certainly not going over the bars for them -- not unless they get stuck in my spokes.

> > Linear parks are fine and some can be useful travel routes for bikes,
> > but mixing bikes and walkers always results in a sub-optimal
> > experience for both -- particularly when you have parents with
> > walkers, dogs and kids on trikes (common around here) and sometimes
> > steep grades. I walk and ride the same local trail, and descending
> > bikes are a menace. I always take the adjacent road when on a bike.
> >
>
> Many of our routes are not park routes but for cyclists with a purpose,
> folks who commute or have another set destination like I often do. Many
> bike path started to flourish in this area around 10 years ago and
> initially pedestrians walked willy-nilly. Now they largely stick to the
> rule "walk left" which makes things easy. These paths connect
> residential areas to business parks and I often cycle through on of
> those. Lunchtime walkers are almost professionals when it comes to trail
> etiquette.

Like I said, some of these routes provide valuable options for riders -- but they are options. Roads are the rule, and people need to learn to ride on roads -- and everybody needs to learn the rules of the road for his or her state.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-16 13:19, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 8:27:05 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-15 17:55, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

>>> ... Half of them will think you're a creep or just in their way.
>>> The other half might think you're mildly amusing. Kids are
>>> accustomed to hearing "good job" -- little Jimmy on the trike
>>> probably hears it ten times a day. It's not like he's going to
>>> ride over to his parents and say, "geepers, mom and dad, that
>>> creepy man over there said I did a good job! That makes me feel
>>> so good! It means a lot to me!"
>>
>>
>> My experience is different. Mostly it elicited a big smile, maybe
>> because this did not come from a parent or close relative. Also, in
>> the more rural regions of America kids are often brought up the
>> old-fashioned way, with proper expectations of them and without
>> pampering or excessive praise.
>
> Rural? Cameron Park?
> https://www.trulia.com/p/ca/cameron-park/3236-chasen-dr-cameron-park-ca-95682--2085622330

If you look hard enough you can find a McMansion just about anywhere. We
even have one on our street. Totally out of place for this village.

I meant here:

https://cdn-assets.alltrails.com/uploads/photo/image/10654623/extra_large_646bb5afac5dc78c0eeeedf1253dc7d6.jpg

> I'm sure the milk cows are around back.
>

I meet them along the El Dorado Trail all the time. Sometimes on the
trail when one got out. Also goats, et cetera. Occasionally we have to
play herder with our mountain bikes.

>> It's also good to praise a horse or a dog for good trail etiquette.
>> They often notice it favorably and it costs the cyclist nothing.
>> One rider thanked me saying "Sam really likes that".
>
> Yes, because the owner can read the horse's mind.

No, but their reactions. For example, most people do not know that
horses can purr if they are feeling really happy. One of my horse
friends already did that when I said "Ivan, do you want some carrots?",
before opening the pannier. Unfortunately he died at around 21 years old
from Cushing's disease :-(

The horse that took his place isn't nearly as communicative but also
likes carrots.


> ... I'm going to start

> an institute with the sole purpose of stamping out anthropomorphism.
> It prevents us from really understanding animals.
> https://www.marketingfirst.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/gary-larson-what-we-say-to-dogs-what-dogs-hear.jpg
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04

>>
>>> ... In reality, dealing with kids on trikes on a MUP is usually
>>> just a matter of giving them a wide berth.
>>
>>
>> I do that regardless.
>>
>>
>>> It's kind of like dealing with squirrels -- well, strike that.
>>> I'll run over squirrels.
>>>
>>
>> I don't like hitting animals, ever. Couldn't avoid running over
>> some though, squirrels and ... rattlesnakes. Once almost a deer but
>> he'd have won.
>
> Yah, I'm not aiming for the squirrels, but I'm certainly not going
> over the bars for them -- not unless they get stuck in my spokes.
>

Which has happened here, with nasty consequences.

>>> Linear parks are fine and some can be useful travel routes for
>>> bikes, but mixing bikes and walkers always results in a
>>> sub-optimal experience for both -- particularly when you have
>>> parents with walkers, dogs and kids on trikes (common around
>>> here) and sometimes steep grades. I walk and ride the same local
>>> trail, and descending bikes are a menace. I always take the
>>> adjacent road when on a bike.
>>>
>>
>> Many of our routes are not park routes but for cyclists with a
>> purpose, folks who commute or have another set destination like I
>> often do. Many bike path started to flourish in this area around 10
>> years ago and initially pedestrians walked willy-nilly. Now they
>> largely stick to the rule "walk left" which makes things easy.
>> These paths connect residential areas to business parks and I often
>> cycle through on of those. Lunchtime walkers are almost
>> professionals when it comes to trail etiquette.
>
> Like I said, some of these routes provide valuable options for riders
> -- but they are options. Roads are the rule, and people need to
> learn to ride on roads -- and everybody needs to learn the rules of
> the road for his or her state.
>

People generally know the rules because they are also car drivers.
However, I found that the vast majority of cylists abhors using roads on
their bicycles so much that they simply don't. This reluctance is not
based on some undefined fear but on accident reports and experiences of
friends and relatives who got hit.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/16/2018 4:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 8:27:05 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>>
>> It's also good to praise a horse or a dog for good trail etiquette. They
>> often notice it favorably and it costs the cyclist nothing. One rider
>> thanked me saying "Sam really likes that".
>
> Yes, because the owner can read the horse's mind. I'm going to start an institute with the sole purpose of stamping out anthropomorphism. It prevents us from really understanding animals. https://www.marketingfirst.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/gary-larson-what-we-say-to-dogs-what-dogs-hear.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/6b/2e/5e6b2e28f3a4f3149e5c8e2d480c6e1d.jpg


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 13:26:50 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-13 13:21, AMuzi wrote:

>>>> On 3/13/2018 2:58 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:

>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 7:36:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Scramento has a huge homeless problem and especially so
>>>>>>> along the
>>>>>>> American River bike path. To the point where it isn't
>>>>>>> always safe
>>>>>>> riding there anymore. It is largely a homemade problem.
>>>>>>> The mayor
>>>>>>> they have now doesn't understand that with all his
>>>>>>> throwing moeny
>>>>>>> and resources at this he is enticing ever more homeless
>>>>>>> to move to
>>>>>>> Sacramento. Free stuff! When he started this I could
>>>>>>> notice a
>>>>>>> substantial drop in the number of homeless I see along
>>>>>>> the El
>>>>>>> Dorado Trail yet the guy does not get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been buying bus tickets to Sacramento for the dudes
>>>>>> camped along
>>>>>> our giant MUP, the Springwater Corridor. I'm glad to see
>>>>>> its paying
>>>>>> off -- that and the periodic "sweeps."
>>>>>> http://pamplinmedia.com/go/42-news/321115-200827-portland-begins-springwater-sweep
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was riding back from the Gorge on Sunday and cut over
>>>>>> on the 205
>>>>>> bike path and hit a spot under an over-pass where I could
>>>>>> barely
>>>>>> squeeze by all the tents -- and garbage and needles, etc.,
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>> F****** incredible pigsty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me know if you come up with a solution. I sure don't
>>>>>> have one --
>>>>>> at least one that doesn't sound like something out of the Old
>>>>>> Testament, or perhaps a modern book on recycling organic
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The solution would be our country becoming more
>>>>> conservative. Work requirements for welfare, less
>>>>> unconditional free stuff, and so on. The difference in the
>>>>> rate of homelessness in liberal versus conservative states
>>>>> is striking and Oregon looks worse than even California
>>>>> (which I hadn't thought was possible).
>>>>>
>>>>> http://nlihc.org/article/ten-highest-and-lowest-rates-homelessness-state-2012
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevada is kind of an exception, probably because a lot of
>>>>> hermits and loners live there. They chose that lifestyle and
>>>>> the low amount of regulations and little enforcement allows
>>>>> them to spend their days baking in a dilapidated trailer out
>>>>> in the desert.

>>>>>
>>>>> The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).

>>>>> High tax states make housing so expensive that too many
>>>>> people are forced to drop out into the streets. California
>>>>> is a prime example of that. Try getting a building permit
>>>>> out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who are you and what have you done with The Real Joerg, who likes high
>>>> taxes for expensive elaborate kiddy paths paid for by the long suffering
>>>> working man?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never liked high taxes. All I want is that taxes are invested wisely.
>>> Investment in bikes paths and bike lanes is wise, investment in a bullet
>>> train to nowhere is not.
>>
>> I see, you feel that building expensive bike paths for an almost
>> infinitesimal portion of the road users is wise investment?
>>
>
>It is, because
>
>1. They are not expensive. The bullet train just went to $68B and I am
>sure when t's all said and done it will be north of $150B or a whole
>year's state budget.
>
>2. The number is not infinitesimal. If you provide proper infrastructure
>they will come:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfuxptI2uU
>
>
>> After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents and
>> studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up about 1% of
>> the total traffic.
>>
>> Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group that
>> comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?
>>
>
>So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.

From what you write it appears that you believe that if only someone
would build bicycle paths that the percentage of bicycle traffic would
rise and I'm not sure that is correct at all. Or perhaps not correct
is assumed to be an all encompassing argument.

I recently read an article about cycling in the Netherlands. The
number of cyclists in the large cities is increasing but in rural
areas it is decreasing. Given that Holland has perhaps the largest
amount of cycle paths (compared with motorways) and rural bicycle use
is decreasing the argument that building bikeways is going to result
in some significant increase in cycle use is probably wishful
thinking.

It is probably also worth saying that the percentage of trips made by
Dutch cyclists is 27% of all trips and the number has remained static
for the past 30 years.

In closing let me say that one of my high school classmates took his
girl to the Junior Prom in his Dad's dump truck (there is a long story
there) but no one in living memory ever took his girl to the prom on a
bicycle :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I suggest that a sure method of determining the necessity for bike
paths would be to add a motion to the next town/city election -
something like "auto traffic shall be here after totally banned in an
area bounded by Main Street, North Bridge Road, Sunset Boulevard and
the river, i.e. the "business district", during daylight hours", and
count the votes for and against the motion.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-17 01:28, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:
>

[...]

>>> After all, bicycles comprise about 2% of all road accidents and
>>> studies I've seen state that nation wide bicycles make up about 1% of
>>> the total traffic.
>>>
>>> Doesn't spend substantial portions of the tax budget on a group that
>>> comprises only 1% of the road users seem a bit one sided?
>>>
>>
>> So why don't we start by spending 1%? That's plenty.
>
> From what you write it appears that you believe that if only someone
> would build bicycle paths that the percentage of bicycle traffic would
> rise and I'm not sure that is correct at all.

I know that it works in most areas. It is clearly evidenced by the
reaction of people. Instead of "Nah, I am not going to join you cycling
back on Green Valley Road" (this is one of my usual rounds) they say
"Oh, there is a bike path? How about Sunday afternoon?". Other times I
talked with client engineers when I visited. Many times they have bike
racks on their cars and helmets in the trunk. Those are the real outdoor
kind of people, the ones where it's not just talk. However, then they
say they'd love to cycle to work but the bike path system doesn't
connect there.


> ... Or perhaps not correct

> is assumed to be an all encompassing argument.
>

There will always be areas where it doesn't work or, like in Milton
Keynes, the design gets largely messed up and then people don't use it.
Other places might have too much inclement weather. For example, I doubt
one would get a lot of people onto bikes in a town in Northern Siberia.

> I recently read an article about cycling in the Netherlands. The
> number of cyclists in the large cities is increasing but in rural
> areas it is decreasing. Given that Holland has perhaps the largest
> amount of cycle paths (compared with motorways) and rural bicycle use
> is decreasing the argument that building bikeways is going to result
> in some significant increase in cycle use is probably wishful
> thinking.
>

Absolutely not. I lived there for years. Though this has been decades
ago they probably have a similar trend as we do in the US where many
kids aren't interested in any sort of transportation. They don't even
want to achieve a driver's license. Probably because the virtual world
and smart phones are sufficient for them. I can't understand it.

You also have to keep in mind that they have a substantial public
transport system. In essence many people wouldn't need any kind of vehicle.

> It is probably also worth saying that the percentage of trips made by
> Dutch cyclists is 27% of all trips and the number has remained static
> for the past 30 years.
>

I guess the number of available bike path kilometers has also largely
remained constant. When I lived in the Netherlands in the 80's the bike
path system was rather complete. They did add some bicycle highways but
most of those had already been there in large stretches, just with the
fluff and signage. For example, I cycles the F35 bike highway route a
lot because I couldn't stand the soft Dutch bread. It got me close
enough to ther German border to hop over and buy some real bread. Tens
of miles just for a loaf of bread was not a big deal over there because
I more of less put my bike in 12th gear and kept pedaling until I was
there. It was the same down south where my permanent residence was,
cycling to Maastricht for a beer and some cheese was a simple spur of
the moment decision. 20mi or 30km each way but easy peasy because all
bike path. In fact, it was so peaceful versus lane riding that I once
fell into "micro-sleep" on the road bike on the way back. A tree woke me
up the hard way ...

> In closing let me say that one of my high school classmates took his
> girl to the Junior Prom in his Dad's dump truck (there is a long story
> there) but no one in living memory ever took his girl to the prom on a
> bicycle :-)
>

Well ...

http://tubulocity.com/?p=118

[Joerg]

I meant without the fluff and signage.


> ... For example, I cycles the F35 bike highway route a

[jbeattie]

California is certainly spending more than 1% of its transportation budget on bicycle infrastructure. The ATF alone is approximately 1% of the California transportation budget. http://www.calbike.org/funding_sources In fact the reviled Governor Moonbeam, hated by all conservatives, is proposing an increase in the ATF. https://cal.streetsblog.org/2017/01/11/brown-proposes-1-billion-for-active-transportation-program-over-ten-years/

Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note that the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation funding -- shifting costs onto the states for the huge, incredible, the bestest infrastructure projects ever! Most of the big bicycle projects in Oregon were funded in large part by the feds. There was also state and local funding under the Oregon Bicycle Bill. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-burkholder/portlands-bicycle-revolut_b_3861490.html


-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-17 08:15, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 1:28:54 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
>> <ne...@analogconsultants.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-13 18:08, John B. wrote:

[...]

A dose of reality for you regarding Moonbeam: The bullet train to
nowhere was just upped to $70B. Yes, billion. And that does not include
any of the road projects, union boondoggles, et cetera. That 1% is fake
news.

> Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal
> transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note that
> the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation funding --
> shifting costs onto the states for the huge, incredible, the bestest
> infrastructure projects ever! Most of the big bicycle projects in
> Oregon were funded in large part by the feds. There was also state
> and local funding under the Oregon Bicycle Bill.
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-burkholder/portlands-bicycle-revolut_b_3861490.html
>

Just open some government land (which they are now doing) and let people
ride their MTB there. That solves a lot of the missing bike links. For
example, thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger we've got this connector from
Lotus to Folsom:

https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/u6BA3Hltk_6UIcrXV2vLEQ/o.jpg

Before that the ride was much longer and quite hazardous (I almost got
clipped by a motorcyclist there). Now the ride is like a mini-vacation
but you do need a serious MTB. Rim brakes like in the photo are not
recommended on this route.

[jbeattie]

Oh, so tax payers should be paying for your "serious MTB" route? That's dopey. Government should be installing infrastructure to reduce inner-city and suburban congestion -- and providing useful connectors for ordinary cyclists and not the super-gnarly mountain biker mountain-lion tamers. Focus on the topic: "bike paths" and not super-awesome, scary mountain bike trails.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-17 14:06, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 9:25:02 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-17 08:15, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

>>> Joerg also needs to read-up on current and past federal
>>> transportation financing -- ISTEA, SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21 and note
>>> that the Orange Overlord is gutting federal transportation
>>> funding -- shifting costs onto the states for the huge,
>>> incredible, the bestest infrastructure projects ever! Most of the
>>> big bicycle projects in Oregon were funded in large part by the
>>> feds. There was also state and local funding under the Oregon
>>> Bicycle Bill.
>>> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rex-burkholder/portlands-bicycle-revolut_b_3861490.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
Just open some government land (which they are now doing) and let people
>> ride their MTB there. That solves a lot of the missing bike links.
>> For example, thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger we've got this
>> connector from Lotus to Folsom:
>>
>> https://s3-media4.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/u6BA3Hltk_6UIcrXV2vLEQ/o.jpg
>>
>>
>>
Before that the ride was much longer and quite hazardous (I almost got
>> clipped by a motorcyclist there). Now the ride is like a
>> mini-vacation but you do need a serious MTB. Rim brakes like in the
>> photo are not recommended on this route.
>
> Oh, so tax payers should be paying for your "serious MTB" route?
> That's dopey. Government should be installing infrastructure to
> reduce inner-city and suburban congestion -- and providing useful
> connectors for ordinary cyclists and not the super-gnarly mountain
> biker mountain-lion tamers. Focus on the topic: "bike paths" and not
> super-awesome, scary mountain bike trails.
>

People out here are different and that may be hard to understand for
city folk. For example, when I came back from Placerville on the usual
route (singletrack) a bunch of kids and their dad came by. Dad had to
drop off the car for service, they loaded all their MTBs and rode back.
Just a normal day in paradise. They sure rode like they know how to
handle MTBs.

And here is the real benefit: Many of these trails are maintained by
volunteers, not the taxpayer.

http://www.fatrac.org/

As a user you can either participate in maintenance work or donate, or
both. One of my regular watering holes contributes $1 per pint from
certain brews. The pub owner is a hardcore MTB rider.

Last time I was at Intel about 90% of the bikes parked there were MTB,
many of them scraped and worn.

[jbeattie]

Pfff. You move to a airpark-golf-course community and make it sound like you're the Donner Party crossing the Sierra. You are city folk. If you can ride to Costco, you're not in the middle of nowhere.

I'm not impressed by someone who hauls his kids in a car, gets out and then goes trail riding. I can do that around here, too (assuming I still had small kids) -- but it's not relevant to transportation planning in general. Do the awesome mountain bike kids ride to school? I would find that more impressive. Living near the hills give you easy access to trails, and maybe even makes them relevant connectors, but your mythical person who would ride if there were infrastructure is not going to be dragging his or her ass over dirt trails to get somewhere.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

Exactly. Joerg is all about anecdotes, and believes his "I saw one
guy..." tales trump all data.

When he does deal with data, it's to say "Well, 1% bike mode share is
excellent for America." Or "Well, all those facilities don't work
because they're built wrong. It's the _next_ facility that will perform
miracles."


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/17/2018 11:06 AM, Joerg wrote:
>
> There will always be areas where it doesn't work...

Well, THERE'S a statement I can agree with! I'd say it applies to
countless areas!

> or, like in Milton
> Keynes, the design gets largely messed up and then people don't use it.

Very few people claim that Stevenage's and Milton Keynes' designs were
"messed up." They (or at least Stevenage, which I'm more familiar with)
were state of the art, matching or exceeding what was done in the
Netherlands at the time.

The "messed up" part was the automobile facility system. It was too
good. Since motoring was not dissuaded, people chose to drive cars.
It's thoroughly explained here: www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I think that the point is that people are inherently lazy, for want of
a better description.

Think of all the overweight people in the U.S. The National Center for
Health Statistics has it that 70.7% of the U.S. population is either
obese or overweight.

Does anyone walk to work/school? Or anywhere?

Granted that lack of exercise is not the only reason that Usians are
obese, but still....
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/18/2018 6:04 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 23:11:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2018 11:06 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>> There will always be areas where it doesn't work...
>>
>> Well, THERE'S a statement I can agree with! I'd say it applies to
>> countless areas!
>>
>>> or, like in Milton
>>> Keynes, the design gets largely messed up and then people don't use it.
>>
>> Very few people claim that Stevenage's and Milton Keynes' designs were
>> "messed up." They (or at least Stevenage, which I'm more familiar with)
>> were state of the art, matching or exceeding what was done in the
>> Netherlands at the time.
>>
>> The "messed up" part was the automobile facility system. It was too
>> good. Since motoring was not dissuaded, people chose to drive cars.
>> It's thoroughly explained here: www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/
>
> I think that the point is that people are inherently lazy, for want of
> a better description.

Yes, most people are inherently lazy.

Joerg claims that if the government puts in lots of bike paths, people
will use their cars a lot less. They'll take to bicycling in droves.

Perhaps he also thinks that if building designers would just put in
extra stairways, people would stop using elevators.

I taught at a university. I had two offices, one on the third floor and
one on the fourth. Yes, I usually used the stairs. But I usually had
them to myself. And there were many times I saw people use the elevator
to go up or down just one floor.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

He should spend more time investigating transportation policies and maybe even getting on the Cameron Park CSD board of directors -- or some bicycle advocacy group. I'm not that happy about the direction ultimately taken by the BTA (now the Street Trust), but it accomplished a lot back in the early days. I can look around Portland and identify specific projects we accomplished -- bikes on TriMet, the re-do of the massively popular Hawthorne Bridge crossing, the Rose Quarter bike facilities and all the bike lanes put in to comply with the Bike Bill -- including the one I ride practically every work day (unless taking an alternate route). This was because of button-up bicycle advocates and not the lunatic fringe wanting to promote gender equality among whales (a frequent problem with advocacy groups -- fringe interests taking over). Our fearless leaders knew all the ins-and-outs of ISTEA and angles for selling bike projects in a way that meant money for state or local planning bodies. We also caused city planners to educate themselves on bicycle infrastructure -- Mia Burke in particular who turned it into a huge business, Alta Planning. Joerg could go to the people in Folsom and find out exactly how they did all the magical things the people in Cameron Park are too busy golfing or flying to care about. He could go there in his stage coach and talk to the country folks, speaking in that special country-folk way. Maybe stop at Costco on the way home.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

It was the only way back by bike. The oter option would have been their
courtesy shuttle.


>>> ... I can do that around here, too

>>> (assuming I still had small kids) -- but it's not relevant to
>>> transportation planning in general. Do the awesome mountain bike
>>> kids ride to school? I would find that more impressive. Living
>>> near the hills give you easy access to trails, and maybe even

>>> makes them relevant connectors, ...


Exactly, relevant connectors. When riding from here to Placerville the
only viable connector.


>>> ... but your mythical person who

>>> would ride if there were infrastructure is not going to be
>>> dragging his or her ass over dirt trails to get somewhere.

Several did. They are not mythical but real people and are now regularly
riding the trails. One even splurged and bought a new and serious MTB.
What triggered it was me taking our dogs along a different road, came by
an open garage, saw a garage queen MTB in there. A guy was outside and
we got to talk. "You can get to Placerville by bicycle?" ... "Yes, I can
show you" ... Then we rode together. Then one of his friends wanted to
come along. Then they rode together and another friend joined.

Now we even have a bike shop right on that trail, Sam's Town Cyclery. He
would not be there if he wasn't sure that that's where MTB riders come by.

https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtdemocrat.com%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F01%2Fa3-sams-bike.jpg&sp=1908e841d4895fa42a4aae05fff73191

>>
>> Exactly. Joerg is all about anecdotes, and believes his "I saw one
>> guy..." tales trump all data.
>>
>> When he does deal with data, it's to say "Well, 1% bike mode share
>> is excellent for America." Or "Well, all those facilities don't
>> work because they're built wrong. It's the _next_ facility that
>> will perform miracles."

No blah-blah, come here and ride the American River bike path during
rush hour. Or the Humbug Willow Creek trail system in Folsom. Then you
know. Those are prime examples of a bike paths built right.

>
> He should spend more time investigating transportation policies and

> maybe even getting on the Cameron Park CSD board of directors ...


That would be rather useless. I know someone who tried and eventually
resigned. I remember when I was at a meeting, they discussed a yuppie
town mural ad nauseam and then blew an incredible amount of money on it,
wanting us to look like El Dorado Hills. Which will never work.

I could tell you some stories about other "smart" decisions.


> ... -- or

> some bicycle advocacy group. I'm not that happy about the direction
> ultimately taken by the BTA (now the Street Trust), but it
> accomplished a lot back in the early days. I can look around
> Portland and identify specific projects we accomplished -- bikes on
> TriMet, the re-do of the massively popular Hawthorne Bridge crossing,
> the Rose Quarter bike facilities and all the bike lanes put in to
> comply with the Bike Bill -- including the one I ride practically
> every work day (unless taking an alternate route). This was because
> of button-up bicycle advocates and not the lunatic fringe wanting to
> promote gender equality among whales (a frequent problem with
> advocacy groups -- fringe interests taking over). Our fearless
> leaders knew all the ins-and-outs of ISTEA and angles for selling
> bike projects in a way that meant money for state or local planning
> bodies. We also caused city planners to educate themselves on
> bicycle infrastructure -- Mia Burke in particular who turned it into
> a huge business, Alta Planning. Joerg could go to the people in
> Folsom and find out exactly how they did all the magical things the
> people in Cameron Park are too busy golfing or flying to care about.

They have enough smart leaders, we don't.

> He could go there in his stage coach and talk to the country folks,
> speaking in that special country-folk way. Maybe stop at Costco on
> the way home.
>

The stage coach folks are in Placerville, Costco is more west in an
urban area. Oh, and once they (finally!) finish a bike path from White
Rock Road to Costco in Folsom later this year I can indeed get to Costco
on ... <drum roll> ... singletrack! Also to lots of other stores there.
I haven't tried at Costco yet but Lowe's, Home Depot and Trader Joe's
let me bring the bike inside so I shop there. Walmart doesn't so I
mostly don't shop there anymore.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/18/2018 11:39 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-03-18 08:10, jbeattie wrote:
>>
>
>>>>                         ... but your mythical person who
>>>> would ride if there were infrastructure is not going to be
>>>> dragging his or her ass over dirt trails to get somewhere.
>
>
> Several did. They are not mythical but real people and are now regularly
> riding the trails. One even splurged and bought a new and serious MTB.

Again, Joerg, you keep pumping out anecdotes. "One guy even bought a
bike!!!" or "You should see the trail at rush hour!!"

Anyone with less bias and more interested in facts would say "One guy
out of 20,000 population?" or "At rush hour, how many people are driving
on the road instead of biking on the trail?"

> Now we even have a bike shop right on that trail, Sam's Town Cyclery. He
> would not be there if he wasn't sure that that's where MTB riders come by.

That's fine. A couple years ago a new bike shop opened adjacent to the
longest rail-trail in our area. I know the guy who used to own it. Nice
guy; he did some volunteer work with me. He said the shop was doing just
fine, including renting bikes to people to use on the trail.

But that guy later sold his interest in the shop to his business partner
and went on to a job that made more money. And a few months ago, the
business partner moved the shop from the trailside to the heart of
plaza-land, about five miles away. The business is doing much better now.

I'm in favor of people riding bikes - especially if the bike ride
replaces a car trip. I'm in favor of bike shops.

But bike shops come and bike shops go; and most people using trails for
bike rides have _added_ a car trip, to shuttle their bikes to and from
the trail. It's folly to think that bike trails are going to generate an
America with fewer cars plus lots of thriving bike shops.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Emanuel Berg]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> That's fine. A couple years ago a new bike
> shop opened adjacent to the longest
> rail-trail in our area. I know the guy who
> used to own it. Nice guy; he did some
> volunteer work with me. He said the shop was
> doing just fine, including renting bikes to
> people to use on the trail.

One should place the shop where people go by
bike already, and optimally where people ONLY
go by bike (pedestrians are fine), because
otherwise the bikers are much fewer and they
are occupied with the traffic, they won't see
or stop to access the shop in as relaxed
a manner.

Also it is good to place the shop next to some
popular and accessible place, for example the
city public library, so people can turn in the
bike for some minor fix, go to the library,
then get it when they are done.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-18 09:22, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/18/2018 11:39 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-18 08:10, jbeattie wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>> ... but your mythical person who
>>>>> would ride if there were infrastructure is not going to be
>>>>> dragging his or her ass over dirt trails to get somewhere.
>>
>>
>> Several did. They are not mythical but real people and are now
>> regularly riding the trails. One even splurged and bought a new and
>> serious MTB.
>
> Again, Joerg, you keep pumping out anecdotes. "One guy even bought a
> bike!!!" or "You should see the trail at rush hour!!"
>
> Anyone with less bias and more interested in facts would say "One guy
> out of 20,000 population?" or "At rush hour, how many people are driving
> on the road instead of biking on the trail?"
>

You really don't get it, do you?

I have brought numerous examples over time here and it's all evidenced
by two (2!) bike shops opening in this little village. 15 years ago
there were none.

>> Now we even have a bike shop right on that trail, Sam's Town Cyclery.
>> He would not be there if he wasn't sure that that's where MTB riders
>> come by.
>
> That's fine. A couple years ago a new bike shop opened adjacent to the
> longest rail-trail in our area. I know the guy who used to own it. Nice
> guy; he did some volunteer work with me. He said the shop was doing just
> fine, including renting bikes to people to use on the trail.
>

See?

> But that guy later sold his interest in the shop to his business partner
> and went on to a job that made more money. And a few months ago, the
> business partner moved the shop from the trailside to the heart of
> plaza-land, about five miles away. The business is doing much better now.
>

Sam's Cyclery in Cameron Park moved from a shopping area in town _to_
the trail.

> I'm in favor of people riding bikes - especially if the bike ride
> replaces a car trip. I'm in favor of bike shops.
>
> But bike shops come and bike shops go; and most people using trails for
> bike rides have _added_ a car trip, to shuttle their bikes to and from
> the trail.

And why do they do that? Because they do not feel safe on most roads. If
we had proper bike paths and lanes they would be willing to cycle. I
can't even count anymore how many cyclists I have tried to convince
heading to the singletrack that runs through town by bike. I personally
do not like riding on high speed thoroughfares myself if they don't have
bike lanes or at least wide enough shoulders. However, I do it anyhow.
Most others don't.

So now I usually meet them at one of the areas where there is trail
parking. Which happens to be ... tadaaaa ... excatly where Sam's Cyclery
is now. They truck the bikes there, I ride mine there.

> It's folly to think that bike trails are going to generate an
> America with fewer cars plus lots of thriving bike shops.
>

It does work here. Not fewer cars but more cycling. For me it has turned
from next to nothing to 4000mi/year while my car has dropped to less
than 1000mi/year. One core reason can be summed up in two words: Bike
paths. In my case mostly singletrack but that's just my preference.

[John B.]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:46:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski

The other day my wife was talking to a friend and mentioned that I
often rode a bicycle for an hour and the friend was amazed that anyone
could ride a bicycle for a whole hour. Oh! Such a long ride!

I doubt that these sort of people, and my guess is that they greatly
outnumber those who might embark on such a long ride, will ever become
a cyclist Mups or no Mups.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:05:02 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

One wonders, with all these bicycle paths why you have two SUV's in
the garage. In fact, given that you only drive 1/5th of the time
wouldn't it be cheaper to rent a car for the few times that you want
to drive?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

O.K., so to summarize, you moved into a former cow pasture turned into an air-park golf course community; you work from home and ride on trails to other urban areas in the Sierra foothills. You ride with twenty pounds or more of special equipment, including first-aid kits, rope, a giant battery and light and need double suspension to manage the terrain. There are mountain lions, and the distances are so great between population areas that you take a gallon or more of water in the summer. Sounds like a perfect commute route, although putting in some bike lanes may attract more riders.

We have bike trails with parking lots, too, but they don't do much for relieving traffic congestion, even though some purport to commute on the trails. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_bGCOFCQ0I Judging by where the video ends, the guy probably works at Rapha. No mountain lions, and are inner-city trails are never far from water, usually in puddles.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Frank Krygowski]

When my daughter was a very young Girl Scout, we took the troop, their
bicycles and a few of their mothers with their bikes to a local rail
trail. We all rode 3.5 miles out, then back.

Seven miles! The women were amazed! They never thought that it was
possible for a non-professional to ride seven miles.

I'm quite sure none of those women ever tried it again.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 22:27:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Back when I was running I used to run 3.5 miles out and 3.5 miles back

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-18 16:41, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 10:05:02 -0700, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-18 09:22, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

>>> It's folly to think that bike trails are going to generate an
>>> America with fewer cars plus lots of thriving bike shops.
>>>
>>
>> It does work here. Not fewer cars but more cycling. For me it has turned
>>from next to nothing to 4000mi/year while my car has dropped to less
>> than 1000mi/year. One core reason can be summed up in two words: Bike
>> paths. In my case mostly singletrack but that's just my preference.
>
> One wonders, with all these bicycle paths why you have two SUV's in
> the garage.

I have one and that didn't even see 800mi last year. My wife's car is a
Toyota Corolla, less than 1000mi/year. Why? I need the SUV to haul heavy
stuff such as half a ton of wood peelets, firewood, building materials,
measuing equipment to clients, and so on. My wife can't drive it because
she is petite and can reach the pedals (seat is not adjustable enough
for her), also doesn't like the stick shift much. Both vehicles are well
past the age of 20 and may live another 20.


> ... In fact, given that you only drive 1/5th of the time

> wouldn't it be cheaper to rent a car for the few times that you want
> to drive?
>

It would not make sense to buy them now but earlier in my career I was
not self-employed for a few years and I had to commute. Back then there
were no reasonable bike paths or safe bike routes into Rancho Cordova
from here. So we owned the vehicles already. The cost is now miniscule,
mainly just insurance (which you need anyhow even as a renter) and
taxes. These extra costs are much lower than renting. Plus less hassle,
I don't have to get to and from a rental place. Also, I can decide sur
of the moment to put a bike in there and drive to a nice trail or bike
path, either because it is too far away for a day trip purely by bike or
because there are no safe routes to it.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-18 17:12, jbeattie wrote:
> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 10:05:08 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-18 09:22, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

>>> It's folly to think that bike trails are going to generate an
>>> America with fewer cars plus lots of thriving bike shops.
>>>
>>
>> It does work here. Not fewer cars but more cycling. For me it has
>> turned from next to nothing to 4000mi/year while my car has dropped
>> to less than 1000mi/year. One core reason can be summed up in two
>> words: Bike paths. In my case mostly singletrack but that's just my
>> preference.
>
> O.K., so to summarize, you moved into a former cow pasture turned
> into an air-park golf course community; you work from home and ride
> on trails to other urban areas in the Sierra foothills. You ride
> with twenty pounds or more of special equipment, including first-aid
> kits, rope, a giant battery and light and need double suspension to
> manage the terrain. There are mountain lions, and the distances are
> so great between population areas that you take a gallon or more of
> water in the summer.

As I have stated before those are normal things for people out here. We
love animals, including wild ones. Even a mountain lion does not
normally attack if you behave properly. There is always a chance but it
is way lower than getting smacked by the front bumper of a truck with a
soused driver in there (happened to a rider on my regular road bike
route and she died).


> ... Sounds like a perfect commute route, although

> putting in some bike lanes may attract more riders.
>

It is a perfect route. Every time I ride it, for fun or for a utility
ride, it feels like a mini vacation. Also a perfect escape when facing
difficult electronic circuit design work where I just head out there,
sit on a big rock, then start thinking and sketching. In fact, some
ideas already come during the ride there. The only noises you hear are
animals, wind and occasionally an aircraft.

They wanted to grade and pave that whole trail to the tune of $50M, and
we know where such government estimates always go. Up, up, up. I was
very vocally against it. It also would not increase the number of riders
much because most are not willing to ride 40-50mi in a day. A fraction
of that money would easily pay for bikle paths parallel to Highway 50
into the Valley. But no, that is probably too "pedestrian" for those folks.

> We have bike trails with parking lots, too, but they don't do much
> for relieving traffic congestion, even though some purport to commute
> on the trails. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_bGCOFCQ0I Judging by
> where the video ends, the guy probably works at Rapha. No mountain
> lions, and are inner-city trails are never far from water, usually in
> puddles.
>

Those are the easier well-maintained routes. We have similar ones like
here, one of my errand routes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zqIKf2T_I

[jbeattie]

O.K., so this is about super-hard trails through the uber-gnarly Sierra foothills -- what people "out there" use (apparently to get to Costco). Why did they bother putting in the bike lanes in Folsom? Why put in roads to the golf course in Cameron Park -- or to the club house? I would think the sons and daughters of the Donner party would have been content with pits and punji sticks -- rattlers and mountain lions. It's all about being hard, right? That's what gets the Intel workers on their bikes in Folsom, I'm sure.

We have nice trails too, but not through drab brown hills. http://www.skibowl.com/summer/sites/default/files/u13/HOOD-800x400.jpg If I lived in Government Camp, that would be my commute route. In fact, I was there the other day, and there was this guy and his kids, coming home from the taco stand in Govy. He had triple suspension because the trail is so gnarly, and he had a Winchester Mod. 70 for shooting Grizzlies. His kids had Marlins. It's just what people do in Govy. Hard, hard people. God's people. But you don't want to be around them when the provisions run low and they get hungry. It's too far to Costco, and they may eat you.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-19 09:32, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 8:10:15 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-18 17:12, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

>>> We have bike trails with parking lots, too, but they don't do
>>> much for relieving traffic congestion, even though some purport
>>> to commute on the trails.
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_bGCOFCQ0I Judging by where the
>>> video ends, the guy probably works at Rapha. No mountain lions,
>>> and are inner-city trails are never far from water, usually in
>>> puddles.
>>>
>>
>> Those are the easier well-maintained routes. We have similar ones
>> like here, one of my errand routes:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44zqIKf2T_I
>>
>
> O.K., so this is about super-hard trails through the uber-gnarly
> Sierra foothills -- what people "out there" use (apparently to get to
> Costco).

Not Costco, that would be the western section of this trail but I
usually use side roads to get to Costco:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_T2c4AXaCY

The one in the first link goes to Lowe's, Trader Joe's and with a wee
detour our brew supplies place. Also connects to the American River bike
path and the Folsom trail system. Best of all, less than a mile from my
favorite brewpub. Now what is so uber-gnarly about those trails? Yes,
you need an FS bike if you carry some cargo that could break. Since the
industry doesn't furnish suitable bikes you have to modify one, which I
did. It glides like a Lincoln if I lower the rear shock pressure and
avoid becoming airborne.

This is what we consider gnarly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4igppirvtlQ

Going to ride there later this year on MTB with a buddy.


> ... Why did they bother putting in the bike lanes in Folsom?

> Why put in roads to the golf course in Cameron Park -- or to the club
> house?

That's for wusses :-)


> ... I would think the sons and daughters of the Donner party

> would have been content with pits and punji sticks -- rattlers and
> mountain lions. It's all about being hard, right? That's what gets
> the Intel workers on their bikes in Folsom, I'm sure.
>

Many of them have only one bike and then a MTB is much more practical.
In this area it really extends your operating range. Keep in mind that
not everyone has a house with a 2-3 car garage. Sometimes the only
secure storage for a bike is a tiny apartment balcony.

> We have nice trails too, but not through drab brown hills.
> http://www.skibowl.com/summer/sites/default/files/u13/HOOD-800x400.jpg

That would count as gnarly. As for scenery, we've got that. One of the
many reasons why I sometimes take the much longer singletrack to Folsom
is that you come through an area that looks like a picture postcard from
Switzerland. That's also where I usually go to be alone and think about
a difficult circuit design.

> If I lived in Government Camp, that would be my commute route. In
> fact, I was there the other day, and there was this guy and his kids,
> coming home from the taco stand in Govy. He had triple suspension
> because the trail is so gnarly, and he had a Winchester Mod. 70 for
> shooting Grizzlies. His kids had Marlins. It's just what people do in
> Govy. Hard, hard people. God's people. But you don't want to be
> around them when the provisions run low and they get hungry. It's
> too far to Costco, and they may eat you.
>

:-)