Ouch. This happened to me once

[AMuzi]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html

(I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen
delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.)
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html
>
> (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery
> turned in. They replaced his bike.)

How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision!

In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over
there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision.

And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Under what
circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the
curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist
think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn
signal blinking?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Not mirror in my case; he pulled right with right blinker
on, then suddenly decided on a left U-turn as I passed.
Fortunately there were witnesses.

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html
>>
>> (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery
>> turned in. They replaced his bike.)
>
> How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision!
>

The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not
wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the
driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of
the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that.

Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees
some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does
get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed
on the brake pedal.

> In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over
> there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision.
>
> And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept.

Baloney.


> ... Under what

> circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the
> curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist
> think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn
> signal blinking?
>

I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane.
Most of them were of the kind "Oh, dang! I have to turn right here". I
had a close call myself while taking the lane. A Porsche driver thought
it was a good idea to speed past me on the lane left of me and then turn
right into a parking lot. Luckily I was on the MTB with powerful disc
brakes. Maybe the guy didn't think a MTB could be doing north of 20mph.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Frank Krygowski]

Ah. Most American drivers don't understand what that stick thing is, the
one just past the left side of their steering wheel. You encountered one
who was even worse than average.

I liked this instructional video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFHCyNVBTk

I like the "pretty incredible" and "but it may require you to put down
your coffee"

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/19/2018 11:42 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html
>>>
>>>
>>> (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery
>>> turned in. They replaced his bike.)
>>
>> How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision!
>>
>
> The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not
> wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the
> driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of
> the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that.
>
> Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees
> some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does
> get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed
> on the brake pedal.

It depends. The most deadly right hooks occur with large trucks and
buses. Those vehicles have huge blind spots, not "may not notice" spots.
If your light can't be seen (which is very typical in such situations)
it can't help.

>> In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over
>> there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision.
>>
>> And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept.
>
> Baloney.

So let me ask again:

>>                                                     ...  Under what
>> circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the
>> curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist
>> think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn
>> signal blinking?

In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor
vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American
bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in.

> I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane.

And doubtlessly, almost all of them edge riders.

> Most of them were of the kind "Oh, dang! I have to turn right here". I
> had a close call myself while taking the lane. A Porsche driver thought
> it was a good idea to speed past me on the lane left of me and then turn
> right into a parking lot. Luckily I was on the MTB with powerful disc
> brakes. Maybe the guy didn't think a MTB could be doing north of 20mph.

I can recall only two sort-of-close-call attempted right hooks while I
was taking the lane. In both cases they started to pass me on my left
then realized they couldn't make it as I held my position and glared at
them. They both dropped back.

One was within a couple blocks of my office at the university. The
perpetrator was a young kid trying to cross my path into the right turn
lane. (I was in the right "straight ahead" lane.) He was even more
confused than the guy described above, because he tried to pass, then
dropped back, then tried to pass again, then almost stopped before
merging right properly from behind me.

We ended up side by side at the light. I looked over at him and said
"You're new at this, aren't you?" He just glared straight ahead until
the light changed.


--
- Frank Krygowski

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

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 5:42:12 PM UTC+1, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html
> >>
> >> (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery
> >> turned in. They replaced his bike.)
> >
> > How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision!
> >
>
> The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not
> wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the
> driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of
> the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that.
>

That was my first thought also. If you are riding at that speed in traffic you better watch out and prepared for the worst.

Lou

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-19 09:53, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/19/2018 11:42 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery
>>>> turned in. They replaced his bike.)
>>>
>>> How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision!
>>>
>>
>> The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not
>> wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that
>> the driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault
>> of the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply
>> ignore that.
>>
>> Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver
>> sees some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that
>> does get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they
>> slammed on the brake pedal.
>
> It depends. The most deadly right hooks occur with large trucks and
> buses. Those vehicles have huge blind spots, not "may not notice" spots.
> If your light can't be seen (which is very typical in such situations)
> it can't help.
>

On poorly equipped trucks, yes. Others, not so much. Check the lower
round mirror here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6qe58RY0k

Modern trucks have dual panel mirrors where this is more integrated.
Very modern ones have cameras. Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the
right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the
driver.

>>> In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over
>>> there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision.
>>>
>>> And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept.
>>
>> Baloney.
>
> So let me ask again:
>
>>> ... Under what
>>> circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between the
>>> curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist
>>> think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn
>>> signal blinking?
>
> In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor
> vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American
> bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in.
>

They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a
lot more. This is how it's done right:

https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn

If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane
switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes. I
nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming through
there during rush hour never had a problem.

>> I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane.
>
> And doubtlessly, almost all of them edge riders.
>

It's the law in most jurisdictions. Whether one of the exemption
situations applies is entirely up to the cop. In court the cop is nearly
always right. BTDT.

>> Most of them were of the kind "Oh, dang! I have to turn right here". I
>> had a close call myself while taking the lane. A Porsche driver
>> thought it was a good idea to speed past me on the lane left of me and
>> then turn right into a parking lot. Luckily I was on the MTB with
>> powerful disc brakes. Maybe the guy didn't think a MTB could be doing
>> north of 20mph.
>
> I can recall only two sort-of-close-call attempted right hooks while I
> was taking the lane. In both cases they started to pass me on my left
> then realized they couldn't make it as I held my position and glared at
> them. They both dropped back.
>
> One was within a couple blocks of my office at the university. The
> perpetrator was a young kid trying to cross my path into the right turn
> lane. (I was in the right "straight ahead" lane.) He was even more
> confused than the guy described above, because he tried to pass, then
> dropped back, then tried to pass again, then almost stopped before
> merging right properly from behind me.
>
> We ended up side by side at the light. I looked over at him and said
> "You're new at this, aren't you?" He just glared straight ahead until
> the light changed.
>

I recently had a woman stare straight into my eyes and then turn into my
path. Couldn't believe it. Of course I gave her the drill sergeant
holler, the one that makes even large dogs cringe.

[Frank Krygowski]

It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big
truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU

> Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the
> right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the
> driver.

But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the
cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision
type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London
a couple years ago.

>> So let me ask again:
>>
>>>>                                                     ...  Under what
>>>> circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed between
>>>> the
>>>> curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist
>>>> think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn
>>>> signal blinking?
>>
>> In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor
>> vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American
>> bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in.
>>
>
> They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a
> lot more. This is how it's done right:
>
> https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn
>
> If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane
> switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes. I
> nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming through
> there during rush hour never had a problem.

Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on
_all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They
even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two
cities in Ohio that caved into those demands.

>>> I have witnessed a few such accidents. _All_ of them sans bike lane.
>>
>> And doubtlessly, almost all of them edge riders.
>>
>
> It's the law in most jurisdictions. Whether one of the exemption
> situations applies is entirely up to the cop. In court the cop is nearly
> always right. BTDT.

I've tried without success to correct your ignorance of the laws. Yes,
there are some cops who are also ignorant, but that's why advocacy
groups should be working on education instead of demanding more
defective facilities. Education of cyclists, education of motorists and
education of law enforcement officials.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a
truck in that configuration.

b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly.

Duh!


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU
>

Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so
drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then.

>> Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have
>> established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver.
>
> But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the
> cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision
> type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London
> a couple years ago.
>

A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That
cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn
signal yet he ignored it.

This is how most right-hook bike path accidents happen in Germany and
other countries. I have seen it personally where people just blow
through intersections without as much as a look to the left, assuming
they ride in "their" space. I don't, I am always looking out and
consequently never had a critical situation or crash with a motor
vehicle while on the bike path. I did have numerous on the road and none
was my fault. Well, except a minor one where I rear-ended a car because
the front brake cable snapped. That can happen.

This was over more than 60000 miles, much of that in bike path country
(Netherlands).

>>> So let me ask again:
>>>
>>>>> ... Under what
>>>>> circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed
>>>>> between the
>>>>> curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would a motorist
>>>>> think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has its turn
>>>>> signal blinking?
>>>
>>> In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor
>>> vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American
>>> bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in.
>>>
>>
>> They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a
>> lot more. This is how it's done right:
>>
>> https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn
>>
>> If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane
>> switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes.
>> I nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming
>> through there during rush hour never had a problem.
>
> Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on
> _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They
> even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two
> cities in Ohio that caved into those demands.
>

Got links for those groups where they explicitly advocate that?

[...]

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big
>> truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these
>> videos:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU
>
> a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by a
> truck in that configuration.
>
> b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly.
>
> Duh!
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU
>>
>
> Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so
> drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then.

So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck
mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the
windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense.

And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so
ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and
killed the cyclist.

>>> Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have
>>> established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver.
>>
>> But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the
>> cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision
>> type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London
>> a couple years ago.
>>
>
> A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That
> cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible turn
> signal yet he ignored it.

You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
many, many cyclists do NOT know that. The dominant messages need to
change from "Now you have a safe place to ride" and "Always wear your
helmet." Cyclists need to hear "Even a 'protected' bike lane won't
protect you" and "Learn to anticipate and avoid these hazards..." with
right hooks, left crosses and pull-outs being the most important, after
road hazards. Those are among the top crash causes, far more than the
hits-from-behind feared by bike lane advocates like yourself.

Bike lanes do not help any of those crash mechanisms. If anything, they
make them worse.

>> Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on
>> _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They
>> even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two
>> cities in Ohio that caved into those demands.
>>
>
> Got links for those groups where they explicitly advocate that?

I don't have links for the groups advocating that, but here's a link
about one of the results. Read the article, then read the comments,
especially the first.

http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index.ssf/2016/07/lakewood_adds_bike_lanes_to_ma.html

Lakewood originally planned for sharrows on lots of the narrow streets
with parking. "Bike advocates" fought that idea and overturned it,
getting the city to instead put in bike lanes even though they were very
frequently in door zones. IIRC, it's Lakewood that labeled some of its
door zone bike lanes with "Door Zone" painted on the pavement. Their
safety guide says only "use caution" there - as if even a 10 mph cyclist
can stop before running into a door that popped open.

http://blog.centurycycles.com/2017/02/guide-to-lakewood-ohios-new-bike-lanes.html



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andy]

Again a demonstration that the car always wins.

Andy

[AMuzi]

>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
>>> ... Under what

In the modern world, that ends with a headline, "shots fired
in road rage incident"

https://www.channel3000.com/news/delavan-man-arrested-for-shooting-at-vehicle-in-road-rage-incident-officials-say/703673624

[AMuzi]

Always?
My employee blew a red light at high speed, fixed gear, and
smashed into the side of a car with his shoulder. He & bike
were fine but he was ticketed and had to pay the car owner's
body work bills.

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-19 13:42, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/19/2018 3:34 PM, Andy wrote:
>> On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:32:40 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html
>>>
>>>
>>> (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen
>>> delivery turned in. They replaced his bike.)
>>> --
>>> Andrew Muzi
>>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>>
>> Again a demonstration that the car always wins.
>
> Always?
> My employee blew a red light at high speed, fixed gear, and smashed into
> the side of a car with his shoulder. He & bike were fine but he was
> ticketed and had to pay the car owner's body work bills.
>

In the 80's a guy in a Volkswagen Polo (was called Fox in the US) pulled
through a stop sign, me on the bike at full bore. Couldn't stop, dropped
myself a bit behind the handlebar in an attempt not to sail over the
roof ... BAM. My bike was pretzeled and I was bruised but no broken
bones. The guy tried to get out but the driver side door into which I
had smashed but it could no longer be opened from inside. He was elderly
and couldn't climb over the stick. So I pulled hard and then it opened
with a crunching sound.

I couldn't bring myself to make him pay for the old 2nd hand road bike.
He was over 70, had just bought this VW as the first brand-new car in
his life and now the left side was smashed in. He was close to crying.

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> It would be irresponsible to advise anyone to trust the mirrors on a big
>>> truck or bus, no matter how fancy they may appear. Check out these
>>> videos:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9E1_1M-qhU
>>
>> a. The cab is aready turned. Nobody in their right mind would cycle by
>> a truck in that configuration.
>>
>> b. The lower mirror isn't adjusted correctly.
>>
>> Duh!
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzC4yeMOiU
>>>
>>
>> Well built trucks have small windows in the lower door section so
>> drivers can see a cyclist next to the cab. I avoid that area even then.
>
> So what message will you give to cyclists? "If you think the truck
> mirrors are adjusted correctly and if you like the design of the
> windows, you should pass at speed on the curb side"?? That's nonsense.
>

Can you please read more carefully? That is not what I said. Read the
thread again, I am not going to repeat it over and over again.

> And regarding the turning: in the incident Andrew linked a week or so
> ago, the truck was turned _the other way_ before it turned right and
> killed the cyclist.
>

That would be a serious truck driver mistake. Those things shouldn't
happen but do, just like people blowing a red light. I had that a while
ago while on the bicycle. Luckily I always look left and right even if I
had green for a while. Might have saved my life.

>
>>>> Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the right unless I have
>>>> established an acknowledged visual contact with the driver.
>>>
>>> But the bike lane sends a different message, as interpreted by the
>>> cyclist in Andrew's link and many other cyclists. Again, this collision
>>> type was responsible for many of the cluster of cyclist deaths in London
>>> a couple years ago.
>>>
>>
>> A bike lane is _not_ a free ticket to a careless riding style. That
>> cyclist was careless, plain and simple. There was a clearly visible
>> turn signal yet he ignored it.
>
> You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
> many, many cyclists do NOT know that.

Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.


> ... The dominant messages need to

> change from "Now you have a safe place to ride" and "Always wear your
> helmet." Cyclists need to hear "Even a 'protected' bike lane won't
> protect you" and "Learn to anticipate and avoid these hazards..." with
> right hooks, left crosses and pull-outs being the most important, after
> road hazards. Those are among the top crash causes, far more than the
> hits-from-behind feared by bike lane advocates like yourself.
>
> Bike lanes do not help any of those crash mechanisms. If anything, they
> make them worse.
>

Bike lanes do not make all mechanisms better but they do make a major
one a lot better: Give the cyclist space during normal straight-ahead
riding. Very few motorists venture into the bike lane while passing.
Wehn in the lane regardless of lane position that is a very different
story. So a road with bike lanes is better than one without.

Segregated bike paths are way better than any of that but we can't
always have them.

>>> Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on
>>> _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They
>>> even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two
>>> cities in Ohio that caved into those demands.
>>>
>>
>> Got links for those groups where they explicitly advocate that?
>

> I don't have links for the groups advocating that, ...


Thought so :-)


> ... but here's a link

> about one of the results. Read the article, then read the comments,
> especially the first.
>
> http://www.cleveland.com/lakewood/index.ssf/2016/07/lakewood_adds_bike_lanes_to_ma.html
>

Just says "Workers are painting bike lanes along the 2.4-mile stretch of
Madison Avenue in Lakewood. Bike lanes were added as part of a
resurfacing project". No picture.

>
> Lakewood originally planned for sharrows on lots of the narrow streets
> with parking. "Bike advocates" fought that idea and overturned it,
> getting the city to instead put in bike lanes even though they were very
> frequently in door zones. IIRC, it's Lakewood that labeled some of its
> door zone bike lanes with "Door Zone" painted on the pavement. Their
> safety guide says only "use caution" there - as if even a 10 mph cyclist
> can stop before running into a door that popped open.
>
> http://blog.centurycycles.com/2017/02/guide-to-lakewood-ohios-new-bike-lanes.html
>

Not a smart bike lane design. They could learn from cities such as
Folsom. That is not to say that all bike facilities there are perfect
but most are well designed. Sometimes they go over the top like here:

http://www.analogconsultants.com/ng/bike/Bikelane1.JPG

Yes, that is my two-meter foldable ruler on the pavement.

What I found to work well in situations like the right sketch in your
2nd link is to move closer to the left limit of the bike lane. That
signals car drivers that I am planning to go straight ahead. Usually
only rowdies ignore that and cut me off, on purpose. They do that
regardless of whether there is a bike lane of not. The others try to
gauge my speed and then either pass and turn or line up behind me. If
someone messes up and apologizes, no big deal.

[Frank Krygowski]

But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to
teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic. Instead, the
major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
facilities and all will be beautiful.

But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
"Surprise!!" direction or location.

Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.

And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.

Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
And all because "If we build it they will come."

I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a feel-good movie.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 2/19/2018 6:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:

-buncha snip-

> I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a
> feel-good movie.

Not just regarding bicycles. Try reading the papers once in
a while.

[John B.]

But he never mentioned bright, flashing, Daylight Driving Lights.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:42:11 -0800, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

>On 2018-02-19 08:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html
>>>
>>> (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery
>>> turned in. They replaced his bike.)
>>
>> How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision!
>>
>
>The turn signal of the car shown in the video should have. It is not
>wise to blow past a car when its turn signal clearly indicates that the
>driver intends to turn into your path. While it is still the fault of
>the car driver I do not understand how a cyclist could simply ignore that.
>
>Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees
>some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does
>get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed
>on the brake pedal.
>

I knew it. If the bike had only had them super powerful daylight
driving lights on it they would have been safe.


--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joerg]

Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"? My parents tought me that stuff. They taught us just
about everything traffic, how to behave as a pedestrian, later as a
cyclist, and many years later dad took us to a technical parcours in
order to master a car in crtical situations. Like when things get
slippery. Drivers ed classes don't teach you that, dad did. And that's
how society is supposed to be.


> ... Instead, the

> major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
> bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
> have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
> facilities and all will be beautiful.
>

Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.

> But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
> all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
> safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
> turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
> view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
> normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
> "Surprise!!" direction or location.
>

I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.

> Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
> the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
> doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
> and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.
>
> And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
> increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
> reduce 5%. It's nuts.
>

Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed.

> Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
> barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
> vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
> within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
> And all because "If we build it they will come."
>

If built correctly they do come.

> I remain astonished that public policy is being driven by a feel-good
> movie.
>

It's usually being driven by voter appeasement, wanton disregard of
debt, cronyism, and sometimes worse.

[jbeattie]

And yet you're suggesting massive nanny-state spending on facilities. I don't get it. Is your daddy going to build facilities for you?

I look at this slightly differently than Frank. I would do more in driver training to instruct students on the obligation of motorists operating around bicyclists. Many do not understand the bike lane laws, passing laws, etc. >

>
> > ... Instead, the
> > major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
> > bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
> > have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
> > facilities and all will be beautiful.
> >
>
> Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.

You mean balance and go forward? I ride with people every day who don't have much in the way of skills or who are just as distracted as drivers -- earbuds plugged in or even talking on the phone. I passed a bicycle parking cop on a bike who was talking on a flip phone a couple of days ago. Incroyable.

>
> > But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
> > all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
> > safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
> > turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
> > view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
> > normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
> > "Surprise!!" direction or location.
> >
>
> I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
> ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
> some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
> adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
> very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.

Seriously, how many other cyclists do you encounter daily on your commute from the front room to the kitchen? Riding in a busy, multi-use facility with two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses, streetcars and pedestrians at rush-hour is not fun. This is where you say, but that is why I live in bucolic Cameron Park! We should build dirt trails through the cities! Right. We'll stipulate that everyone should live in the country and ride on dirt trails -- but they don't.

Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to point B. And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a percentage of the commute. I can take the dopey south waterfront cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride over to it. It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day!

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andy]

He ran a red light.

He's lucky to have escaped injury/or death.

Car won, cyclist lost.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >>> You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
> >>> many, many cyclists do NOT know that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.
> >
> > But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to
> > teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic.
>
>
> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
> "organization"?

Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES!

We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic?

We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction
manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not
instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?

We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational
campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance
to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better?

You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the
place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because
truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.

> > ... Instead, the
> > major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
> > bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
> > have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
> > facilities and all will be beautiful.
> >
>
> Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.

Then either you ride with an unusual crew, or your standards are low. Based on
your posts here, I strongly suspect the latter.

"Knows how to ride" means a LOT more than "can balance, pedal, shift and brake."
In fact, the earliest version of the LAB's cycling classes started out with
a slide that said "balancing ain't biking." There's much to learn about legal
rights, where to ride in a lane, destination positioning, anticipating and
avoiding hazards, and much more.

I used to teach those classes. I never had a student who claimed they didn't
learn a lot.

> > But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
> > all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
> > safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
> > turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
> > view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
> > normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
> > "Surprise!!" direction or location.
> >
>
> I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
> ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
> some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
> adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
> very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.

OK, two points: First, I've been on bike trails (specifically, in Bismarck ND)
that had signs telling pedestrians to walk on the right and bicyclists to ride
on the left. That shows how weird your facilities can be.

But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will
enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look
good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067

>
>
> > Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
> > the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
> > doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
> > and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.
> >
> > And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
> > increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
> > reduce 5%. It's nuts.
> >
>
> Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed.

"A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm

>
>
> > Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
> > barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
> > vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
> > within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
> > And all because "If we build it they will come."
> >
>
> If built correctly they do come.

That's merely your built-in excuse. You ask for facilities everywhere, claiming
they will tremendously increase cycling mode share. (All the way up to 2%!!!)

And when that hasn't happened, you claim "Well, they weren't built correctly."
As in Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, where the entire town was
designed with a completely separate and expensive bikeway network that is
almost entirely unused.

- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-19 15:14, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net>:

>> On 2/19/2018 1:42 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
>>> Anyhow, I would never pass a truck on the
>>> right unless I have established an acknowledged visual contact with the
>>> driver.
>

> Or so he believes. In fact, its just the oposite far too often. A
> cyclist is stopped on a bicycle lane by a traffic sign or a red ligth at
> an intersection, then a small or large truck catches up, waiting at a
> point where eye contact is not even possible. Quite often, cyclists
> _not passing_ but waiting on the right side of a truck have been killed,
> because they followed that advise above. For the reason, see
> http://www.bbsoft.de/imgProd/strassenplanung_schleppkurve_04_g.jpg
> (ractrix curve?)
>

If the green is a bike lane or path that intersection design is
completely screwed up. I would never advise anyone to stay next to a
truck there. With my comment I meant cycling facilities designed by
competent traffic engineers, not by incompetent ones.


> A few years ago, I documented a severe accident which happended a few
> hundred meters from my house and my childrens school. It's in German,
> but the pictures may illustrate the situation. It comments on an article
> in my local newspaper, which was illustrated by the crushed bike under
> double tires of a truck - frightening, but not very informative.
>
> <http://www.mystrobl.de/ws/fahrrad/rwbilder/hausdorffstr/index.html>
>
> "Truck overruns cyclist on bike path when turning right
>
> When he turned right into August-Bier-Strasse, he caught a 34-year-old
> cyclist who was traveling in the same direction on the Hausdorffstraße.
> According to the police, the truck dragged the woman a few feet. The
> 34-year-old suffered severe injuries and was hospitalized after first
> aid on the spot with a rescue truck."
>

So did anyone report in _detail_ _how_ these accidents started? What
precipitated them? Did the cyclists blindly trust their rights? Usually
there are tire marks and such when a cyclist hits the brakes hard. Were
there? How long? Speed? Et cetera, et cetera.

Sure, the motorist is nearly always at fault in such situations.
However, I have, especially in Germany, seen cyclists blow through
intersections at high speed without as much as even a slight head turn
to the left. One guy proudly posted a video in the German NG where
someone (might have been he himself) blew through a city at full speed.
Just watching it made me cringe.

[...]

>
>>>> In other words, who would design an equivalent lane stripe for a motor
>>>> vehicle? Not even the most incompetent highway designer. Yet American
>>>> bike advocates lobby for such nonsense until the politicians cave in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They generally don't. European ones sometimes do, they have to learn a
>>> lot more. This is how it's done right:
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/maps/2spLh13Junn
>

> It is not. I've cycled to and from work almost my entire professional
> life. Indeed, it is often painted that way. Unfortunatly, it hasn't
> worked, and it still doesn't work.
>

So tell us, _why_ does it not work? It works for cyclists in America.


> Btw. I've never seen working road paintings which need additional fine
> print on traffic signs on the sidewalk. "BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO
> BIKES". In actuall fact, these are symptoms of a failing construct - too
> much boilerplate necessary.
>

No, they alert drivers and they usually work.


> Quite some years ago, on my way to work, such a construct allmost got me
> killed, exactle here <https://goo.gl/wHu6jE>. In order to go to my
> workplace, I had to turn left on that intersection, following the left
> turn arrow on the road. It looks quite easy on the drawing board. Well,
> if you turn around and look back, you will see two details. First, the
> road has a slight curve. Second, its slightly rising. A third fact isnt
> visible by streetview: on two of three day, a few cars are parked just
> curve-upwards. In combination, it is very advisable to leave the bike
> line early, before the curve and arrange to the left. Not doing so is
> dangerous. Drivers of cars coming around the corder wil see you too
> late, for example. As a principle, one tries to avoid changing lanes in
> a curve, especially as a cyclist.
>

1. Go and measure the remaining width of the straight-ahead and
left-turn lane. Sans bike lane. Then you will realize that even a little
Isetta would have trouble getting through there without violating the
required space to cyclists. Now imagine a big van or truck with the
driver being in a hurry (like you were on the bike) barreling through there.

2. The left turn "bike lane" also reduce the left turn lane to way below
regulation width.

3. The left turn "bike lane" is way too short. Maybe they only have one
bicyclist in that town and figured it suffice for him or her.

4. They didn't even bother to write bike lane or a symbol on either bike
lane in the area leading up to this intersection. Has paint become so
expensive in Germany that it would have bankrupted the village?

5. If people come around that corner too fast there is a simple
solution: 40km/h speed limit or less. Or do you think it's ok if they
run over a kid that happens to be in the road? Or crash into the back
end of a traffic jam?

This is almost the classic case of gross incompetence on the part of
whoever designed this "solution" and those who signed off on it. If
people are too incompetent to get it done right or if it can't be done
correctly because of existing buildings then don't build a bicycle
facility at all.


> Well, on a certain day, some driver, perhaps already angry because of
> some earlier events, got angry when noticing a cyclist, as they say, in
> the middle of the road, blocking traffic. So he started to overtake me
> on the left turn lane, forcing me to the right, while intending to go
> straight thru the intersection, as I learned later.
>
> What could I do? I just slowed down, then turned left again, again
> overtaking him on the left (to be precise, just following the marked
> left turn lane, according to my route). What I didn't foresee was the
> fact that this driver understood that innocent maneuver as an attempted
> agression against him. So he struck back by ripping the stearing wheel
> to the left, in an attempt to hit me side by side.
>

You've got such lowlifes everywhere. Unfortunately they keep their
driver license until something terrible happens. And even then they
sometimes keep it. Most people don't report such incidents and that
fuels their "success".


> Whether it was sheer luck or skill, I don't know, somehow I dotched the
> murderous attempt by making an almost instant left turn, as well.
> Fortunately, there was no oncoming traffic.
>
> Personally, I was neither angry nor frightened at that moment, just
> puzzeled. We normally just don't have shootings in the schools.


Sure you do.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoklauf_von_Winnenden


> ... Almost
> as rare are people who behave like that in traffic.


The amount of road rage I have seen on German autobahns is beyond
compare. I lived there a few decades.


> ... I can only assume
> that road paintings like those blandished by Joerg generate false
> assumptions and so trigger such behaviour in some people.
>

They don't. If a guy with road rage shows up nothing will stop him,
signs don't matter.


> How did it end? The motorist fled the scene, another motorist stopped
> behind me, got out of his car quickly, shouting something about him not
> believing what he saw, then asking in a more quieter tone, whether I'd
> like to have a witness, even offering his mobile phone to call the
> police.
>
> Unfortunately, I was already somewhat late for an important meeting at
> the office, so I thanked the man for his offer and went my way.
>

Now that was a serious mistake. If you had a witness and the license
plate info then that meeting cannot possibly have been as important as
getting such a knucklehead off the road. Why did you not at least
exchange names and phone numbers with this witness and got in contact
later that day? That takes less than 15 seconds.

>>>
>>> If you virtually move along that road you will see that the bike lane
>>> switches to the middle, in this case even across two right-turn lanes. I
>>> nearly always have to go straight ahead there and despite coming through
>>> there during rush hour never had a problem.
>>
>> Joerg, there absolutely are advocacy groups lobbying for bike lanes on
>> _all_ streets, and wanting them to the far right for protection. They
>> even lobby specifically for bike lanes in door zones. I know of two
>> cities in Ohio that caved into those demands.
>

> Have a look at the "Pützchens Chaussee" from the link above. This bike
> lane is less than 1 m wide and has parking on both sides. Lots of it.
>

Exactly, and the lanes on the road in the intersection area are way to
small. An accident waiting to happen. Now look at my link again and you
will see that they did not make the mistakes I listed farther above.

It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after
having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can
rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of
the three groups. By far.


> Fun fact: this road was a model project for bike lanes in Germany, there
> was a scientific study which was input to what now is now called
> "Schutzstreifen" in our StVO (Straßenverkehrsordnung), a lane which is
> too small to meet even the minimal requirements to be used safely and
> which is not mandatory - in theory. Of course, that study preceded the
> building and expansion of residential areas left and right of that road.
> There where almost no junctions, no driveways, no parking on the
> sidewalks. Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denk (Honi soit qui mal y
> pense.)
>

Sorry to say but that being a model project confirms my belief that bike
infrastructure planners and "infrastructure scientists" in Germany are
largely incompetent.

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-20 09:04, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:54:03 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2018 5:36 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>> On 2018-02-19 13:14, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/19/2018 3:12 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-02-19 11:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>

[...]

No. I pay taxes and I want my tax Dollars being spent fairly. Simple.

Things my mom and dad could do they did. Such as traffic ed. Mom and dad
had no jurisdiction about roads and stuff.

> I look at this slightly differently than Frank. I would do more in
> driver training to instruct students on the obligation of motorists
> operating around bicyclists. Many do not understand the bike lane
> laws, passing laws, etc. >

In Germany we learned that in driver's ed. The practical tests could be
pretty gruesome. If you only once failed to turn your head to the right
to check for a cyclist -> out -> flunked -> try again after x more
training hours. Of course, you got to pay for that test regardless.

I learned this stuff from dad though.

>>
>>> ... Instead, the major lobbying efforts are all about building
>>> facilities that will make bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80."
>>> The implication is that nobody will have to know anything.
>>> They'll just toddle along in segregated facilities and all will
>>> be beautiful.
>>>
>>
>> Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.
>
> You mean balance and go forward? I ride with people every day who
> don't have much in the way of skills or who are just as distracted as
> drivers -- earbuds plugged in or even talking on the phone. I passed
> a bicycle parking cop on a bike who was talking on a flip phone a
> couple of days ago. Incroyable.
>

So did you report the guy? In California that is a traffic violation.

>>
>>> But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for
>>> lose all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are
>>> told they are safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look
>>> for the motorists who turn across the cyclist's path because the
>>> cyclists are hidden from view. No need to be aware that half the
>>> cyclists are riding opposite the normal direction of traffic,
>>> entering the intersection from a "Surprise!!" direction or
>>> location.
>>>
>>
>> I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept
>> that you ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in
>> AUS, UK and some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck,
>> even pedestrians adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here
>> so trips on MUP are very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are
>> not.
>
> Seriously, how many other cyclists do you encounter daily on your
> commute from the front room to the kitchen?

I ride about 4000mi/year, more than half of it non-singletrack.


> ... Riding in a busy,

> multi-use facility with two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses,
> streetcars and pedestrians at rush-hour is not fun. This is where
> you say, but that is why I live in bucolic Cameron Park! We should
> build dirt trails through the cities! Right. We'll stipulate that
> everyone should live in the country and ride on dirt trails -- but
> they don't.
>

If it hasn't occurred to you yet most of my rides are into the
Sacramento valley which has by now become one giant metropolis. Where
you can't discern the boundaries between Folsom, Rancho Cordova and
Sacramento anymore unless you watch for the little signs. Lots of
two-way cycle tracks, trains, buses, streetcars and pedestrians. On my
way back I sometimes hit rush hour. Can't always avoid it because of too
many clients east of here so in the mornings I have to work.

> Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without
> exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to
> point B.

Well, many of ours do.


> ... And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and

> the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim
> the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities
> providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a
> trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be
> nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a
> percentage of the commute.

The one along the American River is heavily used by commuters. To the
point that I always try to leave it behind me by 4pm.


> ... I can take the dopey south waterfront

> cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride
> over to it.

I do that a lot, using a singletrack to get to Folsom or Rancho Cordova.
Yes, it's almost 10mi more and the average speed there drops to 8mph but
absolute fun. Must carry carrots or a pear for Cotton, my horse friend.
That "costs" another 10mins but worth every minute.

Life is not supposed to be all nose-to-the-grindstone. If you are in a
hurry a lot get a Porsche or a Kawasaki.


> ... It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but

> it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I
> just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some
> awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day!
>

Yeah, first tracks is always fun. Less so when there are already
numerous tracks and they have iced up overnight.

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
>>>>> many, many cyclists do NOT know that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.
>>>
>>> But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to
>>> teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic.
>>
>>
>> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
>> "organization"?
>
> Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES!
>
> We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
> of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic?
>

There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
world there.

> We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction
> manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not
> instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?
>

Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving
school teachers if the family uses that avenue.

> We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational
> campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance
> to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
> should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
> cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better?
>

Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah.

> You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the
> place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because
> truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.
>

Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I
show up on a bulldozer and do it myself.

>>> ... Instead, the
>>> major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
>>> bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
>>> have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
>>> facilities and all will be beautiful.
>>>
>>
>> Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.
>
> Then either you ride with an unusual crew, or your standards are low. Based on
> your posts here, I strongly suspect the latter.
>
> "Knows how to ride" means a LOT more than "can balance, pedal, shift and brake."
> In fact, the earliest version of the LAB's cycling classes started out with
> a slide that said "balancing ain't biking." There's much to learn about legal
> rights, where to ride in a lane, destination positioning, anticipating and
> avoiding hazards, and much more.
>
> I used to teach those classes. I never had a student who claimed they didn't
> learn a lot.
>

You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff.

>>> But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
>>> all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
>>> safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
>>> turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
>>> view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
>>> normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
>>> "Surprise!!" direction or location.
>>>
>>
>> I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
>> ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
>> some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
>> adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
>> very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.
>
> OK, two points: First, I've been on bike trails (specifically, in Bismarck ND)
> that had signs telling pedestrians to walk on the right and bicyclists to ride
> on the left. That shows how weird your facilities can be.
>

Even in America we have incompetent traffic engineers.

> But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
> cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will
> enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look
> good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067
>

In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no.

>>
>>> Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
>>> the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
>>> doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
>>> and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.
>>>
>>> And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
>>> increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
>>> reduce 5%. It's nuts.
>>>
>>
>> Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed.
>
> "A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
> http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm
>

I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news.

>>
>>> Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
>>> barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
>>> vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
>>> within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
>>> And all because "If we build it they will come."
>>>
>>
>> If built correctly they do come.
>
> That's merely your built-in excuse. You ask for facilities everywhere, claiming
> they will tremendously increase cycling mode share. (All the way up to 2%!!!)
>

As I said numerous times 2% is a lot for America.

> And when that hasn't happened, you claim "Well, they weren't built correctly."
> As in Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, where the entire town was
> designed with a completely separate and expensive bikeway network that is
> almost entirely unused.
>

We have discussed ad nauseam where they messed up and I won't repeat
everything over and over again.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
>>> "organization"?
>>
>> Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
>> road? YES!
>>
>> We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
>> of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
>> in traffic?
>>
>
> There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
> fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
> on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
> world there.

But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
properly in traffic?

And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend
on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars
per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to
its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It
makes no sense.

>> We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out
>> instruction
>> manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should
>> they not
>> instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?
>>
>
> Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or driving
> school teachers if the family uses that avenue.

Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now
using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of
that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say
those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense.

>> We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount
>> educational
>> campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give
>> clearance
>> to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
>> should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
>> cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about
>> riding better?
>>
>
> Campaigns? What? Spend money on glossy prints and posters? Nah.

You're apparently in favor of ignorance.

Campaigns like that should use far more than prints and posters. We have
mass media - radio that people listen to while driving, TVs that people
watch at home. There are billboards along almost every roadside. There
are magazines and newspapers, both in print and online.

This country has education efforts about everything from "don't drive
drunk" to "vaccinate your kids" to "stay in school" to "take your dogs
inside in cold weather." None of them have had 100% success, but many
have helped significantly.

Yet you don't want to educate motorists about bicyclists. Instead, you
want to spend billions of dollars to build separate paths. You make no
sense.

>> You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over
>> the
>> place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially
>> because
>> truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.
>>
>
> Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I
> show up on a bulldozer and do it myself.

You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies,
while ignoring much less costly improvements. You're not making sense.

And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have
to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists
who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and
motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You
shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They
don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to
learn about those complications.

> You know what I think about your "taking the lane" stuff.

Don't pretend it's just _my_ "taking the lane" stuff. It's taught by
every nationally recognized cycling education course. It's written into
most state laws, including yours. Your failure to understand does not
invalidate the principles - both legal principles and traffic principles.

>> But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
>> cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the
>> cyclists will
>> enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this
>> really look
>> good to you? https://vimeo.com/23743067
>>
>
> In a rural setting, yes. In a dense city, no.

OK, let's start from that statement. So we should NOT do those cycle
tracks in a dense city, despite all the bike advocates who claim we need
them precisely there? Fine.

So instead, you want to do these million dollar per mile facilities out
in rural areas, where there are countless more miles to cover, and only
1/100 the number of cyclists who will ever use them?

Yet again, Joerg, you're not making sense.

>>>> And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They
>>>> are
>>>> increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by
>>>> hoping to
>>>> reduce 5%. It's nuts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or
>>> killed.
>>
>> "A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
>> http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm
>>
> I read newspapers and those reports were not fake news.

<sigh> I've run across your mindset regarding other issues too. "It
doesn't matter what national data says. It doesn't matter what the
largest and most disciplined studies say. It doesn't matter what
competent engineers say. I've got a few anecdotes - but I won't say how
many! - and my anecdotes trump any and all science."

I honestly don't know how to respond to such deep ignorance except to say:

You're Not Making Sense.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/20/2018 2:54 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
> It's not that American bike facility planners never mess up but after
> having lived long enough in Germany, the Netherland and the US I can
> rightfully say that the German bike facility planners are the worst of
> the three groups. By far.

We've just been looking at examples of American facilities that did not
work and British facilities that did not work. Jay has talked at length
about the faults with many of Portland's bike facilities. (Their bike
boxes, installed to reduce right hooks, instead increased right hooks
greatly.) We've talked at length about Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
England, towns purpose-built with state of the art separate bike
facilities that don't work. I recall reading about an Ottowa, Canada
cycle track that scored three car-bike crashes in its first three weeks.
A Columbus, Ohio cycle track (on Summit Street) had 11 car-bike crashes
in its first year of operation. The same stretch of road had only 6
car-bike crashes in the four years prior to the beginning of
construction. The "bicycle highways" through London generated a cluster
of crossing conflict fatalities a few years ago.

Joerg, don't pretend it's just incompetent designers in America, or
Germany, or Canada, or England. There are too many examples. Basic
physics and fundamental principles of traffic movement argue against
many of the designs you tout. And green paint or copious warning signs
can't prevent crashes caused by illogical traffic interactions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/20/2018 9:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> And BTW, if you did somehow get your fantasies built, you'd _still_ have
> to educate both cyclists and motorists. We've just looked at cyclists
> who weren't aware of crossing conflicts with segregated facilities, and
> motorists who didn't or couldn't scan properly before turning. You
> shouldn't pretend that stripes or barriers make things simpler. They
> don't; they complicate things at intersections. It takes education to
> learn about those complications.

Speaking of educations: Here's a video, over four minutes long, to try
to teach people how to use a new two-way "protected" cycle track:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7ii4XXwlg4&feature=youtu.be

Got that? It requires four minutes of explanation plus a bunch of
counter-intuitive moves. Yet crap like this is supposed to be "safe for
everybody 8 to 80."

It makes no sense.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

On 2/20/2018 8:30 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

+1

As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and
say, "Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking
eggs" I note that there's never an omelette.

[John B.]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
>>>> "organization"?
>>>
>>> Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
>>> road? YES!
>>>
>>> We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
>>> of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
>>> in traffic?
>>>
>>
>> There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
>> fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
>> on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
>> world there.
>
>But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
>properly in traffic?
>

Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High
School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even
purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course.

Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to
drive is no longer necessary?

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The Communists, if they said that, were Johnny-come-lately as the
phrase seems to have originally been attributed François de Charette
in reference to the fatalities caused by his troops during the Vendee
war (revolt against the French First Republic).
"on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des oeufs" (1742 or
earlier),
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or
>>>> some
>>>> "organization"?
>>>
>>> Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
>>> road? YES!
>>>
>>> We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
>>> of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
>>> in traffic?
>>>
>>
>> There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
>> fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather
>> concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of
>> the developed world there.
>
> But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
> properly in traffic?
>

As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For
cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to
pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state.

> And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend
> on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars
> per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to
> its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It
> makes no sense.
>

To you it may not. To the vast majority of cyclists it does. Come here
and ask them.

>
>>> We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out
>>> instruction
>>> manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should
>>> they not
>>> instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?
>>>
>>
>> Nobody reads that stuff anyhow. Mom and dad need to do that, or
>> driving school teachers if the family uses that avenue.
>
> Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now
> using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of
> that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say
> those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making sense.
>

Can you try to think a bit harder and more logically? A parent teaching
a kid will be fully concentrated on the task at hand. When that same
parent is on the way to work, daily grind, same old same old, he or she
will become ever more complacent, glance over who just might have texted
them ... OH DANG ... a cyclist ... I didn't see him!

[...]

>>> You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all
>>> over the
>>> place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially
>>> because
>>> truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.
>>>
>>
>> Because neither mom, dad not I can build those. I'd get arrested if I
>> show up on a bulldozer and do it myself.
>
> You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies,
> while ignoring much less costly improvements.

_My_ tax Dollars, _not_ other people's money.

> You're not making sense.
>

Well, obviously you don't get it or don't want to so I'll end it here.

[...]

[Joerg]

Andrew, you are in the perfect position because you run a bike shop and
undoubtedly >95% of people coming through the door are cyclists
(discount the grandparents buying a tricycle for li'l Joey). What if
you'd ask every one of them for a week or so whether they prefer riding
on bike paths or on roads?

> As with the apologists for communism who turn hands up and say, "Well,
> you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" I note that there's
> never an omelette.
>

Oh there is but it's always being eaten by the politically connected.
Regular people must stand in line to get one, only one per family, and
when it's their turn all omelettes are already gone.

[Frank Krygowski]

What a nonsense response. Even if every one said "I'd prefer riding on a
bike path," what would that prove? That we must build bike paths
absolutely everywhere so they never have to ride on a road? It should be
obvious that such a thing is impossible. And if you build the typical
American bike path for them, it will probably increase the amount of
driving, because most path users drive to and from the paths in their cars.

Your question, Joerg, is like asking people in a grocery store "Would
you rather taste this ice cream, or these mashed potatoes?" We know how
the majority would answer. But basing dietary policy on it would result
in a grossly fat and unhealthy population, increasing societal medical
expense.

Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous,
don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/20/2018 10:36 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
>>>>> "organization"?
>>>>
>>>> Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
>>>> road? YES!
>>>>
>>>> We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
>>>> of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
>>>> in traffic?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
>>> fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
>>> on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
>>> world there.
>>
>> But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
>> properly in traffic?
>>
>
> Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High
> School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even
> purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course.
>
> Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to
> drive is no longer necessary?

I think that public school driver's education classes are far less
common than they used to be. I took such a class as a summer option, but
that was over 50 years ago. AFAIK it's not available around here at all.
It's been replaced by for-profit driving schools and/or online classes.

And those ignore interactions with bicyclists. I know a smart and
dedicated bike advocate who has worked a long time trying to influence
them to teach respect for cyclists, care when passing cyclists, etc.
She's also lobbied to get appropriate questions into the official
driver's license exams. She's been repeatedly rebuffed, but she keeps
trying.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/21/2018 10:29 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>> On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or
>>>>> some
>>>>> "organization"?
>>>>
>>>> Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
>>>> road? YES!
>>>>
>>>> We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
>>>> of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
>>>> in traffic?
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
>>> fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather
>>> concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of
>>> the developed world there.
>>
>> But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
>> properly in traffic?
>>
>
> As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For
> cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to
> pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state.

Here's the problem: I've stopped kids riding facing traffic (because
they were headed directly at me) and was told "My parents told me to
ride on this side." I've seen two parents and their three kids riding
facing traffic (all wearing pretty helmets, so I guess they were
"safe.") I've ridden alongside other adults, me riding on the right,
they riding on the left, and had conversations about which side of the
road is proper. Heck, I had one conversation with a bike cop who asked
_me_ which side of the road was really legal!

It makes no sense to say the ignorant should do the educating.

>> And more important, there is only so much money a government can spend
>> on transportation facilities. Why should we waste over a million dollars
>> per mile for a linear park whose clientele will almost entirely drive to
>> its parking lot, ride back and forth a few miles, then drive home? It
>> makes no sense.
>
> To you it may not. To the vast majority of cyclists it does. Come here
> and ask them.

Joerg, most bike trails might as well be paved circles in a big field,
for all the good they do. You should just lobby for those. The "vast
majority" of cyclists would like them just as well.

>> Your argument makes no sense. You've often given evidence that those now
>> using the road are not sufficiently competent. (You've given some of
>> that evidence by describing your own edge riding behavior!) Now you say
>> those same people should teach their kids? Joerg, that's not making
>> sense.
>>
>
> Can you try to think a bit harder and more logically? A parent teaching
> a kid will be fully concentrated on the task at hand.

I suspect you have no kids.

>> You want to spend other people's money on your expensive fantasies,
>> while ignoring much less costly improvements.
>
> _My_ tax Dollars, _not_ other people's money.

If _your_ tax dollars can pay for even one mile of a segregated bike
facility, you must be paying millions in taxes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 7:29:53 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-02-20 18:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
> >> On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or
> >>>> some
> >>>> "organization"?
> >>>
> >>> Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
> >>> road? YES!
> >>>
> >>> We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
> >>> of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
> >>> in traffic?
> >>>
> >>
> >> There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
> >> fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather
> >> concentrate on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of
> >> the developed world there.
> >
> > But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
> > properly in traffic?
> >
>
> As I said, for cycling parents can do that. Not the nanny state. For
> cars eitehr the parents can do it or the student (or parenst) need to
> pay a driving instructor, not paid by the nanny state.

I understand that you're not from this country, so FYI, US schools have traditionally offered driver's education, sometimes as a free class along with health education (my generation in California) and then as a privately provided class, paid for by the student -- current practice in Oregon. Driver training is not required, but it makes it easier to get a regular license. It's also a good idea, and it lowers accident and insurance rates for young drivers.

Professional instructors know more than parents, sorry to say. Most parents know how to drive, but don't know the vehicle code except for what they read on signs. Many parents have no idea of the laws applicable to bicycles. Many parents are poor drivers themselves, talk on cellphones and are the people about whom you constantly complain and fear.

BTW, the "nanny state" is building all the roads and facilities you use. It is providing you with water, fire and police protection -- even in your CSD. You have a hard-on for the nanny state and yet you live in a development where you you have to select a house paint color from an approved pallet. http://www.cameronpark.org/ccrs/ccrs-by-subdivision/#1456521175329-9785b252-af54 It's self-imposed super-nanny wet-nurse state.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

I know but AFAIK schools around here do not have such free service a
anymore.


> ... Driver training is not required, but it

> makes it easier to get a regular license. It's also a good idea, and
> it lowers accident and insurance rates for young drivers.
>

It is a good idea but should not be on the taxpayer dime. Besides,
driving is a privilege, not a right. When I was young I paid my driving
school fees myself. Every penny of it.

> Professional instructors know more than parents, sorry to say. Most
> parents know how to drive, but don't know the vehicle code except for
> what they read on signs. Many parents have no idea of the laws
> applicable to bicycles. Many parents are poor drivers themselves,
> talk on cellphones and are the people about whom you constantly
> complain and fear.
>

Sure, just like there are parents who are abusive or have next to
nothing in social skills. It still does not warrant the state to barge
in and take over unless it's really bad and dangerous.

> BTW, the "nanny state" is building all the roads and facilities you
> use. It is providing you with water, fire and police protection --
> even in your CSD.

As I said that is because I do not have the right to hop on an excavator
and tear up some turf in the wilderness. In the old days people could do
that but not anymore.

For example, just a few miles from here people pump their own water and
operate septic tanks. We live in a more urban area where that right is
not afforded to residents.


> ... You have a hard-on for the nanny state and yet you

> live in a development where you you have to select a house paint
> color from an approved pallet.

They do not. We went to Sherwin-Williams, picked a color and painted the
house.

> http://www.cameronpark.org/ccrs/ccrs-by-subdivision/#1456521175329-9785b252-af54
> It's self-imposed super-nanny wet-nurse state.
>

The reason we live in California was job-related and we stayed (so far).
We don't like moving. However, if we ever want to downsize while getting
older my sights are on the southern parts of Utah. Good weather,
conservative area, pristine mountain biking.

[AMuzi]

I quote Pauli, "That's so bad it's not even wrong."

Joerg, you have no argument and you ought to know better.

I, for one, would rather NOT ride on kiddy paths, a
significant reason among many being I'm hardly ever going
where one exists.

"Hey Ms Customer! How about ditzing around on the kiddie
path over near Mugger's Lane instead of going to work
today?" pffft.

I admit to absolutely hating the stupid boondoggles; I go
out of my way to find another route on principle. I also
avoid door-zone painted lanes and other crap of their ilk.

[AMuzi]

Right, not in most schools. My grandson was licensed last
summer after a $400 class and he's not at all motivated to
drive. His generation doesn't much like automobiles.

[Joy Beeson]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:14:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous,
> don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path."

You guys have pounded on Joerg's mistakes until they are welded to his
soul. One can't possibly change an opinion that is a key part of
one's identity.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

[John B.]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:22:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski

I have the feeling that is wrong. Why "respect for bicycles"? Are they
somehow different then other slow moving "vehicles" (note the legal
definition). There are already sufficient highway rules and
regulations. Just enforce them.

Of course, I read the complaints about Traffic cops unfairly ticketing
someone - "Geeze, and I was only 20 mph over the posted and there
weren't any kids at the school crossing anyway". I suppose if that
logic is applied that "I didn't see him" becomes an equally valid
excuse.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I think a large part of the problem is ignorance. I'm just back from a
bike club meeting where one friend was telling me about a motorist
yelling "You're not supposed to be on the road."

Sure, enforcement helps. But cops can intercept only a tiny fraction of
people who violate laws. And it's even worse because a lot of cops are
ignorant about bike laws.

We need education on these issues, delivered in many ways.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/21/2018 5:23 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:14:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous,
>> don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path."
>
> You guys have pounded on Joerg's mistakes until they are welded to his
> soul. One can't possibly change an opinion that is a key part of
> one's identity.

For every Joerg, there are many lurkers. I suspect the lurkers learn
from these discussions. That makes Joerg a useful tool.

And besides, I've seen other refractory characters change their
attitudes. Steven M. Scharf has written volumes here and elsewhere about
how dynamo lights can never be adequate for safety. Now he admits he's
got them on some of his family bikes. He's now even arguing strongly in
favor of a tiny, barely visible blinky driven by a spoke magnet - in
effect, an intermittent, super-low-power dynamo.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:16:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Well, it goes without saying that traffic policemen should be familiar
with the traffic regulations :-)

But your friend's comment rather emphasis the lack of knowledge
exhibited by many motorists. For example, In New Hampshire someone
riding a horse has the same rights as someone driving a car. My guess
is that a very large percent of the driving public doesn't know that.

Enforcement doesn't have to catch all the evil doers all it has to do
is catch enough of them that word gets round - "Hey, don't speed on
Downer Road, they'll catch you and the fine is awful."

But "Bike Laws"? As far as I've read there are only one or two
specific bicycle laws as most states simply state that they are
"vehicles" with all the rights of any vehicle.

I can't comment on the U.S. but here I see bicyclists breaking both
the traffic laws and what might be termed the laws of common sense
almost daily. Perhaps cyclists also need to study up on what's right
and what's wrong.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Ralph Barone]

Hopefully that's not the proudest achievement of your life :-)

[sms]

On 2/19/2018 8:42 AM, Joerg wrote:

<snip>

> Oh, and bright lights do help in such situations. When a car driver sees
> some really bright light in the rear view and outside mirror that does
> get their attention. Experienced it myself many times, when they slammed
> on the brake pedal.

True. Anyone that has good DRLs has experienced the difference. But it's
not 100% of the time.

I've never liked the narrative of "let's pass more laws to make
everything safe for everyone," but education seems to be working on most
people, since most commuters on bicycles, other than students, now are
using DRLs. But last Sunday we were out on a trail and I did not
understand why mountain bikers were using DRLs off-road, since there
were not very many of them around.

Will we ever educate everyone? No. But we did get Frank to buy a good
battery powered light with DRL functionality, the Oculus, so there is
hope for the future of our country.

[sms]

On 2/21/2018 2:23 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:14:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous,
>> don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path."
>
> You guys have pounded on Joerg's mistakes until they are welded to his
> soul. One can't possibly change an opinion that is a key part of
> one's identity.

Of course Joerg never said any such thing, it's just one more of a
series of the fabrications that some people are famous for.

[sms]

On 2/20/2018 9:04 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Segregated bike facilities have their own problems and without exception, they are not the fastest way for me to get from point A to point B. And more importantly, it would take billions of dollars and the biggest nanny-state eminent domain movement in history to claim the land necessary to put in physically separated bicycle facilities providing a real grid-work for cyclists. You can always throw-in a trail along a creek or a highway or a RR right of way. That will be nice, but except for a fortunate few, it will provide only a percentage of the commute. I can take the dopey south waterfront cycle track to work -- and I sometimes do that -- but I have to ride over to it. It's a novelty. I was going to take it this morning, but it was snowing, and getting down to it is a sled run, literally. I just stuck to the road and went toe-to-toe with the cars. I got some awesome first tracks though. It's a pow day!

Yes, the physically separated bicycle facilities are often not the
fastest route, at least in terms of peak speed. But at least around
here, they often are a) the shortest route, and b) the route with the
fewest stops (fewest traffic lights, stop signs, rail crossings). On the
minus side, they are often unlit, and while there are no bicycle-motor
vehicle crashes, you still have bicycle-bicycle crashes and
bicycle-pedestrian crashes.

While everyone has anecdotes about bicycle infrastructure, sometimes it
really helps to look at the facts (sorry Frank!) when evaluating the
effectiveness of infrastructure. There is a "study of studies" entitled
"The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and
crashes: a review of the literature" that is worth reading, at least the
conclusions:

"On-road marked bike lanes were found to have a positive safety effect
in five studies, consistently reducing injury rate, collision frequency
or crash rates by about 50% compared to unmodified roadways
[61,62,65-67]. Three of those studies [61,66,67] found a similar effect
for bike routes. One study [63] found that there was an increase in
crash rates in the year following installation of marked bike lanes on a
major road, especially for a section counter to on-road traffic flow,
but this effect was not sustained over the long term."

"The evidence to date suggests that purpose-built bicycle only
facilities (e.g. bike routes, bike lanes, bike paths, cycle tracks at
roundabouts) reduce the risk of crashes and injuries compared to cycling
on-road with traffic or off road with pedestrians. Street lighting,
paved surfaces, and low-angled grades are additional factors that appear
to improve cyclist safety. The major advantage of infrastructure
modifications, compared to helmet use, is that they provide
population-wide prevention of injury events without requiring action by
the users or repeated reinforcement. Given the influence of safety on
individuals' decisions to cycle, the importance of cycling modal share
to safety, and the ancillary benefits of this active and sustainable
mode of transportation, infrastructure enhancements have the opportunity
to promote an array of improvements to public health."

<https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1476-069X-8-47?site=ehjournal.biomedcentral.com>

[Ralph Barone]

You're right. I believe what Jorge has said is "Roads are dangerous, I
don't ride a bike unless I have a separate bike path."

He has also said that his neighbours say "Roads are dangerous, don't ride a

[jbeattie]

These poor, poor, uneducated riders. No DRLs. They will soon die. https://d3qvqlc701gzhm.cloudfront.net/full/c2bc295ce8a470590cb451d2271c35dc03cabe03714b8a08870f8d16c80c729f.jpg These guys, too. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/bike-traffic-in-portland-on-the-first-day-of-summer-photos-55300
All dead.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

Sorry, but now you are making the same assumptions and then get into the
same prejudices as others here. I do not mean badly designed kludges.
What I mean is this:

https://goo.gl/maps/vuvriaGd6dQ2

There is a bike lane plus bike path plus a nice bike bridge to cross.
That is qver the top but I'll gladly take it.

Or this where especially during rush hour you have the option of either
crossing a busy road farther away at a traffic light or over this bike
path bridge totally unfettered and without Diesel smoke blowing into
your face and lungs:

https://goo.gl/maps/any8WdopRf82

That city knows how it's done right. I went through there yesterday. It
is a joy and the stores there are rewarded by me and others preferring
them over ones in other towns sans bike system connection. This results
in more tax Dollars into city coffers, with which they can build more
infrastructure, which results in even more tax Dollars ...

[Joerg]

Oh, oh, now you are coming with hard facts. That is greatly poo-poo'ed
upon by some here :-)

[Duane]

Yeah I guess they'll be in the same cycling hell as all those idiots in
Montreal that don't use DRLs. I bet in all of last season I saw less
than 5 DRLs and we probably have nearly as many cyclists as you do.

[Ralph Barone]

Were there bikes in those pictures? I didn't see any.

[Frank Krygowski]

Cyclists over there probably need to study up. Cyclists around here
certainly do. But just saying "You need to study" almost never works.
Almost everyone starts out with the assumption "I already know what I'm
doing." And if someone says "No you don't," the reaction is almost never
"Hmm, I need to study."

A few years back, an administrator in a local health department got a
small grant, enough to pay for two billboards. The billboards said
something like "Ride your bike to work" and in somewhat smaller font,
"Ride _with_ traffic, use lights at night, obey all traffic laws" or
something like that. I think that effort was a tiny step in the right
direction.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-22 06:50, Ralph Barone wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2018 2:23 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:14:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Which is the same effect as your message that "Roads are dangerous,
>>>> don't ride a bike until you have a separate bike path."
>>>
>>> You guys have pounded on Joerg's mistakes until they are welded to his
>>> soul. One can't possibly change an opinion that is a key part of
>>> one's identity.
>>
>> Of course Joerg never said any such thing, it's just one more of a
>> series of the fabrications that some people are famous for.
>>
> You're right. I believe what Jorge has said is "Roads are dangerous, I
> don't ride a bike unless I have a separate bike path."
>

I never said that. Yesterday I rode Green Valley Road into Cameron Park,
something I do about once a week.

> He has also said that his neighbours say "Roads are dangerous, don't ride a
> bike until you have a separate bike path."

That is correct. When neighbors hear about Green Valley Road and my
suggestion to join me for a ride the reactions are between "No" and
"Hell no!". When it's trucking the bikes to a trail head the answer is
often an enthusiastic "Yes". Trucking is something I personally do not
like, I prefer to ride from the garage and not use a car at all if possible.

Those are the cold hard facts and sticking the head in the sand about
them isn't helpful. Yet that's what some folks do. Luckily few enough
that smart city leaders aren't influenced much by them.

[Frank Krygowski]

Joerg, it's fine to point to million dollar bike bridges, or multi-mile
million-dollars-per-mile rural sidepaths. But it's beyond foolish to
pretend those are going to be built on any but the tiniest proportion of
roads. It's also foolish to pretend they are going to transform American
transportation. (See any cyclists in those Street View photos?)

When people whine for bike facilities, your examples are not the normal
result. The normal result is a lot closer to what's shown at
http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/August2017.htm
Click the arrows for many more examples.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

It's for sale.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

I was scared by the helmets. Helmets mean 'danger'.

[sms]

I have a friend who was an early member of Price Club and he continually
lavished praise on it. I once asked him, "Tom, how did you live before
Price Club?" He responded, "I survived, but it wasn't much of a life."

As to your photos, where DRLs make the most difference is not riding on
open roads or in bike lanes as you show in those photos, but when
"sharing the road," as many transportational cyclists do. When there's a
bicycle lane I still would use a DRL, but when vehicle drivers see a
bicycle lane they're less likely to do stupid things.

But of course you knew all this, and I suspect that you use a DRL when
commuting.

[sms]

On 2/21/2018 10:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:

> I, for one, would rather NOT ride on kiddy paths, a significant reason
> among many being I'm hardly ever going where one exists.

You don't understand that most of the bicycle infrastructure is NOT
"kiddy paths." It is mainly used by commuters during the week. On
weekends you may get some small kids on the first quarter mile from
parking areas, but they don't go much further than that.

You should come ride the American River Trail than runs from Sacramento
to Folsom. A very direct ride from suburbs to employment centers. Ditto
for several long MUPs in Silicon Valley.

[sms]

On 2/22/2018 7:53 AM, Joerg wrote:

<snip>

> Oh, oh, now you are coming with hard facts. That is greatly poo-poo'ed
> upon by some here :-)

LOL, I find as I get older that I am less tolerant of people spewing
nonsense like "Danger Danger" and "why don't people wear helmets while
gardening," when they are unable to come up with coherent arguments.

It's understandable why they do this, even though it is not a productive
approach. There are too many people that believe cycling on the road is
far more dangerous than it actually is, and unaware of the steps that
they can take to mitigate the real dangers.

[Joerg]

And quite full during rush hour. Also on weekends and holidays. Many of
those are riders who spend money at restaurants and such.

Some cities have wisened up and are increasingly providing connectors to
the trail. Folsom being the leader they will now even connect a rather
distant singletrack to it. Then a bike lane connector from El Dorado
Hills which will likely siphon off some discretionary spending in their
favor. As it should.

The rewards for such smart city leaders are often very visible. For
example, when I cycle by restaurants or cafes and there are a dozen road
bikes parked out front. Here in Cameron Park that simply does not happen
because our village leaders are not as smart.


> ... Ditto for several long MUPs in Silicon Valley.


Next time I am down there I'll have to load a bike into the car and
explore that. Last time I had a hotel room in Redwood City and that
didn't seem all that bike-friendly. The next trip will probably be to
San Jose, Brooktree area. Any suggestions for a hotel with good bike
path connectivity?

[jbeattie]

Not when it's sunny. I didn't this morning because of all the light reflecting off the (late season) snow. Plus, with my 50lb studs, I was riding about 10mph. I was in the road, or the snowy shoulder, toe-to-toe with buses and cars. Joerg would have sh** his pants. This is the road, but way more snow today -- and more sun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmgd5rzyeCc&t=71s That puts you in downtown. I tried the pedestrian facility/MUP, but the snow was too deep, and the deep boot print/holes were annoying. That's the deal with physically separate facilities, they don't get plowed or cleaned.

Oh, I had my rear blinky on. It totally saved my life. So did my shoe covers and pocket tool.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 2/22/2018 8:06 AM, Joerg wrote:

> That is correct. When neighbors hear about Green Valley Road and my
> suggestion to join me for a ride the reactions are between "No" and
> "Hell no!". When it's trucking the bikes to a trail head the answer is
> often an enthusiastic "Yes". Trucking is something I personally do not
> like, I prefer to ride from the garage and not use a car at all if
> possible.

+1. While on occasion we do put the bikes on the car, we greatly prefer
not to do that. When it's unbearably hot in Silicon Valley we'll often
go ride our favorite 40 mile coastal ride from Seaside, through
Monterey, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, and Carmel, and we do drive there.

> Those are the cold hard facts and sticking the head in the sand about
> them isn't helpful. Yet that's what some folks do. Luckily few enough
> that smart city leaders aren't influenced much by them.

LOL. Could you attend one of our City Council meetings and say that? We
are pretty lucky in my city. We have three people that tend to vote
based on facts when it comes to most issues, two engineers and one
attorney. It's sometimes hard when you hear emotional pleas that have no
basis in fact, especially when they come from your neighbors and from
people you've known for decades whose kids went to school with your
kids, etc..

[sms]

On 2/22/2018 8:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> I was scared by the helmets. Helmets mean 'danger'.

I agree, Any activity where people normally wear helmets should be
illegal. Watching the Olympics, the crashes during men's half-pipe
skiing looked pretty serious, but fortunately both skiers were okay.

What is the purpose of half-pipe skiing? Why can't they ski on normal
terrain? Back in my day, no one wore helmets when skiing. And according
to research, helmets don't prevent all fatal injuries, so why bother
with them, “Wearing a helmet is not going to prevent fatal injury,” said
Dr. Steven Moulton, a surgeon at Children’s who is one of the study’s
authors. “But what it is going to do is lower the risk of sustaining a
serious injury.”

[Frank Krygowski]

Nobody here is arguing against street lighting, paved surfaces (well,
except maybe Joerg), and "low-angled grades."

(And did you notice the implied disapproval of helmet campaigns?)

But the "study of studies" is hardly the endorsement you pretend it is,
Steven. First, recognize that Teschke and Harris are rather famous for
their never-ending promotion of segregated facilities. Theirs is a
propaganda effort not much different than yours or Joerg's, except that
they've found journals that will publish their work.

Second, note that a lot of the studies in that paper have almost nothing
to do with the "segregated facilities everywhere" propaganda. There is
very heavy concentration on European roundabouts, for whatever reason.

Third, there's certainly some cherry picking going on. For example, they
include the 2008 Jensen study of paint on the road, which showed crash
reductions in some places, but increases in other places; and they
phrase their brief summary to excuse the increase. But they totally
ignore the 2007 Jensen before-after study of cycle tracks, which found
large and statistically significant increases in crash rates when cycle
tracks were added to urban streets. Why on earth would they omit what's
probably the best study on the issue they pretend to address?

There are many other studies that are pertinent but are not mentioned.
Most of these studies argue against at least certain types of heavily
promoted segregated infrastructure:
https://ianbrettcooper.blogspot.com/2012/08/bicycle-infrastructure-studies.html

Note, I've never said that all bike infrastructure is bad. But I'll
argue strongly against the idea that all bike infrastructure is
beneficial, or that it's all necessary, or that it's going to cause
really significant changes in American transportation. And its obvious
that some of the most heavily touted designs are just nuts.

How about a nice, fancy new cycle track following all the "best
practices" that caused a crash increase of over 600% per year? Why is
that one not getting trumpeted by the facilities freaks?

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2016%20Presentations/Wednesday/82/Moorhead_82.pdf

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/22/2018 10:11 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>
> These poor, poor, uneducated riders. No DRLs. They will soon die. https://d3qvqlc701gzhm.cloudfront.net

Good God, Joerg! They're riding left of the white line!!! They probably
died minutes after that photo!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Emotional pleas like "Riding a bike is so dangerous!" and "We need bike
lanes everywhere" and "You shouldn't ride any time, day or night, unless
you have super-bright lights on your bike"?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/22/2018 11:06 AM, Joerg wrote:
>
>
> When neighbors hear about Green Valley Road and my
> suggestion to join me for a ride the reactions are between "No" and
> "Hell no!". When it's trucking the bikes to a trail head the answer is
> often an enthusiastic "Yes". Trucking is something I personally do not
> like, I prefer to ride from the garage and not use a car at all if
> possible.
>
> Those are the cold hard facts and sticking the head in the sand about
> them isn't helpful. Yet that's what some folks do. Luckily few enough
> that smart city leaders aren't influenced much by them.

Yet you try to refute the fact that riding bikes has been found time
after time, by study after study, to have benefits that GREATLY outweigh
its tiny risks. IOW you are literally safer riding a bike than not
riding a bike.

Do you give those facts to your neighbors? Of course not. Instead, you
perpetrate the "Danger! Danger!" myth every chance you get.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/22/2018 12:30 PM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-02-22 09:11, sms wrote:
>> On 2/21/2018 10:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>>> I, for one, would rather NOT ride on kiddy paths, a significant reason
>>> among many being I'm hardly ever going where one exists.
>>
>> You don't understand that most of the bicycle infrastructure is NOT
>> "kiddy paths." It is mainly used by commuters during the week. On
>> weekends you may get some small kids on the first quarter mile from
>> parking areas, but they don't go much further than that.
>>
>> You should come ride the American River Trail than runs from Sacramento
>> to Folsom. A very direct ride from suburbs to employment centers.
>
>
> And quite full during rush hour. Also on weekends and holidays. Many of
> those are riders who spend money at restaurants and such.
>
> Some cities have wisened up and are increasingly providing connectors to
> the trail. Folsom being the leader they will now even connect a rather
> distant singletrack to it. Then a bike lane connector from El Dorado
> Hills which will likely siphon off some discretionary spending in their
> favor. As it should.
>
> The rewards for such smart city leaders are often very visible. For
> example, when I cycle by restaurants or cafes and there are a dozen road
> bikes parked out front. Here in Cameron Park that simply does not happen
> because our village leaders are not as smart.
>
>
>>  ... Ditto for several long MUPs in Silicon Valley.

I don't doubt that some people can point to some MUPs and show that they
have significant use for transportation, not recreation.

But those are far, far from typical. A thorough survey would show that
probably 99% of MUPs are used 99% for recreation, most often in a
drive-there-and-ride-a-while mode.

With very few exceptions, it's dishonest to use transportation funds to
build these linear playgrounds.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 2/22/2018 9:30 AM, Joerg wrote:

<snip>

> Next time I am down there I'll have to load a bike into the car and
> explore that. Last time I had a hotel room in Redwood City and that
> didn't seem all that bike-friendly.

http://www.cyclismocafe.com/

> The next trip will probably be to
> San Jose, Brooktree area. Any suggestions for a hotel with good bike
> path connectivity?

So many hotels meet that criteria.

Mountain View:
Hotel Zico
Extended Stay America

Campbell
Campbell Inn
Marriott Townplace Suites
Motel 6
Carlyle

Santa Clara
Hilton
Marriott
Hyatt Regency

Other than a gap in the Los Gatos Creek trail between Meridian and
Virginia, all the MUPs have connections to each other (the trail behind
NASA/AMES and Moffett Field is unpaved, but can be done even on a road
bike).

There is also the Coyote Creek trail which is not yet connected, but
it's not all that interesting.

You won't find many kids on these routes during the week. Some of them
have some sections with a lot of kids on the weekends.

Hotels in this area tend to be very expensive on the weekdays.

[sms]

On 2/22/2018 9:30 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 9:07:02 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:

<snip>

>> But of course you knew all this, and I suspect that you use a DRL when
>> commuting.
>
> Not when it's sunny. I didn't this morning because of all the light reflecting off the (late season) snow. Plus, with my 50lb studs, I was riding about 10mph. I was in the road, or the snowy shoulder, toe-to-toe with buses and cars. Joerg would have sh** his pants. This is the road, but way more snow today -- and more sun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmgd5rzyeCc&t=71s That puts you in downtown. I tried the pedestrian facility/MUP, but the snow was too deep, and the deep boot print/holes were annoying. That's the deal with physically separate facilities, they don't get plowed or cleaned.

What mattered more was "10MPH." Where a DRL is extremely helpful is when
riding fast because often vehicles don't realize that a bicycle can be
coming toward them at 20-25 MPH, and they will make a turn, or exit a
side street or driveway, in front of you. While you still should be
prepared to take evasive action, it happens a lot less when a vehicle
sees you coming because of a DRL. It's much more effective than a neon
colored shirt.

> Oh, I had my rear blinky on. It totally saved my life. So did my shoe covers and pocket tool.

Not sure about the pocket tool, but definitely the rear flasher and the
shoe covers were instrumental, and it's good that you understand this.

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-22 09:31, sms wrote:
> On 2/22/2018 8:06 AM, Joerg wrote:
>
>> That is correct. When neighbors hear about Green Valley Road and my
>> suggestion to join me for a ride the reactions are between "No" and
>> "Hell no!". When it's trucking the bikes to a trail head the answer is
>> often an enthusiastic "Yes". Trucking is something I personally do not
>> like, I prefer to ride from the garage and not use a car at all if
>> possible.
>
> +1. While on occasion we do put the bikes on the car, we greatly prefer
> not to do that. When it's unbearably hot in Silicon Valley we'll often
> go ride our favorite 40 mile coastal ride from Seaside, through
> Monterey, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, and Carmel, and we do drive there.
>

Because bike paths ar sorely lacking east of Folsom some people here
have resorted to the "split commute". They strap their bikes to the back
of their cars, ride down there on Highway 50, park and then ride to
work. Unfortunately Sacramento Regional Transit owns many of the parking
lots down there and they are now banning parking by people that aren't
using their light rail.

>> Those are the cold hard facts and sticking the head in the sand about
>> them isn't helpful. Yet that's what some folks do. Luckily few enough
>> that smart city leaders aren't influenced much by them.
>
> LOL. Could you attend one of our City Council meetings and say that?

If it wasn't so far away I would.


> ... We

> are pretty lucky in my city. We have three people that tend to vote
> based on facts when it comes to most issues, two engineers and one
> attorney. It's sometimes hard when you hear emotional pleas that have no
> basis in fact, especially when they come from your neighbors and from
> people you've known for decades whose kids went to school with your
> kids, etc..

Got to have facts plus the financial resources in the city coffers. If
either of those isn't there it's no good.

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-22 10:35, sms wrote:
> On 2/22/2018 9:30 AM, Joerg wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Next time I am down there I'll have to load a bike into the car and
>> explore that. Last time I had a hotel room in Redwood City and that
>> didn't seem all that bike-friendly.
>
> http://www.cyclismocafe.com/
>
>> The next trip will probably be to San Jose, Brooktree area. Any
>> suggestions for a hotel with good bike path connectivity?
>
> So many hotels meet that criteria.
>
> Mountain View:
> Hotel Zico

Hmm, I stayed at the Zico some years ago. AFAIR it was in the middle of
freeway ramps. They cook up a very good breakfast though.

> Extended Stay America
>
> Campbell
> Campbell Inn
> Marriott Townplace Suites
> Motel 6
> Carlyle
>
> Santa Clara
> Hilton
> Marriott
> Hyatt Regency
>

Thanks, I'll store this post and check those out when the time comes.

> Other than a gap in the Los Gatos Creek trail between Meridian and
> Virginia, all the MUPs have connections to each other (the trail behind
> NASA/AMES and Moffett Field is unpaved, but can be done even on a road
> bike).
>

I'd love to do some high speed riding in one of those old hangars at
Moffett Field :-)

That's the area where we often do EMC testing. Though as a location I
prefer the site at Mariposa, big time.

> There is also the Coyote Creek trail which is not yet connected, but
> it's not all that interesting.
>
> You won't find many kids on these routes during the week. Some of them
> have some sections with a lot of kids on the weekends.
>
> Hotels in this area tend to be very expensive on the weekdays.

I know but the clients pay :-)

Beats me why so many high-tech companies are still in Silicon Valley.
Though over the last 5-10 years the client locations have shifted for
me. The highest concentration is now in Texas which is why I had to
become an early riser.

[sms]

Apple used to have an outdoor EMC site out on the San Mateo coast,
between Pescadero and San Gregorio, on Stage Road, a very popular
bicycle route. The rented it out to other companies as well. This was
before they had an anechoic chamber to use. I was told that the few
residents in that area were very concerned about that outdoor test site.

> Beats me why so many high-tech companies are still in Silicon Valley.
> Though over the last 5-10 years the client locations have shifted for
> me. The highest concentration is now in Texas which is why I had to
> become an early riser.

Don't you know that there is some sort of mandate that every tech
company be located in Silicon Valley?! Seriously, our congressman has
repeatedly stated that these companies should be expanding in other
states and cities with high unemployment and declining industries (like
coal and steel). He gets attacked whenever he mentions this, as if the
only thing that ever matters for an area is having as many jobs as
possible, and traffic, water, housing, etc., don't matter.

[Joerg]

That would be perfect. Still, CKC in Mariposa is the best. Just have to
make sure you don't step into bear poop on their outdoor range. At night
there's live country music and dancing in town. Once there even was a
saloon fight.


> ... This was

> before they had an anechoic chamber to use. I was told that the few
> residents in that area were very concerned about that outdoor test site.
>

Because aliens might land their UFOs there?

>> Beats me why so many high-tech companies are still in Silicon Valley.
>> Though over the last 5-10 years the client locations have shifted for
>> me. The highest concentration is now in Texas which is why I had to
>> become an early riser.
>
> Don't you know that there is some sort of mandate that every tech
> company be located in Silicon Valley?! Seriously, our congressman has
> repeatedly stated that these companies should be expanding in other
> states and cities with high unemployment and declining industries (like
> coal and steel). He gets attacked whenever he mentions this, as if the
> only thing that ever matters for an area is having as many jobs as
> possible, and traffic, water, housing, etc., don't matter.

Some companies are gradually realizing that there is a growing number of
engineers who, like myself, would not be dragged by 10 horses to live in
Silicon Valley. The ones that are still considering it will cost them in
the serious six figures if they are good. In part because renting a tiny
bathroom with an attached bed can cost north of $3k/mo.

[jbeattie]

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 11:10:24 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 2/22/2018 9:30 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 9:07:02 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> But of course you knew all this, and I suspect that you use a DRL when
> >> commuting.
> >
> > Not when it's sunny. I didn't this morning because of all the light reflecting off the (late season) snow. Plus, with my 50lb studs, I was riding about 10mph. I was in the road, or the snowy shoulder, toe-to-toe with buses and cars. Joerg would have sh** his pants. This is the road, but way more snow today -- and more sun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmgd5rzyeCc&t=71s That puts you in downtown. I tried the pedestrian facility/MUP, but the snow was too deep, and the deep boot print/holes were annoying. That's the deal with physically separate facilities, they don't get plowed or cleaned.
>
> What mattered more was "10MPH."

Well, I did do better than 10MPH on the down hills. I was trying to stay ahead of some obese guy on a mountain bike.

Where a DRL is extremely helpful is when
> riding fast because often vehicles don't realize that a bicycle can be
> coming toward them at 20-25 MPH, and they will make a turn, or exit a
> side street or driveway, in front of you. While you still should be
> prepared to take evasive action, it happens a lot less when a vehicle
> sees you coming because of a DRL. It's much more effective than a neon
> colored shirt.

That's not true at all. On a morning like this morning, a high-viz jacket would have been far more visible. Those things pop against a snowy background. http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a256/twowheels000/akduc/Winter%20Riding/IMGP4989.jpg I see the jacket before the (motorcycle) tail light.

> > Oh, I had my rear blinky on. It totally saved my life. So did my shoe covers and pocket tool.
>
> Not sure about the pocket tool, but definitely the rear flasher and the
> shoe covers were instrumental, and it's good that you understand this.

It's my lucky blinky! It's saving my life right now -- from heart disease, cancer and flesh-eating bacteria.


-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

As an idle bit of information, to build a bike lane system in the U.S.
that is in proportion to that in The Netherlands, would require the
construction of 1,000,000 miles of bike path.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

But Frank, given the dangers of riding a bicycle think how manly and
brave one appears when doing it. Why all the neighbors likely stand on
the edge of the road and applaud "the brave one".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:05:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/21/2018 11:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:16:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/21/2018 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:22:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2018 10:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:11:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/20/2018 3:28 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-02-20 10:39, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
>>>>>>>>>> "organization"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the
>>>>>>>>> road? YES!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
>>>>>>>>> of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling
>>>>>>>>> in traffic?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is only so much time a school has and especially leftist states
>>>>>>>> fill that with so much mandatory junk that we should rather concentrate
>>>>>>>> on math, reading and stuff. Our kids already trail much of the developed
>>>>>>>> world there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But what - we should not bother to teach them about operating vehicles
>>>>>>> properly in traffic?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good Lord! Way back in the dim and distant past when I was in High
>>>>>> School the School System opted for a Driver's Training course and even
>>>>>> purchased a "dual control" auto, a Chevy I believe, for the course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it to be supposed that in this high tech present learning how to
>>>>>> drive is no longer necessary?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that public school driver's education classes are far less
>>>>> common than they used to be. I took such a class as a summer option, but
>>>>> that was over 50 years ago. AFAIK it's not available around here at all.
>>>>> It's been replaced by for-profit driving schools and/or online classes.
>>>>>
>>>>> And those ignore interactions with bicyclists. I know a smart and
>>>>> dedicated bike advocate who has worked a long time trying to influence
>>>>> them to teach respect for cyclists, care when passing cyclists, etc.
>>>>> She's also lobbied to get appropriate questions into the official
>>>>> driver's license exams. She's been repeatedly rebuffed, but she keeps
>>>>> trying.
>>>>
>>>> I have the feeling that is wrong. Why "respect for bicycles"? Are they
>>>> somehow different then other slow moving "vehicles" (note the legal
>>>> definition). There are already sufficient highway rules and
>>>> regulations. Just enforce them.
>>>
>>> I think a large part of the problem is ignorance. I'm just back from a
>>> bike club meeting where one friend was telling me about a motorist
>>> yelling "You're not supposed to be on the road."
>>>
>>> Sure, enforcement helps. But cops can intercept only a tiny fraction of
>>> people who violate laws. And it's even worse because a lot of cops are
>>> ignorant about bike laws.
>>>
>>> We need education on these issues, delivered in many ways.
>>
>> Well, it goes without saying that traffic policemen should be familiar
>> with the traffic regulations :-)
>>
>> But your friend's comment rather emphasis the lack of knowledge
>> exhibited by many motorists. For example, In New Hampshire someone
>> riding a horse has the same rights as someone driving a car. My guess
>> is that a very large percent of the driving public doesn't know that.
>>
>> Enforcement doesn't have to catch all the evil doers all it has to do
>> is catch enough of them that word gets round - "Hey, don't speed on
>> Downer Road, they'll catch you and the fine is awful."
>>
>> But "Bike Laws"? As far as I've read there are only one or two
>> specific bicycle laws as most states simply state that they are
>> "vehicles" with all the rights of any vehicle.
>>
>> I can't comment on the U.S. but here I see bicyclists breaking both
>> the traffic laws and what might be termed the laws of common sense
>> almost daily. Perhaps cyclists also need to study up on what's right
>> and what's wrong.
>
>Cyclists over there probably need to study up. Cyclists around here
>certainly do. But just saying "You need to study" almost never works.
>Almost everyone starts out with the assumption "I already know what I'm
>doing." And if someone says "No you don't," the reaction is almost never
>"Hmm, I need to study."
>

I think it is a little deeper then just "study". I'm fairly sure, for
instance, that bicyclists both here and there understand what a red
traffic light or a big sign marked "STOP" mean. Yet I see bicyclists
ignoring them and read here about Usians doing the same thing.

In fact there seems to be a rather laissez-faire attitude exhibited by
many (most?) bicyclists, a sort of "now I'm on my bike I can do
anything I want". After all it must be something that anyone can do.
No requirement for training, licensing or anything else. Just buy a
bike and get on GO!


>A few years back, an administrator in a local health department got a
>small grant, enough to pay for two billboards. The billboards said
>something like "Ride your bike to work" and in somewhat smaller font,
>"Ride _with_ traffic, use lights at night, obey all traffic laws" or
>something like that. I think that effort was a tiny step in the right
>direction.


Traffic laws? Weren't any of them when I started riding a bike. Hows
come we gotta have them now?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Joy Beeson]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:06:15 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well, it goes without saying that traffic policemen should be familiar
> with the traffic regulations :-)

A little common sense would help, too.

Once I was walking home from the high school next door to where I
lived at the time, and stepped onto the shoulder of the road to get
around the windbreak. A deputy stopped and ordered me to cross a
state road twice to avoid the horrible, horrible danger of walking six
feet along the right side of the road.

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

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-22 19:40, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:53:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2018 11:06 AM, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> When neighbors hear about Green Valley Road and my
>>> suggestion to join me for a ride the reactions are between "No" and
>>> "Hell no!". When it's trucking the bikes to a trail head the answer is
>>> often an enthusiastic "Yes". Trucking is something I personally do not
>>> like, I prefer to ride from the garage and not use a car at all if
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Those are the cold hard facts and sticking the head in the sand about
>>> them isn't helpful. Yet that's what some folks do. Luckily few enough
>>> that smart city leaders aren't influenced much by them.
>>
>> Yet you try to refute the fact that riding bikes has been found time
>> after time, by study after study, to have benefits that GREATLY outweigh
>> its tiny risks. IOW you are literally safer riding a bike than not
>> riding a bike.
>>
>> Do you give those facts to your neighbors? Of course not. Instead, you
>> perpetrate the "Danger! Danger!" myth every chance you get.
>

Nonsense. I have written many times that I tell them that Green Valley
Road is quite safe because it has a wide enough shoulder along most of
it. However, they won't have any of that. They absolutely refuse to ride
there. Many of them because they remember gruesome accidents on that
road such as a fatal one where a cyclist got rear-ended at full speed.

> But Frank, given the dangers of riding a bicycle think how manly and
> brave one appears when doing it. Why all the neighbors likely stand on
> the edge of the road and applaud "the brave one".

No kidding, that is indeed the case. Not along the road though. A few
weeks ago I stopped at my usual pub. This time it was unusually crowded.
Someone asked "Who rides that vintage bike out there?" ... "That's me"
... "So how far do you still have to go?" ... "Cameron Park, only about
7mi" ... "But not on Green Valley Road, right?" ... "Sure, otherwise I
would be late" ... Almost everyone turned around and looked at me in
disbelief. Then came comments like that I must be a fearless dude and so
on. I told them it's not so bad, except it's almost all uphill. They
insisted that I must be a tough, no matter how much I emphasized that
it's not a big deal.

I have personally met hardcore mountain bikers who do serious jumps that
I'd never attempt yet they said they'd never ever ride Green Valley
Road. They truck their bikes to the trail head.

[jbeattie]

You drink with a bunch of rubes. Go to a real bike bar, and they won't give a sh** where you ride. https://companyweek.com/media/HUB_interior.jpg

Someone has died on my commute route every year for the last six years -- motorist, pedestrian or cyclist or some combination thereof. Even a frozen bum. Riding in this morning over ice-flows and errant left-over snow-heaps, I thought I was going to die (because I switched back to my usual commuter semi-slicks), but I turned on my flasher and DRL, and thereby avoided all issues with traction, traffic and weather. It was like a warm breeze blowing through my hair. I got to work, and everyone said, "oh my God, you rode in! You are such an awesome individual!" Actually, nobody said anything -- maybe some yawns.

Your life is so vivid with all the mountain lions and dangerous roads. You should get a reality TV show like Bear Grylls. "Death Road Cyclist!" On this episode, Joerg rides down the road and gets some beer. Patrons of the tavern are amazed. Roll credits.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:21:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/19/2018 10:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5408529/Dramatic-footage-shows-cyclist-crashing-car.html
>>
>> (I was test riding a customer's race bike when Asian Kitchen delivery
>> turned in. They replaced his bike.)
>
> How odd! The magic paint somehow failed to prevent the collision!
>
> In the U.S. it would have been mirror image, so a right hook. Over
> there, it's a left hook. Either way, it's a common collision.
>
> And this illustrates the weirdness of the bike lane concept. Under
> what circumstances would a straight-ahead motoring lane be placed
> between the curb and a lane where turns are permitted? And when would
> a motorist think it's safe to "undertake" like that when a vehicle has
> its turn signal blinking?

It's an interesting question. The legalities of course hinge on the
specifics of the UK traffic laws and I have no idea what they are. For
that matter, I don't know what the law says about this in Minnesota. As
a cyclist, if I was in that situation I would stop and give way to the
car- even if it was my right of way, in a collision the car would win.
Sometimes drivers will signal to me that they have seen me and
to proceed, but I never assume they've seen me otherwise.

There is a discussion locally about pedestrian safety. So far this
year, some 30 pedestrians have been hit by vehicles in St. Paul. A few
years ago a law was passed giving pedestrians the right of way at all
intersections except where controlled by a stoplight and walk signal as
that governs right of way in those intersections. However, drivers and
pedestrians are getting worse at it rather than better over time!
between 1/1 - 2/11/16 there were 19 car-ped collisions and 2 car-bike
collisions in St. Paul; the same period in 2017 it was 25 and 0; this
year it as been 30 and 2. One pedestrian fatality and 27 injured this
year, no bicyclist fatalities and two with injuries.

https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/police/pedestrian-and-bike-crash-data-city-st-paul

[Tim McNamara]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:42:11 -0800, Joerg <ne...@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:
> Maybe the guy didn't think a MTB could be doing north of 20mph.

I think many drivers assume cyclists are going slowly and don't bother
to actually look and judge the speed. Unless they are in the lycra
clown suit, head down and obviously working hard.

[Frank Krygowski]

Yes, that's how the numbers usually trend. But somehow people fixate on
bicycling as being dangerous. Go figure.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Joerg]

On 2018-02-23 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 7:44:39 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-02-22 19:40, John B. wrote:

[...]

>>> But Frank, given the dangers of riding a bicycle think how manly
>>> and brave one appears when doing it. Why all the neighbors likely
>>> stand on the edge of the road and applaud "the brave one".
>>
>>
>> No kidding, that is indeed the case. Not along the road though. A
>> few weeks ago I stopped at my usual pub. This time it was unusually
>> crowded. Someone asked "Who rides that vintage bike out there?" ...
>> "That's me" ... "So how far do you still have to go?" ... "Cameron
>> Park, only about 7mi" ... "But not on Green Valley Road, right?"
>> ... "Sure, otherwise I would be late" ... Almost everyone turned
>> around and looked at me in disbelief. Then came comments like that
>> I must be a fearless dude and so
>
> You drink with a bunch of rubes. Go to a real bike bar, and they
> won't give a sh** where you ride.
> https://companyweek.com/media/HUB_interior.jpg
>

That pub _is_ a hangout for MTB riders. On dirt they ride hard, much
harder than I do. Yet most won't ride on Green Valley Road.

It's unusual that riders congregate there at times and it might be
because the owner is a serious MTB rider. Plus two nice singletrack
routes start there. The other pubs in El Dorado Hills and in our village
have only few cyclists visiting them. As I mentioned before cyclists
around here prefer bike infrastructure which is why cyclists rather hang
out at pubs in Folsom and elsewhere along the American River bike path.

I don't think that or similar roads are particularly dangerous as long
as they have a reasonable shoulder most of the way. Unfortunately most
people interested in cycling do not think that way and that's what I
wanted to convey here. A tree stump coming at them at 25mph is something
they think they can stomach, a huge Diesel truck at 60mph from behind isn't.

The cyclist traffic on that road has increased probably ten-fold since
they widened the shoulders and put in a bike lane in some segments.
Build it and they come? Yes, they do. That was nice to see but compared
to your area the number is miniscule. Also, those are mostly the more
hardcore sports riders who tend not to drink alcohol and sometimes not
even coffee. The more casual riders and the more utilitarian riders shun
such roads. That's the vast majority.

All I am doing here is relaying what other cylists and potential
cyclists told me, not what I think.

[Tim McNamara]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:55:54 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Many times I see pedestrians- sometimes at the last second- on dark
roads wering dark clothes with no reflective surfaces or illumination.
These are also usually the folks walking out into traffic at a corner or
sometimes in mid-block. Oi. The fashion heareabouts for dark clothing
seems to be on the upswing. There are an amazing number of unlit,
non-reflective cyclists out at night too. And what really amazes me is
the number of these folks wearing hoodies and blocking their peripheral
vision. Whassup with that? I find it a bit hard to blame the driver in
those collisions.

[Joy Beeson]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:22:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> And those ignore interactions with bicyclists. I know a smart and
> dedicated bike advocate who has worked a long time trying to influence
> them to teach respect for cyclists, care when passing cyclists, etc.
> She's also lobbied to get appropriate questions into the official
> driver's license exams. She's been repeatedly rebuffed, but she keeps
> trying.

She's holding the wrong end of the stick.

No amount of instruction will give a driver the gut-deep understanding
that is required when one's spine is making several life-and-death
decisions per second.

What she needs to do is to say "Our teenagers wrap themselves around
trees and crash into other vehicles because they are trying to learn
too many things at once. We should start teaching the rules of the
road a few years ahead of time, and take our children out on their
little bikes for on-the-road supervised practice. Then when they turn
sixteen, all they will need to learn is how to control a car."

*That* would give the drivers a gut-deep understanding of how bikes
move.

But it's quite out of the question, of course. It would cost almost
as much as building ten feet of separated bike path, and you'd have to
pay it again every year. No way the taxpayers would ever stand for
such a ridiculous expense.

[Radey Shouman]

Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:22:24 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> And those ignore interactions with bicyclists. I know a smart and
>> dedicated bike advocate who has worked a long time trying to influence
>> them to teach respect for cyclists, care when passing cyclists, etc.
>> She's also lobbied to get appropriate questions into the official
>> driver's license exams. She's been repeatedly rebuffed, but she keeps
>> trying.
>
> She's holding the wrong end of the stick.
>
> No amount of instruction will give a driver the gut-deep understanding
> that is required when one's spine is making several life-and-death
> decisions per second.
>
> What she needs to do is to say "Our teenagers wrap themselves around
> trees and crash into other vehicles because they are trying to learn
> too many things at once. We should start teaching the rules of the
> road a few years ahead of time, and take our children out on their
> little bikes for on-the-road supervised practice. Then when they turn
> sixteen, all they will need to learn is how to control a car."
>
> *That* would give the drivers a gut-deep understanding of how bikes
> move.

I suspect you're right. If that could be shown with some sort of
quantitative evidence it's not completely inconceivable that car
insurance companies would give young drivers a break for experience
cyling in traffic. Obviously an objective measure of useful experience
would be needed. Car insurance is a significant expense, so provides
a significant incentive.

One problem, of course, is that eventually one of those children would
die, and the "if it saves one life" brigade would do their very best to
shut the whole thing down.

[Joerg]

Good point. I don't own lycra stuff, always riding in jeans shorts and
T-shirt. Most of them don't have Fox, Rockshox or similar logos and when
coming off a singletrack they can look grungy. The MTB is generally in a
mud-caked condition.