Cycling surges in the land of the automobile
Peter Cole
Norman
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11415660
The pulsing membership of cycling enthusiasts thrusts
deep into the dark crevasse of the land of autos, spurting
forth the creamy genitive good will over the sumptuous hills
and hairy byways.
Peter Cole
Long dry spell?
Frank Krygowski
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11415660
Even better news:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
- Frank Krygowski
Duane Hebert
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:678af758-188c-4c22...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>Even better news:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
Excellent. Hope it gets out of beta soon.
Tom Sherman °_°
OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
;)
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Chalo
>
> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
They will all die, without exception.
Pretty hopeful video, though.
Chalo
Peter Cole
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> Even better news:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>>
>>
>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>
> They will all die, without exception.
>
> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>
> Chalo
A much more hopeful one:
Duane Hebert
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:i9ujhp$hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Even better news:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>>>
>>>
>>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>>
>> They will all die, without exception.
>>
>> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>>
>> Chalo
>
> A much more hopeful one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
I don't get why people are against facilities. They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.
Andy
> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> >> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >>> Even better news:
>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>
>
> >> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>
> > They will all die, without exception.
>
> > Pretty hopeful video, though.
>
> > Chalo
>
> A much more hopeful one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
That's pretty cool.
And none of the cyclist's were "riding while cell phone using."
Andy
Lou Holtman
> On Oct 23, 7:14 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>>> Even better news:
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>>
>>
>>>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>>
>>> They will all die, without exception.
>>
>>> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>>
>>> Chalo
>>
>> A much more hopeful one:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
>
> That's pretty cool.
>
> And none of the cyclist's were "riding while cell phone using."
>
> Andy
Don't get too exited. It is a problem here too. Not the adults but the
15-18 year old teenagers. They seem to think they are naked without
their cell phone in their hand and checking their messages or selecting
a MP3.
Lou
Jay Beattie
> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.
Mark J.
> On Oct 23, 5:41 am, "Duane Hebert"<s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Cole"<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:i9ujhp$hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Even better news:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>>
>>
>>>>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>> They will all die, without exception.
>>
>>>> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>>
>>>> Chalo
>>
>>> A much more hopeful one:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
>>
>> I don't get why people are against facilities. They
>> always seems to increase cycling and are often
>> done well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
> last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
> wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
> skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
> not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.
Amen to that. In the US, it seems that separated bike facilities are
nearly always more recreational than transportational. I know a few
exceptions, but only a few. (One noted below.)
In Salem, OR, the city recently opened a converted railroad bridge over
the Willamette river as a bike/ped "path." It is a very nice
/recreational/ facility, but there has been a well-designed, separated
bicycle/ped facility over the river for ~30 years. Given that the motor
vehicle bridge has no shoulders and heavy 45mph traffic most of the day
(posted at 35, you know), I've used the separated facility for ~25 years
commuting.
The new "railroad" bridge is nice if I want to have part of my homeward
commute be a "toodle" among the peds, it's pretty and scenic, but in no
way is it a practical transportation /improvement/ over the alternative.
Oh, and of course the cycling approaches to this new bridge (from at
least several directions) are nearly impossible to use during rush-hour
traffic, certainly for beginners.
That's the /other/ reason why separated paths (in the US) are usually
not worth using for actual transportation - the design is by
non-cyclists, and is often terribly impractical.
Mark J.
Peter Cole
> That's the /other/ reason why separated paths (in the US) are usually
> not worth using for actual transportation - the design is by
> non-cyclists, and is often terribly impractical.
We have a river trail in Boston, about 40 years old, without substantial
upgrade. It's pretty bad from a design POV. It's slower than the street
equivalent, both because it meanders with the river, and has mixed use,
plus the design issues. I posted a couple of videos recently that showed
the same commute by street and over this path. The guy who made them
claimed 28 vs. 40 minutes, which seemed accurate.
That path, which I think is fairly typical, gets a lot of commuting
cyclists M-F, while mostly recreational users on the weekend. I still
use it preferentially when I'm not in a hurry, especially in the summer,
since it's well shaded and relaxing. The 12 minutes isn't that big a
sacrifice. I don't think the trade offs are so distinct, despite its
general crappiness of design and surface conditions, a lot of commuting
cyclists seem to prefer it, too.
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> I don't get why people are against facilities. They
> always seems to increase cycling and are often
> done well.
I'm not against long skinny parks. I *am* against paying for them out
of the transportation budget instead of the parks-department budget.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
damyth
Word. That bike path in Assen in Peter's post would be the very
definition of "hell" for me. Fine for recreation, but totally
impractical for transportation if you need to get anywhere.
Now the kids in Orlando, that's pretty much what I did when I grew up
(minus the "club"). But one kid rode a Cervelo? I guess theft must
not be a problem in Orlando. If he tried that in NYC he'd be soon
taking the bus again. :)
Peter Cole
> On Oct 23, 9:23 am, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 5:41 am, "Duane Hebert"<s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Peter Cole"<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:i9ujhp$hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Even better news:
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>>
>>
>>>>>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>> They will all die, without exception.
>>
>>>>> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>>
>>>>> Chalo
>>
>>>> A much more hopeful one:
>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
>>
>>> I don't get why people are against facilities. They
>>> always seems to increase cycling and are often
>>> done well.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
>> last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
>> wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
>> skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
>> not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.
>
> Word. That bike path in Assen in Peter's post would be the very
> definition of "hell" for me. Fine for recreation, but totally
> impractical for transportation if you need to get anywhere.
damyth
> On 10/23/2010 11:37 PM, damyth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 9:23 am, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 23, 5:41 am, "Duane Hebert"<s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "Peter Cole"<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:i9ujhp$hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Even better news:
>
> >>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>
>
> >>>>>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>
> >>>>> They will all die, without exception.
>
> >>>>> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>
> >>>>> Chalo
>
> >>>> A much more hopeful one:
>
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
>
> >>> I don't get why people are against facilities. They
> >>> always seems to increase cycling and are often
> >>> done well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
> >> last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
> >> wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
> >> skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
> >> not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.
>
> > Word. That bike path in Assen in Peter's post would be the very
> > definition of "hell" for me. Fine for recreation, but totally
> > impractical for transportation if you need to get anywhere.
>
> http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/speed.html
And your point is?
Why don't you look up some basic statistics regarding Assen? To go
from one end of Assen to the other is less than 3 miles (in fact it's
barely over 2 miles). Population 65K.
Point is you can ride like a snail in Assen and it wouldn't take you
very long to get anywhere that you needed to go. Think what's
implemented in Assen will scale in Boston, NYC, Chicago? Heck, even
Davis, CA the premier bike town in the US, spans about 5 miles, and
has approximately the same population as Assen. For me to go to the
corner store or Starbucks it's almost 2 miles.
Every single one of your posts illustrates your detachment from
reality. It's fine and dandy that you think bike paths are THE
solution, but you need to wake up and understand why they can't
possibly be applicable everywhere. Instead of ranting about the lack
of facilities in Boston move to Davis. I guarantee that move will
make everybody happier.
Tom Sherman °_°
Tom Sherman °_°
>
> I don't get why people are against facilities. They
> always seems to increase cycling and are often
> done well.
>
Peter Cole
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:41:33 -0400, "Duane Hebert"<sp...@flarn2.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't get why people are against facilities. They
>> always seems to increase cycling and are often
>> done well.
>
> I'm not against long skinny parks. I *am* against paying for them out
> of the transportation budget instead of the parks-department budget.
>
There are lots of budgets at the federal level. The biggest one TE,
"Transportation Enhancements", has allocated ~9B 1992-2009. Of that,
about 1/2 has gone to bike/pedestrian projects, of that, only 8.4%
($536M) has gone to on-road bike, rails-to-trails and off-road trails
has been 11%($698M) and 34%($2.182B) respectively, pedestrian-only was
44%($2.8B).
States match at varying levels, mine (MA) is around 20%.
I think the reason that so little has been allocated for on-road bike
facilities has been that there has been a strong constituency for
off-road/rail trails, while the on-road facility supporters have
historically been opposed by anti-facility bike advocates. Divided we fail.
Peter Cole
> On Oct 24, 5:15 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 11:37 PM, damyth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 9:23 am, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 23, 5:41 am, "Duane Hebert"<s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Peter Cole"<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>> news:i9ujhp$hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>>>> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Even better news:
>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>>>> They will all die, without exception.
>>
>>>>>>> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>>
>>>>>>> Chalo
>>
>>>>>> A much more hopeful one:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
>>
>>>>> I don't get why people are against facilities. They
>>>>> always seems to increase cycling and are often
>>>>> done well.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>> I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
>>>> last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
>>>> wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
>>>> skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
>>>> not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.
>>
>>> Word. That bike path in Assen in Peter's post would be the very
>>> definition of "hell" for me. Fine for recreation, but totally
>>> impractical for transportation if you need to get anywhere.
>>
>> http://hembrow.blogspot.com/2008/09/speed.html
>
> And your point is?
That the dutch build high speed bicycle facilities for transportational
cyclists.
> Why don't you look up some basic statistics regarding Assen? To go
> from one end of Assen to the other is less than 3 miles (in fact it's
> barely over 2 miles). Population 65K.
>
> Point is you can ride like a snail in Assen and it wouldn't take you
> very long to get anywhere that you needed to go. Think what's
> implemented in Assen will scale in Boston, NYC, Chicago? Heck, even
> Davis, CA the premier bike town in the US, spans about 5 miles, and
> has approximately the same population as Assen. For me to go to the
> corner store or Starbucks it's almost 2 miles.
FWIW, Davis has about 1/2 the population density of my town, which is
considered suburban by local standards. Its density is less than 1/4 of
Boston proper.
> Every single one of your posts illustrates your detachment from
> reality. It's fine and dandy that you think bike paths are THE
> solution, but you need to wake up and understand why they can't
> possibly be applicable everywhere. Instead of ranting about the lack
> of facilities in Boston move to Davis. I guarantee that move will
> make everybody happier.
Thanks for the warmth. I have stated repeatedly (though apparently not
often enough) that I'm only interested in urban cycling facilities.
"Urban" is a loose term, but it usually implies some level of density.
The absolute size of a city is not so important, since density implies
that you can find a particular resource (e.g. Starbucks, if that floats
your boat) in less distance, and you generally needn't traverse the
complete breadth of a major city to get there.
SMS
> A much more hopeful one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
That's what's desperately needed in the U.S. if we want to make cycling
mainstream transportation rather than the current state of being limited
to a small group of enthusiasts.
Well at least that video shows why helmets are not common in the
Netherlands!
Frank Krygowski
> On 10/23/2010 8:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>
There certainly is a strong constituency of people who think that
bikes should be ridden on completely separate trails, always out of
sight of any motor vehicle. You can see those people's cars parked at
any trail head. You can see their cars driving them and their bikes
back home after their out-and-back ride. You can't pretend those
events are going to change out transportation culture.
But I think the _main_ reason such a small percentage of Enhancement
funds go to on-road improvements is simply this: A mile of bike path
costs roughly a million dollars. When you build a few miles of bike
path, you've used up a lot of money. It's typically impossible to
then get (say) money to install decent bike racks, or to make all
traffic light detectors recognize cyclists, or to re-orient wheel
catching drainage grates, or to even keep the roads smoothly paved.
The sentiment becomes either "We've spent enough for bikes," or "They
got their #*%! bike path. That's where they should ride their bikes."
- Frank Krygowski
SMS
It's legal to ride on the expressways here, but not the freeways. It's a
much faster commute on the expressways, but it's very unpleasant. The
bicycle paths, when they are roughly parallel, are a much nicer commute
if you can spare an extra ten minutes or so.
damyth
> On 10/24/2010 9:20 AM, damyth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 5:15 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2010 11:37 PM, damyth wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 23, 9:23 am, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 23, 5:41 am, "Duane Hebert"<s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Peter Cole"<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>>>news:i9ujhp$hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>>>> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Even better news:
>
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>
That's precisely my point, if you're interested in urban densities why
are you bringing up Assen as some shining example? Its has a
population of 65K in about 32 sq. miles. Davis, CA has a population
of 65K in about 12 sq. miles. Davis density is higher than Assen! By
your definition Assen is certainly not urban.
The reason I bring up Davis is it's density and scale is similar to
Assen. In addition, they both are islands of civilization surrounded
by rural areas. Bike facilities work well given those set of
circumstances. That's not due to vagaries of probability. You think
similar bike facilities will work just as well in urban sprawl like
where you live in Newton, MA? Hint, It's not called "Greater Boston"
for no reason. Or NYC, or Chicago, or LA?
If anything, your link to that guy's blog only illustrates how
ludicrous high speed transportation for cyclists is in Assen. In a
faired recumbent most people would be capable traveling the same speed
as cars. Does it look like it would be pleasant for a cyclist in a
faired recumbent to be sharing the same as the red sedan in the
following picture??
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_E-Gmv1JFKtE/SMTYJCOFeFI/AAAAAAAABLw/ErpR4ywWrRU/s1600-h/lle006.613242n52.989757a002m090o_20080531_125314.jpg
To make this discussion even more relevant, why don't you use Google
streetview to examine roads in Assen? The first thing you'll notice
is the over-abundant and confusing blue signage of bikes with a red
slash through it. What do you think that might mean?
Peter Cole
The NL never "let the flame go out", they do training for children much
the same way now as in the 1930's (see youtube videos). The also, by our
standards, invest massively in cycling infrastructure. Whether even a
fraction of that is politically feasible here is arguable, but I think
there's no question it can be safe, efficient and even fast.
Henk Fictorie
>
> To make this discussion even more relevant, why don't you use Google
> streetview to examine roads in Assen? The first thing you'll notice
> is the over-abundant and confusing blue signage of bikes with a red
> slash through it. What do you think that might mean?
We that's easy, it means that there are bikepaths. The red slash
indicates the end of the bikepath.
regards Henk
Peter Cole
I don't follow the logic. On street bike facilities are finally going in
now at a much higher pace than in most of the years since 1992. What has
changed? In many places (e.g. Boston & Dallas), anti-facility bike
commissioners have been replaced by pro-facility people. As described in
the video below, anti-bike cycling advocates played a large part in the
actual removal of buffered lanes in NYC.
Some history of early protected bike lanes in NYC, "Gridlock Sam
Schwartz, on 1980 bike lanes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awfNxaoqjjk
A lengthier 3-part interview on traffic planning and automotive use in NYC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWJpYzjagr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixbQQi6CRXE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESrybPvyx_U&NR=1
The last one, near the end, talks about deviating from AASHTO & the MUTCD.
Peter Cole
No, but that's not why I picked the 2 videos. The general argument
against cycling in the US (which you repeat) is that things are "too
spread out" here. There's some truth to that. To support facilities over
less dense areas, we just wouldn't get the use to justify the expense.
Only in dense urban environments now can those investments be
rationalized. Perhaps other people could argue for facilities in less
dense areas, I'm just not inclined to.
> The reason I bring up Davis is it's density and scale is similar to
> Assen. In addition, they both are islands of civilization surrounded
> by rural areas. Bike facilities work well given those set of
> circumstances. That's not due to vagaries of probability. You think
> similar bike facilities will work just as well in urban sprawl like
> where you live in Newton, MA? Hint, It's not called "Greater Boston"
> for no reason. Or NYC, or Chicago, or LA?
I think they would work better the higher the density, that's my point.
> If anything, your link to that guy's blog only illustrates how
> ludicrous high speed transportation for cyclists is in Assen. In a
> faired recumbent most people would be capable traveling the same speed
> as cars. Does it look like it would be pleasant for a cyclist in a
> faired recumbent to be sharing the same as the red sedan in the
> following picture??
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_E-Gmv1JFKtE/SMTYJCOFeFI/AAAAAAAABLw/ErpR4ywWrRU/s1600-h/lle006.613242n52.989757a002m090o_20080531_125314.jpg
I don't understand your question.
> To make this discussion even more relevant, why don't you use Google
> streetview to examine roads in Assen? The first thing you'll notice
> is the over-abundant and confusing blue signage of bikes with a red
> slash through it. What do you think that might mean?
I suppose it means bikes are prohibited from the roads where marked, AKA
mandatory sidepaths. If I had sidepaths that would support 70 km/h, I
think I could live with that.
Peter Cole
damyth
>
> I don't understand your question.
>
> > To make this discussion even more relevant, why don't you use Google
> > streetview to examine roads in Assen? The first thing you'll notice
> > is the over-abundant and confusing blue signage of bikes with a red
> > slash through it. What do you think that might mean?
>
> I suppose it means bikes are prohibited from the roads where marked, AKA
> mandatory sidepaths. If I had sidepaths that would support 70 km/h, I
> think I could live with that.
So you think someone riding in a faired recumbent (which I'll
abbreviate as HPV) can safely ride at 70kph, on the same paths, at the
same time, as those kids riding to school with their parents depicted
in the video you cited?
If that's not evidence of a severe reality distortion field, I don't
know what is. The whole idea of a separate facility for HPVs is
absurd. They don't need one given they go just as fast as cars.
Jay Beattie (as an example) commutes on a bike. I do the same. In
urban sprawl that spans more than 5 miles. This doesn't have much to
do with "urban density" or how close the nearest Starbucks is. NYC
has a higher urban density than Boston, it also spans a larger area
than Boston (and they both dwarf Assen). The point is if you intend
to go from one end to another in NYC or Portland vs. Assen, it means
in order for bike paths to be useful, it can not be congested (i.e.
narrow), and must have a traffic flow that's way faster (in real life,
not "professional driver on empty course") than the one in depicted in
Assen where parents rode to school with their kids.
Given these facts, now tell me how you plan on making the Assen model
work (in any "urban" city of your choice) in the US.
Andre Jute
because many other hardcore commuters here share your opinion -- that
a small minority of cyclists want to behave on the cyclepaths like
motorists behave on the road, that is force everyone to maintain their
speed or get the hell out of their way. Lou Holtman has already
pointed out, perhaps two or three months ago, that the Dutch model
only works by slowing everyone down to pretty near a lowest common
denominator (did he say 15kph? -- gee, when I'm enjoying the
countryside, that's quite often faster than I ride).
I'm not offering a solution, but you might consider this: most
successful street planning proceeds from the principle of speed
control, and then the fast throughways are a bolt-on or set-aside
extra.
But I must say that, whether the solution is bike paths or integration
with automobile traffic, pandering the fast-commuter minority will
absolutely insure that cycling remains a Cinderella activity in the
US. There will simply never be enough hardcore commuters to justify
spending tax-payer funds on them instead of on motorists.
It is simply a fact of life that the 12-15kph lowest common
denominator has the most votes and the best chance of forming a bike
culture.
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
James
> A much more hopeful one:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
I saw a dude riding, presumably to work, on a unicycle just the other
day. On the footpath with no helmet.
JS.
damyth
cyclist need it if we consider the alternatives? The only "pandering"
that's going on is to recreational cyclists. Vehicular cyclists are
not asking for any extraordinary considerations that motorists
wouldn't want, namely, sufficiently wide lanes.
Bike path advocates don't realize as bike ridership goes up, any bike
lanes that exist will become untenably congested. It's really no
different than the (vehicular) cul-de-sac neighborhood hells that I
talked about earlier. There won't be any alternative routes to
relieve congestion, because what's going to end up happening is all
cyclist traffic gets dumped on that single bike path, especially if
any segregation goes on.
This is all assuming that the the bike paths won't get "appropriated"
into multi-use, like for walking dogs, baby strolling, roller-bladers,
joggers, etc.
Andre Jute
That's the point, isn't it? Everyone will have to compromise on
multiuse of ALL facilities, because the alternative is abandoning the
roads to the caged fascists. The "everyone" who will have to
compromise includes commuters. The only people who have anything to
gain from an uncompromising attitude are automobilists. Everyone else,
including the hardcore commuter, can only lose by not compromising.
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
Peter Cole
> So you think someone riding in a faired recumbent (which I'll
> abbreviate as HPV) can safely ride at 70kph, on the same paths, at the
> same time, as those kids riding to school with their parents depicted
> in the video you cited?
No.
>
> If that's not evidence of a severe reality distortion field, I don't
> know what is. The whole idea of a separate facility for HPVs is
> absurd. They don't need one given they go just as fast as cars.
I don't think the Dutch built bike facilities for 70 kph, but apparently
at least some are ridden at that speed in the vicinity of Assen.
>
> Jay Beattie (as an example) commutes on a bike. I do the same. In
> urban sprawl that spans more than 5 miles. This doesn't have much to
> do with "urban density" or how close the nearest Starbucks is. NYC
> has a higher urban density than Boston, it also spans a larger area
> than Boston (and they both dwarf Assen). The point is if you intend
> to go from one end to another in NYC or Portland vs. Assen, it means
> in order for bike paths to be useful, it can not be congested (i.e.
> narrow), and must have a traffic flow that's way faster (in real life,
> not "professional driver on empty course") than the one in depicted in
> Assen where parents rode to school with their kids.
>
> Given these facts, now tell me how you plan on making the Assen model
> work (in any "urban" city of your choice) in the US.
I didn't select the Assen video of school children for speed, or as an
example of urban commuting, only to show the numbers of children on
bikes, in response to the US "bike bus" video.
Assen appears to have many high speed bike paths (in other videos), no
doubt helped by its relatively low density and natural routes along
canals. Similar situations exist in many cities for "bike highways"
along other such natural features like rivers, lake and ocean shores,
and RR ROW's. Those have been exploited for decades to put in motor
expressways.
For travel over normal city streets in congested urban areas, it's not
the peak speeds that are important, but the average speeds, which are
mostly determined by intersections, particularly by queues during peak
times. Bike paths allow cyclists to bypass queues, so although their
peak speeds may be lower, their average speeds are usually higher. The
typical all-day urban average speed in a dense city is typically given
at 25 mph or so, peak time speeds may be half of that. It's not hard to
match or beat.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> So you think someone riding in a faired recumbent (which I'll
> abbreviate as HPV) can safely ride at 70kph, on the same paths, at the
> same time, as those kids riding to school with their parents depicted
See my post below with the links to videos of the 'bent streamliner
knocking garbage cans out of the way. ;)
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> But I must say that, whether the solution is bike paths or integration
> with automobile traffic, pandering the fast-commuter minority will
> absolutely insure that cycling remains a Cinderella activity in the
> US. There will simply never be enough hardcore commuters to justify
Nonsense. Citing scofflaw motorists for behaving badly around cyclists
is revenue positive. Similarly, citing scofflaw cyclists is also
revenue positive.
Frank Krygowski
>
> Assen appears to have many high speed bike paths (in other videos), no
> doubt helped by its relatively low density and natural routes along
> canals. Similar situations exist in many cities for "bike highways"
> along other such natural features like rivers, lake and ocean shores,
> and RR ROW's.
Care to take a large American city and show what percentage of it can
be accessed by your natural features bike paths?
Here's a good one to work on.
http://www.noaca.org/cuybike.pdf
It may be better to use Google Earth to show exactly how you'd get
past all the built structures, existing property lines, etc.
I know that, in my more naive days when I was on a committee trying to
do what you describe, the committee soon realized it was all fantasy.
And even the transportationally useless bike trail that finally got
built out in the distant suburbs and farmlands took decades, due to
property conflicts, right-of-way challenges, and other hard facts of
law and geography.
- Frank Krygowski
damyth
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Using Assen as an example of the feasibility of separate bicycle
> facilities is like using Disney World as an example of the feasibility
> of monorails. Assen is apparently the centerpiece of Dutch cycling,
> and its downtown looks like a theme park. BTW, the guy with the
> YouTube video of cycling in Assen runs a tour company.http://hembrow.eu/cycling/#selflead
>
> I would love to see kids riding to school -- including my son. PDX,
> however is not flat. Those poor kids going to school at Ainsworth
> Elementary would have to do one to two miles of 8-12% to get up SW
> Vista Ave. It could work on the eastside, though -- if we knock down
> a few houses and rebuild the entire neighborhood ala Assen. Note that
> the bike boulevards in Assen have pedestrian facilities on the side --
> so the whole paved area is like a one lane road. No way you're going
> to build a new, one lane road through the dense eastside. The only
> real option in this town is to use the existing right of ways -- the
> roads.
>
> I don't know of any separate, bicycle-only facilities in this town --
> they are all multi-use, either by designation or by consensus, meaning
> they have been overrun with walkers, skaters -- those guys with the
> obnoxious roller cross-country skis -- people with six dogs, etc. On
> a sunny day, it is like running the gauntlet on a bike. -- Jay
> Beattie.
Your comparison of Assen to Disney World is right on the money. But I
think you meant to reply to Mr. Peter Cole, not me, considering you
and I are in violent agreement.
Let's just say no one can rightly accuse Mr. Peter Cole of the crime
of intellectual honesty. :)
damyth
Who mentioned anything about peak speeds?
I suggest you read Jay Beattie's reply in this thread that he posted a
few minutes ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/tree/browse_frm/thread/9deec0debe584dd6/bb6d8109b0c2740e?rnum=21&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.bicycles.tech%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F9deec0debe584dd6%3F#doc_7d163d0dc07ad827
Duane
> On Oct 23, 5:41 am, "Duane Hebert"<s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>> "Peter Cole"<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:i9ujhp$hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Even better news:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>>
>>
>>>>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>> They will all die, without exception.
>>
>>>> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>>
>>>> Chalo
>>
>> always seems to increase cycling and are often
>> done well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
> last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
> wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
> skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
> not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.
I ride on some bike paths at around 6:30 am and sometimes
at 5:30pm. They're never crowded in the morning and not often
at 5:30 on a week day. When they're crowded, I either take the
road or an alternate route. Why would you be limited to taking
that route?
Dan O
> On Oct 25, 5:17 am, Duane <duaneheb...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/23/2010 12:23 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 23, 5:41 am, "Duane Hebert"<s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
> > >> "Peter Cole"<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:i9ujhp$hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > >>> On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
> > >>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> Even better news:
>
> > >>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE
>
>
> > >>>>> OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
>
> > >>>> They will all die, without exception.
>
> > >>>> Pretty hopeful video, though.
>
> > >>>> Chalo
>
> > >>> A much more hopeful one:
>
> > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM
>
> > >> I don't get why people are against facilities. They
> > >> always seems to increase cycling and are often
> > >> done well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
> > > last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
> > > wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
> > > skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
> > > not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.
>
> > I ride on some bike paths at around 6:30 am and sometimes
> > at 5:30pm. They're never crowded in the morning and not often
> > at 5:30 on a week day. When they're crowded, I either take the
> > road or an alternate route. Why would you be limited to taking
> > that route?
>
> red sedan is on:http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
>
> Pretty soon you'd run out of alternatives. It couldn't possibly be
> more asinine. At least that town in the Netherlands is appropriately
> named.
The placement of those poles there is really bad along that road.
damyth
Speaking of which, I guess the Dutch don't ride when the sun is down.
Are bike lanes lit?
Clive George
> Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
> red sedan is on:
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
What's wrong with that road?
Clive George
>> The placement of those poles there is really bad along that road.
>
> Speaking of which, I guess the Dutch don't ride when the sun is down.
> Are bike lanes lit?
They probably ride more at night than the average USian.
Duane Hébert
> Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
> red sedan is on:
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
>
> Pretty soon you'd run out of alternatives. It couldn't possibly be
> more asinine. At least that town in the Netherlands is appropriately
> named.
Aside from the poles that Dan pointed out, the only difference between
this road and the majority of provincial highways around here is that
the others don't have a bike path next to them.
They are typically two lane bi-directional with enough space for
a car in each lane. There are usually no shoulders or gravel shoulders.
Some have a lot of turns. I've had a car bump into the back of me
because the driver was coming around a turn and she didn't see me.
Taking the lane didn't help much here. Fortunately she was going slower
that the 70km/h limit.
It was around here: http://tinyurl.com/28vscy7 though it was in
the summer when these trees were covered with leaves.
If you don't have roads like this then I guess I understand why you
don't think facilities would help. But a path on the side of this
road would be great IMO.
Clive George
> On 10/25/2010 9:12 AM, damyth wrote:
>
>> Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
>> red sedan is on:
>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
>>
>> Pretty soon you'd run out of alternatives. It couldn't possibly be
>> more asinine. At least that town in the Netherlands is appropriately
>> named.
>
> Aside from the poles that Dan pointed out, the only difference between
> this road and the majority of provincial highways around here is that
> the others don't have a bike path next to them.
>
> They are typically two lane bi-directional with enough space for
> a car in each lane. There are usually no shoulders or gravel shoulders.
When I first started reading USian bike lists, I was a bit surprised by
the frequent references to shoulders.
Over here, roads typically don't have shoulders. And we seem to be
better at not having people drive into the back of us.
Peter Cole
> On Oct 24, 7:34 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Assen appears to have many high speed bike paths (in other videos), no
>> doubt helped by its relatively low density and natural routes along
>> canals. Similar situations exist in many cities for "bike highways"
>> along other such natural features like rivers, lake and ocean shores,
>> and RR ROW's.
>
> Care to take a large American city and show what percentage of it can
> be accessed by your natural features bike paths?
No.
Peter Cole
> Using Assen as an example of the feasibility of separate bicycle
> facilities is like using Disney World as an example of the feasibility
> of monorails. Assen is apparently the centerpiece of Dutch cycling,
> and its downtown looks like a theme park. BTW, the guy with the
> YouTube video of cycling in Assen runs a tour company.
> http://hembrow.eu/cycling/#selflead
I don't think the Disney monorail was a feasibility project, but several
others around the world were. Monorails work, but are expensive, ditto
for Assen scale bike facilities. There seem to be lot's of NL bike tour
companies, sounds like a good reason to go there, it can't be all
windmills and tulips.
As for feasibility, when I whined about the lack of bike access to the
north of Boston because of the river crossing (nasty 11 mile bike trip
to the airport <2 miles away as the crow -- or tunnel user -- flies),
the impracticality issues were raised. This didn't stop the Dutch who
put bike facilities in their similar tunnel in Rotterdam in 1942:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastunnel
> I would love to see kids riding to school -- including my son. PDX,
> however is not flat. Those poor kids going to school at Ainsworth
> Elementary would have to do one to two miles of 8-12% to get up SW
> Vista Ave. It could work on the eastside, though -- if we knock down
> a few houses and rebuild the entire neighborhood ala Assen. Note that
> the bike boulevards in Assen have pedestrian facilities on the side --
> so the whole paved area is like a one lane road. No way you're going
> to build a new, one lane road through the dense eastside. The only
> real option in this town is to use the existing right of ways -- the
> roads.
Or the parking lanes on them. Like the Maastunnel, these things can be
done -- not saying they should. It's a matter of economics. It may be
wise, as a matter of policy, to adopt somewhat of a "Field of Dreams",
approach, via subsidy in advance of demand, especially since we're
overdue for another oil shock. It might be nice to have some
infrastructure in place to hedge our collective bets.
> I don't know of any separate, bicycle-only facilities in this town --
> they are all multi-use, either by designation or by consensus, meaning
> they have been overrun with walkers, skaters -- those guys with the
> obnoxious roller cross-country skis -- people with six dogs, etc. On
> a sunny day, it is like running the gauntlet on a bike. -- Jay
> Beattie.
Same here, only much worse on weekends, weekdays, not so bad. I don't
find the "gauntlet" worse than the city street equivalent. Different
hazards, similar degree, roughly. In Boston, something like 13% commute
on foot. In NYC, most places have really terrible accommodations for
pedestrians despite their vastly greater numbers. Conflict is often a
sign that somebodies needs are not being met and they are taking matters
into their own hands. Where space is a premium and throughput levels can
be calculated, the identity of the true "road hogs" is revealed.
Chalo
>
> There certainly is a strong constituency of people who think that
> bikes should be ridden on completely separate trails, always out of
> sight of any motor vehicle. You can see those people's cars parked at
> any trail head. You can see their cars driving them and their bikes
> back home after their out-and-back ride.
I don't drive a car. When I have an available route that doesn't put
me in the company of noisy, stinking, dangerous cars piloted by
callous and oblivious people, I take it. So does my wife, even more
zealously than I do.
When we choose our street routes, we choose them for their relative
lack of cars, because riding with cars sucks.
There are lots of motor-only rights of way. I don't see anything
wrong with human-power-only rights of way that are aligned for
transportation. Just because car-driving nincompoops have designed us
plenty of counterexamples does not mean that the idea doesn't work--
it only means it doesn't work when the facilities are designed by
ignorant people.
Chalo
Dan O
<snip>
>
> When we choose our street routes, we choose them for their relative
> lack of cars, because riding with cars sucks.
>
Amen
<snip>
Dan O
<snip>
My best routes are almost no sharing required almost all of the way,
but at times and places there are gauntlets to be coped with.
Lou Holtman
>>> Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
>>> red sedan is on:http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
>>
>>> Pretty soon you'd run out of alternatives. It couldn't possibly be
>>> more asinine. At least that town in the Netherlands is appropriately
>>> named.
>>
>> The placement of those poles there is really bad along that road.
>
> Speaking of which, I guess the Dutch don't ride when the sun is down.
Nope the sun never sets here....
> Are bike lanes lit?
Sometimes.
Lou
Lou Holtman
There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
limit have bikepaths like that.
Lou
Lou Holtman
All our schoolkids have to ride in the dark at this time of the year in
the morning.
Lou
Peter Cole
When I bought my house (25 years ago) it was partly with the feature of
a local (into the city) bike path close by. It worked out better than I
thought, especially during the child-rearing years. Bike trips into the
city became a family recreational activity perhaps 50% of the weekends,
year round. The path goes through a couple of parks, with things like
swing sets, wading pools and flocks of geese. Important stuff for kids.
The bike path follows pretty much the same route as the turnpike
extension built in the 60's. I use it much the same way, it just has
more "exits". I don't expect either to take me door-to-door. It doesn't
go everywhere, but we tend to patronize the stores along the route,
combining recreation, errands and entertainment. Those places get our
business, and have for 25 years or more.
I can ride with cars fine, I'd call myself an expert. That doesn't mean
I enjoy it, and life's too short to forgo enjoyment. Riding along the
river is a simple pleasure, but a kind of profound one. It's not all
about trip time.
I don't typically use any other trails. I wouldn't ever drive my car to
one just to bike it. I don't draw a bright line between utility and
recreation, either. With my bike, it's as much about the journey as the
destination.
An interesting take on bike/car economics is to factor in the costs as
the amount of work time (to pay for each) to be added to actual commute
time. If you go to a gym, throw that time & expense (as time) in, too.
Then calculate your average speed, including all those extra hours of
work. Then realize the hours spent doing something you approach with an
attitude between tolerate and hate (driving/working), vs. the hours
doing something you like. Life is too short. At the end, nobody wishes
they spent more time working.
Frank Krygowski
>
> There are lots of motor-only rights of way. I don't see anything
> wrong with human-power-only rights of way that are aligned for
> transportation.
I don't see much wrong with them either. Except, of course, that
they're usually impossible.
Again, I was on a committee that tried to do that and failed. And
later, I was on a different committee where I personally succeeded in
getting one such path (granted, a short one) paved.
If you can find a place to fit one in and convince someone to spend
the money on it, great. I think it's an excellent idea for
neighborhood access to parks, shopping centers, libraries, schools,
etc.
But it will never be more than a 1% solution. It's not because of
lack of public will, or financial problems. It's basic geography.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Aside from the poles that Dan pointed out, the only difference between
> this road and the majority of provincial highways around here is that
> the others don't have a bike path next to them.
>
> They are typically two lane bi-directional with enough space for
> a car in each lane. There are usually no shoulders or gravel shoulders.
> Some have a lot of turns. I've had a car bump into the back of me
> because the driver was coming around a turn and she didn't see me.
> Taking the lane didn't help much here. Fortunately she was going slower
> that the 70km/h limit.
>
> It was around here: http://tinyurl.com/28vscy7 though it was in
> the summer when these trees were covered with leaves.
>
> If you don't have roads like this then I guess I understand why you
> don't think facilities would help. But a path on the side of this
> road would be great IMO.
I really don't understand. The road you've linked to is exactly the
kind of road I, and members of my bike club, seek out for riding.
I don't know what happened with the woman you claim "bumped" you, but
there seems to be no place that a cyclist wouldn't be visible in
plenty of time. Even with full foliage, it looks like one can always
see at least 100 yards (or meters) down the road. If a cyclist is
moving at just 12 mph (= 19 kph = 5.4 m/s), a 70 km/hr (20 m/s)
motorist has a full seven seconds before that distance is closed.
This sounds like more "Cycling HERE is really, really dangerous!!!!"
nonsense.
- Frank Krygowski
(PeteCresswell)
>Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
>red sedan is on:
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
Or, at least, mostly on.
That's a good graphic illustration of why the shoulder can be
problematic when traffic's coming at a rider from behind.
Some people just have no idea where their right wheels are. My
Better Half is one. She's constantly curbing tires, hitting
off-road potholes, and so-forth.
--
PeteCresswell
Duane Hébert
Even so, it seems to me that the driver is drunk or something. Unless
there's a steep turn we don't see - though it seems pretty flat. It
looks like he has plenty of room to the left. Maybe he's parking on the
only spot with a shoulder.
Anyway, he doesn't seem to be affecting the guys on the bikes at all.
damyth
What's the speed limit on a road like that? Why is the red sedan
hanging half-assed on and off the road? Are European cars (or tires,
for that matter) so reliable that you don't need a breakdown lane or a
shoulder?
Why is the road so narrow? Let me put it succinctly. In the US the
density of cars would certainly be higher (considering the relative
price differential of gas and other pro-motorist factors betw. US vs.
EU). This would mean on a road in the US, both lanes would be filled,
traffic would not be sparse. What happens when a car breaks down (or
an accident), and you're pretty much left with one lane? Do you rely
on semaphores to negotiate which lane proceeds first?
Why aren't bike lanes lit everywhere?
Narrow road + bike lane = mandatory bike lane. If bike lane isn't
sufficiently wide enough for passing (as we saw in the video with kids
riding to school), what happens?
What's a bike path & road intersection look like, more importantly,
how is it negotiated?
Need I go on about what else is wrong with the road?
Duane Hébert
> how is it negotiated?
>
> Need I go on about what else is wrong with the road?
No. Someone will be contacting you shortly to tell you how much
of a wimp you are for thinking that the bike lane is even useful,
much less mandatory. Give him my regards while your at it...
Clive George
> On Oct 25, 10:47 am, Lou Holtman<lhollaatditmaar...@planet.nl> wrote:
>> Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:
>>
>>> On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:
>>
>>>> Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
>>>> red sedan is on:
>>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
>>
>>> What's wrong with that road?
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
>> limit have bikepaths like that.
>
> hanging half-assed on and off the road? Are European cars (or tires,
> for that matter) so reliable that you don't need a breakdown lane or a
> shoulder?
No idea what the red car is doing (parked? driving badly?), but yes, the
majority of roads here have neither a breakdown lane nor a shoulder.
Motorways do, but not smaller roads. Here = Europe IME, and UK specifically.
> Why is the road so narrow?
Because that's as wide as it needs to be.
Roads intended for faster traffic are wider, but still no shoulder or
breakdown lane.
> Let me put it succinctly. In the US the
> density of cars would certainly be higher (considering the relative
> price differential of gas and other pro-motorist factors betw. US vs.
> EU). This would mean on a road in the US, both lanes would be filled,
> traffic would not be sparse.
Every 2 lane road is filled? Blimey. I thought the US was quite big, and
certainly when I was visiting, the 2 lane roads weren't obviously busier
than over here.
> What happens when a car breaks down (or
> an accident), and you're pretty much left with one lane? Do you rely
> on semaphores to negotiate which lane proceeds first?
It seems to work. Same as if a lorry is parked up delivering. People
wait for gaps, then go past.
> Why aren't bike lanes lit everywhere?
That one does appear to be lit - the spill from the lights will be enough.
My bike's got lights. I'm off to go on a ride on unlit country roads,
none of which have shoulders, and one of which is single lane. I can see
where I'm going.
FWIW the speed limit on my roads is 60mph. Visitors from your side of
the pond are sometimes scared by how fast people drive on our narrow
roads, but strangely we seem to be better at not crashing over here.
> Narrow road + bike lane = mandatory bike lane. If bike lane isn't
> sufficiently wide enough for passing (as we saw in the video with kids
> riding to school), what happens?
You don't appear to be talking about that picture any more. But yes,
that's why bike lanes need to be wide enough for cycles to pass.
Or are you thinking of a lane which is part of the road, rather than a
separate one like in the picture? In which case, over here mandatory =
forbidden to motor traffic, but bikes can go out, so you cross the line
and pass.
> What's a bike path& road intersection look like, more importantly,
> how is it negotiated?
European ones tend to have give way lines for the road, and more
importantly drivers give way at them.
> Need I go on about what else is wrong with the road?
Sorry, I thought you were going on about something else.
Dan O
It the poles. If I was there I think I would *choose* the bike path
anyway, but I think everybody knows if I; rather go over there on the
road I would. That's why the poles are such a problem. That and they
remove the middle grassy strip as a choice of lines. But there are
still more than two options there, and I have to say the bike path
looks like a good one. Even those cursed poles bring light and
physical separation for the timid folks.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Then realize the hours spent doing something you approach with an
Sorry to hear that those things make you grumpy.
Working and driving have *not* made me grumpy since
<drum roll, trumpet fanfare, triumphant chorus>
moving to *Iowa*. :)
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Jay Beattie
Really? Wow. Is this typical for Dutch cities? Outside our city
limits are -- you guessed it -- other cities. And once past those
cities, you can ride pretty much wherever you want.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/upthewaterspout/525875628/
Eastern Oregon bike path: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318@N07/2799139250/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318@N07/2799137334/
Sometimes the paths get crowded:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318@N07/2798286929/in/photostream/
Inner city, where most people commute, is another story. I just take
roads, which are not too bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcso6e5hLIU
It fades out before getting in to town. -- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
> On 10/25/2010 3:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 10:16 am, Duane Hébert<duaneheb...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Aside from the poles that Dan pointed out, the only difference between
> >> this road and the majority of provincial highways around here is that
> >> the others don't have a bike path next to them.
>
> >> They are typically two lane bi-directional with enough space for
> >> a car in each lane. There are usually no shoulders or gravel shoulders.
> >> Some have a lot of turns. I've had a car bump into the back of me
> >> because the driver was coming around a turn and she didn't see me.
> >> Taking the lane didn't help much here. Fortunately she was going slower
> >> that the 70km/h limit.
>
> >> the summer when these trees were covered with leaves.
>
> >> If you don't have roads like this then I guess I understand why you
> >> don't think facilities would help. But a path on the side of this
> >> road would be great IMO.
>
> > I really don't understand. The road you've linked to is exactly the
> > kind of road I, and members of my bike club, seek out for riding.
>
> > I don't know what happened with the woman you claim "bumped" you, but
> > there seems to be no place that a cyclist wouldn't be visible in
> > plenty of time. Even with full foliage, it looks like one can always
> > see at least 100 yards (or meters) down the road. If a cyclist is
> > moving at just 12 mph (= 19 kph = 5.4 m/s), a 70 km/hr (20 m/s)
> > motorist has a full seven seconds before that distance is closed.
>
> > This sounds like more "Cycling HERE is really, really dangerous!!!!"
> > nonsense.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> constantly seem to be hearing "Danger, danger " every time someone
> doesn't agree with you.
You said, essentially, "Someone bumped me with their car here, so it
would be great to have a bike path here." What exactly was that
supposed to mean, if not "That incident shows the danger, and it would
be great to be safer"?
> I ride on that road all of the time. I don't claim that someone bumped
> me once, I state it. Do you need signed testimony?
How about details? You claim she "bumped into the back of you." That
usually means she at least knocked you off your bike. Was she aiming
for you, i.e. was it a deliberate assault? If so, it was an extremely
rare incident, and nothing but complete separation would help. Did
she misjudge her passing clearance and graze you?
But the idea that it was so curvy that she couldn't see you until her
reaction time was insufficient sounds like nonsense. Even a gutter
bunny cyclist on a super-sharp bend to the right is normally visible
in plenty of time, because the driver sits on the left of the car.
So why not give details?
> Follow the whole
> road in the summer and let me know if there is 100 yard
> visibility at all points.
I followed it using Street View around the sharper curves where you
linked. If it happened elsewhere even sharper, why not just show us
where?
> Anyway, who knows? Maybe she was changing
> stations or dropped an egg plant or something to distract her using up
> part of her 7 seconds. Part of what's wrong with your vehicular cycling
> idea is that most vehicular drivers aren't very good.
Ah, I see. More "Danger! Drivers aren't good!"
And more problems with vehicular cycling. But didn't you also say
that you mostly ride on roads? Do you not use your rights as a
vehicle operator? Or are you a sidewalk skulker?
> But why would
> you complain about a road like that because it had a separate path?
Because in my experience, separate usually means worse. This time of
year, a separate path would be clotted with wet leaves and sticks. In
the winter, it would be unplowed. If it ever got any other debris on
it (like broken glass) it would stay there until some private citizen
decided to remove it - something I've done myself several times on
bike paths.
Now why would you want a separate path instead of using the same total
width as sharable lanes, which passing cars would naturally keep
clean? Are you really that afraid of being run down from behind?
- Frank Krygowski
Duane Hebert
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f51e8e21-5855-407c...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 25, 3:40 pm, Duane H�bert <duaneheb...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> On 10/25/2010 3:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>You said, essentially, "Someone bumped me with their car here, so it
>would be great to have a bike path here." What exactly was that
>supposed to mean, if not "That incident shows the danger, and it would
>be great to be safer"?
It means that if there was a path like the one in the picture, I wouldn't
have been bumped by a car.
>> I ride on that road all of the time. I don't claim that someone bumped
>> me once, I state it. Do you need signed testimony?
>How about details? You claim she "bumped into the back of you." That
>usually means she at least knocked you off your bike. Was she aiming
>for you, i.e. was it a deliberate assault? If so, it was an extremely
>rare incident, and nothing but complete separation would help. Did
>she misjudge her passing clearance and graze you?
No she bumped me directly from behind. She was nearly stopped.
She was more shook up than me. I didn't fall. Like I said, she
bumped me. It's not a big deal.
Things like this happen. Close calls are not that uncommon. Accidents
are uncommon. I agree with you there. The only real accident I've had on
a bike was me siding into a curb due to blowing rain where I didn't see the
curb.
Never had a real accident with a car when I wasn't in a car myself.
>But the idea that it was so curvy that she couldn't see you until her
>reaction time was insufficient sounds like nonsense. Even a gutter
>bunny cyclist on a super-sharp bend to the right is normally visible
>in plenty of time, because the driver sits on the left of the car.
>I followed it using Street View around the sharper curves where you
>linked. If it happened elsewhere even sharper, why not just show us
>where?
Because it doesn't matter. The road is narrow and it has no shoulder
and the speed limit is much faster than I can pedal. It's a normal
thing. Some guys here posted that type of road was horrible. To me
it's just how the roads are here. It would be better with a path on the
side. We do have some paths like that but they're mostly in Oka
park where there are some steep decents. I appreciate them there
and I would appreciate one here.
>> Anyway, who knows? Maybe she was changing
>> stations or dropped an egg plant or something to distract her using up
>> part of her 7 seconds. Part of what's wrong with your vehicular cycling
>> idea is that most vehicular drivers aren't very good.
>Ah, I see. More "Danger! Drivers aren't good!"
Come on Frank are you telling me that all drivers are good?
I've had several accidents in a car, none of which were my
fault. On a bike, any one of them would have been bad.
You need to drive defensively on a bike as in a car. Probably more
so since you will be on the short end of a mishap. Don't
you agree with that?
>And more problems with vehicular cycling. But didn't you also say
>that you mostly ride on roads? Do you not use your rights as a
>vehicle operator? Or are you a sidewalk skulker?
I do what seems correct at the moment. Skulking next to the sidewalk
normally doesn't seem to be correct so I don't normally do that. But that
doesn't mean that
I like riding in traffic. I prefer riding in peace. That's why I ride a
bike. Healthy excercise, stress reduction, nice views etc. Why do
you ride?
>> But why would
>> you complain about a road like that because it had a separate path?
>Because in my experience, separate usually means worse. This time of
>year, a separate path would be clotted with wet leaves and sticks. In
>the winter, it would be unplowed. If it ever got any other debris on
>it (like broken glass) it would stay there until some private citizen
>decided to remove it - something I've done myself several times on
>bike paths.
I know. The leaves are starting to get bad. Check my driveway <g>
The streets are better than the bike paths at the moment so I'm using
the streets. Mind you, this may be the bike lane on the side when they
exist but they get cleaned with the roads.
But look at that picture. The path is clean, level and even lighted. Come
on.
Would you seriously tell me that you'd prefer to ride on the road? That's
all
that I'm saying. In a case like that, a path is a good thing.
>Now why would you want a separate path instead of using the same total
>width as sharable lanes, which passing cars would naturally keep
>clean? Are you really that afraid of being run down from behind?
Sharing a lane to you means riding in the same lane as a car. Are you
asking me if I wouldn't prefer to have my own lane? Well who wouldn't?
Lou Holtman
See Clive George' s answer. It is pretty accurate.
To be honest that sort of road tends to be the most dangerous ones
10-15 years ago (for cars) because of careless overtaking mostly by
the young and innocent. We took action and the traffic laws and speed
limits are very well enforced. It helped a lot. Speed limit is 80 km/
hr outside city limits and 50 km/hr within city limits.
Lou
Lou Holtman
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
You are not allowed on that road and all people would think you are a
dangerous ass if you ride on that road. Nobody over here ride on the
road there.
Lou
Lou Holtman
> On Oct 25, 10:47 am, Lou Holtman <lhollaatditmaar...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:
>
> > > On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:
>
> > >> Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
> > >> red sedan is on:
> > >>http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
>
> > > What's wrong with that road?
>
> > There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
> > limit have bikepaths like that.
>
> Really? Wow. Is this typical for Dutch cities? Outside our city
> limits are -- you guessed it -- other cities. And once past those
> cities, you can ride pretty much wherever you want.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/upthewaterspout/525875628/
>
>
> Sometimes the paths get crowded:http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318@N07/2798286929/in/photostream/
>
> Inner city, where most people commute, is another story. I just take
> It fades out before getting in to town. -- Jay Beattie.
I have been on your side of the pond several times and I envy you for
your scenery, but pitty you for you cities. The US is a beautiful
country with a lot of ugly spots AKA cities. Overall as a cyclist I'm
better off here I think. Problem is when I want to ride in the
mountains I have to drive for half/one day first. Well that is what a
lot of American's have to do also, just to get out of those ugly large
cities.
Lou
Duane Hébert
> I followed it using Street View around the sharper curves where you
> linked. If it happened elsewhere even sharper, why not just show us
> where?
FWIW, it was here
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g4gw9m
and we were headed north.
Dan O
Gotcha. Just out of curiosity, would they be calling me a dangerous
ass in English? I was sort of imagining how I might ride there from
the context of my own experience. I do understand danger, though -
for sure! That bike path, though, is much nicer than *anything* like
it in my world.
(PeteCresswell)
>FWIW the speed limit on my roads is 60mph. Visitors from your side of
>the pond are sometimes scared by how fast people drive on our narrow
>roads, but strangely we seem to be better at not crashing over here.
When I used to visit relatives in Germany, the word I got was
that their death rate per vehicle mile on the superhighways was
lower than in the USA, but the rate on secondary roads was
higher.
Compared to where I live in the USA, they drive much faster on
secondary roads. You can stand on a shoulder downstream from a
sharp curve and watch car-after-car round the curve with that
little "eek" as the rear wheels just break away a teeny bit.
But when I would ride the dirt shoulder on some of those roads on
my MTB, I could see frequent tire gouges in the dirt where it
looked to me like people had lost it on the turns.
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
> drunk or *something*....
As in talking on the phone, texting, doing email, playing with a
nav computer....
And, in California, it sounds like smoking da herb may be added
to that list.
--
PeteCresswell
Dan O
(my world has many long stretches of empty road with no other "formal"
paths, but many options like gravelly grasssy strips and what not
where you can bail if a car comes)
Duane Hébert
> Per Duane H�bert:
>> drunk or *something*....
>
> As in talking on the phone, texting, doing email, playing with a
> nav computer....
Or something really heinous like exceeding the posted speed limit
to begin with.
> And, in California, it sounds like smoking da herb may be added
> to that list.
That may have the affect of slowing traffic though.
Jay Beattie
> On 26 okt, 01:40, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 10:47 am, Lou Holtman <lhollaatditmaar...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:
>
> > > > On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:
>
> > > >> Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
> > > >> red sedan is on:
> > > >>http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833
>
> > > > What's wrong with that road?
>
> > > There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
> > > limit have bikepaths like that.
>
> > Really? Wow. Is this typical for Dutch cities? Outside our city
> > limits are -- you guessed it -- other cities. And once past those
> > cities, you can ride pretty much wherever you want.
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/upthewaterspout/525875628/
>
>
> > Sometimes the paths get crowded:http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318@N07/2798286929/in/photostream/
>
> > Inner city, where most people commute, is another story. I just take
> > roads, which are not too bad.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcso6e5hLIU
> > It fades out before getting in to town. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> I have been on your side of the pond several times and I envy you for
> your scenery, but pitty you for you cities. The US is a beautiful
> country with a lot of ugly spots AKA cities. Overall as a cyclist I'm
> better off here I think. Problem is when I want to ride in the
> mountains I have to drive for half/one day first. Well that is what a
> lot of American's have to do also, just to get out of those ugly large
> cities.
The key phrase is "ugly large cities." You can easily avoid those, as
Tom points out, but you will never find a theme-park, Assen-like city
in the US. We just have not developed that way. Well, maybe here:
http://www.leavenworth.org/modules/pages/index.php?pageid=1
(your Bavarian get away!) or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvang,_CA
(we have a thing for northern European themes, I guess). -- Jay
Beattie.
damyth
In California where I live, there are bike paths just like the one I
linked to earlier. There are a few differences:
1. The (vehicle) road is wider. Not only is the lane wider, but there
are also shoulders.
2. The bike path is a bit narrower, probably about the same width as
the one shown in the video where kids were riding to school with their
parents in Assen.
Now for an interesting reveal:
I've never seen a cyclist use the bike paths. This is a cyclist heavy
area, at least by comparison to other areas in the US. They all elect
to use the roads. Take a few guesses why. It'd be interesting to
hear your theories on why that might be.
And there are _multiple_ reasons why local cyclists take the roads
over these bike paths.
Just so you don't think I'm yanking on your chain, although these
paths are multi-use (there are other uses other than bikes only in
real life), that's not the major reason why local cyclists don't use
them. The other thing you might need to know for this little exercise
is that the bike paths are reasonably smooth (they don't have
potholes.)
Based on the answers you folks in UK & NL have provided thus far to my
questions, the reason that folks (in Europe) think bike paths are
'nice' is because they've got no reasonable alternatives other than
bike paths. Like I said earlier, this is the very definition of hell.
Clive George
> Based on the answers you folks in UK& NL have provided thus far to my
> questions, the reason that folks (in Europe) think bike paths are
> 'nice' is because they've got no reasonable alternatives other than
> bike paths. Like I said earlier, this is the very definition of hell.
Um, that seems to be completely missing what I said.
I don't necessarily think bike paths are nice. Well made ones, such as
in that picture, can be good, but IME there's a lot of crud out there.
To work well, it also requires motor traffic to respect give-way lines.
As such I very rarely use them.
I was pointing out that your description of that road being a dangerous
horror was very wide of the mark.
Wide roads and shoulders encourage higher speeds. Add long straight
lines to that, and you get people who drive quickly and don't look where
they're going. A road which is theoretically well engineered for motor
traffic actually ends up less safe because the people on it aren't
driving safely.
damyth
> On 26/10/2010 19:34, damyth wrote:
>
> > Based on the answers you folks in UK& NL have provided thus far to my
> > questions, the reason that folks (in Europe) think bike paths are
> > 'nice' is because they've got no reasonable alternatives other than
> > bike paths. Like I said earlier, this is the very definition of hell.
>
> Um, that seems to be completely missing what I said.
>
> I don't necessarily think bike paths are nice. Well made ones, such as
> in that picture, can be good, but IME there's a lot of crud out there.
> To work well, it also requires motor traffic to respect give-way lines.
> As such I very rarely use them.
>
> I was pointing out that your description of that road being a dangerous
> horror was very wide of the mark.
>
Holtman said. I'm paraphrasing, but Lou basically said if anyone
bikes on the (vehicular) road, they are regarded as certifiable.
> Wide roads and shoulders encourage higher speeds. Add long straight
> lines to that, and you get people who drive quickly and don't look where
> they're going. A road which is theoretically well engineered for motor
> traffic actually ends up less safe because the people on it aren't
> driving safely.
It's certainly possible wide roads and shoulders encourage higher
speeds. But strictly speaking, we are not talking of rural areas
where the road can go for miles without speed/traffic abatement
devices. In metropolitan areas there are either traffic lights or
stop signs at each intersection (typically around every quarter mile
or so). In most metropolitan areas the US, that's the reality. Even
more so in Boston, I might add.
If anything, I think narrow vehicle roads are less, because of poor
visibility around bends and tense drivers.
Jay Beattie
Or, you end up with people driving like maniacs on narrow twisting
roads. I see that every weekend in the West Hills. See e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NPqQptjbF0 or a little further out of
town http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OPKj1Jf4k I guess
motorcyclists post more to YouTube. The guys in the
midlifecrisismobiles like these hills, too. -- Jay Beattie.
Duane Hébert
> questions, the reason that folks (in Europe) think bike paths are
> 'nice' is because they've got no reasonable alternatives other than
> bike paths. Like I said earlier, this is the very definition of hell.
Just curious but what would you expect to happen if your roads and
bike paths were like the ones in the picture? Do you think the cyclists
would still take the road?
To answer your question, I would ride on whichever was more suited to my
style of riding. Normally what happens here is that the bike paths get
crowded would people riding slower than I want so I take the road.
In the case of the one shown though, I think that the path would be my
preference from what I see.
So I guess that I'm agreeing with you, more or less. (Well the bit
about hell, I don't know.)
damyth
> On 10/26/2010 2:34 PM, damyth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
through rural areas.
"Never mind the dog. Beware of Owner."
Let's say what's shown in the Assen pictures got transplanted over
here in CA. You'd have widespread motorist revolt. They'll literally
overthrow the government. There's no way they'd put up with one lane
(if a mechanical issue or accident happened).
Oregonians might put up with that silliness but there's no way that'd
go over at all in CA.
Jay Beattie
That's because we're civilized! I'll show you some Assen!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ghoti/2694535843/ -- Jay Beattie.
(PeteCresswell)
>I've never seen a cyclist use the bike paths. This is a cyclist heavy
>area, at least by comparison to other areas in the US. They all elect
>to use the roads. Take a few guesses why. It'd be interesting to
>hear your theories on why that might be.
Maybe the cyclists in question ride too fast to feel safe on a
multi-use path?
No danger of me riding that fast, but if I could, there are a
number of paths around here where I'd feel in danger of clipping
a roller blader or hitting somebody's kid.
--
PeteCresswell
damyth
> Per damyth:
>
> >I've never seen a cyclist use the bike paths. This is a cyclist heavy
> >area, at least by comparison to other areas in the US. They all elect
> >to use the roads. Take a few guesses why. It'd be interesting to
> >hear your theories on why that might be.
>
> Maybe the cyclists in question ride too fast to feel safe on a
> multi-use path?
>
factors that cyclist don't choose the bike path. But it is not the
main reason.
My informal poll of cyclist friends here say even if the path was not
multi-use, they'd still not use it. Try not to focus too much on the
multi-use issue. I think we all acknowledge that's an issue in the
US. And don't even focus on the fact that they aren't swept as often
as the (vehicular) road.
I'm trying to help folks understand why bike paths (at least in CA)
aren't chosen by cyclists. The drawbacks (and there are many) may not
be obvious unless you've ridden one.
damyth
In case you folks want to see what the bike trails look like, here are
some representative pictures I dug up from the web:
http://www.sjparks.org/Trails/Saratoga/images/P1020393_000.JPG
Those of you with patience can root around that whole web site for
more pictures and even videos. Scroll down to the bottom of the page
and pick a trail.
http://www.sjparks.org/Trails/TrailsList.asp
Warning: the site is extremely slow. They may have a misconfigured
server.
Dan O
Wider tires with some tread can come in handy when that stuff on the
left is wet.
Frank Krygowski
> "Frank Krygowski" <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f51e8e21-5855-407c...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 25, 3:40 pm, Duane Hébert <duaneheb...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > On 10/25/2010 3:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >You said, essentially, "Someone bumped me with their car here, so it
> >would be great to have a bike path here." What exactly was that
> >supposed to mean, if not "That incident shows the danger, and it would
> >be great to be safer"?
>
> It means that if there was a path like the one in the picture, I wouldn't
> have been bumped by a car.
>
> >> I ride on that road all of the time. I don't claim that someone bumped
> >> me once, I state it. Do you need signed testimony?
> >How about details? You claim she "bumped into the back of you." That
> >usually means she at least knocked you off your bike. Was she aiming
> >for you, i.e. was it a deliberate assault? If so, it was an extremely
> >rare incident, and nothing but complete separation would help. Did
> >she misjudge her passing clearance and graze you?
>
> No she bumped me directly from behind. She was nearly stopped.
> She was more shook up than me. I didn't fall. Like I said, she
> bumped me. It's not a big deal.
If we review: You ride on that road all the time. One time,
something absolutely astonishing happened, in that a woman didn't see
you for - what - seven seconds? She slightly bumped you from behind.
So slightly that you didn't fall. "It was no big deal."
This non-incident simply doesn't justify a separate path there. It
doesn't even justify saying it would be nice. But people latch onto
such rare non-incidents when they push for separate facilities. They
use them as evidence of the danger of riding a bike on ordinary roads.
If I were forced to do _something_ to increase the "niceness" of that
pretty-looking road, I might say "OK, let's lower the speed
limit." (Maybe valuable if it's _really_ true that someone couldn't
see a bike 100 yards ahead.) Or put up signs "Watch for
bicyclists." (In French, if necessary.) Or if you really felt
compelled to use up some asphalt, make the lanes 15 feet wide, for
sharing. But I really doubt any of those are necessary, unless that
road gets tons of traffic.
About that last alternative: If the pavement widened existing lanes,
instead of paving a separate path, it would be plowed in winter, it
would never need swept, it would attract fewer rollerbladers and dog
walkers, and everyone could operate according to the ordinary rules of
the road. Seems better to me.
> Some guys here posted that type of road was horrible. To me
> it's just how the roads are here. It would be better with a path on the
> side.
That road looks like my favorite roads do. I don't think a separate
path would be better.
> Come on Frank are you telling me that all drivers are good?
No, but the fact there are bad drivers doesn't justify separating
bikes. The problem of bad drivers is just not that serious, and the
"solution" of separation usually seems worse, when it's possible at
all.
> I've had several accidents in a car, none of which were my
> fault. On a bike, any one of them would have been bad.
> You need to drive defensively on a bike as in a car. Probably more
> so since you will be on the short end of a mishap. Don't
> you agree with that?
I can't say. I've only had two minor dents in my driving career, both
involving slow-speed backing up in parking lots. It seems odds of a
car-car crash are about as low as my odds of a car-bike crash.
> I do what seems correct at the moment. Skulking next to the sidewalk
> normally doesn't seem to be correct so I don't normally do that. But that
> doesn't mean that
> I like riding in traffic. I prefer riding in peace. That's why I ride a
> bike. Healthy excercise, stress reduction, nice views etc. Why do
> you ride?
Lots of reasons.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/NewsAndViews/philosophy.htm
> Sharing a lane to you means riding in the same lane as a car. Are you
> asking me if I wouldn't prefer to have my own lane? Well who wouldn't?
When I want my own lane - as opposed to sharing it with a car - I just
move a couple feet left. Works for me, and it has none of the
separation disadvantages.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Us flattrackers don't mind some bump and grind, either, No sir!
Clive George
> On Oct 26, 11:53 am, Clive George<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 26/10/2010 19:34, damyth wrote:
>>
>>> Based on the answers you folks in UK& NL have provided thus far to my
>>> questions, the reason that folks (in Europe) think bike paths are
>>> 'nice' is because they've got no reasonable alternatives other than
>>> bike paths. Like I said earlier, this is the very definition of hell.
>>
>> Um, that seems to be completely missing what I said.
>>
>> I don't necessarily think bike paths are nice. Well made ones, such as
>> in that picture, can be good, but IME there's a lot of crud out there.
>> To work well, it also requires motor traffic to respect give-way lines.
>> As such I very rarely use them.
>>
>> I was pointing out that your description of that road being a dangerous
>> horror was very wide of the mark.
>>
> No, it's a horror based on what I see from that picture and what Lou
> Holtman said. I'm paraphrasing, but Lou basically said if anyone
> bikes on the (vehicular) road, they are regarded as certifiable.
With that nice bike path there, maybe. Without it, no problem - it's
just another road.
>> Wide roads and shoulders encourage higher speeds. Add long straight
>> lines to that, and you get people who drive quickly and don't look where
>> they're going. A road which is theoretically well engineered for motor
>> traffic actually ends up less safe because the people on it aren't
>> driving safely.
>
> It's certainly possible wide roads and shoulders encourage higher
> speeds.
It's not just possible. Just look at how you drive on different width roads.
> But strictly speaking, we are not talking of rural areas
> where the road can go for miles without speed/traffic abatement
> devices. In metropolitan areas there are either traffic lights or
> stop signs at each intersection (typically around every quarter mile
> or so). In most metropolitan areas the US, that's the reality. Even
> more so in Boston, I might add.
>
> If anything, I think narrow vehicle roads are less, because of poor
> visibility around bends and tense drivers.
We've got narrower roads than you and somehow we seem to have a better
safety record.
Clive George
>> And there are _multiple_ reasons why local cyclists take the roads
>> over these bike paths.
>>
>> Just so you don't think I'm yanking on your chain, although these
>> paths are multi-use (there are other uses other than bikes only in
>> real life), that's not the major reason why local cyclists don't use
>> them. The other thing you might need to know for this little exercise
>> is that the bike paths are reasonably smooth (they don't have
>> potholes.)
>>
>> Based on the answers you folks in UK& NL have provided thus far to my
>> questions, the reason that folks (in Europe) think bike paths are
>> 'nice' is because they've got no reasonable alternatives other than
>> bike paths. Like I said earlier, this is the very definition of hell.
>
> In case you folks want to see what the bike trails look like, here are
> some representative pictures I dug up from the web:
> http://www.sjparks.org/Trails/Saratoga/images/P1020393_000.JPG
That pic makes it look like quite a nice path. It's possibly wider than
one of the roads I use regularly :-)
> Warning: the site is extremely slow. They may have a misconfigured
> server.
The pics are too big - they need to learn to shrink them.
So, thinking of the question of why local cyclists don't use them - how
close am I with these guesses?
Don't go anywhere useful
Too many other users making it slow and/or dangerous
Overzealous wardens with 15mph or lower speed guns
Too short for a decent length recreational ride
(this assuming the normal one of poor surface and glass doesn't apply here)
I'm going for "don't go anywhere useful" being my best guess.
damyth
In the interests of full disclosure, here's what an on-road bike path
looks like. Feel free to do a "virtual drive" in google maps to get
an idea what on road bike conditions are like.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23mx6jh
The vehicle speed limit on that road is 40mph (limits are posted on
the side of road in white signs). On residential streets the
(default) speed limit is 25mph unless otherwise posted.
As for your guesses, CA is in a budget crunch. I've never seen
wardens on those paths. They have bigger fish to fry.
"Too many users" is only correct if you include multi-use.
Considering virtually all of my cycling friends refuse to use these
trails even if they are bike-only; I don't think that applies.
The other two guesses are true of certain "trails" (I'll use that term
to differentiate the cycle tracks from the on-road bike paths) but are
not true of others.
So in a certain sense some of the disadvantages you state apply, but
not universally.
I'll give you a hint on the primary reasons why local cyclists don't
use trails but prefer to use the roads. It has to do with the deep
psychology of why people ride bikes or go for a "Sunday drive" (and
I'll say that's not speed, although it might apply to certain people);
and another one being energy expenditure (effort required to go from
point A to point B). I don't think the first one is necessarily
obvious to a lot of folks.
Clive George
Too hilly?
Not enough fun? Are the people you talk about using their bikes to get
places, or just out for a ride? I've been assuming the former, since
that's the people we want to encourage.