RE: [calrando] Digest for calrando@googlegroups.com - 3 Messages in 2 Topics

8 views
Skip to first unread message

jackho...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Mar 3, 2012, 9:38:14 AM3/3/12
to calr...@googlegroups.com
Dear Richard and Jim,

Very well stated analysis.  I agree with Jim as to this section of highway one and told Caltrans that.

Jack Holmgren


Sent from my Samsung smartphone on AT&T


-------- Original message -------- Subject: [calrando] Digest for calr...@googlegroups.com - 3 Messages in 2 Topics From: calr...@googlegroups.com To: calr...@googlegroups.com CC:

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/calrando/topics

    Jim Langley <jimla...@gmail.com> Mar 02 10:25AM -0800  

    I'm 100% opposed to rumble strips in any form on Highway 1 and if
    you're a cyclist you should be too. There is no way center or shoulder
    rumble strips can be installed without seriously endangering the
    thousands of cyclists that frequent the road.
     
    It's not onesies and twosies all the time. Small and huge group rides
    travel up and down that road all the time. They already can't fit on
    the eroded shoulders that exist. Adding treacherous rumble strips
    directly in their path, and that they would have to cross would be
    criminal. Putting them down the center would create even more
    obnoxious drivers refusing to cross the center to give cyclists a safe
    passing distance.
     
    Rumble strips are a terrible idea on any cycling road but on Highway 1
    they should be completely out of the question. That Caltrans didn't
    immediately realize this just shows how car-centric and ignorant of
    cycling safety issues they are. Sad but certainly no surprise.
     
    We should work together to prevent them ruining one of our area's
    greatest cycling resources. Until we started writing them, Caltrans
    wasn't thinking about us at all. They were thinking about how to spend
    some use-it-or-lose-it money and they just grabbed a project on their
    list with no thought of who uses this road besides drivers. To their
    way of thinking if the project reduces car crashes by 25% (the most it
    might achieve according to the stats we've found - or a handful less
    crashes per year) it's a great project and it doesn't matter a bit if
    cyclists suffer or even get killed as a result.
     
    Don't believe me? Just look at the Mission Street stretch of Hwy 1 and
    compare the cycling death figures before and after Caltrans made
    "safety" improvements to that road with complete disregard to
    cyclists' vehement objections. Like what they want to do with the
    rumble strips, they only thought about drivers and ruined the road for
    everyone else. Let's not let them do it again.
     
    Jim

     

    "Richard.McCaw" <richar...@sbcglobal.net> Mar 02 07:53AM -0800  

    Brian Chun sent out note to ACTC and there was a mixed reaction. Pros and
    cons. Reply below from Mike McGeough – I found one file on Should Rumble
    Strip (SRS) policies – go to section 4.2 --- document states there was study
    done with bicyclists – locally HWY 25 is where I encounter the rumble
    strips. I found not having a skip or gap in SRS pattern to be an issue there
    due to challenge to avoid lots of mud and debris can be in shoulder area
    from adjacent farms. In Alaska they usually had a gap in their SRS pattern
    and that helped but was a pain to slow down to align transition through gap
    to and from shoulder area. Roland is right about trying to maneuver in rainy
    weather but gap in pattern made a difference. At night I rode to the left of
    the rumble strip unless near a blind curve with a truck train coming behind
    me. Placement of gaps in SRS pattern critical and this document states it.
    Thus need to talk to Santa Cruz County if this is going to happen and
    influence the gap pattern. Just sending emails saying the idea is bad won’t
    help. Working with County could help. I have always found local road
    maintenance helpful whenever feasible. There was a big outcry when center
    rumble strip was going to be placed on HWY 9 but I haven’t found it to be a
    problem. It’s helpful to hear when cars are crossing the center line. SRS
    implemented w/o being thoroughly studied as to where and how to put gaps in
    pattern can be a disastrous for bicycling. Done right can have a positive
    outcome for cars and bicyclists. Cars shouldn’t wander as often into
    shoulder area if they hit rumble strips.
     

     
    Here is note I found in document.
     

     
    “The second is to place a skip (or gap) in the SRS pattern to allow
    bicyclists to cross from the shoulder to the travel lane when encountering
    debris, but this does not ensure that debris will not be in the skip
    pattern.”
     

     

     
    http://www.cedengineering.com/upload/Shoulder%20Treatments.pdf
     

     
    4.2.2 Other Bicyclist's Concerns
     
    Many bicyclist believe that SRS near the edge line force bicycles further
    from the sweeping action of passing vehicles that push debris from the
    travel lane. Thus, the bicyclist is forced to ride in heavier debris.
    Harwood (17), Moeur (9), and Gårder (19) have commented that shoulders may
    at times be covered with debris and have acknowledged a vehicle's sweeping
    action; however, no research has been identified to document the width of
    the sweeping action based upon vehicular speed or volume.
     
    At the current time there are two ways to deal with shoulder debris. The
    first is to have maintenance crews routinely sweep the shoulders. The
    second is to place a skip (or gap) in the SRS pattern to allow bicyclists to
    cross from the shoulder to the travel lane when encountering debris, but
    this does not ensure that debris will not be in the skip pattern.
     
    In addition to shoulder debris, other dislikes of bicyclists with respect to
    SRS are listed below
     
    SRS are appearing on more and more roads that are frequented by bicyclists,
     
    SRS often appear without warning,
     
    SRS that are placed close to an intersection,
     
    Different States have different standards and designs, and
     
    Weaving SRS (poorly installed SRS that are supposed to be in a straight
    line) are difficult for bicyclists to ride near.
     
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------
     

     
    You might want to look over the design before opposing the rumble strips. On
     
    our cross country tour my wife and I rode 100s of miles on interstate
    highways
    with rumble strips separating the highway from a wide shoulder. Traffic blew
    by
    at 90+ mph but we felt safe.
     
    A rumble strip may have also saved my life on HWY 25 between Gilroy and
    Hollister a few years back. A car came barreling down the rumble strip from
    behind and missed me by inches. I could just about feel the car against my
    left
    arm. The next car pulled along side of me and said that driver was drunk and
     
    was weaving all over the place. The police had been called and they were
    following the drunk driver. I tend to think the rumble strip kept the driver
     
    more in the traffic lane and less on the shoulder and saved my life.
     
    I have always tried to avoid HWY 1 on account of narrow to non-existent
    shoulders, tourists gawking and weaving, locals racing around, and drivers
    abusing an array of substances. A rumble strip separating the traffic lane
    from
    a shoulder/bike lane would make me feel safer.
     
    Mike
     

     
    Richard McCaw
    richar...@sbcglobal.net
    Cell: 408-838-9863
    Home: 408-448-2899
     
    LinkedIn Profile: <http://www.linkedin.com/in/mccaw>
    http://www.linkedin.com/in/mccaw
     

     
    From: calr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:calr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
    Of Roland Bevan
    Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 11:35 PM
    To: Veronica Tunucci
    Cc: Old5ten; Lois Springsteen; calr...@googlegroups.com; SF Randonneurs
    Subject: Re: [calrando] Hwy 1 in Santa Cruz
     

     
    This document seems to have the state guidelines for rumble strips:
    http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/policy/11-04.pdf
     
    It specifically mentions accommodating bicycles both in the placement of the
    strips and in the physical design.
     

     
    It remains to be seen whether the bicyclists agree that "the rumble strip
    depths mentioned above are traversable by bicycles", especially given the
    laughable implementations in some areas of "bike lanes" which are more than
    half gutter and aren't even wide enough to fit the stenciled "Bike Lane"
    labels. Rumble strips are also very hard to see on a rainy night when the
    depressions fill with water, as I know firsthand from dealing with them in
    Alaska last year, and running over them on a bicycle at high speed (such as
    during a descent) can easily cause a loss of control due to the violent
    vibration and the tendency of the depressions to push the front wheel to one
    side or the other . I'm all for improving the safety of roads; I hope what
    is implemented does so for all users.
     
    -Roland
     

     
    On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Veronica Tunucci <vero...@comcast.net>
    wrote:
     
    I will apologize in advance for my view, I do still drive a car.
     

     
    Rumble strips already exist on many sections of Hwy 1 and they are a good
    thing in my opinion for both cyclists and drivers if designed properly.
     

     
    The emphasis should not be on telling CalTrans it’s a bad idea, but rather
    to ensure they’re designed to meet cyclists needs too.
     

     
    And the center rumble strip is a really good thing in my opinion. I would
    have to believe that has saved many lives.
     

     
    Veronica
     
    Bike Commuter and Car Driver
     

     
    From: calr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:calr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
    Of Old5ten
    Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 12:45 PM
    To: Lois Springsteen
    Cc: calr...@googlegroups.com; SF Randonneurs
    Subject: Re: [calrando] Hwy 1 in Santa Cruz
     

     
    no doubt that there isn't a whole lot of room on many parts of hwy. 1
    (although there are plenty of stretches where there is a nice shoulder)
    however, i wonder if don mitchell or any other number of riders, who were
    run down from behind, would be alive today if the shoulders they were on had
    rumble strips.
     

     
    just a thought.
     

     
    elmar
     
    On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Lois Springsteen
    <lo...@bryant-springsteen.net> wrote:
     
    Rumble strip plan for Hwy 1 is a bad idea. Please write to CalTrans and
    tell them so.
     
    http://www.roadbikerider.com/current-newsletter#newsletter-jims-tech-talk
     
     
    Lois
    Sent from my iPhone
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "calrando" group.
    To post to this group, send email to calr...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    calrando+u...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:calrando%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/calrando?hl=en.
     

     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "calrando" group.
    To post to this group, send email to calr...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    calrando+u...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/calrando?hl=en.
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "calrando" group.
    To post to this group, send email to calr...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    calrando+u...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:calrando%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/calrando?hl=en.
     

     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "calrando" group.
    To post to this group, send email to calr...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    calrando+u...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/calrando?hl=en.

     

    Jason Wehmhoener <jaso...@gmail.com> Mar 02 07:59AM -0800  

    Here's the response to my email that I received from the SCCRTC. If you want to voice your opinion, sounds like the bike committee meeting next Monday night is the place to do it.
     
    Thank you for your comments. They will be made available to the Commission for their review.

    We are in communication with Caltrans about your concerns and the information will be on the Bike Committee agenda at our next meeting on Monday, April 9 @ 6:30 p.m. at the Commission Offices.

    Please visit the SCCRTC website at www.sccrtc.org for information on the Commission and its activities.

    Thank you again.

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

     

    Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission
    831.460.3200 - Santa Cruz Office (main location)
    831.768.8012 - Watsonville Office
    1523 Pacific Avenue | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
     
     
    -Jason
     
    On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Richard.McCaw wrote:
     

     

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group calrando.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "calrando" group.
To post to this group, send email to calr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to calrando+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/calrando?hl=en.

Lois Springsteen

unread,
Mar 3, 2012, 6:44:49 PM3/3/12
to calr...@googlegroups.com

Thanks, guys, for a good discussion. I feel very strongly that this plan is a really bad idea and will express that view to the authorities. My concerns have to do with the width of the shoulder and the often overgrown bushes that already force cyclists into the lane of traffic to avoid glass, debris from folks driving to the dump with uncovered loads, cracks, etc. Studies seem to indicate that the shoulder should be 12’ wide to accommodate these strips. Most of this roadway does not meet that standard. Forcing cyclists into the main vehicle lane to avoid a rumble strip is certainly more dangerous than correcting the existing problems with this highway’s shoulder. Center-line rumble strips also concern me because if drivers find them annoying, they’ll pass too close to the cyclists instead of giving them a little more space. I am also worried that the safety of bicyclists who travel at night and/or in poor weather have not been  considered in rumble strip designs. If we must have a rumble strip, I wonder if it could be carved out of the main vehicle lane instead of the already too-narrow shoulder on Highway 1.

 

Why is it a good idea to endanger every cyclist using the roadway instead of dealing directly and specifically with the problems caused by distracted and impaired drivers through better enforcement of current laws? The funds for the rumble strip could be used more effectively for shoulder maintenance and repair, fog line repainting and general cleanup of overgrown bushes.

 

As Jim said, the numbers just don’t add up. Why endanger thousands of cyclists in an effort to prevent a few vehicle mishaps?

 

Lois

Veronica Tunucci

unread,
Mar 5, 2012, 12:53:14 AM3/5/12
to lo...@bryant-springsteen.net, calr...@googlegroups.com

When you’re adding up the numbers, don’t forget that cyclists are also killed by head on collisions when a car crosses the center line.

 

I think a few of those numbers already exist.

 

Veronica

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages