Re: Pedalcyclist Whine
Brent P
> What this highly-slanted article conveniently ignores is all those
> pedalcyclists who ride outside of the bike lane. Every day I see at
> least one pedalcyclist riding with his bike tires RIGHT ON TOP OF the
> white line that separates the bike lane from the rightmost automobile
> lane. In other words, these guys have their right ass cheek in the
> bike lane and the left ass cheek hanging out in 65 MPH traffic - is it
> any surprise that some of these guys get hit?
I ride in the same location I rode before Daley had bike lane stripes
painted. It wasn't a problem before the line was painted but drivers such
as yourself have a problem with it now because there's a stripe on the
road. The safe location to ride didn't change because paint was put on
the pavement. You can call the door zone a bike lane, but that doesn't
make it safe to ride there.
Now I know you're going to yammer on about how CA bike lanes are wide and
nice and all that... regardless of what you say, bike lanes are not
bicycle restrictions. But thanks for being a data point that says drivers
interpet them as such.
> http://www.ocregister.com/news/david-whiting-orange-1979972-county-road
>
> What word in 'bike lane' don't drivers understand?
> Vehicles illegally in bike lanes kill, maim, terrify cyclists.
> DAVID WHITING
> Register columnist
> dwhi...@ocregister.com
>
> Nearly 30 cyclists have been killed in Orange County during the past
> two years, according to Orange County Register databases. At least
> two, David "Cat" Pullen and Christy Kirkwood, were killed by cars
> swerving into bike lanes.
>
> Many more have been paralyzed, lost limbs or otherwise injured. An
> alarming and growing number of cyclists are afraid to use legally
> sanctioned bike lanes ? marked lanes made using tax dollars.
Gee... the magic paint stripe isn't making people safe afterall!
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:1sbbr3htm6uags4b3...@4ax.com...
> What this highly-slanted article conveniently ignores is all those
> pedalcyclists who ride outside of the bike lane. Every day I see at
> least one pedalcyclist riding with his bike tires RIGHT ON TOP OF the
> white line that separates the bike lane from the rightmost automobile
> lane. In other words, these guys have their right ass cheek in the
> bike lane and the left ass cheek hanging out in 65 MPH traffic - is it
> any surprise that some of these guys get hit?
>
> that I see a LOT more pedalcyclists riding *outside* of the bike lane
> than I see motorists driving *in* the bike lane. Why don't you write a
> column to address THAT problem, Mr. Whiting?
>
> http://www.ocregister.com/news/david-whiting-orange-1979972-county-road
>
> What word in 'bike lane' don't drivers understand?
> Vehicles illegally in bike lanes kill, maim, terrify cyclists.
> DAVID WHITING
> Register columnist
> dwhi...@ocregister.com
>
> Nearly 30 cyclists have been killed in Orange County during the past
> two years, according to Orange County Register databases. At least
> two, David "Cat" Pullen and Christy Kirkwood, were killed by cars
> swerving into bike lanes.
>
> Many more have been paralyzed, lost limbs or otherwise injured. An
> alarming and growing number of cyclists are afraid to use legally
>
> The choice is clear: Does our fair-weather county give up its
> world-class bike lanes, or do cyclists and drivers work together to
> share the road?
>
> The path toward a solution is up to everyone. Law enforcement clearly
> has a role. So does each cycling club, each driving organization, each
> individual.
>
> Perhaps the place to start is with awareness.
I've said it before, I'll say it again...
Curb divided bike lanes on all roads with bike lanes is the only real
solution. That'll force 'em to remain either in the bike lane. For sure, it
would eliminate riding on the bike lane line, unless the bicyclist wanted to
ride on the curb. It would also discourage the two-across and extending over
well over the bike lane packs of bicyclists during the summer months near
beach areas.
Also, a curb is still low enough for bicyclists to stop and pick up the bike
to move it over the curb should they need to. Most curbs are not more than
about 8 inches high as the highest curb, and most curbs are 6 inches high or
less.
The days of Share The Road, where the vehicles have to change over lane
lines when a group of bicyclists extends over the bike lane, or when traffic
gets slowed down due to a bicyclist taking the lane and not pulling off to
the side of the road... those days have got to come to and end very soon.
Most speed limits on the roads are over 40mph, rarely does a bicycle rider
travel at more than about 30mph as their top speed. However, the curb
divided bike lane is a good solution for allowing bicyclists to use the same
roads as motor vehicles without also impacting motor vehicle traffic. Plus,
it would also be highly effective in reducing the number of vehicle/bicycle
collisions, either due to the fault of the motor vehicle driver or the
bicyclist, since some sort of hard barrier between bicycle traffic and motor
vehicle traffic would exist with a curb divided bike lane. Finally, in the
event a vehicle or bicycle did cross over that barrier, it would show
outright who was at fault if a collision occurred... simply by who crossed
the barrier they are at fault.
In conclusion, curb divided bike lanes are a simple solution to an ongoing
problem between vehicular traffic and bicycle traffic. All that would need
to be decided is a standardized minimum width for the curb divided bike
lane, and then what would follow would be the construction of the curb
barrier itself with suitable gaps at intersections.
Brent P
> Curb divided bike lanes on all roads with bike lanes is the only real
> solution. That'll force 'em to remain either in the bike lane. For sure, it
> would eliminate riding on the bike lane line, unless the bicyclist wanted to
> ride on the curb. It would also discourage the two-across and extending over
> well over the bike lane packs of bicyclists during the summer months near
> beach areas.
It would also physically prevent left turns. It's most dangerous and
unworkable idea this side of street parallel bike paths.
> Also, a curb is still low enough for bicyclists to stop and pick up the bike
> to move it over the curb should they need to. Most curbs are not more than
> about 8 inches high as the highest curb, and most curbs are 6 inches high or
> less.
How about asking drivers to get out, pick up their cars and carry them
over a small curb to make a left turn? It's about as sensible.
> The days of Share The Road, where the vehicles have to change over lane
> lines when a group of bicyclists extends over the bike lane, or when traffic
> gets slowed down due to a bicyclist taking the lane and not pulling off to
> the side of the road... those days have got to come to and end very soon.
Because drivers can't be bothered to drive... too busy yapping on the
cell phone and watching TV I guess. As a driver myself, I usually have no
problem at all giving a bicyclist a full traffic lane and have no time
penalty for doing so.
> Most speed limits on the roads are over 40mph, rarely does a bicycle rider
> travel at more than about 30mph as their top speed.
I find it amusing how 'speed kills' becomes 'you can't go fast enough'
when the subject switches to bicycling.
>However, the curb
> divided bike lane is a good solution for allowing bicyclists to use the same
> roads as motor vehicles without also impacting motor vehicle traffic.
I don't want to have to drive over curbs to get into a parking lot or
find ways around.
> Plus,
> it would also be highly effective in reducing the number of vehicle/bicycle
> collisions, either due to the fault of the motor vehicle driver or the
> bicyclist, since some sort of hard barrier between bicycle traffic and motor
> vehicle traffic would exist with a curb divided bike lane.
No it won't. Hit from behind is a minority of such collisions. Most are
ride outs and intersection related. The complexity of your solution would
serve to increase those.
Daniel W. Rouse Jr.
news:PqydnRjqMKSBXSja...@comcast.com...
> In article <ofqdnbcfZvn_Jyja...@nethere.com>, Daniel W. Rouse
Jr. wrote:
>
> > Curb divided bike lanes on all roads with bike lanes is the only real
> > solution. That'll force 'em to remain either in the bike lane. For sure,
it
> > would eliminate riding on the bike lane line, unless the bicyclist
wanted to
> > ride on the curb. It would also discourage the two-across and extending
over
> > well over the bike lane packs of bicyclists during the summer months
near
> > beach areas.
>
> It would also physically prevent left turns. It's most dangerous and
> unworkable idea this side of street parallel bike paths.
>
Here's the equivalent of the left turn with a curb divided bike lane:
1. Stop at the intersection, dismount and cross while walking the bike.
2. At the other side of the intersection, repeat step 1 turning 90 degrees
left for the left turn.
3. Remount and continue riding once the two-step left turn has been
completed.
Consider it as an advantage when motor vehicle traffic further back has to
wait three or more light cycles to make their left turn in a traffic jam,
while the bicyclist only needs to wait for two pedestrian crossing signals
to complete the left turn equivalent.
> > Also, a curb is still low enough for bicyclists to stop and pick up the
bike
> > to move it over the curb should they need to. Most curbs are not more
than
> > about 8 inches high as the highest curb, and most curbs are 6 inches
high or
> > less.
>
> How about asking drivers to get out, pick up their cars and carry them
> over a small curb to make a left turn? It's about as sensible.
>
It's not possible due to the extra size and weight of a motor vehicle vs.
the lighter weight and smaller size of a bike. Plus, the logical equivalent
would be exiting the vehicle and pushing it, not picking it up.
> > The days of Share The Road, where the vehicles have to change over lane
> > lines when a group of bicyclists extends over the bike lane, or when
traffic
> > gets slowed down due to a bicyclist taking the lane and not pulling off
to
> > the side of the road... those days have got to come to and end very
soon.
>
> Because drivers can't be bothered to drive... too busy yapping on the
> cell phone and watching TV I guess. As a driver myself, I usually have no
> problem at all giving a bicyclist a full traffic lane and have no time
> penalty for doing so.
>
And because bicyclists can't seem to realize that the words bike lane and a
solid white line means the bikes need to remain in that lane and should not
cross a solid line.
> > Most speed limits on the roads are over 40mph, rarely does a bicycle
rider
> > travel at more than about 30mph as their top speed.
>
> I find it amusing how 'speed kills' becomes 'you can't go fast enough'
> when the subject switches to bicycling.
>
It does when the bicyclist does not remain in the bike lane, when one
clearly exists. If the collision between the motor vehicle and bicycle
occurs at any signficant high speed, let's say 35mph... the motor vehicle
gets dented but the bicyclist probably gets seriously injured at the minimum
if the collision isn't an outright fatal collsion. Remember, bicyclists do
not have all of that protective metal surrounding them as motor vehicles do.
The simple equation of F = ma also means that the motor vehicle having more
mass also has greater force at whatever the acceleration rate of the
collision may be.
> >However, the curb
> > divided bike lane is a good solution for allowing bicyclists to use the
same
> > roads as motor vehicles without also impacting motor vehicle traffic.
>
> I don't want to have to drive over curbs to get into a parking lot or
> find ways around.
>
Why would you have to drive over a curb? If there was a driveway, there
would be a gap in the curb since turning motor vehicle traffic would also
need access to that driveway. The motor vehicles would simply have to check
for bicyclists that may be riding through instead of turning, and the
bicyclists would also have to make sure they weren't cutting past motor
vehicles that were in the motion of turning.
[snip...]
Brent P
> "Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:PqydnRjqMKSBXSja...@comcast.com...
>> In article <ofqdnbcfZvn_Jyja...@nethere.com>, Daniel W. Rouse
> Jr. wrote:
>>
>> > Curb divided bike lanes on all roads with bike lanes is the only real
>> > solution. That'll force 'em to remain either in the bike lane. For sure,
> it
>> > would eliminate riding on the bike lane line, unless the bicyclist
> wanted to
>> > ride on the curb. It would also discourage the two-across and extending
> over
>> > well over the bike lane packs of bicyclists during the summer months
> near
>> > beach areas.
>>
>> It would also physically prevent left turns. It's most dangerous and
>> unworkable idea this side of street parallel bike paths.
> No it wouldn't, the bicyclist just couldn't left turn like a car anymore.
Hence preventing left turns.
> Here's the equivalent of the left turn with a curb divided bike lane:
>
> 1. Stop at the intersection, dismount and cross while walking the bike.
> 2. At the other side of the intersection, repeat step 1 turning 90 degrees
> left for the left turn.
> 3. Remount and continue riding once the two-step left turn has been
> completed.
Insane. Simply insane. That's not a turn either. A turn is leaning and
turning the handle bars, not getting off and walking around.
It's abotu as practical as asking drivers to push their cars through
intersections.
> Consider it as an advantage when motor vehicle traffic further back has to
> wait three or more light cycles to make their left turn in a traffic jam,
> while the bicyclist only needs to wait for two pedestrian crossing signals
> to complete the left turn equivalent.
Oh gee... another 'gift' from the motoring public. Under normal
conditions, it's waiting cycles for the ped 'walk' signal to come
up. See, if you don't push that ped button at the right moment of the
cycle, it makes you wait through the existing cycle and the one after. On
third way through it will give you a 'walk'.
>> > Also, a curb is still low enough for bicyclists to stop and pick up the bike
>> > to move it over the curb should they need to. Most curbs are not more than
>> > about 8 inches high as the highest curb, and most curbs are 6 inches high or
>> > less.
>>
>> How about asking drivers to get out, pick up their cars and carry them
>> over a small curb to make a left turn? It's about as sensible.
> It's not possible due to the extra size and weight of a motor vehicle vs.
> the lighter weight and smaller size of a bike. Plus, the logical equivalent
> would be exiting the vehicle and pushing it, not picking it up.
I can't push the bicycle over the curb, nor can the car be pushed over
it. Both need to be lifted.
>> > The days of Share The Road, where the vehicles have to change over lane
>> > lines when a group of bicyclists extends over the bike lane, or when
>> >traffic
>> > gets slowed down due to a bicyclist taking the lane and not pulling off to
>> > the side of the road... those days have got to come to and end very
> soon.
>>
>> Because drivers can't be bothered to drive... too busy yapping on the
>> cell phone and watching TV I guess. As a driver myself, I usually have no
>> problem at all giving a bicyclist a full traffic lane and have no time
>> penalty for doing so.
> And because bicyclists can't seem to realize that the words bike lane and a
> solid white line means the bikes need to remain in that lane and should not
> cross a solid line.
Funny, everytime I say motorists interpet it that way I am told how it
legally isn't that way by pro bike lane drivers and bicyclists. I am sure
they are correct that it isn't legally that way, hell I know they are.
The problem is that most drivers don't know the law when it comes to
things like bicycle lanes and make up their own interpetations as you
demonstrate.
>> > Most speed limits on the roads are over 40mph, rarely does a bicyclerider
>> > travel at more than about 30mph as their top speed.
>>
>> I find it amusing how 'speed kills' becomes 'you can't go fast enough'
>> when the subject switches to bicycling.
> It does when the bicyclist does not remain in the bike lane, when one
> clearly exists.
Even if it's substandard and dangerous to use!
> If the collision between the motor vehicle and bicycle
> occurs at any signficant high speed, let's say 35mph... the motor vehicle
> gets dented but the bicyclist probably gets seriously injured at the minimum
> if the collision isn't an outright fatal collsion. Remember, bicyclists do
> not have all of that protective metal surrounding them as motor vehicles do.
> The simple equation of F = ma also means that the motor vehicle having more
> mass also has greater force at whatever the acceleration rate of the
> collision may be.
I find it amusing how motorists guise their plans to remove bicyclists
from the road or put them in special ghettos and endure various
restrictions as being for our safety. I've been biycling since I was
about 5 years old. I've been bicycling on roads since I was about 10/11.
I think I know how to keep myself safe out there. thanks for your
concern, but it's me on the two wheels, and your curbed in bicycle ghetto
is a nightmare. It's not practical and it makes for all sorts of
dangerous interactions that are the lead types of car-bicycle collisions
all for an attempt to make a low occuring type lower. And since many of
the hit from behinds are drunk and otherwise impaired drivers any drop
would be severely limited as cars tend to go right over curbs when driven
by such people.
>> >However, the curb
>> > divided bike lane is a good solution for allowing bicyclists to use the
> same
>> > roads as motor vehicles without also impacting motor vehicle traffic.
>> I don't want to have to drive over curbs to get into a parking lot or
>> find ways around.
> Why would you have to drive over a curb? If there was a driveway, there
> would be a gap in the curb since turning motor vehicle traffic would also
> need access to that driveway. The motor vehicles would simply have to check
> for bicyclists that may be riding through instead of turning, and the
> bicyclists would also have to make sure they weren't cutting past motor
> vehicles that were in the motion of turning.
I see you don't live in the real world. First, you just gave cars access
to another lane. This means MFFY drivers will enter the bike lane area at
a driveway, pass other traffic and force their way back in at an
intersection up the road. Also, drivers don't look for bicyclists. They
just turn. You've introduced the same problem that makes street parallel
bike paths (and sidewalk riding) so dangerous. Drivers don't look, they
just drive across the path.
Marz
<dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1sbbr3htm6uags4b3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > What this highly-slanted article conveniently ignores is all those
> > pedalcyclists who ride outside of the bike lane. Every day I see at
> > least one pedalcyclist riding with his bike tires RIGHT ON TOP OF the
> > white line that separates the bike lane from the rightmost automobile
> > lane. In other words, these guys have their right ass cheek in the
> > bike lane and the left ass cheek hanging out in 65 MPH traffic - is it
> > any surprise that some of these guys get hit?
>
> > And since Mr. Whiting is presenting anecdotal evidence, I'll mention
> > that I see a LOT more pedalcyclists riding *outside* of the bike lane
> > than I see motorists driving *in* the bike lane. Why don't you write a
> > column to address THAT problem, Mr. Whiting?
>
> >http://www.ocregister.com/news/david-whiting-orange-1979972-county-road
>
> > What word in 'bike lane' don't drivers understand?
> > Vehicles illegally in bike lanes kill, maim, terrify cyclists.
> > DAVID WHITING
> > Register columnist
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow, stupid is as stupid does I guess.
A curb to separate cyclists from drivers. So I guess they'll be a
break in the curb for every junction to allow cars to turn left or
right. A break in the curb at every driveway and business entrance to
allow cars to pass smoothly?
How wide would such a bike lane be? Wide enough for one bike, one
trike or maybe two riders abreast?
Bike lanes are a bad idea, whether curbed or not and you need to
understand that drivers will continue to share the road way with other
road users (cyclists, ped, horses) and that the need to share this
space will grow.
Dan...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:49:03 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com
>
> (Brent P) wrote:
> >Now I know you're going to yammer on about how CA bike lanes are wide and
> >nice and all that... regardless of what you say, bike lanes are not
> >bicycle restrictions. But thanks for being a data point that says drivers
> >interpet them as such.
>
>
> If there are two lanes available, one of which is carrying cars (and
> their inattentive drivers) at 55, 60, or even 65 MPH, and another lane
> that is the sole preserve of pedalcyclists, why would you REFUSE to
> ride in the bike lane and insist on hanging your ass out into the
> fast-moving traffic? IMHO, if you habitually ride outside of the bike
> lane to make some sort of political statement, then you have no right
> to complain if you get hit by a car.
Plain old common sense, I like that.
It's plain old common sense not to ride in the door zone, lest you end
up munching on some inattentive fool's door.
It's plain old common sense to avoid debris when riding a bicycle.
Flat tires every mile or two makes for a lousy ride.
It's plain old common sense that a couple lines painted on the road do
not make an unsafe place to ride safe, such as a door zone.
I happen to agree that cyclists riding in the middle of the road for
no reason other than "making some sort of political statement" are a-
holes. However, I think that most of the time a cyclist is riding in
the road it's not to make a political statement; it's to cycle
effectively and safely. Perhaps if you left the car at home and took
a bike out every now and again you'd have a better perspective. You
can even set up a helmet cam so you don't miss any precious MFFY
footage.
Brent P
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:49:03 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Now I know you're going to yammer on about how CA bike lanes are wide and
>>nice and all that... regardless of what you say, bike lanes are not
>>bicycle restrictions. But thanks for being a data point that says drivers
>>interpet them as such.
>
>
> If there are two lanes available, one of which is carrying cars (and
> their inattentive drivers) at 55, 60, or even 65 MPH, and another lane
> that is the sole preserve of pedalcyclists, why would you REFUSE to
> ride in the bike lane and insist on hanging your ass out into the
> fast-moving traffic? IMHO, if you habitually ride outside of the bike
> lane to make some sort of political statement, then you have no right
> to complain if you get hit by a car.
If I ever found a bike lane that wasn't more dangerous than the regular
lane. All bike lanes I am familiar with have been at best glorified
shoulders. Riding location is determined by the conditions of the
individual road, not where someone decided to paint a line and what part
someone decided to call a 'bike lane'.
As I was explaining with Daley's bike lanes, the proper place to ride did
not change when a stripe was painted.
hbro...@gmail.com
> What this highly-slanted article conveniently ignores is all those
> pedalcyclists who ride outside of the bike lane. Every day I see at
> least one pedalcyclist riding with his bike tires RIGHT ON TOP OF the
> white line that separates the bike lane from the rightmost automobile
> lane. In other words, these guys have their right ass cheek in the
> bike lane and the left ass cheek hanging out in 65 MPH traffic - is it
> any surprise that some of these guys get hit?
Perhaps if you ACTUALLY READ your vehicle code then you would se the a
BICYCLIST has the same rights a a car. Whether or not he/she is in a
bike lane. And I am an avid Cyclist. What the hell is "Pedalcyclist"
anyway??? It's probably people like yourself that are running
cyclists off the road.
Timothy J. Lee
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:49:03 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>nice and all that... regardless of what you say, bike lanes are not
>>bicycle restrictions. But thanks for being a data point that says drivers
>>interpet them as such.
>
One would wish that road departments would have some common sense in
striping bike lanes. Too often, the bike lane is within the door swing
zone of legally parked cars (people in the parked cars opening doors
often are not looking, and when they do look, a bicyclist hugging the
parked cars is hard to see). Sometimes, a straight through bike lane
is put to the right of a right turn only lane, which makes no sense from
a traffic flow perspective.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
Timothy J. Lee
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. <dwro...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>However, the curb
>divided bike lane is a good solution for allowing bicyclists to use the same
>roads as motor vehicles without also impacting motor vehicle traffic. Plus,
>it would also be highly effective in reducing the number of vehicle/bicycle
>collisions, either due to the fault of the motor vehicle driver or the
>bicyclist, since some sort of hard barrier between bicycle traffic and motor
>vehicle traffic would exist with a curb divided bike lane.
Most crashes occur at intersections. A curb divided bike lane would
actually make intersections more dangerous, by preventing bicyclists
and motorists from merging to the correct lane upon approach to the
intersection (right turning motorists need to get to the right of
straight through bicyclists, and left turning bicyclists need to merge
over to the left turn lane).
DennisTheBald
<dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>
>
> In conclusion, curb divided bike lanes are a simple solution to an ongoing
> problem between vehicular traffic and bicycle traffic.
what are you on crack?
curb divided lanes are not simple, they're costly and would completely
prohibit any parking lot access for motorists.
bicycles are vehicles and traffic is traffic. You sound like those
sedan drivers that want to ban SUVs because they can't see over them,
or one of the SUV drivers that doesn't like the way little cars dart
from lane to lane. Or the politicians that think it's a good idea to
keep trucks out of the left lane. If you see that there is a slower
moving vehicle a head of you, go around... the only people that seem
to be inconvenienced by bicycles are the people with their heads
completely up their butts, and you sound just like one of 'em
DennisTheBald
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:14:56 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>
> <dwrous...@nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote:
> >I've said it before, I'll say it again...
>
> 2) It won't stop the Critical Masshole types who will complain that
> the bike lane isn't big enough and will thus ride in huge packs in the
> automobile lanes anyway.
> --
Automobile lanes? I had always been under the impression that public
roads were constructed for the public, irregardless of the type of
vehicle.
If we are going to build special lanes for automobiles let's make 'em
airtight so they don't spew their or their drivers' crap on the people.
Arif Khokar
> What this highly-slanted article conveniently ignores is all those
> pedalcyclists who ride outside of the bike lane. Every day I see at
> least one pedalcyclist riding with his bike tires RIGHT ON TOP OF the
> white line that separates the bike lane from the rightmost automobile
> lane. In other words, these guys have their right ass cheek in the
> bike lane and the left ass cheek hanging out in 65 MPH traffic - is it
> any surprise that some of these guys get hit?
Only if those who are driving aren't watching the road or paying
attention. There is a 4-lane divided highway not too far from where I
live. It has a 60 mph limit. On occasion, I have seen cyclists riding
in the right lane (the shoulder isn't paved. I simply switched lanes,
passed them, and returned to the right (while going 65 mph).
Arif Khokar
> Curb divided bike lanes on all roads with bike lanes is the only real
> solution.
That would only work if they made special grade separated bike
interchanges for each intersection. For instance, they could have a
bicycle-only overpass with cloverleaf ramps to allow them to make a turn
onto an intersecting curb separated path.
Failing that, it's just simpler to ride with traffic.
Brent P
> Now I *know* you didn't read my post. I was not talking about people
> who momentarily dodge a tree branch in the bike lane; I'm talking
> about the people who CONTINUOUSLY ride ON TOP OF the lane separation
> stripe. I maintain that it is foolish to do so when the automobiles in
> the adjacent lane are whipping past at 55 - 65 MPH, but you go right
> ahead and do so if you want.
It depends on the road in question, the so called bike lane in question.
Brent P
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:39:47 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>If I ever found a bike lane that wasn't more dangerous than the regular
>>lane. All bike lanes I am familiar with have been at best glorified
>>shoulders. Riding location is determined by the conditions of the
>>individual road, not where someone decided to paint a line and what part
>>someone decided to call a 'bike lane'.
> 55 MPH speed limit
I'm in IL, you have to be on an interstate or some other limited access
highway or way out in the country to see a 55mph speed limit.
> AND allows bicycles, either with or without a
> marked bike lane. Where would you ride on such a road? Would you take
> the lane? EVER?
I have taken the lane on roads where people drive 55mph. The speed limit
wasn't 55mph, but I have taken the lane on such roads when traffic
conditions required it for safe riding.
gpsman
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:32:19 -0800 (PST), "DanK...@gmail.com"
>
>
>
> <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 15, 3:19 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:49:03 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com
>
> >> (Brent P) wrote:
> >> >Now I know you're going to yammer on about how CA bike lanes are wide and
> >> >nice and all that... regardless of what you say, bike lanes are not
> >> >bicycle restrictions. But thanks for being a data point that says drivers
> >> >interpet them as such.
>
> >> OK, how about just using plain old common sense?
>
> >> If there are two lanes available, one of which is carrying cars (and
> >> their inattentive drivers) at 55, 60, or even 65 MPH, and another lane
> >> that is the sole preserve of pedalcyclists, why would you REFUSE to
> >> ride in the bike lane and insist on hanging your ass out into the
> >> fast-moving traffic?
>
>
>
> >It's plain old common sense not to ride in the door zone, lest you end
> >up munching on some inattentive fool's door.
>
> streets, hence no door zone to worry about.
>
> >It's plain old common sense to avoid debris when riding a bicycle.
> >Flat tires every mile or two makes for a lousy ride.
>
> who momentarily dodge a tree branch in the bike lane; I'm talking
> about the people who CONTINUOUSLY ride ON TOP OF the lane separation
> stripe. I maintain that it is foolish to do so when the automobiles in
> the adjacent lane are whipping past at 55 - 65 MPH, but you go right
> ahead and do so if you want.
>
> >no reason other than "making some sort of political statement" are a-
> >holes. However, I think that most of the time a cyclist is riding in
> >the road it's not to make a political statement; it's to cycle
> >effectively and safely. Perhaps if you left the car at home and took
> >a bike out every now and again you'd have a better perspective.
>
> Somehow, *I* have no problem with "debris" in the bike lane. I manage
> to ride in the middle of the lane just fine - which is why I have so
> little tolerance for those who refuse to do so.
>
> >You can even set up a helmet cam so you don't miss any precious
> >MFFY footage.
>
>
> http://blip.tv/file/320255
Beh hehehehehehehehe.... <gasp>
You can't ride a bicycle for shit either....!
Ohhh-ooo... that was great...! Thanks for the chuckle.
-----
- gpsman
Brent P
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:07:31 -0800 (PST), DennisTheBald
><Dennis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>bicycles are vehicles and traffic is traffic.
>
> won't) travel at the prevailing speed of the rest of the traffic, you
> have no business being on that road. At least when there is a marked
> bike lane there is in effect a separate "slow lane" where
> pedalcyclists can ride in relative safety, but refusing to use it and
> riding with half your body sticking out into 55 MPH traffic kinda
> defeats the purpose.
Sorry no. Just because some people want to drive 40+mph (SL 30mph) on a
chicago arterial where daley put a bike lane in the gutter or in the door
zone will not compel me to use the dangerous bike lane. I will ride in the
exact same spot I would have ridden in prior to the stripe being painted.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
area as well.
They had a spot on the local news about auto drivers lack of respect for
cyclists safety and 'rights'. To illustrate their plight, they had a
camera crew tape a popular bicycle trail where it crosses a city street.
Time after time, a cyclists would be sipping across the road just as a
car was approaching. Inevitably, someone would have to slam on brakes.
What the news program didn't make clear (and was carefully framed out of
their shots) was the fact that the bicycle trail has clearly posted
"STOP" signs. The roadway does not, nor does it have any signage
requiring vehicular traffic to yield to trail traffic. Every cyclist
crossing in front of traffic was breaking the law.
Now, if you really want to see cyclists in a snit, the Seattle Police
places bike patrols along this trail from time to time at similar stop
signs and cites cyclists for running them.
Bicycles have the same rights _and_responsibilities_ as cars.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Only through suffering comes wisdom. -- Zeus
The Real Bev
> In article <1sbbr3htm6uags4b3...@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> What this highly-slanted article conveniently ignores is all those
>> pedalcyclists who ride outside of the bike lane. Every day I see at
>> least one pedalcyclist riding with his bike tires RIGHT ON TOP OF the
>> white line that separates the bike lane from the rightmost automobile
>> lane. In other words, these guys have their right ass cheek in the
>> bike lane and the left ass cheek hanging out in 65 MPH traffic - is it
>> any surprise that some of these guys get hit?
You can risk getting doored, move over a bit and risk slipping out
because of the stupid paint marking the stupid bike lane, or move over a
bit more and risk getting hit by some jerk with poor spacial perception
skills and/or a bad attitude.
Remember, each bicycle means one less car to get in your way or take
your parking place.
> I ride in the same location I rode before Daley had bike lane stripes
> painted. It wasn't a problem before the line was painted but drivers such
> as yourself have a problem with it now because there's a stripe on the
> road. The safe location to ride didn't change because paint was put on
> the pavement. You can call the door zone a bike lane, but that doesn't
> make it safe to ride there.
>
> Now I know you're going to yammer on about how CA bike lanes are wide and
> nice and all that... regardless of what you say, bike lanes are not
> bicycle restrictions. But thanks for being a data point that says drivers
> interpet them as such.
When Pasadena was adding bike lanes and 'share the road' signs, I went
to the Official Meeting where Public Input was provided. The city
engineer said that the marked bike lanes were meaningless as far as
legality was concerned, but cars slowed down where there were painted
bike lanes, apparently a civic good. I told him, as the only bicyclist
there, that it was stupid to spend money on paint and signs when what
was really needed was more frequent street cleaning and repair of the
potholes and tree-root pavement breaks. Needless to say, we got the
paint and signs, possibly because some friend or relative of some city
employee sells paint and/or signs.
The especially stupid part was that instead of using ordinary paint they
used that thick shiny stuff that gets as slippery as ice when it gets wet.
So now we have to avoid the cars, whose drivers think we have plenty of
room in the bicycle lane, the slippery white stripe, and the doors of
the people who park in the "bicycle lane" (also known as the parking
lane) and apparently become totally clueless (or malevolent, take your
pick) as soon as they turn their engines off -- if not before.
>> http://www.ocregister.com/news/david-whiting-orange-1979972-county-road
>>
>> What word in 'bike lane' don't drivers understand?
>> Vehicles illegally in bike lanes kill, maim, terrify cyclists.
>> DAVID WHITING
>> Register columnist
>>
>> Nearly 30 cyclists have been killed in Orange County during the past
>> two years, according to Orange County Register databases. At least
>> two, David "Cat" Pullen and Christy Kirkwood, were killed by cars
>> swerving into bike lanes.
>>
>> Many more have been paralyzed, lost limbs or otherwise injured. An
>> alarming and growing number of cyclists are afraid to use legally
>> sanctioned bike lanes ? marked lanes made using tax dollars.
>
> Gee... the magic paint stripe isn't making people safe afterall!
No, but it makes the people who sell paint a bit richer and the people
who handed out the contracts feel more virtuous -- doing well by doing
good. They've all bastards and should be horse-whipped.
--
Cheers,
Bev
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
"One's chances of winning the lottery are not appreciably
improved by actually buying a ticket."
Arif Khokar
> The cyclists have put their PR departments in high gear in the Seattle
> area as well.
>
> They had a spot on the local news about auto drivers lack of respect for
> cyclists safety and 'rights'. To illustrate their plight, they had a
> camera crew tape a popular bicycle trail where it crosses a city street.
> Time after time, a cyclists would be sipping across the road just as a
> car was approaching. Inevitably, someone would have to slam on brakes.
>
> What the news program didn't make clear (and was carefully framed out of
> their shots) was the fact that the bicycle trail has clearly posted
> "STOP" signs.
Somehow I think that if the situation was reversed (where the roadway
had stop signs and the trail didn't), drivers would be making rolling
stops at best and blowing through the intersection at worst.
Perhaps they should build a roundabout in that location.
> Bicycles have the same rights _and_responsibilities_ as cars.
They do, but the same population of drivers who are largely incompetent
are the same ones who ride bikes.
The Real Bev
> I've said it before, I'll say it again...
>
> Curb divided bike lanes on all roads with bike lanes is the only real
> solution. That'll force 'em to remain either in the bike lane. For sure, it
> would eliminate riding on the bike lane line, unless the bicyclist wanted to
> ride on the curb. It would also discourage the two-across and extending over
> well over the bike lane packs of bicyclists during the summer months near
> beach areas.
This will never happen simply because it would prevent cars from driving
or parking in the bike lane. OTOH, perhaps it can be sold as a method
of "traffic calming," most of which are about as calming as a cattle prod.
--
Cheers, Bev
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the
little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks." --Emo
The Real Bev
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:49:03 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Now I know you're going to yammer on about how CA bike lanes are wide and
>>nice and all that... regardless of what you say, bike lanes are not
>>bicycle restrictions. But thanks for being a data point that says drivers
>>interpet them as such.
>
> OK, how about just using plain old common sense?
>
> If there are two lanes available, one of which is carrying cars (and
> their inattentive drivers) at 55, 60, or even 65 MPH, and another lane
> that is the sole preserve of pedalcyclists, why would you REFUSE to
> ride in the bike lane and insist on hanging your ass out into the
> fast-moving traffic? IMHO, if you habitually ride outside of the bike
> lane to make some sort of political statement, then you have no right
> to complain if you get hit by a car.
The bike lane is also the parking lane. Where do you suggest the
cyclist ride when passing a parked car? Does it make any difference if
the parked car is occupied?
The Real Bev
> <Dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 15, 3:19 pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Now I know you're going to yammer on about how CA bike lanes are wide and
>>> >nice and all that... regardless of what you say, bike lanes are not
>>> >bicycle restrictions. But thanks for being a data point that says drivers
>>> >interpet them as such.
>>>
>>> OK, how about just using plain old common sense?
>>>
>>> If there are two lanes available, one of which is carrying cars (and
>>> their inattentive drivers) at 55, 60, or even 65 MPH, and another lane
>>> that is the sole preserve of pedalcyclists, why would you REFUSE to
>>> ride in the bike lane and insist on hanging your ass out into the
>>> fast-moving traffic?
>>
>>Plain old common sense, I like that.
>
> I noticed you ignored my question. I'll bet you didn't even read it.
>
>>It's plain old common sense not to ride in the door zone, lest you end
>>up munching on some inattentive fool's door.
>
> This is Orange County. Around here there is no parking on the major
> streets, hence no door zone to worry about.
This is Los Angeles County. When there is no parking on major streets,
the right curb is the right border of the rightmost traffic lane and
about as unsafe a place to ride as it's possible to devise without
actually mounting piano wire at neck height.
>>It's plain old common sense to avoid debris when riding a bicycle.
>>Flat tires every mile or two makes for a lousy ride.
>
> Now I *know* you didn't read my post. I was not talking about people
> who momentarily dodge a tree branch in the bike lane; I'm talking
> about the people who CONTINUOUSLY ride ON TOP OF the lane separation
> stripe. I maintain that it is foolish to do so when the automobiles in
> the adjacent lane are whipping past at 55 - 65 MPH, but you go right
> ahead and do so if you want.
With the advent of tinted glass and headrests, it's very nearly
impossible to see whether a parked car contains a driver. Just how do
you suggest we keep from being doored by drivers who open their doors
into traffic? The ones who open their doors all the way risk getting
them ripped off by trucks, but opening them just enough for the driver
to slide out can easily kill a cyclist, even one riding on the white line.
>>I happen to agree that cyclists riding in the middle of the road for
>>no reason other than "making some sort of political statement" are a-
>>holes. However, I think that most of the time a cyclist is riding in
>>the road it's not to make a political statement; it's to cycle
>>effectively and safely. Perhaps if you left the car at home and took
>>a bike out every now and again you'd have a better perspective.
>
> I ride my bike to and from the train station several times per week.
> Somehow, *I* have no problem with "debris" in the bike lane. I manage
> to ride in the middle of the lane just fine - which is why I have so
> little tolerance for those who refuse to do so.
Your streets are cleaner. Our bike lanes contain broken glass, rubbish,
tree roots and -- in season -- those little grenades that magnolia trees
drop or the smaller ones provided by liquidambars.
Timothy J. Lee
Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't care what kind of vehicle you are driving - if you can't (or
>won't) travel at the prevailing speed of the rest of the traffic, you
>have no business being on that road.
Laws and driver training are designed so that those moving at various
speeds can share the road safely. You know -- slower traffic keep right,
faster traffic pass left.
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <1sbbr3htm6uags4b3...@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>> What this highly-slanted article conveniently ignores is all those
>>> pedalcyclists who ride outside of the bike lane. Every day I see at
>>> least one pedalcyclist riding with his bike tires RIGHT ON TOP OF the
>>> white line that separates the bike lane from the rightmost automobile
>>> lane. In other words, these guys have their right ass cheek in the
>>> bike lane and the left ass cheek hanging out in 65 MPH traffic - is it
>>> any surprise that some of these guys get hit?
>
> You can risk getting doored, move over a bit and risk slipping out
> because of the stupid paint marking the stupid bike lane, or move over a
> bit more and risk getting hit by some jerk with poor spacial perception
> skills and/or a bad attitude.
Dooring is the bigger threat. Hit from behind is statistically not that
big of a risk and riding further to the right doesn't make it any better.
Hit from behind usually is the result of impaired driving or it was on
purpose, riders who were well off on shoulders have been victims of hit
from behind. Also if you ride further right, drivers give you LESS room,
not more.
> When Pasadena was adding bike lanes and 'share the road' signs, I went
> to the Official Meeting where Public Input was provided. The city
> engineer said that the marked bike lanes were meaningless as far as
> legality was concerned, but cars slowed down where there were painted
> bike lanes, apparently a civic good. I told him, as the only bicyclist
> there, that it was stupid to spend money on paint and signs when what
> was really needed was more frequent street cleaning and repair of the
> potholes and tree-root pavement breaks. Needless to say, we got the
> paint and signs, possibly because some friend or relative of some city
> employee sells paint and/or signs.
> The especially stupid part was that instead of using ordinary paint they
> used that thick shiny stuff that gets as slippery as ice when it gets wet.
>
> So now we have to avoid the cars, whose drivers think we have plenty of
> room in the bicycle lane, the slippery white stripe, and the doors of
> the people who park in the "bicycle lane" (also known as the parking
> lane) and apparently become totally clueless (or malevolent, take your
> pick) as soon as they turn their engines off -- if not before.
>
Well, that's government. It's all a superficial waste and usually
counterproductive as you point out. I would just like wide curb lanes. The
best roads that I ride have a wide right lane. best flow and least
conflicts and because it's a wide lane the debris problems are not there
and the potholes get fixed about as good as anywhere else.
Brent P
> you would take the lane.
>
> Then I want to see video of you actually DOING it.
The only roads in IL with 65mph speed limits that I know of are
interstates out in the middle of bu-fu.
You seem to be under the impression that 'taking the lane' is done for
shits and giggles. It's not. If I made a video of me taking the lane on my
bicycle you'd say it didn't count simply because of the conditions where I
would take lane.
I suppose the closest example in my riding experience was when I was
biking in Maui around Lahaina on the Honoapiilani hwy. I cannot remember
the posted speed limit, however I did use the glorified shoulder bike lane
between intersections (which were widely spaced) just before intersections
I merged into the right lane and stopped or went through as the case may
be. I only took the lane when the light was red.
Sir Lex
> What this highly-slanted article conveniently ignores is all those
Solution?:
Arif Khokar
> Exactly. The law also says that pedalcyclists must keep AS FAR TO THE
> RIGHT AS POSSIBLE -
I'm pretty sure it says *practical*, not possible. It's possible to
ride within 3 inches of the curb, but it's not practical.
Here's a picture of a bike lane on a road I ride on (which you've
probably seen before since I've posted it in the past)
<http://filebox.vt.edu/users/aikhokar/misc/bike_lane.jpg>. On that
road, I ride to the left of the white line. It's certainly possible for
me to ride in the "lane," but it's not practical.
Brent P
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:21:07 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>You seem to be under the impression that 'taking the lane' is done for
>>shits and giggles.
>
>
> The behavior I am talking about is where a pedalcyclist NEEDLESSLY
> rides with half of his body sticking out into high-speed traffic
> simply to make a political statement, to wit: "Bicycles are vehicles,
> too, and IT'S MY RIGHT to ride on this road using the same lanes as
> cars do, so I'm gonna do it, goddammit!!!!" Of course, they know
> better than to fully take the lane because they would be clobbered
> from behind almost immediately, but even this "symbolic" taking of the
> lane is still needlessly dangerous.
I really don't think you understand the difference between needed and
needless.
> This is the same mentality that causes pedalcyclists to get together
> in large groups and block motor vehicle traffic - they have something
> to prove, and by golly they're going to make their point.
> The irony is that none of this point-making has done jack diddly squat
> to accomplish their stated goals (i.e. to be treated with respect by
> motorists) - all they accomplish is to alienate themselves from the
> general public.
Critical mass is stupid and abboration. The clustering of many bicyclists
together is the exact same behavior that drivers do driving side by side
blocking the road. Most often it is drivers who decided to do a bicycling
event... it's why I don't do those... they are aggrivating because I have
to slow down for these clumps, wait for a gap in on coming traffic and
then accelerate hard to pass. It's horrible for trying to do a 75-100miles
at a good pace.
Brent P
> On 16 Feb 2008 05:42:56 GMT, remo...@sonic.net (Timothy J. Lee)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <m9icr35la9hk6hbj7...@4ax.com>,
>>Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I don't care what kind of vehicle you are driving - if you can't (or
>>>won't) travel at the prevailing speed of the rest of the traffic, you
>>>have no business being on that road.
>>
>>Laws and driver training are designed so that those moving at various
>>speeds can share the road safely. You know -- slower traffic keep right,
>>faster traffic pass left.
>
> entirely within the bike lane, not directly on top of the solid white
> lane separation stripe.
WRONG. As far right as PRACTICABLE. HUGE difference.
Brent P
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:54:53 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>I really don't think you understand the difference between needed and
>>needless.
>
No. You made that very clear when you wrote 'as far right as possible'.
That's what motorists always think... that bicyclists should take whatever
line puts them teetering on the extreme right regardless.
Brent P
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:04:37 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly. The law also says that pedalcyclists must keep AS FAR TO THE
>>> RIGHT AS POSSIBLE -
>>
>>I'm pretty sure it says *practical*, not possible. It's possible to
>>ride within 3 inches of the curb, but it's not practical.
>>
>>Here's a picture of a bike lane on a road I ride on (which you've
>>probably seen before since I've posted it in the past)
>
> narrow. Around here, the bikes lanes are wide enough for CARS to drive
> through (cars are permitted to use the bike lane as a right turn lane
> within 100 feet of an intersection, so in general the bike lanes are
> purposely made wide enough to permit this).
Here's a bike lane I refused to ride in:
A typical chicago door-zone bike lane:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=4000+north+damen,+chicago,+IL&sll=41.878476,-87.627254&sspn=0.009043,0.014398&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=41.955676,-87.67868&spn=0.001129,0.0018&t=k&z=19&cbll=41.955185,-87.678782&cbp=1,363.17902663413815,,1,15.508652570445992
further north, a bit tighter...
Irving park road, much more ridable, no bike lane:
The Real Bev
> (Timothy J. Lee) wrote:
>
>>Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I don't care what kind of vehicle you are driving - if you can't (or
>>>won't) travel at the prevailing speed of the rest of the traffic, you
>>>have no business being on that road.
>>
>>Laws and driver training are designed so that those moving at various
>>speeds can share the road safely. You know -- slower traffic keep right,
>>faster traffic pass left.
>
> Exactly. The law also says that pedalcyclists must keep AS FAR TO THE
> RIGHT AS POSSIBLE - which by some strange coincidence places them
> entirely within the bike lane, not directly on top of the solid white
> lane separation stripe.
Unless the bike lane is filled with cars, debris and broken glass...
--
Cheers,
Bev
=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
you're a madman." --Futurama
The Real Bev
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:02:35 -0800, The Real Bev
> <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>
>> > I've said it before, I'll say it again...
>>>
>>> Curb divided bike lanes on all roads with bike lanes is the only real
>>> solution.
>>
>>This will never happen simply because it would prevent cars from driving
>>or parking in the bike lane. OTOH, perhaps it can be sold as a method
>>of "traffic calming," most of which are about as calming as a cattle prod.
>
> I don't know why Pasadena is different, but, generally speaking,
> people don't park in bike lanes, and they get tickets for driving in
> them. Of course, Pasadena also has those funky X-shaped diagonal
> crosswalks at busy intersections, so I guess anything is possible up
> there. :)
People frequently park on the street and have for at least the last
half-century. The "bike lane" stripes were added recently to the
parking lanes and in no way inhibit parking. The X-crosswalks were few
in number and only in Olde Pasadena (which has nothing in which I'm
interested) and I'm not sure they're still there.
> Another factor that works against you is that the streets were all
> laid out in horse-and-buggy days, and there just isn't enough room for
> a proper bike lane. That's one of the blessings we have down here in
> South OC - everything is brand new, and the streets were laid out nice
> and wide, with room for six lanes of traffic, dedicated turn lanes,
> AND bike lanes, and no parking allowed. We also have quite a few
> off-street bike paths. Both driving and pedalcycling are a relative
> pleasure here compared to most older urban areas.
So you're trying to convince people to move to OC and make it just like
the places they left? Except for the really rich places, Orange County
is depressingly the same all over.
Sir Lex
> see it happening here in Auto-Dependent America, not even on a small
> scale. :(
Ditto. Though can't see it happening here in Aus either unfortunately.
There are strong movements in Melbourne however that may see some
changes happen there over the next few decades.
Tell me about a country with bicycle and ped only cities, combined with
no speed limits on open roads/motorways, I'll move.
Brent P
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:10:05 -0600, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Here's a bike lane I refused to ride in:
>
>
> Seriously, I grieve for you. Chicagoland generally sucks both for
> pedalcycling AND for driving. Maybe things are better out in
> Schaumburg or some of the other newly-built areas, but in Chicago
> proper and the close-in (older) suburbs, the streets are one gigantic
> obstacle course.
Schaumburg is not a fun place to ride. Wide underposted arterials. Yes,
I've ridden there, right by the mall in fact.
> Growing up I never rode my bike to school; I only
> rode it recreationally along the lake shore or on the old North Shore
> Line ROW through Winnetka, Kenilworth, et. al.
Riding in chicago is easy compared to the suburbs. Daley made things worse
with his bike lanes IMO. Even with that I far prefer riding in chicago
proper. Of course in chicago I can often take the lane because the cars
are slowing me down....
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
>
> > The cyclists have put their PR departments in high gear in the Seattle
> > area as well.
> >
> > They had a spot on the local news about auto drivers lack of respect for
> > cyclists safety and 'rights'. To illustrate their plight, they had a
> > camera crew tape a popular bicycle trail where it crosses a city street.
> > Time after time, a cyclists would be sipping across the road just as a
> > car was approaching. Inevitably, someone would have to slam on brakes.
> >
> > What the news program didn't make clear (and was carefully framed out of
> > their shots) was the fact that the bicycle trail has clearly posted
> > "STOP" signs.
>
> Somehow I think that if the situation was reversed (where the roadway
> had stop signs and the trail didn't), drivers would be making rolling
> stops at best and blowing through the intersection at worst.
But would they whine about the cyclists?
> Perhaps they should build a roundabout in that location.
Not room. Most crossings like this are on small roads in residential or
business districts and don't warrant the real estate necessary.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Applying information technology is simply finding the right wrench
to pound in the correct screw.
Timothy J. Lee
>>Scott in SoCal <scotte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>I don't care what kind of vehicle you are driving - if you can't (or
>>>won't) travel at the prevailing speed of the rest of the traffic, you
>>>have no business being on that road.
>>
>>Laws and driver training are designed so that those moving at various
>>speeds can share the road safely. You know -- slower traffic keep right,
>>faster traffic pass left.
>
>RIGHT AS POSSIBLE - which by some strange coincidence places them
>entirely within the bike lane, not directly on top of the solid white
>lane separation stripe.
It (California Vehicle Code) says "practicable" not "possible", with
numerous exceptions:
21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction
at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand
curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following
situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle
proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but
not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes)
that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge,
subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this
section, a "substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for
a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the
lane.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
edge of that roadway as practicable.
The Real Bev
> (b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway,
> which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or
> more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or
> edge of that roadway as practicable.
I didn't know that and I can't imagine ever wanting to do it, either.
Such roads generally carry really-fast-moving traffic in the left lane
and I don't want to be anywhere near the left side of cars going 60 mph,
not the least reason being the ease with which a solo driver could
inflict some sort of harm on the cyclist.
Not paranoid. The last thing my sister-in-law remembered about a
bikeride in the mountains was being slapped on the butt and waking up in
a hospital several days later. Sometimes they ARE out to get you.
--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)