Riding bike in my neighborhood

[Lou Holtman]

Came across this on youtube (22 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmOvSINA0k

shows how riding bike is in my neighborhood. Ride that stretch frequently. It was around this time of the year last year. Looked on Strava what I did that day. It was a Sunday and I did a club ride off road.:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/evuyiVTjDwquXbFc6

If you not interested skip it.

Lou

[Roger Merriman]

Quite variable in london, best really is the Embankment which used to be
the preserve of high speed roadies. But now is a much more diverse, it’s
slower for myself as one of the high speed roadies but it’s a lot more
chilled and not much slower.

https://youtu.be/3zkha-B1T2w

My commute has royal and otherwise parks which link up to one of the
unbuilt inner motorways so old segregated stuff.

Roger Merriman.

[Sepp Ruf]

Lou Holtman wrote:
> Came across this on youtube (22 minutes):
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmOvSINA0k
>
> shows how riding bike is in my neighborhood. Ride that stretch
> frequently. It was around this time of the year last year.

Little dog-walker traffic. And too bad that the 0:57 turbobromfiets
failed to crash and burn!

> Looked on
> Strava what I did that day. It was a Sunday and I did a club ride off
> road.:
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/evuyiVTjDwquXbFc6
>
> If you not interested skip it.

If you miss some decorative snow and coniferous trees, here are scenes
from a sunny Sunday ride, near Munich, with almost none of the cold and
slippery red "safety" painting:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8P38uIFRzI>
(suggested settings for indoor training: vol=0, 0.75 speed, HD)

[Lou Holtman]

FYI it is not painted, it is colored tarmac. It is just like black tarmac, not slippery at all. I cycled a couple of times around Munich. Nice rolling hills. Nice city too.

Lou

[Sepp Ruf]

Okay, I tried to look it up: There seem to be (at least) two other
methods to achieve a red surface - bonded sand, epoxy, and PMMA based.
Your tarmac might be iron oxide colored, 2..4%, and according to a
seller of the sand-based compound, about five times as expensive as
standard tarmac.
<https://www.scholz-benelux.com/product/ijzeroxide-pigmenten/>
As Dutch roadwork is generally better than your eastern neighbor's, I'm
not surprised you get the sort that works fine.

I guess that a plastic layer can produce measurable temperature
differences compared to tarmac, thus influencing surface humidity even
without October leaves.

[Roger Merriman]

The painted tarmac I never found slippery but then my bikes are (and have
been for getting on for a decade) old commuted MTB and Gravel bike both of
which have a lot more rubber on the ground and grip. Vs the pure road bikes
I used to have.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

Around here in places they soak canvas in paint and apply it to the concrete. This method makes these marks a bump that is irritating.

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm amazed at how little traffic there is.

Do you ever have to shift gears?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

I agree, especially after just coming back from a 25 mile ride mostly in the city though about 4 miles were on a bay trails route.

[Lou Holtman]

Since I have Di2 my shifts are logged. Yesterday’s ride of 63 km I shifted 35 times between 48/16-17-18-19. It was 3C average, windy and little rain during half of that ride. Dead flat of course.
My rides are always on low traffic roads. I avoid city centers which is not a problem. We have a lot of roads to choose from.

Lou

[jbeattie]

"Paint" is often thermoplastic, which can be slippery. This time of year, we have tons of leaf sludge. I'm creeping around corners, even uphill corners. I was just out riding with my son, and riding through the hills -- and I took such a wide turn on this uphill turn (which was covered in leaf sludge) that I just about ran out of road. https://tinyurl.com/yc3djfw7

It was raining, but not hard and >50F, and I zoned out and wore a cotton tee-shirt under a long sleeve jersey and my somewhat baggy commuter jack (Showers Pass). A cotton tee is a bad choice when you're going to get wet from rain or sweat or both.

We did a loop down to West Linn where they have put in a new and dangerous bike path through town: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1i8cJnVcAEZ-Ug?format=jpg&name=large So now, pedestrians get to wander in front of you. Prior, you just rode through town on the road. My son was on my Norco gravel bike, and he needed to stop to adjust the saddle, so we stopped at the end of that path. I leaned my bike, and when we got started again, my Di2 didn't work. I thought my battery had gone dead, but the derailleur had not shifted down and the picture was wrong for a dead battery. As it turned out, I snagged an eTube and pulled it out of a junction -- and everything was fine when I plugged it back together. Damned electronic shifting. It was like a ten second delay

Since we're trading pictures, this was on the way home through the dog park.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/37enRBNVUY9uaPns7 Shot today. Then through busy downtown Lake Oswego.https://tinyurl.com/36yckkuy Screw 'em, I'm taking the lane -- which wasn't hard today since traffic was light, and then up the hill past the trestle house: https://tinyurl.com/bdjncvda Snake through Dunthorpe and around this gate: https://tinyurl.com/9hvmpczd Through a neighborhood, up a hill then past frolicking students a Lewis and Clark https://tinyurl.com/bddjs579 And then home.

Alternate route is riding a path through Tryon Creek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSsYSt8-6f4&t=67s&ab_channel=Zo%C3%ABSchrepel Those guys are starting at the top going down too fast with all the pedestrian traffic -- and you can just take the road. I don't like the descenders.

-- Jay Beattie

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:41:18 +0100, Sepp Ruf <inq...@Safe-mail.net>
wrote:

>Lou Holtman wrote:
>I guess that a plastic layer can produce measurable temperature
>differences compared to tarmac, thus influencing surface humidity even
>without October leaves.

This is how it's done in some parts of the USA:
<https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/colored-pavement-material-guidance/>
There are some notes on materials and longevity in the text. I've
watched the city painting bicycle lanes, but failed to determine which
of the types of coloring they were using.

More on bicycle lane road markings:
<https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/colored-bike-facilities/>
<https://cruzio.com/2015/01/5906/>

Topic drift: This is what happened when the city tried to create a
pedestrian and bicycle lane with temporary barriers. The text doesn't
say much, but the video covers some of the reasons why it was quickly
removed:
<https://www.ksbw.com/article/santa-cruz-county-puts-brakes-on-portola-drive-bike-lane-project/37053108>
I saw it just before it was removed. Most of the barriers had been
driven over or were pried out of the roadway.


--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[Roger Merriman]

I have about a mile or so of though one park that is shared path which
twists though the woods that is presently covered in leaf litter, gets
cleared now and then.

It’s not a problem as the old MTB seems to cope fine with that, Gravel bike
as it’s tires are a bit smaller do need to be more careful of any hidden
objects and what not.

I tend to chill with shared spaces, they are what they are. And generally
work better for more people even if at times it might be slower for myself.
>
> -- Jay Beattie
>
Roger Merriman.

[Tom Kunich]

On Saturday, November 27, 2021 at 8:34:11 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:41:18 +0100, Sepp Ruf <inq...@Safe-mail.net>
> wrote:
> >Lou Holtman wrote:
> >I guess that a plastic layer can produce measurable temperature
> >differences compared to tarmac, thus influencing surface humidity even
> >without October leaves.
> This is how it's done in some parts of the USA:
> <https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/colored-pavement-material-guidance/>
> There are some notes on materials and longevity in the text. I've
> watched the city painting bicycle lanes, but failed to determine which
> of the types of coloring they were using.
>
> More on bicycle lane road markings:
> <https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/bikeway-signing-marking/colored-bike-facilities/>
> <https://cruzio.com/2015/01/5906/>
>
> Topic drift: This is what happened when the city tried to create a
> pedestrian and bicycle lane with temporary barriers. The text doesn't
> say much, but the video covers some of the reasons why it was quickly
> removed:
> <https://www.ksbw.com/article/santa-cruz-county-puts-brakes-on-portola-drive-bike-lane-project/37053108>
> I saw it just before it was removed. Most of the barriers had been
> driven over or were pried out of the roadway.

Each CITY decides were and how they are going to p[ace and mark bike lanes and the reason is usually because they are paid by the Federal government to install bicycle lanes. In Alameda they have at least 5 different ways they are marking bike lanes and putting barriers or not. Alameda County has only one sensible method. Hayward more or less only one way but they don't do a lot of marking. Oakland only puts marking on extra wide streets that are newly paved. You can ride down Broadway from one end to the other and have bicycle lanes appear and disappear many times last time I rode there with the most dangerous drivers right at the police station and passing by people shooting up on the steps of City Hall.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/27/2021 11:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> Topic drift: This is what happened when the city tried to create a
> pedestrian and bicycle lane with temporary barriers. The text doesn't
> say much, but the video covers some of the reasons why it was quickly
> removed:
> <https://www.ksbw.com/article/santa-cruz-county-puts-brakes-on-portola-drive-bike-lane-project/37053108>
> I saw it just before it was removed. Most of the barriers had been
> driven over or were pried out of the roadway.

I remember seeing an "Oh wow, gee whiz, this is wonderful!" article
about that design in one of the websites that preaches the glories of
segregating bicyclists. So far, I haven't seen any of them publish
retractions.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

A bit more on the project:
<https://lookout.co/santacruz/recreation-sports/story/2021-06-23/ride-bikes-portola-drive-what-to-know-temporary-makeover>
"Separated bikeways have been shown to really dramatically increase
cycling..."
<https://ecoact.org/poweredbyme/>
The community survey response (1909 respondents) was mostly negative:
<https://ecoact.org/PDF/Portola_CommunitySurveyData.pdf>
The respondents comments at the bottom of the page are interesting.

I was only able to experience the problem for about half the length in
question. The Google map on the lookout.co URL shows traffic moving
at 0.3 miles in 1 minute or 18 mph, which seems about right for the
video. I may have driven over one of the barriers because they were
difficult to see when low to the ground. The choice of that section
of Portola Dr for the test was probably because Portola Dr is quite
wide along the 0.3 miles, while all but one of the roads that feed
that section are comparatively narrow.

Bad idea, no research, no funding, bad choice of location, bad
implementation, and little community support. What were they
expecting?

<https://earth.google.com/web/search/Portola+Drive,+Santa+Cruz,+CA/@36.96365088,-121.96883672,11.84628294a,648.2762025d,35y,-179.20044162h,40.59904081t,0r/data=CigiJgokCZ7d_zeNBFJAEYN7Arox_VFAGbSg719_NEpAIU6tBMfZ50lA>

[Tom Kunich]

And as we all know, putting a bike lane on 4 blocks REALLY increases bicycle participation.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 09:46:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

I forgot to mention the psychedelic purple and pink lane markers:
<https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/STC-L-PORTOLA-0625-01.jpeg>
It's temporary paint and was later washed off. Seems more interesting
the official green and white bicycle lane paint. Looks like something
out of a 1960's LSD trip. Ah, nostalgia.

[AMuzi]

On 11/28/2021 11:58 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 09:46:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention the psychedelic purple and pink lane markers:
> <https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/STC-L-PORTOLA-0625-01.jpeg>
> It's temporary paint and was later washed off. Seems more interesting
> the official green and white bicycle lane paint. Looks like something
> out of a 1960's LSD trip. Ah, nostalgia.
>

Once again the counterculture has become The Establishment.



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

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 12:07:52 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/28/2021 11:58 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 09:46:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I forgot to mention the psychedelic purple and pink lane markers:
>> <https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/STC-L-PORTOLA-0625-01.jpeg>
>> It's temporary paint and was later washed off. Seems more interesting

>> than the official green and white bicycle lane paint. Looks like something

>> out of a 1960's LSD trip. Ah, nostalgia.

>Once again the counterculture has become The Establishment.

True. If you can't beat the establishment, you join them. The
bicycle lane project was sponsored by Ecology Action, a local
environmental organization:
<https://ecoact.org>
<https://ecoact.org/about-us/community-engagement/sustainable-streets>
<https://ecoact.org/about-us/community-engagement/adult-bike-programs>
When you remove the counter-culture symbols, what you have left are
aging hippies and true believers:
<https://ecoact.org/about-us/our-leadership>
(Drag your mouse over the individual photos)

Soon, all bicycle lanes will be (re)painted pink and purple.

[AMuzi]

On 11/28/2021 12:26 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 12:07:52 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2021 11:58 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 09:46:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I forgot to mention the psychedelic purple and pink lane markers:
>>> <https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/STC-L-PORTOLA-0625-01.jpeg>
>>> It's temporary paint and was later washed off. Seems more interesting
>>> than the official green and white bicycle lane paint. Looks like something
>>> out of a 1960's LSD trip. Ah, nostalgia.
>
>> Once again the counterculture has become The Establishment.
>
> True. If you can't beat the establishment, you join them. The
> bicycle lane project was sponsored by Ecology Action, a local
> environmental organization:
> <https://ecoact.org>
> <https://ecoact.org/about-us/community-engagement/sustainable-streets>
> <https://ecoact.org/about-us/community-engagement/adult-bike-programs>
> When you remove the counter-culture symbols, what you have left are
> aging hippies and true believers:
> <https://ecoact.org/about-us/our-leadership>
> (Drag your mouse over the individual photos)
>
> Soon, all bicycle lanes will be (re)painted pink and purple.
>

la plus ca change as it were. They're still bicycle lanes.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Sure. The more things change, the more they remain the same. That's
why each new generation repeats the mistakes of the previous
generation. That's why we have never forget or remember some fallen
individual type movements, which at best only temporarily succeed. As
you say, they're still bicycle lanes. We can paint them pink and
purple, but they're still the same bicycle lanes with the same chronic
problems. However, fatalism and past failures doesn't stop activists
who see the problems and believe that they have a solution. Using
whatever money and political pressure they have available, they
continue to offer and test solutions in the hope that something might
work. Most of the time, those solutions fail miserably, often because
nobody wants to use them. The next step is to disguise a failed
solution with a different color paint, and hope that nobody will
notice that nothing has changed and that it's the same as the previous
failure. History recycles itself.

I'll make it simple. Would you prefer to fix things by evolution or
revolution? For bicycles, that means do you want to integrate
bicycles into a motor vehicle dominated infrastructure or do you want
to create conditions where the only remaining viable means of
transportation is human power? Pick one, because nothing in between
that is likely to work. We have a long history of failed compromises
and half-baked solutions that do not work (such as the Portola Dr lane
barrier). Is bicycle infrastructure an exercise in futility? Should
the activists and proponents ride away and do something else instead?
I don't think so. As long as there are people and governments working
on the problems, there is hope that maybe the next generation will get
it right and not repeat the mistakes of the previous.

[AMuzi]

Small minds (government employees elected or appointed) have
a serious hubris problem. They sincerely believe two falsehoods:
'Something must be done' and worse, 'I'm just the guy to do it!'

The color of paint and the cutesy acronyms and program names
change but the disease progresses inexorably. On our backs.

[John B.]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 17:13:49 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>

I find all the furor about bike lanes with a bit of awe as I ride in a
country that doesn't have any, or at least, in more then 20 years,
I've never seen any. and guess what? We seem to get along without
them, in a country with traffic that foreign people view with terror.
Note here: I haven't bicycled in Bangkok in almost 3 years now so my
comments re bike paths in the city may be dated.

I can only speculate whether the laws here - hit a bicycle and kill
the rider and you are subject to a 10 year prison term - might have
something to do with it.

Perhaps simply enforcing the existing traffic laws in your country
might be a cheaper solution to the problem (:-)

Whoops! I just had a look at California Traffic laws and I see that
"If you acted with only ordinary negligence, then Penal Code 192(c) is
a misdemeanor. The maximum PC 192(c) sentence will be one (1) year in
county jail."

Apparently the USian viewpoint toward highway deaths is somewhat more
benign then our laws here (:-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Actually, I think the government employees are not the root of the weird bike facility problem.
I put the majority of the blame elsewhere.

The government folks are responding to the "squeaky wheels," the constituents who are demanding
that SOMETHING be done - especially the sidewalk bicyclists who believe they will die if they ride on
a normal street. They know nothing about competent bicycling, but they believe they know exactly how
a bike facility should be designed; and they DEMAND facilities designed to their specifications.

Where do they get their specifications? From organizations like People for Bikes, Streetsblog and the
League of American Bicyclists. Organizations that purportedly exist to either save the world, or to
transform America into a paradise for cyclists.

But the League of American Bicyclists actually exists to preserve the League of American Bicyclists. For
decade after decade, it's teetered on the edge of bankruptcy and death, or at least total irrelevance. It long ago
abandoned its prior goal of preserving our rights to the road. Its gone almost completely into advocating
segregation.

Why might that be? I think a major influence has been John Burke, CEO of Trek. The bike industry, like LAB,
is always sickly. Why? It exists to sell bikes, but most people buy one bike and keep it forever. They don't
wear it out because they don't ride it very much.

I believe Burke decided that one key was to prop up LAB and other organizations, and get them to lobby for
bike chutes, which they now do in spades. His hope is that lots more people will buy bikes if they see a "finally
SAFE" place to ride them. So LAB's and PFB's and Streetsblog's propaganda now causes thousands of sincere
flunkies to demand bike facilities, with the usual standard being "Any bike facility is a good bike facility."
Politicians do what they're supposed to do, which is listen to (the loudest of) their constituents.

There's more, of course. As stated in this article, Burke points out that "churning" is important. Note what he says
about disc brakes on road bikes. And of course, he touts e-bikes.
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/opinion-analysis/2019/02/14/john-burke-checklist-could-change-our-industry#.YaQ1urqIYaE

But overall, I think it's not the politicians most to blame. I think its this effort by the bike industry, acting as
puppeteers for idealistic do-gooders, with "badvocacy" organizations supplying the strings.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

But how else to be reelected? I don't believe that campaigning on the
basis of "Well, for 4 years I've just sat here, not spending a dime"
as opposed to "Here! Just look at what I've done for you!" is the path
to political longevity (:-)

>The color of paint and the cutesy acronyms and program names
>change but the disease progresses inexorably. On our backs.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Of course bicycle manufacturers want more people on bikes and will give to programs that do that, but its city planners chasing federal dollars who put in facilities -- and who follow AASHTO standards. e.g.: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Documents_RoadwayEng/HDM_13-Ped-Bicycle.pdf

Its not LAB or People for Bikes that is driving facility design. If anyone, its Alta and others that are acting as subcontracted facility designers. I was on the BTA board for years, and we pushed for facilities without a penny from Trek or any other manufacturer. We would have taken the money because we were operating on dues from members -- or working for free, like me. Mia Burke pre-Alta was the person at the Portland DOT along with her cohorts who were designing the facilities. Its the planning departments with bicycle and pedestrian program managers plus citizen advisory boards that are driving most of this stuff. I'm sure these third-party groups supported in part with industry dollars submit position papers and testimony, but its the planners who ultimately call the shots -- and who are chasing federal dollars. It will be a total scrum with the infrastructure bill. With all that money floating around, we'll probably see a zillion more byzantine facilities.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Lou Holtman]

That is a very negative point of view Andrew. Can't be 100% true by default but in line with the current time of polarisation.

Lou

[AMuzi]

> That is a very negative point of view Andrew. Can't be 100% true by default but in line with the current time of polarisation.
>
> Lou
>

It's in the nature of government, not particular to one
faction or another. As evidenced by riding and observing
over many years.

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, November 28, 2021 at 5:45:55 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:

This is precisely the reason for the 2nd Amendment. To the people we give the right to protect themselves from the government. At the moment we are getting very close to exercising that right. People like Jay don't understand these things.

[Tom Kunich]

I don't think just how the people of this country are feared by government department managers and it simply doesn't take too many to be killed before policies abruptly change in the opposite direction. So I expect to see some very public assassinations such as the Treasurer and the Attorney General and then this government and its policies are deader than a doornail.

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, what you say is true in part, but it obscures a bit of the history
I didn't get into.

Do designers follow AASHTO standards? Most probably do, although we (our
bike club) had a decades long battle with the local metropark regarding
some bike lanes that grossly violated AASHTO. (It looks like that may
finally be cured, but only because part of the roadway has slid into the
water, and state funding is going to be used for the repair. State
funding comes with design requirements.)

But the AASHTO situation has changed in recent years. AASHTO's language
does tend toward recommendation, rather than commands, in recognition of
the fact that conditions on the ground may be unique. Still, AASHTO long
recognized problems with, e.g., things like bi-directional sidepaths in
or immediately adjacent to roadways. It listed something like a dozen
reasons designers should (probably) not use them.

That enraged organizations like People for Bikes, Streetsblog, LAB, Alta
and others who demanded "innovative" facilities. ("Innovative" means
"this is so crazy nobody has ever done it before.") So they maneuvered
to "cure" AASHTO's rationality.

One tactic was the formation of an organization that would draw up an
alternate manual. That's NACTO. Their manual, at least as initially
presented, was not a manual at all. Instead it was a collection of every
crazy idea that was ever tried anywhere in North America, portrayed with
rather idealistic drawings that never indicated the potential problems.
It lacked AASHTO's numerical guidance (things like gradients, sight
distances, side clearances etc.). It's main message was "Hey, look, you
could try this!"

Next, NACTO fans and members lobbied heavily to get their "manual"
accepted in addition to AASHTO, as an alternative. So there's now a
manual based on engineering computations, traffic laws, physics etc. And
there's a manual based on watercolor daydreams, saying "Hey, traffic
engineering is like a cookbook. Find something you like and try it! And
don't be afraid to alter the recipe!"

Finally, those organizations got people appointed to the national
committees that produce manuals like AASHTO. So while I haven't seen it,
I've heard that the newest AASHTO manual is going to be much more
permissive. "Bi-directional on-street bike lanes feeding newbies into
intersections at high speed from the wrong direction? Cool!"

Who benefits from this? Well, in the view of some bike industry
muckety-mucks, the bike industry will benefit. "Because people will
finally have SAFE places to ride!" LAB hopes to benefit from more
membership (which I doubt) and continued donations from the industry.
Certainly, firms like Alta will benefit, because they can sweep into
town and say "We're the ones who can actually design this craziness!"

Will bicyclists benefit? Those living in the watercolor world of the
NACTO "manual" seem very happy. Those of us in the real world? We get to
deal with debris in lanes, right hooks and left crosses, crazy
"innovation" and worse - not to mention "GET IN THE BIKE LANE!!"

--

Disclaimer: I've been in meetings where cities have been discussing new
bike facilities. I'll admit that some of the particular consultants I've
talked to were not going crazy. Their proposals were fairly reasonable.

However, they were outnumbered by the other team. Like the guy who said,
about experienced cyclists making skeptical comments: "I don't want to
hear it! I heard from people like you in city XXXX. I've heard all I
need to hear." Or the guy who said, after a public presentation that was
almost booed by all the cyclists in attendance "Well, we're going to try
to get the grant anyway."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

I was on a CAB, and it had a paid mediator since nobody was on the same page. What you think is the best or "common sense" may not be what the other bicycle advocate thinks. And then you get totally collateral agendas like environmentalism, inclusivism, NIMBY,etc., etc.

-- Jay Beattie

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/29/2021 10:47 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> ... I expect to see some very public assassinations such as the Treasurer

and the Attorney General and then this government and its policies are
deader than a doornail.

I don't suppose you've kept a record of your successes vs. failures with
your past predictions?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/29/2021 1:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> I was on a CAB, and it had a paid mediator since nobody was on the same page. What you think is the best or "common sense" may not be what the other bicycle advocate thinks.

:-) How can you say that? Why, look at the near-universal agreement
within this discussion group!

IOW, of course there are disagreements. But we shouldn't take that to
the extreme and pretend all viewpoints are correct.

--

BTW, I omitted something in my post above, about the local metroparks
and AASHTO. After years of battle, I managed to get myself appointed
(along with a few of other smart guys) to a citizens' committee for that
park. It took two years of work, but our committee finally got the Board
of Trustees to adopt a resolution that future bike facilities would
follow AASHTO standards.

That was not long before the new Executive Director decided he'd had
enough of the citizens' committees and disbanded them. We'll see if that
resolution sticks.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

What past predictions? I predicted that the covid was a hoax and the CDC statistics page now backs me up 100%. I predicted that the Biden election would be shown to be a fraud and the audits have shown just that.

Why don't you tell us some predictions you've made? Oh, you haven't made any?

[sms]

On 11/29/2021 10:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> I was on a CAB, and it had a paid mediator since nobody was on the same page. What you think is the best or "common sense" may not be what the other bicycle advocate thinks. And then you get totally collateral agendas like environmentalism, inclusivism, NIMBY,etc., etc.

When it comes to "bicycle advocacy" it's a battle between the John
Forester types, who have little interest in getting more people out of
cars and onto bikes, and those who are advocating for ways to increase
the cycling mode share by making cycling safer and more enjoyable.

What helped in my city was big fruit company helping to fund new bicycle
infrastructure. "Here's the money, please stop listening to "vehicular
cyclists," start listening to "transportational cyclists," and build the
protected bike lanes. We had to juggle the priorities based on the
availability of both public and private funding but at least it's moving
forward. There are a lot of grants available for bicycle infrastructure.

Of course there are people that don't like the new infrastructure:

• Drivers complain about the lane width being reduced but it actually
wasn't reduced, the painted bike lane is simply no longer there to drift
into.

• Some homeowners legitimately complain that they lost on-street
parking, but the reality is that cities are under no obligation to turn
public roadways into parking areas.

• Some cyclists legitimately complain that they get stuck behind slower
riders and it's more difficult to pass.

• For a new creek-side trail, some homeowners whose houses back up to
the trail (or front up to the trail) complained that they don't want
people walking or biking behind their houses which is understandable in
the area where the trail is directly behind their fence. But it's public
land and there was never a guarantee that it would remain fenced off and
inaccessible forever.

[sms]

On 11/29/2021 10:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> I was on a CAB, and it had a paid mediator since nobody was on the same page. What you think is the best or "common sense" may not be what the other bicycle advocate thinks. And then you get totally collateral agendas like environmentalism, inclusivism, NIMBY,etc., etc.

Frank's rant is because he doesn't like the fact that "transportational
cycling" has prevailed over the more elitist "vehicular cycling."

Every time new infrastructure is added, and cycling levels increase,
it's an affront to the vehicular cycling movement that believes that
everyone should be riding on the road and that bicycle infrastructure is
unnecessary.

"Vehicular Cyclists" understand that adding infrastructure increases
cycling levels and safety, since it's been proven over and over again
throughout the world, but that fact is irrelevant because increasing
cycling levels has never been part of their agenda. So they complain
about LAB, Alta (I complain about them too, for different reasons),
People for Bikes, and bicycle manufacturers (because wanting to sell
more bicycles by increasing cycling levels is obviously evil, though
Frank may be alone in complaining about technological advances in
equipment like disc brakes).

For hard-core recreational cyclists their riding locations are mostly
free of evil bicycle infrastructure.

For hard-core, high-speed commuters, the separate infrastructure can be
an annoyance, but no one disputes the fact that the infrastructure makes
things safer: "Building safe facilities for cyclists turned out to be
one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone." "They found
that bicycling infrastructure is significantly associated with fewer
fatalities and better road-safety outcomes. Portland, Ore., saw the
biggest increase. Between 1990 and 2010, city's bicycle mode share
increased from 1.2% to 6%; over the same period, the road fatality rate
dropped by 75%. With added bike lanes, fatal crash rates dropped in
Seattle (-60.6%), San Francisco (-49.3%), Denver (-40.3%) and Chicago
(-38.2%), among others."
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>. But
that study is based on data, 13 years of it, and as we've seen over the
years, "Vehicular Cyclists" are not fond of actual data.

[jbeattie]

On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:22:21 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 10:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I was on a CAB, and it had a paid mediator since nobody was on the same page. What you think is the best or "common sense" may not be what the other bicycle advocate thinks. And then you get totally collateral agendas like environmentalism, inclusivism, NIMBY,etc., etc.
> Frank's rant is because he doesn't like the fact that "transportational
> cycling" has prevailed over the more elitist "vehicular cycling."

Seriously? We all need to ride on roads, and interestingly -- at least in Orygun -- bicycles are vehicles, so all cycling is vehicular cycling.

I was riding to work yesterday, watching some guy on a bike trying to pick his way down the picket-sheltered facility with heaps of wet leaves in drifts. I kid you not -- this guy was stopping and scootering over them. I was in the road. Screw that.

Notwithstanding my complaints and promised action from the City, that facility remains unswept and unsweepable with regular equipment because some rube thought that non-car stopping pickets were necessary to make the world safe. Chutes are not safe for transportational cyclists.

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

In a city with a functional public works department, separated bike
lanes work just fine. Run for office and make the necessary changes to
the public works department.

You seem to believe that the reason for the pickets is to prevent cars
from hitting cyclists. That is not the reason for pickets or bollards.
The reason for pickets or bollards is to prevent the bicycle lane from
becoming a parking area, a loading and unloading zone, a long right turn
lane, an area for police to write tickets, or a waiting area for cars
trying to enter a parking lot.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/30/2021 2:22 AM, sms wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 10:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I was on a CAB, and it had a paid mediator since nobody was on the
>> same page.   What you think is the best or "common sense" may not be
>> what the other bicycle advocate thinks.  And then you get totally
>> collateral agendas like environmentalism, inclusivism, NIMBY,etc., etc.
>
> Frank's rant is because he doesn't like the fact that "transportational
> cycling" has prevailed over the more elitist "vehicular cycling."

It's ridiculous to pretend transportational cycling is somehow the
opposite of vehicular cycling. Only a minuscule portion of American
cyclists can do transportation without using ordinary roads; and to
safely and efficiently use ordinary roads, one needs to follow the
vehicular rules of the road. That's what "vehicular cycling" really is.

I suppose we could do a poll: How many here use their bike for
transportation, and never use it on an ordinary street or road?

It's true that segregated bike facilities get much more press than
vehicular cycling. That's a direct result of the agencies I described
upthread and their agenda. It confirms what I said.

> Every time new infrastructure is added, and cycling levels increase,
> it's an affront to the vehicular cycling movement that believes that
> everyone should be riding on the road and that bicycle infrastructure is
> unnecessary.

And what about every time new weird bike infrastructure is added and
cycling levels _don't_ increase? That is, after all, they typical
result. In recent decades thousands of miles of bike lanes (conventional
and "protected") and bike paths have been added across America. Bike
mode share is flat or declining in almost all those locations. LAB has
quietly admitted this.

> "Vehicular Cyclists" understand that adding infrastructure increases
> cycling levels and safety, since it's been proven over and over again

> throughout the world...

It's been disproven as often as it's been proven. The Insurance Industry
for Highway Safety released a report a couple years ago that quietly
noted huge crash rate increases in some weird facilities: "Protected
bike lanes with heavy separation (tall, continuous barriers or grade and
horizontal separation) were associated with lower risk (adjusted
OR=0.10; 95% CI=0.01, 0.95), but those with lighter separation (e.g.,
parked cars, posts, low curb) had similar risk to major roads when one
way (adjusted OR=1.19; 95% CI=0.46, 3.10) and higher risk when they were
two way (adjusted OR=11.38; 95% CI=1.40, 92.57)..."

Which matches results found in European studies. Which is why the
world's foremost promoter of bike facilities says many U.S. designs are
crazy.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
But dreamy-eyed, foggy-brained idealists like Scharf still promote them.

> For hard-core, high-speed commuters, the separate infrastructure can be
> an annoyance, but no one disputes the fact that the infrastructure makes
> things safer: "Building safe facilities for cyclists turned out to be
> one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone." "They found
> that bicycling infrastructure is significantly associated with fewer
> fatalities and better road-safety outcomes. Portland, Ore., saw the
> biggest increase. Between 1990 and 2010, city's bicycle mode share
> increased from 1.2% to 6%; over the same period, the road fatality rate
> dropped by 75%. With added bike lanes, fatal crash rates dropped in
> Seattle (-60.6%), San Francisco (-49.3%), Denver (-40.3%) and Chicago
> (-38.2%), among others."
> <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>. But
> that study is based on data, 13 years of it, and as we've seen over the
> years, "Vehicular Cyclists" are not fond of actual data.

Marshall and Ferenchak entered the research fray flying a flag of
extreme bias, obviously searching for ways to promote the segregation of
bikes. Their first effort scraped together data from widely disparate
sources and time periods to argue that sharrows were terrible, and that
only segregated lanes were safe for riding. To sell their pitch, they
scrambled commuters with drunks and stunt riders, they scrambled data
from "block areas" of the city whose boundaries had changed over time,
they portrayed increases in cycling as decreases, and they never
actually used actual _counts_ of bicyclists. Above all, with zero proof
they demonized cycling on ordinary roads as terribly dangerous. (In
fact, the article Scharf linked has the author starting with "Bicycling
seems inherently dangerous on its own...")

Because of the authors' past bias, I haven't read the paper Scharf
cites; but on first glance, it appears to be an exercise in cherry
picking. They seem to have picked a handful of cities that give the
results they want. And the 51% increase in bike commuting? That's
another classic sales technique, in which a change from minuscule to
slightly less minuscule is promoted as a triumph. (Sources say Oklahoma
City has a bike commuting share of 0.3%, negligible even if bigger than
it once was.) And despite ever more weird bike facilities, Portland's
bike mode share has been dropping. See
https://bikeportland.org/2019/09/26/us-census-portland-bike-commuting-hits-lowest-rate-in-12-years-305326

Also, we shouldn't take seriously any paper that attributes increases in
bike mode share to facilities, without accounting for the surge in bike
share schemes and e-bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 11/28/2021 5:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> Sure. The more things change, the more they remain the same. That's
> why each new generation repeats the mistakes of the previous
> generation. That's why we have never forget or remember some fallen
> individual type movements, which at best only temporarily succeed. As
> you say, they're still bicycle lanes. We can paint them pink and
> purple, but they're still the same bicycle lanes with the same chronic
> problems.

Indeed. But please look at the actual science and data. Frank won't, but
others, at least some others, are not like Ted Cruz, and actually want
to base their actions on facts and science
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>: "In
the most comprehensive look at bicycle and road safety to date,
researchers at the University of Colorado Denver and the University of
New Mexico discovered that it's not the cyclists, but the infrastructure
built for them, that is making roads safer for everyone."

[Frank Krygowski]

Oh, what nonsense! The entire sales pitch of "protected" bike lanes is
to protect the bicyclists from being hit from behind. Vehicles parked in
bike lanes are hardly ever mentioned as justification.

And if an occasional motor vehicle is stopped in a bike lane, what's the
big deal? If a mail truck or Amazon truck parks in a traffic lane,
people pull around it once it's safe to do so. Can't cyclists do the
same? Are bicyclists so timid that their tires must never touch pavement
sullied by motor vehicle tires? Is it like some kosher thing?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

The city of boston took a holistic approach, passing not only legislation protecting the rights of cyclists but also vastly increasing infrastructure to promote commuting.

https://www.boston.gov/departments/boston-bikes

This was the original plan as presented in 2000: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi1seCx2MD0AhU0sTEKHYqCDP0QFnoECC0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityofboston.gov%2Ftransportation%2Faccessboston%2Fpdfs%2Fbicycle_plan.pdf&usg=AOvVaw28pXmQyRXr6TqFEs86SgDR

An overview of the "Cyclists Bill of Rights" legislation - https://bikesafeboston.com/laws

I'll have to admit it was a bit unnerving at first driving along one of the major cycling commuter routes with what seemed like a bike per second passing me on the right, but I got used to it pretty quick. What _was_ satisfying was having dinner in an outdoor cafe along another major commuting route by a major intersection - The Boston PD had set up a stop light trap, and were pulling over and ticketing cyclists for running the traffic lights, which is a pet peeve of mine.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:07:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Are bicyclists so timid that their tires must never touch pavement
>sullied by motor vehicle tires? Is it like some kosher thing?

Kosher is for food preparation and eating. Jewish Law covers
everything else. Riding or repairing a bicycle is only a problem on
Shabbat (Saturday), depending on whether one follows a rigorous
interpretation of the law:
"Biking on Shabbat"
<https://www.jewishideas.org/article/biking-shabbat>
For example, one is not allowed to make "grooves in the dirt"
(plowing) on the Sabbath, which might be interpreted that mountain and
gravel bicycles are proscribed on the Sabbath, but road bicycles are
acceptable.

If you believe that bicycle riders tend to engage in endless debates,
I can assure you that those debates are trivial compared to the
endless hair splitting involved in interpreting the Torah.

[jbeattie]

When I wrote the City telling them that the pickets made the facility dangerous, the response was that the pickets were necessary to avoid conflicts with cars. They're in an area where nobody parks. The only conflicts I've ever had on this third-mile stretch is with cars entering or exiting traffic, and the pickets/wands (whatever they're called) make it worse because they trap you in the lane.

There are good facilities and bad facilities. I'm not against good facilities, which IMO, are generally just striped bike lanes. The rail-trail MUPs can be nice, too -- or as nice as they can be as a shared facility.


-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 11/30/2021 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:07:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Are bicyclists so timid that their tires must never touch pavement
>> sullied by motor vehicle tires? Is it like some kosher thing?
>
> Kosher is for food preparation and eating. Jewish Law covers
> everything else. Riding or repairing a bicycle is only a problem on
> Shabbat (Saturday), depending on whether one follows a rigorous
> interpretation of the law:
> "Biking on Shabbat"
> <https://www.jewishideas.org/article/biking-shabbat>
> For example, one is not allowed to make "grooves in the dirt"
> (plowing) on the Sabbath, which might be interpreted that mountain and
> gravel bicycles are proscribed on the Sabbath, but road bicycles are
> acceptable.

Interesting. So a transportational cyclist would not be permitted to
ride on the sabbath, but a recreational cyclist would. They probably
didn't also consider whether the bicycle is being ridden on the road or
on a trail or MUP.

Also see
<https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/547184/jewish/Can-I-ride-a-bicycle-to-synagogue-on-Shabbat.htm>

They don't explicitly say that it's forbidden, just that it's 'refrained
from.' You can't carry anything on it or fix it if it breaks down.

They don't say anything about bicycling if there is an eruv around the
area you're bicycling. "Without an eruv in place, Boxerman explained,
"People with small children can't push a stroller." The whole eruv thing
seems really wrong to me.

> If you believe that bicycle riders tend to engage in endless debates,
> I can assure you that those debates are trivial compared to the
> endless hair splitting involved in interpreting the Torah.

Or debates on what constitutes kosher enough.

[sms]

On 11/30/2021 12:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> When I wrote the City telling them that the pickets made the facility dangerous, the response was that the pickets were necessary to avoid conflicts with cars. They're in an area where nobody parks. The only conflicts I've ever had on this third-mile stretch is with cars entering or exiting traffic, and the pickets/wands (whatever they're called) make it worse because they trap you in the lane.
>
> There are good facilities and bad facilities. I'm not against good facilities, which IMO, are generally just striped bike lanes. The rail-trail MUPs can be nice, too -- or as nice as they can be as a shared facility.

Pickets or bollards serve a purpose even when they are in an area where
no one would park.

On September 16th I was driving on Charleston Avenue in Palo Alto.

There's a nice, wide, unprotected bike lane
<https://goo.gl/maps/PWCqNU6n6DH3m6My5>.

Eastbound traffic was very heavy and backed up for quite a long ways.
There were cyclists in the bike lane. Well of course some cars figured
that since they'd be turning right, in another 1500 feet or so, that it
would be logical to pass all the stopped traffic by using the bike lane.

When they came upon cyclists they had to cut back into the regular lanes
and other drivers were annoyed and didn't want to let them back in. But
of course they should not have been driving in the bike lane at all.
Bollard or pickets are needed along there. They're not to stop a vehicle
from plowing into cyclists, they're to prevent bad behavior by
thoughtless drivers.

What is really dangerous is when a vehicle is stopped/parked/paused in a
bike lane. The cyclist will veer out of the bike lane to go around the
illegally stopped vehicle and they need to be really careful when doing
that. If you're not going to take steps to prevent vehicles from using
the bike lane for nefarious purposes then it's better to not have a bike
lane at all.

[John B.]

I can't help smiling. Over here in this poor, backward, country we
have people sweeping the streets. Over there in the most advanced
nation in the world you have heaps of wet leaves.
https://tinyurl.com/4aa29xd7
(:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 09:47:49 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

But I read
https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/denver-most-traffic-deaths-start-vision-zero-2021/73-a7f2735a-d55f-4643-94a8-fea1a1ddc45e
"The death toll for people in cars, on motorcycles, on bikes and
pedestrians is up significantly compared to the 61 deaths on Denver
roadways in 2016, the year Mayor Michael Hancock announced the city’s
commitment to the plan."
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:07:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

In another post I pointed out that here, if you hit someone on a
bicycle you can be charges with :causing a death" with a maximum
penalty of 10 years in jail.

I did a, admittedly cursory, search of California traffic laws and
found reference to causing a death with a penalty of as little as "a
fine of not less then $1,000"... And the following entry states that
"(3) In imposing the minimum fine required by this subdivision, the
court shall take into consideration the defendant’s ability to pay the
fine and, in the interests of justice and for reasons stated in the
record, may reduce the amount of that minimum fine to less than the
amount otherwise required by this subdivision"
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=20001

I also read that the average weekly salary in the U.S. is $984 so one
could kill someone on the highway with a penalty of 1 week's salary,
or perhaps even less.

The inference would seem to be that traffic deaths aren't really all
that big a thing in the U.S. so why all the fallderal about bike
paths.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:02:23 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:07:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>Are bicyclists so timid that their tires must never touch pavement
>>sullied by motor vehicle tires? Is it like some kosher thing?
>
>Kosher is for food preparation and eating. Jewish Law covers
>everything else. Riding or repairing a bicycle is only a problem on
>Shabbat (Saturday), depending on whether one follows a rigorous
>interpretation of the law:
>"Biking on Shabbat"
><https://www.jewishideas.org/article/biking-shabbat>
>For example, one is not allowed to make "grooves in the dirt"
>(plowing) on the Sabbath, which might be interpreted that mountain and
>gravel bicycles are proscribed on the Sabbath, but road bicycles are
>acceptable.
>
>If you believe that bicycle riders tend to engage in endless debates,
>I can assure you that those debates are trivial compared to the
>endless hair splitting involved in interpreting the Torah.

One of the problems with all organized religions is too many old men
with nothing better to do (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 12:02:36 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:07:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Are bicyclists so timid that their tires must never touch pavement
> >sullied by motor vehicle tires? Is it like some kosher thing?
> Kosher is for food preparation and eating. Jewish Law covers
> everything else. Riding or repairing a bicycle is only a problem on
> Shabbat (Saturday), depending on whether one follows a rigorous
> interpretation of the law:
> "Biking on Shabbat"
> <https://www.jewishideas.org/article/biking-shabbat>
> For example, one is not allowed to make "grooves in the dirt"
> (plowing) on the Sabbath, which might be interpreted that mountain and
> gravel bicycles are proscribed on the Sabbath, but road bicycles are
> acceptable.
>
> If you believe that bicycle riders tend to engage in endless debates,
> I can assure you that those debates are trivial compared to the
> endless hair splitting involved in interpreting the Torah.

Oh, I know. I've spent time (on and off, currently on) making my way through this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Literacy-Revised-Ed-Important/dp/0061374989
and I've been in some interesting discussions with people about the various rules, rulings,
judgments etc.

Hmm. Would r.b.tech benefit from a consulting rabbi?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:00:42 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 12:30 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > When I wrote the City telling them that the pickets made the facility dangerous, the response was that the pickets were necessary to avoid conflicts with cars. They're in an area where nobody parks. The only conflicts I've ever had on this third-mile stretch is with cars entering or exiting traffic, and the pickets/wands (whatever they're called) make it worse because they trap you in the lane.
> >
> > There are good facilities and bad facilities. I'm not against good facilities, which IMO, are generally just striped bike lanes. The rail-trail MUPs can be nice, too -- or as nice as they can be as a shared facility.
> Pickets or bollards serve a purpose even when they are in an area where
> no one would park.
>
> On September 16th I was driving on Charleston Avenue in Palo Alto.
>
> There's a nice, wide, unprotected bike lane
> <https://goo.gl/maps/PWCqNU6n6DH3m6My5>.
>
> Eastbound traffic was very heavy and backed up for quite a long ways.
> There were cyclists in the bike lane. Well of course some cars figured
> that since they'd be turning right, in another 1500 feet or so, that it
> would be logical to pass all the stopped traffic by using the bike lane.
>
> When they came upon cyclists they had to cut back into the regular lanes
> and other drivers were annoyed and didn't want to let them back in. But
> of course they should not have been driving in the bike lane at all.
> Bollard or pickets are needed along there. They're not to stop a vehicle
> from plowing into cyclists, they're to prevent bad behavior by
> thoughtless drivers.

I'd think that if that were a frequent problem, enforcement could greatly lessen it.
Traffic backups like that are not uncommon on certain freeways, which is a
similar situation; but drivers passing on the shoulder is pretty rare. IME far fewer than
one in 100 attempt it.

> What is really dangerous is when a vehicle is stopped/parked/paused in a
> bike lane. The cyclist will veer out of the bike lane to go around the
> illegally stopped vehicle and they need to be really careful when doing
> that.

Of course on must be careful. That is, the cyclist needs to check over his left shoulder and make
the move only if there's space to do so, signaling first if necessary. It's exactly the same situation
as merging left before making a left turn. It's one of the skills taught in every legitimate cycling
course, and it's not rocket science.

> If you're not going to take steps to prevent vehicles from using
> the bike lane for nefarious purposes then it's better to not have a bike
> lane at all.

IOW, all bike lanes need barriers? Really?

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

It's safe to say your opinion of "better" differs from theirs. (And you've never
taken a philosophy class!)

- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 11/30/2021 2:55 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> The inference would seem to be that traffic deaths aren't really all
> that big a thing in the U.S. so why all the fallderal about bike
> paths.

The reality is that no one plans to kill a cyclist and potential high
fines will have little impact on how they drive.

As the research shows, the way to reduce cyclist death and injuries is
to create bicycle infrastructure that reduces the likelihood of crashes.
Increasing conspicuousness, with the use of proper lighting, also helps.

"The most comprehensive study of bicycle and road safety to date finds
that building safe facilities for cyclists is one of the biggest factors
in road safety for everyone. Bicycling infrastructure -- specifically,
separated and protected bike lanes -- leads to fewer fatalities and
better road-safety outcomes for all road users."
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>.

Not that we needed yet another study to confirm what everyone already
knew based on cycling numbers, injuries, and fatalities in countries
with high bicycle mode share and tremendous amounts of bicycle
infrastructure. We're not going to turn all of the U.S. into Amsterdam
but at least in some areas we can greatly improve things.

[AMuzi]

Denver is complex. Legal marijuana means out-of-towners fly
in, get wrecked and drive around in a rental in a city they
do not know. It's a problem.

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

[John B.]

Well no, I haven't taken any philosophy classes, but what is
"philosophy" but, essentially, one man's opinion regarding something
or another.

Your "philosophy" regarding bike paths, for example, is "We don't need
them" while SMS's is quite the opposite. And you both preach your
beliefs with equal ardor.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:07:50 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

But why? In 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 805,722
workers in the U.S. bicycled to work, out of a population of some 333
million people... that is 2/10 of 1 percent. The rest, obviously are
recreational riders.

Is it logical to spend the public's money for 0.2% of the population?
You might try running for Mayor on the platform of "We are going to
spend your taxes to pay for bike lanes" to test the validity of my
argument (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I have no direct knowledge of auto accidents in the U.S. but I read
that only "On average, 12.3% of the drivers involved in fatal crashes
were found to have either too much alcohol or drug in their blood to
be driving legally."
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

And yet Mr Krygowski is right.

[Frank Krygowski]

Ardor is not correctness. All opinions are not equally valid. Heck, consider
Mr. Tom Kunich!

You might consider reading this well-regarded book.
https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Consider-Verdict-6th/dp/0205158668
The author is a buddy of mine.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Yes, in your opinion. But undoubtedly quite the opposite in Holland,
for example.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Andre Jute]

You ain't heard nuffink yet. In Britain the trains stopped running because "the wrong kind of leaves fell on the rails." -- AJ

[sms]

On 11/30/2021 4:30 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Your "philosophy" regarding bike paths, for example, is "We don't need
> them" while SMS's is quite the opposite. And you both preach your
> beliefs with equal ardor.

Actually, I don't need bike paths, but I'm not thinking of only myself.
That's the biggest difference between Frank and I.

I'm looking at the big picture and taking a systems view of the issue.
My goal is to increase the mode share of cycling by eliminating the
excuses that non-hard core cyclists use to avoid riding, and to
eliminate the excuses that parents use when they won't let their
children ride to school, the library, the teen center, etc..

Safe routes to school, secure bicycle parking, repair stations, training
classes, repair clinics, distribution of bicycle lights, etc., are
totally not needed by hard-core commuters or recreational cyclists.

Safety is a big issue and as the reference I provided shows, building
bicycle infrastructure increases safety for all cyclists. I'll be the
first to admit that many hard core cyclists don't like new bicycle
infrastructure, they feel constrained by protected bike lanes and it
slows them down. But usually there are alternative routes, without
infrastructure, that they can use.

There's also the issue that many cities face of minimum parking
requirements for buildings. Increasing the bicycle mode share by a small
percentage can reduce the parking requirements by a small percentage and
the cost of providing parking spaces can be enormous in places with high
land costs. A parking garage can cost $40K-$80K per space to construct,
depending on whether it's above grade or below grade. Surface parking
uses up land that can be better used for open space.

Electric bicycles are opening up new possibilities in terms of
commuting. Someone who used to be willing to only ride 4 or 5 miles to
work, now has no problem with a 10-15 mile ride, and in many cases the
commute time will not be materially different because they can use
routes not available to motor vehicles that are stuck in traffic jams.

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 17:19:39 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski

No "ardor" is not correctness, it is described as " a feeling of
strong eagerness (usually in favor of a person or cause)". But, what
is correctness? "I'm right and you are wrong"?

As for your book, rather what I said about opinion, isn't it?
Essentially one man's opinion. Part of the description states
"construct arguments from examples gained through the study of
contemporary and historic debates, both legal and popular".

But really? Take the discussions about slavery in the U.S. in the 17th
century.

Facts:
1. It was a legal practice in nearly all states.
2. It was necessary for the growing of cotton
3. The U.S. cotton trade in the 1800's was larger then the total of
all other exports from the U.S.
4. The legal history of slavery dates back the Hammurabi Code of 1754
BCE.
5 Morally it must be correct as the Christian Bible states that the
God of Abraham instructed the Israelites to "kill the male children
and nonvirgin females but take the young virgins for themselves"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

The reality is that you have to not look only at the total geographic
area of the U.S., but at areas where distances, terrain, and weather,
make cycle commuting possible. 0.2% is misleading. Many cities have
bicycle mode share well above 5%. We'll see what happens post-Covid, but
most likely in-person working will be greatly reduced and all those tech
professionals that were really into bicycle commuting may not return
en-masse.

Class IV infrastructure has only modest costs and the lower classes of
bicycle infrastructure (Class II and Class III) are very low cost,
though they may result in the loss of a traffic lane if it's a buffered
bike lane, see
<http://lvbikecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/caltrans-d4-bike-plan_bikeway-classification-brochure_072517.pdf>.
Class I is what's expensive, but fortunately there are lots of grants
and private donations to help fund those projects.

In any case, public money is often spent on things that benefit only a
small percentage of the population. Stadiums, symphony halls, libraries,
general aviation airports, playgrounds, public transit etc.. Public
transit is probably the most expensive, least-used, taxpayer funded
service in my area. It's essentially a social service for those that
cannot drive, for whatever reason. But there are political reasons to
run nearly empty buses all over the county at 15 minute head-ways
instead of designing a more efficient system.

[jbeattie]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 6:05:58 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 4:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Your "philosophy" regarding bike paths, for example, is "We don't need
> > them" while SMS's is quite the opposite. And you both preach your
> > beliefs with equal ardor.
> Actually, I don't need bike paths, but I'm not thinking of only myself.
> That's the biggest difference between Frank and I.
>
> I'm looking at the big picture and taking a systems view of the issue.
> My goal is to increase the mode share of cycling by eliminating the
> excuses that non-hard core cyclists use to avoid riding, and to
> eliminate the excuses that parents use when they won't let their
> children ride to school, the library, the teen center, etc..
>
> Safe routes to school, secure bicycle parking, repair stations, training
> classes, repair clinics, distribution of bicycle lights, etc., are
> totally not needed by hard-core commuters or recreational cyclists.
>
> Safety is a big issue and as the reference I provided shows, building
> bicycle infrastructure increases safety for all cyclists. I'll be the
> first to admit that many hard core cyclists don't like new bicycle
> infrastructure, they feel constrained by protected bike lanes and it
> slows them down. But usually there are alternative routes, without
> infrastructure, that they can use.

WTF? A city puts in a shitty and dangerous facility, and smart cyclist are expected to ride elsewhere. Really? Isn't the idea to get people to use the facilities -- or are they intended to wipe-out timid people. Is this some sort of weird eugenics thing? Are you Elites trying to wipe out the timid cyclists?

Instead of running interference for every bad facility, just say that some facilities are bad -- and if you do not have a factual basis for making that statement, please come visit me in Portland, and you can ride -- or more likely walk -- through foot-high piles of wet leaves in a picket-lined chute with cars entering an exiting at corners.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:05:52 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

But you've had motor bikes practically forever (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 18:25:02 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>

But what is the "more efficient system"? I read that some 91% of U.S.
families own a car and another site states that only 8.7% of U.S.
families do not have access to an automobile so the numbers seem to be
accurate. And, another site says that nearly 60% of U.S. families have
2 or more cars.

So all gussied up in your Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes and you are
going to ride to church on your bicycle?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 12:41:16 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/30/2021 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 13:07:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Are bicyclists so timid that their tires must never touch pavement
>>> sullied by motor vehicle tires? Is it like some kosher thing?
>>
>> Kosher is for food preparation and eating. Jewish Law covers
>> everything else. Riding or repairing a bicycle is only a problem on
>> Shabbat (Saturday), depending on whether one follows a rigorous
>> interpretation of the law:
>> "Biking on Shabbat"
>> <https://www.jewishideas.org/article/biking-shabbat>
>> For example, one is not allowed to make "grooves in the dirt"
>> (plowing) on the Sabbath, which might be interpreted that mountain and
>> gravel bicycles are proscribed on the Sabbath, but road bicycles are
>> acceptable.

>Interesting. So a transportational cyclist would not be permitted to
>ride on the sabbath, but a recreational cyclist would. They probably
>didn't also consider whether the bicycle is being ridden on the road or
>on a trail or MUP.

Worse. The various rules for observing Shabbat are mostly based on
what a person does, but also includes what someone else might perceive
that person might be doing. In other words, it's perception really is
everything, especially when the law if both vague and easily subject
to creative interpretation.

>Also see
><https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/547184/jewish/Can-I-ride-a-bicycle-to-synagogue-on-Shabbat.htm>
>
>They don't explicitly say that it's forbidden, just that it's 'refrained
>from.' You can't carry anything on it or fix it if it breaks down.

Yep. Indecision is the key to flexibility. It's also a large part of
why Judaism has survived for so long.

Another problem is that there really is no specific punishment for
breaking the rules. Instead, enforcement is through Jewish guilt.
That works well in close knit communities, where everyone knows
everyone else, and social pressure is both a functional motivator to
follow the rules and an effective deterrent against breaking the
rules.
"The 613 commandments"
<https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments-Mitzvot.htm>

Here's a rather long rant on the topic of Jewish guilt and shame.
"The Origins of Jewish Guilt: Psychological, Theological, and Cultural
Perspectives"
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4560119/>

>They don't say anything about bicycling if there is an eruv around the
>area you're bicycling. "Without an eruv in place, Boxerman explained,
>"People with small children can't push a stroller." The whole eruv thing
>seems really wrong to me.

Yeah, it's wrong. Most Jews will also agree that it's wrong. However,
it's so convenient, solves many problems, acts as a safety valve, and
is a good example of the flexibility I mentioned. It doesn't mean
that one can break every rule inside an eruv. It just means that a
less rigid interpretation of the rules concerning carrying things on
Shabbat within its boundaries. Whatever the reason or excuse, the
idea seems to be rather popular:
"List of places with eruvin"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_with_eruvin>

>> If you believe that bicycle riders tend to engage in endless debates,
>> I can assure you that those debates are trivial compared to the
>> endless hair splitting involved in interpreting the Torah.

>Or debates on what constitutes kosher enough.

Such debates have their value:
"Affordable & Accepted Kosher Certification - Fast"
<https://earthkosher.com>
"Popular foods you never knew were kosher"
<https://jewishjournal.com/judaism/182093/>
Last time I checked, nobody is selling an edible bicycle, making
Kosher certification a difficult to justify expense. I don't know
about this:
"Edible Bike Tours"
<https://www.ediblebiketours.com>

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[sms]

The world does not revolve around one city's (Portland's) design and
maintenance of their bicycle infrastructure. It sounds like your public
works department has some issues that need to be addressed, but please
don't extrapolate the problems of a single city onto the rest of the
country.

[jbeattie]

Hey, it works both ways -- don't export sheltered bike lanes to places with weather and trees. And even without the leaves, the facility is a death chute. Another problem with pickets is that you're stuck behind other cyclists, and I'm talking about people I could pass on a meat-powered bike with a broken leg. It's a one lane road with no passing. And no, I'm not going to ride an extra mile out of my way to take a different route. I think some designers imagine a world with one bike in it. Imagine this in a chute: https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/observing-portlands-bike-traffic-photo-essay-182506

-- Jay Beattie.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

That's just speculation. From https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/crash-rates-jump-in-wake-of-marijuana-legalization-new-studies-show

"It’s also possible that disparities in state and local regulations might be encouraging more travel by marijuana users. For example, marijuana users in counties that do not allow retail sales may drive to counties that do. Their increased travel could lead to more crashes even if their crash risk per mile traveled is no higher than that of other drivers."

IOW - no statistics to support it.

[funkma...@hotmail.com]

Massachusetts _state_ law gives cyclists equal access rights to vehicle travel lanes except for limited access higways, and states the use of a bike lane is optional unless otherwise posted. There are a great number of roads that are marked "cyclists may use full lane" as a warning to drivers, and I haven't seen any that mandate the use of a bike lane.

There are ways around these problems. I'm not saying the massachusetts model will work everywhere (no solution works everywhere), but a holistic approach to the problem usually works better than piecemeal efforts.

[AMuzi]

Yes. Why not?
I've ridden to funerals and parked my bike inside the church
several times.

[AMuzi]

>>> roadways in 2016, the year Mayor Michael Hancock announced the city’s

>>> commitment to the plan."
>>>
>> Denver is complex. Legal marijuana means out-of-towners fly
>> in, get wrecked and drive around in a rental in a city they
>> do not know. It's a problem.
>>
>
> That's just speculation. From https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/crash-rates-jump-in-wake-of-marijuana-legalization-new-studies-show
>

> "It’s also possible that disparities in state and local regulations might be encouraging more travel by marijuana users. For example, marijuana users in counties that do not allow retail sales may drive to counties that do. Their increased travel could lead to more crashes even if their crash risk per mile traveled is no higher than that of other drivers."

>
> IOW - no statistics to support it.
>

Will Rogers and I only know what we read in the papers:


https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/crash-rates-jump-in-wake-of-marijuana-legalization-new-studies-show

I take no position on marijuana.

[sms]

On 11/30/2021 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> But what is the "more efficient system"?

The transit agency could halve the number of buses and do 30 minute
headways and since regular riders know the schedules, it would have
little downside.

Those that depend on public transportation know the routes and
schedules. I was at a meeting with the PIO for our county's transit
agency and he said that unless there were 15 minute headways people
would not bother to use a bus or trolley.

But the reality is that even _with_ 15 minute headways almost no one in
Silicon Valley will use public transit, it's way too slow.

What we did in my city, just before the pandemic, was to establish an
on-demand ride system. It takes people within the city plus to a limited
number of destinations outside the city like medical centers and the
train station in the adjoining city. It's subsidized of course, but to a
much lower extent that the public bus and trolley system. It was
extremely popular until it was shut down during Covid. It's back up and
running now.

What should be done is to keep the heaviest used routes, at lower
frequency, and replace the lightly-used routes with an on-demand
service. But there are political reasons why this won't happen. There
are state laws that say that if a place is within 1/2 mile or 1/4 mile
of public transit with 15 minute headways then a developer can build
more densely and does not have to provide as much, or any, off-street
parking. So there is big resistance by wealthy campaign contributors, to
rework public transit match demand more closely to supply. So we will
continue to run empty, fossil-fuel powered, buses around the county,
with all the expenses of labor, fuel, and maintenance.

[sms]

On 11/30/2021 8:04 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> Last time I checked, nobody is selling an edible bicycle, making
> Kosher certification a difficult to justify expense. I don't know
> about this:
> "Edible Bike Tours"
> <https://www.ediblebiketours.com>

I suppose that you could make parts of a bike edible, using certain
species of bamboo for the frame. It would be kosher by default.

[Tom Kunich]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:41:22 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:22:21 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> > On 11/29/2021 10:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I was on a CAB, and it had a paid mediator since nobody was on the same page. What you think is the best or "common sense" may not be what the other bicycle advocate thinks. And then you get totally collateral agendas like environmentalism, inclusivism, NIMBY,etc., etc.
> > Frank's rant is because he doesn't like the fact that "transportational
> > cycling" has prevailed over the more elitist "vehicular cycling."
> Seriously? We all need to ride on roads, and interestingly -- at least in Orygun -- bicycles are vehicles, so all cycling is vehicular cycling.
>
> I was riding to work yesterday, watching some guy on a bike trying to pick his way down the picket-sheltered facility with heaps of wet leaves in drifts. I kid you not -- this guy was stopping and scootering over them. I was in the road. Screw that.
>
> Notwithstanding my complaints and promised action from the City, that facility remains unswept and unsweepable with regular equipment because some rube thought that non-car stopping pickets were necessary to make the world safe. Chutes are not safe for transportational cyclists.

The experimental bike lanes have now infected the main street near my house. Up at the Bay Fair Shopping center which is rapidly emptying of businesses because of mob theft, the are changing the road to have concrete barriers between the cyclists and cars. This at this point is an EXTREMELY bad idea because this is where people enter the shopping center and it will be across the bike lane that simply isn't marked now. That is really all the remaining tenants of the shopping center need - additional dangers entering the parking areas.

[Tom Kunich]

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 9:43:13 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> On 11/30/2021 2:22 AM, sms wrote:
> > On 11/29/2021 10:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I was on a CAB, and it had a paid mediator since nobody was on the
> >> same page. What you think is the best or "common sense" may not be
> >> what the other bicycle advocate thinks. And then you get totally
> >> collateral agendas like environmentalism, inclusivism, NIMBY,etc., etc.
> >
> > Frank's rant is because he doesn't like the fact that "transportational
> > cycling" has prevailed over the more elitist "vehicular cycling."

> It's ridiculous to pretend transportational cycling is somehow the
> opposite of vehicular cycling. Only a minuscule portion of American
> cyclists can do transportation without using ordinary roads; and to
> safely and efficiently use ordinary roads, one needs to follow the
> vehicular rules of the road. That's what "vehicular cycling" really is.
>
> I suppose we could do a poll: How many here use their bike for
> transportation, and never use it on an ordinary street or road?
>
> It's true that segregated bike facilities get much more press than
> vehicular cycling. That's a direct result of the agencies I described
> upthread and their agenda. It confirms what I said.
> > Every time new infrastructure is added, and cycling levels increase,
> > it's an affront to the vehicular cycling movement that believes that
> > everyone should be riding on the road and that bicycle infrastructure is
> > unnecessary.
> And what about every time new weird bike infrastructure is added and
> cycling levels _don't_ increase? That is, after all, they typical
> result. In recent decades thousands of miles of bike lanes (conventional
> and "protected") and bike paths have been added across America. Bike
> mode share is flat or declining in almost all those locations. LAB has
> quietly admitted this.
> > "Vehicular Cyclists" understand that adding infrastructure increases
> > cycling levels and safety, since it's been proven over and over again
> > throughout the world...
>
> It's been disproven as often as it's been proven. The Insurance Industry
> for Highway Safety released a report a couple years ago that quietly
> noted huge crash rate increases in some weird facilities: "Protected
> bike lanes with heavy separation (tall, continuous barriers or grade and
> horizontal separation) were associated with lower risk (adjusted
> OR=0.10; 95% CI=0.01, 0.95), but those with lighter separation (e.g.,
> parked cars, posts, low curb) had similar risk to major roads when one
> way (adjusted OR=1.19; 95% CI=0.46, 3.10) and higher risk when they were
> two way (adjusted OR=11.38; 95% CI=1.40, 92.57)..."
>
> Which matches results found in European studies. Which is why the
> world's foremost promoter of bike facilities says many U.S. designs are
> crazy.
> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
> But dreamy-eyed, foggy-brained idealists like Scharf still promote them.
> > For hard-core, high-speed commuters, the separate infrastructure can be
> > an annoyance, but no one disputes the fact that the infrastructure makes
> > things safer: "Building safe facilities for cyclists turned out to be
> > one of the biggest factors in road safety for everyone." "They found
> > that bicycling infrastructure is significantly associated with fewer
> > fatalities and better road-safety outcomes. Portland, Ore., saw the
> > biggest increase. Between 1990 and 2010, city's bicycle mode share
> > increased from 1.2% to 6%; over the same period, the road fatality rate
> > dropped by 75%. With added bike lanes, fatal crash rates dropped in
> > Seattle (-60.6%), San Francisco (-49.3%), Denver (-40.3%) and Chicago
> > (-38.2%), among others."
> > <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>. But
> > that study is based on data, 13 years of it, and as we've seen over the
> > years, "Vehicular Cyclists" are not fond of actual data.
> Marshall and Ferenchak entered the research fray flying a flag of
> extreme bias, obviously searching for ways to promote the segregation of
> bikes. Their first effort scraped together data from widely disparate
> sources and time periods to argue that sharrows were terrible, and that
> only segregated lanes were safe for riding. To sell their pitch, they
> scrambled commuters with drunks and stunt riders, they scrambled data
> from "block areas" of the city whose boundaries had changed over time,
> they portrayed increases in cycling as decreases, and they never
> actually used actual _counts_ of bicyclists. Above all, with zero proof
> they demonized cycling on ordinary roads as terribly dangerous. (In
> fact, the article Scharf linked has the author starting with "Bicycling
> seems inherently dangerous on its own...")
>
> Because of the authors' past bias, I haven't read the paper Scharf
> cites; but on first glance, it appears to be an exercise in cherry
> picking. They seem to have picked a handful of cities that give the
> results they want. And the 51% increase in bike commuting? That's
> another classic sales technique, in which a change from minuscule to
> slightly less minuscule is promoted as a triumph. (Sources say Oklahoma
> City has a bike commuting share of 0.3%, negligible even if bigger than
> it once was.) And despite ever more weird bike facilities, Portland's
> bike mode share has been dropping. See
> https://bikeportland.org/2019/09/26/us-census-portland-bike-commuting-hits-lowest-rate-in-12-years-305326
>
> Also, we shouldn't take seriously any paper that attributes increases in
> bike mode share to facilities, without accounting for the surge in bike
> share schemes and e-bikes.

I think that the addition of a bicycle lane was a good idea if you include questions on the vehicular license test making sure that people understand that they must be extremely careful crossing these lanes with right turns. What I absolutely do not agree with is the idea of forced separation via barriers which have no additional benefits than to cost the taxpayer exorbitant sums and give drivers the idea that cyclists must stay behind these barriers.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:48:24 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Oh, I know. I've spent time (on and off, currently on) making my way through this book:
>https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Literacy-Revised-Ed-Important/dp/0061374989
>and I've been in some interesting discussions with people about the various rules, rulings,
>judgments etc.

800 pages? Yikes.

Perhaps you would find the Midrash to be more interesting?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midrash&tbm=isch>
The Midrash are the collected interpretations of the Torah, phrase by
phrase. On the older versions, the original Torah quote is in the
middle of the page, and is surrounded by various interpretations. On
later versions, it's on the opposing pages.
<https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/midrash-101/>
It covers most relevant topics including bicycles:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=midrash+bicycles>

<https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/32622>
Question: May a child ride a bicycle on Shabbat in
a place that has aneiruv?
Answer: Nope.
"The increasing popularity of electric bicycles likely
makes all bicycles even more problematic (one can make
the opposite claim)."

Any semblance to the modern US legal system is probably coincidental.

>Hmm. Would r.b.tech benefit from a consulting rabbi?

No. The rabbi would likely act much like a moderator or arbitrator.
One of the alleged benefits of Usenet newsgroups is the lack of
moderation and censorship. I'm not sure if the current group of
R.B.T. users would be interested in paying that price to add a small
amount of sanity to the discussions. There's also the problem of
finding a rabbi willing to do the work. I helped moderate a local
newsgroup many years ago and found it to be a thankless exercise in
frustration. We took turns doing the moderation because nobody had
sufficient time and none of us could tolerate it for very long. To
make moderation work, I suspect we'll need several rabbis.

[Tom Kunich]

Locally there is a fast 4 lane downhill with bike lanes each side. In between rainstorms, dry leaves can absolutely block the bike lanes. Luckily traffic is light on this area since it has an OLD hospital and a juvenile detention center on it and a Sheriffs station at the bottom. But people still want to speed 20 mph over the speed limit when bicyclist must move over in the the right hand lane to miss the leaves.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:34:03 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Topic drift: This is what happened when the city tried to create a
>pedestrian and bicycle lane with temporary barriers. The text doesn't
>say much, but the video covers some of the reasons why it was quickly
>removed:
><https://www.ksbw.com/article/santa-cruz-county-puts-brakes-on-portola-drive-bike-lane-project/37053108>
>I saw it just before it was removed. Most of the barriers had been
>driven over or were pried out of the roadway.

Guess what just one of those temporary ABS plastic bicycle lane
barrier segments costs? Make a guess and then click here:
<https://www.sarisinfrastructure.com/product/wave-delineator>
Some details:
<https://www.sarisinfrastructure.com/Uploads/PDF/BikeFixation-Manuals/Wave-Delineator-Product-Sheet.pdf>
<https://www.sarisinfrastructure.com/Uploads/PDF/BikeFixation-Manuals/Wave-Delineator-Installation-Instructions.pdf>
Each weighs 11 lbs (5kg).

[sms]

On 12/1/2021 8:52 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> <https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/32622>
> Question: May a child ride a bicycle on Shabbat in
> a place that has aneiruv?
> Answer: Nope.
> "The increasing popularity of electric bicycles likely
> makes all bicycles even more problematic (one can make
> the opposite claim)."

Can you look this up: "Can a Jewish toddler ride in a bicycle trailer
that is being pulled by a bicycle ridden by someone that is not Jewish,
if there is an eruv?"

Can we now talk about sabbath mode on appliances and elevators?

[Frank Krygowski]

As I said, all opinions are not equally valid. Unless I'm wrong, you
believe the arguments you listed in favor of enslaving blacks were not
valid. IOW, you're proving my statement.

Also invalid are those arguments claiming that if only we have enough
"protected" bike lanes, so many Americans will abandon their cars that
our cities will be transformed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/30/2021 9:05 PM, sms wrote:
>
> Actually, I don't need bike paths, but I'm not thinking of only myself.
> That's the biggest difference between Frank and I.
>
> I'm looking at the big picture and taking a systems view of the issue.
> My goal is to increase the mode share of cycling by eliminating the
> excuses that non-hard core cyclists use to avoid riding, and to
> eliminate the excuses that parents use when they won't let their

> children ride to school, the library, the teen center, etc...

>
> Safe routes to school, secure bicycle parking, repair stations, training
> classes, repair clinics, distribution of bicycle lights, etc., are
> totally not needed by hard-core commuters or recreational cyclists.
>
> Safety is a big issue and as the reference I provided shows, building
> bicycle infrastructure increases safety for all cyclists.

And yet you have posted reams of nonsense about the absolute necessity
of Daytime Running Lights, helmets, horizontal safety flags, blinding
strobe lights, glaring headlight beams, electric horns and more. You've
done as much as anyone on this discussion group to portray bicycling as
terribly dangerous. Now you're saying we need expensive infrastructure
to counter all your propaganda, so people think it's safe? Weird.

> I'll be the
> first to admit that many hard core cyclists don't like new bicycle
> infrastructure, they feel constrained by protected bike lanes and it
> slows them down. But usually there are alternative routes, without
> infrastructure, that they can use.

So: People who actually _do_ ride and who know about the downsides of
your weird segregated facilities should be inconvenienced into using
remote routes. That's so hypothetical people who _might_ ride can be
lured into using those weird facilities despite their downsides.

> There's also the issue that many cities face of minimum parking
> requirements for buildings. Increasing the bicycle mode share by a small
> percentage can reduce the parking requirements by a small percentage and
> the cost of providing parking spaces can be enormous in places with high
> land costs. A parking garage can cost $40K-$80K per space to construct,
> depending on whether it's above grade or below grade. Surface parking
> uses up land that can be better used for open space.

Out of all the bike lanes (protected and conventional) in the U.S., how
many can you point to that have documentation for that hypothetical
benefit? I'm guessing the answer is zero, or very close to it. IOW,
you're pitching a fairy tale.

> Electric bicycles are opening up new possibilities in terms of
> commuting. Someone who used to be willing to only ride 4 or 5 miles to
> work, now has no problem with a 10-15 mile ride, and in many cases the
> commute time will not be materially different because they can use
> routes not available to motor vehicles that are stuck in traffic jams.

You make heavy use of the word "many." Such a lovely, vague word! So
free of actual depressing numbers!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/1/2021 12:39 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> Hey, it works both ways -- don't export sheltered bike lanes to places with weather and trees. And even without the leaves, the facility is a death chute. Another problem with pickets is that you're stuck behind other cyclists, and I'm talking about people I could pass on a meat-powered bike with a broken leg. It's a one lane road with no passing.

Historical note: Back in the 1890s, someone built a bike commuting
facility in New Jersey. It was a rail system. Special bikes straddled
the rail to give easy rolling for a couple mile commute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotchkiss_Bicycle_Railroad

Part of the reason it failed was that travel speed was governed by the
slowest rider on the system, which might be very slow indeed. There was
no way to pass. In that way, it's just like in a narrow "protected" bike
lane.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Many, perhaps most, states have similar laws. That hasn't stopped police
from ticketing or even arresting cyclists for riding on normal roads.
From an article I recently wrote for our club newsletter:


In southern Ohio in 2008, two men on a rural training ride were flagged
down by a patrolman for the offense of “riding on the road.” They did
not comply, since it was an illegal order. Ultimately one cyclist was
tasered and arrested. (After making national news, and with the help of
a lawyer and a judge who happened to be a cyclist, all charges were
dismissed. The cyclists later sued, successfully, for damages.)

In 1999, an Ohio cyclist was ticketed for “impeding traffic” for riding
on a city street. The officer and later the local court effectively
claimed that any cyclist riding slower than a car was violating the law
- an interpretation that would prevent almost all bike riding. (The
cyclist won on appeal, setting a useful legal precedent.)

In 2014, a car-free Kentucky mother biking to work was ticketed
repeatedly, then arrested, for riding on a four lane highway - the only
practical route for her ride to work. She was not as lucky as the Ohio
men above. She was convicted and fined, despite a very questionable
interpretation of the relevant laws, and she couldn’t afford to appeal.

In 2009 and 2010, a Massachusetts cyclist (whom I’ve met) was repeatedly
ticketed for the same offense. He, too, had no alternative (and in fact,
can’t drive a car due to vision problems). Police eventually confiscated
his bike and the video camera he was using to record his ride and the
interactions with cops. He eventually won in a lawsuit not asking for
money, just asking that the town recognized a cyclist’s right to the road.

There are many more incidents I can cite. And of course, I’ve had
encounters with motorists, some quite aggressive and prolonged, telling
me to “Get off the road” or “Get on the sidewalk” or “Get on the bike
trail” or “My tax dollars paid for that bike path, get on it” and more.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 10:19:24 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/1/2021 8:52 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> <https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/32622>
>> Question: May a child ride a bicycle on Shabbat in
>> a place that has aneiruv?
>> Answer: Nope.
>> "The increasing popularity of electric bicycles likely
>> makes all bicycles even more problematic (one can make
>> the opposite claim)."

>Can you look this up: "Can a Jewish toddler ride in a bicycle trailer
>that is being pulled by a bicycle ridden by someone that is not Jewish,
>if there is an eruv?"

Yes, I can, sort of. The excessively long phrase works when
cut-n-pasted into Google search, but does something odd. Just after
the word "trailer", it inserts a ">" character. No problem for Google
search, but it breaks all of the "Let me Google that for you" type
sites that I tried. I hand edited this to remove all the punctuation,
which seems to fix the problem:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Can+a+Jewish+toddler+ride+in+a+bicycle+trailer+that+is+being+pulled+by+a+bicycle+ridden+by+someone+that+is+not+Jewish+if+there+is+an+eruv>
If you prime interest is in the eruv, wrap "eruv" and "bicycle" in
quotes like this to insure that the result contains both words:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=Can+a+Jewish+toddler+ride+in+a+"bicycle"+trailer+that+is+being+pulled+by+a+bicycle+ridden+by+someone+that+is+not+Jewish+if+there+is+an+"eruv">

>Can we now talk about sabbath mode on appliances and elevators?

No. I need to run to the hardware store and buy a Xacto blade or
scalpel suitable for splitting hairs before I can do that.
<http://peal.io/download/jfj73>

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2021 11:30:12 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>Yes, I can, sort of. The excessively long phrase works when
>cut-n-pasted into Google search, but does something odd. Just after
>the word "trailer", it inserts a ">" character.

Oops. A few milliseconds after I posted the above message, I realized
that I had cut-n-pasted the quoted line instead of the original. The
">" at the beginning of each line was the problem I observed.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/30/2021 9:25 PM, sms wrote:
> On 11/30/2021 4:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>>

>> ... In 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 805,722

>> workers in the U.S. bicycled to work, out of a population of some 333
>> million people... that is 2/10 of 1 percent. The rest, obviously are
>> recreational riders.
>>
>> Is it logical to spend the public's money for 0.2% of the population?
>> You might try running for Mayor on the platform of "We are going to
>> spend your taxes to pay for bike lanes" to test the validity of my
>> argument (:-)
>
> The reality is that you have to not look only at the total geographic
> area of the U.S., but at areas where distances, terrain, and weather,
> make cycle commuting possible. 0.2% is misleading. Many cities have

> bicycle mode share well above 5%. ...

"Many cities" in the U.S. have bike mode share above 5%?

List them please. In real life, it's a _very_ short list. And in some
(like Portland) the bike mode share has been decreasing in recent years,
despite ever more bike facilities.

> Class IV infrastructure has only modest costs and the lower classes of
> bicycle infrastructure (Class II and Class III) are very low cost,
> though they may result in the loss of a traffic lane if it's a buffered
> bike lane, see
> <http://lvbikecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/caltrans-d4-bike-plan_bikeway-classification-brochure_072517.pdf>.
> Class I is what's expensive, but fortunately there are lots of grants
> and private donations to help fund those projects.

If you're going to tout the low costs of simple striped facilities, you
need to address the modern trend of saying that nothing but "protected"
bike lanes are adequate. (And yes, that is what's being screamed on
Streetsblog and other such propaganda outlets.)

> In any case, public money is often spent on things that benefit only a
> small percentage of the population. Stadiums, symphony halls, libraries,
> general aviation airports, playgrounds, public transit etc.. Public
> transit is probably the most expensive, least-used, taxpayer funded
> service in my area. It's essentially a social service for those that
> cannot drive, for whatever reason. But there are political reasons to
> run nearly empty buses all over the county at 15 minute head-ways
> instead of designing a more efficient system.

There are plenty of examples of bad use of public funds - although not
all in your list are bad examples. Our library levies always pass
overwhelmingly. The public obviously approves.

In any case: Examples of bad use of public funds do NOT justify more bad
uses of public funds.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/30/2021 10:43 PM, John B. wrote:
> I read that some 91% of U.S.
> families own a car and another site states that only 8.7% of U.S.
> families do not have access to an automobile so the numbers seem to be
> accurate. And, another site says that nearly 60% of U.S. families have
> 2 or more cars.
>
> So all gussied up in your Sunday-go-to-meeting clothes and you are
> going to ride to church on your bicycle?

We've done that many, many times. Although we usually walk.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Our country sacrificed mightily to end the peculiar
institution and yet our loudest critics on the subject never
have a word to say about slavery in China, Sudan, The
Kingdom, Congo and other current s**holes.

Oh, and I agree about throwing tax dollars at kiddy lanes
and cyclist caltrops and cyclist meat grinder traffic
circles, all the rest. Complete waste.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 12/1/2021 2:53 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Our country sacrificed mightily to end the peculiar institution and yet
> our loudest critics on the subject never have a word to say about
> slavery in China, Sudan, The Kingdom, Congo and other current s**holes.

Related to that:

A few years ago my wife and I returned again to visit Thomas Jefferson's
home, Monticello.

I understand the volunteer docents or tour guides have a lot of freedom
regarding what they choose to say. For the first time, we got a docent
who wanted to talk about little besides slavery. Jefferson's biography,
his science interests, his architecture, his music interests, his work
on the Constitution or as president all took a back seat to his owning
of slaves. (And to be clear, I do _not_ condone slavery - but there was
so much more to the man!)

Anyway, at one point I attempted to ask a question. I said "I know that
in Jefferson's time, slavery was legal in many countries, not just the
U.S. Can you tell me, are people in those other countries now having the
same discussions about slavery as we Americans are?"

The docent almost yelled at me: "No NOT try to whitewash slavery! It was
a TERRIBLE institution! Slaves led terrible lives..."

I said "I'm not trying to whitewash it! I'm just asking if people in
other countries are discussing it the way we do..."

"DO NOT TRY TO WHITEWASH SLAVERY!" ... and on and on.

I gave up. I never got an answer to my question.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

What not valid? Do you mean that what I posted was/is not true? Or
simply that you disagree with it?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Undoubtedly true, and you and your wife and all the other bicycle
addicts make up what portion of your church's attendance?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

rOn Wed, 1 Dec 2021 15:08:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski

In Thailand slavery was officially completely abolished in 1905 and
today you never hear it mentioned and although certain words and terms
do date back to slavery I would guess that the average Thai may not
realize the origin of the, usually, derogatory, or impolite words.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

The ignorant throw insults today based on a situation
rectified 150+ years ago but will not listen when I try to
confront the current problem.

Denial doesn't make it nonexistent:

https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/Modern_Day_Slavery_Statistics

[Frank Krygowski]

Let's take it step by step. Do YOU believe slavery is morally correct?
Please give a simple "yes" or "no."


--
- Frank Krygowski