Before & after bike lanes
Frank Krygowski
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/two-breeds-of-biker.html
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
> Bike lanes - Interesting video about what happens in real life.
>
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/22qhdzj
>
> - Frank Krygowski
I was riding down a bike lane two days ago, stuck behind some dork on
a bike talking on a cell phone. I was going to stick my pump in his
spokes, but I like my pump too much. I couldn't get around because the
lane was parallel to streetcar tracks -- and a streetcar. Most of my
close calls are with other bikes, sorry to say. -- Jay Beattie.
Tom Sherman °_°
> Bike lanes - Interesting video about what happens in real life.
>
> http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/two-breeds-of-biker.html
Obviously what is needed for these bicycle ghettos is a vehicle capable
of surviving collisions with pedestrians, other cyclists, and open car
doors:
<http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_1.mpg> and
<http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_2.mpg>.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
landotter
> Bike lanes - Interesting video about what happens in real life.
>
>
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/22qhdzj
>
> - Frank Krygowski
They're most useful in the dense city...sometimes. However--for them
to work, they need to be put in properly--slower traffic on the right,
and they need to be enforced. The European great cycling cities' lanes
and bike roads work great because most folks are on the same level,
riding clear lanes on clunky bikes going 10mph. The video wasn't just
about bad design, it was about bad design pissing off people with a
sense of entitlement to go a certain speed.
TBH, I've yet to see a bike lane that was treated seriously by local
authorities in the US. If you're gonna build them, build them
properly, and enforce the rules. If a car salmoned, don't you think
they'd be pulled over within a couple blocks? Yeah.
BigP
If there is room for a really good cycle lane, a cycle lane is not needed!
They are useless - apart from encouraging *some* people to cycle.
landotter
The way they're done in the US, which is to not deal with conflict
zones like intersections properly--yes, they're bullshit. However,
there are a few around here, while useless to me, seem to raise
property values and encourage cycling if only for the symbolism.
Tim McNamara
<69eec5cb-8dd3-476c...@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Jay Beattie <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
With the rise in "vehicular cycling" locally, with Joe and Jane Everedge
taking to their bikes to get to work and run some errands, there's been
an increase in "vehicular behavior." These folks often ride a bike as
stupidly as they operate a motor vehicle.
--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
kolldata
A high percentage are hurricane escape routes (Fla), logging and
tandem truck ease of passage asphalt (NW), police/emergency use
asphalt (NYC), but why kick ?
yeah and do you know what those riders are breathing ? unburned
hydrocarbon/soot soup. duh.
BigP
Mostly bullshit where I am in the UK, too - including the new
laughably-named "Cycle Super Highways" - which are like any other cycle
lane, except blue and a little wider. These are only on roads which are
wide enough for plenty of overtaking room anyway. As soon as the road
narrows, or there's a junction (intersection), the cycle lane ends. No one
sees the irony.
BigP
Tim McNamara
<7c0a80dd-d29f-4943...@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 11:34 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bike lanes - Interesting video about what happens in real life.
> >
> > http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/two-bre
> > e...
> >
> > orhttp://tinyurl.com/22qhdzj
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> They're most useful in the dense city...sometimes. However--for them
> to work, they need to be put in properly--slower traffic on the
> right, and they need to be enforced. The European great cycling
> cities' lanes and bike roads work great because most folks are on the
> same level, riding clear lanes on clunky bikes going 10mph. The video
> wasn't just about bad design, it was about bad design pissing off
> people with a sense of entitlement to go a certain speed.
That seems a little harsh towards the faster riders. This is probably
the difference between people cruising at 10 mph and people riding at 18
20 mph, not people wanting to do 30+ mph on their aerobars.
> TBH, I've yet to see a bike lane that was treated seriously by local
> authorities in the US. If you're gonna build them, build them
> properly, and enforce the rules. If a car salmoned, don't you think
> they'd be pulled over within a couple blocks? Yeah.
"Salmoning." I like that. If they are spotted, yes, but IME locally I
can go for weeks without seeing a police car. I can go for months
without seeing a police car on my street.
Bike lanes are frequently badly designed, sometimes spectacularly so.
This seems to be the case internationally, looking around the Web. It's
particularly difficult in a city like New York or Boston where many of
the streets are narrow, very crowded with cars and pedestrians, with
business on both sides getting deliveries and the like.
I think it would be cheaper and simpler to instead educate drivers and
bikers on sharing the existing roads.
dusto...@mac.com
>
That's one bad one. That's a place where I don't know what kind of
bike lane you could put in that would work.
Too bad about the scofflaw rong-way-riders and peds and delivery men,
etc. "Life in the big city".
Austin is on something of a roll with new & improved bike lanes,
sharrows, green zones at lights.
Where I ride, I see only improvement. There's one notable crossing
(eastbound Steck over Mopac, to name the place) where a simple paint
stripe has changed a place where I was never "surprised" to be crowded
and threatened to a place where my right to be there on a bike is
recognized by all except that bad 3%, by informal survey.
When I pull up to a red light there, in a non-confrontational way, I
move over to the right so following traffic can see the new bike lane
on the other side of the intersection. My "move" is obviously meant to
communicate, and it does, without fail to date. My right to be there
is accepted where it certainly was not, previously.
The Shoal Creek Blvd. bikepath continues to shine, IMHO. I know some
of the rabid "bikes not cars" people here hate SCB's striping pattern
with a purple passion because the bike lane is shared with streetfront
parking in this residential area. Well, other people besides Frank
Krygowski have "policy problems", what can I say?
This is another place, and I mean the whole length up and down, that
used to be an occasionally dangerous place to ride, when the bike path
was a narrow, "bikes only except that cars can park there too",
painted lane. Anything outside of that narrow strip could be "no man's
land" to a pissed-off driver, and there were lots of them. Now that
the lane has been widened so that parked MV's and bikes share, almost
without exception, overtaking traffic waits for me to ride around
parked cars. This, in stark contrast to being honked at and buzzed, or
having drivers put 'er in neutral and race their engines at me <g>. A
clear message delivered, there.
It's ironic that the bad bike lane in your link has resulted in
increased reported hostility toward bikers who don't choose to ride in
the bike lane.
Same deal as with the previous SCB layout-- "get back to where you
belong" and that whether the laws actually say a cyclist must use bike
lanes where present. That mentality always has to be figured into any
planning; unless a planner is also a biker, I bet that "real world"
phenomenon usually gets short shrift.
Maybe they'll take the bad bike lane out; I very much doubt it, and it
was amazing when the failed ("experimental") traffic islands (AKA
"dragon's teeth"), much more expensive than a stripe of paint, with
the curbing and striping and crepe myrtle trees installed, were yanked
(than God) off of SCB.
Frank, instead of blindly looking at any/all bike lanes and other
special use demarcations as automatic negatives, why not study the
ones that work (as well as the ones that don't) and figure out "why"?
Not that the bikepath in your link takes much "figuring" <g>.
--D-y
kolldata
unless specifically mandated in new construction codes laid out by the
state over muni authority. That's life. That's all you get so eat it.
Taking out an antique stone wall for a cycle lane runs way over
property rights for a few creeps riding what when the wall owner is
paying for the road itself in taxes....
'Like' moving bike lanes into a dominating ease of passage priority
over IC/property rights is gonna take very large numbers of rider use
age.
Dan O
> In article
> <69eec5cb-8dd3-476c-b625-c8a305917...@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 9:34 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Bike lanes - Interesting video about what happens in real life.
>
> > >http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/two-bre
> > > e...
>
> > > orhttp://tinyurl.com/22qhdzj
>
> > > - Frank Krygowski
>
> > I was riding down a bike lane two days ago, stuck behind some dork on
> > a bike talking on a cell phone. I was going to stick my pump in his
> > spokes, but I like my pump too much. I couldn't get around because
> > the lane was parallel to streetcar tracks -- and a streetcar. Most of
> > my close calls are with other bikes, sorry to say. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> With the rise in "vehicular cycling" locally, with Joe and Jane Everedge
> taking to their bikes to get to work and run some errands, there's been
> an increase in "vehicular behavior." These folks often ride a bike as
> stupidly as they operate a motor vehicle.
>
Absolutely right. "Vehicular behavior" ("vehicular cycling") is not,
IMO, the way to Ride Bike. Life is not a big game of Parcheesi.
And some people are just idiots. (Not me, of course ;-)
The other day I'm on a major five-lane road out of town (turns into
State Hwy less than a mile ahead). Another five-lane diagonal cross
street has concrete islands and what not at the intersection. There
are bike lanes along each side of both. It's rush hour. All ten
lanes or so are pretty well packed with stressed out cagers. I, of
course, am the only bicyclist in sight.
The light turns red as I approach (flying past the long line of cars
on my left). I know it's going to be a long wait here, so I whip a
right turn from bike lane to bike lane, get out of the saddle, and
look back to assess the traffic coming behind me through their just
turned green light. Find a plenty clear gap in them, and start to
sweep left toward the stopped cars waiting for their light to go the
other direction, looking for a good gap in them and constantly
assessing for signs that they have gone green. I slide through them
to the far other bike lane, turn back the other way, and on around the
right turn lane back into the bike lane on the main road again.
Effectively your basic right turn, U-turn, right turn deal, but with
many lanes and lots of traffic.
In spite of the fact that this maneuver in no way impeded or disrupted
any other traffic and was quite safe, some lady yelled out the window
of her cage, "Are you crazy?!" Go figure.
Things like bike lanes can really facilitate this kind of
maneuvering. They have their drawbacks, for sure, but can be a good
place to get safely and legally out of the way of traffic.
kolldata
Lower Classes ?
Dan O
There's a stretch of rural country road between small farming towns
that I ride sometimes, It's narrow with no paved shoulder, very
little if any gravel shoulder, and the surface is pretty rough and
broken up.
Out in front of the driveway to the new gravel pit, though (gotta have
more and more gravel pits, you know... and oil wells... and... ) out
in front of the new gravel pit it's all smooth asphalt, left turn and
right merging lanes for the trucks, and... dun-da-da-Da: Bicycle
lanes (for about 300 feet :-)
Dan O
> where does Austin's money come from ? Big Oil or Big Subsidy from the
> Lower Classes ?
I'm guessing it must be a combination of State government and the
music scene.
dusto...@mac.com
> where does Austin's money come from ? Big Oil or Big Subsidy from the
> Lower Classes ?
(I guess): Property taxes, sales taxes. Texas has no personal income
tax (yet) but high property tax.
Some of the money is coming from "the state" (TxDoT) meaning, I guess,
taxes from other locations.
Big Oil, you're talking Houston there.
In addition to stripes and other "paint", they're also building ped/
bike bridges, extensions, "intersection projects" and one whopper, a
bridge for non-MV traffic over Barton Creek which is long overdue.
Here's one link, not much out there at first glance:
<http://www.solarwinds.com/company/PressReleases/release.aspx?id=1067>
I think that's from a couple of years ago; the bridge has been funded
from what I understand.
--D-y
Peter Cole
By that argument, we should also do away with the expense of lane
markings on freeways and just educate drivers on "sharing".
AMuzi
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/
The contractor made more on that job than your bike cost.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
>
>
> Frank, instead of blindly looking at any/all bike lanes and other
There are bad assumptions in that sentence.
> ... why not study the
> ones that work (as well as the ones that don't) and figure out "why"?
Part of the problem is, I keep finding problems, rather than finding
ones that work. Granted, some of the problems are minor for me - e.g.
I get few flats from the debris the bike lanes collect, because I
avoid the debris. I don't get right hooked by turning cars, because I
don't pass cars that might turn on their right. I don't get doored in
door-zone bike lanes, because I stay out of reach of the doors. And
honestly, most of my riding is in my own area, where there are very
few bike lanes.
But the way I avoid all those problems (and others) is by leaving the
bike lane when it's desirable. I worry that too many cyclists don't
recognize the hazards, and put themselves in danger because they think
"It's a bike lane; it must be safer."
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> But the way I avoid all those problems (and others) is by leaving the
> bike lane when it's desirable. I worry that too many cyclists don't
> recognize the hazards, and put themselves in danger because they think
> "It's a bike lane; it must be safer."
Or, "It's a bike lane, I have to ride here." :(
Peter S.
> Bike lanes - Interesting video about what happens in real life.
>
Sure, you get bad bike lanes when the planners are clueless and when
the bike lanes a made to make "quotas", eg. city hall want to make
some cheap bike lanes but doesn't care where they go or how they are
made.
You get good bike lanes when the political will to make them so exist
in city hall. Good bike lanes require the same planning and decision
making as car traffic planning does. This include tough decisions like
making some streets one-way for cars, so that two broad bike lanes can
be made.
Good bike lanes makes the traffic flow better for both cars and
bicycles.
--
Regards
dusto...@mac.com
> On Sep 25, 11:22 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Frank, instead of blindly looking at any/all bike lanes and other
> > special use demarcations as automatic negatives...
>
> There are bad assumptions in that sentence.
Not from reading your posts on the subject.
I mean, with all your travels, you've never seen a good bike path? I
could show you several just right here in Austin Tx.
> > ... why not study the
> > ones that work (as well as the ones that don't) and figure out "why"?
>
> Part of the problem is, I keep finding problems, rather than finding
> ones that work.
There are lots of bad ones out there, no doubt. I think you carry
negative expectations.
> Granted, some of the problems are minor for me - e.g.
> I get few flats from the debris the bike lanes collect, because I
> avoid the debris. I don't get right hooked by turning cars, because I
> don't pass cars that might turn on their right. I don't get doored in
> door-zone bike lanes, because I stay out of reach of the doors. And
> honestly, most of my riding is in my own area, where there are very
> few bike lanes.
> But the way I avoid all those problems (and others) is by leaving the
> bike lane when it's desirable. I worry that too many cyclists don't
> recognize the hazards, and put themselves in danger because they think
> "It's a bike lane; it must be safer."
You avoid hooks and opening doors by being aware of what is going on
and riding accordingly, whether there is a bike lane present or not.
Education IRT hazards is important for cyclists. Again, I can show you
bike lanes and marked intersections that are safer, no problem.
--D-y
Peter S.
> They're most useful in the dense city...sometimes. However--for them
> to work, they need to be put in properly--slower traffic on the right,
> and they need to be enforced. The European great cycling cities' lanes
> and bike roads work great because most folks are on the same level,
> riding clear lanes on clunky bikes going 10mph.
There seem to be a common misunderstanding that all commuters in
European cities like Copenhagen are slow. Sure there are slow cyclists
like the 70 old grandma on her bike, or cyclist (usually not
commuters) that just pootle along in no hurry enjoying the sunshine or
whatever. On very congested streets in the inner city the average
speed (including stops) is 20.4 km/h (12.6 mph). But it is the
traffic, not the bike lanes that slows people down. On busy roads
without bike lanes the speed is much often slower since the cyclist
have to stop/slow down because of parking cars and buses or because
there is no room at all to overtake slower cyclists (something that is
usually easy to do on the bike lane). Outside the rush hours the
spread between slow and fast bikes becomes even wider. Doing 30 km/h
(18.6 mph) seems to be the average speed people can do on a sit-up-and-
beg bike without straining themselves too much. Of course, the many
roadie commuters are much faster than that.
The commuters on the main roads into the city are on the average quite
fast. When you only need to ride 4 km, the speed one is riding doesn't
make so great a difference, but if you commute 20 km (one way), the
speed one is doing makes quite a difference for the time spend
commuting. Besides, doing 40 km 5 times a week, quickly make people
fit and trained enough to make a good speed.
Some 13 new "cycling highways" are planned for Copenhagen; they will
be very wide and multi-laned at some stretches so that fast and slow
cyclist gets different lanes, or be at least 2.8 meter (9.2 feet) wide
so that overtaking becomes easy. They will be designed to ensure high
top and average speeds, including coordinated green waves for cyclist
at stop lights, they will get priority cleaning and maintenance,
smooth asphalt etc. The entire high speed bike lane net are being
analyzed by experts in detail to ensure maximum safety and speed, and
if they find a problematic stretch, they are supposed to come up with
solutions that work, not throw their hands into the air, proclaiming
"this is hard" and just terminate the bike lane (like they seem to do
in London).
All this is of course for the benefit of the many fast commuters there
already is, but is also done for making it even more attractive for
people to commute on bike.
--
Regards
dusto...@mac.com
> There seem to be a common misunderstanding that all commuters in
> European cities like Copenhagen are slow.
Well, before I waste my time trying to find an average speed of
Amsterdam bike commuters, I'll say "not slow". Even on bikes shod with
big ol' fat tires with no air in them. The bike paths are flat except
for the "climbs" over canal bridges and my impression was of a body of
cyclists with somewhere to go and a limited time to get there-- just
like MV commuters, except that I didn't hear any "road rage"
verbalizations when we newbies stood out in the red bricks and got in
the way during our first couple of forays out into the city, nor for
the other newbies who did so during our week and a half or two weeks
in Amsterdam. Jingling bells, not one bit of "verbal correction"--
well, I guess ignorant newbie tourists are a constant, but even so...
And those bike commuters do motor on, with seemingly little conflict
at bicycle intersections and ped crossings, etc. I know Amsterdam is a
special case, but even where bikes are on top of the food chain, I was
struck (so to speak, after learning what the red bricks meant) at how
"forgiving" the bike commuters were. Think what would happen in NYC,
for instance.
--D-y
damyth
Just because you might desire more bike lanes doesn't make your
assertions true. I'm not convinced any bike lanes (good or bad) make
traffic flow better for both cars and bicycles. At least I haven't
seen any that borne out that assertion; one class of people generally
lose, if not both.
I grew up in NYC and for a few years I was a bike messenger there,
before there were any bike lanes. In fact my high school was right
off of 1st Ave. For your information, most avenues in Manhattan span
at least six car lanes, and have been one way since time immemorial.
So there are no "difficult decisions" to be made, that decision was
made long ago. Vehicular traffic hardly ever exceed 20mph on those
avenues. If you're capable of averaging 10mph on a bike, often you
exceeded the speed of cars.
I fail to understand is why any cyclist is willing to give up six
"reasonably open" lanes (largely devoid of pedestrians) for one _very_
dangerous lane consisting of pedestrians, cars, delivery trucks,
bicyclists, roller-bladers, baby strollers, salmons, what have you.
The "safety in numbers" argument becomes even more of a fallacy as
bike ridership goes up, as that single bike lane becomes more
congested.
The female narrator of that video acknowledges it took her four years
to overcome the initial fear of riding in traffic. I don't think
there's anything particularly extraordinary about that. If you aren't
used to vehicular cycling, it's a normal reaction. The point is she
overcame her fear and did just fine, until they put the bike lanes
in. Activists clamoring for bike lanes thinking it will increase
ridership or increase safety are wrong on both counts. Get over the
fear and start vehicularly, most folks do just fine.
Dan O
> On 25 Sep., 15:51, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They're most useful in the dense city...sometimes. However--for them
> > to work, they need to be put in properly--slower traffic on the right,
> > and they need to be enforced. The European great cycling cities' lanes
> > and bike roads work great because most folks are on the same level,
> > riding clear lanes on clunky bikes going 10mph.
>
> There seem to be a common misunderstanding that all commuters in
> European cities like Copenhagen are slow. Sure there are slow cyclists
> like the 70 old grandma on her bike, or cyclist (usually not
> commuters) that just pootle along in no hurry enjoying the sunshine or
> whatever. On very congested streets in the inner city the average
> speed (including stops) is 20.4 km/h (12.6 mph). But it is the
> traffic, not the bike lanes that slows people down. On busy roads
> without bike lanes the speed is much often slower since the cyclist
> have to stop/slow down because of parking cars and buses or because
> there is no room at all to overtake slower cyclists (something that is
> usually easy to do on the bike lane). Outside the rush hours the
> spread between slow and fast bikes becomes even wider. Doing 30 km/h
> (18.6 mph) seems to be the average speed people can do on a sit-up-and-
> beg bike without straining themselves too much. Of course, the many
> roadie commuters are much faster than that.
>
I seem to average between 16 and 18 mph for 25-30+ miles each way,
twice daily, three or four of five times a week. It seems that I just
cannot manage 20+ mph averages. That includes some of everything,
though, in terms of hills and traffic and stuff. I don't hardly ever
stop much, though - even in town (thank you, bike lanes and
sidewalks).
> The commuters on the main roads into the city are on the average quite
> fast. When you only need to ride 4 km, the speed one is riding doesn't
> make so great a difference, but if you commute 20 km (one way), the
> speed one is doing makes quite a difference for the time spend
> commuting. Besides, doing 40 km 5 times a week, quickly make people
> fit and trained enough to make a good speed.
>
I'm not fast, but 18 mph is pretty effortless on a good day. With a
little luck and enough food and water I might finish a GDR.
<snip>
Frank Krygowski
> On Sep 25, 5:42 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 11:22 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Frank, instead of blindly looking at any/all bike lanes and other
> > > special use demarcations as automatic negatives...
>
> > There are bad assumptions in that sentence.
>
> Not from reading your posts on the subject.
> I mean, with all your travels, you've never seen a good bike path? I
> could show you several just right here in Austin Tx.
Wait a minute! Are we talking good bike lanes, or good bike paths?
There are three bike paths within 20 miles of me that I consider very
good. The closest forms a useful shortcut for cyclists, allowing
cyclists to cut through a dead end for cars directly into the center
of our village. I was the guy who lobbied for and got that one
paved. Two others are purely recreational, but they're useful in that
they give nearly level routes through some really nice scenery that
the very hilly roads nearby don't access.
It's very hard for me to find bike lanes that are really good -
primarily, I think, because almost all the ones I've ever ridden would
be better if they'd just erase the stripe. I'd have the same pavement
width but no assumption by motorists that I was _supposed_ to stay in
the lane. I'd also have less debris.
> > I worry that too many cyclists don't
> > recognize the hazards, and put themselves in danger because they think
> > "It's a bike lane; it must be safer."
>
> You avoid hooks and opening doors by being aware of what is going on
> and riding accordingly, whether there is a bike lane present or not.
> Education IRT hazards is important for cyclists.
Right. The problem, in my view, is that a bike lane is anti-education
in that way.
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/02379848.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/r0jb
When that stripe is there, it's harder for unwary cyclists to realize
that they're in possibly mortal danger. The stripe is interpreted as
official instruction about where they're supposed to ride.
> Again, I can show you
> bike lanes and marked intersections that are safer, no problem.
If you mean safer than the same road with the stripe removed, I'd be
curious. While I think it's possible, I think most bike lanes would
be safer as just part of a wide outside lane. Same pavement width,
but no stripe.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> Some 13 new "cycling highways" are planned for Copenhagen; they will
> be very wide and multi-laned at some stretches so that fast and slow
> cyclist gets different lanes, or be at least 2.8 meter (9.2 feet) wide
> so that overtaking becomes easy. They will be designed to ensure high
> top and average speeds, including coordinated green waves for cyclist
> at stop lights, they will get priority cleaning and maintenance,
> smooth asphalt etc. The entire high speed bike lane net are being
> analyzed by experts in detail to ensure maximum safety and speed, and
> if they find a problematic stretch, they are supposed to come up with
> solutions that work, not throw their hands into the air, proclaiming
> "this is hard" and just terminate the bike lane (like they seem to do
> in London).
Those sound like they might be very nice. Unfortunately, AFAIK such
things are unheard of in the US.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> On Sep 25, 9:03 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 5:42 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 11:22 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
> > > wrote:
<snip>
> > You avoid hooks and opening doors by being aware of what is going on
> > and riding accordingly, whether there is a bike lane present or not.
> > Education IRT hazards is important for cyclists.
>
<snip>
> When that stripe is there, it's harder for unwary cyclists to realize
> that they're in possibly mortal danger.
http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/remember/robot/lost-space-robot-will.jpg
> The stripe is interpreted as
> official instruction about where they're supposed to ride.
>
Parcheesi lines.
<snip>
Dan O
That's why we make do with whatever is ridable. It's fun, too :-)
Frank Krygowski
>
> I seem to average between 16 and 18 mph for 25-30+ miles each way,
> twice daily, three or four of five times a week. It seems that I just
> cannot manage 20+ mph averages. That includes some of everything,
> though, in terms of hills and traffic and stuff. I don't hardly ever
> stop much, though - even in town (thank you, bike lanes and
> sidewalks).
>
> > The commuters on the main roads into the city are on the average quite
> > fast. When you only need to ride 4 km, the speed one is riding doesn't
> > make so great a difference, but if you commute 20 km (one way), the
> > speed one is doing makes quite a difference for the time spend
> > commuting. Besides, doing 40 km 5 times a week, quickly make people
> > fit and trained enough to make a good speed.
>
> I'm not fast, but 18 mph is pretty effortless on a good day. With a
> little luck and enough food and water I might finish a GDR.
I think that if you average between 16 and 18 mph for 25-30+ miles
each way, twice daily, you're going to have to call yourself fast,
like it or not. IME, that's way faster than most.
I still (in my 60s) cruise at around 18 mph on flat roads. But my
average speed on my seven mile commute home is only about 14 mph.
Yes, I actually stop for traffic lights, but that rarely adds more
than two minutes to my commute time.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Wheeeeeee! (usenet chat) Hi Frank! Thanks and happy riding! :-)
Jay Beattie
They work in some places and not others. On fast moving arterials,
they are a good idea -- and bicycle facilities meet planning
requiements and/or funding criteria unlike ordinary wide shoulders.
So it's a win-win. This is my flattish commute -- or part of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZsNx6h5VVY The slightly hillier
version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMFDuOLfPd0 Nice bike
lanes in both places. Plan C is up and over Fairmount. Note all the
bikes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFSS-cLNaB0 A lot of people like
to go over the hills with no bike lanes, but a thousand feet of
climbing on the way to work. Downtown, however, you just take a lane.
-- Jay Beattie.
Peter S.
> Just because you might desire more bike lanes doesn't make your
> assertions true. I'm not convinced any bike lanes (good or bad) make
> traffic flow better for both cars and bicycles.
Everything depends. If you got narrow congested roads with lots of
cyclist (perhaps 10-20.000 a day) bike lanes sure makes the traffic
flow better. Details like separate lights for bikes at intersections,
means that you can regulate whether to empty the bike lane or the car
lane with right swinging cars first. That means better safety and
better traffic flow for all. Another example is when cyclists "take
the road" as in purposefully blocking the traffic behind because they
feel that this is the safe thing to do in certain situations. If there
where a good bike lane, cyclist didn't have to take the road and block
the traffic. A win win for all.
> At least I haven't
> seen any that borne out that assertion; one class of people generally
> lose, if not both.
Sometimes it is the intended purpose that cyclist gets priority over
car traffic by making bike wide lanes, either as a mean to reduce car
traffic in that particular street, or because city hall is working on
on increasing the number of cyclists and reduce the overall car
traffic. Cars have had almost exclusive priority in traffic planning
the last many decades, so adjustments in favor of a growing number of
cyclist shouldn't be a problem.
> I grew up in NYC and for a few years I was a bike messenger there,
> before there were any bike lanes. In fact my high school was right
> off of 1st Ave. For your information, most avenues in Manhattan span
> at least six car lanes, and have been one way since time immemorial.
> So there are no "difficult decisions" to be made, that decision was
> made long ago.
Well, I am sure one can find two way roads in the US end even in NYC
outside Manhatten. My point is that if you want good bike lanes you
have to make real decisions that is integrated in the overall traffic
planning. This includes making streets one-way for cars but two-ways
for bikes. Eg. in the video one sees a single bike lane in the "wrong
side" of the way. Why not make bike lanes on both sides and make them
wide enough so that cyclist can overtake without changing lanes. Put
parked cars on the outside of the bike lane and make a partition
between them so there isn't a risk of "dooring" when riding along. To
me it seems that the bike lane in the video was made by someone who
didn't want to make difficult decisions.
> I fail to understand is why any cyclist is willing to give up six
> "reasonably open" lanes (largely devoid of pedestrians) for one _very_
> dangerous lane consisting of pedestrians, cars, delivery trucks,
> bicyclists, roller-bladers, baby strollers, salmons, what have you.
I fail to see why the above should be the case in a well designed
traffic environment and it certainly isn't where I ride. Eg. put the
parking cars and delivery trucks on the outside of the bike lane etc.
In short, if there are problems, solve them.
> The "safety in numbers" argument becomes even more of a fallacy as
> bike ridership goes up, as that single bike lane becomes more
> congested.
Safety in numbers is a well established fact, backed up by decades of
traffic statistic form dozens of countries. And again, if the bike
lane becomes congested because they are popular, just make them wider
or make them multi-laned, or make it attractive to ride along other
routes too. In short, deal with bicycle traffic the exact same way one
does with car traffic, and not look upon cyclist as third class
traffic participants that are mercifully allowed to tag along the
"real traffic". In short, if there are problems, solve them.
> The female narrator of that video acknowledges it took her four years
> to overcome the initial fear of riding in traffic. I don't think
> there's anything particularly extraordinary about that. If you aren't
> used to vehicular cycling, it's a normal reaction. The point is she
> overcame her fear and did just fine, until they put the bike lanes
> in.
My impression was that she actually liked bike lanes (and the vox pop
among cyclist certainly said so), but she thought the the
implementation where she rode was bad. I agree with that from what I
saw.
> Activists clamoring for bike lanes thinking it will increase
> ridership or increase safety are wrong on both counts. Get over the
> fear and start vehicularly, most folks do just fine.
You are simply dead wrong. That good bike lanes increase both
ridership and safety are simply facts backed up by statistics from the
real world. And like or not, many people _feel_ safer with designated
bike lanes (just look at the vox pop from the video). Even if bike
lanes didn't increase safety, they can increase ridership.
I don't think that there should be bike lanes everywhere; they should
be made to solve particular traffic problems and be integrated in
overall traffic planning. Eg. one some roads with wide shoulders, the
only thing that seems to differentiate the shoulder from a bike lane
is a sign. But by giving the shoulder a "bike lane" designation, some
stupid decisions like nasty slippery wet paint, or huge rumble stripes
can perhaps be avoided.
What I dislike about the anti-bike lane brigade is, that they have to
ignore facts and real world experiences from whenever bike lanes are
successful in increasing ridership and safety. It must be an dishonest
or very ignorant position. It seems to distort their dogmatic views
that sometimes bike lanes work very well. Sure there are many stupid
and dangerous bike lanes. Especially London is simply a study in
hilarious stupid bike lane design, like bike lanes that suddenly
without warning ends in the middle of a tree etc. But bike lanes
should be constructed and designed with the same expertise as regular
roads. And if there are any problems with a particular bike lane, then
solve the problem instead of just giving up.
--
Regards
Frank Krygowski
>
> They work in some places and not others. On fast moving arterials,
> they are a good idea -- and bicycle facilities meet planning
> requiements and/or funding criteria unlike ordinary wide shoulders.
If the letter of the law ("planning requirements") are the problem,
then I'd say let's define wide outside lanes (NOT shoulders) as ideal
in the planning requirements.
> So it's a win-win. This is my flattish commute -- or part of it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZsNx6h5VVY The slightly hillier
> version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMFDuOLfPd0 Nice bike
> lanes in both places.
But as always, the question is: How would it be worse if the stripe
were removed? ISTM that on the roads shown in those videos, there
would still be plenty of passing space. The stripe itself adds no
pavement!
- Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel
> On Sep 26, 1:48 am, Jay Beattie<jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>>
>> They work in some places and not others. On fast moving arterials,
>> they are a good idea -- and bicycle facilities meet planning
>> requiements and/or funding criteria unlike ordinary wide shoulders.
>
> If the letter of the law ("planning requirements") are the problem,
> then I'd say let's define wide outside lanes (NOT shoulders) as ideal
> in the planning requirements.
Holy hell, I find that I agree completely with Frank on something.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Jay Beattie
On Barbur (the motorcycle video), the stripe added space -- it was a
narrow, shoulderless road back in the 80s with zero riding room. You
were on the road surface with fast traffic. The city had to
reconstruct the road to put in the bike lane, mostly by getting rid of
continuous center turn lanes where there was no place to turn, but it
also added road surface in many places. Terwilliger was more or less
just painting lines, and the only benefit is right of way -- although
there are only a few places where cars enter traffic, so right of way
on that road is not a big deal. I still like the lane -- it is
accessible to street cleaners and is generally not a bike ghetto.
Bike lanes can be very good -- like on Barbur, or very bad like the
Broadway bicycle chute. http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/02/one-year-later-a-look-at-the-broadway-cycle-track-38839
We all know of lanes that just end or were painted over crap, etc.
Those are obviously counter-productive. A wide shoulder is the best,
but probably the most rare, except on highways. -- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
> On 26 Sep., 05:55, damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
> > Just because you might desire more bike lanes doesn't make your
> > assertions true. I'm not convinced any bike lanes (good or bad) make
> > traffic flow better for both cars and bicycles.
>
> Everything depends. If you got narrow congested roads with lots of
> cyclist (perhaps 10-20.000 a day) bike lanes sure makes the traffic
> flow better. Details like separate lights for bikes at intersections,
> means that you can regulate whether to empty the bike lane or the car
> lane with right swinging cars first. That means better safety and
> better traffic flow for all.
I'll admit to very little experience with separate lights for bikes
and other aspects of a cycling-intensive city such as you describe. I
have spent a few days riding in Stockholm, which is a little like that
in places, but I didn't see that it made traffic flow faster.
Separate signal phases for bikes meant cars waited longer at red
lights - which is fine with me, especially when I'm on a bike; but it
doesn't match the claim of better traffic flow. And BTW, the
shuttling of bikes into and away from mixing with pedestrians was
problematic even there.
> Another example is when cyclists "take
> the road" as in purposefully blocking the traffic behind because they
> feel that this is the safe thing to do in certain situations. If there
> where a good bike lane, cyclist didn't have to take the road and block
> the traffic. A win win for all.
Wait! You're making the classic mistake of equating "adequate
pavement width" with "bike lane." They are not the same!
If the road is wide enough for safe passing with a bike lane stripe,
the road is wide enough for safe passing with the bike lane stripe
removed. The stripe does not add width!
> Sometimes it is the intended purpose that cyclist gets priority over
> car traffic by making bike wide lanes, either as a mean to reduce car
> traffic in that particular street, or because city hall is working on
> on increasing the number of cyclists and reduce the overall car
> traffic. Cars have had almost exclusive priority in traffic planning
> the last many decades, so adjustments in favor of a growing number of
> cyclist shouldn't be a problem.
I'm fine with this idea. I just think most bike lanes do a poor job
of achieving your objective.
> Well, I am sure one can find two way roads in the US end even in NYC
> outside Manhatten. My point is that if you want good bike lanes you
> have to make real decisions that is integrated in the overall traffic
> planning. This includes making streets one-way for cars but two-ways
> for bikes. Eg. in the video one sees a single bike lane in the "wrong
> side" of the way. Why not make bike lanes on both sides and make them
> wide enough so that cyclist can overtake without changing lanes.
I'm in favor of ONE contra-flow bike lane on many (most?) one-way
streets. But cyclists riding with the direction of car traffic don't
need a lane stripe. And in fact, putting that one in makes it less
likely that the really useful contra-flow lane will fit.
> Put parked cars on the outside of the bike lane and make a partition
> between them so there isn't a risk of "dooring" when riding along.
Your "outside" adjective isn't clear to me. If, as I suspect, you
mean the bike lane should be between parked cars and the curb, I think
that's a disaster. Dooring still be possible with passenger side
doors. Worse, the visibility and conspicuousness of the cyclist
would be extremely compromised; cyclists would be a surprise to
motorists crossing their path (at driveways and other intersections)
and pedestrians, etc. will likely intrude on that space, leaving
cyclists no way around. Also, sweeping and snow plowing would be
pretty much impossible. And you know that space would be lowest in
priority for road repairs.
> > I fail to understand is why any cyclist is willing to give up six
> > "reasonably open" lanes (largely devoid of pedestrians) for one _very_
> > dangerous lane consisting of pedestrians, cars, delivery trucks,
> > bicyclists, roller-bladers, baby strollers, salmons, what have you.
>
> I fail to see why the above should be the case in a well designed
> traffic environment and it certainly isn't where I ride. Eg. put the
> parking cars and delivery trucks on the outside of the bike lane etc.
> In short, if there are problems, solve them.
What I see, far too often, is a sort of pie-in-the-sky watercolor
sketch of a "complete street" with low-density traffic, smiling
cyclists, patient motorists, no delivery trucks, all pedestrians
obediently in pedestrian-only spaces, plenty of shade trees, etc.
It's the exact opposite of solving problems; instead, it's pretending
that "if only, if only.... then problems would vanish."
But the real world is messy. Those shade trees - which I love! - drop
leaves and branches that have to be removed. The pedestrians stroll
or roller-blade down the separate and "complete" bike lane. Snow
falls, and only gets plowed where cars are allowed to go. Gravel and
broken glass get blown off the car spaces, but sit everywhere else.
City budgets shrink, and promised sweeping schedules are the first
item to go. Utility workers set up repair shop in bike lanes.
Delivery trucks straddle the space from curb halfway into the motor
vehicle lane. And cyclists in, or leaving, the "safe" bike lane
suddenly pop out in the path of an unsuspecting driver.
The devil is in the details, as they say. IME, dense urban
environments have too many devils and too many details to do really
good bike lanes, and other environments don't really need bike lanes,
they just need wide outside lanes shared by everyone.
> > Activists clamoring for bike lanes thinking it will increase
> > ridership or increase safety are wrong on both counts. Get over the
> > fear and start vehicularly, most folks do just fine.
>
> You are simply dead wrong. That good bike lanes increase both
> ridership and safety are simply facts backed up by statistics from the
> real world. And like or not, many people _feel_ safer with designated
> bike lanes (just look at the vox pop from the video). Even if bike
> lanes didn't increase safety, they can increase ridership.
For 40 years now, bike activists have been saying "Bicycling is
dangerous! We need bike lanes to be safe!" Little wonder that lots
of people now believe that. I think we should change the message.
After all, even if a bike lane lures someone onto a road they wouldn't
otherwise ride (because they think that white stripe is so
protective), they'll still have to ride without bike lanes to get to
most destinations, because they just can't fit everywhere. I think
other alternatives would work better.
>
> I don't think that there should be bike lanes everywhere; they should
> be made to solve particular traffic problems and be integrated in
> overall traffic planning. Eg. one some roads with wide shoulders, the
> only thing that seems to differentiate the shoulder from a bike lane
> is a sign. But by giving the shoulder a "bike lane" designation, some
> stupid decisions like nasty slippery wet paint, or huge rumble stripes
> can perhaps be avoided.
Think wide lane, not shoulder. Bikes should share a proper travel
lane, not be shunted off to a sub-standard space, even if that space
is free of slippery paint or rumbles.
> What I dislike about the anti-bike lane brigade is, that they have to
> ignore facts and real world experiences from whenever bike lanes are
> successful in increasing ridership and safety. It must be an dishonest
> or very ignorant position. It seems to distort their dogmatic views
> that sometimes bike lanes work very well.
I'm sure that bike lanes increase ridership. Again, if you tell
people that you can't ride safely without bike lanes, you are in
effect discouraging cycling. If you then install a bike lane, you're
removing some of the discouragement; naturally cycling will increase.
But there are more honest ways of achieving that goal.
As to "sometimes bike lanes work very well," let's define "work well"
in terms of traffic interactions and specific hazards. I think in
almost all cases, they do not work as well as the same space with the
stripe removed, especially if you add just a little education.
> Sure there are many stupid and dangerous bike lanes.
Sure!
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On Sep 26, 7:45 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But as always, the question is: How would it be worse if the stripe
> > were removed? ISTM that on the roads shown in those videos, there
> > would still be plenty of passing space. The stripe itself adds no
> > pavement!
>
> On Barbur (the motorcycle video), the stripe added space -- it was a
> narrow, shoulderless road back in the 80s with zero riding room. You
> were on the road surface with fast traffic. The city had to
> reconstruct the road to put in the bike lane, mostly by getting rid of
> continuous center turn lanes where there was no place to turn, but it
> also added road surface in many places.
But as always, what really brought the benefit? It wasn't the paint
stripe; it was the additional width available for travel.
Portland's nation-leading bike promotion got that extra width. I
think it should have been able to get that width without the stripe,
if your bike advocates had been calling out "wide outside lanes for
safety!" instead of "bike lanes for safety!"
- Frank Krygowski
Simon Lewis
> On Sep 26, 10:16 am, "Peter S." <phs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Another example is when cyclists "take
>> the road" as in purposefully blocking the traffic behind because they
>> feel that this is the safe thing to do in certain situations. If there
>> where a good bike lane, cyclist didn't have to take the road and block
>> the traffic. A win win for all.
>
> Wait! You're making the classic mistake of equating "adequate
> pavement width" with "bike lane." They are not the same!
>
You are pretending you dont understand that a bake lane can exist on
the path as they do in Germany.
Dan O
> On Sep 26, 11:21 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 26, 7:45 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But as always, the question is: How would it be worse if the stripe
> > > were removed? ISTM that on the roads shown in those videos, there
> > > would still be plenty of passing space. The stripe itself adds no
> > > pavement!
>
> > On Barbur (the motorcycle video), the stripe added space -- it was a
> > narrow, shoulderless road back in the 80s with zero riding room. You
> > were on the road surface with fast traffic. The city had to
> > reconstruct the road to put in the bike lane, mostly by getting rid of
> > continuous center turn lanes where there was no place to turn, but it
> > also added road surface in many places.
>
> But as always, what really brought the benefit? It wasn't the paint
> stripe; it was the additional width available for travel.
>
Bike lanes have plenty of drawbacks (you might say they mostly suck),
but I find that designated space out there in the middle of the
action tremendously useful.
> Portland's nation-leading bike promotion got that extra width. I
> think it should have been able to get that width without the stripe,
> if your bike advocates had been calling out "wide outside lanes for
> safety!" instead of "bike lanes for safety!"
>
I definitely prefer roads without bike lanes, and usually won't even
ride in a provided bike lane if traffic allows to use the main part of
the road (that debris thing, which is very conveniently explicitly
specified exception to the requirement in law to use provided bike
lanes. But by traffic permitting I mostly mean no cars anywhere, and
I am fortunate that much of my riding is in such conditions. When the
cars get hot and heavy, though, that designated space is good to
have. You just have to put it into perspective.
My right to optionally use the sidewalks is very dear to me as well,
giving me a tremendous strategic advantage in traffic, many
opportunities for fun riding, and handy refuge from cagerland.
I've been around to see bike lanes only beginning to come into
existence, then very incrementally grow as a traffic device, to where
now they're still on the rise and showing up everywhere, but not so
everywhere that you can't easily find routes without them if that's
your preference (as it is mine). I'd say the advent and expansion of
bike lanes have been a great advancement for bicycles as
transportation in my world. They're ghettos for sure, but they're a
substantive, undeniable sign to motorists that society supports
bicycles as legitimate traffic.
Peter S.
> > Another example is when cyclists "take
> > the road" as in purposefully blocking the traffic behind because they
> > feel that this is the safe thing to do in certain situations. If there
> > where a good bike lane, cyclist didn't have to take the road and block
> > the traffic. A win win for all.
>
> Wait! You're making the classic mistake of equating "adequate
> pavement width" with "bike lane." They are not the same!
Yes exactly, they are not the same; a dedicated bike lane may be much
better for traffic flow than cyclist taking the lane blocking all
traffic behind. A steady speed is important for a good traffic flow.
> If the road is wide enough for safe passing with a bike lane
stripe,
> the road is wide enough for safe passing with the bike lane stripe
> removed. The stripe does not add width!
No, with a bike lane the bike may impede flow by blocking traffic,
with a bike lane it doesn't.
And if the traffic is fast and heavy it doesn't matter how many lanes
there is, since they are filled with cars. So the cyclist are forced
to ride in a narrow corridor between trucks on one side, and perhaps
parked cars to the other without any possibility to ride in the "door-
free" zone.
> I'm fine with this idea. I just think most bike lanes do a poor job
> of achieving your objective.
Perhaps in the US. Bike lanes are an reflection of the political will
to do things the proper way, so if the politicians don't care, you get
lousy bike lanes and overall conditions for cyclists. It certainly
doesn't help things that some very vocal cyclists always speak out
against bike lanes as a general principle.
> I'm in favor of ONE contra-flow bike lane on many (most?) one-way
> streets. But cyclists riding with the direction of car traffic don't
> need a lane stripe.
Bike lanes may not always be necessary, even with a contra flow on a
one-way street. That depends on the traffic pattern etc. But sometimes
they are a good idea, especially when there are many cyclists.
> > Put parked cars on the outside of the bike lane and make a partition
> > between them so there isn't a risk of "dooring" when riding along.
>
> Your "outside" adjective isn't clear to me. If, as I suspect, you
> mean the bike lane should be between parked cars and the curb
Exactly.
, I think
> that's a disaster.
Well, they work in the real world.
> Dooring still be possible with passenger side
> doors.
Sure, if the bike lane is too narrow to be useful. But where I ride
they aren't. Besides, dooring from the passenger side is much less
frequent.
> Worse, the visibility and conspicuousness of the cyclist
> would be extremely compromised; cyclists would be a surprise to
> motorists crossing their path (at driveways and other intersections)
> and pedestrians, etc. will likely intrude on that space, leaving
> cyclists no way around.
Again, that is only a problem if you don't care to solve it. With a
minimum of design at the intersections such problems can be minimized.
Besides, the exact same problems exist even without a bike lane.
> Also, sweeping and snow plowing would be
> pretty much impossible. And you know that space would be lowest in
> priority for road repairs.
You know, on big roads they use big snow plows, and on small roads
they use small snow plows. The right tool for the job. That is why
they use small dedicated snow plows on such stretches. They are also
sweeped by machines that fit the bike lanes. So no problem at all.
> > I fail to see why the above should be the case in a well designed
> > traffic environment and it certainly isn't where I ride. Eg. put the
> > parking cars and delivery trucks on the outside of the bike lane etc.
> > In short, if there are problems, solve them.
>
> What I see, far too often, is a sort of pie-in-the-sky watercolor
> sketch of a "complete street" with low-density traffic, smiling
> cyclists, patient motorists, no delivery trucks, all pedestrians
> obediently in pedestrian-only spaces, plenty of shade trees, etc.
> It's the exact opposite of solving problems; instead, it's pretending
> that "if only, if only.... then problems would vanish."
You don't understand. What I describe is my daily rides, not some far
fetched fantasy. And yes, there a lots of delivery trucks and cars
chasing empty parking spaces in Copenhagen too. But they are not
allowed to block the bike lanes, besides, when parking on the outside
of the bike lanes, they really aren't a problem at all, since they
don't cut you off etc.
In my neighborhood pedestrians cross the road where they like and when
they like. But like the car drivers they are used to bicycle traffic,
so it isn't a problem at all. Just like the cyclist are aware of "jay
walkers", and therefore take precautions in certain situations. It
must be years ago since I last made an emergency stop for when a
pedestrian walked out in front of me.
> But the real world is messy. Those shade trees - which I love! - drop
> leaves and branches that have to be removed.
Street sweepers exist. Problem solved.
> The pedestrians stroll
> or roller-blade down the separate and "complete" bike lane.
Well, pedestrians don't stroll on bike lanes in Copenhagen, simply
because the bike traffic is so intense. Pedestrians will learn after a
while.
> Snow
> falls, and only gets plowed where cars are allowed to go.
No they don't. Bike lanes gets sweeped and snow plowed in Copenhagen
exactly the same way as the main car roads. The main arteries gets
priority of course, whether they are bike lanes or car lanes.
> Gravel and
> broken glass get blown off the car spaces, but sit everywhere else.
> City budgets shrink, and promised sweeping schedules are the first
> item to go.
That depends entirely on the political will. This year most areas have
experienced nasty budget slashes here in Copenhagen. One of the few
areas that actually have had their budget increased is improvements of
bike lanes. The point is that the city saves a lot of money if they
can reduce car traffic.
>Utility workers set up repair shop in bike lanes.
Well, they don't if they get an ass load of trouble for doing so.
> The devil is in the details, as they say. IME, dense urban
> environments have too many devils and too many details to do really
> good bike lanes
Typical modern day American defeatism; just speculate about a lot of
pretend problems, declare them impossible to solve, and ignore any
facts that contradicts that. Oh what difference between the go-getting
US attitude from decades ago and present day. "We choose not to go to
the Moon because it is difficult." would be the American credo today.
And "There are no oxygen on the Moon, it is therefore impossible for
humans to land on that planet". Both persons, counties and countries
can actually solve many problems if they choose to do so instead of
either ignore them or declare them impossible to solve.
The fact is that bike lane design isn't rocket science and that
particular traffic problems can be solved, one way or another. And in
stark contradiction to a lot of armchair speculation, bike lanes in
the real world can be a very good idea, that not only offer better
safety, but also increase ridership and ensures a good traffic flow.
> > Sure there are many stupid and dangerous bike lanes.
>
> Sure!
But there are also many well designed bike lanes, something that the
dogmatic anti-bike lane brigade must ignore.
--
Regards
Tim McNamara
<629cd684-bf6a-48cf...@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter S." <phs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Sep., 15:51, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > They're most useful in the dense city...sometimes. However--for
> > them to work, they need to be put in properly--slower traffic on
> > the right, and they need to be enforced. The European great cycling
> > cities' lanes and bike roads work great because most folks are on
> > the same level, riding clear lanes on clunky bikes going 10mph.
>
> There seem to be a common misunderstanding that all commuters in
> European cities like Copenhagen are slow.
<snip>
Thanks for the description. In the US, most bike commuters were also
bike enthusiasts who also tended to be fairly fast, but more people are
riding their bikes to work now and tend to be slower than the hard core
riders. We have not necessarily accommodated gracefully to having a lot
of slow utilitarian riders sharing our already limited space.
I have read that about 30% of trips in Copenhagen are taken by bike.
some of this could be due to Denmark's taxation system for cars,
including a one-time registration tax that more than doubles the price
of the car:
http://www.skm.dk/foreign/english/taxindenmark2008/6649/#104
This would tend to keep a lot of people from buying a new car, I suspect.
In my area (Minneapolis/St.Paul MN), something like 4.2% of commutes are
done by bicycle, up about 300% over five years ago and increasing
annually as bike infrastructure becomes more prevalent. Formerly we had
only painted bike lanes, many of which appeared to have been designed
with homicidal intent (especially downtown Minneapolis) but now we have
some "bicycle highways" into/out of and across Minneapolis. St. Paul
has not been so forward thinking on this, but then traffic levels are
much lower in St. Paul as it is 1/3 the population of Minneapolis. St.
Paul is a very bikeable community without adding bike lanes.
As a very long-time cyclist (45 years since I learned to ride) I feel
little to no need to have specific bike infrastructure. But more casual
or newer riders seem to be encouraged by having those facilities;
construction of them here has coincided with a dramatic uptick in the
number of people riding bikes for utilitarian purposes. Ten years ago
just about the only other cyclists I saw were Lycranauts out training;
now I see about ten times as many cyclists on my rides and most of them
are wearing street clothes.
--
That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo.
Jay Beattie
Like I said, it's about right of way -- cars can pull off on to
shoulders, and in most cases can stop and park on shoulders. They can
turn across shoulders without giving right of way to oncoming
bicycles, and in fact, they can shut down the shoulder to make a
turn. That is all illegal with a bike lane, assuming someone enforces
it and motorists understand that. -- Jay.
dusto...@mac.com
> Wait a minute! Are we talking good bike lanes, or good bike paths?
Excuse my word choice. Lanes. But paths? Now there, we disagree again,
at least to some degree. Bike paths are IME usually too narrow to be
comfortable with close-passing two-way traffic. Mix in recumbents, dog
walkers, baby walkers, baby+dog walkers, skaters, multi-party
pedestrian clusters, and (again IME) you have a mess. Having lived
next door to the Brays Bayou bike path in Houston (@ Stella Link/
Braeswood) for the better part of four years). I mean, riding solo on
the surface streets of Houston, even in the "good" neighborhoods being
an exercise in courting personal destruction, thank God it was there,
etc. etc. But, no kind of "ideal" facility for cyclists.
> It's very hard for me to find bike lanes that are really good -
> primarily, I think, because almost all the ones I've ever ridden would
> be better if they'd just erase the stripe. I'd have the same pavement
> width but no assumption by motorists that I was _supposed_ to stay in
> the lane. I'd also have less debris.
Well, I'll mention Shoal Creek Blvd. and Parkfield in Austin, both
striped extra-wide so there is a margin to the left of parked MV's.
No, I don't pass that close to parked vehicles (the driver's head
suddenly appears after fishing something off the floor or the glove
box while the door gets opened at the same time) but IME this striping
system declares a "right to the road" that is respected by most
motorists, to the point where they wait for me to clear the parked
cars before overtaking. I always wave thanks, btw.
Parkfield has been striped that way for a good while; SCB for some
reason had to go through an agony of having traffic islands with signs
and crepe myrtle trees planted, a triple-threat of obstructions, while
of course the islands collected all kinds of "tree trash" and other
debris constantly, especially after storms, while making effective
street sweeping impossible. "It was political"; SCB has some
"professional" people living there who don't seem to have enough to do
at work, while Parkfield is more of a working-class neighborhood,
where people have plenty to do at work every day.
The whole point is indeed demarcating a legitimate ROW ownership for
cyclists.
> > > I worry that too many cyclists don't
> > > recognize the hazards, and put themselves in danger because they think
> > > "It's a bike lane; it must be safer."
I read that as "I think bike lanes are stupid and I don't like them".
> > You avoid hooks and opening doors by being aware of what is going on
> > and riding accordingly, whether there is a bike lane present or not.
> > Education IRT hazards is important for cyclists.
>
> Right. The problem, in my view, is that a bike lane is anti-education
> in that way.
I suggest it doesn't take many trips down a bike path, especially a
bad one represented in your link, before a user is "educated".
The education might not be complete, as evidenced by collisions with
turning cars and opening doors, but these, especially turning cars,
are leading causes of motorcycle accidents, too, and the MC'ers are
not generally using bicycle lanes.
> > Again, I can show you
> > bike lanes and marked intersections that are safer, no problem.
>
> If you mean safer than the same road with the stripe removed, I'd be
> curious. While I think it's possible, I think most bike lanes would
> be safer as just part of a wide outside lane. Same pavement width,
> but no stripe.
With the examples I've cited, another benefit is that MV's, squeezed
to the center of the roadway, tend to slow down due to close passage
with vehicles passing the other way. The curvy-ness of the roadways
aids in this, also. If MV's had free use of the entire roadway width
they would travel a lot faster, which they used to do when the bike
lane was narrower.
I've ridden these two roads off and on since 1984; I can't remember if/
when Parkfield went to wide striping but SCB is recent and the wide
stripes have been effective traffic calming devices. Cheap, too. And
residents kept their curbfront parking; something the various
"activists" who don't live on that street were ready to flush down the
toilet in the name of "progress" (more like "control/revenge BS").
Since the new paint stripes were laid down, I have yet to be hassled
at the eastbound Mopac crossover on Steck by passing (same travel
direction) motorists who formerly often found me "in the way" when the
bike lane ended at the light, and were none too shy about letting me
know "you don't belong here"-- racing motors, foot-to-the-floor close
passing, mirrors in the ear, and so forth. Nice new paint and that
crap has stopped. BTW, when I'm in riding mode, that is a daily route
and has been for many moons.
Maybe, just maybe, you could take my word for one, Frank?
This Steck crossing is interesting because the roadway, from what I
have been told, is not wide enough to "officially" stripe it for a
bike lane, so officials might have been influenced to bend a rule or
two, and again by hearsay were doubtful the stripes would "work".
Suffice to say I've passed word along via a couple of different
avenues that they're working just fine-- "at last!". Because, aside
from this sticking point, Steck is a "passage" to rides short and
long.
--D-y
Frank Krygowski
> On 26 Sep., 17:27, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Wait! You're making the classic mistake of equating "adequate
> > pavement width" with "bike lane." They are not the same!
>
> Yes exactly, they are not the same; a dedicated bike lane may be much
> better for traffic flow than cyclist taking the lane blocking all
> traffic behind. A steady speed is important for a good traffic flow.
If there is adequate pavement width for a motor vehicle lane plus a
bike lane, there is adequate pavement width for the cyclist to ride at
the right and the motor vehicle to safely pass on the left. Remember,
the paint stripe adds no width. Therefore, the cyclist doesn't need
to block traffic behind. We need the width, not the white stripe.
> No, with a bike lane the bike may impede flow by blocking traffic,
> with a bike lane it doesn't.
See above, yet again.
Example: I'm perfectly fine sharing a 14 foot (4.6m) lane with almost
all vehicles, unless speeds are extreme. Striping that into a 9 foot
car lane plus a 5' bike lane makes it worse for me, because the bike
lane soon becomes 4' of gravel plus 1' clear space, right next to the
stripe. Without the stripe, gravel is typically confined to 1' from
the curb.
> And if the traffic is fast and heavy it doesn't matter how many lanes
> there is, since they are filled with cars. So the cyclist are forced
> to ride in a narrow corridor between trucks on one side, and perhaps
> parked cars to the other without any possibility to ride in the "door-
> free" zone.
If there is adequate width for a bike lane, there is adequate width to
let cars or trucks pass while staying away from car doors. The bike
lane stripe adds no width.
Furthermore, when bike lane strips are painted too close to parking
places, many cyclists feel compelled to ride in the door zone.
Stripes don't normally prevent these accidents; instead, they promote
them.
http://bicyclesafe.com/doorprize.html
> > Dooring still be possible with passenger side
> > doors.
>
> Sure, if the bike lane is too narrow to be useful. But where I ride
> they aren't. Besides, dooring from the passenger side is much less
> frequent.
I understand the latter point. Regarding the former, I think we're
talking about differences in our two countries. You seem to be in
Copenhagen, where attention to cycling infrastructure is legendary.
Perhaps once that point is reached, we might say bike lanes are
acceptable. Yet the best study I know, from Copenhagen about three
years ago, found that bike lanes and bike "tracks" significantly
_increased_ crashes where they were added. "Road Safety and Perceived
Risk of Cycle Facilities in Copenhagen," Jensen, Rosenkilde & Jensen.
http://tinyurl.com/3dlkbm
(Interestingly, the users of those facilities still felt "safer" in
them; but that's perception and propaganda, not reality.)
>
> > Worse, the visibility and conspicuousness of the cyclist
> > would be extremely compromised; cyclists would be a surprise to
> > motorists crossing their path (at driveways and other intersections)
> > and pedestrians, etc. will likely intrude on that space, leaving
> > cyclists no way around.
>
> Again, that is only a problem if you don't care to solve it. With a
> minimum of design at the intersections such problems can be minimized.
According to the above paper, the problem has not been solved. But
I'd like details on how you would solve it. Take the following
situation: Two large SUVs parked, one before and one after a
driveway, so visibility is blocked. Cyclists at 15 mph in the bike
"track" to the right of the SUVs, and a motorist turning into the
drive from the SUVs' left. In America, that's a crash.
> Besides, the exact same problems exist even without a bike lane.
Not so. If the cyclist is in the lane with traveling vehicles, he's
not out of sight. If he fears he's not sufficiently conspicuous, he
can move further toward lane center, where he's very visible. I do
this all the time with no problem.
> > Also, sweeping and snow plowing would be
> > pretty much impossible. And you know that space would be lowest in
> > priority for road repairs.
>
> You know, on big roads they use big snow plows, and on small roads
> they use small snow plows. The right tool for the job. That is why
> they use small dedicated snow plows on such stretches. They are also
> sweeped by machines that fit the bike lanes. So no problem at all.
The first problem is in getting anyone to admit that bike lanes need
to be swept. West of the Atlantic, that's unheard of. The second
problem is convincing anyone that tax dollars should be spent on
separate small snowplows and sweepers. That's currently impossible.
Hell, our metro area can't afford enough snow plows to keep the
existing roads clear after a big snow fall!
> > What I see, far too often, is a sort of pie-in-the-sky watercolor
> > sketch of a "complete street" with low-density traffic, smiling
> > cyclists, patient motorists, no delivery trucks, all pedestrians
> > obediently in pedestrian-only spaces, plenty of shade trees, etc.
> > It's the exact opposite of solving problems; instead, it's pretending
> > that "if only, if only.... then problems would vanish."
>
> You don't understand. What I describe is my daily rides, not some far
> fetched fantasy. And yes, there a lots of delivery trucks and cars
> chasing empty parking spaces in Copenhagen too. But they are not
> allowed to block the bike lanes, besides, when parking on the outside
> of the bike lanes, they really aren't a problem at all, since they
> don't cut you off etc.
I think you can see from that video that America is very different.
> That depends entirely on the political will....
>
> Typical modern day American defeatism; just speculate about a lot of
> pretend problems, declare them impossible to solve, and ignore any
> facts that contradicts that.
I'm describing what I've seen here, and the current (and foreseeable)
political climate. While your city reportedly does tremendous things
for cycling and has great success, I suspect that the bulk of the
success depends not on the bike lanes or bike tracks, but on other
factors. In the US, poor teenage kids can and do buy cars. They do
this because in most cities, there is little or no mass transit, and
distances are great. Those kids learn to drive by being coached by a
parent who's only semi-competent at best. They can get their license
after just a few weeks of practice, and the driver's tests are simple
- a written test with a few dozen multiple choice questions, and a
road test just driving around a few blocks or less. Once, parallel
parking was the most difficult part, but now even that has been
removed. Registration and license plates may cost $50 per year.
Liability insurance is more expensive (several hundred dollars or
more) but many people just risk driving without it - so many that
responsible drivers usually pay extra for "uninsured motorist
coverage." Oh, and gasoline is cheap, currently about $2.50 per
gallon (maybe $0.60 per liter).
I hear your country is different. No?
If you ha
> The fact is that bike lane design isn't rocket science and that
> particular traffic problems can be solved, one way or another. And in
> stark contradiction to a lot of armchair speculation, bike lanes in
> the real world can be a very good idea, that not only offer better
> safety, but also increase ridership and ensures a good traffic flow.
See the study I cited above.
FWIW, I don't think all cycling facilities are useless. However, I
think too many designers say "This isn't rocket science" and botch the
job. I personally know one such designer; and once his atrocity was
installed, he fought long, hard and successfully to deflect the
complaints from the intended users. So far, as far as we know, his
designs have probably caused only one serious injury, the total
paralysis of a cyclist, but there have been other minor injuries and
many, many inconveniences.
"This isn't rocket science" is the prelude to a botched job. "New!
Innovative!" brings similar risks. The standard rules of traffic flow
have worked well for all vehicles since the 1800s. If we teach
cyclists and motorists to operate by those rules, and teach cyclists
that those rules can keep them safe, we won't need "new, innovative"
kludges. We can put our energy into getting suitably wide lanes where
they'll fit, keeping our rights to control narrow lanes where we must,
educating drivers about our rights, and so on. To me, these are
better strategies for advocacy.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Sep 25, 11:10 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Wait a minute! Are we talking good bike lanes, or good bike paths?
> Excuse my word choice. Lanes. But paths? Now there, we disagree again,
> at least to some degree. Bike paths are IME usually too narrow to be
^^^^^^^^^^
WTF?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> I've been around to see bike lanes only beginning to come into
> existence, then very incrementally grow as a traffic device, to where
> now they're still on the rise and showing up everywhere, but not so
> everywhere that you can't easily find routes without them if that's
> your preference (as it is mine). I'd say the advent and expansion of
> bike lanes have been a great advancement for bicycles as
> transportation in my world. They're ghettos for sure, but they're a
> substantive, undeniable sign to motorists that society supports
> bicycles as legitimate traffic.
I beg to disagree. Bicycle lanes/ghettos send the message to the cagers
that cyclists ONLY belong on segregated facilities.
dusto...@mac.com
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 1:10 PM, dustoyev...@mac.com aka TP wrote:> On Sep 25, 11:10 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Wait a minute! Are we talking good bike lanes, or good bike paths?
> > Excuse my word choice. Lanes. But paths? Now there, we disagree again,
> > at least to some degree. Bike paths are IME usually too narrow to be
> > comfortable with close-passing two-way traffic. Mix in recumbents [...]
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> WTF?
I lived in Houston for just short of four years. Riding on the Brays
Bayou Hike n' Bike trail, which is a narrow, raised asphalt strip of
pavement that is about 13 miles long. Name your "user type" (bikes,
recumbents, skaters, joggers, dog walkers, etc.) and you could be sure
that some percentage would be combative toward other types, and maybe
to their own people-- it certainly happened to me with aggressive bike
riders who would insist on riding two abreast as they passed me, head
on. At least once, due to bad pavement, which was obvious especially
to regular trail users, I bailed. Which is not a cool thing since the
"trail" can be raised 6-8" above the grassy surround at the edge of
the bayou, which is a paved-bottom open sewer that runs off to the
sea.
"Playing chicken". I learned not to bail <g>.
Skaters would stick that leg right out at you and yank it back at the
last second, dog walkers would hear my polite "passing on your left,
please" and move their dogs over into my way on purpose, etc. etc.
Life in the big city.
There were a couple of recumbent riders in particular who delighted in
hooking* other trail users. There were others who just did the usual
'bent wobble. Nothing noteworthy, really, compared to the wobbly bike
riders, earphone-d runners etc. etc. But definitely a road-- or should
I say trail?-- hazard.
*hooking= passing someone real close and swerving over so as to
narrowly miss making actual contact; meant to frighten and intimidate.
--D-y
Dan O
Do you think the people who believe that would respect bicycles any
more in the absence of bike lanes?
incredulous
I suspect that the greatest value of bike lanes is to confer rights to
non-drivers and to establish legitimacy to self-propulsion. But, then,
there's the backlash of ethnic resentment of the petro-powered.
Maybe someone here sleeps with a traffic engineer and can, from
pilliow talk, pass on murmurmings of the load capacity and actual load
of urban bike lanes. Actual load is very low even during peaks in most
cities. So, the resentment and backlash of those with less patience --
those in cars -- overwhelms the benefit. Mayor Adrian Fenty in DC will
have that office (and be able to shut down roads so he can take-mid
day rides with his cycling team) only until early january, expanded
bike lanes, bike rentals, and bike garage at Union Station
notwithstanding.
Maybe it has already been said here: Enthusiastic cyclists, self-
included, like to go miles and miles without coming to stop, so there
has to be such a change of US culture that it's normal for people like
me to have a townbike conducive to putting feet down and stopping.
Among double XXers, I don't see the move to taller heels on shoes, all
the time, as indicating much use for bike lanes.
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Sep 26, 1:54 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2010 1:10 PM, dustoyev...@mac.com aka TP wrote:> On Sep 25, 11:10 pm, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Wait a minute! Are we talking good bike lanes, or good bike paths?
>>> Excuse my word choice. Lanes. But paths? Now there, we disagree again,
>>> at least to some degree. Bike paths are IME usually too narrow to be
>>> comfortable with close-passing two-way traffic. Mix in recumbents [...]
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> WTF?
>
> I lived in Houston for just short of four years. Riding on the Brays
> Bayou Hike n' Bike trail, which is a narrow, raised asphalt strip of
> pavement that is about 13 miles long. Name your "user type" (bikes,
> recumbents,
Two-wheel recumbents are a subset of bicycles.
> skaters, joggers, dog walkers, etc.) and you could be sure
> that some percentage would be combative toward other types, and maybe
> to their own people-- it certainly happened to me with aggressive bike
> riders who would insist on riding two abreast as they passed me, head
> on. At least once, due to bad pavement, which was obvious especially
> to regular trail users, I bailed. Which is not a cool thing since the
> "trail" can be raised 6-8" above the grassy surround at the edge of
> the bayou, which is a paved-bottom open sewer that runs off to the
> sea.
> "Playing chicken". I learned not to bail<g>.
>
> Skaters would stick that leg right out at you and yank it back at the
> last second, dog walkers would hear my polite "passing on your left,
> please" and move their dogs over into my way on purpose, etc. etc.
> Life in the big city.
>
Having a recumbent with a large (i.e. 62-tooth) chainring leading out
front is an advantage - let the inline skaters or dogs collide with me
and see how that turns out. ;)
> There were a couple of recumbent riders in particular who delighted in
> hooking* other trail users. There were others who just did the usual
> 'bent wobble. Nothing noteworthy, really, compared to the wobbly bike
> riders, earphone-d runners etc. etc. But definitely a road-- or should
> I say trail?-- hazard.
>
> *hooking= passing someone real close and swerving over so as to
> narrowly miss making actual contact; meant to frighten and intimidate.
> --D-y
Seems like you need a bicycle like this then:
<http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/MVC-007S.JPG>,
<http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_1.mpg> for
playing chicken.
Tim McNamara
<fd005d78-e612-43e2...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
incredulous <travis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 3:01 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> > On 9/26/2010 11:10 AM, Dan 0verm@n wrote:
> >
> > > [...] I've been around to see bike lanes only beginning to come
> > > into existence, then very incrementally grow as a traffic device,
> > > to where now they're still on the rise and showing up everywhere,
> > > but not so everywhere that you can't easily find routes without
> > > them if that's your preference (as it is mine). I'd say the
> > > advent and expansion of bike lanes have been a great advancement
> > > for bicycles as transportation in my world. They're ghettos for
> > > sure, but they're a substantive, undeniable sign to motorists
> > > that society supports bicycles as legitimate traffic.
> >
> > I beg to disagree. Bicycle lanes/ghettos send the message to the
> > cagers that cyclists ONLY belong on segregated facilities.
>
> I suspect that the greatest value of bike lanes is to confer rights
> to non-drivers and to establish legitimacy to self-propulsion. But,
> then, there's the backlash of ethnic resentment of the petro-powered.
As seen on the bumper sticker I saw last week equating "green" with
"communist." Not surprisingly it was plastered on the largest sized GMC
pickemup truck.
Jay Beattie
> In article
> <fd005d78-e612-43e2-9f36-59f93c9ac...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
That's why I don't want special treatment. I was driving around
downtown PDX to do legitimate shopping (we actually have lots of
relevant businesses in our downtown), and half the streets were shut
down and had cops posted at intersections. I asked one of them what
was happening, and he said that one day a month, they shut down all
these major city streets so cyclists and pedestrians (?) can have free
run. I didn't know this, and I'm a revered cyclist, and you know
what, it was a real pisser -- I felt like I was in a rat maze trying
to get out of downtown with all those closed-down streets. What a
joke. We're paying a bunch of cops overtime so some panty wastes can
ride their clown bikes on closed rodes. I ride those streets all the
time. They are not dangerous. Traffic is so slow you just roll along
behind the cars.
So, to continue my rant, I was riding around today on my usual routes,
and now there is all this sinage -- painted bikes and arrows, etc.,
etc. For what? To tell me that I am riding a bike on the same
streets I have been riding a bike for the last 25+ years. The amount
of money spent trying to make bicyclists feel good about themselves is
staggering. There are some good bike lanes, but all the sinage and
stuff is a spectacular waste, and with the crushing debt this city is
facing, I'm thinking of voting Republican. -- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
Won't help. Republicans have become democrat now, spend
spend spend until all their pals and relatives have their fill.
See you at the Tea Party.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Dan O
<snip>
>
> So, to continue my rant, I was riding around today on my usual routes,
> and now there is all this sinage -- painted bikes and arrows, etc.,
> etc. For what? To tell me that I am riding a bike on the same
> streets I have been riding a bike for the last 25+ years. The amount
> of money spent trying to make bicyclists feel good about themselves is
> staggering. There are some good bike lanes, but all the sinage and
> stuff is a spectacular waste...
Yeah, it kills me the way they make such a big deal about it, too. I
mean, if you head out on your bike not knowing where you're going or
how to get there, what difference does it make which way you go,
anyway? It's kind of like when a reviewer pans some stereo component
because he says the buttons aren't labeled well enough. Who needs
labels on their controls?
> ..., and with the crushing debt this city is
> facing, I'm thinking of voting Republican.
dusto...@mac.com
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Two-wheel recumbents are a subset of bicycles.
Maybe to some people they are.
> Having a recumbent with a large (i.e. 62-tooth) chainring leading out
> front is an advantage - let the inline skaters or dogs collide with me
> and see how that turns out. ;)
This is a sometimes crowded, narrow bikepath. A mixture of speeds is
one of the problems and going fast(est) is not any kind of a
"solution".
> > There were a couple of recumbent riders in particular who delighted in
> > hooking* other trail users. There were others who just did the usual
> > 'bent wobble. Nothing noteworthy, really, compared to the wobbly bike
> > riders, earphone-d runners etc. etc. But definitely a road-- or should
> > I say trail?-- hazard.
> Seems like you need a bicycle like this then:
> <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/MVC-007S.JPG>,
> <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_1.mpg> for
> playing chicken.
I didn't even look after seeing that faired 'bent knocking down
garbage cans.
Indulging in non-civil behavior is a problem, not a "solution".
This it Texas, I could have just got a license and started carrying a
Desert Eagle on my hip...
--D-y
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Sep 26, 5:13 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
>> Two-wheel recumbents are a subset of bicycles.
>
> Maybe to some people they are.
>
keep up.
>> Having a recumbent with a large (i.e. 62-tooth) chainring leading out
>> front is an advantage - let the inline skaters or dogs collide with me
>> and see how that turns out. ;)
>
> This is a sometimes crowded, narrow bikepath. A mixture of speeds is
> one of the problems and going fast(est) is not any kind of a
> "solution".
>
Sounds like the roads are a better place to ride, eh?
>>> There were a couple of recumbent riders in particular who delighted in
>>> hooking* other trail users. There were others who just did the usual
>>> 'bent wobble. Nothing noteworthy, really, compared to the wobbly bike
>>> riders, earphone-d runners etc. etc. But definitely a road-- or should
>>> I say trail?-- hazard.
>
>> Seems like you need a bicycle like this then:
>> <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/MVC-007S.JPG>,
>> <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_1.mpg> for
>> playing chicken.
>
> I didn't even look after seeing that faired 'bent knocking down
> garbage cans.
Yeah, sorry you cannot do that on a UCI legal bicycle. :)
> Indulging in non-civil behavior is a problem, not a "solution".
>
The crash-worthy 'bent is to transfer the consequences to the uncivil.
> This it Texas, I could have just got a license and started carrying a
> Desert Eagle on my hip...
> --D-y
That only encourages others to shoot first without warning.
Dan O
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 9:11 PM, dustoyev...@mac.com aka TP wrote:> On Sep 26, 5:13 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> > <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >> Two-wheel recumbents are a subset of bicycles.
>
> > Maybe to some people they are.
>
> Like the people who set the standard for the English language. Please
> keep up.
>
> >> Having a recumbent with a large (i.e. 62-tooth) chainring leading out
> >> front is an advantage - let the inline skaters or dogs collide with me
> >> and see how that turns out. ;)
>
> > This is a sometimes crowded, narrow bikepath. A mixture of speeds is
> > one of the problems and going fast(est) is not any kind of a
> > "solution".
>
> Sounds like the roads are a better place to ride, eh?
>
> >>> There were a couple of recumbent riders in particular who delighted in
> >>> hooking* other trail users. There were others who just did the usual
> >>> 'bent wobble. Nothing noteworthy, really, compared to the wobbly bike
> >>> riders, earphone-d runners etc. etc. But definitely a road-- or should
> >>> I say trail?-- hazard.
>
> >> Seems like you need a bicycle like this then:
> >> <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/MVC-007S.JPG>,
> >> <http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_1.mpg> for
> >> playing chicken.
How refreshing! (Finally a video I can watch without bending over for
Adobe Flash Player.)
>
> > I didn't even look after seeing that faired 'bent knocking down
> > garbage cans.
>
> Yeah, sorry you cannot do that on a UCI legal bicycle. :)
I don't know from UCI, but I have a Surly "Nice Rack" on the front of
my commuter, which is remarkably like the front deflector cage that I
designed for bike polo back in the 70's, and could, I think, knock
down some garbage cans. I've even been tempted when they were left in
the bike lane, but that would only add to the debris problem.
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Won't help. Republicans have become democrat now, spend spend spend
> until all their pals and relatives have their fill.
The Republicans have been doing that for a century or so. It would be
more correct to say that the Democrats have become Republican now, both
parties pandering to the rich and/or powerful while ignoring most
everyone else- except during an election cycle when they pretend to
oppose the "special interests" and want to help the "backbone of
America" until the election is over. But this is nothing new.
> See you at the Tea Party.
Then there was the bumper sticker I saw the same day as the "green =
commie" one, which was "Tea parties are for little girls."
The Tea Party is no saving grace, being far too populated by reactionary
nutjobs whose lives are miserable and are looking for someone to blame
for it (anybody but themselves, that is). Unfortunately modern-day
"conservatism" has fallen into little more than a competition to see who
can bellyache the loudest about the people they hate like liberals
(among whose number these days you would find Ronald Reagan, by
comparison to the "new right"), blacks, Hispanics, gays, Muslims and-
with increasing frequency- other conservatives. And "conservative"
politicians are stuck pedaling the same old nonsense in a new and
improved box. It's a shame.
Chalo
>
> So, to continue my rant, I was riding around today on my usual routes,
> and now there is all this sinage -- painted bikes and arrows, etc.,
> etc. For what? To tell me that I am riding a bike on the same
> streets I have been riding a bike for the last 25+ years. The amount
> of money spent trying to make bicyclists feel good about themselves is
> staggering.
"Sharrows", bike route signs, etc., are not as much for cyclists as
for motorists who have trouble with the concept of sharing the roads
with others. To judge by recent results in Austin, they actually
help. And compared to any other street infrastructure-- even curb
cuts-- they are dirt cheap.
Chalo
damyth
> On 26 Sep., 05:55, damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
> > Just because you might desire more bike lanes doesn't make your
> > assertions true. I'm not convinced any bike lanes (good or bad) make
> > traffic flow better for both cars and bicycles.
>
> Everything depends. If you got narrow congested roads with lots of
> cyclist (perhaps 10-20.000 a day) bike lanes sure makes the traffic
> flow better. Details like separate lights for bikes at intersections,
> means that you can regulate whether to empty the bike lane or the car
> lane with right swinging cars first. That means better safety and
> the road" as in purposefully blocking the traffic behind because they
> feel that this is the safe thing to do in certain situations. If there
> where a good bike lane, cyclist didn't have to take the road and block
> the traffic. A win win for all.
>
> > seen any that borne out that assertion; one class of people generally
> > lose, if not both.
>
> Sometimes it is the intended purpose that cyclist gets priority over
> car traffic by making bike wide lanes, either as a mean to reduce car
> traffic in that particular street, or because city hall is working on
> on increasing the number of cyclists and reduce the overall car
> traffic. Cars have had almost exclusive priority in traffic planning
> the last many decades, so adjustments in favor of a growing number of
> cyclist shouldn't be a problem.
>
> > before there were any bike lanes. In fact my high school was right
> > off of 1st Ave. For your information, most avenues in Manhattan span
> > at least six car lanes, and have been one way since time immemorial.
> > So there are no "difficult decisions" to be made, that decision was
> > made long ago.
>
> Well, I am sure one can find two way roads in the US end even in NYC
> outside Manhatten. My point is that if you want good bike lanes you
> have to make real decisions that is integrated in the overall traffic
> planning. This includes making streets one-way for cars but two-ways
> for bikes. Eg. in the video one sees a single bike lane in the "wrong
> side" of the way. Why not make bike lanes on both sides and make them
> parked cars on the outside of the bike lane and make a partition
> me it seems that the bike lane in the video was made by someone who
> didn't want to make difficult decisions.
>
> > I fail to understand is why any cyclist is willing to give up six
> > "reasonably open" lanes (largely devoid of pedestrians) for one _very_
> > dangerous lane consisting of pedestrians, cars, delivery trucks,
> > bicyclists, roller-bladers, baby strollers, salmons, what have you.
>
> traffic environment and it certainly isn't where I ride. Eg. put the
> parking cars and delivery trucks on the outside of the bike lane etc.
> In short, if there are problems, solve them.
>
> > bike ridership goes up, as that single bike lane becomes more
> > congested.
>
> Safety in numbers is a well established fact, backed up by decades of
> traffic statistic form dozens of countries. And again, if the bike
> lane becomes congested because they are popular, just make them wider
> or make them multi-laned, or make it attractive to ride along other
> routes too. In short, deal with bicycle traffic the exact same way one
> does with car traffic, and not look upon cyclist as third class
> traffic participants that are mercifully allowed to tag along the
> "real traffic". In short, if there are problems, solve them.
>
> > The female narrator of that video acknowledges it took her four years
> > to overcome the initial fear of riding in traffic. I don't think
> > there's anything particularly extraordinary about that. If you aren't
> > used to vehicular cycling, it's a normal reaction. The point is she
> > overcame her fear and did just fine, until they put the bike lanes
> > in.
>
> My impression was that she actually liked bike lanes (and the vox pop
> among cyclist certainly said so), but she thought the the
> implementation where she rode was bad. I agree with that from what I
> saw.
>
> > Activists clamoring for bike lanes thinking it will increase
> > ridership or increase safety are wrong on both counts. Get over the
> > fear and start vehicularly, most folks do just fine.
>
> You are simply dead wrong. That good bike lanes increase both
> ridership and safety are simply facts backed up by statistics from the
> real world. And like or not, many people _feel_ safer with designated
> bike lanes (just look at the vox pop from the video). Even if bike
> lanes didn't increase safety, they can increase ridership.
>
> be made to solve particular traffic problems and be integrated in
> overall traffic planning. Eg. one some roads with wide shoulders, the
> only thing that seems to differentiate the shoulder from a bike lane
> is a sign. But by giving the shoulder a "bike lane" designation, some
> stupid decisions like nasty slippery wet paint, or huge rumble stripes
> can perhaps be avoided.
>
> ignore facts and real world experiences from whenever bike lanes are
> successful in increasing ridership and safety. It must be an dishonest
> or very ignorant position. It seems to distort their dogmatic views
> and dangerous bike lanes. Especially London is simply a study in
> hilarious stupid bike lane design, like bike lanes that suddenly
> without warning ends in the middle of a tree etc. But bike lanes
> should be constructed and designed with the same expertise as regular
> roads. And if there are any problems with a particular bike lane, then
> solve the problem instead of just giving up.
>
> --
> Regards
It's clear from your response you think I'm part of some "anti-bike
brigade." Just to clarify, I've stated before on this newsgroup I'm
for (sufficiently) wide lanes for vehicular traffic and bikes. I'm
against separated bike facilities (such as the one illustrated in the
video) because I've not encountered any that don't present MORE
problems than the wide lane solution.
Let's just say for the moment that separated bike paths "work" just as
well as wide lanes, there is still one very fundamental problem:
Separated bike lanes don't go everywhere where roads go. Stated
differently, they are inherently undemocratic. Cyclists get treated
as a separate class of citizens. That's not a great idea at all.
Implicit in your reply you've already acknowledged several different
issues with separated bike lanes, even in Copenhagen:
- Enhanced enforcement required
- Changing established norms of human behavior
- A separate class of maintenance equipment (sweepers)
- Additional traffic control devices (traffic lights)
In a place like NYC changing established norms of human behavior is
futile; it's the proverbial equivalent of trying to push on a rope or
rolling a bolder up the hill. Good luck trying to prevent jaywalking
there. There won't be enough cops around ever to accomplish that.
Let's just say I'd want to see some success in that department (as an
example) in NYC before I'd even agree to the concept of separated bike
lanes as viable (in NYC).
In short, separated bike lanes in NYC is a solution to a non-problem.
I don't even know if you watched the same video, the point of the
video was the a priori (vox pop) PERCEPTION of safety of separated
bike paths is based on false premises (coupled with bureaucratic
bungling). I'm not willing to risk my life as part of some well-
intentioned "experiment" until designers get it "right." Would you?
"Even if bike lanes didn't increase safety, they can increase
ridership." That's specifically the attitude I discourage. You are
putting lives AT RISK in an experiment for the goal of increasing
ridership. The female narrator of the video feels the same way; she
says she's either going to ride in the bus lane or take 3rd Ave for
self -preservation.
dusto...@mac.com
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 9/26/2010 9:11 PM, dustoyev...@mac.com aka TP wrote:> On Sep 26, 5:13 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> > <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
> >> Two-wheel recumbents are a subset of bicycles.
>
> > Maybe to some people they are.
>
> Like the people who set the standard for the English language. Please
> keep up.
OK: "Recumbents suck donkey dick".
(Or, as my Grammar 360K instructor was rightly fond of saying: "You
knew what he meant")
> > This is a sometimes crowded, narrow bikepath. A mixture of speeds is
> > one of the problems and going fast(est) is not any kind of a
> > "solution".
>
> Sounds like the roads are a better place to ride, eh?
B, C... are you Canadian, too?
Not in Houston they aren't, especially if you're going solo. Nasty bad
attitudes + a weapon they know they can get away with using, and in
complete safety.
Several times during my time there, I read of MV-bike accidents
involving fatalities. For example, the one where some asshole coming
off the highway plowed into a group of riders travelling on a frontage
road, killed one or two outright, injured three or four more quite
severely, and did not even get a ticket.
Reality check for Tom Sherman, vehicular 'bent rider.
As usual, I do not recognize the supposed superiority of the 'bent,
Tom. But, if you want to ride one, go ahead, in peace, knowing I will
never post shit-disturbing comments on any 'bent forums or otherwise
bother with 'bents unless someone else starts it first.
You understood what I meant that time, too.
> > This it Texas, I could have just got a license and started carrying a
> > Desert Eagle on my hip...
> That only encourages others to shoot first without warning.
No shit, Sherlock! Keep going...
('Bents are a subset of "vehicles")
--D-y
(PeteCresswell)
>Won't help. Republicans have become democrat now, spend
>spend spend until all their pals and relatives have their fill.
I'm not in love with the spending, but the spending without
paying for it with revenues drives me nuts.
AFIK it started with Reagonomics and really coalesced when Bush
44 fired Paul O'Neil in 2004 for observing that maybe running up
a half-trillion-dollar deficit wasn't in the best interests of
the country.
Cheyney followed up with a statement to the effect of "Reagan
proved that deficits don't matter.". Oh well...
For my money, the USA is becoming ready for a third party - one
that actually practices fiscal responsibility.
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>Doing 30 km/h
>(18.6 mph) seems to be the average speed people can do on a sit-up-and-
>beg bike without straining themselves too much.
That seems high. OTOH it might be more a reflection on my own
pathetic aerobic capacity.....
On the converted railroad beds that I ride a lot (flat, straight,
smooth...) the aero-lycra-clad seem tb making 18-20 as a cruising
speed (i.e. able to hold conversations while riding).
Are Euro commuters in that much better shape?
Or is the advantage gained by form-fitting clothes, 23mm tires,
and aero posture not as great as I think it is?
--
PeteCresswell
(PeteCresswell)
>That's one bad one. That's a place where I don't know what kind of
>bike lane you could put in that would work.
I have limited experience, but the best-working solution I have
seen so far was what somebody else called a "Bike Boulevard".
Basically:
- A two-lane street cut down to one car lane
- 15 mph speed limit augmented by various physical
incentives - like planters and speed bumps with
a slot for bikes.
- No stop signs when crossing intersecting streets
- Availability of parallel streets with conventional
speed limits/lane markings
--
PeteCresswell
Peter Cole
> That's why I don't want special treatment. I was driving around
> downtown PDX to do legitimate shopping (we actually have lots of
> relevant businesses in our downtown), and half the streets were shut
> down and had cops posted at intersections. I asked one of them what
> was happening, and he said that one day a month, they shut down all
> these major city streets so cyclists and pedestrians (?) can have free
> run. I didn't know this, and I'm a revered cyclist, and you know
> what, it was a real pisser -- I felt like I was in a rat maze trying
> to get out of downtown with all those closed-down streets. What a
> joke. We're paying a bunch of cops overtime so some panty wastes can
> ride their clown bikes on closed rodes. I ride those streets all the
> time. They are not dangerous. Traffic is so slow you just roll along
> behind the cars.
>
> So, to continue my rant, I was riding around today on my usual routes,
> and now there is all this sinage -- painted bikes and arrows, etc.,
> etc. For what? To tell me that I am riding a bike on the same
> streets I have been riding a bike for the last 25+ years. The amount
> of money spent trying to make bicyclists feel good about themselves is
> staggering. There are some good bike lanes, but all the sinage and
> stuff is a spectacular waste, and with the crushing debt this city is
> facing, I'm thinking of voting Republican. -- Jay Beattie.
Good luck with that.
While it's tempting to categorize all this bike boosting as a faddish,
feel-good, green-washing, there are very real economics at work. Studies
conducted all over the world in the past couple of decades have revealed
the high uncaptured costs of driving, particularly in urban areas. A
large portion of those costs are borne by local municipalities. This was
all well and good when the urban model was a place to work and shop,
while the suburbs was where people were expected to live (except poor
people). Things have changed. Municipalities have realized that their
economic future lies in appealing to those who want to live in cities.
Auto traffic is a negative double whammy to urban budgets. Heavy traffic
increases local costs while simultaneously lowering residential real
estate values. Encouraging and accommodating alternatives (including
bicycling) have been seen as among the best ways to create the elusive
"livable city". This is no pipe dream, but a solid demographic trend,
which will likely accelerate with an aging population and rising energy
costs.
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/metro_res_const_trends_09.pdf
If you feel that taking a car into the city is becoming less convenient
that's probably because it is -- by design. The (anti)driving forces are
rational and economic.
Peter Cole
Probably, it's easy to quantify with any of the online calculators.
In my experience the biggest benefit from bike lanes and trip time
occurs during urban rush hours when a bicycle-only lane becomes like a
"HOV" lane, allowing you to bypass most of the gridlock.
Duane Hebert
> Per Peter S.:
>>Doing 30 km/h
>>(18.6 mph) seems to be the average speed people can do on a sit-up-and-
>>beg bike without straining themselves too much.
>
> That seems high. OTOH it might be more a reflection on my own
> pathetic aerobic capacity.....
My bike shop sponsors shop rides and asks the participants be
at the level of ability where they can comfortably maintain 30kph
for 2 hours in varying conditions. I don't usually ride with them <g>
Most of the people that I ride with average 25-30kph depending on
conditions. But there are many that ride the 18-20 that you see.
Not sure if being lycra clad has a direct relation here though - except
that I guess I would ride slower to prevent the chafing without the
lycra shorts.
Peter Cole
> Yet the best study I know, from Copenhagen about three
> years ago, found that bike lanes and bike "tracks" significantly
> _increased_ crashes where they were added. "Road Safety and Perceived
> Risk of Cycle Facilities in Copenhagen," Jensen, Rosenkilde& Jensen.
> http://tinyurl.com/3dlkbm
>
> (Interestingly, the users of those facilities still felt "safer" in
> them; but that's perception and propaganda, not reality.)
I think it would be more accurate to say users felt *much* more safe in
facilities (the data is given).
If facilities make cyclists feel that much safer in a country with a
much higher participation level and longer history, isn't it obvious
what a positive effect it would have on American cyclists?
It's important to note the conclusion of the study, where the author,
while admitting a "slight decline" in road safety, claimed that was more
than offset by "much, much greater" gains in health. While you may
dismiss this as so much "propaganda", the Danes have studied this issue
extensively and have the hard data for that, too.
The oft-heard criticisms that cycle facilities are a scam because they
increase feeling of security while not delivering on the promise are
qualitatively true in some scenarios, but quantitatively false. As seen
from the feedback from a sophisticated cycling culture, facilities are
seen as very important to the quality of the cycling experience. In the
US, it's really the sedentary lifestyle that's killing us, not the small
risk of cycling accidents, nor any marginal increase from facility
failings in design or implementation. That's fly poop in the pepper.
Decades of "vehicular cycling" orthodoxy with its reflexive opposition
to any and all facilities have neither reduced the accident rate
relative to other countries (with different outlooks), nor has it
convinced many people to take up cycling.
The projected costs of diabetes alone are enough to crater the economy:
http://www.diabetesarchive.net/diabetes-statistics/cost-of-diabetes-in-us.jsp
dusto...@mac.com
> On 9/26/2010 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > Yet the best study I know, from Copenhagen about three
> > years ago, found that bike lanes and bike "tracks" significantly
> > _increased_ crashes where they were added. "Road Safety and Perceived
> > Risk of Cycle Facilities in Copenhagen," Jensen, Rosenkilde& Jensen.
> > http://tinyurl.com/3dlkbm
>
> > (Interestingly, the users of those facilities still felt "safer" in
> > them; but that's perception and propaganda, not reality.)
Holy shit, Frank, the "bike" lanes in Copenhagen allow mopeds that are
supposedly limited to 30kph.
I saw a few mopeds jump in the bike lanes in Amsterdam. Not a good
mix, there. The accident rates in Copenhagen testify to that.
I read so far as to see that elimination of curbside parking results
in many more autos using side streets to park on than had formerly
been the case, which results in more cars turning left and right as
they enter and leave those side streets. That could be seen as "part
of the evil of bike lanes", I guess, but increased traffic results in
more accidents, so the results are skewed in my view.
Some time ago someone posted info about Dutch bikeways, where IMS the
results are similar: safer biking in the lanes, problems at
intersections. All I can say is, I don't think I'd have problems at
the intersections <g>. But then, I tend to pay attention, for the most
part.
I haven't been to Copenhagen, but the mixing of mopeds and bicycles
makes me think bikes are not at the top of the transportation food
chain as they (with some reservations) are in Amsterdam. It is good to
be on top of the food chain if you don't have a ton and a half of
armor around you <g>.
> If facilities make cyclists feel that much safer in a country with a
> much higher participation level and longer history, isn't it obvious
> what a positive effect it would have on American cyclists?
Obvious and I've experienced that myself, lately, in spite of my much
longer than average personal history and long-standing high
participation level.
> It's important to note the conclusion of the study, where the author,
> while admitting a "slight decline" in road safety, claimed that was more
> than offset by "much, much greater" gains in health. While you may
> dismiss this as so much "propaganda", the Danes have studied this issue
> extensively and have the hard data for that, too.
Maybe those bike lanes can be seen as works in progress, lacking some
basic public awareness/education programs?
> Decades of "vehicular cycling" orthodoxy with its reflexive opposition
> to any and all facilities have neither reduced the accident rate
> relative to other countries (with different outlooks), nor has it
> convinced many people to take up cycling.
I wouldn't know about "the numbers" in any of those assertions but
it's long been obvious to me that the vehicular thing is good, but
only up to a point, and so too are bike "facilities" good, but only
when done well. I mean, let's be pragmatic about this. That bike lane
in NYC sucks, big time. They should go back to the way it was, when
(by user testimony) the street layout worked a whole lot better, as I
would think it would for all users, including the guys trying to get
their trucks unloaded.
Bike paths for beginners, recreational riders and so forth need to be
put somewhere else.
--D-y
Peter Cole
Vehicular cycling, the activity, not the philosophy, is not only good,
but necessary, given that facilities don't go everywhere and the
principles apply to riding in facilities as well.
I can't comment on the NYC lane, but I can on the Boston (Cambridge,
actually) one Frank linked to. Sometimes designs are so heavily
compromised that they are worse than nothing, the Cambridge bike lanes
are a good example. For much of their length they are striped virtually
entirely in the door zone. I trained both my kids on how to not use
them. I trained them both during weekday evening rush hour. For those
who claim that motorists will bully us into using bad bike lanes, I
disagree, and felt I needed to prove exactly that point to my kids, lest
they feel pressured to ride in them.
I view bike lanes as no-driving zones. Categorically, I'd prefer no
lanes to mandatory lanes. I also find that many of the failings of lanes
(e.g. double parking) are also failings of wide curb lanes. I think the
most effective improvement to urban cycling is traffic calming. I'd
rather see bike boulevards than lanes or side paths. Lanes are very much
a compromise, and not all bike lanes are good bike lanes, not by a long
shot.
Frank Krygowski
Here is some legal writing on the "Share the Road" concept.
http://ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategorized/2010/09/share-the-road-stinks/
The League of American Bicyclists' officers need to have this pounded
into their heads, to replace their paint & path mentality.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> I lived in Houston for just short of four years. Riding on the Brays
> Bayou Hike n' Bike trail, which is a narrow, raised asphalt strip of
> to regular trail users, I bailed. Which is not a cool thing since the
> "trail" can be raised 6-8" above the grassy surround at the edge of
> the bayou, which is a paved-bottom open sewer that runs off to the
> sea.
I think that's a good counter-example of to "It's not rocket
science." To many bike facility designers, hell, of COURSE it's easy,
it's only a bike facility! Until they get it wrong and someone (like
a friend of mine) crashes because of a drop-off or other bad design,
and ends up with broken bones or worse.
Come to think of it, that applies to at least four friends of mine.
I'm afraid I'll think of more if I keep trying.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > ... There are some good bike lanes, but all the sinage and
> > stuff is a spectacular waste, and with the crushing debt this city is
> > facing, I'm thinking of voting Republican. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> Won't help. Republicans have become democrat now, spend
> spend spend until all their pals and relatives have their fill.
>
> See you at the Tea Party.
I could never attend. Even before I get to the confusing philosophy
("Keep the government out of my medicare!"), the dress requirements
alone baffle me.
I mean, am I supposed to dress like a Native American, as in the
original tea party? Or wear a red, white & blue top hat? It's too
confusing!
I'm NOT going to go dressed like this
http://www.eccoffee.com/teaparty.jpg
no matter how high my taxes get!
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> "Even if bike lanes didn't increase safety, they can increase
> ridership." That's specifically the attitude I discourage. You are
> putting lives AT RISK in an experiment for the goal of increasing
> ridership. The female narrator of the video feels the same way; she
> says she's either going to ride in the bus lane or take 3rd Ave for
> self -preservation.
I agree completely with damyth. Cyclists are not enlisted foot
soldiers. We should not be asked to march - or roll - into danger for
some supposed greater good.
- Frank Krygowski
Ben C
Euro commuters on sit-up-and-begs do about 20kph. Bike-doping is
becoming very popular in NL but they still go at about 20, just with
less effort.
30kph is definitely more of a lycra-clad sort of speed.
Peter Cole
Tim McNamara
<87b1153c-1430-4f74...@h7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 9:09 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> > > ... There are some good bike lanes, but all the sinage and stuff
> > > is a spectacular waste, and with the crushing debt this city is
> > > facing, I'm thinking of voting Republican. -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > Won't help. Republicans have become democrat now, spend spend spend
> > until all their pals and relatives have their fill.
> >
> > See you at the Tea Party.
>
> I could never attend. Even before I get to the confusing philosophy
> ("Keep the government out of my medicare!"), the dress requirements
> alone baffle me.
>
> I mean, am I supposed to dress like a Native American, as in the
> original tea party? Or wear a red, white & blue top hat? It's too
> confusing!
Dress codes are always a challenge.
> I'm NOT going to go dressed like this
> http://www.eccoffee.com/teaparty.jpg
> no matter how high my taxes get!
There's always the Cocoa Party.
(PeteCresswell)
>Not sure if being lycra clad has a direct relation here though - except
>that I guess I would ride slower to prevent the chafing without the
>lycra shorts.
I've done a few coastdown tests and would say it is quite
significant.
Lycra bike shorts, riding shirt vs cargo shorts and a baggy
shirt: beeeeeeg diff.
--
PeteCresswell
Frank Krygowski
Agreed. Loose clothing is like a parachute, and most of what you're
fighting, except on uphills, is air resistance. You don't need a
parachute. If you're just puttering along, it's less important, of
course.
But even the 5% to 10% uphill on my way home from work feels
noticeably easier with a tailwind. I'm certainly not going fast on
that hill, but I am in my normal casual dress work clothes.
- Frank Krygowski
Tom Sherman °_°
A third party that actually represents the interests of more than the
richest 1% of the population is needed.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
...the elites, lurking in the shadows behind a neutered
government, squeeze the vast majority of citizens, workers,
and students, moving their jobs overseas, foreclosing on their
homes, looting their savings, stealing their hopes and dreams.
- Lewis Seiler & Dan Hamburg
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> I'm NOT going to go dressed like this
> http://www.eccoffee.com/teaparty.jpg
> no matter how high my taxes get!
>
crash protection?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Sep 26, 10:07 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> On 9/26/2010 9:11 PM, dustoyev...@mac.com aka TP wrote:> On Sep 26, 5:13 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
>>> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Two-wheel recumbents are a subset of bicycles.
>>
>>> Maybe to some people they are.
>>
>> Like the people who set the standard for the English language. Please
>> keep up.
>
> OK: "Recumbents suck donkey dick".
>
> (Or, as my Grammar 360K instructor was rightly fond of saying: "You
> knew what he meant")
>
>>> This is a sometimes crowded, narrow bikepath. A mixture of speeds is
>>> one of the problems and going fast(est) is not any kind of a
>>> "solution".
>>
>> Sounds like the roads are a better place to ride, eh?
>
> B, C... are you Canadian, too?
>
Yup. (Canadian-USian)
> Not in Houston they aren't, especially if you're going solo. Nasty bad
> attitudes + a weapon they know they can get away with using, and in
> complete safety.
>
> Several times during my time there, I read of MV-bike accidents
> involving fatalities. For example, the one where some asshole coming
> off the highway plowed into a group of riders travelling on a frontage
> road, killed one or two outright, injured three or four more quite
> severely, and did not even get a ticket.
>
> Reality check for Tom Sherman, vehicular 'bent rider.
>
That is the fault of people being willing to live in Houston.
> As usual, I do not recognize the supposed superiority of the 'bent,
> Tom. But, if you want to ride one, go ahead, in peace, knowing I will
> never post shit-disturbing comments on any 'bent forums or otherwise
> bother with 'bents unless someone else starts it first.
>
> You understood what I meant that time, too.
>
This is rec.bicycles.tech, not rec.UCIlegalbicycles.tech,
rec.uprightbicycles.tech, etc.
>>> This it Texas, I could have just got a license and started carrying a
>>> Desert Eagle on my hip...
>
>> That only encourages others to shoot first without warning.
>
> No shit, Sherlock! Keep going...
>[...]
Or the cagers make sure the run you over properly in case you are armed.
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> In my experience the biggest benefit from bike lanes and trip time
> occurs during urban rush hours when a bicycle-only lane becomes like a
> "HOV" lane, allowing you to bypass most of the gridlock.
What is gridlock?
When I commute 5 miles by infernal combustion powered steel cage, it
takes me 7 to 8 minutes, without violating any traffic laws.
AMuzi
Polls out today seem to show that Americans:
Like Obama
Distrust Obama, plan to not vote for him in '12
Dislike and distrust Republicans
Plan to vote for them in November and in '12
WTF? How about a dozen parties? And pass the psychiatric
pills [1].
[1] assuming our high tap water levels of those are yet
insufficient.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
AMuzi
Smart woman. Well considered and pithy page.
AMuzi
Oh, Frank, used dresses are about ten bucks. See you on
Halloween.
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > "Sharrows", bike route signs, etc., are not as much for cyclists as
> > for motorists who have trouble with the concept of sharing the roads
> > with others.
>
>
> http://ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategorized/2010/09/share-the-road-stinks/
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/24ehjmj
>
> The League of American Bicyclists' officers need to have this pounded
> into their heads, to replace their paint & path mentality.
It's not "share" as in "pretty please, will you share what you have
with me?" It's "share" as in, "you get your share, and I get mine".
Contextually, I think that's clear, especially when it's bundled with
safe passing laws and a modicum of enforcement.
If there is a flaw with this sort of consciousness-raising effort,
it's that enforcement-- the stick of the carrot-and-stick dyad-- is so
lackadaisical in most places. (Of course, depending on law
enforcement officers to help raise people's consciousness is a little
like depending on a barnyard pig to help teach calculus. They don't
have much of their own to offer.)
Chalo
kolldata
Tom Sherman °_°
> MY MOTHER STOLE MY ACE BANDAGE !
>
kolldata
I lived in BIKELANELAND for ten years BIKE PATHS !
but the paths were either hurricane escape route footage
or footers for the 3 lane highway.
The paths are a boon for LBS and retirees. Stimuli plus for the local
economy.
Lanes, thru state mandate, run thru intersections WHERE CYCLISTS ARE
ROUTINELY RUN DOWN
WHY WHY WHY ?
well because 1) they're stupid, 2) the driver was aggresive and
criminal and 3) the cyclists was wearing black or a derririivitve
shade.
So ? yawl spent 5 mill on bike lanes and the dumb fucks are run down
caws no one esp senile old farts can see them.
does this happen in Austin ?
Jay Beattie
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > Chalo wrote:
>
> > > "Sharrows", bike route signs, etc., are not as much for cyclists as
> > > for motorists who have trouble with the concept of sharing the roads
> > > with others.
>
> > Here is some legal writing on the "Share the Road" concept.
>
> >http://ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategorized/2010/09/share-the-road-stinks/
>
>
> > The League of American Bicyclists' officers need to have this pounded
> > into their heads, to replace their paint & path mentality.
>
> It's not "share" as in "pretty please, will you share what you have
> with me?" It's "share" as in, "you get your share, and I get mine".
> Contextually, I think that's clear, especially when it's bundled with
> safe passing laws and a modicum of enforcement.
>
> If there is a flaw with this sort of consciousness-raising effort,
> it's that enforcement-- the stick of the carrot-and-stick dyad-- is so
> lackadaisical in most places. (Of course, depending on law
> enforcement officers to help raise people's consciousness is a little
> like depending on a barnyard pig to help teach calculus. They don't
> have much of their own to offer.)
I'm climbing up these little, winding roads in the West Hills that are
hardly more than goat trails, and I need a sharrow? They don't
establish right of way AFAIK. It's just this feel good thing -- or
route marker. The City has established all of these official bike
routes -- routes to where I don't know, but they're routes all right!
-- Jay Beattie.
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Polls out today seem to show that Americans:
> Like Obama
> Distrust Obama, plan to not vote for him in '12
He's disappointed many, especially with the special-interest-fueled
healthcare non-reform which showed clearly that lobbyists have clout and
the public doesn't. And most aren't sure whether his continuation of
Bush policies vis a vis the economic stimulus was a good idea.
> Dislike and distrust Republicans
> Plan to vote for them in November and in '12
The nice thing about the Republicans is that they are bald-faced in
their con artistry. When all the cards are down, there's nothing left
to see.
> WTF? How about a dozen parties? And pass the psychiatric
> pills [1].
>
> [1] assuming our high tap water levels of those are yet
> insufficient.
LOL!
kolldata
fields green green green cows manure pigs creeks (3) hill woods
herbicide more manure then back downas finishing the loop went down
into manureville.
NO bike lanes. A thn tire rider went past in the opposites lane
middle. Wearing dull clothing.
Wearing a yellow frame and daygloorange T, with fat tires I rode on
the fine gravelly berm when vehicles approached from the rear and
further when both lanes ahd converging vehicles.
THAT's a rational answer.
Duane Hebert
That was a bit tongue in cheek. I fought the lycra for
a long time but eventually gave in. I had a I've not done any
tests but I would say that the cycling clothes help.
Especially the jerseys and jackets to break the wind resistance.
I was thinking about that just last night riding home in the rain <g>
dgk
<twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>On 9/27/2010 3:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> [...]
>> I'm NOT going to go dressed like this
>> http://www.eccoffee.com/teaparty.jpg
>> no matter how high my taxes get!
>>
>How does that head gear compare to the standard bicycle foam hat for
>crash protection?
Two surfers at my beach are now wearing helmets, most likely on
doctors' orders. I feel certain that it isn't a fashion statement. If
we're very lucky you can perhaps spot one:
http://www.surfline.com/surf-report/rockaway-beach-90th-northeast-hdcam_4270/
Probably not today, but by Saturday we're expecting overhead waves so
there's a good chance of seeing them. They're very good surfers and
love those hurricane waves. Me, I suck at it, so I just watch when
waves get that big.
I wear a big floppy green hat at the request of my dermatologist,
which is both practical in my case (those little carcinomas) and sort
of an anti-fashion statement. Several other surfers also wear floppy
hats, most likely for the same reason I do. I wouldn't know what to
wear if I had a history of concussions and little carcinomas, probably
a floppy green helmet.
Hats may be worn for many reasons. My dad once (eeks, 45 years ago!)
took me to somewhere near Canal Street where I was treated to two fine
hats. I never wore them but still have them in my closet. Maybe it's
time to break them out.