Once bicycles are outlawed . . .
carl...@comcast.net
The Denver Post
Posted: 06/15/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 06/15/2010 05:15:58 AM MDT
Jamie Webb thought maybe she was speeding when a police cruiser pulled
her and three friends over as they rode their bikes into Black Hawk
from Central City.
Actually, the crime was pedaling. She was violating Black Hawk's ban
on bicycling through town — the only such ban in Colorado.
"They said we had to walk through town. I think this sets a pretty bad
precedent," Webb said. "There's really no reason for it."
Webb was the first cyclist ticketed under Black Hawk's new rule, which
prohibits bike riding on nearly every street in town, including the
only paved thoroughfare in Black Hawk.
City Manager Mike Copp said the reason for the rule, enacted in
January, is safety.
The roads in Black Hawk are narrow and do not have shoulders. They
teem with tour buses and delivery trucks that feed the bustling
casinos. Demanding that those trucks provide 3 feet of space when
passing cyclists — as required by a 2009 Colorado law — means trucks
and buses must move into oncoming traffic, Copp said.
"We saw the conflicts going on with buses and with trucks, and we
decided to be proactive on this," Copp said, noting that no accidents
prodded the ban. "We don't want to be the city that knows we need a
traffic light but waited until someone gets killed. This is what our
city believes is best for its citizens, its businesses and its
guests."
But Webb said she has often ridden on shoulderless canyon roads and
has had no trouble with trucks.
"To say we all can't fit on the road together is ridiculous," she
said. "We are all moving so slow through Black Hawk anyway, it's not
like anyone is passing anyone."
After a period of issuing warnings, police this month began citing
cyclists. To date, the town has issued eight $68 tickets.
Cyclists using the road to connect to the popular ride along the Peak
to Peak Scenic Byway from Black Hawk to Estes Park are decrying the
ban, which forces them to walk their bikes a half-mile through town.
Another option is to ride over Berthoud Pass — but that excludes most
of the Peak to Peak Scenic Byway.
"This is unbelievable. We are going to do as much as we can to fight
this," said Rick Melick, spokesman for the 380-member Rocky Mountain
Cycling Club. "Now that cyclists have almost the same rules as
motorists, the idea a small town can ban bikes is ludicrous."
Since news of ticketing began trickling into the cycling community,
opposition is forming. A Facebook page called "Bicyclists and Tourists
Boycott Black Hawk Colorado" launched last week. The website
dismountblackhawk.com is peddling shirts protesting the ban. Bicycle
Colorado, a nonprofit dedicated to all things cycling in Colorado, is
fomenting a grassroots push to get Black Hawk to overturn the ban.
"They are singling out one classification of vehicle," said Charlie
Henderson, president of the Rocky Mountain Cycling Club. "I wonder if
motorcycles will be next."
Black Hawk officials expected the uproar. And they are not going to
revisit the rules, Copp said.
"Our council looks at what they think is best for its citizens, for
its businesses, which in this case are casinos, and its visitors,
which are patrons that come to visit the casinos," Copp said. "We have
had positive feedback from citizens, casinos and our guests."
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15298056
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
N8N
> Bicyclists want to derail Black Hawk's ban By Jason Blevins
> The Denver Post
> Posted: 06/15/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
> Updated: 06/15/2010 05:15:58 AM MDT
<snip>
> The roads in Black Hawk are narrow and do not have shoulders. They
> teem with tour buses and delivery trucks that feed the bustling
> casinos. Demanding that those trucks provide 3 feet of space when
> passing cyclists — as required by a 2009 Colorado law — means trucks
> and buses must move into oncoming traffic, Copp said.
>
> "We saw the conflicts going on with buses and with trucks, and we
> decided to be proactive on this," Copp said, noting that no accidents
> prodded the ban. "We don't want to be the city that knows we need a
> traffic light but waited until someone gets killed. This is what our
> city believes is best for its citizens, its businesses and its
> guests."
<snip>
> Black Hawk officials expected the uproar. And they are not going to
> revisit the rules, Copp said.
>
> "Our council looks at what they think is best for its citizens, for
> its businesses, which in this case are casinos, and its visitors,
> which are patrons that come to visit the casinos," Copp said. "We have
> had positive feedback from citizens, casinos and our guests."
> http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15298056
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
So I guess there aren't any sidewalks, either? sounds like a hell
hole and best avoided. I guess they don't want any visitors who use
any other form of transportation other than a motor vehicle. Well, I
guess I don't need to visit there.
I guess those casinos must not provide enough tax revenue to allow for
what sounds like some long overdue infrastructure improvements? One
has to wonder what happens when a car or truck breaks down on the
roads under discussion.
nate
MikeWhy
The answer seems simple and obvious: a bike route around the congestion.
Every other municipality seems able to do so. Isn't there a state or county
highway through that horse town?
AMuzi
>>> Bicyclists want to derail Black Hawk's ban By Jason Blevins
>>> The Denver Post
>>> Posted: 06/15/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
>>> Updated: 06/15/2010 05:15:58 AM MDT
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> The roads in Black Hawk are narrow and do not have shoulders. They
>>> teem with tour buses and delivery trucks that feed the bustling
>>> casinos. Demanding that those trucks provide 3 feet of space when
>>> passing cyclists — as required by a 2009 Colorado law — means trucks
>>> and buses must move into oncoming traffic, Copp said.
>>>
>>> "We saw the conflicts going on with buses and with trucks, and we
>>> decided to be proactive on this," Copp said, noting that no accidents
>>> prodded the ban. "We don't want to be the city that knows we need a
>>> traffic light but waited until someone gets killed. This is what our
>>> city believes is best for its citizens, its businesses and its
>>> guests."
>>> Black Hawk officials expected the uproar. And they are not going to
>>> revisit the rules, Copp said.
>>> "Our council looks at what they think is best for its citizens, for
>>> its businesses, which in this case are casinos, and its visitors,
>>> which are patrons that come to visit the casinos," Copp said. "We
>>> have had positive feedback from citizens, casinos and our guests."
>>> http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15298056
> N8N wrote:
>> So I guess there aren't any sidewalks, either? sounds like a hell
>> hole and best avoided. I guess they don't want any visitors who use
>> any other form of transportation other than a motor vehicle. Well, I
>> guess I don't need to visit there.
>> I guess those casinos must not provide enough tax revenue to allow for
>> what sounds like some long overdue infrastructure improvements? One
>> has to wonder what happens when a car or truck breaks down on the
>> roads under discussion.
MikeWhy wrote:
> The answer seems simple and obvious: a bike route around the congestion.
> Every other municipality seems able to do so. Isn't there a state or
> county highway through that horse town?
How would one bicycle to the casino downtown when one is
shunted to an exurban detour?
No craps! No tax revenue!
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Andre Jute
Enthusiasm...
The Black Hawk "solution" to cyclists slowing down traffic is
wonderfully counterproductive -- make the cyclists walk! Didn't it
occur to these managerial geniuses that a walking cyclist must still
be given three feet of space, that therefore a walking cyclist is
slower than a cycling cyclist and will hold up the traffic even more?
Andre Jute
Laughing hysterically
MikeWhy
Why, a well lit and secured bicycle lockup adjacent to the new bike path
would seem to be the solution for all sides. A manicured park and garden
with comfortable seating might entice me to pause in my travels and spend
some money. The congestion can be a thorn in the community's growth, or
village elders can embrace it as a sign of burgeoning prosperity. Either
way, the problem will right itself shortly.
Jay Beattie
For those who have never seen the place: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=2992111
One of the places in Colorado that I have actually been -- and on a
canyon road that is a real climb-a-rama. Poor Central City up the
street is getting its gambling revenue sucked dry by Black Hawk.
As I recall, the traffic through Black Hawk was so slow that I doubt
the cyclists (who have to be fit enought to make the climb) are either
blocking traffic or subject to any great safety risk. There is no
more risk riding through Black Hawk than riding through any other
destination resort.
I think the RV and gambling bus denizens with their walkers and O2
tanks are just anxious to get to the slots and think the cyclists are
in the way. -- Jay Beattie.
(PeteCresswell)
>Actually, the crime was pedaling. She was violating Black Hawk's ban
>on bicycling through town — the only such ban in Colorado.
>
>"They said we had to walk through town. I think this sets a pretty bad
>precedent," Webb said. "There's really no reason for it."
>
>Webb was the first cyclist ticketed under Black Hawk's new rule, which
>prohibits bike riding on nearly every street in town, including the
>only paved thoroughfare in Black Hawk.
>
It kind of hung together until they said it was ok to walk, but
not to ride.
--
PeteCresswell
z, fred
The newest form of critical mass: walking your bike through town.
damyth
I'm actually pleasantly surprised about how transparent and direct the
Black Hawk city council is. They leave no doubt which business
interests they serve. In politics I'd expect some couched language or
verbiage that beats around the bush to obfuscate the real motives of
the movers and shakers.
I looked at the street view of Black Hawk on google maps. The speed
limit on city streets is 25mph. Granted there are hills. But even if
bicyclists blocked traffic, how much would cars or buses be impeded?
I suspect it's more likely that the city council is worried about
bicyclists (going downhill) clipping the doddering geriatric/retired
clientèle of casinos as they attempt to cross the street, say from
behind a bus.
slide
added rule will outlaw this.
I think this group's members fail to understand how angry cagers are at
being slowed by bicycles. It's a real fight here made worse by ad hoc CM
riders who use the law that they can ride anywhere to 'take the lane' on
busy arteries during rush times.
The relations between cage and bicycles here are terrible as I expect
they were in Blackhawk.
devel...@osoftollc.com
So true. It'd be horrible to drive the speed limit or 3 or 4 mph
less, absolutely horrible.
One time I was driving and this guy was going a total of 5 mph less on
the freeway. He was going 65mph!!!! I couldn't believe it.
The obvious solution everyone is missing is to rid the roads of
everyone to keep them very clear and safe. Noone is allowed to walk,
stand, be within 3 feet of, or look menacingly towards, at, on,
around, or near roads.
-Antoni
dusto...@mac.com
> Black Hawk officials expected the uproar. And they are not going to
> revisit the rules, Copp said.
>
> "Our council looks at what they think is best for its citizens, for
> its businesses, which in this case are casinos, and its visitors,
> which are patrons that come to visit the casinos," Copp said. "We have
> had positive feedback from citizens, casinos and our guests."
> http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15298056
Could be there are state laws that supersede local. Which of course
means that, at least for a time, you can still get hassled (probably
jailed incl.) for riding.
Meanwhile, there's a saying I learned when I came to Texas:
"Don't go where you're not wanted".
The boycott is a joke both in economic impact (nil) and for serving
the interests of the town council (keeping bikes out of town or at
least off the roads in town).
So, going to Blackhawk? Bring your walkin' shoes, make sure to use the
public facilities at least once after consuming your carried-in lunch,
etc. etc. and be cool.
Yes, the up to Central City is a steep one.
--D-y
Peter Cole
I don't know where your "here" is, but in mine (Boston), things are
pretty prickly between cyclists and drivers, too. The range of proposed
ameliorations runs from bans/restrictions to accommodation via
facilities -- fortunately the latter seems to be gaining ground over the
former.
Confrontational tactics (CM) may or may not be helpful, I don't know,
but there's clearly a long history in our democracy of the politics of
confrontation and protest. The marches and demonstrations of the civil
rights era certainly also increased friction and conflict in the short
term, but in the end seemed to be instrumental in effecting change. The
comparison may be imperfect, but there's no question that the tactic in
general is a traditional one.
Frank Krygowski
>
> I suspect it's more likely that the city council is worried about
> bicyclists (going downhill) clipping the doddering geriatric/retired
> clientèle of casinos as they attempt to cross the street, say from
> behind a bus.
But obviously, they're not worried about the much greater danger of an
automobile clipping those same folks in the same situation!
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> It's a real fight here made worse by ad hoc CM
> riders who use the law that they can ride anywhere to 'take the lane' on
> busy arteries during rush times.
So if you're riding in a substandard width lane - say, one that's 9'
wide - where do you ride? Do you bounce along in the gutter as
motorists' mirrors graze your elbow?
- Frank Krygowski
N8N
Presumably they feel that the number of cyclists that *would* a) ride
through and b) stop and contribute to the local economy is small
enough that they can alienate them with impunity.
The sad thing is, they're probably right.
Were I of more of a progressive bent, I might make an argument then
for state-wide legislation mandating that all new roads or major
renovations include wide shoulders and/or sidewalks to accomodate
pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic within the limits of areas with a
certain population density...
As it is, I just don't patronize businesses in areas that piss me off,
but that really does nothing much other than making me personally feel
better about my choices.
nate
MikeWhy
The real trouble is that this is a state highway, funded by the people of
Colorado. Passing a local ordinance denying fair use to a class of vehicles
likely is well beyond their purview. I think we don't have the full story.
AMuzi
In USA there is about 1% more road than 15 years ago but
about 30% more auto miles driven. It's no wonder the 'lure
of the open highway' holds less charm. Cyclists become just
that one last straw for some who were probably edgy anyway.
I have no answer, just noting that I drive almost never, an
activity I once very much enjoyed.
Dan O
>
> I think this group's members fail to understand how angry cagers are at
> being slowed by bicycles.
>
Only those who don't actually Ride Bike in any traffic. I think the
record will show my constant (if not quite "banana" level)
observations of cagers' ample hostility.
Dan O
I should add that my answer to people who complain of being slowed by
bicyclists is that they should put two little digital timers in their
car, and use one to track how many minutes they are delayed by
bicyclists, and the other to track how many minutes they are delayed
by other cagers.
dusto...@mac.com
Which might in the fulness of time include a nice heft lawsuit or two,
going after some of the mighty profits from the casinos <g>.
(I haven't been to Central City since 1972, but it was a one-bar town
back then).
--D-y
slide
>
> So true. It'd be horrible to drive the speed limit or 3 or 4 mph
> less, absolutely horrible.
>
> One time I was driving and this guy was going a total of 5 mph less on
> the freeway. He was going 65mph!!!! I couldn't believe it.
>
> The obvious solution everyone is missing is to rid the roads of
> everyone to keep them very clear and safe. Noone is allowed to walk,
> stand, be within 3 feet of, or look menacingly towards, at, on,
> around, or near roads.
>
Sneer all you wish, but that's how cagers feel. They are many; we are few.
Also it isn't a few mph. The road near me moves at about 45 mph usually.
I often see a bicycle doing 8 mph taking a lane. Even if the bicycle was
doing 20 mph, it'd be a major impediment.
Seeing your attitude makes me realize how much we're hated by cagers and
why.
slide
>
> Confrontational tactics (CM) may or may not be helpful, I don't know,
> but there's clearly a long history in our democracy of the politics of
> confrontation and protest. The marches and demonstrations of the civil
> rights era certainly also increased friction and conflict in the short
> term, but in the end seemed to be instrumental in effecting change. The
> comparison may be imperfect, but there's no question that the tactic in
> general is a traditional one.
I'm in New Mexico. I don't see how CM helps anything. To me, it'd be
like a bunch of cagers doing their own version of CM by taking a hammer
to any bicycle they find parked at a rack.
Will WE sympathized with THEIR POV in that case? I think not.
slide
easy alternative routes suited to bicycle rates but many of the local
riders here demand they assert their 'rights' to travel 10 mph taking a
lane in an arterial which usually runs at least 45 mph.
I'd say it's rare (at least) that in an urban setting there isn't an
alternative route which would avoid annoying cagers.
slide
Let's get real here. Cagers just do not like being impeded and making a
wise crack about digital timers will only annoy them more.
They outnumber us, what, 500:1? Sneering at the 500 by the 1 will not
placate the 500.
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I should add that my answer to people who complain of being slowed by
> bicyclists is that they should put two little digital timers in their
> car, and use one to track how many minutes they are delayed by
> bicyclists, and the other to track how many minutes they are delayed
> by other cagers.
Agreed. I'm positive that when riding my bike in traffic, I'm delayed
by motorists more than motorists are delayed by me.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> The road near me moves at about 45 mph usually.
> I often see a bicycle doing 8 mph taking a lane. Even if the bicycle was
> doing 20 mph, it'd be a major impediment.
Although I don't know your road, I doubt a cyclist is really a "major
impediment" in any practical sense.
Slowing from 45 to 8 mph is a major change in speed, certainly; but
it's not a major loss in time. In most such situations, the actual
delay of the motorist might be just ten or fifteen seconds, until a
passing opportunity comes up. That's not "major" by any stretch.
I recall riding in a crowded city where motorists had to wait a few
seconds to pass me. They eventually got a space, roared around, then
stopped for the red light half a block later, with me directly behind
them. Net time lost? Zero.
And even if they were delayed by a full 60 seconds, which I've never
seen - what are they going to do with that time? It just makes no
difference in their lives.
This is the weirdest part of driving psychology. Somehow, motorists
think every second of delay is critical. But as I was saying to a
harried friend who was giving me a ride recently, "It doesn't
matter... We're not in a hurry... It doesn't matter..."
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 6/16/2010 9:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:> On Jun 16, 9:06 am, slide<dryadsdadx...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> It's a real fight here made worse by ad hoc CM
> >> riders who use the law that they can ride anywhere to 'take the lane' on
> >> busy arteries during rush times.
>
> > So if you're riding in a substandard width lane - say, one that's 9'
> > wide - where do you ride? Do you bounce along in the gutter as
> > motorists' mirrors graze your elbow?
>
> You find an alternate route.
In other words, you'd pretend a bicyclist has no right to use that
road?
> In the cases I"m talking about there are
> easy alternative routes suited to bicycle rates but many of the local
> riders here demand they assert their 'rights' to travel 10 mph taking a
> lane in an arterial which usually runs at least 45 mph.
In the case I'm talking about, the only alternate route would be
taking roundabout residential streets, cutting behind the school
building, riding down the steep walking path into the woods, using the
gravel path to the pedestrian bridge crossing the creek, riding more
winding residential streets, etc. Almost no cyclists would even know
such a route exists, and most would have to walk the gravel bits
anyway.
I can't see delaying myself the five minutes that takes, in order to
save a couple motorists 15 seconds each. They can wait to pass me,
just as they would any other slow moving vehicle.
> I'd say it's rare (at least) that in an urban setting there isn't an
> alternative route which would avoid annoying cagers.
Depends on the location. In old grid-layout cities, you may be right,
and I generally prefer quieter streets when I can find them. But in
even the 1950s suburbs, street layouts are often sparse and tangled,
in a deliberate strategy to prevent cut-through traffic.
I understand the reasoning, but it typically leaves no alternate
routes for cyclists or pedestrians. If I'm going to ride there, I've
got to use my right to the road. And I'm long past worrying about
annoying self-important cagers who want to get home to their
televisions. Let them learn patience.
- Frank Krygowski
(PeteCresswell)
>Slowing from 45 to 8 mph is a major change in speed, certainly; but
>it's not a major loss in time. In most such situations, the actual
>delay of the motorist might be just ten or fifteen seconds, until a
>passing opportunity comes up. That's not "major" by any stretch.
It might depend on traffic density.
Around here (near a major city: Philadelphia), a slow-moving
vehicle can back up rush-hour traffic for what seems like miles.
("seems like" bc I haven't measured it.... but it is definitely a
significant loss of time)
--
PeteCresswell
Hugh Fenton
"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db1335fc-89e1-45dc...@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Melbourne, Australia's traffic lights now have many "bicycle boxes" - where
you roll up past the cars stopped at a red light and sit in a specially
marked area in front of all the traffic waiting for the lights to turn
green. My record is now being angrily passed 5 times by an 18 year old on a
provisional licence - and each time cruising past him at yet another set of
lights.
For my own safety I tried to hide my smug look.
Hugh Fenton
Dan O
It's not a wisecrack - nor do I don't expect they should actually
install and use timers (unless they really want to); they shouldn't
have to in order to consider for a moment the real source of their
"delay" frustration. I just want them to consider how much of their
precious time is actually consumed waiting on account of *all* the
other cagers vs. how much of their time is consumed waiting for
bicyclists. (Bonus points if they then consider that my bike means
one less car, and maybe *more* people should Ride Bike... Bonus bonus
if they then consider that being trapped in their cage unable to
maneuver past obstacles is their own choice and maybe *they* should
Ride Bike :-)
> They outnumber us, what, 500:1?
My point exactly.
> Sneering at the 500 by the 1 will not
> placate the 500.
I'm not sneering - just asking for due respect and maybe a little
understanding along the way. (I am not out to placate them, though,
either.)
Dan O
They *DO* have their own version of CM - every fucking day at 7:00 and
17:00; and no, I don't sympathize with their POV on that.
(PeteCresswell)
> My record is now being angrily passed 5 times by an 18 year old on a
>provisional licence - and each time cruising past him at yet another set of
>lights.
Long long ago and far far away, we were shown an indoctrination
movie on driving.
In the movie they never actually *said* to do or not to do
anything.
There were two people in it: one guy was chewing a cigar,
obviously in a hurry, and positioned like/sounded like he was
driving a 'Vette.
Other guy was sitting bolt upright, looked a little dorky, and
seemed tb driving a Model-T.
The movie consisted of the first guy burning out of a light,
pedal-to-the-metal; followed by the second guy, just chugging
along - who always caught up with him at the next light....
over-and-over again.
For my money, it was the most effective driver training move I've
ever seen - not that I've seen very many.... but the message
*really* got through... and stuck.
--
PeteCresswell
slide
You have the right of it (Frank note this). I know this is something
difficult to discuss when I'm thinking of a few specifics but we need to
remain in the realm of the general case.
Here and in some other arteries, the traffic flow is extremely heavy.
Throttling the 3 lanes (three in each direction) down to 2 causes a
major backup as cages jockey for position to merge. It ends up looking
like the bicyclist is a rock with water being flowed around in a fast
moving stream.
It's scary and dangerous for traffic going 45 mph to suddenly slow to 20
mph during the merge and pass operation. My gripe is that many
bicyclists here DEMAND the lane when they could proceed just as rapidly
on parallel side streets. That is the bicycle moving at 10 mph isn't
impeded in the 25 mph speed limit on parallel roads but the 45 mph car is.
I find this same arrogance here. Respondents sneer at cages losing some
time to destination but feel sympathy with the bicyclist who won't lose
any of his time.
slide
impede your progress? Suggest you look up 'paranoia'.
slide
> On Jun 17, 11:15 am, slide<dryadsdadx...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 6/16/2010 9:27 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:> On Jun 16, 9:06 am, slide<dryadsdadx...@xxxxyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> It's a real fight here made worse by ad hoc CM
>>>> riders who use the law that they can ride anywhere to 'take the lane' on
>>>> busy arteries during rush times.
>>
>>> So if you're riding in a substandard width lane - say, one that's 9'
>>> wide - where do you ride? Do you bounce along in the gutter as
>>> motorists' mirrors graze your elbow?
>>
>> You find an alternate route.
>
> In other words, you'd pretend a bicyclist has no right to use that
> road?
No. I think it silly to push the 'right' when it means lack of
consideration. We demand they live with us and show courtesy to our
concerns. We must reciprocate.
Since there are parallel routes which will not slow the bicyclist down
but will get him out of heavy fast moving cage traffic, I say we should
use these unless nothing else is available.
>
>> In the cases I"m talking about there are
>> easy alternative routes suited to bicycle rates but many of the local
>> riders here demand they assert their 'rights' to travel 10 mph taking a
>> lane in an arterial which usually runs at least 45 mph.
>
> In the case I'm talking about, the only alternate route would be
> taking roundabout residential streets, cutting behind the school
> building, riding down the steep walking path into the woods, using the
> gravel path to the pedestrian bridge crossing the creek, riding more
> winding residential streets, etc. Almost no cyclists would even know
> such a route exists, and most would have to walk the gravel bits
> anyway.
>
> I can't see delaying myself the five minutes that takes, in order to
> save a couple motorists 15 seconds each. They can wait to pass me,
> just as they would any other slow moving vehicle.
Neither of us really knows the other's specifics. You need to make peace
with your local cages and police. I don't see CM or taking lanes and
impeding the 99% in cages to the convenience of the 1% on bicycles as a
way to detente.
>
>
> Depends on the location. In old grid-layout cities, you may be right,
> and I generally prefer quieter streets when I can find them. But in
> even the 1950s suburbs, street layouts are often sparse and tangled,
> in a deliberate strategy to prevent cut-through traffic.
>
> I understand the reasoning, but it typically leaves no alternate
> routes for cyclists or pedestrians. If I'm going to ride there, I've
> got to use my right to the road. And I'm long past worrying about
> annoying self-important cagers who want to get home to their
> televisions. Let them learn patience.
>
I live in a grid city and was thinking specifically about that sort of
layout. I am familiar with the semi circle layout of some suburban
housing areas and will 100% agree with you that in those cases, the
bicyclist has no reasonable alternative to riding in the arterial roadway.
slide
Perhaps you are. Perhaps you ride at a rate of, say, 20 mph which is a
huge gap over the 8 mph I've seen many ride in the artery roadways which
prompted me to chime in on this thread.
I often see bicyclists riding say, 20 mph and faster. These guys never
seem to generate the anger I see in the cagers because their rate is, if
not full cage rate, at least fast enough that traffic can flow around
them easily PLUS if you are stuck behind for a while, a cage going 20
mph is ok while one going 8 mph is annoying to the cager.
We can't separate bicycle rates from the discussion. I have no gripe
with a bicyclist going 20+ mph on any non-freeway roadway. The issue is
the guy going 8 mph or even less on the same roadway.
Dan O
Obviously I prefer the roads less used by cagers and their CM
rituals. I even go out of my way to use such routes. But
occasionally circumstances put me where it would be unduly
inconvenient to go out my way to use (or look for) a better route.
And I do not want to go through life feeling like I have to stay clear
away from that part of the playground because the bully might see me.
I'm not involved in CM, and I think that many of the participants miss
the point and go about it for the wrong reasons and thus kind of give
the wrong message. The point of CM, I think, should be to merely make
the cagers reflect for moment about that 500 to 1 thing you were
talking about elsewhere in this thread, and about how ridiculous it is
to clog up the roads the way they do, get mad about it, and feel all
entitled about it at the same time.
Dan O
Hey, I'm not part of that scene, man. They don't impede my progress
so much - intentionally or otherwise. I choose to live out of the
cage and can maneuver through and around their clusterhump with
relative ease. *They*, however, choose their poison, stew in it, and
then misdirect their resultant hostility.
Peter Cole
I don't see the comparison. CM rides don't seem to involve destruction
of property.
CM'ers like to call the rides "celebrations", not "protests". Whatever.
I think the idea of addressing your minority status by displays of
numbers is a tried and true tactic. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy
for motorists being inconvenienced by groups of cyclists. Almost any
time I ride in the city I'm inconvenienced by groups of motorists. I
guess some people find it fun to turn the tables once a month. I can
understand the impulse, although I don't have much interest in joining
in. As to it being a good or bad thing for cycling, I don't know for
sure, but I'd tend to believe it's a good thing overall, even with the
short-term backlash.
Frank Krygowski
> On 6/17/2010 9:17 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> I'm positive that when riding my bike in traffic, I'm delayed
> > by motorists more than motorists are delayed by me.
>
> Perhaps you are. Perhaps you ride at a rate of, say, 20 mph which is a
> huge gap over the 8 mph I've seen many ride in the artery roadways which
> prompted me to chime in on this thread.
>
> I often see bicyclists riding say, 20 mph and faster. These guys never
> seem to generate the anger I see in the cagers because their rate is, if
> not full cage rate, at least fast enough that traffic can flow around
> them easily PLUS if you are stuck behind for a while, a cage going 20
> mph is ok while one going 8 mph is annoying to the cager.
A few years ago, I typically rode flat terrain at about 19 to 20 mph.
I'm a few mph slower now. Of course, I'm slower when climbing and
faster when descending.
But I don't see that as particularly relevant. We are, supposedly, a
nation of laws. AFAIK, all 50 states give a bicyclist a right to use
the road. That right is not contingent on some minimum speed. And
indeed, everyone needs to remember that the speed limit is an _upper_
limit, not a lower one. Few if any non-limited-access roads have
minimum speed limits.
> We can't separate bicycle rates from the discussion. I have no gripe
> with a bicyclist going 20+ mph on any non-freeway roadway. The issue is
> the guy going 8 mph or even less on the same roadway.
It's legal. The delay he causes is minimal, less than that caused by
a few motorists dozing after the light turns green. I'd suggest
switching to the "easy listening" station and relaxing.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Here and in some other arteries, the traffic flow is extremely heavy.
> Throttling the 3 lanes (three in each direction) down to 2 causes a
> major backup as cages jockey for position to merge. It ends up looking
> like the bicyclist is a rock with water being flowed around in a fast
> moving stream.
>
> It's scary and dangerous for traffic going 45 mph to suddenly slow to 20
> mph during the merge and pass operation. My gripe is that many
> bicyclists here DEMAND the lane when they could proceed just as rapidly
> on parallel side streets. That is the bicycle moving at 10 mph isn't
> impeded in the 25 mph speed limit on parallel roads but the 45 mph car is.
The situation you describe above isn't familiar to me. I've seen
major backups on freeways running at capacity, when some small delay
ripples back through the bumper-to-bumper fools. But as far as I can
tell, that backup is caused by an essentially infinite line of folks
following too close to adjust speed without braking.
By contrast, most urban traffic moves in packs or platoons, as
admitted by the traffic lights. IIRC, I've never seen a delay that
lasted longer than a traffic light cycle. The clear space at the back
of the platoon sweeps the delay clear, so to speak.
Think about that. So the presence of a bike on the road has the same
maximum effect as one more traffic light. How big a deal is that,
really? What would you do with the 30 seconds or one minute you save?
> I find this same arrogance here. Respondents sneer at cages losing some
> time to destination but feel sympathy with the bicyclist who won't lose
> any of his time.
Again, to be clear: I generally prefer quieter parallel roads. Most
cyclists do. But there are times there is no parallel route, and
there are times the cyclist needs to reach a destination that's on the
busy route. When that happens, he IS allowed to use that road. The
law says so.
The fact that motoring magnifies one's impatience (when it should make
one relax) should not matter. People should learn patience, and learn
to relax when they're driving. The minor delays really don't matter
to one's life - unless one is foolish enough to gnash one's teeth over
them.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
I came down the (steep downhill) highway off ramp one day, passing a
bunch of cars on the right as they queued up at the intersection,
hooked a hard right turn at the bottom onto the shoulder of the
intersecting road and rode on.
Some of the cars I'd passed then passed me back, then on up the hill,
then over the hill and down into the main part of town.
As I came down the hill and started gaining on them again, they were
really stacking up a lot more than usual as we approached the Safeway
parking lot. They often slow here as someone wants to turn into the
store, or use the crosswalk, etc., but this is a small town without
anything like real rush hour congestion to speak of.
As I started passing them back (and even some more cars that had
already been ahead in the first place), I began to wonder what was
their holdup. As I neared the front of the pack (looking carefully so
as not to get right hooked by somebody wanting to turn into Safeway),
I saw it: A little old lady - with flowery hat and everything, right
out of Mayberry - riding her trike right down the middle of main
street :-)
The thing is, though, in this particular small, remarkably friendly,
farming town, where everyone comes out together with lawn chairs on
the 4th of July, and high school kids working at the Dairy Queen are
hard working and courteous, I believe these drivers probably respected
her right to use the road.
Frank Krygowski
>
> As I neared the front of the pack (looking carefully so
> as not to get right hooked by somebody wanting to turn into Safeway),
> I saw it: A little old lady - with flowery hat and everything, right
> out of Mayberry - riding her trike right down the middle of main
> street :-)
>
> The thing is, though, in this particular small, remarkably friendly,
> farming town, where everyone comes out together with lawn chairs on
> the 4th of July, and high school kids working at the Dairy Queen are
> hard working and courteous, I believe these drivers probably respected
> her right to use the road.
That's a nice picture, in every way.
- Frank Krygowski
slide
It is and I once spent some time in a town so ideal that it seemed like
Hollywood fiction. After dinner time, the entire town either strolled
the streets or sat on front porches looking at or chatting with those on
the stroll. It was somewhere deep in Mormon country in rural Utah. The
entire experience of a town so open, friendly and *active* in the sense
of people interacting among houses nestled in the center of productive
fields remains with me today.
However, I live in a hard edged city where all who also dwell there are
anonymous units preferring to shun contact with even those proximate to
one's residence. To me, that place in Utah was some sort of fantasyland
while I live in reality.
Nate Nagel
When you have more people crammed into less space, people by necessity
become less social in an attempt to respect the little personal space
that others still maintain as they would have theirs respected. This is
part of the reason that I don't like cities. (Tokyo, for example, is an
extreme example of this. However, the people have politeness and
consideration down to a science, so while I might not choose to live
there, I found visiting there to not be anywhere near as disagreeable as
I would have expected, and in fact it was a quite enjoyable experience.
It did take a while to get used to stepping to the left of the
sidewalk as people were approaching in the opposite direction, however,
as obviously having lived my whole life in the US I've been doing
exactly the opposite...)
That said, I disagree that it is "utopian" to consider someone riding a
trike "down the middle of the street" acceptable behavior. It may be
technically legal (or not, depending on the area) but I'd consider
anything beyond the right wheel track rude and not playing nice with
others, unless she was deliberately taking the lane because it would
have been unsafe to pass, and/or the right portion of the lane was
unsuitable for riding. It is a credit to the politeness and patience of
the motorists that they weren't honking or yelling rude things, but not
much credit to the trike rider.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> That said, I disagree that it is "utopian" to consider someone riding a
> trike "down the middle of the street" acceptable behavior. It may be
> technically legal (or not, depending on the area) but I'd consider
> anything beyond the right wheel track rude and not playing nice with
> others, unless she was deliberately taking the lane because it would
> have been unsafe to pass, and/or the right portion of the lane was
> unsuitable for riding. It is a credit to the politeness and patience of
> the motorists that they weren't honking or yelling rude things, but not
> much credit to the trike rider.
Maybe we can work out the minimum lane width for safely sharing a lane
between a trike and a typical motor vehicle.
Care to try?
- Frank Krygowski
Nate Nagel
Not necessary. Laws can be changed to allow momentary crossing of a
double yellow when safe to do so for the purpose of passing a bicycle or
trike. Really, many roads that are striped with double yellows are done
so unnecessarily, to the point where some younger drivers quite possibly
have never seen a two-lane with passing zones (much to my frustration,
when third or fourth in line behind drivers who are obviously
uncomfortable passing...)
Michael Press
<1ad1290a-c777-41dd...@y18g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
Another law on the books: a slow vehicle must periodically
pull over to let faster traffic pass; typically when
five faster vehicles are stacked up behind.
--
Michael Press
Frank Krygowski
>
> Another law on the books: a slow vehicle must periodically
> pull over to let faster traffic pass; typically when
> five faster vehicles are stacked up behind.
>
IIRC, that's the law in some states, but not many. Not in mine, for
instance.
Still, I've done that pull-off when the situation justified it. But
for me, it's been necessary only rarely.
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Press
<2b6484f9-5afa-4d82...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 12:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > Another law on the books: a slow vehicle must periodically
> > pull over to let faster traffic pass; typically when
> > five faster vehicles are stacked up behind.
> >
>
> IIRC, that's the law in some states, but not many. Not in mine, for
> instance.
That is a fact?
You went through the vehicle code closely?
--
Michael Press
Dan O
> In article
> <2b6484f9-5afa-4d82-b98a-0c2399e95...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 12:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Another law on the books: a slow vehicle must periodically
> > > pull over to let faster traffic pass; typically when
> > > five faster vehicles are stacked up behind.
>
> > IIRC, that's the law in some states, but not many. Not in mine, for
> > instance.
>
> That is a fact?
> You went through the vehicle code closely?
>
I can see it now: Soundtrack from Dragnet as lights flash and siren
wails on squad car pulling over Aunt Bea riding her trike home from
the grocery - impatient motorists cheer contemptibly as they are now
allowed to rev their engines up to speed and blast unimpeded down main
street - uh-huh, sure :-)
Michael Press
<6fe2ad4d-aaee-4e19...@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
Oh ho. A satire on what I wrote.
Your Aunt Bea is the beneficiary of
Mayberry's good will. In return,
Aunt Bea can contribute to Mayberry's
store of good will by pulling over
from time to time.
--
Michael Press
Frank Krygowski
> In article
> <2b6484f9-5afa-4d82-b98a-0c2399e95...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Jun 19, 12:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Another law on the books: a slow vehicle must periodically
> > > pull over to let faster traffic pass; typically when
> > > five faster vehicles are stacked up behind.
>
> > IIRC, that's the law in some states, but not many. Not in mine, for
> > instance.
>
> That is a fact?
> You went through the vehicle code closely?
I went through Ohio's not long ago reviewing what might apply to
bicycles. I didn't spot it, if it's there.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
Michael Press
<607733ef-a246-47ce...@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
From the California Vehicle Code.
21654.
(a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any
vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than
the normal speed of traffic moving in the same
direction at such time shall be driven in the
right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking
and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same
direction or when preparing for a left turn at an
intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than
the normal speed of traffic moving in the same
direction at such time, and is not being driven in the
right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable
to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute
prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the
vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this
section.
21656.
On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because
of traffic in the opposite direction or other
conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a
passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles
are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the
nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected
by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway,
or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists,
in order to permit the vehicles following it to
proceed. As used in this section a slow-moving vehicle
is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than
the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.
Note that a slow moving vehicle need not pull over
unless it is a two lane road with unsafe passing,
--
Michael Press
Jay Beattie
> In article
> <607733ef-a246-47ce-a707-bb7cb2640...@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
the standard provision). There is also a UVC provision stating that a
vehicle may pass in a no-passing zone when "an obstruction or
condition exists
making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the roadway
provided that a
driver doing so shall yield the right of way to all vehicles traveling
in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the roadway
within a distance that would constitute an immediate hazarda vehicle
may cross a solid yellow line to get around an obstacle." At least
some police interpret that to mean that it is permissible to cross a
solid center line to pass a cyclist going substantially under the
speed limit -- like on a climb. Of course, the car can only go around
when it is safe to do so.
As a practical matter, a cyclist should ride as far right as is safe
and cars should pass when it is safe to do so. If the cyclist is
grinding up a hill with no place for safe passing and the cars are
stacking up, he or she better pull over. The same is true of any slow
moving vehicle -- e.g. cars, tractors, golf carts, etc. A bicyclist
has no greater right to tie up traffic than any other slow moving
vehicle. -- Jay Beattie.
Michael Press
<607733ef-a246-47ce...@k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ohio? They do not have such a provision.
They do require that people transporting
a load of Christmas trees must be able
to prove ownership and the legitimacy
of the cut trees.
--
Michael Press
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 3:32 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <2b6484f9-5afa-4d82-b98a-0c2399e95...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 19, 12:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Another law on the books: a slow vehicle must periodically
> > > > > pull over to let faster traffic pass; typically when
> > > > > five faster vehicles are stacked up behind.
>
> > > > IIRC, that's the law in some states, but not many. Not in mine, for
> > > > instance.
>
> > > That is a fact?
> > > You went through the vehicle code closely?
>
> > I went through Ohio's not long ago reviewing what might apply to
> > bicycles. I didn't spot it, if it's there.
>
> Ohio? They do not have such a provision.
> They do require that people transporting
> a load of Christmas trees must be able
> to prove ownership and the legitimacy
> of the cut trees.
Well, thank goodness they're protecting us from unauthorized Christmas
tree transportation!
Actually, our town has a guy who's a sort of ... um, unusual, high-
energy, go-getter entrepreneur type. A couple years ago he was
convicted of two separate instances of theft of standing timber from
city lots. He simply decided nobody cared about those old trees on
neighboring vacant lots, so he sawed them down to sell the lumber.
If someone saw him hauling Christmas trees, it would be reasonable to
pull him over and ask to see papers.
- Frank Krygowski
Michael Press
<efa03c3a-ba38-4ce8...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I should have quoted it. Here it is.
Chapter 4551: TRANSPORTATION OF CHRISTMAS TREES
4551.01 Requiring bill of sale or invoice.
Except in trucks and trailers licensed for and engaged
in interstate commerce, any person who operates a
truck, trailer, or other vehicle upon any public
highway, road, or street in this state for the purpose
of transporting five or more cut trees, or one hundred
pounds or more of boughs, of any species of pine,
spruce, fir, hemlock, or other narrow-leafed or
broad-leafed evergreen tree or shrub, shall have upon
his person during such transporting a bill of sale or
invoice for such trees or boughs signed by the owner or
custodian of the lands from which such trees or boughs
were cut and removed.
Such bill of sale or invoice shall state:
(A) The date of sale;
(B) The number and species of trees, or pounds and
species of boughs, being transported;
(C) The name of the township, county, and state where
such lands are situated;
(D) The proper postal address of the landowner or custodian.
If such trees or boughs have been obtained from a
dealer in such goods, the bill of sale or invoice need
only show his name and the place of business from which
the trees or boughs were obtained.
This section does not apply to the transportation of
trees or boughs by or for the owner or custodian of
lands from which such trees or boughs were cut or
removed, or by or for an agent of either.
Effective Date: 08-23-1965
--
Michael Press