On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:50:15 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 5:01:37 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 1:21:56 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
What we've heard: "Build it and they will come." That is, separate the
bikes from the cars with paint; or better, with flexible poles; or even
better with parked cars, and bicycle riding will surge. People will
leave their cars at home, and America will become Amsterdam. Or at
least, Amsterdamish.
What else we've heard: "It's working! After adding just one bike lane,
my little town had a 100% increase in bike mode share! It went from 0.2%
to 0.4% and 0.4% is really good for America!!"
What the data show:
https://cyclingindustry.news/wp-cont...2018/04/t2.jpg
That's from
https://cyclingindustry.news/townley...bike-business/
They're building it, and the design consultants are getting wealthy. But
"they" don't seem to be coming.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Okay, so Americans won't ride on the road with the cars, and they won't
ride in cycle lanes "protected" from cars. So, perhaps, Americans just
don't want to cycle, or their infrastructure is already so far developed
in favoring the automobile that they're right not to cycle, because it's impossible.
The question is, Franki-boy: Why should your underlying assumption that
cycling is superior to driving have any greater validity than their
underlying assumption that an automobile is a necessity of life? Do you
have an answer that doesn't rely on some faith-substitute, like Gaia-worship?
Andre Jute
Carfree for a generation now. I practice what I preach.
I think taking cycling percentages for the US on a whole is misleading..
It’s a pretty varied country. Ask Jay for example about his conga line
commute in a place that isn’t exactly flat. Last time I was in New
Orleans there were bikes and bike lanes everywhere. Even had a redneck
neighbor bitching about them to me before my sister told him to watch it.
In a typical US city, you need to build for cars and you need to build
for bikes, and I think doing both at the same time is the best idea. If
you strongly favor bikes over cars in a city that is not dead flat and
that has a dispersed population, you end up with Portland -- monumentally
bad motor vehicle traffic and a lot of dopey, sub-optimal facilities for bikes.
We succeed in bringing cyclists in from the established, close-in east
and west side neighborhoods, but we keep adding population in suburbs
where commuting to work by bike is not possible -- except by eBike, which
I think is going to be the next big thing.
SPEAKING OF -- I was riding home last night, and since it was NOT raining
and miserable, I decided to go home up through the cemetery -- which
involves a long MUP from downtown, over the tail end of a recently
reconstructed bridge (with redundant bicycle facilities) and up a hill
with no traffic because it is a cemetery, although you have to hoof
around a fence. https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...7/07/0-16.jpeg Joerg heaven
-- no cars, although the facility can be filled with dopes on bikes.
So, I was climbing up the bridge approach and some guy passed on a bike
with a gas motor on it -- not even an eBike. That's what I predict for
the futu bad MV traffic will produce butt-cracks on gas/electric motor
bikes speeding down the bicycle facilities with no possible police
intervention. I get into scrapes with the eBike low-life on a regular
basis -- people who are clearly not cyclists or even pretending to be
cyclists. They are just ratting-out down the facilities on juiced-up bikes.
-- Jay Beattie.
Just got back from a ride. The weather is finally improving. Was a balmy
5c. Some fat idiot in an oversized SUV felt he had to tell us to take the
bike path. I pointed out that the highway was one block over. Asshole.
He wasn’t even going in our direction. Just felt he had to exercise his
ownership of the road. Not even sure which bike path he’s talking about.
I agree with you about building for cars and bikes. This area was built
for cars. But a bike lane on this road wouldn’t hurt. Of course a law
against stupid would work too.
Here's my tale of woe: I just got back from a ride in the country with my son. Out in the butt-crack region of Clackamas county, this guy in a flashy jacked-up pick-up with giant tires roars by with no room to spare, obviously f****** with us and zooms off. I flip him off. The guy jams on his brakes in the middle of the road, throws it into reverse, lays a patch and starts back toward me. I keep riding full blast forward, hand over my brow looking at the license plate. The guy stops and drives away just as I catch up. Asshole -- and a coward. My son was flipping out, worried that I would get shot or something. I told him that you don't worry about the guys in $30K show-trucks without a spot of dirt. They have too much to lose. Worry about the convicted felons in beaters with nothing to lose. The amazing thing is that everyone else gave us plenty of room. It's that one mega-asshole that can ruin your day.
So, infrastructure content: we did a large part of the return leg on a 20 mile MUP rail-trail. Light pedestrian traffic for such a nice day. Lots of cyclists, but mostly going the other way. It was a nice cruise. The roads are fine, too -- usually.
-- Jay Beattie.