Thread: New bike path
View Single Post
  #69  
Old March 17th 18, 09:37 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default New bike path

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:19:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/14/2018 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 14:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes
U.C.
Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)


Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not
the slightest problem.

"Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever
allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in
its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an
emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc.
Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from
letting anyone drive wherever they want.

*From
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle



"The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free."



I have told you before that that is fake news. Simply repeating it does
not make it any less fake.


************************************************** **** ... [Yes, as
explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.]

"Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on
student car ownership (this is still in force)."

*From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community

"The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use
from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic
from off campus."


They do not.


Yeah, yeah, fake news. Who are you going to believe, professional
journalists who have no strong agendas? Or one guy on the internet who
wants to spend public money to turn America into Amsterdam?

That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike
lanes":

"Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in
this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less
successful than others. One such example was the construction of
"protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was
separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane
was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e.
cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say,
any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by
the many hazards created for their users."


We all know that there were a lot of messed up bike path and bike lane
designs. Davis is no exception. Time has progressed, people have
learned, even traffic engineers.


Some people have not learned, such as the countless "bike advocates" who
are claiming we MUST have "protected cycle tracks" everywhere because
nothing else is safe enough. Oh, and then there are people who get paid
as consultants, marching into a city and offering to design that
garbage. They may have learned, but they don't care. "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something when his job depends on not
understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

The advocates and the traffic engineers showed what they had learned by
the design of the Columbus "protected cycle track" completed a couple
years ago. After the cycle track went in, the crash rate increased over
600%. Oddly enough, Streetsblog and other pro-segregation propaganda
sources don't highlight that fact.

So these things were found to be dangerous in the 1970s. They're still
dangerous in the 2010s. Forty years, and still the know-nothings demand
them.


I suggest that a sure method of determining the necessity for bike
paths would be to add a motion to the next town/city election -
something like "auto traffic shall be here after totally banned in an
area bounded by Main Street, North Bridge Road, Sunset Boulevard and
the river, i.e. the "business district", during daylight hours", and
count the votes for and against the motion.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home