A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 1st 08, 04:42 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainRea...rInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

For removal see:
http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
Ads
  #2  
Old February 1st 08, 05:11 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
CJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles
and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
improve.

Cliff


  #3  
Old February 1st 08, 05:11 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.


Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.

Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.

Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #4  
Old February 1st 08, 06:02 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

CJ who? wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles
and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
improve.

Wrong on both counts.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
  #5  
Old February 1st 08, 06:03 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Tom Sherman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,890
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.


Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.

Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.

Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).

I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion we
had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with a
Google search.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
  #6  
Old February 1st 08, 07:07 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,556
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).

I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
a Google search.


The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.

21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.

Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #7  
Old February 1st 08, 08:03 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,452
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.


I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way it
does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainRea...rInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

For removal see:
http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth



  #8  
Old February 1st 08, 08:14 AM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Mike Jacoubowsky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,452
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.


I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.



Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF
Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would
want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino
safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this
by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might
not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my
first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get
somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe
for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO!
All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and
lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they
"belong."

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com




"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
t...
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.


I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainRea...rInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now
they have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

For removal see:
http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth





  #9  
Old February 1st 08, 06:59 PM posted to ba.bicycles,rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
that's where cyclists should be.

I understand the attractions of them, but....

73, doug

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.


I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.



Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF
Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would
want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino
safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this
by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might
not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my
first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get
somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe
for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO!
All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and
lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they
"belong."

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com




"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
t...
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.


I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

  #10  
Old February 1st 08, 10:32 PM posted to ba.bicycles, rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,673
Default Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:


Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.


Of course, we've discussed this before. But:

Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way.

Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes,
they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been
worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or
obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs,
etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane.

Are cyclists required to use them? Perhaps not legally, at least in
certain places. But most motorists and bicyclists seem to _think_
bicyclists are required to use them. IOW, you can prove the
requirement doesn't exist once you get to court; but as a day to day
matter, you're expected to not leave the lane.

Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt
safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists'
driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left
turns, especially by novices.

Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network?
Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes
are painted. Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't
belong on unstriped roads.

And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of
absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing
conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest.

ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide
outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively
useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the
somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to
ride here."

If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They
seem a lot more benign.

- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obstructions [email protected] Techniques 336 October 18th 11 01:11 AM
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City Mike Jacoubowsky General 201 February 9th 08 06:36 PM
Station St bike lane Bonbeach: cars parked in bike lane AndrewJ Australia 8 March 30th 06 10:37 AM
Cross City Bike lane scotty72 Australia 4 October 19th 05 01:47 PM
Bike Lane vs Wide outside Lane - benefit to AUTOS? [email protected] Techniques 29 June 8th 05 10:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.