Before & after bike ghettos

Frank Krygowski wrote:

I see plenty of
motorists charging through a "stale yellow" red light, but I almost
never see one completely disregard a light that's been red for more
than a second or two. *Yet I've often seen bicyclists do [this].

I often observe cyclists doing what I usually to at a red light. If
there is cross traffic, I wait. When the cross traffic clears, I go.
This limits my exposure to car traffic and often allows waiting
motorists to safely turn right without expending their feeble
computation power determining whether I will leap into their path.

When a motorist is permitted (or even required) to turn across the
right of way of a cyclist, conflicts inevitably arise. I believe the
best method to resolve these conflicts would be to have a clear
precedence of rights of way: peds first, then cyclists, then
motorists. There should be a presumption of fault for the cyclist in
a ped-cyclist collision, and a presumption of fault for the motorist
in a ped-car or cyclist-car collision. That would help keep people
honest and careful, and it would be ethically defensible.

Chalo

In rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara wrote:

:I've had multiple experiences of pedestrians stepping right in front of
:me if I call "on your left" (they seem to think I am telling them to go
:left, that I am pointing out some significant scenic feature or making
:some kind of political statement). "Passing on your left" doesn't work
:any better. I just pass 'em silently these days.

Get, and use, a good loud bell. It's very hard to understand what
someone behind you on a bike is saying, for a whole bunch of reasons.
Announcing "On your left!" is likely to be heard as "left!" or jsut
"sweiurf". A bell is easier to hear -- the sharp rising edge of the
"ding!" cuts through background noise, and doesn't require language to
get its message through.


--
sig 77

Per David Scheidt:
Get, and use, a good loud bell. It's very hard to understand what
someone behind you on a bike is saying, for a whole bunch of reasons.
Announcing "On your left!" is likely to be heard as "left!" or jsut
"sweiurf". A bell is easier to hear -- the sharp rising edge of the
"ding!" cuts through background noise, and doesn't require language to
get its message through.

+1.

Also, communication is more reliable. Not everybody knows what
"Left" or "On your left" means.... and at least a few response
with something like "And so does yer momma!".

Also, not everybody hears as well as one may expect. I bought a
bell after almost scaring an old couple to death on a crunchy
gravel path in a park. The sound of my tires on the gravel was
practically deafening to me - but they did not hear me
approaching.

Finally, when somebody approaches from behind yelling "On Your
Left!", the bell serves as a useful acknowledgement.

I use the single-dingers - plenty control.... and every so often
somebody actually thanks me.
--
PeteCresswell

Get, and use, a good loud bell.

Here in New Jersey a bell or equivalent is required, though most cyclists
(including me) ignore this law.

"A bicycle must be equipped with a bell or other audible device that can be
heard at least 100 feet away, but not a siren or whistle."

http://www.state.nj.us/transportatio...gulations.shtm

I just noticed on that site that NJ defines a bicycle as "any two wheeled
vehicle having a rear drive which is solely human powered and having a seat
height of 25 inches or greater when the seat is in the lowest adjustable
position" - so I guess at least some recumbents don't qualify.

On Sep 30, 11:21*am, David Scheidt wrote:
In rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara wrote:

:I've had multiple experiences of pedestrians stepping right in front of
:me if I call "on your left" (they seem to think I am telling them to go
:left, that I am pointing out some significant scenic feature or making
:some kind of political statement). *"Passing on your left" doesn't work
:any better. *I just pass 'em silently these days.

Get, and use, a good loud bell. *It's very hard to understand what
someone behind you on a bike is saying, for a whole bunch of reasons.
Announcing "On your left!" is likely to be heard as "left!" or jsut
"sweiurf". *A bell is easier to hear -- the sharp rising edge of the
"ding!" cuts through background noise, and doesn't require language to
get its message through. *

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtv2_-2mHck

The Power of the Bicycle Bell.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sep 29, 9:14*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:57*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

**The students at PSU
(which borders the dreaded bicycle chute on Broadway)...

I thought the "dreaded bicycle chute" was on the Park blocks.

Can you give more details?

It is slightly east of the Park blocks on Broadway, starting at about
SW Columbia. Here is a picture.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2803183...n/photostream/

That is PSU to the right, and all the students get out of class and
wander in to the bike lane, between the curb and parked cars. This is
a light traffic period. The cars turning right at the stop light hook
cyclists because they are hidden by the parked cars.

This is looking south on Broadway before you get to the chute.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/

another one further north http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/

It's not all that long, but it was offered up as the practically
mandatory alternative to SW 5th, which got cut up by mass transit.
The bike lane on that street is like running the gauntlet.http://
www.flickr.com/photos/35021226@N02/4519517836/

In that picture, note where the blue streetcar is located at a stop.
Look to the right and see how the bike lane goes up the curb and
straight in to all the people on the sidewalk migrating to the stop.
It then emerges down the curb and across where all the tracks are
turning. From above

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4791190...n/photostream/

Same deal, different street.http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfcityscape/
4997557623/ -- Jay Beattie.

On Sep 30, 3:45*am, Chalo wrote:

When a motorist is permitted (or even required) to turn across the
right of way of a cyclist, conflicts inevitably arise. *I believe the
best method to resolve these conflicts would be to have a clear
precedence of rights of way: peds first, then cyclists, then
motorists. *There should be a presumption of fault for the cyclist in
a ped-cyclist collision, and a presumption of fault for the motorist
in a ped-car or cyclist-car collision. *That would help keep people
honest and careful, and it would be ethically defensible.

Chalo

That's too much common sense for most people to understand. But, for
the record, I believe that a fully implemented law or regulation of
that nature is the biggest possible boost a bike culture could be
given, far greater than building any number of bike lanes. The
agreeable and efficient bike culture of The Netherlands and Denmark
are based as much on attitudes and outlooks as on facilities. -- Andre
Jute

On Sep 30, 2:25*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:14*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sep 29, 11:57*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:

**The students at PSU
(which borders the dreaded bicycle chute on Broadway)...

I thought the "dreaded bicycle chute" was on the Park blocks.

Can you give more details?

It is slightly east of the Park blocks on Broadway, starting at about
SW Columbia. *Here is a picture.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2803183...n/photostream/

That is PSU to the right, and all the students get out of class and
wander in to the bike lane, between the curb and parked cars. *This is
a light traffic period. *The cars turning right at the stop light hook
cyclists because they are hidden by the parked cars.

This is looking south on Broadway before you get to the chute.http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/

another one further northhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/3840548992/in/photostream/

It's not all that long, but it was offered up as the practically
mandatory alternative to SW 5th, which got cut up by mass transit.
The bike lane on that street is like running the gauntlet.http://www.flickr.com/photos/35021226@N02/4519517836/

In that picture, note where the blue streetcar is located at a stop.
Look to the right and see how the bike lane goes up the curb and
straight in to all the people on the sidewalk migrating to the stop.
It then emerges down the curb and across where all the tracks are
turning. From above

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4791190...n/photostream/

Same deal, different street. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfcityscape/
4997557623/ * *-- Jay Beattie.

Fixed photo link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesbondsv/4576631293/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35021226@N02/4519517836/
-- Jay Beattie

On 09/30/2010 05:31 PM, Coolmaine wrote:
On Sep 30, 3:45 am, wrote:

When a motorist is permitted (or even required) to turn across the
right of way of a cyclist, conflicts inevitably arise. I believe the
best method to resolve these conflicts would be to have a clear
precedence of rights of way: peds first, then cyclists, then
motorists. There should be a presumption of fault for the cyclist in
a ped-cyclist collision, and a presumption of fault for the motorist
in a ped-car or cyclist-car collision. That would help keep people
honest and careful, and it would be ethically defensible.

Chalo

That's too much common sense for most people to understand. But, for
the record, I believe that a fully implemented law or regulation of
that nature is the biggest possible boost a bike culture could be
given, far greater than building any number of bike lanes. The
agreeable and efficient bike culture of The Netherlands and Denmark
are based as much on attitudes and outlooks as on facilities. -- Andre
Jute

It also won't work in a society of irresponsible people, such as a lot
of places in the US. I've noticed a distinct difference in culture
between, say, Pittsburgh, where people seem to be mutually respectful,
and, say, Montgomery County MD where they have huge initiatives to "make
things safer" for peds. In Pittsburgh, the peds at least look both ways
before crossing the street. In MD, they pretty much just walk out into
traffic, "secure" in the knowledge that traffic will stop for them. I
know where I feel safer both walking and driving.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On 9/30/2010 11:11 AM, Barry wrote:
Get, and use, a good loud bell.

Here in New Jersey a bell or equivalent is required, though most cyclists
(including me) ignore this law.

"A bicycle must be equipped with a bell or other audible device that can be
heard at least 100 feet away, but not a siren or whistle."

http://www.state.nj.us/transportatio...gulations.shtm

I just noticed on that site that NJ defines a bicycle as "any two wheeled
vehicle having a rear drive which is solely human powered and having a seat
height of 25 inches or greater when the seat is in the lowest adjustable
position" - so I guess at least some recumbents don't qualify.

A good reason to avoid NJ then:
http://www.velomobilwerk.de/images/toxyZR_blog.jpg.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.