Ineffective Cycling

On 5/10/2019 6:29 AM, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 8:07:20 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/9/2019 3:23 AM, Duane wrote:

snip

No I think he’s defining ME as incompetent because I don’t need a book that
instructs me to break the law, asserting my primary position should be dead
center of the right most lane.

The most succinct critique of John Franklin's work that I saw was this:

"If John Franklin’s aim was to keep cycling as a niche activity
practised by a tiny minority of confident men, then congratulations!
Success! Well done! You may now stop reading.

If John Franklin’s aim was to help riding a bike become an activity
which is easy for everyone — men and women, from toddlers to pensioners
— then he has failed."

This is what I constantly see in my area. For the experienced cyclist,
both men and women, following at least some of the precepts of
"Vehicular Cycling" make sense, but it doesn't help get more people out
of cars and onto bicycles. The latter requires some level of bicycle
infrastructure, and all of Frank's "danger danger" rhetoric is not going
to convince the majority of people to give cycling a try.

"The problem is that he opposes a type of road design which is proven to
increase cycling rates and safety and which offers a better way of life
for everyone, and not just for “cyclists� either."

Fortunately, there are few places in the world that subscribe to
Franklin's point of view because of the effort to reduce motor vehicle
traffic.

There is a problem with bike lanes, specifically unprotected bike lanes
that are just painted lines. Today is "Bike to Work Day" in my area. As
an elected official I rode around to several "Energizer Stations," two
put on by Apple, one by Kaiser, and one by my city. I saw first hand the
problem with unprotected bike lanes. In Sunnyvale, a Chevy Volt decided
that a bike lane was the perfect place to park. I called the police
non-emergency number and they sent out a "community service officer" to
ticket the vehicle. See oi68.tinypic.com/2ccrplj.jpg. But meanwhile,
cyclists were veering out of the unprotected bike lane into traffic, and
they probably would have been better being part of the normal traffic
flow. In Cupertino, I was in a bike lane where there were vehicles
turning left but there was no turn lane so the cars behind them simply
veered into the bike lane and passed on the right--not some of the cars,
ALL of them. See http://oi64.tinypic.com/adjo0h.jpg I asked our
traffic people if they could at least put up some bollards to prevent this.

The diatribe against Cyclecraft and Franklin is he
https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/****-you-john-franklin/

**** man! If I was to wait until there were protected bicycle lanes going
to everywhere I currently ride my bicycle I'd hardly ever be on the
bicycle. I've ridden for over 60 years and have yet to see a protected
separate from the roadway bicycle path.

Cheers


Yeah the two extremes. Reality is somewhere in the middle.

Meaning that if we wait for protected bike lanes to go to half the
places we want to ride, we'll only have to wait halfway to forever.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/10/2019 8:13 AM, Duane wrote:
On 10/05/2019 7:01 a.m., Sepp Ruf wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane.* Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand.* I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

What lane position(s) do Quebec's driving schools teach to ride motorized
two-wheelers?

No idea, I wasn't born in Quebec and have never ridden a motorcycle
here.* When I was a kid in New Orleans riding a motorcycle I don't
remember any specific instruction regarding lane position.* What does
this have to do with anything?

The vehicle code in Quebec regarding lane position of bicycles is:

487. A cyclist must ride as close as possible to the edge or right side
of the roadway and in the same direction as traffic, taking into account
the condition of the roadway and the risk of car dooring.

A cyclist may also ride on the shoulder in the same direction as traffic.

The first paragraph does not apply to a cyclist about to make a left
turn, if he is authorized to ride against traffic or in case of necessity.

You guys need a much better advocacy organization.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/10/2019 7:57 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 10.05.2019 um 13:01 schrieb Sepp Ruf:
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.
More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for
3)?* And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

The only source of studies giving sufficiently detailed data is the
"First Cross Study" quoted by John Forester
https://www.johnforester.com/Article...ty/Cross01.htm.

As I threw away the book containing all the details some time ago, I can
only quote from vague memory.

Being hit from behind is on the order of 1% of all bicycle accidents but
on the order of 5-10% of bicycle accidents outside towns, and it is the
most fatal accident type.* It is also one of the few "hard-to-avoid"
accident types (as seen by the age percentiles of accidents).

The following is not an argument with Rolf. It is sort of a
philosophical point:

I don't disagree with Rolf's estimates. But I tend to be skeptical of
advice given to bicyclists based on fatality events. Why? Because bike
fatalities are so incredibly rare; and some anti-fatality advice is
practically useless, and/or may actually increase other crashes.

Rare as in, over ten million miles ridden on bikes between fatalities.
Rare as in, hardly more common than dying by falling out of bed.
Incredibly more rare than disease fatalities, many of which are
prevented by cycling. Tremendously more rare than motoring fatalities.
Far more rare then pedestrian fatalities.

People who concentrate on risk of fatality are often needlessly scaring
themselves, plus scaring others away from riding.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 10 May 2019 09:18:32 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 10/05/2019 9:03 a.m., AMuzi wrote:
On 5/10/2019 5:29 AM, Duane wrote:
Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 09.05.2019 um 14:35 schrieb Duane:
What I object to is telling me that my "primary" position should be one
that puts me in the middle of the lane.Â* Maybe the term "primary" has
some meaning that I don't understand.Â* I'll be there when I think it
necessary but I understand that there's some risk to doing that.

If it's just the wording, I might give some motivation.* The majority of
bike trips (at least outside the US) are transportational, and the
majority of transportational trips is in town.

In my classes I ran in the 1900's based on "Cyclecraft", I explained as
follows:
In situations of potential conflict in town, you should be in the
"primary" position.
Situations of potential conflict include
- going straight when there is a significant chance of the car behind
doing a near-side turn
-* going straight when there is a car coming from the near-side and you
have priority
- going straight when it is unsafe/inappropriate for a car to overtake
you (e.g. pedestrian crossing, oncoming traffic on narrow roads)

In Europe, this means that the "primary position" is recommended for
70-80% of the distance you cycle in town, so it is more helpful to teach
"in town, take the primary position, and when you judge it is safe to be
overtaken by the cars behind, change to the secondary position to let
them pass".

For cycling outside town, the situation is different:
1) a lot fewer points of conflict
2) lower traffic density means you won't be overtaken every 10s while
riding in secondary position
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.

Rolf

PS: it is extremely hard to have a language that is both precise and
easily understood at the same time.* For international communication,
the precise language might be more appropriate but to reach the public
you need an easily understood language even though this language might
lead to misunderstandings in some other countries.



I like your points about riding outside of town.* My usual preference.

With respect to primary position, better explanation but still not legal
here.** I can legally move to the center to avoid obstacles including
door
zones or to move into position to turn left.* Before I pay the fines I
would drive to work.

My primary position is the legal position. My secondary position would be
moving left when necessary.

As far as lane center to prevent close passes I don’t find it effective
except in cases of a single lane road.* Not very common here.* With the
normal two lane road,* the car is going to pass me when safe of pass me
illegally.* For the former, taking the lane isn’t necessary.* For the
latter my experience is that most of the time they still pass, only
closer,
faster and more dangerously.

On my commute I see a lot of bikes.* I don’t think rush hour traffic at
20k/h will work.** And the police would be out in force.* I’m not for
separate bike paths either so I don’t have a solution other than ride
defensively.* Be visible, predictable and follow the rules of the road.


So you're saying that riders ought to consider pavement design, pavement
condition or lack thereof, impedimenta such as parked cars, ambient
weather, traffic, cross traffic, time of day, sight lines,
signage/ordinances, rider speed & ability? So how I ride is conditional
even for the same route on different days or times?

in that case, +1.


This is exactly what I'm saying.

And at long last a bit of logic has been injected into this
discussion.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:57:10 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 10.05.2019 um 13:01 schrieb Sepp Ruf:
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.
More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for 3)? And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

The only source of studies giving sufficiently detailed data is the
"First Cross Study" quoted by John Forester
https://www.johnforester.com/Article...ty/Cross01.htm.

As I threw away the book containing all the details some time ago, I can
only quote from vague memory.

Being hit from behind is on the order of 1% of all bicycle accidents but
on the order of 5-10% of bicycle accidents outside towns, and it is the
most fatal accident type. It is also one of the few "hard-to-avoid"
accident types (as seen by the age percentiles of accidents).

Rolf

The League of American Bicyclists published a report
"Bicyclist safety must be a priority
Findings from a year of fatality tracking
and the urgent need for better data"
dated May 2014

Which states, in the introduction, that "We learned, for example,
that a much higher percentage of fatal crashes than expected were "hit
from behind" incidents" and in the body of the report that state that
hit from behind fatalities comprised some 40% of all fatal collisions.

See
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/05/...st-fatalities/
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/573862...ppen-in-the-us
Both of which refer to the League's report.

I came across another report that might be of some interest.\:
Evidence from Safety Research to Update
Cycling Training Materials in Canada.
he University of British Columbia & Simon Fraser University
September 2012

Among other data they state that studies showed that:
Motorists pass closer to cyclists on higher speed and traffic
roads, and when there is traffic in the opposite direction.

Large vehicles like trucks and buses pass closer to cyclists.

The farther bicyclists ride from the curb the less space they
are given when passed, including with bike lanes.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 10 May 2019 11:53:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2019 7:57 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 10.05.2019 um 13:01 schrieb Sepp Ruf:
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.
More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for
3)?* And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

The only source of studies giving sufficiently detailed data is the
"First Cross Study" quoted by John Forester
https://www.johnforester.com/Article...ty/Cross01.htm.

As I threw away the book containing all the details some time ago, I can
only quote from vague memory.

Being hit from behind is on the order of 1% of all bicycle accidents but
on the order of 5-10% of bicycle accidents outside towns, and it is the
most fatal accident type.* It is also one of the few "hard-to-avoid"
accident types (as seen by the age percentiles of accidents).

The following is not an argument with Rolf. It is sort of a
philosophical point:

I don't disagree with Rolf's estimates. But I tend to be skeptical of
advice given to bicyclists based on fatality events. Why? Because bike
fatalities are so incredibly rare; and some anti-fatality advice is
practically useless, and/or may actually increase other crashes.

Rare as in, over ten million miles ridden on bikes between fatalities.
Rare as in, hardly more common than dying by falling out of bed.
Incredibly more rare than disease fatalities, many of which are
prevented by cycling. Tremendously more rare than motoring fatalities.
Far more rare then pedestrian fatalities.

People who concentrate on risk of fatality are often needlessly scaring
themselves, plus scaring others away from riding.

I agree with you that bicycle fatalities are rare, rare enough that I
find it rather interesting that the subject gets more then a casual
mention :-)
Bicycle fatalities are in the 700 range (777 in 2017) while according
to the CDC deaths from falls was 34,673 (deaths per 100,000 population
- 10.5).

But people rush about arguing that special paths are needed to make
bicyclists safe and that they must wear helmets to be safe while some
737 people die annually from falling out of bed
https://www.indy100.com/article/kim-...ng-bed-7552691
Why isn't there a law requiring people to wear a helmet while in bed?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 10 May 2019 11:14:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2019 5:07 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 00:40:55 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:31:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
Snipped
Look again, you must have missed it
https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/tha...t-world-atlas/
Look at the overpass, there is a shoulder, roughly half the width of
an automobile, and certainly wide enough for motorcycle to ride in on
both sides, with no problems.

Snipped
cheers,

John B.

Is it my imagination or does that sign in the upper left mean no motorcycles? Just curious because I see what appear to be motorcycles on that overpass.

Cheers

Yup. It says no motorcycles, no trucks, no trailers and no bicycles.

As for bicycles on the overpass? Well the "Thai" in the word
"Thailand" literally means "free" and the motorcycles seem to take
that as freedom to do as they please :-)

It seems to me you're arguing in Joerg mode. You don't ever need to ride
near lane center because you ride on six foot wide separated shoulders
like the one in the photo. Which is obviously not six feet wide. And
which bicycles are forbidden to use.

Nope :-) Bicycles are forbidden to use the overpass itself, any
shoulders are immaterial.

Perhaps you use it anyway? But that conflicts pretty strongly with your
disparaging comments about me ignoring the (imaginary) law preventing
bicycles from obstructing traffic.

Nope :-) I don't ride on the "overpasses", firstly because you have
to huff and puff to get up the hill and secondly because you are
riding on a road with a solid wall on your left (USians think Right)
and if someone should veer out of the lane there would be no where for
you to do.

I still have no clear idea about what your riding conditions are really
like.

Partially because road conditions vary a great deal. Just as they do
in the U.S.

In Bangkok my usual "Wednesday" ride starts out on a vary narrow lane,
barely room for two autos to meet and pass one another, then, after 1
kilometer it turns onto a major N-S highway with 4 - 6 lanes with 3 -
5 ft "shoulders", than an E-W road, 4 lanes and again with shoulders
varying some in width, then south onto what used to be called "the
Super Highway" the first motorway built in Thailand - 6 lanes with
normally 6 ft. shoulders which may narrow suddenly. Then onto a
section which was rebuilt some years ago to accommodate the overhead
toll road which is three sections, An outer section, one way
(S),consisting of two lanes with a (maybe )3 ft, shoulder separated
from a center section 4 lanes, 2 north and 2 south, no shoulders and
another outer 2 lane, one way (N). The outer "roads are separated
from the center four lanes by solid concrete abutments.

Then my south bound two lanes changes into a really wide road, maybe 4
lanes wide as they have widened the road to cover a canal, but the
painted lines still indicate a two lane. Then the two lane narrows to
just barely wide enough for two autos for about 100 meters with the
concrete abutment on one side and a 12 - 18 inch high sidewalk on the
other. I sometimes move to the sidewalk here. Then a stop light and
you are on an older road, maybe 50 - 75 years old, or older, narrow 4
lane with again maybe 3 ft shoulders, than back onto the original very
wide N-S roadway and finally back to the narrow lane and home again.

So you see, it isn't simple to describe what "riding conditions are
really like".

--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:57:10 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 10.05.2019 um 13:01 schrieb Sepp Ruf:
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.
More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for 3)? And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

The only source of studies giving sufficiently detailed data is the
"First Cross Study" quoted by John Forester
https://www.johnforester.com/Article...ty/Cross01.htm.

As I threw away the book containing all the details some time ago, I can
only quote from vague memory.

Being hit from behind is on the order of 1% of all bicycle accidents but
on the order of 5-10% of bicycle accidents outside towns, and it is the
most fatal accident type. It is also one of the few "hard-to-avoid"
accident types (as seen by the age percentiles of accidents).

Rolf

The League of American Bicyclists published a report
"Bicyclist safety must be a priority
Findings from a year of fatality tracking
and the urgent need for better data"
dated May 2014

Which states, in the introduction, that "We learned, for example,
that a much higher percentage of fatal crashes than expected were "hit
from behind" incidents" and in the body of the report that state that
hit from behind fatalities comprised some 40% of all fatal collisions.

See
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/05/...st-fatalities/
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/573862...ppen-in-the-us
Both of which refer to the League's report.

I came across another report that might be of some interest.\:
Evidence from Safety Research to Update
Cycling Training Materials in Canada.
he University of British Columbia & Simon Fraser University
September 2012

Among other data they state that studies showed that:
Motorists pass closer to cyclists on higher speed and traffic
roads, and when there is traffic in the opposite direction.

Large vehicles like trucks and buses pass closer to cyclists.

The farther bicyclists ride from the curb the less space they
are given when passed, including with bike lanes.

First, the League of American Bicyclists has been conquered by the bicycling
industry; and the leaders of that industry have, in some desperation, decided
that their only hope is to try to get the government to spend huge funds for
segregated bike facilities. Why? Because after decades of "Danger! Danger!"
propaganda, people have decided that riding a bike anfaciywhere cars may travel
is sure death. So the League, which was once a bicyclists' rights organization,
is now a facility promotion organization. (There have been several instances
where they refused to help defend road-riding cyclists against false legal
charges.)

Second, the League's "study" was complete bull****. They collected their "data"
by having temporary workers scan the internet, newspapers and TV for reporter
accounts of bike deaths. They accepted whatever the media said as "data." Can
you find any other science that was done that way? Do you think that would pass
even the least competent peer review?

- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 10 May 2019 20:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 10, 2019 at 7:13:44 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 13:57:10 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 10.05.2019 um 13:01 schrieb Sepp Ruf:
3) higher traffic speed means the speed difference between cars and you
is higher, and thus the "primary" position carries more risks.
More risks, different risks, greater risk... what's your source for 3)? And
don't say "that recent recumbent velomobile's awful accident"

The only source of studies giving sufficiently detailed data is the
"First Cross Study" quoted by John Forester
https://www.johnforester.com/Article...ty/Cross01.htm.

As I threw away the book containing all the details some time ago, I can
only quote from vague memory.

Being hit from behind is on the order of 1% of all bicycle accidents but
on the order of 5-10% of bicycle accidents outside towns, and it is the
most fatal accident type. It is also one of the few "hard-to-avoid"
accident types (as seen by the age percentiles of accidents).

Rolf

The League of American Bicyclists published a report
"Bicyclist safety must be a priority
Findings from a year of fatality tracking
and the urgent need for better data"
dated May 2014

Which states, in the introduction, that "We learned, for example,
that a much higher percentage of fatal crashes than expected were "hit
from behind" incidents" and in the body of the report that state that
hit from behind fatalities comprised some 40% of all fatal collisions.

See
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/05/...st-fatalities/
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/573862...ppen-in-the-us
Both of which refer to the League's report.

I came across another report that might be of some interest.\:
Evidence from Safety Research to Update
Cycling Training Materials in Canada.
he University of British Columbia & Simon Fraser University
September 2012

Among other data they state that studies showed that:
Motorists pass closer to cyclists on higher speed and traffic
roads, and when there is traffic in the opposite direction.

Large vehicles like trucks and buses pass closer to cyclists.

The farther bicyclists ride from the curb the less space they
are given when passed, including with bike lanes.

First, the League of American Bicyclists has been conquered by the bicycling
industry; and the leaders of that industry have, in some desperation, decided
that their only hope is to try to get the government to spend huge funds for
segregated bike facilities. Why? Because after decades of "Danger! Danger!"
propaganda, people have decided that riding a bike anfaciywhere cars may travel
is sure death. So the League, which was once a bicyclists' rights organization,
is now a facility promotion organization. (There have been several instances
where they refused to help defend road-riding cyclists against false legal
charges.)

Second, the League's "study" was complete bull****. They collected their "data"
by having temporary workers scan the internet, newspapers and TV for reporter
accounts of bike deaths. They accepted whatever the media said as "data." Can
you find any other science that was done that way? Do you think that would pass
even the least competent peer review?

- Frank Krygowski

Interesting. I re-read the report and in the "introduction" they
state:
Over the course of the project we documented 628 fatal
bike crashes, a high percentage of the official number of
such fatalities recorded by the authorities. Which sounds impressive.

But after reading your above I read in a bit more detail and found:
The majority of the information captured by Every Bicyclist
Counts came from newspaper reports.

And of course, as we all know, news reports are just crammed with
facts and details :-(

Ah well, another entry in the blacklist.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 5/10/2019 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 11:14:28 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2019 5:07 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2019 00:40:55 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2019 at 11:31:36 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
Snipped
Look again, you must have missed it
https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/tha...t-world-atlas/
Look at the overpass, there is a shoulder, roughly half the width of
an automobile, and certainly wide enough for motorcycle to ride in on
both sides, with no problems.

Snipped
cheers,

John B.

Is it my imagination or does that sign in the upper left mean no motorcycles? Just curious because I see what appear to be motorcycles on that overpass.

Cheers

Yup. It says no motorcycles, no trucks, no trailers and no bicycles.

As for bicycles on the overpass? Well the "Thai" in the word
"Thailand" literally means "free" and the motorcycles seem to take
that as freedom to do as they please :-)

It seems to me you're arguing in Joerg mode. You don't ever need to ride
near lane center because you ride on six foot wide separated shoulders
like the one in the photo. Which is obviously not six feet wide. And
which bicycles are forbidden to use.

Nope :-) Bicycles are forbidden to use the overpass itself, any
shoulders are immaterial.

Perhaps you use it anyway? But that conflicts pretty strongly with your
disparaging comments about me ignoring the (imaginary) law preventing
bicycles from obstructing traffic.

Nope :-) I don't ride on the "overpasses", firstly because you have
to huff and puff to get up the hill and secondly because you are
riding on a road with a solid wall on your left (USians think Right)
and if someone should veer out of the lane there would be no where for
you to do.

I still have no clear idea about what your riding conditions are really
like.

Partially because road conditions vary a great deal. Just as they do
in the U.S.

In Bangkok my usual "Wednesday" ride starts out on a vary narrow lane,
barely room for two autos to meet and pass one another, then, after 1
kilometer it turns onto a major N-S highway with 4 - 6 lanes with 3 -
5 ft "shoulders", than an E-W road, 4 lanes and again with shoulders
varying some in width, then south onto what used to be called "the
Super Highway" the first motorway built in Thailand - 6 lanes with
normally 6 ft. shoulders which may narrow suddenly. Then onto a
section which was rebuilt some years ago to accommodate the overhead
toll road which is three sections, An outer section, one way
(S),consisting of two lanes with a (maybe )3 ft, shoulder separated
from a center section 4 lanes, 2 north and 2 south, no shoulders and
another outer 2 lane, one way (N). The outer "roads are separated
from the center four lanes by solid concrete abutments.

Then my south bound two lanes changes into a really wide road, maybe 4
lanes wide as they have widened the road to cover a canal, but the
painted lines still indicate a two lane. Then the two lane narrows to
just barely wide enough for two autos for about 100 meters with the
concrete abutment on one side and a 12 - 18 inch high sidewalk on the
other. I sometimes move to the sidewalk here. Then a stop light and
you are on an older road, maybe 50 - 75 years old, or older, narrow 4
lane with again maybe 3 ft shoulders, than back onto the original very
wide N-S roadway and finally back to the narrow lane and home again.

So you see, it isn't simple to describe what "riding conditions are
really like".

OK, by contrast: Yesterday's utility ride involved a very quiet
residential street;
cutting through our forest preserve;
another quiet residential street;
a county road, two narrow lanes with lots of traffic. Taking the lane is
absolutely necessary there.
A main arterial, four lanes plus center turn lane. Taking the lane is
again necessary. From there I merged to the center turn lane and turned
left.
Quiet residential road. Only one car. I controlled the lane.
Moderately busy two-lane in a light industrial area. Narrow lanes, quite
a few big trucks. I must ride lane center.
Short street popular with cut-through drivers, with apartments. I can
share the lane on part of it.
Low traffic street, access to government offices and police
headquarters. Very bumpy.
I then cut through two parking lot drives (hospital and YMCA) to access
a "leak through" connection to another parking lot and our credit union.
Backtrack, riding longer on that light industrial road (with trucks) to
the mall.
Busier streets from the mall to a park, then through a shopping plaza to
another residential area.
Very busy four lane, then two lane.
And quiet residential streets most of the way home.

In 14 miles, I was able to share the lane over maybe half a mile. Most
of that time, nobody passed me, but at least 40 drivers had to wait a
bit until it was clear to pass. All waited patiently. None gave me a
"punishment pass" when it was clear.

There were no wide shoulders. There were no segregated facilities,
unless you count the cut-though path connecting the back corners of two
separate parking lots. (And BTW, that has a two foot drop off to which
someone added a concrete block as a step. I used to ride it both up and
down, but now someone is in the habit of blocking it with their car so I
have to dismount on the way up.) Oh, and a little known 100 yard gravel
path from the backside of that park.

--
- Frank Krygowski