"Bicycle Infrastructure Promotes Observance of Bicycle Laws"

On 20/01/2014 20:22, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:16:05 AM UTC-5, Clive George wrote:

Are you suggesting you don't have an absolute opposition to bike
facilities? Because you certainly come across that way.

No, I don't have an absolute opposition to bike facilities. As I've explained to Dan many times, I'm either largely or entirely responsible for two bike facilities in my town. I worked on the small committee which advocated, then got the federal grant for one; and as a member of that committee, I proposed the second, wrote the letter requesting it, and worked with the public utility that installed it.

I am against bike facilities that are badly done, which is IMO a rather large percentage of them.

What I am in absolute opposition to are these:

* The idea that one cannot safely ride a bike without some sort of segregated facility

* The idea that segregated facilities dispense with the need to learn competent riding

* The idea that segregated facilities are the only - or even the most important - thing needed to achieve Copenhagen-style mode shares in the U.S.

I don't see people arguing those points. They appear to be straw men
you've erected.

Frank Krygowski writes:

snip


What I am in absolute opposition to are these:


Keeping in mind that the world is too complicated for me to
be "absolute" about much of anything...

* The idea that one cannot safely ride a bike without some sort of segregated facility


(+1)

* The idea that segregated facilities dispense with the need to learn competent riding


(+1)

* The idea that segregated facilities are the only - or even the most important - thing needed to achieve Copenhagen-style mode shares in the U.S.


(+1) on the "only" (absolutely), and *maybe* I could agree with
the "most important", but I can't think of a more important
single factor that can be directly addressed. If you're about to
say, "Education", I would point out that the most riders and
potential riders say that sharing space with notor traffic is the
most important impediment, and I believe that if they would ride
they would learn stuff. "Repair teaches engineering" and being
out and about in the world teaches the ways of the world. That is
not to say that I am against supplemental structured education; I
am in favor of it, but I think cultural change requires a wide
scale movement and activity, and structured education at this
point will only convert a very few, whereas infrastructure will
encourage many more. And infrastructure is persistent and passive;
education must be constantly "built" and actively sold. Unless
participation reaches critical mass (sorry) or a tipping point,
the car culture will continue to dominate (and even though there
are inroads to increased transportation bicycling, the car culture
dominance is only getting worse with every passing day that it is
allowed to dominate). I am actually in favor of education that
suffuses society and individual life, but that's not going to
happen lots more people are riding. I will agree to a hand-in-hand
approach, and with that the facilities will become less necessary.
I am in favor of *many* of the other factors that differentiate
Denmark and The Netherlands from the USA, and they need to go
hand-in-hand and I think they will. But I don't see the movement
happening without significant infrastructure.

I don't think "Copenhagen-like mode share" is even an objective
at this point. But dressing a strawman in it does make your
philosophical opposition to facilities here look a *little* less
kooky - until you start cricizing Copenhagen's facilities,
too; and then you just undermine your own point.

On Monday, January 20, 2014 12:05:59 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Snipped
Sometimes I wonder if the local bicycle safety advocates are counter
productive. Recommended routes to various local skools:

http://www.bike2work.com/s_cruz/suggested_routes.html

Note that most of the routes follow major roadways that are heavily

congested during commute hours. Side streets would be much safer.

Snipped
Jeff Liebermann
snipped

Hey there Jeff. Thar link times out. I tried it in a couple of browsers and it's a redirect that times out before arriving. SOunds interesting though. Can you post another link to it?

Thanks and cheers.

On 1/20/2014 9:05 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 06:58:51 -0800, sms
wrote:

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the cost of a bicycle is
in any way a barrier to more people using a bicycle for transportation.

Apparently I've misjudged the bums riding obvious stolen bicycles past
my office. Surely they paid for them as cost is not a barrier.

I know where your office is so I understand the issue. But those bums
would not be driving a car if they had no bicycle, stolen or paid for.

The goal is to convert those doing relatively short trips by car into
cyclists. For these people, a free or subsidized bicycle is not an issue.

You can get a decent commuter bicycle for $300-350. It can be a chore to
find a decent commuter bicycle at all depending on the desires of the
rider. I.e. my spouse wanted a low-standover model with cruiser style
bars, a triple crankset, and narrow tires. The tires I had to change,
but even finding the rest of those requirements was tough.

A good set of lights is $25-50, but you can spend a lot more if you are
not aware of what's out there.

On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:47:08 PM UTC-5, Clive George wrote:
On 20/01/2014 20:22, Frank Krygowski wrote:

No, I don't have an absolute opposition to bike facilities. As I've explained to Dan many times, I'm either largely or entirely responsible for two bike facilities in my town. I worked on the small committee which advocated, then got the federal grant for one; and as a member of that committee, I proposed the second, wrote the letter requesting it, and worked with the public utility that installed it.

I am against bike facilities that are badly done, which is IMO a rather large percentage of them.

What I am in absolute opposition to are these:

* The idea that one cannot safely ride a bike without some sort of segregated facility

* The idea that segregated facilities dispense with the need to learn competent riding

* The idea that segregated facilities are the only - or even the most important - thing needed to achieve Copenhagen-style mode shares in the U.S.

I don't see people arguing those points. They appear to be straw men
you've erected.

You seem to do _much_ less reading and discussing of these issues than I do!

Again: I've had a nurse in a meeting of a bicycling advisory committee say she couldn't ride even on her relatively quiet residential street because it had no bike lanes. Then there are the legions of Americans who drive to bike paths with their bikes hanging off their cars. Those, in addition to much in print, are evidence for point #1.

For point #2, you can find many claims that a bike facility network must be suitable for anyone "8 to 80." The lower age limit surely doesn't speak about lack of strength or agility. It speaks about not having to know anything about properly interacting with traffic.

For point #3, you can read Dan's spiel - not that Dan is unique. His ideas come from propaganda by Alta Design, the League of American Bicyclists, and a depressing number of little "bike advocacy" groups. It's a rare thing to get even a nod from such people about education of road users, improvements in liability laws, let alone anything about the intense Danish and Dutch disincentives for auto use.

Perhaps you should begin counting demands for facilities vs. demands for all the other measures that support cycling while restricting motoring.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:07:28 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2014 12:05:59 PM UTC-5, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Snipped
Sometimes I wonder if the local bicycle safety advocates are counter
productive. Recommended routes to various local skools:

http://www.bike2work.com/s_cruz/suggested_routes.html

Note that most of the routes follow major roadways that are heavily

congested during commute hours. Side streets would be much safer.

Snipped
Jeff Liebermann
snipped

Hey there Jeff. Thar link times out. I tried it in a couple
of browsers and it's a redirect that times out before arriving.
SOunds interesting though. Can you post another link to it?

No redirect. However, it loads about six Google maps that takes some
time to load and generate the routes. Patience.

However, you're correct that it's timing out. I was able to view the
above URL because it was in my browser cache, but trying to load other
pages from the site now time out. Try again tomorrow. It's hosted
locally by got.net. I just sent them a nastygram.

Meanwhile, here's a partial screen grab.
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/bike2work-s_cruz.html
I haven't decoded exactly where the bike route info is coming from,
but offhand, I would guess(tm) that it's coming from Google Maps using
the bicycle route overlay.

2010 Santa Cruz County bicycling map (7.6 MBytes):
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2010-bike-map-countyside.pdf

2010 Santa Cruz City bicycling map (6 MBytes):
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2010-bike-map-cityside.pdf

Mo
http://www.sccrtc.org/services/bike/


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 08:40:08 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2014 7:44:37 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
On 1/20/2014 7:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:



No, it's caused by juries willing to find schools responsible for pedestrian and bicyclist accidents blocks away. Schools are acting defensively. The question we should be asking is "why are fewer children riding today than 50 years ago?" Considering that there is more infrastructure today than 50 years ago, I kind of doubt that it is the lack of infrastructure. Not that I am against infrastructure, but I think there are other reasons for the drop in ridership.



Fair enough, but the reason juries find schools responsible is because

the school and city or county have failed to provide the proper

infrastructure and/or traffic law enforcement and the school has not

mitigated these dangers by providing things like crossing guards.



If juries find schools responsible then why do so few schools have the

prohibition on walking or cycling? In fact most schools in my area

almost beg parents to not drive their kids to school.

Lots of bans in NJ, IIRC. Anyway, see: http://www.bicycling.com/news/advoca...-ride?page=0,0

Some of the fear has to do with child sexual assault and kidnapping. Put a kid on a bike, a molester will snatch him or her. Safe routes to school need armed guards. This is why kids should be pack'n heat -- they could also shoot the Adam Lanzas of the world, drug dealers, impolite motorists . . .

-- Jay Beattie.

Goodness!. Do you mean to tell me that the U.S. has created a society
where kids are not safe to walk/cycle to school? And this is in the
light of political correctness, awareness of human rights, prevention
of cruelty to animals, equal treatment of both women and the "other
sex", and all the other "isms" that we read about America being so
famous for?

Thank the Gods that I reside in a poor, little, downtrodden, third
world, country.... where kids can still walk to school.
--
Cheers,

John B.

ACTIVISM is allowed and used


http://goo.gl/CUUjM1

On 21/01/2014 00:07, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:47:08 PM UTC-5, Clive George wrote:
On 20/01/2014 20:22, Frank Krygowski wrote:

No, I don't have an absolute opposition to bike facilities. As I've explained to Dan many times, I'm either largely or entirely responsible for two bike facilities in my town. I worked on the small committee which advocated, then got the federal grant for one; and as a member of that committee, I proposed the second, wrote the letter requesting it, and worked with the public utility that installed it.

I am against bike facilities that are badly done, which is IMO a rather large percentage of them.

What I am in absolute opposition to are these:

* The idea that one cannot safely ride a bike without some sort of segregated facility

* The idea that segregated facilities dispense with the need to learn competent riding

* The idea that segregated facilities are the only - or even the most important - thing needed to achieve Copenhagen-style mode shares in the U.S.

I don't see people arguing those points. They appear to be straw men
you've erected.

You seem to do _much_ less reading and discussing of these issues than I do!

I'm talking about in here. That's why I'm saying you're erecting straw
men to argue against - the people here aren't arguing those points.

Again: I've had a nurse in a meeting of a bicycling advisory committee say she couldn't ride even on her relatively quiet residential street because it had no bike lanes. Then there are the legions of Americans who drive to bike paths with their bikes hanging off their cars. Those, in addition to much in print, are evidence for point #1.

Not RBT

For point #2, you can find many claims that a bike facility network must be suitable for anyone "8 to 80." The lower age limit surely doesn't speak about lack of strength or agility. It speaks about not having to know anything about properly interacting with traffic.

Not RBT

For point #3, you can read Dan's spiel - not that Dan is unique. His ideas come from propaganda by Alta Design, the League of American Bicyclists, and a depressing number of little "bike advocacy" groups. It's a rare thing to get even a nod from such people about education of road users, improvements in liability laws, let alone anything about the intense Danish and Dutch disincentives for auto use.

I've read what Dan says, and it's not #3.

On Monday, January 20, 2014 4:07:42 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:47:08 PM UTC-5, Clive George wrote:

On 20/01/2014 20:22, Frank Krygowski wrote:



No, I don't have an absolute opposition to bike facilities. As I've explained to Dan many times, I'm either largely or entirely responsible for two bike facilities in my town. I worked on the small committee which advocated, then got the federal grant for one; and as a member of that committee, I proposed the second, wrote the letter requesting it, and worked with the public utility that installed it.



I am against bike facilities that are badly done, which is IMO a rather large percentage of them.



What I am in absolute opposition to are these:



* The idea that one cannot safely ride a bike without some sort of segregated facility



* The idea that segregated facilities dispense with the need to learn competent riding



* The idea that segregated facilities are the only - or even the most important - thing needed to achieve Copenhagen-style mode shares in the U.S.



I don't see people arguing those points. They appear to be straw men

you've erected.



You seem to do _much_ less reading and discussing of these issues than I do!



Again: I've had a nurse in a meeting of a bicycling advisory committee say she couldn't ride even on her relatively quiet residential street because it had no bike lanes. Then there are the legions of Americans who drive to bike paths with their bikes hanging off their cars. Those, in addition to much in print, are evidence for point #1.



For point #2, you can find many claims that a bike facility network must be suitable for anyone "8 to 80." The lower age limit surely doesn't speak about lack of strength or agility. It speaks about not having to know anything about properly interacting with traffic.



For point #3, you can read Dan's spiel - not that Dan is unique. His ideas come from propaganda by Alta Design, the League of American Bicyclists, and a depressing number of little "bike advocacy" groups. It's a rare thing to get even a nod from such people about education of road users, improvements in liability laws, let alone anything about the intense Danish and Dutch disincentives for auto use.


You always step over that edge. The BTA loves facilities, but it is also big in to education. http://btaoregon.org/get-involved/walkbike-education/ Alta is a business. It designs facilities and not bicycle safety programs. Similarly, the local paving company does not provide bicycle safety programs.

Some facilities do bring out the riders and in fact make riding possible in some areas: http://tinyurl.com/qh7jhou (riding over to Washington). Others are good just because they add pavement or calm traffic. Some separate facilities are just more advantageous than adjacent roadways. The path up the east bank of the Willamette is the shortest way of getting from Sellwood to downtown. http://www.flickr.com/photos/6206594...otolist-94hvh8 It's got a steam engine, too.

Some facilities totally suck, so I avoid them -- many are totally unnecessary, so my taxes are high, but some have value, and I'm glad they were built -- particularly when they add pavement and mean that I don't have to ride a fog line with passing traffic at 55mph. I could take the lane . . . for a moment.

-- Jay Beattie.