A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

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

New bike path



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old March 15th 18, 05:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,404
Default New bike path

On 3/15/2018 8:47 AM, Duane wrote:
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:


That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.


I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like to do from my
house in Montreal West Island area to the old port.ツ* It's ~100k and
really nice.ツ* About 80k of it is on bike paths.ツ* These paths follow the
river and then the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections.ツ* Along the canal where the path crosses city streets the
path has under or overpasses.

Here's the thing.ツ* I take the day off work on my birthday and do this
ride with some friends because there's no one on the paths outside of
the commute hours.ツ* At commute time it's too crowded.ツ* On weekends and
holidays it's packed.

So I guess my point is that if they make these things people use them.
In Montreal, a lot of people use them.ツ* Whether or not they make sense
for commuters is another story.ツ* And group riding on bike paths is a bad
idea in any case if the paths aren't empty.


Most of us probably enjoy a segregated path that's well-maintained,
scenic, and mostly empty. Probably few of us enjoy a MUP when it's
seeing heavy use. And with good reason! With widely varying users,
narrow spaces and a "no rules" environment, movements are often chaotic.

So Joerg should lobby for paths that will be unpopular, because those
make for the best riding. Of course, that's a tough sell. Can you
imagine asking for tax money for a new freeway, by saying "It will be
great! Hardly anyone will use it!"

Nationwide, only a tiny percentage of these facilities can be justified
as shifting mode share from cars to bikes. Despite the cherry-picked
examples, most miles of MUP connect nowhere to nowhere, for obvious
reasons.

So almost all are linear parks, even though they're "sold" as being
transportation facilities. They should be paid for from park taxes, not
federal or state transportation tax dollars.

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #52  
Old March 15th 18, 05:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,837
Default New bike path

On 3/15/2018 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2018 8:47 AM, Duane wrote:
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud
while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.


I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like
to do from my house in Montreal West Island area to the
old port.ツ It's ~100k and really nice.ツ About 80k of it
is on bike paths.ツ These paths follow the river and then
the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections.ツ Along the canal where the path crosses
city streets the path has under or overpasses.

Here's the thing.ツ I take the day off work on my birthday
and do this ride with some friends because there's no one
on the paths outside of the commute hours.ツ At commute
time it's too crowded.ツ On weekends and holidays it's
packed.

So I guess my point is that if they make these things
people use them. In Montreal, a lot of people use them.ツ
Whether or not they make sense for commuters is another
story.ツ And group riding on bike paths is a bad idea in
any case if the paths aren't empty.


Most of us probably enjoy a segregated path that's
well-maintained, scenic, and mostly empty. Probably few of
us enjoy a MUP when it's seeing heavy use. And with good
reason! With widely varying users, narrow spaces and a "no
rules" environment, movements are often chaotic.

So Joerg should lobby for paths that will be unpopular,
because those make for the best riding. Of course, that's a
tough sell. Can you imagine asking for tax money for a new
freeway, by saying "It will be great! Hardly anyone will use
it!"

Nationwide, only a tiny percentage of these facilities can
be justified as shifting mode share from cars to bikes.
Despite the cherry-picked examples, most miles of MUP
connect nowhere to nowhere, for obvious reasons.

So almost all are linear parks, even though they're "sold"
as being transportation facilities. They should be paid for
from park taxes, not federal or state transportation tax
dollars.


Some citizens use and appreciate them, just not for cycling:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=assault+on...th&t=hg&ia=web

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #53  
Old March 15th 18, 05:52 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,404
Default New bike path

On 3/15/2018 10:41 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 18:19, 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.

ツ*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.


ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ* ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ* ツ*ツ*ツ*ツ* ... [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)."

ツ*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?


I believe myself. I was there a lot so I know. Seems you can't even
operate Google Maps. Almost everyone knows that their Google mapping
vehicles do not enter restricted areas such as closed campuses or gated
communities, meaning there wouldn't be a street view. Since UC Davis has
no restriction for on-campus driving you can virtually drive through.
See this huge parking lot?

https://goo.gl/maps/Ntm7kfRtHfD2

Now why would that be there is traffic was restricted? Quote "banning
almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways" is,
therefore, obviously a false statement.


:-) Oh really?

How odd that Google Street View (so to speak) is available for places
like Petra in Jordon! https://goo.gl/maps/Y1DrTnGKC5N2
Do you imagine some Google contractor stole a 4x4 and ran it through there?

Here's a clue, Joerg:
https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/eco-to...t-view-trekker

There are countless places that cars cannot access, but Street View can.

Which is not to say that Google didn't get permission to send a Street
View car through the U.C. Davis campus, just as a person could get
permission to make a delivery.

But if driving is not restricted through campus, where are all the cars?
https://goo.gl/maps/1U8Gzoa39hu
And why do so many articles claim driving is restricted through campus?


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #54  
Old March 15th 18, 05:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,404
Default New bike path

On 3/15/2018 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/15/2018 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2018 8:47 AM, Duane wrote:
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud
while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.


I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like
to do from my house in Montreal West Island area to the
old port.テつ* It's ~100k and really nice.テつ* About 80k of it
is on bike paths.テつ* These paths follow the river and then
the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections.テつ* Along the canal where the path crosses
city streets the path has under or overpasses.

Here's the thing.テつ* I take the day off work on my birthday
and do this ride with some friends because there's no one
on the paths outside of the commute hours.テつ* At commute
time it's too crowded.テつ* On weekends and holidays it's
packed.

So I guess my point is that if they make these things
people use them. In Montreal, a lot of people use them.テ
Whether or not they make sense for commuters is another
story.テつ* And group riding on bike paths is a bad idea in
any case if the paths aren't empty.


Most of us probably enjoy a segregated path that's
well-maintained, scenic, and mostly empty. Probably few of
us enjoy a MUP when it's seeing heavy use. And with good
reason! With widely varying users, narrow spaces and a "no
rules" environment, movements are often chaotic.

So Joerg should lobby for paths that will be unpopular,
because those make for the best riding. Of course, that's a
tough sell. Can you imagine asking for tax money for a new
freeway, by saying "It will be great! Hardly anyone will use
it!"

Nationwide, only a tiny percentage of these facilities can
be justified as shifting mode share from cars to bikes.
Despite the cherry-picked examples, most miles of MUP
connect nowhere to nowhere, for obvious reasons.

So almost all are linear parks, even though they're "sold"
as being transportation facilities. They should be paid for
from park taxes, not federal or state transportation tax
dollars.


Some citizens use and appreciate them, just not for cycling:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=assault+on...th&t=hg&ia=web


Yes, I suppose they can have financial benefit, if you're of the right
mindset.

Around here, I know of only one such incident, and there wasn't much
profit, because the victim was just a young teenage kid. But a dollar is
a dollar, I guess.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #55  
Old March 15th 18, 06:01 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,607
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-15 09:52, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2018 10:41 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 18:19, 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?


I believe myself. I was there a lot so I know. Seems you can't even
operate Google Maps. Almost everyone knows that their Google mapping
vehicles do not enter restricted areas such as closed campuses or
gated communities, meaning there wouldn't be a street view. Since UC
Davis has no restriction for on-campus driving you can virtually drive
through. See this huge parking lot?

https://goo.gl/maps/Ntm7kfRtHfD2

Now why would that be there is traffic was restricted? Quote "banning
almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways" is,
therefore, obviously a false statement.


:-) Oh really?

How odd that Google Street View (so to speak) is available for places
like Petra in Jordon! https://goo.gl/maps/Y1DrTnGKC5N2
Do you imagine some Google contractor stole a 4x4 and ran it through there?

Here's a clue, Joerg:
https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/eco-to...t-view-trekker


There are easy clues to see if it was the Google vehicle or someone on foot.

1. Middle of the lane use in traffic. It is illegal in California to
walk or cycle lane-centered unless there is an exceptional situation. In
my example that clearly is not the case.

2. Shadows that clearly show a vehicle when you zip around the circular
view.


There are countless places that cars cannot access, but Street View can.

Which is not to say that Google didn't get permission to send a Street
View car through the U.C. Davis campus, just as a person could get
permission to make a delivery.

But if driving is not restricted through campus, where are all the cars?
https://goo.gl/maps/1U8Gzoa39hu
And why do so many articles claim driving is restricted through campus?


Go back to my link, that's where many of them are. They have numerous
other huge parking lots. Duh.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #56  
Old March 15th 18, 06:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,080
Default New bike path

Joerg writes:

On 2018-03-15 09:52, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2018 10:41 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 18:19, 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?


I believe myself. I was there a lot so I know. Seems you can't even
operate Google Maps. Almost everyone knows that their Google mapping
vehicles do not enter restricted areas such as closed campuses or
gated communities, meaning there wouldn't be a street view. Since UC
Davis has no restriction for on-campus driving you can virtually drive
through. See this huge parking lot?

https://goo.gl/maps/Ntm7kfRtHfD2

Now why would that be there is traffic was restricted? Quote "banning
almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways" is,
therefore, obviously a false statement.


:-) Oh really?

How odd that Google Street View (so to speak) is available for places
like Petra in Jordon! https://goo.gl/maps/Y1DrTnGKC5N2
Do you imagine some Google contractor stole a 4x4 and ran it through there?

Here's a clue, Joerg:
https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/eco-to...t-view-trekker


There are easy clues to see if it was the Google vehicle or someone on foot.

1. Middle of the lane use in traffic. It is illegal in California to
walk or cycle lane-centered unless there is an exceptional
situation. In my example that clearly is not the case.

2. Shadows that clearly show a vehicle when you zip around the
circular view.


There are countless places that cars cannot access, but Street View can.

Which is not to say that Google didn't get permission to send a Street
View car through the U.C. Davis campus, just as a person could get
permission to make a delivery.

But if driving is not restricted through campus, where are all the cars?
https://goo.gl/maps/1U8Gzoa39hu
And why do so many articles claim driving is restricted through campus?


Go back to my link, that's where many of them are. They have numerous
other huge parking lots. Duh.


I don't know which of you is right, but Google is not restricted to cars
for street view. See:

http://www.viralblog.com/viral-socia...et-view-camel/

Notice the picture of the street view trike -- seems to be pedal-only,
at least according to:

https://www.wired.com/2009/05/google...s-less-driven/

--

  #57  
Old March 15th 18, 08:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Duane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default New bike path

On 15/03/2018 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/15/2018 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2018 8:47 AM, Duane wrote:
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud
while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.


I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like
to do from my house in Montreal West Island area to the
old port.テつ* It's ~100k and really nice.テつ* About 80k of it
is on bike paths.テつ* These paths follow the river and then
the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections.テつ* Along the canal where the path crosses
city streets the path has under or overpasses.

Here's the thing.テつ* I take the day off work on my birthday
and do this ride with some friends because there's no one
on the paths outside of the commute hours.テつ* At commute
time it's too crowded.テつ* On weekends and holidays it's
packed.

So I guess my point is that if they make these things
people use them. In Montreal, a lot of people use them.テ
Whether or not they make sense for commuters is another
story.テつ* And group riding on bike paths is a bad idea in
any case if the paths aren't empty.


Most of us probably enjoy a segregated path that's
well-maintained, scenic, and mostly empty. Probably few of
us enjoy a MUP when it's seeing heavy use. And with good
reason! With widely varying users, narrow spaces and a "no
rules" environment, movements are often chaotic.

So Joerg should lobby for paths that will be unpopular,
because those make for the best riding. Of course, that's a
tough sell. Can you imagine asking for tax money for a new
freeway, by saying "It will be great! Hardly anyone will use
it!"

Nationwide, only a tiny percentage of these facilities can
be justified as shifting mode share from cars to bikes.
Despite the cherry-picked examples, most miles of MUP
connect nowhere to nowhere, for obvious reasons.

So almost all are linear parks, even though they're "sold"
as being transportation facilities. They should be paid for
from park taxes, not federal or state transportation tax
dollars.


Some citizens use and appreciate them, just not for cycling:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=assault+on...th&t=hg&ia=web


Well my point was that even though some of us don't use crowded
segregated paths, the fact that they are crowded indicates that many
people do use them.


  #58  
Old March 15th 18, 09:16 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,607
Default New bike path

On 2018-03-15 12:31, Duane wrote:
On 15/03/2018 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/15/2018 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2018 8:47 AM, Duane wrote:
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud
while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.


I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like
to do from my house in Montreal West Island area to the
old port.テ It's ~100k and really nice.テ About 80k of it
is on bike paths.テ These paths follow the river and then
the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections.テ Along the canal where the path crosses
city streets the path has under or overpasses.

Here's the thing.テ I take the day off work on my birthday
and do this ride with some friends because there's no one
on the paths outside of the commute hours.テ At commute
time it's too crowded.テ On weekends and holidays it's
packed.

So I guess my point is that if they make these things
people use them. In Montreal, a lot of people use them.テ
Whether or not they make sense for commuters is another
story.テ And group riding on bike paths is a bad idea in
any case if the paths aren't empty.

Most of us probably enjoy a segregated path that's
well-maintained, scenic, and mostly empty. Probably few of
us enjoy a MUP when it's seeing heavy use. And with good
reason! With widely varying users, narrow spaces and a "no
rules" environment, movements are often chaotic.

So Joerg should lobby for paths that will be unpopular,
because those make for the best riding. Of course, that's a
tough sell. Can you imagine asking for tax money for a new
freeway, by saying "It will be great! Hardly anyone will use
it!"

Nationwide, only a tiny percentage of these facilities can
be justified as shifting mode share from cars to bikes.
Despite the cherry-picked examples, most miles of MUP
connect nowhere to nowhere, for obvious reasons.

So almost all are linear parks, even though they're "sold"
as being transportation facilities. They should be paid for
from park taxes, not federal or state transportation tax
dollars.


Some citizens use and appreciate them, just not for cycling:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=assault+on...th&t=hg&ia=web


Well my point was that even though some of us don't use crowded
segregated paths, the fact that they are crowded indicates that many
people do use them.


Last Sunday it was a joy to see a very full paved section of the El
Dorado Trail from Placerville to Camino (California). It seems that the
New Year's resolutions of many people have stuck this year.

Yeah, we can all complain about having to slow down for kids, dogs or
slow riders. Yet for some reason cyclists who complain about that do not
complain if they spend minutes in slow traffic behind a crawling conga
line of trucks.

I see it this way: Every slow down is followed by an acceleration event
and that builds muscle. Plus I might get to pet a dog or encourage a kid
on a tricycle to keep on mashing the pedals. It means a lot to them when
an adult says "Good job!".

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #59  
Old March 16th 18, 01:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,482
Default New bike path

On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 1:16:28 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-15 12:31, Duane wrote:
On 15/03/2018 12:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/15/2018 11:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/15/2018 8:47 AM, Duane wrote:
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg

wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud
while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.


I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like
to do from my house in Montreal West Island area to the
old port.テ It's ~100k and really nice.テ About 80k of it
is on bike paths.テ These paths follow the river and then
the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections.テ Along the canal where the path crosses
city streets the path has under or overpasses.

Here's the thing.テ I take the day off work on my birthday
and do this ride with some friends because there's no one
on the paths outside of the commute hours.テ At commute
time it's too crowded.テ On weekends and holidays it's
packed.

So I guess my point is that if they make these things
people use them. In Montreal, a lot of people use them.テ
Whether or not they make sense for commuters is another
story.テ And group riding on bike paths is a bad idea in
any case if the paths aren't empty.

Most of us probably enjoy a segregated path that's
well-maintained, scenic, and mostly empty. Probably few of
us enjoy a MUP when it's seeing heavy use. And with good
reason! With widely varying users, narrow spaces and a "no
rules" environment, movements are often chaotic.

So Joerg should lobby for paths that will be unpopular,
because those make for the best riding. Of course, that's a
tough sell. Can you imagine asking for tax money for a new
freeway, by saying "It will be great! Hardly anyone will use
it!"

Nationwide, only a tiny percentage of these facilities can
be justified as shifting mode share from cars to bikes.
Despite the cherry-picked examples, most miles of MUP
connect nowhere to nowhere, for obvious reasons.

So almost all are linear parks, even though they're "sold"
as being transportation facilities. They should be paid for
from park taxes, not federal or state transportation tax
dollars.


Some citizens use and appreciate them, just not for cycling:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=assault+on...th&t=hg&ia=web


Well my point was that even though some of us don't use crowded
segregated paths, the fact that they are crowded indicates that many
people do use them.


Last Sunday it was a joy to see a very full paved section of the El
Dorado Trail from Placerville to Camino (California). It seems that the
New Year's resolutions of many people have stuck this year.

Yeah, we can all complain about having to slow down for kids, dogs or
slow riders. Yet for some reason cyclists who complain about that do not
complain if they spend minutes in slow traffic behind a crawling conga
line of trucks.


I complain if I have to sit in slow traffic, but the beauty of being on a bike is that I rarely have to do that, except where passing is impossible. Bicycles may permissibly pass on the right when safe in Oregon. I sit in traffic in the mornings, but I'm still making better time than the cars and passing on either side when possible and safe.


I see it this way: Every slow down is followed by an acceleration event
and that builds muscle. Plus I might get to pet a dog or encourage a kid
on a tricycle to keep on mashing the pedals. It means a lot to them when
an adult says "Good job!".


Out of curiosity, do you have kids? Half of them will think you're a creep or just in their way. The other half might think you're mildly amusing. Kids are accustomed to hearing "good job" -- little Jimmy on the trike probably hears it ten times a day. It's not like he's going to ride over to his parents and say, "geepers, mom and dad, that creepy man over there said I did a good job! That makes me feel so good! It means a lot to me!" In reality, dealing with kids on trikes on a MUP is usually just a matter of giving them a wide berth. It's kind of like dealing with squirrels -- well, strike that. I'll run over squirrels.

Linear parks are fine and some can be useful travel routes for bikes, but mixing bikes and walkers always results in a sub-optimal experience for both -- particularly when you have parents with walkers, dogs and kids on trikes (common around here) and sometimes steep grades. I walk and ride the same local trail, and descending bikes are a menace. I always take the adjacent road when on a bike.


-- Jay Beattie.

  #60  
Old March 16th 18, 03:30 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,404
Default New bike path

On 3/15/2018 8:55 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Linear parks are fine and some can be useful travel routes for bikes, but mixing bikes and walkers always results in a sub-optimal experience for both -- particularly when you have parents with walkers, dogs and kids on trikes (common around here) and sometimes steep grades. I walk and ride the same local trail, and descending bikes are a menace. I always take the adjacent road when on a bike.


Related: A committee I'm on for the local metropark presented policy
recommendations to the commissioners Monday and got them approved. That
includes policies like "Check with knowledgeable bicyclists before you
design another [insane] bicycle facility" and "Follow the design manuals
[because landscape architects that don't ever ride bikes are not geniuses].

But afterwards, in the public comments segment, one guy stood up and
asked if they could please paint some stripes on the road that's closed
to motor vehicles, to separate the bikes from peds, dogs, etc. This is
on pavement that's 18 feet wide, IIRC.

The commissioners gave their usual concerned "we hear you" looks, but I
doubt anything will be done. But the guy was justifiably worried about
cyclists coming close to pedestrians, dogs, etc. However, we cyclists
know that almost all of that is triggered by the peds. We had a club
member in the hospital because of a jogger's sudden U-turn. It's common
for peds to walk four abreast, with the leftmost straddling the center
line, which makes passing on either side a gamble. Many have earbuds.
Dogs are on long leashes... etc.

The facility supposedly has a 10 mph speed limit for bikes. Someone can
say that therefore any crash is the cyclist's fault - but it's odd that
roller bladers and runners are allowed to exceed 10 mph. And of course,
there's no law requiring a bike to have a speedometer anyway.

I do what I can to keep things safe. Specifically, I do that by avoiding
the facility whenever it's reasonable to do so. I'll go a mile out of my
way to minimize my riding on it. If it were ten feet wide instead of 18,
I doubt I'd ever use it unless it was deserted.


--
- 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
Rockslide onto bike path Joerg[_2_] Techniques 0 January 25th 17 12:31 AM
Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles Light of Aria[_2_] UK 59 March 9th 09 07:17 PM
Saying Hi on the Bike Path Jorg Lueke General 54 November 3rd 08 11:13 PM
Southbank path connecting to Docklands path Jules[_2_] Australia 1 June 26th 08 01:03 PM
PER: bike path re-opens DeF Australia 4 March 18th 06 02:39 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ゥ2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.