|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
On Feb 3, 10:31 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote: I will put this as simply as possible. No need. I handle complexity pretty well. Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. I agree. The get people thinking that bikes are part of the transportation system, Yes, a separated part. and both encourage people to ride, I agree. as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights to the road. I disagree. I believe they let cagers "know" that cyclists have a right to the bike lane, not to the rest of the road. Obviously, this is one of the kernels of our disagreement. [...] Besides, Europe is loaded with bike lanes and separate bike paths. I don't hear people clamoring to get rid of them. Are they just too dumb over there to recognize the dangers? They're drinking the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid unwittingly? I'm certainly aware of Europeans who seriously dislike bike lanes (as well as separate bike paths). The concerns I've stated are the same ones they've stated. As one example, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4789146.stm And regarding the Kool-Aid, let me give a related story. In our local metropolitan park, we have what one of the most inept designs of bike lanes I've ever seen. It's a two-way bike lane on the left side of a one-way-for-autos road, that "features" many bollards IN THE CENTER of the bike lane, as well as at its sides. These are serious collision hazards, especially where they pop up on semi-blind curves and steep downhills. Our bike club has tried unsuccessfully for years to have the hazards removed. I've communicated with at least four nationally recognized cycling facilities experts, and all (even the most pro- facilities guy) agreed that the design is a serious hazard and needs to be changed. I think even you will agree with that assessment. But despite this, there are local cyclists who say they like it. As one told me, "It's not perfect, but at least they're doing something for us." So, yes, I think there is some Kool-Aid being consumed. Any time a large group accepts a "safety" measure imposed on them, despite documented problems with that measure, and despite evidence that the measure does not increase safety, Kool-Aid is a reasonable supposition. Or to put it more briefly: There are many people who are not competent to judge. At some point we have to look at the INTENT of the accomodation, and recognize that if the intent is favorable (to cyclists), people are going to be working hard to make sure that favorable intent actually happens. If, on the other hand, you have a municipality that wants to "deal" with a situation (getting cyclists off the dang road!), the outcome will likely be quite different. I'm sorry, but I can't be content with bad facilities, even if they're installed with the best of intentions. What's the bike lane to hell paved with? - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
On Feb 3, 10:59 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
My spin detector just went off. What *really* happened at this meeting? You need a new spin detector. What happened was exactly what I described. - Frank Krygowski |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned there are problems with separate bike lanes." I will put this as simply as possible. Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights to the road.... Can not the same function be served by "sharrows" and "Bike Route" signs? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
On Feb 4, 12:28 am, Tom Sherman
wrote: Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights to the road.... Can not the same function be served by "sharrows" and "Bike Route" signs? .... and questions on drivers' tests? And public service announcements? And drivers' training instructions? And billboards? - Frank Krygowski |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road". Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf (just did a google search and that was the first one I found from an official government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2 of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218 citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031 non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case). How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals for speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is Florida representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do not tell the whole story. Look, you just made a fool of yourself by stating that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI", and I did a quick google search and found one set of state data that shows you simply made your "fact" up. Now you are just trying to ask more "questions" in an attempt to weasle out of it by throwing out a lot of BS. I see that there are no answers to my questions. The vast majority of people simply write a check and mail in the fine, maybe with some grumbling. Very few go to court. If you don't go to talk and interact with a DA, there is not going to be any "plea deal". Citation? I might add that some of the "DWB" complaints are bogus - there were some complaints of racial profiling in San Jose a few years ago due to an unsusually large number of Hispanics being cited, and when the statistics were carefully checked, they found that officers were ticketing fairly: what happened is that the police department was spending more time patrolling high crime areas, where a lot of disadvantaged Hispanics live, and they ended up getting more traffic tickets because the police were around more trying to protect them from serious crimes. Regardless of how you want to handle the increased number of citations, the citations were in fact legitimate. It's not that people were being cited for something they didn't do. There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you continually get all the facts wrong. Which facts? The ones you get wrong, which seems to be most of them. I gave sveral examples above. Where? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
vey writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Well, I've lived in the area for quite some time. Now, lots of people run red lights, but it is generally during the first few seconds after the signal change. It has nothing to do with vehicle size as you guys (or at least Tom) claimed. Most of the bicyclists ran the lights too and the pedestrians jaywalked with abandon. The idea that it was some sort of driver thing is ludicrous. See, here it's all about SUV's because they out number cars two-to-one. Bicyclists aren't even counted as running lights because they would amount to .001 of one percent of the traffic. That's a statistic you just made up: http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/SF.html (this is a bit old - around 1990 - and for the Bay Area): "Bicycle mode shares range from 0.9 percent of non-home-based trips to 4.2 percent of home-based school trips. The home-based work bicycle share is 1.3 percent. Walk mode shares range from 3.0 percent of home-based work trips to 21.5 percent of home-based school trips." Quite a bit diffent than your 0.001 percent (and bicycle use is much higher in San Francisco due to the relatively short distances coupled with the difficulty of finding parking and the cost of parking). And the only way pedestrians have a hope of crossing is to "jay walk" between intersections because to try and cross at an intersection is stupid. Wrong. http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases. Not so. They ruled out the first five seconds. But you would know that had you bothered to read the article. Now you are reduced to lying. At no point in the artile you quoted do they say anything about ruling out "the first five seconds". You just made that up. So you think that people *do not* buy SUV's to feel safer? Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas, what exactly do you think they mean? That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler. Bill, the California sun has gotten to your brain and cooked it. Are you sure you don't live in So. Ca, cause you sure sound like it. You know, for someone as ignorant as you are (see the numbers you fabricated above and your lie about what was in a news article), you really shoudn't go around taking about cooked brains. I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they want to use the vehicle as a battering ram. Oh. Okay, what do I know? I just report the news, I don't make it. What you seem to know is next to nothing given how bogus your numbers are (see above). And your ability to report the news is, shall we say, highly suspect (see above for that too). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Tom Sherman writes:
Bill Zaumen wrote: vey writes: Tom Sherman wrote: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Street law is what happens in real life. You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"? No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle" or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge". You can't be serious.... Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time, especially in the larger cities. Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit "anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa and pity the Honda driver. They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car. Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic. Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco. If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times. Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way. The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just large onea. Ever drive in Chicago? Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the pits). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that
bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights to the road.... Can not the same function be served by "sharrows" and "Bike Route" signs? No, because most potential cyclists are intimidated by the idea of sharing space with a car. Oh sure, I know, the problem is entirely education! Right. Good luck with that. It's far easier to get people to change by altering the environment than to get them to take a leap of faith and believe in what they're told. Telling people smoking causes cancer and will kill them was far less successful at reducing smoking than taking away places they're allowed to smoke. --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA "Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned there are problems with separate bike lanes." I will put this as simply as possible. Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights to the road.... Can not the same function be served by "sharrows" and "Bike Route" signs? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes: Bill Zaumen wrote: vey writes: Tom Sherman wrote: Bill Zaumen wrote: Tom Sherman writes: Street law is what happens in real life. You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"? No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle" or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge". You can't be serious.... Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time, especially in the larger cities. Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit "anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa and pity the Honda driver. They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car. Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic. Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco. If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times. Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way. The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just large onea. Ever drive in Chicago? Why? I've never been there (aside from the airport, which is the pits). Drive in Chicagoland, and you will find out what aggressive drivers are like. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Tom Sherman wrote:
Eric Vey wrote: Continuing my reading of recent cases concerning vehicular homicide, I see that there has been a bit of a recent shift. Juries in the more populous counties are happy to convict (unlike what we have been told). Prosecutors have been more likely to prosecute than in many a year. Judges, on the other hand, are more likely to see crashes as careless rather than reckless, but Prosecutors have been taking those cases up on appeal and, once again, in more populous areas, have been winning their appeals. This would not have happened even five years ago. Still, it can take up to a year before charges are brought. On Friday, I asked about a crash that happened in October. "What case number?" they asked me. I gave them a quick description and they said that there was no case because no one had been arrested and no charges had been filed. I filed a formal inquiry as to what is going on because this one is a slam-dunk conviction. It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that can get things going. Well, it is reported that the tactic of pressuring DA's to prosecute at fault automobile drivers worked for motorcycle organizations [1], so it appears that bicyclists need to adopt the same tactic. [1] At least the 99%ers. People keep telling me to "let the professionals do their job." Well, it ain't working. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 05:36 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 |