What Motorist Advocacy Does For Cycling

On Mar 15, 10:30*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:49 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Mar 15, 8:15 am, Frank *wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:00 am, Duane *wrote:

Bike lanes are unequal. *They give me the same right to use as a regular
lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.

They give you the right to use the bike lane. *They tend to take away
your right to use the rest of the road - for example, to merge left
for turns, to avoid parked car doors, to avoid debris or potholes.

Sure, you can still merge out over the line; but in some places you'll
be ticketed for doing so.

I'm not aware of any state that makes you stay in the bicycle lane
when it is dangerous to do so. Even the regressive Oregon law allows
you to leave the bicycle lane to merge left or right for a turn.

I think the problems with typical striped bike lanes is that (1) they
give cyclists a false sense of security -- that cars will actually
regard the lane as a lane and yield right of way, and (2) that at
merges (lanes entering or exiting on the right) where the bike lane
continue to the right and the cyclist needs to get over to continue
straight, cars assume that the bikes will go right -- following the
lane no matter what. The Oregon law specifically states that a
bicyclist may "continu[e]straight at an intersection where the bicycle
lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must
turn right" -- but I persistently get honked at for doing this, and
some people actually work at cutting me off. *Again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eS...er_embedded#at...
It's that split at 4:30.

Again, I like the additional road surface, and with proper driver
education and perhaps appropriate medication for drivers, bicycle
lanes could work well. -- Jay Beattie.

Phew, if I had to bike commute on that route every day -- well, I
wouldn't. As much as commuting in a car sucks, that sucks much worse.
Ride with semi's in the rain -- yeah, that'll sell... Man, I just hate
riding in the suburbs.- Hide quoted text -

Suburbs? Dude, that is like a mile from my office. That is town.
Looking south:http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_chirs/1685188578/
Looking north (and a little south): http://www.flickr.com/photos/sowellman/4729142192/
Anothe way to work. -- Jay.

Duane Hebert writes:

On 3/14/2011 8:32 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/14/2011 8:14 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 3/13/2011 10:11 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/13/2011 8:59 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
[...]
Don't get me wrong. I don't want bike lanes or paths everywhere. Only
where they can be useful. Mostly on busy roads in congested cities.
Apparently this attitude is untenable to some. Shrug

snip

How about a wider than normal inner lane with a lower speed limit?


Sure. Not sure when that would happen though.

Makes more sense to lobby for, than for separate and unequal facilities.

Bike lanes are unequal. They give me the same right to use as a
regular lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist
from access. I like the idea.

Just to expand a bit on the argument: Suppose one had a (say) 25 foot
wide lane. That would provide enough room for two cars to drive
comfortably, why divide the lane with arbitrary markings? Why not
let drivers share the space as they see fit?

For some reason, at least in the parts of the world that have been driving
the longest, this idea is rarely put into practice for motor vehicles.
I wonder why that is?

--

On 3/15/2011 2:44 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 15, 10:30 am, Peter wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:49 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Mar 15, 8:15 am, Frank wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:00 am, Duane wrote:

Bike lanes are unequal. They give me the same right to use as a regular
lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.

They give you the right to use the bike lane. They tend to take away
your right to use the rest of the road - for example, to merge left
for turns, to avoid parked car doors, to avoid debris or potholes.

Sure, you can still merge out over the line; but in some places you'll
be ticketed for doing so.

I'm not aware of any state that makes you stay in the bicycle lane
when it is dangerous to do so. Even the regressive Oregon law allows
you to leave the bicycle lane to merge left or right for a turn.

I think the problems with typical striped bike lanes is that (1) they
give cyclists a false sense of security -- that cars will actually
regard the lane as a lane and yield right of way, and (2) that at
merges (lanes entering or exiting on the right) where the bike lane
continue to the right and the cyclist needs to get over to continue
straight, cars assume that the bikes will go right -- following the
lane no matter what. The Oregon law specifically states that a
bicyclist may "continu[e]straight at an intersection where the bicycle
lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must
turn right" -- but I persistently get honked at for doing this, and
some people actually work at cutting me off. Again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eS...er_embedded#at...
It's that split at 4:30.

Again, I like the additional road surface, and with proper driver
education and perhaps appropriate medication for drivers, bicycle
lanes could work well. -- Jay Beattie.

Phew, if I had to bike commute on that route every day -- well, I
wouldn't. As much as commuting in a car sucks, that sucks much worse.
Ride with semi's in the rain -- yeah, that'll sell... Man, I just hate
riding in the suburbs.- Hide quoted text -

Suburbs? Dude, that is like a mile from my office. That is town.
Looking south:http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_chirs/1685188578/
Looking north (and a little south): http://www.flickr.com/photos/sowellman/4729142192/
Anothe way to work. -- Jay.

What's the speed limit there? Seems like a pretty decent setup with the
bike lanes shown in the picture. How do you find it?

I have a similar section on my commute but no lanes and the limit is 90
k/h. A lot of trucks as well. I mentioned that I would appreciate a
bike lane there but was derided by the usual suspects.

On 3/15/2011 2:44 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 15, 10:30 am, Peter wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:49 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Mar 15, 8:15 am, Frank wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:00 am, Duane wrote:

Bike lanes are unequal. They give me the same right to use as a regular
lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.

They give you the right to use the bike lane. They tend to take away
your right to use the rest of the road - for example, to merge left
for turns, to avoid parked car doors, to avoid debris or potholes.

Sure, you can still merge out over the line; but in some places you'll
be ticketed for doing so.

I'm not aware of any state that makes you stay in the bicycle lane
when it is dangerous to do so. Even the regressive Oregon law allows
you to leave the bicycle lane to merge left or right for a turn.

I think the problems with typical striped bike lanes is that (1) they
give cyclists a false sense of security -- that cars will actually
regard the lane as a lane and yield right of way, and (2) that at
merges (lanes entering or exiting on the right) where the bike lane
continue to the right and the cyclist needs to get over to continue
straight, cars assume that the bikes will go right -- following the
lane no matter what. The Oregon law specifically states that a
bicyclist may "continu[e]straight at an intersection where the bicycle
lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must
turn right" -- but I persistently get honked at for doing this, and
some people actually work at cutting me off. Again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eS...er_embedded#at...
It's that split at 4:30.

Again, I like the additional road surface, and with proper driver
education and perhaps appropriate medication for drivers, bicycle
lanes could work well. -- Jay Beattie.

Phew, if I had to bike commute on that route every day -- well, I
wouldn't. As much as commuting in a car sucks, that sucks much worse.
Ride with semi's in the rain -- yeah, that'll sell... Man, I just hate
riding in the suburbs.- Hide quoted text -

Suburbs? Dude, that is like a mile from my office. That is town.
Looking south:http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_chirs/1685188578/
Looking north (and a little south): http://www.flickr.com/photos/sowellman/4729142192/
Anothe way to work. -- Jay.

Where da people at?

On Mar 15, 11:49*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 15, 8:15*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 15, 9:00*am, Duane Hebert wrote:

Bike lanes are unequal. *They give me the same right to use as a regular
lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.

They give you the right to use the bike lane. *They tend to take away
your right to use the rest of the road - for example, to merge left
for turns, to avoid parked car doors, to avoid debris or potholes.

Sure, you can still merge out over the line; but in some places you'll
be ticketed for doing so.

I'm not aware of any state that makes you stay in the bicycle lane
when it is dangerous to do so. Even the regressive Oregon law allows
you to leave the bicycle lane to merge left or right for a turn.

The specific incident I was thinking of happened in Portland a few
years ago, where a cyclist (city worker, IIRC) was ticketed for
leaving a door zone bike lane on a downhill. I thought he fought it
in court, and that Roger Geller ended up testifying in his behalf -
after having been responsible for installing the bike lane.

I admit, my memory of the details is dim. You probably remember
better than I. Then there's Google...

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 15, 2:55*pm, Radey Shouman wrote:
Duane Hebert writes:
On 3/14/2011 8:32 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 3/14/2011 8:14 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 3/13/2011 10:11 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 3/13/2011 8:59 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
[...]
Don't get me wrong. I don't want bike lanes or paths everywhere. Only
where they can be useful. Mostly on busy roads in congested cities.
Apparently this attitude is untenable to some. Shrug

snip

How about a wider than normal inner lane with a lower speed limit?

Sure. Not sure when that would happen though.

Makes more sense to lobby for, than for separate and unequal facilities.

Bike lanes are unequal. *They give me the same right to use as a
regular lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist
from access. I like the idea.

Just to expand a bit on the argument: Suppose one had a (say) 25 foot
wide lane. *That would provide enough room for two cars to drive
comfortably, why divide the lane with arbitrary markings? *Why not
let drivers share the space as they see fit?

For some reason, at least in the parts of the world that have been driving
the longest, this idea is rarely put into practice for motor vehicles.
I wonder why that is?

--

Yeah, and could expand the argument some more and get rid of all lines
altogether and sidewalks as well and let everybody share happily...

Think about it, pedestrians walk on ghettos and that's discrimination.
Actually that's the way it out in the suburbs, right? No sidewalks
most of the time.

On Mar 15, 11:15*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:00*am, Duane Hebert wrote:



Bike lanes are unequal. *They give me the same right to use as a regular
lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access..

They give you the right to use the bike lane. *They tend to take away
your right to use the rest of the road - for example, to merge left
for turns, to avoid parked car doors, to avoid debris or potholes.

Sure, you can still merge out over the line; but in some places you'll
be ticketed for doing so.

Sure, you may fight the ticket. You might even win; but you'll still
be out the time and aggravation.

But even more sure, the lane does _not_ prevent the motorist from
access. *Any painted line you can ride over, a motorist can drive
over. *Your dreaded attack from the rear is still possible.

* I like the idea.

We know. * But it still makes little sense.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...com/wordpress/....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...ld.com/pete.me....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=htt...ort.org/bicycl....

However the other day I was forced to take the lane in order to avoid
the door area on a 4 lane road (no bike lane), and this dummy woman
blasted the horn since she thought I was taking over her space.

Is this damn if you do, damn if you don't?

On Mar 15, 1:20*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/15/2011 2:44 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:





On Mar 15, 10:30 am, Peter *wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:49 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Mar 15, 8:15 am, Frank * *wrote:
On Mar 15, 9:00 am, Duane * *wrote:

Bike lanes are unequal. *They give me the same right to use as a regular
lane gives a motorist and additionally prevent the motorist from access.

They give you the right to use the bike lane. *They tend to take away
your right to use the rest of the road - for example, to merge left
for turns, to avoid parked car doors, to avoid debris or potholes.

Sure, you can still merge out over the line; but in some places you'll
be ticketed for doing so.

I'm not aware of any state that makes you stay in the bicycle lane
when it is dangerous to do so. Even the regressive Oregon law allows
you to leave the bicycle lane to merge left or right for a turn.

I think the problems with typical striped bike lanes is that (1) they
give cyclists a false sense of security -- that cars will actually
regard the lane as a lane and yield right of way, and (2) that at
merges (lanes entering or exiting on the right) where the bike lane
continue to the right and the cyclist needs to get over to continue
straight, cars assume that the bikes will go right -- following the
lane no matter what. The Oregon law specifically states that a
bicyclist may "continu[e]straight at an intersection where the bicycle
lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must
turn right" -- but I persistently get honked at for doing this, and
some people actually work at cutting me off. *Again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eS...er_embedded#at...
It's that split at 4:30.

Again, I like the additional road surface, and with proper driver
education and perhaps appropriate medication for drivers, bicycle
lanes could work well. -- Jay Beattie.

Phew, if I had to bike commute on that route every day -- well, I
wouldn't. As much as commuting in a car sucks, that sucks much worse.
Ride with semi's in the rain -- yeah, that'll sell... Man, I just hate
riding in the suburbs.- Hide quoted text -

Suburbs? *Dude, that is like a mile from my office. That is town.
Looking south:http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_chirs/1685188578/
Looking north (and a little south):http://www.flickr.com/photos/sowellman/4729142192/
Anothe way to work. -- Jay.

Where da people at?- Hide quoted text -

Everywhere. It's a pretty dense city, and we do have lots of traffic,
e.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepor...n/photostream/
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2527/...bb1438b687.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/34052342/

"dgk" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:34:59 -0500, Tºm ShermªnT °_°
" wrote:

On 3/14/2011 8:13 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
And why the hell should that be? The only "particular" country I know
about
is America.

Poor Tom Sherman has most likely never traveled abroad. If he had, he
would
know something about America that does indeed make it exceptional.

Uh Ed, I am originally from Canuckistan.

But Tom Sherman belongs in France sitting at a sidewalk cafe in Paris
commiserating with the g.d. French *******s about how horrible America
is.
My God, it must be some kind of original sin to go through life as an
ideologue committed to liberalism-socialism-communism. He read Marx and
Engels as a youth and never recovered from it.

Groucho Marx?

Groucho Marx certainly warped my life. But if we're talking recent
things to regret that America did, I think the chemical warfare we
conducted on Vietnam is at the top. So hard to say though. Our
invasion of Iraq, a country that never did anything to us, was pretty
awful also. And, of course, using "depleted Uranium" while talking
about the horror of poison gas was pretty funny.

Saddam's Iraq was an abomination. We should have taken him out in the first
Iraq War. A country that never did anything to us? What a laugh that is! But
leave it to liberal Dems to forever play the role of cowards and scoundrels.
Obama does not have a clue about foreign affairs either. What a total
nincompoop he is! That asshole is even worse than Carter, if that is
possible.

But it's all so that wealthy Americans can move their money abroad
safely so I guess it's all ok.

Not wealthy yourself? Get over it. I'm not wealthy either, but someone has
got to be or else we would all be as poor as the god damn ****ing street
Arabs of the Middle East.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 3/15/2011 8:34 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per AMuzi:
And the Persians/Iranians haven't made amends for sacking
Athens (just before coming in 2d at Salamis).

Then there were a series of raids by the various Mayan
kings, enslaving and/or sacrificing the survivors in the
1200s to 1400s. No apologies there either.

Yeah, but

- The rape of Nanking happened within the lifetime of some people
still living today

As did the Conquest of Iraq. In fact, the invaders are still in Iraq.

- Japan still has war memorials eulogizing some of the
perpetrators

George Tenet, Norman Podhoretz, and Paul Bremer have the Presidential
Medal of Freedom.

- There is a significant level of denial at the national
level.

Yes, many USians still falsely believe the Conquest of Iraq was about
spreading democracy and protecting the world for weapons of mass
destruction.

It wouldn't get us anything - but it would get Japan as a
nation/people enhanced credibility.

Same with the US.

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