Before & after bike ghettos

On Oct 19, 8:16*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote

Why does the shoulder need to be "reserved" for bicycles? *(In the US at least), it is already illegal for motorists to use the
shoulder as a travel lane (and those who use it as a passing lane would not be dissuaded by bike lane markings, based on my
experience of living in the Chicago and Milwaukee areas).

As long as it's a shoulder this is true. *But if you remove the shoulder
and just widen the lane, then the car has a right to it. *And, at least
around here, the cars will move to the right.

Oh come on. If there's a cyclist riding there?? Are you claiming
Montrealers are simultaneously so well-behaved that they won't throw
out a candy wrapper, but that they'll try to mow down a cyclist riding
at the right of a shareable lane? Sorry, that's literally
unbelievable.

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Oct 19, 8:16 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote

Why does the shoulder need to be "reserved" for bicycles? (In the US at least), it is already illegal for motorists to use the
shoulder as a travel lane (and those who use it as a passing lane would not be dissuaded by bike lane markings, based on my
experience of living in the Chicago and Milwaukee areas).

As long as it's a shoulder this is true. But if you remove the shoulder
and just widen the lane, then the car has a right to it. And, at least
around here, the cars will move to the right.

Oh come on. If there's a cyclist riding there?? Are you claiming
Montrealers are simultaneously so well-behaved that they won't throw
out a candy wrapper, but that they'll try to mow down a cyclist riding
at the right of a shareable lane? Sorry, that's literally
unbelievable.

No one claims that Montrealers are well behaved. They just
don't litter much.

They can only mow me down if I'm already ahead of them.
So I have to get there first? Cars are faster than me. They block my
path. When I am in front of them, I block their path.
I end up breathing their tailpipe fumes. Do you have such low
traffic that there are no cars in front of you? That's literally
unbelievable.

You're just arguing based on some principle that
you don't wish to concede, even in any situation that you don't
understand.

On Oct 19, 11:41*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in ...
On Oct 19, 8:16 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Tom Sherman °_°" wrote

Why does the shoulder need to be "reserved" for bicycles? *(In the US at least), it is already illegal for motorists to use the
shoulder as a travel lane (and those who use it as a passing lane would not be dissuaded by bike lane markings, based on my
experience of living in the Chicago and Milwaukee areas).

As long as it's a shoulder this is true. *But if you remove the shoulder
and just widen the lane, then the car has a right to it. *And, at least
around here, the cars will move to the right.

Oh come on. *If there's a cyclist riding there?? *Are you claiming
Montrealers are simultaneously so well-behaved that they won't throw
out a candy wrapper, but that they'll try to mow down a cyclist riding
at the right of a shareable lane? *Sorry, that's literally
unbelievable.

No one claims that Montrealers are well behaved. *They just
don't litter much.

They can only mow me down if I'm already ahead of them.
So I have to get there first? *Cars are faster than me. *They block my
path. *When I am in front of them, I block their path.
*I end up breathing their tailpipe fumes. *Do you have such low
traffic that there are no cars in front of you? *That's literally
unbelievable.

You're just arguing based on some principle that
you don't wish to concede, even in any situation that you don't
understand.

Ah well. Someone once said that each person constructs their own
world, by the way they think about reality.

I haven't cycled in Montreal. I hope to one day. But I doubt I'll
find it to be notably different from (say) Toronto, or Pittsburgh, or
Portland, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles, or Oklahoma City, or
Jacksonville, or all the other cities I have cycled in. None have
been the hell you describe. None have caused me the fear of being run
over that you suffer.

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Oct 19, 11:41 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Frank Krygowski" wrote in ...
On Oct 19, 8:16 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

Ah well. Someone once said that each person constructs their own
world, by the way they think about reality.

I haven't cycled in Montreal. I hope to one day. But I doubt I'll
find it to be notably different from (say) Toronto, or Pittsburgh, or
Portland, or San Francisco, or Los Angeles, or Oklahoma City, or
Jacksonville, or all the other cities I have cycled in. None have
been the hell you describe. None have caused me the fear of being run
over that you suffer.

I haven't described my ride as hell. That's only your take since it's
so different from your world. I just said that there are parts of it that
are less than pleasant for me, and enough so that casual cyclists won't
do it. Hell is sitting in a car, stuck in traffic.
Nor did I say that I was afraid of being run over. You love to put words
in peoples' mouths. I did say that there are people that won't commute where
I do because they're afraid.

Next time that you ride in Toronto, Pittsburgh, LA or wherever, try doing
it at rush hour in the city. Try taking the lane on Yonge street in Toronto
at 7:15AM. Let me know how that goes.

On Oct 20, 8:30*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

I haven't described my ride as hell. *That's only your take since it's
so different from your world.

ISTR you described it as a place where if the lane were wide but
without a protective stripe, Montrealers would run you down from
behind. If true, that would be a cycling hell.

To be perfectly accurate, I don't believe such a thing would happen,
therefore I don't believe that Montreal is a cycling hell. However,
I'm demonstrating the conclusion based on your claims.

Next time that you ride in Toronto, Pittsburgh, LA or wherever, *try doing
it at rush hour in the city. *

One of my memorable rides was the day I finished the all-day-long exam
for my Professional Engineering license. Leaving out some pleasant
details, I finished very early partly because I realized I had time
for a bike ride.

So I rode around the city of Pittsburgh, starting from the heart of
the downtown (the Point) at about 4PM to 5 PM on a Friday. As it
turns out, in a thunderstorm. And what do you know? I did fine.

Riding in cities is usually fun. In dense cities, I find it easy to
negotiate with motorists and move with and through traffic.


Try taking the lane on Yonge street in Toronto
at 7:15AM. *Let me know how that goes.

I've ridden Yonge Street, but not at 7:15 AM. I left from there on a
four-day bike tour back to my home, past Niagara Falls, through
Buffalo, etc. Was I supposed to be scared?

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...
On Oct 20, 8:30 am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

I haven't described my ride as hell. That's only your take since it's
so different from your world.

ISTR you described it as a place where if the lane were wide but
without a protective stripe, Montrealers would run you down from
behind. If true, that would be a cycling hell.

You'd have to show me where I said that. Why would anyone ride
in a place that was hell? I did say that it can be tense at times. I also
said that less experienced cyclists are hesitant to ride on some streets
without bike lanes because of the tension of cars approaching at speed.

Next time that you ride in Toronto, Pittsburgh, LA or wherever, try doing
it at rush hour in the city.

One of my memorable rides was the day I finished the all-day-long exam
for my Professional Engineering license. Leaving out some pleasant
details, I finished very early partly because I realized I had time
for a bike ride.

So I rode around the city of Pittsburgh, starting from the heart of
the downtown (the Point) at about 4PM to 5 PM on a Friday. As it
turns out, in a thunderstorm. And what do you know? I did fine.

You do realize that most people work until 5?
But even so are you saying there was no rush hour traffic with cars backed up for blocks?
I would be surprised.

Riding in cities is usually fun. In dense cities, I find it easy to
negotiate with motorists and move with and through traffic.

I doubt that you're in the majority there.

Try taking the lane on Yonge street in Toronto
at 7:15AM. Let me know how that goes.

I've ridden Yonge Street, but not at 7:15 AM. I left from there on a
four-day bike tour back to my home, past Niagara Falls, through
Buffalo, etc. Was I supposed to be scared?

What's with this "scared" thing? No one said that. If I was scared to ride
a bike, I wouldn't ride a bike. You said that you've
never seen traffic jams backed up for blocks in rush hour.
Last time I was in Toronto, that street was a parking lot at 7:30AM.

I'm just wondering how with your extensive cycling experience, you've
never seen backed up traffic like people are describing?

Radey Shouman writes:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Oct 20, 3:18*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:

I'm just wondering how with your extensive cycling experience, you've
never seen backed up traffic like people are describing?

The _only_ place I've ever seen traffic backed up for an honest mile
is on a freeway. And never on those freeways out in western US, where
I rode them on a bicycle. I think the same is true of half-mile
backups. I think that everyday occurrences of such long backups
cannot be common. They must be extremely rare, and they can't have
much to do with promoting bike lanes.

Google says I live 0.38 miles (I guess I exaggerated a bit) from the
traffic light down the road, and most weekday mornings I can see backed
up traffic from my front window. Often it extends further up the road.
Unfortunately I'm too much of a Luddite to have any kind of video
camera.

My circumstances are not extraordinary at all, as all my neighbors
tell me.

I think you're closer to right than wrong on bike lanes, but insisting
that something must be extremely rare just because you, personally,
haven't seen it doesn't help your arguments.

On Oct 21, 10:53*am, Radey Shouman wrote:
Radey Shouman writes:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Oct 20, 3:18*pm, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
I'm just wondering how with your extensive cycling experience, you've
never seen backed up traffic like people are describing?

The _only_ place I've ever seen traffic backed up for an honest mile
is on a freeway. *And never on those freeways out in western US, where
I rode them on a bicycle. *I think the same is true of half-mile
backups. *I think that everyday occurrences of such long backups
cannot be common. *They must be extremely rare, and they can't have
much to do with promoting bike lanes.

Google says I live 0.38 miles (I guess I exaggerated a bit) from the
traffic light down the road, and most weekday mornings I can see backed
up traffic from my front window. *Often it extends further up the road.
Unfortunately I'm too much of a Luddite to have any kind of video
camera.

When you say "I can see backed up traffic from my front window," do
you mean that backed up traffic is literally in front of your house?
From my front window I can see quite a distance down our street.

We live in a suburban village, historically separate and still
jusridictionally independent, but thoroughly surrounded by suburbia.
Our village is bisected by a major US route. Half a mile west on that
route is an extremely high traffic area dense with shopping plazas,
malls, etc. That's the area that gets traffic complaints.

Over there, less than a mile from my house, are the two traffic lights
that have occasionally - rarely - backed up far enough for me to miss
a green cycle. I bike through one very frequently. Frankly, a bike
lane wouldn't help there. There's simply not room for one. It's a
side road intersecting the main one, and it's just too narrow to add a
bike lane.

So I wonder about these places where people claim 15 minute backups,
curable by a bike lane. As always, it seems to me that if there's
room for a bike lane, there must be room for a bike to get by stopped
traffic, because it takes _much_ less room for a cyclist to safely
pass a stopped car, than to put in a bike lane that meets width
standards for cars safely passing bikes at speed.

The argument has been that without a bike lane stripe, lots of
motorists will purposely block the edge. Once again, that is
something I've simply not seen. Had I wanted to, I could have
squeezed to the front of the light I just described. The other
traffic light (of the two mentioned above) that I ride through less
often has normal arterial-width lanes, perhaps 12 or 13 feet. A few
times, when it was obvious I'd miss a green cycle, I've slowly passed
on the right and gotten behind the first car (so as to prevent a right
hook). Nobody has ever obstructed me, and I've never seen motorists
far enough out of line to block a bike. That's whether I was on a
bike, a motorcycle, or in a car.

In my mind, it keeps coming down to this: The stripe adds no width.
In my experience, all it does is collect debris. Oh, and it tempts
unaware cyclists into dangerous situations like dooring, right hooks,
etc.

I think you're closer to right than wrong on bike lanes, but insisting
that something must be extremely rare just because you, personally,
haven't seen it doesn't help your arguments.

Understand, I'm an old guy who's traveled a lot. When someone hinges
their argument on something I don't recall seeing anywhere, I really
wonder about details.

And to keep repeating: Some bike facilities - maybe even some bike
lanes - may make sense in some places. But the examples and
rationales that keep coming up here certainly don't sound convincing.

Sorry to ramble, but I just recalled my wife and my vacation in
Washington DC. We were in a B&B on a little narrow one-way street,
maybe a mile north of the Mall. Q street, near 14th. It had two-
sided parking and a bike lane stripe that would have put me firmly in
the door zone had I obeyed. Once again, they'd "done something for
cyclists," I guess - but I was happier and safer riding on similar
streets with no bike lanes. And BTW, no motorists ever complained
when I took the lanes on those streets, or any other one.

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message ...


The argument has been that without a bike lane stripe, lots of
motorists will purposely block the edge. Once again, that is
something I've simply not seen. Had I wanted to, I could have

It's not that they do it purposely Frank. Just that they
block the lane. Maybe some do it purposely. Maybe some
do it to keep a distance between themselves and trucks on the
left (like I saw this morning)
I don't know, maybe the lanes here are
more narrow than what you are used to. I haven't measured
them but usually even a car in the middle of their lane doesn't
leave much space for me on the right. Not to mention SUVs.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On Oct 21, 10:53*am, Radey Shouman wrote:

Google says I live 0.38 miles (I guess I exaggerated a bit) from the
traffic light down the road, and most weekday mornings I can see backed
up traffic from my front window. *Often it extends further up the road.
Unfortunately I'm too much of a Luddite to have any kind of video
camera.

When you say "I can see backed up traffic from my front window," do
you mean that backed up traffic is literally in front of your house?
From my front window I can see quite a distance down our street.

I live on the third (top) floor of an apartment building. I can only
see a small part of the road, immediately in front of the building, and
in the morning it's often full of slow moving cars.

The road is largely residential but still a thoroughfare. When it crosses
into New Hampshire it becomes a state highway. There are
newer subdevelopments here, square grid ones from the Levittown era,
on to cul-de-sac developments, but there are also many regional roads
from long before any organized highway system. One can find bits of
the old arrow straight turnpikes (the better to move mast timbers);
one can find bits of the Middlesex canal towpath.

These roads are good for bicycling, and how to get here or there on
back roads is a frequent topic of conversation, not only among cyclists.

So I wonder about these places where people claim 15 minute backups,
curable by a bike lane. As always, it seems to me that if there's
room for a bike lane, there must be room for a bike to get by stopped
traffic, because it takes _much_ less room for a cyclist to safely
pass a stopped car, than to put in a bike lane that meets width
standards for cars safely passing bikes at speed.

I never said that this 15 minute backup would be curable by a bike lane.
I *like* backups when bicycling, because the traffic moves slowly.
Heavy traffic at speed, on narrow roads, is much less fun.

I'm just trying to get you to tighten up your arguments by not saying
things that are simply not true.

I have already given an example where bike lanes do help: when
drivers habitually share what is marked as a single lane between two cars.
With the bike lane they sometimes still do that, but they are much
more likely to expect and defer to cyclists.

The argument has been that without a bike lane stripe, lots of
motorists will purposely block the edge.

I would strike "purposely", why attribute malice unless it's
unmistakeable?

What I do see is motorists, reduced to walking speed, absentmindedly
meandering between one side of the lane and the other. I also see
drivers very near the right edge of the lane while waiting to turn or
cross an intersection, frequently because a left turn lane (sometimes
marked, sometimes adopted by custom) has been shoehorned into a single
lane.

Understand, I'm an old guy who's traveled a lot. When someone hinges
their argument on something I don't recall seeing anywhere, I really
wonder about details.

You haven't seen everything, and your "wondering" can sound a lot like
pigheaded contradiction.

And to keep repeating: Some bike facilities - maybe even some bike
lanes - may make sense in some places. But the examples and
rationales that keep coming up here certainly don't sound convincing.

Answer the one about car lane sharing. I'm thinking in particular of
Hartwell Ave, in Bedford, Mass. I can think of a few other examples
in my area where a bike lane is unlikely to be accepted.

Sorry to ramble, but I just recalled my wife and my vacation in
Washington DC. We were in a B&B on a little narrow one-way street,
maybe a mile north of the Mall. Q street, near 14th. It had two-
sided parking and a bike lane stripe that would have put me firmly in
the door zone had I obeyed. Once again, they'd "done something for
cyclists," I guess - but I was happier and safer riding on similar
streets with no bike lanes. And BTW, no motorists ever complained
when I took the lanes on those streets, or any other one.

How do you think a person decides where to locate a B&B? Does your
vocabulary not include "sampling bias"?