Can you make it to the market on a bike?

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

Bill Zaumen wrote:


Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?


He rides on bike lanes on Fantasy Island.

Wayne

Bill Z. wrote:

writes:

Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.


Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
city he rode.


Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for many
writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.

Wayne

donquijote1954 wrote:

Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
them through bike lanes.

I think letting you loose out of your cell would be dangerous.

Wayne

"Jack May" wrote in message
. ..
"Jens Mller" wrote in message
...
How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

In the US bikes and pedestrians have the highest death rates of all forms
of transportation except motorcycles. I think the rate is two and times
higher than cars according to a recent news report. I have not tried to
find the statistics.

And, of course, the leading cause of death for bicyclists and pedestrians is
getting hit by a car -- not that it's included in car fatalities, like it
would be if they were hit by a train.

For motorcycles, it's probably a toss-up between rider stupidity and car
drivers.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Aug 2, 2:37 pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:

I've been passed while driving by a speeding vehicle that decided to
use a bike lane to get by, even though there was no on-coming traffic
and the road was completely straight. You can always find some idiot
on the road who is competely irresponsible. What else is new? It
simply has nothing to do with bike lanes - they'll do something
incredibly stupid regardless.

You don't seem to realize that the incident you describe argues
against the common pro-bike lane idea - "If only I could be separated
from cars by a white line, I'd be safe."

In the real world, the white stripe does not protect you. It merely
shows where the glass and gravel begin.

- Frank Krygowski

Wayne Pein writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Wayne Pein writes:


The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane.

16' lane:
- bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other
operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge
under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as
a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed.
.... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding
at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally
14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you
a couple of feet inside the bike lane.

YOU may ride 2' from edge of pavement, and others may ride 2' from
edge of pavement, but it is not good practice. I don't ride 2' from
edge of pavement.

Wayne, stop lying (you misquote me so consistently that lying is the
only explanation): I talked about riding 14' from the lane stripe
(on the left) of the adjacent traffic lane, which puts you a couple
of feet inside the bike lane. You know, two feet from the bike lane
stripe, which can be quite far from the curb.


If you are less than 12 feet
from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane)
you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific
hazard (which the bike lane rules allow).

Not me. I typically ride 4' from edge of pavement no matter what my
speed is.

More dishonesty from Pein - given the minimum bike lane width, 4'
from the edge of the pavement is not outside of the bike lane.


Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing
lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle
operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space
since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist
within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist
traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor
vehicles.
The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway
unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you
were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you
do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not.

I don't care about the CVC.

If you don't care about traffic laws, or at least make a reasonable
effort to obey them, then do all of us a favor by not riding a bike
and not driving a car.

- bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor
vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion.
Nonesense.

Sorry. It's true.

You are delusional.

- bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane"
means that motorists need not be cautious.
That is also wrong. A driver has a responsibility to operate a
vehicle safely. Even drivers who don't care generally don't want
their fenders dinged needlessly.

So? Motorists pass bicyclists faster and closer when a bike lane is
present. They need not exhibit any caution when passing.

Bike lanes do not make drivers speed up. What you will find, however,
is that bicyclists ride a bit further from the curb when there is a
bike lane. The drivers can probably judge their clearance from a
bicycle easier if it is to right of a bike lane stripe. If conditions
make it possible to pass as safely at a higher speed, so what? It
is no different than with a shoulder stripe (so why don't you think
that shoulder stripes are bad).

- presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether
bicyclists are present or not.
Bike lanes actually have the opposite effect - motorist speed tends
to increase the wider a lane is.

Sorry. You are wrong again.

You simply do not know what you are talking about.

Yea, jurisdictions on Bike Lane Fantasy Island keep bike lanes as
clean as the normal lane.

Bike lanes are as clean as traffic lanes in the town I live in.
While I haven't done an exhaustive survey, the bike lanes I've
used in San Francisco were as clean as the rest of the street.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Martin Dann writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Martin Dann writes:

No, he was lying - he took a legal phrase, "normal speed of traffic",
that I had used (and that appears in the California Vehicle Code), and
pretended that I had said "normal traffic" as if to exclude bicycles
from the definition of traffic, and then tried to pretend it was
similar to racism.

As I don't live in the USA, I was unaware that such a legal phrase
existed.

No excuse: in standard english, the word "normal" in the phrase
"normal speed of traffic" obviously modifies "speed", not "traffic".
You pretended that I had said "normal traffic", and you had a good day
or more to say that you had made a mistake, but you didn't do that.

However when motorised traffic moves slower than the "normal
speed of traffic", does it have to get out of the way of bikes. Does a
slow lorry have to pull over for cars to pass. If not then this phase
translates directly into "normal" traffic hence the comparison to:

In fact, a "slow lorry" operating on a California roadway has to be
driven as far to the right as practicable. If on a two lane road (one
lane for each direction), when passing is not otherwise possible, a
slow moving vehicle (or bicycle) has to pull off the road at the first
reasonable opporunity to let faster traffic pass once 5 or more
vehicles are queued up behind.

BTW, the laws are similar in most states (in the U.S., traffic laws
are set by state governments, not the federal government).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery_Bus_Boycott
I also suggest you search the web for "Daniel Cadden"

Not relevant.

It is my opinion, and that of a great many cyclists that cycles should
be on the main road, not segregated and pushed onto poor facilities.

Bike lanes are part of a road, including "main roads": we have them on
our expressways, at least some of them.

I'm simply not going to let you people get away with this garbage.
It is completely dishonest.

What is dishonest is promoting second class cycling facilities as a
good idea.

No, what is dishonest is lying about what people say, which is what
you did. It is not "dishonest" to promote some type of facility as
long as you describe it accurately, but your apparent implication that
I'm promoting bike lanes is dishonest, as I'm not doing that. Show
where I posted any statement that bike lanes in general should be
installed. You won't find any. I merely stated that these facilities
don't cause problems when properly maintained and designed according
the latest standards (some very early bike lanes were poorly designed,
but that was before the standards existed).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Wayne Pein writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

Wayne Pein writes:

Bill Z. wrote:


Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.


Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes
become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane.
A bike lane is not a substandard width lane,

Yea, all lanes are 4' wide.

Are you for real?

Are you able to read simple English? I never said they were all 4' wide,
but rather that "a bike lane does not change the rules of the road".
Do you think the existence of bike lanes makes it impossible to have a
paper copy of the "rules of the road" because the rules somehow change
from place to place within the same state?

but in any case the
rules of the road do not change. The legislature does not magically
go into session and change the laws just because someone entered a
bike lane while riding a bicycle, or even because someone put in a
bike lane in their town.

More Fantasy Island Bike Lane lore.

Pein, you are an idiot.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Wayne Pein writes:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

Bill Zaumen wrote:

Does Bill Zaumem actually ride a bike in the real world and pay
attention to what happens, or does he just argue on Usenet?


He rides on bike lanes on Fantasy Island.

Pein, why don't you start acting like an adult for a change.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Wayne Pein writes:

Bill Z. wrote:

writes:

Right. Despite that "system," I was definitely dodging broken glass
and other trash when riding in those lanes. As usual, when riding in
the parts of the city without lanes, I had no such trouble.
Typical Krygowski post, and not to be believed - this guy spins
everything he posts. Note the failure to name the city or provide
any other relevant information, nor precisely where in this alleged
city he rode.


Folks, Frank Krygowski actually rides a bike, knows what he is talking
about, and is a straight shooter. I point to bicyclinglife.com for
many writings of Frank. Bill Zauman is a fruit cake.

Krygowski may or may not sometimes know what he talks about, but he is
one of the most dishonest posters on usenet. I've had quite a few
"discussions" with him. At one point, he accused me of not reading
some unmentioned magazine with one of the widest circulations in the
U.S. - turns out it was "Parade", which is a stuffer that many
newspapers insert into Sunday edition, and mostly contains advertising
with a little fluff so that people might actually thumb through it.
He went on like this was some cardinal sin and then tried to pretend
that "Parade" was some sort of required reading when I pointed out
what "magazine" he was actually referring to. But of course,
Krygowski never mentioned that magazine explicity in his original post
because he spins like crazy, being a wannabe Karl Rove.

Pein meanwhile is a wannabe Krygowski - about as dishonest but a bit
more crude and obvious about it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB