NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:12:16 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Monday, November 11, 2013 7:05:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:

Traffic control devices should also be designed for all users: motor
vehicles; bicycles and pedestrians. Unfortunately, they are designed to
speed motor vehicle traffic at the expense of other users. The case of
an inadequate red clearance cycle for traffic signals is but one
instance of this shortcoming.

While I agree with your general statement, I wonder what problems you
have with traffic control devices as they're currently implemented. I
have only a very few complaints:

1) When walking and crossing in crosswalks, I've found some that impose
unnecessarily long waits on pedestrians, and given extremely short
"walk" phases. I think that's unkind to the infirm.

2) When walking, I dislike super-wide (60' or 20 m) roads with no center
refuge for pedestrians. Peds should be able to deal with one direction
of traffic at a time.

3) There are some signal control loop detectors that don't respond to
bicycles (or motorcycles). There are many more that respond to me, but
only because I know exactly where their sensitivity is highest. Many
other bicyclists don't know that.

4) I don't like the trend of giving surface streets freeway features,
like large radius intersections allowing for high turning speeds. I
especially dislike "merge-diverge" ramps (cloverleaf or semi-cloverleaf
intersections).

5) And I think all roads with retail or residential buildings should
have sidewalks.

Any other complaints are largely aesthetic - e.g. yes, it's more
pleasant on a quiet street, but sometimes one has to ride a main road.

I'm not even remotely bothered by the typical placement of traffic
signals, by most traffic light signal phase timing, etc.

What problems bother you? What am I not thinking of?

- Frank Krygowski

I'm going to pass on this because each situation is different. What I'm
urging is that bicycle and pedestrian traffic be included in road design.
Traffic control devices are one part of the design. I used the inadequate
red clearance interval to show a fairly universal example of a design
that ignores bicycle traffic.

I live and ride in NYC. I'm pretty sure that our relatively short blocks,
traffic lights at almost every intersection, high density of automobile
and pedestrian traffic, with tall buildings, parked and double parked
cars effectively providing tunnel vision as one approaches intersections,
are not duplicated in most places. That's why I'm hesitant to offer any
solutions that might elsewhere be viewed as overkill.

Stephen Bauman

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 00:10:19 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:

snip



I rarely have any reason to pass a stopped motor vehicle. When there's
a red light or other reason for them to stop, I believe that
demonstrating I have the same rights and responsibilities as they do is
worth a lot more than getting a ten-second advantage on the light.


snip

I'm from NYC and have been cycling here for the better part of 60 years.
Here's a more likely scenario that I'd encounter coming to a stop light
on a Manhattan avenue block, if I did not move ahead of the stopped cars..

1. There isn't a single car in front of me. There are 5.

2. Of the 5 cars, one will be making a right turn. Another will be double
parking. A third will 12' tall truck that will block my view of the
traffic light.

3. The car that will be turning will not have his turn signal on.

4. the car that's in the process of double parking will not have his
flashers on.

The unseen traffic light will turn green.

5. There are about 10 pedestrians caught crossing the street when the
light turned green.

6. No motor traffic will move to allow these pedestrians finish crossing
the street.

7. When the light turns green about 200 pedestrians will instantly start
crossing, thereby blocking the path of the car that will try to make a
right turn.

8. The cars in the other lanes will start moving about 10 seconds after
the light turns green. The wait was required to permit the cars in the
next block to move up.

9. The cars in the right lane will start moving about 20 seconds after
the light has turned green. The right turning car has managed to
negotiate a hole in the sea of pedestrians crossing the street.

10. As I start moving, one of the parked cars opens the door into my path.

11. I now have a clear shot in front of me to cross the intersection. The
pedestrian "Dont Walk" sign is flashing.

12. A speeding car speeds up from behind me in the lane to my left and
cuts me off by making a right turn in front of me.

13. I manage to cross the intersection on a yellow light.

14. I come to a halt on the next block behind 5 cars that are waiting at
a red light.

I have gone 1 block or 1/20 mile. The light in front of me will not turn
green until 96 seconds from the time the light behind me turned green. I
can repeat the process again starting at step 1. I will be averaging
1.875 mph.

This scenario is not a complete fabrication.

Stephen Bauman

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:58:57 -0800, yirgster wrote:

It's amazing to me that this thread immediately devolved into details
concerning the context of what the roads are like an similar. Which have
been fought over time and again in this group with virtually no resolve.
Even the occasional lurker here could spout them from memory while
solving differential equations.

The main thrust of the article--which appears to have been totally
ignored--is that drivers who kill cyclists get away with it, even when
they have committed violations, and get away with it with the outright
complicity, to put it mildly, of the police.

The actions of the SFPD are beyond the pale, totally reprehensible.

It's these that should be the focus.

Why should you be shocked. Here's today's news in the big city. Three
pedestrians killed on the sidewalk in two separate incidents. No tickets
to the drivers yet. If history is any precedent, none are likely to be
issued.


The New York Times

November 11, 2013
3 People Are Killed in Car Crashes
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Three people were killed on Monday in car crashes in Queens and East
Harlem, the police said.

The first crash took place around 7:30 a.m. in Elmhurst, Queens. A yellow
Chevrolet Camaro traveling west on Queens Boulevard near Broadway struck
a phone booth, a lamp post and two parked cars before jumping the curb
and hitting two pedestrians, the police said.

One of the pedestrians, Man Chit Cheng, 59, died at the scene. The other,
Mu Wang Lin, 41, was taken to Elmhurst Hospital, where he was pronounced
dead. Both men lived in Queens, the police said.

The driver, a 22-year-old man, has not been identified. He had minor
injuries and was taken into custody, the police reported.

The crash in East Harlem took place around 12:50 p.m. A taxi traveling
west on East 102nd Street hit a box truck traveling south on Park Avenue.
The truck jumped the curb and hit a 65-year-old woman, the police said.

The pedestrian, Olga Rivera of Manhattan, was taken to Mount Sinai
Hospital, where she was pronounced dead. The taxi driver and two
passengers were taken to nearby hospitals in stable condition. The driver
of the truck was not injured.

The police are investigating the crashes.

-----

Stephen Bauman

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:48:31 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-11-2013, 20:53, John B. wrote:
Well, Darwin was correct and perhaps it would be a good thing.

But on a more sober basis, humans are born with a very distinct sense
of danger - take a new born baby and lower them suddenly and quickly
and they will react - fear of falling apparently is instinctive.

I never tried it when they were "newborn" but my kids
thought it was fun when they were a few months old.

In essence you dropped the kid, except of course you caught him before
he crashed, and they didn't cry?

Mine did.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 21:47:11 -0500, Wes Groleau
wrote:

On 11-11-2013, 21:06, John B. wrote:
On the other hand, the syrup was sitting there on the table for all to
use, just beside the salt and pepper, and then it was gone. Some
scoundrel must have used it all up.... :-)

Same guy constantly claims he "didn't see" the obvious.

Well, I have done that myself. something isn't in its accustomed
place; who stole it?
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:02:37 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 18:27:33 -0800, Dan
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:37:49 -0800, Dan
wrote:

Stephen Bauman writes:

On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 07:52:53 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Sunday, November 10, 2013 8:29:17 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:

snip



Traffic lights are supposed to be placed at least 40 feet beyond the
stop line.

Do you have a source for that?


I had previously mentioned it: The Federal Highway Administration's
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD).

Here's a link to the current MUTCD:

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm

The specific confirmation you seek is in Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part4.pdf

In particular, check out section 4D-14 on page 464: Longitudinal
Positioning of Signal Faces. Figure 4D-4 on page 463 is worth a thousand
words regarding this topic.


It blows me away that anyone familiar with USA roads would
not agree that the rules are geared for automobiles.

It seems equally surprising that one should be surprised that rules
are geared to the requirements of the majority of the users :-)

I'm not surprised. In fact it's completely understandable.

What I'm expressing is the basic reason they are less applicable
to the very different needs of bicyclists, and thus it is often
*reasonable* to deviate from them in some situations.

I came across a site
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bull...n-the-us/30147
that states that according to U.S. government figures the number of
bicycle commuters amounts to just 0.61% of all commuters.

The question then is how much consideration does less then 1% of the
total demand? Require? Is the public required to finance?

That's a national average. And cycling infrastructure is rarely a
federally funded item. You'd probably get different results looking at
places like Portland and comparing that to the percentage of Portland's
municipal tax base that goes to funding cycling infrastructure. Even then
you need to look at the benefit to the municipality in reducing cars and
not just the benefit to the cyclists.

You are correct however, I've read that local road construction and
maintenance is funded about 45% by fuel tax and the remainder from the
general tax fund so perhaps the question should be how much of this
should the non-bike tax payers be required to pay when the bike riders
contribute none of the 45%?

It depends on the city. Where I live bike paths etc come out of my
property tax. And I pay enough of that. I'm not in the US anymore though.


Would it be fair for the city to fund the 55% of the cost of the bike
path and rely on the Bikests to front up the other 45%?

Everyone pays for school tax whether they have kids in school or not.


--
duane

On Monday, November 11, 2013 4:02:09 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:

snip


So things must change in favor of something less then one percent of
the highway users?


Yes.

On Monday, November 11, 2013 4:04:58 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 19:44:10 -0800, Dan


snip


But jeez, unthinking adherence to rules and assumptive
decision making is Dumb and Dumber.

Right. Nobody should stop just because he sees one of those funny red
octagon signs.

I didn't word that so well (It just seemed clever 'cause of that movie),
but it was on the track. What it is is dumbing down the already dumb -
keeping it simple, which isn't all bad. It can keep people with lower
situational awareness and less effective social interaction (which takes
at least two anyway) from crashing into each other.

Just blast right through!


That can be done a couple of ways - dumb, or thinking. Since the
cops can't tell which is which, and society can't take the chance
of waiting to find out the hard way, I totally understand their need
to enforce uniformly.

I wish they'd take a look around and think; but if they
can't do that at least leave me be to watch out for my
own self my own way and not try to force me into the fold.


IOW, it's okay with me if they need it simplified for themselves
(too hard to think through), but as long as I'm not creating a
practical problem, why can't I just have at it? (FWIW I do understand
that the effect on others of their merely observing what they think
is chaotic can result in a practical effect - all from them, though, I
consider this, and try to be reasonable.)

On Monday, November 11, 2013 8:48:46 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:37:50 PM UTC-5, Dan wrote:

Anyone who believes that a paint stripe protects them from a
moving truck has a *lot* of prerequisites to complete before
starting bike school.

Trouble is, there's a massive number of people who think that a paint stripe _does_ protect bicyclists. And there's a significant number of people who think that one dares not ride a bike unless such a stripe is present.

These people should be educated somehow.

I agree completely.

Getting them to do some unschooled trial-and-error on their own bikes isn't going to be very likely,


Again, I agree. They're either clamoring for separated facilities,
or they're resigned to the necessity of cars.

... nor very efficient.


But far and away the most effective way.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 20:22:48 -0500, Wes Groleau wrote:

On 11-11-2013, 20:08, John B. wrote:
wrote:
Actually around here nobody does. It's amazing how many people you see
looking a bit confused in a broken car parked in somebody’s wall or a
shop. Those funny coloured 3 light things also seem to be a bit
misunderstood.

Which of course is why we need driver training :-)

Or maybe driver beating.

No. Driver training I think.

To get a driving licence here you have to sit some kind of exam about
traffic signs, lights etc. Really basic stuff. Then you have to drive a
car about 200 yards in a straight line using all the gears and stop...

That's it!

Then you have a licence and can learn to drive or not. This high standard
of training makes the roads very interesting.
--
davethedave