More infra promoters

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-...-injuries.html

--
JS

On 7/21/2016 8:53 PM, James wrote:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-...-injuries.html

The one sub-headline is particularly laughable: "The Majority Of People
Will Ride With Protected Bike Lanes."

Regarding the title of the PDF, "Equitable Bike Share Means Building
Better Places for People To Ride." Here's an interesting tidbit on the
word "Equitable."

For the past couple decades, there's been a battle for the soul of the
League of American Bicyclists. The organization used to give plenty of
attention to maintaining cyclist's rights to the road, mostly through
volunteer legislative activists in each state. It also promoted cycling
education in a big way, at least, considering the size of the
organization and its perennial financial troubles. In those days, its
direction was largely controlled by its membership.

But when Andy Clarke became president, the focus shifted. The national
board was changed, with elected positions becoming a minority.
Excellent candidates for the board (I know several) were either told
they did not qualify, or had their campaigns sabotaged. Rules for
write-in candidates were changed, requiring a greater number of write-in
votes than the TOTAL votes in recent elections.

Once Clarke had total control, the focus was on getting money from
manufacturers, and on giving "bike friendly" points to any and every
city that put in bike facilities. It was impossible to be labeled "bike
friendly" without segregated facilities, and towns that had previously
qualified (via quiet streets, cycling-friendly policies, traffic lights
that worked for cyclists, bike parking, etc.) had their status taken away.

There were prominent LAB members who fought against this. A certain
contingent, hoping to re-focus on rights to the road, asked that the
mission statement include "equity," specifically, that traffic laws
would give equitable treatment to bikes relative to cars. Not
identical, mind you; equitable, meaning essentially fair and appropriate
consideration - as in, don't shove the bikes out of the way. The LAB
top brass agreed, and "Equity" was formally accepted as a goal.

Then the top brass let it be known that they didn't really mean "bike
laws equitable to car laws." They twisted the meaning completely
around, to say "Bicycling facilities have to be good for women and
minorities, too!" with the unspoken assumption that if it's good for a
white male, it's not good enough for (say) a black female.

It was about that time that I stopped my membership in LAB. The
duplicity was too much to bear.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:31:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2016 8:53 PM, James wrote:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-...-injuries.html

The one sub-headline is particularly laughable: "The Majority Of People
Will Ride With Protected Bike Lanes."

Regarding the title of the PDF, "Equitable Bike Share Means Building
Better Places for People To Ride." Here's an interesting tidbit on the
word "Equitable."

For the past couple decades, there's been a battle for the soul of the
League of American Bicyclists. The organization used to give plenty of
attention to maintaining cyclist's rights to the road, mostly through
volunteer legislative activists in each state. It also promoted cycling
education in a big way, at least, considering the size of the
organization and its perennial financial troubles. In those days, its
direction was largely controlled by its membership.

But when Andy Clarke became president, the focus shifted. The national
board was changed, with elected positions becoming a minority.
Excellent candidates for the board (I know several) were either told
they did not qualify, or had their campaigns sabotaged. Rules for
write-in candidates were changed, requiring a greater number of write-in
votes than the TOTAL votes in recent elections.

Once Clarke had total control, the focus was on getting money from
manufacturers, and on giving "bike friendly" points to any and every
city that put in bike facilities. It was impossible to be labeled "bike
friendly" without segregated facilities, and towns that had previously
qualified (via quiet streets, cycling-friendly policies, traffic lights
that worked for cyclists, bike parking, etc.) had their status taken away..

There were prominent LAB members who fought against this. A certain
contingent, hoping to re-focus on rights to the road, asked that the
mission statement include "equity," specifically, that traffic laws
would give equitable treatment to bikes relative to cars. Not
identical, mind you; equitable, meaning essentially fair and appropriate
consideration - as in, don't shove the bikes out of the way. The LAB
top brass agreed, and "Equity" was formally accepted as a goal.

Then the top brass let it be known that they didn't really mean "bike
laws equitable to car laws." They twisted the meaning completely
around, to say "Bicycling facilities have to be good for women and
minorities, too!" with the unspoken assumption that if it's good for a
white male, it's not good enough for (say) a black female.

I don't get the article: "The poor and people of colour are underserved with bike infrastructure, while 'Black and Hispanic cyclists had
a fatality rate 30% and 23% higher than white cyclists, respectively, and similar racial/ethnic safety gaps are found for pedestrians.'�

I didn't think bike lanes and sidewalks discriminated. Is the claim that there are fewer sidewalks and bike lanes in black and hispanic neighborhoods? And if so, does that explain the increased fatality rate? What about a black or hispanic cyclist who gets hit on a nice road in an upscale white neighborhood? Its a mish-mash of statistics with no explanation.

I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in bicycle chutes).

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/22/2016 9:31 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:31:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2016 8:53 PM, James wrote:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-...-injuries.html

The one sub-headline is particularly laughable: "The Majority Of People
Will Ride With Protected Bike Lanes."

Regarding the title of the PDF, "Equitable Bike Share Means Building
Better Places for People To Ride." Here's an interesting tidbit on the
word "Equitable."

For the past couple decades, there's been a battle for the soul of the
League of American Bicyclists. The organization used to give plenty of
attention to maintaining cyclist's rights to the road, mostly through
volunteer legislative activists in each state. It also promoted cycling
education in a big way, at least, considering the size of the
organization and its perennial financial troubles. In those days, its
direction was largely controlled by its membership.

But when Andy Clarke became president, the focus shifted. The national
board was changed, with elected positions becoming a minority.
Excellent candidates for the board (I know several) were either told
they did not qualify, or had their campaigns sabotaged. Rules for
write-in candidates were changed, requiring a greater number of write-in
votes than the TOTAL votes in recent elections.

Once Clarke had total control, the focus was on getting money from
manufacturers, and on giving "bike friendly" points to any and every
city that put in bike facilities. It was impossible to be labeled "bike
friendly" without segregated facilities, and towns that had previously
qualified (via quiet streets, cycling-friendly policies, traffic lights
that worked for cyclists, bike parking, etc.) had their status taken away.

There were prominent LAB members who fought against this. A certain
contingent, hoping to re-focus on rights to the road, asked that the
mission statement include "equity," specifically, that traffic laws
would give equitable treatment to bikes relative to cars. Not
identical, mind you; equitable, meaning essentially fair and appropriate
consideration - as in, don't shove the bikes out of the way. The LAB
top brass agreed, and "Equity" was formally accepted as a goal.

Then the top brass let it be known that they didn't really mean "bike
laws equitable to car laws." They twisted the meaning completely
around, to say "Bicycling facilities have to be good for women and
minorities, too!" with the unspoken assumption that if it's good for a
white male, it's not good enough for (say) a black female.

I don't get the article: "The poor and people of colour are underserved with bike infrastructure, while 'Black and Hispanic cyclists had
a fatality rate 30% and 23% higher than white cyclists, respectively, and similar racial/ethnic safety gaps are found for pedestrians.'�

I didn't think bike lanes and sidewalks discriminated. Is the claim that there are fewer sidewalks and bike lanes in black and hispanic neighborhoods? And if so, does that explain the increased fatality rate? What about a black or hispanic cyclist who gets hit on a nice road in an upscale white neighborhood? Its a mish-mash of statistics with no explanation.

I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in bicycle chutes).

-- Jay Beattie.


Does the guy who decides get a better kickback from the
picket and paint suppliers or the actual mafia running the
asphalt racket?


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:31:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2016 8:53 PM, James wrote:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-...-injuries.html

The one sub-headline is particularly laughable: "The Majority Of People
Will Ride With Protected Bike Lanes."

Regarding the title of the PDF, "Equitable Bike Share Means Building
Better Places for People To Ride." Here's an interesting tidbit on the
word "Equitable."

For the past couple decades, there's been a battle for the soul of the
League of American Bicyclists. The organization used to give plenty of
attention to maintaining cyclist's rights to the road, mostly through
volunteer legislative activists in each state. It also promoted cycling
education in a big way, at least, considering the size of the
organization and its perennial financial troubles. In those days, its
direction was largely controlled by its membership.

But when Andy Clarke became president, the focus shifted. The national
board was changed, with elected positions becoming a minority.
Excellent candidates for the board (I know several) were either told
they did not qualify, or had their campaigns sabotaged. Rules for
write-in candidates were changed, requiring a greater number of write-in
votes than the TOTAL votes in recent elections.

Once Clarke had total control, the focus was on getting money from
manufacturers, and on giving "bike friendly" points to any and every
city that put in bike facilities. It was impossible to be labeled "bike
friendly" without segregated facilities, and towns that had previously
qualified (via quiet streets, cycling-friendly policies, traffic lights
that worked for cyclists, bike parking, etc.) had their status taken away.

There were prominent LAB members who fought against this. A certain
contingent, hoping to re-focus on rights to the road, asked that the
mission statement include "equity," specifically, that traffic laws
would give equitable treatment to bikes relative to cars. Not
identical, mind you; equitable, meaning essentially fair and appropriate
consideration - as in, don't shove the bikes out of the way. The LAB
top brass agreed, and "Equity" was formally accepted as a goal.

Then the top brass let it be known that they didn't really mean "bike
laws equitable to car laws." They twisted the meaning completely
around, to say "Bicycling facilities have to be good for women and
minorities, too!" with the unspoken assumption that if it's good for a
white male, it's not good enough for (say) a black female.

I don't get the article: "The poor and people of colour are
underserved with bike infrastructure, while 'Black and Hispanic
cyclists had a fatality rate 30% and 23% higher than white cyclists,
respectively, and similar racial/ethnic safety gaps are found for
pedestrians.'�

I didn't think bike lanes and sidewalks discriminated. Is the claim
that there are fewer sidewalks and bike lanes in black and hispanic
neighborhoods? And if so, does that explain the increased fatality
rate? What about a black or hispanic cyclist who gets hit on a nice
road in an upscale white neighborhood? Its a mish-mash of statistics
with no explanation.

Of course drivers do. Here's a study (done in Portland) that claims
racial bias in how often drivers stop for pedestrians.

http://web.natur.cuni.cz/~houdek3/pa...0al%202014.pdf

Abstract:

Racial minorities are disproportionately represented in pedestrian
traffic fatalities, indicating a significant public health and safety
issue. Psychological and social identity-related factors have previously
been shown to influence drivers’ behaviors toward pedestrians. If
drivers’ behavior reflects racial bias and results in differential
behavior toward Black and White pedestrians, this may lead to disparate
pedestrian crossing experiences based on race and potentially contribute
to disproportionate safety outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in a
controlled field experiment at an unsignalized midblock marked crosswalk
in downtown Portland, Oregon. Six trained male research team
confederates (3 White, 3 Black) simulated an individual pedestrian
crossing, while trained observers cataloged the number of cars that
passed and the time until a driver yielded. Results (90 pedestrian
trials, 168 driver-subjects) revealed that Black pedestrians were passed
by twice as many cars and experienced wait times that were 32% longer
than White pedestrians. Results support the hypothesis that minority
pedestrians experience discriminatory treatment by drivers.

I don't know how well the study was conducted (only read the abstract),
but the result seems plausible to me. It does not follow that building
bike paths in the ghetto will help.

I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend
it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes
to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing
bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in
bicycle chutes).

That's because you selfishly want roads that work better for you, who
already rides. The goal of all the public policy hoo-haw about bike
infrastructure is not to make *cyclists* "feel safer", it's to make
*non-cyclists* feel like it might be safer for them to try cycling.

I'm not saying that's a laudable or even defensible goal, or that it
would have any actual effect on public health, or traffic congestion, or
whatever the ultimate goal actually is ...


--

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:27:24 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:31:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2016 8:53 PM, James wrote:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-...-injuries.html

The one sub-headline is particularly laughable: "The Majority Of People
Will Ride With Protected Bike Lanes."

Regarding the title of the PDF, "Equitable Bike Share Means Building
Better Places for People To Ride." Here's an interesting tidbit on the
word "Equitable."

For the past couple decades, there's been a battle for the soul of the
League of American Bicyclists. The organization used to give plenty of
attention to maintaining cyclist's rights to the road, mostly through
volunteer legislative activists in each state. It also promoted cycling
education in a big way, at least, considering the size of the
organization and its perennial financial troubles. In those days, its
direction was largely controlled by its membership.

But when Andy Clarke became president, the focus shifted. The national
board was changed, with elected positions becoming a minority.
Excellent candidates for the board (I know several) were either told
they did not qualify, or had their campaigns sabotaged. Rules for
write-in candidates were changed, requiring a greater number of write-in
votes than the TOTAL votes in recent elections.

Once Clarke had total control, the focus was on getting money from
manufacturers, and on giving "bike friendly" points to any and every
city that put in bike facilities. It was impossible to be labeled "bike
friendly" without segregated facilities, and towns that had previously
qualified (via quiet streets, cycling-friendly policies, traffic lights
that worked for cyclists, bike parking, etc.) had their status taken away.

There were prominent LAB members who fought against this. A certain
contingent, hoping to re-focus on rights to the road, asked that the
mission statement include "equity," specifically, that traffic laws
would give equitable treatment to bikes relative to cars. Not
identical, mind you; equitable, meaning essentially fair and appropriate
consideration - as in, don't shove the bikes out of the way. The LAB
top brass agreed, and "Equity" was formally accepted as a goal.

Then the top brass let it be known that they didn't really mean "bike
laws equitable to car laws." They twisted the meaning completely
around, to say "Bicycling facilities have to be good for women and
minorities, too!" with the unspoken assumption that if it's good for a
white male, it's not good enough for (say) a black female.

I don't get the article: "The poor and people of colour are
underserved with bike infrastructure, while 'Black and Hispanic
cyclists had a fatality rate 30% and 23% higher than white cyclists,
respectively, and similar racial/ethnic safety gaps are found for
pedestrians.'�

I didn't think bike lanes and sidewalks discriminated. Is the claim
that there are fewer sidewalks and bike lanes in black and hispanic
neighborhoods? And if so, does that explain the increased fatality
rate? What about a black or hispanic cyclist who gets hit on a nice
road in an upscale white neighborhood? Its a mish-mash of statistics
with no explanation.

Of course drivers do. Here's a study (done in Portland) that claims
racial bias in how often drivers stop for pedestrians.

http://web.natur.cuni.cz/~houdek3/pa...0al%202014.pdf

Abstract:

Racial minorities are disproportionately represented in pedestrian
traffic fatalities, indicating a significant public health and safety
issue. Psychological and social identity-related factors have previously
been shown to influence drivers’ behaviors toward pedestrians. If
drivers’ behavior reflects racial bias and results in differential
behavior toward Black and White pedestrians, this may lead to disparate
pedestrian crossing experiences based on race and potentially contribute
to disproportionate safety outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in a
controlled field experiment at an unsignalized midblock marked crosswalk
in downtown Portland, Oregon. Six trained male research team
confederates (3 White, 3 Black) simulated an individual pedestrian
crossing, while trained observers cataloged the number of cars that
passed and the time until a driver yielded. Results (90 pedestrian
trials, 168 driver-subjects) revealed that Black pedestrians were passed
by twice as many cars and experienced wait times that were 32% longer
than White pedestrians. Results support the hypothesis that minority
pedestrians experience discriminatory treatment by drivers.

I don't know how well the study was conducted (only read the abstract),
but the result seems plausible to me. It does not follow that building
bike paths in the ghetto will help.

I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend
it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes
to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing
bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in
bicycle chutes).

That's because you selfishly want roads that work better for you, who
already rides. The goal of all the public policy hoo-haw about bike
infrastructure is not to make *cyclists* "feel safer", it's to make
*non-cyclists* feel like it might be safer for them to try cycling.

I'm not saying that's a laudable or even defensible goal, or that it
would have any actual effect on public health, or traffic congestion, or
whatever the ultimate goal actually is ...


--

First, that study doesn't show that racial minorities get hit more often. It shows (if anything) that racial minorities wait longer at crosswalks. Second, I don't believe the report, being that I ride downtown every day past endless pedestrian facilities, and the cars are constantly slamming on their brakes when someone does so much as a head feint toward a cross walk -- black, white, man, woman, etc., etc. Third, for driver behavior to affect fatality rates, you would have to conclude that drivers are consciously hitting (for example) black people but not white people. Fourth, there is no mention of driver color. For all we know, minorities are hitting minorities. It's another one of these dopey PSU studies done by a few guys who walked out the front of the campus down to the park blocks and ran some experiments over a lunch hour. It's right up there with their study on bicycle facilities in Portland -- and the dopey facility in front of the campus.

As for facilities, I selfishly want roads that work for everyone -- being that gas tax revenues are falling and the general fund is getting sucked dry by PERS payments. It's not like we have a lot of spare change to spend on demonstration projects. I know you're not arguing the point, but those who are should spend more effort on educating motorists and cyclists. If everyone played by the rules and paid attention, there would be very few if any conflicts.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 22/07/2016 2:21 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:27:24 AM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
jbeattie writes:

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:31:59 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2016 8:53 PM, James wrote:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/new-...-injuries.html

The one sub-headline is particularly laughable: "The Majority Of People
Will Ride With Protected Bike Lanes."

Regarding the title of the PDF, "Equitable Bike Share Means Building
Better Places for People To Ride." Here's an interesting tidbit on the
word "Equitable."

For the past couple decades, there's been a battle for the soul of the
League of American Bicyclists. The organization used to give plenty of
attention to maintaining cyclist's rights to the road, mostly through
volunteer legislative activists in each state. It also promoted cycling
education in a big way, at least, considering the size of the
organization and its perennial financial troubles. In those days, its
direction was largely controlled by its membership.

But when Andy Clarke became president, the focus shifted. The national
board was changed, with elected positions becoming a minority.
Excellent candidates for the board (I know several) were either told
they did not qualify, or had their campaigns sabotaged. Rules for
write-in candidates were changed, requiring a greater number of write-in
votes than the TOTAL votes in recent elections.

Once Clarke had total control, the focus was on getting money from
manufacturers, and on giving "bike friendly" points to any and every
city that put in bike facilities. It was impossible to be labeled "bike
friendly" without segregated facilities, and towns that had previously
qualified (via quiet streets, cycling-friendly policies, traffic lights
that worked for cyclists, bike parking, etc.) had their status taken away.

There were prominent LAB members who fought against this. A certain
contingent, hoping to re-focus on rights to the road, asked that the
mission statement include "equity," specifically, that traffic laws
would give equitable treatment to bikes relative to cars. Not
identical, mind you; equitable, meaning essentially fair and appropriate
consideration - as in, don't shove the bikes out of the way. The LAB
top brass agreed, and "Equity" was formally accepted as a goal.

Then the top brass let it be known that they didn't really mean "bike
laws equitable to car laws." They twisted the meaning completely
around, to say "Bicycling facilities have to be good for women and
minorities, too!" with the unspoken assumption that if it's good for a
white male, it's not good enough for (say) a black female.

I don't get the article: "The poor and people of colour are
underserved with bike infrastructure, while 'Black and Hispanic
cyclists had a fatality rate 30% and 23% higher than white cyclists,
respectively, and similar racial/ethnic safety gaps are found for
pedestrians.'�

I didn't think bike lanes and sidewalks discriminated. Is the claim
that there are fewer sidewalks and bike lanes in black and hispanic
neighborhoods? And if so, does that explain the increased fatality
rate? What about a black or hispanic cyclist who gets hit on a nice
road in an upscale white neighborhood? Its a mish-mash of statistics
with no explanation.

Of course drivers do. Here's a study (done in Portland) that claims
racial bias in how often drivers stop for pedestrians.

http://web.natur.cuni.cz/~houdek3/pa...0al%202014.pdf

Abstract:

Racial minorities are disproportionately represented in pedestrian
traffic fatalities, indicating a significant public health and safety
issue. Psychological and social identity-related factors have previously
been shown to influence drivers’ behaviors toward pedestrians. If
drivers’ behavior reflects racial bias and results in differential
behavior toward Black and White pedestrians, this may lead to disparate
pedestrian crossing experiences based on race and potentially contribute
to disproportionate safety outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in a
controlled field experiment at an unsignalized midblock marked crosswalk
in downtown Portland, Oregon. Six trained male research team
confederates (3 White, 3 Black) simulated an individual pedestrian
crossing, while trained observers cataloged the number of cars that
passed and the time until a driver yielded. Results (90 pedestrian
trials, 168 driver-subjects) revealed that Black pedestrians were passed
by twice as many cars and experienced wait times that were 32% longer
than White pedestrians. Results support the hypothesis that minority
pedestrians experience discriminatory treatment by drivers.

I don't know how well the study was conducted (only read the abstract),
but the result seems plausible to me. It does not follow that building
bike paths in the ghetto will help.

I always look at it this way: If you have $20K, are you going to spend
it filling gaping pot holes or spend it on plastic pickets and stripes
to create a .2 mile chute for bicycles on a street with an existing
bike lane (based on a study showing that cyclists "feel safer" in
bicycle chutes).

That's because you selfishly want roads that work better for you, who
already rides. The goal of all the public policy hoo-haw about bike
infrastructure is not to make *cyclists* "feel safer", it's to make
*non-cyclists* feel like it might be safer for them to try cycling.

I'm not saying that's a laudable or even defensible goal, or that it
would have any actual effect on public health, or traffic congestion, or
whatever the ultimate goal actually is ...


--

First, that study doesn't show that racial minorities get hit more often. It shows (if anything) that racial minorities wait longer at crosswalks. Second, I don't believe the report, being that I ride downtown every day past endless pedestrian facilities, and the cars are constantly slamming on their brakes when someone does so much as a head feint toward a cross walk -- black, white, man, woman, etc., etc. Third, for driver behavior to affect fatality rates, you would have to conclude that drivers are consciously hitting (for example) black people but not white people. Fourth, there is no mention of driver color. For all we know, minorities are hitting minorities. It's another one of these dopey PSU studies done by a few guys who walked out the front of the campus down to the park blocks and ran some experiments over a lunch hour. It's right up there with their study on bicycle facilities in Portland -- and the dopey facility in front of the campus.

As for facilities, I selfishly want roads that work for everyone -- being that gas tax revenues are falling and the general fund is getting sucked dry by PERS payments. It's not like we have a lot of spare change to spend on demonstration projects. I know you're not arguing the point, but those who are should spend more effort on educating motorists and cyclists. If everyone played by the rules and paid attention, there would be very few if any conflicts.



Depends on what you mean by conflicts. We have a new minimum passing
law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter when
it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to have to
change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this is the
intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it. Maybe
it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been following the law.

On top of all this, we have two seasons in Montreal. Winter and
construction season. The traffic is awful because of all the
construction and the driver's tempers reflect that. To my point, I
haven't had anyone yet pass me too closely so no conflict in that
respect. I have had a bunch burning rubber, yelling, hand gesturing
etc. So there IS conflict. These are mostly the ones that would have
buzzed me before the law anyway so I'll take that as a win.

On 7/22/2016 3:16 PM, Duane wrote:
... We have a new minimum passing
law in Quebec. 1.5 meters when the limit is over 50k/h and 1 meter when
it's less. In most cases, either way the driver is going to have to
change lanes to pass. It has been well publicized that this is the
intent, inlcuding the ability to cross a solid line to do it. Maybe
it's because it's new but most drivers have so far been following the law.

Sounds good, especially the "well publicized" part. I also prefer the
"1.5 meters over 50k/h" part. Most U.S. states that have such laws
specify a simple 3 feet, and that makes anything more politically
difficult.

We're working on a 3 foot law in Ohio, but it's not been easy to
achieve. We're still trying.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/22/2016 11:21 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Second, I don't believe the report, being that I ride downtown every day past endless pedestrian facilities, and the cars are constantly slamming on their brakes when someone does so much as a head feint toward a cross walk -- black, white, man, woman, etc., etc.

I recall visiting southern California around 1979. My former college
roommate said "watch this" and he stepped off the curb in Huntington
Beach and the cars slammed on their brakes and stopped. I don't think
that works anymore down there, but apparently it's still the norm where
you are.

When I'm driving on a multi-lane road and a pedestrian enters the
crosswalk I stop. But I am worried that a vehicle in the adjacent lane
will zoom by and not see the pedestrian who is blocked by my vehicle.

On some multi-lane roads they've installed crosswalks with flashers
embedded in the pavement which are activated with a button. These make
it clear to all drivers in all lanes that a pedestrian is entering the road.

As for facilities, I selfishly want roads that work for everyone -- being that gas tax revenues are falling and the general fund is getting sucked dry by PERS payments.

That needs to be fixed, especially as those communists in Teslas and
Leafs are paying zero gas taxes on their vehicles. It's like diesel car
owners that used to use heating oil in their cars by removing the red color.

It's not like we have a lot of spare change to spend on demonstration projects. I know you're not arguing the point, but those who are should spend more effort on educating motorists and cyclists. If everyone played by the rules and paid attention, there would be very few if any conflicts.

What I notice about most of the infrastructure projects in my area is
that they are done to bypass especially bad routes for bicycles, and to
create good routes. This generally involves new overpasses or
underpasses to go over or under freeways, waterways, or railways. Routes
to Google in Mountain View, and Oracle in Redwood Shores stand out.

"The trail extension is expected to be heavily used for both
transportation and recreational trips that were previously unsafe or
inconvenient for pedestrians and bicyclists trying to cross Highway 101
at Rengstorff Ave or Shoreline Blvd."

https://transportationalternatives.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/permanente-creek-bikeped-bridge-opens/

Belmont US 101/Ralston Avenue Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge

These small, though costly, pieces of infrastructure are often the
difference between cycling or driving.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 23:31:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

It was about that time that I stopped my membership in LAB. The
duplicity was too much to bear.

I quit probably 20 years ago when LAB was taken over by people who
waantd to be paid Washington lobbyists and stopped being a bicycling
organization. I was flooded with "send money now or your right to ride
your bike will be taken away" letters several times a month.

Sort of like what happened with the NRA a few decades back, when it
stopped being a sporting organiztion and became a gun manufacturer's
lobby. I stopped being a member of that, too (I was a member through
the Boy Scout marksmanship merit badge program of the time) unil its
focus shifted.

Locally we have a Bike Coalition that considers it a great victory to
put inadequate and dangerous bike lanes on really ****ty high traffic
roads, instead of using the nice, quiet parallel road a block or two
away. Bike campaigners are sometimes our enemies when they lose
perspective, often creating an unhealthy situation for cyclists and
stirring up resentment among business owners, residents and drivers by
taking out parking and reducing driving lanes. I think they are using a
50 year old handbook of cycling planning here.