What Right-Wing Governance Does For Cycling

On 3/4/2011 3:51 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:50 am, wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:55 am, Peter wrote:
On 3/3/2011 7:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 3, 4:14 pm, Peter wrote:
I didn't bring up the topic of safety, Jay did.
Yes, Jay pointed to some hazards of particularly weird bike
facilities. But you were the one who brought up comparative
statistics envy. "I wish we had Portland's safety stats," IIRC.
Yes, that's accurate.

I find facilities more
pleasant, and there doesn't seem to be a safety downside.
That's whitewashing with a very broad brush. Safety downsides of
various badly-conceived facilities have been discussed here often.
You're one small step away from "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility," which is no more sensible than "If Portland is safer,
Boston must be too dangerous." At least, qualify your enthusiasm.
No, I'm not. All I'm saying is, that with all it's flaws, Portland is
still safer than Boston, which has virtually no facilities.

The real question, though, is whether Portland is any safer with
bicycle facilities -- which would be a really hard thing to determine,
particularly with the increased number of riders, some of whom are
riding in to each other.

Facilities as such don't make a lot of difference, IMO. A wide
shoulder and compliant drivers are what makes a difference. If that
shoulder is a marked bike lane, that's fine with me -- it gives me
some legal protection if I get hooked, but practically speaking, more
driver education is required before it gives me much actual or
practical protection. Green boxes, sharrows, etc. make no difference
to me as a cyclist, except that they present slipping hazards when
wet. Separate facilities are populated with walkers and their dogs, so
they are more dangerous in some respects and certainly slower. -- Jay
Beattie.

Well written. I'm totally with Jay on this.


Sure, and I can take it or leave it myself (Mad Max on two wheels :-),
but what they're doing is trying a *lot* of new stuff. Some of it
will work, some won't, none of it will be perfect; but it will provide
lessons, hopefully some good thinking will go into it, and continuous
improvement will happen. Change is messy, but the current car-centric
(what an understatement!) way has got to change, and they're actually
doing something.



The thing that the retro-grouches have to accept is that they're not the
target demographic for bike facilities -- at least not until they're
further into geezerhood and riding basket trikes.

Facilities are aimed at n00bs, cajoling the weekend trail pootler into
trying a shopping trip or a short commute to work in nice weather,
they're not for semi-retired racers or adrenaline junkies.

There are benefits to increasing the numbers of cyclists even for those
who don't want to use the facilities. More modal share means more
transportation budget is available for cycling-specific programs. Those
need not be exclusive to facilities, they might even include those
educational TV spots that Frank pines for.

Not all mode share taken from motoring translates into direct cost
savings, but a significant amount does. There's a huge health benefit,
variously estimated between $100-1,000/cyclist/year in reduced medical
expenses. Even without socialized medicine, over half of the tab is on
the public cuff anyway. Denmark (and they otta know) claims $1 medical
benefit for every mile cycled. Then there's the "safety in numbers"
phenomenon.

There's a reason why most big city governments are enthused about more
bicycling, it has very real positive economic consequences. Investment
to encourage bicycling is a benefit to even non or never-will-be cyclists.

On 3/4/2011 4:34 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/4/2011 3:51 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:50 am, wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:55 am, Peter wrote:
On 3/3/2011 7:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 3, 4:14 pm, Peter wrote:
I didn't bring up the topic of safety, Jay did.
Yes, Jay pointed to some hazards of particularly weird bike
facilities. But you were the one who brought up comparative
statistics envy. "I wish we had Portland's safety stats," IIRC.
Yes, that's accurate.

I find facilities more
pleasant, and there doesn't seem to be a safety downside.
That's whitewashing with a very broad brush. Safety downsides of
various badly-conceived facilities have been discussed here often.
You're one small step away from "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility," which is no more sensible than "If Portland is safer,
Boston must be too dangerous." At least, qualify your enthusiasm.
No, I'm not. All I'm saying is, that with all it's flaws, Portland is
still safer than Boston, which has virtually no facilities.

The real question, though, is whether Portland is any safer with
bicycle facilities -- which would be a really hard thing to determine,
particularly with the increased number of riders, some of whom are
riding in to each other.

Facilities as such don't make a lot of difference, IMO. A wide
shoulder and compliant drivers are what makes a difference. If that
shoulder is a marked bike lane, that's fine with me -- it gives me
some legal protection if I get hooked, but practically speaking, more
driver education is required before it gives me much actual or
practical protection. Green boxes, sharrows, etc. make no difference
to me as a cyclist, except that they present slipping hazards when
wet. Separate facilities are populated with walkers and their dogs, so
they are more dangerous in some respects and certainly slower. -- Jay
Beattie.

Well written. I'm totally with Jay on this.


Sure, and I can take it or leave it myself (Mad Max on two wheels :-),
but what they're doing is trying a *lot* of new stuff. Some of it
will work, some won't, none of it will be perfect; but it will provide
lessons, hopefully some good thinking will go into it, and continuous
improvement will happen. Change is messy, but the current car-centric
(what an understatement!) way has got to change, and they're actually
doing something.



The thing that the retro-grouches have to accept is that they're not the
target demographic for bike facilities -- at least not until they're
further into geezerhood and riding basket trikes.

Facilities are aimed at n00bs, cajoling the weekend trail pootler into
trying a shopping trip or a short commute to work in nice weather,
they're not for semi-retired racers or adrenaline junkies.

Maybe but it doesn't stop me from using them at 6:30am on my way to work
before all of the noobs and dog walkers and inline skaters show up.



There are benefits to increasing the numbers of cyclists even for those
who don't want to use the facilities. More modal share means more
transportation budget is available for cycling-specific programs. Those
need not be exclusive to facilities, they might even include those
educational TV spots that Frank pines for.

More cycling visibility isn't a bad thing either WRT general cycling safety.


Not all mode share taken from motoring translates into direct cost
savings, but a significant amount does. There's a huge health benefit,
variously estimated between $100-1,000/cyclist/year in reduced medical
expenses. Even without socialized medicine, over half of the tab is on
the public cuff anyway. Denmark (and they otta know) claims $1 medical
benefit for every mile cycled. Then there's the "safety in numbers"
phenomenon.

There's a reason why most big city governments are enthused about more
bicycling, it has very real positive economic consequences. Investment
to encourage bicycling is a benefit to even non or never-will-be cyclists.

On 3/4/2011 6:26 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/3/2011 8:47 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/3/2011 11:31 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/3/2011 12:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:22 am, wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:57 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
Bicycle farcilities (sic) were originated as a way to confine
cyclists
to an area inferior to the motor vehicles, which is hardly a
left-wing
position.

False, bicycle facilities were originated by bicyclists before motor
vehicles existed. But don't let that stop ya.

You mean those facilities called "paved roads"? Bicyclists lobbied
for them, but very few of them were segregated, bike-only
facilities.

Yes, we've made significant progress since then.

Yes, progress in herding cyclists into separate and unequal ghettos.


Right, in the same way I find myself herded onto the beach ghettos
during the summer and the mountain ghettos in winter. Read the studies,
cyclists will go well out of their way to use facilities. You can go the
opposite if you choose, no one is herding anyone.

Put in bicycle lanes, and the motorists will try to herd cyclists into them.

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

On 3/4/2011 3:11 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/4/2011 2:35 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:26 am, Peter Cole wrote:
Read the studies,
cyclists will go well out of their way to use facilities.

Yep. If you spend ten years telling cyclists "We need bike lanes to
be safe," then put in a bike lane, cyclists will say "Oooh, that's
what _I'm_ going to use, to be safe!" They'll do that even if data
clearly shows there's no increase in safety.

This technique also works for selling underarm deodorant, funny foam
plastic hats, and St. Christopher medals.

Yeah great.

In the city, cute unless I need to go to work or the grocery or the
paint store or bank or whatever.

Given a choice of bike trail or a real county road, I'll take the road
thanks.

YMMV, except I have to pay for all that.


Unlike Jay though, the cyclists who do use those nasty paths support
your shop (unless you ban them on ideological grounds).

I doubt Andy Muzi bans customers on ideological grounds:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/3601423733/in/set-72157619269876565/.

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

On 3/4/2011 5:55 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
No, I'm not. All I'm saying is, that with all it's flaws, Portland is
still safer than Boston, which has virtually no facilities.

Rent:
http://boston.citysearch.com/listings/boston-ma-metro/portable_toilet_rental/82075_10428.

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

On 3/4/2011 12:50 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:55 am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/3/2011 7:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 3, 4:14 pm, Peter wrote:
I didn't bring up the topic of safety, Jay did.
Yes, Jay pointed to some hazards of particularly weird bike
facilities. But you were the one who brought up comparative
statistics envy. "I wish we had Portland's safety stats," IIRC.
Yes, that's accurate.



I find facilities more
pleasant, and there doesn't seem to be a safety downside.
That's whitewashing with a very broad brush. Safety downsides of
various badly-conceived facilities have been discussed here often.
You're one small step away from "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility," which is no more sensible than "If Portland is safer,
Boston must be too dangerous." At least, qualify your enthusiasm.
No, I'm not. All I'm saying is, that with all it's flaws, Portland is
still safer than Boston, which has virtually no facilities.

The real question, though, is whether Portland is any safer with
bicycle facilities -- which would be a really hard thing to determine,
particularly with the increased number of riders, some of whom are
riding in to each other.

Facilities as such don't make a lot of difference, IMO. A wide
shoulder and compliant drivers are what makes a difference. If that
shoulder is a marked bike lane, that's fine with me -- it gives me
some legal protection if I get hooked, but practically speaking, more
driver education is required before it gives me much actual or
practical protection. Green boxes, sharrows, etc. make no difference
to me as a cyclist, except that they present slipping hazards when
wet. Separate facilities are populated with walkers and their dogs, so
they are more dangerous in some respects and certainly slower. -- Jay
Beattie.


Well written. I'm totally with Jay on this.


Madison has a new cycling facilities plan. Streets where the potholes
are less than 18 inches in the largest horizontal dimension and less
than 6 inches deep will be designated as bicycle routes.

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

On Mar 4, 2:35*pm, AMuzi wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 4, 7:26 am, Peter Cole wrote:
Read the studies,
cyclists will go well out of their way to use facilities.

Yep. *If you spend ten years telling cyclists "We need bike lanes to
be safe," then put in a bike lane, cyclists will say "Oooh, that's
what _I'm_ going to use, to be safe!" *They'll do that even if data
clearly shows there's no increase in safety.

This technique also works for selling underarm deodorant, funny foam
plastic hats, and St. Christopher medals.

Yeah great.

In the city, cute unless I need to go to work or the grocery
or the paint store or bank or whatever.

Given a choice of bike trail or a real county road, I'll
take the road thanks.

YMMV, except I have to pay for all that.

On the "pay" aspect, I still wish the linear parks AKA multi-use paths
were paid for from the park budget, since that's 99% of their use. It
would be a more honest use of public funds.

As I've said, I bet that for one mile of rail trail cost, we could
have every traffic light in the metro area designed and tuned to
detect bikes.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 4, 3:51*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Mar 4, 10:50*am, AMuzi wrote:



Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 4, 3:55 am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/3/2011 7:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 3, 4:14 pm, Peter *wrote:
I didn't bring up the topic of safety, Jay did.
Yes, Jay pointed to some hazards of particularly weird bike
facilities. *But you were the one who brought up comparative
statistics envy. *"I wish we had Portland's safety stats," IIRC.
Yes, that's accurate.

I find facilities more
pleasant, and there doesn't seem to be a safety downside.
That's whitewashing with a very broad brush. *Safety downsides of
various badly-conceived facilities have been discussed here often.
You're one small step away from "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility," which is no more sensible than "If Portland is safer,
Boston must be too dangerous." *At least, qualify your enthusiasm..
No, I'm not. All I'm saying is, that with all it's flaws, Portland is
still safer than Boston, which has virtually no facilities.

The real question, though, is whether Portland is any safer with
bicycle facilities -- which would be a really hard thing to determine,
particularly with the increased number of riders, some of whom are
riding in to each other.

Facilities as such don't make a lot of difference, IMO. *A wide
shoulder and compliant drivers are what makes a difference. If that
shoulder is a marked bike lane, that's fine with me -- it gives me
some legal protection if I get hooked, but practically speaking, more
driver education is required before it gives me much actual or
practical protection. *Green boxes, sharrows, etc. make no difference
to me as a cyclist, except that they present slipping hazards when
wet. Separate facilities are populated with walkers and their dogs, so
they are more dangerous in some respects and certainly slower. -- Jay
Beattie.

Well written. *I'm totally with Jay on this.

Sure, and I can take it or leave it myself (Mad Max on two wheels :-),
but what they're doing is trying a *lot* of new stuff. *Some of it
will work, some won't, none of it will be perfect; but it will provide
lessons, hopefully some good thinking will go into it, and continuous
improvement will happen. *Change is messy, but the current car-centric
(what an understatement!) way has got to change, and they're actually
doing something.

But elsewhere in the world of engineering, the approach is not "Let's
try _everything_ on the public and see what works!!!"

If the current approach (which is "bike facility design by landscape
architect") were applied to (say) freeway design, we'd have motorists
sometimes driving on the right, sometimes on the left; sharp S-turns
to get to exit ramps in the middle of three northbound lanes; entrance
ramps with zero visibility of other traffic; telephone poles standing
between the lanes, etc.

And we'd have the American Automobile Association saying "Hey, don't
knock it! It's INNOVATIVE!"

- Frank Krygowski

On 3/3/2011 10:14 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"T�m Sherm�n� " wrote in
message ...
[...]
The advocacy for deregulation is based on ideology and not economics - the
corporate barons do not want any restrictions put on them by the working
peasants.

Mr. Sherman could learn a few things by listening to Muzi and Cole, but
there are none so blind and deaf as an ideologue. When working peasants rule
the roost, all is disaster. Nope, small town lawyers make the best rulers.

Too late. Capitalism has overstepped its bounds with greed driven class
warfare on the middle class by the rich, and the current system has
about the same chance of survival as post-colonial North African
dictatorships.

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

On 3/3/2011 12:12 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/2/2011 12:01 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"T�m Sherm�nT "
wrote in
message ...
On 3/1/2011 8:04 PM, Edward Dolan wrote:
"T?m Sherm?n? " wrote in
message ...
Seehttp://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=4894.

Remember to thank the budget priorities of upper class tax cuts and
subsidies, when your favorite rural riding routes change from
pavement
to
road bike unfriendly aggregate surfacing.

I think Minnesota has more miles of roads to maintain than almost any
other
state. If and when we return some asphalt roads to gravel roads, it
just
means that vehicles will have to go slower which will not to be such a
bad
thing. As far a cycling is concerned, I NEVER see cyclists doing any
riding
on rural roads. Cycling is best restricted to urban areas anyway.

As for raising taxes to pay for ever more and better roads, forget
about
it.
The states and counties are all going broke just like the federal
government. Everyone is already paying more than enough taxes.

Nonsense. The upper classes and corporations are only paying a fraction
of what they did under the REPUBLICAN Eisenhower Administration
(when the
middle classes were much better off).

But everything is constantly changing. We now live in a global
economy and
the upper classes and corporations can take whatever they have to
foreign
lands. It is what makes it possible for me to shop at Wal-Mart and
not be
robbed. Jeez, try to get up to date if that is possible.

The solution
to all our problems is to stop the spending and to learn to get
along on
less. What we spend on education is especially a boondoggle. Yea,
tighten
the belt and welcome deprivation. It is good for the soul!

The biggest boondoggle is what is spent on subsidizing Wall Street
incomes.

Frankly, I do not understand how Wall Street works at all. I would never
give those *******s a single penny.

Wall Street produces no added value, leading to the obvious conclusion
that the investment bankers are merely parasites sucking the economic
blood out of the working classes.

The original purpose of the stock market allowing corporations to
raise capital has been perverted into the world's largest de facto
gambling operation and Ponzi scheme.


In theory there is added value in distribution of information and
enhancing more efficient capital allocation. At one time those were
true. To our great benefit.

We seldom agree but I do on this. It's sadly obvious now.

The coming stock market implosion and destruction of the remaining
middle class retirement funds and wealth will make things *very*
interesting in the US in the coming decade. What is apparent is that
the current capitalistic system is like cancer - very successful at
growth for a short time, but eventually it kills the host.

The sickness and arrogance is evident in the current Republican efforts
to break the remaining unionized workers, despite falling wages of these
workers for the last 35 years and great upwards transfer of wealth to
the top 1% over that time. The greed of the super-rich will only be
stopped by the people demanding it, which time will come after things
get bad enough.

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