|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
"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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
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"? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Before & after bike ghettos | Peter Cole[_2_] | General | 28 | October 23rd 10 03:49 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Peter Cole[_2_] | General | 1 | October 19th 10 03:43 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Peter Cole[_2_] | General | 0 | October 19th 10 03:07 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Peter Cole[_2_] | General | 4 | October 7th 10 08:57 PM |