New bike path

On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C.
Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)


Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not the
slightest problem.

"Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever
allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in
its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an
emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc.
Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from
letting anyone drive wherever they want.

From
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle

"The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free." [Yes, as
explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.]

"Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on
student car ownership (this is still in force)."

From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community

"The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use
from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic
from off campus."

That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike
lanes":

"Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in
this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less
successful than others. One such example was the construction of
"protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was
separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane
was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e.
cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say,
any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by
the many hazards created for their users."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:21:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:

[...]


The other solution is to starve the beast (big government).
High tax states make housing so expensive that too many people
are forced to drop out into the streets. California is a prime
example of that. Try getting a building permit out here, let
alone pay for it. Socialism does not work.

Hmmm. Referring to my map, how do you explain Texas and Florida
-- or even Pennsylvania?


Simple: You need to look at the total population and then divide
the number of homeless by that. Texas has almost the number of
inhabitants as California but only a fraction of our number of
homeless.

Same with Florida. Half the number of people as in California but
less than a quarter of our homeless.

Both states have cities with some of the highest homeless rates in
the US -- notwithstanding regressive social policies.

"More than half of the homeless population in the United States was
in five states: CA (21% or 115,738 people), NY (16% or 88,250
people), FL (6% or 35,900 people), TX (4% or 23,678 people), and MA
(4% or 21,135 people)"


Again, the rate matters, not absolute numbers. "4% of the country" is
not a "rate". Journalism at its finest, I guess.


https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/13...s-people-10300

States with high and low homeless rates are all over the country.
The highest rates of homelessness among states are in Hawaii (465 per
100,000), followed by New York (399) and California (367).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.34cbc2a1b7a3


That depends on which sources one believes.

But it doesn't matter, in the end it confirms that the problem is more
prevalent in left-leaning states. Which is not a surprise at all.





You're not going to "tough love" a bunch of schizophrenics or drug
addled or brain injured people into getting work. You just push
them further into criminality or they do nothing and die off due
to starvation or exposure.


We have to take a look at how states with a much lower homeless
percentage do it. They usually have a much less generous welfare
system and that is part of the reason. The other is smaller
government, lower taxes and thus more affordable housing. You can
buy the same kind of house for half in Texas versus California.

Not all homeless are druggies. The topper so far was a homeless man
whom I gave some money. It was in Washington D.C., he was
well-mannered, a bit dirty but wore an old suit, with tie!


I mean those are options.


Sure, but out-of-control welfare isn't. Neither is legalizing
marijuana which will backfire, big time.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ortland-oregon



But, for some reason, those options tend to turn people off. Bunch
of snowflakes! What we need is a longer snow season!


That's the problem, there are shelters but often homeless do not
use them. One thing shelters must do though is to also provide for
their animals. Nobody would go into a shelter and leave their dog
to die outside in a snow storm. I know you don't hold dogs in high
regard but other people do, just as I do.

How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical
question. Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether
that accounts for increased homelessness in California. Track the
changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you
can determine what social policies make a difference. Personally, I
see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by
choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and
became economically displaced.


That has already been studied at nauseam and the conclusions are
generally always the same:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...114-story.html

On purpose I have brought a link from a somewhat left-leaning paper.
Even they admit to what the root causes for the increase (and decrease
in other regions) in homelessness are.


Washington has had legalized MJ since 2012. Crime rate has dropped.
The number of traffic fatalities in Washington dropped after the
first year of legal marijuana possession and use. I'm sure there are
some consequences to legalization, but there have been no
catastrophes in Washington or Oregon.


That is not what I read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2ff35e19e705

Did you read it all? It links to this: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2017.303848 The numbers are equivocal and certainly do not show an epidemic of car accidents after the legalization of MJ.



There is more. I lived in NL where the stuff became legal decades ago.
That was one sad story and in sharp contrast to Germany where I alsio
live and later commuted into daily. In our small village we had lots of
zombies running around. People with hardcore brain damage from drugs.
The story was nearly always the same. First "harmless' drugs, then peer
pressure to try some of the "real stuff". The stuff that the shady guy
in the long coat at the bar over there was pushing. The young son of my
landlady who otherwise had everything going for him (good education,
very pretty girlfriend, etc.) died from an overdose. The police found
his body in a canal. Legalized pot? No thanks. I am squarely against it
and will ever be.

If MJ were such a powerful gateway drug, most everyone I know would be a drooling heroin addict. Even my wife has tried it, and she's as Lutheran as they come. When it comes to my son, I'm more worried about alcohol.

I haven't seen an appreciable difference in driver behavior in the years since MJ was legalized. It may happen, who knows -- and I really could care less if MJ were legal. It's not y deal, but I think other things have made my life more dangerous as a cyclist.

I've had more problems with motorists because of cell phones and increased traffic (and the rage that goes along with that). If you want to stomp your feet about something, try cell phones and distracted driving -- and alcohol. I think plain old ETOH is the cause of more accidents than any other intoxicant by a long shot.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 3/14/2018 4:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:21:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
[...]
-snippity snip snip-

I've had more problems with motorists because of cell phones and increased traffic (and the rage that goes along with that). If you want to stomp your feet about something, try cell phones and distracted driving -- and alcohol. I think plain old ETOH is the cause of more accidents than any other intoxicant by a long shot.
-- Jay Beattie.

+1


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

On 2018-03-14 14:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C.
Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)


Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not
the slightest problem.

"Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever
allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in
its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an
emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc.
Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from
letting anyone drive wherever they want.

From
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle


"The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free."


I have told you before that that is fake news. Simply repeating it does
not make it any less fake.


... [Yes, as
explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.]

"Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on
student car ownership (this is still in force)."

From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community

"The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use
from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic
from off campus."


They do not.


That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike
lanes":

"Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in
this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less
successful than others. One such example was the construction of
"protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was
separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane
was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e.
cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say,
any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by
the many hazards created for their users."


We all know that there were a lot of messed up bike path and bike lane
designs. Davis is no exception. Time has progressed, people have
learned, even traffic engineers.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-03-14 14:49, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/14/2018 4:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:21:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote:
[...]
-snippity snip snip-

I've had more problems with motorists because of cell phones and
increased traffic (and the rage that goes along with that). If you
want to stomp your feet about something, try cell phones and
distracted driving -- and alcohol. I think plain old ETOH is the
cause of more accidents than any other intoxicant by a long shot.
-- Jay Beattie.

+1


+2

I agree that distracted driving is a higher danger. However, marijuana
also has consequences. Two days after the stuff was legalized in
California a cop was killed by a driver high on marijuana.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On 3/14/2018 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 14:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes
U.C.
Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)


Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not
the slightest problem.

"Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever
allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in
its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an
emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc.
Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from
letting anyone drive wherever they want.

Â*From
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle



"The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free."


I have told you before that that is fake news. Simply repeating it does
not make it any less fake.


Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â* ... [Yes, as
explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.]

"Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on
student car ownership (this is still in force)."

Â*From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community

"The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use
from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic
from off campus."


They do not.

Yeah, yeah, fake news. Who are you going to believe, professional
journalists who have no strong agendas? Or one guy on the internet who
wants to spend public money to turn America into Amsterdam?

That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike
lanes":

"Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in
this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less
successful than others. One such example was the construction of
"protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was
separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane
was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e.
cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say,
any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by
the many hazards created for their users."


We all know that there were a lot of messed up bike path and bike lane
designs. Davis is no exception. Time has progressed, people have
learned, even traffic engineers.

Some people have not learned, such as the countless "bike advocates" who
are claiming we MUST have "protected cycle tracks" everywhere because
nothing else is safe enough. Oh, and then there are people who get paid
as consultants, marching into a city and offering to design that
garbage. They may have learned, but they don't care. "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something when his job depends on not
understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

The advocates and the traffic engineers showed what they had learned by
the design of the Columbus "protected cycle track" completed a couple
years ago. After the cycle track went in, the crash rate increased over
600%. Oddly enough, Streetsblog and other pro-segregation propaganda
sources don't highlight that fact.

So these things were found to be dangerous in the 1970s. They're still
dangerous in the 2010s. Forty years, and still the know-nothings demand
them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting
at the computer.

I don't *do* that sort of thing.


I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like to do from my
house in Montreal West Island area to the old port. It's ~100k and
really nice. About 80k of it is on bike paths. These paths follow the
river and then the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections. Along the canal where the path crosses city streets the
path has under or overpasses.

Here's the thing. I take the day off work on my birthday and do this
ride with some friends because there's no one on the paths outside of
the commute hours. At commute time it's too crowded. On weekends and
holidays it's packed.

So I guess my point is that if they make these things people use them.
In Montreal, a lot of people use them. Whether or not they make sense
for commuters is another story. And group riding on bike paths is a bad
idea in any case if the paths aren't empty.

On 2018-03-14 18:19, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/14/2018 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 14:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote:

(You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes
U.C.
Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.)


Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the
distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not
the slightest problem.

"Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever
allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in
its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an
emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc.
Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from
letting anyone drive wherever they want.

From
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle



"The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free."


I have told you before that that is fake news. Simply repeating it
does not make it any less fake.


... [Yes, as
explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.]

"Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on
student car ownership (this is still in force)."

From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community

"The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use
from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic
from off campus."


They do not.

Yeah, yeah, fake news. Who are you going to believe, professional
journalists who have no strong agendas? Or one guy on the internet who
wants to spend public money to turn America into Amsterdam?


I believe myself. I was there a lot so I know. Seems you can't even
operate Google Maps. Almost everyone knows that their Google mapping
vehicles do not enter restricted areas such as closed campuses or gated
communities, meaning there wouldn't be a street view. Since UC Davis has
no restriction for on-campus driving you can virtually drive through.
See this huge parking lot?

https://goo.gl/maps/Ntm7kfRtHfD2

Now why would that be there is traffic was restricted? Quote "banning
almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways" is,
therefore, obviously a false statement.

[...]

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2018-03-15 05:47, Duane wrote:
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

If you provide proper infrastructure
they will come:

That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting
at the computer.


Probably because you never lived in a country with a very extensive bike
path system. I have.


I don't *do* that sort of thing.


I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like to do from my
house in Montreal West Island area to the old port. It's ~100k and
really nice. About 80k of it is on bike paths. These paths follow the
river and then the Lachine canal so there are basically no
intersections. Along the canal where the path crosses city streets the
path has under or overpasses.


We have a similar bike path along the American River towards Sacramento.
I use that almost weekly.


Here's the thing. I take the day off work on my birthday and do this
ride with some friends because there's no one on the paths outside of
the commute hours. At commute time it's too crowded. On weekends and
holidays it's packed.


Same here.


So I guess my point is that if they make these things people use them.


Absolutely. I once had an experience I almost could not believe. Ran
some errands down in the valley and it became late. When I wanted to get
back onto the American River bike path it was almost like trying to
merge into traffic on a fairly clogged highway.

While living in the Netherlands I experienced a lot of bicycle traffic
jams. It seemed the whole town sat on these green or blue behemoths.


In Montreal, a lot of people use them. Whether or not they make sense
for commuters is another story. And group riding on bike paths is a bad
idea in any case if the paths aren't empty.


It's not that bad if the group does not absolutely insist on remaining
together. Just agree on the next pub, cafe or whatever where you want to
meet for a stop.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/