riding on the sidewalk

On 6/5/2016 11:55 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 11:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 5:03 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 05:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 2:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html





He was riding against the direction of traffic on a sidewalk. That's
much more dangerous than riding properly in the lane.

Unfortunately, many "protected cycletracks" put cyclists in exactly
that
same situation.


Perhaps the "sidewalk" needs re-engineering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKlH9k

I'm aware that these things, when well designed, seem to work in the
Netherlands. But I wonder if a necessary prerequisite for their success
is a culture that has deeply embraced cycling. In other words, I wonder
if certain cycling advocates have confused cause and effect.

I've not yet ridden in the Netherlands, but my daughter did. She
reported that in Amsterdam, she found the maze of bike facilities
confusing at times. But she took comfort in their strict liability
laws. She told us that there were many times that she got a bit
confused, but that motorists slammed to a stop to let her pass, with
never a complaint. They always seemed to be super-cautious around bikes.


Interestingly & AFAIK, the strict liability laws only apply to monetary
liability. Could be wrong.

Also, I have been very confused by the maze of twisting and turning
roads around Brisbane - regardless whether I'm in a car or on a bike.
Melbourne was far easier to navigate.

In that culture, I suppose there's less risk for a cyclist in an
unexpected direction - because, I suppose, cyclists are expected to come
from any direction.

Here's her report, although she gave us much more detail at home:
http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/amsterdam.htm

And by the way, in not-too-distant Copenhagen, which also has a 100 year
bike culture, the best before-after studies of cycletracks found
significant _increases_ in crash rates! See
www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf
especially conclusion #2.


I note the last sentence from the Abstract.

Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 7:25:21 AM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html

"the boy, who was eastbound on the 87th Street sidewalk, crossing Latrobe"

No telling what that's supposed to mean.

What is your point?



THERE IS AN OPEN AREA past Latrobe and before the tree. Sidewalk ends at the tree or turns into a gravel driveway.

The kid was hit before the tree in that open construction area. My guess.

Per Frank Krygowski:
In that culture, I suppose there's less risk for a cyclist in an
unexpected direction - because, I suppose, cyclists are expected to come
from any direction.

Around Philadelphia PA, we have a few freeway on/off ramp situations
where it is so patently dangerous that there's a local nickname: "Merge
Or Die".

That being said, I have never seen an accident on one...all I can think
of is that obvious danger keeps everybody so alert that accidents do not
happen.

In the same vein, my Industrial Relations 101 prof had a story (true or
otherwise....) about a safety situation in a logging operation.

The spiel is that these operations can be extremely dangerous - with
felled trees laying this way and that, people climbing around over them
cutting off limbs, and a crane lifting whole trimmed ("Bucked") trees
and swing them this way and that.

One operation had such an exemplary safety record that the central
office had to end a guy out to see how they accomplished it.

Turned out that the crane operator was the key. He said "When I hook up
a tree and start lifting it, I just yell 'Run you sonofabitches, run!'".

Fact or fiction?.... Either way, it was a good story and made the point.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per John B.:
There is even a protocol for riding the wrong way...

Don't leave us hanging..... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher:
I was almost got hit for doing exactly just that. The driver was coming out of the driveway too fast and was kind enough to apologize.

Couple years back I had a similar experience - only the guy was exiting
a parking lot.

He chased me down and apologized profusely... "Geeze, I didn't even
*see* you."

Afterwards I reflected on the fact that I was wearing olive drab pants
and a dark shirt..... and had almost gotten hit another time some days
before by a couple of kids who looked like they were stoned.

Been obsessively wearing red shirts/jackets ever since.
--
Pete Cresswell

logging n fishing are dangerous. Your naybors die as a routine working hazard.

The canoe kayak platform rack on muh E250 has an complete LED lighting rig with extra turn signals 12" up from the roof hung below the platform.

Tried one during daylight entering I75 from Immokalee RD ..

the astern moving semi in passing made a move for muh door .... so double is good, height is better.

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 6:05:25 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 5:03 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 05:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 2:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html



He was riding against the direction of traffic on a sidewalk. That's
much more dangerous than riding properly in the lane.

Unfortunately, many "protected cycletracks" put cyclists in exactly that
same situation.


Perhaps the "sidewalk" needs re-engineering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKlH9k

I'm aware that these things, when well designed, seem to work in the
Netherlands. But I wonder if a necessary prerequisite for their success
is a culture that has deeply embraced cycling. In other words, I wonder
if certain cycling advocates have confused cause and effect.

I've not yet ridden in the Netherlands, but my daughter did. She
reported that in Amsterdam, she found the maze of bike facilities
confusing at times. But she took comfort in their strict liability
laws. She told us that there were many times that she got a bit
confused, but that motorists slammed to a stop to let her pass, with
never a complaint. They always seemed to be super-cautious around bikes.

In that culture, I suppose there's less risk for a cyclist in an
unexpected direction - because, I suppose, cyclists are expected to come
from any direction.

Here's her report, although she gave us much more detail at home:
http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/amsterdam.htm

And by the way, in not-too-distant Copenhagen, which also has a 100 year
bike culture, the best before-after studies of cycletracks found
significant _increases_ in crash rates! See
www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf
especially conclusion #2.

In California with it's increasing cycle culture the traffic is growing more and more cautious and even polite but as with any group there are those who react just the opposite and threaten cyclists who are carefully obeying the laws.

It appears that you are at your greatest risk from anyone driving a German car. Why that would be remains a bit of a mystery. Perhaps German cars are both sold on the basis of performance and the price of them breed a sense of owning the road among their owners.

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 7:12:56 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 11:55 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 11:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 5:03 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 05:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 2:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html





He was riding against the direction of traffic on a sidewalk. That's
much more dangerous than riding properly in the lane.

Unfortunately, many "protected cycletracks" put cyclists in exactly
that
same situation.


Perhaps the "sidewalk" needs re-engineering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKlH9k

I'm aware that these things, when well designed, seem to work in the
Netherlands. But I wonder if a necessary prerequisite for their success
is a culture that has deeply embraced cycling. In other words, I wonder
if certain cycling advocates have confused cause and effect.

I've not yet ridden in the Netherlands, but my daughter did. She
reported that in Amsterdam, she found the maze of bike facilities
confusing at times. But she took comfort in their strict liability
laws. She told us that there were many times that she got a bit
confused, but that motorists slammed to a stop to let her pass, with
never a complaint. They always seemed to be super-cautious around bikes.


Interestingly & AFAIK, the strict liability laws only apply to monetary
liability. Could be wrong.

Also, I have been very confused by the maze of twisting and turning
roads around Brisbane - regardless whether I'm in a car or on a bike.
Melbourne was far easier to navigate.

In that culture, I suppose there's less risk for a cyclist in an
unexpected direction - because, I suppose, cyclists are expected to come
from any direction.

Here's her report, although she gave us much more detail at home:
http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/amsterdam.htm

And by the way, in not-too-distant Copenhagen, which also has a 100 year
bike culture, the best before-after studies of cycletracks found
significant _increases_ in crash rates! See
www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf
especially conclusion #2.


I note the last sentence from the Abstract.

Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"

Frank - while people may as you say think that they are safer on a bicycle than in a car, injuries or deaths on bicycles are still extremely rare and the health benefits FAR outweigh the other dangers.

If you read my latest bicycle helmet thread think about the fact that I crashed like that with no serious injuries and rode another 8 miles home and even threw in an unnecessary climb while approaching 72 years old.

There is no way I could have done that with non-athletic bones. I don't feel too bad today though I am a little tired.

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 4:26:51 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 6:05:25 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 5:03 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 05:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 2:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html



He was riding against the direction of traffic on a sidewalk. That's
much more dangerous than riding properly in the lane.

Unfortunately, many "protected cycletracks" put cyclists in exactly that
same situation.


Perhaps the "sidewalk" needs re-engineering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKlH9k

I'm aware that these things, when well designed, seem to work in the
Netherlands. But I wonder if a necessary prerequisite for their success
is a culture that has deeply embraced cycling. In other words, I wonder
if certain cycling advocates have confused cause and effect.

I've not yet ridden in the Netherlands, but my daughter did. She
reported that in Amsterdam, she found the maze of bike facilities
confusing at times. But she took comfort in their strict liability
laws. She told us that there were many times that she got a bit
confused, but that motorists slammed to a stop to let her pass, with
never a complaint. They always seemed to be super-cautious around bikes.

In that culture, I suppose there's less risk for a cyclist in an
unexpected direction - because, I suppose, cyclists are expected to come
from any direction.

Here's her report, although she gave us much more detail at home:
http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/amsterdam.htm

And by the way, in not-too-distant Copenhagen, which also has a 100 year
bike culture, the best before-after studies of cycletracks found
significant _increases_ in crash rates! See
www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf
especially conclusion #2.

In California with it's increasing cycle culture the traffic is growing more and more cautious and even polite but as with any group there are those who react just the opposite and threaten cyclists who are carefully obeying the laws.

It appears that you are at your greatest risk from anyone driving a German car. Why that would be remains a bit of a mystery. Perhaps German cars are both sold on the basis of performance and the price of them breed a sense of owning the road among their owners.

single out model types ?

On 07/06/16 00:12, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 11:55 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 11:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 5:03 PM, James wrote:
On 06/06/16 05:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/5/2016 2:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburb...604-story.html






He was riding against the direction of traffic on a sidewalk. That's
much more dangerous than riding properly in the lane.

Unfortunately, many "protected cycletracks" put cyclists in exactly
that
same situation.


Perhaps the "sidewalk" needs re-engineering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYjUHKlH9k

I'm aware that these things, when well designed, seem to work in the
Netherlands. But I wonder if a necessary prerequisite for their success
is a culture that has deeply embraced cycling. In other words, I wonder
if certain cycling advocates have confused cause and effect.

I've not yet ridden in the Netherlands, but my daughter did. She
reported that in Amsterdam, she found the maze of bike facilities
confusing at times. But she took comfort in their strict liability
laws. She told us that there were many times that she got a bit
confused, but that motorists slammed to a stop to let her pass, with
never a complaint. They always seemed to be super-cautious around
bikes.


Interestingly & AFAIK, the strict liability laws only apply to monetary
liability. Could be wrong.

Also, I have been very confused by the maze of twisting and turning
roads around Brisbane - regardless whether I'm in a car or on a bike.
Melbourne was far easier to navigate.

In that culture, I suppose there's less risk for a cyclist in an
unexpected direction - because, I suppose, cyclists are expected to come
from any direction.

Here's her report, although she gave us much more detail at home:
http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/amsterdam.htm

And by the way, in not-too-distant Copenhagen, which also has a 100 year
bike culture, the best before-after studies of cycletracks found
significant _increases_ in crash rates! See
www.vehicularcyclist.com/copenhagen2.pdf
especially conclusion #2.


I note the last sentence from the Abstract.

Right. In essence, they say "Well, cycletracks are more dangerous for
bicyclists, but we still like them because they lessen pollution."

And how do they lessen pollution? They get more people to ride bikes.

And how do they get people to ride bikes? By making them think they are
_safer_ for bicyclists.

They should have added "Pssst! Don't tell anyone about our findings!"



There was also a greater reduction in motor traffic and larger increase
in bicycle use on those roads with separated infrastructure compared
with painted bike lanes on roads. The benefit is more than just less
pollution. But I guess you chose to ignore that though you know it.

They also said the danger was at crossings, so not along the path as
such, but where a road crosses it. IOW, the path isn't dangerous, but
the motorists who cross it certainly are.

--
JS