bicycle tech

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:43:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/3/2021 8:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Shared facilities don't work, particularly when people on five foot wide trails want to run or walk five abreast with four dogs and a stroller.

Shared facilities (bikes + peds) can be a real mess. And a new one is
going in to connect our downtown with a local metropark, despite strong
complaints by cyclists during the public presentation of the concept.
Interestingly, while I attended the meeting, I barely had to say
anything. Other cyclists were sufficiently outraged by the folly of the
design. Not that city officials listened...

This facility is to be a bike-ped sidewalk path segregated on one side
of some streets that are already perfect for cycling, except for their
potholes. Lanes are wide enough to share, speed limits are low, traffic
count is low - but they want us to share the sidewalks with peds.

One of the drawings projected onscreen in the public presentation even
showed a mom holding a little kid's hand as they walked. The kids other
hand was stretched out to the side, and a bicyclist was drawn slightly
tilted, avoiding the kid's hand. Unbelievable! Yet they're proceeding
with construction.

Ohio has a law stating that cyclists can't be forced to use such crap.
But I predict motorist harassment of riders who choose the roadway instead.

https://www.velonews.com/news/study-...ns-ride-bikes/
But, in all seriousness, why? Bike deaths in the U.S. is in the 700 -
800 per annum range and I read that there are in the neighborhood of
100 million bike riders in the U.S. which is a rate of .0008% bicycle
riders dying on the highways. Is it really logical to built special
lanes for them?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 1/4/2021 7:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:43:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/3/2021 8:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Shared facilities don't work, particularly when people on five foot wide trails want to run or walk five abreast with four dogs and a stroller.

Shared facilities (bikes + peds) can be a real mess. And a new one is
going in to connect our downtown with a local metropark, despite strong
complaints by cyclists during the public presentation of the concept.
Interestingly, while I attended the meeting, I barely had to say
anything. Other cyclists were sufficiently outraged by the folly of the
design. Not that city officials listened...

This facility is to be a bike-ped sidewalk path segregated on one side
of some streets that are already perfect for cycling, except for their
potholes. Lanes are wide enough to share, speed limits are low, traffic
count is low - but they want us to share the sidewalks with peds.

One of the drawings projected onscreen in the public presentation even
showed a mom holding a little kid's hand as they walked. The kids other
hand was stretched out to the side, and a bicyclist was drawn slightly
tilted, avoiding the kid's hand. Unbelievable! Yet they're proceeding
with construction.

Ohio has a law stating that cyclists can't be forced to use such crap.
But I predict motorist harassment of riders who choose the roadway instead.

https://www.velonews.com/news/study-...ns-ride-bikes/
But, in all seriousness, why? Bike deaths in the U.S. is in the 700 -
800 per annum range and I read that there are in the neighborhood of
100 million bike riders in the U.S. which is a rate of .0008% bicycle
riders dying on the highways. Is it really logical to built special
lanes for them?

In most places, it's not logical to build special lanes for bicyclists.
Bike lanes don't actually create any extra room, and many effectively
remove room and lead to closer passing. They also add complexity and
confusion at intersections.

As to "why?" they build them, there are probably several factors.

One is deliberate fear mongering regarding bicycling. Americans have
been subjected to over 40 years of it. Ever since Bell Sports decided to
portray riding a bike as a major source of terrible brain damage, people
have been afraid of riding. Why, simply toppling off a stationary bike
can kill you! Think how bad it could be if a car hit you! (But of
course, some claim a styrofoam hat will fix most of it.)

Another reason is the collection of excessive privileges given to
motorists. Speeding is certainly condoned and expected. Running red
lights ("only by a little!") is too. Turning right on red when
prohibited, or without stopping, gets ignored. Penalties for those
offenses and even for causing injuries are minuscule, and seldom
restrict driving privileges. All this causes a sense of entitlement that
leads to a "Get off the road!" mentality. (Not only for bicyclists, BTW.
When walking on residential streets with no sidewalks, it's not unusual
for motorists whiz by too close and too fast.)

Yet another reason is simple ignorance. Many people don't realize that
bicyclists have a fundamental right to _any_ non-limited-access road.
I've been miles out in the country and had people yell "Get on a bike
path!" In cities, I've had people yell "Get on the sidewalk!"

Which is not to say riding conditions are actually terrible in most
places. I eschew the helmet, and I normally ride very prominently in the
lane, as a legal vehicle operator and as is my legal right. Almost all
motorists treat me with adequate respect, whether or not they like it.

But most American cyclists are too timid to try that behavior. So they
whine for bike lanes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 20:15:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/4/2021 7:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 11:43:34 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/3/2021 8:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Shared facilities don't work, particularly when people on five foot wide trails want to run or walk five abreast with four dogs and a stroller.

Shared facilities (bikes + peds) can be a real mess. And a new one is
going in to connect our downtown with a local metropark, despite strong
complaints by cyclists during the public presentation of the concept.
Interestingly, while I attended the meeting, I barely had to say
anything. Other cyclists were sufficiently outraged by the folly of the
design. Not that city officials listened...

This facility is to be a bike-ped sidewalk path segregated on one side
of some streets that are already perfect for cycling, except for their
potholes. Lanes are wide enough to share, speed limits are low, traffic
count is low - but they want us to share the sidewalks with peds.

One of the drawings projected onscreen in the public presentation even
showed a mom holding a little kid's hand as they walked. The kids other
hand was stretched out to the side, and a bicyclist was drawn slightly
tilted, avoiding the kid's hand. Unbelievable! Yet they're proceeding
with construction.

Ohio has a law stating that cyclists can't be forced to use such crap.
But I predict motorist harassment of riders who choose the roadway instead.

https://www.velonews.com/news/study-...ns-ride-bikes/
But, in all seriousness, why? Bike deaths in the U.S. is in the 700 -
800 per annum range and I read that there are in the neighborhood of
100 million bike riders in the U.S. which is a rate of .0008% bicycle
riders dying on the highways. Is it really logical to built special
lanes for them?

In most places, it's not logical to build special lanes for bicyclists.
Bike lanes don't actually create any extra room, and many effectively
remove room and lead to closer passing. They also add complexity and
confusion at intersections.

As to "why?" they build them, there are probably several factors.

One is deliberate fear mongering regarding bicycling. Americans have
been subjected to over 40 years of it. Ever since Bell Sports decided to
portray riding a bike as a major source of terrible brain damage, people
have been afraid of riding. Why, simply toppling off a stationary bike
can kill you! Think how bad it could be if a car hit you! (But of
course, some claim a styrofoam hat will fix most of it.)

Another reason is the collection of excessive privileges given to
motorists. Speeding is certainly condoned and expected. Running red
lights ("only by a little!") is too. Turning right on red when
prohibited, or without stopping, gets ignored. Penalties for those
offenses and even for causing injuries are minuscule, and seldom
restrict driving privileges. All this causes a sense of entitlement that
leads to a "Get off the road!" mentality. (Not only for bicyclists, BTW.
When walking on residential streets with no sidewalks, it's not unusual
for motorists whiz by too close and too fast.)

Yet another reason is simple ignorance. Many people don't realize that
bicyclists have a fundamental right to _any_ non-limited-access road.
I've been miles out in the country and had people yell "Get on a bike
path!" In cities, I've had people yell "Get on the sidewalk!"

Which is not to say riding conditions are actually terrible in most
places. I eschew the helmet, and I normally ride very prominently in the
lane, as a legal vehicle operator and as is my legal right. Almost all
motorists treat me with adequate respect, whether or not they like it.

But most American cyclists are too timid to try that behavior. So they
whine for bike lanes.

Over here we don't have bike lanes although I did come across a very
wide sidewalk once with a painted picture of a bicycle and a couple of
parks and the "new airport" have painted bike outlines on their
maintenance roads, but people still ride bicycles and we have
relatively few bike crashes reported in the News.
There was one, the other day, an elderly bloke riding the wrong way on
a four lane divided highway, which if memory serves was the only one
reported in the news last year.
The guy that hit him said he didn't see him and apparently no arrest
was made although I'm sure that the driver paid some sort of
compensation and likely footed the funeral costs.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
path... if enough money was available.

Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
one block apart, at least eight to the mile.

I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

Am 05.01.2021 um 07:03 schrieb Joy Beeson:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
path... if enough money was available.

Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
one block apart, at least eight to the mile.

I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.

The Milton Keynes (UK) Redways are using that king of thing but at least
they halve the climb by using underpasses instead of bridges.
All the Bikeway promoters wonder why there's so little cycling in MK
despite the "great facilities".

On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 3:45:40 PM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote:

The Milton Keynes (UK) Redways are using that king of thing but at least
they halve the climb by using underpasses instead of bridges.
All the Bikeway promoters wonder why there's so little cycling in MK
despite the "great facilities".

An overpass may be exposed to the elements and steeper but an underpass is also an attraction to the criminal element. --- AJ

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 3:24:41 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:08:16 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Sunday, January 3, 2021 at 7:38:37 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2021 18:59:12 -0800 (PST), "
Several other people have given good responses to your questions. But here is my scenario where I live. I live 0.75 miles from the bus stop. I walk it in all weather at less than 10 minutes. But it would be easier and quicker to ride it. And there are lots of other suburb houses within a mile of me. So they would be up to 2 miles from the bus stops. Riding a bike would be much easier for them than walking. There are NO places to park bicycles near the bus stops. So if you rode to a bus stop, you would have to take the bike on the bus. It is 10 miles to downtown from my house/bus stop. I do and have ridden it many many times. But if I was commuting every day downtown, I would like to use the bus for most of the commute. And once the bus is downtown, many businesses are within easy walking distance. Hospital is 1 mile away and Capital is 0.75 miles away. But there are many businesses and destinations that are 1 mile or more away from the bus route. Having a bike to
finish the commute would be nicer than walking the final 1+ mile. So if you live 1-2 miles from the bus stop at the beginning, and your final destination is 1-2 miles from the bus stop at the end, taking a bike and riding 2-4 miles total for each bus trip makes lots of sense. With the 10 mile bus trip in between. Each day you would end up with 4-8 miles of bicycle riding and 20 miles of bus sitting. 1-2 hours of total commuting time each day. Acceptable?
So, o.k. a ten minute walk, a 10 mile bus ride and then again 3/4
mile, say another 10 - 15 minutes walk... and you need a bicycle.
You don't need a bicycle ever. Don't pretend to us that you ride simply because you sit in the back of a Rickshaw.
Ah Tommy, there you go again talking about something about you so
obviously know nothing at all. However, for your edification a
"ricksha" or "shaw" is a Japanese word meaning human powered vehicle
and is, at least in the part of the world where they common is applied
only to the old fashioned two wheel cart pulled by a human. For a
photo see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R...ct_25_2015.ogv

They haven't been used in Thailand for at least 50 years to my
personal knowledge and probably longer.What was common some years ago
was a "Samlo" see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricksh...e_Rickshaw.jpg
and now even those are no longer seen as we are completely mechanized
here and have a motorized three wheeler called a "tuk tuk".
https://www.konradlegal.com/wp-conte...k-Rickshaw.jpg

You see Tommy, you really should restrict your comments to something
that you are knowledgeable about, this flying off on tangents simply
exposes your vast ignorance to the great unwashed proletariat.

Sticking to small pieces of paper and bits of string will avoid people
pointing their finger and whispering, "There goes that old fool Tommy,
again".
--
Cheers,

John B.
Tell us meathead, what has that to do with you haven't ridden a bicycle for over 20 years? Again, what are you on this group for? You are a disgrace to the human race.

On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 10:03:17 PM UTC-8, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
path... if enough money was available.

Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
one block apart, at least eight to the mile.

I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.

In the town of Redwood City here, they built a couple of bike bridges. The ramps had to be so long it was compressed into a oval shape that had to be climbed so high and be impossible to allow a pedestrian and cyclist to pass one another easily that no one uses them, even pedestrians avoid them for the cross walks and lights that were there in the first place.

On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 8:12:31 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 3:45:40 PM UTC, Rolf Mantel wrote:

The Milton Keynes (UK) Redways are using that king of thing but at least
they halve the climb by using underpasses instead of bridges.
All the Bikeway promoters wonder why there's so little cycling in MK
despite the "great facilities".
An overpass may be exposed to the elements and steeper but an underpass is also an attraction to the criminal element. --- AJ
Around here they would become housing for the homeless. There are now probably more homeless people than illegal aliens in California.

On 1/5/2021 11:55 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, January 4, 2021 at 10:03:17 PM UTC-8, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jan 2021 08:00:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Here, more and more you see pedestrian bridges to cross streets and
roads. Primarily in the city but they are also being built "up
country". Logically the same idea could be applied to a bicycle
path... if enough money was available.

Many years ago I read about a plan to build a bike lane that crossed
streets on bridges. The planners found out the steepest hill that a
young healthy bike rider could struggle up, and then put such hills
one block apart, at least eight to the mile.

I don't recall hearing that the facility was actually built.

In the town of Redwood City here, they built a couple of bike bridges. The ramps had to be so long it was compressed into a oval shape that had to be climbed so high and be impossible to allow a pedestrian and cyclist to pass one another easily that no one uses them, even pedestrians avoid them for the cross walks and lights that were there in the first place.

Bridges are expensive to build, and apparently can be expensive to
maintain. At least that's what the state DOT claimed when it took out a
pedestrian-bicycle bridge over a local freeway. That bridge used to
connect a neighborhood with a school. I don't know if the school closed
or if the school system decided kids don't walk or bike anymore. In any
case, the bridge is now gone.

I'd like to see a lot more bike-ped bridges spanning freeways. One of
the bad effects of freeways is isolating neighborhoods from stores,
offices, parks etc. Freeway designers decided one bridge every mile or
two is adequate even in cities and suburbs, and those bridges are often
hostile to non-motorized travel. With that distance between bridges,
many homeowners can see the *-mart a couple hundred yards from their
house, but can't get there without several miles of driving. To me, that
just seems wrong.

--
- Frank Krygowski