Question for Joerg

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:56:45 AM UTC, John B. wrote to Joerg:

And bicycle deaths make up 4% of all traffic deaths ...
Yes Sir. Bicycling is certainly a dangerous sport!

Yo, Slow Johnny, since bicyclists account for less than 4% of road traffic, then bicyclists account for a disproportionate number of fatalities, compared to at least some other road users. That's a basic conclusion from standard statistical theory.

Andre Jute
Statistics is an art beyond the ken of railroad minds

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:03:48 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:56:45 AM UTC, John B. wrote to Joerg:

And bicycle deaths make up 4% of all traffic deaths ...
Yes Sir. Bicycling is certainly a dangerous sport!

Yo, Slow Johnny, since bicyclists account for less than 4% of road traffic, then bicyclists account for a disproportionate number of fatalities, compared to at least some other road users. That's a basic conclusion from standard statistical theory.

Andre Jute
Statistics is an art beyond the ken of railroad minds

Andre - this is because bicyclists are at a physical disadvantage without a cage around them to protect them. We have to remember that.

The very short distance from the entrance of Grass Valley Park to Golf Links Rd. is fairly steep downhill. And it has a closely spaced row of trees along both sides. They have built housing in this area. While you are FLYING down this area that we call The Eucalyptus Tunnel you have to be exceedingly watchful for people pulling out of their driveways or side streets without looking for cyclists. I can't count how many times I've been a near statistic.

On 1/28/2017 4:34 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

But you keep telling us about all the life threatening incidents that
magically occur to you WHEREVER you ride, whether on or off-road.
Why is it only the on-road ones which result in you saying "once is
enough, never again!"?
snip

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because about once a
month those end deadly for the cyclist around here. Here is this month's
death:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html


It's blatantly obvious that you are either getting something badly
wrong, or your risk assessments are orders of magnitude out, or you
are trolling, and the majority of your postings are unadulterated
bull****.


Right, you know all this better.

Interestingly, my only near collision with a car today occurred on a new, separate facility on a through road that I used to ride down without a care. Now I have to ride on a MUP that is bisected every 100 feet by a road, driveway, hopscotch grid, etc., etc. It's a f****** nightmare.

Conceptualize this: an on-road bike lane that runs parallel to traffic on a through street with numerous intersecting roads with, of course, stop signs. You just ride down the road with the cars off to your left. Now, move the bike lane to the right ten feet onto an over-sized sidewalk that now stops at every intersecting road. The cyclist can't cross if there is a car waiting to enter traffic from the intersecting road because the car blocks the path, and even if there is no car blocking the path, the cyclist is now exposed to the risk of being hit by a car turning on to the intersecting road from the the through street (from either direction) because the cyclist is not easily seen and is moving far faster than pedestrian traffic. Today, I almost got whacked by a turning car as I was trying to cross -- at a walking speed because I actually stopped. In 30 years of riding that road, I had never been hooked or nearly hooked. The previous bike lane was ten times more convenient and
safer.

My second near disaster was on the "cycletrack" in front of PSU. Cars had parked in the track, and I had to weave around them, and then pedestrians were wandering into the track from both sides -- from the sidewalk on the right and the line of parked cars on the left that creates the supposed "shelter." Another total infrastructure mistake. It should be called the "chute of death."

On-street bike lanes made life better for me in a number of places, and in fact, most places except where the bikes lanes were placed in the door-zone. I can think of only one or two separate facilities that are safer for me than a well-designed on-street bike lane or traffic calmed street (bike boulevard). Any mixed use facility and any separate facility that intersects roads exposes cyclists to new and different dangers which, for me, have proved more real and immediate than the usual risks of riding on the road. In other words, most separate facilities that are not linear parks (e.g. the American River Trail) are a step backwards for cyclists. This is particularly true this year with all the snow, gravel and blow-down and the fact that the separate facilities cannot be plowed or swept.

-- Jay Beattie.


Jay, you're singing my song. I'll ride quite a ways to avoid
'bike facilities'. There's always another route.

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

When we lived near Albany, New York, I became a connoisseur of back
ways and short cuts. The days of free-range kids hadn't quite ended,
so if I looked at a map and saw that two dead-end streets almost met,
it was almost certain that I'd find a foot-path connecting them. But
once I set out to make use of a newly-discovered short cut and
discovered that the two streets were, indeed, only twenty feet apart.

Twenty feet straight up.

I also tended to rely heavily on "you can't close a road to bicycles".
It was rare that I'd have to walk more than a block or two to get past
a construction zone.

And then one day I was headed for Schenectady, went a couple of miles
past a "road closed" sign -- and was confronted with what looked like
a mile of open water. Walking around obstacles is one thing, swimming
across them is quite another.

The primary reason I'd ignored that particular sign was that I didn't
know of another way to get where I was going. Luckily, just as I got
back to the intersection, an approaching pick-up truck turned left. It
was a working truck, so I could be sure the guy knew the way to get
past the obstacle, so I followed him, and he *was* going where I
wanted to be.

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

Free range...free range....yes I was several times surprised by perception of imminent dangers a few feet away.

GPS is a cure n solution but a cycle lacks speed ... enter the rack.

I did a COG Detour in upper Tallahasse. Arriving in Big White on I10, the DOT held traffic for bridge repair.

Miles ! HOURS !

Setting a GPS course thru the Upper Burbs, we bored thru ? 8 burn miles arriving at the detours 4 lan concrete blvd outlet ... .25 mile ahead of the 3 mile long snake of Detourees let loose by the FLDOT.

EYAGLHAHAWHOWHOWUHWUHWUH ...the thrill of victory ?

On 2017-01-28 14:34, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

But you keep telling us about all the life threatening incidents
that magically occur to you WHEREVER you ride, whether on or
off-road. Why is it only the on-road ones which result in you
saying "once is enough, never again!"?
snip

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because about once
a month those end deadly for the cyclist around here. Here is this
month's death:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html


It's blatantly obvious that you are either getting something
badly wrong, or your risk assessments are orders of magnitude
out, or you are trolling, and the majority of your postings are
unadulterated bull****.


Right, you know all this better.

Interestingly, my only near collision with a car today occurred on a
new, separate facility on a through road that I used to ride down
without a care. Now I have to ride on a MUP that is bisected every
100 feet by a road, driveway, hopscotch grid, etc., etc. It's a
f****** nightmare.

Conceptualize this: an on-road bike lane that runs parallel to
traffic on a through street with numerous intersecting roads with, of
course, stop signs. You just ride down the road with the cars off to
your left. Now, move the bike lane to the right ten feet onto an
over-sized sidewalk that now stops at every intersecting road. The
cyclist can't cross if there is a car waiting to enter traffic from
the intersecting road because the car blocks the path, and even if
there is no car blocking the path, the cyclist is now exposed to the
risk of being hit by a car turning on to the intersecting road from
the the through street (from either direction) because the cyclist is
not easily seen and is moving far faster than pedestrian traffic.
Today, I almost got whacked by a turning car as I was trying to
cross -- at a walking speed because I actually stopped. In 30 years
of riding that road, I had never been hooked or nearly hooked. The
previous bike lane was ten times more convenient and safer.

My second near disaster was on the "cycletrack" in front of PSU.
Cars had parked in the track, and I had to weave around them, and
then pedestrians were wandering into the track from both sides --
from the sidewalk on the right and the line of parked cars on the
left that creates the supposed "shelter." Another total
infrastructure mistake. It should be called the "chute of death."


Then take action and call them out on it. In public. Loudly.


On-street bike lanes made life better for me in a number of places,
and in fact, most places except where the bikes lanes were placed in
the door-zone. I can think of only one or two separate facilities
that are safer for me than a well-designed on-street bike lane or
traffic calmed street (bike boulevard). Any mixed use facility and
any separate facility that intersects roads exposes cyclists to new
and different dangers ...


Not true. Come to Folsom (with your bike) and see how it can be done
correctly. Grade separation is the magic word. They know how it's done
right. There can be thick crawling traffic or total standstill on the
large roads while I blow through on my road bike and don't even have to
tap the brakes.

I am sick and tired of people blanket-condemning bike infrastructure
just because the authorities in their region screwed up the design. You
need to get out more. A very educating trip for you could be a long
vacation (with bike) in the Netherlands.


... which, for me, have proved more real and
immediate than the usual risks of riding on the road. In other
words, most separate facilities that are not linear parks (e.g. the
American River Trail) are a step backwards for cyclists. This is
particularly true this year with all the snow, gravel and blow-down
and the fact that the separate facilities cannot be plowed or swept.


http://mapio.net/s/2828069/?page=3

Just a normal day in paradise. The heavy car traffic flows above. You
can barely even hear it.

And here it flows below:

https://www.traillink.com/photos/joh..._134117_lb.jpg

https://goo.gl/maps/bYDp4cFPBGT2

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-28 14:34, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

But you keep telling us about all the life threatening incidents
that magically occur to you WHEREVER you ride, whether on or
off-road. Why is it only the on-road ones which result in you
saying "once is enough, never again!"?
snip

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because about once
a month those end deadly for the cyclist around here. Here is this
month's death:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html


It's blatantly obvious that you are either getting something
badly wrong, or your risk assessments are orders of magnitude
out, or you are trolling, and the majority of your postings are
unadulterated bull****.


Right, you know all this better.

Interestingly, my only near collision with a car today occurred on a
new, separate facility on a through road that I used to ride down
without a care. Now I have to ride on a MUP that is bisected every
100 feet by a road, driveway, hopscotch grid, etc., etc. It's a
f****** nightmare.

Conceptualize this: an on-road bike lane that runs parallel to
traffic on a through street with numerous intersecting roads with, of
course, stop signs. You just ride down the road with the cars off to
your left. Now, move the bike lane to the right ten feet onto an
over-sized sidewalk that now stops at every intersecting road. The
cyclist can't cross if there is a car waiting to enter traffic from
the intersecting road because the car blocks the path, and even if
there is no car blocking the path, the cyclist is now exposed to the
risk of being hit by a car turning on to the intersecting road from
the the through street (from either direction) because the cyclist is
not easily seen and is moving far faster than pedestrian traffic.
Today, I almost got whacked by a turning car as I was trying to
cross -- at a walking speed because I actually stopped. In 30 years
of riding that road, I had never been hooked or nearly hooked. The
previous bike lane was ten times more convenient and safer.

My second near disaster was on the "cycletrack" in front of PSU.
Cars had parked in the track, and I had to weave around them, and
then pedestrians were wandering into the track from both sides --
from the sidewalk on the right and the line of parked cars on the
left that creates the supposed "shelter." Another total
infrastructure mistake. It should be called the "chute of death."


Then take action and call them out on it. In public. Loudly.


On-street bike lanes made life better for me in a number of places,
and in fact, most places except where the bikes lanes were placed in
the door-zone. I can think of only one or two separate facilities
that are safer for me than a well-designed on-street bike lane or
traffic calmed street (bike boulevard). Any mixed use facility and
any separate facility that intersects roads exposes cyclists to new
and different dangers ...


Not true. Come to Folsom (with your bike) and see how it can be done
correctly. Grade separation is the magic word. They know how it's done
right. There can be thick crawling traffic or total standstill on the
large roads while I blow through on my road bike and don't even have to
tap the brakes.

I am sick and tired of people blanket-condemning bike infrastructure
just because the authorities in their region screwed up the design. You
need to get out more. A very educating trip for you could be a long
vacation (with bike) in the Netherlands.

I don't blanket condemn bicycle infrastructure. On-street bike lanes are infrastructure. I'm not excited about the US implementation of separate bicycle facilities where, unlike NL (for example), right of way remains with cars and pedestrians. I can't comment on the Folsom bicycle Eden, because I haven't been there in 18 years, but our separate facilities expose cyclists to pedestrians, trains, buses, etc., etc. They are far less safe and convenient than on-street bike lanes.

I live in a city that is as close to the NL as you're going to get in the US -- lots of cyclists and legal dope, but the fact is, it isn't NL and never will be. Not unless it gets leveled and much of the city is erased. In my experience, in a large-ish city that prides itself on improvements, separate bicycle facilities are more often a hazard than a blessing.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-28 14:34, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

But you keep telling us about all the life threatening incidents
that magically occur to you WHEREVER you ride, whether on or
off-road. Why is it only the on-road ones which result in you
saying "once is enough, never again!"?
snip

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because about once
a month those end deadly for the cyclist around here. Here is this
month's death:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html


It's blatantly obvious that you are either getting something
badly wrong, or your risk assessments are orders of magnitude
out, or you are trolling, and the majority of your postings are
unadulterated bull****.


Right, you know all this better.

Interestingly, my only near collision with a car today occurred on a
new, separate facility on a through road that I used to ride down
without a care. Now I have to ride on a MUP that is bisected every
100 feet by a road, driveway, hopscotch grid, etc., etc. It's a
f****** nightmare.

Conceptualize this: an on-road bike lane that runs parallel to
traffic on a through street with numerous intersecting roads with, of
course, stop signs. You just ride down the road with the cars off to
your left. Now, move the bike lane to the right ten feet onto an
over-sized sidewalk that now stops at every intersecting road. The
cyclist can't cross if there is a car waiting to enter traffic from
the intersecting road because the car blocks the path, and even if
there is no car blocking the path, the cyclist is now exposed to the
risk of being hit by a car turning on to the intersecting road from
the the through street (from either direction) because the cyclist is
not easily seen and is moving far faster than pedestrian traffic.
Today, I almost got whacked by a turning car as I was trying to
cross -- at a walking speed because I actually stopped. In 30 years
of riding that road, I had never been hooked or nearly hooked. The
previous bike lane was ten times more convenient and safer.

My second near disaster was on the "cycletrack" in front of PSU.
Cars had parked in the track, and I had to weave around them, and
then pedestrians were wandering into the track from both sides --
from the sidewalk on the right and the line of parked cars on the
left that creates the supposed "shelter." Another total
infrastructure mistake. It should be called the "chute of death."


Then take action and call them out on it. In public. Loudly.


On-street bike lanes made life better for me in a number of places,
and in fact, most places except where the bikes lanes were placed in
the door-zone. I can think of only one or two separate facilities
that are safer for me than a well-designed on-street bike lane or
traffic calmed street (bike boulevard). Any mixed use facility and
any separate facility that intersects roads exposes cyclists to new
and different dangers ...


Not true. Come to Folsom (with your bike) and see how it can be done
correctly. Grade separation is the magic word. They know how it's done
right. There can be thick crawling traffic or total standstill on the
large roads while I blow through on my road bike and don't even have to
tap the brakes.

I am sick and tired of people blanket-condemning bike infrastructure
just because the authorities in their region screwed up the design. You
need to get out more. A very educating trip for you could be a long
vacation (with bike) in the Netherlands.


... which, for me, have proved more real and
immediate than the usual risks of riding on the road. In other
words, most separate facilities that are not linear parks (e.g. the
American River Trail) are a step backwards for cyclists. This is
particularly true this year with all the snow, gravel and blow-down
and the fact that the separate facilities cannot be plowed or swept.


http://mapio.net/s/2828069/?page=3

Just a normal day in paradise. The heavy car traffic flows above. You
can barely even hear it.

And here it flows below:

https://www.traillink.com/photos/joh..._134117_lb.jpg

https://goo.gl/maps/bYDp4cFPBGT2

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

You don't think that they're going to install bicycle lanes on back roads barely wide enough for two cars going in opposite directions to pass do you? The route I take from San Jose to San Juan Batista is on farm roads and I can barely pass farm trucks.

In most of the bay area as Jay writes (imagine me supporting him) the bike lanes are almost always in the door zone. I've been on very few roads that had proper bikes lanes and those usually rapidly peter out into no bike lanes and blind turns of only a single lane in both directions. In Sacramento there are VERY poor bicycle facilities though Davis was very good for it's time. I haven't been there lately.

California law makes it legal for bicycles to ride on the shoulder on highways but does not demand it. On many highways there is not room enough for a car to safely pass a bicycle. Niles Canyon is a good example. The shoulder comes and goes. The bridges HAVE no room except to take the full lane and cars will approach at such speed that they cannot stop and run over cyclists and the CHP does NOT cite them for speed. The safe speed here would be 35 mph and the limit presently is 50 mph and so it's used as a commute route by people who normally race from one stop light to another that they can SEE turning red two blocks away.

The ONLY "adequate" bicycle facilities is to demand safe driving and the arrest any drivers who break the law and seize their cars. After they have to pay those fees off they would be a hell of a lot more careful next time.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:30:19 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-28 14:34, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

But you keep telling us about all the life threatening incidents
that magically occur to you WHEREVER you ride, whether on or
off-road. Why is it only the on-road ones which result in you
saying "once is enough, never again!"?
snip

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because about once
a month those end deadly for the cyclist around here. Here is this
month's death:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html


It's blatantly obvious that you are either getting something
badly wrong, or your risk assessments are orders of magnitude
out, or you are trolling, and the majority of your postings are
unadulterated bull****.


Right, you know all this better.

Interestingly, my only near collision with a car today occurred on a
new, separate facility on a through road that I used to ride down
without a care. Now I have to ride on a MUP that is bisected every
100 feet by a road, driveway, hopscotch grid, etc., etc. It's a
f****** nightmare.

Conceptualize this: an on-road bike lane that runs parallel to
traffic on a through street with numerous intersecting roads with, of
course, stop signs. You just ride down the road with the cars off to
your left. Now, move the bike lane to the right ten feet onto an
over-sized sidewalk that now stops at every intersecting road. The
cyclist can't cross if there is a car waiting to enter traffic from
the intersecting road because the car blocks the path, and even if
there is no car blocking the path, the cyclist is now exposed to the
risk of being hit by a car turning on to the intersecting road from
the the through street (from either direction) because the cyclist is
not easily seen and is moving far faster than pedestrian traffic.
Today, I almost got whacked by a turning car as I was trying to
cross -- at a walking speed because I actually stopped. In 30 years
of riding that road, I had never been hooked or nearly hooked. The
previous bike lane was ten times more convenient and safer.

My second near disaster was on the "cycletrack" in front of PSU.
Cars had parked in the track, and I had to weave around them, and
then pedestrians were wandering into the track from both sides --
from the sidewalk on the right and the line of parked cars on the
left that creates the supposed "shelter." Another total
infrastructure mistake. It should be called the "chute of death."


Then take action and call them out on it. In public. Loudly.


On-street bike lanes made life better for me in a number of places,
and in fact, most places except where the bikes lanes were placed in
the door-zone. I can think of only one or two separate facilities
that are safer for me than a well-designed on-street bike lane or
traffic calmed street (bike boulevard). Any mixed use facility and
any separate facility that intersects roads exposes cyclists to new
and different dangers ...


Not true. Come to Folsom (with your bike) and see how it can be done
correctly. Grade separation is the magic word. They know how it's done
right. There can be thick crawling traffic or total standstill on the
large roads while I blow through on my road bike and don't even have to
tap the brakes.

I am sick and tired of people blanket-condemning bike infrastructure
just because the authorities in their region screwed up the design. You
need to get out more. A very educating trip for you could be a long
vacation (with bike) in the Netherlands.

I don't blanket condemn bicycle infrastructure. On-street bike lanes are infrastructure. I'm not excited about the US implementation of separate bicycle facilities where, unlike NL (for example), right of way remains with cars and pedestrians. I can't comment on the Folsom bicycle Eden, because I haven't been there in 18 years, but our separate facilities expose cyclists to pedestrians, trains, buses, etc., etc. They are far less safe and convenient than on-street bike lanes.

I live in a city that is as close to the NL as you're going to get in the US -- lots of cyclists and legal dope, but the fact is, it isn't NL and never will be. Not unless it gets leveled and much of the city is erased. In my experience, in a large-ish city that prides itself on improvements, separate bicycle facilities are more often a hazard than a blessing.

-- Jay Beattie.


Pretty difficult to convince the public that it is a good idea to
knock down all those stupid buildings that front on the road so the
roads can be widened to accommodate the bicycles :-0
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2017-01-30 11:30, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2017 at 10:18:18 AM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-01-28 14:34, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 1:46:41 PM UTC-8, Joerg wrote:

But you keep telling us about all the life threatening
incidents that magically occur to you WHEREVER you ride,
whether on or off-road. Why is it only the on-road ones which
result in you saying "once is enough, never again!"?
snip

The reason is simple and I have brought it up: Because about
once a month those end deadly for the cyclist around here. Here
is this month's death:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...124264559.html


It's blatantly obvious that you are either getting something
badly wrong, or your risk assessments are orders of
magnitude out, or you are trolling, and the majority of your
postings are unadulterated bull****.


Right, you know all this better.

Interestingly, my only near collision with a car today occurred
on a new, separate facility on a through road that I used to ride
down without a care. Now I have to ride on a MUP that is
bisected every 100 feet by a road, driveway, hopscotch grid,
etc., etc. It's a f****** nightmare.

Conceptualize this: an on-road bike lane that runs parallel to
traffic on a through street with numerous intersecting roads
with, of course, stop signs. You just ride down the road with the
cars off to your left. Now, move the bike lane to the right ten
feet onto an over-sized sidewalk that now stops at every
intersecting road. The cyclist can't cross if there is a car
waiting to enter traffic from the intersecting road because the
car blocks the path, and even if there is no car blocking the
path, the cyclist is now exposed to the risk of being hit by a
car turning on to the intersecting road from the the through
street (from either direction) because the cyclist is not easily
seen and is moving far faster than pedestrian traffic. Today, I
almost got whacked by a turning car as I was trying to cross --
at a walking speed because I actually stopped. In 30 years of
riding that road, I had never been hooked or nearly hooked. The
previous bike lane was ten times more convenient and safer.

My second near disaster was on the "cycletrack" in front of PSU.
Cars had parked in the track, and I had to weave around them,
and then pedestrians were wandering into the track from both
sides -- from the sidewalk on the right and the line of parked
cars on the left that creates the supposed "shelter." Another
total infrastructure mistake. It should be called the "chute of
death."


Then take action and call them out on it. In public. Loudly.


On-street bike lanes made life better for me in a number of
places, and in fact, most places except where the bikes lanes
were placed in the door-zone. I can think of only one or two
separate facilities that are safer for me than a well-designed
on-street bike lane or traffic calmed street (bike boulevard).
Any mixed use facility and any separate facility that intersects
roads exposes cyclists to new and different dangers ...


Not true. Come to Folsom (with your bike) and see how it can be
done correctly. Grade separation is the magic word. They know how
it's done right. There can be thick crawling traffic or total
standstill on the large roads while I blow through on my road bike
and don't even have to tap the brakes.

I am sick and tired of people blanket-condemning bike
infrastructure just because the authorities in their region screwed
up the design. You need to get out more. A very educating trip for
you could be a long vacation (with bike) in the Netherlands.

I don't blanket condemn bicycle infrastructure. On-street bike lanes
are infrastructure. I'm not excited about the US implementation of
separate bicycle facilities where, unlike NL (for example), right of
way remains with cars and pedestrians. I can't comment on the Folsom
bicycle Eden, because I haven't been there in 18 years, ...


18 years ago Folsom was quite horrid for cycling. That is way different
now that they put in the infrastructure.


... but our
separate facilities expose cyclists to pedestrians, trains, buses,
etc., etc. They are far less safe and convenient than on-street bike
lanes.


As I said, your planners may not be smart enough.


I live in a city that is as close to the NL as you're going to get in
the US -- lots of cyclists and legal dope, but the fact is, it isn't
NL and never will be. Not unless it gets leveled and much of the
city is erased. In my experience, in a large-ish city that prides
itself on improvements, separate bicycle facilities are more often a
hazard than a blessing.


Why did Placerville, Folsom and Rancho Cordova get it done? And to some
extent Sacramento? Those are all old cities and nothing got leveled.
Yes, that does sometimes require reducing car lanes from four to three.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/