Bicycle Facilities

On Wed, 10 May 2017 20:07:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/10/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a 65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it. And it would make the roads safer to boot.

I'm reading a book titled _The Cyclist Who Went Out In the Cold_ by Tim
Moore. He's a Brit who decided a couple years ago to cycle the length
of the old Iron Curtain. (He did it on a junky East German shopping
bike with 20" wheels, and he started in Finland in winter, both of which
are nuts; but that's beside the point.)

He noted that once he entered Germany, motorists observed the speed
limits very precisely. He claimed that if it said 40, nobody did 41.

I can't verify that personally. I can say that young German guys
driving in Poland drove like bats out of hell and took insane risks.

But if Moore is correct, it should be possible to get motorists to obey
laws, even speed limit laws.

I've commented on the lax enforcement of traffic laws in the U.S. (not
that they are so strictly enforced here ;-) and the responses I've
seen is "Oh, why should we do that. Oh it's is cruel. Oh, its a free
country, why can't I drive 90 MPH.".

Given that the U.S. is still a democracy it should be fairly easy to
have strictly enforced traffic laws. A delegation to the Mayor saying
"If you don't enforce the traffic laws we won't vote for you next
year" will usually do it.

Or even the way we do it here. Pass a law saying that in the event of
a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the motor vehicle
is initially deemed to be at fault and will be responsible for any and
all costs involved in returning the rider to full health and repair of
any damaged equipment.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/10/2017 3:31 PM, wrote:

snip

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

Don't lump all California localities together.

Meet with your local police department or sheriff and explain the type
of enforcement that matters to cyclists. Illegally parked vehicles on
the shoulder and in the bicycle lane were a plague in my city until
people (me) started pestering the sheriff and the public works director
about it, and now that I'm on the City Council I have even more of a
chance to get the enforcement that's needed.

One really effective thing to do is to take photos of problem areas and
send them to your city. Once a very unsafe situation is pointed out the
city can't ignore it because now there's a record of the complaint. This
goes for potholes and uneven sidewalks too.

In Los Angeles, there's a cyclist running for City Council and a major
part of his platform is safe streets for cyclists.
http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/pedaling-against-the-machine/article_e0e29a6c-e710-11e6-a6c0-cf19707a8f1e.html.
He's got a tough fight to win since the incumbent got 49% in the primary.

Elect more cyclists to local government if you want change. Don't rely
just on serving on commissions or cyclist lobbying groups because those
have very limited influence.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/11/08/remembering-ellen-fletcher-palo-altos-pioneer-bicycle-advocate/

http://www.mercurynews.com/2011/09/21/former-cupertino-mayor-cyclist-honored-with-don-burnett-bicycle-pedestrian-bridge/

On 2017-05-10 15:44, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:14:59 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 14:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:09:26 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 12:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

[...]


You ride as fast on single-track as you do on a paved road? then get
sdponsored to a Tour de France team.


Please try to read more carefully what I wrote. Else discussions don't
make sense.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I read it carefully Joerg and what you said was that your asvg speeds on asphalt and on trails are nearly the same. the fact that you stop more often on trails is moot. Quote: "Of course there are slower stretches but my avg speed difference between
singletrack on one side and road & bike path on the other is rarely
above 3mph (pure riding times)."


No, I wrote that the avg speed distance is rarely above 3mph. That means
it is different. Hence the answer to your question was already "No"
before you asked it.

As for the Tour de France, maybe this hasn't occurred to you but the top
guys there can ride 20 miles or more at 30mph. They'd leave both of us
in the dust.

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour...yclist/slide/6

Even the Amgen trainees are somewhere in that range. Once when I zipped
along the Folsom Canal bike path which is like a very long straight race
track at 25mph I felt high on the hog. Until a training rider zipped by
and disappeared in the distance, quickly.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-05-10 15:49, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4,
wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:38:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 5/10/2017 4:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 11:07 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only
thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that
includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless
or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom
managed to afford them.

Folsom did NOT get "most people to cycle." _Nothing_ will
get most people to cycle.

If you want to promote segregation of cyclists, do it
honestly. Say "Building this may cause 1% of people to ride
bikes occasionally."


You know very well how I meant that. Try to read in context.
"Most people" means most people who would be considering or be
willing to cycle. Yes, in the US it's usually going to be just
a few percent.

Why not all of the willing folks? Because for some the hills
around here are too much. Beats me why because shifters have
been invented and there are cassettes other than corncob. Other
excuses are "Oh, it's too hot", "Oh, it's too chilly", "Oh, it
could rain any hour now", "But the Giants play this afternoon"
and so on.

I am the a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. Too often you seem to
see a "glass-half-empty". Luckily the movers and shakers in
Folsom, Davis, Placerville and so on don't and ... build bike
paths.

Regarding bike facilities, you are a "sell the bull****" kind of
guy. I'm bull****-intolerant.

This is a case of the few demanding the many pay their way. That's
what bothers me about the bike path idea. Though in some cases it's
a better means to an end.

What bugs me about bike lanes and/or bike paths is that once they're
built you're expected to use them INSTEAD of the roads (sometimes
with laws stating that the bicycle lane or path MUST be used) and in
many cases a bike lane is more of a hazard to a bicyclist than what
the road is ie. bicycle lanes in the door zone. Also, with MUPs you
end up with people walking, jogging or whatever all over the path and
thuse your average speed can drop dramatically. Plus there's the
simple fact that you often have no idea at all as to what another
user of a MUP is going to do and that applies to bicyclists and
pedestrians.


Ah yes, and of course that never applies to roads, does it? Like last
week where a guy in a pickup truck slowly drifted to the right behind me
and I only noticed that when his oversized bulldozer trailer whizzed by
10 inches from my left foot.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 2017-05-10 15:24, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 8:07:36 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:
There are more and more calls for bicycle facilities. While this
would be nice for those who are out for a Sunday ride of a couple
of miles I do not see this as an answer.

Bicyclists pay for the road as well as anyone else. Bicycles do
not wear the roads out. And roads are not built by gas taxes -
they aren't even used to repair the roads.

The real answer is to strongly enforce the traffic laws. People
are afraid to ride on roads because of not just careless drivers
but those who openly attempt to scare cyclists off of "their"
roads. I have watched this occur in front of cops who took no
actions whatsoever. And I watched a direct assault on a cyclist
who recorded the whole thing on his GoPro and took it into the
Highway Patrol office seconds after he managed to shake the man
off of his rear wheel who actually chased him up a walking dirt
path with trees on either side.

The Highway Patrol watched the video which showed this
automobile driver breaking the law in several different ways and
then said, "We can't do anything unless and officer observes this
at the time of it happening."

And then shortly after that I watch the Highway Patrol do
nothing about an incident of like danger to a cyclist.


There you have your reason. Folks like Phil and some others do not
believe it but that's how it is. I personally took the witness
stand in court during a case about a trucker who had brutally
pushed a cyclist into the ditch with the side of his truck. I saw
it all because I was directly behind, he passed me first and then
chanced it on the next rider while another truck coming from the
other side was way too close. Luckily his truck had under-ride
protection on its side, else there might have been a funeral first.
Result: Acquittal! Unbelievable. All he got was a verbal warning
from the judge but without entry into his driving record. That guy
remained trucking on the roads. Lesson learned: In the enforcement
and judicial realm hitting a cyclist often doesn't seem to be taken
seriously.


No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing
is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the
auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts
of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them. Same for some other cities. The easiest in terms of
cost and maintenance are often singletrack connections. The main
(long) singletrack going through our town is maintained by
volunteers. Gets me all the way to Placervile and then some. Folsom
in the other direction where I can connect to a nice bike path
system leading all the way to Sacramento. There's other issues down
there so I tend not to go there but that's another story.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

We have a local group that has taken pictures of even cops passing
too close to cyclists and they have forced classes onto the cops.
Surprisingly enough the cops didn't know that they were supposed to
leave 3' of clearance or that THEY TOO were supposed give the same
clearance. And the man who had the problem with the CHP had the CHP
Headquarters and a COURT explain to them that photographic evidence
is admissible in court and so a GoPro or some such of a bicycle being
threatened demands attention of the cops at the time of the event.


Legally yes but then try to get a judge to convict a cop. Unless they
shot someone dead from behind in cold blood that is very unlikely.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 3:49:33 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:38:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 4:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 11:07 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing is to
make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers
that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them.

Folsom did NOT get "most people to cycle." _Nothing_ will get most
people to cycle.

If you want to promote segregation of cyclists, do it honestly. Say
"Building this may cause 1% of people to ride bikes occasionally."


You know very well how I meant that. Try to read in context. "Most
people" means most people who would be considering or be willing to
cycle. Yes, in the US it's usually going to be just a few percent.

Why not all of the willing folks? Because for some the hills around here
are too much. Beats me why because shifters have been invented and there
are cassettes other than corncob. Other excuses are "Oh, it's too hot",
"Oh, it's too chilly", "Oh, it could rain any hour now", "But the Giants
play this afternoon" and so on.

I am the a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. Too often you seem to see a
"glass-half-empty". Luckily the movers and shakers in Folsom, Davis,
Placerville and so on don't and ... build bike paths.

Regarding bike facilities, you are a "sell the bull****" kind of guy.
I'm bull****-intolerant.

This is a case of the few demanding the many pay their way. That's what bothers me about the bike path idea. Though in some cases it's a better means to an end.

What bugs me about bike lanes and/or bike paths is that once they're built you're expected to use them INSTEAD of the roads (sometimes with laws stating that the bicycle lane or path MUST be used) and in many cases a bike lane is more of a hazard to a bicyclist than what the road is ie. bicycle lanes in the door zone. Also, with MUPs you end up with people walking, jogging or whatever all over the path and thuse your average speed can drop dramatically. Plus there's the simple fact that you often have no idea at all as to what another user of a MUP is going to do and that applies to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Cheers

In Alameda, the bicycle lane is inside of the parking lane. The path is BARELY wide enough for two people to pass in opposite directions and a majority of the users are beginners or wanna-be jocks going much too fast.

Now add to that there is insufficient "door" clearance and that passengers almost never look for cyclists and you have a real problem.

I much prefer riding on the streets in that vicinity but the lanes due to that BS are too narrow to allow cars to pass safely so they act unsafely and the cops look the other way.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:52:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 6:49 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:38:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 4:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 11:07 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing is to
make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers
that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them.

Folsom did NOT get "most people to cycle." _Nothing_ will get most
people to cycle.

If you want to promote segregation of cyclists, do it honestly. Say
"Building this may cause 1% of people to ride bikes occasionally."


You know very well how I meant that. Try to read in context. "Most
people" means most people who would be considering or be willing to
cycle. Yes, in the US it's usually going to be just a few percent.

Why not all of the willing folks? Because for some the hills around here
are too much. Beats me why because shifters have been invented and there
are cassettes other than corncob. Other excuses are "Oh, it's too hot",
"Oh, it's too chilly", "Oh, it could rain any hour now", "But the Giants
play this afternoon" and so on.

I am the a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. Too often you seem to see a
"glass-half-empty". Luckily the movers and shakers in Folsom, Davis,
Placerville and so on don't and ... build bike paths.

Regarding bike facilities, you are a "sell the bull****" kind of guy.
I'm bull****-intolerant.

This is a case of the few demanding the many pay their way. That's what bothers me about the bike path idea. Though in some cases it's a better means to an end.

What bugs me about bike lanes and/or bike paths is that once they're built you're expected to use them INSTEAD of the roads (sometimes with laws stating that the bicycle lane or path MUST be used) and in many cases a bike lane is more of a hazard to a bicyclist than what the road is ie. bicycle lanes in the door zone. Also, with MUPs you end up with people walking, jogging or whatever all over the path and thuse your average speed can drop dramatically. Plus there's the simple fact that you often have no idea at all as to what another user of a MUP is going to do and that applies to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Exactly.

And I also object to the propaganda saying stuff like "Without the
newest-fangled bike segregation idea, riding isn't SAFE!"

And I object to the fantasy that "If we build enough of these things,
lots of people will give up their cars."

And to "We need INNOVATIVE designs, things that have never been tried!
Like having half the cyclists ride into intersections wrong-way!"

And of course, "Any bike facility is a good bike facility."

Don't we see laws that children are not allowed to ride bicycles without safety helmets? Even the name SAFETY helmet is a misnomer.

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 15:44, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:14:59 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 14:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:09:26 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 12:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

[...]


You ride as fast on single-track as you do on a paved road? then get
sdponsored to a Tour de France team.


Please try to read more carefully what I wrote. Else discussions don't
make sense.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I read it carefully Joerg and what you said was that your asvg speeds on asphalt and on trails are nearly the same. the fact that you stop more often on trails is moot. Quote: "Of course there are slower stretches but my avg speed difference between
singletrack on one side and road & bike path on the other is rarely
above 3mph (pure riding times)."


No, I wrote that the avg speed distance is rarely above 3mph. That means
it is different. Hence the answer to your question was already "No"
before you asked it.

As for the Tour de France, maybe this hasn't occurred to you but the top
guys there can ride 20 miles or more at 30mph. They'd leave both of us
in the dust.

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour...yclist/slide/6

Even the Amgen trainees are somewhere in that range. Once when I zipped
along the Folsom Canal bike path which is like a very long straight race
track at 25mph I felt high on the hog. Until a training rider zipped by
and disappeared in the distance, quickly.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I did 5 miles per hour with perhaps 8 red lights in it at 28 mph and I was almost comatose. I couldn't even find the parking lot that contained my ride back to civilization.

On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 7:01:59 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 15:24, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 8:07:36 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:
There are more and more calls for bicycle facilities. While this
would be nice for those who are out for a Sunday ride of a couple
of miles I do not see this as an answer.

Bicyclists pay for the road as well as anyone else. Bicycles do
not wear the roads out. And roads are not built by gas taxes -
they aren't even used to repair the roads.

The real answer is to strongly enforce the traffic laws. People
are afraid to ride on roads because of not just careless drivers
but those who openly attempt to scare cyclists off of "their"
roads. I have watched this occur in front of cops who took no
actions whatsoever. And I watched a direct assault on a cyclist
who recorded the whole thing on his GoPro and took it into the
Highway Patrol office seconds after he managed to shake the man
off of his rear wheel who actually chased him up a walking dirt
path with trees on either side.

The Highway Patrol watched the video which showed this
automobile driver breaking the law in several different ways and
then said, "We can't do anything unless and officer observes this
at the time of it happening."

And then shortly after that I watch the Highway Patrol do
nothing about an incident of like danger to a cyclist.


There you have your reason. Folks like Phil and some others do not
believe it but that's how it is. I personally took the witness
stand in court during a case about a trucker who had brutally
pushed a cyclist into the ditch with the side of his truck. I saw
it all because I was directly behind, he passed me first and then
chanced it on the next rider while another truck coming from the
other side was way too close. Luckily his truck had under-ride
protection on its side, else there might have been a funeral first.
Result: Acquittal! Unbelievable. All he got was a verbal warning
from the judge but without entry into his driving record. That guy
remained trucking on the roads. Lesson learned: In the enforcement
and judicial realm hitting a cyclist often doesn't seem to be taken
seriously.


No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing
is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the
auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts
of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them. Same for some other cities. The easiest in terms of
cost and maintenance are often singletrack connections. The main
(long) singletrack going through our town is maintained by
volunteers. Gets me all the way to Placervile and then some. Folsom
in the other direction where I can connect to a nice bike path
system leading all the way to Sacramento. There's other issues down
there so I tend not to go there but that's another story.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

We have a local group that has taken pictures of even cops passing
too close to cyclists and they have forced classes onto the cops.
Surprisingly enough the cops didn't know that they were supposed to
leave 3' of clearance or that THEY TOO were supposed give the same
clearance. And the man who had the problem with the CHP had the CHP
Headquarters and a COURT explain to them that photographic evidence
is admissible in court and so a GoPro or some such of a bicycle being
threatened demands attention of the cops at the time of the event.


Legally yes but then try to get a judge to convict a cop. Unless they
shot someone dead from behind in cold blood that is very unlikely.

Almost all of the problems with cops is training and demands from commanders. If you're told to keep the traffic moving regardless you don't hand out tickets that causes major traffic jams no matter how far off the road you are.

On 2017-05-11 07:51, wrote:
On Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 6:54:13 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 15:44, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:14:59 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 14:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:09:26 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 12:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

[...]


You ride as fast on single-track as you do on a paved road?
then get sdponsored to a Tour de France team.


Please try to read more carefully what I wrote. Else
discussions don't make sense.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I read it carefully Joerg and what you said was that your asvg
speeds on asphalt and on trails are nearly the same. the fact
that you stop more often on trails is moot. Quote: "Of course
there are slower stretches but my avg speed difference between
singletrack on one side and road & bike path on the other is
rarely above 3mph (pure riding times)."


No, I wrote that the avg speed distance is rarely above 3mph. That
means it is different. Hence the answer to your question was
already "No" before you asked it.

As for the Tour de France, maybe this hasn't occurred to you but
the top guys there can ride 20 miles or more at 30mph. They'd leave
both of us in the dust.

http://www.bicycling.com/racing/tour...yclist/slide/6



Even the Amgen trainees are somewhere in that range. Once when I zipped
along the Folsom Canal bike path which is like a very long straight
race track at 25mph I felt high on the hog. Until a training rider
zipped by and disappeared in the distance, quickly.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I did 5 miles per hour with perhaps 8 red lights in it at 28 mph and
I was almost comatose. I couldn't even find the parking lot that
contained my ride back to civilization.


When I was in my 20's I could outrun most of the fancy Lycra team jersey
folks while riding old steel-frame department store road bikes with a
load on the rack. In jeans, T-shirt and sandals. No more. I guess age
does take its toll eventually.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/