It's happening! Um... sort of.

Joy Beeson wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 14:10:13 -0400, Duane
wrote:


And without the bike lane the motorist is going to worry about my
knuckles? Sorry but not the case in my experience.

Without the bike lane, the motorist is obliged to make his own
judgment.

The motorists on Western Avenue wouldn't budge an inch for me, and I
*did* get my knuckles rapped.

The motorists on State Farm gave me so much room that I was afraid
that they wouldn't be able to get back into their own lane before
someone going the other way came along.

THEY WERE THE SAME PEOPLE.

I became very familiar with the housing developments along Western
Avenue.

If you mean in Albany I think I never road on western when there was a bike
lane. I don't remember it being a very pleasant ride though.

Around here in Montreal we have to ride on the right. Some people leave me
room. They're supposed to change lanes when they pass a bike. Some do.
Some don't. Some pass as close as they can because I've slowed them down
and their time is extremely important. Some just don't know where their
right wheel is.

When there's a bike lane they don't come in it. If the bike lane is wide
enough I have no problem. If it's not I can experience what you describe.
It depends.

--
duane

On 5/26/2014 7:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2014 10:41:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/26/2014 7:46 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2014 22:51:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/25/2014 4:20 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've wondered a bit about the commercial airplane effect. It seems to
me that the incremental effect of one passenger is negligible. IOW, if
one person chooses not to buy a ticket, the plane will fly anyway with
one more empty seat (assuming all else is equal). The fuel saving would
seem to be negligible.

Actually, air travel is one area where empty seats do save a
considerable amount of fuel - far more than is the case with
ground-based transport.

Explain, please. It looks like 750,000 pounds is a reasonable value for
a large airliner's total weight. One potential passenger who stayed
home reduces that by far less than 0.1%. How much fuel is actually saved?

Large aircraft calculate takeoff weight dependant on the empty
aircraft weight, the weight of cargo and the distance that they have
to fly. This gives them their gross weight for take off.

A 747-400, I believe, can carry something like 500,000 pounds of fuel
and something like 189,000 pounds of cargo, and has a maximum gross
weight for take off of 987,000 lbs. if we deduct the total fuel and
cargo weight we get an empty weight of something like 300,000 lbs.

Now suppose that our flight required 4 hours of flight time and we are
only carrying 90,000 lbs of cargo. To make this mission we will
require less power to maintain cruising speed because the airplane is
lighter. If we load maximum cargo and fuel, right up to the maximum
permitted weight for take off then the fuel consumption will be much
higher.

The actual calculation for max gross weight for take off is a bit more
complicated as runway lengths as well as altitude and temperature and
even dew point is also taken into consideration.

I understand that lower weight implies less fuel use by the plane. My
question was whether a one-passenger reduction (by a conscientious
objector to air travel who skips a flight) makes any significant - or
even detectable - difference. I suspect that unless a flight is
canceled, the fuel use is essentially the same; and that many people
must cancel their tickets to get a flight canceled.

I doubt that the addition or subreacti0n of one person, say 0.09% of
the cargo load, would have a measurable effect. As I said elsewhere a
bit more frequent washing would likely have a larger effect.

But, I believe that airlines must fly their routes and schedules
whether loaded or empty. I don't remember where I read that but I
think it is part of being granted a route.

Then we have to wonder about the alternatives, assuming those folks did
need to get to where the flight was going. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environ...t_of_transport
it seems like air travel generates between 0.18 - 0.24 kg CO2 per
passenger mile. Cars, perhaps 0.35; long-distance buses perhaps 0.08,
and trains about 0.19 kg/passenger-mile.

If those figures are correct, then replacing one's air travel with
anything other than a bus trip could be a net loss.

(Walking or bicycling would be much more benign, of course; but then,
nobody considers bicycling and air travel to be realistic competitors
for the same journey.)

Or perhaps a sailing vessel.
"In 1850, with seven vessels taking part and large amounts of money
riding on the outcome. The vessel "Samuel Russel" took 109 days to
reach San Francisco from New York, shortening the existing record by
eleven days, and creating a sensation that was hard to overcome."


But, I believe that airlines must fly their routes and schedules
whether loaded or empty.

Because that plane will be needed for a different flight at
the destination later that day or tomorrow. Long ago there
were some ridiculously cheap flights on eerily empty planes
at odd times due to that plane shuffle. The system still has
to get planes into the right places every day, they just
manage it better now.


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

On 5/26/2014 8:06 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:23:45 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 21:39:15 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sun, 25 May 2014
13:23:57 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 24 May 2014 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 3:43:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

The point is: "We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use" (i.e.
using progressively *less* our grandparents did).

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't
the amount of fossil fuel an individual uses it is the number of
individuals that are using the fossil fuel.

I am not missing that point at all. I am well aware of the
popclock http://www.census.gov/popclock/

*You* brought up individual use with the bit about your
grandfather. I addressed that with "grandparents" (i.e.
"we" collectively) - though it's really our grandchildren
that matter at this point.

You are living in a dream world!

Lets build an efficient public transportation system so people won't
have to drive?

Los Angeles tried that, it must have been the late 1960's or early
1070's. Added it to the ballot - approve a bond issue to build a
modern public transportation system (which will be paid for buy
raising property taxes). It was turn down by the Voters two years in a
row and than abandoned.

So don't make it optional - just tax vehicle use sufficiently to pay
for the alternative provision.
Asking turkeys to vote for Christmas (or thanksgiving) is bound to
fail, and it seems that the proposal was carefully crafted to do
exactly that.

The point was to enforce my thesis that anything concrete done about
global warming that effects the electorate is going to be political
suicide. At least for a U.S. politician.

I guess that's the problem of having so much reliance on political
campaigns funded by hydrocarbon related industries.

Increase the price of gasoline so people will drive less.... What
politician is going to do that?

Europe seems to have managed it, at least to an extent.

Yes. England, many years ago had a licensing fee based on engine horse
power, if I recall. Which, while probably not intended to reduce
fossil fuel, did so. And resulted in British cars sold in the States
with ludicrously, to our eyes, tiny engines.

We still do, and the tax gradient on larger cars has got steeper.
Plus we tax our road fuel to a greater extent (as does the rest of
Europe). although still not enough to pay for the costs imposed by
motor vehicle use on society.

Increased tax on private owned vehicles to decrease sales - you won't
get a single taker for that scheme. In fact if I remember correctly,
didn't y'all just have a scheme to increase car sales?

Seems to work in several places around the world.

So does a bullet in the back of the head in China, but I suggest that
the U.S. won't countenance it.

Dancing around and waving hands in the air isn't going to accomplish
anything.

China emits about 26.4% of the world's CO2 production. If the U.S.
refused to buy Chinese goods it would probably decrease that figure by
30 - 40% (we are their 2nd largest trading partner).
Think it will ever happen?

Could easily tariff the trade to cover the cost of mitigating the
carbon use.

Do you mean that a tariff will reduce the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere? Or just to make it more palatable?
"Yes, yes, we know that those dirty Chinese are mucking up the
atmosphere but we are punishing them by putting a tariff on their
goods sold here"

If it raises the price to be higher than that of goods made using low
or zero carbon methods, then people will buy those instead.
Or the Chinese will adopt the low/zero carbon manufacturing methods to
avoid the tariffs (although there's still the carbon cost of getting
the goods from manufacturer to end user, which would of course have to
be subject to the same tariffs).


The U.S. is the second largest emitter of CO2. Can we reduce that?

Technically we can, but it would probably be political suicide for any
political party that attempted it.

It will soon reach the point where it will be political suicide NOT
to.

It will? And there is no controversy about global warming? Everyone is
a true believer and will gladly give up his gas guzzling behemoth for
a bicycle?

Face it, apart from a few oil company shills (and those gullible
enough to believe them), anthropomorphic global warming is accepted as
proven fact by the entire scientific community.

Example: there seems to have been a lot of talk about incandescent
light bulbs and how much electricity they use and I understand that
they aren't even sold in some countries. So, everyone is now using
these mini florescent things. I converted my entire house to LED
lights - well every one but the one over my shaving mirror, anyway. My
electric bill went down, which would seem to indicate that I'm using
less electricity.

How many USians have done that?

Like my light bulbs, "we got to reduce electrical use! Everywhere
except my shaving mirror"

You could try growing a beard :-)

No. I live in a hot climate and a beard itches :-)

Only for the first few weeks.


Face it, apart from a few oil company shills (and those gullible
enough to believe them), anthropomorphic global warming is accepted as
proven fact by the entire scientific community.

not hardly. That assertion has been roundly debunked, and often.


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

On 5/27/2014 12:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

Using bike lanes is almost always less pleasant than riding
on a road with no bike lane. But that is because roads with
bike lanes are usually wider; and that is usually because they
carry more and faster traffic. On roads with lots of faster
traffic, the bike lane eases contention for space.

The ideal thing is bike lanes on quieter streets. This is what some
cities have done. But often residents object to their street becoming a
bike boulevard. I was on one such street last week in Santa Clara which
was especially nice because the northbound and southbound traffic was
separated by a creek and the bike lane was on the left with no door zones.

I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that
really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and
sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they
either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just
transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to
the joy of it ;-)

I see that all the time. I have a pretty good sense of direction so I'll
venture off looking for those streets. Did a nice ride through Pacific
Grove last Sunday and it went through a very nice historic downtown area
that few tourists ever see. But it was quite steep.

sms writes:

On 5/27/2014 12:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

Using bike lanes is almost always less pleasant than riding
on a road with no bike lane. But that is because roads with
bike lanes are usually wider; and that is usually because they
carry more and faster traffic. On roads with lots of faster
traffic, the bike lane eases contention for space.

The ideal thing is bike lanes on quieter streets. This is what some
cities have done. But often residents object to their street becoming
a bike boulevard. I was on one such street last week in Santa Clara
which was especially nice because the northbound and southbound
traffic was separated by a creek and the bike lane was on the left
with no door zones.

Our ideals differ. The nicest roads I ride on have no bike lane;
adding one would be an annoyance.

A bike lane on the left, with a divider (there creek) to its left,
is interesting. It could lead to closer passes, since the driver
can more accurately gauge the distance, but might also reduce
the number of unsafe passes, particularly from wider vehicles.

--
Joe Riel

On 5/26/2014 11:47 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, May 26, 2014 6:19:16 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

It sounds easy to understand. But I think most people don't understand
it. Most cyclists won't leave a bike lane to avoid door zones. Many
think the stripe somehow protects them from right hooks. Many motorists
think bikes don't matter at all, so bike lane equals parking lane. Many
traffic design staffers don't understand that bikes are often much safer
away from the road edge.

Sounds like education gets an 'F'.

Oh please. Education has seldom been tried. Most bicycle advocates
don't know much about riding in traffic, because they think it's too
dangerous to try unless they have bike lanes or cycle tracks. In other
words, they don't realize how little they know. So they advocate for
bike lanes and cycle tracks; they almost never advocate for education.

As a test, Dan, what education have _you_ gotten on riding your bike?
I'm betting it's been ONLY your self-vaunted "I learn by experience."

This is, in part, why education is needed, even if there is a magic
stripe on the road.

Well, it *would* be, if the stripe weren't magic ;-)

No, education *is* needed (for some riders - maybe most - should
be accessible to all). Which begs the question, if education is
feasible, why not have some bike lanes? Is it really just for
the street sweeper action of sharing space with car traffic?

Regarding education and bike lanes (and cycle tracks): I'm a member of
several forums regarding bike education. Those are connected with my
having taken and taught cycling classes. Many cycling educators agree
that things like bike lanes and cycle tracks increase the difficulty of
education. Why? Partly because they add unexpected complexity to road
interactions, e.g. popping cyclists into intersections in unexpected
road positions. Partly because they sometimes actively guide cyclists
into hazards, like right-hook zones or door zones.

In this way, many facilities work in direct opposition to the "8 to 80"
principle espoused by their advocates, who expect anyone should be able
to mindlessly bumble down the road, unthinkingly following stripes and
green paint.

Interesting you should mention that in the context of the need
for education *with* bike lanes. I've already mentioned how
the evolved bike lane design teaches riders to move away from
right-hook situations; and how in Portland the downhill bike
lanes leading to bike boxes were modified to include a warning
about right turning traffic in the bike lane. Both are examples
of education that is universally accessible and applicable.

Both are really examples of Portland designers finally realizing they've
been screwing up for years, and patching in kludges to try to correct
their mistakes, rather than re-examining the concepts that generated the
screw-ups.

And you seem unable to understand this, but _right now_ there are brand
new, fresh bike facilities being put in place in many cities that
contain the same old mistakes. There are many more that have been in
place for a long time and are not being corrected.

Part of the problem, I think, is that we have know-nothing advocates
lobbying hard for certain facilities, and know-nothing traffic staff who
have never ridden a bicycle responding to the ignorant pleas.

(As I've mentioned before, I have a friend in a major American city who
is trying hard to argue against the local bike advocacy organization,
which is calling for bike lanes on EVERY street, in the door zone if
necessary.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/27/2014 3:12 AM, Dan O wrote:

I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that
really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and
sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they
either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just
transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to
the joy of it ;-)

So what are you doing about it?

In our bike club, some of us transportational cyclists realized the same
thing, that we were aware of streets others didn't know about - pleasant
streets that formed a useful network for transportation.

We worked with first the city government, then the metro planning
organization, and helped them produce maps showing recommended streets
for riding across our metro area. The same thing has happened in many
other metro areas.

Take some time away from your drunken wheelies and get something done.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/27/2014 12:12 PM, Joe Riel wrote:

Our ideals differ. The nicest roads I ride on have no bike lane;
adding one would be an annoyance.

A bike lane on the left, with a divider (there creek) to its left,
is interesting. It could lead to closer passes, since the driver
can more accurately gauge the distance, but might also reduce
the number of unsafe passes, particularly from wider vehicles.

Those can work in some situations. But they did some of those in
Washington DC, and IIRC found that crash rates went up quite a bit.

I think part of the problem is that the novice cyclists who want to use
them now have to negotiate their way into the center of the road, so to
speak. And accessing mid-block destinations can be problematic.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/27/2014 11:52 AM, Phil W Lee wrote:
AMuzi considered Tue, 27 May 2014 08:30:37 -0500
the perfect time to write:

On 5/26/2014 8:06 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
John B. considered Mon, 26 May 2014
08:23:45 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 21:39:15 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Sun, 25 May 2014
13:23:57 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 24 May 2014 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 3:43:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 19:35:06 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 7:16:08 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2014 16:02:07 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:
On Friday, May 23, 2014 3:37:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/23/2014 5:52 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:

We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use, not finding new and inventive
ways to smash the planet to release more of the stuff.
And the sooner we (as a global society) realise that and do something
about it, the less painful both the inevitable transition to a low
carbon economy and the long-term future will be for our children, and
theirs.

Anybody here existing without fossil fuels?

Your all-or-nothing response misses (sidesteps?) the point.

What is the point then. I doubt that I use any more fossil fuel than
my grandfather did.

The point is: "We need to be CUTTING fossil fuel use" (i.e.
using progressively *less* our grandparents did).

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't
the amount of fossil fuel an individual uses it is the number of
individuals that are using the fossil fuel.

I am not missing that point at all. I am well aware of the
popclock http://www.census.gov/popclock/

*You* brought up individual use with the bit about your
grandfather. I addressed that with "grandparents" (i.e.
"we" collectively) - though it's really our grandchildren
that matter at this point.

You are living in a dream world!

Lets build an efficient public transportation system so people won't
have to drive?

Los Angeles tried that, it must have been the late 1960's or early
1070's. Added it to the ballot - approve a bond issue to build a
modern public transportation system (which will be paid for buy
raising property taxes). It was turn down by the Voters two years in a
row and than abandoned.

So don't make it optional - just tax vehicle use sufficiently to pay
for the alternative provision.
Asking turkeys to vote for Christmas (or thanksgiving) is bound to
fail, and it seems that the proposal was carefully crafted to do
exactly that.

The point was to enforce my thesis that anything concrete done about
global warming that effects the electorate is going to be political
suicide. At least for a U.S. politician.

I guess that's the problem of having so much reliance on political
campaigns funded by hydrocarbon related industries.

Increase the price of gasoline so people will drive less.... What
politician is going to do that?

Europe seems to have managed it, at least to an extent.

Yes. England, many years ago had a licensing fee based on engine horse
power, if I recall. Which, while probably not intended to reduce
fossil fuel, did so. And resulted in British cars sold in the States
with ludicrously, to our eyes, tiny engines.

We still do, and the tax gradient on larger cars has got steeper.
Plus we tax our road fuel to a greater extent (as does the rest of
Europe). although still not enough to pay for the costs imposed by
motor vehicle use on society.

Increased tax on private owned vehicles to decrease sales - you won't
get a single taker for that scheme. In fact if I remember correctly,
didn't y'all just have a scheme to increase car sales?

Seems to work in several places around the world.

So does a bullet in the back of the head in China, but I suggest that
the U.S. won't countenance it.

Dancing around and waving hands in the air isn't going to accomplish
anything.

China emits about 26.4% of the world's CO2 production. If the U.S.
refused to buy Chinese goods it would probably decrease that figure by
30 - 40% (we are their 2nd largest trading partner).
Think it will ever happen?

Could easily tariff the trade to cover the cost of mitigating the
carbon use.

Do you mean that a tariff will reduce the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere? Or just to make it more palatable?
"Yes, yes, we know that those dirty Chinese are mucking up the
atmosphere but we are punishing them by putting a tariff on their
goods sold here"

If it raises the price to be higher than that of goods made using low
or zero carbon methods, then people will buy those instead.
Or the Chinese will adopt the low/zero carbon manufacturing methods to
avoid the tariffs (although there's still the carbon cost of getting
the goods from manufacturer to end user, which would of course have to
be subject to the same tariffs).


The U.S. is the second largest emitter of CO2. Can we reduce that?

Technically we can, but it would probably be political suicide for any
political party that attempted it.

It will soon reach the point where it will be political suicide NOT
to.

It will? And there is no controversy about global warming? Everyone is
a true believer and will gladly give up his gas guzzling behemoth for
a bicycle?

Face it, apart from a few oil company shills (and those gullible
enough to believe them), anthropomorphic global warming is accepted as
proven fact by the entire scientific community.

Example: there seems to have been a lot of talk about incandescent
light bulbs and how much electricity they use and I understand that
they aren't even sold in some countries. So, everyone is now using
these mini florescent things. I converted my entire house to LED
lights - well every one but the one over my shaving mirror, anyway. My
electric bill went down, which would seem to indicate that I'm using
less electricity.

How many USians have done that?

Like my light bulbs, "we got to reduce electrical use! Everywhere
except my shaving mirror"

You could try growing a beard :-)

No. I live in a hot climate and a beard itches :-)

Only for the first few weeks.


Face it, apart from a few oil company shills (and those gullible
enough to believe them), anthropomorphic global warming is accepted as
proven fact by the entire scientific community.

not hardly. That assertion has been roundly debunked, and often.

As already mentioned, only by the oil (and dependent) company shills.
I've not seen any contradictory opinions who's funding can't be traced
back to that source (and who's "science", incidentally, is laughable).


Oh, please. People, including scientists, hold a range of
views on any topic you'd care to name, no matter how
momentous or trivial.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-968856.html

Se also dozens of similar in any cursory web search. I know
this not from any special avocation but just by perusing the
newspapers every day.

Note that I am not advocating a position on the subject, but
merely noting that, unlike in a police state, multiple
viewpoints are offered and that available data may
reasonably be incomplete or inconclusive or interpretive
according to people in the field.

I ask you, would you want to live in a world where everyone
agreed? About anything? I wouldn't.


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

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:58:41 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 5/27/2014 12:12 AM, Dan O wrote:



Using bike lanes is almost always less pleasant than riding

on a road with no bike lane. But that is because roads with

bike lanes are usually wider; and that is usually because they

carry more and faster traffic. On roads with lots of faster

traffic, the bike lane eases contention for space.



The ideal thing is bike lanes on quieter streets. This is what some

cities have done. But often residents object to their street becoming a

bike boulevard. I was on one such street last week in Santa Clara which

was especially nice because the northbound and southbound traffic was

separated by a creek and the bike lane was on the left with no door zones..



I often see people riding in the bike lane on a road that

really sucks, when I know of a *much* more pleasant (and

sometimes faster) route a block or two over. But they

either don't know about it, or maybe they *are* just

transportation bicyclists and haven't made the leap to

the joy of it ;-)



I see that all the time. I have a pretty good sense of direction so I'll

venture off looking for those streets. Did a nice ride through Pacific

Grove last Sunday and it went through a very nice historic downtown area

that few tourists ever see. But it was quite steep.

Here's what I think based on my commuting in Toronto Canada on busy streets..
There are two types of bicyclists using the roads. One type is your casual rider who doesn't want to work up a sweat on their way to work or whereverv else they're going. The other type is the more serious bicyclist who can keep up with traffic.

When it comes to bike lanes these two types of bicyclists are often in conflict. This is because the much faster bicyclist gets slowed down drastically by the much slower bicyclist. Then there are those bicyclists who ride like squirrels - you never know what thyer're going to do nor whebn they'll do it. They cause much anger with motorists and vehicular bicyclists because they cause those tow groups of road users to often have to take violent evasive action or hity the brakes to avoid an accident.

I think it is tyhe slower casual bicyclist who want those bike lanes and who welcome them no matter how poorly the design of them is. The faster bicyclist prefers to ride in the lane even if it's towards the right because then they're not impeded by and/or forced by slower "squirrley" riders to take evasive action all the time. On my commutes I far prefer areas where those slower riders are not riding as traffic both motor and pedfal moves far more smoothly.

Keep in mind too that many bicycle lanes are created with the feeble bicyclist in mind including the aged people.

This I think is the crux of the bicycle lane problem. What bicycling speed are they designed for? What can work for a casual slow moving bicyclist can be a complete hazard for a fast rider who is usiing the ride as a means to commute some distance.

Another thing I had against one particular bicycle lane in Toronto ( the Martin Goodman Trail along Queen's Quay) was tyhat westbound bicycle traffic was separated from eastbound motor vehicle traffic by a line only a few inches wide. If for any reason a westbound rider had to leave the westbound bicycle lane (ofen due to a "squirrely" rideer) they were immediately at risk of a head on collision with a motor vehicle. Causes of needing to leave the lane could be a slow bicyclist suddenly stopping swerving or whatever or a pedestrian and or dog.

I often wonder if those who design bicycle lanes even ride a bicycle.

Cheers

Cheers