Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
Cruiser wrote:

Even in enlightened California, where I live and cycle, police
interpretation of the law often differs from that of cyclists. In
Santa Cruz a couple of weeks ago, the police chief told cyclists at a
recent meeting that they would cite cyclists for impeding traffic if
they take the lane on Mission Street, which has 11 foot lanes, and if
the cyclist disagrees with that interpretation he invited them to take
it to court for the judges to decide.

Sheesh. That story was from May, 2008. Evolution does seem to be
slow for you. As usual, this has nothing to do with bicycling tech.

I live in Santa Crude and know something about the situation. Mission
St is about 1.5 miles long and 3 lanes wide, with a center turn lane
in places. I don't know the lane width but I know its sub-standard.
It does have bike lanes in places, but not over the entire length. For
cyclists, there are several parallel residential streets that are far
safer than mixing with the cement trucks, buses, and tourists.
Actually, I don't have much trouble riding on Mission St because the
traffic is almost always bumper to bumper moving at about 10 mph. When
it finally clears at night, it speeds up and becomes much more
dangerous.

There is one messy intersection, where Hwy 1 turns into Mission St,
that requires cyclists to mix with traffic for about 20ft. There is
an pedestrian overpass and a bike lane at this point, which leads to a
parallel routes up King St or Bay St to the university. In other
words, there's no good reason to "take the lane" unless you don't know
about the alternate routes.

If you look at the Google Maps of Mission St, you'll see that it's
mostly State Hwy #1 for most of its length.
http://goo.gl/maps/7Vd8
Note that it's NOT designates as a suitable bicycle route.

Along Mission St is Mission Hill middle skool, with a substantial
bicycle population. Standing orders to the kids is to not ride on
Mission Street.

The city seems to have the attitude that since it spends considerable
effort and expense on bike lanes and traffic management, then one
would expect cyclists to favor these safer routes. However, if
cyclists prefer to ignore these efforts on their behalf, the city
could easily find better use for the money. While this is not an
official position, I've heard at mentioned unofficially at a meeting
by a former city council member.

http://sccrtc.org/services/bike/

I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel
street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A
cyclist should have a right to the road, period. And if we rode only
what Google liked, we couldn't get to 90% of the places we might need to
ride.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:21:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel
street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A
cyclist should have a right to the road, period. And if we rode only
what Google liked, we couldn't get to 90% of the places we might need to
ride.

As I indicated, that's not the official policy, probably because it's
not politically correct and would surely precipitate yet another
Critical Mass ride down Mission St in protest. You're absolutely
correct from the standpoint of the bicycle rider. The law says you
have the rite-o-weight on the city streets. Therefore you be allowed
to exercise that right, no matter the side effects.

However, if you switch sides for a moment, and place yourself in the
position of the traffic planners, it makes little sense. Why should
the city spend time and money on bicycle lanes, bicycle paths,
parallel routes, signage, cyclist edukation, and alternative
transportation promotion, when the riders then choose to ignore the
new facilities and proceed to put themselves at risk while continuing
to snarl traffic?

I don't think it's possible to make every road completely safe for
cyclists. In many cases, the bike lanes are at best a bad joke. So,
why not do what you've advocated in the past, and provide seperate
bicycle and vehicle traffic routes? To the local planners, that means
leaving Mission Street to the vehicles and parallel King and High
Streets mostly to the cyclists, with bike paths on both sides of the
roadway.

As for Google, I have no idea where they get their bicycle maps.
Probably directly from the various minicipalities noting streets that
have bicycle lanes. As usual, such things tend to err on the side of
caution. It would not do well if Google marked Mission Street as
suitable for bicycle traffic, when it more closely resembles a
hazzard.

Santa Cruz City Bicycle Map:
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2010-bike-map-cityside.pdf
It's difficult to read on the screen as it's designed to be printed at
24"x36". I did a cut-n-paste on the area in question to:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mission-St.jpg
Red = Bicycle Lane Green = Bicycle Path
Purple = Bicycle alternate route

Note the box towards the left of the map that says:
Mission Street is heavily travelled.
Use alternate routes.

Argh... customer arrived bearing checkbook. More later...



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:22:37 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Cyclists don't snarl traffic.
Motorists are entirely responsible for that.

We were discussing "taking the lane" on Mission Street. Somehow, I
fail to see how motorists are causing a traffic jam by following a
slow cyclist in the middle of the lane. (Note: Mission St is one
lane each way, except for a turn lane, for most of its length). Of
course, if we assume that Mission St is a perpetual traffic jam, with
or without the cyclist, I guess such behavior might be acceptable.

The most a cyclist is likely to do is delay the motorists arrival at
the back of the next queue - usually within 100 yards or so.

Probably true. However motorists abhor a vacuum, or in this case, an
lane with empty space. Given the opportunity, the typical motorist
will risk life and insurance to fill the lane vacuum in order to
arrive a few milliseconds earlier. Wisdom is largely the ability to
distinguish between things that can be changed, and things that are
unlikely to ever change. Methinks this driver behavior is in the
latter category.

If you want to reduce traffic snarl-ups, it's easy; Just discourage
excessive use of motor vehicles.

Define excessive. To every driver, their immediate use of the vehicle
is deemed important and certainly not excessive. If there is
alternative transportation available, do you consider using a car as
excessive? I've tried it but stopped when a local bus driver gave me
a hassle over dragging two tool boxes with me on his crowded bus. To
some, travel is more about moving hardware around, than about moving
just people. Unless I want to get a trailer, bicycles won't work.

Last week, I participated in the California Household Travel Survey:
http://www.catravelsurvey.com
I was asked to keep a highly detailed log of my travels over a 24 hour
period and fill out a rather confusing series of online forms.
Unfortunately, they picked a day when I had a moderate number of
service calls, pickups, and deliveries. Looking at the list, I
suspect perhaps one out of the 18 trips that day might be considered
excessive.

I don't think it's possible to make every road completely safe for
cyclists. In many cases, the bike lanes are at best a bad joke.

So why waste money on them?

I have no idea. It seems to be an institution running on inertia. I
suppose a study into the effectiveness of bicycle lanes to reduce
accidents or increase ridership might settle the matter. However,
without a demonstratively effective alternative to bicycle lanes, the
municipalities will probably continue to build them until they run out
of roadways, money, or both.

Cycles are vehicle traffic.

So it written, so it must be. However, when jousting with my 35 lb
bicycle against a driver in his 4,000 lb vehicle, I often find it
difficult to insist on my legal rights.

They need to learn that cyclists are part of the traffic, and if the
cars and trucks don't like that, tough, go to a racetrack.

I suspect that the local planners are into expediency. Give the
bicyclists an alternative route, and they will come. Unfortunately,
there are a few recalcitrants that prefer to live dangerously. You
can lead a bicyclist to water, but you have to practically drown them
before they'll learn to drink nicely.

Motor vehicles are far more capable of accepting a diversion, so
should always be the ones expected to avoid the congestion that they
themselves cause.

Huh? I see bicyclist all over the road ways, including riding on
sidewalks and splitting lanes. Bicycles are far more maneuverable
than motor vehicles, and far less restricted in where a bicycle can
ride.

It needs more cyclists then.
And less motor vehicles.

Yeah, I know. Public roads would be great without vehicles. Take
away the vehicles, and give everyone a bicycle, and nirvana is certain
to follow. Just one small problem. Bicycles don't pay the road tax,
so the public roads will start to rapidly deteriorate without the
vehicles to support the necessary maintenance. Of course, the trucks,
buses, and delivery vehicles will still be necessary, so instead of
cars, the cyclists will get to dodge those.

Santa Cruz City Bicycle Map:
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2010-bike-map-cityside.pdf
It's difficult to read on the screen as it's designed to be printed at
24"x36". I did a cut-n-paste on the area in question to:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mission-St.jpg
Red = Bicycle Lane Green = Bicycle Path
Purple = Bicycle alternate route

Note the box towards the left of the map that says:
Mission Street is heavily travelled.
Use alternate routes.

Note that the bicycle map was produced with the involvement of the
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle
Advisory Committee, which I presume approves of the note suggesting an
alternative route to Mission St.

Ah, full moon tonite. Gone howling...

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jul 3, 11:27 pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:22:37 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:


snip


Cycles are vehicle traffic.

So it written, so it must be. However, when jousting with my 35 lb
bicycle against a driver in his 4,000 lb vehicle, I often find it
difficult to insist on my legal rights.

I ride through a small farming town. Main road is interestingly
similar to Mission St above: Three lanes, the middle a left turn
lane. No bike lanes (hardly any anywhere in this town). People are
mostly nice, though, and generally partly into the middle lane to
leave space as they pass me. I ride as far right as practicable,
which is a foot or two from the curb, make no sudden position changes,
long gradual drift a little left for the storm drains.

Yesterday I'm cruising into town and this pickup truck passes me - not
giving much room, but giving extra "vroom" (accelerating past). The
pickup is modified into a box van - painted Viet era camo green.

So he's stopped at the light halfway through town, and I come up
behind at the right - but not past - as the light goes green. "Vroom"
away he goes toward the other end of town.

So next he's queued up at a four-way stop near the other end of town.
I hop onto the sidewalk, past the queue, veer into empty parking lot
at the corner, check the street, cross the street into another parking
lot, back onto the sidewalk, then roll back onto the right edge of the
road.

Camo truck pulls up alongside and hangs there. I hear him yelling
something about pick the sidewalk or the road and stay there idiot
obey the law. I don't think I violated any laws (not that I'm above
violating some laws if the right opportunity presents ;-), nor have I
impeded, endangered, or hurt anyone in any way - just having a blast.
But this guy is steaming (I guess maybe 'cause the inferior bicyclist
beat him across and out of town) - I've offended his sensibility.

So I finally look over and he's holding up traffic and foaming at the
mouth. So I raise a finger and keep riding. "Vroom" ahead... (I know
what's coming next... ) brake lights and right hook pinching off to
the curb. I throw my bike hard left - swear the lean angle put my
front wheel *under* his rear bumper as I *just* cleared him on the
left.

raamman is absolutely right - avoiding confrontation is the best
policy. Road rage is very upsetting and risky biusiness. Yes, I
could keep their hostility to a low simmer by righteously submitting
to the ways of a "legitimate road vehicle", instead of blowing their
minds (and the lids off their resentment pots) with outlandish - but
functionally harmless - hijinks. I won't "grow up" WRT to Ride Bike!
(suppress / repress the inner child), but I should have suppressed /
sublimated the cynical adult and given camo truck guy a smile and
friendly wave instead of the finger (he still might have tried to kill
me, though).


They need to learn that cyclists are part of the traffic, and if the
cars and trucks don't like that, tough, go to a racetrack.

I suspect that the local planners are into expediency. Give the
bicyclists an alternative route, and they will come. Unfortunately,
there are a few recalcitrants that prefer to live dangerously. You
can lead a bicyclist to water, but you have to practically drown them
before they'll learn to drink nicely.


Alternate routes abound.

Motor vehicles are far more capable of accepting a diversion, so
should always be the ones expected to avoid the congestion that they
themselves cause.

Huh? I see bicyclist all over the road ways, including riding on
sidewalks and splitting lanes. Bicycles are far more maneuverable
than motor vehicles, and far less restricted in where a bicycle can
ride.


*So* far less restricted that it's not even just another league; it's
a whole different ball game.

snip

Per Dan O:
So I finally look over and he's holding up traffic and foaming at the
mouth.

After serving as treasurer of a 1,200-member civic association
for seven years, I came away with the belief that, out of every
thousand people, at least 2 of them are stone crazy at any given
time - and it's not always the same two.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 11:26:23 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Dan O:
So I finally look over and he's holding up traffic and foaming at the
mouth.

After serving as treasurer of a 1,200-member civic association
for seven years, I came away with the belief that, out of every
thousand people, at least 2 of them are stone crazy at any given
time - and it's not always the same two.

It's much higher than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder
In the United States 46% qualifies for a mental
illness at some point.
(...)
In the United States the frequency of disorder is:
anxiety disorder (28.8%), mood disorder (20.8%),
impulse-control disorder (24.8%) or substance use
disorder (14.6%).

Hmmm... that totals to 89%. I guess everyone in the US is nuts.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jul 4, 8:26 am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per Dan O:

So I finally look over and he's holding up traffic and foaming at the
mouth.

After serving as treasurer of a 1,200-member civic association
for seven years, I came away with the belief that, out of every
thousand people, at least 2 of them are stone crazy at any given
time - and it's not always the same two.

I believe it's actually all of us - every last one of us. We're all
of us messed up; we just cope with life variously.

But to smother the passion is to waste life. Getting it right and
making it positive is the elusive purpose of life.

(Sorry for the non-tech :-)

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

raamman is absolutely right - avoiding confrontation is the best
policy. Road rage is very upsetting and risky biusiness. Yes, I
could keep their hostility to a low simmer by righteously submitting
to the ways of a "legitimate road vehicle", instead of blowing their
minds (and the lids off their resentment pots) with outlandish - but
functionally harmless - hijinks. I won't "grow up" WRT to Ride Bike!
(suppress / repress the inner child), but I should have suppressed /
sublimated the cynical adult and given camo truck guy a smile and
friendly wave instead of the finger (he still might have tried to kill
me, though).

Your negotiated settlement with the camo truck driver obviously
failed. Lacking tolerance, apparently by both parties, your options
are to either escalate the confrontation by adding ordinance and
armament to your bicycle, or getting the hell out of there before the
hostile camo truck driver uses his superior mass to your detriment.
Appeals to a higher authority are only useful for cleaning up the mess
after the damage is done. Discretion really is the better part of
valor. Calculate the odds of success. If they are too low, run.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jul 4, 8:43 am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

raamman is absolutely right - avoiding confrontation is the best
policy. Road rage is very upsetting and risky biusiness. Yes, I
could keep their hostility to a low simmer by righteously submitting
to the ways of a "legitimate road vehicle", instead of blowing their
minds (and the lids off their resentment pots) with outlandish - but
functionally harmless - hijinks. I won't "grow up" WRT to Ride Bike!
(suppress / repress the inner child), but I should have suppressed /
sublimated the cynical adult and given camo truck guy a smile and
friendly wave instead of the finger (he still might have tried to kill
me, though).

Your negotiated settlement with the camo truck driver obviously
failed. Lacking tolerance, apparently by both parties, your options
are to either escalate the confrontation by adding ordinance and
armament to your bicycle, or getting the hell out of there before the
hostile camo truck driver uses his superior mass to your detriment.
Appeals to a higher authority are only useful for cleaning up the mess
after the damage is done. Discretion really is the better part of
valor. Calculate the odds of success. If they are too low, run.


Passions run high. I am in an elevated state of passion when "getting
it on" on my bike. Cagers stress bias current is pretty wound up at
rush hour at the end of another tough day more gone than not.

(The situation actually escalated quite a bit from where I left off -
very upsetting it was. I'm trying to learn from my experiences.)

On Jul 4, 9:43*am, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

raamman is absolutely right - avoiding confrontation is the best
policy. *Road rage is very upsetting and risky biusiness. *Yes, I
could keep their hostility to a low simmer by righteously submitting
to the ways of a "legitimate road vehicle", instead of blowing their
minds (and the lids off their resentment pots) with outlandish - but
functionally harmless - hijinks. *I won't "grow up" WRT to Ride Bike!
(suppress / repress the inner child), but I should have suppressed /
sublimated the cynical adult and given camo truck guy a smile and
friendly wave instead of the finger (he still might have tried to kill
me, though).

Your negotiated settlement with the camo truck driver obviously
failed. *Lacking tolerance, apparently by both parties, your options
are to either escalate the confrontation by adding ordinance and
armament to your bicycle, or getting the hell out of there before the
hostile camo truck driver uses his superior mass to your detriment.
Appeals to a higher authority are only useful for cleaning up the mess
after the damage is done. *Discretion really is the better part of
valor. *Calculate the odds of success. *If they are too low, run.


Ordinance? I guess that's more civil than ordnance, although I suppose
either could involve substantial legal fees.
DR