Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainRea...rInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

For removal see:
http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles
and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
improve.

Cliff

CJ who? wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles
and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
improve.

Wrong on both counts.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

CJ schrieb:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road.

No, they don't.

Only when bicycles
and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
improve.

Taxes paid for motor vehicles do not compensate for the external damages
done by them.

Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.

Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.

Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.

Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.

Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).

I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion we
had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with a
Google search.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).

I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
a Google search.

The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.

21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.

Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
there might be bikes on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).

I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
a Google search.

The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
(pun intended) by emotion.

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.

21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.

Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

[Yawn]

Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly makes
a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of us live
in California!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
a Google search.
The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
(pun intended) by emotion.

Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.
21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.
Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

[Yawn]

[Facts appear to bore him]

Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
us live in California!!!

I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread, however,
is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located on the
pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the location,
traffic laws in California would seem to be quite relevant.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way it
does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
on the road.

I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainRea...rInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

For removal see:
http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth