Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 schrieb:
I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

What the hell is an "automobile traffic lane"?

schrieb:

Personally, I think there is no solution, and won't be until the OIL
RUNS OUT!

Oh, the energy industry and others are already working on replacements,
so that "we" never have to change our automobile way of life ...

Bill Z. schrieb:

Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to one's
vehicle's mass.

And under California street law?

Jym Dyer schrieb:
ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to
a wide outside lane without the bike lane stripe ....

=v= The wide outside lane (WOL) was piloted in San Francisco.
They had two effects:

(1) Wide lane! I'll double-park my car in it!
(2) Wide lane! I'll drive my car faster!

These effects don't work very well with each other, and for
bicyclists they are pretty much a worst-case scenario.

=v= I'm not saying bike lanes are better, but WOLs have not
proven themselves to be anything but a failure.
_Jym_


I am for _small_ outside lane, so that it's more obvious to motor
vehicle drivers that a lane change is necessary for overtaking.

vey schrieb:


I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.

Like Paris Hilton, and then they go to jail ...

Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."



They watch them? While their license is still suspended? Is it not the
police's task in US states to prevent dangers to public safety?

Jens Müller wrote:
vey schrieb:


I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that
people in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving
anyway.

Like Paris Hilton, and then they go to jail ...

Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then
there is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against
them. I'm trying to determine why both of these things are true, but
ask any cop around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they
start rolling their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at
least 20 people a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended
license and then watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."



They watch them? While their license is still suspended? Is it not the
police's task in US states to prevent dangers to public safety?

The primary function of the police in the US is to protect the property
of those who are better off. This goes back to the country's founding by
privileged white men who sought to protect that privilege.

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

Bill Zaumen wrote:
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?

That possibility does exist.

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]

I do not live in California (hard to believe people live outside of
California, but it does happen).

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.

Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.

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

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
...
LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
engineering matter....

Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
space.

Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to one's
vehicle's mass.

The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on the
cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is small and
the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.

On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire and
immediate.

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

Jens Müller writes:

Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 schrieb:
I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

What the hell is an "automobile traffic lane"?

Badly put, even I unconciously accept the implicit assumptions of
society- the lane that motorists believe belongs to them.

73, doug

Jym Dyer writes:

ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to
a wide outside lane without the bike lane stripe ....

=v= The wide outside lane (WOL) was piloted in San Francisco.
They had two effects:

(1) Wide lane! I'll double-park my car in it!
(2) Wide lane! I'll drive my car faster!

These effects don't work very well with each other, and for
bicyclists they are pretty much a worst-case scenario.

FWIW, one reason traffic engineers put in shoulder strips, bulb outs,
meandering lanes, etc., is to reduce vehicle speeds. So the question
is really whether you'd prefer a shoulder strip or a bike lane stripe.
The difference is that the bike lane stripe is 5 inches wide instead of
3 inches wide. At intersections where they squeeze in a turn lane, the
shoulder stripe usually heads to the curb, whereas the bike lane stripe
would be dropped. If you are worried (as some seem to be) about sending
drivers the wrong signal, a shoulder stripe tells them that a cyclist
is going to follow the stripe to the curb. Having the bike lane end
in the same way that vehicle lanes end makes it more obvious that
two streams of traffic are going to merge.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB