Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:


Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".
Your statement that "tickets are hardly ever issued for anything
besides speeding and DUI" is shear nonsense. Download
http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/reports/fiveyearviolations.pdf (just did
a google search and that was the first one I found from an official
government source). DUI is small and speeding accounts for under 1/2
of non-criminal moving violations. For 2003, there were 1,155,218
citations for exceeding the posted speed limit versus 2,398,031
non-criminal moving violations. There were 531,230 criminal
moving violations (of which DUI represented a mere 65,113 case).

How many of the other violations were in conjunction with a speeding
stop? How many of the "other non-moving" violations were plea deals
for speeding (a common practice)? How many were stops for DWB? Is
Florida representative of the country as a whole? The raw numbers do
not tell the whole story.

Look, you just made a fool of yourself by stating that "tickets are
hardly ever issued for anything besides speeding and DUI", and I did
a quick google search and found one set of state data that shows you
simply made your "fact" up. Now you are just trying to ask more
"questions" in an attempt to weasle out of it by throwing out a lot
of BS.

The vast majority of people simply write a check and mail in the fine,
maybe with some grumbling. Very few go to court. If you don't go to
talk and interact with a DA, there is not going to be any "plea deal".

I might add that some of the "DWB" complaints are bogus - there were
some complaints of racial profiling in San Jose a few years ago due to
an unsusually large number of Hispanics being cited, and when the
statistics were carefully checked, they found that officers were
ticketing fairly: what happened is that the police department was
spending more time patrolling high crime areas, where a lot of
disadvantaged Hispanics live, and they ended up getting more traffic
tickets because the police were around more trying to protect them
from serious crimes. Regardless of how you want to handle the
increased number of citations, the citations were in fact legitimate.
It's not that people were being cited for something they didn't do.

There's really no point in having a "discussion" with you if you
continually get all the facts wrong.

Which facts?

The ones you get wrong, which seems to be most of them. I gave
sveral examples above.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.
And under California street law?
What's that?

Street law is what happens in real life.
You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
You can't be serious....

Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.

Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
seriously.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
and immediate.
See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
a judge and jury if there is a fatality.

Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
Accidents can have witnesses.

And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.
Conspiracy theory.

Reality, based on juries being somewhat representative of the
population as a whole.

Conspiracy theory.
snip

Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.

Drive in a city much, Bill? Five to ten incidents per hour of people
deliberately violating others right-of-way because they think they can
get away with it is common.

Is that your way of deflecting attention from the fact that you make
your thing about buses up? You claimed people did not violate a
bus' right of way because it was so much bigger. I pointed out that
at they do things like cutting off buses, mostly due to inattentiveness
(it's not like they think they'll come out OK in an accident, so
inattentiveness is the most reaonable explanation).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman wrote:
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

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.
See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
a judge and jury if there is a fatality.

Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?

Accidents can have witnesses.

And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the
police.

Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.

On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.

Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which the
bus driver was not at fault.

No, the logical interpretation is that cagers do not try to intimidate
bus drivers into yielding their rightful way.


Continuing my reading of recent cases concerning vehicular homicide, I
see that there has been a bit of a recent shift. Juries in the more
populous counties are happy to convict (unlike what we have been told).

Prosecutors have been more likely to prosecute than in many a year.
Judges, on the other hand, are more likely to see crashes as careless
rather than reckless, but Prosecutors have been taking those cases up on
appeal and, once again, in more populous areas, have been winning their
appeals. This would not have happened even five years ago.

Still, it can take up to a year before charges are brought. On Friday, I
asked about a crash that happened in October. "What case number?" they
asked me. I gave them a quick description and they said that there was
no case because no one had been arrested and no charges had been filed.
I filed a formal inquiry as to what is going on because this one is a
slam-dunk conviction.

It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that
can get things going.

Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.
And under California street law?
What's that?

Street law is what happens in real life.
You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
You can't be serious....

Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.

Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
seriously.




Yeah, Bill. I'm making up things, too.

vey writes:

Tom Sherman wrote:
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Street law is what happens in real life.
You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".

You can't be serious....

Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.


Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason
that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit
"anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a
Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa
and pity the Honda driver.

They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good
justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb
given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people
may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with
what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV
owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car.

Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to
muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in
driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.

Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying
to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco.

If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.

Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
large onea.

I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
elusive parking space.

Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Tom Sherman wrote:
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Street law is what happens in real life.
You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
You can't be serious....

Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.

Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason
that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit
"anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a
Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa
and pity the Honda driver.

They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good
justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb
given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people
may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with
what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV
owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car.

Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to
muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in
driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.

Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying
to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco.

If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.

Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
large onea.

I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
elusive parking space.

Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.


Bill, I've been to SF. I rode a bicycle and I walked a lot there during
the late '80's and early 90's in the three months I was there trying
to catch a ship to the far east. You have no idea how bad it can be.
Until I moved back here, I had no idea it can be.

Now that I live in Orlando again, I know how bad it can be. They don't
have cameras set up at red lights here. They set one up as a test and
saw 2700 red light runners in 2.5 months.

http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html

I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with one
foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the rear. Didn't even
slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do you think I am
making this up?

Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas, what
exactly do you think they mean?

vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.
And under California street law?
What's that?

Street law is what happens in real life.
You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
You can't be serious....

Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.
Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
seriously.


Yeah, Bill. I'm making up things, too.

Where were you quoted in any of the text above? It sounds to me like
you want to start an argument.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:


Where were you quoted in any of the text above? It sounds to me like
you want to start an argument.

I don't want to argue. I have to work on a Ghost Bike. Do you have any
tips as to how to keep the Gov't workers from removing it?

I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
there are problems with separate bike lanes."

I will put this as simply as possible.

Bike lanes are an advertisement for cycling. The get people thinking that
bikes are part of the transportation system, and both encourage people to
ride, as well as let the cagers know they're not the only people with rights
to the road.

You can argue all you want about how a bike lane encourages someone to think
a bike doesn't belong anywhere else, but the truth is, I doubt such people
think bikes belong on the roads AT ALL. I don't think they look at a bike
line as a "separate but unequal" piece of property they grudgingly give to
cyclists. Rather, those cagers who don't like bikes see it as one more thing
done to encourage something that shouldn't be encouraged.

Besides, Europe is loaded with bike lanes and separate bike paths. I don't
hear people clamoring to get rid of them. Are they just too dumb over there
to recognize the dangers? They're drinking the cyanide-laced Kool-Aid
unwittingly?

At some point we have to look at the INTENT of the accomodation, and
recognize that if the intent is favorable (to cyclists), people are going to
be working hard to make sure that favorable intent actually happens. If, on
the other hand, you have a municipality that wants to "deal" with a
situation (getting cyclists off the dang road!), the outcome will likely be
quite different.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA



wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 9:12 am, Dan Connelly
wrote:

"But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If
this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but
additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total
injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more
experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many
comfortable being on the roads as possible."

I understand that most cyclists like bike lanes... or think they do.
And most non-cyclists, or "I would if only..." quasi-cyclists like
bike lanes.

I believe that's because most of those people have never thought about
the negatives, since they've never been told about the negatives. All
they've heard is "Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful..." promotion of the
idea.

I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
there are problems with separate bike lanes."

He immediately admitted that was true, and others asked me for
details. When I explained the shortcomings, there were lots of "Oh, I
never thought about that" remarks (including from the civil engineer
in the group). Meanwhile, the speaker backpedaled furiously, saying
"Well, understand, this is just an example..."

To a certain degree, this is a matter of education. Public ignorance
regarding an issue is a bad reason for acceding to public desires.

- Frank Krygowski