|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
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 |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
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. Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option. Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO! All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they "belong." --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message t... 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
On Jan 31, 8:12 pm, Rex Kerr wrote:
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote: 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. You could do what the director of the Chico Velo cycling club did recently and crash and seriously injure yourself on a hazard the day after pushing the county to remove it. http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Cont...lo.org/ed.html The irony in this case is really painful. I really hope that he recovers quickly and is able to ride again!! ------------------------------------------------------- From the Chico N&R Story ------------------------------------------------------- It's particularly ironic because McLaughlin pushed to get Butte County to remove such obstacles from the Midway path to Durham, and had talked about the Bidwell Park bollards just one day earlier. Now something is being done about them. A bike path is no place for a peloton. No one to blame but the cyclist in his case. Hope he recovers and learns his lesson. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
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. Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct, sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe that's where cyclists should be. I understand the attractions of them, but.... 73, doug "Mike Jacoubowsky" writes: 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. Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option. Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO! All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they "belong." --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message t... 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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
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 I've been involved in neighborhood traffic calming in my California city and can perhaps lend some insight into how this happens. Level 1 traffic calming generally requires no community input other than someone complaining about speed; the city verifies that the complaint is valid and they add whatever measures seem appropriate - stop signs, speed limit signs, "please don't use our neighborhood as a shortcut" signs, etc. Level 2 traffic calming includes physical restraints to vehicles such as street narrowing, rumble strips, and speed humps. Street narrowing is supposed to be landscaped, designed structures that make it difficult for cars to drive too fast. Speed humps generally are designed to be minimally inconvenient at speeds less than 30 mph or so. Level 2 measures generally require that the neighborhood residents form a committee that works with the city to develop some kind of plan as to what measures will be taken and who will pay for them; then a majority of the residents affected must vote to approve the plan. At this point a few neighbors who don't want the speed humps start to leaflet the residents about how evil the humps are; citing reduced housing values, increased emergency vehicle response time, cost, noise, and inefficacy. The other neighbors then investigate other Level 2 measures such as street narrowing. Since street narrowing is usually the most expensive option, the residents may opt to have a temporary trial of such measures to see if they're effective before making them permanent. What I see in your photos appears to be a temporary form of street narrowing and I'd guess their hope is to have landscaped areas, raised medians, or pedestrian islands eventually in their place. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Mike,
Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right. Is that really a big problem there? Also, it appears that there is room on the right between the obstruction and the curb where a cyclist could manage, given tire- liners and nerve enough, to squeeze through. That's what I would do as a kid, and it's what I would do now, but as I grew up, I sort of thought that things like this would be controllable, that 'government' would stop doing things TO us, and be more of a partner in making life better. Instead, I'm still going through life from one gerry-rigged 'solution' to another, constantly faced with situations like this. Holy ****sky, comrade, wha' hoppened to the revolution? ABS |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option. Of course, we've discussed this before. But: Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way. Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes, they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs, etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane. Are cyclists required to use them? Perhaps not legally, at least in certain places. But most motorists and bicyclists seem to _think_ bicyclists are required to use them. IOW, you can prove the requirement doesn't exist once you get to court; but as a day to day matter, you're expected to not leave the lane. Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists' driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left turns, especially by novices. Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network? Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes are painted. Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't belong on unstriped roads. And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest. ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to ride here." If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They seem a lot more benign. - Frank Krygowski |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Mike,
Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right. Is that really a big problem there? They have studies that show such things slow down traffic by a whopping 4% (so why bother?). Also, it appears that there is room on the right between the obstruction and the curb where a cyclist could manage, given tire- liners and nerve enough, to squeeze through. That's what I would do as a kid, and it's what I would do now, but as I grew up, I sort of thought that things like this would be controllable, that 'government' would stop doing things TO us, and be more of a partner in making life better. Instead, I'm still going through life from one gerry-rigged 'solution' to another, constantly faced with situations like this. Pretty crazy to encourage people to ride in the gutter, with barriers on each side. In the end, I'm realizing that I might have missed an opportunity here. It's quite likely they could have achieved their "traffic calming" goals by making the road more friendly towards bikes. After all, isn't the usual dig about bikes that we get in the way of cars? Why not turn that to an advantage in something like this? Why not deliberately engineer a road that favors bikes, at the expense of cars? Then the residents get what they want (less traffic, and lower speeds) and we get a safe road to ride. Essentially turn a win-lose-lose into a win-win-lose (residents/bikes/cars). --Mike Jacoubowsky Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obstructions | [email protected] | Techniques | 336 | October 18th 11 01:11 AM |
Station St bike lane Bonbeach: cars parked in bike lane | AndrewJ | Australia | 8 | March 30th 06 10:37 AM |
Redwood Park MUni ride, 3/19/06 | tholub | Unicycling | 0 | March 20th 06 04:18 PM |
Cross City Bike lane | scotty72 | Australia | 4 | October 19th 05 01:47 PM |
Bike Lane vs Wide outside Lane - benefit to AUTOS? | [email protected] | Techniques | 29 | June 8th 05 10:07 PM |