Protesters stage sit-in during Jarvis bike lane removal

Dan O writes:

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:53:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 5:46 AM, Duane wrote:

If you have to ride to the right anyway what makes
a bike lane in a door zone so much worse?

I'd say you don't have to ride far enough to the right to subject
yourself to dooring. A competent bicycling advocacy organization should
be working on getting that written into law, if it isn't already.

Ludicrous!

What do you (Dan) mean by that? You appear to be disagreeing with
Frank's statement. The implication is that you are in favor of
requiring cyclists to stay in a bike lane even when in the door zone.


--
Joe Riel

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:34:20 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Dan O writes:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:53:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 5:46 AM, Duane wrote:

If you have to ride to the right anyway what makes
a bike lane in a door zone so much worse?

I'd say you don't have to ride far enough to the right to subject
yourself to dooring. A competent bicycling advocacy organization should
be working on getting that written into law, if it isn't already.

Ludicrous!

What do you (Dan) mean by that? You appear to be disagreeing with
Frank's statement. The implication is that you are in favor of
requiring cyclists to stay in a bike lane even when in the door zone.

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07:42 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:34:20 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Dan O writes:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:53:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 5:46 AM, Duane wrote:

If you have to ride to the right anyway what makes
a bike lane in a door zone so much worse?

I'd say you don't have to ride far enough to the right to subject
yourself to dooring. A competent bicycling advocacy organization should
be working on getting that written into law, if it isn't already.

Ludicrous!

What do you (Dan) mean by that? You appear to be disagreeing with
Frank's statement. The implication is that you are in favor of
requiring cyclists to stay in a bike lane even when in the door zone.

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

The "as far right as practicable" tenet plainly implies
hazard avoidance, and in fact the codes all seem to
include this explicitly.

I don't see how door zone bike lanes change this, although
there is something to the argument against them that says
people will ride there because they think they're supposed
to (which just seems stupid to me; but that's me).

But it's kind of like when Frank trashes helmets by citing
mandatory helmet laws. when none of the people he's
haranguing about it endorse either MHL's or DZBL's.

On 21/05/14 09:18, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:53:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 5:46 AM, Duane wrote:

If you have to ride to the right anyway what makes
a bike lane in a door zone so much worse?

I'd say you don't have to ride far enough to the right to subject
yourself to dooring. A competent bicycling advocacy organization should
be working on getting that written into law, if it isn't already.

Ludicrous!


Did I miss the sarcasm?

--
JS

On 21/05/14 10:07, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:34:20 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Dan O writes:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:53:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 5:46 AM, Duane wrote:

If you have to ride to the right anyway what makes
a bike lane in a door zone so much worse?

I'd say you don't have to ride far enough to the right to subject
yourself to dooring. A competent bicycling advocacy organization should
be working on getting that written into law, if it isn't already.

Ludicrous!

What do you (Dan) mean by that? You appear to be disagreeing with
Frank's statement. The implication is that you are in favor of
requiring cyclists to stay in a bike lane even when in the door zone.

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."


Why do we need a law that says you must not open your car door if it
would create a hazard to an approaching vehicle?

To fling your car door open when there is a vehicle about to run into
it, would be stupid, wouldn't it? Yet it happens, and we have a law to
remind people not to be stupid. It doesn't always (often) work.

People are careless, lazy, stupid, etc.

--
JS

On 5/20/2014 8:46 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07:42 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:34:20 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:

What do you (Dan) mean by that? You appear to be disagreeing with
Frank's statement. The implication is that you are in favor of
requiring cyclists to stay in a bike lane even when in the door zone.

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

The "as far right as practicable" tenet plainly implies
hazard avoidance, and in fact the codes all seem to
include this explicitly.

Some traffic codes explicitly allow cyclists to move left to avoid
hazards. Some don't. Duane has claimed repeatedly that it's illegal
for him to ride further left, and has said he prefers crossing the
province border to where laws are more reasonable.

But even in places where cyclists are clearly permitted to be left, many
motorists don't know that and hassle cyclists. In some cases, cops
ticket cyclists. I have a lawyer friend who has successfully defended
such cyclists.

I don't see how door zone bike lanes change this, although
there is something to the argument against them that says
people will ride there because they think they're supposed
to (which just seems stupid to me; but that's me).

Yes, there certainly is "something to the argument"! A bike lane stripe
is very commonly interpreted as "Cyclists are supposed to ride here."
Most cyclists and most motorists can't conceive of any other meaning.

But it's kind of like when Frank trashes helmets by citing
mandatory helmet laws. when none of the people he's
haranguing about it endorse either MHL's or DZBL's.

Good grief, Dan, stick to one bit of nonsense at a time, OK? Yes,
there's (almost?) nobody here currently posting in favor of mandatory
helmets. But at one time, there were. And there are plenty of people
still favoring mandatory helmets, whether you're aware of that or not.
Another MHL was fought down in Maryland just a few months ago.

Again, stick to one bit of nonsense at a time. You're getting too
Scharf-like.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:34:20 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
Dan O writes:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:53:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 5:46 AM, Duane wrote:

If you have to ride to the right anyway what makes
a bike lane in a door zone so much worse?

I'd say you don't have to ride far enough to the right to subject
yourself to dooring. A competent bicycling advocacy organization should
be working on getting that written into law, if it isn't already.

Ludicrous!

What do you (Dan) mean by that? You appear to be disagreeing with
Frank's statement. The implication is that you are in favor of
requiring cyclists to stay in a bike lane even when in the door zone.

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

+1
--
duane

Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 9:53:30 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 5:46 AM, Duane wrote:

If you have to ride to the right anyway what makes
a bike lane in a door zone so much worse?

I'd say you don't have to ride far enough to the right to subject
yourself to dooring. A competent bicycling advocacy organization should
be working on getting that written into law, if it isn't already.

Ludicrous!


Frank is just taking a dig at Velo Quebec. They're the main cycling
advocacy group in a place that has some of the highest cycling numbers in
North America while also having one of the safest places to ride. But they
don't agree with Frank. If I were Frank I'd stay away from Montreal.

I don't see any increase in
doorings around here in bike lanes over on regular streets.

Have you actually looked for data? Is anybody bothering to collect the
data?

According to

http://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/F...ds_201212.ashx

20% of the car-bike crashes in Cambridge, MA are doorings.


Here's a map and map showing door-related crashes in Chicago:



http://www.wbez.org/news/map-where-a...ppening-102939

What we do have down town are these segregated lanes and trucks right hook
cyclists they don't see. They do this on regular streets too but riders
seem less aware when they're in these lanes.

Seem? I haven't looked at the data you're presenting (yet),
but if it says anything why aren't you just saying so.


Doesn't say much about infrastructure. Just that there are doorings.
Definitely true. Not sure what the point is.

Of course. People are told that streets without bike lanes aren't safe.
They're told that bike lanes will make them safe. So when they ride
in a bike lane, they feel they don't have to watch for hazard, because
the bike lane will keep them safe. And of course they assume they must
never leave the bike lane,

No major quibble so far...

... even if a truck is getting ready to turn
across them.

Ludicrous! (Although there's something to the point you
were making, the final "spin" on it is utterly ludicrous.)

OTOH, Darwin had a point, too.

The problem is the trucks with so many blind spots.

That may be part of the problem, but there are certainly other factors.

Certainly. ... er, uh... (how did we get here? Did I miss
something? Going to have to "scroll up", I guess.)

I will say (even though I must have missed something) that
maybe you guys are talking about two different problems -
one problem of trucks with so many blind spots, and another,
broader scope problem that truck blind spots are part of.

I'm saying the problem with trucks killing cyclists and pedestrians is
cause by the blind spots. This is something that can be fixed. Instead of
arguing against infrastructure that may do some good maybe a true cycling
advocate could do something about that. I'm not sure what Frank is
saying.
--
duane

James wrote:
On 20/05/14 19:46, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 20/05/14 04:53, Duane wrote:
sms wrote:
http://www.citynews.ca/2012/11/12/protesters-stage-sit-in-during-jarvis-bike-lane-removal/

Hmm, I wonder if our favorite troll was driving the truck.


Doubtful. Apparently on his planet bike lanes cause more accidents if they
make any difference at all.


Hotspots for doorings are where the corridor of death bike lanes are, around Melbourne.

SMS has a point though. If you have to ride to the right anyway what makes
a bike lane in a door zone so much worse? I don't see any increase in
doorings around here in bike lanes over on regular streets. We don't have
air of them in door zones though.

Door zone bike lanes encourage novice riders to ride in a most dangerous
place on the road, and provide ammunition to drivers when a rider decides
to abandon the bike lane to avoid car doors.

http://acrs.org.au/wp-content/upload...olitho_NPR.pdf

Note that the worst offender, St Kilda Rd, has a door zone bike lane.


What we do have down town are these segregated lanes and trucks right hook
cyclists they don't see. They do this on regular streets too but riders
seem less aware when they're in these lanes. The problem is the trucks
with so many blind spots. We have 18 wheelers on streets with pedestrians
and cyclists. Mostly construction related. This needs to be fixed.


"... riders seem less aware when they're in these lanes."

Hits the nail on the head.


Remember I'm the one that said I thought door zone bike lanes are stupid.
But by your link, even if the worst case had door zone bike lanes there are
a lot of doorings where there are no lanes at all. What's the solution?
It isn't taking the lane. Not here. There are too many bikes. Until Dan's
utopia comes there's no way rush hour traffic in Montreal is going to slow
down for us on bikes. Traffic is horrible as it is. The city is pushing
bike infrastructure to reduce this.
--
duane

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:45:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/20/2014 8:46 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:07:42 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 4:34:20 PM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:

What do you (Dan) mean by that? You appear to be disagreeing with
Frank's statement.

(the one about bicyclists needing a law that allows them
to get out of the way of a truck)

The implication is that you are in favor of
requiring cyclists to stay in a bike lane even when in the door zone.

I mean it's ludicrous to suggest we need to lobby for a law
that says, "Don't be stupid."

The "as far right as practicable" tenet plainly implies
hazard avoidance, and in fact the codes all seem to
include this explicitly.

Some traffic codes explicitly allow cyclists to move left to avoid
hazards. Some don't. Duane has claimed repeatedly that it's illegal
for him to ride further left, and has said he prefers crossing the
province border to where laws are more reasonable.

But even in places where cyclists are clearly permitted to be left, many
motorists don't know that and hassle cyclists. In some cases, cops
ticket cyclists. I have a lawyer friend who has successfully defended
such cyclists.

I don't see how door zone bike lanes change this, although
there is something to the argument against them that says
people will ride there because they think they're supposed
to (which just seems stupid to me; but that's me).

Yes, there certainly is "something to the argument"! A bike lane stripe
is very commonly interpreted as "Cyclists are supposed to ride here."
Most cyclists and most motorists can't conceive of any other meaning.


Inconceivable! :-)

But it's kind of like when Frank trashes helmets by citing
mandatory helmet laws. when none of the people he's
haranguing about it endorse either MHL's or DZBL's.

Good grief, Dan, stick to one bit of nonsense at a time, OK? Yes,
there's (almost?) nobody here currently posting in favor of mandatory
helmets. But at one time, there were. And there are plenty of people
still favoring mandatory helmets, whether you're aware of that or not.
Another MHL was fought down in Maryland just a few months ago.

Again, stick to one bit of nonsense at a time.

I was pointing out a parallel. It takes at least two
things to be parallel. Neither of mine are nonsense.
Do try not to be such a dimwit.