Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

Op 23-10-2010 15:39, Andy schreef:
On Oct 23, 7:14 am, Peter wrote:
On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:



Tom Sherman wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Even better news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE

No Magic Foam Bicycle Hats™ and Magic White Bicycle Lines™??????

OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

They will all die, without exception.

Pretty hopeful video, though.

Chalo

A much more hopeful one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM

That's pretty cool.

And none of the cyclist's were "riding while cell phone using."

Andy

Don't get too exited. It is a problem here too. Not the adults but the
15-18 year old teenagers. They seem to think they are naked without
their cell phone in their hand and checking their messages or selecting
a MP3.

Lou

On Oct 23, 5:41*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:
"Peter Cole" wrote in message

...





On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Even better news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE

No Magic Foam Bicycle Hats™ and Magic White Bicycle Lines™??????

OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

They will all die, without exception.

Pretty hopeful video, though.

Chalo

A much more hopeful one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM

I don't get why people are against facilities. *They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.- Hide quoted text -

I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.

On 10/23/2010 9:23 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 23, 5:41 am, "Duane wrote:
"Peter wrote in message

...





On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Even better news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE

No Magic Foam Bicycle Hats™ and Magic White Bicycle Lines™??????

OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

They will all die, without exception.

Pretty hopeful video, though.

Chalo

A much more hopeful one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM

I don't get why people are against facilities. They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.- Hide quoted text -

I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. It reminds me of
skiiing through the bunny slope. It's nice for kids and families, but
not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.

Amen to that. In the US, it seems that separated bike facilities are
nearly always more recreational than transportational. I know a few
exceptions, but only a few. (One noted below.)

In Salem, OR, the city recently opened a converted railroad bridge over
the Willamette river as a bike/ped "path." It is a very nice
/recreational/ facility, but there has been a well-designed, separated
bicycle/ped facility over the river for ~30 years. Given that the motor
vehicle bridge has no shoulders and heavy 45mph traffic most of the day
(posted at 35, you know), I've used the separated facility for ~25 years
commuting.

The new "railroad" bridge is nice if I want to have part of my homeward
commute be a "toodle" among the peds, it's pretty and scenic, but in no
way is it a practical transportation /improvement/ over the alternative.
Oh, and of course the cycling approaches to this new bridge (from at
least several directions) are nearly impossible to use during rush-hour
traffic, certainly for beginners.

That's the /other/ reason why separated paths (in the US) are usually
not worth using for actual transportation - the design is by
non-cyclists, and is often terribly impractical.

Mark J.

On 10/23/2010 12:47 PM, Mark J. wrote:

That's the /other/ reason why separated paths (in the US) are usually
not worth using for actual transportation - the design is by
non-cyclists, and is often terribly impractical.

We have a river trail in Boston, about 40 years old, without substantial
upgrade. It's pretty bad from a design POV. It's slower than the street
equivalent, both because it meanders with the river, and has mixed use,
plus the design issues. I posted a couple of videos recently that showed
the same commute by street and over this path. The guy who made them
claimed 28 vs. 40 minutes, which seemed accurate.

That path, which I think is fairly typical, gets a lot of commuting
cyclists M-F, while mostly recreational users on the weekend. I still
use it preferentially when I'm not in a hurry, especially in the summer,
since it's well shaded and relaxing. The 12 minutes isn't that big a
sacrifice. I don't think the trade offs are so distinct, despite its
general crappiness of design and surface conditions, a lot of commuting
cyclists seem to prefer it, too.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:41:33 -0400, "Duane Hebert"
wrote:

I don't get why people are against facilities. They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.

I'm not against long skinny parks. I *am* against paying for them out
of the transportation budget instead of the parks-department budget.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On Oct 23, 9:23*am, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 23, 5:41*am, "Duane Hebert" wrote:









"Peter Cole" wrote in message

...

On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Even better news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE

No Magic Foam Bicycle Hats™ and Magic White Bicycle Lines™??????

OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

They will all die, without exception.

Pretty hopeful video, though.

Chalo

A much more hopeful one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM

I don't get why people are against facilities. *They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.- Hide quoted text -

I think I would go crazy if I were limited to those facilities. The
last thing I want to do is be in perpetual passing mode -- around
wobbly little kids who are being held by parents. *It reminds me of
skiiing through the bunny slope. *It's nice for kids and families, but
not so much fun if you are trying to get somewhere.

Word. That bike path in Assen in Peter's post would be the very
definition of "hell" for me. Fine for recreation, but totally
impractical for transportation if you need to get anywhere.

Now the kids in Orlando, that's pretty much what I did when I grew up
(minus the "club"). But one kid rode a Cervelo? I guess theft must
not be a problem in Orlando. If he tried that in NYC he'd be soon
taking the bus again.

On 10/23/2010 7:14 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/23/2010 3:18 AM, Chalo wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Even better news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0lfqShrRlE

No Magic Foam Bicycle Hats™ and Magic White Bicycle Lines™??????

OMG, they're all going to dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

They will all die, without exception.

Pretty hopeful video, though.

Chalo

A much more hopeful one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM

I find this hopeful:
http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_1.mpg,
http://www.outsideconnection.com/gallant/hpv/joe/outtaMyWay_2.mpg.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 10/23/2010 7:41 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:

I don't get why people are against facilities. They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.

I think we have been over this.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 10/23/2010 8:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:41:33 -0400, "Duane
wrote:

I don't get why people are against facilities. They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.

I'm not against long skinny parks. I *am* against paying for them out
of the transportation budget instead of the parks-department budget.


There are lots of budgets at the federal level. The biggest one TE,
"Transportation Enhancements", has allocated ~9B 1992-2009. Of that,
about 1/2 has gone to bike/pedestrian projects, of that, only 8.4%
($536M) has gone to on-road bike, rails-to-trails and off-road trails
has been 11%($698M) and 34%($2.182B) respectively, pedestrian-only was
44%($2.8B).

States match at varying levels, mine (MA) is around 20%.

I think the reason that so little has been allocated for on-road bike
facilities has been that there has been a strong constituency for
off-road/rail trails, while the on-road facility supporters have
historically been opposed by anti-facility bike advocates. Divided we fail.

On 10/23/2010 5:14 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

A much more hopeful one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM

That's what's desperately needed in the U.S. if we want to make cycling
mainstream transportation rather than the current state of being limited
to a small group of enthusiasts.

Well at least that video shows why helmets are not common in the
Netherlands!