Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On 25/10/2010 21:29, damyth wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:47 am, Lou wrote:
Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:

On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:

Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
red sedan is on:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

What's wrong with that road?

There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
limit have bikepaths like that.

What's the speed limit on a road like that? Why is the red sedan
hanging half-assed on and off the road? Are European cars (or tires,
for that matter) so reliable that you don't need a breakdown lane or a
shoulder?

No idea what the red car is doing (parked? driving badly?), but yes, the
majority of roads here have neither a breakdown lane nor a shoulder.
Motorways do, but not smaller roads. Here = Europe IME, and UK specifically.

Why is the road so narrow?

Because that's as wide as it needs to be.

Roads intended for faster traffic are wider, but still no shoulder or
breakdown lane.

Let me put it succinctly. In the US the
density of cars would certainly be higher (considering the relative
price differential of gas and other pro-motorist factors betw. US vs.
EU). This would mean on a road in the US, both lanes would be filled,
traffic would not be sparse.

Every 2 lane road is filled? Blimey. I thought the US was quite big, and
certainly when I was visiting, the 2 lane roads weren't obviously busier
than over here.

What happens when a car breaks down (or
an accident), and you're pretty much left with one lane? Do you rely
on semaphores to negotiate which lane proceeds first?

It seems to work. Same as if a lorry is parked up delivering. People
wait for gaps, then go past.

Why aren't bike lanes lit everywhere?

That one does appear to be lit - the spill from the lights will be enough.

My bike's got lights. I'm off to go on a ride on unlit country roads,
none of which have shoulders, and one of which is single lane. I can see
where I'm going.

FWIW the speed limit on my roads is 60mph. Visitors from your side of
the pond are sometimes scared by how fast people drive on our narrow
roads, but strangely we seem to be better at not crashing over here.

Narrow road + bike lane = mandatory bike lane. If bike lane isn't
sufficiently wide enough for passing (as we saw in the video with kids
riding to school), what happens?

You don't appear to be talking about that picture any more. But yes,
that's why bike lanes need to be wide enough for cycles to pass.

Or are you thinking of a lane which is part of the road, rather than a
separate one like in the picture? In which case, over here mandatory =
forbidden to motor traffic, but bikes can go out, so you cross the line
and pass.

What's a bike path& road intersection look like, more importantly,
how is it negotiated?

European ones tend to have give way lines for the road, and more
importantly drivers give way at them.

Need I go on about what else is wrong with the road?

Sorry, I thought you were going on about something else.

On Oct 25, 1:29 pm, damyth wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:47 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:

On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:

Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
red sedan is on:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

What's wrong with that road?

There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
limit have bikepaths like that.

Lou

What's the speed limit on a road like that? Why is the red sedan
hanging half-assed on and off the road? Are European cars (or tires,
for that matter) so reliable that you don't need a breakdown lane or a
shoulder?

Why is the road so narrow? Let me put it succinctly. In the US the
density of cars would certainly be higher (considering the relative
price differential of gas and other pro-motorist factors betw. US vs.
EU). This would mean on a road in the US, both lanes would be filled,
traffic would not be sparse. What happens when a car breaks down (or
an accident), and you're pretty much left with one lane? Do you rely
on semaphores to negotiate which lane proceeds first?

Why aren't bike lanes lit everywhere?

Narrow road + bike lane = mandatory bike lane. If bike lane isn't
sufficiently wide enough for passing (as we saw in the video with kids
riding to school), what happens?
What's a bike path & road intersection look like, more importantly,
how is it negotiated?

Need I go on about what else is wrong with the road?

It the poles. If I was there I think I would *choose* the bike path
anyway, but I think everybody knows if I; rather go over there on the
road I would. That's why the poles are such a problem. That and they
remove the middle grassy strip as a choice of lines. But there are
still more than two options there, and I have to say the bike path
looks like a good one. Even those cursed poles bring light and
physical separation for the timid folks.

On 10/25/2010 12:58 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
Then realize the hours spent doing something you approach with an
attitude between tolerate and hate (driving/working) [...]

Sorry to hear that those things make you grumpy.

Working and driving have *not* made me grumpy since

drum roll, trumpet fanfare, triumphant chorus

moving to *Iowa*.

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

On Oct 25, 10:47*am, Lou Holtman wrote:
Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:

On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:

Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
red sedan is on:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

What's wrong with that road?

There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
limit have bikepaths like that.

Really? Wow. Is this typical for Dutch cities? Outside our city
limits are -- you guessed it -- other cities. And once past those
cities, you can ride pretty much wherever you want.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/upthewaterspout/525875628/

Eastern Oregon bike path: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318@N07/2799139250/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318@N07/2799137334/

Sometimes the paths get crowded:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318...n/photostream/

Inner city, where most people commute, is another story. I just take
roads, which are not too bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcso6e5hLIU
It fades out before getting in to town. -- Jay Beattie.

On Oct 25, 3:40*pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/25/2010 3:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Oct 25, 10:16 am, Duane *wrote:

Aside from the poles that Dan pointed out, the only difference between
this road and the majority of provincial highways around here is that
the others don't have a bike path next to them.

They are typically two lane bi-directional with enough space for
a car in each lane. *There are usually no shoulders or gravel shoulders.
Some have a lot of turns. *I've had a car bump into the back of me
because the driver was coming around a turn and she didn't see me.
Taking the lane didn't help much here. *Fortunately she was going slower
that the 70km/h limit.

It was around he *http://tinyurl.com/28vscy7though it was in
the summer when these trees were covered with leaves.

If you don't have roads like this then I guess I understand why you
don't think facilities would help. *But a path on the side of this
road would be great IMO.

I really don't understand. *The road you've linked to is exactly the
kind of road I, and members of my bike club, seek out for riding.

I don't know what happened with the woman you claim "bumped" you, but
there seems to be no place that a cyclist wouldn't be visible in
plenty of time. *Even with full foliage, it looks like one can always
see at least 100 yards (or meters) down the road. *If a cyclist is
moving at just 12 mph (= 19 kph = 5.4 m/s), a 70 km/hr (20 m/s)
motorist has a full seven seconds before that distance is closed.

This sounds like more "Cycling HERE is really, really dangerous!!!!"
nonsense.

- Frank Krygowski

Nonsense. *Did you watch too much "Lost in Space" as a child? *You
constantly seem to be hearing "Danger, danger " every time someone
doesn't agree with you.

You said, essentially, "Someone bumped me with their car here, so it
would be great to have a bike path here." What exactly was that
supposed to mean, if not "That incident shows the danger, and it would
be great to be safer"?

I ride on that road all of the time. *I don't claim that someone bumped
me once, I state it. *Do you need signed testimony?

How about details? You claim she "bumped into the back of you." That
usually means she at least knocked you off your bike. Was she aiming
for you, i.e. was it a deliberate assault? If so, it was an extremely
rare incident, and nothing but complete separation would help. Did
she misjudge her passing clearance and graze you?

But the idea that it was so curvy that she couldn't see you until her
reaction time was insufficient sounds like nonsense. Even a gutter
bunny cyclist on a super-sharp bend to the right is normally visible
in plenty of time, because the driver sits on the left of the car.

So why not give details?

*Follow the whole
road in the summer and let me know if there is 100 yard
visibility at all points.

I followed it using Street View around the sharper curves where you
linked. If it happened elsewhere even sharper, why not just show us
where?

*Anyway, who knows? *Maybe she was changing
stations or dropped an egg plant or something to distract her using up
part of her 7 seconds. Part of what's wrong with your vehicular cycling
idea is that most vehicular drivers aren't very good.

Ah, I see. More "Danger! Drivers aren't good!"

And more problems with vehicular cycling. But didn't you also say
that you mostly ride on roads? Do you not use your rights as a
vehicle operator? Or are you a sidewalk skulker?

*But why would
you complain about a road like that because it had a separate path?

Because in my experience, separate usually means worse. This time of
year, a separate path would be clotted with wet leaves and sticks. In
the winter, it would be unplowed. If it ever got any other debris on
it (like broken glass) it would stay there until some private citizen
decided to remove it - something I've done myself several times on
bike paths.

Now why would you want a separate path instead of using the same total
width as sharable lanes, which passing cars would naturally keep
clean? Are you really that afraid of being run down from behind?

- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
On Oct 25, 3:40 pm, Duane Hébert wrote:
On 10/25/2010 3:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:


You said, essentially, "Someone bumped me with their car here, so it
would be great to have a bike path here." What exactly was that
supposed to mean, if not "That incident shows the danger, and it would
be great to be safer"?

It means that if there was a path like the one in the picture, I wouldn't
have been bumped by a car.

I ride on that road all of the time. I don't claim that someone bumped
me once, I state it. Do you need signed testimony?

How about details? You claim she "bumped into the back of you." That
usually means she at least knocked you off your bike. Was she aiming
for you, i.e. was it a deliberate assault? If so, it was an extremely
rare incident, and nothing but complete separation would help. Did
she misjudge her passing clearance and graze you?

No she bumped me directly from behind. She was nearly stopped.
She was more shook up than me. I didn't fall. Like I said, she
bumped me. It's not a big deal.

Things like this happen. Close calls are not that uncommon. Accidents
are uncommon. I agree with you there. The only real accident I've had on
a bike was me siding into a curb due to blowing rain where I didn't see the
curb.
Never had a real accident with a car when I wasn't in a car myself.

But the idea that it was so curvy that she couldn't see you until her
reaction time was insufficient sounds like nonsense. Even a gutter
bunny cyclist on a super-sharp bend to the right is normally visible
in plenty of time, because the driver sits on the left of the car.

I followed it using Street View around the sharper curves where you
linked. If it happened elsewhere even sharper, why not just show us
where?

Because it doesn't matter. The road is narrow and it has no shoulder
and the speed limit is much faster than I can pedal. It's a normal
thing. Some guys here posted that type of road was horrible. To me
it's just how the roads are here. It would be better with a path on the
side. We do have some paths like that but they're mostly in Oka
park where there are some steep decents. I appreciate them there
and I would appreciate one here.

Anyway, who knows? Maybe she was changing
stations or dropped an egg plant or something to distract her using up
part of her 7 seconds. Part of what's wrong with your vehicular cycling
idea is that most vehicular drivers aren't very good.

Ah, I see. More "Danger! Drivers aren't good!"

Come on Frank are you telling me that all drivers are good?
I've had several accidents in a car, none of which were my
fault. On a bike, any one of them would have been bad.
You need to drive defensively on a bike as in a car. Probably more
so since you will be on the short end of a mishap. Don't
you agree with that?

And more problems with vehicular cycling. But didn't you also say
that you mostly ride on roads? Do you not use your rights as a
vehicle operator? Or are you a sidewalk skulker?

I do what seems correct at the moment. Skulking next to the sidewalk
normally doesn't seem to be correct so I don't normally do that. But that
doesn't mean that
I like riding in traffic. I prefer riding in peace. That's why I ride a
bike. Healthy excercise, stress reduction, nice views etc. Why do
you ride?

But why would
you complain about a road like that because it had a separate path?

Because in my experience, separate usually means worse. This time of
year, a separate path would be clotted with wet leaves and sticks. In
the winter, it would be unplowed. If it ever got any other debris on
it (like broken glass) it would stay there until some private citizen
decided to remove it - something I've done myself several times on
bike paths.


I know. The leaves are starting to get bad. Check my driveway g
The streets are better than the bike paths at the moment so I'm using
the streets. Mind you, this may be the bike lane on the side when they
exist but they get cleaned with the roads.

But look at that picture. The path is clean, level and even lighted. Come
on.
Would you seriously tell me that you'd prefer to ride on the road? That's
all
that I'm saying. In a case like that, a path is a good thing.

Now why would you want a separate path instead of using the same total
width as sharable lanes, which passing cars would naturally keep
clean? Are you really that afraid of being run down from behind?

Sharing a lane to you means riding in the same lane as a car. Are you
asking me if I wouldn't prefer to have my own lane? Well who wouldn't?

On 25 okt, 22:29, damyth wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:47*am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:

On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:

Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
red sedan is on:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

What's wrong with that road?

There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
limit have bikepaths like that.

Lou

What's the speed limit on a road like that? *Why is the red sedan
hanging half-assed on and off the road? *Are European cars (or tires,
for that matter) so reliable that you don't need a breakdown lane or a
shoulder?

Why is the road so narrow? *Let me put it succinctly. *In the US the
density of cars would certainly be higher (considering the relative
price differential of gas and other pro-motorist factors betw. US vs.
EU). *This would mean on a road in the US, both lanes would be filled,
traffic would not be sparse. *What happens when a car breaks down (or
an accident), and you're pretty much left with one lane? *Do you rely
on semaphores to negotiate which lane proceeds first?

Why aren't bike lanes lit everywhere?

Narrow road + bike lane = mandatory bike lane. *If bike lane isn't
sufficiently wide enough for passing (as we saw in the video with kids
riding to school), what happens?
What's a bike path & road intersection look like, more importantly,
how is it negotiated?

Need I go on about what else is wrong with the road?

See Clive George' s answer. It is pretty accurate.
To be honest that sort of road tends to be the most dangerous ones
10-15 years ago (for cars) because of careless overtaking mostly by
the young and innocent. We took action and the traffic laws and speed
limits are very well enforced. It helped a lot. Speed limit is 80 km/
hr outside city limits and 50 km/hr within city limits.

Lou

On 26 okt, 01:07, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 25, 1:29 pm, damyth wrote:





On Oct 25, 10:47 am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:

On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:

Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
red sedan is on:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

What's wrong with that road?

There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
limit have bikepaths like that.

Lou

What's the speed limit on a road like that? *Why is the red sedan
hanging half-assed on and off the road? *Are European cars (or tires,
for that matter) so reliable that you don't need a breakdown lane or a
shoulder?

Why is the road so narrow? *Let me put it succinctly. *In the US the
density of cars would certainly be higher (considering the relative
price differential of gas and other pro-motorist factors betw. US vs.
EU). *This would mean on a road in the US, both lanes would be filled,
traffic would not be sparse. *What happens when a car breaks down (or
an accident), and you're pretty much left with one lane? *Do you rely
on semaphores to negotiate which lane proceeds first?

Why aren't bike lanes lit everywhere?

Narrow road + bike lane = mandatory bike lane. *If bike lane isn't
sufficiently wide enough for passing (as we saw in the video with kids
riding to school), what happens?
What's a bike path & road intersection look like, more importantly,
how is it negotiated?

Need I go on about what else is wrong with the road?

It the poles. *If I was there I think I would *choose* the bike path
anyway, but I think everybody knows if I; rather go over there on the
road I would. *That's why the poles are such a problem. *That and they
remove the middle grassy strip as a choice of lines. *But there are
still more than two options there, and I have to say the bike path
looks like a good one. *Even those cursed poles bring light and
physical separation for the timid folks.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

You are not allowed on that road and all people would think you are a
dangerous ass if you ride on that road. Nobody over here ride on the
road there.

Lou

On 26 okt, 01:40, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 25, 10:47*am, Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 25-10-2010 15:52, Clive George schreef:

On 25/10/2010 14:12, damyth wrote:

Because the powers that be would start building roads like the one the
red sedan is on:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/292u833

What's wrong with that road?

There is nothing wrong with that road. All our roads outside the city
limit have bikepaths like that.

Really? Wow. Is this typical for Dutch cities? *Outside our city
limits are -- you guessed it -- other cities. *And once past those
cities, you can ride pretty much wherever you want.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/upthewaterspout/525875628/

Eastern Oregon bike path:http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318...07/2799137334/

Sometimes the paths get crowded:http://www.flickr.com/photos/7656318...n/photostream/

Inner city, where most people commute, is another story. I just take
roads, which are not too bad.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcso6e5hLIU
It fades out before getting in to town. -- Jay Beattie.

I have been on your side of the pond several times and I envy you for
your scenery, but pitty you for you cities. The US is a beautiful
country with a lot of ugly spots AKA cities. Overall as a cyclist I'm
better off here I think. Problem is when I want to ride in the
mountains I have to drive for half/one day first. Well that is what a
lot of American's have to do also, just to get out of those ugly large
cities.

Lou

On 10/25/2010 8:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I followed it using Street View around the sharper curves where you
linked. If it happened elsewhere even sharper, why not just show us
where?
FWIW, it was here
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2g4gw9m
and we were headed north.