London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:56:26 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:26:09 PM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:17:21 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If the
roadway were wide enough for the motorists to pass without being
impeded, the problem vanishes.

Is that what you want? Still wider roadways?

Well, if you want to be particularly nice to the motorists,
it helps to have lanes wide enough to safely share, so they can
conveniently pass. And as I've pointed out many times, the pavement
width is what's really beneficial; the presence of the beloved
bike lane stripe doesn't really help in most cases.

What planet are you from?

and you didn't answer the question: Is that what you want? Wider
roadways?

However, it doesn't take much lane width to accommodate a bicycle.
IOW, _any_ road is wide enough for bikes. It's the motorists that
need more width.

BINGO!!!

If you can teach them to be patient, you can
omit the supposed need for all sorts of segregated facilities.

(You made tea come out of my nose.)

I'll also mention that "a flock of [bike] tourists" complicates things
inside cities. It's more difficult for motorists to pass,

Indeed. If only there was a separate facility for bikes.

Hmmm...

You don't need a separate facility.

I didn't say anybody does. I merely posed the "what if".

(BTW, the tourists may have a much nicer time seeing the
sites and what not if they don't have to play vehicular
cyclist.)

If you want to facilitate passing,
all you need is a few feet of extra pavement width.

Have you forgotten that you're talking about a "flock of
tourists"? How many feet?

And do you seriously think the city is going to widen the road
because a flock of tourists might happen to come through? Or
even because one or two bicyclists occasionally or even
regularly ride through? That's about as deluded as "train
motorists to be patient".

it's more
difficult for the cyclists to negotiate turns,

Probably easier to negotiate turns, as motorists will be
more cautious, more apt to notice you, (negotiating)
strength and courage in numbers, people running interference,
etc.

Sounds to me like you've never led a group of cyclists through
a city center. With even three or four, it gets more complicated.
The person who's leading has to anticipate for the group, not just
for his own movements. Negotiating a left turn can certainly
be trickier.

So, more difficult for the *flock* to negotiate turns, not the
individual "cyclists" comprising the flock.

And I'm not sure it's "trickier", anyway. It seems as though
the problem is simplified because they simply need a lot more
time and space, eliminating all the close call decisions, reducing
the answer set, requiring greater assurance, etc.

Sure it's trickier for a tour guide who has to do the thinking
for the whole flock, but that isn't what you said.

And no, I've never led a flock of tourists through the city
center, and no desire to ever do so. A group of cyclists, yes,
but in those cases I didn't *want* us to stay together because I
was racing against them.

to stay together, etc.

More difficult to stay together than what? Isn't it the
staying together that defines them as a "flock"?

Dan, your "Fred" imitation is nearly faultless!

"More" implies a comparison. Compared to what?

Granted, it becomes trickier (or at least more complicated)
for them to negotiate left turns *and* stay together, but
you separated the two objectives in a list, suggesting each
was trickier independent of the other. Granted staying together
is trickier for the flock than... um... (a solo rider?) But
I still think the left turns are easier to negotiate when you
have your posse with you. I think all approaching traffic
is more apt to slow and be prepared to yield to a flock
than to an individual. (And the staying together only
has meaning for the flock.)

Yes, I suppose what you *meant* was, "it's more difficult for
the cyclists to negotiate turns *and* stay together". But that's
not what you said.

Perhaps they
should have a parade permit?

So when some friends on tour stop by your place to visit, and
express interest in the local points of interest, you have to
tell them, "Sorry, we can't ride there together. It takes a
couple weeks to get our parade permit approved. We'll just take
the car - no problem."

Nope. Wrong, yet again, Fred.

What do you do then? Did you or did you not just propose
parade permits for flocks of tourists on bikes?

I recall seeing a Sprocketman comic book (a super-hero style "how to
ride your bike properly" book intended for teens) that showed two views
of a busy city street. The first was conventional, showing bikes,
buses, cars, pedestrians, etc. The second was a re-drawing of the
scene, with everybody (including the bus passengers) standing on the
street in their previous position, vehicles removed as if by magic. The
point of the drawing was that whether walking, biking or in a motor
vehicle, we're all just people trying to get where we're going. People
shouldn't expect greater privileges because they're in a motor vehicle.

You're on record here saying pedestrians have no right to be
in the road.

Bull****, Fred.

(Such impoliteness. You're not from a tribal society of murderous
hoodlums, are you?)

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=...c/eA86mIZ9EJUJ

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:41:38 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Tue, 15 Apr 2014 19:01:26
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:27:00 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:12:30
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:07:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2014 10:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:02:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2014 6:06 PM, Dan O wrote:
snipped

No they aren't.
If the cars do force their way past, you just get to rinse and repeat
at the next set of lights.
In most cities in the world, average motor traffic speeds are well
below what is comfortably achievable for even utility cyclists.
The "problem" is that the drivers don't seem to have any concept of
average speed or the futility of wasting fuel and brake pads drag
racing from stop light to stop light, while the cyclists just maintain
a steady, efficient speed and always catch up with the motor traffic
at the next junction anyway.
On the faster roads (outside cities, or on freeway type highways
within them) you won't find many cyclists even if they are allowed,
although there is much more space to overtake safely even if they are
there.

While I agree with you if you are talking about village street sort of
roads with a stop sign at every corner, but nearly all the roads I
ride on are at least 4 lane and often 6 lane roads. The stop lights
are a considerable distance apart. I would say that is a car passes
you will very likely never see him again. Traffic is traveling at
approximately 50 KPH or faster. In fact I doubt very seriously if a
bicycle could stay up with a bus that has to stop at the bus stops.

But why would the motorists complain about having to overtake cyclists
when there are additional lanes provided expressly for the purpose of
overtaking?
Isn't moving towards the middle of the road to overtake slower traffic
that is in a lane at the edge of it something that drivers have to
show competence at in order to obtain a license?

NO, on the thoroughfares I'm talking about all the lanes are in use.
There isn't a dedicated "passing lane".

Perhaps if you consider only the speed and assume a really well
conditioned cyclist nice flat road, sort of a Tour de France Prolog,
but you are not taking into consideration the motorcycles traveling
the wrong way on the edge of the road, the cars that are entering the
highway and poke their noses way out into traffic, the water drain
grates spaced 50 ft. apart on some roads, the taxis who suddenly stop
to pick up someone ....

All of which are excellent reasons to use the whole lane instead of
squeezing into a tiny part of it where the motor traffic can pretend
that you aren't there.

I've argued this before but again. You are riding on a six pane road,
actually 8 lanes as there is a bus lane com parking and breakdown lane
too, there are cars driving about 50 - 60 KPH in all the lanes spaced
at say two - three car lengths apart. And there you are, pedaling
along at 25 Kph, and you intend to blithely ride right out in the
middle of the traffic?

(May God be with you)



And this I suspect is the crux of the matter. If bicycles can travel
at the same speed as autos then I doubt that there will be much of a
problem but they can't - puny engines.

But they do, because they don't hold each other up or cause congestion
like motor traffic does.

Not really. During all but the peak rush periods on main roads in my
part of town traffic moves very rapidly. Yes, we have stop lights,
perhaps a kilometer, or perhaps more, apart.

For as long as I could still cycle at all, I could reliably beat cars
from here into the centre of the nearest city (five miles, on one of
the four most major routes into the city) at any time of day between
6am and midnight.
Sure, the cars are faster over the first 3 miles, but then they start
hitting all the junctions and queues, and I went right back past them.
The bigger the city, the larger the radius over which this will be
true - for London it's around 20 miles now.
Cars and cities just don't mix very well.

As I said before, in my part of town, the N.E. quadrant of Bangkok the
stop lights are as much as 1 - 2 Km apart in many places. and except
in the morning and evening rush hours there is little congestion in
the sense of long lines of cars, but even what there is still moving
at 30 - 40 KPH.


more snipped

Nope. some of the roads have very wide sidewalks, In the area I was
referring the sidewalks are perhaps 15 feet, maybe more, wide. Nice
shady places paved with small cement block. Someone painted two red
lines right down the middle of the walk and labeled them in both Thai
and English "Bike Path". I saw it one day and thought "Ho Ho, Just for
me" and wheeled up onto the "bike Path" only to discover that the
block paving wasn't really smooth. In fact it was bumpy enough to make
your vision blur :-) so I wheeled back onto the road as soon as I
could. The only "bike path" I've ever seen in Thailand.

Yes, that seems very familiar to me as a UK citizen.
"Cycle paths" created by people who probably haven't ridden a bike in
decades, and who's principal concern is to make space for more motor
traffic.

But why should there be separate roads for bicycles? After all many
people have highlighted the fact that (at least in the U.S.) bicycles
are legally entitled to travel on public roads.... and now you are
arguing that they need special roads solely for their use?


That road is one of my "loops" so I ride past the "Bike Path"
occasionally and I've never seen another bicycle on it.

But no doubt it will be cited as an excuse for running down cyclists
on the road who could theoretically have been using it.

Nope they don't do that over here. You hit a bicycle and you'll be
damned lucky to get off. You would have to prove that the damned fool
rode right out in front of you and you jammed on the brakes and
another car hit you from behind and splat! Otherwise you get charged
with causing a death and the max sentence is 10 years.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/16/2014 1:33 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:27:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:52:19 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:
jbeattie considered Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:23:54
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

If you have a lot of bikes like Amsterdam, etc., then separate roads for bikes makes sense. It's impossible to have bikes and cars on the same roads, just from a volume standpoint and putting aside safety considerations.


Yes strangely, we manage exactly that here in Cambridge, which does
have those levels of cycle use.

I was curious about your reply. We cycled through Cambridge way back in
1976, and I recalled amazing amounts of bicycling, with no obvious special
facilities. I wondered if it had changed much.


https://www.google.com/search?q=camb...cling&tbm=isch

Perusing google image search results, I don't see *any* examples
of bikes and cars sharing roads without separate facilities.

In fact, I have to say it looks kind of Dutch:

http://livecambridge.files.wordpress...ycle-track.jpg

http://www.transportxtra.com/files/4023-l.jpg

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/

Are we even talking about the same Cambridge?

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/

I remembered being impressed by lovely young ladies cycling in long skirts
and floppy hats...

snip



We're cyclists. We don't need no steenkin special lane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kttyjT2YfQ

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:59:27 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/16/2014 1:33 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:27:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:52:19 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:

jbeattie considered Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:23:54

-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



If you have a lot of bikes like Amsterdam, etc., then separate roads for bikes makes sense. It's impossible to have bikes and cars on the same roads, just from a volume standpoint and putting aside safety considerations.





Yes strangely, we manage exactly that here in Cambridge, which does

have those levels of cycle use.



I was curious about your reply. We cycled through Cambridge way back in

1976, and I recalled amazing amounts of bicycling, with no obvious special

facilities. I wondered if it had changed much.





https://www.google.com/search?q=camb...cling&tbm=isch



Perusing google image search results, I don't see *any* examples

of bikes and cars sharing roads without separate facilities.



In fact, I have to say it looks kind of Dutch:



http://livecambridge.files.wordpress...ycle-track.jpg



http://www.transportxtra.com/files/4023-l.jpg



http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/



Are we even talking about the same Cambridge?



http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/



I remembered being impressed by lovely young ladies cycling in long skirts

and floppy hats...



snip







We're cyclists. We don't need no steenkin special lane:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kttyjT2YfQ



--

Andrew Muzi

www.yellowjersey.org/

Open every day since 1 April, 1971

We're bicyclists. We don't need to follow no rules! Check out 3:10 when the bicyclist nearly takes off a car mirror. Also around 7:35 when he ducksso as not to hit the mirrors on two stopped vehicles. How many red lights did they run in this videoÉ I lost count. These guys don`t seem to have any regard whatsoever for anyone else on the road or pedestrians. This video is a great example of why some drivers don't want bicycles on the road.

Cheers

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:59:27 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/16/2014 1:33 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:27:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:52:19 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:

jbeattie considered Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:23:54

-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



If you have a lot of bikes like Amsterdam, etc., then separate roads for bikes makes sense. It's impossible to have bikes and cars on the same roads, just from a volume standpoint and putting aside safety considerations.





Yes strangely, we manage exactly that here in Cambridge, which does

have those levels of cycle use.



I was curious about your reply. We cycled through Cambridge way back in

1976, and I recalled amazing amounts of bicycling, with no obvious special

facilities. I wondered if it had changed much.





https://www.google.com/search?q=camb...cling&tbm=isch



Perusing google image search results, I don't see *any* examples

of bikes and cars sharing roads without separate facilities.



In fact, I have to say it looks kind of Dutch:



http://livecambridge.files.wordpress...ycle-track.jpg



http://www.transportxtra.com/files/4023-l.jpg



http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/



Are we even talking about the same Cambridge?



http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/



I remembered being impressed by lovely young ladies cycling in long skirts

and floppy hats...



snip







We're cyclists. We don't need no steenkin special lane:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kttyjT2YfQ



--

Andrew Muzi

www.yellowjersey.org/

Open every day since 1 April, 1971

For absolute disregard for any others on the road check out "LINE OF SIGHT - LUCAS BRUNELLE" for a race with 150 fixed gear riders blowing red lights, riding wrong way on main roads and other behavious/stunts that really **** off everyone else on tthe roads.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0npCFw9TEnA

Cheers

On 4/16/2014 12:08 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:59:27 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/16/2014 1:33 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:27:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:52:19 PM UTC-4, Phil W Lee wrote:

jbeattie considered Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:23:54

-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:



If you have a lot of bikes like Amsterdam, etc., then separate roads for bikes makes sense. It's impossible to have bikes and cars on the same roads, just from a volume standpoint and putting aside safety considerations.





Yes strangely, we manage exactly that here in Cambridge, which does

have those levels of cycle use.



I was curious about your reply. We cycled through Cambridge way back in

1976, and I recalled amazing amounts of bicycling, with no obvious special

facilities. I wondered if it had changed much.





https://www.google.com/search?q=camb...cling&tbm=isch



Perusing google image search results, I don't see *any* examples

of bikes and cars sharing roads without separate facilities.



In fact, I have to say it looks kind of Dutch:



http://livecambridge.files.wordpress...ycle-track.jpg



http://www.transportxtra.com/files/4023-l.jpg



http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/



Are we even talking about the same Cambridge?



http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/



I remembered being impressed by lovely young ladies cycling in long skirts

and floppy hats...



snip







We're cyclists. We don't need no steenkin special lane:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kttyjT2YfQ



--

Andrew Muzi

www.yellowjersey.org/

Open every day since 1 April, 1971

We're bicyclists. We don't need to follow no rules! Check out 3:10 when the bicyclist nearly takes off a car mirror. Also around 7:35 when he ducksso as not to hit the mirrors on two stopped vehicles. How many red lights did they run in this videoÉ I lost count. These guys don`t seem to have any regard whatsoever for anyone else on the road or pedestrians. This video is a great example of why some drivers don't want bicycles on the road.

Cheers


I wasn't advocating being a jerk on two wheels and I don't
ride like that myself.

That being said, and considering the images linked by other
contributors, people find their way in a sometimes amazingly
creative manner without mommy at the planning commission
dictating every man's path.

Let a thousand flowers, and cyclists, bloom.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:14:40 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

snip

For absolute disregard for any others on the road check out "LINE OF SIGHT - LUCAS BRUNELLE" for a race with 150 fixed gear riders blowing red lights, riding wrong way on main roads and other behavious/stunts that really **** off everyone else on tthe roads.


Not *everyone* ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0npCFw9TEnA


GUMBALL!

(I only watched the first two minutes, but *thanks* for the link
'cause now I have something exciting to watch later.)

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:39:29 AM UTC-7, Phil W Lee wrote:

On 4/16/2014 1:33 AM, Dan O wrote:

https://www.google.com/search?q=camb...cling&tbm=isch

Perusing google image search results, I don't see *any* examples
of bikes and cars sharing roads without separate facilities.

In fact, I have to say it looks kind of Dutch:

http://livecambridge.files.wordpress...ycle-track.jpg

http://www.transportxtra.com/files/4023-l.jpg

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/cycling20...ingforcycling/

Are we even talking about the same Cambridge?

snip redundant link

Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA_Crc67SAM

or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MYp0ZTAt8


I'm stunned.

In the full eleven minutes of the second video, I think we encounter
about a dozen moving cars. Bicyclists and pedestrians dominate
traffic. Cool!

(In my part of the world, paved bike routes that are closed to
cars and trucks are considered special facilties.)

Anyway, I entered this thread when James mentioned places with decades
of experience building bicycle infrastructure, and I mentioned Corvallis,
Oregon, USA (also a University town), where I grew up decades ago with
bicycle infrastructure. I mentioned how most roads there today are
Frank's "ordinary roads", but having achieved and sustained critical
mass of ridership (Corvallis was the #1 city for bicycle commuting mode
share in 2010 US Census), motorist attitudes are accommodating.

Cambridge appears to have some unique factors, but does not appear to
eschew bicycle specific infrastructure. Even your post about the
"epic fail" facility that they removed is part of the ongoing decades
of experience that make for the best places in the world to be a
transportation bicyclist.

snip