|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... 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. Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights improve. Cliff |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
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). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
CJ who? wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... 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. Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights improve. Wrong on both counts. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
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. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Obstructions | [email protected] | Techniques | 336 | October 18th 11 01:11 AM |
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City | Mike Jacoubowsky | General | 201 | February 9th 08 05:36 PM |
Station St bike lane Bonbeach: cars parked in bike lane | AndrewJ | Australia | 8 | March 30th 06 10:37 AM |
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 |