Making "protected" bike lanes safe

On 4/11/2019 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:15:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/11/2019 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:36:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Oh, you're not an American obviously. If you were from the USA you would know that Interstates are only for motor vehicles. Bicycles are not allowed on Interstates.

Well, I've got a U.S. passport, or aren't USians considered
"Americans" these days?

And Yes, I do know about "Interstate" highways and we have generally
the same thing here, 6 or 8 lane highways with limited, in the sense
that there aren't many, access but here they can be used by anyone.
Then we have "toll Roads" which are normally restricted to 4 or more
wheel vehicles.


I doubt if you have a USA passport or are an American citizen. Or have not spent much if any time in the USA. YOU wrote "Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle only lanes." And I wrote that Americans, citizens of the USA, know that the USA has Interstates that are only for motor vehicles. Exactly what you suggested in your written comments. No one from the USA would suggest building motor vehicle only lanes because every American already knows they exist. About as stupid and ignorant a comment as suggesting "Lets build the Eiffel Tower." Obviously, the Eiffel Tower was already built. Just like motor vehicle only Interstates have already been built in the USA. So why suggest something that is already in operation? Are you going to suggest traffic lights and stop signs next?


Mr Slocumb, retired USAF, probably intended that as humor.

Cynicism, cynicism.

It is difficult to be humorous about the small minority of the
population who ride bicycles for pleasure and almost certainly own an
automobile in addition to their bicycle, demanding special treatment
at tax payer's expense..

Who resist any and all suggestions that they should provide proof of
riding ability and knowledge of traffic before riding on public roads,
that froth at the mouth at the thought that, like other users of
public roads, they should "register" their vehicles or have their
vehicles inspected to see that the vehicles are safe to use on public
highways and that knowingly disobey traffic laws, That generally act
as though they are 6 years old trundling their little bicycle, with
the training wheels, up and down the family driveway, but demand the
right to use public roads.

I assume you know that many of us posting here don't share the attitudes
you complain about.

However, I do object to some of your ideas. We can discuss, mostly in
terms of cost vs. benefit. As one example, I've lived in two or three
cities with bike registrations - sometimes supposedly mandatory,
sometimes voluntary. Turns out it was never worth the bureaucracy and
expense.

This is a discussion group. We can discuss.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/11/2019 4:20 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:


I live in a metro area that suddenly lost its major industry, which
was making steel. After that we lost a major electrical component
manufacturer (Delphi) when GM decided to make wiring harnesses in
Mexico. And we just lost a huge GM assembly plant in Lordstown,
despite the Trumpster saying "Don't sell your houses. Steel is coming
back, manufacturing is coming back..."

Yeah, Tom's got lovely weather, Jay's got views of Mt. Hood. Your home
values (and your taxes) are soaring to the stratosphere. But I've got
nice empty roads!

That works if you're retired. You can hang out and play the banjo all day.

No I can't! I have to leave time for bike rides!

(Actually, banjo is one instrument I rarely try to play. That's partly
because the house banjo actually belongs to my wife.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/11/2019 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:03:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2019 10:43 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:17:14 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

And where does it end, and at what public expense? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/63...568b113132.jpg And what is the net benefit to cyclists? Segregated facilities can be a nightmare with high traffic volumes -- apart from the cleaning issues.

What I never understood about the SCV was why people weren't riding back when I commuted everywhere in the '70s and early '80s. I didn't even own a car for most of that time. Sunny weather, wide streets, moderate traffic volumes -- probably way better than now, and nobody rode to work. I assume ridership has increased and that the cities can justify the expense of special facilities.

-- Jay Beattie.

Was that a bridge across a Freeway?

If you're referring to the photo Jay linked, I believe it's a conceptual
drawing for a really, really safe bike facility. It's an elevated tube
with weather protection, only for bicyclists. It would be really,
really, really safe.

But Jay is negligent in promoting that version! Anyone can see that the
eastbound cyclists can crash into the westbound ones. When, oh when,
will we realize we need two parallel tubes everywhere - for safety???

Of course there are problems with roads everywhere. Along the beach in Alameda they tried putting the bike lane two way along the beach side. This puts the parking lane outside.

So people park and throw their doors open into traffic. And passengers throw their doors open into the bike lane. And the two way traffic on the bike lane puts Joe Pretend Racer one the same path that a 3 year old on a balance bike is riding. Can you see any practical way of improving it?

Jay's tubular bike path - or actually, the much better twin-tube version
- will go a long way toward _finally_ making biking safe...

Until we can build an entire parallel universe for bike riders. Take
heart, safety fans! Elon Musk is working on it!

What you really need is a separate tax structure for cyclists, to pay
for their special paths.

And if we don't want to use the "special paths," we don't have to pay?
Fine by me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:55:15 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:33:38 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:25:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 8:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 1:01:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
For six or seven years, the loudest and best financed bike lobbying organizations
have been saying we need "protected" bike lanes everywhere. They say it's
obviously inadequate to have just a paint stripe separating bikes from cars; we
need at _least_ posts, and preferably a line of parked cars. You know, so the
bicyclists are totally hidden from motorists until the motorist crosses the bike
lane to access a street or driveway.

Segregation skeptics have been saying for just as long that the "protection"
vanishes precisely where the conflicts are worse. And the design adds new
surprises to traffic interactions. Surprises in traffic are NOT good.

And there have been crashes, just as predicted. A mile of "protected" bike lane
put in Columbus, Ohio a few years ago went from 1.5 car-bike crashes per year
to 13 crashes (IIRC) in the year it was installed.

And here's the latest one:
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/0...e-mixing-zone/

The solution? "Protected" intersections everywhere! https://vimeo.com/86721046

I haven't seen any cost estimates for this new cycling nirvana. That would be
interesting.

- Frank Krygowski

Bike lanes have sufficient "protection" by lines on the street. In
many places you have broken glass in the lane and you have to pull
out into the full lane. Yesterday there were heavy gusting winds and on the
downhills I had to use the entire lane to be able to retain full control.

The problem with far too many painted strip bike lanes is that they
put the bicyclist smack dab in the door zone of parked cars. I've
seen bike lanes that go partway onto the on ramp of a 100 kph 60
mph highway where bicycles are NOT permitted. The problem is that
any motorist using such an on ramp does NOT expect to see a
bicyclist there. I use the through traffic lane in those areas and
ignore the painted bicycle lane entirely.

That's also not to mention painted bicycle lanes that end suddenly
especially those that do it on a downhill.

Cheers

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Or just let the bicycles share the lane with the motor vehicles?

It's legal here. It's what I do. It works. Remember, I'm the guy who
doesn't have cars cut across my path, despite the lack of magic DRLs.

Well, I had supposed that building bike lanes was actually beneficial
to the cyclist. Otherwise why would your duly elected leaders build
them? Rather like the great Wall of America that your leader is intent
on building will make the U.S. safe from those poor misbegotten people
in South America.

Strangely we don't have those things here and I don't find it
difficult to ride here :-) In fact, as I have written, the only time I
have felt in real danger was when I ran a stop sign and someone was
coming the other way. It was a three way cross and I didn't see anyone
so just kept going.... I hadn't noticed a pickup which came over the
brow of a little rise. I went off the road (very quickly) and crashed
in a bed of nettles :-)

Don't be obtuse. Nearly everyone here likes immigrants, who
are not the same as illegal entries. Even loopy-left Trudeau
understand that problem:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47874012

An interesting statement as I read at
www.christianpost.com that:

Average Americans believe that immigrants have had more of a negative
than beneficial impact on the crime rate, the economy, social and
moral values, and job opportunities, according to the recent Gallup
poll.

The survey, conducted June 4-24 and released Friday, showed that 58
percent of Americans believe the crime situation is worst because of
immigrants, while 46 percent say this people group has negatively
impacted the economy in general.
--
cheers,

John B.



Christianpost.com? Give me a ****ing break.


Why, can you deny that the Christians are some of the most impartial
and unprejudiced folks in the history of mankind?
--



You mean like the crusaders?



--
duane

On 4/11/2019 8:34 PM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:55:15 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:33:38 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:25:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 8:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 1:01:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
For six or seven years, the loudest and best financed bike lobbying organizations
have been saying we need "protected" bike lanes everywhere. They say it's
obviously inadequate to have just a paint stripe separating bikes from cars; we
need at _least_ posts, and preferably a line of parked cars. You know, so the
bicyclists are totally hidden from motorists until the motorist crosses the bike
lane to access a street or driveway.

Segregation skeptics have been saying for just as long that the "protection"
vanishes precisely where the conflicts are worse. And the design adds new
surprises to traffic interactions. Surprises in traffic are NOT good.

And there have been crashes, just as predicted. A mile of "protected" bike lane
put in Columbus, Ohio a few years ago went from 1.5 car-bike crashes per year
to 13 crashes (IIRC) in the year it was installed.

And here's the latest one:
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/0...e-mixing-zone/

The solution? "Protected" intersections everywhere! https://vimeo.com/86721046

I haven't seen any cost estimates for this new cycling nirvana. That would be
interesting.

- Frank Krygowski

Bike lanes have sufficient "protection" by lines on the street. In
many places you have broken glass in the lane and you have to pull
out into the full lane. Yesterday there were heavy gusting winds and on the
downhills I had to use the entire lane to be able to retain full control.

The problem with far too many painted strip bike lanes is that they
put the bicyclist smack dab in the door zone of parked cars. I've
seen bike lanes that go partway onto the on ramp of a 100 kph 60
mph highway where bicycles are NOT permitted. The problem is that
any motorist using such an on ramp does NOT expect to see a
bicyclist there. I use the through traffic lane in those areas and
ignore the painted bicycle lane entirely.

That's also not to mention painted bicycle lanes that end suddenly
especially those that do it on a downhill.

Cheers

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Or just let the bicycles share the lane with the motor vehicles?

It's legal here. It's what I do. It works. Remember, I'm the guy who
doesn't have cars cut across my path, despite the lack of magic DRLs.

Well, I had supposed that building bike lanes was actually beneficial
to the cyclist. Otherwise why would your duly elected leaders build
them? Rather like the great Wall of America that your leader is intent
on building will make the U.S. safe from those poor misbegotten people
in South America.

Strangely we don't have those things here and I don't find it
difficult to ride here :-) In fact, as I have written, the only time I
have felt in real danger was when I ran a stop sign and someone was
coming the other way. It was a three way cross and I didn't see anyone
so just kept going.... I hadn't noticed a pickup which came over the
brow of a little rise. I went off the road (very quickly) and crashed
in a bed of nettles :-)

Don't be obtuse. Nearly everyone here likes immigrants, who
are not the same as illegal entries. Even loopy-left Trudeau
understand that problem:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47874012

An interesting statement as I read at
www.christianpost.com that:

Average Americans believe that immigrants have had more of a negative
than beneficial impact on the crime rate, the economy, social and
moral values, and job opportunities, according to the recent Gallup
poll.

The survey, conducted June 4-24 and released Friday, showed that 58
percent of Americans believe the crime situation is worst because of
immigrants, while 46 percent say this people group has negatively
impacted the economy in general.
--
cheers,

John B.



Christianpost.com? Give me a ****ing break.


Why, can you deny that the Christians are some of the most impartial
and unprejudiced folks in the history of mankind?
--



You mean like the crusaders?




Not so simple an example. That began with harassment of
pilgrims and the Orthodox church else Europeans would not
have bothered.

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

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:57:49 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2019 7:00 PM, AK wrote:
On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 10:16:45 AM UTC-5, Radey Shouman wrote:
" writes:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 6:48:01 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 1:01:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
For six or seven years, the loudest and best financed bike
lobbying organizations
have been saying we need "protected" bike lanes
everywhere. They say it's
obviously inadequate to have just a paint stripe separating
bikes from cars; we
need at _least_ posts, and preferably a line of parked
cars. You know, so the
bicyclists are totally hidden from motorists until the motorist
crosses the bike
lane to access a street or driveway.

Segregation skeptics have been saying for just as long that the
"protection"
vanishes precisely where the conflicts are worse. And the
design adds new
surprises to traffic interactions. Surprises in traffic are NOT good.

And there have been crashes, just as predicted. A mile of
"protected" bike lane
put in Columbus, Ohio a few years ago went from 1.5 car-bike
crashes per year
to 13 crashes (IIRC) in the year it was installed.

And here's the latest one:
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/0...e-mixing-zone/

The solution? "Protected" intersections everywhere!
https://vimeo.com/86721046

I haven't seen any cost estimates for this new cycling
nirvana. That would be
interesting.

- Frank Krygowski

Bike lanes have sufficient "protection" by lines on the
street. In many places you have broken glass in the lane and you
have to pull out into the full lane. Yesterday there were heavy
gusting winds and on the downhills I had to use the entire lane
to be able to retain full control.

The problem with far too many painted strip bike lanes is that they
put the bicyclist smack dab in the door zone of parked cars. I've
seen bike lanes that go partway onto the on ramp of a 100 kph 60
mph highway where bicycles are NOT permitted. The problem is that
any motorist using such an on ramp does NOT expect to see a
bicyclist there. I use the through traffic lane in those areas and
ignore the painted bicycle lane entirely.

That's also not to mention painted bicycle lanes that end suddenly
especially those that do it on a downhill.

Cheers

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Oh, you're not an American obviously. If you were from the USA you
would know that Interstates are only for motor vehicles. Bicycles are
not allowed on Interstates.

That's actually up to the individual states. Bicycles are allowed on
quite a few western interstates, and, according to Wikipedia, all of them in
Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-...ss_on_freeways

You have to have a death wish to ride a bike on a freeway.

Don't you mean "Danger! Danger!" ?

In my experience, it was noisy but very safe, at least out in the
western U.S. Traffic was usually pretty light. Almost everyone changed
to the inner lane to pass us.

My ladies especially liked that the tractor trailer rigs were all
pulling tailwinds behind them. We wished more of them did not change
lanes, so the brief draft would be stronger.

Oh, and lots and lots of them tooted their horns in greeting as we rode
along. My daughter was giving them the universal "Honk your horn" sign,
pulling down on an imaginary train whistle control. I think they may
have been discussing our presence over their radios.

It does help to be riding with two cute ladies.

I habitually ride on what might be considered a free way - 4 - 6 lane
limited access highway with a median strip usually 6 or 8 feet of
grass or sometimes a solid fence or wall, with traffic traveling in
excess, normally, of 100 KpH.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 21:02:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2019 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 16:15:03 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/11/2019 2:52 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 11:16:40 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 20:36:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Oh, you're not an American obviously. If you were from the USA you would know that Interstates are only for motor vehicles. Bicycles are not allowed on Interstates.

Well, I've got a U.S. passport, or aren't USians considered
"Americans" these days?

And Yes, I do know about "Interstate" highways and we have generally
the same thing here, 6 or 8 lane highways with limited, in the sense
that there aren't many, access but here they can be used by anyone.
Then we have "toll Roads" which are normally restricted to 4 or more
wheel vehicles.


I doubt if you have a USA passport or are an American citizen. Or have not spent much if any time in the USA. YOU wrote "Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle only lanes." And I wrote that Americans, citizens of the USA, know that the USA has Interstates that are only for motor vehicles. Exactly what you suggested in your written comments. No one from the USA would suggest building motor vehicle only lanes because every American already knows they exist. About as stupid and ignorant a comment as suggesting "Lets build the Eiffel Tower." Obviously, the Eiffel Tower was already built. Just like motor vehicle only Interstates have already been built in the USA. So why suggest something that is already in operation? Are you going to suggest traffic lights and stop signs next?


Mr Slocumb, retired USAF, probably intended that as humor.

Cynicism, cynicism.

It is difficult to be humorous about the small minority of the
population who ride bicycles for pleasure and almost certainly own an
automobile in addition to their bicycle, demanding special treatment
at tax payer's expense..

Who resist any and all suggestions that they should provide proof of
riding ability and knowledge of traffic before riding on public roads,
that froth at the mouth at the thought that, like other users of
public roads, they should "register" their vehicles or have their
vehicles inspected to see that the vehicles are safe to use on public
highways and that knowingly disobey traffic laws, That generally act
as though they are 6 years old trundling their little bicycle, with
the training wheels, up and down the family driveway, but demand the
right to use public roads.

I assume you know that many of us posting here don't share the attitudes
you complain about.

However, I do object to some of your ideas. We can discuss, mostly in
terms of cost vs. benefit. As one example, I've lived in two or three
cities with bike registrations - sometimes supposedly mandatory,
sometimes voluntary. Turns out it was never worth the bureaucracy and
expense.

This is a discussion group. We can discuss.


Frank, I've read your posts where you said (admitted?) to running a
stop sign or light. I read here the anguished outcries when someone
talked about licensing bicycles. I've seen people riding a "fixie" in
Bangkok traffic, a bike with no brakes at all and even Sheldon
mentions those who ride a fixie on the road with no brakes. We had a
bloke here some years ago that used to talk about pulling wheelies on
public roads. There have been innumerable stories about miserable.
lousy brakes but a suggestion for safety inspections is unacceptable.
.. We had a discussion fairly recently about bicycles paying road tax
and the group was solidly against it - buy a bike and use the roads
free? I read that something like 50% of bicycle accidents are solo
accidents but the thought of some sort of test to ensure that the
cyclist is responsible, competent, and does know the highway laws is
abhorrent to all. I read people talking about "taking the lane" and
"my lane" as though they were guaranteed a lane for their own... but
every state I've driven in has had, as part of the highway code, a
rule that one should not impede other traffic.

I could go on... and on.... and on.






--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 21:08:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2019 6:19 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 12:03:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2019 10:43 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 9:17:14 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

And where does it end, and at what public expense? https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f6/63...568b113132.jpg And what is the net benefit to cyclists? Segregated facilities can be a nightmare with high traffic volumes -- apart from the cleaning issues.

What I never understood about the SCV was why people weren't riding back when I commuted everywhere in the '70s and early '80s. I didn't even own a car for most of that time. Sunny weather, wide streets, moderate traffic volumes -- probably way better than now, and nobody rode to work. I assume ridership has increased and that the cities can justify the expense of special facilities.

-- Jay Beattie.

Was that a bridge across a Freeway?

If you're referring to the photo Jay linked, I believe it's a conceptual
drawing for a really, really safe bike facility. It's an elevated tube
with weather protection, only for bicyclists. It would be really,
really, really safe.

But Jay is negligent in promoting that version! Anyone can see that the
eastbound cyclists can crash into the westbound ones. When, oh when,
will we realize we need two parallel tubes everywhere - for safety???

Of course there are problems with roads everywhere. Along the beach in Alameda they tried putting the bike lane two way along the beach side. This puts the parking lane outside.

So people park and throw their doors open into traffic. And passengers throw their doors open into the bike lane. And the two way traffic on the bike lane puts Joe Pretend Racer one the same path that a 3 year old on a balance bike is riding. Can you see any practical way of improving it?

Jay's tubular bike path - or actually, the much better twin-tube version
- will go a long way toward _finally_ making biking safe...

Until we can build an entire parallel universe for bike riders. Take
heart, safety fans! Elon Musk is working on it!

What you really need is a separate tax structure for cyclists, to pay
for their special paths.

And if we don't want to use the "special paths," we don't have to pay?
Fine by me.

Why ever not? After all, the idea of toll roads, where you pay to use
the highway, dates back at least 2.700 years and there are currently
"Toll Roads" all over the U.S. Ohio has the Ohio Turnpike that the
Wiki says you must pay $18.75 to drive on :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 01:34:15 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:55:15 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:33:38 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:25:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 8:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 1:01:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
For six or seven years, the loudest and best financed bike lobbying organizations
have been saying we need "protected" bike lanes everywhere. They say it's
obviously inadequate to have just a paint stripe separating bikes from cars; we
need at _least_ posts, and preferably a line of parked cars. You know, so the
bicyclists are totally hidden from motorists until the motorist crosses the bike
lane to access a street or driveway.

Segregation skeptics have been saying for just as long that the "protection"
vanishes precisely where the conflicts are worse. And the design adds new
surprises to traffic interactions. Surprises in traffic are NOT good.

And there have been crashes, just as predicted. A mile of "protected" bike lane
put in Columbus, Ohio a few years ago went from 1.5 car-bike crashes per year
to 13 crashes (IIRC) in the year it was installed.

And here's the latest one:
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/0...e-mixing-zone/

The solution? "Protected" intersections everywhere! https://vimeo.com/86721046

I haven't seen any cost estimates for this new cycling nirvana. That would be
interesting.

- Frank Krygowski

Bike lanes have sufficient "protection" by lines on the street. In
many places you have broken glass in the lane and you have to pull
out into the full lane. Yesterday there were heavy gusting winds and on the
downhills I had to use the entire lane to be able to retain full control.

The problem with far too many painted strip bike lanes is that they
put the bicyclist smack dab in the door zone of parked cars. I've
seen bike lanes that go partway onto the on ramp of a 100 kph 60
mph highway where bicycles are NOT permitted. The problem is that
any motorist using such an on ramp does NOT expect to see a
bicyclist there. I use the through traffic lane in those areas and
ignore the painted bicycle lane entirely.

That's also not to mention painted bicycle lanes that end suddenly
especially those that do it on a downhill.

Cheers

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Or just let the bicycles share the lane with the motor vehicles?

It's legal here. It's what I do. It works. Remember, I'm the guy who
doesn't have cars cut across my path, despite the lack of magic DRLs.

Well, I had supposed that building bike lanes was actually beneficial
to the cyclist. Otherwise why would your duly elected leaders build
them? Rather like the great Wall of America that your leader is intent
on building will make the U.S. safe from those poor misbegotten people
in South America.

Strangely we don't have those things here and I don't find it
difficult to ride here :-) In fact, as I have written, the only time I
have felt in real danger was when I ran a stop sign and someone was
coming the other way. It was a three way cross and I didn't see anyone
so just kept going.... I hadn't noticed a pickup which came over the
brow of a little rise. I went off the road (very quickly) and crashed
in a bed of nettles :-)

Don't be obtuse. Nearly everyone here likes immigrants, who
are not the same as illegal entries. Even loopy-left Trudeau
understand that problem:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47874012

An interesting statement as I read at
www.christianpost.com that:

Average Americans believe that immigrants have had more of a negative
than beneficial impact on the crime rate, the economy, social and
moral values, and job opportunities, according to the recent Gallup
poll.

The survey, conducted June 4-24 and released Friday, showed that 58
percent of Americans believe the crime situation is worst because of
immigrants, while 46 percent say this people group has negatively
impacted the economy in general.
--
cheers,

John B.



Christianpost.com? Give me a ****ing break.


Why, can you deny that the Christians are some of the most impartial
and unprejudiced folks in the history of mankind?
--



You mean like the crusaders?

My comment was in response to the chap that wrote "Christianpost.com?
Give me a ****ing break". I assumed that he must be anti Christian.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 20:49:08 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/11/2019 8:34 PM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 22:55:15 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:33:38 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/10/2019 10:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 21:25:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/10/2019 8:04 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 7:48:01 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 1:01:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 11:39:10 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
For six or seven years, the loudest and best financed bike lobbying organizations
have been saying we need "protected" bike lanes everywhere. They say it's
obviously inadequate to have just a paint stripe separating bikes from cars; we
need at _least_ posts, and preferably a line of parked cars. You know, so the
bicyclists are totally hidden from motorists until the motorist crosses the bike
lane to access a street or driveway.

Segregation skeptics have been saying for just as long that the "protection"
vanishes precisely where the conflicts are worse. And the design adds new
surprises to traffic interactions. Surprises in traffic are NOT good.

And there have been crashes, just as predicted. A mile of "protected" bike lane
put in Columbus, Ohio a few years ago went from 1.5 car-bike crashes per year
to 13 crashes (IIRC) in the year it was installed.

And here's the latest one:
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/04/0...e-mixing-zone/

The solution? "Protected" intersections everywhere! https://vimeo.com/86721046

I haven't seen any cost estimates for this new cycling nirvana. That would be
interesting.

- Frank Krygowski

Bike lanes have sufficient "protection" by lines on the street. In
many places you have broken glass in the lane and you have to pull
out into the full lane. Yesterday there were heavy gusting winds and on the
downhills I had to use the entire lane to be able to retain full control.

The problem with far too many painted strip bike lanes is that they
put the bicyclist smack dab in the door zone of parked cars. I've
seen bike lanes that go partway onto the on ramp of a 100 kph 60
mph highway where bicycles are NOT permitted. The problem is that
any motorist using such an on ramp does NOT expect to see a
bicyclist there. I use the through traffic lane in those areas and
ignore the painted bicycle lane entirely.

That's also not to mention painted bicycle lanes that end suddenly
especially those that do it on a downhill.

Cheers

Perhaps the solution is to go the other way and build motor vehicle
only lanes. This would do essentially the same thing as the bicycle
only lanes of separating the big fierce motor vehicles from the small
meek bicycles.
--
cheers,

John B.

Or just let the bicycles share the lane with the motor vehicles?

It's legal here. It's what I do. It works. Remember, I'm the guy who
doesn't have cars cut across my path, despite the lack of magic DRLs.

Well, I had supposed that building bike lanes was actually beneficial
to the cyclist. Otherwise why would your duly elected leaders build
them? Rather like the great Wall of America that your leader is intent
on building will make the U.S. safe from those poor misbegotten people
in South America.

Strangely we don't have those things here and I don't find it
difficult to ride here :-) In fact, as I have written, the only time I
have felt in real danger was when I ran a stop sign and someone was
coming the other way. It was a three way cross and I didn't see anyone
so just kept going.... I hadn't noticed a pickup which came over the
brow of a little rise. I went off the road (very quickly) and crashed
in a bed of nettles :-)

Don't be obtuse. Nearly everyone here likes immigrants, who
are not the same as illegal entries. Even loopy-left Trudeau
understand that problem:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47874012

An interesting statement as I read at
www.christianpost.com that:

Average Americans believe that immigrants have had more of a negative
than beneficial impact on the crime rate, the economy, social and
moral values, and job opportunities, according to the recent Gallup
poll.

The survey, conducted June 4-24 and released Friday, showed that 58
percent of Americans believe the crime situation is worst because of
immigrants, while 46 percent say this people group has negatively
impacted the economy in general.
--
cheers,

John B.



Christianpost.com? Give me a ****ing break.


Why, can you deny that the Christians are some of the most impartial
and unprejudiced folks in the history of mankind?
--



You mean like the crusaders?




Not so simple an example. That began with harassment of
pilgrims and the Orthodox church else Europeans would not
have bothered.


That is largely true but a bit of history seems to show that perhaps
the underlying reason for the middle-east crusades was largely
financial - to gain a kingdom. And yes, "he Poor Fellow-Soldiers of
Christ and of the Temple of Solomon" were formed in 1119 as a monastic
order for the protection of the pilgrims... And soon became one of
the, if not the, wealthiest organization(s) in the world (at that
time) which was basically their downfall.
..
--
cheers,

John B.