|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
|
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
On Feb 1, 2:28*pm, (Bill Z.) wrote:
Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to weave around cars spread out all across the lane. Bill...a scant quarter mile from my house the bike lane is completely obliterated by cars forcing me and every other cyclist into the 'regular' lane as they wait to get onto the metered freeway entrance, also in Silicon Valley. So why did they bother to paint those bike lanes? Motorists routinely ignore them when it is perceived as 'inconvenient', they might lose their precious place in the queue. And you talk of sharrows? How can you share with people who want it ALL? Personally, I think there is no solution, and won't be until the OIL RUNS OUT! Used to be you could count on the goodwill of strangers in our country, but now...don't forget what happened to Blanche DuBois. ABS |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Bill Zaumen wrote:
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. We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven (pun intended) by emotion. 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. [Yawn] Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of us live in California!!! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
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.... What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation during the license suspension period. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
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.... I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the "bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road". People of that type should have their motor vehicle license revoked for at least 5 years. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Bill Zaumen wrote:
... LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic engineering matter.... Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own space. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Tom Sherman wrote:
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.... What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation during the license suspension period. I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway. Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
Eric Vey wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote: 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.... What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation during the license suspension period. I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway. Around here, many do not have licenses - generally they run from the police, ditch the unlicensed and/or stolen car, and try to escape on foot. They are not to blame, since they are what the system wants them to be, a permanent underclass. Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail." Yet another undesirable group in Florida? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people." - A. Derleth |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote: 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.... I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the "bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road". MMMOOOOOOMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY The big kids are pickin' on me again. Cliff |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City
|
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 |