Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
large onea.
I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
elusive parking space.
Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.


Bill, I've been to SF. I rode a bicycle and I walked a lot there
during the late '80's and early 90's in the three months I was there
trying to catch a ship to the far east. You have no idea how bad it
can be. Until I moved back here, I had no idea it can be.

Well, I've lived in the area for quite some time. Now, lots of people
run red lights, but it is generally during the first few seconds
after the signal change. It has nothing to do with vehicle size as
you guys (or at least Tom) claimed. Most of the bicyclists ran the
lights too and the pedestrians jaywalked with abandon. The idea that
it was some sort of driver thing is ludicrous.

Now that I live in Orlando again, I know how bad it can be. They don't
have cameras set up at red lights here. They set one up as a test and
saw 2700 red light runners in 2.5 months.

http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html

And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.

I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with
one foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the
rear. Didn't even slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do
you think I am making this up?

Nope, but I think Tom is making up the part about it being a "big
car versus small car/bicycle" thing.


Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
what exactly do you think they mean?

That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.

I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Feb 3, 9:12 am, Dan Connelly
wrote:

"But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible."

I understand that most cyclists like bike lanes... or think they do.
And most non-cyclists, or "I would if only..." quasi-cyclists like
bike lanes.

I believe that's because most of those people have never thought about
the negatives, since they've never been told about the negatives. All
they've heard is "Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful..." promotion of the
idea.

I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
there are problems with separate bike lanes."

He immediately admitted that was true, and others asked me for
details. When I explained the shortcomings, there were lots of "Oh, I
never thought about that" remarks (including from the civil engineer
in the group). Meanwhile, the speaker backpedaled furiously, saying
"Well, understand, this is just an example..."

My spin detector just went off. What *really* happened at this
meeting?

Bill Z. wrote:


Well, I've lived in the area for quite some time. Now, lots of people
run red lights, but it is generally during the first few seconds
after the signal change. It has nothing to do with vehicle size as
you guys (or at least Tom) claimed. Most of the bicyclists ran the
lights too and the pedestrians jaywalked with abandon. The idea that
it was some sort of driver thing is ludicrous.

See, here it's all about SUV's because they out number cars two-to-one.
Bicyclists aren't even counted as running lights because they would
amount to .001 of one percent of the traffic. And the only way
pedestrians have a hope of crossing is to "jay walk" between
intersections because to try and cross at an intersection is stupid.
When you press the button here, the light changes (eventually) and cars
are making right and left turns in the crossing zone. So most people
don't bother. They dash for the middle and dash again. That's what I do.

Now that I live in Orlando again, I know how bad it can be. They don't
have cameras set up at red lights here. They set one up as a test and
saw 2700 red light runners in 2.5 months.

http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html

And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.

Not so. They ruled out the first five seconds. But you would know that
had you bothered to read the article.



I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with
one foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the
rear. Didn't even slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do
you think I am making this up?

Nope, but I think Tom is making up the part about it being a "big
car versus small car/bicycle" thing.

So you think that people *do not* buy SUV's to feel safer?


Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
what exactly do you think they mean?

That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.

Bill, the California sun has gotten to your brain and cooked it. Are you
sure you don't live in So. Ca, cause you sure sound like it.

I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.

Oh. Okay, what do I know? I just report the news, I don't make it.

Eric Vey wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.
And under California street law?
What's that?

Street law is what happens in real life.
You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".

You can't be serious....

Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.


Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason that
they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit "anything",
they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a Honda runs a
red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa and pity the
Honda driver.

Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to muscle
me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in driving
aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.

If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.

Yes, a lot of people will try to close gaps to prevent lane changes as
soon as they see a turn signal. If they do this to someone in a 1 to 1½
ton car, what will they do to a 0.1 ton cyclist and bicycle?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bill Zaumen wrote:
vey writes:

Tom Sherman wrote:
Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Street law is what happens in real life.
You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
You can't be serious....

Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.

Indeed. People in the larger cities keep telling me that the reason
that they drive a SUV is because they are safer. They can hit
"anything", they say, and be safer than if they were in a Honda. If a
Honda runs a red light and T-Bones them, they will be safe; vice-versa
and pity the Honda driver.

They'll tell you they feel safer because that sounds like a good
justification for owning a dinosaur - so they won't seem so dumb
given what they have to pay to fill up the gas tank. While people
may buy them for all sorts of reasons, that has little to do with
what they tell you. With current gas prices, I bet a lot of SUV
owners wished they had bought a more fuel efficient car.

Then they go on, "And besides, when I drive a SVU nobody tries to
muscle me out of the way, but I can." Uh, "muscle" as in push as in
driving aggressively to push in and pull out of traffic.

Odd that I don't have a problem with these SUV drivers trying
to "muscle" me out of the way when driving in San Francisco.

If Bill Z. doesn't get that message I guess we will have to send it by
telegram because that is where he is . . . way behind the times.

Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
large onea.

Ever drive in Chicago?

I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
elusive parking space.

Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.

Mmmm..., lunch.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bill Zaumen wrote:
vey writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
vey writes:

Reality - most people, including in cities, don't drive that way.
The overly aggressive drives use all sorts of vehicles, not just
large onea.
I'd much rather drive in places like San Francisco in my little
compact car. It pays off big time when looking for that ever so
elusive parking space.
Both of you, however, are simply out to lunch.

Bill, I've been to SF. I rode a bicycle and I walked a lot there
during the late '80's and early 90's in the three months I was there
trying to catch a ship to the far east. You have no idea how bad it
can be. Until I moved back here, I had no idea it can be.

Well, I've lived in the area for quite some time. Now, lots of people
run red lights, but it is generally during the first few seconds
after the signal change. It has nothing to do with vehicle size as
you guys (or at least Tom) claimed. Most of the bicyclists ran the
lights too and the pedestrians jaywalked with abandon. The idea that
it was some sort of driver thing is ludicrous.

Now that I live in Orlando again, I know how bad it can be. They don't
have cameras set up at red lights here. They set one up as a test and
saw 2700 red light runners in 2.5 months.

http://www.wftv.com/news/6791504/detail.html

And if you include data about how far into the red phase the light
running went, you'll find that it is just a few seconds in most cases.

I have been on my bike waiting patiently for a light to change with
one foot on the curb, only to hear a car approach from the
rear. Didn't even slow down as it sailed through the intersection. Do
you think I am making this up?

Nope, but I think Tom is making up the part about it being a "big
car versus small car/bicycle" thing.

I think Zaumen is making things up now. I was comparing the relative
relationship of cyclists and buses to passenger motor vehicles. That
comparison is valid in any place where there is a curb lane marked for
"Bicycles and Buses Only".

Bill, we people tell me that they want to be safe from the Hondas,
what exactly do you think they mean?

That either you are making it all up or they don't want to admit
to making a dumb decision when they bought their gas guzzler.

I've yet to hear someone say "I bought an SUV to be safe from
Hondas". They may think they'll be safer in a crash if they are
in something that looks like a tank, but that doesn't mean they
want to use the vehicle as a battering ram.

No, because they know that cyclists will get out of their way (unless
the cyclist has a death wish). Wanting to hit cyclists is a totally
different matter than just wanting to intimidate them with mass.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Eric Vey wrote:
...
See, here it's all about SUV's because they out number cars two-to-one.
Bicyclists aren't even counted as running lights because they would
amount to .001 of one percent of the traffic. And the only way
pedestrians have a hope of crossing is to "jay walk" between
intersections because to try and cross at an intersection is stupid.
When you press the button here, the light changes (eventually) and cars
are making right and left turns in the crossing zone. So most people
don't bother. They dash for the middle and dash again. That's what I do.
...
Note to self - do not move to Orlando. That makes Chicago sound civilized.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.
And under California street law?
What's that?

Street law is what happens in real life.
You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

No, street law is "I win since I can easily kill you with my vehicle"
or "other stay out of my way because my vehicle is huge".
You can't be serious....

Time to join the real world. People drive that way all the time,
especially in the larger cities.

Given how much you make up, I'm not going to take your pronouncements
seriously.

What have I made up?

Come here and drive in the 'hood, and see how you do. Hint: NEVER, EVER
MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER DRIVER.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
and immediate.
See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
a judge and jury if there is a fatality.

Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?
Accidents can have witnesses.

And juries that are usually cagers and seldom cyclists. Same for the police.
Conspiracy theory.

Reality, based on juries being somewhat representative of the
population as a whole.

Conspiracy theory.
snip

Wrong again - about the logical interpretation as buses do get into
accidents with other vehicles and drivers have been known to cut off
much larger vehicles. Usually it is not malice but inattentiveness.

Drive in a city much, Bill? Five to ten incidents per hour of people
deliberately violating others right-of-way because they think they can
get away with it is common.

Is that your way of deflecting attention from the fact that you make
your thing about buses up? You claimed people did not violate a
bus' right of way because it was so much bigger. I pointed out that
at they do things like cutting off buses, mostly due to inattentiveness
(it's not like they think they'll come out OK in an accident, so
inattentiveness is the most reaonable explanation).

Does honking the horn and "flipping the bird" at the cyclist also come
from inattentiveness after cutting off the cyclist?

Do motorists deliberately play chicken with the bus, considering the
consequences?

Time for Bill Zaumen to get out in the real world.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Eric Vey wrote:

Continuing my reading of recent cases concerning vehicular homicide, I
see that there has been a bit of a recent shift. Juries in the more
populous counties are happy to convict (unlike what we have been told).

Prosecutors have been more likely to prosecute than in many a year.
Judges, on the other hand, are more likely to see crashes as careless
rather than reckless, but Prosecutors have been taking those cases up on
appeal and, once again, in more populous areas, have been winning their
appeals. This would not have happened even five years ago.

Still, it can take up to a year before charges are brought. On Friday, I
asked about a crash that happened in October. "What case number?" they
asked me. I gave them a quick description and they said that there was
no case because no one had been arrested and no charges had been filed.
I filed a formal inquiry as to what is going on because this one is a
slam-dunk conviction.

It is pretty sad when a concerned citizen like me is the only one that
can get things going.

Well, it is reported that the tactic of pressuring DA's to prosecute at
fault automobile drivers worked for motorcycle organizations [1], so it
appears that bicyclists need to adopt the same tactic.

[1] At least the 99%ers.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth