|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser wrote: Even in enlightened California, where I live and cycle, police interpretation of the law often differs from that of cyclists. In Santa Cruz a couple of weeks ago, the police chief told cyclists at a recent meeting that they would cite cyclists for impeding traffic if they take the lane on Mission Street, which has 11 foot lanes, and if the cyclist disagrees with that interpretation he invited them to take it to court for the judges to decide. Sheesh. That story was from May, 2008. Evolution does seem to be slow for you. As usual, this has nothing to do with bicycling tech. I live in Santa Crude and know something about the situation. Mission St is about 1.5 miles long and 3 lanes wide, with a center turn lane in places. I don't know the lane width but I know its sub-standard. It does have bike lanes in places, but not over the entire length. For cyclists, there are several parallel residential streets that are far safer than mixing with the cement trucks, buses, and tourists. Actually, I don't have much trouble riding on Mission St because the traffic is almost always bumper to bumper moving at about 10 mph. When it finally clears at night, it speeds up and becomes much more dangerous. There is one messy intersection, where Hwy 1 turns into Mission St, that requires cyclists to mix with traffic for about 20ft. There is an pedestrian overpass and a bike lane at this point, which leads to a parallel routes up King St or Bay St to the university. In other words, there's no good reason to "take the lane" unless you don't know about the alternate routes. If you look at the Google Maps of Mission St, you'll see that it's mostly State Hwy #1 for most of its length. http://goo.gl/maps/7Vd8 Note that it's NOT designates as a suitable bicycle route. Along Mission St is Mission Hill middle skool, with a substantial bicycle population. Standing orders to the kids is to not ride on Mission Street. The city seems to have the attitude that since it spends considerable effort and expense on bike lanes and traffic management, then one would expect cyclists to favor these safer routes. However, if cyclists prefer to ignore these efforts on their behalf, the city could easily find better use for the money. While this is not an official position, I've heard at mentioned unofficially at a meeting by a former city council member. http://sccrtc.org/services/bike/ I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A cyclist should have a right to the road, period. And if we rode only what Google liked, we couldn't get to 90% of the places we might need to ride. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:21:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A cyclist should have a right to the road, period. And if we rode only what Google liked, we couldn't get to 90% of the places we might need to ride. As I indicated, that's not the official policy, probably because it's not politically correct and would surely precipitate yet another Critical Mass ride down Mission St in protest. You're absolutely correct from the standpoint of the bicycle rider. The law says you have the rite-o-weight on the city streets. Therefore you be allowed to exercise that right, no matter the side effects. However, if you switch sides for a moment, and place yourself in the position of the traffic planners, it makes little sense. Why should the city spend time and money on bicycle lanes, bicycle paths, parallel routes, signage, cyclist edukation, and alternative transportation promotion, when the riders then choose to ignore the new facilities and proceed to put themselves at risk while continuing to snarl traffic? I don't think it's possible to make every road completely safe for cyclists. In many cases, the bike lanes are at best a bad joke. So, why not do what you've advocated in the past, and provide seperate bicycle and vehicle traffic routes? To the local planners, that means leaving Mission Street to the vehicles and parallel King and High Streets mostly to the cyclists, with bike paths on both sides of the roadway. As for Google, I have no idea where they get their bicycle maps. Probably directly from the various minicipalities noting streets that have bicycle lanes. As usual, such things tend to err on the side of caution. It would not do well if Google marked Mission Street as suitable for bicycle traffic, when it more closely resembles a hazzard. Santa Cruz City Bicycle Map: http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2010-bike-map-cityside.pdf It's difficult to read on the screen as it's designed to be printed at 24"x36". I did a cut-n-paste on the area in question to: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mission-St.jpg Red = Bicycle Lane Green = Bicycle Path Purple = Bicycle alternate route Note the box towards the left of the map that says: Mission Street is heavily travelled. Use alternate routes. Argh... customer arrived bearing checkbook. More later... -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On 07-02-2012 17:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A cyclist should have a right to the road, period. As one safety PSA said, "You could be right. Dead right." There's more to (whatever) than just the law. A few years ago, I was a witness for the plaintiff in a civil case. The judge said, "I am concerned about the violation of the covenants, but if I find for the plaintiff, I have to write a report etc. etc. and I am supposed to be on a plane to Florida in three hours. So I find for the defense." Afterward, I asked the plaintiff's lawyer, "Did he actually say ON THE RECORD that he doesn't intend to do his job?" The lawyer shrugged and said something like "Yeah, but what can you do?" Fifteen years ago, I had to evict a tenant who owed several months rent. The lease clearly said (as most do) that when something like that happens, the tenant also pays the legal fees. The judge read the lease, but ordered that the tenant had to pay ONE month's rent and get out. That amount would have have barely paid the lawyer if I had ever actually received it. -- Wes Groleau He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still. — Samuel Butler, 1612-1680 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:54:33 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
Cruiser Philosopher" wrote: On Jul 2, 7:57 pm, liaM wrote: Le 03/07/2012 01:50, cyclist a écrit : Roadway position [§316.2065(5)] A person operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic under the conditions existing must ride as close as practicable [safe] to the roadway’s right-hand curb or edge, except under any of the following situations: • when passing another vehicle • when making a left turn • when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including (but not limited to), a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, surface hazard • when a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side. These are mighty fine to know, specifically for the traffic policeman having to write the report at the scene of an accident involving a bike or a motorcycle.. The one rule I follow involves trusting one's fellow human being 100%, even if he's at the wheel of a 10 ton tank in front of which you are standing (as was seen in Tienamen newsreels). And this trust doesn't rely on Beethoven's 9th Symphony Hymn to Joy, that we are all men, or Oxtail's inventions concerning buddhist compassion and camaradeship. It relies instead on the obvious fact that no human being wants to risk the hassle of running over a cyclist. It's just too messy. A simple equation : self-interest = avoid hassles. That is true of some extent, but they often avoid that hassle by escaping the scene of the accident. "Hit and run" is very common on this part of the world (maybe more common than not). Maybe they were on the phone or maybe they were paying more attention to the car next to them than the bike. When they are squeezed, guess who goes first. There's also a different problem. It's something in many individuals that demonizes the victim --such as cyclists-- and then every action is taken to crush them. This is "road rage." I was more a victim of road rage than reckless driving. It's very common around here too. In effect you must assume that any reaction may result in an escalation of the conflict --even if you are right. You must fear telling them they are a ******* in cutting you off. In other words, you must play idiot in order to survive. And eventually you become an idiot by acting like one. Another way to avoid a confrontation is to make fun of them and give them, say, a banana. Yes, you must use the banana before the machete. Or just read rec.guns where a bloke named "Sheldon", a somewhat revered name on this group, is offering suggestions on the best method of carrying a pistol while cycling. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
Per John B.:
Or just read rec.guns where a bloke named "Sheldon", a somewhat revered name on this group, is offering suggestions on the best method of carrying a pistol while cycling. Years ago, I quit riding on the road altogether when a friend's practice of carrying a loaded .44 magnum in his motorcycle's gas tank bag started sounding reasonable to me. -- Pete Cresswell |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
Wes Groleau wrote:
On 07-02-2012 17:21, Frank Krygowski wrote: I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A cyclist should have a right to the road, period. As one safety PSA said, "You could be right. Dead right." I know all laws are imperfect (as you illustrated in the rest of your post), but I'm not going to give into fear of becoming dead. Bicycling deaths are astonishingly rare both in actual count and in incidents per million miles. Even "Danger! Danger!" academics like John Pucher can't find more than one death per five million miles of riding. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
Per Phil W Lee:
Digital video cameras are now inexpensive enough that you can have forward, rearward and head mounted cameras, all in HD1080. Three separate units? Or three cams feeding into one unit? Either way, sounds like something I'd like to have on the rooftop box on my vehicle. Eventually, I think I'd get enough footage to sell a little short subject to one of the local TV stations... -- Pete Cresswell |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:17:19 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote: Per Phil W Lee: Digital video cameras are now inexpensive enough that you can have forward, rearward and head mounted cameras, all in HD1080. Three separate units? Or three cams feeding into one unit? http://cam-do.com/360DegreeGoPro.jpg -- # Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060 # 831-336-2558 # http://802.11junk.com # http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On 07-03-2012 14:38, Phil W Lee wrote:
Wes Groleau considered Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:00:01 -0400 the perfect time to write: Afterward, I asked the plaintiff's lawyer, "Did he actually say ON THE RECORD that he doesn't intend to do his job?" The lawyer shrugged and said something like "Yeah, but what can you do?" Appeal - since he was kind enough to explicitly give the grounds, it was probably what he wanted to happen. By giving a chance for a higher court to rule on it, he was making a present of a stronger legal precedent, but the lawyer was apparently too stupid to recognise it. I'd be at least as concerned about the lawyer not doing HIS job. I doubt the plaintiff could have afforded to pay for an appeal. Too often in the U.S. system the loser is not the guy who's wrong, but the guy who runs out of lawyer money first. -- Wes Groleau It seems a pity that psychology should have destroyed all our knowledge of human nature. — G. K. Chesterton |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:22:37 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote: Cyclists don't snarl traffic. Motorists are entirely responsible for that. We were discussing "taking the lane" on Mission Street. Somehow, I fail to see how motorists are causing a traffic jam by following a slow cyclist in the middle of the lane. (Note: Mission St is one lane each way, except for a turn lane, for most of its length). Of course, if we assume that Mission St is a perpetual traffic jam, with or without the cyclist, I guess such behavior might be acceptable. The most a cyclist is likely to do is delay the motorists arrival at the back of the next queue - usually within 100 yards or so. Probably true. However motorists abhor a vacuum, or in this case, an lane with empty space. Given the opportunity, the typical motorist will risk life and insurance to fill the lane vacuum in order to arrive a few milliseconds earlier. Wisdom is largely the ability to distinguish between things that can be changed, and things that are unlikely to ever change. Methinks this driver behavior is in the latter category. If you want to reduce traffic snarl-ups, it's easy; Just discourage excessive use of motor vehicles. Define excessive. To every driver, their immediate use of the vehicle is deemed important and certainly not excessive. If there is alternative transportation available, do you consider using a car as excessive? I've tried it but stopped when a local bus driver gave me a hassle over dragging two tool boxes with me on his crowded bus. To some, travel is more about moving hardware around, than about moving just people. Unless I want to get a trailer, bicycles won't work. Last week, I participated in the California Household Travel Survey: http://www.catravelsurvey.com I was asked to keep a highly detailed log of my travels over a 24 hour period and fill out a rather confusing series of online forms. Unfortunately, they picked a day when I had a moderate number of service calls, pickups, and deliveries. Looking at the list, I suspect perhaps one out of the 18 trips that day might be considered excessive. I don't think it's possible to make every road completely safe for cyclists. In many cases, the bike lanes are at best a bad joke. So why waste money on them? I have no idea. It seems to be an institution running on inertia. I suppose a study into the effectiveness of bicycle lanes to reduce accidents or increase ridership might settle the matter. However, without a demonstratively effective alternative to bicycle lanes, the municipalities will probably continue to build them until they run out of roadways, money, or both. Cycles are vehicle traffic. So it written, so it must be. However, when jousting with my 35 lb bicycle against a driver in his 4,000 lb vehicle, I often find it difficult to insist on my legal rights. They need to learn that cyclists are part of the traffic, and if the cars and trucks don't like that, tough, go to a racetrack. I suspect that the local planners are into expediency. Give the bicyclists an alternative route, and they will come. Unfortunately, there are a few recalcitrants that prefer to live dangerously. You can lead a bicyclist to water, but you have to practically drown them before they'll learn to drink nicely. Motor vehicles are far more capable of accepting a diversion, so should always be the ones expected to avoid the congestion that they themselves cause. Huh? I see bicyclist all over the road ways, including riding on sidewalks and splitting lanes. Bicycles are far more maneuverable than motor vehicles, and far less restricted in where a bicycle can ride. It needs more cyclists then. And less motor vehicles. Yeah, I know. Public roads would be great without vehicles. Take away the vehicles, and give everyone a bicycle, and nirvana is certain to follow. Just one small problem. Bicycles don't pay the road tax, so the public roads will start to rapidly deteriorate without the vehicles to support the necessary maintenance. Of course, the trucks, buses, and delivery vehicles will still be necessary, so instead of cars, the cyclists will get to dodge those. Santa Cruz City Bicycle Map: http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2010-bike-map-cityside.pdf It's difficult to read on the screen as it's designed to be printed at 24"x36". I did a cut-n-paste on the area in question to: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mission-St.jpg Red = Bicycle Lane Green = Bicycle Path Purple = Bicycle alternate route Note the box towards the left of the map that says: Mission Street is heavily travelled. Use alternate routes. Note that the bicycle map was produced with the involvement of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, which I presume approves of the note suggesting an alternative route to Mission St. Ah, full moon tonite. Gone howling... -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|