Greedy, arrogant bike shop owner

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message .com...


Mark: One of the best presentations was by the head of Arizona's DOT. He's
been pushing hard to make sure that the accommodations for cyclists are
within the normal transportation framework, not segregated. There is a need
for both, but never at the exclusion of cyclists from the streets.

The AASHTO folk (the national oversight agency for all state DOTs) are
incorporating useful, on-the-street cycling accommodation as the routine way
to build roads. They are *not* advocating separate-but-equal (not!) bike
routes.

The times are changing. There are many people at state DOTs who understand
the needs of the "competent" cyclist.

Mike,

Let's take this closer to home, where you and I live. Where was LAB
in the
hearings for AB1408 last year, the original AB1408 that actually made
meaningful
changes to the CVC related to bicyclists, not the gutted and weakened
AB1408
which I am just as happy did not pass since other than allowing
recumbent riders
to have high handlebars it did zilch. CHP, and to a small degree
CalTrans,
were major opponents and it was left to the local advocacy groups to
try
to dispel the misinformation those state agencies were giving
legislators ..
things like 'being doored is not a major hazard for cyclists ...'.
Fooey.
That was an instance where, in the most populous state a national
organization could have stood forth and helped to bring light on the
matter, but frankly I
did not see it happening. Did I blink?

- rick

"Rick Warner" wrote
Where was LAB in the
hearings for AB1408 last year,
.....
it was left to the local advocacy groups to try
to dispel the misinformation those state agencies were giving legislators
...
things like 'being doored is not a major hazard for cyclists ...'.
Fooey.
That was an instance where, in the most populous state a national
organization could have stood forth and helped to bring light on the
matter, but frankly I did not see it happening. Did I blink?

Have you seen the door-zone bike lanes that LAB's lobbying arm, America
Bikes, promotes? Take a look at the picture of one on the front page of
their web site for "Complete the Streets", i.e. what the LAB's new
leadership wants done to your streets:
http://www.americabikes.org/bicyclea...etestreets.asp

If there are any doubts about America Bikes' connection to the LAB, compare
the street addresses and boards of directors for the two organizations.

Why would an organization controlled by people who promote door-zone bike
lanes say that riding in the door zone is anything but safe?

-Steve Goodridge
(Be sure to see
http://humantransport.org/bicycledri.../door_zone.pdf )

Steven Goodridge wrote in part:

Why would an organization controlled by people who promote door-zone bike
lanes say that riding in the door zone is anything but safe?


About these famous "door-zone bike lanes," a little bit of clarification is
needed. While there are many striped bike lanes that lie partially in the door
zone, there are very few that lie _entirely_ in the DZ. In other words, they
are almost universally wide enough that a rider can cruise on the left side of
the bike lane and stay out of the DZ. If someone is in the DZ, they still have
only themselves to blame.

That said, I don't see much if any practical benefit from on-street bike lanes.
Their popularity is a puzzle.

Robert

In article ,
(R15757) wrote:

Steven Goodridge wrote in part:

Why would an organization controlled by people who promote door-zone bike
lanes say that riding in the door zone is anything but safe?


About these famous "door-zone bike lanes," a little bit of clarification is
needed. While there are many striped bike lanes that lie partially in the
door
zone, there are very few that lie _entirely_ in the DZ. In other words, they
are almost universally wide enough that a rider can cruise on the left side
of
the bike lane and stay out of the DZ. If someone is in the DZ, they still
have
only themselves to blame.

That said, I don't see much if any practical benefit from on-street bike
lanes.
Their popularity is a puzzle.

1) gives cars and cyclists alike a clear demarcation where the cyclists
know the cars almost certainly won't enter their path and the cars know
vice versa. This is a great confidence booster for cyclists not yet
ready for the exhiliration of feeling a car judge the gap _perfectly_,
and not knock them off their bike with their mirror by a couple of
inches.

2) by narrowing the roadway, it has a natural cautioning and slowing
effect on the cars. Because they perceive that they can't just wander
from ditch to median now, the drivers stay between the lines.

--
Ryan Cousineau, http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

(R15757) wrote:

About these famous "door-zone bike lanes," a little bit of clarification is
needed. While there are many striped bike lanes that lie partially in the door
zone, there are very few that lie _entirely_ in the DZ. In other words, they
are almost universally wide enough that a rider can cruise on the left side of
the bike lane and stay out of the DZ. If someone is in the DZ, they still have
only themselves to blame.

Tell that to Dana Laird's family.

Bike lane proponents claim that bike lanes encourage cycling by
novices and tell them where to ride. It can be seen that many novices
do indeed ride in the middle of the lane, well inside the reach of car
doors.

If the DOT knows that bike lanes will attract novices, and some
portion of the bike lane is dangerous to use, then the DOT should mark
off that portion to discourage novice cyclists from riding too far
right. The bike lane should start at that position, outside the door
zone.

I think it's bad design to mark a bike lane that requires cyclists to
ride its left edge, effectively constraining cyclists to a sliver of
roadway between traffic overtaking at close distance and the threat of
opening doors. Without the stripe compelling cyclists to stay right,
the cyclist is free to move farther to the left, using the full travel
lane if required, and drivers overtake more carefully.

-Steve Goodridge

(R15757) wrote
That said, I don't see much if any practical benefit from on-street bike lanes.
Their popularity is a puzzle.

The main purpose of door zone bike lanes is to maximize the number
stripe-miles that a city can claim they have produced as "bicycle
facilities". Quality is irrelevant to those bikeway advocates and
politicians who measure "bicycle friendliness" in facility-miles.

The alternate purpose is to encourage cyclists to ride close enough to
parked car doors that motorists can more easily overtake them, i.e. to
boost motorists' convenience by restricting cyclists' operating space
to overlap with that portion of the pavement that motorists would not
use themselves, for fear of collision with opening doors.

-Steve Goodridge

Steven Goodridge wrote:

Have you seen the door-zone bike lanes that LAB's lobbying arm, America
Bikes, promotes? Take a look at the picture of one on the front page of
their web site for "Complete the Streets", i.e. what the LAB's new
leadership wants done to your streets:
http://www.americabikes.org/bicyclea...etestreets.asp

That's not a photo of a door zone bike lane. I've seen door zone
bike lanes, and that's not one of them. That's a
beyond-the-door-zone bike lane, very different.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

R15757(?) wrote:

That said, I don't see much if any practical benefit from on-street bike
lanes.
Their popularity is a puzzle.

I have some direct experience that contrasts bike lane and non-bike
lane riding. I have almost never been "buzzed", honked at, or yelled
at when riding in a bike lane. I am regularly "buzzed", honked at,
and yelled at by motorists on roads without a bike lane.

I was riding last Tuesday with another rider, two-abreast(*) fullin
in a bike lane. No hassles from cars. We turned onto a street with
an equally wide lane, and we are almost immediately buzzed by an
angry driver who had to swerve far towards the curb to successfully
"buzz" us.

* riding two-abreast is legal in California
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:54:10 -0800, Terry Morse
wrote:

That's not a photo of a door zone bike lane. I've seen door zone
bike lanes, and that's not one of them. That's a
beyond-the-door-zone bike lane, very different.

Really? Because if you ride at the far left of the lane, you are out
of reach? Perhaps you should get a bit more familiar with the
terminology.

If you ride in the middle of that lane, you can be doored, especially
if the parked vehicles are trucks and SUVs and not the narrow
automobiles shown. And that rider is to the left of the lane, not in
the middle. Not all would make that choice.

This is a door zone bike lane.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Terry Morse wrote:

R15757(?) wrote:

That said, I don't see much if any practical benefit from on-street bike
lanes.
Their popularity is a puzzle.

I have some direct experience that contrasts bike lane and non-bike
lane riding. I have almost never been "buzzed", honked at, or yelled
at when riding in a bike lane. I am regularly "buzzed", honked at,
and yelled at by motorists on roads without a bike lane.

I was riding last Tuesday with another rider, two-abreast(*) fullin
in a bike lane. No hassles from cars. We turned onto a street with
an equally wide lane, and we are almost immediately buzzed by an
angry driver who had to swerve far towards the curb to successfully
"buzz" us.

* riding two-abreast is legal in California
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

You make the mistake of ascribing correlation with causality. Perhaps the
motorist buzzed you because in his distorted mind you were not where you were
supposed to be: on a road with bike lanes. In other words, the proliferation
of BLs has taught motorists that there is a special place for bicyclists. I've
been told "This ain't a biking road" by a motorist who said there were no BLs
there so I shouldn't be on it.

Wayne