Progress on Germany's 200 mile long bicyclebahn

Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-29 08:36, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've come across German guys who say "You Americans are crazy for
demanding sidepaths. Here's a photo of the horrible stuff they built
for us, and we're forced to use it."

I was a guy who actually rode there for decades. So I know.

Well, seems you "know" something else than I do...

I got hit many times by cars back in Germany thanks to "Radwege"
(at intersections).

Or maybe you simply rode in areas where the car drivers were careful
at intersections?

--
Note: please read the netiquette before posting. I will almost never
reply to top-postings which include a full copy of the previous
article(s) at the end because it's annoying, shows that the poster
is too lazy to trim his article, and it's wasting the time of all readers.

John B. writes:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:26:59 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

jbeattie writes:

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 3:21:39 PM UTC-7, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 4:12:35 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 11:04:52 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-28 08:51, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 6:44:00 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-27 19:41, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/27/2016 6:48 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-27 13:43, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
http://phys.org/news/2015-12-germany...-highways.html



"As a glimpse of a greener urban transport future, Germany has just
opened the first five-kilometre (three-mile) stretch of a
bicycle highway that is set to span over 100 kilometres.

It will connect 10 western cities including Duisburg, Bochum
and Hamm and four universities, running largely along disused
railroad tracks in the crumbling Ruhr industrial region.

Almost two million people live within two kilometres of the
route and will be able to use sections for their daily
commutes, said Martin Toennes of regional development group
RVR.

Aided by booming demand for electric bikes, which take the
sting out of uphill sections, the new track should take
50,000 cars off the roads every day, an RVR study predicts."


Here is the whole thing including video links to branch off
onto connecting trails:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZdFFt8u6I8

It's mostly a rail trail. Many of the train signals have been
left in place. If we really want to foster bicycle use this is
the way to do it.

Yes - if you want to foster bicycle use on rail trails, that is.


No, it foster cycling in general. Whether you believe it or not.


... What if I want to ride to the hardware store instead?


Same as where I live. You use ... the bike path. I prefer stores
that can be reached via those over stores that can't be. Currently
four large HW stores can be reached via bike paths and lanes: Home
Depot in Placerville, Home Depot in Folsom, Lowe's in Folsom and
OSH (which AFAIR was bought by Lowe's). Plus a lot more down
towards the valley.

I thought you were cut-off from Placerville by the highway. No?


No, we have nice singletrack going up there. Past Walmart (which has
sort of its own offramp from that singletrack) that changes to a paved
bike path into town. Come to think of it that's where HW store #5 is and
that is the best, oldest one west of the Mississippi:

I don't think single track counts as a bicycle facility for most commuter cyclists. Yes, I know it does for you and the other mountain lion bait, but not for the people who will magically show up if facilities are built.

I was mowing the lawn on Sunday, and my across the street neighbor came over to talk about getting a bike to commute to work. He's a late 30s guy, descent shape, smart. He's thinking of riding his bike to work over a local on-street facility that winds a little through the hills into town. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyfxYtQrkBw He was anguishing about the danger of riding in a small stretch of bike lane with some berry bushes growing out of a bank. I'm thinking, hmmm "ride around them." I couldn't imagine him negotiating lion country safari on single track.

That's the problem with all the hyper-safety stuff. People start believing that every place is dangerous unless it is basically a Habitrail for cyclists only. It's keeping people off their bikes because no road is safe enough. Endless hand-wringing and waiting for facilities that will never be built in cities with strapped budgets.

-- Jay Beattie.

eees absorbing your bike energy, Master.

good thinking on the oil train problem.

dit dah dit dah dit dah

I take no responsibility for the oil trains -- or the oil. I think
running oil trains through one of the most beautiful places on earth
(Columbia River Gorge) is foolish -- even with flashing lights.

Oil trains are absurd anywhere. How long have we known how to build pipelines?

Cross country pipe lines are costly to build. And, while one can ship
more than one type of liquid through it, is a bit of a bother and
likely the train is cheaper for either the quantity or distance.

If you amortize over even a few years pipelines are cheaper. The
problem in the US today is that it is politically impossible to build
pipelines in a great many places.



--

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/28/2016 7:26 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 6/28/2016 7:00 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

There is a path in my general locale actually called the "Alewife Linear
Park".

http://www.traillink.com/trail/alewi...nity-path.aspx

Oddly enough it's quite useful for transportation ...

... assuming you live within range of its two-mile extent!

It connects with the Minuteman Bikeway, an older, longer rail trail that
is also actually useful for transportation. For me it is by far the
easiest way to ride into Boston or its inner suburbs.

I don't doubt that such situations exist; but I think it's silly to
pretend that we can make that the norm.

Who said anything about what the norm should be? Not me. I was just
responding to your clockwork "linear park" comment.

I mentioned the railroad that leads from nearly the city center to the
local mall and beyond. That mall is in the suburb adjacent to mine.
If that railroad were replaced by a MUP, then perhaps a couple
thousand people would be able to ride half a mile, get on the MUP,
then head toward the city center.

If you read the blurb about the Alewife linear park, you'll see that it
runs above a subway line, only recently buried. The right of way was
used for the path. Sounds a lot like the situation you describe.

BUT: A) Very few of them would. Most people don't want to bicycle,
no matter what.

B) They would still need to ride a considerable distance on ordinary
city streets. The terminus of the railroad is down in an old
industrial area, far removed from any other commercial or office
complexes.

C) It would do me no good if I were still commuting, and probably do
no member of my bike club any good. That's because it doesn't happen
to run where any of us live, AFAIK. I'd have to abandon a pleasant,
fairly low traffic route to my (old) job just to ride over to the site
of that railroad. It would add at least three miles onto a seven mile
trip, and actually dump me into more traffic than usual at the other
end.

Also mentioned befo I was on a local committee trying to find
sites for just such paths, from our suburb into the city center. We
worked for months, having weekly meetings. We ultimately concluded it
was impossible, and I think that for most U.S. neighborhoods or
suburbs, that's the usual situation. Acquiring right-of-way is hard.
Acquiring useful right-of-way is even harder.

Perhaps you should look at it from the other direction: When
potentially useful rights of way become available, which does happen,
even if not next to Frank's house, why not take advantage of it?

--

On 2016-06-29 10:01, Claus Aßmann wrote:
Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-29 08:36, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I've come across German guys who say "You Americans are crazy for
demanding sidepaths. Here's a photo of the horrible stuff they built
for us, and we're forced to use it."

I was a guy who actually rode there for decades. So I know.

Well, seems you "know" something else than I do...

I got hit many times by cars back in Germany thanks to "Radwege"
(at intersections).


Time to adjust your riding style?


Or maybe you simply rode in areas where the car drivers were careful
at intersections?


No but I never barreled across intersections without looking over the
shoulder and stopping if I had the impression that a driver might
illegally turn in front of me. I never had a right-hook accident on bike
paths, ever.

The only close calls I had were on roads without any bicycling
facilities, cases where motorists felt like owning the road. They passed
me and then immediately turned into a parking lot or something right in
front of me, cutting me off. With bike facilities their chance of
getting fined or judged guilty are much higher because it is much
clearer that they were in the wrong. The typical excuses like "Oh, the
cyclist suddenly swerved to the left" or "He tried to pass me on the
right" don't work there.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 8:46:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2016 6:33 AM, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
Yes,
facilities are nice; they are sometimes (but not always) less stressful
than riding on the road, and they do encourage some people to ride. And
more importantly, they move traffic, particularly in Europe -- and even
here in Portland. But I still believe it is counter-productive to
promote facilities based on fear.



I agree but it's a fact that the fear exists for some and the get out in
the road, man up and take the lane strategy doesn't get much traction for
them. Even if that's what we all end up doing eventually anyway.

Perhaps more cyclists who eventually take the lane anyway should stop
claiming it's horrendously dangerous, or stop lobbying for bike
segregation everywhere. The more it becomes normal for cyclists to use
their rights to the road, the less fear there will be, the better
drivers will behave, the less weird infrastructure we'll need.

I don't know if taking the lane is a panacea, but I do agree that there is far too much fear. I don't know why. Some is rational and related to increased traffic and driver inattention and some is just pure, unjustified paranoia. Some fear is clearly an excuse -- the woman in the elevator with the doughnut and 90oz Big Gulp claiming that she would ride to work everyday if only it weren't so scary on the roads. Her arteries are far scarier than any road I ride on. Others just have odd fears. I work with a fit woman who refuses to commute because she is scared of other bikes. She would freak out in Copenhagen or Amsterdam. I go shopping at the LBSs and evesdrop on all the tan, fit youngsters talking about how dangerous it is to ride a bike on a particular road -- usually one that I ride frequently. Maybe I just don't get it and should be more afraid.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 1:37:30 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
....but I do agree that there is far too much fear. I don't know why.

-- Jay Beattie.

Because guys like Joerg and SMS state emphatically that you're sure to be killed if you don't ride with a blazingly bright front and rear DRL? Or any other number of safety devices?

Cheers

On 29/06/2016 2:29 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 1:37:30 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
Snipped
...but I do agree that there is far too much fear. I don't know why.

-- Jay Beattie.

Because guys like Joerg and SMS state emphatically that you're sure to be killed if you don't ride with a blazingly bright front and rear DRL? Or any other number of safety devices?

Cheers


I expect it's the media coverage of cycling fatalities more than
anything Joerg or SMS might say. Most people know someone who's had a
mishap on a bike for whatever reason.

On 6/29/2016 11:59 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 11:30:50 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2016 1:44 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 1:37:53 AM UTC-4, ERSHC wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 23:04:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

So get specific. What percentage of New York residents are within one
mile of the Greenway?

Depends on what you mean by NY resident. As a Manhattan dweller, I
know those in the outer boroughs are not really NY residents. Of the
2.5 M (or so) people in Manhattan, most (over 80% I'd guess by looking
at a map) are within a mile of the Greenway (a MUP that almost
circumscribes the slightly-wider-than-2 miles-in-spots Island). Let's
call it 2 M. So if you count the whole population of the City it is
about 25%. Unless we can include the folks within a mile but across a
body of water (Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn) which would up the
count but require actual research.

Not to mention that a lot of people think nothing of driving their car through a few miles of stop and go traffic in order to get to a interstate or here in Canada 400 series or other major highway.

There's a difference. Those people are not saying "Only freeways are
safe! I can never drive my car on ordinary streets, because I'll get
killed!"

Motorists are expected to be competent on ordinary roads. When they use
a freeway, it's just for convenience - i.e. to save time. Certain
bicycle advocates are asking that there be no ordinary roads, because
they refuse to become competent on them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Strawman argument there again Frank. This topic is about a 100kms long Bicyclebahn that'll connect at least 12 cities. It is not simply a protected bike lane.

Odd. When I read what I wrote above, I don't see that I used the term
"protected bike lane." Why do you think I did?


I've never seen anyone other than you with such agendas against bicycling that they twist every single thread promoting bicycling until it fits their agenda.

You're demonstrating reactions to imaginary statements. Let's remember
that I'm responsible for some bike facilities in my area, OK?

I am _not_ a fan of "Any bike facility is a good bike facility." That's
where you and I seem to differ.



--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/29/2016 12:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-29 08:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2016 10:01 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-28 20:25, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/28/2016 8:08 PM, Joerg wrote:

I just came back from a volunteer assignment. Two-lane road, no
shoulder. Normally there is only one but today I had two guys that
some
here would call a......s cut me off real close. One was in a Lincoln
Navigator where I could feel the whiff as the right mirror flew by.
The
other a contractor truck that cut me off, braked hard and turned right
in front of me, had to reach into the brakes but not too hard this
time.
Just a normal day in paradise. This simply does not happen on
segregated
bike paths. That is where my next ride will be and I am looking much
more forward to that than to today's ride.

How wide was the lane? And how far from the right edge of the lane
were
you riding?


No idea, regular county road lane. I rode about 2ft from the edge as is
required by law here.

In my area, "regular county road lane" means a maximum of ten feet wide.
In Ohio and in California, you are NOT required to ride two feet from
the right in such a lane.


With that attitude you'd get a tickets here.

Bull. Read the California law. I've posted it before.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/29/2016 12:54 PM, Duane wrote:
On 29/06/2016 12:00 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-06-29 08:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:


In my area, "regular county road lane" means a maximum of ten feet wide.
In Ohio and in California, you are NOT required to ride two feet from
the right in such a lane.


With that attitude you'd get a tickets here. You'd be in court all the
time trying to defend yourself and losing many cases along with a large
wad of cash. But you won't understand that.

[...]


In most places you would not win the case anyway. Quebec is certainly
not the only place that requires riding to the extreme right. I've
lived in Louisiana, New York, Massachusetts and Quebec and they all have
similar law, or had when I lived there.

The law here requires the DRIVER to not pass dangerously close to a
cyclist. It's currently being modified to change that to within 1 meter
rather than dangerously close. But the idea is that the DRIVER gets a
ticket for doing it. You don't get to (or have to) put yourself in
front of the car to prevent it.

All that said, sometime you do what you have to do but you still
wouldn't beat the ticket if you got one.

I don't know every state's law, and Quebec, a different country, may
have some very backward laws giving a cyclist no right to safe passage.
But it's certainly true that Ohio law and California law permit moving
left when a lane is too narrow to safely share. I've given links to
California bike education sites that explain the benefits of doing so.
Here are some:

http://www.calbike.org/bicycling_in_...aring_the_road

"If you're moving slower than traffic, you can still 'take the lane.'...
if the lane is too narrow to share"

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1...t_facts/ffdl37
"Ride on the right, but not so far that you might hit the curb. You
could lose your balance and fall into traffic. Do not ride too far to
the right:

When avoiding parked vehicles or road hazards.
When a traffic lane is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to
travel safely side by side."

Or just read the California state law. Here it is:

"21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed
less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at
that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or
edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not
limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles pedestrians,
animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it
unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the
provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a
“substandard width lane� is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and
a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane."

Note that last sentence. If necessary, have someone read it to you.

I've had precisely ONE incident where a cop (an Idaho state patrolman)
tried to tell us that we couldn't be out in the lane. We talked to him
for about half an hour by the side of the road, using his own Idaho law
book to show what was legal. He ended up smiling, shaking our hands and
telling us to have a good ride. Check the entry from July 24 at
http://bicyclinglife.com/Recreation/...SummerRide.htm

And don't put yourself at risk by obeying imaginary laws.


--
- Frank Krygowski