Bicycle Facilities

On 2017-05-10 13:37, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 4:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 11:07 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing is to
make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers
that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them.

Folsom did NOT get "most people to cycle." _Nothing_ will get most
people to cycle.

If you want to promote segregation of cyclists, do it honestly. Say
"Building this may cause 1% of people to ride bikes occasionally."


You know very well how I meant that. Try to read in context. "Most
people" means most people who would be considering or be willing to
cycle. Yes, in the US it's usually going to be just a few percent.

Why not all of the willing folks? Because for some the hills around
here are too much. Beats me why because shifters have been invented
and there are cassettes other than corncob. Other excuses are "Oh,
it's too hot", "Oh, it's too chilly", "Oh, it could rain any hour
now", "But the Giants play this afternoon" and so on.

I am the a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. Too often you seem to see a
"glass-half-empty". Luckily the movers and shakers in Folsom, Davis,
Placerville and so on don't and ... build bike paths.

Regarding bike facilities, you are a "sell the bull****" kind of guy.
I'm bull****-intolerant.


Ah yes. The new low I guess.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 8:07:36 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:
There are more and more calls for bicycle facilities. While this
would be nice for those who are out for a Sunday ride of a couple of
miles I do not see this as an answer.

Bicyclists pay for the road as well as anyone else. Bicycles do not
wear the roads out. And roads are not built by gas taxes - they
aren't even used to repair the roads.

The real answer is to strongly enforce the traffic laws. People are
afraid to ride on roads because of not just careless drivers but
those who openly attempt to scare cyclists off of "their" roads. I
have watched this occur in front of cops who took no actions
whatsoever. And I watched a direct assault on a cyclist who recorded
the whole thing on his GoPro and took it into the Highway Patrol
office seconds after he managed to shake the man off of his rear
wheel who actually chased him up a walking dirt path with trees on
either side.

The Highway Patrol watched the video which showed this automobile
driver breaking the law in several different ways and then said, "We
can't do anything unless and officer observes this at the time of it
happening."

And then shortly after that I watch the Highway Patrol do nothing
about an incident of like danger to a cyclist.


There you have your reason. Folks like Phil and some others do not
believe it but that's how it is. I personally took the witness stand in
court during a case about a trucker who had brutally pushed a cyclist
into the ditch with the side of his truck. I saw it all because I was
directly behind, he passed me first and then chanced it on the next
rider while another truck coming from the other side was way too close.
Luckily his truck had under-ride protection on its side, else there
might have been a funeral first. Result: Acquittal! Unbelievable. All he
got was a verbal warning from the judge but without entry into his
driving record. That guy remained trucking on the roads. Lesson learned:
In the enforcement and judicial realm hitting a cyclist often doesn't
seem to be taken seriously.


No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing is to
make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers
that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to afford
them. Same for some other cities. The easiest in terms of cost and
maintenance are often singletrack connections. The main (long)
singletrack going through our town is maintained by volunteers. Gets me
all the way to Placervile and then some. Folsom in the other direction
where I can connect to a nice bike path system leading all the way to
Sacramento. There's other issues down there so I tend not to go there
but that's another story.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

We have a local group that has taken pictures of even cops passing too close to cyclists and they have forced classes onto the cops. Surprisingly enough the cops didn't know that they were supposed to leave 3' of clearance or that THEY TOO were supposed give the same clearance. And the man who had the problem with the CHP had the CHP Headquarters and a COURT explain to them that photographic evidence is admissible in court and so a GoPro or some such of a bicycle being threatened demands attention of the cops at the time of the event.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a 65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it. And it would make the roads safer to boot.

The SOB media have continued to say that the roads are getting safer every year because there are fewer fatalities. In fact they are getting FAR more dangerous - there are more accidents. But the crash cages are getting better. But if there are more accidents you become part of a pool that is going to have a certain percentage die.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:09:26 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 12:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 11:07:36 AM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
Snipped

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing
is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the
auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts
of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them. Same for some other cities. The easiest in terms of
cost and maintenance are often singletrack connections. The main
(long) singletrack going through our town is maintained by
volunteers. Gets me all the way to Placervile and then some. Folsom
in the other direction where I can connect to a nice bike path
system leading all the way to Sacramento. There's other issues down
there so I tend not to go there but that's another story.

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

There's justt his one teeny weeny problem and that is that many
cities do NOT have areas where a single-track bicycle facility can
run through town.


If there is an abandoned rail line there is usually opportunity for a
bike path, at least singletrack. Such rail lines were typically built
smack dab through town, for obvious reasons.

Instead of belaboring this usually moot point over and over go visit an
older city such as Folsom and see how they did it.


... Besides, with a single-track and someone going
lickety split one way what happens to the poor bicyclist coming the
opposite way? SPLAT! that's what.


Strange that this never happened to me and I've had lots of riders,
illegal dirt bikers, horses, hikers, deer, dogs and others come from the
other direction. Maybe you should visit California to learn how it's done?

Hint: One key item when the trail is in thick foliage is a daytime
running light. A BRIGHT one. Especially to avoid a collison with a dirt
biker who are often doing 30-40mph.


... And don't sayy hat people will ride
those single-tracks at moderate speeds.


As I've said before there are stretches of our local one that I ride at
20mph. Fast enough?

Ok, on straight asphalt I can do 25mph but not for more than 1/2h and
then I am bushed. So I seldomly do that for more than 5-10mins.

Of course there are slower stretches but my avg speed difference between
singletrack on one side and road & bike path on the other is rarely
above 3mph (pure riding times). Except on trails I stop more often to
take in the scenery, visit with my horse friend Ivan, chat with a
rancher, et cetera.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

There's a bike trail that follows and old track site from Walnut Creek to Dublin. If you watch these people ride with no bother over road and road with never a glance while cars are speeding down those roads a mile a minute.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:38:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 4:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 11:07 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing is to
make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers
that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them.

Folsom did NOT get "most people to cycle." _Nothing_ will get most
people to cycle.

If you want to promote segregation of cyclists, do it honestly. Say
"Building this may cause 1% of people to ride bikes occasionally."


You know very well how I meant that. Try to read in context. "Most
people" means most people who would be considering or be willing to
cycle. Yes, in the US it's usually going to be just a few percent.

Why not all of the willing folks? Because for some the hills around here
are too much. Beats me why because shifters have been invented and there
are cassettes other than corncob. Other excuses are "Oh, it's too hot",
"Oh, it's too chilly", "Oh, it could rain any hour now", "But the Giants
play this afternoon" and so on.

I am the a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. Too often you seem to see a
"glass-half-empty". Luckily the movers and shakers in Folsom, Davis,
Placerville and so on don't and ... build bike paths.

Regarding bike facilities, you are a "sell the bull****" kind of guy.
I'm bull****-intolerant.

This is a case of the few demanding the many pay their way. That's what bothers me about the bike path idea. Though in some cases it's a better means to an end.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:14:59 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 14:32, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:09:26 PM UTC-4, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 12:11, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

[...]


You ride as fast on single-track as you do on a paved road? then get
sdponsored to a Tour de France team.


Please try to read more carefully what I wrote. Else discussions don't
make sense.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

I read it carefully Joerg and what you said was that your asvg speeds on asphalt and on trails are nearly the same. the fact that you stop more often on trails is moot. Quote: "Of course there are slower stretches but my avg speed difference between
singletrack on one side and road & bike path on the other is rarely
above 3mph (pure riding times)."

Cheers

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:38:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 4:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 11:07 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing is to
make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers
that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them.

Folsom did NOT get "most people to cycle." _Nothing_ will get most
people to cycle.

If you want to promote segregation of cyclists, do it honestly. Say
"Building this may cause 1% of people to ride bikes occasionally."


You know very well how I meant that. Try to read in context. "Most
people" means most people who would be considering or be willing to
cycle. Yes, in the US it's usually going to be just a few percent.

Why not all of the willing folks? Because for some the hills around here
are too much. Beats me why because shifters have been invented and there
are cassettes other than corncob. Other excuses are "Oh, it's too hot",
"Oh, it's too chilly", "Oh, it could rain any hour now", "But the Giants
play this afternoon" and so on.

I am the a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. Too often you seem to see a
"glass-half-empty". Luckily the movers and shakers in Folsom, Davis,
Placerville and so on don't and ... build bike paths.

Regarding bike facilities, you are a "sell the bull****" kind of guy.
I'm bull****-intolerant.

This is a case of the few demanding the many pay their way. That's what bothers me about the bike path idea. Though in some cases it's a better means to an end.

What bugs me about bike lanes and/or bike paths is that once they're built you're expected to use them INSTEAD of the roads (sometimes with laws stating that the bicycle lane or path MUST be used) and in many cases a bike lane is more of a hazard to a bicyclist than what the road is ie. bicycle lanes in the door zone. Also, with MUPs you end up with people walking, jogging or whatever all over the path and thuse your average speed can drop dramatically. Plus there's the simple fact that you often have no idea at all as to what another user of a MUP is going to do and that applies to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Cheers

On 5/10/2017 6:49 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:38:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 4:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 11:07 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing is to
make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers
that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them.

Folsom did NOT get "most people to cycle." _Nothing_ will get most
people to cycle.

If you want to promote segregation of cyclists, do it honestly. Say
"Building this may cause 1% of people to ride bikes occasionally."


You know very well how I meant that. Try to read in context. "Most
people" means most people who would be considering or be willing to
cycle. Yes, in the US it's usually going to be just a few percent.

Why not all of the willing folks? Because for some the hills around here
are too much. Beats me why because shifters have been invented and there
are cassettes other than corncob. Other excuses are "Oh, it's too hot",
"Oh, it's too chilly", "Oh, it could rain any hour now", "But the Giants
play this afternoon" and so on.

I am the a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. Too often you seem to see a
"glass-half-empty". Luckily the movers and shakers in Folsom, Davis,
Placerville and so on don't and ... build bike paths.

Regarding bike facilities, you are a "sell the bull****" kind of guy.
I'm bull****-intolerant.

This is a case of the few demanding the many pay their way. That's what bothers me about the bike path idea. Though in some cases it's a better means to an end.

What bugs me about bike lanes and/or bike paths is that once they're built you're expected to use them INSTEAD of the roads (sometimes with laws stating that the bicycle lane or path MUST be used) and in many cases a bike lane is more of a hazard to a bicyclist than what the road is ie. bicycle lanes in the door zone. Also, with MUPs you end up with people walking, jogging or whatever all over the path and thuse your average speed can drop dramatically. Plus there's the simple fact that you often have no idea at all as to what another user of a MUP is going to do and that applies to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Exactly.

And I also object to the propaganda saying stuff like "Without the
newest-fangled bike segregation idea, riding isn't SAFE!"

And I object to the fantasy that "If we build enough of these things,
lots of people will give up their cars."

And to "We need INNOVATIVE designs, things that have never been tried!
Like having half the cyclists ride into intersections wrong-way!"

And of course, "Any bike facility is a good bike facility."


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/10/2017 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:04:02 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 5/8/2017 10:30 AM, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities

Huh?

so the only thing is to make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.

You'll never achieve that through enforcement. No one can afford that
level of enforcement.

The only solution is a combination of traffic calming and separate
facilities. Some cities in my area have done a great job with traffic
calming. You have to find a way to make it impossible for the vehicle
drivers to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior. For example, at the
intersections with the the most red light running you put in barrier
arms that come down, or pop-up road barriers.

In California there IS no enforcement. Or there hasn't been until a local group has just stepped in. Now things are changing at least on the cop side.

The idea is to make being caught FAR more expensive that losing a couple of seconds to a bicycle - especially when you can legally drive safely around them. I would hand out first time 10 mph over the limit tickets of $500 and second offence arresting and having the car seized. That would probably end up costing a driver a couple of thousand for just 10 mph. Imagine what the fines would be for 90 in a 65 zone. That would stop that so quickly that you wouldn't believe it. And it would make the roads safer to boot.

I'm reading a book titled _The Cyclist Who Went Out In the Cold_ by Tim
Moore. He's a Brit who decided a couple years ago to cycle the length
of the old Iron Curtain. (He did it on a junky East German shopping
bike with 20" wheels, and he started in Finland in winter, both of which
are nuts; but that's beside the point.)

He noted that once he entered Germany, motorists observed the speed
limits very precisely. He claimed that if it said 40, nobody did 41.

I can't verify that personally. I can say that young German guys
driving in Poland drove like bats out of hell and took insane risks.

But if Moore is correct, it should be possible to get motorists to obey
laws, even speed limit laws.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 4:52:23 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 6:49 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 6:36:01 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 1:38:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 4:34 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-10 13:23, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/10/2017 11:07 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-05-08 10:30, wrote:

No one can afford separate bicycle facilities so the only thing is to
make the roads safe for ALL users and that includes the auto drivers
that are threatened by careless or aggressive acts of other drivers.


It's the only way to get most people to cycle. Folsom managed to
afford them.

Folsom did NOT get "most people to cycle." _Nothing_ will get most
people to cycle.

If you want to promote segregation of cyclists, do it honestly. Say
"Building this may cause 1% of people to ride bikes occasionally."


You know very well how I meant that. Try to read in context. "Most
people" means most people who would be considering or be willing to
cycle. Yes, in the US it's usually going to be just a few percent.

Why not all of the willing folks? Because for some the hills around here
are too much. Beats me why because shifters have been invented and there
are cassettes other than corncob. Other excuses are "Oh, it's too hot",
"Oh, it's too chilly", "Oh, it could rain any hour now", "But the Giants
play this afternoon" and so on.

I am the a "glass-half-full" kind of guy. Too often you seem to see a
"glass-half-empty". Luckily the movers and shakers in Folsom, Davis,
Placerville and so on don't and ... build bike paths.

Regarding bike facilities, you are a "sell the bull****" kind of guy.
I'm bull****-intolerant.

This is a case of the few demanding the many pay their way. That's what bothers me about the bike path idea. Though in some cases it's a better means to an end.

What bugs me about bike lanes and/or bike paths is that once they're built you're expected to use them INSTEAD of the roads (sometimes with laws stating that the bicycle lane or path MUST be used) and in many cases a bike lane is more of a hazard to a bicyclist than what the road is ie. bicycle lanes in the door zone. Also, with MUPs you end up with people walking, jogging or whatever all over the path and thuse your average speed can drop dramatically. Plus there's the simple fact that you often have no idea at all as to what another user of a MUP is going to do and that applies to bicyclists and pedestrians.

Exactly.

And I also object to the propaganda saying stuff like "Without the
newest-fangled bike segregation idea, riding isn't SAFE!"

And I object to the fantasy that "If we build enough of these things,
lots of people will give up their cars."

And to "We need INNOVATIVE designs, things that have never been tried!
Like having half the cyclists ride into intersections wrong-way!"

And of course, "Any bike facility is a good bike facility."

Facilities do attract riders and some people will be more likely to ride to work if you provide facilities, but I haven't seen any scholarly work quantifying the increase. The benefit is assumed to outweigh the cost, which I think is a questionable assumption, particularly when it comes to some of the goofy facilities around here that I avoid like the plague. I preferred the unimproved street, and the facility was a step backwards for safety and convenience.

-- Jay Beattie.