Nobody wants more cyclists less than a fast bicycle commuter

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:01:14 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:02 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:11:56 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Unlike SF, most people around here don't use DRLs.

Makes you wonder if the perception among cyclists in Portland is that it is safer to cycle there than in San Francisco, with the corollary question of whether a larger part of the population cycles in Portland (or in in denser numbers somehow) than in SF, that is, whether we're seeing a symptom of "the more people cycle, the more courtesy drivers show them".

Andre Jute
Statistics is the most sensitive of interpretive arts in mathematics


http://www.medsp.umontreal.ca/IRSPUM_DB/pdf/28252.pdf
Section 5.1

The best way to improve safety for cyclists is to have more cyclists.

Of course this may be less appreciated by those of us having to navigate
around all of them.

Nobody wants more cyclists less than a fast bicycle commuter.

That's a fascinating study though, even if it only proves what common sense tells us all along: if there's a bigger mass of cyclists, drivers pay more attention to cyclists, if the pedestrian crossing is longer, more pedestrians will be hurt on it. Some people aren't impressed with common sense unless it is backed up with lots of impressive tables and migraine-inducing math.

Andre Jute
If you think the world is upside down, you could always move Down Under

On 01/10/2015 11:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:01:14 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:02 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:11:56 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Unlike SF, most people around here don't use DRLs.

Makes you wonder if the perception among cyclists in Portland is that it is safer to cycle there than in San Francisco, with the corollary question of whether a larger part of the population cycles in Portland (or in in denser numbers somehow) than in SF, that is, whether we're seeing a symptom of "the more people cycle, the more courtesy drivers show them".

Andre Jute
Statistics is the most sensitive of interpretive arts in mathematics


http://www.medsp.umontreal.ca/IRSPUM_DB/pdf/28252.pdf
Section 5.1

The best way to improve safety for cyclists is to have more cyclists.

Of course this may be less appreciated by those of us having to navigate
around all of them.

Nobody wants more cyclists less than a fast bicycle commuter.


Well I think there are some idiot motorists that would fit the bill. It
seems that the more cycling we see the more vocal the minority of clowns
that think roads are for cars becomes. Now with announcements of
changes coming in the vehicle code with respect to cycling it's getting
worse. They're taking adds out in the paper now calling for cyclists to
be taxed like they are and having bikes licensed etc. etc. Imagine
that, raising the fine for dooring a cyclist from 30 bucks.

Anyway, it's not as if I don't pay enough property tax, road tax,
license fees on my car blah blah blah. Here's the thing. I pay as much
tax as anyone and tear up the road less than most because I drive less.
I'm not sure what the number of cycling only cyclist is but I know
it's not the majority of them.

That's a fascinating study though, even if it only proves what common sense tells us all along: if there's a bigger mass of cyclists, drivers pay more attention to cyclists, if the pedestrian crossing is longer, more pedestrians will be hurt on it. Some people aren't impressed with common sense unless it is backed up with lots of impressive tables and migraine-inducing math.

Yeah, go figure.





Andre Jute
If you think the world is upside down, you could always move Down Under

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:14:50 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:01:14 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:02 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:11:56 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Unlike SF, most people around here don't use DRLs.

Makes you wonder if the perception among cyclists in Portland is that it is safer to cycle there than in San Francisco, with the corollary question of whether a larger part of the population cycles in Portland (or in in denser numbers somehow) than in SF, that is, whether we're seeing a symptom of "the more people cycle, the more courtesy drivers show them".

Andre Jute
Statistics is the most sensitive of interpretive arts in mathematics


http://www.medsp.umontreal.ca/IRSPUM_DB/pdf/28252.pdf
Section 5.1

The best way to improve safety for cyclists is to have more cyclists.

Of course this may be less appreciated by those of us having to navigate
around all of them.

Nobody wants more cyclists less than a fast bicycle commuter.


Well I think there are some idiot motorists that would fit the bill. It
seems that the more cycling we see the more vocal the minority of clowns
that think roads are for cars becomes.

There's bound to be a transition period from a few cyclist who enrage even drivers who aren't expecting them by popping suddenly into vision, to more cyclists enraging those whose life is finding things to be outraged about, to even more cyclists gaining social acceptance so that only the grimmest rednecks endanger them, to so many cyclists that cycling becomes one of the norms of society and only psychopaths willfully endanger them. In the first stages it is easy to see the pain of cyclists increasing. If I were writing an academic paper I would of course define many intermediate stage, but you get the idea.

Now with announcements of
changes coming in the vehicle code with respect to cycling it's getting
worse. They're taking adds out in the paper now calling for cyclists to
be taxed like they are and having bikes licensed etc. etc. Imagine
that, raising the fine for dooring a cyclist from 30 bucks.

An early stage with at first increased pain for cyclists, but -- given that the police and the courts actually enforce the law -- later, we hope, when the idiots realize the law isn't going away, there will be a net gain.

Anyway, it's not as if I don't pay enough property tax, road tax,
license fees on my car blah blah blah. Here's the thing. I pay as much
tax as anyone and tear up the road less than most because I drive less.
I'm not sure what the number of cycling only cyclist is but I know
it's not the majority of them.

Most cyclists are motorists too, agreed.

That's a fascinating study though, even if it only proves what common sense tells us all along: if there's a bigger mass of cyclists, drivers pay more attention to cyclists, if the pedestrian crossing is longer, more pedestrians will be hurt on it. Some people aren't impressed with common sense unless it is backed up with lots of impressive tables and migraine-inducing math.

Yeah, go figure.

Whatever it takes to persuade the bureaucrats and pols to get their fat fingers out of their fat backsides.

Andre Jute
If you think the world is upside down, you could always move Down Under

....where, if the tramlines don't get you, the rednecks will.

Andre Jute
Carfree since 1992. Holier than thou!

On 02/10/2015 12:25 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:14:50 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:01:14 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:02 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:11:56 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Unlike SF, most people around here don't use DRLs.

Makes you wonder if the perception among cyclists in Portland is that it is safer to cycle there than in San Francisco, with the corollary question of whether a larger part of the population cycles in Portland (or in in denser numbers somehow) than in SF, that is, whether we're seeing a symptom of "the more people cycle, the more courtesy drivers show them".

Andre Jute
Statistics is the most sensitive of interpretive arts in mathematics


http://www.medsp.umontreal.ca/IRSPUM_DB/pdf/28252.pdf
Section 5.1

The best way to improve safety for cyclists is to have more cyclists.

Of course this may be less appreciated by those of us having to navigate
around all of them.

Nobody wants more cyclists less than a fast bicycle commuter.


Well I think there are some idiot motorists that would fit the bill. It
seems that the more cycling we see the more vocal the minority of clowns
that think roads are for cars becomes.

There's bound to be a transition period from a few cyclist who enrage even drivers who aren't expecting them by popping suddenly into vision, to more cyclists enraging those whose life is finding things to be outraged about, to even more cyclists gaining social acceptance so that only the grimmest rednecks endanger them, to so many cyclists that cycling becomes one of the norms of society and only psychopaths willfully endanger them. In the first stages it is easy to see the pain of cyclists increasing. If I were writing an academic paper I would of course define many intermediate stage, but you get the idea.

Now with announcements of
changes coming in the vehicle code with respect to cycling it's getting
worse. They're taking adds out in the paper now calling for cyclists to
be taxed like they are and having bikes licensed etc. etc. Imagine
that, raising the fine for dooring a cyclist from 30 bucks.

An early stage with at first increased pain for cyclists, but -- given that the police and the courts actually enforce the law -- later, we hope, when the idiots realize the law isn't going away, there will be a net gain.



It's not that bad here, just annoying to hear the idiots. Sort of like
listening to Fox news. The cases where they actually do anything more
than rant are rare.


Anyway, it's not as if I don't pay enough property tax, road tax,
license fees on my car blah blah blah. Here's the thing. I pay as much
tax as anyone and tear up the road less than most because I drive less.
I'm not sure what the number of cycling only cyclist is but I know
it's not the majority of them.

Most cyclists are motorists too, agreed.

That's a fascinating study though, even if it only proves what common sense tells us all along: if there's a bigger mass of cyclists, drivers pay more attention to cyclists, if the pedestrian crossing is longer, more pedestrians will be hurt on it. Some people aren't impressed with common sense unless it is backed up with lots of impressive tables and migraine-inducing math.

Yeah, go figure.

Whatever it takes to persuade the bureaucrats and pols to get their fat fingers out of their fat backsides.



Andre Jute
If you think the world is upside down, you could always move Down Under

...where, if the tramlines don't get you, the rednecks will.

Andre Jute
Carfree since 1992. Holier than thou!

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:13:08 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 02/10/2015 12:25 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:14:50 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:01:14 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:02 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:11:56 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Unlike SF, most people around here don't use DRLs.

Makes you wonder if the perception among cyclists in Portland is that it is safer to cycle there than in San Francisco, with the corollary question of whether a larger part of the population cycles in Portland (or in in denser numbers somehow) than in SF, that is, whether we're seeing a symptom of "the more people cycle, the more courtesy drivers show them".

Andre Jute
Statistics is the most sensitive of interpretive arts in mathematics


http://www.medsp.umontreal.ca/IRSPUM_DB/pdf/28252.pdf
Section 5.1

The best way to improve safety for cyclists is to have more cyclists..

Of course this may be less appreciated by those of us having to navigate
around all of them.

Nobody wants more cyclists less than a fast bicycle commuter.


Well I think there are some idiot motorists that would fit the bill. It
seems that the more cycling we see the more vocal the minority of clowns
that think roads are for cars becomes.

There's bound to be a transition period from a few cyclist who enrage even drivers who aren't expecting them by popping suddenly into vision, to more cyclists enraging those whose life is finding things to be outraged about, to even more cyclists gaining social acceptance so that only the grimmest rednecks endanger them, to so many cyclists that cycling becomes one of the norms of society and only psychopaths willfully endanger them. In the first stages it is easy to see the pain of cyclists increasing. If I were writing an academic paper I would of course define many intermediate stage, but you get the idea.

Now with announcements of
changes coming in the vehicle code with respect to cycling it's getting
worse. They're taking adds out in the paper now calling for cyclists to
be taxed like they are and having bikes licensed etc. etc. Imagine
that, raising the fine for dooring a cyclist from 30 bucks.

An early stage with at first increased pain for cyclists, but -- given that the police and the courts actually enforce the law -- later, we hope, when the idiots realize the law isn't going away, there will be a net gain.



It's not that bad here, just annoying to hear the idiots. Sort of like
listening to Fox news. The cases where they actually do anything more
than rant are rare.

When they do things around here, they're often ceremonial and unhelpful or only modestly helpful to cyclists. But they're always expensive. http://www..peopleforbikes.org/blog/...-can-look-like

That facility used to be a road that one could just ride down. Now it's a rat maze with endless conflicts with streetcars, pedestrians and other cyclists. With the construction of all the condos and the addition of the streetcar, the road was destined to change, but it could have changed much more simply (road, bike lane, sidewalk). I can only hope that the developers picked up a hefty chunk of the tab.

As for bike-on-bike rage, see: http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...uter_urge.html (also note the DRL! -- although it is dreary. I'd be running my flasher).

Bicycle density creates conflicts -- with other bicyclists, directly or indirectly (bikes can cause chain reactions with motorists that affect other bicyclists). As density has increased here, it has done nothing good for my commute. The golden age was when they put a bike lane on a major road 20 years ago, and I was basically the only guy using it. It was like being an only child.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/2/2015 4:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:

When they do things around here, they're often ceremonial and unhelpful or only modestly helpful to cyclists. But they're always expensive. http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...-can-look-like

That facility used to be a road that one could just ride down. Now it's a rat maze with endless conflicts with streetcars, pedestrians and other cyclists. With the construction of all the condos and the addition of the streetcar, the road was destined to change, but it could have changed much more simply (road, bike lane, sidewalk). I can only hope that the developers picked up a hefty chunk of the tab.

From the story: "the project didn't come cheap: $310,000 for barely a
mile of roadway..."

Gosh, why can't we have such "innovative" infrastructure _everywhere_???

--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:13:08 AM UTC-7, Duane wrote:
On 02/10/2015 12:25 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:14:50 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:49 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:01:14 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
On 01/10/2015 11:02 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:11:56 AM UTC+1, jbeattie wrote:

Unlike SF, most people around here don't use DRLs.

Makes you wonder if the perception among cyclists in Portland is
that it is safer to cycle there than in San Francisco, with the
corollary question of whether a larger part of the population
cycles in Portland (or in in denser numbers somehow) than in SF,
that is, whether we're seeing a symptom of "the more people cycle,
the more courtesy drivers show them".

Andre Jute
Statistics is the most sensitive of interpretive arts in mathematics


http://www.medsp.umontreal.ca/IRSPUM_DB/pdf/28252.pdf
Section 5.1

The best way to improve safety for cyclists is to have more cyclists.

Of course this may be less appreciated by those of us having to navigate
around all of them.

Nobody wants more cyclists less than a fast bicycle commuter.


Well I think there are some idiot motorists that would fit the bill. It
seems that the more cycling we see the more vocal the minority of clowns
that think roads are for cars becomes.

There's bound to be a transition period from a few cyclist who enrage
even drivers who aren't expecting them by popping suddenly into vision,
to more cyclists enraging those whose life is finding things to be
outraged about, to even more cyclists gaining social acceptance so that
only the grimmest rednecks endanger them, to so many cyclists that
cycling becomes one of the norms of society and only psychopaths
willfully endanger them. In the first stages it is easy to see the pain
of cyclists increasing. If I were writing an academic paper I would of
course define many intermediate stage, but you get the idea.

Now with announcements of
changes coming in the vehicle code with respect to cycling it's getting
worse. They're taking adds out in the paper now calling for cyclists to
be taxed like they are and having bikes licensed etc. etc. Imagine
that, raising the fine for dooring a cyclist from 30 bucks.

An early stage with at first increased pain for cyclists, but -- given
that the police and the courts actually enforce the law -- later, we
hope, when the idiots realize the law isn't going away, there will be a net gain.



It's not that bad here, just annoying to hear the idiots. Sort of like
listening to Fox news. The cases where they actually do anything more
than rant are rare.

When they do things around here, they're often ceremonial and unhelpful
or only modestly helpful to cyclists. But they're always expensive.
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...-can-look-like


I was talking about the "they" that are writing to the papers wanting
cyclists to be taxed and licensed. They're mostly just annoying. Poorly
designed facilities are another issue.



That facility used to be a road that one could just ride down. Now it's
a rat maze with endless conflicts with streetcars, pedestrians and other
cyclists. With the construction of all the condos and the addition of
the streetcar, the road was destined to change, but it could have changed
much more simply (road, bike lane, sidewalk). I can only hope that the
developers picked up a hefty chunk of the tab.

As for bike-on-bike rage, see:
http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/...uter_urge.html
(also note the DRL! -- although it is dreary. I'd be running my flasher).

Bicycle density creates conflicts -- with other bicyclists, directly or
indirectly (bikes can cause chain reactions with motorists that affect
other bicyclists). As density has increased here, it has done nothing
good for my commute. The golden age was when they put a bike lane on a
major road 20 years ago, and I was basically the only guy using it. It
was like being an only child.



-- Jay Beattie.




--
duane

Frank Krygowski wrote:
:On 10/2/2015 4:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
:
: When they do things around here, they're often ceremonial and unhelpful or only modestly helpful to cyclists. But they're always expensive. http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...-can-look-like
:
: That facility used to be a road that one could just ride down. Now it's a rat maze with endless conflicts with streetcars, pedestrians and other cyclists. With the construction of all the condos and the addition of the streetcar, the road was destined to change, but it could have changed much more simply (road, bike lane, sidewalk). I can only hope that the developers picked up a hefty chunk of the tab.

: From the story: "the project didn't come cheap: $310,000 for barely a
:mile of roadway..."

A mile of road for cars costs about a million bucks.

--
sig 84

On 10/2/2015 9:23 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
:On 10/2/2015 4:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
:
: When they do things around here, they're often ceremonial and unhelpful or only modestly helpful to cyclists. But they're always expensive. http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...-can-look-like
:
: That facility used to be a road that one could just ride down. Now it's a rat maze with endless conflicts with streetcars, pedestrians and other cyclists. With the construction of all the condos and the addition of the streetcar, the road was destined to change, but it could have changed much more simply (road, bike lane, sidewalk). I can only hope that the developers picked up a hefty chunk of the tab.

: From the story: "the project didn't come cheap: $310,000 for barely a
:mile of roadway..."

A mile of road for cars costs about a million bucks.

And it's a great idea to increase the costs by 30% so cyclists don't
have to learn the rules of the road! We can get all the money we'll
need. The citizens are always willing to have taxes increase.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/2/2015 8:23 PM, David Scheidt wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
:On 10/2/2015 4:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
:
: When they do things around here, they're often ceremonial and unhelpful or only modestly helpful to cyclists. But they're always expensive. http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/e...-can-look-like
:
: That facility used to be a road that one could just ride down. Now it's a rat maze with endless conflicts with streetcars, pedestrians and other cyclists. With the construction of all the condos and the addition of the streetcar, the road was destined to change, but it could have changed much more simply (road, bike lane, sidewalk). I can only hope that the developers picked up a hefty chunk of the tab.

: From the story: "the project didn't come cheap: $310,000 for barely a
:mile of roadway..."

A mile of road for cars costs about a million bucks.


Neither of which is an especially good value to the taxpayers

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971