A small bicycle infrastructure victory in my city, thanks to me.

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Those who use bicycles in a deluded attempt to prove how intrepid and
dauntless they are could easily take up sky-diving or bungee-jumping.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2016-03-23 18:39, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.


Or maybe they went "Aha! Another revenue generator! Why didn't we ever
think of that? Ka-ching!"

Pretty soon some oh so smart motorist will say "Look, officer, I wasn't
stopped. My car was moving at 0.05mph and I have dash cam proof".


Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.


Not everywhere, like here in Davis:

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/show_pi...f7ce d54016c2


Those who use bicycles in a deluded attempt to prove how intrepid and
dauntless they are could easily take up sky-diving or bungee-jumping.


It's fun, and not just the free fall part of it. Never tried the bungee
jumping though.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 3/24/2016 3:04 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-03-23 18:39, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.


Or maybe they went "Aha! Another revenue generator! Why didn't we ever
think of that? Ka-ching!"

Pretty soon some oh so smart motorist will say "Look, officer, I wasn't
stopped. My car was moving at 0.05mph and I have dash cam proof".

Heh, yeah, I thought of that too. But in terms of revenue, they could
make a lot more giving out red light violations if they were actually
interested in doing that.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)

Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2.7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

--
cheers,

John B.

ah yes, good show ! follow if possible n report ?

We have free turn right onto the main flow ...across the town to Island beach bike path.

I emailed commission who said that's a state issue. State n local n engineers agreed planting a relatively obscure bike path warning sign.

Seams to be a mental health problem as the free turn leads to a free lane 7-800' long !!!!!!!!

There are 2 such lanes around.

Often seen are a stopped car waiting for a break in traffic for entry...missing perceptive n cognitive of the FREE LANE their's to drag down.

AFAIK no bike fatal so far...we have come across totaling rear enders where...YES !

the tail hit car stopped dead in the traffic stream

I camacross one a few days ago on the last Beeline turn into Titusville...a sharp downhill right loosening up into a speedy sweep down onto A1.

3 T cops n 2 snowboards tail ENDED...forgive me a woman was speaking to a T.

We crawled past, incredulous. T's appeared amused. Like, I'm in from Islip ...

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)



Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2.7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

In the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, 25% of trips are by bike. http://www.cityclock.org/top-10-cycl.../#.VvS8_PkrI2w

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:26:22 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)



Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2.7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

In the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, 25% of trips are by bike. http://www.cityclock.org/top-10-cycl.../#.VvS8_PkrI2w

-- Jay Beattie.

Very possible true. But to be realistic, does the activities in a
single district, with a population (2010 census) of 7,336, become an
important factor in a metropolitan population of 2,348,247 (in 2014).
That is 0.3% of the population.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 12:26:25 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)



Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2.7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

In the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, 25% of trips are by bike. http://www.cityclock.org/top-10-cycl.../#.VvS8_PkrI2w

-- Jay Beattie.

they're diseased