London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:59:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/11/2014 4:11 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
Frank Krygowski considered Fri, 11 Apr 2014
12:14:31 -0400 the perfect time to write:

I've heard that among designers and promoters of bike facilities,
there's an unwritten law saying "Thou shalt not criticize." IOW, the
first directive is to be in favor of _anything_ that is seen as "doing
something for bicyclists." I'm aware of two individuals who were
literally kicked out of an association of bikeway designers for
insistently stating objections to bad designs.
...

I can't imagine such a "Thou Shalt Not Criticize" ethic being accepted
in any other field of engineering design.

Thankfully, our planning regulations are a bit more sane than that, so
if something fails to meet standards, it can be objected to, and if
approved despite the legitimate objections, forced to judicial review.
As judicial review costs millions, they really do try to avoid going
down that route.

The biggest problems are getting sensible standards adopted in the
first place, and watching out for non-compliant schemes so that
objections can be raised.

Here's how it worked in America: For decades, there was the pretty
sensible AASHTO Guide to the Design of Bicycle Facilities. (I own three
different editions.) It was revised, refined and expanded over the
years, in a very painstaking manner. Lots of analysis, discussion,
opportunities for comment by professional engineers, bicycle advocates,
etc.

Unfortunately, AASHTO recommended against some "Innovative!!!"
treatments dear to the heart of the "8 to 80" crew trying to save the
world by getting everyone out of their cars. And AASHTO recommended
against those "Innovative!!!" treatments for what many knowledgeable
cyclists and traffic engineers consider very good reasons.

The "Innovative!!!" crew - a great many of whom are landscape architects
by training - felt stymied that their watercolor sketches couldn't be
implemented. So they formed their own "standards" organization, NACTO.
Their "standards" consisted largely of cataloging anything that anyone
anywhere has done for bicyclists, which to me is pretty much opposite
the definition of a "standard." And they engaged in very enthusiastic
politics to promote their organization and their, um, "standards."

They succeeded pretty well. Recently, the federal government more or
less accepted the NACTO guide as another possible alternative. So now
we have one set of standards that says (for example) that you should not
have separate sidepaths immediately adjacent to roads, because of a
specific list of about a dozen problems that they cause. And we have
another set of standards that actively promotes separate sidepaths
immediately adjacent to roads, because, Hey! They're Innovative!!!!"

American politics. You gotta love it.

I wonder how much of this attention to bicycles there would be if all
the changes were financed by the local township/city through the
issuance of bonds, which would of course result in a slight increase
in local taxes, and would, of course, be subject to approval by the
voters.

OPM (Other People's Money) is far easier to spend :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:47:37 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2014 12:34 PM, Dan O wrote:

The main factor, if you ask me, is people's attitudes.

I agree.


And what changes those attitudes is widespread participation.
At that point motorists have no choice but to accept it. I've
seen it with my own eyes in Portland, Corvallis, etc., and
it's evident in places like The Netherlands and Denmark. But
as long as bicycles are a marginal anomaly, attitudes that
marginalize them will dominate. We see that every day in most
of the USA.

ISTM
that facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
by the transportation authority...

Well, the facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
_in_ the facility. Unfortunately, that often seems to bring along the
idea that bicycles are _not_ endorsed where there are no facilities.


"Bring along the idea" - *that* is attitude based.

What brings along the idea that bicycles are endorsed where there
are no facilities? Billboards?

"I can't ride in my own residential neighborhood, because there are no
bike lanes."


That's your fictional creation, Fred.

"GET IN THE BIKE LANE!"


"Get on the sidewalk!"

"GET ON THE BIKE PATH!"


"Get the *&^% off the road!"

"Paint is not good enough.

That's *your* line.

We need protected bike lanes everywhere!"


That's inane.

"The roads are for cars!"


And that's the status quo without bike facilities.

Et cetera.

I notice you addressed 25 of the 346 words that I wrote. Et cetera,
indeed.

On Thursday, April 3, 2014 5:10:31 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

snip

The rest of the article can be found he

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...n-9234680.html


Just visited that page. Wow! The comments reflect familiar
themes - they even detoured into heljmets.

On Friday, April 11, 2014 11:48:58 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:47:37 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/11/2014 12:34 PM, Dan O wrote:



The main factor, if you ask me, is people's attitudes.



I agree.





And what changes those attitudes is widespread participation.

At that point motorists have no choice but to accept it. I've

seen it with my own eyes in Portland, Corvallis, etc., and

it's evident in places like The Netherlands and Denmark. But

as long as bicycles are a marginal anomaly, attitudes that

marginalize them will dominate. We see that every day in most

of the USA.


I am an advocate of bike lanes because they move traffic at peak traffic times. Separate "bike trails" are useful in some places and on a very large scale as in Amsterdam where bicycle and pedestrian traffic is separated. On a small scale as implemented in US cities where I have ridden, they are nightmarish MUPs choked with walkers, dogs and skaters.

Frank is right that motorists react poorly when you leave the bike lane. I get honked at frequently when taking the traffic lane to get around other bicyclists. But that means we need to educate motorists and not get rid of bike lanes.

The real problem in PDX is that there are too many cars and inadequate infrastructure and an increasingly short-tempered population of motorists and bicyclists. I drove yesterday to take a day off (long rides this weekend, one about to start) -- what a f****** mistake. I took an old "shortcut" out of downtown and ended up parked. People are even ratting out up through the hills, and everyone is ****ed off. The cure to this is to make everyone who moved in after 1985 go back to where they came from. You could put more people on bikes, but then I have to cope with them. I vant to be alone! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tojjWQvlPN8

Prairie City is looking better every day.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/12/2014 2:48 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:47:37 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2014 12:34 PM, Dan O wrote:

The main factor, if you ask me, is people's attitudes.

I agree.


And what changes those attitudes is widespread participation.
At that point motorists have no choice but to accept it. I've
seen it with my own eyes in Portland, Corvallis, etc., and
it's evident in places like The Netherlands and Denmark. But
as long as bicycles are a marginal anomaly, attitudes that
marginalize them will dominate. We see that every day in most
of the USA.

I agree that widespread participation in bicycling will eventually help
people's attitudes. I disagree with the now-common belief - which you
share - that spending billions on special facilities is the best, or
only, way to increase cycling participation.

Check your recent history. San Francisco recently went through a four
year period when the city was prohibited from installing any bike lanes.
(IIRC, that was due to a lawsuit claiming that the installation of
bike lanes hadn't been subjected to environmental review, and that the
lanes might worsen the environment by increasing motor vehicle
congestion and idling. See http://www.planetizen.com/node/45481)

In any case, they added no bike lanes or other bike facilities, yet
cycling increased tremendously during that period. Why? It simply
became fashionable among certain crowds to ride a bike.

If you have the proper mix of other factors - say, a young-enough
population interested in doing something different, a dense city
environment with short average trip distances, support from public
transit, and especially the presence of lots of college students - it's
not hard to get a decent bike mode share. Provided you consider an
optimistically-measured 2% to be decent, that is.

If you _really_ want to increase bike mode share, then do all the stuff
the northern Europeans do to discourage driving. It's a tough sell in
car-centric America, though. What politician will vote for huge license
fees, huge car purchase taxes, strict liability laws, super-high gas
taxes, etc.?




ISTM
that facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
by the transportation authority...

Well, the facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
_in_ the facility. Unfortunately, that often seems to bring along the
idea that bicycles are _not_ endorsed where there are no facilities.


"Bring along the idea" - *that* is attitude based.

What brings along the idea that bicycles are endorsed where there
are no facilities? Billboards?

See above.


"I can't ride in my own residential neighborhood, because there are no
bike lanes."


That's your fictional creation, Fred.

No, that was a quote (as accurately as I remember it) from a woman
sitting in a bike advocacy meeting with me. She was convinced bike
lanes were required on any street to be "safe."

That's a downside of the "We need Safe Places to Ride!" cries. They
obviously imply that riding other places isn't "safe."



"GET IN THE BIKE LANE!"


"Get on the sidewalk!"

"GET ON THE BIKE PATH!"


"Get the *&^% off the road!"

"Paint is not good enough.

That's *your* line.

We need protected bike lanes everywhere!"


That's inane.

"The roads are for cars!"


And that's the status quo without bike facilities.

Et cetera.

I notice you addressed 25 of the 346 words that I wrote. Et cetera,
indeed.



--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:49:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2014 2:48 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:47:37 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2014 12:34 PM, Dan O wrote:

The main factor, if you ask me, is people's attitudes.

I agree.

And what changes those attitudes is widespread participation.
At that point motorists have no choice but to accept it. I've
seen it with my own eyes in Portland, Corvallis, etc., and
it's evident in places like The Netherlands and Denmark. But
as long as bicycles are a marginal anomaly, attitudes that
marginalize them will dominate. We see that every day in most
of the USA.

I agree that widespread participation in bicycling will eventually help
people's attitudes. I disagree with the now-common belief - which you
share - that spending billions on special facilities is the best, or
only, way to increase cycling participation.

*&^% you. I do *not* say or believe anything about spending
anything, do not say or believe facilities have to be special,
do not say or believe they are the best, or only, way to
increase participation.

Check your recent history. San Francisco recently went through a four
year period...

Oh, after stating what I believe, I thought, "... *your* [emphasis
mine] recent history" would be *my* recent history.

... when the city was prohibited from installing any bike lanes.
(IIRC, that was due to a lawsuit claiming that the installation of
bike lanes hadn't been subjected to environmental review, and that the
lanes might worsen the environment by increasing motor vehicle
congestion and idling. See http://www.planetizen.com/node/45481)

Yeah, the rabid anti-cyclist commenters on that article in the OP
bitched about the air quality effects of taking a whole lane away
from the cagers, too.

In any case, they added no bike lanes or other bike facilities, yet
cycling increased tremendously during that period. Why? It simply
became fashionable among certain crowds to ride a bike.

I'm all for making bicycling fashionable... well, sort of. If
and when it does, that will detract from my maverick rebel
status, but I suppose I'll still stand out by virtue of my
riding style and approach :-)

If you have the proper mix of other factors - say, a young-enough
population interested in doing something different, a dense city
environment with short average trip distances, support from public
transit, and especially the presence of lots of college students - it's
not hard to get a decent bike mode share. Provided you consider an
optimistically-measured 2% to be decent, that is.

I consider one person on a bike to be better than none.

If you _really_ want to increase bike mode share, then do all the stuff
the northern Europeans do to discourage driving.

I'm for it.

It's a tough sell in
car-centric America, though.

That's putting it mildly.

What politician will vote for huge license
fees, huge car purchase taxes, strict liability laws, super-high gas
taxes, etc.?

http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.ph...5&I temid=157

ISTM
that facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
by the transportation authority...

Well, the facilities are concrete evidence that bicycles are endorsed
_in_ the facility. Unfortunately, that often seems to bring along the
idea that bicycles are _not_ endorsed where there are no facilities.

"Bring along the idea" - *that* is attitude based.

What brings along the idea that bicycles are endorsed where there
are no facilities? Billboards?

See above.

What I see above is you saying it can't be done.

"I can't ride in my own residential neighborhood, because there are no
bike lanes."

That's your fictional creation, Fred.

No, that was a quote (as accurately as I remember it) from a woman
sitting in a bike advocacy meeting with me. She was convinced bike
lanes were required on any street to be "safe."

You have to admit she seems to be channeling Fred.

That's a downside of the "We need Safe Places to Ride!" cries. They
obviously imply that riding other places isn't "safe."

"GET IN THE BIKE LANE!"

"Get on the sidewalk!"

"GET ON THE BIKE PATH!"

"Get the *&^% off the road!"

"Paint is not good enough.

That's *your* line.

We need protected bike lanes everywhere!"

That's inane.

"The roads are for cars!"

And that's the status quo without bike facilities.

Et cetera.


The point here at the end is that that attitude exists with or
without facilities. I acknowledge that the presence of facilities
can add legitimate fuel to that fire, but solutions involve
compromises. The idea is to put out the fire.

Understand, I am not asking for any facilities anywhere. I am
not discouraging anyone from riding a bike on any road, and in
fact actively encourage it. It's a little like with the helmets
where I am not even advising anyone to wear a helmet - let alone
saying anyone or everyone should wear one whenever they ride a
bike. I am just countering the nutty polarized and practically
absolute opposition to them.

I'm actually much more helmet skeptic than "helmeteer". In a way
I *am* sort of a faciliteer, though. I certainly do not think that
every facility is a good facility; plenty are bad enough that they
should never have been built. But even a bad facility has some
redemption in that it shows the commitment to support more sensible
transportation options, and it is the learning process that can lead
to a better way.

You were fussing about the bollards "sprinkled" :-) on your "bike
facility" in the park. (I suspect your "bike facility" is actually
a multi-use path, and that maybe it used to be one of your beloved
"ordinary roads", and the bollards probably keep cars our and calm
the bicycle traffic to the benefit of pedestrians.) I googled some-
thing like "aashto bollard spacing" and landed on this page:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/...rds/index1.cfm

Man! looking at the pictures those are abysmally "weird"
arrangements. But I can deal with them, and they are doing *some-
thing*. I've actually seen a lot of such loopy arrangements. In
places where they have been doing things like that for decades,
things mature and get less Seusslike. Corvallis today looks quite
a bit European to me in some ways.

I do not say facilities are necessary for people to get around on
bikes. I do not say they are the best or only way to increase
participation. I only note that they seem to have been a key
aspect of transportation infrastructure approaches and priorities
where things on the ground (and the data will show) look and feel
more like where we need to get to.

Oh, and facilities are precisely what the untapped pool of
potential bicyclists believe they need. Once they get out and
ride, they will learn otherwise.

And the only ones hurt by shifting infrastructure priorities that
way are the cagers; and you seem to be in favor of making that mode
more painful.

You will argue that facilities make bicyclists less safe; but it's
all relative. You argue that people need to learn how to be safe in
traffic. Why don't they need to learn how to be safe navigating and
negotiating facilities (including bad ones)?

I understand it's your personal preference. Dude! My personal
preference might be no paved roads (goods distribution by rail,
helicopter ambulances). Heck, it might expedite the development
of those flying cars we were all supposed to have by now :-) Think
of the money we'd *all* save - no longer slaves of the car culture.
Look at how much of the economy and activity is all about cars!

Nutty vision? ;-)

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:54:52 AM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:

snip

I certainly do not think that
every facility is a good facility; plenty are bad enough that they
should never have been built. But even a bad facility has some
redemption in that it shows the commitment to support more sensible
transportation options, and it is the learning process that can lead
to a better way.


snip

... abysmally "weird"
arrangements. But I can deal with them, and they are doing *some-
thing*. I've actually seen a lot of such loopy arrangements. In
places where they have been doing things like that for decades,
things mature and get less Seusslike. Corvallis today looks quite
a bit European to me in some ways.

I do not say facilities are necessary for people to get around on
bikes. I do not say they are the best or only way to increase
participation. I only note that they seem to have been a key
aspect of transportation infrastructure approaches and priorities
where things on the ground (and the data will show) look and feel
more like where we need to get to.

That separated facility with the separate signal phase in the OP?
I don't like it. I do not like at all being positioned to the
left of left turning traffic when I'm intent on proceeding straight
ahead. (I don't like signal lights at all, either - except to the
extent that they pause the cager CM).

But even that facility has strong redemption. It is revolutionary
change *toward* a completely different model. It will not in and
of itself turn London into Copenhagen; that's a stupid idea (and
I note that you are the only one suggesting it). But it is concrete
movement in that direction.

Your vision has a place - here in Mayberry it works just fine (if
quite a bit looser on the "rules"). It will always have a place
in pockets of Pleasantville. Too bad your area aspires to be
more USian Metropolitan. Your vision will never work in London
or Portland, though. London and Portland will never be Copenhagen,
either; but those very crowded places that are currently dominated
by the car culture can lead the way to a better tomorrow. The
Europeans have the world's leading example, and facilities are
a prominent piece of that model.

snip

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 8:25:50 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 11:48:58 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 9:47:37 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/11/2014 12:34 PM, Dan O wrote:

The main factor, if you ask me, is people's attitudes.

I agree.

And what changes those attitudes is widespread participation.
At that point motorists have no choice but to accept it. I've
seen it with my own eyes in Portland, Corvallis, etc., and
it's evident in places like The Netherlands and Denmark. But
as long as bicycles are a marginal anomaly, attitudes that
marginalize them will dominate. We see that every day in most
of the USA.

I am an advocate of bike lanes because they move traffic at peak traffic times. Separate "bike trails" are useful in some places and on a very large scale as in Amsterdam where bicycle and pedestrian traffic is separated. On a small scale as implemented in US cities where I have ridden, they are nightmarish MUPs choked with walkers, dogs and skaters.

Frank is right that motorists react poorly when you leave the bike lane. I get honked at frequently when taking the traffic lane to get around other bicyclists.


Yes, he is right in that. But I get honked at where there is no
bike lane in sight. Don't you? (Of course you do.)

But that means we need to educate motorists and not get rid of bike lanes..


Right. Put out the fire (the attitude). Ever seen those wildland
firefighters walking around with the drip torches? Adding fuel to
the fire to put it out (not saying that's a good analogy here - just
sayin').

The real problem in PDX is that there are too many cars and inadequate infrastructure and an increasingly short-tempered population of motorists and bicyclists. I drove yesterday to take a day off (long rides this weekend, one about to start) -- what a f****** mistake. I took an old "shortcut" out of downtown and ended up parked. People are even ratting out up through the hills, and everyone is ****ed off. The cure to this is to make everyone who moved in after 1985 go back to where they came from. You could put more people on bikes, but then I have to cope with them. I vant to be alone! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tojjWQvlPN8

Prairie City is looking better every day.


And I love the idea of moving to Portland - probably would if I was
alone out here. But I'd truly go nuts dealing with hordes and queues
of other bicyclists instead of just blasting the gap that is always
all mine and cars won't fit, and dealing with cops that treat bicycles
like real road users.

*Everything* comes with tradeoffs.

On 4/12/2014 2:54 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:49:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


"I can't ride in my own residential neighborhood, because there are no
bike lanes."

That's your fictional creation, Fred.

No, that was a quote (as accurately as I remember it) from a woman
sitting in a bike advocacy meeting with me. She was convinced bike
lanes were required on any street to be "safe."

You have to admit she seems to be channeling Fred.

That merely shows that my fictional character Fred is not as outlandish
as you frequently pretend.


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/...rds/index1.cfm

Sorry, that link wouldn't cooperate with me. I'll try to check it
again, perhaps late tomorrow.


Man! looking at the pictures those are abysmally "weird"
arrangements. But I can deal with them, and they are doing *some-
thing*. I've actually seen a lot of such loopy arrangements. In
places where they have been doing things like that for decades,
things mature and get less Seusslike.

Those statements are an excellent example of the mentality that "Any
bike facility is a good bike facility." IOW, "Well, at least they're
doing *something* for us!" Or, more accurately, TO us.

Oh, and facilities are precisely what the untapped pool of
potential bicyclists believe they need. Once they get out and
ride, they will learn otherwise.

So the way to teach them is to first build the facilities that they
don't need, and only after spending all that money and creating the
resulting confusion, let them see it was all a waste all along?

Wow. It's hard to imagine a less efficient way of educating potential
cyclists.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:21:21 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2014 2:54 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 9:49:59 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

"I can't ride in my own residential neighborhood, because there are no
bike lanes."

That's your fictional creation, Fred.

No, that was a quote (as accurately as I remember it) from a woman
sitting in a bike advocacy meeting with me. She was convinced bike
lanes were required on any street to be "safe."

You have to admit she seems to be channeling Fred.

That merely shows that my fictional character Fred is not as outlandish
as you frequently pretend.

Frank, I don't much like your penchant for that word, "pretend".
I'm not pretending.

Even you have to admit that, "I can't ride in my own residential
neighborhood, because there are no bike lanes" is pretty out-
landish.

I know that Fred is based on traits and characteristics of real
people, and that many real people exhibit some pretty silly
traits; but Fred is a uni-dimensional amalgamation of all
the silly traits *you've* selected for strawman value.

It's not all bad as an educational device, but it doesn't
apply to arguments of real world solutions which cannot be
restricted to contrived scenarios. Real people have the
capacity for enlightenment that Fred very noticeably lacks.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/...rds/index1.cfm

Sorry, that link wouldn't cooperate with me. I'll try to check it
again, perhaps late tomorrow.

No sweat. I didn't really validate it anyway. google "aashto
bollard spacing" - it's something about Sacramento. I think you'd
like it (probably you've seen it before somewhere).

Man! looking at the pictures those are abysmally "weird"
arrangements. But I can deal with them, and they are doing *some-
thing*. I've actually seen a lot of such loopy arrangements. In
places where they have been doing things like that for decades,
things mature and get less Seusslike.

Those statements are an excellent example of the mentality that "Any
bike facility is a good bike facility." IOW, "Well, at least they're
doing *something* for us!" Or, more accurately, TO us.

Right. We have the status quo. Are we satisfied? No? Then
we ought to do something. And I just don't happen to think that
imperfect (and worse) facilities should not damn the approach
as doomed.

You tell others not to get so worked up about motorists being
jerks (just slowly shake your head and let it go). That's kind
of how I feel about wacky facilities that may even be a pain in
the ass, but you are like a bull seeing red about them (I think
because they are facilities).

Oh, and facilities are precisely what the untapped pool of
potential bicyclists believe they need. Once they get out and
ride, they will learn otherwise.

So the way to teach them is to first build the facilities that they
don't need, and only after spending all that money and creating the
resulting confusion, let them see it was all a waste all along?

We're spending utterly ridiculous amounts of money on trans-
portation infrastructure as it is. And my point about even the
bad facilities being a learning opportunity stands. I am *not*
endorsing bad facilities.

What got me into this line of discussion was James' reference to
"decades" (of experience with facilities). *That* is what effects
the better situations.

Wow. It's hard to imagine a less efficient way of educating potential
cyclists.

I know you're not much on experiential learning, but let me
run it by you one more time: Lots and lots and lots of people
(real people) believe they can't use a bicycle for transportation
without facilities. You and I know that's not true, but how to
convince them? You have classes and want billboards and what not.
That's great for what good it can do. I just think what it can
do is much too limited. *My* perception that bicycling on the
roads with cars is not so bad as nearly everyone seems to think
came from _doing it_; and so I think that if people do it, then
they will see. They say (and it's shown) that facilities are
what it takes to get them to do it.

We're not so different as it would appear.