taking the lane No. 3674b

dat's muh van where me n Birdy live next to da swamp..... Basic Florida....3 steps to the door n you step ona 18 gator....

http://goo.gl/unk6O9

http://goo.gl/unk6O9

regressing abt progress...when I first drove thru in '73, Summerlin was a patchy 2 lane tar road n nothng you see there existed.

the winter visitor RV park across the street from muh van was a tomato farm

the diagonal cut running back of the property...look close n you'll see a cell tower famous as an inbound Boeing pylon..the cut is a railroad bed running from intown to the bay where once there were fish shippable on ice...in those yellow cars no doubt.

the land you see was a swamp, then a dump. then a potato field and now resting place for boats and motoah coach.

that was the Gulf Coast Flyway for migrating birds. I would get top 5 in the yearly bird count. No More ! Condoville.

but the bike riding is outtasight esp summertime when the place empties out uh I doahn know if I remember this right maybe infrastructure for 300,000-500,000 down to 25000 residents.

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 11:52:04 AM UTC-7, x wrote:
I doahn know if this link works....

It works great! (Have to look up how to "goo.gl" like that.)

posted the view before.

Does look kind of familiar.


you may see a Road - Safety Rd - at bottom then a canal then THE 12 mile/30 mile bike path - then across a narrow grass berm - the State Road's bike path - then traffic both merge and turn right lane abt 1/4 mile worth.


Yeah, that all looks pretty good to me. You really have to
watch out at the intersections, though. People don't, ****
happens, the interest groups blame their pet problem (e.g.
separated bike facilities and the intersection problem),
demand the dirty bath water be dumped baby and all...

The State moved the State Road bike path from the bottom location to ....in between the right thru traffic lane and the merge turn right lane !!!


The bike lane to the left of right turn only lane is an
evolved design - but still about twenty years behind in
my estimation. ... And a kludge.

I *did* like the old setup better. It kind of depends on
how many of those intersections to deal with. Surly I
could find a more pleasant route if I was riding through
there regularly.

incroyable.

It only takes a look zoomed out to 30,000 feet to see that
we are a far cry from escaping the car culture for something
more pleasant, healthy, sustainable...

I am for completely separated facilities around meccas.
Maybe even ban cars or require costly permits. Have shuttles
for the infirm.

http://goo.gl/Ekiyge

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 5:11:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2014 6:32 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:16:51 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2014 3:07 PM, Dan O wrote:

"Boom! Crash! Bang! Splat! (Crunch, th-bump, ouch,
th-bump, ouch) Call the ambulance!"

(Happens a lot on our road down to the beach.)

Happens a _lot_? Gosh, Danger! Danger!

Got data?


Gotta ask Frank. Are you calling the poster a liar? Yes or no?

No, because when a person calls someone a liar, it looks something like
this: "You're a liar."

When someone wants data, it looks like this: "Got data?" That's true
whether it's because the requester is curious or skeptical.

Sir, you really do have serious trouble distinguishing between
skepticism and accusations. They are not the same.

When someone offers what is obviously an offhand remark of
a loose impression, that doesn't particularly bear on the
main point and substance of the discourse anyway, and you
latch onto it asking for tabulated proof, you are challenging
their veracity - on a loose impression that doesn't really
matter anyway.

It's offensive in the first place, and a pain in the ass to
respond to. Compiling data as proof is a lot of work, iffy
anyway, and it's only you (of the parties involved) who seem
to want it.

Let's just say it happens enough to have organizations like
Travel Oregon "very concerned".

My own feeling is that what people (motorists and bicyclists
alike) are up to down to the coast is not conducive to being
especially situationally aware for vehicular whatever, and
the especially vulnerable ought to be provided alternative
routes. Since the bicycling mode is *much* less expensive
to accommodate, and has many benefits to society, they ought
to be afforded deluxe accommodations... IMO.

Education and stuff - great! But let's not ruin a nice trip
to the coast by saddling it with a focus on vehicular
cycling amongst lines of high speed SUVs and motor homes.

On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 5:11:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2014 6:32 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:16:51 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2014 3:07 PM, Dan O wrote:

"Boom! Crash! Bang! Splat! (Crunch, th-bump, ouch,
th-bump, ouch) Call the ambulance!"

(Happens a lot on our road down to the beach.)

Happens a _lot_? Gosh, Danger! Danger!

Got data?


Gotta ask Frank. Are you calling the poster a liar? Yes or no?

No, because when a person calls someone a liar, it looks something like
this: "You're a liar."

When someone wants data, it looks like this: "Got data?" That's true
whether it's because the requester is curious or skeptical.

Sir, you really do have serious trouble distinguishing between
skepticism and accusations. They are not the same.

When someone offers what is obviously an offhand remark of
a loose impression, that doesn't particularly bear on the
main point and substance of the discourse anyway, and you
latch onto it asking for tabulated proof, you are challenging
their veracity - on a loose impression that doesn't really
matter anyway.

It's offensive in the first place, and a pain in the ass to
respond to. Compiling data as proof is a lot of work, iffy
anyway, and it's only you (of the parties involved) who seem
to want it.

Let's just say it happens enough to have organizations like
Travel Oregon "very concerned".

Your other response was a lot more concise, at least in it's relevant
part: "Tell you what, I'll stipulate that "a lot" was my unscientific
impression, and that it may not be "a lot"."

My own feeling is that what people (motorists and bicyclists
alike) are up to down to the coast is not conducive to being
especially situationally aware for vehicular whatever, and
the especially vulnerable ought to be provided alternative
routes. Since the bicycling mode is *much* less expensive
to accommodate, and has many benefits to society, they ought
to be afforded deluxe accommodations... IMO.

I will agree that bicycling is very inexpensive to accommodate. Just
let the cyclists ride using their existing rights to the road! To make
it even better, do a little educating of both bicyclists and motorists.

Education and stuff - great! But let's not ruin a nice trip
to the coast by saddling it with a focus on vehicular
cycling amongst lines of high speed SUVs and motor homes.

Well, I've cycled to and/or from three U.S. coasts, if you count the
"north coast." (That term is sometimes used for the Great Lakes
southern shorelines.) No special bike trails, no particular problems.

I remain really glad that I learned how to ride ordinary roads. I'd
have missed a lot of wonderful riding if I'd had to wait for separate
facilities to be built. In fact, I'd still be waiting!

That's one of the many nice things about education: It works now, not in
some fairyland future.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:21:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/20/2014 5:12 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 5:11:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2014 6:32 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 6:16:51 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/19/2014 3:07 PM, Dan O wrote:

"Boom! Crash! Bang! Splat! (Crunch, th-bump, ouch,
th-bump, ouch) Call the ambulance!"

(Happens a lot on our road down to the beach.)

Happens a _lot_? Gosh, Danger! Danger!

Got data?


Gotta ask Frank. Are you calling the poster a liar? Yes or no?

No, because when a person calls someone a liar, it looks something like
this: "You're a liar."

When someone wants data, it looks like this: "Got data?" That's true
whether it's because the requester is curious or skeptical.

Sir, you really do have serious trouble distinguishing between
skepticism and accusations. They are not the same.

When someone offers what is obviously an offhand remark of
a loose impression, that doesn't particularly bear on the
main point and substance of the discourse anyway, and you
latch onto it asking for tabulated proof, you are challenging
their veracity - on a loose impression that doesn't really
matter anyway.

It's offensive in the first place, and a pain in the ass to
respond to. Compiling data as proof is a lot of work, iffy
anyway, and it's only you (of the parties involved) who seem
to want it.

Let's just say it happens enough to have organizations like
Travel Oregon "very concerned".

Your other response was a lot more concise, at least in it's relevant
part: "Tell you what, I'll stipulate that "a lot" was my unscientific
impression, and that it may not be "a lot"."

You've misquoted me, and you're still ignoring the
substantive point (paint stripe protective).

My own feeling is that what people (motorists and bicyclists
alike) are up to down to the coast is not conducive to being
especially situationally aware for vehicular whatever, and
the especially vulnerable ought to be provided alternative
routes. Since the bicycling mode is *much* less expensive
to accommodate, and has many benefits to society, they ought
to be afforded deluxe accommodations... IMO.

I will agree that bicycling is very inexpensive to accommodate. Just
let the cyclists ride using their existing rights to the road!

"Let them eat cake"

To make
it even better, do a little educating of both bicyclists and motorists.

Sure, do a little educating - do "a lot" of educating - that's
great!

But quit trying to force your narrow philosophical cult down
society's throat in an all-or-nothing crusade under the guise
of "expert". Sure, you know your stuff, but you _really must_
get past your psychological splitting! There's a lot of good
stuff in "your stuff", but you really have to get past the
narcissistic idea that there's something wrong with anyone who
doesn't share your values.

By all means go ahead and oppose door zone bike lanes and
mandatory helmet laws, etc. But _get past your splitting_!

("Lord loves a workin' man. Don't never trust whitey. See
a doctor and get rid of it.")

Motorist attitudes is the 500 pound gorilla in the living room.
How to change them? You say "education"; but that's not
happening. What *is* happening is a shift in infrastructure
priorities that is proven to increase participation, and what
is *needed* to change motorist attitudes is *substantially*
increased participation.

There is a tipping point where motorist attitudes change.
That tipping point is a level of participation in bicycle
transportation where motorists cannot drive anywhere except
their major motorways (which they can keep for themselves as
far as I'm concerned) without having to accommodate bicyclists.
The way this looks on the ground is that you *constantly* see
bicyclists almost anywhere you go. This is happening in Portland.
Facilities are not *necessary*, but they are key, and I just don't
see it happening in our lifetime _any other way_:

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/237507

There will always be ordinary roads to ride your bike on, and
transportation bicyclists *should* have access to education (if
needed) and *should* be able to handle sharing ordinary roads
with motor traffic. Do you seriously think that a future with
double-digit mode share will prohibit bicycles on roads where
there is no suitable facility, making bicycle transportation
*more* difficult? You've just drunk the "cyclist inferiority
complex" schtick, your ego can't abide being separated from the
big boys playground, and you're arming yourself for the UN black
helicopter invasion. You think you're brave, but you're being
motivated by fear (of losing your status of equality with
motorists - blech! who want equality with that mess?)

Education and stuff - great! But let's not ruin a nice trip
to the coast by saddling it with a focus on vehicular
cycling amongst lines of high speed SUVs and motor homes.

Well, I've cycled to and/or from three U.S. coasts, if you count the
"north coast." (That term is sometimes used for the Great Lakes
southern shorelines.) No special bike trails, no particular problems.


Cool!

But it's not all about you.

I remain really glad that I learned how to ride ordinary roads. I'd
have missed a lot of wonderful riding if I'd had to wait for separate
facilities to be built. In fact, I'd still be waiting!

It's not about you (or me).

That's one of the many nice things about education: It works now, not in
some fairyland future.

Show us where it's working.

On 4/21/2014 2:29 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:21:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Your other response was a lot more concise, at least in it's relevant
part: "Tell you what, I'll stipulate that "a lot" was my unscientific
impression, and that it may not be "a lot"."

You've misquoted me, and you're still ignoring the
substantive point (paint stripe protective).

Um... that supposed "misquote" came from highlighting, copying & pasting
directly from your post. You seem to have forgotten what you wrote.


My own feeling is that what people (motorists and bicyclists
alike) are up to down to the coast is not conducive to being
especially situationally aware for vehicular whatever, and
the especially vulnerable ought to be provided alternative
routes. Since the bicycling mode is *much* less expensive
to accommodate, and has many benefits to society, they ought
to be afforded deluxe accommodations... IMO.

I will agree that bicycling is very inexpensive to accommodate. Just
let the cyclists ride using their existing rights to the road!

"Let them eat cake"

To make
it even better, do a little educating of both bicyclists and motorists.

Sure, do a little educating - do "a lot" of educating - that's
great!

But quit trying to force your narrow philosophical cult down
society's throat in an all-or-nothing crusade under the guise
of "expert". Sure, you know your stuff, but you _really must_
get past your psychological splitting! There's a lot of good
stuff in "your stuff", but you really have to get past the
narcissistic idea that there's something wrong with anyone who
doesn't share your values.

By all means go ahead and oppose door zone bike lanes and
mandatory helmet laws, etc. But _get past your splitting_!

:-) Dan's learned a new word, and he's really proud of it!


("Lord loves a workin' man. Don't never trust whitey. See
a doctor and get rid of it.")

Motorist attitudes is the 500 pound gorilla in the living room.
How to change them? You say "education"; but that's not
happening. What *is* happening is a shift in infrastructure
priorities that is proven to increase participation, and what
is *needed* to change motorist attitudes is *substantially*
increased participation.

Seems to me that you're forcing YOUR "narrow philosophical cult down
society's throat," a cult that says that we should ignore the expense of
a vast network of separate bike facilities; that we should ignore the
data that shows many of them brought increased hazards; that we should
ignore that the steps toward your purported "save the world" objectives
can be made by other means. You're pushing the most expensive option as
being the only option, and commanding that society MUST take it.

There is a tipping point where motorist attitudes change.
That tipping point is a level of participation in bicycle
transportation where motorists cannot drive anywhere except
their major motorways (which they can keep for themselves as
far as I'm concerned) without having to accommodate bicyclists.
The way this looks on the ground is that you *constantly* see
bicyclists almost anywhere you go. This is happening in Portland.

Oh, bull****, Dan. Fire up Google Maps, go to downtown Portland, open
Street View and look around. You do NOT "*constantly* see bicyclists
almost everywhere you go." Yes, Portland has lots more cyclists than
most American cities, but the transportation is still very much
dominated by cars, as demonstrated by the daily motorized gridlock and
crawling freeway traffic. And there are plenty of places and times of
day that cyclists are nowhere in view. This is in a city with a unique
- for America - set of circumstances that make it very conducive to
cycling. Bike lanes, etc. are just one part of that Portland weirdness.

To put it another way: Portland also has far more tattoos, far more
lunch carts, and far more pierced suburban hipsters asking for spare
change than most other American cities. Don't pretend Portland is
simply Baltimore with bike lanes.

Facilities are not *necessary*, but they are key, and I just don't
see it happening in our lifetime _any other way_:

If by "see it happening" you mean 25% bike mode share (or something
similar), I don't see it happening at all. Your daydream of a
transportation system dominated by bikes is a fantasy. America is not
Copenhagen. There are huge differences in density, history, gas prices,
car prices, public transit, terrain, etc.

Let's temporarily ignore those factors and consider only climate. Much
of the U.S. has just come through a winter so brutal that even the most
dedicated utility cyclists had their bikes parked for weeks or months.
They used cars to get around. And that happens for at least a week or
two almost every winter.

So what should a typical cyclist in (say) Buffalo NY do in winter? He
can't take public transportation while there's a foot of snow on the
ground, because the public transportation barely exists; it can require
over an hour to get across town. So what a cyclist does is drive his
car. That means he has to own a car at _least_ for winter use.

Come summer, do you _really_ think he and the thousands like him are
going to leave the car parked for months? A very few will; but almost
all cyclists will drive to work 90% of the time, and congratulate
themselves if they ride the bike one day a week. That's bike
transportation in America, like it or not, and no amount of bike lanes
will change it.

Well, I've cycled to and/or from three U.S. coasts, if you count the
"north coast." (That term is sometimes used for the Great Lakes
southern shorelines.) No special bike trails, no particular problems.


Cool!

But it's not all about you.

I remain really glad that I learned how to ride ordinary roads. I'd
have missed a lot of wonderful riding if I'd had to wait for separate
facilities to be built. In fact, I'd still be waiting!

It's not about you (or me).

That's one of the many nice things about education: It works now, not in
some fairyland future.

Show us where it's working.

Education works for me literally everywhere I ride.


--
- Frank Krygowski

as gas goes past $4, economy responds to economic theory, some demographers/sociologists claim....this is like the autoplane...population consolidation to more urban living is now underway.

In my strata, this began maybe 30 years ago.

I posted a link on this somewhere around here.

So what Dano is wondering abt is possible even in Buffalo ...well. maybe not Buffalo....Buffalo is eire...that is applications of intelligent infrastructure would bring more lowland commuters.

There's pylon ...eg the Bodfish photo...west coast environments generate more embracing response from the pop than east coast....the west coast is more psychologically stimulating for living experiencing the outside.

but due to the timeline, less adaptable to bicycling than the east.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 8:24:23 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2014 2:29 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Sunday, April 20, 2014 7:21:15 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Your other response was a lot more concise, at least in it's relevant
part: "Tell you what, I'll stipulate that "a lot" was my unscientific
impression, and that it may not be "a lot"."

You've misquoted me, and you're still ignoring the
substantive point (paint stripe protective).

Um... that supposed "misquote" came from highlighting, copying & pasting
directly from your post. You seem to have forgotten what you wrote.

You've placed a period within your quotation marks
that wasn't there in what I wrote.

My own feeling is that what people (motorists and bicyclists
alike) are up to down to the coast is not conducive to being
especially situationally aware for vehicular whatever, and
the especially vulnerable ought to be provided alternative
routes. Since the bicycling mode is *much* less expensive
to accommodate, and has many benefits to society, they ought
to be afforded deluxe accommodations... IMO.

I will agree that bicycling is very inexpensive to accommodate. Just
let the cyclists ride using their existing rights to the road!

"Let them eat cake"

To make
it even better, do a little educating of both bicyclists and motorists.

Sure, do a little educating - do "a lot" of educating - that's
great!

But quit trying to force your narrow philosophical cult down
society's throat in an all-or-nothing crusade under the guise
of "expert". Sure, you know your stuff, but you _really must_
get past your psychological splitting! There's a lot of good
stuff in "your stuff", but you really have to get past the
narcissistic idea that there's something wrong with anyone who
doesn't share your values.

By all means go ahead and oppose door zone bike lanes and
mandatory helmet laws, etc. But _get past your splitting_!

:-)

It *is* funny, but also tragic, and makes reasonable discussion
virtually impossible.

Dan's learned a new word, and he's really proud of it!

Whoosh!

("Lord loves a workin' man. Don't never trust whitey. See
a doctor and get rid of it.")

Motorist attitudes is the 500 pound gorilla in the living room.
How to change them? You say "education"; but that's not
happening. What *is* happening is a shift in infrastructure
priorities that is proven to increase participation, and what
is *needed* to change motorist attitudes is *substantially*
increased participation.

Seems to me that you're forcing YOUR "narrow philosophical cult down
society's throat," a cult that says that we should ignore the expense of
a vast network of separate bike facilities; that we should ignore the
data that shows many of them brought increased hazards; that we should
ignore that the steps toward your purported "save the world" objectives
can be made by other means. You're pushing the most expensive option as
being the only option, and commanding that society MUST take it.

I am doing no pushing, no commanding, and say explicitly that
facilities are not necessary.

I'm just countering your ideologically motivated, absolute
and total opposition to them. (Must say it's kind of freaky,
man.)

There is a tipping point where motorist attitudes change.
That tipping point is a level of participation in bicycle
transportation where motorists cannot drive anywhere except
their major motorways (which they can keep for themselves as
far as I'm concerned) without having to accommodate bicyclists.
The way this looks on the ground is that you *constantly* see
bicyclists almost anywhere you go. This is happening in Portland.

Oh, bull****, Dan. Fire up Google Maps, go to downtown Portland, open
Street View and look around.

How about I just go there and look around?

You do NOT "*constantly* see bicyclists
almost everywhere you go."

If you walk (or just stand) around in Portland, you will
see bicyclists going by... then some more... then some more,
etc.

Yes, Portland has lots more cyclists than
most American cities, but the transportation is still very much
dominated by cars, as demonstrated by the daily motorized gridlock and
crawling freeway traffic. And there are plenty of places and times of
day that cyclists are nowhere in view. This is in a city with a unique
- for America - set of circumstances that make it very conducive to
cycling.

Yes, there will be times and places there are no bicycles
going by (there will be times and places there are no cars
going by), but bicycles appear and go by with a frequency
that is astounding compared to most other places.

And that is what changes motorist attitudes. In other places
where motorists spend most (nearly all) of their time with
no bicycles to deal with, they are in the habit of not having
to accommodate any bicyclist. In Portland so many bicyclists
go by so often that motorists cannot form this habit. That is
the tipping point.

Bike lanes, etc. are just one part of that Portland weirdness.
To put it another way: Portland also has far more tattoos, far more
lunch carts, and far more pierced suburban hipsters asking for spare
change than most other American cities. Don't pretend Portland is
simply Baltimore with bike lanes.

Baltimore - that's where Johnny Unitas played, right? Portland
doesn't even *have* a pro football team, do they?

Facilities are not *necessary*, but they are key, and I just don't
see it happening in our lifetime _any other way_:

If by "see it happening" you mean 25% bike mode share (or something
similar), I don't see it happening at all. Your daydream of a
transportation system dominated by bikes is a fantasy. America is not
Copenhagen. There are huge differences in density, history, gas prices,
car prices, public transit, terrain, etc.

Frank, I do not pretend Baltimore is Portland is Orlando is
Copenhagen is Cambridge - _not_... _at_... _all_!

By "see it happening", I mean the noticeable difference in
attitude toward bicyclists in those places where their
presence is routine.

Let's temporarily ignore those factors and consider only climate. Much
of the U.S. has just come through a winter so brutal that even the most
dedicated utility cyclists had their bikes parked for weeks or months.
They used cars to get around. And that happens for at least a week or
two almost every winter.

So what should a typical cyclist in (say) Buffalo NY do in winter? He
can't take public transportation while there's a foot of snow on the
ground, because the public transportation barely exists; it can require
over an hour to get across town. So what a cyclist does is drive his
car. That means he has to own a car at _least_ for winter use.

Come summer, do you _really_ think he and the thousands like him are
going to leave the car parked for months? A very few will; but almost
all cyclists will drive to work 90% of the time, and congratulate
themselves if they ride the bike one day a week. That's bike
transportation in America, like it or not, and no amount of bike lanes
will change it.

That is the most defeatist bike advocacy I think I've ever heard.

Well, I've cycled to and/or from three U.S. coasts, if you count the
"north coast." (That term is sometimes used for the Great Lakes
southern shorelines.) No special bike trails, no particular problems.


Cool!

But it's not all about you.

I remain really glad that I learned how to ride ordinary roads. I'd
have missed a lot of wonderful riding if I'd had to wait for separate
facilities to be built. In fact, I'd still be waiting!

It's not about you (or me).

That's one of the many nice things about education: It works now, not in
some fairyland future.

Show us where it's working.

Education works for me literally everywhere I ride.

So it *is* all about you.

On 21/04/2014 16:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Let's temporarily ignore those factors and consider only climate. Much
of the U.S. has just come through a winter so brutal that even the most
dedicated utility cyclists had their bikes parked for weeks or months.
They used cars to get around. And that happens for at least a week or
two almost every winter.

So what should a typical cyclist in (say) Buffalo NY do in winter? He
can't take public transportation while there's a foot of snow on the
ground, because the public transportation barely exists; it can require
over an hour to get across town. So what a cyclist does is drive his
car. That means he has to own a car at _least_ for winter use.

What you're describing is a ****ty scenario, and that exists because
people will take the car option first. You need to work on improving
other means of transport.

1) Get public transport in place.
2) Prepare the bike paths and have a winter bike

It's not easy, and will take long term effort, but it's something you
should be aiming towards rather than simply saying "No, it's
impossible". In this case what you see as Dan's deluded optimism is
actually what is needed, rather than what I see as you pretty much
giving up on improving things for anything but cars. (you oppose most
infrastructure, but the car infrastructure will carry on growing)

You're not in Copenhagen, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.