Even in enlightened California (taking the lane)

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:13:07 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
Cruiser wrote:

Even in enlightened California, where I live and cycle, police
interpretation of the law often differs from that of cyclists. In
Santa Cruz a couple of weeks ago, the police chief told cyclists at a
recent meeting that they would cite cyclists for impeding traffic if
they take the lane on Mission Street, which has 11 foot lanes, and if
the cyclist disagrees with that interpretation he invited them to take
it to court for the judges to decide.

Sheesh. That story was from May, 2008. Evolution does seem to be
slow for you. As usual, this has nothing to do with bicycling tech.

I live in Santa Crude and know something about the situation. Mission
St is about 1.5 miles long and 3 lanes wide, with a center turn lane
in places. I don't know the lane width but I know its sub-standard.
It does have bike lanes in places, but not over the entire length. For
cyclists, there are several parallel residential streets that are far
safer than mixing with the cement trucks, buses, and tourists.
Actually, I don't have much trouble riding on Mission St because the
traffic is almost always bumper to bumper moving at about 10 mph. When
it finally clears at night, it speeds up and becomes much more
dangerous.

There is one messy intersection, where Hwy 1 turns into Mission St,
that requires cyclists to mix with traffic for about 20ft. There is
an pedestrian overpass and a bike lane at this point, which leads to a
parallel routes up King St or Bay St to the university. In other
words, there's no good reason to "take the lane" unless you don't know
about the alternate routes.

If you look at the Google Maps of Mission St, you'll see that it's
mostly State Hwy #1 for most of its length.
http://goo.gl/maps/7Vd8
Note that it's NOT designates as a suitable bicycle route.

Along Mission St is Mission Hill middle skool, with a substantial
bicycle population. Standing orders to the kids is to not ride on
Mission Street.

The city seems to have the attitude that since it spends considerable
effort and expense on bike lanes and traffic management, then one
would expect cyclists to favor these safer routes. However, if
cyclists prefer to ignore these efforts on their behalf, the city
could easily find better use for the money. While this is not an
official position, I've heard at mentioned unofficially at a meeting
by a former city council member.

http://sccrtc.org/services/bike/

I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel
street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A
cyclist should have a right to the road, period. And if we rode only
what Google liked, we couldn't get to 90% of the places we might need to
ride.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 17:21:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel
street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A
cyclist should have a right to the road, period. And if we rode only
what Google liked, we couldn't get to 90% of the places we might need to
ride.

As I indicated, that's not the official policy, probably because it's
not politically correct and would surely precipitate yet another
Critical Mass ride down Mission St in protest. You're absolutely
correct from the standpoint of the bicycle rider. The law says you
have the rite-o-weight on the city streets. Therefore you be allowed
to exercise that right, no matter the side effects.

However, if you switch sides for a moment, and place yourself in the
position of the traffic planners, it makes little sense. Why should
the city spend time and money on bicycle lanes, bicycle paths,
parallel routes, signage, cyclist edukation, and alternative
transportation promotion, when the riders then choose to ignore the
new facilities and proceed to put themselves at risk while continuing
to snarl traffic?

I don't think it's possible to make every road completely safe for
cyclists. In many cases, the bike lanes are at best a bad joke. So,
why not do what you've advocated in the past, and provide seperate
bicycle and vehicle traffic routes? To the local planners, that means
leaving Mission Street to the vehicles and parallel King and High
Streets mostly to the cyclists, with bike paths on both sides of the
roadway.

As for Google, I have no idea where they get their bicycle maps.
Probably directly from the various minicipalities noting streets that
have bicycle lanes. As usual, such things tend to err on the side of
caution. It would not do well if Google marked Mission Street as
suitable for bicycle traffic, when it more closely resembles a
hazzard.

Santa Cruz City Bicycle Map:
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2010-bike-map-cityside.pdf
It's difficult to read on the screen as it's designed to be printed at
24"x36". I did a cut-n-paste on the area in question to:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mission-St.jpg
Red = Bicycle Lane Green = Bicycle Path
Purple = Bicycle alternate route

Note the box towards the left of the map that says:
Mission Street is heavily travelled.
Use alternate routes.

Argh... customer arrived bearing checkbook. More later...



--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On 07-02-2012 17:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel
street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A
cyclist should have a right to the road, period.

As one safety PSA said, "You could be right. Dead right."

There's more to (whatever) than just the law. A few years ago, I was a
witness for the plaintiff in a civil case. The judge said, "I am
concerned about the violation of the covenants, but if I find for the
plaintiff, I have to write a report etc. etc. and I am supposed to be on
a plane to Florida in three hours. So I find for the defense."

Afterward, I asked the plaintiff's lawyer, "Did he actually say ON THE
RECORD that he doesn't intend to do his job?"

The lawyer shrugged and said something like "Yeah, but what can you do?"

Fifteen years ago, I had to evict a tenant who owed several months rent.
The lease clearly said (as most do) that when something like that
happens, the tenant also pays the legal fees. The judge read the lease,
but ordered that the tenant had to pay ONE month's rent and get out.
That amount would have have barely paid the lawyer if I had ever
actually received it.

--
Wes Groleau

He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
— Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 17:54:33 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
Cruiser Philosopher" wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:57 pm, liaM wrote:
Le 03/07/2012 01:50, cyclist a écrit :

Roadway position [§316.2065(5)]
A person operating a bicycle on a roadway at less
than the normal speed of traffic under the conditions
existing must ride as close as practicable [safe] to the
roadway’s right-hand curb or edge, except under any
of the following situations:
• when passing another vehicle
• when making a left turn
• when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions
including (but not limited to), a fixed or moving
object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal,
surface hazard
• when a lane is too narrow for a bicycle and another
vehicle to travel safely side by side.

These are mighty fine to know, specifically for the traffic policeman
having to write the report at the scene of an accident involving
a bike or a motorcycle..

The one rule I follow involves trusting one's fellow human being 100%,
even if he's at the wheel of a 10 ton tank in front of which you
are standing (as was seen in Tienamen newsreels).

And this trust doesn't rely on Beethoven's 9th Symphony Hymn to Joy,
that we are all men, or Oxtail's inventions concerning buddhist
compassion and camaradeship. It relies instead on the obvious
fact that no human being wants to risk the hassle of running
over a cyclist. It's just too messy.

A simple equation : self-interest = avoid hassles.

That is true of some extent, but they often avoid that hassle by
escaping the scene of the accident. "Hit and run" is very common on
this part of the world (maybe more common than not). Maybe they were
on the phone or maybe they were paying more attention to the car next
to them than the bike. When they are squeezed, guess who goes first.

There's also a different problem. It's something in many individuals
that demonizes the victim --such as cyclists-- and then every action
is taken to crush them. This is "road rage." I was more a victim of
road rage than reckless driving. It's very common around here too. In
effect you must assume that any reaction may result in an escalation
of the conflict --even if you are right. You must fear telling them
they are a ******* in cutting you off. In other words, you must play
idiot in order to survive. And eventually you become an idiot by
acting like one.

Another way to avoid a confrontation is to make fun of them and give
them, say, a banana. Yes, you must use the banana before the machete.


Or just read rec.guns where a bloke named "Sheldon", a somewhat
revered name on this group, is offering suggestions on the best method
of carrying a pistol while cycling.

Per John B.:
Or just read rec.guns where a bloke named "Sheldon", a somewhat
revered name on this group, is offering suggestions on the best method
of carrying a pistol while cycling.

Years ago, I quit riding on the road altogether when a friend's
practice of carrying a loaded .44 magnum in his motorcycle's gas
tank bag started sounding reasonable to me.
--
Pete Cresswell

Wes Groleau wrote:
On 07-02-2012 17:21, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I'm not crazy about someone saying "You should ride the parallel
street," nor about "Google doesn't mark it as a suitable bike route." A
cyclist should have a right to the road, period.

As one safety PSA said, "You could be right. Dead right."

I know all laws are imperfect (as you illustrated in the rest of your
post), but I'm not going to give into fear of becoming dead.

Bicycling deaths are astonishingly rare both in actual count and in
incidents per million miles. Even "Danger! Danger!" academics like John
Pucher can't find more than one death per five million miles of riding.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Per Phil W Lee:
Digital video cameras are now inexpensive enough that you can have
forward, rearward and head mounted cameras, all in HD1080.

Three separate units? Or three cams feeding into one unit?

Either way, sounds like something I'd like to have on the rooftop
box on my vehicle. Eventually, I think I'd get enough footage
to sell a little short subject to one of the local TV stations...
--
Pete Cresswell

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:17:19 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Phil W Lee:
Digital video cameras are now inexpensive enough that you can have
forward, rearward and head mounted cameras, all in HD1080.

Three separate units? Or three cams feeding into one unit?

http://cam-do.com/360DegreeGoPro.jpg


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

On 07-03-2012 14:38, Phil W Lee wrote:
Wes Groleau considered Tue, 03 Jul 2012
00:00:01 -0400 the perfect time to write:

Afterward, I asked the plaintiff's lawyer, "Did he actually say ON THE
RECORD that he doesn't intend to do his job?"

The lawyer shrugged and said something like "Yeah, but what can you do?"

Appeal - since he was kind enough to explicitly give the grounds, it
was probably what he wanted to happen.
By giving a chance for a higher court to rule on it, he was making a
present of a stronger legal precedent, but the lawyer was apparently
too stupid to recognise it.
I'd be at least as concerned about the lawyer not doing HIS job.

I doubt the plaintiff could have afforded to pay for an appeal.
Too often in the U.S. system the loser is not the guy who's wrong,
but the guy who runs out of lawyer money first.

--
Wes Groleau

It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
— G. K. Chesterton

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:22:37 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

Cyclists don't snarl traffic.
Motorists are entirely responsible for that.

We were discussing "taking the lane" on Mission Street. Somehow, I
fail to see how motorists are causing a traffic jam by following a
slow cyclist in the middle of the lane. (Note: Mission St is one
lane each way, except for a turn lane, for most of its length). Of
course, if we assume that Mission St is a perpetual traffic jam, with
or without the cyclist, I guess such behavior might be acceptable.

The most a cyclist is likely to do is delay the motorists arrival at
the back of the next queue - usually within 100 yards or so.

Probably true. However motorists abhor a vacuum, or in this case, an
lane with empty space. Given the opportunity, the typical motorist
will risk life and insurance to fill the lane vacuum in order to
arrive a few milliseconds earlier. Wisdom is largely the ability to
distinguish between things that can be changed, and things that are
unlikely to ever change. Methinks this driver behavior is in the
latter category.

If you want to reduce traffic snarl-ups, it's easy; Just discourage
excessive use of motor vehicles.

Define excessive. To every driver, their immediate use of the vehicle
is deemed important and certainly not excessive. If there is
alternative transportation available, do you consider using a car as
excessive? I've tried it but stopped when a local bus driver gave me
a hassle over dragging two tool boxes with me on his crowded bus. To
some, travel is more about moving hardware around, than about moving
just people. Unless I want to get a trailer, bicycles won't work.

Last week, I participated in the California Household Travel Survey:
http://www.catravelsurvey.com
I was asked to keep a highly detailed log of my travels over a 24 hour
period and fill out a rather confusing series of online forms.
Unfortunately, they picked a day when I had a moderate number of
service calls, pickups, and deliveries. Looking at the list, I
suspect perhaps one out of the 18 trips that day might be considered
excessive.

I don't think it's possible to make every road completely safe for
cyclists. In many cases, the bike lanes are at best a bad joke.

So why waste money on them?

I have no idea. It seems to be an institution running on inertia. I
suppose a study into the effectiveness of bicycle lanes to reduce
accidents or increase ridership might settle the matter. However,
without a demonstratively effective alternative to bicycle lanes, the
municipalities will probably continue to build them until they run out
of roadways, money, or both.

Cycles are vehicle traffic.

So it written, so it must be. However, when jousting with my 35 lb
bicycle against a driver in his 4,000 lb vehicle, I often find it
difficult to insist on my legal rights.

They need to learn that cyclists are part of the traffic, and if the
cars and trucks don't like that, tough, go to a racetrack.

I suspect that the local planners are into expediency. Give the
bicyclists an alternative route, and they will come. Unfortunately,
there are a few recalcitrants that prefer to live dangerously. You
can lead a bicyclist to water, but you have to practically drown them
before they'll learn to drink nicely.

Motor vehicles are far more capable of accepting a diversion, so
should always be the ones expected to avoid the congestion that they
themselves cause.

Huh? I see bicyclist all over the road ways, including riding on
sidewalks and splitting lanes. Bicycles are far more maneuverable
than motor vehicles, and far less restricted in where a bicycle can
ride.

It needs more cyclists then.
And less motor vehicles.

Yeah, I know. Public roads would be great without vehicles. Take
away the vehicles, and give everyone a bicycle, and nirvana is certain
to follow. Just one small problem. Bicycles don't pay the road tax,
so the public roads will start to rapidly deteriorate without the
vehicles to support the necessary maintenance. Of course, the trucks,
buses, and delivery vehicles will still be necessary, so instead of
cars, the cyclists will get to dodge those.

Santa Cruz City Bicycle Map:
http://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2010-bike-map-cityside.pdf
It's difficult to read on the screen as it's designed to be printed at
24"x36". I did a cut-n-paste on the area in question to:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Mission-St.jpg
Red = Bicycle Lane Green = Bicycle Path
Purple = Bicycle alternate route

Note the box towards the left of the map that says:
Mission Street is heavily travelled.
Use alternate routes.

Note that the bicycle map was produced with the involvement of the
Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission’s Bicycle
Advisory Committee, which I presume approves of the note suggesting an
alternative route to Mission St.

Ah, full moon tonite. Gone howling...

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558