"Standstill crash"

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:19:04 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 8:01:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/29/2017 9:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On the singletrack yesterday I rode mostly slow and just
"bombed" a few sections. Didn't crash but there was enough
opportunity. Shortly before arriving home I called my wife
as usual so she knew when I'd be back for dinner. Stuffed
the phone back in a pannier, donned my helmet and then ...
CRRRRUSH ... I slid down 2ft and scraped open a knee a
little. Turns out the ground where I was standing gave way
and it along with myself went down while the bike stayed up
there.

Weird. Decomposed granite isn't what it used to be in the
good old days.


Right. We need more public infrastructure because every
political administration and civil engineering construction
firm is dead honest and competent:

http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/...423-story.html

I think we already made this point that bicycle paths are bound to be built cutting corners. Roads a lot less likely. So we should be punishing auto drivers who abuse other road users.

Tuesday I was riding on a road in a rich area of town. I counted about 20 cars passing me and although the slow lane was 30 feet wide and the center lane wide open the cars that took very close passes by me were all Prius's.

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that is beautifully constructed and paved -- but still dangerous because of design. Corner-cutting comes in many flavors -- and sometimes the designers don't even see the corners. They think the facility is super-deluxe when it's a death trap.

-- Jay Beattie.

It would seem to be much cheaper to develop a legal system that
properly penalized those who cause collisions rather then to build a
entire new highway structure because some people cause collisions :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 10:11:49 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 17:19:04 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 8:01:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/29/2017 9:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On the singletrack yesterday I rode mostly slow and just
"bombed" a few sections. Didn't crash but there was enough
opportunity. Shortly before arriving home I called my wife
as usual so she knew when I'd be back for dinner. Stuffed
the phone back in a pannier, donned my helmet and then ...
CRRRRUSH ... I slid down 2ft and scraped open a knee a
little. Turns out the ground where I was standing gave way
and it along with myself went down while the bike stayed up
there.

Weird. Decomposed granite isn't what it used to be in the
good old days.


Right. We need more public infrastructure because every
political administration and civil engineering construction
firm is dead honest and competent:

http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/...423-story.html

I think we already made this point that bicycle paths are bound to be built cutting corners. Roads a lot less likely. So we should be punishing auto drivers who abuse other road users.

Tuesday I was riding on a road in a rich area of town. I counted about 20 cars passing me and although the slow lane was 30 feet wide and the center lane wide open the cars that took very close passes by me were all Prius's.

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that is beautifully constructed and paved -- but still dangerous because of design. Corner-cutting comes in many flavors -- and sometimes the designers don't even see the corners. They think the facility is super-deluxe when it's a death trap.

-- Jay Beattie.

It would seem to be much cheaper to develop a legal system that
properly penalized those who cause collisions rather then to build a
entire new highway structure because some people cause collisions :-)

The actual numbers of people that threaten cyclists are getting less and less each year. But when they do it in front of cops the cops do absolutely nothing. Until that complains there will ALWAYS be that dangerous minority.

On 6/29/2017 8:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that is beautifully constructed and paved -- but still dangerous because of design. Corner-cutting comes in many flavors -- and sometimes the designers don't even see the corners. They think the facility is super-deluxe when it's a death trap.

About six months ago, a dozen members of our bike club attended a public
meeting on a proposed bike facility. The design looked crazy, with
wrong-way cyclists mixing narrow spaces with pedestrians and with
chaotic interactions at intersections. We're fervently hoping the grant
application gets shot down hard.

But maybe a week ago, I was talking to a local planner. It was a social
situation involving re-introduction of friends from long ago.

Anyway, that bike project came up. I said something about hoping it
didn't get funded, and about its intersection design being particularly
atrocious.

The planner's facial expression seemed to indicate she disagreed with
me. She said "Well, I'm an incrementalist."

Given the social situation, I didn't ask for an explanation. But I
suspect she meant "We'll get the money and build it. Then we'll later
try to fix the mistakes."

Can you imagine designing structural bridge elements using that philosophy?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-06-30 08:29, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2017 8:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that is
beautifully constructed and paved -- but still dangerous because of
design. Corner-cutting comes in many flavors -- and sometimes the
designers don't even see the corners. They think the facility is
super-deluxe when it's a death trap.

About six months ago, a dozen members of our bike club attended a public
meeting on a proposed bike facility. The design looked crazy, with
wrong-way cyclists mixing narrow spaces with pedestrians and with
chaotic interactions at intersections. We're fervently hoping the grant
application gets shot down hard.


It's probably already all carved up and the meetings are token events so
the public thinks it had its say.


But maybe a week ago, I was talking to a local planner. It was a social
situation involving re-introduction of friends from long ago.

Anyway, that bike project came up. I said something about hoping it
didn't get funded, and about its intersection design being particularly
atrocious.

The planner's facial expression seemed to indicate she disagreed with
me. She said "Well, I'm an incrementalist."

Given the social situation, I didn't ask for an explanation. But I
suspect she meant "We'll get the money and build it. Then we'll later
try to fix the mistakes."

Can you imagine designing structural bridge elements using that philosophy?


We've had plenty examples of bridges built with the "we'll fix it later"
mentality. For example, the Bay Bridge towards San Franscisco comes to
mind. When stuff can't really be fixed it gets papered over.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...re-6290453.php

Sometimes the fixes come too late.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/HAR0803.pdf

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On Friday, June 30, 2017 at 9:04:38 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-06-30 08:29, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2017 8:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that is
beautifully constructed and paved -- but still dangerous because of
design. Corner-cutting comes in many flavors -- and sometimes the
designers don't even see the corners. They think the facility is
super-deluxe when it's a death trap.

About six months ago, a dozen members of our bike club attended a public
meeting on a proposed bike facility. The design looked crazy, with
wrong-way cyclists mixing narrow spaces with pedestrians and with
chaotic interactions at intersections. We're fervently hoping the grant
application gets shot down hard.


It's probably already all carved up and the meetings are token events so
the public thinks it had its say.


But maybe a week ago, I was talking to a local planner. It was a social
situation involving re-introduction of friends from long ago.

Anyway, that bike project came up. I said something about hoping it
didn't get funded, and about its intersection design being particularly
atrocious.

The planner's facial expression seemed to indicate she disagreed with
me. She said "Well, I'm an incrementalist."

Given the social situation, I didn't ask for an explanation. But I
suspect she meant "We'll get the money and build it. Then we'll later
try to fix the mistakes."

Can you imagine designing structural bridge elements using that philosophy?


We've had plenty examples of bridges built with the "we'll fix it later"
mentality. For example, the Bay Bridge towards San Franscisco comes to
mind. When stuff can't really be fixed it gets papered over.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...re-6290453.php

Sometimes the fixes come too late.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/HAR0803.pdf

As far as I know - every single steel rod that has been tested to specifications on the eastern span of the Bay Bridge has failed. The bridge is now simply sitting atop the pier rather than tied to it. Last I heard they were trying to figure out a way to anchor the expressway to the bridge pier.

They got REALLY silent about this after some of the engineers leaked that information.

On 6/30/2017 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2017 8:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that
is beautifully constructed and paved -- but still
dangerous because of design. Corner-cutting comes in many
flavors -- and sometimes the designers don't even see the
corners. They think the facility is super-deluxe when
it's a death trap.

About six months ago, a dozen members of our bike club
attended a public meeting on a proposed bike facility. The
design looked crazy, with wrong-way cyclists mixing narrow
spaces with pedestrians and with chaotic interactions at
intersections. We're fervently hoping the grant application
gets shot down hard.

But maybe a week ago, I was talking to a local planner. It
was a social situation involving re-introduction of friends
from long ago.

Anyway, that bike project came up. I said something about
hoping it didn't get funded, and about its intersection
design being particularly atrocious.

The planner's facial expression seemed to indicate she
disagreed with me. She said "Well, I'm an incrementalist."

Given the social situation, I didn't ask for an explanation.
But I suspect she meant "We'll get the money and build it.
Then we'll later try to fix the mistakes."

Can you imagine designing structural bridge elements using
that philosophy?



ha ha ha. You're such an optimist.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...rt-3211953.php

http://www.tampabay.com/news/transpo...e-woes/2115987

You wrote, "We'll get the money and build it.
Then we'll later try to fix the mistakes."

Meaning, "We'll take care of our pals, design and build it
so it will be more debacle than mere failure, thus
guaranteeing a lifetime revenue stream for the ghost payroll
and kickbacks which actually motivate our lives, taxpayer be
damned."



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

On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 5:19:08 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 8:01:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, June 29, 2017 at 7:45:22 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/29/2017 9:36 AM, Joerg wrote:
On the singletrack yesterday I rode mostly slow and just
"bombed" a few sections. Didn't crash but there was enough
opportunity. Shortly before arriving home I called my wife
as usual so she knew when I'd be back for dinner. Stuffed
the phone back in a pannier, donned my helmet and then ...
CRRRRUSH ... I slid down 2ft and scraped open a knee a
little. Turns out the ground where I was standing gave way
and it along with myself went down while the bike stayed up
there.

Weird. Decomposed granite isn't what it used to be in the
good old days.


Right. We need more public infrastructure because every
political administration and civil engineering construction
firm is dead honest and competent:

http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/...423-story.html

I think we already made this point that bicycle paths are bound to be built cutting corners. Roads a lot less likely. So we should be punishing auto drivers who abuse other road users.

Tuesday I was riding on a road in a rich area of town. I counted about 20 cars passing me and although the slow lane was 30 feet wide and the center lane wide open the cars that took very close passes by me were all Prius's.

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that is beautifully constructed and paved -- but still dangerous because of design. Corner-cutting comes in many flavors -- and sometimes the designers don't even see the corners. They think the facility is super-deluxe when it's a death trap.

-- Jay Beattie.

A bike path in Brasil?

https://www.google.com/search?q=braz...w=1366&bih=690

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 11:29:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/29/2017 8:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that is beautifully constructed and paved -- but still dangerous because of design. Corner-cutting comes in many flavors -- and sometimes the designers don't even see the corners. They think the facility is super-deluxe when it's a death trap.

About six months ago, a dozen members of our bike club attended a public
meeting on a proposed bike facility. The design looked crazy, with
wrong-way cyclists mixing narrow spaces with pedestrians and with
chaotic interactions at intersections. We're fervently hoping the grant
application gets shot down hard.

But maybe a week ago, I was talking to a local planner. It was a social
situation involving re-introduction of friends from long ago.

Anyway, that bike project came up. I said something about hoping it
didn't get funded, and about its intersection design being particularly
atrocious.

The planner's facial expression seemed to indicate she disagreed with
me. She said "Well, I'm an incrementalist."

Given the social situation, I didn't ask for an explanation. But I
suspect she meant "We'll get the money and build it. Then we'll later
try to fix the mistakes."

Can you imagine designing structural bridge elements using that philosophy?

My own belief is that the U.S. already has sufficient highway space
and traffic laws to provide safe riding for bicyclists. For a far
simpler remedy why not just enforce the laws? It would seem to be the
cheapest solution.


--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 09:04:43 -0700, Joerg
wrote:

On 2017-06-30 08:29, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2017 8:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that is
beautifully constructed and paved -- but still dangerous because of
design. Corner-cutting comes in many flavors -- and sometimes the
designers don't even see the corners. They think the facility is
super-deluxe when it's a death trap.

About six months ago, a dozen members of our bike club attended a public
meeting on a proposed bike facility. The design looked crazy, with
wrong-way cyclists mixing narrow spaces with pedestrians and with
chaotic interactions at intersections. We're fervently hoping the grant
application gets shot down hard.


It's probably already all carved up and the meetings are token events so
the public thinks it had its say.


But maybe a week ago, I was talking to a local planner. It was a social
situation involving re-introduction of friends from long ago.

Anyway, that bike project came up. I said something about hoping it
didn't get funded, and about its intersection design being particularly
atrocious.

The planner's facial expression seemed to indicate she disagreed with
me. She said "Well, I'm an incrementalist."

Given the social situation, I didn't ask for an explanation. But I
suspect she meant "We'll get the money and build it. Then we'll later
try to fix the mistakes."

Can you imagine designing structural bridge elements using that philosophy?


We've had plenty examples of bridges built with the "we'll fix it later"
mentality. For example, the Bay Bridge towards San Franscisco comes to
mind. When stuff can't really be fixed it gets papered over.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...re-6290453.php

The problem, as stated in the article, was that 99% of the rods tested
passed the test and 1% failed. So what was papered over?

Sometimes the fixes come too late.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/HAR0803.pdf
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 12:26:10 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 6/30/2017 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/29/2017 8:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I've seen some pretty swanky bicycle infrastructure that
is beautifully constructed and paved -- but still
dangerous because of design. Corner-cutting comes in many
flavors -- and sometimes the designers don't even see the
corners. They think the facility is super-deluxe when
it's a death trap.

About six months ago, a dozen members of our bike club
attended a public meeting on a proposed bike facility. The
design looked crazy, with wrong-way cyclists mixing narrow
spaces with pedestrians and with chaotic interactions at
intersections. We're fervently hoping the grant application
gets shot down hard.

But maybe a week ago, I was talking to a local planner. It
was a social situation involving re-introduction of friends
from long ago.

Anyway, that bike project came up. I said something about
hoping it didn't get funded, and about its intersection
design being particularly atrocious.

The planner's facial expression seemed to indicate she
disagreed with me. She said "Well, I'm an incrementalist."

Given the social situation, I didn't ask for an explanation.
But I suspect she meant "We'll get the money and build it.
Then we'll later try to fix the mistakes."

Can you imagine designing structural bridge elements using
that philosophy?



ha ha ha. You're such an optimist.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...rt-3211953.php

http://www.tampabay.com/news/transpo...e-woes/2115987

You wrote, "We'll get the money and build it.
Then we'll later try to fix the mistakes."

Meaning, "We'll take care of our pals, design and build it
so it will be more debacle than mere failure, thus
guaranteeing a lifetime revenue stream for the ghost payroll
and kickbacks which actually motivate our lives, taxpayer be
damned."

It is called Other People's Money (OPM) and is popular for the
financing of illogical projects. If, for example, one were to propose
a bicycle lane which is to be paid for by a government grant (OPM in
other words) you can probably drum up nearly 100% support for the
project. In contrast try to drum up support for a bicycle lane to be
paid for by those that use the lane and see how much support you get.

But having said that it might also be said that graft and corruption
is what made America great. Research the building of the
transcontinental railroad, digging of the Erie Cannel, the early
railroads, or any other major public construction project.


--
Cheers,

John B.