I approved of a road bike on a sidewalk.

This afternoon, I looked across the street, saw a road bike on the
sidewalk, and told my companion the rider was doing right.

Those narrow tires slice into fresh, hot asphalt.

We haven't the slightest idea why our street is being paved -- I
hadn't had the least bit of discomfort on my inch-and-a-quarter tires,
and every hole dug in it had been properly repaired -- but it *does*
look very nice.

Would have been better if they had told us in advance so people would
know to go around on Chestnut Street.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:48:36 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:


This afternoon, I looked across the street, saw a road bike on the
sidewalk, and told my companion the rider was doing right.

Those narrow tires slice into fresh, hot asphalt.

We haven't the slightest idea why our street is being paved -- I
hadn't had the least bit of discomfort on my inch-and-a-quarter tires,
and every hole dug in it had been properly repaired -- but it *does*
look very nice.

Would have been better if they had told us in advance so people would
know to go around on Chestnut Street.

If the paving was contracted out perhaps it was simply included in a
package - pave the streets on the X side of town. If done by the
village roads department then perhaps to keep Mrs. Z from complaining
that "they paved that street, why didn't they pave mine?"

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/22/2020 7:48 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

This afternoon, I looked across the street, saw a road bike on the
sidewalk, and told my companion the rider was doing right.

Those narrow tires slice into fresh, hot asphalt.

Friday around rush hour, my wife and I rode the tandem to our favorite
deli, about a ten mile round trip. The deli's on a busy arterial that we
avoided by using back streets. The last of those popped us out on facing
that arterial on a steep little uphill, waiting for a break in traffic.
(It's always a bit difficult to start the tandem on an uphill.) I said
to my wife "It's only 100 feet to the driveway. I should have used the
sidewalk."

On the other hand, it was many years ago that I stopped in a store about
200 yards farther on that same street, also at rush hour. The store I
stopped at didn't have the oddball microphone cable I needed, but I
thoght another store two doors further on might. I looked at the fierce
traffic and said "I'll just take the sidwalk, slowly."

I was very nearly right hooked at the only intersecting driveway.


--
- Frank Krygowski

The monitor I read Usenet on shows its back to the window.

While I was contemplating a reply to this thread, a bike rider in full
kit passed by on the new pavement, with his left arm sticking out. I
stood up to see past the window frame, and sure enough, he turned left
into Boy's City Drive.

What *are* they doing at the Trailhouse?

On the other hand, yesterday's paper announced that an expensive
educational campaign is starting today to teach motorists to stay out
of the sparkling-new anti-bike lane on Main Street even when turning
right; one is supposed to zoom past the rider and then swerve across
his path.

I wish I could take the mayor for a ride.

--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:23:45 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

I wish I could take the mayor for a ride.

Perhaps someone did. I went to look at the pylons this morning, and
there weren't any.

It's more likely that the street department said "Okay, the mayor has
had his fun; we want our pylons back."

At any rate, it was safe to ride on Main today (light traffic, so I
could ride in the middle and move into the "buffered bike lane" only
when someone was overtaking.

I think that "buffered" means that they have marked the left half of
the anti-bike lane with diagonal lines. I should have gotten off and
measured it. It's *way* too narrow to allow four feet of clearance
just by "alert drivers that the bike lanes are not intended for
motorized travel".

Not to mention that there are driveways every few feet on the "bike
lane" side of the street.

I went back to the newspaper for 22nd September for the quote, and
noticed that it is a "month-long bicycle-lane education program" that
continues "through October", so I guess it hasn't started yet.

Pity my current printer doesn't work on sticky labels. They are
putting up yard signs.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 19:44:38 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 11:23:45 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

I wish I could take the mayor for a ride.

Perhaps someone did. I went to look at the pylons this morning, and
there weren't any.

It's more likely that the street department said "Okay, the mayor has
had his fun; we want our pylons back."

At any rate, it was safe to ride on Main today (light traffic, so I
could ride in the middle and move into the "buffered bike lane" only
when someone was overtaking.

I think that "buffered" means that they have marked the left half of
the anti-bike lane with diagonal lines. I should have gotten off and
measured it. It's *way* too narrow to allow four feet of clearance
just by "alert drivers that the bike lanes are not intended for
motorized travel".

Not to mention that there are driveways every few feet on the "bike
lane" side of the street.

I went back to the newspaper for 22nd September for the quote, and
noticed that it is a "month-long bicycle-lane education program" that
continues "through October", so I guess it hasn't started yet.

Pity my current printer doesn't work on sticky labels. They are
putting up yard signs.

Most of our larger roads have an outside lane, whether parking,
breakdown or bus, that is normally used for bicycles also and seems to
work pretty and as well as highway regulation, here, require that
"bicycles and motorcycles" travel on "the side of the road" which
means just that, i.e., not out in the middle of the lane.

I've seen one dedicated "bike lane" in Bangkok which in reality is a
rather wide and little used sidewalk, but also very bumpy, and I've
never seen a bicycle on it. I also know of two "lanes" actually the
maintenance roads in a park and another around the "New" airport that
bicycles use.

But I suspect that the biggest difference is that there is a policy
here that in a collision the biggest guy is in the wrong, unless of
course he can prove different. So if a car hits a bicycle the car is
normally liable for any and all costs, hospital, damage to the bike
and even funeral costs in the event of death. I believe that it does
make things a bit different.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 09:55:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

But I suspect that the biggest difference is that there is a policy
here that in a collision the biggest guy is in the wrong, unless of
course he can prove different. So if a car hits a bicycle the car is
normally liable for any and all costs, hospital, damage to the bike
and even funeral costs in the event of death. I believe that it does
make things a bit different.

American society is adamantly opposed to the idea that miscreants
should pay for the damage they have done.

I don't know when that happened.

In the forties, when I was a little kid, two of the big boys broke the
little kids' teeter-totter. The janitor of the school told the boys
where they could buy a plank and supervised them while they took the
broken toy apart and rebuilt it better than it had been before. Both
grew up to be pillars of the community.

Not too long before we moved out of New York, two boys painted
graffiti on the school next door. Instead of handing the kids a wire
brush and a bottle of paint remover, they called in the police and
made criminals out of them, and the clean-up was done at taxpayer
expense.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 19:37:01 -0400, Joy Beeson
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 09:55:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

But I suspect that the biggest difference is that there is a policy
here that in a collision the biggest guy is in the wrong, unless of
course he can prove different. So if a car hits a bicycle the car is
normally liable for any and all costs, hospital, damage to the bike
and even funeral costs in the event of death. I believe that it does
make things a bit different.

American society is adamantly opposed to the idea that miscreants
should pay for the damage they have done.

I don't know when that happened.

In the forties, when I was a little kid, two of the big boys broke the
little kids' teeter-totter. The janitor of the school told the boys
where they could buy a plank and supervised them while they took the
broken toy apart and rebuilt it better than it had been before. Both
grew up to be pillars of the community.

Not too long before we moved out of New York, two boys painted
graffiti on the school next door. Instead of handing the kids a wire
brush and a bottle of paint remover, they called in the police and
made criminals out of them, and the clean-up was done at taxpayer
expense.

I suppose that it is "progress" or maybe we are more "civilized" these
days. But, I suspect that in your example, above, that having to clean
off the graffiti - really clean! - might have proved to be a more
effective punishment than being arrested and having their parents pay
the fine.

My own experience, raising kids, that they can think and they can
figure out the difference between this action and another and that
when one action results in something unpleasant that will avoid that
action in the future.
--
Cheers,

John B.