Cyclists are putting red cups in the road to show how drivers ofteninvade bike lanes

https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/04/26/cyclists-are-putting-red-cups-road-show-how-drivers-often-invade-bike-lanes/fskNwwciZ5I793zvL7hUWN/story.html

“We ... need connected protected bike lanes to accommodate everyone from
age 8 to 80 to ride stress free to school, work, and to the store,� he
said. “We also need to educate drivers that cyclists are legally
entitled to ride on the road and for drivers to share the space and be
courteous.�

On 4/26/2019 6:58 PM, sms wrote:
https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/04/26/cyclists-are-putting-red-cups-road-show-how-drivers-often-invade-bike-lanes/fskNwwciZ5I793zvL7hUWN/story.html


“We ... need connected protected bike lanes to accommodate everyone from
age 8 to 80 to ride stress free to school, work, and to the store,� he
said. “We also need to educate drivers that cyclists are legally
entitled to ride on the road and for drivers to share the space and be
courteous.�

Ah, another fundamentalist principle: No car tire must ever touch the
pavement inside a bike lane! It sounds very similar to the kosher demand
that a spoon used for milk must never touch meat, nor vice-versa.

I don't have a problem with kosher kitchens, if that's what someone
believes. I just don't think that mentality should extend to public
roadways. In fact, one problem with bike lanes is that car tires don't
touch them often enough! The result is gravel, broken glass or other
debris that sits in the lanes until the street sweeper comes by. In my
area, that's only once every six months.

And the result of the debris in the bike lane is that bicyclists in bike
lanes have to ride farther to the left, since the lane is cleanest
closest to the cars. This puts riders closer to passing cars, and
effectively wastes road space.

All that's really necessary is for the motorist to stay out of the
cyclist's space _when the cyclist is in it_. That's why I prefer a
normal wide lane instead of the same lane with a bike lane stripe.

This "Desecration!" stuff is nonsense.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 21:12:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

This "Desecration!" stuff is nonsense.

"Deadly" is more accurate than "nonsense". When motorists refuse to
touch tire to the "bike lane", it means that instead of merging into
the rightmost lane ahead of or behind a bike rider, right-turning
motorists swerve across the lane through the bike rider.

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

On 4/26/2019 7:30 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 21:12:11 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

This "Desecration!" stuff is nonsense.

"Deadly" is more accurate than "nonsense". When motorists refuse to
touch tire to the "bike lane", it means that instead of merging into
the rightmost lane ahead of or behind a bike rider, right-turning
motorists swerve across the lane through the bike rider.

Not sure where you are, but in California, the bike lane marking changes
from solid to dashed where vehicles are supposed to enter the bike lane
to make a right turn.

While some drivers respect this, the problem is that many drivers treat
the bike lane a half-mile long right turn lane. Trucks treat the bike
lane a loading/unloading zone. Motorists decide that the bike lane is
the perfect place to pull over to make a call, get something out of the
trunk, drop off or pick up passengers, or queue up to enter a parking
lot. Uber and Lyft drivers wait in the bike lane until they get their
next notification for a ride. Police pull people over in the bike lane
to issue tickets.

There is just no way to hire enough police to enforce the laws of
bicycle lanes (or any laws for that matter). What you have to do is to
find ways of traffic calming that do not require enforcement.

On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:58:42 -0700, sms wrote:

https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...e-putting-red-
cups-road-show-how-drivers-often-invade-bike-lanes/fskNwwciZ5I793zvL7hUWN/
story.html

“We ... need connected protected bike lanes to accommodate everyone from
age 8 to 80 to ride stress free to school, work, and to the store,� he
said. “We also need to educate drivers that cyclists are legally
entitled to ride on the road and for drivers to share the space and be
courteous.�

Come to Denmark; we have that here. Having cycled many
years in Australia, I am still amazed when a car lets
me go through an intersection while they wait to do a
turn, wow.

--
Dieter Britz

On 4/28/2019 2:21 AM, db wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:58:42 -0700, sms wrote:

https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...e-putting-red-
cups-road-show-how-drivers-often-invade-bike-lanes/fskNwwciZ5I793zvL7hUWN/
story.html

“We ... need connected protected bike lanes to accommodate everyone from
age 8 to 80 to ride stress free to school, work, and to the store,� he
said. “We also need to educate drivers that cyclists are legally
entitled to ride on the road and for drivers to share the space and be
courteous.�

Come to Denmark; we have that here. Having cycled many
years in Australia, I am still amazed when a car lets
me go through an intersection while they wait to do a
turn, wow.

It's a different mindset in the U.S. than from Denmark, unfortunately.
But it varies by community, and there can be big differences between
cities very close to each other, based on the demographics, and even
within large cities. Palo Alto and Berkeley are more like Denmark. Parts
of San Jose are like Australia, parts of San Jose are okay. Towns with
big universities like Palo Alto, Berkeley, Davis, etc. have high rates
of cycling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_bicycle_commuters.

Of non-college towns, Portland and San Francisco are the standouts of
larger cities in terms of cycling levels. San Francisco has invested a
lot in bicycle infrastructure. Even a lawsuit by a resident against
bicycle lanes temporarily allowed the city to divert money into bicycle
infrastructure not affected by the lawsuit, and in retrospect was a good
thing because it forced the city to do an environmental study that
looked at bicycle lanes as a complete package rather than to create them
piecemeal. A disconnected network of bicycle infrastructure is a big
frustration to cyclists.

It's also a bit ironic that gridlocked car traffic does have benefits
for cyclists in terms of safety. When I was working in San Francisco,
from the train station I rode along the Embarcadero separated multi-use
path, but there was also a bicycle lane on the road. I was always going
much faster than the motor vehicle traffic.

One thing the people who keep repeating "danger danger" don't understand
is that in economically vibrant areas like Portland, Seattle, San
Francisco, and Silicon Valley, there is a need to try to mitigate
congestion by multiple means. Oregon has a 0.1% employee transit tax and
Portland has an employer tax of 0.7637% om wages. Oregon is big on
progressive taxes, while California has powerful big business groups
that advocate for regressive taxes, generally sales taxes and increased
tolls.

Of the ten largest cities in the U.S. only three are in the top ten for
transit use, New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia (all cities with good,
though aging, separated grade rail).

In economically vibrant areas, because of increased density without a
commensurate increase in mass transit, traffic congestion has increased
to levels where drivers get impatient and do stupid things. There's the
beautiful bike lane with just a few pesky cyclists using it so why not
turn it into an unofficial traffic lane and squeeze by all those cars.

A good article about this is at
https://www.betterbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Making-Cycling-Irresistible-Lessons-from-Europe-Pucher-2008.pdf
which examines how the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have succeeded
in increasing cycling. Pay attention to table 1 on page 512.

sms writes:

https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/04/26/cyclists-are-putting-red-cups-road-show-how-drivers-often-invade-bike-lanes/fskNwwciZ5I793zvL7hUWN/story.html

¡°We ... need connected protected bike lanes to accommodate everyone
from age 8 to 80 to ride stress free to school, work, and to the
store,¡± he said. ¡°We also need to educate drivers that cyclists are
legally entitled to ride on the road and for drivers to share the
space and be courteous.¡±

It's Boston, for crying out loud. Lane stripes are merely advisory.

On 4/28/2019 10:33 AM, sms wrote:
On 4/28/2019 2:21 AM, db wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:58:42 -0700, sms wrote:

https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...e-putting-red-
cups-road-show-how-drivers-often-invade-bike-lanes/fskNwwciZ5I793zvL7hUWN/

story.html

“We ... need connected protected bike lanes to accommodate everyone from
age 8 to 80 to ride stress free to school, work, and to the store,� he
said. “We also need to educate drivers that cyclists are legally
entitled to ride on the road and for drivers to share the space and be
courteous.�

Come to Denmark; we have that here. Having cycled many
years in Australia, I am still amazed when a car lets
me go through an intersection while they wait to do a
turn, wow.

It's a different mindset in the U.S. than from Denmark, unfortunately.
But it varies by community, and there can be big differences between
cities very close to each other, based on the demographics, and even
within large cities. Palo Alto and Berkeley are more like Denmark. Parts
of San Jose are like Australia, parts of San Jose are okay. Towns with
big universities like Palo Alto, Berkeley, Davis, etc. have high rates
of cycling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_bicycle_commuters.

The U.S. has a different mindset than Denmark's (and Netherlands', and
Germany's) primarily because so many characteristics of the U.S. are
very different than those countries. Aside from the history and culture
(Netherlands and Copenhagen have always been bicycling hotbeds), there
are the matters of terrain, climate and density. These have tremendous
influences on a population's willingness to ride a bike instead of drive
a car. Even more important is dissuading car use by taxes, fees,
restricted parking and provision of alternatives like mass transit.

In almost all the U.S., having a car is a practical necessity. The
average commute is roughly half an hour by car. Waiting for a bus
instead would make it into an hour commute or more. Waiting for the
subway or train would make it into a decades long commute, because there
are no trains serving most people.

Once you buy a car, it becomes your default mode of transportation
unless some powerful factor intervenes. For almost all people, that
powerful factor would have to be some strong disincentive to driving -
impossible parking (as in NYC), huge traffic jams (as in Portland's or
LA's rush hour freeways), loss of a license due to DUI (although even
that's usually not sufficient disincentive).

And if driving a car does become too onerous, only a small portion of
Americans will choose a bike as an alternative. Why? Because even by
car, it's a half hour to get to work. By bike, it would be 90 minutes or
more each way. And there will be hills, which for most people are
impossible - or so they think. And there's weather, because most of the
U.S. doesn't have mild winters or moderate summers like parts of
California or Oregon. Winters are blustery, brutal and icy. Summers are
hot and humid - hence the "I'd need a shower when I got to work" excuse.
(The Dutch are baffled by that. They don't realize that in the U.S.,
work is not just 3 km away and the temperature is 32 Celsius, not 17
Celsius.)

So very few Americans are going to figure out how to ride a bike to
work. They're beyond disinterested. They don't love bicycling, and they
are quick to see the real problems it would present.

(I don't recall hearing how many readers here bike to work more than,
say, twice per week - or did before they retired. I bet the percentage
is small. In my bike club, the percentage was certainly below 5%.)

One thing the people who keep repeating "danger danger" don't understand
is that in economically vibrant areas like Portland, Seattle, San
Francisco, and Silicon Valley, there is a need to try to mitigate
congestion by multiple means.

.... and it's working so wonderfully? No! Traffic in Portland and Seattle
are worse than ever even though their bike commute mode share is "high"
by U.S. standards. (Yes, in this country, 5% is "high.") You simply
cannot coax enough Americans out of cars to make an observable difference!

You certainly can't do it by providing bike cattle chutes. As I just
pointed out, the count of bike lanes ("protected" or not) continues to
rise. Why isn't the mode share of biking rising in response? Yes, there
was a period when those rose in parallel in some places. But fashion
trumps bike lanes, and apparently biking is beginning to go out of
fashion in Seattle and Portland. And it's never been in fashion in the
vast majority of America.

A good article about this is at
https://www.betterbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Making-Cycling-Irresistible-Lessons-from-Europe-Pucher-2008.pdf
which examines how the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have succeeded
in increasing cycling. Pay attention to table 1 on page 512.

Again, those started with initial conditions wildly different from
America. Hell, compare gasoline prices!

And BTW, that paper's figure 10 lists the "Danger! Danger!" of bicycling
in America. 5.8 fatalities per 100 million kilometers of bicycling!

Why, that's one fatality every 10.7 million miles! That's terrible! The
average American bicycle rider would hit 10.7 million miles and a 50/50
chance of dying in ... oh, let's see... maybe 4000 years of riding?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/28/2019 2:21 AM, db wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:58:42 -0700, sms wrote:

https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...e-putting-red-
cups-road-show-how-drivers-often-invade-bike-lanes/fskNwwciZ5I793zvL7hUWN/
story.html

“We ... need connected protected bike lanes to accommodate everyone from
age 8 to 80 to ride stress free to school, work, and to the store,� he
said. “We also need to educate drivers that cyclists are legally
entitled to ride on the road and for drivers to share the space and be
courteous.�

Come to Denmark; we have that here. Having cycled many
years in Australia, I am still amazed when a car lets
me go through an intersection while they wait to do a
turn, wow.

It's a different mindset in the U.S. than from Denmark, unfortunately.
But it varies by community, and there can be big differences between
cities very close to each other, based on the demographics, and even
within large cities. Palo Alto and Berkeley are more like Denmark. Parts
of San Jose are like Australia, parts of San Jose are okay. Towns with
big universities like Palo Alto, Berkeley, Davis, etc. have high rates
of cycling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_bicycle_commuters.

Of non-college towns, Portland and San Francisco are the standouts of
larger cities in terms of cycling levels. San Francisco has invested a
lot in bicycle infrastructure. Even a lawsuit by a resident against
bicycle lanes temporarily allowed the city to divert money into bicycle
infrastructure not affected by the lawsuit, and in retrospect was a good
thing because it forced the city to do an environmental study that
looked at bicycle lanes as a complete package rather than to create them
piecemeal. A disconnected network of bicycle infrastructure is a big
frustration to cyclists.

It's also a bit ironic that gridlocked car traffic does have benefits
for cyclists in terms of safety. When I was working in San Francisco,
from the train station I rode along the Embarcadero separated multi-use
path, but there was also a bicycle lane on the road. I was always going
much faster than the motor vehicle traffic.

One thing the people who keep repeating "danger danger" don't understand
is that in economically vibrant areas like Portland, Seattle, San
Francisco, and Silicon Valley, there is a need to try to mitigate
congestion by multiple means. Oregon has a 0.1% employee transit tax and
Portland has an employer tax of 0.7637% om wages. Oregon is big on
progressive taxes, while California has powerful big business groups
that advocate for regressive taxes, generally sales taxes and increased
tolls.

Of the ten largest cities in the U.S. only three are in the top ten for
transit use, New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia (all cities with good,
though aging, separated grade rail).

In economically vibrant areas, because of increased density without a
commensurate increase in mass transit, traffic congestion has increased
to levels where drivers get impatient and do stupid things. There's the
beautiful bike lane with just a few pesky cyclists using it so why not
turn it into an unofficial traffic lane and squeeze by all those cars.
Vehicles abusing the painted bicycle lanes make potential cyclists
reconsider bicycling, and it's the willing, but somewhat reluctant,
cyclists that we need to convince that they won't be run over by an
errant vehicle.

A good article about this is at
https://www.betterbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Making-Cycling-Irresistible-Lessons-from-Europe-Pucher-2008.pdf
which examines how the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have succeeded
in increasing cycling. Pay attention to table 1 on page 512.

On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 8:06:14 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 4/28/2019 2:21 AM, db wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:58:42 -0700, sms wrote:

https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...e-putting-red-
cups-road-show-how-drivers-often-invade-bike-lanes/fskNwwciZ5I793zvL7hUWN/
story.html

“We ... need connected protected bike lanes to accommodate everyone from
age 8 to 80 to ride stress free to school, work, and to the store,� he
said. “We also need to educate drivers that cyclists are legally
entitled to ride on the road and for drivers to share the space and be
courteous.�

Come to Denmark; we have that here. Having cycled many
years in Australia, I am still amazed when a car lets
me go through an intersection while they wait to do a
turn, wow.

It's a different mindset in the U.S. than from Denmark, unfortunately.
But it varies by community, and there can be big differences between
cities very close to each other, based on the demographics, and even
within large cities. Palo Alto and Berkeley are more like Denmark. Parts
of San Jose are like Australia, parts of San Jose are okay. Towns with
big universities like Palo Alto, Berkeley, Davis, etc. have high rates
of cycling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_bicycle_commuters.

Of non-college towns, Portland and San Francisco are the standouts of
larger cities in terms of cycling levels. San Francisco has invested a
lot in bicycle infrastructure. Even a lawsuit by a resident against
bicycle lanes temporarily allowed the city to divert money into bicycle
infrastructure not affected by the lawsuit, and in retrospect was a good
thing because it forced the city to do an environmental study that
looked at bicycle lanes as a complete package rather than to create them
piecemeal. A disconnected network of bicycle infrastructure is a big
frustration to cyclists.

It's also a bit ironic that gridlocked car traffic does have benefits
for cyclists in terms of safety. When I was working in San Francisco,
from the train station I rode along the Embarcadero separated multi-use
path, but there was also a bicycle lane on the road. I was always going
much faster than the motor vehicle traffic.

One thing the people who keep repeating "danger danger" don't understand
is that in economically vibrant areas like Portland, Seattle, San
Francisco, and Silicon Valley, there is a need to try to mitigate
congestion by multiple means. Oregon has a 0.1% employee transit tax and
Portland has an employer tax of 0.7637% om wages. Oregon is big on
progressive taxes, while California has powerful big business groups
that advocate for regressive taxes, generally sales taxes and increased
tolls.

Of the ten largest cities in the U.S. only three are in the top ten for
transit use, New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia (all cities with good,
though aging, separated grade rail).

In economically vibrant areas, because of increased density without a
commensurate increase in mass transit, traffic congestion has increased
to levels where drivers get impatient and do stupid things. There's the
beautiful bike lane with just a few pesky cyclists using it so why not
turn it into an unofficial traffic lane and squeeze by all those cars.
Vehicles abusing the painted bicycle lanes make potential cyclists
reconsider bicycling, and it's the willing, but somewhat reluctant,
cyclists that we need to convince that they won't be run over by an
errant vehicle.

A good article about this is at
https://www.betterbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Making-Cycling-Irresistible-Lessons-from-Europe-Pucher-2008.pdf
which examines how the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany have succeeded
in increasing cycling. Pay attention to table 1 on page 512.

And then there are those who insist that riding a bicycle is so ultimately dangerous that they MUST have extremely bright DRL, and many other safety devices plus completely segregated bicycling infrastructure. Never mind that most bicycling segregated routes don't go to where a bicyclist wants to go.. Okay, you get some segregated bicycle routes built and you get some bicyclists using them. How now do you get those bicyclists to cycle anywhere those segregated routes don't go? After all those bicyclists are now convinced (or most of them are) that riding outside of that segregated area is far too dangerous to even contemplate let alone do.

Constantly harping that bicycling outside of segregated bicycle lanes, and harping that riding a bicycle in bright daylight without a bright DRL is suicidal, is EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL to getting more people onto bicycles. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

Btw, I just got back from Niagara-on-the-lake and I did it without any segregated bicycle lanes or even painted bicycle lanes. IF I felt that I must have either in order to feel that I was safe riding my bicycle there and back I would never have gone or returned.

Cheers