calif. referendum will make biking on sidewalk legal, we need endorsement

[noveltransit]

of your organization.

Please write, website


www.generaltransit.com , backup sites

http://hallisystem.bravehost.com
http://generaltransit.0catch.com
http://hallitubes.95mb.com

[LioNiNoiL_a t_Y a h 0 0_d 0 t_c 0 m]

Biking on a sidewalk is a bad idea, which is why so many local
ordinances prohibit it.

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 2 Jun 2005 10:57:15 -0700, "noveltransit"
> wrote:

>of your organization.
>Please write, website

Hopefully any organisation influential enough to count will have more
sense than to vote for something as dangerous as sidewalk cycling.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[[email protected]]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Hopefully any organisation influential enough to count will have more
> sense than to vote for something as dangerous as sidewalk cycling.
>
> Guy

It seems to me that legalized sidewalk cycling might produce enough
negative reaction to set cycling advocacy WAAAAY back in California...

This is just a bad idea.

[mark]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> Hopefully any organisation influential enough to count will have more
> sense than to vote for something as dangerous as sidewalk cycling.
>
> Guy

My state (Colorado) allows sidewalk cycling except where prohibited by local
ordinance. Colorado does require sidewalk cyclists to yield to pedestrians
and use crosswalks, and gives sidewalk cyclists the same rights and
responsibilities as pedestrians. Colorado law also gives cyclists using the
roadway the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles, and allows
cyclists to use the roadway whether or not there is a bicycle path next to
the roadway. I think this is a very sensible approach to the matter.
--
mark

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 02:06:35 GMT, "mark" > wrote:

>My state (Colorado) allows sidewalk cycling except where prohibited by local
>ordinance. Colorado does require sidewalk cyclists to yield to pedestrians
>and use crosswalks, and gives sidewalk cyclists the same rights and
>responsibilities as pedestrians. Colorado law also gives cyclists using the
>roadway the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicles, and allows
>cyclists to use the roadway whether or not there is a bicycle path next to
>the roadway. I think this is a very sensible approach to the matter.

So you might: I don't. Sidewalk cycling in general reduces the risk
of a rare kind of collision at the expense of increasing the risk of a
much more common one; I don't think encouraging people to ride on the
sidewalk does anyone any favours.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 3 Jun 2005 20:54:11 +0950, Baka Dasai >
wrote:

>BUT, what if allowing sidewalk cycling has the effect of increasing the
>number of people who cycle for transport?

Free training courses would do the same, and with collateral benefits
in reduced injuries. This is, IMO, better than pandering to the false
idea that sidewalk cycling is "safer" (which is why they do it).

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[mark]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote
>
> So you might: I don't. Sidewalk cycling in general reduces the risk
> of a rare kind of collision at the expense of increasing the risk of a
> much more common one; I don't think encouraging people to ride on the
> sidewalk does anyone any favours.
>
> Guy

I assume that by "rare kind of collision" you mean car/bicycle collisions,
and by "a much more common one" you mean bicycle/pedestrian collisions. I
agree that a competent cyclist who obeys the traffic laws is at very minimal
risk of being hit by a car. That's why I ride in the roadway most of the
time. I would not expect small children, novice cyclists, or physically
unfit/infirm cyclists to cycle the way I do, which is why I would like to
see those people have the option of cycling on the sidewalk.

I'm aware that pedestrians can be seriously injured or killed by a fast
moving cyclist. This is why CO law requires sidewalk cyclists to yield to
pedestrians, and this is why municipalities have the option of banning
sidewalk cycling where appropriate.
--
mark

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:19:45 GMT, "mark" > wrote:

>> Sidewalk cycling in general reduces the risk
>> of a rare kind of collision at the expense of increasing the risk of a
>> much more common one; I don't think encouraging people to ride on the
>> sidewalk does anyone any favours.

>I assume that by "rare kind of collision" you mean car/bicycle collisions,
>and by "a much more common one" you mean bicycle/pedestrian collisions.

No. The rare type of collision they reduce is being hit form behind.
The common type of collision they make worse is being hit at a
junction.

>I would not expect small children, novice cyclists, or physically
>unfit/infirm cyclists to cycle the way I do, which is why I would like to
>see those people have the option of cycling on the sidewalk.

My children have been riding on the road from the age of about six
years, and although sidewalk cycling is generally banned here the ban
is not enforced against children (they are in any case below the age
of criminal responsibility). I have great trouble thinking of any
situation where an adult is better on the sidewalk - or rather, where
that is a better solution than fixing the problem they are running
away from.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Benjamin Lewis]

Just zis Guy wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:19:45 GMT, "mark" > wrote:
>
>>> Sidewalk cycling in general reduces the risk
>>> of a rare kind of collision at the expense of increasing the risk of a
>>> much more common one; I don't think encouraging people to ride on the
>>> sidewalk does anyone any favours.
>
>> I assume that by "rare kind of collision" you mean car/bicycle
>> collisions, and by "a much more common one" you mean bicycle/pedestrian
>> collisions.
>
> No. The rare type of collision they reduce is being hit form behind.
> The common type of collision they make worse is being hit at a
> junction.
>
>> I would not expect small children, novice cyclists, or physically
>> unfit/infirm cyclists to cycle the way I do, which is why I would like
>> to see those people have the option of cycling on the sidewalk.
>
> My children have been riding on the road from the age of about six
> years, and although sidewalk cycling is generally banned here the ban
> is not enforced against children (they are in any case below the age
> of criminal responsibility). I have great trouble thinking of any
> situation where an adult is better on the sidewalk - or rather, where
> that is a better solution than fixing the problem they are running
> away from.

This is just an anecdote, but yesterday when I was walking home I witnessed
a boy of about 7 come inches from being hit by a car -- he was riding
happily along the sidewalk, and a car pulled out of a hidden driveway right
in front of him, and braked just barely in time. The boy appeared to be
oblivious, but I (and likely the driver) were somewhat shaken up.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

[gds]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 13:19:45 GMT, "mark" > wrote:
>
> >> Sidewalk cycling in general reduces the risk
> >> of a rare kind of collision at the expense of increasing the risk of a
> >> much more common one; I don't think encouraging people to ride on the
> >> sidewalk does anyone any favours.
>
> >I assume that by "rare kind of collision" you mean car/bicycle collisions,
> >and by "a much more common one" you mean bicycle/pedestrian collisions.
>
> No. The rare type of collision they reduce is being hit form behind.
> The common type of collision they make worse is being hit at a
> junction.
>
> >I would not expect small children, novice cyclists, or physically
> >unfit/infirm cyclists to cycle the way I do, which is why I would like to
> >see those people have the option of cycling on the sidewalk.
>
> My children have been riding on the road from the age of about six
> years, and although sidewalk cycling is generally banned here the ban
> is not enforced against children (they are in any case below the age
> of criminal responsibility). I have great trouble thinking of any
> situation where an adult is better on the sidewalk - or rather, where
> that is a better solution than fixing the problem they are running
> away from.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I agree. Riding on sidewalks is a bad idea for adults or children. The
only thing that scares me worse is is having a cyclist riding on the
road going the wrong way. Usually that person is on a bike 8 sizes too
small and smoking so there is a whole constellation of bad thinking
going on.

[noveltransit]

Friends, nobody is advocating "wild" sidepath biking. Go to the website
to see images of 70 year old Japanese briskly cycling with people on
the sidewalk. The referendum will provide separation rules and passing
rules, and provide sharp penalites for people who "act out" by cycling
past footpassengers at high speeds, which is unfortunately a common
occurrence. Also, bells or small horns will be required. No walker will
have to experience the "coming up on your right" shout followed by
something streaking past them at 30mph. This development is absolutely
necessary to move to novel transit systems requiring 2 miles+ travel to
the system.

Many potential bicyclists are very afraid of the tiny error a busy
driver on a cell phone could make, injuring them severely. Therefore,
they don't ride to transit stations. Personal transit devices like
scooters are also constantly improving and are becoming more viable as
local vehicles. The entire sidewalk structure has to be brought up to
par.

http://www.generaltransit.com

[gds]

It doesn't seem like you like the response of cyclists. I have no idea
why you advocate for this and I'll assume that your intentions are
good. But I think that you find that a large majority of the active
cycling population disagrees with your idea.
Speaking only for myself-- I have much less fear of a driver on a cell
phone causing me to be in an accident than of I do of a pedestrian with
headphones.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:17:31 -0700, Benjamin Lewis >
wrote in message >:

>This is just an anecdote, but yesterday when I was walking home I witnessed
>a boy of about 7 come inches from being hit by a car -- he was riding
>happily along the sidewalk, and a car pulled out of a hidden driveway right
>in front of him, and braked just barely in time. The boy appeared to be
>oblivious, but I (and likely the driver) were somewhat shaken up.

Yes, it's just an anecdote - but it's precisely the kind of thing that
happens!

A friend of mine has collected some data:
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 3 Jun 2005 09:30:58 -0700, "gds" > wrote in
message om>:

>I agree. Riding on sidewalks is a bad idea for adults or children. The
>only thing that scares me worse is is having a cyclist riding on the
>road going the wrong way. Usually that person is on a bike 8 sizes too
>small and smoking so there is a whole constellation of bad thinking
>going on.

LOL! I can picture it now. Over here they'd be wearing a Burberry
baseball cap and wearing jeans five sizes too big and hanging off
their arses. We call 'em chavs.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[gds]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2005 09:30:58 -0700, "gds" > wrote in
> message om>:
>
> >I agree. Riding on sidewalks is a bad idea for adults or children. The
> >only thing that scares me worse is is having a cyclist riding on the
> >road going the wrong way. Usually that person is on a bike 8 sizes too
> >small and smoking so there is a whole constellation of bad thinking
> >going on.
>
> LOL! I can picture it now. Over here they'd be wearing a Burberry
> baseball cap and wearing jeans five sizes too big and hanging off
> their arses. We call 'em chavs.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Interesting negative correlation between pants size and bike size :-)
Now that's a subject for study.

[John_Kane]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2005 09:30:58 -0700, "gds" > wrote in
> message om>:
>
> >I agree. Riding on sidewalks is a bad idea for adults or children. The
> >only thing that scares me worse is is having a cyclist riding on the
> >road going the wrong way. Usually that person is on a bike 8 sizes too
> >small and smoking so there is a whole constellation of bad thinking
> >going on.
>
> LOL! I can picture it now. Over here they'd be wearing a Burberry
> baseball cap and wearing jeans five sizes too big and hanging off
> their arses. We call 'em chavs.

And wearing dark denim, riding at night and balancing a case of 24
bottles of beer on the handlebars. Thank heavens for the cigarette:
The glow showed me where he was.

John Kane
Kingston On

>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Mike Latondresse]

"gds" > wrote in
ups.com:

> I agree. Riding on sidewalks is a bad idea for adults or children.
> The only thing that scares me worse is is having a cyclist riding
> on the road going the wrong way.

Oh Billeee, where are you?

[John_Kane]

gds wrote:
> It doesn't seem like you like the response of cyclists. I have no idea
> why you advocate for this and I'll assume that your intentions are
> good. But I think that you find that a large majority of the active
> cycling population disagrees with your idea.
> Speaking only for myself-- I have much less fear of a driver on a cell
> phone causing me to be in an accident than of I do of a pedestrian with
> headphones.

The City of Toronto did a study of cycling accidents. A quote from the
abstract reads
"Almost 30% of the cyclists were cycling on the sidewalk immediately
prior to their collisions. In many of these incidents, the motorist
either failed to stop before crossing the stop bar (at controlled
intersections) or sidewalk (at driveways and lanes), or proceeded
forward after stopping, into the path of an on-coming cyclist. The
combination of cyclists riding through crosswalks from the sidewalk and
drivers "rolling through" stop signs appears to have contributed to
a significant number of collisions."
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

This does not say good things about sidewalk cycling.

[Matt O'Toole]

mark wrote:

> My state (Colorado) allows sidewalk cycling except where prohibited
> by local ordinance. Colorado does require sidewalk cyclists to yield
> to pedestrians and use crosswalks, and gives sidewalk cyclists the
> same rights and responsibilities as pedestrians. Colorado law also
> gives cyclists using the roadway the same rights and responsibilities
> as motor vehicles, and allows cyclists to use the roadway whether or
> not there is a bicycle path next to the roadway. I think this is a
> very sensible approach to the matter.

I agree. For the truly anal there could be a speed limit (walking speed) for
bikes on sidewalks, but as long as cyclists yield to pedestrians I don't see a
problem. Banning bikes completely from sidewalks is just plain stupid. Might
as well ban skateboards, roller blades, and running as well. Being able to use
sidewalks, cut-throughs, etc., for short distances is an important feature of
bicycle transportation in village and urban areas.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> This is just an anecdote, but yesterday when I was walking home I
> witnessed a boy of about 7 come inches from being hit by a car -- he
> was riding happily along the sidewalk, and a car pulled out of a
> hidden driveway right in front of him, and braked just barely in
> time. The boy appeared to be oblivious, but I (and likely the
> driver) were somewhat shaken up.

"Barely in time" to your nervous old eyes maybe, but the kid was probably
completely in control, which is why he was unfazed.

"I'm cold, put on a sweater!"

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

John_Kane wrote:

> gds wrote:

>> It doesn't seem like you like the response of cyclists. I have no
>> idea why you advocate for this and I'll assume that your intentions
>> are good. But I think that you find that a large majority of the
>> active cycling population disagrees with your idea.
>> Speaking only for myself-- I have much less fear of a driver on a
>> cell phone causing me to be in an accident than of I do of a
>> pedestrian with headphones.
>
> The City of Toronto did a study of cycling accidents. A quote from
> the abstract reads
> "Almost 30% of the cyclists were cycling on the sidewalk immediately
> prior to their collisions. In many of these incidents, the motorist
> either failed to stop before crossing the stop bar (at controlled
> intersections) or sidewalk (at driveways and lanes), or proceeded
> forward after stopping, into the path of an on-coming cyclist. The
> combination of cyclists riding through crosswalks from the sidewalk
> and drivers "rolling through" stop signs appears to have contributed
> to
> a significant number of collisions."
>
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
>
> This does not say good things about sidewalk cycling.

How about sidewalk walking?

Matt O.

[Benjamin Lewis]

noveltransit wrote:

> Friends, nobody is advocating "wild" sidepath biking. Go to the website
> to see images of 70 year old Japanese briskly cycling with people on
> the sidewalk. The referendum will provide separation rules and passing
> rules, and provide sharp penalites for people who "act out" by cycling
> past footpassengers at high speeds, which is unfortunately a common
> occurrence. Also, bells or small horns will be required. No walker will
> have to experience the "coming up on your right" shout followed by
> something streaking past them at 30mph. This development is absolutely
> necessary to move to novel transit systems requiring 2 miles+ travel to
> the system.

Even if there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, it is a dangerous place
to ride your bike. It greatly increases the likelihood of collisions with
motor vehicles at intersections and driveways.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

[Benjamin Lewis]

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
>> This is just an anecdote, but yesterday when I was walking home I
>> witnessed a boy of about 7 come inches from being hit by a car -- he
>> was riding happily along the sidewalk, and a car pulled out of a
>> hidden driveway right in front of him, and braked just barely in
>> time. The boy appeared to be oblivious, but I (and likely the
>> driver) were somewhat shaken up.
>
> "Barely in time" to your nervous old eyes maybe, but the kid was probably
> completely in control, which is why he was unfazed.

Huh? If the driver had been even slightly less attentive the boy would
have been hit, no matter how "in control" he was. It was simply not safe
for anyone, on a bike or not, to be moving along that portion of the
sidewalk at that speed.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

[John_Kane]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> John_Kane wrote:
>
> > gds wrote:
>
> >> It doesn't seem like you like the response of cyclists. I have no
> >> idea why you advocate for this and I'll assume that your intentions
> >> are good. But I think that you find that a large majority of the
> >> active cycling population disagrees with your idea.
> >> Speaking only for myself-- I have much less fear of a driver on a
> >> cell phone causing me to be in an accident than of I do of a
> >> pedestrian with headphones.
> >
> > The City of Toronto did a study of cycling accidents. A quote from
> > the abstract reads
> > "Almost 30% of the cyclists were cycling on the sidewalk immediately
> > prior to their collisions. In many of these incidents, the motorist
> > either failed to stop before crossing the stop bar (at controlled
> > intersections) or sidewalk (at driveways and lanes), or proceeded
> > forward after stopping, into the path of an on-coming cyclist. The
> > combination of cyclists riding through crosswalks from the sidewalk
> > and drivers "rolling through" stop signs appears to have contributed
> > to
> > a significant number of collisions."
> >
> http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm
> >
> > This does not say good things about sidewalk cycling.
>
> How about sidewalk walking?
>
> Matt O.

If I understand the question: Pedestrians (walking) travel at roughly
5-6 km/hr and are usually able to stop very quickly or dodge. A
cyclist even on a sidewalk is probably traveling at anything from 12 to
20 km/hr, has a longer stopping distance and reduced ability to dodge.
A driver is likely to be monitoring the sidewalk for the distance
appropriate for a ped not 2 or 4 times that distance.

I 'know' better but I still don't look halfway down a block for a
cyclist when I come up to an intersection. I look for pedestrians
closer to my street. Also given the speed of a sidewalk cyclist he/she
is unlikely to be able to monitor an intersecting street as well as a
ped.

Does that make sense?

John Kane

[mark]

"Benjamin Lewis" wrote
> This is just an anecdote, but yesterday when I was walking home I
witnessed
> a boy of about 7 come inches from being hit by a car -- he was riding
> happily along the sidewalk, and a car pulled out of a hidden driveway
right
> in front of him, and braked just barely in time. The boy appeared to be
> oblivious, but I (and likely the driver) were somewhat shaken up.
>
> --
> Benjamin Lewis
>
> Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

The same driver could just as easily have hit a walker or jogger. Had his
hidden driveway opened onto the street instead of a sidewalk he could have
collided with a car or bicycle (or the same 7 year old after he took your
advice and got off the side walk). In this instance it's up to the driver to
take steps to avoid this kind of incident (back out slowly and carefully, or
back into the driveway and drive out slowly and carefully). Depending on
traffic levels it might be a good idea for the property owner to make the
driveway safer by trimming vegetation, modifying fences or walls, etc..

If the 7 year old isn't aware of a car leaving a driveway right under his
nose, how long is he going to survive sharing the street with many cars?
--
mark

[Matt O'Toole]

Benjamin Lewis wrote:

> It was
> simply not safe for anyone, on a bike or not, to be moving along that
> portion of the sidewalk at that speed.

Speed and care is the key, not whether one is riding on the sidewalk. I'm not
trying to take your statement out of context, but to use it to emphasize the key
issue.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

John_Kane wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:

>> John_Kane wrote:

>>
http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/index.htm

>>> This does not say good things about sidewalk cycling.

>> How about sidewalk walking?

> If I understand the question: Pedestrians (walking) travel at roughly
> 5-6 km/hr and are usually able to stop very quickly or dodge. A
> cyclist even on a sidewalk is probably traveling at anything from 12
> to 20 km/hr, has a longer stopping distance and reduced ability to
> dodge. A driver is likely to be monitoring the sidewalk for the
> distance appropriate for a ped not 2 or 4 times that distance.

> I 'know' better but I still don't look halfway down a block for a
> cyclist when I come up to an intersection. I look for pedestrians
> closer to my street. Also given the speed of a sidewalk cyclist
> he/she is unlikely to be able to monitor an intersecting street as
> well as a ped.

> Does that make sense?

Certainly, but you're making a pretty broad assumption when you say all cyclists
are probably travelling at 12-20 km/hr on sidewalks. Many of us do ride on
sidewalks at more responsible speeds -- walking pace. People *are* capable of
good judgement and common sense.

Matt O.

[mark]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote ...
> "mark" wrote:
>
> >> Sidewalk cycling in general reduces the risk
> >> of a rare kind of collision at the expense of increasing the risk of a
> >> much more common one; I don't think encouraging people to ride on the
> >> sidewalk does anyone any favours.
>
> >I assume that by "rare kind of collision" you mean car/bicycle
collisions,
> >and by "a much more common one" you mean bicycle/pedestrian collisions.
>
> No. The rare type of collision they reduce is being hit form behind.
> The common type of collision they make worse is being hit at a
> junction.
>

I did mention that sidewalk cyclists were expected to use crosswalks and in
general assume the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians. In this
country that means stopping at junctions, making sure that the road is clear
or that road traffic has stopped, and then proceeding across the street.
This would seem to eliminate the problem of sidewalk cyclist/car collisions
at junctions.


> >I would not expect small children, novice cyclists, or physically
> >unfit/infirm cyclists to cycle the way I do, which is why I would like to
> >see those people have the option of cycling on the sidewalk.
>

> My children have been riding on the road from the age of about six
> years, and although sidewalk cycling is generally banned here the ban
> is not enforced against children (they are in any case below the age
> of criminal responsibility). I have great trouble thinking of any
> situation where an adult is better on the sidewalk - or rather, where
> that is a better solution than fixing the problem they are running
> away from.
>

Presumably you have the time, inclination, cycling skills and teaching
skills to teach your children how to ride on the roads safely, and
presumably there are roads near your home where your children can safely
ride. Please remember that not everyone shares your circumstances.

I have great trouble thinking of any situation where *I* am better off on
the sidewalk, but plenty of adults seem to feel differently. If they are
willing to accept the restrictions I describe, I'm completely in favor of a
law that lets them ride on the sidewalk and lets me ride on the road.

"fixing the problem they are running away from" would be wonderful, but I
don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
--
mark

[gds]

mark wrote:
> I have great trouble thinking of any situation where *I* am better off on
> the sidewalk, but plenty of adults seem to feel differently. If they are
> willing to accept the restrictions I describe, I'm completely in favor of a
> law that lets them ride on the sidewalk and lets me ride on the road.
>
> "fixing the problem they are running away from" would be wonderful, but I
> don't expect it to happen anytime soon.
> --
> mark

So you don't feel that sidewalks are good for you but feel that getting
more folks to ride on them is a viable solution to some problem. I am
having a hard time understanding that position.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:29:40 GMT, "mark" > wrote
in message >:

>I did mention that sidewalk cyclists were expected to use crosswalks and in
>general assume the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians. In this
>country that means stopping at junctions, making sure that the road is clear
>or that road traffic has stopped, and then proceeding across the street.
>This would seem to eliminate the problem of sidewalk cyclist/car collisions
>at junctions.

Dream world. Honestly. The effort involved in stopping and
restarting is, for an average rider, the equivalent of about 150 yards
progress - and people know this from experience, so they ride across
the crosswalks and junctions, and they get away with it until they get
hit. Crashes are often caused by taking small risks very large
numbers of times, and that's exactly what your average sidewalk
cyclist does.

I really can't think offhand of any situation where legalised sidewalk
riding is better than teaching people to use the roads properly.

>> My children have been riding on the road from the age of about six
>> years, and although sidewalk cycling is generally banned here the ban
>> is not enforced against children (they are in any case below the age
>> of criminal responsibility).

>Presumably you have the time, inclination, cycling skills and teaching
>skills to teach your children how to ride on the roads safely, and
>presumably there are roads near your home where your children can safely
>ride. Please remember that not everyone shares your circumstances.

My kids have ridden into a busy town with me. But you are right: I
have trained them. So what? My whole point is that training is good,
legalising sidewalk cycling is less good. We do not prevent kids form
riding on the sidewalk, but I say the council should invest in
training instead of deferring indefinitely the time when they stop
doing it.

>I have great trouble thinking of any situation where *I* am better off on
>the sidewalk, but plenty of adults seem to feel differently.

Yes, they do think differently. And almost always they are wrong. So
why tell them they are right?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:29:21 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote in message >:

> Many of us do ride on
>sidewalks at more responsible speeds -- walking pace.

Really? Why take the bike, then?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[mark]

"gds" wrote
> So you don't feel that sidewalks are good for you but feel that getting
> more folks to ride on them is a viable solution to some problem. I am
> having a hard time understanding that position.
>

I don't think that sidewalks are good for me but I favor *letting* folks who
want to ride on them do so, subject to a few common sense restrictions. Why
is that so hard to understand?
--
mark

[Matt O'Toole]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:29:21 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>> Many of us do ride on
>> sidewalks at more responsible speeds -- walking pace.
>
> Really? Why take the bike, then?

To go the first couple miles of the trip.

Don't be such an ass.

I see no reason not to roll along a walkway between two buildings, instead of
going around the block like a car, waiting through a traffic light, and making
two left turns against heavy traffic.

I see no reason not to enter the sidewalk at the corner where the wheelchair
ramp is, and rolling up to the ATM machine mid-block.

Etc.

As long as speed is kept reasonable and one is considerate to pedestrians, there
is no reason to ban this kind of thing.

Matt O.

[gds]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> I see no reason not to roll along a walkway between two buildings, instead of
> going around the block like a car, waiting through a traffic light, and making
> two left turns against heavy traffic.
>
> I see no reason not to enter the sidewalk at the corner where the wheelchair
> ramp is, and rolling up to the ATM machine mid-block.
>


Don't you think a better solution might be to dismount and walk the
bike in these cases. As you say you will travel no faster than a
walking pace it would seem both safer and easier to just get off the
bike for these short sections. For myself I have no interest in trying
to maneuver my bike around pedestrians at 3 mph.

[Bill Baka]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> I agree. For the truly anal there could be a speed limit (walking speed) for
> bikes on sidewalks, but as long as cyclists yield to pedestrians I don't see a
> problem. Banning bikes completely from sidewalks is just plain stupid. Might
> as well ban skateboards, roller blades, and running as well. Being able to use
> sidewalks, cut-throughs, etc., for short distances is an important feature of
> bicycle transportation in village and urban areas.
>
> Matt O.
>
>
Here is where I get into it since I ride on the sidewalk once in a while
where safety makes it a need.
Rule 1. Ride no faster than about 5 MPH.
Rule 2. Stop at red lights and push the button to cross, just like a
pedestrian.
Rule 3. Get back on the road when the road is safe again.
Rule 4. Always consider yourself to be responsible for any accidents.

Reasoning. Some places neck down to 0.0% bicycle clearance yet have a
wide sidewalk to get around the no bike zones. These just happen to be
in high traffic, over 35 MPH zones and while the planning commission
thought about pedestrian safety, no consideration was given to
bicyclists. The same thing goes for areas around Wal-marts and other
big, high traffic areas. Ride slow on the sidewalk and walk across the
stop light areas just like a ped. Nobody needs to prove how they can do
25 MPH on the sidewalk.

Big rule. Common sense, even if it is contrary to what the law says.
It is very unlikely that you will get written up for riding in the
interest of self preservation.
Bill Baka

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:03:08 -0400, >,
"Matt O'Toole" > wrote:

>I see no reason not to roll along a walkway between two buildings, instead of
>going around the block like a car, waiting through a traffic light, and making
>two left turns against heavy traffic.
>
>I see no reason not to enter the sidewalk at the corner where the wheelchair
>ramp is, and rolling up to the ATM machine mid-block.
>
>Etc.
>
>As long as speed is kept reasonable and one is considerate to pedestrians, there
>is no reason to ban this kind of thing.

I usually pull those types of maneuvers in kick-scooter mode rather
than properly astride the bike. I do it out of respect for the by-laws
more than anything. It doesn't appear to pedestrians that I'm actually
riding my bicycle on the sidewalk so they can't make disparaging
remarks about scofflaw cyclists.
--
zk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:03:08 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote in message >:

>>> Many of us do ride on
>>> sidewalks at more responsible speeds -- walking pace.

>> Really? Why take the bike, then?
>To go the first couple miles of the trip.

My wife does that - rides partway and avoids a short stretch of road
she hates. She pushes the bike on the sidewalk because she doesn't
believe pavement riding is either right or safe (I agree). Riding a
bike at walking pace does not improve over pushing it, IMO.

>As long as speed is kept reasonable and one is considerate to pedestrians, there
>is no reason to ban this kind of thing.

As long as there is a road there's no reason to do it, either.
Pavement cycling laws pander to the false notion that cycling is too
dangerous to do properly.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:37:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote in message
>:

> She pushes the bike on the sidewalk because she doesn't
>believe pavement riding is either right or safe (I agree).

Note: British usage - pavement = footway (sidewalk in Leftpondian).
Can we standardise on footway? That is unambiguous ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Matt O'Toole]

gds wrote:

> Matt O'Toole wrote:

>> I see no reason not to roll along a walkway between two buildings,
>> instead of going around the block like a car, waiting through a
>> traffic light, and making two left turns against heavy traffic.

>> I see no reason not to enter the sidewalk at the corner where the
>> wheelchair ramp is, and rolling up to the ATM machine mid-block.

> Don't you think a better solution might be to dismount and walk the
> bike in these cases.

No. I'm not that anal-retentive.

> As you say you will travel no faster than a
> walking pace it would seem both safer and easier to just get off the
> bike for these short sections. For myself I have no interest in trying
> to maneuver my bike around pedestrians at 3 mph.

I don't find it a problem. After all I've been riding since I was 4 or 5. I
find it easier to ride a bike slowly than to push it.

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Zoot Katz wrote:

> I usually pull those types of maneuvers in kick-scooter mode rather
> than properly astride the bike. I do it out of respect for the by-laws
> more than anything. It doesn't appear to pedestrians that I'm actually
> riding my bicycle on the sidewalk so they can't make disparaging
> remarks about scofflaw cyclists.

If it weren't illegal to be riding, you wouldn't feel the need to make such
gestures. What's safer -- kick-scootering at 8-9 MPH, or riding at 3-4? I'm
all for letting people choose the latter.

Matt O.

[gds]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> >> I see no reason not to roll along a walkway between two buildings,
> >> instead of going around the block like a car, waiting through a
> >> traffic light, and making two left turns against heavy traffic.
>
> >> I see no reason not to enter the sidewalk at the corner where the
> >> wheelchair ramp is, and rolling up to the ATM machine mid-block.
>
> > Don't you think a better solution might be to dismount and walk the
> > bike in these cases.
>
> No. I'm not that anal-retentive.


I have no idea what that means in this context
>
> > As you say you will travel no faster than a
> > walking pace it would seem both safer and easier to just get off the
> > bike for these short sections. For myself I have no interest in trying
> > to maneuver my bike around pedestrians at 3 mph.
>
> I don't find it a problem. After all I've been riding since I was 4 or 5. I
> find it easier to ride a bike slowly than to push it.
>

Me too, riding since 4 or 5. I'm 60 now and would rather push it in
those cases. It isn't a matter of being able to ride at 4 or 5 mph. I
just am not interested in doing so.

[Matt O'Toole]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Pavement cycling laws pander to the false notion that cycling is too
> dangerous to do properly.

Right -- so why ban bikes on sidewalks? Ban the bad behaviour, when it occurs.

Matt O.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:54:11 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
wrote in message >:

>> Pavement cycling laws pander to the false notion that cycling is too
>> dangerous to do properly.

>Right -- so why ban bikes on sidewalks? Ban the bad behaviour, when it occurs.

As posted, British usage - pavement is British for sidewalk. The
technical term in both cases, I believe, is footway.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:51:55 -0400, >, "Matt
O'Toole" > wrote:

>Zoot Katz wrote:
>
>> I usually pull those types of maneuvers in kick-scooter mode rather
>> than properly astride the bike. I do it out of respect for the by-laws
>> more than anything. It doesn't appear to pedestrians that I'm actually
>> riding my bicycle on the sidewalk so they can't make disparaging
>> remarks about scofflaw cyclists.
>
>If it weren't illegal to be riding, you wouldn't feel the need to make such
>gestures. What's safer -- kick-scootering at 8-9 MPH, or riding at 3-4? I'm
>all for letting people choose the latter.
>
I think the by-law proscribing sidewalk riding is more reasonable than
much of the sidewalk cycling I've witnessed. Often that sidewalk
riding is done counterflow since there's not a law governing it.

My kick scootering is at walking pace when around pedestrians. One
foot is already off the pedal and close to the ground. I've control of
the brake and feel more comfortable like that than mounted at such
slow speeds.

Of course none of this holds true when riding the fixies but they
always make me feel like a scorcher anyway. <g>
--
zk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about 4 Jun 2005 15:16:34 +0950, the person known
to the court as Baka Dasai > made a
statement > in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

>>>BUT, what if allowing sidewalk cycling has the effect of increasing the
>>>number of people who cycle for transport?

>> Free training courses would do the same, and with collateral benefits
>> in reduced injuries. This is, IMO, better than pandering to the false
>> idea that sidewalk cycling is "safer" (which is why they do it).

>I'm thinking in terms of what is easier to achieve, politically
>speaking. Repealing a law costs government virtually nothing, unlike
>providing training courses.

So we should reinforce the wrong thing, because doing the right thing
is too expensive? No thanks.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[wafflycat]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
>
> My kids have ridden into a busy town with me. But you are right: I
> have trained them. So what? My whole point is that training is good,
> legalising sidewalk cycling is less good. We do not prevent kids form
> riding on the sidewalk, but I say the council should invest in
> training instead of deferring indefinitely the time when they stop
> doing it.
>

Just as you did, Vernon & I trained Nathan to ride assertively & safely on
the road. I spent *ages* trying to find out about cycle training local to
me, but there was none, so Vernon & I did it. I'd have preferred Nathan to
have been taught independently, so to speak, as it's one thing having your
Mother tell you how to do something correctly (nagging??? ;-) ) but it's
another when someone independent (expert?) tells you. Vernon & I training
Nathan turned out well, helped I'm sure by the fact we are a close family.
The first time he cycled to school on his own I was a nervous wreck and
indeed, I still worry now he's several years older, wiser, more experienced
and cycles to college regularly. he does, however, phone to let me know he's
there and when he's setting off for home again, so I can't complain. Part of
parental job description is to allow them to develop and not wrap them in
cottonwool :-)

Nathan *never* cycles on a footpath - he knows it's illegal over here and as
far as he's concerned, cycling on the footpath is for small children. It is
*not* for those who are Real Cyclists [TM] Besides which, what
self-respecting teenage CSC fan would be seen cycling on the footpath in
full CSC kit & a carbon-framed bike! ;-)

One thing I am certain of; Since teaching Nathan how to cycle assertively &
safely on the road, I've seen him grow in confidence and maturity. I'm also
fairly certain that once he's of an age to learn to drive, he's going to be
a more considerate driver than many a non-cycling driver. When we are in the
car I know from his comments about the lack of consideration/ability of some
of the driving we see on the roads, he knows it is not cool to drive like a
Schumacher wannabee. I can but hope that this continues.

I also think that anyone who is any form of "highway/traffic engineer"
should be forced to spend at least six months of the year travelling by
bicycle. It may allow some of the brainless morons who design cycle
farcilities and psychlepaths to realise the error of their ways...






>>I have great trouble thinking of any situation where *I* am better off
>>on
>>the sidewalk, but plenty of adults seem to feel differently.
>
> Yes, they do think differently. And almost always they are wrong. So
> why tell them they are right?
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[wafflycat]

"Matt O'Toole" > wrote in message
...
>
> Certainly, but you're making a pretty broad assumption when you say all
> cyclists
> are probably travelling at 12-20 km/hr on sidewalks. Many of us do ride
> on
> sidewalks at more responsible speeds -- walking pace. People *are*
> capable of
> good judgement and common sense.
>
> Matt O.
>

If you are reduced to cycling at walking pace, why bother cycling? This is
not because I'm some sort of cycling speed-demon, I'm not, but if all you
are rendered capable of by cycling on the footpath is walking pace....

Cheers, helen s

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 3 Jun 2005 20:54:11 +0950 in rec.bicycles.misc, Baka Dasai
> wrote:

> BUT, what if allowing sidewalk cycling has the effect of increasing the
> number of people who cycle for transport?

then sidewalk cycling becomes even MORE dangerous! it's a
stupid, stupid idea. bikes belong on the road.

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:29:40 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "mark"
> wrote:

> I did mention that sidewalk cyclists were expected to use crosswalks and in
> general assume the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians. In this
> country that means stopping at junctions, making sure that the road is clear
> or that road traffic has stopped, and then proceeding across the street.
> This would seem to eliminate the problem of sidewalk cyclist/car collisions
> at junctions.
>
If you think that is what will happen, you are even more deluded
than I thought.

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 3 Jun 2005 10:38:00 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "noveltransit"
> wrote:

> The referendum will provide separation rules and passing
> rules, and provide sharp penalites for people who "act out" by cycling
> past footpassengers at high speeds, which is unfortunately a common
> occurrence.

And who will enforce this? You folks are totally loony, with
really erroneous ideas of how laws work. Stupid laws like this
are *always* ignored.

[noveltransit]

For all the non-sidewalk bikers: Good news

1) Clearly, where properties and parked cars are directly adjacent to
the sidewalk, or where hedges obscure views of children which might
suddenly dart into the way, sidewalk biking would be a slow-speed
choice compared to the more serene neighborhood street, so no one would
make use of the law there.
2) More critical are city streets, and here viability is a density
issue. As some have pointed out, as density becomes higher, you can use
various "slow ride" techniques or walk the bike. (Or drive into
traffic). Bikes are used so widely on Japanese city sidwalks that they
have commercial bike-parking lots, with a thick "bike-holder".
3) Enforcement: Specifically written laws alter behavior, and the cost
of video surveillance is collapsing so rapidly that we are living
increasingly in a world where it is unwise to break laws even if you
cannot see enforcement. If you shoot repeatedly past a house pe where
there are small children with low visibility of access to the sidewalk,
you will get to watch yourself on tape at sentencing, so you won't do
it.
4) The good news is that the Hallitube Initiative in cities provides
for bike-paths on top of the tubes, allowing riders to move rapidly
without having to wait at intersections, and surrounded by guardrails.
You will have your own city bikepath, centrally located. Once on it,
you reach the endpoints of the system quickly: Malls, large employers
and transit centers. You can see a small image of this on the left side
of the menu at http://hallisystem.bravehost.com or
http://generaltransit.0catch.com or http://hallitubes.95mb.com.
5) Japanese sidwalks and bike parking lots can be seen at:
http://www.hallisystem.bravehost.com/bike.html

We need to work together to remove at least 20% of drivers from
highways - this brings cars back up to the speed limit.
Lightrail costs $ 43 million per mile in S.California, and it takes too
long to build. Help us !

[Mike Latondresse]

"noveltransit" > wrote in
oups.com:

> For all the non-sidewalk bikers: Good news
>
> 1) Clearly, where properties and parked cars are directly adjacent
> to the sidewalk,

Blah, blah, blah cut... I hope they never put this idiot in a position
were he has any say or influence on decisions like this.

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
"wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> writes:

> If you are reduced to cycling at walking pace, why bother cycling? This is
> not because I'm some sort of cycling speed-demon, I'm not, but if all you
> are rendered capable of by cycling on the footpath is walking pace....

It's street repair season right now, here in Vancouver.
I frequently come up to spots where the street is dug up
and framed between Detour signs, and rife with machinery
and workers. It's less bothersome to ride up onto the
sidewalk for a short stretch to bypass the clot and then
get back onto the street again once past, than it is to
dismount, walk half a block, and remount. Especially if
nobody's on the sidewalk anyway.

8 to 15 km/h (5-10 MPH) is a good speed range on the sidewalk,
depending on how occupied it is. Within that speed range one
can easily look out for, and react quickly to car pull-outs
from private driveways, renegade kids and pets bolting from
their front gardens, broken glass, doggie doo, and flaws in
the pavement (of the footpath.) It's still considerably above
walking pace, but it isn't exactly going like gangbusters.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:18:26 GMT, the person
known to the court as Mike Latondresse > made
a statement > in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>Blah, blah, blah cut... I hope they never put this idiot in a position
>were he has any say or influence on decisions like this.

Try Googling for Hallitube and you'll see just how much initiative has
been shown thus far :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Matt O'Toole]

wafflycat wrote:

> I also think that anyone who is any form of "highway/traffic engineer"
> should be forced to spend at least six months of the year travelling
> by bicycle. It may allow some of the brainless morons who design cycle
> farcilities and psychlepaths to realise the error of their ways...

For a start we could get them to crack a design manual and actually do their job
as they're supposed to. This stuff has been figured out for decades. There are
good engineering standards to follow, but many of these knuckleheads continue to
make it up as they go along. "Been doin' this for 30 years, don't need no book
to tell me what to do..."

Matt O.

[Matt O'Toole]

Mike Latondresse wrote:

> "noveltransit" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
>> For all the non-sidewalk bikers: Good news
>>
>> 1) Clearly, where properties and parked cars are directly adjacent
>> to the sidewalk,
>
> Blah, blah, blah cut... I hope they never put this idiot in a position
> were he has any say or influence on decisions like this.

It works for the 130 million "idiots" living in Japan.

You guys need to get out more! Forget building houses of cards in your heads
for awhile, and see how the real world works.

Matt O.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 4 Jun 2005 15:56:57 -0400, the person
known to the court as "Matt O'Toole" > made a
statement > in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>For a start we could get them to crack a design manual and actually do their job
>as they're supposed to.

Over here there is a manual called "cycle friendly infrastructure"
written, I think, by the CTC (our version of LAB). Judging by recent
comments regarding LAB I'm guessing they have no such thing...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Matt O'Toole]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I submit that on or about Sat, 4 Jun 2005 15:56:57 -0400, the person
> known to the court as "Matt O'Toole" > made a
> statement > in Your Honour's bundle) to
> the following effect:
>
>> For a start we could get them to crack a design manual and actually
>> do their job as they're supposed to.
>
> Over here there is a manual called "cycle friendly infrastructure"
> written, I think, by the CTC (our version of LAB). Judging by recent
> comments regarding LAB I'm guessing they have no such thing...

It's all in the engineers' own manuals, such as the AASHTO guides:

http://transportation1.org/aashtonew/

Part of the reason MUPs are so dangerous is the design standards for them are
widely ignored. So we get stupidity like blind tunnel entrances, all kinds of
weird, non-standard intersections, etc.

Matt O.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 4 Jun 2005 18:05:11 -0400, the person
known to the court as "Matt O'Toole" > made a
statement > in Your Honour's bundle) to
the following effect:

>AASHTO

Gesundheit ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Bill Baka]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:03:08 -0400, "Matt O'Toole" >
> wrote in message >:
>
>
>>>>Many of us do ride on
>>>>sidewalks at more responsible speeds -- walking pace.
>
>
>>>Really? Why take the bike, then?
>>
>>To go the first couple miles of the trip.
>
>
> My wife does that - rides partway and avoids a short stretch of road
> she hates. She pushes the bike on the sidewalk because she doesn't
> believe pavement riding is either right or safe (I agree). Riding a
> bike at walking pace does not improve over pushing it, IMO.
>
>
>>As long as speed is kept reasonable and one is considerate to pedestrians, there
>>is no reason to ban this kind of thing.
>
>
> As long as there is a road there's no reason to do it, either.
> Pavement cycling laws pander to the false notion that cycling is too
> dangerous to do properly.

Just what we need, a guy defending moronic laws. There are places in
every city where it is better to rideon the sidewalk at 3-5 MPH than to
try to show his macho by riding in heavy traffic with zero clearance for
bikes. I have roads the neck down to go under an overpass and guess
what? There is a sidewalk but 0.0" of bicycle lane. I will take my
chances and the sidewalk anytimein this condition and will get off and
walk if there is a clog of pedestrians ahead of me. All I have ever
gotten out of this is a few hellos and less, but still some chats.
Bill Baka

Safety first, law second. There are some really bad laws out there, as
if they were made to be broken. Remember that most laws, bicycles
included are written by 'OLD' men without a clue.
>
> Guy

[Dennis P. Harris]

On 4 Jun 2005 10:37:42 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "noveltransit"
> wrote:

> 3) Enforcement: Specifically written laws alter behavior, and the cost
> of video surveillance is collapsing so rapidly that we are living
> increasingly in a world where it is unwise to break laws even if you
> cannot see enforcement. If you shoot repeatedly past a house pe where
> there are small children with low visibility of access to the sidewalk,
> you will get to watch yourself on tape at sentencing, so you won't do
> it.
> 4) The good news is that the Hallitube Initiative in cities provides
> for bike-paths on top of the tubes, allowing riders to move rapidly
> without having to wait at intersections, and surrounded by guardrails.

what a stupid, idiotic, silly fantasy. you really are a nutcase,
and you're going right into the killfile. PLONK.

[[email protected]]

> Many potential bicyclists are very afraid of the tiny error a busy
> driver on a cell phone could make, injuring them severely.

Seems like another good reason to penalize drivers who use cell phones
while operating their vehicles, not an argument for allowing novice
cyclists to endanger themselves by riding on the sidewalk in order to
feel safer.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

I submit that on or about Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:04:32 -0700, the person
known to the court as Bill Baka > made a statement
> in Your Honour's bundle) to the
following effect:

>Just what we need, a guy defending moronic laws. There are places in
>every city where it is better to rideon the sidewalk at 3-5 MPH than to
>try to show his macho by riding in heavy traffic with zero clearance for
>bikes.

I disagree. There may be places where it is better to *walk* the bike
at such speeds of course...

>I have roads the neck down to go under an overpass and guess
>what? There is a sidewalk but 0.0" of bicycle lane.

No problem, there is a perfectly good vehicle lane, all the other
vehicles are there, so put your vehicle in the same place (and yes I
have regularly ridden on roads with 70mph traffic and no bike lanes).

>Safety first, law second.

Excellent advice.

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Bill Baka]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> I submit that on or about Sat, 04 Jun 2005 19:04:32 -0700, the person
> known to the court as Bill Baka > made a statement
> > in Your Honour's bundle) to the
> following effect:
>
>
>>Just what we need, a guy defending moronic laws. There are places in
>>every city where it is better to rideon the sidewalk at 3-5 MPH than to
>>try to show his macho by riding in heavy traffic with zero clearance for
>>bikes.
>
>
> I disagree. There may be places where it is better to *walk* the bike
> at such speeds of course...

There are a few places where it is indeed better to walk the bike,
mainly past a bus stop where a mommy type has 2 or 3 kids running about.
I also pretty much stop at a driveway or other intersection and if there
is a stop light the pedestrian button gets pushed, although I have still
almost been nailed by totally clueless people. These lights are even set
up with the beepers for blind people ans still the cagers turn on a red.
>
>
>>I have roads the neck down to go under an overpass and guess
>>what? There is a sidewalk but 0.0" of bicycle lane.
>
>
> No problem, there is a perfectly good vehicle lane, all the other
> vehicles are there, so put your vehicle in the same place (and yes I
> have regularly ridden on roads with 70mph traffic and no bike lanes).

On this road the drivers tailgate and speed and if one swerved the guy
on his tail would have me for lunch. Those 70 mph and no bike lanes may
be OK is there is not a lot of traffic but as I have mentioned there is
a lot of tailgating going on and the drivers in the rear don't know I am
there until they nearly hit me. Too close for comfort. I may ride
sometimes like 'Crazy Bill' but never like 'Stupid Bill'.
Blindly following group advice can make you dead in a hurry. Many of
these laws were passed by people who haven't been on a bike since long
before their hair went gray and listen to the American Motorcycle
Association. The problem is that a bike cannot cruise at 35 mph plus
whatever the motorists want to add to that 35.
Bill Baka
>
>
>>Safety first, law second.
>
>
> Excellent advice.
>
> http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html
>
> Guy

[[email protected]]

OK -- part of your referendum plan is:

16) Establishment of a semi-public body to administer these reforms
and market their adoption to other states with California as expertise
center.

Somehow I think Noveltransit wants to ride this measure to a government
sinecure. That's my opinion, but the measure, as outlined, as a few too
many specific recommendation/ideas to make me feel comfortable with it.

Then there's this one: 21) Drivers to carry disposable or other camera
in car at all times, implementation of new procedure for minor
accidental handling, drivers required to remove cars at once in many
cases.

I thought the DMV had been mentioning that in their videos for YEARS.
LIke, when I went to Driver's Ed.

Then we come to the ACTUAL bikes on sidewalk idea: 23) Enactment of
rules to allow sidewalks to be shared by personal mobility devices, and
funds for repairing of damaged sidewalks to make scooter and racebike
use easier.

OH my god it's THE SEGWAY PEOPLE! We've got a real estate lawyer who's
a big Segway advocate who doesn't realize the only reason people put up
with him segwaying all over the downtown San Diego sidewalks and
bringing his vehicle into conference rooms with him and into offices is
because of the novelty value and because he's the big hotshot downtown
real estate lawyer. Mr. Photocopier Operator/Repair person here is
happy to lock his bike to no parking signs. And ride in the street
because it's safer for me AND safer for the pedestrians. You remember
pedestrians. They're the ones who really need those sidewalks.

Robert Leone, climbing down off the soapbox.

[noveltransit]

Anatomy of pedestrian-bike incidents in Japan, and brief recap

In one day of walking city streets in Japan, you will see two incidents
of bicycles touching pedestrians where they walk in clusters. The
bicycle rider who misjudged the "stability" of the pedestrian group now
slows, bows his head intensely to apologize. Even in intense brushes,
there is never any shouting.

Recap of main complaints by members of newsgroup:
1) In suburban neighborhoods,sidewalk biking is less safe due to sudden
movements of cars parked nearby
2) Moving from sidewalk into intersection is a source of accidents
3) Making it legal will cause a backlash against bicyclists by
pedestrians
4) Moving with bikes at slow speeds is rather pointless
5) (In jest?) Ah its the segway people....

Review:
1) The right to use sidewalk is not a requirement to use the sidewalk,
as someone has pointed out, making that choice is something that can be
trained, and the decision is visibility based, something that riders
can even be informed of in advance through signage.
2) With respect to intersections, we have not reviewed the safety
studies. It does seem as though a car driver turning in an intersection
will have more difficulty avoiding a suddenly appearing biker than a
slower moving pedestrian. So intersection behavior for bikes
originating from sidewalks needs to be looked at, and we welcome rule
suggestions.
3) Regarding pedestrian hostility, this is certainly true. Novice
visitors to Japan can find the speed of sidewalk sharing riders quite
disconcerting. There is a learning curve for pedestrians too, and this
is to not suddenly move from side to side. On the other hand, the
referendum will impose learning on bicyclists too: don't approach from
behind w.o. a friendly ring.
4) Why bike if speed is so slow due to pedestrian density ? Very slow
biking under superdense sidewalk congestion continues in Japan. The
bikes move less than twice the speed of a walker. Why bike at all. ?
Typically, the bicyclists there have 3-4 mile trips cross-town, and
even at a slow speed due to the use of momentum they consume very
little energy and still arrive much earlier.
5) We have no connection to segway or any scooter (or bike) firm. Our
interest is only to provide reliable, harmless ways to get "average"
people 1-2 miles to a transit endpoint. You can pick your rationale for
the need: Overcongestion of the grid, or disappearance of
single-passenger automobiles due to oil prices.

Cultural note: In the US, bicyclists do not form a "commuting" culture
but a "hobby" culture, complete with special outfits and specialized
bikes. For this particular community sidewalks are in any case not of
interest as they restrict speed. This hobbyist community needs to ask:
what would we prefer ? More cars on the road or more non-expert
commuter bikers ?

[Tom Keats]

In article . com>,
"noveltransit" > writes:

> Cultural note: In the US, bicyclists do not form a "commuting" culture
> but a "hobby" culture,

You think so, eh?

> complete with special outfits and specialized
> bikes. For this particular community sidewalks are in any case not of
> interest as they restrict speed. This hobbyist community needs to ask:
> what would we prefer ? More cars on the road or more non-expert
> commuter bikers ?

More expert commuter bikers. And a fewer bike-hostile environments.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 5 Jun 2005 22:05:49 -0700, "noveltransit"
> wrote:


>In one day of walking city streets in Japan, you will see two incidents
>of bicycles touching pedestrians where they walk in clusters.

This is largely because in Japan cyclists are allowed (encouraged) to
use the sidewalk. In fact, Japanese cities are the exact opposite of
your classic US urban sprawl - they exhibit a density of usage which
is staggering to any Westerner.

>1) The right to use sidewalk is not a requirement to use the sidewalk,

You miss t5he point: since there is good evidence from around the
world that sidewalk cycling is more dangerous than road riding, and
that the most commonly cited reason for sidewalk cycling is fear of
traffic, legalising sidewalk cycling sends out all the wrong messages.

- it encourages a dangerous behaviour
- it reinforces the perception that the dangerous behaviour is safe
- it reinforces the false perception that the safer behaviour is
inherently dangerous
- it ****es pedestrians off (and a pedestrian is defined as "someone
who has found a place to park the car")
- it leaves the source of danger unchallenged, when reducing that
danger would benefit pedestrians and cyclists

Legalising sidewalk cycling is a non-solution, and one which actively
inhibits the proper approach which includes reducing traffic danger at
source.

It is bad for cyclists and pedestrians, the only winners are car
drivers, who get to carry on believing that they are not the problem.

>2) With respect to intersections, we have not reviewed the safety
>studies.

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html

>Cultural note: In the US, bicyclists do not form a "commuting" culture
>but a "hobby" culture

You say., But then, that invites the question: why apply to
low-density, "hobby" culture USA, a solution founded on extremely high
density utility culture Japan?

Why not use instead the model of London, say, which has recently
exhibited a significant improvement in cyclist safety by introducing
road pricing for motorists.

>This hobbyist community needs to ask:
>what would we prefer ? More cars on the road or more non-expert
>commuter bikers ?

These are not the only options.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Claire Petersky]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message ...

>You miss t5he point: since there is good evidence from around the
>world that sidewalk cycling is more dangerous than road riding, and
>that the most commonly cited reason for sidewalk cycling is fear of
>traffic, legalising sidewalk cycling sends out all the wrong messages.
>
>- it encourages a dangerous behaviour
>- it reinforces the perception that the dangerous behaviour is safe
>- it reinforces the false perception that the safer behaviour is
> inherently dangerous
>- it ****es pedestrians off (and a pedestrian is defined as "someone
> who has found a place to park the car")
>- it leaves the source of danger unchallenged, when reducing that
> danger would benefit pedestrians and cyclists
>
>Legalising sidewalk cycling is a non-solution, and one which actively
>inhibits the proper approach which includes reducing traffic danger at
>source.
>
>It is bad for cyclists and pedestrians, the only winners are car
>drivers, who get to carry on believing that they are not the problem.

Guy, can I just quote you 99% intact at the transportation commission
meeting on Thursday? I'm just going to leave out the "5" typo in "the" in
the first line, and use "angers" for "****es off" (and leave out the
parenthetical remark). Otherwise, I'll just say it as written and attribute
it to you.

Thanks.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at:
http://bookcrossing.com/referr*al/Cpetersky

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 06:26:16 -0700, "Claire Petersky"
> wrote:

>Guy, can I just quote you 99% intact at the transportation commission
>meeting on Thursday? I'm just going to leave out the "5" typo in "the" in
>the first line, and use "angers" for "****es off" (and leave out the
>parenthetical remark). Otherwise, I'll just say it as written and attribute
>it to you.

Claire, you are more than welcome. I claim no special insight, but I
do take the trouble to read up.

http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/infra.html is a resource you
might recommend to them. John Franklin is the British equivalent of
John Forrester, in that he is the author of our standard text on
cyclists' roadcraft, an expert witness and a cycle safety advocate.

You know, one of the most consistent themes in any discussion of road
safety (and most especially cyclist safety) is that what is "obvious"
is very often wrong. I have lost count of the number of times I have
started out by believing something, only to discover that, where
anyone has taken the trouble to gather hard data, it either fails to
support or - often - flatly contradicts "common sense". Often times
this research is quietly buried because politicians, who are masters
of the "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must
be done" fallacy, have already invested too much political capital in
the supposed "solution".

As HL Mencken said, for every complex problem there is a solution
which is simple, neat and wrong. And you can quote him on that ;-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[gds]

mark wrote:
> >
>
> I don't think that sidewalks are good for me but I favor *letting* folks who
> want to ride on them do so, subject to a few common sense restrictions. Why
> is that so hard to understand?

Yes, it is for me.
Unlike the helmet debate in which the decsion almost entirely affects
only the decider; in this case doing something that you feel isn't a
good idea (not safe!) is bound to impact others.

[Bill Baka]

gds wrote:
>
> mark wrote:
>
>>I don't think that sidewalks are good for me but I favor *letting* folks who
>>want to ride on them do so, subject to a few common sense restrictions. Why
>>is that so hard to understand?
>
>
> Yes, it is for me.
> Unlike the helmet debate in which the decsion almost entirely affects
> only the decider; in this case doing something that you feel isn't a
> good idea (not safe!) is bound to impact others.
>
Damn the fanatics on here. I ride on the sidewalk in certain areas where
it is the better choice and do so at about 3-5 MPH. I get off the bike
at light controlled intersections and walk the bike, in general acting
like a pedestrian. Since I am not "STOOOPID" enough to think that i have
to ride 25 MPH every where I go this works out quite nicely. At low
speeds the worst that can happen is a fall not much harder than just
tripping on foot, and that is a Hell of a lot better than making contact
with a car at 25-65 MPH.
Screw the hardcore law abiders and ride safely, on or off the sidewalk.
I have never even had a close call with a pedestrian since I don't feel
the need for speed on a sidewalk.
Bill Baka

[gds]

Once again you miss the point!

First, if you (or any experienced rider) want to ride a bike @3 mph on
a sidewalk I'll agree that it probably isn't very dangerous. But I'd
rather walk- independent of the law- riding @ 3mph holds no attraction
for me.
Second, my response was to a poster who feels that he personally thinks
riding on sidewalks to be a bad idea but feels everyone should make
their own choice. Putting aside my views on anarchy, my response is
simply that if one feels that doing something is bad saying that
everyone should be free to make a choice may not be the best advice.
This ng is read by lots of folks with limited experience, so to a degre
it serves an educational function. So, to me, I think it is better to
have a discussion of the pros and cons rather than the simple statement
that everyone should be free to do whatever they want. We want choice-
but I think we want intelligent choice.

[Matt O'Toole]

gds wrote:

> Once again you miss the point!

> First, if you (or any experienced rider) want to ride a bike @3 mph on
> a sidewalk I'll agree that it probably isn't very dangerous. But I'd
> rather walk- independent of the law- riding @ 3mph holds no attraction
> for me.

> Second, my response was to a poster who feels that he personally
> thinks riding on sidewalks to be a bad idea but feels everyone should
> make their own choice. Putting aside my views on anarchy, my response
> is simply that if one feels that doing something is bad saying that
> everyone should be free to make a choice may not be the best advice.
> This ng is read by lots of folks with limited experience, so to a
> degre it serves an educational function. So, to me, I think it is
> better to have a discussion of the pros and cons rather than the
> simple statement that everyone should be free to do whatever they
> want. We want choice- but I think we want intelligent choice.

I say quit thinking about making more rules until they're needed to solve actual
problems. Where is this rash of sidewalk riding accidents we're trying to
prevent? The original post was about a statewide, outright ban on sidewalk
riding in CA. This is asinine. If individual towns want to ban bikes on
sidewalks if/when/where problems arise, then fine; but don't impose this
straitjacket on the other 35 million people whose own situations may differ.

Matt O.

[gds]

Matt, I don't think I ever suggested making any rules. In fact I'm sure
I didn't. I am merely suggesting that I think riding bikes on sidewalks
is a bad practice. Some other posters have offered some evidence that
it increases accidents.
Actually as I read the original post it was not about banning bikes on
sidewalks but rather encouraging them- which I continue to think is a
poor path.

[John_Kane]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > Once again you miss the point!
>
> > First, if you (or any experienced rider) want to ride a bike @3 mph on
> > a sidewalk I'll agree that it probably isn't very dangerous. But I'd
> > rather walk- independent of the law- riding @ 3mph holds no attraction
> > for me.
>
> > Second, my response was to a poster who feels that he personally
> > thinks riding on sidewalks to be a bad idea but feels everyone should
> > make their own choice. Putting aside my views on anarchy, my response
> > is simply that if one feels that doing something is bad saying that
> > everyone should be free to make a choice may not be the best advice.
> > This ng is read by lots of folks with limited experience, so to a
> > degre it serves an educational function. So, to me, I think it is
> > better to have a discussion of the pros and cons rather than the
> > simple statement that everyone should be free to do whatever they
> > want. We want choice- but I think we want intelligent choice.
>
> I say quit thinking about making more rules until they're needed to solve=
actual
> problems. Where is this rash of sidewalk riding accidents we're trying to
> prevent? The original post was about a statewide, outright ban on sidewa=
lk
> riding in CA. This is asinine. If individual towns want to ban bikes on
> sidewalks if/when/where problems arise, then fine; but don't impose this
> straitjacket on the other 35 million people whose own situations may diff=
er.
>
> Matt O.

At the risk of repeating myself:

The City of Toronto did a study of cycling accidents. A quote from the

abstract reads:
"Almost 30% of the cyclists were cycling on the sidewalk immediately
prior to their collisions. In many of these incidents, the motorist
either failed to stop before crossing the stop bar (at controlled
intersections) or sidewalk (at driveways and lanes), or proceeded
forward after stopping, into the path of an on-coming cyclist. The
combination of cyclists riding through crosswalks from the sidewalk and

drivers "rolling through" stop signs appears to have contributed to
a significant number of collisions."
http://www.toronto.ca/transpor=ADtation/publications/bicycle_mo=ADtor-vehic=
..=2E.


This does not say good things about sidewalk cycling.


John Kane
Kingston ON

[John_Kane]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
> gds wrote:
>
> > Once again you miss the point!
>
> > First, if you (or any experienced rider) want to ride a bike @3 mph on
> > a sidewalk I'll agree that it probably isn't very dangerous. But I'd
> > rather walk- independent of the law- riding @ 3mph holds no attraction
> > for me.
>
> > Second, my response was to a poster who feels that he personally
> > thinks riding on sidewalks to be a bad idea but feels everyone should
> > make their own choice. Putting aside my views on anarchy, my response
> > is simply that if one feels that doing something is bad saying that
> > everyone should be free to make a choice may not be the best advice.
> > This ng is read by lots of folks with limited experience, so to a
> > degre it serves an educational function. So, to me, I think it is
> > better to have a discussion of the pros and cons rather than the
> > simple statement that everyone should be free to do whatever they
> > want. We want choice- but I think we want intelligent choice.
>
> I say quit thinking about making more rules until they're needed to solve=
actual
> problems. Where is this rash of sidewalk riding accidents we're trying to
> prevent? The original post was about a statewide, outright ban on sidewa=
lk
> riding in CA. This is asinine. If individual towns want to ban bikes on
> sidewalks if/when/where problems arise, then fine; but don't impose this
> straitjacket on the other 35 million people whose own situations may diff=
er.
>
> Matt O.

At the risk of repeating myself:

The City of Toronto did a study of cycling accidents. A quote from the

abstract reads:
"Almost 30% of the cyclists were cycling on the sidewalk immediately
prior to their collisions. In many of these incidents, the motorist
either failed to stop before crossing the stop bar (at controlled
intersections) or sidewalk (at driveways and lanes), or proceeded
forward after stopping, into the path of an on-coming cyclist. The
combination of cyclists riding through crosswalks from the sidewalk and

drivers "rolling through" stop signs appears to have contributed to
a significant number of collisions."
http://www.toronto.ca/transpor=ADtation/publications/bicycle_mo=ADtor-vehic=
..=2E.


This does not say good things about sidewalk cycling.


John Kane
Kingston ON

[noveltransit]

http://www.fussverkehr.de/
---------------
The 5th pdf in this link is a three page report of sharing, it includes
photos and signage. Sidewalk sharing has been specifically legal for
some time in Germany, and this website "pedestrian traffic" (translate
with Babelfish) is completely written from the point of view of
protecting the pedestrians. The university working group came to the
conclusion that a painted separator, training and minimal width should
be implemented, and recommends that during certain hours, locations
remain "bicyclist free".

In reviewing safety studies we have found that the data which was cited
by a member of this group (Forrester site, and another site) was
directed not only against sidepath biking, but even against the use and
establishments of bike paths.

However, the anti-bikepath view worldwide appears to be a minority view
even among experts. In addition, as in California in particular there
is in residential neighborhoods almost zero foot traffic on sidewalks,
pedestrians in residential areas are not an issue.

The danger of moving directly from side/bike path into the street is
accepted worldwide, but it should be noted that the accident happens
when colliding with the car at the intersection not on the sidewalk or
bike path. Apart from training, one can solve this by inserting a metal
structure requiring significant slowing of the bike by forcing two
sequential sharp turns.

One member of the group pointed out that what we want is not more bike
commuters, but "informed, traffic-sharing commuters" (i.e. not
sidewalk-sharing commuters.)

The goal of hard-core bicyclists to get others to join traffic and ride
safely instead of remaining on sidewalks is understandable, but we feel
that it cannot overcome the perception of the average person that a
bike in an age of increasing street congestion, larger vehicles, road
rage, and meth ingesting drivers "feels" quite vulnerable when directly
in traffic.

Ultimately, the question arises, why are there not more motorbikes ?
For the same reason: Most people do not have the personality to mix
their own vulnerable flesh with hordes of large metal vehicles.

These basic personality differences cannot be overcome by education.
Could you educate your friends to jump from the 4th level in a swimming
pool tower ? Do most people feel a desire to be pilots ? You'd love to,
but most people cringe in a small plane even as passengers. This
aversion is often described as a phobia, but may really be a rejection
of accepting the power difference between a bicyle rider and the
surrounding cars.

So, mixing (average) people into traffic on bikes is in our view an
unattainable goal, at least in the United States. And as we dig deeper
into the accident data, we find high correlations with drinking, and in
some contexts 3 fold lower accident rates for females, indicating that
cyclist (cycless!) behavior has much to do with accident probability.

To implement novel transit systems we need to get people to use
personal mobility devices, so they must be pleased with their use.
Being in traffic on a bike takes a well-developed ego and
assertiveness. Saying "But they can see you okay there.." does not
bring about this personality change.

We therefore request your support to implement sidewalk biking with
some restrictions in California, and also thank the opposing views for
pointing us to sites with data.

http://hallisystem.bravehost.com

[[email protected]]

Noveltransit typed:
SNIP
Recap of main complaints by members of newsgroup:
SNIP
5) (In jest?) Ah its the segway people....

Not in jest. You're referendum idea on your website is the typical
nastiness I've been seeing the past few elections. It's got what you
want ....
>From your web site:
1) The allocation of at least 30% of the planned California High Speed
Rail sales tax for implementation of the semi-governmental Hallitube
program, including
2) Multiple design of carts pylons, power pickup, engines, rail
switches, rail-carpet interfaces, and powerline-street interfaces.

AND
9) Minimalist passenger overpasses/mechanization program will install
non-escalator mechanisms to rapidly move trained pedestrians over
elevated overpasses

AND
13) Subsidization of portable devices such as the "staircane TM" to
ease handicapped interaction with transit facilities

AND
16) Establishment of a semi-public body to administer these reforms and
market their adoption to other states with California as expertise
center

While you attact others to support this referendum with a menagerie of
unfunded mandates for this, that, and the other, including depending
upon a social program instead of engineering for ADA compliance for
your Hallitubes --
14) Significant funding for additional handicapped buses with a cell
phone based position reporting system. (Compliance with ADA via extra
ride creation) [Somehow I DON'T think my pals in the National
Federation of the Blind will be happy with that -- remember, they're
the hard-cases who sued AOL because AOL's browser sucked).

And add a whole bunch of little things designed to delight those with
short attention spans who only think of traffic engineering when
they're caught in a jam.

4) Mandatory usage by police of anti-rubbernecking visual shielding to
prevent delays at accident sites.
17) New traffic rule: departure intent positioning of vehicles in
lanes which are both straight and right turn lanes. Currently, a
vehicle driving straight is still allowed to clog the gap that could be
used by right-turners.
18) Pull-up-to-bumper (PUB) rule for cars waiting in a lane divide
section where their car obstructs cars behind them waiting to move into
a lane besides them.
19) Standardization of driver alert and police procedure for road
sections involving ongoing suicide attempts with lane alerting rather
than blocking.
20) Funding for novel, safe technologies to stop highway police chases
and how about some rank ageism with

10) Traffic rules will be modified to allow 42-55 age group to proceed
through certain marked red lights under specified conditions,
additional penalties for intersection blocking, and physical
manipulation of cell phones while at unregulated intersection.

And THEN there are the ones that I've already seen tested -- and they
just don't work!
11) Incentives for local transit agencies to dispose of large
non-natural gas buses in favor of smaller buses easily operated, and
with lite handicap access.

Sorry pal, I live in San Diego -- and it may surprise you to learn that
much of the current bus fleet, and all new acquisitions, ARE natural
gas busses. Attrition and state/federal incentives will kill off the
remaining diesels quickly enough. By the way, MY bus, the 30, passes by
the VA Hospital -- and "lite handicap access" won't do it when it's
spinal injury Wednesday, as as many as four people in chairs can be,
and sometimes ARE, accomodated on the new low floor plan (natural gas)
busses. Here's another number -- 35. That's the number of people on my
bus home yesterday. Some cutesy little mini-bus would need to be
TWINNED to take aboard as many people as fit comfortably in ye olde 40
foot New Flyer. Santa Clara Transit, now Valley Transit Authority,
tried small 30 foot light-duty natural gas busses about two decades
ago. Breakdowns and overcrowding sucked. Labor is a HUGE operating
cost, dontcha know, and it's not just the drivers. Twice as many
vehicles need more mechanics, more cleaners, more farebox maintenance
technicians.

I'm surprised you didn't have a provision in there for a San
Diego-Oceanside hydrofoil ferry. It didn't work either. But then that's
recent news -- even newspaper reporters will remember what a failure
referendum-funded fiasco was, if only because they took most of the
rides.

Then, when you try to get the cyclists here all excited with: 23)
Enactment of rules to allow sidewalks to be shared by personal mobility
devices, and funds for repairing of damaged sidewalks to make scooter
and racebike use easier.

OK, you've got Segway-happy Gary London's vote, but you sure got
defensive when the maddened crowd here told you what a bad idea this
was. As one who's been hit from behind by a bicyclist whilst on the
sidewalk, as well as a commuting cyclist myself, this is bad.
Especially since California already as a provision that local
municipalities may, at their option, allow sidewalk riding. Mind you,
the only notice I've ever seen that sidewalk riding is allowed is on a
nice stretch of Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos that has a great wide
clean shoulder, but that's life in Los Gatos.

We can't even train motorists and cyclists to properly share the road,
and you want to collect my tax dollars for a scheme you'd rather not
test -- here's some more from your web site -->
It has been suggested by our consultants that a Hallitube should first
be tried at an amusement park. However, we believe that early funds
should be expended on a prolonged publicity campaign, extensive local
and nation debates, and route planning. Why ? The significance of this
system lies in truly transforming infrastructure and stimulating the
economy. A rapid construction of a weakly engineered small model might
be a failure. In addition, the fact that users need significant
training contradicts the context of an amusement park where anyone can
ride. Nevertheless, a slower, lighter version might be built just to
get people accustomed to carrying and accelerating their own cart.

END if clipping.

Just not impressed by the dog's breakfast 24 point referendum. And it
looks like found out cyclists are 50% vegetarians, 50% Eddy Merkx-style
"Cannibals" when you walked in with a bag of bones. Dang, that's an
ugly metaphor.

Robert Leone

[[email protected]]

Noveltransit typed:
SNIP
Recap of main complaints by members of newsgroup:
SNIP
5) (In jest?) Ah its the segway people....

Not in jest. You're referendum idea on your website is the typical
nastiness I've been seeing the past few elections. It's got what you
want ....
>From your web site:
1) The allocation of at least 30% of the planned California High Speed
Rail sales tax for implementation of the semi-governmental Hallitube
program, including
2) Multiple design of carts pylons, power pickup, engines, rail
switches, rail-carpet interfaces, and powerline-street interfaces.

AND
9) Minimalist passenger overpasses/mechanization program will install
non-escalator mechanisms to rapidly move trained pedestrians over
elevated overpasses

AND
13) Subsidization of portable devices such as the "staircane TM" to
ease handicapped interaction with transit facilities

AND
16) Establishment of a semi-public body to administer these reforms and
market their adoption to other states with California as expertise
center

While you attact others to support this referendum with a menagerie of
unfunded mandates for this, that, and the other, including depending
upon a social program instead of engineering for ADA compliance for
your Hallitubes --
14) Significant funding for additional handicapped buses with a cell
phone based position reporting system. (Compliance with ADA via extra
ride creation) [Somehow I DON'T think my pals in the National
Federation of the Blind will be happy with that -- remember, they're
the hard-cases who sued AOL because AOL's browser sucked).

And add a whole bunch of little things designed to delight those with
short attention spans who only think of traffic engineering when
they're caught in a jam.

4) Mandatory usage by police of anti-rubbernecking visual shielding to
prevent delays at accident sites.
17) New traffic rule: departure intent positioning of vehicles in
lanes which are both straight and right turn lanes. Currently, a
vehicle driving straight is still allowed to clog the gap that could be
used by right-turners.
18) Pull-up-to-bumper (PUB) rule for cars waiting in a lane divide
section where their car obstructs cars behind them waiting to move into
a lane besides them.
19) Standardization of driver alert and police procedure for road
sections involving ongoing suicide attempts with lane alerting rather
than blocking.
20) Funding for novel, safe technologies to stop highway police chases
and how about some rank ageism with

10) Traffic rules will be modified to allow 42-55 age group to proceed
through certain marked red lights under specified conditions,
additional penalties for intersection blocking, and physical
manipulation of cell phones while at unregulated intersection.

And THEN there are the ones that I've already seen tested -- and they
just don't work!
11) Incentives for local transit agencies to dispose of large
non-natural gas buses in favor of smaller buses easily operated, and
with lite handicap access.

Sorry pal, I live in San Diego -- and it may surprise you to learn that
much of the current bus fleet, and all new acquisitions, ARE natural
gas busses. Attrition and state/federal incentives will kill off the
remaining diesels quickly enough. By the way, MY bus, the 30, passes by
the VA Hospital -- and "lite handicap access" won't do it when it's
spinal injury Wednesday, as as many as four people in chairs can be,
and sometimes ARE, accomodated on the new low floor plan (natural gas)
busses. Here's another number -- 35. That's the number of people on my
bus home yesterday. Some cutesy little mini-bus would need to be
TWINNED to take aboard as many people as fit comfortably in ye olde 40
foot New Flyer. Santa Clara Transit, now Valley Transit Authority,
tried small 30 foot light-duty natural gas busses about two decades
ago. Breakdowns and overcrowding sucked. Labor is a HUGE operating
cost, dontcha know, and it's not just the drivers. Twice as many
vehicles need more mechanics, more cleaners, more farebox maintenance
technicians.

I'm surprised you didn't have a provision in there for a San
Diego-Oceanside hydrofoil ferry. It didn't work either. But then that's
recent news -- even newspaper reporters will remember what a failure
referendum-funded fiasco was, if only because they took most of the
rides.

Then, when you try to get the cyclists here all excited with: 23)
Enactment of rules to allow sidewalks to be shared by personal mobility
devices, and funds for repairing of damaged sidewalks to make scooter
and racebike use easier.

OK, you've got Segway-happy Gary London's vote, but you sure got
defensive when the maddened crowd here told you what a bad idea this
was. As one who's been hit from behind by a bicyclist whilst on the
sidewalk, as well as a commuting cyclist myself, this is bad.
Especially since California already as a provision that local
municipalities may, at their option, allow sidewalk riding. Mind you,
the only notice I've ever seen that sidewalk riding is allowed is on a
nice stretch of Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos that has a great wide
clean shoulder, but that's life in Los Gatos.

We can't even train motorists and cyclists to properly share the road,
and you want to collect my tax dollars for a scheme you'd rather not
test -- here's some more from your web site -->
It has been suggested by our consultants that a Hallitube should first
be tried at an amusement park. However, we believe that early funds
should be expended on a prolonged publicity campaign, extensive local
and nation debates, and route planning. Why ? The significance of this
system lies in truly transforming infrastructure and stimulating the
economy. A rapid construction of a weakly engineered small model might
be a failure. In addition, the fact that users need significant
training contradicts the context of an amusement park where anyone can
ride. Nevertheless, a slower, lighter version might be built just to
get people accustomed to carrying and accelerating their own cart.

END if clipping.

Just not impressed by the dog's breakfast 24 point referendum. And it
looks like found out cyclists are 50% vegetarians, 50% Eddy Merkx-style
"Cannibals" when you walked in with a bag of bones. Dang, that's an
ugly metaphor.

Robert Leone

[[email protected]]

OOPS, sorry about that doubleclick error.

Robert Leone

[bryanska]

> Certainly, but you're making a pretty broad assumption when you say all cyclists
> are probably travelling at 12-20 km/hr on sidewalks. Many of us do ride on
> sidewalks at more responsible speeds -- walking pace. People *are* capable of
> good judgement and common sense.
>

No, people are not. Common sense is common to the beholder only, it is
a dangerous, assumptive idea.

As America fragmented from highly homogenic faith- and tradition-driven
ideals into individual free-thinkers, "common sense" as a concept has
faded away. There is nothing left to do, but to regulate in an attempt
to restrain behavioral outliers.

If it isn't strictly enforced, we must consider sidewalk bicycle speed
to be an unknown and dangerous factor.

[wafflycat]

"noveltransit" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://www.fussverkehr.de/
> ---------------
> The 5th pdf in this link is a three page report of sharing, it includes
> photos and signage. Sidewalk sharing has been specifically legal for
> some time in Germany, and this website "pedestrian traffic" (translate
> with Babelfish) is completely written from the point of view of
> protecting the pedestrians. The university working group came to the
> conclusion that a painted separator, training and minimal width should
> be implemented, and recommends that during certain hours, locations
> remain "bicyclist free".
>

Having used said footpath cycle lanes in Germany, they are an entirely
different ball-game to those in the UK. In Germany, the rules are respected
where the pedestrians *do not* wander on to the part allocated for cyclists
and the cyclists *do not* cross over on to the part for pedstrians. very
civilised all round where each respects the other's needs and accommodates
thus. Unlike here in the UK where on shared use paths pedestrians have the
right to wander where they will - and do - and *frequently* cross on to the
space marked for bicycles. The onus is on the cyclist to get out of the way
of the pedestrian, even if the ped is on the marked cycle path. Confusion
reigns supreme :-(

Plus, in Germany motor vehicles *will* defer to pedestrians and cyclists at
crossings when the crossings are not light-controlled. It took me *ages* to
get used to cars stopping and waiting for me to cross, whether I was cycling
or walking. Totally different to here in the UK, where the pity help the
pedestrian who wishes to cross the road....

Cheers, helen s

[noveltransit]

John, I'm reading the same studies, but would you not want to be where
30% of the accidents are instead of where 70% are..?

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At 9 Jun 2005 22:39:08 -0700, message
om> was posted by
"noveltransit" >, including some, all or
none of the following:

>John, I'm reading the same studies, but would you not want to be where
>30% of the accidents are instead of where 70% are..?

It rather depends, doesn't it, on whether those 30% of accidents are
based on more or less than 30% of the mileage travelled.

I strongly suspect that sidewalk mileage is well below 30% of total
miles travelled.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[John_Kane]

noveltransit wrote:
> John, I'm reading the same studies, but would you not want to be where
> 30% of the accidents are instead of where 70% are..?

Well that thought did cross my mind :)

I'm not particularly familiar with Toronto cycling since I have not
cycled there in 15 years but it seems unlikely to me that 30% of all
cycling is done on the sidewalk particularly as a very large amount of
cycling is in the centre core of the city.

To quote from the study:
"For Aultman- Hall's (1) sample of 1,359 Toronto commuter cyclists,
most crashes (collisions and falls) occurred on roadways, since that is
where most cycling activity took place. However, crash rates per
kilometre were significantly higher on sidewalks and multi-use paths"

Looks to me like the conclusion is that sidewalk cyclists have a
greater incidence of collisions than do those riding on the roadway.
Given that people seem to ride on the sidewalk to be 'safer', I get the
feeling they do not understand the relative risks.

John Kane
Kingston ON



(1) Doherty, S.T., L. Aultman-Hall, and J. Swaynos. 2000. Commuter
Cyclist Accident Patterns in Toronto and Ottawa. Journal of
Transportation Engineering Jan/Feb 2000: 21-26.

[noveltransit]

Toronto Study 2003 - Sidewalk-related Findings examined in detail

John, "safer" can be interpreted as "willing to trade prob. of minimal
or minor collision for a severe collision" - which Toronto data bears
out.

1) Sidewalk crashes inflated through inclusion of young riders
2) Massive "dooring" rate does not happen on sidewalks
3) Fatalities were on street
4) Left turn on street, bike is not seen, road-type only.
5) Many locations in T. where experienced cyclists may feel unsafe or
at least uncomfortable
6) "Sidewalk" collisions include instances when cyclist is actually in
intersection, and has violated law by not stopping. Other studies look
at "position of bike" and find many fewer.
7) Advising side-path cyclists to use the road could result in many
more accidents, as they have been identified as group to be more
accident prone. (The aversiveness to close car contact correlates with
weaker cycling skill)
8) Accidents on the road tend to be more severe accidents.
9) The sidewalk accident rate is introduced as "surprising" meaning the
study could be an outlier, we need to look at others.
10) Road collision due to aging motorists turning left, do not see
bicycle in road.
(This is the 2003 study) - philosophically, to the statement : Don't go
to parties, you will become addicted to drugs, is similar to "don't
ride on sidewalks, you will be killed driving into the intersection.)
This study cautions of advising byciclists not to use the sidewalk, due
to the bike-hostile nature of the Toronto road system.