View Single Post
  #45  
Old February 10th 20, 06:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On 2/9/2020 9:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 5:42:05 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 19:26:53 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:24:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted
right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're
designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

Door Zones are simple... slow down and pay attention :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

El toro poo poo! You can be riding in a door zone and have a car door
opened just as you are passing it because you were unable to see into the
vehicle for any number of reasons. When that door hits your bike or you
then you are deflected out into the traffic lane where you are very
likely to then get that extreme run-down feeling. That's because a driver
in the traffic lane is not looking for or expecting a bicyclist to be
deflected into the motorist's line of travel. The trick for a bicyclist
to avoid that is simple. DON'T RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE!

Cheers


Door zones ARE simple. Don’t ride in them.


It sounds pretty simple.... except that I have seen sections where the
traffic in the next lane is whizzing by at 100 kph and there are cars
parked on the other side.

What does one do then? Get off and push?


Ride vehicularly -- jump into the fast moving traffic and ride prominently in position one! The cars will yield to you.


Nobody has ever claimed it's good to "jump into the fast moving
traffic." You don't jump; you wait for your chance, signal and merge
when it's safe to do so.

On almost all roads, motor vehicles travel in groups or platoons. There
are always clear spaces if you wait for them.

Do you seriously never ride on roads with 55 mph speed limits?? Do you
seriously never ride at lane center in a narrow lane??

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home