|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
https://cyclingindustry.news/sustran...ign-standards/
"You shall know them by their works" http://wcc.crankfoot.xyz/facility-of-the-month/ -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
On 12/6/2019 10:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/sustran...ign-standards/ So the software models cargo bikes, bikes with trailers, etc. to be sure they can make it past barriers intended to exclude cars but not bikes. One might think a designer could do that without software, but experience shows otherwise. Examples: Our local metropark has a stinker of a bike facility on a short road that's one way for cars, two way for bikes. (I don't object to that concept at all; I object to their implementation.) But at one end is a maze of bollards that serve no useful purpose; and our tandem can get through only by dismounting. After years of complaints, they finally removed the bollards a couple months ago. And we enjoy riding our bikes to fetch our grandkids' at school in the afternoon. They take the bus in, so I tow a trailer I fabricated to carry their two bikes, allowing us to all ride back to their house after a stop at the popcorn shop and library. We get to the school by a lovely leak-through path at the end of a cul-de-sac (my favorite type of bike facility). But that path crosses a school driveway. To exclude cars, they have chain link fencing halfway into the path from first one side, then the other, making a tight chicane. Getting the trailer through required dismounting, parking, lifting the trailer, then repeating. I eventually just yanked on the fence framing, bending it a couple inches in two spots. I still have to dismount, but at least I can walk the bike & trailer through. On one hand, I can see the difficulty for designers. Bike-things come in a wide variety of shapes. Accommodating the tails of the normal curve will always be tricky. But OTOH, it would be nice if people designing things for bikes actually knew a lot more about bicycling and bicycles. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
On 12/6/2019 10:55 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://cyclingindustry.news/sustran...ign-standards/ Oh, and from that site: "Where built properly, cycling infrastructure has been shown to create substantial behavioural change in transport use. In a recent Danish study it was demonstrated that the creation of safe lanes came with a 23% increase in cyclist numbers versus data stretching back to 2010." I think that "has been shown" should be modified by "occasionally." There are plenty of counterexamples. In another discussion, someone just pointed out Santa Clarita, California. It apparently has a really wonderful network of separated bike trails, miles of them with many of them linking cul-de-sacs so cars are excluded and there are few crossing conflicts. The network goes all over town, and even features grade separated crossings of major roads. It's like another Stevenage or Milton Keynes, but in America. See https://goo.gl/maps/VoxWsxrdX5fxWjc18 The city's gotten LAB's "silver" level award as a Bike Friendly Community. So what are the results of the "substantial behavioral change in transport use"? Bike mode share estimates range from 0.3% to 0.5% Whoopee! The default transportation mode is still the car (or more likely, pickup or SUV). If motor vehicle use is not actively discouraged, that's always going to be the case. And I can't envision much discouragement of motor vehicle use in the U.S. in the foreseeable future. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 5:11:36 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
The default transportation mode is still the car (or more likely, pickup or SUV). If motor vehicle use is not actively discouraged, that's always going to be the case. Do you ever wonder why people call you a fascist, Franki-boy? This is why: your constant urge to force everyone else to your way of seeing things, your constant smug, almost orgasmic, claim of moral superiority. You're not morally superior, you're just a common street corner bully, and a particularly unsophisticated street corner bully at that. And I can't envision much discouragement of motor vehicle use in the U.S. in the foreseeable future. And damn right too. If people want to drive straight to hell in their SUVs, that's their choice and their right, and it is none of the business of cycle enthusiasts to "discourage" them. What Franki-boy is doing here is admitting that he is too inarticulate and too offensive in his baseless but bottomless self-righteousness to convince anyone that cycling is a better form of transport, and jumping from there to forcing people out of their convenient automobiles so that they are forced onto bicycles instead. If you don't grasp how that is a vicious perversion of democracy, what would you think if tomorrow morning Franki-boy woke up with a stroke and suddenly decided that cyclists are a menace to drivers and should be "discouraged", for instance by requiring a bicycle license of $10,000pa? The likelihood is that instantly you would agree with every word I said in this poor. Andre Jute Read the title of the thread, Franki=boy: "We're from the government. And we're here to help you." It's satirical, even sarcastic. It is not intended as an invitation to control freaks like you. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 3:02:08 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 5:11:36 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: The default transportation mode is still the car (or more likely, pickup or SUV). If motor vehicle use is not actively discouraged, that's always going to be the case. Do you ever wonder why people call you a fascist, Franki-boy? This is why: your constant urge to force everyone else to your way of seeing things, your constant smug, almost orgasmic, claim of moral superiority. You're not morally superior, you're just a common street corner bully, and a particularly unsophisticated street corner bully at that. And I can't envision much discouragement of motor vehicle use in the U.S. in the foreseeable future. And damn right too. If people want to drive straight to hell in their SUVs, that's their choice and their right, and it is none of the business of cycle enthusiasts to "discourage" them. What Franki-boy is doing here is admitting that he is too inarticulate and too offensive in his baseless but bottomless self-righteousness to convince anyone that cycling is a better form of transport, and jumping from there to forcing people out of their convenient automobiles so that they are forced onto bicycles instead. If you don't grasp how that is a vicious perversion of democracy, what would you think if tomorrow morning Franki-boy woke up with a stroke and suddenly decided that cyclists are a menace to drivers and should be "discouraged", for instance by requiring a bicycle license of $10,000pa? The likelihood is that instantly you would agree with every word I said in this poor. Andre Jute Read the title of the thread, Franki=boy: "We're from the government. And we're here to help you." It's satirical, even sarcastic. It is not intended as an invitation to control freaks like you. In California because the police no longer enforce traffic laws save VERY rarely both of my brothers now think that you're expected to move at the speed of traffic no matter WHAT speed it is going at. That law happens to mean that if you have fog or the like that you are required to move at the SLOWER speed of traffic and not the 15+ mph over the speed limit they are pretending it is. You are breaking the speed limit and can be prosecuted for going ONE MPH over the speed limit. That they normally give you a 5 mph cushion doesn't mean that you can drive 5 mph over the limit. It means that your speedo may be inaccurate due to putting oversize tires on your oversize truck. 15 mph over any speed limit - 50 mph in a 35 mph zone - is considered reckless driving yet this is normal procedures today. The speeding ticket added to the reckless driving ticket can put you in the poor house and you have to wonder why the states that are crying poormouth aren't using this income source most especially when it would reduce traffic deaths. The lack of enforcement of driving laws gives all law enforcement a very bad name and this is why we have a growing number of armed robberies and strong arm robberies that end up with innocent people dying. If you fail to enforce one law be ready to not enforce a lot of them. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
On Saturday, December 7, 2019 at 6:58:24 PM UTC, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 3:02:08 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote: On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 5:11:36 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote: The default transportation mode is still the car (or more likely, pickup or SUV). If motor vehicle use is not actively discouraged, that's always going to be the case. Do you ever wonder why people call you a fascist, Franki-boy? This is why: your constant urge to force everyone else to your way of seeing things, your constant smug, almost orgasmic, claim of moral superiority. You're not morally superior, you're just a common street corner bully, and a particularly unsophisticated street corner bully at that. And I can't envision much discouragement of motor vehicle use in the U.S. in the foreseeable future. And damn right too. If people want to drive straight to hell in their SUVs, that's their choice and their right, and it is none of the business of cycle enthusiasts to "discourage" them. What Franki-boy is doing here is admitting that he is too inarticulate and too offensive in his baseless but bottomless self-righteousness to convince anyone that cycling is a better form of transport, and jumping from there to forcing people out of their convenient automobiles so that they are forced onto bicycles instead. If you don't grasp how that is a vicious perversion of democracy, what would you think if tomorrow morning Franki-boy woke up with a stroke and suddenly decided that cyclists are a menace to drivers and should be "discouraged", for instance by requiring a bicycle license of $10,000pa? The likelihood is that instantly you would agree with every word I said in this poor. Andre Jute Read the title of the thread, Franki=boy: "We're from the government. And we're here to help you." It's satirical, even sarcastic. It is not intended as an invitation to control freaks like you. In California because the police no longer enforce traffic laws save VERY rarely both of my brothers now think that you're expected to move at the speed of traffic no matter WHAT speed it is going at. That law happens to mean that if you have fog or the like that you are required to move at the SLOWER speed of traffic and not the 15+ mph over the speed limit they are pretending it is. You are breaking the speed limit and can be prosecuted for going ONE MPH over the speed limit. That they normally give you a 5 mph cushion doesn't mean that you can drive 5 mph over the limit. It means that your speedo may be inaccurate due to putting oversize tires on your oversize truck. 15 mph over any speed limit - 50 mph in a 35 mph zone - is considered reckless driving yet this is normal procedures today. The speeding ticket added to the reckless driving ticket can put you in the poor house and you have to wonder why the states that are crying poormouth aren't using this income source most especially when it would reduce traffic deaths. The lack of enforcement of driving laws gives all law enforcement a very bad name and this is why we have a growing number of armed robberies and strong arm robberies that end up with innocent people dying. If you fail to enforce one law be ready to not enforce a lot of them. In the mists of time, a Police Commissioner believed that enforcing jaywalking laws would make the police unpopular with the populace. It somehow became known through the police that HQ wasn't keen to prosecute jaywalkers. Now, decades later, Cork is known as the world capital of jaywalkers. Mind you, a few years ago the police had a very successful drive against drink-driving, so that these days young people go out in a crowd only if there is a designated driver for each car, who doesn't drink any alcohol all evening. AJ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
Andre, you should know that "jaywalking" was a social engineering term cooked up by automakers to stigmatize people exercising their rights to use public streets. The campaign worked, and by now most people don't believe that people have a right to the road.
Remember it's the motorists who are by far the most offensive transgressors.. Don't fall for the language and ideas of the malefactors. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
Chalo writes:
Andre, you should know that "jaywalking" was a social engineering term cooked up by automakers to stigmatize people exercising their rights to use public streets. The campaign worked, and by now most people don't believe that people have a right to the road. True. The term "jay driving" predates "jay walking". A "jay" was a hick, a rube, or a stomp, and when he drove to the city, behind a horse or a steering wheel, he was reputed to, for example, drive on whichever side of the road seemed convenient at the time. The invention of jaywalking was a masterful stroke of PR judo, and a a sign of things to come. Remember it's the motorists who are by far the most offensive transgressors. Don't fall for the language and ideas of the malefactors. -- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
On 12/8/2019 12:56 PM, Chalo wrote:
Andre, you should know that "jaywalking" was a social engineering term cooked up by automakers to stigmatize people exercising their rights to use public streets. The campaign worked, and by now most people don't believe that people have a right to the road. Exactly right. We recently visited very good friends in a distant city. They were once avid members of our bike club, and the guy in particular is very, very safety oriented. (Safety was his profession before he retired.) At one point he was driving us to some big mall. He turned right off one major street and about 100 yards later was moving to the left lane to turn into the mall's parking garage. A woman scurried across the road in front of us. He fussed at her for jaywalking. "She's refusing to use the crosswalk right back there!" But I defended her. The crosswalk was at that busy interction, with at least five lanes on each of the intersecting streets. If its like most crosswalks in that area, she'd probably get ten seconds of "WALK" before the sign started flashing, and she'd be trying to cross at least 60 feet of pavement. Meanwhile, motorists would be rushing to squeeze their turns in just before (or during) the red light and paying no heed to pedestrians. Where she crossed, she just had to look to the left, scurry to a landscaped center island, then wait in safety as she looked for clear space to the right. And besides, what right does a motorists sitting in a cushy seat have to tell a pedestrian they have to walk an additional 200 yards? Remember it's the motorists who are by far the most offensive transgressors. Don't fall for the language and ideas of the malefactors. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
We're from the government. We're here to help you.
On Sunday, December 8, 2019 at 11:16:40 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/8/2019 12:56 PM, Chalo wrote: Andre, you should know that "jaywalking" was a social engineering term cooked up by automakers to stigmatize people exercising their rights to use public streets. The campaign worked, and by now most people don't believe that people have a right to the road. Exactly right. We recently visited very good friends in a distant city. They were once avid members of our bike club, and the guy in particular is very, very safety oriented. (Safety was his profession before he retired.) At one point he was driving us to some big mall. He turned right off one major street and about 100 yards later was moving to the left lane to turn into the mall's parking garage. A woman scurried across the road in front of us. He fussed at her for jaywalking. "She's refusing to use the crosswalk right back there!" But I defended her. The crosswalk was at that busy interction, with at least five lanes on each of the intersecting streets. If its like most crosswalks in that area, she'd probably get ten seconds of "WALK" before the sign started flashing, and she'd be trying to cross at least 60 feet of pavement. Meanwhile, motorists would be rushing to squeeze their turns in just before (or during) the red light and paying no heed to pedestrians. Where she crossed, she just had to look to the left, scurry to a landscaped center island, then wait in safety as she looked for clear space to the right. And besides, what right does a motorists sitting in a cushy seat have to tell a pedestrian they have to walk an additional 200 yards? You're f****** nuts. Pedestrians-as-squirrels are one of my biggest nightmares -- on a bike! I have people step of curbs in unmarked areas, against lights -- basically whenever they get the urge. Riding in the cycletrack near PSU is a joke with all the witless college kids just stepping into the facility looking down at their iPhones. This is our future? Pedestrians acting badly are a real threat to lawful cyclists. -- Jay Beattie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
We're from the government. We're here to help you. | AMuzi | Techniques | 4 | September 18th 19 09:05 PM |
When Will the Government .. | John Smith[_7_] | UK | 42 | November 11th 15 10:16 PM |
we're from the government. We're here to help you | AMuzi | Techniques | 7 | July 19th 14 12:38 AM |
Your government looking out for you | Bill Sornson[_5_] | General | 7 | February 20th 10 05:20 PM |
OT government | [email protected] | Techniques | 96 | June 17th 08 10:48 PM |