It's happening! Um... sort of.

On 5/14/2014 5:35 PM, sms wrote:


Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure.

I've mentioned many times the bike facilities that I actively worked on
getting installed. Those are well designed.

However, I know that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") will ignore that, as he
ignores anything disproving his worldview.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/14/2014 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:


Singapore is a good example. Nearly totally destroyed in WW II they
gained their independence from Malaysia in 1965 and today is the
second most densely populated nation in the world., and as a result
the numbers of autos on the road has greatly increased, and yet
bicycles are still a common method of transportation.

Singapore has a highly developed public transportation system
encompassing buses and the MRT (subway or Underground) but still at
every MRT station or bus stop you will see bicycles chained and
locked. The Lavender Street MRT station has several hundred bikes
parked there every day.

Bicycle facilities? None that I've seen other than parking stands at
MRT stations.

I suspect that bicycle use is far more dependent on social or economic
conditions, or even historical use, then on the availability or
non-availability of facilities.

It's been pointed out that good public transportation is very helpful in
making bike transportation viable.

For one thing, bikes are helpful in solving public transit's "last mile"
problem, connecting the home or workplace to the transit route.

For another thing, the presence of reliable public transportation can
allow many families to get by without a car, or with one car instead of two.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/14/2014 8:02 PM, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
... So when a new facility makes it harder to
coexist with motor traffic, or is simply more dangerous to use than the
road, competent cyclists get ****ed off.

Of course. But when you get ****ed off at a bad design that makes sense.
When you dis all infrastructure by rote it doesn't. I use some bike lanes
often. I avoid others just as often and file complaints about the bad
ones. Makes sense to me.

After years of observation and riding, I feel entitled to generalize.

There are some bike facilities - or really, multi-use paths - that
function as linear parks. That's fine if you want a linear park, as
long as they are properly designed. I know several that are not, i.e.
that directly violate AASHTO guidelines. But I wish that transportation
funds weren't being diverted to long, skinny parks. They really should
be paid for out of park funds.

There are some road-related bike facilities that make novices feel good,
but do no practical good and may do harm. Most bike lanes are of this
type, because the stripe itself rarely does any good beyond the benefit
of the same width of unstriped pavement. In fact, the unstriped
pavement almost always has less flat-causing road debris. And of
course, door-zone bike lanes are stupid, yet common.

There are some road-related bike facilities that sound good in the most
simplistic theories, but have been shown to increase crash rates.
Examples are the suddenly trendy "protected bike lanes" or
"cycletracks." Or American-style bike boxes (without separate signal
phases). Despite documented increases in crash rates, these are still
being lobbied for.

Among all the above, there are examples that are far worse than nominal,
because of truly incompetent designs. Examples are those with blind
corners, pavement hazards like those James described, collision hazards
like bollards, blind intersections with roads, etc.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...-of-the-month/ gives a
humorous take on many of these, but in real life they're far from funny.

There are some bike facilities that are both well designed and useful
for transportation. I use some of them regularly, and appreciate having
them. Unfortunately, they are very much in the minority.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 15/05/14 12:23, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:00:18 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 15/05/14 10:02, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic.

The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are
not mutually exclusive...

Surely.

... except in the minds of the zealots.

Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure.

I think that is untrue.

It's probably at least a too sweeping generalization. I think
their ranks are just saddled with some wingnuts.


Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort.


I think because there is so little he has seen (in the US) that is well
designed and useful for cyclists of all capabilities to comfortably use.


http://www.dutchcycling.nl/index.cfm?page=News&view=detail&item=Why+the+so+ca lled+%27vehicular+cycling%27+concept+is+creating+a +false+dichotomy


What do you expect the Dutch to think of Forester?

What do you think the Dutch would say if they were asked to comment on
cross section of examples of the facilities in the US and Australia?

The biggest impedance to really good infrastructure in our countries is
the that we must not design something that might hinder the motorists
more than they already are (by their own population).

In most places that means we cannot get access to the real estate
necessary to make a safe, wide and useful access route of any consequence.

Around Melbourne, there is about 150m of really good facility, where
they took a lane off the motorists and gave cyclists exclusive access to
it. I.e. it is a full lane width and has no obstacles or added dangers.
The worst part is it's only 150m long and dumps you back into a
seething mass of taxis and pedestrians at the far end.

You see, it was once like this http://goo.gl/maps/Z96Zd with a hard
gutter, light poles, pedestrians and cars. Now the entire left lane
across the bridge is bike only territory.

--
JS

On 15/05/14 13:35, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2014 8:02 PM, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
... So when a new facility makes it harder to
coexist with motor traffic, or is simply more dangerous to use than the
road, competent cyclists get ****ed off.

Of course. But when you get ****ed off at a bad design that makes sense.
When you dis all infrastructure by rote it doesn't. I use some bike
lanes
often. I avoid others just as often and file complaints about the bad
ones. Makes sense to me.

After years of observation and riding, I feel entitled to generalize.

There are some bike facilities - or really, multi-use paths - that
function as linear parks. That's fine if you want a linear park, as
long as they are properly designed. I know several that are not, i.e.
that directly violate AASHTO guidelines. But I wish that transportation
funds weren't being diverted to long, skinny parks. They really should
be paid for out of park funds.

There are some road-related bike facilities that make novices feel good,
but do no practical good and may do harm. Most bike lanes are of this
type, because the stripe itself rarely does any good beyond the benefit
of the same width of unstriped pavement. In fact, the unstriped
pavement almost always has less flat-causing road debris. And of
course, door-zone bike lanes are stupid, yet common.

There is an abundance of door zone bike lanes here. The problem with
them has been realised, and now they opt for protected lanes - ugh.

There are some road-related bike facilities that sound good in the most
simplistic theories, but have been shown to increase crash rates.
Examples are the suddenly trendy "protected bike lanes" or
"cycletracks." Or American-style bike boxes (without separate signal
phases). Despite documented increases in crash rates, these are still
being lobbied for.

Do you have link to stats for that? I presume you mean the bike lanes
that fit between the pedestrian foot path and a barrier of bollards or
parked cars?

Yes we have "Advanced Stopping Boxes" and no separate lights phase.
Wouldn't want to add extra delay to the motorists day.

Among all the above, there are examples that are far worse than nominal,
because of truly incompetent designs. Examples are those with blind
corners, pavement hazards like those James described, collision hazards
like bollards, blind intersections with roads, etc.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...-of-the-month/ gives a
humorous take on many of these, but in real life they're far from funny.

There are some bike facilities that are both well designed and useful
for transportation. I use some of them regularly, and appreciate having
them. Unfortunately, they are very much in the minority.



Also see http://********infra.tumblr.com/

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:47:13 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2014 8:04 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:21:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If you want to ride a bike in the Westernized world, you have three
choices: Ride on the roads (i.e. join the existing culture).

I disagree that riding on the roads is joining the existing
culture. I believe I am living proof.

Dan, you pretend that by disobeying the law puts you into a different
culture. That's true only for the most parochial definition of "culture."

I have no illusions that the car culture is about obeying the law!

I fact, there are many places where it's feasible to do much
more than simply "ride a bike", and actually get to destinations
without ever touching the road.

OK, I agree, it's possible to ride (probably on a mountain bike)
entirely off-road.

And it's occasionally possible to skulk along through parking lots and
on sidewalks, avoiding all roads, if you're that timid and have only a
short distance to go. To me, that's barely better than riding circles
around your own house.

I just meant there are always choices. Reasons for making them
are a whole other subject. I might appreciate that you validate
something of my argument, if you didn't characterize it as timid
skulking.

But it seems to me that VC is just common sense for anyone
reasonably versed in traffic rules and conventions. Many
people have a lot of trouble understanding what seems simple
and obvious to me, though, and I think educational opportunities
for them is a good idea.

Notice how I validate something of your argument...

In the classes I've taken and taught that covered vehicular cycling
techniques, there were people who had used their bikes for commuting and
utility for many, many years. There were people who had toured by bike
a great deal, including coast-to-coast and internationally. There were
also "sport" riders, the "fast recreational" types. And there were
relative beginners.

.... but then I characterize the value as belonging to dimwits.
Doh!

"None of any of that implies a lick of common sense."

There were _no_ individuals who claimed they had not learned enough to
make the course well worthwhile, at least in the ones I taught. And in
fact, when I took a Cycling Savvy class a couple years ago, I felt that
I learned some valuable tips.

I learn something new every day no matter what I do.

But you have no idea how much you still don't know.

I just don't know what to make of that statement. (Should I
sign up for a trout fly-tying class?)

Frank is on record saying, "they dislike us simply because
we're there".

You've mentioned that several times. I'm very curious about the source,
and the context.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/NqF5KQ9lSA0/KLuX1rglL2EJ

Ah. I wondered where you got that. The direct quote of what I said, from
that link, is "I'm sure those drivers don't like me as a motorist,
simply because I'm there." I was clearly and specifically talking about
driving my car, not riding my bike.

So, from the link, it's apparent you've been misrepresenting my
statement all along. Not that I expect a retraction.

I have misrepresented the words as an exact quote; and I retract
that and apologize. It wasn't intentional deceit, but it was
sloppy debating.

I don't think I misrepresented your message, though. You were
using the anecdote analogously in a paragraph that you prefaced,
"Drivers who don't like bicyclists?"

In followup I asked for clarification of your meaning:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!original/rec.bicycles.tech/NqF5KQ9lSA0/YZUvL6qC-uQJ

.... you added *another* analogy, in the context of asserting
our right as bicyclists, concluding with the Foresteresque
[my paraphrasing] "man up and get used to it".

If you expect all sweetness and light on the roads - or even in bike
lanes, cycle tracks or MUPs - you'll have to wait for another universe.

So, your answer to the problem of motorist hostility toward
bicycles is, "Get used to it"?

I'd probably phrase it differently. While some fairly sexist statements
have a lot more punch,one might say "Get confident enough that it
doesn't bother you."

What's worked for me is to learn to ride competently and confidently, as
a legal vehicle operator. I know what I'm supposed to do in any road
situation I encounter. I do it with confidence, and I find that almost
all motorists are perfectly cooperative with me.

It works for you and that's fine (great!) (See how it works to
validate what validity I see in your argument?)

The very few that are less than civil are not worth whining about. I
almost never get really angry at them; I simply recognize those very few
are being jerks who deserve no respect.

"Whining"? Nice.

The fact is that they *do* deserve your respect - just not for
the particular unreasonable, uncivil, and/or anti-social behavior.

Perhaps I'm treated well because I'm seen as competent and law abiding.

Yeah I'm sure that's it ;-)

All I can say for sure is that the people who complain the most about
motorists are the ones who don't ride like I do. And I'm far from the
only vehicular cyclist who's noted that.

Look, Frank, *I've* noted that *most* drivers are very nice. And
when I say, "upset", I'm not talking about full on road rage or
even anything highly overt. I'm talking about even those very
nice drivers who go *way* out around more cautiously than they
need to. Not that I have a problem with extra caution; I just
observe that it is partly a result of the fact that encountering
a bicycle on the road is an anomaly, and it "upsets" the drivers
habitual equilibrium.

And the kind of response I *do* have a problem with involves
all kinds of subtle behaviors that include little, relatively
harmless squidges of malice communicating negative regard for
me "simply because I'm there" [as a bicyclist].

And then there are the more overt power plays to make sure I
know who's "owns" that piece of public infrastructure.

And, as you *might* imagine, since I'm *not* "seen as competent
and law abiding" (when in fact I am at least very highly
capable if not what some think of as competent, and I have a
strong moral sense of right and wrong and the spirit of law)
.... since I'm often *not* "seen as competent and law abiding",
I find myself on the receiving end of some very egregious
venting of hostility. I realize that's part of the nature of
our Land of the Free and Home of the Brave; where we like our
sex shameful like dog intended and our football violent and
mental health is for weirdos and... (do you follow where I'm
trying to go with this?) but I do wish people could be more
reasonable instead of kicking the dog.

But did you notice how the drivers in New York react to the
flagrant scofflaw daredevil bike messengers racing in the
street? "Ho, hum." And in Portland the bicyclists are
more Bohemian hipsters with utility bikes, but the drivers
there *notice* them ~all and _defer appropriately_! In my
neck of the woods (well, folks in Mayberry are decent enough,
but in Salem, for example... ) lots of drivers come on strong
with the power play if they notice you at all. I am
intrigued by this tipping point theory that is tumbling
around in my skull like an rough agate in a rock polisher.

We have a lot in common, I think. (I have the whole 3-volume
hardbound Calvin and Hobbes plus all of the paperbacks dog-
eared.) Many things in common, I think.

Really have to stop now. The other fellows will be tired of
this long since already.

Regards and keep up the _good_ work but take all the time you
can to just have fun.

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 7:58:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/14/2014 5:35 PM, sms wrote:

Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure.

I've mentioned many times the bike facilities that I actively worked on
getting installed. Those are well designed.

And I've asked you many times to show them to us, please.


However, I know that Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") will ignore that, as he
ignores anything disproving his worldview.

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:24:25 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 15/05/14 12:23, Dan O wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:00:18 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 15/05/14 10:02, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote:

snip

Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort.


I think because there is so little he has seen (in the US) that is well
designed and useful for cyclists of all capabilities to comfortably use.


http://www.dutchcycling.nl/index.cfm?page=News&view=detail&item=Why+the+so+ca lled+%27vehicular+cycling%27+concept+is+creating+a +false+dichotomy


What do you expect the Dutch to think of Forester?


The point is that Forester went to The Netherlands and told them
they had it all wrong.

What do you think the Dutch would say if they were asked to comment on
cross section of examples of the facilities in the US and Australia?

I've no doubt the Dutch must think we're an evolutionary mistake,
another species, or hitting the ergot too hard.

The biggest impedance to really good infrastructure in our countries is
the that we must not design something that might hinder the motorists
more than they already are (by their own population).

The car culture is showing its mortality. We just need to
chip at the chinks every chance we get. It's starting to
crumble already.

In most places that means we cannot get access to the real estate
necessary to make a safe, wide and useful access route of any consequence.

Portland does, but what do certain supposed "experts" say
about it? Crazy? Illegal? Luring riders into danger?
Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad?


Around Melbourne, there is about 150m of really good facility, where
they took a lane off the motorists and gave cyclists exclusive access to
it. I.e. it is a full lane width and has no obstacles or added dangers.
The worst part is it's only 150m long and dumps you back into a
seething mass of taxis and pedestrians at the far end.


Heh. We get a lot of that kind of thing here - since the law
went into effect a long time ago that requires bikes to be a
consideration in any new road construction or reconstruction
where it fits. It's silly a lot of the time; but now it's
there, and it's adding up, and will make sense to fill in
connections eventually, and meanwhile serves as an experiment, and a
bike billboard, and a road diet, and... heck, at least a little
space for bicyclists to have to themselves momentarily.

You see, it was once like this http://goo.gl/maps/Z96Zd with a hard
gutter, light poles, pedestrians and cars. Now the entire left lane
across the bridge is bike only territory.

Nice.

Seems like every major city is looking in to facilities.
It will be a long, bumpy, uphill ride, but the car culture
as we have known it is toast.

On Wed, 14 May 2014 23:09:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/14/2014 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:


Singapore is a good example. Nearly totally destroyed in WW II they
gained their independence from Malaysia in 1965 and today is the
second most densely populated nation in the world., and as a result
the numbers of autos on the road has greatly increased, and yet
bicycles are still a common method of transportation.

Singapore has a highly developed public transportation system
encompassing buses and the MRT (subway or Underground) but still at
every MRT station or bus stop you will see bicycles chained and
locked. The Lavender Street MRT station has several hundred bikes
parked there every day.

Bicycle facilities? None that I've seen other than parking stands at
MRT stations.

I suspect that bicycle use is far more dependent on social or economic
conditions, or even historical use, then on the availability or
non-availability of facilities.

It's been pointed out that good public transportation is very helpful in
making bike transportation viable.

For one thing, bikes are helpful in solving public transit's "last mile"
problem, connecting the home or workplace to the transit route.

For another thing, the presence of reliable public transportation can
allow many families to get by without a car, or with one car instead of two.

The majority of Singapore live in government built housing projects -
they buy a unit - and there are public transportation "hubs" in or
near these housing projects but the bus station or the MRT station
might be the better part of a kilometer away. So... people ride the
bike down to the station, lock the bike to a rack or fence, and take
public transport to work.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On 5/14/2014 7:02 PM, Duane wrote:
James wrote:
On 15/05/14 07:35, sms wrote:
On 5/14/2014 1:24 PM, Duane wrote:
On 5/14/2014 3:48 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:


There's nothing wrong with learning how to ride with traffic.

The thing is that traffic skills and infrastructure like bike lanes are
not mutually exclusive except in the minds of the zealots.

Precisely. The VCZs don't want even well-designed bicycle infrastructure.


I think that is untrue.


Forester certainly seems to not like infrastructure of any sort.


I think I can safely say that he likes paved roads. As do I.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971