Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

Sir Ridesalot writes:

On Monday, October 20, 2014 10:55:30 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2014 7:17 PM, Joe Riel wrote:





A curious example. I'm sure it has its uses, but I find dealing
with

bicycle traffic like that (kids and what not all over the path) to
be

quite irritating. Presumably the density is less than shown in
the

clip. I'm surprised that anyone finds such paths pleasant----if I

liked, say, driving for pleasure (I don't), the freeway is the
last

place I'd go. That seems somewhat analogous to it.



Regarding "uses," almost all such facilities function as linear
parks.

That is, they usually connect nowhere to nowhere, with minor stops
in

between. It's an unusual one that actually reduces motoring.



The reasons should be obvious. Most travel is connected with
getting

somewhere practical - to work, to stores, to schools, to businesses,
to

"traffic generators" in planner parlance. But almost all traffic

generators are sited in cities and suburbs, and almost all city and

suburb land is in use. Acquiring rights-of-way for such a thing is

damned expensive even when it's not impossible.



Abandoned railroad lines were a good source for a while, but even
then,

it was rail lines out in nowhere. And even then, the construction
costs

were millions per mile.



Can you imagine that same money being used on education and
enforcement,

so motorists began treating all cyclists as legitimate road users?
Can

you imagine having every traffic light in a city reliably detect the

presence of bicyclists? How about decent bike racks at all
commercial

and public buildings? How about widening narrow roads, so cyclists
and

motorists could comfortably share lanes?



Don't get me wrong; I enjoy certain bike trails. Especially ones
that

are not clotted with wandering pedestrians, dog walkers, strollers,

wobbly little kids, etc. IOW, the good ones are the ones that are
not

popular. Unfortunately, that fact is hard to use when lobbying for

trail construction. "It will be great, because almost nobody will
use it!"



--

- Frank Krygowski

I can imagine the astronomical expense of widening Yonge Street in
toronto, Canada or many other of the heavily travelled streets in that
city. A big problem with putting bicycle lanes or routes onto
residential streets occurs when those residential streets cross or T
onto a main street. At rush hour it can take forever for a bicyclist
to get onto or across that main street due to there being no break in
traffic flow on that main street.

In town there's an 18 kilometers long crushed limestone trail that
runs to another small town. That trail in summer is like a 400 series
highway with tthe amount of traffic on it. Unfortunately that traffic
is composed of walkers, dog walkers with long leashes and earbuds with
loud music, and very squirrely bicycle riders. Horses nor motorized
vehicles of any kind are permitted.

During the high summer use I use a nearby road if I'm going to that
other town even though that rail-trail is shorter. You simply don't
know what you're quite literaly going to run into on it.

Many on-road bicycle lanes have this rather nasty habit of suddenly
ending and often where a bicyclist least expects it. Here in town we
had one for years that suddenly ended on a downhill with no place else
for the bicyclist to go. Again, trying to merge with rush hour traffic
at the end of that bicycle lane was an exercise in
frustration. Bicyclist who used that route soon learned to stay in
tthe traffic lane and out of the bicycle lane.

This one begins (note the sign) right where it ends.


Actually a real bike lane was finally installed there---my wife rides
home that way. Google hasn't gotten a new street view for a few months.
I'm amazed the original sign was ever put up; it's been like that for at
least a decade.

--
Joe Riel

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:24:04 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:23:24 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 20, 2014 4:20:23 PM UTC-4, Clive George wrote:


Would "bike paths aren't necessarily unsafe, it's just that the majority
of them in the UK are" count? I'm in Europe. Why would saying that be a
disservice to cyclists?

Apparently, Joerg and Duane would shut down a website like this one:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...August2014.htm

- Frank Krygowski


Troll.


I suppose so, although I was trying to point out how silly most bike
statistics are which perhaps depends on what people are trying to
"prove".

For example, I just ran across some statistics.
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626...ppen-in-the-us

Which states that comparing bicycle fatalities and helmet use shows
that some 57% of fatalities were wearing a helmet while 43% were not.
Proof positive that wearing a helmet increases the possibility of
dying in a bike crash. i.e., hermits are dangerous :-)

The silly part of the bike path argument is, of course, that as soon
as all cyclists can be persuaded to ride only on the bike paths the
numbers of accidents on bike paths will increase :-)



Cheers,

John B.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/21/2014 8:31 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:24:04 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:23:24 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, October 20, 2014 4:20:23 PM UTC-4, Clive George wrote:


Would "bike paths aren't necessarily unsafe, it's just that the majority
of them in the UK are" count? I'm in Europe. Why would saying that be a
disservice to cyclists?

Apparently, Joerg and Duane would shut down a website like this one:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.me...August2014.htm

- Frank Krygowski


Troll.


I suppose so, although I was trying to point out how silly most bike
statistics are which perhaps depends on what people are trying to
"prove".


The "troll" comment wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward
the troll that likes to put words into other people's mouths and then
attack them rather than offering anything substantive on their own.


For example, I just ran across some statistics.
http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738626...ppen-in-the-us

Which states that comparing bicycle fatalities and helmet use shows
that some 57% of fatalities were wearing a helmet while 43% were not.
Proof positive that wearing a helmet increases the possibility of
dying in a bike crash. i.e., hermits are dangerous :-)


No, I got your meaning and I don't disagree. You can go further than
that. Of all the cyclists killed in bicycle crashes, the vast majority
were riding bicycles. What does that tell you? Right. It tells you
nothing.

Not all statistics are equal nor apparently is all "expert" ability to
interpret them. A major error that you'll find here is assuming
causality where none is proven. Something that you learn in stats 101.


The silly part of the bike path argument is, of course, that as soon
as all cyclists can be persuaded to ride only on the bike paths the
numbers of accidents on bike paths will increase :-)



Cheers,

John B.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 21/10/2014 13:42, Duane wrote:

The "troll" comment wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward
the troll that likes to put words into other people's mouths and then
attack them rather than offering anything substantive on their own.

This little subthread started with Joerg saying that people in Europe
dismissed bike paths as "inherently unsafe", and you implying that Frank
would be along to say just that.

Which is exactly the behaviour you've mentioned just there.

On 10/21/2014 9:41 AM, Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 13:42, Duane wrote:

The "troll" comment wasn't directed toward you. It was directed toward
the troll that likes to put words into other people's mouths and then
attack them rather than offering anything substantive on their own.

This little subthread started with Joerg saying that people in Europe
dismissed bike paths as "inherently unsafe", and you implying that Frank
would be along to say just that.

Which is exactly the behaviour you've mentioned just there.


I didn't say Frank would do anything. There are people here that are
against facilities under any circumstances. I said someone would be
along. There are two or three topics here that keep coming back and
polluting any thread that we have going. Facilities, helmets and
cycling safety. It's boring.

Clive George wrote:
On 21/10/2014 01:35, Joerg wrote:

Yes, but constructive dissing, meaning trying to get the authorities to
improve it. This generic "Away with bike paths" is a disservice to
bicycling in general.

This misstating of what is being argued is an even greater disservice.
It's not "Away with bike paths", it's "**** bike paths are dangerous and
most of them are ****". There is an important difference.


In a German NG they state that bike path in general are bad. In the US
this is less often heard but I've heard it.

AFAIK it's a lot safer to cycle in Germany than the US. What are they
doing right? So far you've told us they're closing bike paths, and many
of them say bike paths in general are bad - yet they're still doing better.


A core reason is that they still _have_ a ot more bike paths than the
US. In the US you can larger stretches of land and urbia that have
nothing at all.


And "They state"? Nothing like a bit of vague generalisation for making
your point.


The folks in de.rec.fahrrad, and most are hardcore. Plus others. As I
said, many cities have "gladly" complied and removed the requirement to
use an existing bike path. Which also meant they could just let it go, a
very sad example of which I just described. The reason is obvious, just
no to the "Away with bike path" crowd: More money back onto the gravy train.


That's ok. As long as there is a path for those who feel safer on a bike
path. Because else they'll be back in cars. Like I was for over a decade
after moving to the US, triggered by seeing lots of crosses at the side
of roads with a front wheel before them. Clipped by a car at high speed
was the usual cause of death. So I preferred the car until they opened
up trails and now occasional new bike paths/lanes.

So in your opinion drivers in the US are too dangerous to share the road
with?


Yes. They are technically just as able but way more distracted. Some of
it is due to the fact that they drive longer stretches.


... But before you moved to the US did you use the roads?


Only if I had to. I never liked it because several of my friend got
badly hurt that way. As a highschool student I witness an accident right
in front of me (and of course the truck driver fled the scene).


... Could the
difference be the drivers, not the infrastructure?


It's the infrastructure. Germany has a very nice bike path system in
most areas. Not as good as the Netherlands where I also live for many
years and did just about everything by bicycle. Some of the
infrastructure in Germany seems to fall into disrepair. When I was there
a month ago I wish I had a mountain bike on some stretches. I didn't, so
had to walk some parts in order not to wear down the bike.


... Here we have a lot of
people cycling on the roads, but they're not being run over all the time
- there aren't lots of crosses at the side of roads. So why do we need
more bike paths?


To increase the number of people using bicycles. Else that number will
just remain about where it is now and once in a while a cyclist will get
killed or crippled.


In this country we have training for cyclists on how to use the road.
It's available for both school-age kids (bikeability) and there are also
adult lessons. Would the people you know who won't use roads consider
such training?


Many have had it. So did someone in Germany in front of me who got
clipped and thrown off the bike by a truck. Training helps you exactly
zero in such a situation. Except self-training, like in a case I had. A
county road which I reluctantly used. Cars approaching at high speed,
some screeching, more screeching, I looked back, first car driver seems
to be on the verge of losing control and it's fishtailing. I hightailed
it through a deep rocky ditch and up the other side, way out into the
turf. Without serious mountain biking experience this would have been a
bad crash.

You are my hero. The training isn't about serious evasive action, it's
about preventing getting into problems in the first place. So road
positioning so you're visible, stuff like that - stuff people get wrong
all the time till they know better.


What exactly would you have done differently in the above described case?


I will not use that stretch of county road anymore and use my car
instead until there is a bike path. Most destinations I can reach via
bush roads and trails though. Else I would not use the bicycle.

Interestingly in the UK and even more so in mainland Europe, it's safe
to use most small roads. That's where the best road riding is to be had.


In rural areas it can be. But emigrants from the UK have told me
otherwise when it comes to heavily traveled two-lane roads.


What do people do when their destination is off these trails?

Just what I do. I use this trail as an artery and knock off when my
destination is near. Much like taking a freeway exit and using side
roads for the last mile or two. Except the trail doesn't have many
signs, you have to knwo roughly where you are.

But how do you get from the trail to your destination without using roads?


As I said, I scope out quiet neighborhoods. There is also a motocross
turf that allows me to cut out a stretch of dangerous two-lane county
road. I also grudgingly use busier roads sometimes but only when I have to.


And if you can use the roads for those sections, why not use them
elsewhere?


If you travel a busy road for 10 miles instead of 1 mile it is 10 times
as dangerous and you chances to get hit are 10x. It's that simple.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2014 8:18 PM, Joerg wrote:
AFAIU right-hook crashes are the major concern with bike
paths over there. Why do they want to dump the baby out with the bath
water instead of looking for the obvious?

I'd suggest not putting the baby in stinky bath water to begin with.

Worse? Driver are negligent and sometimes dazed out here (drugs, booze,
pills, cell phones) but they sure are a ton more courteous than in
Europe.

Hmm. I've found drivers to be pretty similar in the U.S. and Europe -
IOW, almost all treat me well. I do think that they're a bit more
courteous where there are lots of cyclists, and where there are strict
liability laws. Admittedly, I don't have a ton of experience with the
latter.

I never, not once, got into a critical situation on a US bike
path.

I think I've mentioned that our bike club members have had many more
hospital visits from bike path riding than from road riding, despite far
more miles ridden on roads. The crashes didn't involve cars, but other
cyclists, pedestrians, slippery surfaces, shoulders with sudden
dropoffs, etc. But the broken bones and hospital visits were real.


So why is it that in all my life as a cyclist, and that's decades by
now, there was no critical situation of this kind on a bike path? And
why is it that I got into crashes on the road several times where every
single time the car driver was at fault?

The worst one was where I banged into a car door so bad that the driver
could not open it anymore from the inside.

And why is it that _all_ my friends that were severly hurt were hurt
while cycling on roads? Which serious I mean things like a lost kidney,
ruptured spleen and such.


Where I do get into pickles is on the road because that's where
drivers are less courteous. Last example was on Friday, me on the road
on a freeway overpass, riding at a pretty good clip on my MTB, over
20mph. Car behind me moves to the left and slows down, all good. Or so I
think. Then she guns it, passes and cuts me off going onto the on-ramp
right in front of me. She overestimated the horsepower of her little car
and underestimated my speed, and was obviously impatient. Luckily I had
powerful disc brakes.

I've had just a few times when a motorist began to try something like
that. In one case, I just glared at them and waved them back.


Fat chance out here.


... In
another case, our group of riders stopped the offending driver and one
young lady chewed him out mercilessly.


I would have had to pull onto Highway 50 and accelerate to 80mph on my
MTB to do that. I later saw her scream away at such a speed.


... But yes, one does need to remain
alert - more so, I think, when you're in a bike lane. To many
motorists, a person in a bike lane is "not on the road, so not important."


Then California must be on a different planet from where you live.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/20/2014 6:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
Clive George wrote:

Would "bike paths aren't necessarily unsafe, it's just that the majority
of them in the UK are" count? I'm in Europe.

... Why would saying that be a disservice to cyclists?


Advocating the abandonment of bike path leads to this: The abandonment
of bike paths. I have seen that first hand during a trip to Germany in
2012 where I also visited my old stomping grounds. Many bike paths I
traveled regularly as a kid were "decommissioned", cyclists are no
longer forced to use them.

Let me get this straight: Cyclists used to be forced to use them?


Where the heck have you lived? Of course one is forced to use them. In
Germany there are blue traffic signs with a bike on them and then that
requires you to use the bike path. In California it's even simpler: It's
written into the law.


... And
when they weren't forced to use them, cyclists chose the road instead?


Some, usually the more renegade kind of riders and very fast road bike
riders.


If that's the case, wouldn't it be because the road suited their needs
better than the bike path?


They think so, until there is a bang, their sight goes dark and they
wake up in a hospital. If they do.


Are you really saying you advocate forcing cyclists to use bike paths
that they think are inferior to roads?


The vast majority thinks bike paths are not inferior. And yes, I do
believe in separating bicycle traffic from roads. Just like no sane
person would want to drive along the same tracks as a bullet train or on
a runway where the occasional 747 lands.


Cities let the champagne corks pop when the
"bike lobby" wants that. Because it immediately allows them to pull the
plug and free up funds. The former bike paths were indespicable shape.
The result? I saw no more bicyclists in those areas, none. That wasn't
the case 40 years ago but it does not surprise me one bit. Abandoning
bike paths causes people to abandon bicycling.

I suspect the situation is more complicated than what you believe.

For a long time we had a German contributor to this group. He detested
Germany's mandatory sidepath laws, and gave many descriptions of
detestable lanes and paths. I think he'd be as surprised as I am that
anyone would be in favor of mandatory sidepath laws.


Go into any German town and ask regular people, not a tiny group of
activist bikers. You will get a very different answer.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 10/21/2014 7:40 AM, Joerg wrote:

It's the infrastructure. Germany has a very nice bike path system in
most areas. Not as good as the Netherlands where I also live for many
years and did just about everything by bicycle. Some of the
infrastructure in Germany seems to fall into disrepair. When I was there
a month ago I wish I had a mountain bike on some stretches. I didn't, so
had to walk some parts in order not to wear down the bike.

The problem with cycle paths, and I see this in my area too, is that
they greatly increase the number of inexperienced riders. Many of these
riders would not ride on streets, even streets with bike lanes. These
riders often can't stay to the right, they don't stop when the separated
path crosses a regular road even when there are stop signs and signs
warning that cross-traffic does not stop.

But the problem with bicycle lanes is that they are so often blocked by
illegally or legally parked or stopped vehicles, used as right turn
lanes even before the dashed line, or used as a right hand passing lane
if a vehicle is turning left and holding up traffic. You also have a lot
of drivers making turns directly across the bicycle lane without looking
for bicycles coming up from behind.

It's also important to not take the alleged reduction in cycle paths in
Germany out of context. First of all, there is no evidence that cycle
paths are being removed. There is this horrifically written paragraph:

"Turn-around in Germany: Germany, the country that started the trend
toward separating cyclists to clear the roads for cars, now is going the
other way. “Fahrradstraßen” (bicycle boulevards) are streets that are
turned over to cyclists as the main users. Cars are still allowed, but
are considered secondary users. Munich, the largest city in southern
Germany, is installing on-street bike lanes and signs that legitimize
cycling on the street (above), even where there are separate paths. This
approach has been successful: Cycling has increased by 70% in the last
nine years."

No where do the actually say that cycle paths are being removed, they
simply say that bicycle boulevards and bicycle lanes are being added.
This is not "going the other way," it's going the same way--increasing
the bicycle infrastructure. You can't always put in a separate bicycle
path, but you can usually put in bicycle lanes if you're willing to
remove street parking, remove vehicle lanes, or make lanes narrower.

On 10/21/2014 7:46 AM, Joerg wrote:

snip

So why is it that in all my life as a cyclist, and that's decades by
now, there was no critical situation of this kind on a bike path? And
why is it that I got into crashes on the road several times where every
single time the car driver was at fault?

I would point out that you are a statistical sample of one person. Plus,
bicycle path injuries tend to be much less severe than injuries on roads
because of the nature of the collisions. Plus you're responding to a
person with no credibility at all so you have no idea if anything he
said is actually true.