Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story

Per Bill Sornson:
Completely false. One road I take often (to get to decent roads) has a
narrow left lane, wide right with cars parked on side. It's a freaking
death trap for cyclists -- brushed to the left, doored to the right. *I DO
TAKE THE LANE*, but I still get passed way too close for comfort almost
every single time.

Don't you get the feeling that the odds are going to catch up
with you eventually?
--
PeteCresswell

In article ,
(Tom Keats) wrote:

We can do anything. All we gotta do is
keep our skin on, and keep from getting
clobbered, and respect other road/street
users' rights of way. It's so simple,
and it works. It always has, and it
always will.

I works for me.

--
Michael Press

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Bill Sornson:
Completely false. One road I take often (to get to decent roads)
has a narrow left lane, wide right with cars parked on side. It's a
freaking death trap for cyclists -- brushed to the left, doored to
the right. *I DO TAKE THE LANE*, but I still get passed way too
close for comfort almost every single time.

Don't you get the feeling that the odds are going to catch up
with you eventually?

I pretty much have to take that road at least now and then. I ride
assertively and am not shy about signaling cars to move over to pass me, but
it's clearly more dangerous than virtually identical roads with bike lanes.
(You deleted the context of my comment, but that was the gist.)

Why anyone would prefer dodgy situations and close calls to fast,
uninterrupted smooth sailing is beyond me. Bike lanes work; good bike lanes
work great.

BS

On Aug 19, 6:58 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
(PeteCresswell) wrote:


I pretty much have to take that road at least now and then. I ride
assertively and am not shy about signaling cars to move over to pass me, but
it's clearly more dangerous than virtually identical roads with bike lanes.

Clearly?

Got data?

I recall one study that combined a cyclist survey with measurements of
motorist passing distance. The cyclists said that motorists "clearly"
gave them more room when there was a bike lane present. But the
measurement data showed the opposite. (I think it was Wayne Pein who
pointed us to that study.)

Of course, I'm way past expecting Bill Sornson to actually read a
scientific paper!

(You deleted the context of my comment, but that was the gist.)

:-) This is the same guy that was yelling for people to TRIM in
another thread. I'm afraid Bill's never going to figure out Usenet!

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:58 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
(PeteCresswell) wrote:


I pretty much have to take that road at least now and then. I ride
assertively and am not shy about signaling cars to move over to pass me, but
it's clearly more dangerous than virtually identical roads with bike lanes.

Clearly?

Got data?

I recall one study that combined a cyclist survey with measurements of
motorist passing distance. The cyclists said that motorists "clearly"
gave them more room when there was a bike lane present. But the
measurement data showed the opposite. (I think it was Wayne Pein who
pointed us to that study.)

Whatever. I know that when I'm in bike lanes around here I never get
crowded but two times in the last week I've had a couple cars get
waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to me in regular lanes. I'm getting to the
point where I'm going to start riding in the left side of the right hand
lane like a motorcycle so cars will move over a lane rather than pass me
with only inches to spare.

I mean, this is our reality, it's not some stupid "study".

Greg

--
Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org

Dethink to survive - Mclusky

G.T. wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:58 pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
(PeteCresswell) wrote:


I pretty much have to take that road at least now and then. I ride
assertively and am not shy about signaling cars to move over to
pass me, but it's clearly more dangerous than virtually identical
roads with bike lanes.

Clearly?

Got data?

I recall one study that combined a cyclist survey with measurements
of motorist passing distance. The cyclists said that motorists
"clearly" gave them more room when there was a bike lane present. But the
measurement data showed the opposite. (I think it was Wayne
Pein who pointed us to that study.)

Whatever. I know that when I'm in bike lanes around here I never get
crowded but two times in the last week I've had a couple cars get
waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to me in regular lanes.

But...but...that's not what STUDIES say! (Supposedly.)

I'm getting to the
point where I'm going to start riding in the left side of the right
hand lane like a motorcycle so cars will move over a lane rather than
pass me with only inches to spare.

Sometimes that's necessary. Sometimes that's tantamount to suicide, too. I
ride in the "sweet spot" that's outside of the door zone and yet lets cars
pass easily IF they'll just move close to the line. Too many asswipes
won't, however, and that is downright scary. (I use a mirror so I can move
LEFT if necessary to force 'em over; or move right if it's safe to do so.)
MUCH nicer when there's a bike lane, assuming it's well designed and
appropriate; don't have to sweat it at all.

I mean, this is our reality, it's not some stupid "study".

Oh-oh, NOW you've stepped in it! eg

Bill "personal experience coupled with common sense has no place in
arguments with Frank" S.

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

You mean you are reduced to name-calling when your dishonesty was
pointed out: you obviously misrepresented what I had said, turning
"does not have any slots that could trap a wheel" and "plenty of
clearance" into "the grate is not a problem due to the angle of the
slots".

The grate not being a problem was implied in your statement.
Liar - I said you can't trap a wheel in it, judging from what it
looked like in the picture, and I *also* said that a bicyclist's
nominal path of travel would avoid the grate. That means that you
might ride over it if you were momentarily inattentive or had to
swerve to avoid some obstacle, etc., but generally would not.

Even if the assumption of implication was not correct, it would still
not be a lie. Zaumen must have failed logic, or maybe he learned to
call everyone a liar from He Who Must Not Be Named.

ROFLMAO. What I said was perfectly clear, and the only thing I said
specifically about the grate is that it couldn't trap a wheel. You
turned that into something quite different. Since this seems to be
the standard mode of operation for you people, I've concluded that
you are reduced to lying - all the evidence indicates that.

Well duh, the grate is not where someone would normally ride. So why
is the grate in the "bicycle lane"?
For the same reason that the grate would be in the righ-most lane if
there were no bike lane. Grates are typically by the curb because
the roads slope towards the curb to allow water to run along the
gutter and then down the drain. The design standards (for both bike
lanes and traffic lanes) allow the users of those lanes to use the
lanes without riding or driving in the gutter.

Yeah, but in this case avoiding the grate and the joint between the
roadway pavement and the gutter leaves barely enough width for a rider
to stay to the right of the white cyclist apartheid line.
Your "yeah" means you were shown to be completely wrong,

Huh? More illogic from Zaumen.

Reduced to inserting a response midsentence so that people can't see
what I actually said (which follows and which is not "illogic" in any
sense of the word.


and 3 feet of
asphalt (the minimum the design standards allow) is more than enough
room to stay to the right of the stripe while avoiding the gutter.

If this http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg is a normal
6 to 8 inch "mountable" (as opposed to barrier) curb, which it appears
to be, then there is not anywhere near 3 feet of asphaltic concrete
pavement to the right of the white line.

You don't know what it is from the picture. What *I* said about it is
that the configuration is not a problem *if* it meets the design standards,
which require 3 feet of asphalt between the bike lane stripe and the
gutter pan. This is a discussion about bike lanes in general, so one
should reasonably talk about ones that conform to the design standards.

You can always find some traffic lane or other facility somewhere that
is poorly designed. So what? All you should do is complain to
whoever is responsible and ask for it to be fixed.

Furthermore, half of the asphaltic concrete to the right of the
white line appears to be in rather poor condition, and no something
one would want to ride on for any distance.

Speculation on your part - it was patched, but the picture shows no
indication of cracks or bumps.


Most steel surfaces are slippery when wet - must not get much rain in
Silly Cone Valley, eh?
Most steel meshes are not slippery when wet, and that's what this
grate is. It is not a solid steel surface with a flat section that
could hold water on it.
Really? Then why are railroad tracks slippery (even disused ones),
since their upper surface is convex?
Barely convex. The grate in question is sharp enough to push into
the
tires a bit, providing far better support. Try riding over one and
see.

(not the lack of a response)

A "cut and paste error"? That's simply a lie. The dropped word was
in the
middle of a sentence. Are you claiming you have a word list of some sort
and cut and paste words into your posts rather than typing them?

Duh! I was using another program as a spell checker, and accidentally
pasted over a couple of words.

Is "that's a lie" your only argument?

It sounds like you "didn't inhale". Come off it. I've used other
programs for spell checking too, and simply copied *everything* I
wrote into that program, ran the spell checker, and copied it back.
If I had missed something, it wouldn't have been one or two words in
the middle of a sentence. So I think you are making it all up.


Only a cyclist hater or ignoramus would create the "bicycle lane" in
question, and only Zaumen would defend it.
Only a fanatic would get as upset about bicycle lanes as you guys do.
Only people like Zaumen are not bothered by Apartheid bicyclist
farcilities (sic).
What a fanatic Tom Sherman is! He's totally overreacting.

No, Zaumen is the bicycle farcility (sic) fanatic.

Liar - you are the person with the obsession. I merely pointed out
that bike lanes that conform to the latest design standards aren't
a problem given the rules in the California Vehicle Code.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Aug 19, 2:12 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
wrote, regarding Bill Zaumen:

Is "that's a lie" your only argument?

:-) It's obviously not Bill's _only_ argument. But it's the one he
falls back on when he's losing the others!

More lies from Krygowksi - when I stated something was a lie, it was
a case of being deliberately misquoted, and I gave you perfectly
rational argument which all of you simply ignored.

I described in detail the atrocious bike lanes our club has been
(unsuccessfully) fighting to have redesigned. I mentioned a few
details of our statements, and the park administration's responses.
Since our experiences differ with Bill's preconceived notions of
reality, he called me a liar.

Rather, I suggested that Krygowski's history of dissembling made
anything he said questionalble, all the more so after he cleimed
that his "park administration" called it a "multiuse path" (or
something equivalent), and if they call it that, it is not a bike
lane.


Bill's attitude saves him a lot of difficult thinking. He can pretend
all contrary evidence is lies, so he doesn't have to learn from his
mistakes.

Krygowski is once again lying, and he has yet to explain the fact that
when riding in a standards-compliant bike lane next to a 12 foot
traffic lane, you will be riding in nearly the exact same position on
the road that John Forester in _Effective Cycling_ states that you
would be riding in a wide outside lane when going at less than the
normal speed of traffic, and you will have adequate clearance from the
curb and gutter (several feet). And Forester rants incessantly about
bike lanes. I'd conclude that you people are out of your minds - your
emotions have simply blinded you to reality.

But with such an ignorance-is-blissful existence, you'd think he'd be
a lot less bitter, wouldn't you?

Bitter about what? This is simply another lie from Krygowski.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" writes:

aka Carl Fogel wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, wrote:

"Dear Carl" is right. Since bicycles are toys ridden only by children
and childish adults, getting off the bicycle at every intersection and
crossing like a pedestrian should not be a burden, since it keeps the
bicycle riders out of the way of the REAL road users, the motor
vehicle operators.
More paranoia from Tom Sherman.


Sarcasm detector broken, Zaumen?

No, merely a hyperbole detector. I've yet to see a non-emotional
argument from you.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

writes:

On Aug 19, 3:18 am, wrote:


NEWSFLASH!!! Bicycle facilities generally leave something to be
desired. Some are outright terrible. Likewise, bike lanes or not,
almost all streets leave something to be desired, and some are
downright terrible places to ride. But you may have to ride there
anyway. The world is an imperfect place and transportation facilities
are some of the least perfect of this world's many aspects. Even the
velodrome is cracked and has a sinkhole in the infield. Get used to
it. That is the world upon which we ride. NEWSFLASH!!!

Nice sarcasm.

Aside from the "NEWSFLASH", it is not sarcasm but a pretty accurate
statement, and I might add that you can find some terribly designed
roads as well. With the number of roads in the U.S., you have a large
enough sample to find some unusually bad examples. Those bad examples
are not an indication that the state of the art for traffic engineering
is inadequate, but merely that if some task is repeated enough times,
someone will do something really dumb.


But the problem we're addressing here really isn't the imperfections
in the infrastructure. Those are just the symptom.

The problem is that most bike advocates push bike lanes and paths as
supposed "cures" for cycling's supposed problems. But they generally
don't make things better; they more often make things worse.

It's a bit like the American Medical Association offering smoking as a
cure for lung disease.

This statement from Krygowski is ridiculous.



I know I can ignore bike lanes and ride properly. But many cyclists
don't know to do that. (In fact, one of my friends, a guy with 30+
years of avid cycling, nearly got hit recently because he was misled
by a bike lane.) And, sadly, many potential cyclists think they
cannot cycle safely without these useless stripes; the lack of
stripes, plus the propaganda from "advocates" like LAB, actually keep
them off the road.

This is most likely another lie from Krygwoski - it is not believable
that someone with 30+ years of avid cycling would be misled by a
stripe on the road so as to be nearly hit by a vehicle.

rest of his rhetoric snipped out of boredom - he's repeating himself

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB