London's first segregated cycle junction to be installed in Camden

On Monday, April 14, 2014 8:07:36 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/13/2014 10:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:02:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2014 6:06 PM, Dan O wrote:

snip

We have the status quo. Are we satisfied? No? Then
we ought to do something. And I just don't happen to think that
imperfect (and worse) facilities should not damn the approach
as doomed.

(Please disregard one half of the double negative - composition
error - you know what I mean :-)

snip

I'm much more satisfied with the status quo than you are. In fact, I
think only a few things are needed to make my cycling environment damned
near perfect. First, remove the idea that bikes should not be part of
the normal traffic mix. That entails teaching motorists that cyclists
do have full, legal rights to the road, and teaching the public that
it's not incredibly dangerous to ride a bike on the road.

Second, stop the highway designs that turn ordinary roads into freeways,
either literally (making highways limited access) or figuratively, by
replacing right-angle intersections with ramps, merge-diverge lanes,
etc. The latter problem is connected to the former, because highway
engineers prioritize thoughput over versatility.

I _don't_ believe we need to stripe bike lanes on every street, although
that is a common "advocacy" cry. I _certainly_ don't believe we need
real weirdness like cycle tracks and bike boxes, things that defy road
physics and operator expectations, and that have questionable-at-best
results records.

snip

I think that you are ignoring a number of problems, the first of which
is the puny little engines that most bicycles have :-)

But more seriously and based solely on my experiences here in
Thailand, a real problem is the difference in speed between bicycles
and practically everything else on the roads. In Bangkok, nearly all
of the major thoroughfares are 4 lanes, or more, and normal traffic is
traveling at about 50 Km/Hr. and sometimes faster. A bicycle, on
Bangkok streets will have problems riding at 25 Km/Hr. for more than a
short distance.

While the difference in speed alone is a significant safety
consideration but I suggest that the mind set of both motor vehicle
and bicycle operators also enters into the equation.

Motor vehicle operators certainly believe that they are the reason
that these slick new highways were constructed (they are probably
largely correct) and that others should get out of the way. This is
even more obvious when one sees large trucks and buses. This, by the
way, is even more obvious with new car owners.

The argument that motor vehicles should be educated is, I believe, a
futile endeavor. After all, I just paid a Million Baht for this slick,
shiny, new, car, with the air conditioning and the CD player, and I
should watch out for the guy on the 5,000 baht bike? Don't be
ridiculous.

On the other hand, we see cyclists posting here complaining about a
bus that impeded his travels by stopping at bus stops. The mind
boggles. The government went to the trouble of introducing bus
transportation so people can get to work and the cyclist, who very
likely takes the bus during the rainy season is complaining?

So the answer is make a road for the bikes? Sure! But, particularly in
a city, to make a road for the bicycles entails either reducing the
space for the automobiles or tearing down existing buildings so that
the roadway can be widened.

Is that likely to happen?

I'm not sure that all problems have a solution.

When you say "I think that you are ignoring a number of problems, the
first of which is the puny little engines that most bicycles have :-)",
I'm not sure which issue you're attempting to address.

It's the problem of bicycles getting in the way of cars.

Of course, I'm
aware that bicyclists generally move slower than motor vehicles. As
I've said many times, I favor allowing passing whenever it's safe to do
so (providing the definition of "safe" doesn't include missing the
cyclist by a few inches).

Regarding education of motorists: I suspect the price of cars in
Bangkok is similar to the price of cars in much of Europe. But in
Europe, most motorists seem to have accepted that cyclists are
legitimate vehicle operators. At least, that's been my experience. I
suspect that driver licensing tests may address the fact that cyclists
have a right to the road.

Dream on.

BTW, some Americans seem to believe that Europe has separate bike paths
almost everywhere. That's simply false. In most places, bicyclists
ride on ordinary roads, and do just fine.

And in my arguments with you I have specifically said that we don't
need or even *want* facilities everywhere. (Personally, I'm not even
asking for them *anywhere* - just offering my POV re; the merits.)
You, OTOH, seem to be opposed to them essentially everywhere (even
Europe!)

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:07:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2014 10:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:02:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2014 6:06 PM, Dan O wrote:




I think that you are ignoring a number of problems, the first of which
is the puny little engines that most bicycles have :-)

But more seriously and based solely on my experiences here in
Thailand, a real problem is the difference in speed between bicycles
and practically everything else on the roads. In Bangkok, nearly all
of the major thoroughfares are 4 lanes, or more, and normal traffic is
traveling at about 50 Km/Hr. and sometimes faster. A bicycle, on
Bangkok streets will have problems riding at 25 Km/Hr. for more than a
short distance.

While the difference in speed alone is a significant safety
consideration but I suggest that the mind set of both motor vehicle
and bicycle operators also enters into the equation.

Motor vehicle operators certainly believe that they are the reason
that these slick new highways were constructed (they are probably
largely correct) and that others should get out of the way. This is
even more obvious when one sees large trucks and buses. This, by the
way, is even more obvious with new car owners.

The argument that motor vehicles should be educated is, I believe, a
futile endeavor. After all, I just paid a Million Baht for this slick,
shiny, new, car, with the air conditioning and the CD player, and I
should watch out for the guy on the 5,000 baht bike? Don't be
ridiculous.

On the other hand, we see cyclists posting here complaining about a
bus that impeded his travels by stopping at bus stops. The mind
boggles. The government went to the trouble of introducing bus
transportation so people can get to work and the cyclist, who very
likely takes the bus during the rainy season is complaining?

So the answer is make a road for the bikes? Sure! But, particularly in
a city, to make a road for the bicycles entails either reducing the
space for the automobiles or tearing down existing buildings so that
the roadway can be widened.

Is that likely to happen?

I'm not sure that all problems have a solution.

When you say "I think that you are ignoring a number of problems, the
first of which is the puny little engines that most bicycles have :-)"
I'm not sure which issue you're attempting to address.

I was attempting to point out, humorously, what I see as the major
difficulty in solving the "bicycles on the public highway" problem
that seems to obsess people in the U.S.

Of course, I'm
aware that bicyclists generally move slower than motor vehicles. As
I've said many times, I favor allowing passing whenever it's safe to do
so (providing the definition of "safe" doesn't include missing the
cyclist by a few inches).

But "passing" isn't the problem it is the relative speed and
acceleration between the bicycle and everything else.

For example, small motorcycles are common as dirt here - in fact there
are 1.7 motorcycles for every automobile in Thailand. At a stop light
the motorcycles "worm" their way through the cars until they reach the
head of the line. and when they light changes they roar away
accelerating faster then the autos. Nobody really minds this at all as
the motorcycles are not impeding anyone.

On the other hand I occasionally see a flock of tourists riding
bicycles and when they creep up to the head of the line and the light
changes they leap away, standing on the pedals and grunting with the
effort, and behind them the cars are blowing their horns and appear
very agitated. Why? Because the bicycles are impeding the autos.

And this I suspect is the crux of the matter. If bicycles can travel
at the same speed as autos then I doubt that there will be much of a
problem but they can't - puny engines.

As an aside, the numbers of registered automobiles in the U.S. has
been increasing at the rate of approximately 3.6 million per year
since 1960 and shows no signs of decreasing. That is approximately
11,590 miles of cars added to the highway mass annually. You are
running out of roads.

Regarding education of motorists: I suspect the price of cars in
Bangkok is similar to the price of cars in much of Europe. But in
Europe, most motorists seem to have accepted that cyclists are
legitimate vehicle operators. At least, that's been my experience. I
suspect that driver licensing tests may address the fact that cyclists
have a right to the road.

You are talking about Europe now? Try reading
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...herlands/1955/

My guess is that the attitude of motorists is very different in some
of the European and Asian countries than it is in the U.S. Here, in
Bangkok, for example, bicycles are quite obvious, seen early in the
morning used by housewives to ride to the local markets for the day's
provisions. It is highly likely that most auto drivers have a bike
somewhere around the house and they, or their family use it frequently
and if they don't have one their parents do.
When someone has and frequently uses a bicycle his/her attitude toward
seeing bicycles on the highway is somewhat different then if he and
his known ancestors never owned one.

I might add that in the mid '60's I had an Englishman, from Newcastle,
working for me. He was a time served journeyman Machinist who had
immigrated to the U.S. He used to tell about going back to Newcastle
on vacation and "down tha Pub" his old mates refused to believe that
he could own an automobile on a Machinist's wages - a motorcycle
possibly, but certainly not an auto.

In much of the world outside the U.S. automobiles were, well within
living memory, a luxury that the common man would likely never own.

It does result in a very different attitude toward transportation and
trying to compare Europe or Asian attitudes to U.S. conditions is
futile I suspect.

Probably as logical as comparing diet. Will you have deep fried sticky
rice with your burger sir?

BTW, some Americans seem to believe that Europe has separate bike paths
almost everywhere. That's simply false. In most places, bicyclists
ride on ordinary roads, and do just fine.

I may have mentioned that I've seen a "bicycle path" only once in
Bangkok - a city covering some 1,568.7 square kilometers - and that
didn't seem to be used - the roadway was fairly smooth in that
location while the bike path was over what looked like cobble stones.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 15/04/14 12:12, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:07:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:


Of course, I'm
aware that bicyclists generally move slower than motor vehicles. As
I've said many times, I favor allowing passing whenever it's safe to do
so (providing the definition of "safe" doesn't include missing the
cyclist by a few inches).

But "passing" isn't the problem it is the relative speed and
acceleration between the bicycle and everything else.

I would have said relative passing speed and proximity of the two vehicles.

On the other hand I occasionally see a flock of tourists riding
bicycles and when they creep up to the head of the line and the light
changes they leap away, standing on the pedals and grunting with the
effort, and behind them the cars are blowing their horns and appear
very agitated. Why? Because the bicycles are impeding the autos.

That's not a problem of cars passing bicycles, but of why bicyclists
think it's necessary to move to the front of the queue. The Dutch do it
because their signalised intersections have a separate light sequence
for bicycles. Most other places don't have that, and the practice
becomes a nuisance to others.

And this I suspect is the crux of the matter. If bicycles can travel
at the same speed as autos then I doubt that there will be much of a
problem but they can't - puny engines.

There are plenty of other types of vehicles that do not have puny
engines but do not travel as fast as "autos". Tractors and earth moving
machinery, for example, and large heavy trucks on a mountain pass, perhaps.

Bicycles can travel as fast as motor vehicles, especially where the
speed limit is low and/or traffic congestion slows motor vehicles down
to bicycling speeds.

--
JS

On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:33:07 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 15/04/14 12:12, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:07:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Of course, I'm
aware that bicyclists generally move slower than motor vehicles. As
I've said many times, I favor allowing passing whenever it's safe to do
so (providing the definition of "safe" doesn't include missing the
cyclist by a few inches).

But "passing" isn't the problem it is the relative speed and
acceleration between the bicycle and everything else.

I would have said relative passing speed and proximity of the two vehicles.


I think that misses the point. The speed potential disparity
is the *cause* of constant passing, or of being held to what
motorists consider a practical standstill if they can't pass.

On the other hand I occasionally see a flock of tourists riding
bicycles and when they creep up to the head of the line and the light
changes they leap away, standing on the pedals and grunting with the
effort, and behind them the cars are blowing their horns and appear
very agitated. Why? Because the bicycles are impeding the autos.

That's not a problem of cars passing bicycles, but of why bicyclists
think it's necessary to move to the front of the queue.

Not necessary, just stupid not to. Of course, I'm not a flock
of tourists.

The Dutch do it
because their signalised intersections have a separate light sequence
for bicycles. Most other places don't have that, and the practice
becomes a nuisance to others.

It is an irritant to motorists _even if I don't get in their way_.
They *really* hate having their constraints rubbed in their face.

And this I suspect is the crux of the matter. If bicycles can travel
at the same speed as autos then I doubt that there will be much of a
problem but they can't - puny engines.

Most assuredly right. There would still be the vulnerability
issue, and I expect considerable resentment over relative
advantages in maneuverability (physique, etc., etc.), but without
the dramatic speed differential there would simply be far, far
fewer encounters of any kind to generate contention.

There are plenty of other types of vehicles that do not have puny
engines but do not travel as fast as "autos". Tractors and earth moving
machinery, for example, and large heavy trucks on a mountain pass, perhaps.

It's true, but there is a huge psychological difference due to
the vulnerability factor. A motorists sense of power - especially
in the car culture - is much less tied to their speed potential than
would be appropriate considering the automobile's ostensible purpose
(transportation).

Motorists may even relate to the motorized heavy equipment operators
- maybe even sympathize with them over their speed constraint. And
if not they are at least intimidated by the power. But bicyclists?
In the cagers minds, bicyclists should go play somewhere else.

Ever notice the anger with which cagers express the idea that
bicyclists are going to get themselves killed? What's up with
that? I hypothesize that it's borne of inability to use the power
advantage that they thought they had - that they *felt* they had.
They do try to assert it in less bloody (if still not legal or
socially reasonable) ways.

(Note that I don't say, "socially acceptable", because giving
bicyclists the business is socially acceptable in the car culture.)

Bicycles can travel as fast as motor vehicles, especially where the
speed limit is low and/or traffic congestion slows motor vehicles down
to bicycling speeds.

Sure, and that is nice. But have you ever noticed how motorists
don't seem to appreciate even this? Many only get even more
hostile. They do not like the idea that inferior bicycles can
move just as fast (and faster) than they. In their traffic jam
state of mind, just let the slightest gap open ahead of you
even briefly and you'd better believe the cager behind will
blame you for the whole mess. And heaven forbid Dan should
come flying past splitting lanes and disappear into the distance
- talk about your PR nightmare (not reasonable, but that's the
way it is).

Besides, it's completely beside the point.

On 15/04/14 13:56, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:33:07 PM UTC-7, James wrote:

Bicycles can travel as fast as motor vehicles, especially where the
speed limit is low and/or traffic congestion slows motor vehicles down
to bicycling speeds.

Sure, and that is nice. But have you ever noticed how motorists
don't seem to appreciate even this? Many only get even more
hostile. They do not like the idea that inferior bicycles can
move just as fast (and faster) than they. In their traffic jam
state of mind, just let the slightest gap open ahead of you
even briefly and you'd better believe the cager behind will
blame you for the whole mess. And heaven forbid Dan should
come flying past splitting lanes and disappear into the distance
- talk about your PR nightmare (not reasonable, but that's the
way it is).

Besides, it's completely beside the point.


Last Thursday it was raining and dark when I left home. By the time I
got to Melbourne city central, the car traffic was near stationary. I
was lane splitting to my hearts content. Mixing it with near stationary
trucks and cars on a 3 lane road - even down the middle with on coming
traffic almost within reach.

Curiously, many of the drivers moved to one side to let me pass, and
left me gaps to move into in front of them.

Maybe they felt sorry for me out in the rain and darkness. I was having
a ball, and didn't feel in danger at all!


--
JS

On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:27:30 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 15/04/14 13:56, Dan O wrote:
On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:33:07 PM UTC-7, James wrote:

Bicycles can travel as fast as motor vehicles, especially where the
speed limit is low and/or traffic congestion slows motor vehicles down
to bicycling speeds.

Sure, and that is nice. But have you ever noticed how motorists
don't seem to appreciate even this? Many only get even more
hostile. They do not like the idea that inferior bicycles can
move just as fast (and faster) than they. In their traffic jam
state of mind, just let the slightest gap open ahead of you
even briefly and you'd better believe the cager behind will
blame you for the whole mess. And heaven forbid Dan should
come flying past splitting lanes and disappear into the distance
- talk about your PR nightmare (not reasonable, but that's the
way it is).

Besides, it's completely beside the point.

Last Thursday it was raining and dark when I left home. By the time I
got to Melbourne city central, the car traffic was near stationary. I
was lane splitting to my hearts content. Mixing it with near stationary
trucks and cars on a 3 lane road - even down the middle with on coming
traffic almost within reach.


My daily commute includes an ample dose of rush-hour cluster-
hump. It makes up for most other times when cars and trucks
fly past me and disappear in the distance.

Curiously, many of the drivers moved to one side to let me pass, and
left me gaps to move into in front of them.

Maybe they felt sorry for me out in the rain and darkness.

Sure, I was on a rant about the bad attitudes. *Most* drivers
are very reasonable (if variable) people in my experience, too.
But there is a substantial contingent of jerks. That's who I
was analyzing.

And like so many good dogs, even the nice ones can bite when
the moon is right.

I was having
a ball,

Dig it.

... and didn't feel in danger at all!

Oh well, keep after it and you'll get some eventually ;-)

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:33:07 +1000, James
wrote:

On 15/04/14 12:12, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:07:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:


Of course, I'm
aware that bicyclists generally move slower than motor vehicles. As
I've said many times, I favor allowing passing whenever it's safe to do
so (providing the definition of "safe" doesn't include missing the
cyclist by a few inches).

But "passing" isn't the problem it is the relative speed and
acceleration between the bicycle and everything else.

I would have said relative passing speed and proximity of the two vehicles.

Why proximity? After all I've seen two cars meet on a narrow lane and
they had to fold their side mirrors to get past each other. Not a word
said :-)

On the other hand I occasionally see a flock of tourists riding
bicycles and when they creep up to the head of the line and the light
changes they leap away, standing on the pedals and grunting with the
effort, and behind them the cars are blowing their horns and appear
very agitated. Why? Because the bicycles are impeding the autos.

That's not a problem of cars passing bicycles, but of why bicyclists
think it's necessary to move to the front of the queue. The Dutch do it
because their signalised intersections have a separate light sequence
for bicycles. Most other places don't have that, and the practice
becomes a nuisance to others.

But it does happen and the auto operators do get infuriated.... and
they do remember, and their attitude toward cyclists goes down another
degree or two.

And this I suspect is the crux of the matter. If bicycles can travel
at the same speed as autos then I doubt that there will be much of a
problem but they can't - puny engines.

There are plenty of other types of vehicles that do not have puny
engines but do not travel as fast as "autos". Tractors and earth moving
machinery, for example, and large heavy trucks on a mountain pass, perhaps.

You are correct and the traffic laws usually have provisions for these
vehicles. Sometime a large sign and flashing lights on the rear of the
vehicle and sometimes just the rule that slow moving vehicles should
stay on the right or left side of the road. But when I mentioned that
in Thailand the law stated, and is commonly sign posted, that bicycles
must stay on the side of the road someone immediately stated that was
a bunch of S..te.

Bicycles can travel as fast as motor vehicles, especially where the
speed limit is low and/or traffic congestion slows motor vehicles down
to bicycling speeds.

Correct again and in my experience as long as the bikes can keep up
with traffic they get treated just like another auto. I frequently see
bikes passing cars in really slow traffic, in fact down in Chinatown
which has probably the oldest streets in Bangkok and literally wall to
wall traffic a bike commonly is faster then an auto and nobody seems
to take much notice. But when you get on one of the major highways -
4, 6 or more lanes where traffic is 50 KPH or faster you will hear a
lot of horns if you decide to "take the lane". In fact you can get a
ticket for doing it.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:27:00 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

John B. considered Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:12:30
+0700 the perfect time to write:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:07:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/13/2014 10:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:02:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/12/2014 6:06 PM, Dan O wrote:




I think that you are ignoring a number of problems, the first of which
is the puny little engines that most bicycles have :-)

But more seriously and based solely on my experiences here in
Thailand, a real problem is the difference in speed between bicycles
and practically everything else on the roads. In Bangkok, nearly all
of the major thoroughfares are 4 lanes, or more, and normal traffic is
traveling at about 50 Km/Hr. and sometimes faster. A bicycle, on
Bangkok streets will have problems riding at 25 Km/Hr. for more than a
short distance.

While the difference in speed alone is a significant safety
consideration but I suggest that the mind set of both motor vehicle
and bicycle operators also enters into the equation.

Motor vehicle operators certainly believe that they are the reason
that these slick new highways were constructed (they are probably
largely correct) and that others should get out of the way. This is
even more obvious when one sees large trucks and buses. This, by the
way, is even more obvious with new car owners.

The argument that motor vehicles should be educated is, I believe, a
futile endeavor. After all, I just paid a Million Baht for this slick,
shiny, new, car, with the air conditioning and the CD player, and I
should watch out for the guy on the 5,000 baht bike? Don't be
ridiculous.

On the other hand, we see cyclists posting here complaining about a
bus that impeded his travels by stopping at bus stops. The mind
boggles. The government went to the trouble of introducing bus
transportation so people can get to work and the cyclist, who very
likely takes the bus during the rainy season is complaining?

So the answer is make a road for the bikes? Sure! But, particularly in
a city, to make a road for the bicycles entails either reducing the
space for the automobiles or tearing down existing buildings so that
the roadway can be widened.

Is that likely to happen?

I'm not sure that all problems have a solution.

When you say "I think that you are ignoring a number of problems, the
first of which is the puny little engines that most bicycles have :-)"
I'm not sure which issue you're attempting to address.

I was attempting to point out, humorously, what I see as the major
difficulty in solving the "bicycles on the public highway" problem
that seems to obsess people in the U.S.

Of course, I'm
aware that bicyclists generally move slower than motor vehicles. As
I've said many times, I favor allowing passing whenever it's safe to do
so (providing the definition of "safe" doesn't include missing the
cyclist by a few inches).

But "passing" isn't the problem it is the relative speed and
acceleration between the bicycle and everything else.

That's only a problem if you make it one.

For example, small motorcycles are common as dirt here - in fact there
are 1.7 motorcycles for every automobile in Thailand. At a stop light
the motorcycles "worm" their way through the cars until they reach the
head of the line. and when they light changes they roar away
accelerating faster then the autos. Nobody really minds this at all as
the motorcycles are not impeding anyone.

On the other hand I occasionally see a flock of tourists riding
bicycles and when they creep up to the head of the line and the light
changes they leap away, standing on the pedals and grunting with the
effort, and behind them the cars are blowing their horns and appear
very agitated. Why? Because the bicycles are impeding the autos.

No they aren't.
If the cars do force their way past, you just get to rinse and repeat
at the next set of lights.
In most cities in the world, average motor traffic speeds are well
below what is comfortably achievable for even utility cyclists.
The "problem" is that the drivers don't seem to have any concept of
average speed or the futility of wasting fuel and brake pads drag
racing from stop light to stop light, while the cyclists just maintain
a steady, efficient speed and always catch up with the motor traffic
at the next junction anyway.
On the faster roads (outside cities, or on freeway type highways
within them) you won't find many cyclists even if they are allowed,
although there is much more space to overtake safely even if they are
there.

While I agree with you if you are talking about village street sort of
roads with a stop sign at every corner, but nearly all the roads I
ride on are at least 4 lane and often 6 lane roads. The stop lights
are a considerable distance apart. I would say that is a car passes
you will very likely never see him again. Traffic is traveling at
approximately 50 KPH or faster. In fact I doubt very seriously if a
bicycle could stay up with a bus that has to stop at the bus stops.

Perhaps if you consider only the speed and assume a really well
conditioned cyclist nice flat road, sort of a Tour de France Prolog,
but you are not taking into consideration the motorcycles traveling
the wrong way on the edge of the road, the cars that are entering the
highway and poke their noses way out into traffic, the water drain
grates spaced 50 ft. apart on some roads, the taxis who suddenly stop
to pick up someone ....



And this I suspect is the crux of the matter. If bicycles can travel
at the same speed as autos then I doubt that there will be much of a
problem but they can't - puny engines.

But they do, because they don't hold each other up or cause congestion
like motor traffic does.

Not really. During all but the peak rush periods on main roads in my
part of town traffic moves very rapidly. Yes, we have stop lights,
perhaps a kilometer, or perhaps more, apart.


As an aside, the numbers of registered automobiles in the U.S. has
been increasing at the rate of approximately 3.6 million per year
since 1960 and shows no signs of decreasing. That is approximately
11,590 miles of cars added to the highway mass annually. You are
running out of roads.

That's ok, they just hold each other up, leaving the cyclists to ride
on by.

Regarding education of motorists: I suspect the price of cars in
Bangkok is similar to the price of cars in much of Europe. But in
Europe, most motorists seem to have accepted that cyclists are
legitimate vehicle operators. At least, that's been my experience. I
suspect that driver licensing tests may address the fact that cyclists
have a right to the road.

You are talking about Europe now? Try reading
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...herlands/1955/

My guess is that the attitude of motorists is very different in some
of the European and Asian countries than it is in the U.S. Here, in
Bangkok, for example, bicycles are quite obvious, seen early in the
morning used by housewives to ride to the local markets for the day's
provisions. It is highly likely that most auto drivers have a bike
somewhere around the house and they, or their family use it frequently
and if they don't have one their parents do.
When someone has and frequently uses a bicycle his/her attitude toward
seeing bicycles on the highway is somewhat different then if he and
his known ancestors never owned one.

I don't doubt that in the slightest.

I might add that in the mid '60's I had an Englishman, from Newcastle,
working for me. He was a time served journeyman Machinist who had
immigrated to the U.S. He used to tell about going back to Newcastle
on vacation and "down tha Pub" his old mates refused to believe that
he could own an automobile on a Machinist's wages - a motorcycle
possibly, but certainly not an auto.

Yes, state funding for automotive infrastructure provides a huge
subsidy to motoring, even if you disregard the state clearing up after
the mess they make.

In much of the world outside the U.S. automobiles were, well within
living memory, a luxury that the common man would likely never own.

If they had to pay the full cost of motoring, that would still be
true.

It does result in a very different attitude toward transportation and
trying to compare Europe or Asian attitudes to U.S. conditions is
futile I suspect.

Probably as logical as comparing diet. Will you have deep fried sticky
rice with your burger sir?

BTW, some Americans seem to believe that Europe has separate bike paths
almost everywhere. That's simply false. In most places, bicyclists
ride on ordinary roads, and do just fine.

I may have mentioned that I've seen a "bicycle path" only once in
Bangkok - a city covering some 1,568.7 square kilometers - and that
didn't seem to be used - the roadway was fairly smooth in that
location while the bike path was over what looked like cobble stones.

They must have been employing ex-pat US or UK cycle path designers!

Nope. some of the roads have very wide sidewalks, In the area I was
referring the sidewalks are perhaps 15 feet, maybe more, wide. Nice
shady places paved with small cement block. Someone painted two red
lines right down the middle of the walk and labeled them in both Thai
and English "Bike Path". I saw it one day and thought "Ho Ho, Just for
me" and wheeled up onto the "bike Path" only to discover that the
block paving wasn't really smooth. In fact it was bumpy enough to make
your vision blur :-) so I wheeled back onto the road as soon as I
could. The only "bike path" I've ever seen in Thailand.

That road is one of my "loops" so I ride past the "Bike Path"
occasionally and I've never seen another bicycle on it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/14/2014 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:07:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Of course, I'm
aware that bicyclists generally move slower than motor vehicles. As
I've said many times, I favor allowing passing whenever it's safe to do
so (providing the definition of "safe" doesn't include missing the
cyclist by a few inches).

But "passing" isn't the problem it is the relative speed and
acceleration between the bicycle and everything else.

?? Passing isn't the problem?? See below.

For example, small motorcycles are common as dirt here - in fact there
are 1.7 motorcycles for every automobile in Thailand. At a stop light
the motorcycles "worm" their way through the cars until they reach the
head of the line. and when they light changes they roar away
accelerating faster then the autos. Nobody really minds this at all as
the motorcycles are not impeding anyone.

On the other hand I occasionally see a flock of tourists riding
bicycles and when they creep up to the head of the line and the light
changes they leap away, standing on the pedals and grunting with the
effort, and behind them the cars are blowing their horns and appear
very agitated. Why? Because the bicycles are impeding the autos.

Um... does that not indicate that passing _is_ the problem? If the
roadway were wide enough for the motorists to pass without being
impeded, the problem vanishes.

And this I suspect is the crux of the matter. If bicycles can travel
at the same speed as autos then I doubt that there will be much of a
problem but they can't - puny engines.

Well, _most_ of the time bicycles can't travel at the same speed as
autos. As others have noted, when traffic is suitably congested, bikes
can travel faster than autos. When that's true - generally, in
near-gridlock inner city traffic - most motorists seem to realize that
there's nothing to gain by trying to pass the bike in front of them.
When traffic speed begins to pick up, that's when they get anxious and
try very hard to pass.

I can understand motorists frustration if a group of cyclists filters
forwards at each traffic light, requiring the motorists work their way
past again and again. That's one of the reasons I seldom do such
filtering. Admittedly, I'm blessed with less traffic congestion. But
even when in congested cities, I generally filter forward only if it
will gain me one full cycle of traffic lights. A stale green is as good
as a fresh green, IMO.

I'll also mention that "a flock of [bike] tourists" complicates things
inside cities. It's more difficult for motorists to pass, it's more
difficult for the cyclists to negotiate turns, to stay together, etc.
It can complicate traffic as much as a funeral procession. Perhaps they
should have a parade permit?

You are talking about Europe now? Try reading
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/com...herlands/1955/

My guess is that the attitude of motorists is very different in some
of the European and Asian countries than it is in the U.S. Here, in
Bangkok, for example, bicycles are quite obvious, seen early in the
morning used by housewives to ride to the local markets for the day's
provisions. It is highly likely that most auto drivers have a bike
somewhere around the house and they, or their family use it frequently
and if they don't have one their parents do.
When someone has and frequently uses a bicycle his/her attitude toward
seeing bicycles on the highway is somewhat different then if he and
his known ancestors never owned one.

I think that's very likely a big factor in the attitude difference.

I recall seeing a Sprocketman comic book (a super-hero style "how to
ride your bike properly" book intended for teens) that showed two views
of a busy city street. The first was conventional, showing bikes,
buses, cars, pedestrians, etc. The second was a re-drawing of the
scene, with everybody (including the bus passengers) standing on the
street in their previous position, vehicles removed as if by magic. The
point of the drawing was that whether walking, biking or in a motor
vehicle, we're all just people trying to get where we're going. People
shouldn't expect greater privileges because they're in a motor vehicle.

I might add that in the mid '60's I had an Englishman, from Newcastle,
working for me. He was a time served journeyman Machinist who had
immigrated to the U.S. He used to tell about going back to Newcastle
on vacation and "down tha Pub" his old mates refused to believe that
he could own an automobile on a Machinist's wages - a motorcycle
possibly, but certainly not an auto.

In much of the world outside the U.S. automobiles were, well within
living memory, a luxury that the common man would likely never own.

:-) In the early 1970s, we had company visiting the U.S. from Britain.
I remember the husband saying to his wife "Look - he has a motorcycle
just for sport!" He seemed awed by our prosperity, even though we were
living in a tin box mobile home at the time.

It does result in a very different attitude toward transportation and
trying to compare Europe or Asian attitudes to U.S. conditions is
futile I suspect.

One thing that seems to be near-universal, at least in civilized*
societies, is a basic level of politeness. For example, in a crowded
pedestrian market area, people don't barge through, shouting for others
to get out of their way. There's lots of pausing, "excuse me" remarks,
standing aside for those encumbered by kids or heavy loads, etc.

One of the worst aspects of motor vehicles is that they tend to reduce
that civilized politeness. "Me first" gets much higher priority, and
people feel more entitled to be rude. And it's silly, because the time
savings from such boorish behavior are almost always negligible.

(* Regarding my "civilized societies" qualifier: In _The World Until
Yesterday_, Jared Diamond claims things are much, much different when
members of one primitive tribe encounter members of another primitive
tribe. Supposedly, murder is not uncommon in such situations. I hope
our automobiles aren't moving our civilization in that direction!)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:17:21 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/14/2014 10:12 PM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:07:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski

wrote:



Of course, I'm

aware that bicyclists generally move slower than motor vehicles. As

I've said many times, I favor allowing passing whenever it's safe to do

so (providing the definition of "safe" doesn't include missing the

cyclist by a few inches).



But "passing" isn't the problem it is the relative speed and

acceleration between the bicycle and everything else.



?? Passing isn't the problem?? See below.



For example, small motorcycles are common as dirt here - in fact there

are 1.7 motorcycles for every automobile in Thailand. At a stop light

the motorcycles "worm" their way through the cars until they reach the

head of the line. and when they light changes they roar away

accelerating faster then the autos. Nobody really minds this at all as

the motorcycles are not impeding anyone.



On the other hand I occasionally see a flock of tourists riding

bicycles and when they creep up to the head of the line and the light

changes they leap away, standing on the pedals and grunting with the

effort, and behind them the cars are blowing their horns and appear

very agitated. Why? Because the bicycles are impeding the autos.



Um... does that not indicate that passing _is_ the problem? If the

roadway were wide enough for the motorists to pass without being

impeded, the problem vanishes.



And this I suspect is the crux of the matter. If bicycles can travel

at the same speed as autos then I doubt that there will be much of a

problem but they can't - puny engines.



Well, _most_ of the time bicycles can't travel at the same speed as

autos. As others have noted, when traffic is suitably congested, bikes

can travel faster than autos. When that's true - generally, in

near-gridlock inner city traffic - most motorists seem to realize that

there's nothing to gain by trying to pass the bike in front of them.

When traffic speed begins to pick up, that's when they get anxious and

try very hard to pass.



I can understand motorists frustration if a group of cyclists filters

forwards at each traffic light, requiring the motorists work their way

past again and again. That's one of the reasons I seldom do such

filtering. Admittedly, I'm blessed with less traffic congestion. But

even when in congested cities, I generally filter forward only if it

will gain me one full cycle of traffic lights. A stale green is as good

as a fresh green, IMO.



I'll also mention that "a flock of [bike] tourists" complicates things

inside cities. It's more difficult for motorists to pass, it's more

difficult for the cyclists to negotiate turns, to stay together, etc.

It can complicate traffic as much as a funeral procession. Perhaps they

should have a parade permit?


This is actually where bike lanes work. Sort of, if they'e two lanes: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepo...57607604514096

Normal traffic

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepo...57607604514096
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepo...57607604514096

Avoid riding over the Steel Bridge on sunny days:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepo...57607604514096

If you have a lot of bikes like Amsterdam, etc., then separate roads for bikes makes sense. It's impossible to have bikes and cars on the same roads, just from a volume standpoint and putting aside safety considerations.

-- Jay Beattie.