John Forester Speaks

On 10/8/2019 9:48 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/7/2019 3:59 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Lets be rational and say that in the U.S. there will never be any real
change. Speed limits are not going to be lowered and no significant
bicycle only paths are going to be built. Oh yes, there will be lines
painted on roads and old, unused, railway right of ways renamed
"Bicycle Path" but will over passes or tunnels at intersections to
allow crossing the intersection on city streets without worrying about
stop lights and folks turning be built as they are for cars?

I guess we're spoiled in Silicon Valley, but we have built, and are
building more, infrastructure with tunnels and overpasses. The key is to
eliminate choke points and create connectivity where it has been poor.
One key thing is to not have bicycle routes that are on roads with
freeway entrances and exits.

Yes, there are places where bike access is frustrated by a specific
choke point. And modern road design has trended far too much toward
freeway-style "stroads."


A few weeks ago we had a City Council meeting where the only agenda item
was whether or not to build a short trail along a creek, opening the
gates, putting down hard-pack or asphalt, and adding some fencing. I had
130 residents sign up to speak on this agenda item and the meeting went
from 6:45 p.m. to 4:35 a.m..Â* The trail would be what we believe would
be a safer pedestrian and bicycle route to some schools and to our
library. We voted 5-0 to proceed. Those opposed to the trail have houses
that back up to the creek and did not want people walking and cycling
behind their houses. Their concerns about the loss of privacy were
understandable, but it's public land and the water district, who owns
the land, is encouraging more use of their land for trails.

Creekside trails can be very pleasant, and due to the scarcity of
intersections they can be reasonably safe. (I say that even though over
the decades, our bike club has had far more serious injuries per mile on
MUPs than on roads.)

But the idea of bike paths everywhere is fantasy, as is the idea that
such paths will cause a big change in bike mode share.


... We are also putting in protected bike lanes, the first one just opened.
There was basically a realization that the only way to keep vehicles
from driving, parking, stopping, delivering, dropping off/picking up,
etc. in bike lanes was to have a physical barrier, lines and paint just
were not sufficient.

Oh, wonderful. You're jumping for the latest crazy fashion: "Protect"
the bicyclists along the straight sections of road, but zoom them into
the intersections where they surprised motorists can smash into them.

Did anyone bother to read the paper out last month from the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety? Single direction "protected" lanes are
about 13% more dangerous than major roads with NO bike lane stripes.
Bi-directional "protected" lanes are over 11 times more dangerous than
major roads with no bike lanes. See
https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredo...liography/2193

Columbus, Ohio put in a bi-directional "protected" lane. Car-bike
crashes jumped over 600%.
https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredo...liography/2193

Besides, there _are_ other ways of dissuading illegal parking. See
https://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...-parking-video
Vilnius has a mayor with guts.

Unfortunately, it took the death of high school
student riding to school to spur the city to do something. The latest
thing I saw was real estate agents putting their "Open House" signs in
bike lanes. This was the final straw for me. I had my City Manager
authorize overtime for our Code Enforcement department and on one
Saturday they collected 62 illegally placed "Open House" signs that were
blocking sidewalks, bike lanes, wheelchair ramps, etc..

Keep that up for a few weeks, then do occasional re-runs. And be sure
the signs are permanently confiscated.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/8/2019 12:01 PM, sms wrote:
On 10/8/2019 7:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Just a heads-up, don't put the sheltered facility and a bus or shuttle
stop together.Â* My favorite unnecessary hazard going to work is the
sheltered bike lane where the bus whips around me to the left, I go
into the facility to the right, the bus stops, and passengers launch
into the bike lane in front of me -- crossing the bike lane without
looking to get to the bus. At the stops where the bus pulls to the
curb, I at least have a chance of getting around it. I frequently
wonder what designers are thinking.

Well in my area there are lot more cyclists than bus riders, which I'm
sure is different than in Portland.

I know that this issue has been discussed. Is it better for the bus stop
to be by the curb and buses cross the bike lane, or is it better for the
protected bike lane to be next to the curb and have bus passengers cross
the bike lane?

Please, let's put "protected" in quotes. Multiple studies show increased
crash rates for these barrier-separated lanes. That's not "protection."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/8/2019 12:39 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 10:46:13 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Second, I saw no evidence that 10% or even 1% of the motorists were
aggressive or inattentive. The biggest irritation I had with a motorist
was the one excessively careful one who refused to pass me for about
four blocks despite the lack of oncoming traffic.

This is my experience as well. It's a few times a week that someone is afraid to pass, most of the time when I'm riding to the right of the white line. Annoying as hell. The last time I had any motorist anger directed at me was on a group ride a few months ago, but that wasn't a commute. We took the lane before a left hand turn, and a car (which was well behind us when we took the lane) came up behind us, blowing their horn and shouting obscenities.

We had an incident like that, but even worse, on a bike club ride maybe
ten years ago.

We were on a very narrow two-lane road used as a suburban cut-through.
It's absolutely necessary to take the lane. The motorist began blaring
his horn way back, as the first few riders of at least 15 started the
turn. He moved into the oncoming lane and tried to bully his way through
even though cyclists were turning across the lane.

Nobody was willing to accept that, least of all a young woman cyclist of
fierce temperament. The motorist stopped, almost surrounded by cyclists,
and got what was probably the worst dressing-down of his life. In fact,
he may have feared for his life. It was fun to watch.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:42:50 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
Yesterday a dumbass pickup truck with snow tires and reverse rims came up behind me in the bike lane pulled around and instead of staying out in a perfectly spacious lane pulled back over into the bike lane. He did this in front of TWO police cars that were facing the opposite direction and had a clear view of what occurred and neither of them did a thing.

This sort of thing would not happen if policemen were on bicycles. Here in Ireland I know some retired policemen who can remember when country policemen (perhaps city policemen too; I didn't ask) patrolled on bicycles. But part of the greater security for cyclists on the roads when I came to live here 40 years ago, after the policemen were long in cars and on foot at least in the village centre, was simply that the roads carried only light internal combustion traffic.

Andre Jute
Belt and braces

As I was getting back from my ride today, a Mustang whatever with an EXTREMELY loud motor came up behind me and passed inches away at 80+ MPH when you could SEE the red light one short block ahead. It is almost entirely young Hispanics that do this. Young blacks are more possessive of their cars and don't want to do things which might lose them. Young whites don't seem to have those sorts of cars.

On 10/8/2019 4:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:42:50 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
Yesterday a dumbass pickup truck with snow tires and reverse rims came up behind me in the bike lane pulled around and instead of staying out in a perfectly spacious lane pulled back over into the bike lane. He did this in front of TWO police cars that were facing the opposite direction and had a clear view of what occurred and neither of them did a thing.

This sort of thing would not happen if policemen were on bicycles. Here in Ireland I know some retired policemen who can remember when country policemen (perhaps city policemen too; I didn't ask) patrolled on bicycles. But part of the greater security for cyclists on the roads when I came to live here 40 years ago, after the policemen were long in cars and on foot at least in the village centre, was simply that the roads carried only light internal combustion traffic.

Andre Jute
Belt and braces

As I was getting back from my ride today, a Mustang whatever with an EXTREMELY loud motor came up behind me and passed inches away at 80+ MPH when you could SEE the red light one short block ahead. It is almost entirely young Hispanics that do this. Young blacks are more possessive of their cars and don't want to do things which might lose them. Young whites don't seem to have those sorts of cars.


You saw what you saw, but those sorts of trends are widely
variable by neighborhood and by time of day.

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

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 06:48:07 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/7/2019 3:59 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Lets be rational and say that in the U.S. there will never be any real
change. Speed limits are not going to be lowered and no significant
bicycle only paths are going to be built. Oh yes, there will be lines
painted on roads and old, unused, railway right of ways renamed
"Bicycle Path" but will over passes or tunnels at intersections to
allow crossing the intersection on city streets without worrying about
stop lights and folks turning be built as they are for cars?

I guess we're spoiled in Silicon Valley, but we have built, and are
building more, infrastructure with tunnels and overpasses. The key is to
eliminate choke points and create connectivity where it has been poor.
One key thing is to not have bicycle routes that are on roads with
freeway entrances and exits.

You are building tunnels and over passes for bicycles?

A few weeks ago we had a City Council meeting where the only agenda item
was whether or not to build a short trail along a creek, opening the
gates, putting down hard-pack or asphalt, and adding some fencing. I had
130 residents sign up to speak on this agenda item and the meeting went
from 6:45 p.m. to 4:35 a.m.. The trail would be what we believe would
be a safer pedestrian and bicycle route to some schools and to our
library. We voted 5-0 to proceed. Those opposed to the trail have houses
that back up to the creek and did not want people walking and cycling
behind their houses. Their concerns about the loss of privacy were
understandable, but it's public land and the water district, who owns
the land, is encouraging more use of their land for trails.

We also are starting a community shuttle system trial later this month.
This is a response to continued cuts in our county's transit system
which has the lowest fare-recovery of any system in the world, and is
operated as a social service rather than as a way to support commuters
going from housing-rich areas to job-rich areas. The shuttle will go
around the city as well as to specific locations in neighboring cities
(medical centers and train stations). The shuttle is subsidized, though
the subsidy per ride is much less than the subsidy that the county
transit agency provides.

We are also putting in protected bike lanes, the first one just opened.
There was basically a realization that the only way to keep vehicles
from driving, parking, stopping, delivering, dropping off/picking up,
etc. in bike lanes was to have a physical barrier, lines and paint just
were not sufficient. Unfortunately, it took the death of high school
student riding to school to spur the city to do something. The latest
thing I saw was real estate agents putting their "Open House" signs in
bike lanes. This was the final straw for me. I had my City Manager
authorize overtime for our Code Enforcement department and on one
Saturday they collected 62 illegally placed "Open House" signs that were
blocking sidewalks, bike lanes, wheelchair ramps, etc..

I remember, years ago in Los Angeles there was an attempt by the city
government to get a bond issue approved to built a public
transportation system and it was voted down two years in a row. "What
for a public transportation system? Just take the car."

Los Angeles is all-in on expanding their transit system.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40490942/los-angeless-120-billion-bet-on-transit-innovation.

Ah yes...Now L.S. is considering a "metro" system. But as I said
"years ago", and it must have been at least 50 years ago the L.A.
voters turned it down flat. Twice :-)

Transit is also the only possible solution to the housing issue in
California. You're not going to convince most middle class families to
live in rental housing forever, or to live in a high-rise condo once
they have kids. You have to give them a way to commute sufficiently fast
from areas with enough land for the type of housing they are going to
live in.

Unfortunately, in Silicon Valley, we have no organization that is
lobbying for cyclists. The "Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition" has been
co-opted by development and corporate interests and lobbies for more
money for highway construction, especially the conversion of HOV lanes
to "Express Lanes" where solo drivers can pay to use the HOV lane. A
token amount of money was provided for bicycle infrastructure and
transit in the last tax that was approved by voters.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 07:14:27 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 6:48:12 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/7/2019 3:59 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Lets be rational and say that in the U.S. there will never be any real
change. Speed limits are not going to be lowered and no significant
bicycle only paths are going to be built. Oh yes, there will be lines
painted on roads and old, unused, railway right of ways renamed
"Bicycle Path" but will over passes or tunnels at intersections to
allow crossing the intersection on city streets without worrying about
stop lights and folks turning be built as they are for cars?

I guess we're spoiled in Silicon Valley, but we have built, and are
building more, infrastructure with tunnels and overpasses. The key is to
eliminate choke points and create connectivity where it has been poor.
One key thing is to not have bicycle routes that are on roads with
freeway entrances and exits.

A few weeks ago we had a City Council meeting where the only agenda item
was whether or not to build a short trail along a creek, opening the
gates, putting down hard-pack or asphalt, and adding some fencing. I had
130 residents sign up to speak on this agenda item and the meeting went
from 6:45 p.m. to 4:35 a.m.. The trail would be what we believe would
be a safer pedestrian and bicycle route to some schools and to our
library. We voted 5-0 to proceed. Those opposed to the trail have houses
that back up to the creek and did not want people walking and cycling
behind their houses. Their concerns about the loss of privacy were
understandable, but it's public land and the water district, who owns
the land, is encouraging more use of their land for trails.

We also are starting a community shuttle system trial later this month.
This is a response to continued cuts in our county's transit system
which has the lowest fare-recovery of any system in the world, and is
operated as a social service rather than as a way to support commuters
going from housing-rich areas to job-rich areas. The shuttle will go
around the city as well as to specific locations in neighboring cities
(medical centers and train stations). The shuttle is subsidized, though
the subsidy per ride is much less than the subsidy that the county
transit agency provides.

We are also putting in protected bike lanes, the first one just opened.
There was basically a realization that the only way to keep vehicles
from driving, parking, stopping, delivering, dropping off/picking up,
etc. in bike lanes was to have a physical barrier, lines and paint just
were not sufficient. Unfortunately, it took the death of high school
student riding to school to spur the city to do something. The latest
thing I saw was real estate agents putting their "Open House" signs in
bike lanes. This was the final straw for me. I had my City Manager
authorize overtime for our Code Enforcement department and on one
Saturday they collected 62 illegally placed "Open House" signs that were
blocking sidewalks, bike lanes, wheelchair ramps, etc..

I remember, years ago in Los Angeles there was an attempt by the city
government to get a bond issue approved to built a public
transportation system and it was voted down two years in a row. "What
for a public transportation system? Just take the car."

Los Angeles is all-in on expanding their transit system.
https://www.fastcompany.com/40490942/los-angeless-120-billion-bet-on-transit-innovation.

Transit is also the only possible solution to the housing issue in
California. You're not going to convince most middle class families to
live in rental housing forever, or to live in a high-rise condo once
they have kids. You have to give them a way to commute sufficiently fast
from areas with enough land for the type of housing they are going to
live in.

Unfortunately, in Silicon Valley, we have no organization that is
lobbying for cyclists. The "Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition" has been
co-opted by development and corporate interests and lobbies for more
money for highway construction, especially the conversion of HOV lanes
to "Express Lanes" where solo drivers can pay to use the HOV lane. A
token amount of money was provided for bicycle infrastructure and
transit in the last tax that was approved by voters.

Just a heads-up, don't put the sheltered facility and a bus or shuttle stop together. My favorite unnecessary hazard going to work is the sheltered bike lane where the bus whips around me to the left, I go into the facility to the right, the bus stops, and passengers launch into the bike lane in front of me -- crossing the bike lane without looking to get to the bus. At the stops where the bus pulls to the curb, I at least have a chance of getting around it. I frequently wonder what designers are thinking.

-- Jay Beattie.

A friend of my wife was killed in just the circumstances you
describe. The bus stopped a ways from the curb, she got out of the bus
and a motorcycle came between the bus and the edge of the road and hit
her. Head injuries, died two days later.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:02:20 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 2:08:12 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 6:42:50 PM UTC+1, Tom Kunich wrote:
Yesterday a dumbass pickup truck with snow tires and reverse rims came up behind me in the bike lane pulled around and instead of staying out in a perfectly spacious lane pulled back over into the bike lane. He did this in front of TWO police cars that were facing the opposite direction and had a clear view of what occurred and neither of them did a thing.

This sort of thing would not happen if policemen were on bicycles. Here in Ireland I know some retired policemen who can remember when country policemen (perhaps city policemen too; I didn't ask) patrolled on bicycles. But part of the greater security for cyclists on the roads when I came to live here 40 years ago, after the policemen were long in cars and on foot at least in the village centre, was simply that the roads carried only light internal combustion traffic.

Andre Jute
Belt and braces

As I was getting back from my ride today, a Mustang whatever with an EXTREMELY loud motor came up behind me and passed inches away at 80+ MPH when you could SEE the red light one short block ahead. It is almost entirely young Hispanics that do this. Young blacks are more possessive of their cars and don't want to do things which might lose them. Young whites don't seem to have those sorts of cars.

Right Tom, if you could only get rid of them Spics California would be
a nice place.

--
cheers,

John B.

On 10/8/2019 5:02 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:

As I was getting back from my ride today, a Mustang whatever with an EXTREMELY loud motor came up behind me and passed inches away at 80+ MPH when you could SEE the red light one short block ahead. It is almost entirely young Hispanics that do this. Young blacks are more possessive of their cars and don't want to do things which might lose them. Young whites don't seem to have those sorts of cars.

Huh. The driver who blared the horn at us on our tandem today (a rare
event, BTW) was a white chick with pink hair.

And we got to the red light just fifteen seconds later than she did; and
left earlier, because we were making a right turn on red.

If we could only get rid of white chicks with pink hair, America would
be a much better place. Can we get Trump to build walls around the vape
shops?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 12:57:36 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/8/2019 9:48 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/7/2019 3:59 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Lets be rational and say that in the U.S. there will never be any real
change. Speed limits are not going to be lowered and no significant
bicycle only paths are going to be built. Oh yes, there will be lines
painted on roads and old, unused, railway right of ways renamed
"Bicycle Path" but will over passes or tunnels at intersections to
allow crossing the intersection on city streets without worrying about
stop lights and folks turning be built as they are for cars?

I guess we're spoiled in Silicon Valley, but we have built, and are
building more, infrastructure with tunnels and overpasses. The key is to
eliminate choke points and create connectivity where it has been poor.
One key thing is to not have bicycle routes that are on roads with
freeway entrances and exits.

Yes, there are places where bike access is frustrated by a specific
choke point. And modern road design has trended far too much toward
freeway-style "stroads."


A few weeks ago we had a City Council meeting where the only agenda item
was whether or not to build a short trail along a creek, opening the
gates, putting down hard-pack or asphalt, and adding some fencing. I had
130 residents sign up to speak on this agenda item and the meeting went
from 6:45 p.m. to 4:35 a.m..Â* The trail would be what we believe would
be a safer pedestrian and bicycle route to some schools and to our
library. We voted 5-0 to proceed. Those opposed to the trail have houses
that back up to the creek and did not want people walking and cycling
behind their houses. Their concerns about the loss of privacy were
understandable, but it's public land and the water district, who owns
the land, is encouraging more use of their land for trails.

Creekside trails can be very pleasant, and due to the scarcity of
intersections they can be reasonably safe. (I say that even though over
the decades, our bike club has had far more serious injuries per mile on
MUPs than on roads.)

But the idea of bike paths everywhere is fantasy, as is the idea that
such paths will cause a big change in bike mode share.


... We are also putting in protected bike lanes, the first one just opened.
There was basically a realization that the only way to keep vehicles
from driving, parking, stopping, delivering, dropping off/picking up,
etc. in bike lanes was to have a physical barrier, lines and paint just
were not sufficient.

Oh, wonderful. You're jumping for the latest crazy fashion: "Protect"
the bicyclists along the straight sections of road, but zoom them into
the intersections where they surprised motorists can smash into them.

Did anyone bother to read the paper out last month from the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety? Single direction "protected" lanes are
about 13% more dangerous than major roads with NO bike lane stripes.
Bi-directional "protected" lanes are over 11 times more dangerous than
major roads with no bike lanes. See
https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredo...liography/2193

Columbus, Ohio put in a bi-directional "protected" lane. Car-bike
crashes jumped over 600%.
https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredo...liography/2193

Besides, there _are_ other ways of dissuading illegal parking. See
https://www.theguardian.com/world/vi...-parking-video
Vilnius has a mayor with guts.

Unfortunately, it took the death of high school
student riding to school to spur the city to do something. The latest
thing I saw was real estate agents putting their "Open House" signs in
bike lanes. This was the final straw for me. I had my City Manager
authorize overtime for our Code Enforcement department and on one
Saturday they collected 62 illegally placed "Open House" signs that were
blocking sidewalks, bike lanes, wheelchair ramps, etc..

Keep that up for a few weeks, then do occasional re-runs. And be sure
the signs are permanently confiscated.


--
- Frank Krygowski

That was an Armoured Fighting Vehicle not a Tank. Tanks have tracks and a cannon.

Just keeping the terminology technically correct.

Cheers