Where "Safety Inflation" leads

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 4:25:52 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking, he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical: https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

Here they settle the matter by doing nothing. After the voters passing bills two years in a row to increase gas tax to obtain money to fix the roads the only ones that have been fixed are the heaviest traveled freeway commercial routes and only very few of those - 5 miles of the Altemonte Pass where Highway 5 connects into Highway 580. The protected bike lane on the Dumbarton Bridge has never been cleaned despite they purchased a small sweeper to do so. You would think that after 15 years they would do something.

Now we discover that most of these road funds were put into the High Speed Rail from nowhere to nowhere. This was a raised rail above a normal freight line. It is on perfectly flat ground. They cannot meet costs on that let alone the fantastic costs of taking it over the Grapevine to LA were they ever to prove this one as workable. Oh, wait, it isn't workable because they actually disserted the Japanese design of wide rails and went back to standard width rails that cannot carry a 200 mph train. 100 mph is unlikely and that only if they can maintain a perfectly straight track.

The Democrats want to throw out the Electoral College so that California can do the same thing to the rest of the country.

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 6:33:50 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking, he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical: https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.

John - this is why I ride you. Here we don't have "teams of guys" because in the major cities the Democrats promise everyone heaven and then after elected they take all of the money and vote themselves more wages and benefits..

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 4:36:03 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 12:25:52 AM UTC+1, sms wrote:

(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches do

I know. I was the victim of that crap from Frank Krygowski, the most counterproductive "spokesman for bicycles" who ever lived. It was part of his "danger, danger" schtick. You have to make allowances for that Polish peasant's shortfall of imagination: if it didn't happen on his street corner, it couldn't have happened anywhere.* I despair of the administrators who could let such an insular provincial railroad mind loose on children.

Andre Jute
Cosmopolitan. Diverse. Tolerant.

*It occurred to me at the time that Kreepy Krygo's inability to imagine someone who on his bike is taller than a Range Rover probably tells us that he suffers from Duck's Disease, that his arse drags the ground.

There is a commonly traveled route across the hills here that has trees and vegetation completely overhanging the bike lane in areas. You have to be VERY careful and plan passing these areas because the drivers can see a bike lane and so won't give you one inch to move out to keep from being knocked off of your bike. In one case the branches actually wound through my helmet and were about to pull me off when they broke off. The city says that since these are on private land it is not their responsibility even though they block the public road.

On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.

First, please understand: When I talk about the absence of low,
head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about just my local
area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about a dozen foreign
countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and abroad, from two or
three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast.

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed to remain? A
typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most modern pickup
trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal Service trucks are
far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery trucks, UPS trucks,
FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish buggies are taller
than bicyclists.

There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back roads where
leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be vanishingly
rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon.

Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear helmets and must
use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other road users) to
prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He occasionally
resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims remain
fundamentally stupid.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 10/13/2019 7:49 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



He’s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He’s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.

Scharf was originally talking about tree branches hanging over roads.
That's why my rebuttal included trucks using those roads.

Scharf resurrects his claim from time to time, either to lobby for
retina-scorching headlamps or for bike helmets. He typically gives no
details. He's lost the argument but he still tries a little revenge
sniping from time to time.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.

First, please understand: When I talk about the absence of low,
head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about just my local
area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about a dozen foreign
countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and abroad, from two or
three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast.

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed to remain? A
typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most modern pickup
trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal Service trucks are
far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery trucks, UPS trucks,
FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish buggies are taller
than bicyclists.

There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back roads where
leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be vanishingly
rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon.

Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear helmets and must
use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other road users) to
prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He occasionally
resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims remain
fundamentally stupid.

Well, if you haven't had trouble with bike lanes being blocked by vegetation I have to wonder if you're 5'4" tall.

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:22:01 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 7:49 AM, Duane wrote:
John B. wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:45 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/12/2019 9:57 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Some years are better than other with sweeping, but generally speaking,
he segregated facilities don't get swept -- or they get swept very
infrequently. This is North Portland, but typical:
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/...3-1200x838.jpg Wait until
those maples dump all their leaves. Adjacent landowners and landscapers
love to blow leaves into facilities, too -- segregated or not.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/10698131385/

Our street-sweeping is contracted out.

If a resident notifies us about a problem with a street not being
cleaned our public works department takes care of the problem

Segregated bicycle facilities require different equipment since the
large sweepers can't drive down the protected bike lanes. If it costs a
little more money to keep the protected bicycle facilities free of
debris then that's a cost that has to be paid.

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

What? Do you live in a jungle? I ask as I live in a tropical country
where things seem to grow overnight and still we don't seem to have
problems with tree branches overhanging roads.

Yes, I often see, particularly in Bangkok strangely enough, teams of
men trimming branches that overhang electric and telephone wires I can
only assume that the utilities and highway folks in sleepy old
Thailand must be more alert than those in The Richest Country in the
World as they seem, here, to cut tree branches before they become a
problem.
--
cheers,

John B.



He’s not talking about trees overhanging roads. He’s talking about trees
overhanging bike paths. And of course this is an issue.

Scharf was originally talking about tree branches hanging over roads.
That's why my rebuttal included trucks using those roads.

Scharf resurrects his claim from time to time, either to lobby for
retina-scorching headlamps or for bike helmets. He typically gives no
details. He's lost the argument but he still tries a little revenge
sniping from time to time.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I am quite happy that you don't wear a helmet. While no one is more anti-helmet LAW than I am that doesn't mean I don't see a reasonable use for them.

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 11:17:48 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth.

Not around here. Granted, you don't se them much in the travel lane, but it's common enough to see them encroaching the shoulder into the 'path' where I'm supposed to ride.

Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

If that was your original point of contention, sure, I don't often see that, but I don't have a commute go by where I don't have avoid getting smacked by foliage on the side of the road. Seriously, every day. And I don't live in a rural area. I'm less than 30 miles outside of boston, and my typical 20 mile commute has 24 stop lights.

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:17:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/13/2019 8:39 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:25:52 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

The City also does tree trimming, in fact I need to call about a tree
that's hanging low over the shoulder of a road I ride on frequently and
that I have to duck to get under. Sadly, we don't have panel trucks
driving right next to the curb to knock down low-hanging branches
(someone on r.b.t. once insisted that there was no need for lights to
illuminate a little up so a cyclists could see low-hanging branches
because trucks would knock such branches down, writing "Many small
trucks exceed seven feet. One or two trucks driving down a lane will
take out any branches hazardous to any cyclist").

On the narrow,winding secondary roads in new england that were once merely cow paths or logging roads, low branches and overgrown vegetation are a very common occurrence. Most local towns seem content to let large trucks do the 'trimming', and it's a rare occurrence when I see any DPW vehicles out trimming branches. The only exceptions are blind corners and intersections where visibility for cars to see oncoming traffic is a problem, and even that goes for a couple of years without maintenance sometimes. I'm sure Frank and John B's experience of their municipalities performing regular maintenance is true, but that doesn't happen everywhere.

First, please understand: When I talk about the absence of low,
head-hitting branches on roadways, I'm not talking about just my local
area. To date, I've bicycled in 47 U.S. states and about a dozen foreign
countries. I've done dozens of bike tours, here and abroad, from two or
three day trips to a 2.5 month coast-to-coast.

Even tree _leaves_ hanging lower than six feet over a road are more rare
than hen's teeth. Tree branches thick enough to cause injury to a
cyclist's head? (That was Stephen M. Scharf's original claim, years
ago.) Sorry, that could exist only for a short while immediately after a
storm or other unusual event.

After all, how could a thick low tree branch be allowed to remain? A
typical head height for a cyclist is about six feet. Most modern pickup
trucks are taller than six feet. Standard U.S. Postal Service trucks are
far taller. The now-ubiquitous Amazon Prime delivery trucks, UPS trucks,
FedEx trucks etc. are even taller. Hell, even Amish buggies are taller
than bicyclists.

There may be a very few remote and rarely traveled back roads where
leafy branches occasionally hang down, but those must be vanishingly
rare. Even the Amish would trim them quite soon.

Scharf's original claims were that cyclists must wear helmets and must
use headlights that shine upwards (into the eyes of other road users) to
prevent head injury from low hanging branches. He occasionally
resurrects those claims by snarky allusions. The claims remain
fundamentally stupid.


Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I can get whacked. This is the ride home: https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right. My commute also involves trails with branches, and for about two months last year after a storm, I had to ride through an alder to get home. Yes, that's unusual -- but it was helpful having a light with some spew to see where the branches were. Upward spew is also helpful in twisting climbs in the dark and for seeing pedestrians uphill in the dark. There are lots of times with my dyno/Luxos B when all I could see were the shoes of pedestrians -- including on that road in the link -- and the road next door that I take with equal frequency. https://tinyurl.com/yy5ornj2 If you're on flats under street lights, it's no big deal. Upward spew is nice in some places, but that doesn't mean I run a stadium light or need one for commuting -- certainly not on the MUPs and facilities downtown.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/13/2019 9:01 AM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

Oddly, I encounter branches fairly frequently just commuting, and If I'm not paying attention in the dark, I can get whacked. This is the ride home: https://tinyurl.com/y3wdaxdu That crazy fir can get unruly, and one just up the street too, if I'm too far right.

In Ohio there are no branches that cyclists encounter. All of branches
are knocked down by a huge fleet of special TBKD
(tree-branch-knocker-downer) trucks.

Clearly Portland is behind the times and needs to go out and purchase a
fleet of TBKD trucks.

You should attend a city council meeting and speak about this issue
during oral communications where you are allowed to talk about any topic
not on the agenda. Due to the First Amendment, no matter how crazy
someone is, they are allowed to speak.

I am certain that no one in Portland, or any city for that matter, or
anyone in the world other than one person, has ever considered the idea
of saving money on tree trimming by using trucks to knock down branches.
And they say that American innovation is dead.