#41
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote: (You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C. Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.) Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not the slightest problem. "Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc. Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from letting anyone drive wherever they want. From https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle "The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free." [Yes, as explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.] "Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on student car ownership (this is still in force)." From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community "The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic from off campus." That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike lanes": "Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less successful than others. One such example was the construction of "protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e. cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say, any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by the many hazards created for their users." -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:21:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote: [...] The other solution is to starve the beast (big government). High tax states make housing so expensive that too many people are forced to drop out into the streets. California is a prime example of that. Try getting a building permit out here, let alone pay for it. Socialism does not work. Hmmm. Referring to my map, how do you explain Texas and Florida -- or even Pennsylvania? Simple: You need to look at the total population and then divide the number of homeless by that. Texas has almost the number of inhabitants as California but only a fraction of our number of homeless. Same with Florida. Half the number of people as in California but less than a quarter of our homeless. Both states have cities with some of the highest homeless rates in the US -- notwithstanding regressive social policies. "More than half of the homeless population in the United States was in five states: CA (21% or 115,738 people), NY (16% or 88,250 people), FL (6% or 35,900 people), TX (4% or 23,678 people), and MA (4% or 21,135 people)" Again, the rate matters, not absolute numbers. "4% of the country" is not a "rate". Journalism at its finest, I guess. https://www.acsh.org/news/2016/10/13...s-people-10300 States with high and low homeless rates are all over the country. The highest rates of homelessness among states are in Hawaii (465 per 100,000), followed by New York (399) and California (367). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.34cbc2a1b7a3 That depends on which sources one believes. But it doesn't matter, in the end it confirms that the problem is more prevalent in left-leaning states. Which is not a surprise at all. You're not going to "tough love" a bunch of schizophrenics or drug addled or brain injured people into getting work. You just push them further into criminality or they do nothing and die off due to starvation or exposure. We have to take a look at how states with a much lower homeless percentage do it. They usually have a much less generous welfare system and that is part of the reason. The other is smaller government, lower taxes and thus more affordable housing. You can buy the same kind of house for half in Texas versus California. Not all homeless are druggies. The topper so far was a homeless man whom I gave some money. It was in Washington D.C., he was well-mannered, a bit dirty but wore an old suit, with tie! I mean those are options. Sure, but out-of-control welfare isn't. Neither is legalizing marijuana which will backfire, big time. https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ortland-oregon But, for some reason, those options tend to turn people off. Bunch of snowflakes! What we need is a longer snow season! That's the problem, there are shelters but often homeless do not use them. One thing shelters must do though is to also provide for their animals. Nobody would go into a shelter and leave their dog to die outside in a snow storm. I know you don't hold dogs in high regard but other people do, just as I do. How has welfare changed in the last 20 years? That's not a rhetorical question. Really -- go and look at the changes and analyze whether that accounts for increased homelessness in California. Track the changes against homeless population increases and decreases, then you can determine what social policies make a difference. Personally, I see a lot of crazy people, many drug affected, some on the streets by choice (the uber Bohemian set) and the rare person who lost a job and became economically displaced. That has already been studied at nauseam and the conclusions are generally always the same: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...114-story.html On purpose I have brought a link from a somewhat left-leaning paper. Even they admit to what the root causes for the increase (and decrease in other regions) in homelessness are. Washington has had legalized MJ since 2012. Crime rate has dropped. The number of traffic fatalities in Washington dropped after the first year of legal marijuana possession and use. I'm sure there are some consequences to legalization, but there have been no catastrophes in Washington or Oregon. That is not what I read. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2ff35e19e705 Did you read it all? It links to this: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2017.303848 The numbers are equivocal and certainly do not show an epidemic of car accidents after the legalization of MJ. There is more. I lived in NL where the stuff became legal decades ago. That was one sad story and in sharp contrast to Germany where I alsio live and later commuted into daily. In our small village we had lots of zombies running around. People with hardcore brain damage from drugs. The story was nearly always the same. First "harmless' drugs, then peer pressure to try some of the "real stuff". The stuff that the shady guy in the long coat at the bar over there was pushing. The young son of my landlady who otherwise had everything going for him (good education, very pretty girlfriend, etc.) died from an overdose. The police found his body in a canal. Legalized pot? No thanks. I am squarely against it and will ever be. If MJ were such a powerful gateway drug, most everyone I know would be a drooling heroin addict. Even my wife has tried it, and she's as Lutheran as they come. When it comes to my son, I'm more worried about alcohol. I haven't seen an appreciable difference in driver behavior in the years since MJ was legalized. It may happen, who knows -- and I really could care less if MJ were legal. It's not y deal, but I think other things have made my life more dangerous as a cyclist. I've had more problems with motorists because of cell phones and increased traffic (and the rage that goes along with that). If you want to stomp your feet about something, try cell phones and distracted driving -- and alcohol. I think plain old ETOH is the cause of more accidents than any other intoxicant by a long shot. -- Jay Beattie. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On 3/14/2018 4:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:21:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote: [...] -snippity snip snip- I've had more problems with motorists because of cell phones and increased traffic (and the rage that goes along with that). If you want to stomp your feet about something, try cell phones and distracted driving -- and alcohol. I think plain old ETOH is the cause of more accidents than any other intoxicant by a long shot. -- Jay Beattie. +1 -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On 2018-03-14 14:18, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote: (You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C. Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.) Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not the slightest problem. "Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc. Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from letting anyone drive wherever they want. From https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle "The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free." I have told you before that that is fake news. Simply repeating it does not make it any less fake. ... [Yes, as explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.] "Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on student car ownership (this is still in force)." From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community "The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic from off campus." They do not. That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike lanes": "Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less successful than others. One such example was the construction of "protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e. cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say, any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by the many hazards created for their users." We all know that there were a lot of messed up bike path and bike lane designs. Davis is no exception. Time has progressed, people have learned, even traffic engineers. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On 2018-03-14 14:49, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/14/2018 4:43 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 8:21:16 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-13 21:00, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 2:09:54 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-13 13:41, jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 12:58:11 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-13 12:23, jbeattie wrote: [...] -snippity snip snip- I've had more problems with motorists because of cell phones and increased traffic (and the rage that goes along with that). If you want to stomp your feet about something, try cell phones and distracted driving -- and alcohol. I think plain old ETOH is the cause of more accidents than any other intoxicant by a long shot. -- Jay Beattie. +1 +2 I agree that distracted driving is a higher danger. However, marijuana also has consequences. Two days after the stuff was legalized in California a cop was killed by a driver high on marijuana. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg
wrote: If you provide proper infrastructure they will come: That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting at the computer. I don't *do* that sort of thing. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On 3/14/2018 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-14 14:18, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote: (You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C. Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.) Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not the slightest problem. "Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc. Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from letting anyone drive wherever they want. Â*From https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle "The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free." I have told you before that that is fake news. Simply repeating it does not make it any less fake. Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â* ... [Yes, as explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.] "Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on student car ownership (this is still in force)." Â*From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community "The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic from off campus." They do not. Yeah, yeah, fake news. Who are you going to believe, professional journalists who have no strong agendas? Or one guy on the internet who wants to spend public money to turn America into Amsterdam? That also refers to their experience with now-so-trendy "protected bike lanes": "Because Davis pioneered the bike lane and other bicycle facilities in this country, it is not surprising that some "experiments" were less successful than others. One such example was the construction of "protected" bike lanes where motor vehicle and bicycle traffic was separated by a raised "buffer" or curbing. In some cases, the bike lane was established between the parking shoulder and the curb line (i.e. cars were parked on the left of the bike traffic lane). Needless to say, any "benefits" of such facilities were soon found to be outweighed by the many hazards created for their users." We all know that there were a lot of messed up bike path and bike lane designs. Davis is no exception. Time has progressed, people have learned, even traffic engineers. Some people have not learned, such as the countless "bike advocates" who are claiming we MUST have "protected cycle tracks" everywhere because nothing else is safe enough. Oh, and then there are people who get paid as consultants, marching into a city and offering to design that garbage. They may have learned, but they don't care. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair. The advocates and the traffic engineers showed what they had learned by the design of the Columbus "protected cycle track" completed a couple years ago. After the cycle track went in, the crash rate increased over 600%. Oddly enough, Streetsblog and other pro-segregation propaganda sources don't highlight that fact. So these things were found to be dangerous in the 1970s. They're still dangerous in the 2010s. Forty years, and still the know-nothings demand them. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg wrote: If you provide proper infrastructure they will come: That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting at the computer. I don't *do* that sort of thing. I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like to do from my house in Montreal West Island area to the old port. It's ~100k and really nice. About 80k of it is on bike paths. These paths follow the river and then the Lachine canal so there are basically no intersections. Along the canal where the path crosses city streets the path has under or overpasses. Here's the thing. I take the day off work on my birthday and do this ride with some friends because there's no one on the paths outside of the commute hours. At commute time it's too crowded. On weekends and holidays it's packed. So I guess my point is that if they make these things people use them. In Montreal, a lot of people use them. Whether or not they make sense for commuters is another story. And group riding on bike paths is a bad idea in any case if the paths aren't empty. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On 2018-03-14 18:19, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/14/2018 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-14 14:18, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 3/14/2018 1:07 PM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-14 09:08, Frank Krygowski wrote: (You remain the only person I've ever heard of who somehow believes U.C. Davis does not restrict motor vehicle use.) Because they don't. I was there a lot on business and due to the distance and the need to schlepp heavy stuff had to use an SUV. Not the slightest problem. "Restrict motor vehicle use" does not mean "No motor vehicle is ever allowed through." The campus I taught in allowed no motor vehicles in its central core - except, of course, when it was necessary to allow an emergency vehicle, a utility repair truck, a heavy delivery, etc. Allowing one SUV driver schlepping something is far different from letting anyone drive wherever they want. From https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...th-the-bicycle "The campus, cheek-by-jowl with the city, is car-free." I have told you before that that is fake news. Simply repeating it does not make it any less fake. ... [Yes, as explained above, it's not 100% car free. Everyone else gets the idea.] "Car-use was restricted on campus, with drop-down barriers and a ban on student car ownership (this is still in force)." From http://taps.ucdavis.edu/bicycle/education/community "The University followed suit by banning almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways that were formerly open to motor traffic from off campus." They do not. Yeah, yeah, fake news. Who are you going to believe, professional journalists who have no strong agendas? Or one guy on the internet who wants to spend public money to turn America into Amsterdam? I believe myself. I was there a lot so I know. Seems you can't even operate Google Maps. Almost everyone knows that their Google mapping vehicles do not enter restricted areas such as closed campuses or gated communities, meaning there wouldn't be a street view. Since UC Davis has no restriction for on-campus driving you can virtually drive through. See this huge parking lot? https://goo.gl/maps/Ntm7kfRtHfD2 Now why would that be there is traffic was restricted? Quote "banning almost all motor vehicle use from its central core roadways" is, therefore, obviously a false statement. [...] -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
New bike path
On 2018-03-15 05:47, Duane wrote:
On 14/03/2018 9:09 PM, Joy Beeson wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 08:36:45 -0700, Joerg wrote: If you provide proper infrastructure they will come: That's the second time this week that I've cackled aloud while sitting at the computer. Probably because you never lived in a country with a very extensive bike path system. I have. I don't *do* that sort of thing. I rarely use segregated paths but there is a ride I like to do from my house in Montreal West Island area to the old port. It's ~100k and really nice. About 80k of it is on bike paths. These paths follow the river and then the Lachine canal so there are basically no intersections. Along the canal where the path crosses city streets the path has under or overpasses. We have a similar bike path along the American River towards Sacramento. I use that almost weekly. Here's the thing. I take the day off work on my birthday and do this ride with some friends because there's no one on the paths outside of the commute hours. At commute time it's too crowded. On weekends and holidays it's packed. Same here. So I guess my point is that if they make these things people use them. Absolutely. I once had an experience I almost could not believe. Ran some errands down in the valley and it became late. When I wanted to get back onto the American River bike path it was almost like trying to merge into traffic on a fairly clogged highway. While living in the Netherlands I experienced a lot of bicycle traffic jams. It seemed the whole town sat on these green or blue behemoths. In Montreal, a lot of people use them. Whether or not they make sense for commuters is another story. And group riding on bike paths is a bad idea in any case if the paths aren't empty. It's not that bad if the group does not absolutely insist on remaining together. Just agree on the next pub, cafe or whatever where you want to meet for a stop. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rockslide onto bike path | Joerg[_2_] | Techniques | 0 | January 24th 17 11:31 PM |
Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles | Light of Aria[_2_] | UK | 59 | March 9th 09 06:17 PM |
Saying Hi on the Bike Path | Jorg Lueke | General | 54 | November 3rd 08 10:13 PM |
Southbank path connecting to Docklands path | Jules[_2_] | Australia | 1 | June 26th 08 01:03 PM |
PER: bike path re-opens | DeF | Australia | 4 | March 18th 06 01:39 AM |