Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On 11/7/2010 6:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
[...]
That video I linked,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TQ7aID1jHs
was quite a revelation to a lot of people who saw it, and that
includes people who are certified cycling instructors. (The guys
watching that demonstration are in training for that certification.)[...]

A velomobile with a reinforced nose cone could fold the door forward on
its hinges, while protecting the rider from being thrown out into traffic.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 11/7/2010 6:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 7, 3:56 pm, Peter wrote:
On 11/7/2010 10:49 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

I'll try to explain it more briefly.

Peter Cole: Electrical engineer and musician. (Or so I thought. I
guess you don't play guitar after all, sorry about that.)

John Allen: Electrical engineer and musician, PLUS nationally known
cyclingexpert, author of a cycling safety publication chosen for free
distribution by at least six states, member of the national committee
on the MUTCD, former board member of the most prominent national
cycling association, member or chair of various bicycling advocacy
organizations or committees, nationally certified cycling instructor,
etc., etc., etc.

The entire point was contrast. Which of those two gentlemen would
most people consider more qualified to speak on matters related to
bicycling facilities and their safety?

Again, what does engineer& musician have to do with anything?

It was an attempt to show the similarities between you two, then to
show the differences. If it doesn't make sense to you, don't worry
about it. Concentrate on the differences in your qualifications
regarding bike facilities.

I don't claim to be an expert.

Um... actually, you have. Your post on October 30 included the
statement "I start from being a bicycling expert who has used bicycles
for recreation and utility in an urban environment for decades." But
if you're retracting that now, it's fine with me.

I meant in contrast to John Allen, who claims expert status for the
purpose of advising traffic planners and testifying in court cases, a
professional expert, if you will. The context of my 2 statements was
very different, hence the apparent contradiction.


Like Allen, I read other people's
studies. I can read as well as he, I think. We have drawn different
opinions from what we have read. I have read many of his "opinion"
pieces, as well as his "analysis" pieces, and I came away unimpressed
with his reasoning. Simply put, I find him an ideologue, the very
antithesis of the scientific method, and intellectually dishonest.

Yes, I understand that you strongly disagree with him. But you must
understand that no impartial judge would compare your bike-related
resume to his, and assume you know as much as he does.

Yes, which is why I describe my opinions as such. I do not testify in
court. My criticism is of his reasoning, not his resume.


If you do condemn door zone bike lanes or collision hazards in cycling
facilities you could, easily enough, correct the (false?) impressions
arising from your previous writing. But I don't see you doing that.
Quite the opposite - you persist in trying to absolve bike lanes of
any injuries they may cause....

And you still defend that door zone bike lane.

OK, I guess that's your "proof", repeating the claim over& over. I
certainly can't argue with that.

You can quickly prove that you don't defend, or believe in, or promote
the idea of door zone bike lanes. It would take just one definitive
statement from you.

Since you've refused to make such a statement, I think your position
is quite clear.

"Door zone bike lane" is a convenient label for you perhaps, but it's a
pretty ambiguous one.

A pertinent case is that of bike lanes installed in Cambridge MA. on a
narrow 44' wide street, yielding a configuration similar to the disputed
designs in Chicago -- a "worst case" if you will.

A "before and after" study was performed to address a number of
questions, one specifically the riding positions of cyclists on the same
street before and after the lanes were added.

The study summary:
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikesaf...cfm?CS_NUM=214

"Countermeasures

Hampshire Street in Cambridge was the chosen location for implementing
the series of pavement markings. Hampshire Street is 13.4 m (44 ft)
wide, with parking on both sides of the street, an average daily traffic
(ADT) of about 15,000 and bicycle volumes of 120 to 150 in peak periods.

The pavement marking treatments were implemented sequentially. First,
data was gathered when the street was newly repaved and the only
markings were a center line and crosswalks. Then, edge lines were
established 3.7 m (12 ft) out from the curbs, creating 3 m (10 ft)
travel lanes, and data collected with this measure. Then, bicycle
symbols and arrows were put to the right of those lines, and data
collected. Finally, inner lines were established, creating 2.1 m (7 ft)
parking lanes, 1.5 m (5 ft) bicycle lanes and 3 m (10 ft) travel lanes.
Figures 2–5 show these treatments.

The work was done between April and October of 2003."

"Conclusions and Recommendations

This study shows that all three pavement marking options encouraged
cyclists to ride farther away from parked cars. The bicycle lane was the
most effective at keeping cars parked closer to the curb and encouraging
cyclists to ride in a consistent position at intersections. Given that
cyclists prefer marked lanes and have indicated that they make them feel
welcome on the street, and that motorists do notice them, bicycle lanes
can be seen as a preferred and positive way of providing for bicyclists
in the transportation network."

John Allen's critique:
http://www.truewheelers.org/comments...tudy/index.htm

From his critique:

"A bicyclist's wheel track must be approximately 11 feet from the curb
-- only 1 foot from the left edge of a standard bike lane -- for the
right end of the handlebars to clear nearly all opened car doors."

The YouTube video you linked
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TQ7aID1jHs) ended with the advice to
ride 12.5'-13'from the curb -- not real useful, since you can't see the
curb with parking.


John Allen's complete advice on the door zone (from his online copy of
Street Smarts):
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter2a.htm

"Where there are parked cars, the usable width of the street begins
about 3 feet out from them - or from a wall, hedge or other obstruction.
As you approach a blind intersection or driveway, you should be even
farther from the edge of the road - imagine a car hood poking out. Don't
ride in the danger zone! Only if you are riding very slowly - less than
5 miles per hour - can you safely ride within reach of the car doors;
even then you must be attentive to opening doors and your reduced
visibility to cross traffic. Keep even farther from angle-parked
vehicles, which can back out into your path.

Sure, many people - even some bicycling "experts" - will tell you,
"Always keep as far to the right as possible," and, "Look out for
opening car doors." But at speeds above 5 miles per hour, you can't stop
in time to avoid a car door. Then your only choices are to hit the door
or to swerve out into the street - maybe into the path of a passing car.
Avoid this problem by riding outside the reach of car doors."

BIKE LANES
"...Don't be lulled into riding in the danger zone close to parked cars;
you often need to ride along a bike lane's left edge."

From John Allen's report of the Dana Laird fatality:

"The bike lane at the location of the crash began 7 feet 5 inches from
the curb and was 5 feet wide. It was almost entirely within the "door
zone". The width from the curb to the left side of the bike lane does
exceed by 5 inches what the Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities requires"

That's 12'5" to the outside bike lane stripe.

Also from his website, he quotes himself:

http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/ca...e/pressrls.htm

"Dana Laird was killed because she rode her bike in the 'door zone,'"
said John S. Allen of Waltham, engineer and author of numerous cycling
books and articles, and co-founder of the Cambridge Bicycle Committee 16
years ago. "For decades, we've told bicyclists to ride their bikes
outside of the door zone. And if they follow that advice, they won't get
'doored.' [struck by a car door flung open]"

Some comments:

1) It's not known whether Ms. Laird was doored or not. As far as I know,
the police report wasn't released to the public. I don't know if there
was a thorough accident analysis, either.

2) Studies have shown differing results, but the likely truth is that
the presence of bike lanes doesn't change cyclist road position much if
all, for better or worse.

3) Both installations of bike lanes cited above would allow riding
outside the door zone if ridden on their outside foot or so.

4) John Allen's advice, in his own pamphlet, is vague about the exact
dimensions of the "door zone", but would seem to imply a 5' lane is
adequate, as long as 3' of clearance is achieved. He does not indicate
whether that's from the handlebar end or the tire track -- the very
thing he criticized the Cambridge study for.

5) Ironically, the instructional video uses the bike lane (imaginary) to
tell riders where to ride (1' outside of it). No mention of how you
should estimate the distance without such a reference line.

6) As much as he dislikes the Cambridge, MA bike lanes he reviewed, he
admitted that there seemed no other feasible solutions to facilitate
bicycle traffic on those roads or alternate routes.

Summary:

"Door zone bike lanes" is an ambiguous term. I can't say then whether
I'm in favor or not. The worst case, yet still AASHTO compliant, lanes
shown in the 2 examples above, I believe can be ridden safely, but only
on the leftmost edge. I trained my own children on those lanes, showing
them where to ride them. I recognize that naive cyclists might presume
the lane to be safe all across its width, but if they do, they'd also
ride in the door zone without a lane, and studies seem to confirm that.
In such circumstances, the only helpful effect of the lane marking might
be to reduce the tendency of motorists to open their doors without
looking. As far as I know, no study has looked at that.

I would prefer to call these "marginal" lanes. I'm not crazy about them,
but I don't think they are "baited traps", either. I don't agree with
Allen's charges of "dishonesty" simply because riding along the left
edge means your handlebar may impinge on the travel lane. So what? You
do also have to make adjustments for wide and sloppily parked vehicles,
never mind the ever-present double-parkers. In theory, his objections
seem to have some merit, but in the chaotic urban environment these
lanes are installed in, not so much.

One of the things these theoretical "analyses" seem to assume is the
very worst case -- that a vehicle with the widest door has it thrown
open instantaneously. That's not how people open doors in the city. One
of the reasons that dooring incidents is so common in places like Boston
and Cambridge is that there's a lot of lane splitting going on, similar
to that displayed by the Effective Cycling instructors in the Long Beach
gridlock. Usually commuters in stop & go don't open their doors, but it
happens. At least a bike lane gives you 5' to work with if you're going
to filter forward -- and nearly everyone does.

On Nov 8, 12:30*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
On 11/7/2010 6:56 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Yes, I understand that you strongly disagree with [John Allen]. *But you must
understand that no impartial judge would compare your bike-related
resume to his, and assume you know as much as he does.

Yes, which is why I describe my opinions as such. I do not testify in
court. My criticism is of his reasoning, not his resume.

Actually, I meant "judge" in the general sense, not the legally
specific one. In other words, I don't think anyone who was impartial
would compare your bike-related resume to his and say you know as much
as John Allen.

You can quickly prove that you don't defend, or believe in, or promote
the idea of door zone bike lanes. *It would take just one definitive
statement from you.

Since you've refused to make such a statement, I think your position
is quite clear.

"Door zone bike lane" is a convenient label for you perhaps, but it's a
pretty ambiguous one.

A pertinent case is that of bike lanes installed in Cambridge MA. on a
narrow ...

Peter, you can be so much more concise! All you need to say is "Yes,
I, Peter Cole, defend door zone bike lanes." That's obviously your
position. Don't waffle and try to hide it.

- Frank Krygowski

On 10/29/2010 8:57 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Oh gawd, so now you're comparing PDX to the entire Bay Area? O.K., I
give up. A world class city like SF does have better food than PDX --
but not beer. http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/01/1...es/13beer.html
But Cupertino? No. We are far more Bohemian chic than Cupertino.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/04/15...l/15hours.html

Santa Cruz is the beer capital of the Bay Area.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 07:01:23 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/29/2010 8:57 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Oh gawd, so now you're comparing PDX to the entire Bay Area? O.K., I
give up. A world class city like SF does have better food than PDX --
but not beer. http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/01/1...es/13beer.html
But Cupertino? No. We are far more Bohemian chic than Cupertino.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/04/15...l/15hours.html

Santa Cruz is the beer capital of the Bay Area.

As Budweiser discovered people who drink beer are people that sit on
the front stoop in their undershirts drinking out of the can.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 7:01:30 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/29/2010 8:57 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Oh gawd, so now you're comparing PDX to the entire Bay Area? O.K., I
give up. A world class city like SF does have better food than PDX --
but not beer. http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/01/1...es/13beer.html
But Cupertino? No. We are far more Bohemian chic than Cupertino.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/04/15...l/15hours.html

Santa Cruz is the beer capital of the Bay Area.

We in PDX have moved on. We are now post-beer. http://portlanddispensary.net/
Well, not quite post: https://www.beerconnoisseur.com/arti...st-beer-cities

There is a pot shop on every street corner that is not occupied by a brew pub or coffee shop. The price of pot is going to plummet at some point, and half the shops (or more) will close their doors. I wish competition drove down the price of good coffee. I think a latte at Starbucks (where I never, ever go except under compulsion) cost more than a gram of dope.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 8:45:37 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 7:01:30 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 10/29/2010 8:57 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Oh gawd, so now you're comparing PDX to the entire Bay Area? O.K., I
give up. A world class city like SF does have better food than PDX --
but not beer. http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/01/1...es/13beer.html
But Cupertino? No. We are far more Bohemian chic than Cupertino.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/04/15...l/15hours.html

Santa Cruz is the beer capital of the Bay Area.

We in PDX have moved on. We are now post-beer. http://portlanddispensary..net/
Well, not quite post: https://www.beerconnoisseur.com/arti...st-beer-cities

There is a pot shop on every street corner that is not occupied by a brew pub or coffee shop. The price of pot is going to plummet at some point, and half the shops (or more) will close their doors. I wish competition drove down the price of good coffee. I think a latte at Starbucks (where I never, ever go except under compulsion) cost more than a gram of dope.

-- Jay Beattie.

a pound of AC gold cost $300

an oz of black afghan hashish $100

a pound of wheat costs ?

has the pot revo lowered P's moral climate to tolerable levels ?

..............................................


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/sc...rica.html?_r=0

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/sc...rica.html?_r=0


http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-history/?_r=0