How to suck all the joy from cycling

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 23:48:30 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 05:51:40 +0700, John B. wrote:


In a slightly humorous effort

Not humourous and typical "blame the victim" mentality.

to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be placed
in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will be built
on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax made on
each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

No, the demand is from car owners who want to take the roadway for
themselves.


I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Especially if the real benefactorsa, the car owners are the ones who pay.
That mob are worse than any drug addict.

I'm not sure where you are but I would guess that, probably, you live
in a democracy, in which case you must know that the majority get to
dictate to the minority, as has been the case since Athens, in the
second half of the 7th century BC.

So, democratically, cars, or perhaps more properly internal-combustion
powered vehicles, must have first priority to the roads.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:24:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

Door Zones are simple... slow down and pay attention :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:16:01 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

Over here many of the "super highways" were originally built as toll
roads, which seems fair, let those who use the facility pay for it.

It might also be useful to point out that historically inter city
roads in the U.S. were frequently built as toll roads.
The first major toll road in the United States was the Philadelphia
and Lancaster Turnpike, built in the 1790s, within Pennsylvania,
connecting Philadelphia and Lancaster.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 19:26:53 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:24:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S..
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

Door Zones are simple... slow down and pay attention :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

El toro poo poo! You can be riding in a door zone and have a car door opened just as you are passing it because you were unable to see into the vehicle for any number of reasons. When that door hits your bike or you then you are deflected out into the traffic lane where you are very likely to then get that extreme run-down feeling. That's because a driver in the traffic lane is not looking for or expecting a bicyclist to be deflected into the motorist's line of travel. The trick for a bicyclist to avoid that is simple. DON'T RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE!

Cheers

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 19:26:53 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:24:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted
right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're
designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

Door Zones are simple... slow down and pay attention :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

El toro poo poo! You can be riding in a door zone and have a car door
opened just as you are passing it because you were unable to see into the
vehicle for any number of reasons. When that door hits your bike or you
then you are deflected out into the traffic lane where you are very
likely to then get that extreme run-down feeling. That's because a driver
in the traffic lane is not looking for or expecting a bicyclist to be
deflected into the motorist's line of travel. The trick for a bicyclist
to avoid that is simple. DON'T RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE!

Cheers


Door zones ARE simple. Don’t ride in them.

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 19:53:14 UTC-5, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 19:26:53 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:24:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads.. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted
right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're
designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

Door Zones are simple... slow down and pay attention :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

El toro poo poo! You can be riding in a door zone and have a car door
opened just as you are passing it because you were unable to see into the
vehicle for any number of reasons. When that door hits your bike or you
then you are deflected out into the traffic lane where you are very
likely to then get that extreme run-down feeling. That's because a driver
in the traffic lane is not looking for or expecting a bicyclist to be
deflected into the motorist's line of travel. The trick for a bicyclist
to avoid that is simple. DON'T RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE!

Cheers


Door zones ARE simple. Don’t ride in them.

So stated in the last line of my post - with emphasis.

Cheers

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 19:26:53 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:24:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted
right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're
designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

Door Zones are simple... slow down and pay attention :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

El toro poo poo! You can be riding in a door zone and have a car door
opened just as you are passing it because you were unable to see into the
vehicle for any number of reasons. When that door hits your bike or you
then you are deflected out into the traffic lane where you are very
likely to then get that extreme run-down feeling. That's because a driver
in the traffic lane is not looking for or expecting a bicyclist to be
deflected into the motorist's line of travel. The trick for a bicyclist
to avoid that is simple. DON'T RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE!

Cheers


Door zones ARE simple. Don’t ride in them.

It sounds pretty simple.... except that I have seen sections where the
traffic in the next lane is whizzing by at 100 kph and there are cars
parked on the other side.

What does one do then? Get off and push?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 5:42:05 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 19:26:53 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:24:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U..S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities)..

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted
right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're
designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

Door Zones are simple... slow down and pay attention :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

El toro poo poo! You can be riding in a door zone and have a car door
opened just as you are passing it because you were unable to see into the
vehicle for any number of reasons. When that door hits your bike or you
then you are deflected out into the traffic lane where you are very
likely to then get that extreme run-down feeling. That's because a driver
in the traffic lane is not looking for or expecting a bicyclist to be
deflected into the motorist's line of travel. The trick for a bicyclist
to avoid that is simple. DON'T RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE!

Cheers


Door zones ARE simple. Don’t ride in them.

It sounds pretty simple.... except that I have seen sections where the
traffic in the next lane is whizzing by at 100 kph and there are cars
parked on the other side.

What does one do then? Get off and push?

Ride vehicularly -- jump into the fast moving traffic and ride prominently in position one! The cars will yield to you.

I have the opposite problem: traffic is stopped, and I take the door zone just to get down the road. Yes, you have to be super observant, and with all the blacked-out windows these days, it IS hard seeing what's happening in those parked cars. There is always risk riding in the door zone -- like flying an F-14. Riding to the dooor zone [cue music].

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 18:06:21 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 5:42:05 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 00:53:06 -0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 9 February 2020 19:26:53 UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 15:24:40 -0800 (PST), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Sunday, 9 February 2020 18:16:21 UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 5:51 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 13:20:16 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 2/7/2020 11:49 PM, John B. wrote:

Another point of thought. Do many bicycle accidents occur on the
stretch of road between intersections? In other words, assuming that
the bike lane is successful will it prevent a large portion of bicycle
accidents or only a tiny fraction?

Those who are pushing like mad to segregate bicyclists tend to emphasize
the hit-from-behind crashes. But unbiased data shows (no surprise!) that
the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen where paths cross - that
is, at intersections with streets or driveways. And of course, absent a
bridge or underpass, these dreamy facilities lose their protection at
intersections and driveways. Worse, they tend to make cyclists feel
overconfident, and they tend to hide cyclists from view or make them
seem irrelevant to motorists.

The half-truth the segregators shout about is that a large portion of
_fatal_ car-bike crashes are hits from behind. But A) those are very
rare (only about 800 annual bike fatalities of all kinds in the U.S.
compared to way over 30,000 car fatalities and something like 5000
pedestrian fatalities, not to mention 700,000 cardiac fatalities).

And B) most of those hit-from-behind fatalities are on rural roads. They
shouldn't be used to justify urban segregated lanes, where there are
dozens of intersections that are complicated by the lanes.

Also, there have been indications that a huge portion of those rural
fatalities are lacking lights or even reflectors. But the data isn't
well collected, so we can't say for sure. But ISTM it would make better
sense to exert more effort to understand causes, rather than mis-apply a
very questionable "solution" - one which has plenty evidence of
expensive failure.

In a slightly humorous effort to determine how badly separate bicycle
paths are required by the cycling public an announcement might be
placed in local news agencies that "New and safer bicycle paths will
be built on Main Street. The cost of which will be recovered by a tax
made on each and every bicycle owner that uses the facility."

I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Except it's becoming so fashionable to install such facilities, that
they are popping up where no cyclists have ever asked for them. They
popping up even where cyclists have argued against them!

Perhaps the tax should instead be applied to the promoters and
designers. I'd start by taxing these:

The League of American Bicyclists, whose staff is now dedicated to
pro-segregation propaganda, instead of the previous emphasis on
education and road rights;

People for Bikes Inc., formerly Bikes Belong, an industry lobbying
organization behind much of the lobbying;

NACTO, an organization founded to produce a Magicke Grene Paynt design
manual ("If it's green, it _must_ be safe!") as an alternative to the
much better AASHTO manual for bike facility design. NACTO produced their
manual when they couldn't convince the engineers at AASHTO to change
their evidence-based design recommendations. (But word is they've
recently taken over AASHTO, so watch out);

Streetsblog, a synchronized network of bloggers constantly pushing the
same agenda, who delete any skeptical comments and block any commenters
who respond with data contrary to their desires;

Firms like Alta Design who are heavily linked to the above and make
their money by designing this crap.

Follow the money. And tax it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

And so many bike lanes never mid segregated ones are built/painted
right in the door zone. Who designs these anyway? Perhaps they're
designed by Wiley Coyote?

Cheers

Door Zones are simple... slow down and pay attention :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

El toro poo poo! You can be riding in a door zone and have a car door
opened just as you are passing it because you were unable to see into the
vehicle for any number of reasons. When that door hits your bike or you
then you are deflected out into the traffic lane where you are very
likely to then get that extreme run-down feeling. That's because a driver
in the traffic lane is not looking for or expecting a bicyclist to be
deflected into the motorist's line of travel. The trick for a bicyclist
to avoid that is simple. DON'T RIDE IN THE DOOR ZONE!

Cheers


Door zones ARE simple. Don’t ride in them.

It sounds pretty simple.... except that I have seen sections where the
traffic in the next lane is whizzing by at 100 kph and there are cars
parked on the other side.

What does one do then? Get off and push?

Ride vehicularly -- jump into the fast moving traffic and ride prominently in position one! The cars will yield to you.

Hopefully :-)
I am thundering along at (maybe) 20 kph while the cars are traveling
100 kph That is an overtaking velocity of something like 72 ft/sec.
that is about 14 bike lengths a second. I hope that nobody is trying
to text and drive at the same time :-)

I have the opposite problem: traffic is stopped, and I take the door zone just to get down the road. Yes, you have to be super observant, and with all the blacked-out windows these days, it IS hard seeing what's happening in those parked cars. There is always risk riding in the door zone -- like flying an F-14. Riding to the dooor zone [cue music].

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:23:46 +0700, John B. wrote:

On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 23:48:30 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 05:51:40 +0700, John B. wrote:


In a slightly humorous effort

Not humourous and typical "blame the victim" mentality.

to determine how badly separate bicycle paths are required by the
cycling public an announcement might be placed in local news agencies
that "New and safer bicycle paths will be built on Main Street. The
cost of which will be recovered by a tax made on each and every
bicycle owner that uses the facility."

No, the demand is from car owners who want to take the roadway for
themselves.


I suggest that under those conditions there will be very little "need"
for these facilities :-)

Especially if the real benefactorsa, the car owners are the ones who
pay.
That mob are worse than any drug addict.

I'm not sure where you are but I would guess that, probably, you live in
a democracy, in which case you must know that the majority get to
dictate to the minority, as has been the case since Athens, in the
second half of the 7th century BC.

Err, nope. a very select minority, of ll the population, actually voted
on what will happen.

So, democratically, cars, or perhaps more properly internal-combustion
powered vehicles, must have first priority to the roads.

Nope, one doesn't give jukies their craving else we'll all sink to the
lowest common denominator. The ony good thing about ICE is the greater
the number, the greter the ill health of the population. die off.