A March on Washington... on Bicycle?

On Nov 15, 10:49 pm, Harry Brogan wrote:

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota

I have to agree with Ed on this. Working towards safer and better
bike paths is the way to go. All to often we hear about the "I
didn't see them" excuse.

The person that hit me a couple of years ago tried to use that
excuse....at first....but then changed her story to the talking on the
cell phone excuse. Those need to be banned while you are driving the
car. There can't be a call that's so important that you can't pull
over to take it.
__o | Every time I see an adult on a bicycle....
_`\(,_ | I no longer despair for the human race.
(_)/ (_) | ---H.G. Wells---- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, Dr. Evil, wasn't the originator of that clever remark. He stole
it from me...

This is what I mean, WE NEED BIKE LANES, BIKE PATHS, AND TAME TRAFFIC
WHERE APPLICABLE.

We can even raise the money for bike facilities from the reckless
drivers.

On Nov 16, 5:05 am, Peter Clinch wrote:
Harry Brogan wrote:
I have to agree with Ed on this. Working towards safer and better
bike paths is the way to go.

The usual problem with bike paths is rights of way conflicts where
they inevitably meet roads. That creates junctions, and junctions
are where most accidents happen.
Go and spend some time in NL and you find that a fietspad, even as
well implemented as in the NL, does *not* isolate you from traffic.
However, in NL you find that the typical driver is a great deal
more aware of bicycles than pretty much anywhere else you may have
cycled, and I suspect that that is rather more to do with the low
accident rates. It is actually the case that plenty of roads in NL
don't have a fietspad alongside and, especially in older towns and
villages, you may well be sharing the roads with cars. That these
areas don't appear to be accident black spots further suggests that
it's the awareness of many Dutch drivers that makes the biggest
difference.

All to often we hear about the "I didn't see them" excuse.

And you hear that most at junctions, and with bike paths you've
still got junctions.

The person that hit me a couple of years ago tried to use that
excuse....at first....but then changed her story to the talking on the
cell phone excuse. Those need to be banned while you are driving the
car. There can't be a call that's so important that you can't pull
over to take it.

It's illegal to use a mobile 'phone (hands-free excepted, not
because it's safe but it's vitually impossible to detect and
enforce sensibly) in the UK, and I suspect quite a few other places
too. But you still see numpties on their 'phones, and they'll
still be using them as they go past the junctions of bike tracks
and roads that you'll have to use to negotiate a bike path network.

Not that bike tracks don't have their place: there are several I
use simply because they're plain /nicer/ to use, and that's reason
enough, but that's not the same as making me safer.

As for the thesis "bicycling is not safe", well, of course it
isn't. People get killed falling over stepping in and out of the
bath, so if taking a bath isn't safe why do you expect cycling to
be? Check out the fatlities in cars, no shortage, so in absolute
terms that's certainly not safe either.
The trick is whether it is safe /enough/. Consult the actual
accident statistics for your own area to find out who suffers how
much in different places. At least in the UK cycling is actually
remarkably safe when you look at the actual figures, even though
the public perception is it's terribly dangerous. Moral of that
one is you can't trust superficial perceptions.
From a UK perspective (and it's not necessarily the same
eveywhere, granted)http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582gives a more
balanced view than most people's perceptions IMHO.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Well, I knew the UK was a smarter place, not only because they have
tamed traffic to a higher degree, but also because they don't have a
Republican party.

Anyway, this assessment about Holland seems to support my idea TRAFFIC
TAMING, BIKE ROUTES AND BIKE LANES. Thank you!
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Nov 16, 7:34*pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:08 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

You can't dumb down a neighbourhood -- too much
soap opera drama goin' on.

I like that interpretation.

With that in mind I'm a huge fan of these stylish big double chevron
sharrows that are being installed in several cities. Encourage these
neighbors to really get to know each other.

This neighborhood-community interpretation, relies on bikes, not on
cars and, much less, on SUVs with tinted windows. These represent the
American sprawl (sprinkled with McDonalds and lack of sidewalks).

On Nov 16, 11:34*pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:
In article ,
* * * * writes:

On Nov 16, 1:08 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

You can't dumb down a neighbourhood -- too much
soap opera drama goin' on.

I like that interpretation.

With that in mind I'm a huge fan of these stylish big double chevron
sharrows that are being installed in several cities. Encourage these
neighbors to really get to know each other.

Yeah, that sort of works. *Except here in Vancouver
there are very many traffic-engineering attempts to
accomodate non-motorized traffic, and sometimes they
conflict with each other. For example, we recently had
sharrows installed along our Main Street. *But at the
same time, we have these pedestrian's sidewalk bulges
at intersections. *So from a rider's POV you're just
riding along in a straight line in the safe zone, and
suddenly the curb juts out at you, and you're squeezed
between the motorized traffic and the curb.

That's why I cry out for intelligent & thought-out
implementation instead of traffic engineers just
slap-dashing stuff down on the streets, dusting their
hands off, and saying: "There, that oughta keep 'em
happy."

Anyway, Commander CarmenMiranda'sHat says traffic is a
jungle. *I say it's a neighbourhood. *I shall leave it
to the readership to decide upon their own approaches.

cheers,

I don't know if Canada is a jungle, but here it is. And probably true
for most of the South.

Well, Los Angeles is kind of civilized, but then again it is a Blue
state, which happens to have a Republican governor who stands for the
Red issues.

On Nov 16, 11:51 pm, (Tom Keats) wrote:

I have to agree with Ed on this. Working towards safer and better
bike paths is the way to go. All to often we hear about the "I
didn't see them" excuse.

Bike paths generally don't get you to the butcher shop,
bakery, cheese shop, supermarket, hardware store,
department store, library, community centre or job site.

At best they lead to pretty places where you can pick
berries when in season, and snap some soon-to-be-forgotten
pix with a disposable camera.

Bike paths divert customers away from commerce.

cheers,
Tom

Why you generalize? Bike paths take ME to a shopping area. The one and
only. Then I've got some back roads that take me to the supermarket.
The rest is nobody's land.

On Nov 17, 10:39 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Nov 17, 3:48 am, Peter Clinch wrote:





Tom Keats wrote:
Bike paths generally don't get you to the butcher shop,
bakery, cheese shop, supermarket, hardware store,
department store, library, community centre or job site.

At best they lead to pretty places where you can pick
berries when in season, and snap some soon-to-be-forgotten
pix with a disposable camera.

Bike paths divert customers away from commerce.

That's implementation dependent. There's no particular problem doing
one's shopping via bike path in NL, for example.

So this highlights not a basic problem with bike paths, but with bike
paths that aren't implemented by people who understand their use. No
shortage of those around here either, but it isn't a fundamental failing
that is 100% bound to afflict all examples.

In America, I'd guess that basic problem afflicts well over 90% of
bike paths. Almost all are linear parks with negligible
transportation benefit, and nothing will change that.

Within thirty miles of my house, I know of only one multi-use (or
"bike") path that is mostly used as a transportation link. It's only
a quarter mile long, and gets cyclists and peds through a dead end for
cars, and into the village center. Contrast that with the much-
trumpeted rail-trail, just completed, that runs through over 100 miles
of corn fields, paralleling beautiful, peaceful country roads!

Except for rare exceptions, you can't fit many utilitarian bike paths
into our urban or suburban landscape. The land is already taken up.
And the odds will always be minuscule that any given cyclist will find
a bike path from his home to any particular destination.

Yes, I know a dozen bike path fans will mentally object, saying "Well,
I ride my bike path to XYZ!" But unless you're a statistical miracle,
almost all the practical places to which you want to ride are off the
bike path, and so is your home. And it's always going to be that way.

- Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -

We do have some bike paths that go largely under-utilized because of
the intersections. They are a problem. Well they also run under the
train, which makes it more simply to just ride the train.

In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Keats wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Sherman wrote:
Dane Buson wrote:

I will admit that sometimes truly I long for the day where you can
deliver a punch to the face over TCP/IP. It would purely make for a
much politer interblag.

Do you want to punch Commandante Monkey Poop or Tom Keats?

Well, certainly not Tom.

I am relieved to have my expectation confirmed.

/You're/ relieved!?

I just dodged a punch in the face!

( Hi, Dane :-) :-) )

Hello again, I took a wee hiatus when I couldn't be arsed to reconfigure
my leafnode server after a HD change and OS upgrade. I've been more
than slightly busy with life, but decided to come back and poke around
the newsgroups some.

--
Dane Buson -
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique.
-- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

On Nov 17, 5:46 pm, Dane Buson wrote:


I just dodged a punch in the face!

( Hi, Dane :-) :-) )

Hello again, I took a wee hiatus when I couldn't be arsed to reconfigure
my leafnode server after a HD change and OS upgrade. I've been more
than slightly busy with life, but decided to come back and poke around
the newsgroups some.

--
Dane Buson -
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique.
-- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good, welcome back, so long as you don't come on the side of
Evil...

(Evil is defined here as those who are happy with the status quo, and
don't want any changes)

Anyway this is a very important question to fight evil and lies out
there...

Would you favor a bike bailout?

Yeah you know, there is a good-old-fashioned American company
(remember the slogan "Made with Pride in the USA"?) that made
recumbents, and still makes bike trailers. Its name is Burley, which
not only doesn't use cheap labor, but also has a cooperative of free
workers without a CEO making big bucks. Well, you get the point which
is neither Chinese labor nor unionized American workers making SUVs...

http://www.bicycleman.com/recumbents/burley/burley.htm

Their recumbents were discontinued in 2006, and are supposed to come
back. But hey, it ain't easy having competition from cheap labor.
"Sun" of Taiwan does produce nice recumbents, but Taiwanese workers
enjoy benefits unheard of in America, like universal healthcare, so I
guess they are fair competion.

Anyway, President Obama, and honorable members of Congress who hold
the interests of lobbyists in such a high esteem, as well as the
American people who helped Obama become #1, as well as the patriots
who voted for McCain out of hate for Obama, why don't you bail out
Burley of America, or whatever its name is?

poll...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=487295

Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Keats wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:
Dane Buson wrote:
In rec.bicycles.misc Tom Sherman wrote:
Dane Buson wrote:

I will admit that sometimes truly I long for the day where you can
deliver a punch to the face over TCP/IP. It would purely make for a
much politer interblag.

Do you want to punch Commandante Monkey Poop or Tom Keats?
Well, certainly not Tom.

I am relieved to have my expectation confirmed.
/You're/ relieved!?

I just dodged a punch in the face!

( Hi, Dane :-) :-) )

Hello again, I took a wee hiatus when I couldn't be arsed to reconfigure
my leafnode server after a HD change and OS upgrade. I've been more
than slightly busy with life, but decided to come back and poke around
the newsgroups some.

PLEASE! Usenet is more important than life!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

[Removed rec.bicycles.rides where this was *never* on-topic.]

YOU'RE the one who can't handle riders taking to the road as
traffic, during Critical Mass. That makes you the fascist.
That's because they do in a disorganized way, which in the
end helps the public catalog them as troublemakers, a label
applied to all cyclists.

=v= Motorists take to the streets in a disorganized way, as
traffic, and far more of them break many more laws and doing
much more damage. Yet somehow the focus in this case goes
onto individual drivers, as if they're individual human beings
or something.

=v= We should accept nothing less than the same consideration.
Those of us who don't live our lives ruled by fear sure don't.
_Jym_