Looking for info on slow-speed bicycle handling

Damn, I think Google Groups ate my first post--trying again.

If a bicycle goes slowly, it is wobbly and difficult to handle,
especially for inexperienced or casual cyclists. The question is, how
slow can the inexperienced/casual cyclist go, on a typical
inexperienced/casual cyclist's bicycle, while still having the ability
to make some pretty precise manouvres.

I'm asking because I'm going to the Toronto Bicycle Committe next week
to protest the City's installation of staggered bollards, allegedly
for bicyclist's protection. Googling for "bollard Martin Goodman
Trail" will bring up plenty of outrage; outrage and pictures are found
here, for example: http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1536

There will be representatives from the CIty Parks department that
installed the bollards. I suspect that tese representatives will say
"we want to slow down bicycles". I can actually make it through this
slalom at 30 km/h (but don't like to as the injury potential is great
if something was to go wrong even a little bit). But my
counterargument to the "slow down" spiel could be "a typical Sunday
afternoon cyclist won't be able to navigate these bollards at their
regular speed, and they don't have the slow-speed control required to
navigate them at your proposed 'safe' speed". Would be useful to have
some info to back me up.

Thanks
Ed

It is an accepted principle in roadway design and traffic engineering that
the best way to improve safety is to reduce "friction." You don't punish
the poorest drivers/riders by making the trip more hazardous. A fellow I
was riding with looked back at the wrong moment, ran into one of these
bollards and wound up with a broken arm, which required surgery. (It was
paid for by the taxpayers, 'cause he was broke.) Sure, he made a
mistake--the purpose of good engineering is to reduce the consequences of
such mistakes. Frequently the victim of someone's mistake is someone
else--no way to justify that.

Don't worry about minimum maneuvering speed. There will always be someone
who can't handle it.

On Dec 7, 12:49 am, wrote:
Damn, I think Google Groups ate my first post--trying again.

If a bicycle goes slowly, it is wobbly and difficult to handle,
especially for inexperienced or casual cyclists. The question is, how
slow can the inexperienced/casual cyclist go, on a typical
inexperienced/casual cyclist's bicycle, while still having the ability
to make some pretty precise manouvres.

I'm asking because I'm going to the Toronto Bicycle Committe next week
to protest the City's installation of staggered bollards, allegedly
for bicyclist's protection. Googling for "bollard Martin Goodman
Trail" will bring up plenty of outrage; outrage and pictures are found
here, for example:http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1536

There will be representatives from the CIty Parks department that
installed the bollards. I suspect that tese representatives will say
"we want to slow down bicycles". I can actually make it through this
slalom at 30 km/h (but don't like to as the injury potential is great
if something was to go wrong even a little bit). But my
counterargument to the "slow down" spiel could be "a typical Sunday
afternoon cyclist won't be able to navigate these bollards at their
regular speed, and they don't have the slow-speed control required to
navigate them at your proposed 'safe' speed". Would be useful to have
some info to back me up.

Thanks
Ed

Around here they use a chicane type arrangement with overlapping
fences. They are impossible to negotiate at anyting but a crawl, and
then only by expert riders. Normal people dismount. As much as I hate
these, I'd prefer them to some bollards hiding there waiting to cause
a nasty spill.

What they should have is a rail-road type barrier crossing for the
cars. When a driver wants to pass, they get out and press a button and
wait some arbitrary length of time for it to open. Like pedestrians
waiting for a walk signal.

Joseph

On Dec 7, 12:49 am, wrote:
Damn, I think Google Groups ate my first post--trying again.

If a bicycle goes slowly, it is wobbly and difficult to handle,
especially for inexperienced or casual cyclists. The question is, how
slow can the inexperienced/casual cyclist go, on a typical
inexperienced/casual cyclist's bicycle, while still having the ability
to make some pretty precise manouvres.

I'm asking because I'm going to the Toronto Bicycle Committe next week
to protest the City's installation of staggered bollards, allegedly
for bicyclist's protection. Googling for "bollard Martin Goodman
Trail" will bring up plenty of outrage; outrage and pictures are found
here, for example:http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1536

There will be representatives from the CIty Parks department that
installed the bollards. I suspect that tese representatives will say
"we want to slow down bicycles". I can actually make it through this
slalom at 30 km/h (but don't like to as the injury potential is great
if something was to go wrong even a little bit). But my
counterargument to the "slow down" spiel could be "a typical Sunday
afternoon cyclist won't be able to navigate these bollards at their
regular speed, and they don't have the slow-speed control required to
navigate them at your proposed 'safe' speed". Would be useful to have
some info to back me up.

Thanks
Ed

As far as your question about speeds go, these guys might be able to
help you:

http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.js...68d9b7&lang=en

They have lots of info on bike stability and they also seem to do
research into teaching bike riding, etc. I'm sure they know.

Joseph

On Dec 7, 5:14 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:49 am, wrote:



Damn, I think Google Groups ate my first post--trying again.

If a bicycle goes slowly, it is wobbly and difficult to handle,
especially for inexperienced or casual cyclists. The question is, how
slow can the inexperienced/casual cyclist go, on a typical
inexperienced/casual cyclist's bicycle, while still having the ability
to make some pretty precise manouvres.

I'm asking because I'm going to the Toronto Bicycle Committe next week
to protest the City's installation of staggered bollards, allegedly
for bicyclist's protection. Googling for "bollard Martin Goodman
Trail" will bring up plenty of outrage; outrage and pictures are found
here, for example:http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1536

There will be representatives from the CIty Parks department that
installed the bollards. I suspect that tese representatives will say
"we want to slow down bicycles". I can actually make it through this
slalom at 30 km/h (but don't like to as the injury potential is great
if something was to go wrong even a little bit). But my
counterargument to the "slow down" spiel could be "a typical Sunday
afternoon cyclist won't be able to navigate these bollards at their
regular speed, and they don't have the slow-speed control required to
navigate them at your proposed 'safe' speed". Would be useful to have
some info to back me up.

Thanks
Ed

As far as your question about speeds go, these guys might be able to
help you:

http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.js...4136-ad98-97ae...

They have lots of info on bike stability and they also seem to do
research into teaching bike riding, etc. I'm sure they know.

Joseph


Thanks for that link, Joseph; good stuff!

On Dec 7, 6:14 am, "
wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:49 am, wrote:





Damn, I think Google Groups ate my first post--trying again.

If a bicycle goes slowly, it is wobbly and difficult to handle,
especially for inexperienced or casual cyclists. The question is, how
slow can the inexperienced/casual cyclist go, on a typical
inexperienced/casual cyclist's bicycle, while still having the ability
to make some pretty precise manouvres.

I'm asking because I'm going to the Toronto Bicycle Committe next week
to protest the City's installation of staggered bollards, allegedly
for bicyclist's protection. Googling for "bollard Martin Goodman
Trail" will bring up plenty of outrage; outrage and pictures are found
here, for example:http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1536

There will be representatives from the CIty Parks department that
installed the bollards. I suspect that tese representatives will say
"we want to slow down bicycles". I can actually make it through this
slalom at 30 km/h (but don't like to as the injury potential is great
if something was to go wrong even a little bit). But my
counterargument to the "slow down" spiel could be "a typical Sunday
afternoon cyclist won't be able to navigate these bollards at their
regular speed, and they don't have the slow-speed control required to
navigate them at your proposed 'safe' speed". Would be useful to have
some info to back me up.

Thanks
Ed

As far as your question about speeds go, these guys might be able to
help you:

http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.js...4136-ad98-97ae...

They have lots of info on bike stability and they also seem to do
research into teaching bike riding, etc. I'm sure they know.

Thanks. I dug around for a while and
http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.js...lePaperv45.pdf
looks like the closest, but all it appears to state (if I read it
correctly on pg 16) is that an uncontrolled (no rider?) bicycle will
not be self-stable below 4.3 m/s (or 15 km/h).

Well, I will phrase my argument in a way that they'd have a very
difficult time to disagree with. As the bollards were put in without
any research or consultation, I bet they don't have any good
counterfacts to hand.

.....Ed

On Dec 7, 10:16 pm, wrote:
On Dec 7, 6:14 am, "



wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:49 am, wrote:

Damn, I think Google Groups ate my first post--trying again.

If a bicycle goes slowly, it is wobbly and difficult to handle,
especially for inexperienced or casual cyclists. The question is, how
slow can the inexperienced/casual cyclist go, on a typical
inexperienced/casual cyclist's bicycle, while still having the ability
to make some pretty precise manouvres.

I'm asking because I'm going to the Toronto Bicycle Committe next week
to protest the City's installation of staggered bollards, allegedly
for bicyclist's protection. Googling for "bollard Martin Goodman
Trail" will bring up plenty of outrage; outrage and pictures are found
here, for example:http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1536

There will be representatives from the CIty Parks department that
installed the bollards. I suspect that tese representatives will say
"we want to slow down bicycles". I can actually make it through this
slalom at 30 km/h (but don't like to as the injury potential is great
if something was to go wrong even a little bit). But my
counterargument to the "slow down" spiel could be "a typical Sunday
afternoon cyclist won't be able to navigate these bollards at their
regular speed, and they don't have the slow-speed control required to
navigate them at your proposed 'safe' speed". Would be useful to have
some info to back me up.

Thanks
Ed

As far as your question about speeds go, these guys might be able to
help you:

http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.js...4136-ad98-97ae...

They have lots of info on bike stability and they also seem to do
research into teaching bike riding, etc. I'm sure they know.

Thanks. I dug around for a while andhttp://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=95c52a8b-37c2-4136-ad98-97ae...
looks like the closest, but all it appears to state (if I read it
correctly on pg 16) is that an uncontrolled (no rider?) bicycle will
not be self-stable below 4.3 m/s (or 15 km/h).

Well, I will phrase my argument in a way that they'd have a very
difficult time to disagree with. As the bollards were put in without
any research or consultation, I bet they don't have any good
counterfacts to hand.

....Ed

Sounds good to me. Make sure to get the full (impessive sounding) name
of the program and university and maybe some stats about bicycle usage
in Netherlands to give it some more credibility.

Maybe make a video of you riding through at 15km/h? Helmet-cam? to
show how fast that is with such a narrow opening. Maybe also figure
out what sort of force would be applied to one's leg were one to crash
inot such a bollard at 15km/h.

Joseph

In article
,
wrote:

Damn, I think Google Groups ate my first post--trying again.

If a bicycle goes slowly, it is wobbly and difficult to handle,
especially for inexperienced or casual cyclists. The question is, how
slow can the inexperienced/casual cyclist go, on a typical
inexperienced/casual cyclist's bicycle, while still having the ability
to make some pretty precise manouvres.

0 KM/H. Ever a see a fella on a fixed gear pulling a trackstand? Or an
inexperienced cyclist, astride or not the bicycle, walking or pushing
it, scooter style, through a technical passage?

This is no facetious response; I agree with the sentiments of Leo: a
more effective strategy would be to argue against the design of the
bollards , i.e., forcing the cyclist to run an obstacle course rather
than the extent to which they compel a decrease in speed. After all, if
the intent is to encourage greater attentiveness at the intersection of
a MUP and a motor-vehicle way adding another distraction at that
juncture isn't the way to go about it.



I'm asking because I'm going to the Toronto Bicycle Committe next week
to protest the City's installation of staggered bollards, allegedly
for bicyclist's protection. Googling for "bollard Martin Goodman
Trail" will bring up plenty of outrage; outrage and pictures are found
here, for example: http://www.ibiketo.ca/node/1536

In the exchange at that link, Peter Weiss, Parks Supervisor Toronto and
East York, justifies the installation of the bollards thusly:

"...This is not the only location where bollards are installed along
the Martin Goodman trail at intersections. The Bollards are installed
to serve two purposes. The first is to prevent vehicles from accessing
the trail at these points. The second purpose is alert cyclists of the
intersection between the trail and driveway..."

This is specious reasoning: a reason for the bollards is to prevent
motorists from mistaking a MUP for a thoroughfare! As far as alerting
cyclists to an impending menace, any number of measures would be
preferable to a series of staggered metal posts: a sign, flashing
light, speed humps...



There will be representatives from the CIty Parks department that
installed the bollards. I suspect that tese representatives will say
"we want to slow down bicycles". I can actually make it through this
slalom at 30 km/h (but don't like to as the injury potential is great
if something was to go wrong even a little bit). But my
counterargument to the "slow down" spiel could be "a typical Sunday
afternoon cyclist won't be able to navigate these bollards at their
regular speed, and they don't have the slow-speed control required to
navigate them at your proposed 'safe' speed". Would be useful to have
some info to back me up.

Thanks
Ed

I think that Parks & Rec focussing on slowing a cyclist's speed --
aside from the ill-advised method employed to that end -- is misguided.
Speed per se isn't the problem, ambiguity on how to proceed at the
intersection of the driveway and MUP is: IIRC there's no explicit
indication as to which party has the right of way. (Unlike the Martin
Goodman Trail east of the Don Valley, where motorists turning north
onto side streets from Lake Shore Blvd., across the MUP, face signs
declaring cyclists have the right of way.)

I'd like the bollards removed and replaced with signs clearing up any
uncertainty, i.e., Motorists: Stop or Yield to Cyclists/Pedestrians, or
4 Way Stops.

Perhaps more applicable questions for the Parks reps would be: What's
so exceptional about this intersection that it should be viewed as
anything other than what it is: two intersecting traffic streams? And
how does inserting an obstacle course at their juncture make for a
smoother and safer flow?

Luke

Luke wrote:


I'd like the bollards removed and replaced with signs clearing up any
uncertainty, i.e., Motorists: Stop or Yield to Cyclists/Pedestrians, or
4 Way Stops.

There is a trail near here that I rarely use because it doesn't go
anywhere that I usually want to go.

They put 2-way stop signs facing the trail at the intersections where
the street has two lanes. The cars do not have to yield and don't.

At an intersection where the street has 4 lanes, there is a traffic
light up for the trail crossing. It takes about two minutes for the
light to change after pressing the button, so nobody uses it.

At another intersection, over a 6 lane street, there is a $6 million
bridge. Pedestrians that aren't on the trail, but on the street and want
to cross can't use it because the entrance and exit is about 200 yards
from the street and fenced off. They are supposed to walk 100 yards to a
crossing, press a button then wait 3-4 minutes and walk back, so they
don't do that.

On Dec 7, 8:10 pm, Luke wrote:

0 KM/H. Ever a see a fella on a fixed gear pulling a trackstand? Or an
inexperienced cyclist, astride or not the bicycle, walking or pushing
it, scooter style, through a technical passage?
This is no facetious response; I agree with the sentiments of Leo: a
more effective strategy would be to argue against the design of the
bollards

I will be arguing against the bollards on many grounds. However,
there's a good chance that the City representatives will talk about
slowing down bicycles, so I want to be ready for that.

Even the Parks representatives wouldn't go so far as advocate that
inexperienced (or all) cyclists dismount and walk their bicycles
across the Boulevard Club driveway? Oh, dear, maybe they would--
there's a "Bicycles dismout and walk" sign west of the Humber where
the trail crosses a road leading to parking lots. Ugh!

In the exchange at that link, Peter Weiss, Parks Supervisor Toronto and
East York, justifies the installation of the bollards thusly:

"...This is not the only location where bollards are installed along
the Martin Goodman trail at intersections. The Bollards are installed
to serve two purposes. The first is to prevent vehicles from accessing
the trail at these points. The second purpose is alert cyclists of the
intersection between the trail and driveway..."

This is specious reasoning: a reason for the bollards is to prevent
motorists from mistaking a MUP for a thoroughfare! As far as alerting
cyclists to an impending menace, any number of measures would be
preferable to a series of staggered metal posts: a sign, flashing
light, speed humps...

Unfortunately I have five minutes so there's no time to argue with the
Parks representative. I have plenty of different arguments, but among
them I need to be able to sideswipe Park's arguments real good.

I think that Parks & Rec focussing on slowing a cyclist's speed --
aside from the ill-advised method employed to that end -- is misguided.

There's also the claim that "bicycles are exceeding the speed limit of
20 km/h". Well, duh--but I can find no mention of a speed limit on
off-road trails anywhere in the City's bylaws or regulations. I
suspect they'd LIKE us to think there's a speed limit. If there isn't
a bylaw, then there is no limit and certainly nothing to enforce other
than a couple of "obstruct/inconvenience" and "without due care and
attention and reasonable consideration for others".

Perhaps more applicable questions for the Parks reps would be: What's
so exceptional about this intersection that it should be viewed as
anything other than what it is: two intersecting traffic streams? And
how does inserting an obstacle course at their juncture make for a
smoother and safer flow?

If I could answer for Parks, I'd venture "The Boulevard Club has
affluent and influential members. They are ****ed off at all these
Trail users blocking their entry and exit from the Club." But I expect
the Parks rep will take a different tack. Again, I haven't time in my
five minutes to quiz a bureaucrat; they can keep meandering for hours,
and all it would take is five minutes to shut me down.

Oh well, now we're off-topic for rec.bicycles.tech!

.....Ed