A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How to suck all the joy from cycling



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old February 10th 20, 04:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Rolf Mantel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 184
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

Am 10.02.2020 um 17:00 schrieb Andre Jute:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 2:42:39 PM UTC, sms wrote:


That seems fantastically unlikely to me, given that the cycle paths, in
the main, run alongside dual carriageways, often those with 70 mph speed
limits.


There are few main dual carraigeways in MK: A5, A515, Standing Way, V6
Grafton Street, V8 Marlbrgough Street.

There are many more bike paths parallel to roads, like H4 Dansteed Way,
V7 Saxon sTreet in North MK, and there are plenty of bike paths
crisscorssing through the residential areas.

To pretend that people are just as likely to cycle on these
kinds of roads as they would be on the cycle paths that run alongside
them – cycle paths that, let’s remember, are claimed to be as good as
anything in the Netherlands – stretches credibility to breaking point."

From
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/they-built-it-and-they-didnt-come-the-lesson-of-milton-keynes/.


Bicycles aren't allowed on the 70mph dual carriageways of precisely the reason you imply, that it would be a massacre of cyclists.


Last time I was there, I did not see any signs forbidding me from
cycling there. I have personally cycled on the 70 mph A46 between
Coventry and Warwick (a bit north of MK) a few dozend times in the 1990's.
Ads
  #42  
Old February 10th 20, 05:20 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On 2/10/2020 9:42 AM, sms wrote:
On 2/10/2020 5:04 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 08.02.2020 um 05:49 schrieb John B.:
If one builds bicycle lanes in a similar manner as foot paths are
being built in Bangkok with no surface road crossings but bridges over
the roadway (seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz0ghLc6lrY* ) than
I'm sure that they would work fine.... except of course for the
complaints about the "hills", but having the beautiful bike path
terminate on a busy road crossing seems to me to be simply inviting
calamity.


They tried doing that in Stevenage and in Milton Keynes.* Both cities
are now known to have fewer bicylcles and more bike accidents than
normal cities.


Ah, the old "Milton Keynes Argument."

"One, initial, way of demonstrating the flawed reasoning behind the
Milton Keynes Argument would be to consider whether there would be more,
or less cycling in Milton Keynes if there weren’t any cycle paths at
all. Are those who claim that cycle paths do not* make cycling more
likely really suggesting that if we were to strip out the cycle paths in
Milton Keynes the amount of cycling there would stay the same, or even
increase?


You're stating a terribly weak excuse for the dismal failure of what
should be your dream town.

Let's remember the objective in MK and similar towns. Their
super-extensive bike networks were not intended to generate a tiny bit
more bike riding than Britain's national average. The luxurious,
up-to-highest-standard completely separate bikeways were intended to
generate Amsterdam level bike mode share. They failed. The chief
designer admitted they failed.

And they failed not because they were badly designed. They're still
better in many ways than the stuff being called for in America today.
They failed because the towns did not dissuade car travel.

Like it or not, almost all citizens of almost any country will use a car
instead of a bike _unless_ there are big detriments to car use.
Netherlands makes it inconvenient and expensive to use cars by high
license fees, high taxes, strict licensing requirements, high fuel cost,
high parking cost, street restrictions in many cities, etc. Milton
Keynes did none of that, but instead designed the roads to be modern and
convenient. So people use the roads in their cars.

That seems fantastically unlikely to me, given that the cycle paths, in
the main, run alongside dual carriageways, often those with 70 mph speed
limits. To pretend that people are just as likely to cycle on these
kinds of roads as they would be on the cycle paths that run alongside
them...


The "new towns" were designed from scratch with clean sheets of paper.
There was no real need to build in high speed roads. And in any case,
you're exaggerating the number of those. Look at a map that includes the
bike paths:
https://goo.gl/maps/76an5ub1DNQgWtuW6
Only a small percentage parallel the roads that scare you. The bike
paths go everywhere.

Yet they get barely 3% bike mode share.

We posting here may love bicycling. Many of the people who constantly
lobby for magic separated bike facilities may love bicycling. But the
fact is, most people simply don't love bicycling enough to get out of
their cars. It's foolish to spend fortunes to make them switch to bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #43  
Old February 10th 20, 05:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 623
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 6:24 PM, 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?


Elsewhere today, I posted this comment about Door Zone Bike Lanes (DZBLs):

Years ago, I was a League Certified Instructor (LCI). I earned their
certification and taught their courses. And I proposed that there should
be a private email list for LCIs, to discuss course content, teaching
techniques, etc. without the "students" listening in.

LAB started such a list; perhaps it's still running.

One day a few years ago, an unsigned essay was sent to the list from
somebody at LAB. (Some of us suspected it was Andy Clarke, a very
pro-segregation guy who was then Director.) The paper was a long and
adamant defense of DZBLs. It said things like "Many bicyclists ride in
DZBLs every day without getting injured."

To me, it explained how cities I'd visited with DZBLs were given awards
as "Silver Level Bike Friendly Communities." (Personally, I'd say a DZBL
should blackball a city.)

I never found out who wrote that paper. But shortly after it appeared, I
was one of the many instructors who dropped out of LAB. That paper was
far from the only reason, but it contributed to my decision.

A much better alternative is Street Smarts. One thing they'll tell you
is "Don't let the paint think for you."


I don't know if you've ever noticed it but the Chevrolet Camaro has a door twice as wide as normal and it is impossible to build a bicycle lane wide enough that the door on these cars cannot totally block. And the sort of people that buy these cars are also the kind that throw them open without the slightest glance in their side mirrors.
  #44  
Old February 10th 20, 05:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On 2/10/2020 12:21 AM, sms wrote:

Depends on where you live, but it my city there is tremendous support
for bicycle infrastructure, much more so that other ways we could spend
tax money. Not everyone is on board of course, just like not everyone
wants to fund schools, libraries, parks, storm drain maintenance, tree
trimming, street lights, etc.


Below, you chide me about "no data." Can you give us _your_ data on the
"tremendous support" for bike infrastructure? Is it more than for
libraries, parks, and trimming those horrendously dangerous tree limbs
you claim are just six feet above the road? Where is your data?

Frank is wrong of course about the reasons many cities want separated
bicycle lanes, and as usual he has no data. It's not just about hit from behind crashes, it's more about keeping vehicles from parking, stopping,
and loading and unloading in bicycle lanes. There's no point in a
painted bicycle lane if it's constantly being blocked by vehicles, and
cyclists have to veer into traffic to pass the illegally parked
vehicles; it's impossible to have enough police to patrol all the
bicycle lanes.


But what's the reason for a bike lane at all? On most streets, it does
no particular good except in the imagination of people fearing hits from
behind. If you have a 12 foot lane and a five foot striped bike lane,
you could remove the stripe and have tons of room for cars to pass
bikes. People want the stripe almost entirely because they think it will
prevent hits from behind - a microscopic portion of urban car-bike
crashes. They don't realize it increases the odds of intersection
crashes, which are already far more common and dangerous.

The problem with separated bicycle lanes is how you treat intersections
to prevent right-hooks. Right hooks happen even without these lanes of
course, but it's more of a problem with the separated bicycle lanes.

The Netherlands seems to have figured out bicycle infrastructure, and as
a result has very high bicycling use.


Scharf is putting the cart before the horse. His "... as a result..." is
simplistic, even backwards. The Netherlands had very high bicycle use
for about 100 years, long before their current separate facilities. The
pre-existing bike culture allowed them to impose the restrictions on car
travel that were necessary to maintain and increase bike use.

In The U.S., every time we add
cycling infrastructure ridership goes up.


Bull****. Look at Portland for the last few years. Ever more weird bike
infrastructure, but their bike mode share is level or dropping. And the
city is still absolutely dominated by motoring.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #45  
Old February 10th 20, 05:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On 2/9/2020 9:06 PM, 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.


Nobody has ever claimed it's good to "jump into the fast moving
traffic." You don't jump; you wait for your chance, signal and merge
when it's safe to do so.

On almost all roads, motor vehicles travel in groups or platoons. There
are always clear spaces if you wait for them.

Do you seriously never ride on roads with 55 mph speed limits?? Do you
seriously never ride at lane center in a narrow lane??

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #46  
Old February 10th 20, 06:13 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On 2/10/2020 12:42 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, February 9, 2020 at 3:45:26 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 6:24 PM, 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?


Elsewhere today, I posted this comment about Door Zone Bike Lanes (DZBLs):

Years ago, I was a League Certified Instructor (LCI). I earned their
certification and taught their courses. And I proposed that there should
be a private email list for LCIs, to discuss course content, teaching
techniques, etc. without the "students" listening in.

LAB started such a list; perhaps it's still running.

One day a few years ago, an unsigned essay was sent to the list from
somebody at LAB. (Some of us suspected it was Andy Clarke, a very
pro-segregation guy who was then Director.) The paper was a long and
adamant defense of DZBLs. It said things like "Many bicyclists ride in
DZBLs every day without getting injured."

To me, it explained how cities I'd visited with DZBLs were given awards
as "Silver Level Bike Friendly Communities." (Personally, I'd say a DZBL
should blackball a city.)

I never found out who wrote that paper. But shortly after it appeared, I
was one of the many instructors who dropped out of LAB. That paper was
far from the only reason, but it contributed to my decision.

A much better alternative is Street Smarts. One thing they'll tell you
is "Don't let the paint think for you."


I don't know if you've ever noticed it but the Chevrolet Camaro has a door twice as wide as normal and it is impossible to build a bicycle lane wide enough that the door on these cars cannot totally block. And the sort of people that buy these cars are also the kind that throw them open without the slightest glance in their side mirrors.


What you say is correct. I've noticed it, and I've run this
demonstration with people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPA-ZcYGT94

I suppose you could build a bike lane wide enough to avoid that. It
would have to be about ten feet wide. Most people would call it just a
"lane." Which is where I ride.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #47  
Old February 10th 20, 07:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,984
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:47:14 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 9:06 PM, 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.


Nobody has ever claimed it's good to "jump into the fast moving
traffic." You don't jump; you wait for your chance, signal and merge
when it's safe to do so.

On almost all roads, motor vehicles travel in groups or platoons. There
are always clear spaces if you wait for them.

Do you seriously never ride on roads with 55 mph speed limits?? Do you
seriously never ride at lane center in a narrow lane??


Yes, every morning I chose to ride in on SW Barbur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foB4ROcPhCg&t=2s This morning, for example -- on super sore knees. And I'm happy to have a shoulder bike lane after clearing the bridges.. And depending on traffic, you have to do some car herding -- I hit the induction loops for the lights and then start fading into to traffic, usually going 25mph and hopping someone doesn't want to be king chicken.

The drivers in the clip were pretty well-mannered. The buses aren't so much, and then you get people that you're sure will mow you down. I can totally understand people not wanting to ride there.

Just down the road: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOsK3JUjgOU&t=14s That illustrates the dangers of wearing an orange safety vest. The bike had the right of way, but when cars fade over WITH A BLINKER, I jump around -- assuming no oncoming bus, which is common. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNtbwGIX8Io

-- Jay Beattie.

  #48  
Old February 10th 20, 08:26 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On 2/10/2020 2:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:47:14 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/9/2020 9:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:

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


Nobody has ever claimed it's good to "jump into the fast moving
traffic." You don't jump; you wait for your chance, signal and merge
when it's safe to do so.

On almost all roads, motor vehicles travel in groups or platoons. There
are always clear spaces if you wait for them.

Do you seriously never ride on roads with 55 mph speed limits?? Do you
seriously never ride at lane center in a narrow lane??


Yes, every morning I chose to ride in on SW Barbur. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foB4ROcPhCg&t=2s This morning, for example -- on super sore knees. And I'm happy to have a shoulder bike lane after clearing the bridges. And depending on traffic, you have to do some car herding -- I hit the induction loops for the lights and then start fading into to traffic, usually going 25mph and hopping someone doesn't want to be king chicken.


Sometimes "car herding" is what you have to do. It's a fact of life. But
as I said, one doesn't do it by (suddenly) jumping in front of a car
that's coming fast and close. That's mis-characterizing the technique.
The drivers in the clip were pretty well-mannered. The buses aren't so much, and then you get people that you're sure will mow you down. I can totally understand people not wanting to ride there.

Just down the road: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOsK3JUjgOU&t=14s That illustrates the dangers of wearing an orange safety vest. The bike had the right of way, but when cars fade over WITH A BLINKER, I jump around


I'd say it illustrates the danger of telling a bicyclist a stripe at the
far right will always keep him safe. It also illustrates the weirdness
of putting a straight-ahead lane to the right of a lane where right
turns are permitted; and giving those straight-ahead road users right of
way.
https://stephencorwin.com/blog/wp-co...right-hook.png

Have you ever seen that configuration anywhere else, besides bike lanes?
Can you imagine it on a freeway?

I understand that Oregon has a weird mandatory bike lane law. I don't
know how seriously it's enforced. But I don't think I would have done
what that rider did. It looks like that van's turn signal was on, and it
had to be slowing down for a reason.

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #49  
Old February 10th 20, 09:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tom Kunich[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 623
Default How to suck all the joy from cycling

On Monday, February 10, 2020 at 9:43:16 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/10/2020 12:21 AM, sms wrote:

Depends on where you live, but it my city there is tremendous support
for bicycle infrastructure, much more so that other ways we could spend
tax money. Not everyone is on board of course, just like not everyone
wants to fund schools, libraries, parks, storm drain maintenance, tree
trimming, street lights, etc.


Below, you chide me about "no data." Can you give us _your_ data on the
"tremendous support" for bike infrastructure? Is it more than for
libraries, parks, and trimming those horrendously dangerous tree limbs
you claim are just six feet above the road? Where is your data?

Frank is wrong of course about the reasons many cities want separated
bicycle lanes, and as usual he has no data. It's not just about hit from behind crashes, it's more about keeping vehicles from parking, stopping,
and loading and unloading in bicycle lanes. There's no point in a
painted bicycle lane if it's constantly being blocked by vehicles, and
cyclists have to veer into traffic to pass the illegally parked
vehicles; it's impossible to have enough police to patrol all the
bicycle lanes.


But what's the reason for a bike lane at all? On most streets, it does
no particular good except in the imagination of people fearing hits from
behind. If you have a 12 foot lane and a five foot striped bike lane,
you could remove the stripe and have tons of room for cars to pass
bikes. People want the stripe almost entirely because they think it will
prevent hits from behind - a microscopic portion of urban car-bike
crashes. They don't realize it increases the odds of intersection
crashes, which are already far more common and dangerous.

The problem with separated bicycle lanes is how you treat intersections
to prevent right-hooks. Right hooks happen even without these lanes of
course, but it's more of a problem with the separated bicycle lanes.

The Netherlands seems to have figured out bicycle infrastructure, and as
a result has very high bicycling use.


Scharf is putting the cart before the horse. His "... as a result..." is
simplistic, even backwards. The Netherlands had very high bicycle use
for about 100 years, long before their current separate facilities. The
pre-existing bike culture allowed them to impose the restrictions on car
travel that were necessary to maintain and increase bike use.

In The U.S., every time we add
cycling infrastructure ridership goes up.


Bull****. Look at Portland for the last few years. Ever more weird bike
infrastructure, but their bike mode share is level or dropping. And the
city is still absolutely dominated by motoring.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Frank, take your absolute creeping age bull**** elsewhere. Just because you're suffering from age related disabilities doesn't mean others are. When I watched you showing pictures of a place where I was nearly knocked off my bike and a large dent was put in my helmet by the tree branch and you running on about how I was making it all up that pretty much showed that you are sick and getting sicker.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
cycling.tv is teh suck bar Racing 4 April 25th 09 12:22 AM
Does cycling.tv always suck this bad [email protected] Racing 5 April 1st 08 09:00 AM
Adventure Cycling Maps SUCK! NYC XYZ General 87 August 24th 06 12:24 PM
Adventure Cycling Maps SUCK! NYC XYZ Rides 93 August 24th 06 12:24 PM
Adventure Cycling Maps SUCK! NYC XYZ Recumbent Biking 80 August 24th 06 12:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.