Yet another cyclist killed. pH (Several, actually)

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 2:52:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In other words, both Tom and AK are pointing out that bike lanes aren't
the wonderful paradise that so many people claim.

There's also the (sadly common) phenomenon of drivers using the bike lane as their personal parking space or turn lane. Even the police park in the bike lane in front of their station near my work. So there's no enforcement... PERIOD.
This, plus the lack of snow-plowing and debris removal are the reasons I'm not a bike lane fan. I think when *traffic* (cars, trucks and bikes are "traffic") follows the rules, everyone can get along.

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 3:09:00 PM UTC-5, pH wrote:

There was an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel back in May about a cyclist killed around the Davenport area. There was *never* a follow up about who it was or the circumstances around the death--I even called the local radio station to ask that their news department please follow up on it and give us further information as it became available. Nada thus far.

That second fatality involved the cyclist being struck by a car going in the same direction, ie: "struck from behind".

The League of American Bicyclists had a project going on a few years ago called "Every Bicyclist Counts" (https://bikeleague.org/content/why-e...fatal-crashes). It was an imperfect study, for reasons enumerated in the report, but it had some interesting findings. The most important (to me) was that a third of the bicycle fatalities were the result of the cyclist being "struck from behind".

Now, since this is such a common mode of death for cyclists, it would seem reasonable to try to provide the cyclist with some form of defense. To my way of thinking, this is a rear-view mirror. Of course, the presence or absence of a rear-view mirror wasn't even mentioned in the League's study, and this information is apparently not one of the data collected when a cycling death is investigated.

I just got back from an organized ride (the 50th annual Harmon Hundred) and I noticed that fewer than 10% of the riders had mirrors. It would be interesting to study the correlation (if any) between mirror use and "rear-impact" fatalities. I hypothesize that one exists and it is negative. But without data...
I always ride with a mirror on the street; it can't hurt.

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 1:09:00 PM UTC-7, pH wrote:
From the San Jose Mercury News:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...n-hit-and-run/

It says pedestrian but the article says cyclist. And this was not even the one I was searching for.

Here's the one I was thinking of:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...ng-boyce-road/


There was an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel back in May about a cyclist killed around the Davenport area. There was *never* a follow up about who it was or the circumstances around the death--I even called the local radio station to ask that their news department please follow up on it and give us further information as it became available. Nada thus far.

https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/20...-on-highway-1/


If you want to knock off an enemy it seems all you have to do is wait until he's on a bicycle and then run 'im down....doesn't seem as if there are any consequences.

pH in Aptos

Ah, looks like an arrest was made for the Story Road killing.....

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/...l-hit-and-run/

Maybe I should actually say accident.

pH

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 15:52:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/8/2019 2:09 PM, AK wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:27:49 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

I ride with my outside handlebar overlapping the outer bike lane line. In some cases I take the car lane if there are problems with the bike lane such as roots of trees causing bumps of the lane being filled with leaves so that you can't see dangers such as pot holes or boards of the like.

I have to dodge a lot of glass both in the bike lane and sidewalk.

We have street cleaners, but are lucky if they come once every couple of months.

In other words, both Tom and AK are pointing out that bike lanes aren't
the wonderful paradise that so many people claim. Maintenance is often
crappy, debris is common, and around here (as where AK lives) sweeping
of debris is rare.

So riders often ride as close to the stripe as possible. This results in
closer passes than there would be if they removed the damned stripe and
kept the same pavement width. Then the occasional car tires passing over
that rightward section of pavement would sweep debris into the gutter.

"Protected" bike lanes have all that and worse. A city near me installed
a few blocks of that nonsense, then hosted a visit from officials from a
different city. The foreign officials asked "So how do you keep the
pavement clean? Did you buy a special small-scale street sweeper?" The
host city official said something like "Um... we don't know yet."


Over here the town/city hires poor people to sweep the streets -
minimum wage level folks, who might otherwise be unemployable. They,
apparently, are happy to have a job and the folks that use the road
are happy to have clean streets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv-BGGlMkN0

--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:52:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2019 2:09 PM, AK wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:27:49 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

I ride with my outside handlebar overlapping the outer bike lane line. In some cases I take the car lane if there are problems with the bike lane such as roots of trees causing bumps of the lane being filled with leaves so that you can't see dangers such as pot holes or boards of the like.

I have to dodge a lot of glass both in the bike lane and sidewalk.

We have street cleaners, but are lucky if they come once every couple of months.

In other words, both Tom and AK are pointing out that bike lanes aren't
the wonderful paradise that so many people claim. Maintenance is often
crappy, debris is common, and around here (as where AK lives) sweeping
of debris is rare.

So riders often ride as close to the stripe as possible. This results in
closer passes than there would be if they removed the damned stripe and
kept the same pavement width. Then the occasional car tires passing over
that rightward section of pavement would sweep debris into the gutter.

"Protected" bike lanes have all that and worse. A city near me installed
a few blocks of that nonsense, then hosted a visit from officials from a
different city. The foreign officials asked "So how do you keep the
pavement clean? Did you buy a special small-scale street sweeper?" The
host city official said something like "Um... we don't know yet."

And as a bonus, bicyclist are hidden far off to the side, out of the
view of motorists. Until, that is, they pop into view in front of the
motorist at an intersection or a driveway. Surprise!!!

--
- Frank Krygowski

I don't know where you come off with your idea that bike lanes don't help. We have a lot of areas around here where bike lanes appear and disappear intermittently and where ever they disappear the traffic IMMEDIATELY moves over and crowds bicycle traffic.

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 3:02:25 PM UTC-7, Steve Weeks wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 2:52:55 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In other words, both Tom and AK are pointing out that bike lanes aren't
the wonderful paradise that so many people claim.

There's also the (sadly common) phenomenon of drivers using the bike lane as their personal parking space or turn lane. Even the police park in the bike lane in front of their station near my work. So there's no enforcement.... PERIOD.
This, plus the lack of snow-plowing and debris removal are the reasons I'm not a bike lane fan. I think when *traffic* (cars, trucks and bikes are "traffic") follows the rules, everyone can get along.

Yes, we do have that problem but usually it is a temporary event or a loading and unloading. I can think of ONE road around here in which cars will park in the bicycle lane and that is because it is a place that goes from no parking to parking and the bicycle lane doesn't move over at the same time. This only is for about 100 yards.

We are bicyclists and not holy men. We go a LOT slower than the speed of normal traffic in most cases and we have to understand that and stay out of the way as much as is SAFE. I have no problems taking a lane when necessary but I also have no problems allowing traffic to pass in narrow areas such as mountain roads or narrow side streets where there isn't much room. Drivers who see this a couple of times realize that you are giving them room on purpose and grow to appreciate it. These people tend to pass more safely - respect is shown where respect is earned.

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 3:28:05 PM UTC-7, pH wrote:
On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 1:09:00 PM UTC-7, pH wrote:
From the San Jose Mercury News:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...n-hit-and-run/

It says pedestrian but the article says cyclist. And this was not even the one I was searching for.

Here's the one I was thinking of:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/...ng-boyce-road/


There was an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel back in May about a cyclist killed around the Davenport area. There was *never* a follow up about who it was or the circumstances around the death--I even called the local radio station to ask that their news department please follow up on it and give us further information as it became available. Nada thus far.

https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/20...-on-highway-1/


If you want to knock off an enemy it seems all you have to do is wait until he's on a bicycle and then run 'im down....doesn't seem as if there are any consequences.

pH in Aptos

Ah, looks like an arrest was made for the Story Road killing.....

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/...l-hit-and-run/

Maybe I should actually say accident.

pH

People that would rather be turning up the rap music or talking on their phones are difficult to class as an accident. Hit and run makes it even more suspicious since he could have been under the influence.

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 15:24:03 -0700 (PDT), Steve Weeks
wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 3:09:00 PM UTC-5, pH wrote:

There was an article in the Santa Cruz Sentinel back in May about a cyclist killed around the Davenport area. There was *never* a follow up about who it was or the circumstances around the death--I even called the local radio station to ask that their news department please follow up on it and give us further information as it became available. Nada thus far.

That second fatality involved the cyclist being struck by a car going in the same direction, ie: "struck from behind".

The League of American Bicyclists had a project going on a few years ago called "Every Bicyclist Counts" (https://bikeleague.org/content/why-e...fatal-crashes). It was an imperfect study, for reasons enumerated in the report, but it had some interesting findings. The most important (to me) was that a third of the bicycle fatalities were the result of the cyclist being "struck from behind".

And a number of studies have shown that as many as half, or more, of
bicycle auto collisions are the fault of the cyclist... but I don't
suppose that the League highlighted that :-)

"California Highway Patrol data from 2012 show there were 5,090
collisions in LA County that year involving bikes and cars. In 2,759
of those cases, the CHP determined the cyclist was at fault and in
1,878 cases, they determined the car driver was to blame."



Now, since this is such a common mode of death for cyclists, it would seem reasonable to try to provide the cyclist with some form of defense. To my way of thinking, this is a rear-view mirror. Of course, the presence or absence of a rear-view mirror wasn't even mentioned in the League's study, and this information is apparently not one of the data collected when a cycling death is investigated.

I just got back from an organized ride (the 50th annual Harmon Hundred) and I noticed that fewer than 10% of the riders had mirrors. It would be interesting to study the correlation (if any) between mirror use and "rear-impact" fatalities. I hypothesize that one exists and it is negative. But without data...
I always ride with a mirror on the street; it can't hurt.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 3:49:38 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:52:55 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/8/2019 2:09 PM, AK wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:27:49 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

I ride with my outside handlebar overlapping the outer bike lane line. In some cases I take the car lane if there are problems with the bike lane such as roots of trees causing bumps of the lane being filled with leaves so that you can't see dangers such as pot holes or boards of the like.

I have to dodge a lot of glass both in the bike lane and sidewalk.

We have street cleaners, but are lucky if they come once every couple of months.

In other words, both Tom and AK are pointing out that bike lanes aren't
the wonderful paradise that so many people claim. Maintenance is often
crappy, debris is common, and around here (as where AK lives) sweeping
of debris is rare.

So riders often ride as close to the stripe as possible. This results in
closer passes than there would be if they removed the damned stripe and
kept the same pavement width. Then the occasional car tires passing over
that rightward section of pavement would sweep debris into the gutter.

"Protected" bike lanes have all that and worse. A city near me installed
a few blocks of that nonsense, then hosted a visit from officials from a
different city. The foreign officials asked "So how do you keep the
pavement clean? Did you buy a special small-scale street sweeper?" The
host city official said something like "Um... we don't know yet."

And as a bonus, bicyclist are hidden far off to the side, out of the
view of motorists. Until, that is, they pop into view in front of the
motorist at an intersection or a driveway. Surprise!!!

--
- Frank Krygowski

I don't know where you come off with your idea that bike lanes don't help.. We have a lot of areas around here where bike lanes appear and disappear intermittently and where ever they disappear the traffic IMMEDIATELY moves over and crowds bicycle traffic.

They do create more real estate for riding, but they can be implemented in ways that make cycling more dangerous. On whole, however, I agree they are a benefit. I do not like the trend towards separate MUPs -- taking out a sidewalk and bike lane and putting in a giant raised surface separate from traffic for both bikes and pedestrians that it intersected by streets, e.g. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2324/3...1aab9f0f_c.jpg

See how the side streets now cut up the MUP and require endless stopping? The prior bike lane flowed with traffic. This facility was a giant step backwards, IMO, and not the miracle facility claimed by the facility freaks. I rode in it today, and all I wanted to do was get out of it and onto the street.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/8/2019 6:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 15:52:50 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/8/2019 2:09 PM, AK wrote:
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 at 12:27:49 PM UTC-5, Tom Kunich wrote:

I ride with my outside handlebar overlapping the outer bike lane line. In some cases I take the car lane if there are problems with the bike lane such as roots of trees causing bumps of the lane being filled with leaves so that you can't see dangers such as pot holes or boards of the like.

I have to dodge a lot of glass both in the bike lane and sidewalk.

We have street cleaners, but are lucky if they come once every couple of months.

In other words, both Tom and AK are pointing out that bike lanes aren't
the wonderful paradise that so many people claim. Maintenance is often
crappy, debris is common, and around here (as where AK lives) sweeping
of debris is rare.

So riders often ride as close to the stripe as possible. This results in
closer passes than there would be if they removed the damned stripe and
kept the same pavement width. Then the occasional car tires passing over
that rightward section of pavement would sweep debris into the gutter.

"Protected" bike lanes have all that and worse. A city near me installed
a few blocks of that nonsense, then hosted a visit from officials from a
different city. The foreign officials asked "So how do you keep the
pavement clean? Did you buy a special small-scale street sweeper?" The
host city official said something like "Um... we don't know yet."


Over here the town/city hires poor people to sweep the streets -
minimum wage level folks, who might otherwise be unemployable. They,
apparently, are happy to have a job and the folks that use the road
are happy to have clean streets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv-BGGlMkN0

I've wondered about that idea regarding many jobs.

I was working at a local manufacturing plant, the plant with the most
sophisticated technology of any in the area. I was programming robotic
workcells, working on automatic part feeding, automated packaging etc.

Some small parts are very hard to handle automatically in mass
production. Typically, parts must be uniformly oriented for automated
processing. Vibratory bowl feeders are effective at orienting many
parts, but some just can't be done that way.

At one point, I wondered about employing people from one of the local
agencies that support mentally retarded people (and I hope that term
hasn't yet been deemed offensive) to either orient or package parts. I
know that some of those people can get great satisfaction from work that
would bore others; and I figured they could probably work for a
relatively low wage, since they tend to get subsidies for housing, food,
etc.

Unfortunately, I was told the union contracts would never allow such a
thing.

I think that unions have done a lot of good over the last 100 years. But
I also think they've made lots of bad decision, or caused lots of bad
policies. I think this was one.


--
- Frank Krygowski