Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

Tom Sherman wrote:
Cagers like bicycle lanes and paths, because they see them as ghettos
that cyclists can be confined to.

So when you unpaint the lanes, they'll invite the cyclists into their newly widened domain with open arms.

Personally, I like wide unstriped lanes. Indeed, when Shoal Creek Road in Austin had no stripes at all, even to separate bidirectional traffic, for an extended period before it was finally, unfortunately, striped, it was an improvement: it kept drivers cautious. But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible.

Dan

Dan Connelly wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Cagers like bicycle lanes and paths, because they see them as ghettos
that cyclists can be confined to.

So when you unpaint the lanes, they'll invite the cyclists into their newly widened domain with open arms.

Personally, I like wide unstriped lanes.

Yes, if one is going to spend money on "cycling facilities", an extra
wide lane with "sharrows" is the way to go.

Indeed, when Shoal Creek Road in Austin had no stripes at all, even to separate bidirectional traffic, for an extended period before it was finally, unfortunately, striped, it was an improvement: it kept drivers cautious. But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible.

I go out of my way to avoid roads with painted bicycle lanes and/or
parallel paths.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Dan Connelly schrieb:

Personally, I like wide unstriped lanes. Indeed, when Shoal Creek Road in Austin had no stripes at all, even to separate bidirectional traffic, for an extended period before it was finally, unfortunately, striped, it was an improvement: it kept drivers cautious.

That's why German road building guidelines and administrative
regulations discourage stripes in the middle of the carriageway (to
separate bidirectional traffic) ("Leitlinien") on inner-city roads with
only one lane per direction. They are _forbidden_ in 30 km/h zones.

But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes.

Cyclicts or "also-cyclists" ("I'm also a cyclist, sometimes." [i.e.,
almost never]?

If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible.

The safest would be lots of cyclists on the carriageway, i.e. the normal
lanes for vehicles.

On Feb 3, 9:12 am, Dan Connelly
wrote:

"But the pragmatic reality is that most cyclists LIKE bike lanes. If this encourages more to ride, that not only serves a direct good, but additionally has been shown to increase the safety of cycling (total injuries relatively insensitive to number of cyclists). But I'm more experienced and dedicated than most prospective riders. I want as many comfortable being on the roads as possible."

I understand that most cyclists like bike lanes... or think they do.
And most non-cyclists, or "I would if only..." quasi-cyclists like
bike lanes.

I believe that's because most of those people have never thought about
the negatives, since they've never been told about the negatives. All
they've heard is "Gee, wouldn't it be wonderful..." promotion of the
idea.

I was recently in a meeting where a "complete streets" advocate was
talking to members of a civic group. He had a Powerpoint
presentation, showing the transformation of a busy street into a
hypothetical paradise, including (of course) bike lanes. The civic
group members were swooning just as he hoped; but I interrupted and
said "To be fair, you should point out that many cyclists have learned
there are problems with separate bike lanes."

He immediately admitted that was true, and others asked me for
details. When I explained the shortcomings, there were lots of "Oh, I
never thought about that" remarks (including from the civil engineer
in the group). Meanwhile, the speaker backpedaled furiously, saying
"Well, understand, this is just an example..."

To a certain degree, this is a matter of education. Public ignorance
regarding an issue is a bad reason for acceding to public desires.

- Frank Krygowski

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not
just Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the
rec.bicycles.misc newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to
ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of interest primarily to those in Northern
California and likely familiar with Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut
Tom a bit of slack.
I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
situations.

Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
controlled access freeways).

The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
"mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
road".

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Jens Müller writes:

Bill Z. schrieb:
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.
And under California street law?
What's that?

Street law is what happens in real life.

You mean "street law" is "sometimes people make mistakes"?

It is equally illegal to pull out in front of a cyclist and a dump
truck that have the right of way. However, cagers will frequently
cut off the cyclist, since there are usually no consequences. The
same cagers will not cut off the dump truck, since it can squash
them like a bug underfoot.

That's why we have a small but steady stream of accidents around here
when impatient drivers decide to ignore the right of way rules at
level crossings, going around the gates and getting squashed by a
train. The classic one is when they wait for one train to go by, not
realizing that there might be a train going on the opposite direction.

The right of way rules are very clear - the train has the right of way
and there are gates that go down to block the road, making it pretty
clear. So, under your model, where you suggest that "cagers" will not
cut off a much larger vehicle, why does this happen at all?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
...
LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
engineering matter....

Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
space.
Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
one's
vehicle's mass.

The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.

On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
and immediate.
See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
a judge and jury if there is a fatality.

Dead cyclists have a hard time telling their side of the story, no?

Accidents can have witnesses.

Besides, usually there is no accident, since the cyclist will let the
SUV driver violate his/her right-of-way out of self preservation.

On the other hand, the SUV driver knows that the bus will win in a
collision, so he/she stays out of the bus's way.

Nope. If so, there would never be an accident with a bus in which the
bus driver was not at fault.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is
driven (pun intended) by emotion. Actually, you really
had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I recall. Am
I confusing you with someone else?

That possibility does exist.
So it was you as I remembered.

That response is illogical.

No, it is is completely logical. The word "that" in standard English would
refer to my last sentence, which was he question "Am I confusing you with
someone else", and your reply was taken as a "no".

I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
relevant.

Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.

Done.

??? You changed the subject line and didn't say anything.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not
just Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the
rec.bicycles.misc newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to
ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of interest primarily to those in Northern
California and likely familiar with Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut
Tom a bit of slack.
I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
situations.

Better the money be spent on mandatory recurrent testing of cagers on
the rules of the road, with license revocation for ignorance of such
matters as cyclists having an equal right to use the road (excepting
controlled access freeways).

The DMV budget is independent of the road-maintenance budget, and
"mandatory recurrent testing" should simply be included as part of
your license renewal fee. Some states BTW target additional tests
on drivers who have a history of moving violations. If you aren't
getting tickets, they figure you probably know the "rules of the
road".

Most places I have been in the US, tickets are hardly ever issued for
anything besides speeding and DUI, and the speed limits are clearly
posted. Not much is required in knowing the "rules of the road".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

Bill Zaumen wrote:
Tom Sherman writes:

The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.

We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is
driven (pun intended) by emotion. Actually, you really
had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I recall. Am
I confusing you with someone else?

That possibility does exist.
So it was you as I remembered.

That response is illogical.

No, it is is completely logical. The word "that" in standard English would
refer to my last sentence, which was he question "Am I confusing you with
someone else", and your reply was taken as a "no".

Logically, my response should be taken as it is indeed possible that
Bill Zaumen was confusing me with someone else.

I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread,
however, is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located
on the pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the
location, traffic laws in California would seem to be quite
relevant.

Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.
If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.

Done.

??? You changed the subject line and didn't say anything.

So?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth