Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
so.

This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
replying to her.

Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
Non-tiny link:
http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread/d7701d71a8e070ab/2537a72c21e4603e#2537a72c21e4603e

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Bill Sornson:
>Completely false. One road I take often (to get to decent roads) has a
>narrow left lane, wide right with cars parked on side. It's a freaking
>death trap for cyclists -- brushed to the left, doored to the right. *I DO
>TAKE THE LANE*, but I still get passed way too close for comfort almost
>every single time.

Don't you get the feeling that the odds are going to catch up
with you eventually?
--
PeteCresswell

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote: {SANITY SNIP}
>
>
>>You obviously have zero experience with a wide outside lane, so you
>>shouldn't guess about how traffic uses it. You're wrong. And if you
>>did have experience with one, you would understand why they are
>>superior to bike lanes.
>
>
> Completely false. One road I take often (to get to decent roads) has a
> narrow left lane, wide right with cars parked on side. It's a freaking
> death trap for cyclists -- brushed to the left, doored to the right. *I DO
> TAKE THE LANE*, but I still get passed way too close for comfort almost
> every single time. (And a friend -- very experienced rider -- did get
> doored along there a year or so ago. Took him quite a while to ride it
> after that, too.)

What you say doesn't make sense. I'd love to see a picture of this road
with actual width dimensions. How can one be brushed to the left and
doored to the right? Is the available space 2' wide?

A wide lane is only a wide lane if there are 14 plus feet of CLEAR
space. Space that is consumed by parked cars and their open doors does
not count. Parked cars and their open doors consume 10'.

Wayne

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a
>>>> median in the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether
>>>> there's a white line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter.
>>>> Fast traffic. Limit 35 or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See
>>>> below for further explanation; missed the "wide lane" descriptor.)
>>
>>
>>> I ride on a similar road everyday, except there is no parking. Cars
>>> may do 50, but generally not in my presence. They slow down and move
>>> over.
>>
>>
>> The parked cars make all the difference, of course. How far from
>> the side of the road does one ride with no parked cars present
>> versus when they're there? HUGE difference.
>>
>> Of course you know this, Troller. HAND
>>
>>
>
> Ignoramus,
>
> When cars are parked, the "side of the road" is the end of extended
> doors, which is about 10' out. So you ride an appropriate distance
> left of that based on available remaining lane width, your speed,
> destination, and cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to
> control overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create
> good sight triangles.
>
> When there are no cars parked, the side of the road is the edge of
> usable pavement, and you ride an appropriate distance left of that
> based on available remaining lane width, your speed, destination, and
> cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to control
> overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create good
> sight triangles.
> So, there is NO difference in how you ride. You just have a different
> definition for "side of the road."
>
> Of course, you don't know this. But now you do.
>
> Like I said earlier, arguing with you is like wallpapering fog.

You're the one who compared your no-parked-cars road to the one I described;
they're not similar whatsoever.

Happy Papering...

[John Kane]

On Aug 15, 11:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
> some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
> posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
> want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
> gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
> cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
> know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
> dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
> so.
>
> This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
> I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
> replying to her.

These are UK examples but you can probably just cycle around town and
find some equivalents

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/ and click on the facility
of the month link.

[Bill Z.]

"DanKMTB@gmail.com" <DanKMTB@gmail.com> writes:

> Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
> some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
> posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
> want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
> gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
> cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
> know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
> dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
> so.
>
> This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
> I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
> replying to her.

We've had a few dangerous lanes, but these were installed many years
before the current design standards were developed. The main issue
was a lane that was too narrow to safely pass a parked car - an
opening door could completely block the lane.

One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
close to the gutter pan. That lane was removed and is now back after
some major road improvements that eliminated the problem. A few
people complained about the bike lane being removed, but removing it
was the only reasonable decision, given the liability risk of having
a substandard design.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bob Quindazzi]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:50:26 -0000, "DanKMTB@gmail.com"
<DanKMTB@gmail.com> wrote:

>Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
>some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
>posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
>want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
>gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
>cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
>know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
>dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
>so.
>
>This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
>I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
>replying to her.
>
>Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
>Non-tiny link:
>http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread/d7701d71a8e070ab/2537a72c21e4603e#2537a72c21e4603e


Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.

[OughtFour]

<DanKMTB@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187193026.402794.115070@50g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
> Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
> some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
> posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
> want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
> gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
> cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
> know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
> dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
> so.
>
> This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
> I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
> replying to her.
>
> Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od

The Globe recently did a very strange story recently about a popular
multi-use path in Eastern Mass, the Minuteman. The headline was about "bike
path rage," though the story only cited one actual "rage" incident that was
two years old. Then lots of quotes about how crowded the path is and how
cyclists and joggers and skaters and eveybody have to get along--not the
same thing, but put in a context that suggested the people quioting were
"responding" to the rage "problem."

The story was the top story of the Sunday paper a few months ago.

I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better job
on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very bad
ones in Cambridge.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
> some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
> posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
> want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
> gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
> cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
> know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
> dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
> so.
>
> This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
> I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
> replying to her.
>
> Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
> Non-tiny link:http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread...

Dear Dan,

You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:


>One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
>up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
>and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
>parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
>that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
>close to the gutter pan.

What is a gutter pan?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[r15757@aol.com]

On Aug 15, 10:47 am, "OughtFour" <lus...@rnospam.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better job
> on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very bad
> ones in Cambridge.

'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly
designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly.

Got any examples of bike lanes killing people?

Robert

[Dane Buson]

In rec.bicycles.misc r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Aug 15, 10:47 am, "OughtFour" <lus...@rnospam.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better job
>> on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very bad
>> ones in Cambridge.
>
> 'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly
> designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly.
>
> Got any examples of bike lanes killing people?

http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm

Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith.
-- Albert Einstein

[William O'Hara]

r15757@aol.com wrote in
news:1187200338.921757.61610@x40g2000prg.googlegro ups.com:

>> better job on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There
>> are some very bad ones in Cambridge.
>
> 'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly
> designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly.
>
> Got any examples of bike lanes killing people?

The gestapo will REQUIRE you to use the bike lane in the door zone.

Riding in Cambridge bears a high liklihood of injury.


--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR

[A Muzi]

> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
>> some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
>> posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
>> want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
>> gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
>> cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
>> know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
>> dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
>> so.
>>
>> This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
>> I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
>> replying to her.
>>
>> Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
>> Non-tiny link:http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread...

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm

That's precious!
Hadn't noticed the archive on my earlier visit.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[landotter]

On Aug 15, 1:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> Dear Dan,
>
> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August...


The Coventry Velodrome

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm

That's spectacular!

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
> > some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
> > posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
> > want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
> > gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
> > cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
> > know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
> > dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
> > so.
>
> > This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
> > I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
> > replying to her.
>
> > Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
> > Non-tiny link:http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread...
>
> Dear Dan,
>
> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Of course, the website Carl has pointed to deals only with British
designs. That allows bike lane fans to pretend that such atrocious
designs never occur in America. Or at least, never occur out west
where the roads are wide. Or perhaps never occur since the design
standards got improved. Or at least, haven't occurred very recently.
And if atrocious designs are somehow built by mistake, they will be
speedily corrected by the same dedicated civil servants that designed
and oversaw the mistakes, once those mistakes are gently pointed out.

My experience is quite the opposite, of course. But to a true bike
lane fan, the bad examples simply don't count.

- Frank Krygowski

[r15757@aol.com]

On Aug 15, 12:26 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
> http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm
>
> Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality.

"Classic?" Really?

Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets
with no bike lanes?

[OughtFour]

"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
news:14tbp4-smv.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> In rec.bicycles.misc r15757@aol.com wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 10:47 am, "OughtFour" <lus...@rnospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better
>>> job
>>> on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very
>>> bad
>>> ones in Cambridge.
>>
>> 'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly
>> designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly.
>>
>> Got any examples of bike lanes killing people?
>
> http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm
>
> Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality.

That was the incident I had in mind. Really awful when it happened.

[r15757@aol.com]

On Aug 15, 1:16 pm, Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote:

> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed

I'd say they seem benign and inconsequential, no matter how poorly
designed or how well designed. I certainly can't understand why they
seem to strike fear into the hearts of so many people.

Robert

[Bill Sornson]

Bob Quindazzi wrote:

> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.

Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and
they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on
them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright
dangerous without them.)

Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are
some.)

BS

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
>>> some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
>>> posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
>>> want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
>>> gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
>>> cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
>>> know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
>>> dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
>>> so.
>>>
>>> This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
>>> I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
>>> replying to her.
>>>
>>> Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
>>> Non-tiny
>>> link:http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread...
>>>
>
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
>> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm
>>
>
> That's precious!
> Hadn't noticed the archive on my earlier visit.

One of my all time favorites is the two-way "bike path" on the south
side of University Avenue [1], since it puts cyclists right in the path
of left-turning motor vehicles.

[1] Just a couple of blocks from Andrew's shop.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:35:54 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
>wrote:
>
>
>>One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
>>up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
>>and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
>>parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
>>that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
>>close to the gutter pan.
>
>What is a gutter pan?

Dear John,

http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Bill Z.]

John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> writes:

> On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> wrote:
>
>
> >One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
> >up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
> >and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
> >parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
> >that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
> >close to the gutter pan.
>
> What is a gutter pan?

The concrete area on the side of some roads that allows rainwater
to run to a drain. The asphalt ends where the cutter pan
starts. We have these in our area. When installed, the connection
is flat and smooth. After a decade or so, weathering causes a gap
between the two, parallel to the direction of travel. It's the sort
of thing that can trap a wheel, if not completely, at least enough to
require a quick correction to get out of it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[goodone]

On Aug 15, 7:42 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:35:54 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
>
> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> >wrote:
>
> >>One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
> >>up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
> >>and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
> >>parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
> >>that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
> >>close to the gutter pan.
>
> >What is a gutter pan?
>
> Dear John,
>
> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fog

Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.

[A Muzi]

>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
>>> up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
>>> and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
>>> parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
>>> that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
>>> close to the gutter pan.

> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> What is a gutter pan?

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg

The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right?
We'd never willingly ride over that crap otherwise. With the logo we're
supposed to persevere and be grateful for the indulgence of the Powers
That Be deigning to give us Our Own Lane with our own tax dollars??
--
Andrew Muzi, who rode on a Bike Path . . . once.
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote:
> ...
> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg

A true bicycle farcility (sic).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per carlfogel@comcast.net:
>
>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg

Now I see why some people are so down on bike lanes.
--
PeteCresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per r15757@aol.com:
>Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets
>with no bike lanes?

There's a conflict that I sometimes see with some bike lanes: To
ride far enough away from parked cars to avoid getting doored,
sometimes the cyclist has to encroach on the car lane.

You do that enough and eventually you'll find drivers that
consider you to be out of line - riding in *their* lane instead
of that perfectly good bike lane - and who will harass you
accordingly, sometimes passing with way, way, way too little
room.

A few lessons like that - or even the prospect of same - and
people who aren't doing a lot of deep thinking on the subject
(i.e. most people...) will stay well within the defective bike
lane... and get doored from time-to-time.
--
PeteCresswell

[Wayne Pein]

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> On Aug 15, 12:26 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
>>http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm
>>
>>Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality.
>
>
> "Classic?" Really?
>
> Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets
> with no bike lanes?
>

Of course they do. But they are not lured to ride there, unlike as with
door zone bike lanes, which also may be mandatory to use. And, if not
mandatory by law, motorist coercion compels their use.

Wayne

[William O'Hara]

On 15 Aug 2007, you wrote in rec.bicycles.misc:

> On Aug 15, 12:26 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm
>>
>> Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality.
>
> "Classic?" Really?
>
> Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets
> with no bike lanes?

I do not. Remember cars can not pass you if they do not have reasonable
room. They will have to wait.

I do not have to give way to a faster moving vehicle in Massachusetts since
I do not have a mirror.

People also treat horses with more respect. They don't rush to pass the
Horse and turn right in front of them like they do in Boston or the
suburbs.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR

[A Muzi]

> Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed

r15757@aol.com wrote:
> I'd say they seem benign and inconsequential, no matter how poorly
> designed or how well designed. I certainly can't understand why they
> seem to strike fear into the hearts of so many people.

'Fear' isn't the right word. 'Disgust' maybe.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Bob Quindazzi]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Bob Quindazzi wrote:
>
>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.
>
>Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and
>they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on
>them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright
>dangerous without them.)
>
>Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are
>some.)
>
>BS
>


Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
current roads.

I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great
during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools
prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"

[r15757@aol.com]

On Aug 15, 7:41 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> > Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets
> > with no bike lanes?
>
> Of course they do. But they are not lured to ride there, unlike as with
> door zone bike lanes, which also may be mandatory to use. And, if not
> mandatory by law, motorist coercion compels their use.

Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean
you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane is
outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should be in
a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike lanes are
outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a bike lane
stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but ignorance about the
DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some people ride in the DZ
whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or not.

If doorings are what concerns you, you should advocate for bike lane
striping that compels riders to remain outside of the DZ (like the
striping of new lanes in Seattle and Denver), rather than leave the
street unstriped and leave unsuspecting novices to their own devices.
So is it really doorings of unsuspecting cyclists that has you
concerned, Wayne?

Robert

[Veloise]

Just got the latest issue of "American Bicyclist," published by the
League of [same], and it contains a photo of a line of helmeted
cyclists carefully riding single file...in the door zone adjacent to a
line of parked cars.

Nice.

--Karen D.
life member, not ready to resign so I stay out of bike lanes

[Bill Sornson]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>>>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone
>>>> messed up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the
>>>> gutter pan, and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up
>>>> with a crack parallel to the direction of travel, so you need
>>>> enough clearance from that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane
>>>> while not getting too close to the gutter pan.
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>> What is a gutter pan?
>
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right?
> We'd never willingly ride over that crap otherwise. With the logo
> we're supposed to persevere and be grateful for the indulgence of the
> Powers That Be deigning to give us Our Own Lane with our own tax
> dollars??

JFTR I've never seen a bike lane like that around my area. (I think there
might be a few cases that used to be and have been fixed quite nicely,
however.)

[Bill Z.]

A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org> writes:

> >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed
> >>> up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan,
> >>> and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack
> >>> parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from
> >>> that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too
> >>> close to the gutter pan.
>
> > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >> What is a gutter pan?
>
> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right?
> We'd never willingly ride over that crap otherwise. With the logo
> we're supposed to persevere and be grateful for the indulgence of the
> Powers That Be deigning to give us Our Own Lane with our own tax
> dollars??

This is fundamentally a silly statment - the picture shows a bike lane
stripe to the left of a gutter pan. From the picture, I can't tell
the width of the asphault in the bike lane - to meet standards, it
should be 3 feet in width or more. The logo is a standard symbol that
is required every so often. It is not to impress bicyclists - drivers
are supposed to stay out of bike lanes unless turning across them
(in which case they must be within 200 feet of their turn before
merging into the lane, yielding to any bicycles already in the lane).
Similarly there are rules governing bicyclists. So the logo is
there so that you don't have guess what kind of lane it is by
being able to tell a 3 inch shoulder stripe from a 5 inch bike lane
stripe (both solid white stripes) reliably.

There is no requirement that the logo has to be totally on the
asphault.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Sornson]

A Muzi wrote:
>> Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed
>
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>> I'd say they seem benign and inconsequential, no matter how poorly
>> designed or how well designed. I certainly can't understand why they
>> seem to strike fear into the hearts of so many people.
>
> 'Fear' isn't the right word. 'Disgust' maybe.

Cyclists around here love 'em. :-D

[Bill Z.]

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes:

> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >>>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone
> >>>> messed up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the
> >>>> gutter pan, and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up
> >>>> with a crack parallel to the direction of travel, so you need
> >>>> enough clearance from that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane
> >>>> while not getting too close to the gutter pan.
> >
> >> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >>> What is a gutter pan?
> >
> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
> >
> > The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right?
> > We'd never willingly ride over that crap otherwise. With the logo
> > we're supposed to persevere and be grateful for the indulgence of the
> > Powers That Be deigning to give us Our Own Lane with our own tax
> > dollars??
>
> JFTR I've never seen a bike lane like that around my area. (I think there
> might be a few cases that used to be and have been fixed quite nicely,
> however.)

FYI (I thought I pointed this out but it isn't in the quoted text),
the lane I mentioned was removed shortly after the bike lane stripe
was painted, and re-installed after the problem was fixed (either by
cutting back the gutter pan or by restriping the other lanes so the
bike lane could be put in in accordance with state standards.

We have a few very old bike lanes that are a bit two narrow, being
some of the first installed in California, so they went in before the
design standards existed. These are being fixed over time.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed
>> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>>> I'd say they seem benign and inconsequential, no matter how poorly
>>> designed or how well designed. I certainly can't understand why they
>>> seem to strike fear into the hearts of so many people.
>> 'Fear' isn't the right word. 'Disgust' maybe.
>
> Cyclists around here love 'em. :-D

That explains a lot of things!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Wayne Pein]

r15757@aol.com wrote:

>
> Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean
> you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane is
> outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should be in
> a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike lanes are
> outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a bike lane
> stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but ignorance about the
> DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some people ride in the DZ
> whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or not.


Bike lanes are marketed as safe havens for those too timid or
unknowledgable to ride on normal roads. If a portion of the bike lane is
indeed outside the door zone, it is the extreme left side of it. These
biyclists are not going to be thinking about riding on the left side of
the bike lane. They are scared of overtaking motor vehicles and are
inclined to ride as far away from motor vehicles as posssible.



>
> If doorings are what concerns you, you should advocate for bike lane
> striping that compels riders to remain outside of the DZ (like the
> striping of new lanes in Seattle and Denver), rather than leave the
> street unstriped and leave unsuspecting novices to their own devices.

Bike lane striping isn't needed to guide the ignorant. Simple "parking
crosses" are sufficient.
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf

Unsuspecting novices shouldn't ride bikes in situations for which they
are ill equipped anymore than unsuspecting motor vehicle drivers should
drive motor vehicles. If you are going to ride in a complex traffic
environment you should be competent.



> So is it really doorings of unsuspecting cyclists that has you
> concerned, Wayne?

I'm concerned about government installed and sanctioned hazards.

Wayne

[Luke]

In article <87mywshx15.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z.
<nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

> >
> > The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right?
> > We'd never willingly ride over that crap otherwise. With the logo
> > we're supposed to persevere and be grateful for the indulgence of the
> > Powers That Be deigning to give us Our Own Lane with our own tax
> > dollars??
>
> This is fundamentally a silly statment - the picture shows a bike lane
> stripe to the left of a gutter pan. From the picture, I can't tell
> the width of the asphault in the bike lane - to meet standards, it
> should be 3 feet in width or more. The logo is a standard symbol that
> is required every so often. It is not to impress bicyclists - drivers
> are supposed to stay out of bike lanes unless turning across them
> (in which case they must be within 200 feet of their turn before
> merging into the lane, yielding to any bicycles already in the lane).
> Similarly there are rules governing bicyclists. So the logo is
> there so that you don't have guess what kind of lane it is by
> being able to tell a 3 inch shoulder stripe from a 5 inch bike lane
> stripe (both solid white stripes) reliably.
>
> There is no requirement that the logo has to be totally on the
> asphault.
>

You're missing the point. The issue is not the logo but the inferiority
of the bicycle lane; the logo, representing to all that the gutter - or
close to it - is to be the exclusive preserve of cyclists, adds insult
to injury.

I can anticipate motorists' reactions if a pedaller should forsake his
designated lane in favour of a safer line: 'Get back in your lane you
#$%$#@, Why do cyclists to complain, they have their own lane don't
they?, etc...'

I agree with Muzi's musings: in this case, better to have saved
taxpayer $ and abandoned the proposition.

[Bill Sornson]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per carlfogel@comcast.net:
>>
>> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> Now I see why some people are so down on bike lanes.

That's like looking at a picture of Michael Moore and saying you see why
people are down on men.

Bill "horrible examples not typical, thank God" S.

[Dennis Ferguson]

On 2007-08-16, (PeteCresswell) <x@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per r15757@aol.com:
>>Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets
>>with no bike lanes?
>
> There's a conflict that I sometimes see with some bike lanes: To
> ride far enough away from parked cars to avoid getting doored,
> sometimes the cyclist has to encroach on the car lane.
>
> You do that enough and eventually you'll find drivers that
> consider you to be out of line - riding in *their* lane instead
> of that perfectly good bike lane - and who will harass you
> accordingly, sometimes passing with way, way, way too little
> room.

This happens, but in my experience it has little to do with
bike lanes. It is true that if you need to ride outside the
bike lane, while most motorists will deal with it, the occasional
one will get their shorts in a knot, but it is equally true that
when you are far enough left to be safe on a road without bike
lanes, while most motorists will deal with it, the occasional
one will get their shorts in a knot. I don't think this happens
any more often with bike lanes than without. It may be they'll be
yelling "Ride in the bike lane" in the first case and "Ride
on the sidewalk" or "Get off the road" in the second case, but
the difference isn't too important. The ones that want to yell
will yell whether there's a bike lane or not, and the ones that
want to pass too close will do it whether there's a bike lane
or not. In either case if you can't stay far enough right to
safely share the lane with the cars you've got to be far enough
left to make sure they realize they need to change lanes to
get by you, and you'll need to deal with the occasional dickhead.

> A few lessons like that - or even the prospect of same - and
> people who aren't doing a lot of deep thinking on the subject
> (i.e. most people...) will stay well within the defective bike
> lane... and get doored from time-to-time.

And the same person, when they're scared like this on a road without
bike lanes, will be just as close to the parked cars. I don't think
it matters whether the bike lane is there or not.

Dennis Ferguson

[Wayne Pein]

goodone wrote:


>>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg

> Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.

Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.

Wayne

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean
>> you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane
>> is outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should
>> be in a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike
>> lanes are outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a
>> bike lane stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but
>> ignorance about the DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some
>> people ride in the DZ whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or
>> not.
>
>
> Bike lanes are marketed

Bzzt. "Marketed"?!? Only in Pein's World.

> ... as safe havens for those too timid or
> unknowledgable to ride on normal roads. If a portion of the bike lane
> is indeed outside the door zone, it is the extreme left side of it.
> These biyclists are not going to be thinking about riding on the left
> side of the bike lane. They are scared of overtaking motor vehicles
> and are inclined to ride as far away from motor vehicles as posssible.

Riders like that are in danger all on their own. On roads without bike
lanes they hug the gutter or ride on sidewalks. Hell, getting comfortable
in traffic via /well designed/ bike lanes is a good way to learn how/where
to ride in general. You own/take the space on the right (or correct) side
of the road to the left of the door zone. If a BL gives a novice a bit more
confidence to learn this, then that's an extra bonus.

Only poorly designed bike lanes are detriments.


>> If doorings are what concerns you, you should advocate for bike lane
>> striping that compels riders to remain outside of the DZ (like the
>> striping of new lanes in Seattle and Denver), rather than leave the
>> street unstriped and leave unsuspecting novices to their own devices.
>
> Bike lane striping isn't needed to guide the ignorant. Simple "parking
> crosses" are sufficient.
> http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf
>
> Unsuspecting novices shouldn't ride bikes in situations for which they
> are ill equipped anymore than unsuspecting motor vehicle drivers
> should drive motor vehicles. If you are going to ride in a complex
> traffic environment you should be competent.
>
>
>
>> So is it really doorings of unsuspecting cyclists that has you
>> concerned, Wayne?
>
> I'm concerned about government installed and sanctioned hazards.

Rare, and usually quickly corrected.

BS

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:

> goodone wrote:
>
>
> >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
>
> Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.

Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be
ineptness), that depends on the width of the asphault inside the bike
lane. If it is three feet wide, the lane meets the design standards
and and riding inside the bike lane while staying on the asphault
should be easy for almost anyone.

If it is substandard, the city that installed it is taking a liability
risk if there is an accident (e.g., if someone catches a wheel in the
slot that forms after the surface degrades at the joint between the
asphault and the gutter pan).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[still me]

On 16 Aug 2007 07:54:26 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
wrote:

>My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

An anagram would be more fun in this situation

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>goodone wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>>
>>>Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
>>
>>Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.
>
>
> Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be
> ineptness), that depends on the width of the asphault inside the bike
> lane. If it is three feet wide, the lane meets the design standards
> and and riding inside the bike lane while staying on the asphault
> should be easy for almost anyone.

Don't try to justify maliciousness with ineptitude. It shows you to be a
bike lane apologist.

Clearly this lane is not 3 ft of asphalt, so your point is irrelevant.

Further, people who know something about bicycling argue that 3 ft of
pavement is substandard, irrespective of the fact that foolish
guidelines say it is fine. It's not merely the ability to stay on
asphalt that is important, as you assert. If that were the case, almost
anyone could ride on 2 ft of pavement.

Wayne

[Michael Press]

In article <87643fcyxp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:

> Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > goodone wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
> >
> > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
> >
> > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.
>
> Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be
> ineptness),

Even incompetent people can be malicious.

> that depends on the width of the asphault inside the bike
> lane. If it is three feet wide, the lane meets the design standards
> and and riding inside the bike lane while staying on the asphault
> should be easy for almost anyone.
>
> If it is substandard, the city that installed it is taking a liability
> risk if there is an accident (e.g., if someone catches a wheel in the
> slot that forms after the surface degrades at the joint between the
> asphault and the gutter pan).

--
Michael Press

[Bill Sornson]

Bob Quindazzi wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> Bob Quindazzi wrote:
>>
>>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.
>>
>> Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike
>> lanes, and they work great. That's not to say that one should
>> become DEPENDENT on them, but they're terrific when done right.
>> (And /some/ roads are downright dangerous without them.)
>>
>> Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes,
>> there are some.)
>>
>> BS
>>
>
>
> Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
> cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
> current roads.

Good bike lanes ARE improvements to the roads. Virtually all the bike clubs
around here use routes that feature them, and NOT because they don't know
how to ride roads without them. It's because they're better and safer, all
things considered.

> I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great
> during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools
> prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"

Wow. Well that sure lends perspective to the issue. ROTFL Nobel Peace
Prize for...WAYNE PEIN! LOL

[Jay Beattie]

On Aug 16, 8:20 am, Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
> >Bob Quindazzi wrote:
>
> >> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.
>
> >Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and
> >they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on
> >them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright
> >dangerous without them.)
>
> >Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are
> >some.)
>
> >BS
>
> Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
> cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
> current roads.
>
> I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great
> during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools
> prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"

Egads! Bike lanes as racist homelands. That clearly wins the RBT
hyperbole award for 2007!

I have bike lanes almost all the way in to work. They are great
compared to the prior set-up which was a narrow and busy traffic lane,
a fog line and no shoulder. The quasi-evil part of bike lanes or
"bike trails" is that under local law, you have to be in them if they
are deemed "safe" (a ticketed cyclist has to prove the lane has not
been deemed safe). There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate
from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me
riding in traffic, then I could get busted. -- Jay Beattie.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Bob Quindazzi:
>Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
>cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
>current roads.

The ones that scare me the most aren't uneducated; they're
preoccupied - with phone conversations, text messaging, or email.
--
PeteCresswell

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> ...It shows you [Bill Zaumen] to be a bike lane apologist....

In other breaking news...

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>r15757@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean
>>>you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane
>>>is outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should
>>>be in a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike
>>>lanes are outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a
>>>bike lane stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but
>>>ignorance about the DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some
>>>people ride in the DZ whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or
>>>not.
>>
>>
>>Bike lanes are marketed
>
>
> Bzzt. "Marketed"?!? Only in Pein's World.

Sornson,

Try to refrain from being an ignoramus for just a minute.

>
>
>>... as safe havens for those too timid or
>>unknowledgable to ride on normal roads. If a portion of the bike lane
>>is indeed outside the door zone, it is the extreme left side of it.
>>These biyclists are not going to be thinking about riding on the left
>>side of the bike lane. They are scared of overtaking motor vehicles
>>and are inclined to ride as far away from motor vehicles as posssible.
>
>
> Riders like that are in danger all on their own. On roads without bike
> lanes they hug the gutter or ride on sidewalks.

Ignoramuses shouldn't ride a bike on scary roads that cause them to do that.

Hell, getting comfortable
> in traffic via /well designed/ bike lanes is a good way to learn how/where
> to ride in general. You own/take the space on the right (or correct) side
> of the road to the left of the door zone.

You're a hoot. Bike lanes teach people where to ride! Hahahahaha.


If a BL gives a novice a bit more
> confidence to learn this, then that's an extra bonus.
>
> Only poorly designed bike lanes are detriments.

Ignoramus,

Why should the rest of us put up with bike lanes, poorly designed or
allegedly "well designed," just so the ignorant can have more confidence?

Bike lanes make ignoramuses believe that they know all they need to know.


>>I'm concerned about government installed and sanctioned hazards.
>
>
> Rare, and usually quickly corrected.


Ignoramus,

If that were the case, then bicyclists wouldn't consistently be involved
in dooring collisions in them.

Wayne

[Bob Quindazzi]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:48:44 -0700, Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

>On Aug 16, 8:20 am, Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bob Quindazzi wrote:
>>
>> >> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.
>>
>> >Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and
>> >they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on
>> >them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright
>> >dangerous without them.)
>>
>> >Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are
>> >some.)
>>
>> >BS
>>
>> Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on
>> cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving
>> current roads.
>>
>> I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great
>> during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools
>> prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"
>
>Egads! Bike lanes as racist homelands. That clearly wins the RBT
>hyperbole award for 2007!
>
>I have bike lanes almost all the way in to work. They are great
>compared to the prior set-up which was a narrow and busy traffic lane,
>a fog line and no shoulder. The quasi-evil part of bike lanes or
>"bike trails" is that under local law, you have to be in them if they
>are deemed "safe" (a ticketed cyclist has to prove the lane has not
>been deemed safe). There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate
>from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me
>riding in traffic, then I could get busted. -- Jay Beattie.


Well Jay, I think you've just proven my point.

[Michael Press]

In article
<1187282924.303795.102510@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>
,
Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com> wrote:

> There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate
> from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me
> riding in traffic, then I could get busted.

This is what makes bicycle lanes a bad idea.
The camel's nose is in the tent.

--
Michael Press

[Jay Beattie]

On Aug 16, 11:17 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <1187282924.303795.102...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups. com>
> ,
> Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
> > There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate
> > from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me
> > riding in traffic, then I could get busted.
>
> This is what makes bicycle lanes a bad idea.
> The camel's nose is in the tent.

Yes, but I think the upside is still pretty up, having lived with and
without them on the same busy road. Because there are local laws
requiring the addition of bike lanes when constructing or
reconstructing roadways, it means that we at least get some space that
we otherwise wouldn't have. It is also a benefit that the bike lane is
considered a traffic lane and gives cyclist right of way that they
would not otherwise have -- like against turning cars. It is clearly
an imperfect solution, but at least it is something. I know there are
more global arguments that can be made against them, but in my
personal experience, they have been good.

On another topic, a local professor did a study and determined that
merely installing bike lanes did not increase ridership by people
living within a quarter mile of the bike lanes. I guess this means
that people do not feel safe in bike lanes or that they are not
staying off their bikes simply because there are no bike lanes. The
latter explanation tracks my experience -- those people who say "oh,
commuting in traffic is so dangerous" are usually Jaba the Desk
Jockeys who would not commute even if there were dedicated bicycle
chutes from their front doors to work. -- Jay Beattie.

[Bill Z.]

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:

> In article <87643fcyxp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > > goodone wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
> > >
> > > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
> > >
> > > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.
> >
> > Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be
> > ineptness),
>
> Even incompetent people can be malicious.

With respect to bike lanes? Get real.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Michael Press]

In article <87odh7ryg9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:

> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > In article <87643fcyxp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > goodone wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
> > > >
> > > > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
> > > >
> > > > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.
> > >
> > > Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be
> > > ineptness),
> >
> > Even incompetent people can be malicious.
>
> With respect to bike lanes? Get real.

I do not understand the question.
Reality is a multifaceted concept.

--
Michael Press

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:

>>
>>Even incompetent people can be malicious.
>
>
> With respect to bike lanes? Get real.
>

Anyone putting in bike lanes would have to refer to published
guidelines. They're not hard to understand. Yet, there are ubiquitous
examples of ridiculously placed bike lanes all over the country. Likely,
the people putting them in knew they were doing it wrong but didn't
care, the overarching principle being to install bike lanes no matter
what. That's malicious.

There are numberous examples of substandard, dangerous, and otherwise
poorly placed bike lanes in "Bicycle Friendly" Carrboro, NC and adjacent
bicycle friendly wannabe Chapel Hill.

Wayne

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:01:47 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 15, 1:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> Dear Dan,
>>
>> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
>> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>>
>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August...
>
>
>The Coventry Velodrome
>
>http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm
>
>That's spectacular!

Dear LD,

That site is a bit hard to link to--here's your Velodrome:

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/October2006.htm

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

landotter wrote:
> On Aug 15, 1:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> Dear Dan,
>>
>> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
>> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>>
>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August...
>
>
> The Coventry Velodrome
>
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm
>
> That's spectacular!

At UIUC, on of the "bicycle paths" has knee height concrete ventilation
boxes in the middle of the path. Needless to say, I always used the streets.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[A Muzi]

>> carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
>>> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August...

> landotter <landotter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Coventry Velodrome
>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm
>> That's spectacular!

carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> That site is a bit hard to link to--here's your Velodrome:
> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/October2006.htm

Calling Tom Sherman! Calling Tom Sherman!

An employment opportunity if ever there was one. Anyone who's ever been
astride a bike, even a recumbent, could do better. They need you _now_
in Coventry!
The Civil Service goes home at 4pm, full benefits, vacations and
apparently no pesky performance standards.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per William O'Hara:
>I do not. Remember cars can not pass you if they do not have reasonable
>room. They will have to wait.

Was that written tongue-in-cheek?
--
PeteCresswell

[!Jones]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:16:34 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "William
O'Hara" <whoohara@yahoo.com> wrote:

>People also treat horses with more respect. They don't rush to pass the
>Horse and turn right in front of them like they do in Boston or the
>suburbs.

The world is full of rude, inconsiderate people. These people will be
found in cars, boats, driving busses and trucks, and (yes, it's true)
riding bicycles. Bicycle lanes are a good investment in a city's
infrastructure and I support their construction wholeheartedly;
however, if a rider is careless and complacent, then he or she will
probably meet the fender of a similar driver.

Consider what the hikers and equestrians say about the people on
"mountain" bicycles. How do you feel about trails being closed to
bicycles as more and more are doing?

I tend to agree with you. I'd just point out that it cuts both ways.

Jones

[William O'Hara]

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in
news:u1q9c3h51jrmqfkjm1vcos7p3lsvfu96p6@4ax.com:

> Per William O'Hara:
>>I do not. Remember cars can not pass you if they do not have reasonable
>>room. They will have to wait.
>
> Was that written tongue-in-cheek?

No. You can not pass if you do not have reasonable room.

I would like Massachusetts to officially determine the distance by statute
as Maine has done. It should be at least four feet.

People pass me with 2" after forcing me onto the White line or the edge.

I ride in a lot of places without any shoulder or anything past the travel
lane. Most of Massachusetts roads are substandard. Motorists complain
about the overwhelming lack of maintenance for Route 138, but most roads in
general have insufficient subroadbed in terms of depth and width. Travel
lanes are too narrow. The biggest evidence is the premature failure of the
hard top on the sides of the road.

Bicyclists have it tough when people can't wait.

Think about a bike going 20mph and some knucle has to pass the bicycle at
30 mph. How much time saving was acheived by the motorist? There are so
many places on my local routes that do not have passing room and are only
30mph for the maxium speed limit.

Massachusetts have a horrible driving culture representative of me first
generation and poor roads.

--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR

[Bill Z.]

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:

> In article <87odh7ryg9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
> >
> > > In article <87643fcyxp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
> > > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > goodone wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane.
> > > >
> > > > Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be
> > > > ineptness),
> > >
> > > Even incompetent people can be malicious.
> >
> > With respect to bike lanes? Get real.
>
> I do not understand the question.
> Reality is a multifaceted concept.

The idea that you have any significant number of malicious government
employees, competent or not, with a thing about bike lanes is
ridiculous (I'd put it at zero except for the possibility of an
undiagnosed psycho somehow managing to hold a job).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

> On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Of course, the website Carl has pointed to deals only with British
> designs. That allows bike lane fans to pretend that such atrocious
> designs never occur in America. Or at least, never occur out west
> where the roads are wide. Or perhaps never occur since the design
> standards got improved. Or at least, haven't occurred very recently.

Or we can just be honest and note that bike lanes that meet the
current design standards are not a problem. The idea that nobody
ever screws up is a figment of Krygowksi's imagination, but he
frequently puts out strawman arguments or tries to put words in
people's mouths.

> And if atrocious designs are somehow built by mistake, they will be
> speedily corrected by the same dedicated civil servants that designed
> and oversaw the mistakes, once those mistakes are gently pointed out.

Odd. I know of a couple of cases in town where a bike lane was
installed so as to be substandard and they were quickly fixed.
In one case the lane was removed after what I believe was a
design error. In the other, some pavement work was done and
there was an existing, very old lane where the distance from
the lane stripe to the gutter pan was too small. The contractor
who did the striping just followed the old lane. He had
screwed up and had to replace it and bring the new section up
to the current design standards.

> My experience is quite the opposite, of course. But to a true bike
> lane fan, the bad examples simply don't count.

Krygowski's experience is usually a figment of his imagination and
stated for rhetorical effect. :-)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
>> > some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
>> > posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
>> > want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
>> > gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
>> > cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
>> > know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
>> > dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
>> > so.
>>
>> > This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
>> > I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
>> > replying to her.
>>
>> > Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
>> > Non-tiny link:http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread...
>>
>> Dear Dan,
>>
>> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
>> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>>
>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Of course, the website Carl has pointed to deals only with British
>designs. That allows bike lane fans to pretend that such atrocious
>designs never occur in America. Or at least, never occur out west
>where the roads are wide. Or perhaps never occur since the design
>standards got improved. Or at least, haven't occurred very recently.
>And if atrocious designs are somehow built by mistake, they will be
>speedily corrected by the same dedicated civil servants that designed
>and oversaw the mistakes, once those mistakes are gently pointed out.
>
>My experience is quite the opposite, of course. But to a true bike
>lane fan, the bad examples simply don't count.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

An errand let me take some indifferent pictures of bike lane idiocy in
Pueblo. A few blocks of Union Avenue, once the center of town, have
had handsome stripes painted.

But at the end of the first block, a must-turn-right car lane replaces
the bike lane, with a sign on the far side of the parked cars marking
the exact spot where the bike lane vanishes, unless a full-grown SUV
obscures it:

http://i10.tinypic.com/4ti4j92.jpg

Exactly what the bicycyist is supposed to do when the lane vanishes is
unclear. Drivers tend to use their horns to indicate that bicycles are
not welcome in the no-shoulder right-turn-only lane, and heaven help
the two-wheeled fool who swerves out into the main lane.

Perhaps you're supposed to stop, wheel your bike around the back of
the last parked car, push it down the sidewalk to the crosswalk, wait
for the walk light, get back into the new bike lane, and then ride
another block to where . . .

http://i16.tinypic.com/6ewq4w6.jpg

Same thing again. Every block, the bike lane vanishes.

Luckily, the city felt that a few blocks of bike lane down Union
Avenue were more than enough and quit painting these silly lanes,
saving a great deal of money on all the bike-lane-ends signs that
would have been needed at the end of every block.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Aug 16, 9:32 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > [Bike lane proponents pretend that ] if atrocious designs are somehow built by mistake, they will be
> > speedily corrected by the same dedicated civil servants that designed
> > and oversaw the mistakes, once those mistakes are gently pointed out.
>
> Odd. I know of a couple of cases in town where a bike lane was
> installed so as to be substandard and they were quickly fixed.
> In one case the lane was removed after what I believe was a
> design error. In the other, some pavement work was done and
> there was an existing, very old lane where the distance from
> the lane stripe to the gutter pan was too small. The contractor
> who did the striping just followed the old lane. He had
> screwed up and had to replace it and bring the new section up
> to the current design standards.

And our bike club has battled for ten years to have a grossly mis-
designed set of bike lanes revised. These are in a large metropolitan
park in our area. The designer has absolutely no knowledge of
bicycling, and refuses to even look at the AASTO standards (or any
other documentation). The park is using the excuse that pedestrians
also walk in those lanes, and that therefore "they are a multi-user
facility, not a bicycle facility, and they don't have to meet the
standards for bicycle facilities." The park administration is backing
him up.

Again, Bill refuses to believe anyone else has problems with bike
lanes, no matter how many bad examples he's told about.

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>>> Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed
>>> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>>>> I'd say they seem benign and inconsequential, no matter how poorly
>>>> designed or how well designed. I certainly can't understand why
>>>> they seem to strike fear into the hearts of so many people.
>>> 'Fear' isn't the right word. 'Disgust' maybe.
>>
>> Cyclists around here love 'em. :-D
>
> That explains a lot of things!

http://www.efgh.com/bike/clubs.htm

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> writes:


> > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
> >> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
> >> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
> >> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm
> > That's precious!
> > Hadn't noticed the archive on my earlier visit.
>
> One of my all time favorites is the two-way "bike path" on the south
> side of University Avenue [1], since it puts cyclists right in the
> path of left-turning motor vehicles.


The URL shows a bike path, not a bike lane, so exactly why do you
think it is relevant. Aside from a bollard (can't tell if it is
easy to get by it safely from the picture), it looks like you have
a bike-only path that terminates at a dead-end street (dead end for
cars) and ingress and egress are aligned with the normal traffic
lanes.

The bollards in the bike-path entrance and exits might be necessary
to keep drivers out of it. Hopefully they left enough room so you
can clear the bollard without tripping on a curb.

You'd have to go past the bollards fairly slowly for safety, but
that might be preferable to a detour - the closure could be there
to control traffic, and they just tried to mitigate the impact on
bicycles. That's done around here sometimes - a road is closed to
prevent cut-through traffic and there are slots to let bicycles
through, so bikes get a direct route.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[A Muzi]

>>> "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
>>>> some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
>>>> posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
>>>> want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
>>>> gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
>>>> cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
>>>> know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
>>>> dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
>>>> so.
>>>> This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
>>>> I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
>>>> replying to her.
>>>> Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
>>>> Non-tiny
>>>> link:http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread...

>> carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>>> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
>>> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm

> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> That's precious!
>> Hadn't noticed the archive on my earlier visit.

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> One of my all time favorites is the two-way "bike path" on the south
> side of University Avenue [1], since it puts cyclists right in the path
> of left-turning motor vehicles.
> [1] Just a couple of blocks from Andrew's shop.

900 University is famous for both bike-bike accidents and also 'bike
jams' where there are so many bikes in that narrow lane that you can't
get to the front before the light changes. (I go west 2 blocks over on
Dayton)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
>
>>>
>>> Even incompetent people can be malicious.
>>
>>
>> With respect to bike lanes? Get real.
>>
>
> Anyone putting in bike lanes would have to refer to published
> guidelines. They're not hard to understand. Yet, there are ubiquitous
> examples of ridiculously placed bike lanes all over the country.
> Likely, the people putting them in knew they were doing it wrong but
> didn't care, the overarching principle being to install bike lanes no
> matter what. That's malicious.
>
> There are numberous examples of substandard, dangerous, and otherwise
> poorly placed bike lanes in "Bicycle Friendly" Carrboro, NC and
> adjacent bicycle friendly wannabe Chapel Hill.

Implicit in your comment is that proper, well designed bike lanes are good
things (or, at least in Pein's World, not too terribly objectional).

I declare progress! LOL

[Bill Z.]

frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

> On Aug 16, 9:32 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > frkry...@gmail.com writes:
> > >
> > > [Bike lane proponents pretend that ] if atrocious designs are somehow built by mistake, they will be
> > > speedily corrected by the same dedicated civil servants that designed
> > > and oversaw the mistakes, once those mistakes are gently pointed out.
> >
> > Odd. I know of a couple of cases in town where a bike lane was
> > installed so as to be substandard and they were quickly fixed.
> > In one case the lane was removed after what I believe was a
> > design error. In the other, some pavement work was done and
> > there was an existing, very old lane where the distance from
> > the lane stripe to the gutter pan was too small. The contractor
> > who did the striping just followed the old lane. He had
> > screwed up and had to replace it and bring the new section up
> > to the current design standards.
>
> And our bike club has battled for ten years to have a grossly mis-
> designed set of bike lanes revised. These are in a large metropolitan
> park in our area. The designer has absolutely no knowledge of
> bicycling, and refuses to even look at the AASTO standards (or any
> other documentation). The park is using the excuse that pedestrians
> also walk in those lanes, and that therefore "they are a multi-user
> facility, not a bicycle facility, and they don't have to meet the
> standards for bicycle facilities." The park administration is backing
> him up.

Krygowski is obviously dissembling - if it is a "park" and a "multi-user
facility", whatever this facility is, it is not a bike lane, and not
being claimed to be a bike lane. It sounds more like a bike path.

In California, the only roads that bicycles can be restricted from using
are freeways and toll bridges. You do not have to use a path or sidewalk,
and a "multi-user" facility is obviously either an off-road path or a
sidewalk, but is not a bike lane.

Also in Califonria, if a jurisdiction refuses to follow the Caltrans
bike lane standards (basically the AASTO ones), a bicyclist is under
no legal obligation to use it - the bike lane rules in the CVC
specifically state that they apply only to lanes installed in
conformance to state standards.

If Krygowski's state has differnet rules, instead of whining on
usenet (and for some reason, blaming me as he always does), his
efforts would be better spent getting the laws changed, and using
what we do here as a model (it is easier to get changes to the laws
if you can point to another state where what you want has been
shown to work).

> Again, Bill refuses to believe anyone else has problems with bike
> lanes, no matter how many bad examples he's told about.

Proving once again that Krygowski is a liar - I simply reported the
facts regarding the town I live in.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

>> frkrygow@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>And our bike club has battled for ten years to have a grossly mis-
>>designed set of bike lanes revised. These are in a large metropolitan
>>park in our area. The designer has absolutely no knowledge of
>>bicycling, and refuses to even look at the AASTO standards (or any
>>other documentation). The park is using the excuse that pedestrians
>>also walk in those lanes, and that therefore "they are a multi-user
>>facility, not a bicycle facility, and they don't have to meet the
>>standards for bicycle facilities." The park administration is backing
>>him up.
>
>
> Krygowski is obviously dissembling - if it is a "park" and a "multi-user
> facility", whatever this facility is, it is not a bike lane, and not
> being claimed to be a bike lane. It sounds more like a bike path.

Zauman is obviously projecting. From behind his computer in CA he thinks
he knows more about a facility in OH than Frank who lives and rides there.

Wayne

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Aug 17, 12:03 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com writes:
> > On Aug 16, 9:32 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > frkry...@gmail.com writes:
> The park is using the excuse that pedestrians
> > also walk in those lanes, and that therefore "they are a multi-user
> > facility, not a bicycle facility, and they don't have to meet the
> > standards for bicycle facilities." The park administration is backing
> > him up.
>
> Krygowski is obviously dissembling - if it is a "park" and a "multi-user
> facility", whatever this facility is, it is not a bike lane, and not
> being claimed to be a bike lane. It sounds more like a bike path.

When they first installed the facility, they called it a bike lane.
Until our latest attempt at getting it changed, they called it a bike
lane. Every cyclist I've talked to about it has called it a bike
lane. Terming it a "multi-user facility" is merely the park
superintendent's latest dodge, an excuse for violating design
standards set by AASHTO and the state DOT.

It's a portion of a 20 foot wide roadway separated from the motor
vehicle lane by a white stripe. What would you call it?

> In California, the only roads that bicycles can be restricted from using
> are freeways and toll bridges. You do not have to use a path or sidewalk,
> and a "multi-user" facility is obviously either an off-road path or a
> sidewalk, but is not a bike lane.

As is often the case, what you think is obvious is totally mistaken.
It's not a sidewalk. It's not off-road. It's the same asphalt as the
rest of the roadway, separated by a white stripe.

And it violates many standards. It's a park roadway that's one way
northbound for cars. They want to provide two-way access for bikes.
Everyone agrees this is valuable, even necessary. But they put two
opposing-direction bike lanes on the LEFT of the cars, rather than
having northbound bikes ride on the right. They are worried that
motorists would forget to stay on the right (!), or ignore one-way
signs, so they installed many sets of bollards in the bike lane to
exclude cars, ignoring the fact that these are serious collision
hazards for cyclists. On one section, they further separated the cars
from the bikes by a very rough rumble strip, ignoring that these
rumble strips are hazardous to cyclists. The traffic light on the
north terminus trips only if a vehicle sits over the loop, but there
is no detector loop in the bike lane, and cyclists have to cross the
rumble strip to access the loop, which often ignores them anyway...

I could go on. But the main point is, these park officials are
convinced of the necessity and value of white paint. Like most bike
lane advocates, they're certain that cycling is not safe unless the
cars are separated from the bicyclists... at least, on this one
stretch of road. (The park has about 20 miles of normal roads, shared
without bike lanes and without problems.) And like so many bike lane
designers, they're certain that designing a "facility" for cyclists
requires no knowledge; that anything done to keep bikes away from
cars is obviously wonderful.

>
> Also in Califonria, if a jurisdiction refuses to follow the Caltrans
> bike lane standards (basically the AASTO ones), a bicyclist is under
> no legal obligation to use it - the bike lane rules in the CVC
> specifically state that they apply only to lanes installed in
> conformance to state standards.

We're not required to use the lanes, unless we want to ride south on
that road. Except, that is, by the car drivers who blare their horns
and yell "Get in the bike lane!!!"

>
> If Krygowski's state has differnet rules, instead of whining on
> usenet (and for some reason, blaming me as he always does), his
> efforts would be better spent getting the laws changed, and using
> what we do here as a model (it is easier to get changes to the laws
> if you can point to another state where what you want has been
> shown to work).

Bill, you have absolutely no idea what I, and my fellow cyclists, have
already done in an effort to change this situation. It's flagrantly
stupid of you to give advice without detailed knowledge.

And for the record, I don't blame you for this design. I give it as
an example to show that there are many areas of the world where your
supposedly ideal, well-designed, frequently maintained, very
successful bike lanes simply don't exist. And that in those areas,
the presence of standards, design rules, expert testimony, and
political pressure cannot guarantee even a minimally competent design.

I do blame you for your inability to differentiate between the real
world and your fantasy Zaumen-land.

- Frank Krygowski

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>Anyone putting in bike lanes would have to refer to published
>>guidelines. They're not hard to understand. Yet, there are ubiquitous
>>examples of ridiculously placed bike lanes all over the country.
>>Likely, the people putting them in knew they were doing it wrong but
>>didn't care, the overarching principle being to install bike lanes no
>>matter what. That's malicious.
>>
>>There are numberous examples of substandard, dangerous, and otherwise
>>poorly placed bike lanes in "Bicycle Friendly" Carrboro, NC and
>>adjacent bicycle friendly wannabe Chapel Hill.
>
>

> Implicit in your comment is that proper, well designed bike lanes are good
> things (or, at least in Pein's World, not too terribly objectional).
>
> I declare progress! LOL

Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period. Elsewhere, they're
objectional to varying degrees.

Peace.

Wayne

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>> Anyone putting in bike lanes would have to refer to published
>>> guidelines. They're not hard to understand. Yet, there are
>>> ubiquitous examples of ridiculously placed bike lanes all over the
>>> country. Likely, the people putting them in knew they were doing it
>>> wrong but didn't care, the overarching principle being to install
>>> bike lanes no matter what. That's malicious.
>>>
>>> There are numberous examples of substandard, dangerous, and
>>> otherwise poorly placed bike lanes in "Bicycle Friendly" Carrboro,
>>> NC and adjacent bicycle friendly wannabe Chapel Hill.
>>
>>
>
>> Implicit in your comment is that proper, well designed bike lanes
>> are good things (or, at least in Pein's World, not too terribly
>> objectional). I declare progress! LOL
>
> Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period. Elsewhere, they're
> objectional to varying degrees.

The one place they're never needed is the freeway. Bikes are seldom allowed
anyway, and when they are there's a big fat shoulder on which to ride.
(Granted, grime and debris gets pushed out on the shoulders, but would also
on a freeway bike lane since they're not sweeped the way regular roads are.)

Where I live I can think of two stretches of freeway that allow bicycles.
(No "bike lanes" per se, however.) I avoid them like the plague, but when I
have used them they stunk. Fumes, vehicle wind wakes, and lots of broken
glass and other crap. Give me a decent road any day. Even better if it has
a good, effective bike lane, but fine if none.

Bill "back from a fiddy-fiver" S.
>
> Peace.
>
> Wayne

[Tom Keats]

In article <46c601eb$0$16429$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes:
>
> Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period.

Frontage roads adjacent to freeways/expressways/highways
might be preferable, so long as they go through to riders'
destinations. And if they exist at all.

> Elsewhere, they're
> objectional to varying degrees.

I think bike lanes can be useful on steep upgrades
that slow a rider wayyy down -- sort of a "please
feel free to go ahead and pass me lane," as opposed
to a passing lane for the faster vehicles.

After all, passing lanes accommodate the faster
vehicles; why not accommodate the slower-slower
vehicles (as per the terrain of the locale) too?
Or instead?

But, I guess the predominant CarHead mindset is
to accommodate the swift, and to dismiss and
ignore the plodders & sloggers.

Oh, well.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

[Matt O'Toole]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:15:37 -0400, Wayne Pein wrote:

> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>>Anyone putting in bike lanes would have to refer to published
>>>guidelines. They're not hard to understand. Yet, there are ubiquitous
>>>examples of ridiculously placed bike lanes all over the country.
>>>Likely, the people putting them in knew they were doing it wrong but
>>>didn't care, the overarching principle being to install bike lanes no
>>>matter what. That's malicious.
>>>
>>>There are numberous examples of substandard, dangerous, and otherwise
>>>poorly placed bike lanes in "Bicycle Friendly" Carrboro, NC and
>>>adjacent bicycle friendly wannabe Chapel Hill.
>>
>>
>>
>> Implicit in your comment is that proper, well designed bike lanes are
>> good things (or, at least in Pein's World, not too terribly
>> objectional).
>>
>> I declare progress! LOL
>
> Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period. Elsewhere, they're
> objectional to varying degrees.

The bike lanes I saw today all over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum
Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of
northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of
development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)

Irvine's arterial roads, like most built since the 60s in CA, have main
traffic lanes at least 12' wide, sometimes 14', with bike lanes at least
5' wide outboard of those.

Bikes and motor vehicles coexist well on these roads, despite speed limits
of 40-50 MPH, and de facto speeds higher than that. In contrast, NoVA has
4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and often no
sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves at the same
40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable with on arterial
roads with few intersections, cross streets, or driveways. This is a
disaster for cyclists (not to mention pedestrians).

Sprawl development is inevitable, at least for the near future. But as
cyclists we'd be better off if we could get our highway departments on the
east coast to build new roads more like they do out west, with enough room
for everyone to begin with.

Commercial strips with driveways and cross streets and de facto speeds
under 35 MPH may be addressed differently.

Matt O.

[r15757@aol.com]

On Aug 17, 4:05 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

> ... (I go west 2 blocks over on
> Dayton)

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Save your 'disgust' for things that actually matter.

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:

>>Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period. Elsewhere, they're
>>objectional to varying degrees.
>
>
> The one place they're never needed is the freeway. Bikes are seldom allowed
> anyway, and when they are there's a big fat shoulder on which to ride.
> (Granted, grime and debris gets pushed out on the shoulders, but would also
> on a freeway bike lane since they're not sweeped the way regular roads are.)

Bicyclists should be allowed on freeways. If the shoulder is named a
Bike Lane, then pressure can be applied to clean it.
>
> Where I live I can think of two stretches of freeway that allow bicycles.
> (No "bike lanes" per se, however.) I avoid them like the plague, but when I
> have used them they stunk. Fumes, vehicle wind wakes, and lots of broken
> glass and other crap.

I never implied that freeway riding is pleasant, though it can be on a
rural freeway with little traffic. I only implied that bicyclists should
be allowed on them.


Give me a decent road any day. Even better if it has
> a good, effective bike lane, but fine if none.

I can do without the stripe that effectively reduces my space and
rights, enables faster motoring, and creates a debris pen.

Wayne

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:42:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

[about bike lanes]
>The one place they're never needed is the freeway. Bikes are seldom allowed
>anyway, and when they are there's a big fat shoulder on which to ride.
>(Granted, grime and debris gets pushed out on the shoulders, but would also
>on a freeway bike lane since they're not sweeped the way regular roads are.)
>
>Where I live I can think of two stretches of freeway that allow bicycles.
>(No "bike lanes" per se, however.) I avoid them like the plague, but when I
>have used them they stunk. Fumes, vehicle wind wakes, and lots of broken
>glass and other crap. Give me a decent road any day. Even better if it has
>a good, effective bike lane, but fine if none.