Dangerous bike lane obstructions in Redwood City

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
the road.

Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.

http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity

Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
solution.

Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

Thanks-

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Mike Nelson]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
> and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
> while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
> better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
> the road.

These street markings are not "bike lanes".
They are only fog lines that resemble the
inside line of a bike lane. Redwood City
does have marked bike lanes, but most of them
are sub-standard: too narrow and in the "door
zone" of parked cars.

One minor improvement was made to the repaved
section of Alameda de las Pulgas in Redwood City
between Jefferson Avenue and Massachusetts Avenue,
where the traffic lanes and the center left turn
lane were narrowed slightly to widen the bike lane.
However, the bike lane is still largely in the door
zone.

> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

Yes, the San Mateo County Committee of the SVBC,
formerly known as the Peninsula Bicycle and
Pedestrian Coalition, has dealt with obstructions
in the road where bicyclists ride with limited
success. The county placed some posts on the
fog line of Alameda de las Pulgas at Camino a los
Cerros to prevent motorists from turning right at
high speed past the blind driveway of the corner
resident. After much negotiation, involving the
intercession of a County Supervisor, the posts
were removed and a raised curb was located to the
right of the usual path of bicyclists with a
forest of reflective signs within the curbed area
to warn cyclists to bear left.

We have not had any success getting Caltrans to
remove the posts on Skyline Boulevard (CA-35) at
Westmoor Avenue (not sure if this is the right
intersection) in Daly City.

[Rex Kerr]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

You could do what the director of the Chico Velo cycling club did
recently and crash and seriously injure yourself on a hazard the day
after pushing the county to remove it.

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=610676
http://www.chicovelo.org/ed.html

The irony in this case is really painful. I really hope that he
recovers quickly and is able to ride again!!



>>-------------------------------------------------------<<
>> From the Chico N&R Story <<
>>-------------------------------------------------------<<
It's particularly ironic because McLaughlin pushed to get
Butte County to remove such obstacles from the Midway path
to Durham, and had talked about the Bidwell Park bollards
just one day earlier.

Now something is being done about them.
>>-------------------------------------------------------<<

[Paul M. Hobson]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity

> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>
> Thanks-

Several major Atlanta bike routes have fallen victim to so called
traffic calming in the past two years. Ours, unfortunately, are full-on
concrete creations in similar shape that turn a traffic lane into a
parking lane. They ain't goin' no whar.

\\paul

[Patrick Lamb]

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:15:00 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
>and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
>while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
>better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
>the road.
>
>Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
>area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
>bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>
>http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>
>Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
>thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
>have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
>solution.
>
>Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
>into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
>there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.

I'd try something like writing a letter to the city attorney, copies
to the mayor and councilmen, warning that this creates a hazard, is
likely to cause injury, and creates liability to the city. You might
want to further state that this letter notices the city of the hazard,
and increases their liability accordingly. Mail the thing return
receipt requested, and keep a copy.

I hear there's lawyers in California? Fear of lawyers sometimes works
in your favor...

:)

Pat

Email address works as is.

[Tom Sherman]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
> and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
> while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
> better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes on
> the road.
>
I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
superior rights to cyclists.

> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>
> Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
> thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
> have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
> solution.
>
> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>
For removal see:
<http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg>.

[1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.

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

[Diablo Scott]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity

I've been involved in neighborhood traffic calming in my California city
and can perhaps lend some insight into how this happens.

Level 1 traffic calming generally requires no community input other than
someone complaining about speed; the city verifies that the complaint is
valid and they add whatever measures seem appropriate - stop signs,
speed limit signs, "please don't use our neighborhood as a shortcut"
signs, etc.

Level 2 traffic calming includes physical restraints to vehicles such as
street narrowing, rumble strips, and speed humps. Street narrowing is
supposed to be landscaped, designed structures that make it difficult
for cars to drive too fast. Speed humps generally are designed to be
minimally inconvenient at speeds less than 30 mph or so.

Level 2 measures generally require that the neighborhood residents form
a committee that works with the city to develop some kind of plan as to
what measures will be taken and who will pay for them; then a majority
of the residents affected must vote to approve the plan. At this point a
few neighbors who don't want the speed humps start to leaflet the
residents about how evil the humps are; citing reduced housing values,
increased emergency vehicle response time, cost, noise, and inefficacy.
The other neighbors then investigate other Level 2 measures such as
street narrowing. Since street narrowing is usually the most expensive
option, the residents may opt to have a temporary trial of such measures
to see if they're effective before making them permanent.

What I see in your photos appears to be a temporary form of street
narrowing and I'd guess their hope is to have landscaped areas, raised
medians, or pedestrian islands eventually in their place.

[alanstew@sbcglobal.net]

Mike,
Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these
obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT
ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this
area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want
to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only
thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right.
Is that really a big problem there?
Also, it appears that there is room on the right between the
obstruction and the curb where a cyclist could manage, given tire-
liners and nerve enough, to squeeze through. That's what I would do
as a kid, and it's what I would do now, but as I grew up, I sort of
thought that things like this would be controllable, that 'government'
would stop doing things TO us, and be more of a partner in making life
better. Instead, I'm still going through life from one gerry-rigged
'solution' to another, constantly faced with situations like this.

Holy ****sky, comrade, wha' hoppened to the revolution?
ABS

[landotter]

On Jan 31, 8:12 pm, Rex Kerr <rexk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
> > into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
> > there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>
> You could do what the director of the Chico Velo cycling club did
> recently and crash and seriously injure yourself on a hazard the day
> after pushing the county to remove it.
>
> http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=610676http://www.chicovelo.org/ed.html
>
> The irony in this case is really painful. I really hope that he
> recovers quickly and is able to ride again!!
>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------<<
> >> From the Chico N&R Story <<
> >>-------------------------------------------------------<<
> It's particularly ironic because McLaughlin pushed to get
> Butte County to remove such obstacles from the Midway path
> to Durham, and had talked about the Bidwell Park bollards
> just one day earlier.
>
> Now something is being done about them.


A bike path is no place for a peloton. No one to blame but the cyclist
in his case. Hope he recovers and learns his lesson.

[CJ]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fnu4eu$q5i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>
> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> superior rights to cyclists.
>
Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles
and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
improve.

Cliff

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
> > Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
> > City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
> > the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
> > there might be bikes on the road.
> >
> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.

Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
design standards in effect when the lane was installed.

Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before turning
across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
drivers don't belong on the road).



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
>> and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
>> while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
>> better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
>> on the road.
>>
> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>
> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> superior rights to cyclists.

I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way it
does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
their best interest to do so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fnu4eu$q5i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill Blvd
>> and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood City, and,
>> while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the road), it's
>> better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there might be bikes
>> on the road.
>>
> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>
> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> superior rights to cyclists.
>
>> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
>> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
>> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>>
>> Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
>> thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now they
>> have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
>> solution.
>>
>> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
>> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
>> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>>
> For removal see:
> <http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg>.
>
> [1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman]

CJ who? wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fnu4eu$q5i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
>> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>>
> Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road. Only when bicycles
> and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
> improve.
>
Wrong on both counts.

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

[Jens Müller]

CJ schrieb:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fnu4eu$q5i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
>> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>>
> Motorists do, indeed, have superior rights on the road.

No, they don't.

> Only when bicycles
> and cyclists are licensed and licensing fees paid will cyclists rights
> improve.

Taxes paid for motor vehicles do not compensate for the external damages
done by them.

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
>>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
>>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
>>> the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
>>> there might be bikes on the road.
>>>
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
>> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>
> Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
> distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
> latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
> city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
> lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
> bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
> standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
>
> Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
> riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
> and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
> written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
> bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
> your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
> design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
>
> Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before turning
> across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
> It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
> do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
> under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
> drivers don't belong on the road).
>
I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion we
had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with a
Google search.

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

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
> >>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
> >>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
> >>> the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
> >>> there might be bikes on the road.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
> >> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
> > Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
> > distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
> > latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
> > city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
> > lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
> > bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
> > standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
> > Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
> > riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
> > and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
> > written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
> > bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
> > your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
> > design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
> > Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
> > turning
> > across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
> > It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
> > do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
> > under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
> > drivers don't belong on the road).
> >
> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
> a Google search.

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

As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
<http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.

21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.

21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
Highways Code.

Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
>>>>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
>>>>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of
>>>>> the road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that
>>>>> there might be bikes on the road.
>>>>>
>>>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that
>>>> lead motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>> Bicycle lanes are not separate facilities - in California there is a
>>> distinction between a bicycle lane and a bicycle path. Only the
>>> latter is a separate facility. If a city puts in a bike lane, the
>>> city has an obligation to maintain the lane, just as with any other
>>> lane. If the lane width is substandard when the city installs a
>>> bike lane, it might be liable if there is an accident, and the current
>>> standards require enough width to safely pass any parked cars.
>>> Also, in California, you can leave a bike lane to avoid hazards, when
>>> riding at the normal speed of traffic, when preparing for a left turn,
>>> and when approaching any place where a right turn is permitted. As
>>> written, that would include driveways - you can legally ignore a
>>> bike lane at any point where a driver could make a right turn across
>>> your path. You can also ignore a bike lane if it violates the state
>>> design standards in effect when the lane was installed.
>>> Finally, drivers are required to merge into a bike lane before
>>> turning
>>> across it, and can begin merging when within 200 feet of the turn.
>>> It's hard to claim that a bike lane gives the impression that bicycles
>>> do not belong on the road when drivers are required to use bike lanes
>>> under specific circumstances (yet we don't say that right turning
>>> drivers don't belong on the road).
>>>
>> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
>> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
>> a Google search.
>
> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>
We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
(pun intended) by emotion.

> As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
> <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
> and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
>
> 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
> roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
> upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
> moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
> bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
> any of the following situations:
> (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
> pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
> overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
> (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> private road or driveway.
> (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
> debris or other hazardous conditions.
> (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
> (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
> the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
> giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
> (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
> affected by the movement.
>
> 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
> establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
> from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
> defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
> highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
> 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
> (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
> constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
> Highways Code.
>
> Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
> standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
> that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
> requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
>
[Yawn]

Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly makes
a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of us live
in California!!!

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

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
>> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>
> I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
> anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
> it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
> roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
> unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
> their best interest to do so.


Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
"separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF
Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would
want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino
safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this
by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might
not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my
first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get
somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe
for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO!
All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and
lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they
"belong."

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com




"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:avzoj.4914$J41.1395@newssvr14.news.prodigy.ne t...
>>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
>>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
>>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
>>> road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
>>> might be bikes on the road.
>>>
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
>> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>
> I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
> anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
> it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
> roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
> unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
> their best interest to do so.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fnu4eu$q5i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
>>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
>>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
>>> road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
>>> might be bikes on the road.
>>>
>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
>> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>> superior rights to cyclists.
>>
>>> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
>>> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
>>> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>>>
>>> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>>>
>>> Until recently (after some of us let the city know this was a dangerous
>>> thing to do), there was no warning of these obstructions at all. Now
>>> they have sawhorses in them, something I doubt they consider a permanent
>>> solution.
>>>
>>> Has anybody else had to deal with anything this hostile, placed directly
>>> into a bike route? Any ideas how best to get it removed? I can't believe
>>> there haven't been serious injuries due to this sort of thing.
>>>
>> For removal see:
>> <http://www.erricksonequipment.com/images/LowResolutionPictures/CAT-D3-6-way-dozer,-Very-Go.jpg>.
>>
>> [1] Reverse for Japan and island members of the Commonwealth.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
>> - A. Derleth
>
>

[Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604]

I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
that's where cyclists should be.

I understand the attractions of them, but....

73, doug

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> >> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> >> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
> >>
> >> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> >> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> >> superior rights to cyclists.
> >
> > I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
> > anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
> > it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
> > roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
> > unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
> > their best interest to do so.
>
>
> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
> framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
> it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.
>
> Locally, this has come up when discussing north/south bike routes on the SF
> Peninsula. CalTrans does not, for example, understand why a cyclist would
> want to use El Camino, and thus has little interest in making El Camino
> safer for bikes. And sometimes the local groups inadvertantly play into this
> by trying to put bike routes only on relatively peaceful streets that might
> not be as direct or fast, but they think safer. Well, El Camino isn't my
> first choice for a recreational ride, but if I actually want to get
> somewhere, it's a whole lot faster than the alternatives. Is El Camino safe
> for all cyclists? No. But does that mean cyclists should be kept off it? NO!
> All options must remain available. The building of special bike routes and
> lanes should never be done with the idea of putting bike someplace they
> "belong."
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
>
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:avzoj.4914$J41.1395@newssvr14.news.prodigy.ne t...
> >>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
> >>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
> >>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
> >>> road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
> >>> might be bikes on the road.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> >> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
> >>
> >> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
> >> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
> >> superior rights to cyclists.
> >
> > I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
> > anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
> > it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
> > roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
> > unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
> > their best interest to do so.
> >
> > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
> >
> >
> > "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:fnu4eu$q5i$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> McGarvey in Redwood City as a bike route that runs between Farm Hill
> >>> Blvd and Alameda. It's one of the few striped bike lanes in Redwood
> >>> City, and, while it allows car parking within it (on both sides of the
> >>> road), it's better than nothing and does give cars the idea that there
> >>> might be bikes on the road.
> >>>
> >> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
> >> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
>
> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
> framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
> it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.

Of course, we've discussed this before. But:

Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way.

Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes,
they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been
worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or
obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs,
etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane.

Are cyclists required to use them? Perhaps not legally, at least in
certain places. But most motorists and bicyclists seem to _think_
bicyclists are required to use them. IOW, you can prove the
requirement doesn't exist once you get to court; but as a day to day
matter, you're expected to not leave the lane.

Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt
safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists'
driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left
turns, especially by novices.

Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network?
Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes
are painted. Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't
belong on unstriped roads.

And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of
absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing
conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest.

ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide
outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively
useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the
somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to
ride here."

If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They
seem a lot more benign.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> ...
> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
> framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
> it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option....
>
What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving
cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation
during the license suspension period.

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

[Jens Müller]

Mike Jacoubowsky schrieb:
>>> I disagree. "Bicycle lanes" are separate but unequal facilities that lead
>>> motorists to believe that bicycles do not belong on the roads.
>>>
>>> What is needed are wider right lanes [1], mandatory proper driver
>>> education, and severe penalties for motorist who believe that they have
>>> superior rights to cyclists.
>> I don't disagree, and technically it turns out these aren't bike "lanes"
>> anyway. Those are simply "fog lines" painted on the road. But either way
>> it does nothing to change the fact that, without those obstructions, the
>> roadway is wide enough for most anybody to cycle safely on. It is
>> unrealistic to expect all cyclists to "take the lane" even when it's in
>> their best interest to do so.
>
>
> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> are a part of the transportation network.

Lanes for blue cabriolets are a good thing, because they signal to
people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that blue cabriolets are
a part of the transportation network.

[Tom Sherman]

Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
> some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
> to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.
>
> Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
> were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
> that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
> sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
> that's where cyclists should be.
>
> I understand the attractions of them, but....
>
I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the
"bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road".

People of that type should have their motor vehicle license revoked for
at least 5 years.

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

[Jens Müller]

Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 schrieb:
> I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
> some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
> to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.

What the hell is an "automobile traffic lane"?

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

"Diablo Scott" <DiabloScottNOSPAM@terra.es> wrote in message
news:47a37333$0$16192$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>> Local residents have been complaining about speeding auto traffic in the
>> area, so the city decided to implement perhaps the least-friendly, to
>> bicycles, form of "traffic calming" available.
>>
>> http://picasaweb.google.com/ChainReactionBicycles/BikeLaneDangerInRedwoodCity
>
> I've been involved in neighborhood traffic calming in my California city
> and can perhaps lend some insight into how this happens.
>
> Level 1 traffic calming generally requires no community input other than
> someone complaining about speed; the city verifies that the complaint is
> valid and they add whatever measures seem appropriate - stop signs, speed
> limit signs, "please don't use our neighborhood as a shortcut" signs, etc.
>
> Level 2 traffic calming includes physical restraints to vehicles such as
> street narrowing, rumble strips, and speed humps. Street narrowing is
> supposed to be landscaped, designed structures that make it difficult for
> cars to drive too fast. Speed humps generally are designed to be
> minimally inconvenient at speeds less than 30 mph or so.
>
> Level 2 measures generally require that the neighborhood residents form a
> committee that works with the city to develop some kind of plan as to what
> measures will be taken and who will pay for them; then a majority of the
> residents affected must vote to approve the plan. At this point a few
> neighbors who don't want the speed humps start to leaflet the residents
> about how evil the humps are; citing reduced housing values, increased
> emergency vehicle response time, cost, noise, and inefficacy. The other
> neighbors then investigate other Level 2 measures such as street
> narrowing. Since street narrowing is usually the most expensive option,
> the residents may opt to have a temporary trial of such measures to see if
> they're effective before making them permanent.
>
> What I see in your photos appears to be a temporary form of street
> narrowing and I'd guess their hope is to have landscaped areas, raised
> medians, or pedestrian islands eventually in their place.

You describe the situations almost perfectly. The City Manager sent me a
document that detailed the entire process, from initial complaints through
meetings through surveys and votes and then finally this. And you're right,
this is an experiment to see it if will work. Our hope is to dramatically
shorten the length of that experiment.

I can see where putting some mild twists in the road might make sense; If
you got rid of some parking (residents would LOVE that!) you could build
islands and still give a straight, wide alternative route for cyclists. My
guess is that cyclists would use the normal roadway downhill, and the
straighter path (bypassing the islands) uphill.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Jym Dyer]

> Level 1 traffic calming generally requires no community input
> other than someone complaining about speed ...
> ...
> Level 2 measures generally require that the neighborhood
> residents form a committee ...

=v= What city is concocting these definitions? By definition,
"traffic calming" is a particular approach to road design; the
level of community involvement is another dimension entirely.

=v= Traffic calming, by definition, is all about changing the
way a street feels, so that motorists don't feel compelled to
speed. While various traffic-control devices may be employed
to this end, that's different from throwing such devices in the
way of a big wide uncalmed road that people are speeding on.
<_Jym_>

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Mike,
> Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these
> obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT
> ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this
> area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want
> to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only
> thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right.
> Is that really a big problem there?

They have studies that show such things slow down traffic by a whopping 4%
(so why bother?).

> Also, it appears that there is room on the right between the
> obstruction and the curb where a cyclist could manage, given tire-
> liners and nerve enough, to squeeze through. That's what I would do
> as a kid, and it's what I would do now, but as I grew up, I sort of
> thought that things like this would be controllable, that 'government'
> would stop doing things TO us, and be more of a partner in making life
> better. Instead, I'm still going through life from one gerry-rigged
> 'solution' to another, constantly faced with situations like this.

Pretty crazy to encourage people to ride in the gutter, with barriers on
each side.

In the end, I'm realizing that I might have missed an opportunity here. It's
quite likely they could have achieved their "traffic calming" goals by
making the road more friendly towards bikes. After all, isn't the usual dig
about bikes that we get in the way of cars? Why not turn that to an
advantage in something like this? Why not deliberately engineer a road that
favors bikes, at the expense of cars? Then the residents get what they want
(less traffic, and lower speeds) and we get a safe road to ride. Essentially
turn a win-lose-lose into a win-win-lose (residents/bikes/cars).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

[Tom Sherman]

alanstew@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Mike,
> Surpisingly no one else seems to have mentioned: How are these
> obstructions going to calm auto traffic? They don't obstruct cars AT
> ALL. Are there marauding bands of heathen youths cycling through this
> area? Is that what they're trying to stop? As a tax-payer I'd want
> to know, what were you thinking when you installed these? The only
> thing they appear designed to do is to prevent passing on the right.
> Is that really a big problem there?...
>
In da 'hood, passing on the right in the "bicycle/bus" lane is common
practice, often done at 20-30 mph over the speed limit. So is pulling up
in the right turn lane and going straight before the light changes.

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

[Bill Z.]

frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

> On Feb 1, 2:14 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead people
> > to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should have the same
> > rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that "bicycle lanes" are
> > "separate and unequal", provided it's not required that one use them.
> > Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good thing, not bad, because
> > they signal to people (both motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles
> > are a part of the transportation network. But it must be done within a
> > framework that says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes,
> > it must be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option.
>
> Of course, we've discussed this before. But:
>
> Are bike lanes "separate"? Sure seems that way.

LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
engineering matter.
>
> Are they "unequal"? In nearly every instance I've encountered, yes,
> they are. For example, gravel and glass and mud accumulation has been
> worse; or pavement has been rougher; or maintenance has been worse; or
> obstacles such as parked cars, mufflers, "construction ahead" signs,
> etc. have made them less desirable than the regular lane.

The bike lanes in the town I live in get regular maintenance and are
clear of debris. The current design standards in our state provide
sufficient clearance to get by parked cars safely.

>
> Do they make bicycling safer? Not noticeably. And they seem to hurt
> safety with respect to the common accident modes caused by motorists'
> driveway pullouts, left turns and right turns. Ditto for cyclist left
> turns, especially by novices.

Bike lanes have no impact on left turns - the novices who start a left
turn from near a curb would do that regardless, and with a properly
designed bike lane, the adjacent traffic lane would be roughly 12 feet
(maybe a bit less) in width. If you stay two feet inside the bike
lane, that puts you 14 feet from lane stripe on the left side of the
adjecent lane. Curiously, this is where John Forrester claims you
should be riding given a wide outside lane - about 14 feet from the
lane stripe so that cars can pass you easily, and close enough to
the stream of traffic that drivers will be leary of just shooting
out in front of you without looking. Your safety is not going to
decrease measurably simply because there was a bike lane stripe
when you end up riding along the same path you'd follow with no
stripe.

> Do they signal that bikes are part of the transportation network?
> Maybe, but if so, that applies only to those roads where the stripes
> are painted.

Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which
you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane
simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to
weave around cars spread out all across the lane.

> Conversely, it tells certain motorists that bikes don't belong on
> unstriped roads.

You mean like HOV lanes tell motorists that buses and cars with more
than one passengers don't belong on unstriped roads? Get real - what
Krygowski claims bike lanes "tell" motorists is just mindless rhetoric.

>
> And for that decidedly mixed benefit, we keep getting examples of
> absurdly hazardous bike lanes - obstacles, lousy pavement, crossing
> conflicts, barriers preventing left turns, and all the rest.

.... which you don't get when you have decent design standards, and
when your vehicle code allows you to ignore bike lanes that ignore
the standards.

> ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to a wide
> outside lane without the bike lane stripe, except for the relatively
> useless warning to motorists that "bikes may be present," and the
> somewhat deceptive encouragement of novice riders that "it's OK to
> ride here."

Nope. Look at the design standards for bike lanes versus shoulder
stripes and see which has the better treatment at intersections.
>
> If you must have those benefits, why not use sharrows instead? They
> seem a lot more benign.

Why not use both, picking which one is appropriate depending on the
situation? BTW, at least in California, sharrows can only be used
in specific situations. You can't put them anywhere you like.

Also, our town recently removed two old bike lanes that were substandard
according the latest design standards (but not substandard when they were
installed) and those are going to be replaced with sharrows. In one case,
there will be a sharrow in one direction and a bike lane in the other
(6 feet wide with no parking allowed). The one removed was in the
direction where parking was allowed.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Jym Dyer]

> ISTM that there is rarely any bike lane benefit compared to
> a wide outside lane without the bike lane stripe ....

=v= The wide outside lane (WOL) was piloted in San Francisco.
They had two effects:

(1) Wide lane! I'll double-park my car in it!
(2) Wide lane! I'll drive my car faster!

These effects don't work very well with each other, and for
bicyclists they are pretty much a worst-case scenario.

=v= I'm not saying bike lanes are better, but WOLs have not
proven themselves to be anything but a failure.
<_Jym_>

[alanstew@sbcglobal.net]

On Feb 1, 2:28*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:

> Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which
> you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane
> simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to
> weave around cars spread out all across the lane.

Bill...a scant quarter mile from my house the bike lane is completely
obliterated by cars forcing me and every other cyclist into the
'regular' lane as they wait to get onto the metered freeway entrance,
also in Silicon Valley. So why did they bother to paint those bike
lanes? Motorists routinely ignore them when it is perceived as
'inconvenient', they might lose their precious place in the queue.

And you talk of sharrows? How can you share with people who want it
ALL?

Personally, I think there is no solution, and won't be until the OIL
RUNS OUT!
Used to be you could count on the goodwill of strangers in our
country, but now...don't forget what happened to Blanche DuBois.

ABS

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> ...
> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
> engineering matter....
>
Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant difference
- motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes literally),
but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own space.

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

[Bill Z.]

alanstew@sbcglobal.net writes:

> On Feb 1, 2:28Â*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> > Actually, when you get a queue of cars 1/4 mile long or longer (which
> > you'll find in Silicon Valley at the worst intersections), a bike lane
> > simply lets you jump to the head of the queue without having to
> > weave around cars spread out all across the lane.
>
> Bill...a scant quarter mile from my house the bike lane is completely
> obliterated by cars forcing me and every other cyclist into the
> 'regular' lane as they wait to get onto the metered freeway entrance,
> also in Silicon Valley. So why did they bother to paint those bike
> lanes? Motorists routinely ignore them when it is perceived as
> 'inconvenient', they might lose their precious place in the queue.

Roads are a shared facility. Motorists are supposed to merge into
a bike lane before turning across it, and may merge into the bike
lane when within 200 feet of a turn. If you have drivers merging
in way before that, report the problem to the police. After enough
drivers get some "coupons", the problem will go away.

It's better for you if they merge into a bike lane before turning
across it - at least you won't be cut off.
>
> And you talk of sharrows? How can you share with people who want it
> ALL?

Sharrows are used to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a bicycle
and car to procede side-by-side. They are a good idea, just like
those symbols they put on the road when two lanes merge.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Jens Müller]

alanstew@sbcglobal.net schrieb:

> Personally, I think there is no solution, and won't be until the OIL
> RUNS OUT!

Oh, the energy industry and others are already working on replacements,
so that "we" never have to change our automobile way of life ...

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
> >> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
> >> a Google search.
> > The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
> >
> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
> (pun intended) by emotion.

Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>
> > As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
> > <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
> > and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
> > 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
> > roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
> > upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
> > moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
> > bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
> > any of the following situations:
> > (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
> > pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
> > overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
> > (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> > private road or driveway.
> > (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
> > debris or other hazardous conditions.
> > (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
> > (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
> > the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
> > giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
> > (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
> > affected by the movement.
> > 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
> > establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
> > from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
> > defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
> > highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
> > 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
> > (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
> > constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
> > Highways Code.
> > Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
> > standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
> > that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
> > requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
> >
> [Yawn]

[Facts appear to bore him]

> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
> us live in California!!!

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

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> ...
>> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead
>> people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should
>> have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that
>> "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not required
>> that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my opinion, a good
>> thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both motorists and
>> potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the transportation
>> network. But it must be done within a framework that says bikes aren't
>> *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must be an option. And
>> hopefully, a desirable option....
> >
> What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly behaving
> cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for transportation
> during the license suspension period.
>

I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.

Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."

[CJ]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fo0l68$2s5$3@registered.motzarella.org...
> Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
> > I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
> > some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
> > to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.
> >
> > Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
> > were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
> > that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
> > sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
> > that's where cyclists should be.
> >
> > I understand the attractions of them, but....
> >
> I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the
> "bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road".
>
MMMOOOOOOMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY

The big kids are pickin' on me again.

Cliff

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > ...
> > LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
> > use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
> > install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
> > engineering matter....
> >
> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
> space.

Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to one's
vehicle's mass.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman]

Eric Vey wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead
>>> people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should
>>> have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that
>>> "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not
>>> required that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my
>>> opinion, a good thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both
>>> motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the
>>> transportation network. But it must be done within a framework that
>>> says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must
>>> be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option....
>> >
>> What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly
>> behaving cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for
>> transportation during the license suspension period.
>>
>
> I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
> in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.
>
Around here, many do not have licenses - generally they run from the
police, ditch the unlicensed and/or stolen car, and try to escape on
foot. They are not to blame, since they are what the system wants them
to be, a permanent underclass.

> Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
> is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
> trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
> around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
> their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
> a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
> watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."
>
Yet another undesirable group in Florida?

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

[Jens Müller]

vey schrieb:

>
> I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that people
> in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving anyway.

Like Paris Hilton, and then they go to jail ...

> Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then there
> is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against them. I'm
> trying to determine why both of these things are true, but ask any cop
> around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they start rolling
> their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at least 20 people
> a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended license and then
> watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."
>


They watch them? While their license is still suspended? Is it not the
police's task in US states to prevent dangers to public safety?

[vey]

Tom Sherman wrote:
> Eric Vey wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Not good form to reply to my own post, but what I said might mislead
>>>> people to what I believe. I absolutely believe that cyclists should
>>>> have the same rights to the roads as cars, but I do not agree that
>>>> "bicycle lanes" are "separate and unequal", provided it's not
>>>> required that one use them. Bicycle lanes are generally, in my
>>>> opinion, a good thing, not bad, because they signal to people (both
>>>> motorists and potential cyclists) that bicycles are a part of the
>>>> transportation network. But it must be done within a framework that
>>>> says bikes aren't *required* to use certain paths & routes, it must
>>>> be an option. And hopefully, a desirable option....
>>> >
>>> What is needed is a suspension of the licenses of of the badly
>>> behaving cagers, along with the mandatory use of a bicycle for
>>> transportation during the license suspension period.
>>>
>>
>> I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that
>> people in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving
>> anyway.
>>
> Around here, many do not have licenses - generally they run from the
> police, ditch the unlicensed and/or stolen car, and try to escape on
> foot. They are not to blame, since they are what the system wants them
> to be, a permanent underclass.

Uhmm, while we do have that going on as well, driving on a revoked or
suspended license for some people seems the be treated as an
administrative matter by the statutes and the courts. After 5
consecutive citations, in I think it is 5 years, it finally reaches the
level of a the most minor misdemeanor, but not much happens if miscreant
doesn't show up for arraignment, just more fines and fees that will go
unpaid.

While I'm sure that some people lose their license because they didn't
pay the $12.50 required every 4 years, most lose it because of points
and that usually indicates poor driving habits.

As I said, eventually they kill someone, often by driving in a reckless
manner.

[Tom Sherman]

CJ (who?) anonymously snipes:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fo0l68$2s5$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 wrote:
>>> I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
>>> some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
>>> to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.
>>>
>>> Sometimes the bike lanes are unsafe by design(Berkeley had some that
>>> were in the door zone, for example), sometimes they have road hazards
>>> that motorists would ignore, sometimes they aren't as direct,
>>> sometimes they don't go where you want to go. But motorists believe
>>> that's where cyclists should be.
>>>
>>> I understand the attractions of them, but....
>>>
>> I have had assholes swerve towards me while passing, then point at the
>> "bike path" on the sidewalk while yelling "get off the road".
>>
> MMMOOOOOOMMMMMMMMYYYYYYYYYYYY
>
> The big kids are pickin' on me again.
>
Catch the cagers outside their vehicles and they stop being so tough.
Wonder why? ;)

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

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Feb 2, 12:07 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>
> Roads are a shared facility. Motorists are supposed to merge into
> a bike lane before turning across it, and may merge into the bike
> lane when within 200 feet of a turn. If you have drivers merging
> in way before that, report the problem to the police. After enough
> drivers get some "coupons", the problem will go away.

And in a related fantasy, when enough drivers get speeding tickets,
all drivers will obey the speed limits.

Just before hell freezes over, that is.

- Frank Krygowski

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
>> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
>> us live in California!!!
>
> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread, however,
> is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located on the
> pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the location,
> traffic laws in California would seem to be quite relevant.

It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not just
Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the rec.bicycles.misc
newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of
interest primarily to those in Northern California and likely familiar with
Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut Tom a bit of slack.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87zluk2b79.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>> >> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
>> >> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
>> >> a Google search.
>> > The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>> >
>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
>> (pun intended) by emotion.
>
> Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
> recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>>
>> > As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
>> > <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
>> > and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
>> > 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
>> > roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
>> > upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
>> > moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
>> > bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
>> > any of the following situations:
>> > (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
>> > pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
>> > overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
>> > (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
>> > private road or driveway.
>> > (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
>> > debris or other hazardous conditions.
>> > (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
>> > (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
>> > the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
>> > giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
>> > (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
>> > affected by the movement.
>> > 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
>> > establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
>> > from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
>> > defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
>> > highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
>> > 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
>> > (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
>> > constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
>> > Highways Code.
>> > Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
>> > standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
>> > that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
>> > requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
>> >
>> [Yawn]
>
> [Facts appear to bore him]
>
>> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
>> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
>> us live in California!!!
>
> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread, however,
> is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located on the
> pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the location,
> traffic laws in California would seem to be quite relevant.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
>>>> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
>>>> a Google search.
>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>>>
>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
>> (pun intended) by emotion.
>
> Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
> recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>
That possibility does exist.

>>> As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
>>> <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
>>> and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
>>> 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
>>> roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
>>> upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
>>> moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
>>> bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
>>> any of the following situations:
>>> (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
>>> pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
>>> overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
>>> (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
>>> private road or driveway.
>>> (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
>>> debris or other hazardous conditions.
>>> (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
>>> (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
>>> the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
>>> giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
>>> (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
>>> affected by the movement.
>>> 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
>>> establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
>>> from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
>>> defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
>>> highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
>>> 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
>>> (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
>>> constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
>>> Highways Code.
>>> Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
>>> standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
>>> that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
>>> requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
>>>
>> [Yawn]
>
> [Facts appear to bore him]
>
I do not live in California (hard to believe people live outside of
California, but it does happen).

>> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
>> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
>> us live in California!!!
>
> I don't give a damn where you live. The subject of the thread, however,
> is about bicycle lanes in Redwood City, which is located on the
> pennisula 20 to 25 miles south of San Francisco. Given the location,
> traffic laws in California would seem to be quite relevant.
>
Thread drift. I was referring to "bicycle lanes/ghettos" in general.

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

[Jens Müller]

Bill Z. schrieb:
>
> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to one's
> vehicle's mass.

And under California street law?

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
>>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
>>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
>>> engineering matter....
>> >
>> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
>> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
>> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
>> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
>> space.
>
> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to one's
> vehicle's mass.
>
The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on the
cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is small and
the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.

On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire and
immediate.

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

[Bill Z.]

frkrygow@gmail.com writes:

> On Feb 2, 12:07 am, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >
> > Roads are a shared facility. Motorists are supposed to merge into
> > a bike lane before turning across it, and may merge into the bike
> > lane when within 200 feet of a turn. If you have drivers merging
> > in way before that, report the problem to the police. After enough
> > drivers get some "coupons", the problem will go away.
>
> And in a related fantasy, when enough drivers get speeding tickets,
> all drivers will obey the speed limits.

.... which is why the cameras used to catch red light runners in
San Francisco are reducing the number of people running red lights?

The "problem" being discussed, of course, was not a few drivers
violating the law but enough to cause a long queue of stopped
cars in the bike lane. It's pretty easy to get these guys.
You just stop the lot of them and process them one by one. With
all the grid lock, it is not like they are going to get away.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Matt O'Toole]

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:39:33 +0000, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> You describe the situations almost perfectly. The City Manager sent me a
> document that detailed the entire process, from initial complaints
> through meetings through surveys and votes and then finally this.

I'm impressed that they have all this documented, even if it's just a CYA.

> And you're
> right, this is an experiment to see it if will work. Our hope is to
> dramatically shorten the length of that experiment.

What's their metric that it works? Are they monitoring motor vehicle
speeds?

Matt O.

[Bill Z.]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>
> It may have helped if I'd said "Redwood City, California" and not just
> Redwood City. The oversight was made when I added the rec.bicycles.misc
> newsgroup. Originally, I was posting only to ba.bicycles, a newsgroup of
> interest primarily to those in Northern California and likely familiar with
> Redwood City. My goof; I'd cut Tom a bit of slack.


I'd cut Tom a bit more slack if he hadn't been rather obnoxious in
previous discussions - some people act like the proverbial bull with
a red cape in front of it when bike lanes are mentioned. I tend to
think of them as simply a design option that could be used in some
situations.

[Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604]

Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:

> Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 schrieb:
> > I agree about the perception problem with bike lanes and bike routes -
> > some (many?) motorists can and do assume that one is required
> > to use them instead of using the automobile traffic lanes.
>
> What the hell is an "automobile traffic lane"?

Badly put, even I unconciously accept the implicit assumptions of
society- the lane that motorists believe belongs to them.

73, doug

[Bill Z.]

Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:

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

What's that?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman]

Jens Müller wrote:
> vey schrieb:
>
>>
>> I have been looking into this recently. What I am finding is that
>> people in Florida with suspended and revoked licenses keep driving
>> anyway.
>
> Like Paris Hilton, and then they go to jail ...
>
>> Eventually, because they are dangerous, they kill someone and then
>> there is a reluctance to use the Vehicular Homicide statute against
>> them. I'm trying to determine why both of these things are true, but
>> ask any cop around here about a recent Vehicular Homicide and they
>> start rolling their eyes a say "They will get off" and "we haul in at
>> least 20 people a month (in a small town) for driving with a suspended
>> license and then watch them as they drive themselves home from the jail."
>>
>
>
> They watch them? While their license is still suspended? Is it not the
> police's task in US states to prevent dangers to public safety?
>
The primary function of the police in the US is to protect the property
of those who are better off. This goes back to the country's founding by
privileged white men who sought to protect that privilege.

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

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >>>> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
> >>>> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
> >>>> a Google search.
> >>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
> >>>
> >> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
> >> (pun intended) by emotion.
> > Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
> > recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
> >
> That possibility does exist.

So it was you as I remembered.
>
> >>> As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
> >>> <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
> >>> and then search for bike lane or bicycle lane.
> >>> 21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
> >>> roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
> >>> upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
> >>> moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
> >>> bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
> >>> any of the following situations:
> >>> (1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
> >>> pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
> >>> overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
> >>> (2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
> >>> private road or driveway.
> >>> (3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
> >>> debris or other hazardous conditions.
> >>> (4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
> >>> (b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
> >>> the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
> >>> giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
> >>> (commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
> >>> affected by the movement.
> >>> 21207. (a) This chapter does not prohibit local authorities from
> >>> establishing, by ordinance or resolution, bicycle lanes separated
> >>> from any vehicular lanes upon highways, other than state highways as
> >>> defined in Section 24 of the Streets and Highways Code and county
> >>> highways established pursuant to Article 5 (commencing with Section
> >>> 1720) of Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the Streets and Highways Code.
> >>> (b) Bicycle lanes established pursuant to this section shall be
> >>> constructed in compliance with Section 891 of the Streets and
> >>> Highways Code.
> >>> Section 891 of the "Streets and Highways Code" defines the design
> >>> standards for bike lanes. Section 21208 specifically is written so
> >>> that it applies to bicycle lanes satisfying Section 21207, which
> >>> requires the bike lane to meet state standards when installed.
> >>>
> >> [Yawn]
> > [Facts appear to bore him]
> >
> I do not live in California (hard to believe people live outside of
> California, but it does happen).

Then stay out of a discussion about traffic conditions in a small city
in California.

> >> Most drivers do not read the code, so in the real world it hardly
> >> makes a difference. Furthermore, hard as it is to believe, not all of
> >> us live in California!!!

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

If you want to make the thread "drift", you might want to change the
subject line so as not to refer to a town in a particular state.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> LOL - a bike lane is simply another lane with a restriction on who can
> >>> use them. It's no different than a "bus-only" lane, and whether you
> >>> install tham on a particular road should be treated as a traffic
> >>> engineering matter....
> >> >
> >> Utter nonsense. The bus is big enough to shove the biggest luxury SUV
> >> into the next lane, push come to shove. That is a significant
> >> difference - motorists will try to push the cyclists around (sometimes
> >> literally), but the bus is big and heavy enough to command its own
> >> space.
> > Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
> > one's
> > vehicle's mass.
> >
> The SUV driver does not worry much about the law when infringing on
> the cyclist's right-of-way, since the chance of a minor penalty is
> small and the chance of a major penalty is almost vanishingly small.
>
> On the other hand, mess with the bus, and the consequences are dire
> and immediate.

See what happens if that excuse is run by one's insurance company, or
a judge and jury if there is a fatality.

---
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:
>
>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>> Under California state law, one's rights are not proportional to
>>> one's
>>> vehicle's mass.
>> And under California street law?
>
> What's that?
>
Street law is what happens in real life. It is equally illegal to pull
out in front of a cyclist and a dump truck that have the right of way.
However, cagers will frequently cut off the cyclist, since there are
usually no consequences. The same cagers will not cut off the dump
truck, since it can squash them like a bug underfoot.

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

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>>>>>> I could rebut this, but that would just be a repeat of the discussion
>>>>>> we had a few months ago. The interested can find that discussion with
>>>>>> a Google search.
>>>>> The "discussion" was more or less an emotional argument on your part.
>>>>>
>>>> We are referring to the behavior of drivers, much of which is driven
>>>> (pun intended) by emotion.
>>> Actually, you really had an emotional reaction to bike lanes, as I
>>> recall. Am I confusing you with someone else?
>> >
>> That possibility does exist.
>
> So it was you as I remembered.
>
That response is illogical.

>>>>> As to "rebutting" it, readers can verify everything I stated at
>>>>> <http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html>. Click the "Vehicle Code" check box
>>>>> an