Sharrows (was: Ride your bike)

[Tom Sherman]

Papa Tom aka Tom Montalbano wrote:
> What exactly does a sharrow look like? I've never seen one or heard the
> term.
>
See this article:
<http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/pivot/entry.php?id=279>.

Hopefully we can get the real cycling advocates (and not the fake one's
who merely wish to ghettoize cyclists) to promote sharrows instead of
bicycle lanes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Jens Müller]

Tom Sherman schrieb:
> Papa Tom aka Tom Montalbano wrote:
>> What exactly does a sharrow look like? I've never seen one or heard
>> the term.
>>
> See this article:
> <http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/pivot/entry.php?id=279>.
>
> Hopefully we can get the real cycling advocates (and not the fake one's
> who merely wish to ghettoize cyclists) to promote sharrows instead of
> bicycle lanes.

And what about the highway network as a whole? "There's no sharrow,
surely cyclicts are not allowed there."

The possibility of cyclicts is indicated by there being no sign banning
them.

[sergio]

On 26 Lug, 02:37, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Hopefully we can get the real cycling advocates (and not the fake one's
> who merely wish to ghettoize cyclists) ...

That's exactly what Jobst said to me, as he was showing me around
S.F., while pointing with disdain at bike lanes: 'They just want us to
get out of their way'.
In fact as bike lanes are, albeit so poorly, being introduced over
here motorists are getting more and more impatient with us.

Sergio
Pisa

[Bill Z.]

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

> Tom Sherman schrieb:
> > Papa Tom aka Tom Montalbano wrote:
> >> What exactly does a sharrow look like? I've never seen one or
> >> heard the term.
> >>
> > See this article:
> > <http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/pivot/entry.php?id=279>.
> > Hopefully we can get the real cycling advocates (and not the fake
> > one's who merely wish to ghettoize cyclists) to promote sharrows
> > instead of bicycle lanes.
>
> And what about the highway network as a whole? "There's no sharrow,
> surely cyclicts are not allowed there."
>
> The possibility of cyclicts is indicated by there being no sign
> banning them.

Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
car and a bicycle to procede side by side. They are intended to
be hints, like the signs indicating that two lanes are about to
merge into one.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Jens Müller]

Bill Z. schrieb:
> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.

Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?

It's damn obvious when a lane it too narrow for two vehicles side by side.

[Tom Sherman]

Sergio Servadio wrote:
> On 26 Lug, 02:37, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Hopefully we can get the real cycling advocates (and not the fake one's
>> who merely wish to ghettoize cyclists) ...
>
> That's exactly what Jobst said to me, as he was showing me around
> S.F., while pointing with disdain at bike lanes: 'They just want us to
> get out of their way'.

Indeed. I used to live in a city that had little bicycle icons and a
white dividing stripe painted on the wider sidewalks as a "bicycle
path". Needless to say, riding on these sidewalks is more dangerous than
riding vehicular style in the street. However, where they exist, cagers
(motorists) will often point at the cycling farcility (sic) and yell at
the cyclist to get off the road.

> In fact as bike lanes are, albeit so poorly, being introduced over
> here motorists are getting more and more impatient with us.
>
Do not let Bill Zaumen know you think that. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Tom Sherman]

Jens Müller wrote:
> Bill Z. schrieb:
>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
>> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>
> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>
When they are holding a mobile phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the
other, yes. When they are screaming at the brats in the back seat while
holding a cup of coffee, yes.

> It's damn obvious when a lane it too narrow for two vehicles side by side.

Herr Müller over-estimates the abilities of the average cager.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[bluezfolk]

On Jul 26, 5:13 am, Jens Müller <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote:
> Bill Z. schrieb:
>
> > Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
> > car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>
> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>
> It's damn obvious when a lane it too narrow for two vehicles side by side..

In my area (Suffolk Co. NY) I see green signs with white cycles posted
on the roadsides. They always make me wonder, where the hell is a
bike supposed to ride on this little roadway? Will a motorist with
cellphone and coffee even see the signs, and if so will they instantly
become more focused?

[Bill Z.]

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

> Bill Z. schrieb:
> > Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
> > car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>
> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
> It's damn obvious when a lane it too narrow for two vehicles side by side.

You mean like it's "damn obvious" where too lanes merge, so we shouldn't
put those arrows on the road indicating that one is approaching a
point where too lanes join?

It's not "damn obvious" to a lot of people that a lane is too narrow
for a bike and car to procede safely side by side unless passing is
completely impossible. If it were that obvious, we wouldn't see cars
passing bicycles with 1.5 feet of clearance, and we wouldn't see
bicyclists hugging the curb when they should use the full lane.

Also, lanes frequently narrow at intersections to squeeze in a turn
lane. Putting a sharrow there is as sensible as putting up a sign or
pavement marking indicating that two lanes merge.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Jym Dyer]

>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow
>> for a car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?

=v= Many motorists are blinded by their sense of entitlement.
I've had some yell at me to ride on the sidewalk, in which
case the sharrows are handy to point at: "See that, right
there? That's where I'm supposed to be riding."

=v= They do indeed look on with wonderment, as if they've
never noticed such a thing before. Dunno wheter it actually
changes their behavior, though.
<_Jym_>

P.S.: Note followups. Why is r.b.rides even in this thread?

[recycled]

"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g6f3qc$l9u$3@registered.motzarella.org...
> Jens Müller wrote:
>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
>>> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>>
>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>>
> When they are holding a mobile phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the
> other, yes. When they are screaming at the brats in the back seat while
> holding a cup of coffee, yes.

Or when they simply do not realize the far side of their vehicle is _that_
close to the cyclist.

[invasivenorman@gmail.com]

On Jul 26, 7:03*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Jens Müller wrote:
> > Bill Z. schrieb:
> >> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
> >> car and a bicycle to procede side by side. *
>
. . .
> > It's damn obvious when a lane it too narrow for two vehicles side by side.
>
> Herr Müller over-estimates the abilities of the average cager.
>

If they were really that bad, they would be banging into each
other all the time.

Oh, whoops.

[Tom Sherman]

recycled wrote:
>
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g6f3qc$l9u$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Jens Müller wrote:
>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
>>>> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>>>
>>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>>>
>> When they are holding a mobile phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the
>> other, yes. When they are screaming at the brats in the back seat
>> while holding a cup of coffee, yes.
>
> Or when they simply do not realize the far side of their vehicle is
> _that_ close to the cyclist.
>
Like the preppy soccer mom who stupidly decided that a Hummer H2 would
be cool to drive around the suburbs in? Large SUV and pick-ups with
extension mirrors for trailer towing present a particular hazard here.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Jens Müller]

recycled schrieb:
>
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:g6f3qc$l9u$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Jens Müller wrote:
>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
>>>> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>>>
>>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>>>
>> When they are holding a mobile phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the
>> other, yes. When they are screaming at the brats in the back seat
>> while holding a cup of coffee, yes.

And sharrows open their eyes?

> Or when they simply do not realize the far side of their vehicle is
> _that_ close to the cyclist.

Why is the stupid cyclist driving on the edge of the carriageway?

[Jens Müller]

Tom Sherman schrieb:
>
> Indeed. I used to live in a city that had little bicycle icons and a
> white dividing stripe painted on the wider sidewalks as a "bicycle
> path". Needless to say, riding on these sidewalks is more dangerous than
> riding vehicular style in the street. However, where they exist, cagers
> (motorists) will often point at the cycling farcility (sic) and yell at
> the cyclist to get off the road.

And why doesn't the DMV just revoke their licenses?

[Jens Müller]

bluezfolk schrieb:
> On Jul 26, 5:13 am, Jens Müller <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote:
>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>
>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
>>> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>>
>> It's damn obvious when a lane it too narrow for two vehicles side by side.
>
> In my area (Suffolk Co. NY) I see green signs with white cycles posted
> on the roadsides. They always make me wonder, where the hell is a
> bike supposed to ride on this little roadway?

Oh, it's even too narrow for bikes? How do cars fit there?

[Papa Tom]

>>>In my area (Suffolk Co. NY) I see green signs with white cycles posted on
>>>the roadsides. They always make me wonder, where the hell is a bike
>>>supposed to ride on this little roadway? Will a motorist with cellphone
>>>and coffee even see the signs, and if so will they instantly become more
>>>focused?<<<<

I live in Nassau. Those green signs are useless, as they only really serve
to make drivers think cyclists are ONLY allowed on those roads. This makes
drivers even more aggressive against cyclists riding anywhere else!

[recycled]

"Jens Müller" <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> wrote in message
news:6f0lq2F911hdU1@mid.individual.net...
> recycled schrieb:
>>
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:g6f3qc$l9u$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Jens Müller wrote:
>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
>>>>> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>>>>
>>>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>>>>
>>> When they are holding a mobile phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the
>>> other, yes. When they are screaming at the brats in the back seat while
>>> holding a cup of coffee, yes.
>
> And sharrows open their eyes?

It might. Then again it might not. Some may not pay attention to stop signs,
yet we have them.

>> Or when they simply do not realize the far side of their vehicle is
>> _that_ close to the cyclist.
>
> Why is the stupid cyclist driving on the edge of the carriageway?

Why do you assume the cyclist - stupid or otherwise - is on 'edge' of the
carriageway?

[Tom Sherman]

Jens Müller wrote:
> recycled schrieb:
>>
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:g6f3qc$l9u$3@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Jens Müller wrote:
>>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
>>>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
>>>>> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>>>>
>>>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>>>>
>>> When they are holding a mobile phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the
>>> other, yes. When they are screaming at the brats in the back seat
>>> while holding a cup of coffee, yes.
>
> And sharrows open their eyes?
>
The reality in the US is that there are funds dedicated to "bicycle
facilities", and sharrows are certainly better than the "bicycle ghetto"
bike lanes; since the bicycle lanes put the cyclists at more risk from
right turning motorists and when the cyclist has to leave the lane to
make a left turn.

>> Or when they simply do not realize the far side of their vehicle is
>> _that_ close to the cyclist.
>
> Why is the stupid cyclist driving on the edge of the carriageway?

Even if the cyclist is riding in the left hand normal motor vehicle
wheel track, the incompetent "cagers" may pass to closely.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Tom Sherman]

Jens Müller wrote:
> Tom Sherman schrieb:
>>
>> Indeed. I used to live in a city that had little bicycle icons and a
>> white dividing stripe painted on the wider sidewalks as a "bicycle
>> path". Needless to say, riding on these sidewalks is more dangerous
>> than riding vehicular style in the street. However, where they exist,
>> cagers (motorists) will often point at the cycling farcility (sic) and
>> yell at the cyclist to get off the road.
>
> And why doesn't the DMV just revoke their licenses?

Actually, the DMV can not only revoke licences - that requires the
police to write a citation, the district attorney to prosecute and the
court to revoke. In almost all of the US, these parties will be motor
vehicle centric, and ignore such behavior.

As an example, Google "Boub v. Wayne" - the Illinois State Supreme Court
decided that cyclists are "allowed" but not "intended" users of the
road. Therefore, if the government body in charge of the roadway decided
to install full width drainage grates with openings wide enough to trap
normal bicycle wheels, the government would NOT be liable for injuries
to cyclists and damages to bicycles caused by these grates.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Jul 26, 9:50*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Jens Müller wrote:
> > recycled schrieb:
>
> >> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:g6f3qc$l9u$3@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>> Jens Müller wrote:
> >>>> Bill Z. schrieb:
> >>>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow for a
> >>>>> car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>
> >>>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>
> >>> When they are holding a mobile phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the
> >>> other, yes. When they are screaming at the brats in the back seat
> >>> while holding a cup of coffee, yes.
>
> > And sharrows open their eyes?
>
> The reality in the US is that there are funds dedicated to "bicycle
> facilities", and sharrows are certainly better than the "bicycle ghetto"
> bike lanes; since the bicycle lanes put the cyclists at more risk from
> right turning motorists and when the cyclist has to leave the lane to
> make a left turn.
>
> >> Or when they simply do not realize the far side of their vehicle is
> >> _that_ close to the cyclist.
>
> > Why is the stupid cyclist driving on the edge of the carriageway?
>
> Even if the cyclist is riding in the left hand normal motor vehicle
> wheel track, the incompetent "cagers" may pass to closely.

If you ride a bit left (say, in the center of the lane) and a cager
passes too closely, you have some room to move away. A mirror helps
gauge whether that's necessary.

But if a cyclist does take the lane that way, almost all motorists
give plenty of clearance once they can pass.

Not that I _always_ take the lane. I share when it's safe to share,
and take the lane when it's not safe to share.

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Sherman]

Jym Dyer wrote:
>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow
>>> for a car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>
> =v= Many motorists are blinded by their sense of entitlement.
> I've had some yell at me to ride on the sidewalk, in which
> case the sharrows are handy to point at: "See that, right
> there? That's where I'm supposed to be riding."
>
Indeed, I see that as the main benefit of sharrows as educating cagers
that cyclists have equal right to the road.

> =v= They do indeed look on with wonderment, as if they've
> never noticed such a thing before. Dunno wheter it actually
> changes their behavior, though.
> <_Jym_>
>
> P.S.: Note followups. Why is r.b.rides even in this thread?
>
Because the thread evolved from one originally posted to
rec.bicycles.rides. Not on-topic there, but does fit the category of
"misc" IMO.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Jens Müller]

Tom Sherman schrieb:
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow
>>>> for a car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>>
>> =v= Many motorists are blinded by their sense of entitlement.
>> I've had some yell at me to ride on the sidewalk, in which
>> case the sharrows are handy to point at: "See that, right
>> there? That's where I'm supposed to be riding."
>>
> Indeed, I see that as the main benefit of sharrows as educating cagers
> that cyclists have equal right to the road.

.... on sharrowed roads only ...

[Tom Sherman]

Jens Müller wrote:
> Tom Sherman schrieb:
>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>> Sharrows are intended to indicate that a lane is too narrow
>>>>> for a car and a bicycle to procede side by side.
>>>> Are people (bike _and_ car drivers) too stupid even to _see_?
>>>
>>> =v= Many motorists are blinded by their sense of entitlement.
>>> I've had some yell at me to ride on the sidewalk, in which
>>> case the sharrows are handy to point at: "See that, right
>>> there? That's where I'm supposed to be riding."
>>>
>> Indeed, I see that as the main benefit of sharrows as educating cagers
>> that cyclists have equal right to the road.
>
> ... on sharrowed roads only ...

The political reality in the US is that money has to be spent on
"bicycle facilities" that do not include secure storage. Sharrows are
much better that painting a white line on a wide sidewalk and calling
one-half the sidewalk a "bicycle lane".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Jym Dyer]

>> I see that as the main benefit of sharrows as educating
>> cagers that cyclists have equal right to the road.
> ... on sharrowed roads only ...

=v= Some people will think that, because of their mindsets.
Some motorists will think that, because of their bloated
sense of entitlement to the road. Some vehicular cyclists
will think that, because their ideology prevents them from
looking at any drop of paint in any other way.
<_Jym_>

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:


> The political reality in the US is that money has to be spent on
> "bicycle facilities" that do not include secure storage. Sharrows are
> much better that painting a white line on a wide sidewalk and calling
> one-half the sidewalk a "bicycle lane".

Such a facility is not a bicycle lane, at least not in California.
Rather, it is a bicycle path of some sort. Also, money on bicycle
facilities does include secure storage. Here's an example:
<http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain_bicycle_parking.html>.

Also
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/visiting/news/details.asp?NewsID=496&TargetID=53>
and
<http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=498&TargetID=107>.

Bicycle facilities in the town I live in include secure strorage, Tom
Sherman's opinions notwithstanding.




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Tom Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>> The political reality in the US is that money has to be spent on
>> "bicycle facilities" that do not include secure storage. Sharrows are
>> much better that painting a white line on a wide sidewalk and calling
>> one-half the sidewalk a "bicycle lane".
>
> Such a facility is not a bicycle lane, at least not in California.
> Rather, it is a bicycle path of some sort. Also, money on bicycle
> facilities does include secure storage. Here's an example:
> <http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain_bicycle_parking.html>.
>
> Also
> <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/visiting/news/details.asp?NewsID=496&TargetID=53>
> and
> <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=498&TargetID=107>.
>
> Bicycle facilities in the town I live in include secure strorage, Tom
> Sherman's opinions notwithstanding.
>
For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,566th time, California is not the world.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Bill Z.]

Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> The political reality in the US is that money has to be spent on
> >> "bicycle facilities" that do not include secure storage. Sharrows are
> >> much better that painting a white line on a wide sidewalk and calling
> >> one-half the sidewalk a "bicycle lane".
> > Such a facility is not a bicycle lane, at least not in California.
> > Rather, it is a bicycle path of some sort. Also, money on bicycle
> > facilities does include secure storage. Here's an example:
> > <http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain_bicycle_parking.html>.
> > Also
> > <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/visiting/news/details.asp?NewsID=496&TargetID=53>
> > and
> > <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=498&TargetID=107>.
> > Bicycle facilities in the town I live in include secure strorage, Tom
> > Sherman's opinions notwithstanding.
> >
> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,566th time, California is not the world.

For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,567 time, you did not qualify your
statement, so any counter example is sufficient to shoot it down. I
simply picked one that I was familiar with, and it is not like these
facilities are unique.

Now, why don't you try to grow up and simply admit that you mistated
the facts?

--
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:
>>>
>>>> The political reality in the US is that money has to be spent on
>>>> "bicycle facilities" that do not include secure storage. Sharrows are
>>>> much better that painting a white line on a wide sidewalk and calling
>>>> one-half the sidewalk a "bicycle lane".
>>> Such a facility is not a bicycle lane, at least not in California.
>>> Rather, it is a bicycle path of some sort. Also, money on bicycle
>>> facilities does include secure storage. Here's an example:
>>> <http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain_bicycle_parking.html>.
>>> Also
>>> <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/visiting/news/details.asp?NewsID=496&TargetID=53>
>>> and
>>> <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=498&TargetID=107>.
>>> Bicycle facilities in the town I live in include secure strorage, Tom
>>> Sherman's opinions notwithstanding.
>>>
>> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,566th time, California is not the world.
>
> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,567 time, you did not qualify your
> statement, so any counter example is sufficient to shoot it down. I
> simply picked one that I was familiar with, and it is not like these
> facilities are unique.
>
> Now, why don't you try to grow up and simply admit that you mistated
> the facts?
>

Why doesn't Zaumen admit there are those who insist (including those
with real decision making power) on linear bicycle facilities? At least
we can end up with something better than bicycle ghettos that the cagers
expect us to stay in, i.e. bicycle lanes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[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:
> >>>
> >>>> The political reality in the US is that money has to be spent on
> >>>> "bicycle facilities" that do not include secure storage. Sharrows are
> >>>> much better that painting a white line on a wide sidewalk and calling
> >>>> one-half the sidewalk a "bicycle lane".
> >>> Such a facility is not a bicycle lane, at least not in California.
> >>> Rather, it is a bicycle path of some sort. Also, money on bicycle
> >>> facilities does include secure storage. Here's an example:
> >>> <http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain_bicycle_parking.html>.
> >>> Also
> >>> <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/visiting/news/details.asp?NewsID=496&TargetID=53>
> >>> and
> >>> <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=498&TargetID=107>.
> >>> Bicycle facilities in the town I live in include secure strorage, Tom
> >>> Sherman's opinions notwithstanding.
> >>>
> >> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,566th time, California is not the world.
> > For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,567 time, you did not qualify
> > your
> > statement, so any counter example is sufficient to shoot it down. I
> > simply picked one that I was familiar with, and it is not like these
> > facilities are unique.
> > Now, why don't you try to grow up and simply admit that you mistated
> > the facts?
> >
>
> Why doesn't Zaumen admit there are those who insist (including those
> with real decision making power) on linear bicycle facilities? At
> least we can end up with something better than bicycle ghettos that
> the cagers expect us to stay in, i.e. bicycle lanes.

Sherman, you'd look like less of an idiot if you'd stop denying
reality. You wrote, "The political reality in the US is that money
has to be spent on 'bicycle facilities' that do not include secure
storage." I gave several counter examples located within the area I
live in. It is easy to find more all across the country.

Instead of spouting loaded langauge about "bicycle ghettos", why don't
you simpy admit the truth - (public) money in the U.S. can be spent on
secure bicycle storage.

--
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:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The political reality in the US is that money has to be spent on
>>>>>> "bicycle facilities" that do not include secure storage. Sharrows are
>>>>>> much better that painting a white line on a wide sidewalk and calling
>>>>>> one-half the sidewalk a "bicycle lane".
>>>>> Such a facility is not a bicycle lane, at least not in California.
>>>>> Rather, it is a bicycle path of some sort. Also, money on bicycle
>>>>> facilities does include secure storage. Here's an example:
>>>>> <http://www.caltrain.com/caltrain_bicycle_parking.html>.
>>>>> Also
>>>>> <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/visiting/news/details.asp?NewsID=496&TargetID=53>
>>>>> and
>>>>> <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/news/details.asp?NewsID=498&TargetID=107>.
>>>>> Bicycle facilities in the town I live in include secure strorage, Tom
>>>>> Sherman's opinions notwithstanding.
>>>>>
>>>> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,566th time, California is not the world.
>>> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,567 time, you did not qualify
>>> your
>>> statement, so any counter example is sufficient to shoot it down. I
>>> simply picked one that I was familiar with, and it is not like these
>>> facilities are unique.
>>> Now, why don't you try to grow up and simply admit that you mistated
>>> the facts?
>>>
>> Why doesn't Zaumen admit there are those who insist (including those
>> with real decision making power) on linear bicycle facilities? At
>> least we can end up with something better than bicycle ghettos that
>> the cagers expect us to stay in, i.e. bicycle lanes.
>
> Sherman, you'd look like less of an idiot if you'd stop denying
> reality. You wrote, "The political reality in the US is that money
> has to be spent on 'bicycle facilities' that do not include secure
> storage." I gave several counter examples located within the area I
> live in. It is easy to find more all across the country.
>
> Instead of spouting loaded langauge about "bicycle ghettos", why don't
> you simpy admit the truth - (public) money in the U.S. can be spent on
> secure bicycle storage.
>
Good luck in 99% of the country. The "advocates" want something that is
more highly visible.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[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:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,566th time, California is not the world.
> >>> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,567 time, you did not qualify
> >>> your
> >>> statement, so any counter example is sufficient to shoot it down. I
> >>> simply picked one that I was familiar with, and it is not like these
> >>> facilities are unique.
> >>> Now, why don't you try to grow up and simply admit that you mistated
> >>> the facts?
> >>>
> >> Why doesn't Zaumen admit there are those who insist (including those
> >> with real decision making power) on linear bicycle facilities? At
> >> least we can end up with something better than bicycle ghettos that
> >> the cagers expect us to stay in, i.e. bicycle lanes.
> > Sherman, you'd look like less of an idiot if you'd stop denying
> > reality. You wrote, "The political reality in the US is that money
> > has to be spent on 'bicycle facilities' that do not include secure
> > storage." I gave several counter examples located within the area I
> > live in. It is easy to find more all across the country.
> > Instead of spouting loaded langauge about "bicycle ghettos", why
> > don't
> > you simpy admit the truth - (public) money in the U.S. can be spent on
> > secure bicycle storage.
> >
> Good luck in 99% of the country. The "advocates" want something that
> is more highly visible.

I'm not going to waste time covering the country, but given the following,
your "99%" needs a citation. As usual, you probably just made it up.

<http://www.cyclesafe.com/cyclesafeinstallations.tab.aspx>
How I Became A Bike Advocate
Maureen Becker, Events Director, League of American Bicyclists
<talks about getting secure bike parking installed.

A Park with Wheel Appeal
Millennium Park Chicago
< more on secure bike parking>

<http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=58383&c=34813>
(where to rent lockers)

<http://www.soundtransit.org/x117.xml>
(Puget Sound area - Seattle and surrounding communities)

<http://www.wmata.com/riding/bike/bike_racks.cfm>
Washington D.C. area

<http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/bike/apenda.pdf>
(plan to improve bicycles facilities in New York City including lockers)

<http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/accessboston/pdfs/bicycle_plan.pdf?
(Boston's plans include bicycle parking too).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Mike A Schwab]

On Jul 29, 9:51*pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
> > >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
>
> > >>>> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,566th time, California is not the world.
> > >>> For the 657,257,648,784,654,574,684,567 time, you did not qualify
> > >>> your
> > >>> statement, so any counter example is sufficient to shoot it down. *I
> > >>> simply picked one that I was familiar with, and it is not like these
> > >>> facilities are unique.
> > >>> Now, why don't you try to grow up and simply admit that you mistated
> > >>> the facts?
>
> > >> Why doesn't Zaumen admit there are those who insist (including those
> > >> with real decision making power) on linear bicycle facilities? At
> > >> least we can end up with something better than bicycle ghettos that
> > >> the cagers expect us to stay in, i.e. bicycle lanes.
> > > Sherman, you'd look like less of an idiot if you'd stop denying
> > > reality. *You wrote, "The political reality in the US is that money
> > > has to be spent on 'bicycle facilities' that do not include secure
> > > storage." *I gave several counter examples located within the area I
> > > live in. It is easy to find more all across the country.
> > > Instead of spouting loaded langauge about "bicycle ghettos", why
> > > don't
> > > you simpy admit the truth - (public) money in the U.S. can be spent on
> > > secure bicycle storage.
>
> > Good luck in 99% of the country. The "advocates" want something that
> > is more highly visible.
>
> I'm not going to waste time covering the country, but given the following,
> your "99%" needs a citation. As usual, you probably just made it up.
>
> <http://www.cyclesafe.com/cyclesafeinstallations.tab.aspx>
> * * * * How I Became A Bike Advocate
> * * * * Maureen Becker, Events Director, League of American Bicyclists
> * * * * <talks about getting secure bike parking installed.
>
> * * * * A Park with Wheel Appeal
> * * * * Millennium Park Chicago
> * * * * < more on secure bike parking>
>
> <http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=58383&c=34813>
> (where to rent lockers)
>
> <http://www.soundtransit.org/x117.xml>
> (Puget Sound area - Seattle and surrounding communities)
>
> <http://www.wmata.com/riding/bike/bike_racks.cfm>
> Washington D.C. area
>
> <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/bike/apenda.pdf>
> (plan to improve bicycles facilities in New York City including lockers)
>
> <http://www.cityofboston.gov/transportation/accessboston/pdfs/bicycle_...
> (Boston's plans include bicycle parking too).
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Here's a secure bicycle locker in use.
Click on the link, scroll down to Episode 9, and click on the title.
http://www.thebicyclist.tv/