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

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period.

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, well.


cheers,
Tom

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

 

[Luke]

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Z.
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > You're missing the point. The issue is not the logo but the inferiority
> > of the bicycle lane; the logo, representing to all that the gutter - or
> > close to it - is to be the exclusive preserve of cyclists, adds insult
> > to injury.
>
> No, *you* are missing the point. Your "inferiority" is simply a
> figment of your imagination, as evidenced by your "adds insult to
> injury" statement.
>
> A bike lane is simply one option that a transportation engineer
> might use. That's it. It is no more "inferior" than the HOV
> lanes on the Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara, California, which
> are located closer to the gutter than the other traffic lanes.
>
> Your "argument" is quite frankly purely emotional.

The issue is not the 'transportation engineer' resorting to his tools
rather the ineptness with which he wields them. Perhaps I should've
been more thorough in quoting text before posting my previous message
and not snipped the following:

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

This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly
evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my
imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line
defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road?

And what motorist would not consider his lane being inferior when it is
half comprised of a gutter and punctuated by hazards the relative
equivalent of the sewer grate that a cyclist, riding the above lane,
must navigate in his assigned space? But I suppose the driver will be
reconciled to his lowly status and gratified that he's receiving value
for his tax dollars by the reassuring sight of a painted logo of an
auto on his lane. ;-)

>
> > I can anticipate motorists' reactions if a pedaller should forsake his
> > designated lane in favour of a safer line: 'Get back in your lane you
> > #$%$#@, Why do cyclists to complain, they have their own lane don't
> > they?, etc...'
> >
> > I agree with Muzi's musings: in this case, better to have saved
> > taxpayer $ and abandoned the proposition.
>
> His musings are silly, and in some cases there is practically no
> money to save because if there were no bike lane, there would be
> a shoulder stripe anyway, and the cost of the paint is trivial.
>

Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly
designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates
misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede
traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road
(where their safety is compromised).

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 18, 5:07 am, [email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
>
> I think bike lanes can be useful on steep upgrades
> that slow a rider wayyy down -- sort of a "please
> feel free to go ahead and pass me lane," as opposed
> to a passing lane for the faster vehicles.
>
> After all, passing lanes accommodate the faster
> vehicles; why not accommodate the slower-slower
> vehicles (as per the terrain of the locale) too?
> Or instead?

To me, the question is always this: What is the benefit of the bike
lane stripe, if you already have the pavement width needed for a bike
lane?

On the steep upgrades, cars can pass whether or not there's a stripe,
as long as there's sufficient width. Adding a stripe doesn't change
the width. It does cause gravel and glass to collect, and it does
make certain motorists and cyclists think we're not allowed out of the
lane.

Those cyclists who feel they must have some symbol to justify their
use of the road might want to lobby for "sharrows." Forget the
blasted stripes.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[still me]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:34:33 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>To me, the question is always this: What is the benefit of the bike
>lane stripe, if you already have the pavement width needed for a bike
>lane?
>
>On the steep upgrades, cars can pass whether or not there's a stripe,
>as long as there's sufficient width. Adding a stripe doesn't change
>the width. It does cause gravel and glass to collect, and it does
>make certain motorists and cyclists think we're not allowed out of the
>lane.
<snip>

Well, it give motorists the upper hand in a lawsuit if there's an
accident outside the bike lane. If gives the bicyclist an upper hand
if the motorist crosses into the bike lane. Maybe. Lawyers and their
moronic suggestions and inferences notwithstanding and subject to
local laws.

I agree with your suggestions for the most part. It might help keep
some motorists away from the edge and more alert, but the cyclist has
different issues (road side debris, pavement issues, etc) and I don't
see a real advantage.

 

[Bill Z.]

Luke <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Z.
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > You're missing the point. The issue is not the logo but the inferiority
> > > of the bicycle lane; the logo, representing to all that the gutter - or
> > > close to it - is to be the exclusive preserve of cyclists, adds insult
> > > to injury.
> >
> > No, *you* are missing the point. Your "inferiority" is simply a
> > figment of your imagination, as evidenced by your "adds insult to
> > injury" statement.
> >
> > A bike lane is simply one option that a transportation engineer
> > might use. That's it. It is no more "inferior" than the HOV
> > lanes on the Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara, California, which
> > are located closer to the gutter than the other traffic lanes.
> >
> > Your "argument" is quite frankly purely emotional.
>
> The issue is not the 'transportation engineer' resorting to his tools
> rather the ineptness with which he wields them. Perhaps I should've
> been more thorough in quoting text before posting my previous message
> and not snipped the following:
>
> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly
> evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my
> imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line
> defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road?

If you look closely at the picture, near the very top of it, there
seems to be *two* traffic lanes in the same direction as the bike
lane (the picture resolution and contrast is poor enough that this
could be misleading). If those are normal width lanes (12 feet),
riding inside the bike lane will put you about 14 feet from the
dashed lane stripe. Cars typically will be 2 or 3 feet from
the dashed stripe. If you allow 5 to 6 feet for the vehicle width,
that puts the right edge of the car 7 to 9 feet from the lane
stripe. If you ride a foot or two inside the bike lane, you have
about 5 feet of clearance from vehicles (maybe a bit more).

In _Effective Cycling_, you'll read that with a wide outside lane
(and with traffic faster than you are riding) you would typically
ride about 14 feet from the lane line. Being just inside the
bike lane puts you in that position. Whether that is true of the
lane in the picture depends on the dimensions, and you simply can't
tell. the main issue with this bike lane (assuming there are in
fact two traffic lanes in that direction) is the width of the
asphault inside the bike lane. It should be a minimum of 3 feet
in width. From the picture, I can't tell.


>
> And what motorist would not consider his lane being inferior when it is
> half comprised of a gutter and punctuated by hazards the relative
> equivalent of the sewer grate that a cyclist, riding the above lane,
> must navigate in his assigned space? But I suppose the driver will be
> reconciled to his lowly status and gratified that he's receiving value
> for his tax dollars by the reassuring sight of a painted logo of an
> auto on his lane. ;-)

ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three
foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look
closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could
trap a wheel.

> > His musings are silly, and in some cases there is practically no
> > money to save because if there were no bike lane, there would be
> > a shoulder stripe anyway, and the cost of the paint is trivial.
> >
>
> Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly
> designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates
> misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede
> traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road
> (where their safety is compromised).

Wish-washy, emotional statement on your part. You are looking at a
four lane road (it is just hard to see the dashed lane stripe due
to the quality of the photo). If you ride inside the bike lane
when going slower than normal traffic, you will be in the same
position as the left edge of a slower vehicle using the right most
traffic lane.

The only question is whether the lane is substandard, which depends
on dimensions that you cannot determine easily from the photo.

Curiously, for all the emotional ranting from your "side" of the
discussion, I've yet to see anyone explain what they think might
be wrong with the numbers I provided.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

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


> If you look closely at the picture, near the very top of it, there
> seems to be *two* traffic lanes in the same direction as the bike
> lane (the picture resolution and contrast is poor enough that this
> could be misleading). If those are normal width lanes (12 feet),
> riding inside the bike lane will put you about 14 feet from the
> dashed lane stripe.

If the adjacent "motor vehicle" lane is 12', riding just inside the bike
lane will put you just over 12' from the dashed lane stripe. Where do
you get 14', in some other universe?


> In _Effective Cycling_, you'll read that with a wide outside lane
> (and with traffic faster than you are riding) you would typically
> ride about 14 feet from the lane line. Being just inside the
> bike lane puts you in that position. Whether that is true of the
> lane in the picture depends on the dimensions, and you simply can't
> tell. the main issue with this bike lane (assuming there are in
> fact two traffic lanes in that direction) is the width of the
> asphault inside the bike lane. It should be a minimum of 3 feet
> in width. From the picture, I can't tell.

It's plainly obvious that is not 3' of asphalt, and I've already said
that 3' is inadequate anyway.

You are also wrong on what EC says.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:


>
> Fine, but bike lanes on freeways are unnecessary, especially when compared
> to regular roads and traffic. The only "dangerous" part of the ride I went
> on today was where the bike lanes on each side end and there's a 2-3 mile
> section with diagonal parking followed by 4-5 miles of regular parallel
> parking with 4 fast-moving lanes. It's always a relief to get past that
> (coming and going) and back to nice safe conditions with ample bike lanes on
> each side.

I'd simple use the entire right lane of the 4 lane road. That would be a
relief.

>
> Other routes don't have or need bike lanes, but this one benefits enormously
> from them. (As do many others I ride.)
>
>
>>Give me a decent road any day. Even better if it has
>>
>>>a good, effective bike lane, but fine if none.
>
>
>>I can do without the stripe that effectively reduces my space and
>>rights, enables faster motoring, and creates a debris pen.
>
>
> Not where I live. If they removed the bike lane, they'd immediately move
> the middle line over to the right a good two feet, and cars in the right
> lane will MOVE RIGHT.

So your government changes the space. Too bad. They really want to
segregate bicyclists.

Competent bicyclists use sufficient space to compel motorists to MOVE
LEFT and change lanes.

Wayne

 

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

On 2007-08-18, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> To me, the question is always this: What is the benefit of the bike
> lane stripe, if you already have the pavement width needed for a bike
> lane?

9 times out of 10, you /don't/ have the extra width. The bike lane is crammed
in either by removing street parking or narrowing the other lanes, at least
where I've ridden in Chicago. Fourteen-foot lanes are unheard of here.

Of course, since IL is the only state in the union where cyclists can only
sue for damages due to poor maintenance/design if they're riding in a bike
lane or other marked facility, we don't have many bikes lanes outside the
city. You'd like that, if the alternative weren't to simply pretend bikes
don't exist, or belong off-road, as most municipalities around here seem to
do.

--

__o Kristian Zoerhoff
_'\(,_ [email protected]
(_)/ (_)

 

[Wayne Pein]

Tom Keats wrote:

> I think bike lanes can be useful on steep upgrades
> that slow a rider wayyy down -- sort of a "please
> feel free to go ahead and pass me lane," as opposed
> to a passing lane for the faster vehicles.
>
> After all, passing lanes accommodate the faster
> vehicles; why not accommodate the slower-slower
> vehicles (as per the terrain of the locale) too?
> Or instead?

A potential problem with that is attracting wrong way bicyclists in the
bike lane. A simple 15' or 16' lane would allow motorists to readily
pass but has none of the "baggage" of a bike lane.

Wayne

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> ...
> ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three
> foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look
> closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could
> trap a wheel....

That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall
when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to ride
through.

It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the
asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a
diversion fall.

P.S. What is "asphault"?

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

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

 

[A Muzi]

> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Z.
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> You're missing the point. The issue is not the logo but the inferiority
>>> of the bicycle lane; the logo, representing to all that the gutter - or
>>> close to it - is to be the exclusive preserve of cyclists, adds insult
>>> to injury.
>> No, *you* are missing the point. Your "inferiority" is simply a
>> figment of your imagination, as evidenced by your "adds insult to
>> injury" statement.
>>
>> A bike lane is simply one option that a transportation engineer
>> might use. That's it. It is no more "inferior" than the HOV
>> lanes on the Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara, California, which
>> are located closer to the gutter than the other traffic lanes.
>>
>> Your "argument" is quite frankly purely emotional.

Luke wrote:
> The issue is not the 'transportation engineer' resorting to his tools
> rather the ineptness with which he wields them. Perhaps I should've
> been more thorough in quoting text before posting my previous message
> and not snipped the following:
> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
> This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly
> evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my
> imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line
> defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road?
> And what motorist would not consider his lane being inferior when it is
> half comprised of a gutter and punctuated by hazards the relative
> equivalent of the sewer grate that a cyclist, riding the above lane,
> must navigate in his assigned space? But I suppose the driver will be
> reconciled to his lowly status and gratified that he's receiving value
> for his tax dollars by the reassuring sight of a painted logo of an
> auto on his lane. ;-)

>>> I can anticipate motorists' reactions if a pedaller should forsake his
>>> designated lane in favour of a safer line: 'Get back in your lane you
>>> #$%$#@, Why do cyclists to complain, they have their own lane don't
>>> they?, etc...'
>>> I agree with Muzi's musings: in this case, better to have saved
>>> taxpayer $ and abandoned the proposition.

>> His musings are silly, and in some cases there is practically no
>> money to save because if there were no bike lane, there would be
>> a shoulder stripe anyway, and the cost of the paint is trivial.

Luke wrote:
> Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly
> designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates
> misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede
> traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road
> (where their safety is compromised).

Well phrased, better than what I wrote

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > ...
> > ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three
> > foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look
> > closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could
> > trap a wheel....
>
> That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall
> when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to
> ride through.

As I said, the standard requires a bike lane wide enough for three
feet of asphalt to the *left* of the gutter pan. If you can't avoid a
grate within the gutter pan with that much asphalt to ride on, you
probably shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place.

If you ride 1.5 feet within the bike lane (measured from the left),
you will automatically miss the grate. Also, if you do not know how
to avoid debris or that you should avoid debris, you probably should
not be riding a bicycle either.

> It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the
> asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a
> diversion fall.
>
> P.S. What is "asphault"?

A typo - is should have been "asphalt" - surely you could figure that
out - it's the black surface in the picture, not the bare concrete.
You know, the surface that cars drive on.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

A Muzi <[email protected]> writes:

> > In article <[email protected]>, Bill Z.
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> Luke wrote:
> > Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly
> > designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates
> > misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede
> > traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road
> > (where their safety is compromised).
>
> Well phrased, better than what I wrote

Whether you like the phrasing or not, all Luke wrote was an overly
emotional, content-free rant based possibly on thinking that a four
lane road was a two lane road (the dashed lane stripe in the picture
is hard to spot due to the image quality, but it really is there).
The bike lane would be way too narrow if this was a two-lane road
(one lane in each direction), but it simply isn't. The only question
is whether the asphalt inside the bike lane is 3 feet wide or some
smaller amount, and from the picture, you can't really tell because
there is no object with a known size in it.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three
>>> foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look
>>> closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could
>>> trap a wheel....
>> That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall
>> when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to
>> ride through.
>
> As I said, the standard requires a bike lane wide enough for three
> feet of asphalt to the *left* of the gutter pan. If you can't avoid a
> grate within the gutter pan with that much asphalt to ride on, you
> probably shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place.
>
> If you ride 1.5 feet within the bike lane (measured from the left),
> you will automatically miss the grate. Also, if you do not know how
> to avoid debris or that you should avoid debris, you probably should
> not be riding a bicycle either.

Well, who brought up that the grate was not a problem due to the angle
of the slots?

>> It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the
>> asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a
>> diversion fall.
>>
>> P.S. What is "asphault"?
>
> A typo - is should have been "asphalt" - surely you could figure that
> out

I thought it might have been a grammatical error.

> - it's the black surface in the picture, not the bare concrete.
> You know, the surface that cars drive on.

Actually, both surfaces are concrete, just with different types of
cement holding the aggregate matrix together.

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

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 17, 4:05 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

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

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Save your 'disgust' for things that actually matter.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 18, 4:16 am, Luke <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>
> This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly
> evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my
> imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line
> defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road?

If there were no bike lane stripe on that road, I would probably be
riding near where the stripe is anyway, not in the gutter or in the
slop but near the stripe, to help out my fellow citizens who are also
attempting to use the road. For me, the stripe may actually define the
ideal riding space (in addition to the sub-prime space it also
defines).
IOW, I find your argument against this particular lane, as badas it
is,
to be almost completely emotional. Bike lanes just aren't a very big
deal.

Robert

> And what motorist would not consider his lane being inferior when it is
> half comprised of a gutter and punctuated by hazards the relative
> equivalent of the sewer grate that a cyclist, riding the above lane,
> must navigate in his assigned space? But I suppose the driver will be
> reconciled to his lowly status and gratified that he's receiving value
> for his tax dollars by the reassuring sight of a painted logo of an
> auto on his lane. ;-)
>
>
>
> > > I can anticipate motorists' reactions if a pedaller should forsake his
> > > designated lane in favour of a safer line: 'Get back in your lane you
> > > #$%$#@, Why do cyclists to complain, they have their own lane don't
> > > they?, etc...'
>
> > > I agree with Muzi's musings: in this case, better to have saved
> > > taxpayer $ and abandoned the proposition.
>
> > His musings are silly, and in some cases there is practically no
> > money to save because if there were no bike lane, there would be
> > a shoulder stripe anyway, and the cost of the paint is trivial.
>
> Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly
> designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates
> misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede
> traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road
> (where their safety is compromised).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three
> >>> foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look
> >>> closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could
> >>> trap a wheel....
> >> That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall
> >> when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to
> >> ride through.
> > As I said, the standard requires a bike lane wide enough for three
> > feet of asphalt to the *left* of the gutter pan. If you can't avoid a
> > grate within the gutter pan with that much asphalt to ride on, you
> > probably shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place.
> > If you ride 1.5 feet within the bike lane (measured from the left),
> > you will automatically miss the grate. Also, if you do not know how
> > to avoid debris or that you should avoid debris, you probably should
> > not be riding a bicycle either.
>
> Well, who brought up that the grate was not a problem due to the angle
> of the slots?

I said it does not have any slots that could trap a wheel, and that is
all I said about it (other than noting that a typical path a cyclist
would follow in that lane would not go over the grate anyway). With
no valid argument, it is no wonder that you are trying to put words in
my mouth - it's simply a dishonest tactic on your part.

You also haven't shown that this particular type of grate is all that
slippery when wet - the lack of any flat surface on it for water to
accumulate mitigates the problem and you'd only go over the grate if
you weren't paying attention - it is not where you would normally ride.


> >> It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the
> >> asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a
> >> diversion fall.
> >>
> >> P.S. What is "asphault"?
> > A typo - is should have been "asphalt" - surely you could figure that
> > out
>
> I thought it might have been a grammatical error.

That just shows your inability to think! Oh, and I might add that the
design standard calls for three feet between the bike lane stripe and
the edge between the asphalt and the gutter. That's enough room for
a cyclist to ride comfortably within the bike lane while avoiding the
edge (and 3 feet is the minimum allowed - they won't shoot you for
providing a lot more).

> > - it's the black surface in the picture, not the bare concrete.
> > You know, the surface that cars drive on.
>
> Actually, both surfaces are concrete, just with different types of
> cement holding the aggregate matrix together.

You are reduced to silly quibbling. "Asphalt" is typically used for
the black, relatively soft surface used on roads and "concrete" for
the hard subtance used below the asphalt and for the gutter pans.
Obviously, as you have no real point at all, you are simply trying
to obfuscate the discussion to avoid the fact that you have no valid
point.



>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> BEER IS FOOD
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 18, 4:16 am, Luke <[email protected]> wrote:

>> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg
>>
>> This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly
>> evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my
>> imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line
>> defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road?

> If there were no bike lane stripe on that road, I would probably be
> riding near where the stripe is anyway, not in the gutter or in the
> slop but near the stripe, to help out my fellow citizens who are also
> attempting to use the road. For me, the stripe may actually define the
> ideal riding space (in addition to the sub-prime space it also
> defines).
> IOW, I find your argument against this particular lane, as badas it
> is,
> to be almost completely emotional. Bike lanes just aren't a very big
> deal.

Bingo.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Fine, but bike lanes on freeways are unnecessary, especially when
>> compared to regular roads and traffic. The only "dangerous" part of
>> the ride I went on today was where the bike lanes on each side end
>> and there's a 2-3 mile section with diagonal parking followed by 4-5
>> miles of regular parallel parking with 4 fast-moving lanes. It's
>> always a relief to get past that (coming and going) and back to nice
>> safe conditions with ample bike lanes on each side.
>
> I'd simple use the entire right lane of the 4 lane road. That would
> be a relief.

As do I when possible. However, if fast-moving cars are there first, it can
be a dangerous move. (There's also the asshole factor, and it's always a
big fat asshole if present.)

HOWEVER, what's again implicit in your comment is that a proper,
well-designed bike lane eliminates the need to be a hero--- er, take the
lane, and is MUCH safer and more enjoyable than worrying about getting
squeezed or even brushed by Socker Mom SUV-er On A Cellphone While Doing Her
Makeup. Given the choice, I'll take a road that takes bike traffic into
account any day over one that doesn't.


>> Other routes don't have or need bike lanes, but this one benefits
>> enormously from them. (As do many others I ride.)
>>
>>
>>> Give me a decent road any day. Even better if it has
>>>
>>>> a good, effective bike lane, but fine if none.
>>
>>
>>> I can do without the stripe that effectively reduces my space and
>>> rights, enables faster motoring, and creates a debris pen.
>>
>>
>> Not where I live. If they removed the bike lane, they'd immediately
>> move the middle line over to the right a good two feet, and cars in
>> the right lane will MOVE RIGHT.
>
> So your government changes the space. Too bad. They really want to
> segregate bicyclists.

Why would they leave a very narrow left lane and a very wide right lane?
Even if they didn't actually move the line (and they would), left laners
would move to the right a bit if right laners had more room to /their/
right, and cyclists are left with less room than before. Why on earth would
anyone object to a good, effective bike lane?
>
> Competent bicyclists use sufficient space to compel motorists to MOVE
> LEFT and change lanes.

You left off "when necessary". Why ride like that all the time when a
proper bike lane eliminates the need to "fight over space" with much bigger
and faster adversaries.

It's really not that complicated...unless you're trolling. Pick a better
pet issue.

BS

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three
>>>>> foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look
>>>>> closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could
>>>>> trap a wheel....
>>>> That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall
>>>> when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to
>>>> ride through.
>>> As I said, the standard requires a bike lane wide enough for three
>>> feet of asphalt to the *left* of the gutter pan. If you can't avoid a
>>> grate within the gutter pan with that much asphalt to ride on, you
>>> probably shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place.
>>> If you ride 1.5 feet within the bike lane (measured from the left),
>>> you will automatically miss the grate. Also, if you do not know how
>>> to avoid debris or that you should avoid debris, you probably should
>>> not be riding a bicycle either.
>> Well, who brought up that the grate was not a problem due to the angle
>> of the slots?
>
> I said it does not have any slots that could trap a wheel, and that is
> all I said about it (other than noting that a typical path a cyclist
> would follow in that lane would not go over the grate anyway). With
> no valid argument, it is no wonder that you are trying to put words in
> my mouth - it's simply a dishonest tactic on your part.

I think we need a new term for gratuitous accusations of dishonesty on
Usenet; how about the "zaumenism"?

> You also haven't shown that this particular type of grate is all that
> slippery when wet - the lack of any flat surface on it for water to
> accumulate mitigates the problem and you'd only go over the grate if
> you weren't paying attention - it is not where you would normally ride.

Well duh, the grate is not where someone would normally ride. So why is
the grate in the "bicycle lane"?

Most steel surfaces are slippery when wet - must not get much rain in
Silly Cone Valley, eh?

>>>> It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the
>>>> asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a
>>>> diversion fall.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. What is "asphault"?
>>> A typo - is should have been "asphalt" - surely you could figure that
>>> out
>> I thought it might have been a grammatical error.
>
> That just shows your inability to think!

Whoosh! Zaumen forgets in the past he has called typos grammatical errors.

> Oh, and I might add that the
> design standard calls for three feet between the bike lane stripe and
> the edge between the asphalt and the gutter. That's enough room for
> a cyclist to ride comfortably within the bike lane while avoiding the
> edge (and 3 feet is the minimum allowed - they won't shoot you for
> providing a lot more).
>
>>> - it's the black surface in the picture, not the bare concrete.
>>> You know, the surface that cars drive on.
>> Actually, both surfaces are concrete, just with different types of
>> cement holding the aggregate matrix together.
>
> You are reduced to silly quibbling. "Asphalt" is typically used for
> the black, relatively soft surface used on roads and "concrete" for
> the hard subtance used below the asphalt and for the gutter pans.
> Obviously, as you have no real point at all, you are simply trying
> to obfuscate the discussion to avoid the fact that you have no valid
> point.

Only a cyclist hater or ignoramus would create the "bicycle lane" in
question, and only Zaumen would defend it.

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

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