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



Bill Sornson wrote:
> [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.

Why is it that so many liddites like "bicycle lanes"?

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

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> 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.)

Typo. Meant "fast".

> 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 wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [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.
>
> Why is it that so many liddites like "bicycle lanes"?

Why are so many people with irrational fear and/or dislike of bike lanes
also anti-liddites? No one's forcing you morons (!) to use either
life-saving innovation! LOL
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> BEER IS FOOD
 
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

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

Dear Frank,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>

>>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.)

If fast moving cars are there first? That's a rationalization. However,
I agree there is the asshole factor.


>
> 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.

You're again incorrectly reading my thoughts. You may think it's being a
hero to use sufficient lane or use the full lane, but I do not.



>>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?

Why not? Works great.


> 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?

You obviously have zero experience with a wide outside lane, so you
shouldn't guess about how traffic uses it. You're wrong. And if you did
have experience with one, you would understand why they are superior to
bike lanes.

>
>>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.

You think it's fighting over space with adversaries, but that is not how
I characterize it. I'm an equal user of the road. If the lane is wide
enough and I'm not going fast, I let motorists pass me in it.


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

It does seem to be comlicated for you, but I can understand that given
your lack of experience.

Wayne
 
[email protected] aka Carl Fogel wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
>>>> some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
>>>> posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
>>>> want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
>>>> gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
>>>> cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
>>>> know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
>>>> dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
>>>> so.
>>>> This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
>>>> I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
>>>> replying to her.
>>>> Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
>>>> Non-tiny link:http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread...
>>> Dear Dan,
>>>
>>> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
>>> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>>>
>>> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August...
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>> Of course, the website Carl has pointed to deals only with British
>> designs. That allows bike lane fans to pretend that such atrocious
>> designs never occur in America. Or at least, never occur out west
>> where the roads are wide. Or perhaps never occur since the design
>> standards got improved. Or at least, haven't occurred very recently.
>> And if atrocious designs are somehow built by mistake, they will be
>> speedily corrected by the same dedicated civil servants that designed
>> and oversaw the mistakes, once those mistakes are gently pointed out.
>>
>> My experience is quite the opposite, of course. But to a true bike
>> lane fan, the bad examples simply don't count.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> An errand let me take some indifferent pictures of bike lane idiocy in
> Pueblo. A few blocks of Union Avenue, once the center of town, have
> had handsome stripes painted.
>
> But at the end of the first block, a must-turn-right car lane replaces
> the bike lane, with a sign on the far side of the parked cars marking
> the exact spot where the bike lane vanishes, unless a full-grown SUV
> obscures it:
>
> http://i10.tinypic.com/4ti4j92.jpg
>
> Exactly what the bicycyist is supposed to do when the lane vanishes is
> unclear. Drivers tend to use their horns to indicate that bicycles are
> not welcome in the no-shoulder right-turn-only lane, and heaven help
> the two-wheeled fool who swerves out into the main lane.
>
> Perhaps you're supposed to stop, wheel your bike around the back of
> the last parked car, push it down the sidewalk to the crosswalk, wait
> for the walk light, get back into the new bike lane, and then ride
> another block to where . . .
>
> http://i16.tinypic.com/6ewq4w6.jpg
>
> Same thing again. Every block, the bike lane vanishes...

"Dear Carl" is right. Since bicycles are toys ridden only by children
and childish adults, getting off the bicycle at every intersection and
crossing like a pedestrian should not be a burden, since it keeps the
bicycle riders out of the way of the REAL road users, the motor vehicle
operators.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> 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 mean you are reduced to name-calling when your dishonesty was
pointed out: you obviously misrepresented what I had said, turning
"does not have any slots that could trap a wheel" and "plenty of
clearance" into "the grate is not a problem due to the angle of the
slots".

>
> > 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"?

For the same reason that the grate would be in the righ-most lane if
there were no bike lane. Grates are typically by the curb because
the roads slope towards the curb to allow water to run along the
gutter and then down the drain. The design standards (for both bike
lanes and traffic lanes) allow the users of those lanes to use the
lanes without riding or driving in the gutter.

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

Most steel meshes are not slippery when wet, and that's what this
grate is. It is not a solid steel surface with a flat section that
could hold water on it.
>
> >>>> 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.

Whoosh - this idiot forgets that he actually made a gramatical error
by missing enough words that there was no way to figure out what he
meant! And that was weeks ago - he really must have a grudge!

> > 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.

Only a fanatic would get as upset about bicycle lanes as you guys do.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
[email protected] writes:

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >> > Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
> >> > some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area.
> Dear Frank,
>
> An errand let me take some indifferent pictures of bike lane idiocy in
> Pueblo. A few blocks of Union Avenue, once the center of town, have
> had handsome stripes painted.
>
> But at the end of the first block, a must-turn-right car lane replaces
> the bike lane, with a sign on the far side of the parked cars marking
> the exact spot where the bike lane vanishes, unless a full-grown SUV
> obscures it:
>
> http://i10.tinypic.com/4ti4j92.jpg
>
> Exactly what the bicycyist is supposed to do when the lane vanishes is
> unclear. Drivers tend to use their horns to indicate that bicycles are
> not welcome in the no-shoulder right-turn-only lane, and heaven help
> the two-wheeled fool who swerves out into the main lane.

If this design gives you a problem, for God's sakes stay off the
f__ing road! While there is just enough clearance to avoid doors
(if you stay near the strip), what you do when the bike lane ends
is *precisely* what you do when driving when the lane you are in
turns into a right-turn only lane. You merge left into the next
lane - carefully and only when the movement can be made with
reasonable safety. It isn't hard - if you are near the stripe
to start with, you only have to shift 6 inches to the left and
you'll be out of the right turn lane.


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

If that's what you think, you might want to take a class to get
yourself straightened out!

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> 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 mean you are reduced to name-calling when your dishonesty was
> pointed out: you obviously misrepresented what I had said, turning
> "does not have any slots that could trap a wheel" and "plenty of
> clearance" into "the grate is not a problem due to the angle of the
> slots".

The grate not being a problem was implied in your statement.

>>> 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"?
>
> For the same reason that the grate would be in the righ-most lane if
> there were no bike lane. Grates are typically by the curb because
> the roads slope towards the curb to allow water to run along the
> gutter and then down the drain. The design standards (for both bike
> lanes and traffic lanes) allow the users of those lanes to use the
> lanes without riding or driving in the gutter.

Yeah, but in this case avoiding the grate and the joint between the
roadway pavement and the gutter leaves barely enough width for a rider
to stay to the right of the white cyclist apartheid line.

>> Most steel surfaces are slippery when wet - must not get much rain in
>> Silly Cone Valley, eh?
>
> Most steel meshes are not slippery when wet, and that's what this
> grate is. It is not a solid steel surface with a flat section that
> could hold water on it.

Really? Then why are railroad tracks slippery (even disused ones), since
their upper surface is convex?

>>>>>> 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.
>
> Whoosh - this idiot forgets that he actually made a gramatical error
> by missing enough words that there was no way to figure out what he
> meant! And that was weeks ago - he really must have a grudge!

It was a cut and paste error. If you want to play the flaming game, I am
more than happy to oblige.

>>> 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.
>
> Only a fanatic would get as upset about bicycle lanes as you guys do.

Only people like Zaumen are not bothered by Apartheid bicyclist
farcilities (sic).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.” - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > You mean you are reduced to name-calling when your dishonesty was
> > pointed out: you obviously misrepresented what I had said, turning
> > "does not have any slots that could trap a wheel" and "plenty of
> > clearance" into "the grate is not a problem due to the angle of the
> > slots".
>
> The grate not being a problem was implied in your statement.

Liar - I said you can't trap a wheel in it, judging from what it
looked like in the picture, and I *also* said that a bicyclist's
nominal path of travel would avoid the grate. That means that you
might ride over it if you were momentarily inattentive or had to
swerve to avoid some obstacle, etc., but generally would not.

> >> Well duh, the grate is not where someone would normally ride. So why
> >> is the grate in the "bicycle lane"?
> > For the same reason that the grate would be in the righ-most lane if
> > there were no bike lane. Grates are typically by the curb because
> > the roads slope towards the curb to allow water to run along the
> > gutter and then down the drain. The design standards (for both bike
> > lanes and traffic lanes) allow the users of those lanes to use the
> > lanes without riding or driving in the gutter.
>
> Yeah, but in this case avoiding the grate and the joint between the
> roadway pavement and the gutter leaves barely enough width for a rider
> to stay to the right of the white cyclist apartheid line.

Your "yeah" means you were shown to be completely wrong, and 3 feet of
asphalt (the minimum the design standards allow) is more than enough
room to stay to the right of the stripe while avoiding the gutter.

> >> Most steel surfaces are slippery when wet - must not get much rain in
> >> Silly Cone Valley, eh?
> > Most steel meshes are not slippery when wet, and that's what this
> > grate is. It is not a solid steel surface with a flat section that
> > could hold water on it.
>
> Really? Then why are railroad tracks slippery (even disused ones),
> since their upper surface is convex?

Barely convex. The grate in question is sharp enough to push into the
tires a bit, providing far better support. Try riding over one and
see.

> >>>>> 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.
> > Whoosh - this idiot forgets that he actually made a gramatical error
> > by missing enough words that there was no way to figure out what he
> > meant! And that was weeks ago - he really must have a grudge!
>
> It was a cut and paste error. If you want to play the flaming game, I
> am more than happy to oblige.

A "cut and paste error"? That's simply a lie. The dropped word was in the
middle of a sentence. Are you claiming you have a word list of some sort
and cut and paste words into your posts rather than typing them?
> >> Only a cyclist hater or ignoramus would create the "bicycle lane" in
> >> question, and only Zaumen would defend it.
> > Only a fanatic would get as upset about bicycle lanes as you guys do.
>
> Only people like Zaumen are not bothered by Apartheid bicyclist
> farcilities (sic).

What a fanatic Tom Sherman is! He's totally overreacting.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Wayne Pein wrote: {SANITY SNIP}

> You obviously have zero experience with a wide outside lane, so you
> shouldn't guess about how traffic uses it. You're wrong. And if you
> did have experience with one, you would understand why they are
> superior to bike lanes.

Completely false. One road I take often (to get to decent roads) has a
narrow left lane, wide right with cars parked on side. It's a freaking
death trap for cyclists -- brushed to the left, doored to the right. *I DO
TAKE THE LANE*, but I still get passed way too close for comfort almost
every single time. (And a friend -- very experienced rider -- did get
doored along there a year or so ago. Took him quite a while to ride it
after that, too.)


>>> 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.
>
> You think it's fighting over space with adversaries, but that is not
> how I characterize it. I'm an equal user of the road. If the lane is
> wide enough and I'm not going fast, I let motorists pass me in it.

Yeah, right. I get it now; I've been trolled. (Either that or your traffic
is a LOT slower than mine.)

>
>>
>> It's really not that complicated...unless you're trolling. Pick a
>> better pet issue.
>
> It does seem to be comlicated for you, but I can understand that given
> your lack of experience.

LOL Well, I've put over 20,000 miles on my two road bikes in the last 3
years -- no accidents but quite a few close calls. I credit my mountain
biking experience for helping my handling skills; and the fact that I'm a
good driver helps, too.

I'm simply honest enough to say that a nice smooth road with ample lanes and
a clean, effective bike lane is a joy to ride compared to hectic roads with
not enough space, door zones and impatient speeding drivers. I ride 'em,
and do appreciate the "adventure" (danger) aspect, but give me a good road
designed with bikes in mind any day.

DONE.

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

> [email protected] aka Carl Fogel wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >
>
> "Dear Carl" is right. Since bicycles are toys ridden only by children
> and childish adults, getting off the bicycle at every intersection and
> crossing like a pedestrian should not be a burden, since it keeps the
> bicycle riders out of the way of the REAL road users, the motor
> vehicle operators.

More paranoia from Tom Sherman.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>>
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>> You mean you are reduced to name-calling when your dishonesty was
>>> pointed out: you obviously misrepresented what I had said, turning
>>> "does not have any slots that could trap a wheel" and "plenty of
>>> clearance" into "the grate is not a problem due to the angle of the
>>> slots".
>>
>> The grate not being a problem was implied in your statement.
>
> Liar - I said you can't trap a wheel in it, judging from what it
> looked like in the picture, and I *also* said that a bicyclist's
> nominal path of travel would avoid the grate. That means that you
> might ride over it if you were momentarily inattentive or had to
> swerve to avoid some obstacle, etc., but generally would not.
>
Even if the assumption of implication was not correct, it would still
not be a lie. Zaumen must have failed logic, or maybe he learned to call
everyone a liar from He Who Must Not Be Named.
>
>>>> Well duh, the grate is not where someone would normally ride. So why
>>>> is the grate in the "bicycle lane"?
>>> For the same reason that the grate would be in the righ-most lane if
>>> there were no bike lane. Grates are typically by the curb because
>>> the roads slope towards the curb to allow water to run along the
>>> gutter and then down the drain. The design standards (for both bike
>>> lanes and traffic lanes) allow the users of those lanes to use the
>>> lanes without riding or driving in the gutter.
>
>> Yeah, but in this case avoiding the grate and the joint between the
>> roadway pavement and the gutter leaves barely enough width for a rider
>> to stay to the right of the white cyclist apartheid line.
>
> Your "yeah" means you were shown to be completely wrong,
>
Huh? More illogic from Zaumen.
>
> and 3 feet of
> asphalt (the minimum the design standards allow) is more than enough
> room to stay to the right of the stripe while avoiding the gutter.
>
If this <http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg> is a normal 6
to 8 inch "mountable" (as opposed to barrier) curb, which it appears to
be, then there is not anywhere near 3 feet of asphaltic concrete
pavement to the right of the white line. Furthermore, half of the
asphaltic concrete to the right of the white line appears to be in
rather poor condition, and no something one would want to ride on for
any distance.
>
>>>> Most steel surfaces are slippery when wet - must not get much rain in
>>>> Silly Cone Valley, eh?
>>> Most steel meshes are not slippery when wet, and that's what this
>>> grate is. It is not a solid steel surface with a flat section that
>>> could hold water on it.
>> Really? Then why are railroad tracks slippery (even disused ones),
>> since their upper surface is convex?
>
> Barely convex. The grate in question is sharp enough to push into the
> tires a bit, providing far better support. Try riding over one and
> see.
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>> Whoosh - this idiot forgets that he actually made a gramatical error
>>> by missing enough words that there was no way to figure out what he
>>> meant! And that was weeks ago - he really must have a grudge!
>> It was a cut and paste error. If you want to play the flaming game, I
>> am more than happy to oblige.
>
> A "cut and paste error"? That's simply a lie. The dropped word was in the
> middle of a sentence. Are you claiming you have a word list of some sort
> and cut and paste words into your posts rather than typing them?
>
Duh! I was using another program as a spell checker, and accidentally
pasted over a couple of words.

Is "that's a lie" your only argument?
>
>>>> Only a cyclist hater or ignoramus would create the "bicycle lane" in
>>>> question, and only Zaumen would defend it.
>>> Only a fanatic would get as upset about bicycle lanes as you guys do.
>> Only people like Zaumen are not bothered by Apartheid bicyclist
>> farcilities (sic).
>
> What a fanatic Tom Sherman is! He's totally overreacting.
>
No, Zaumen is the bicycle farcility (sic) fanatic.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
Bill Zaumen wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> [email protected] aka Carl Fogel wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>> "Dear Carl" is right. Since bicycles are toys ridden only by children
>> and childish adults, getting off the bicycle at every intersection and
>> crossing like a pedestrian should not be a burden, since it keeps the
>> bicycle riders out of the way of the REAL road users, the motor
>> vehicle operators.
>
> More paranoia from Tom Sherman.
>

Sarcasm detector broken, Zaumen?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
On Aug 18, 4:45 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > Recently I engaged in a conversation over at ne.transport regarding
> >> > some inadequate bike lanes in the Newburyport, MA area. Shortly after
> >> > posting my reply, I got an email from a Boston area reporter. I don't
> >> > want to copy-paste the exact email in the interest of privacy, but the
> >> > gist was basically that she read my post and she's "heard other
> >> > cyclists complain of useless/dangerous bike lanes". She wanted to
> >> > know if there were any others that stand out as particularly
> >> > dangerous, stating that it may make a good news story for them if
> >> > so.
>
> >> > This seems like a good chance to try to get some public awareness, so
> >> > I figured I'd bounce the concept off of some other cyclists before
> >> > replying to her.
>
> >> > Link to the thread: http://tinyurl.com/2bw4od
> >> > Non-tiny link:http://groups.google.com/group/ne.transportation/browse_thread/thread...
>
> >> Dear Dan,
>
> >> You can scroll back through monthly pictures with captions of
> >> exquisite British bicycle road and path mis-design here:
>
> >>http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August...
>
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> Carl Fogel
>
> >Of course, the website Carl has pointed to deals only with British
> >designs. That allows bike lane fans to pretend that such atrocious
> >designs never occur in America. Or at least, never occur out west
> >where the roads are wide. Or perhaps never occur since the design
> >standards got improved. Or at least, haven't occurred very recently.
> >And if atrocious designs are somehow built by mistake, they will be
> >speedily corrected by the same dedicated civil servants that designed
> >and oversaw the mistakes, once those mistakes are gently pointed out.
>
> >My experience is quite the opposite, of course. But to a true bike
> >lane fan, the bad examples simply don't count.
>
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> Dear Frank,
>
> An errand let me take some indifferent pictures of bike lane idiocy in
> Pueblo. A few blocks of Union Avenue, once the center of town, have
> had handsome stripes painted.
>
> But at the end of the first block, a must-turn-right car lane replaces
> the bike lane, with a sign on the far side of the parked cars marking
> the exact spot where the bike lane vanishes, unless a full-grown SUV
> obscures it:
>
> http://i10.tinypic.com/4ti4j92.jpg
>
> Exactly what the bicycyist is supposed to do when the lane vanishes is
> unclear. Drivers tend to use their horns to indicate that bicycles are
> not welcome in the no-shoulder right-turn-only lane, and heaven help
> the two-wheeled fool who swerves out into the main lane.
>
> Perhaps you're supposed to stop, wheel your bike around the back of
> the last parked car, push it down the sidewalk to the crosswalk, wait
> for the walk light, get back into the new bike lane, and then ride
> another block to where . . .
>
> http://i16.tinypic.com/6ewq4w6.jpg
>
> Same thing again. Every block, the bike lane vanishes.
>
> Luckily, the city felt that a few blocks of bike lane down Union
> Avenue were more than enough and quit painting these silly lanes,
> saving a great deal of money on all the bike-lane-ends signs that
> would have been needed at the end of every block.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Since some folks still seem quite impressed with the novelty of poorly
designed facilities, I bring you this NEWSFLASH:

NEWSFLASH!!! Bicycle facilities generally leave something to be
desired. Some are outright terrible. Likewise, bike lanes or not,
almost all streets leave something to be desired, and some are
downright terrible places to ride. But you may have to ride there
anyway. The world is an imperfect place and transportation facilities
are some of the least perfect of this world's many aspects. Even the
velodrome is cracked and has a sinkhole in the infield. Get used to
it. That is the world upon which we ride. NEWSFLASH!!!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:
> On Aug 18, 6:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> ... Apartheid bicyclist farcilities (sic).
>
>
> NEWSFLASH!!! Cyclists have more freedom than any other class of road
> user. NEWSFLASH!!!

That's because we're under the radar.
Nobody looks for cyclists.

Some riders gripe about it, but it
really is something of which we can
take advantage.

And I love that freedom.

Some car drivers hate it. Tough tittie
for them, as they rag-on and bullshittingly
characterize us about blowing stop signs
and other death-wish razzmataz as if we
wanna get clobbered, whilst those drivers
portray themselves as innocent.

Yeah, I enjoy and embrace the freedom of
being a cyclist.

And if the City deems it fit to give me
Farcilities, I just might find ways to
occasionally use 'em.

I'll tell ya this much, though: LAB can
shove their railroad-track idealoguery
up where the moon don't shine, AFAIC.
It seems they wanna turn bike riders into
two-wheeled car drivers.

That guy to whom Jeffrey Hiles mentioned
in his "Listening to Bike Lanes" paper,
who referred to bicycles as "folk
transportation", was right.

We can do anything. All we gotta do is
keep our skin on, and keep from getting
clobbered, and respect other road/street
users' rights of way. It's so simple,
and it works. It always has, and it
always will.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
 
On Aug 19, 2:12 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote, regarding Bill Zaumen:
>
> Is "that's a lie" your only argument?

:) It's obviously not Bill's _only_ argument. But it's the one he
falls back on when he's losing the others!

I described in detail the atrocious bike lanes our club has been
(unsuccessfully) fighting to have redesigned. I mentioned a few
details of our statements, and the park administration's responses.
Since our experiences differ with Bill's preconceived notions of
reality, he called me a liar.

Bill's attitude saves him a lot of difficult thinking. He can pretend
all contrary evidence is lies, so he doesn't have to learn from his
mistakes.

But with such an ignorance-is-blissful existence, you'd think he'd be
a lot less bitter, wouldn't you?

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Aug 19, 3:18 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> NEWSFLASH!!! Bicycle facilities generally leave something to be
> desired. Some are outright terrible. Likewise, bike lanes or not,
> almost all streets leave something to be desired, and some are
> downright terrible places to ride. But you may have to ride there
> anyway. The world is an imperfect place and transportation facilities
> are some of the least perfect of this world's many aspects. Even the
> velodrome is cracked and has a sinkhole in the infield. Get used to
> it. That is the world upon which we ride. NEWSFLASH!!!

Nice sarcasm.

But the problem we're addressing here really isn't the imperfections
in the infrastructure. Those are just the symptom.

The problem is that most bike advocates push bike lanes and paths as
supposed "cures" for cycling's supposed problems. But they generally
don't make things better; they more often make things worse.

It's a bit like the American Medical Association offering smoking as a
cure for lung disease.

I know I can ignore bike lanes and ride properly. But many cyclists
don't know to do that. (In fact, one of my friends, a guy with 30+
years of avid cycling, nearly got hit recently because he was misled
by a bike lane.) And, sadly, many potential cyclists think they
cannot cycle safely without these useless stripes; the lack of
stripes, plus the propaganda from "advocates" like LAB, actually keep
them off the road.

Again, I know I can ride properly even where bike lanes are
installed. But it does mean I'll have to watch harder for glass
shards, nails and other trash, since they'll be more common in the
bike lanes. And when I have to leave the lane, I'll have to be more
careful than I would without the stripe, since motorists think I'm not
supposed to ride elsewhere. And if I ride with someone who's not so
aware, I'll have to convince them that they are not in a magically
protected space. I'll have to convince them that they must merge
correctly left to avoid lane hazards, or to make proper left turns,
etc.

I can counter the bad effects of the "advocates," at least for my own
riding. But it's a damned shame that so much advocacy effort goes into
useless, or even harmful, "solutions."

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:16:34 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "William
O'Hara" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Jones
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story
Replies
157
Views
6K
Cycling Equipment
Bill Sornson
B
Acheno84
Bike lanes
Replies
6
Views
1K
Road Cycling
cyclintom
cyclintom
Corzhens
Hazardous Bike Lanes
Replies
26
Views
4K
Commuting and Road Safety
briannagodess
briannagodess
CAMPYBOB
Cleveland Screws Up Bike Lanes
Replies
9
Views
2K
Road Cycling
pwarbi
pwarbi
CoolCat
Reducing Bike Lanes
Replies
5
Views
1K
Commuting and Road Safety
gavinfree
G
hollowbackerdale
Dedicated Bike Lanes Need Or Not?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Commuting and Road Safety
joshposh
joshposh
Gelsemium
Bike Lanes
Replies
18
Views
3K
Next Generation
ambal
ambal
steve
Bike Lanes: Safe Cycling Haven Or 'door Zone Of Death'?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Commuting and Road Safety
adfnio
adfnio
S
Bike Lanes and Sidewalks
Replies
37
Views
5K
Commuting and Road Safety
Grant-53
Grant-53
Daiho
Bike lanes unconstitutional in the US
Replies
13
Views
2K
Bike Cafe
ZXD22
ZXD22
Top Bottom Back