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

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

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

That explains a lot of things!

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

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

 

[Bill Z.]

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


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


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

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

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

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Sornson]

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

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

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Michael Press <[email protected]> writes:

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

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

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

Wayne

 

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Sornson]

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

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

I declare progress! LOL

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

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

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

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

Peace.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

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

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

Wayne

 

[A Muzi]

>>> "[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...

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

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

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

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

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

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

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

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

 

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

Wayne

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:42:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

Open your mind beyond your own locale.

In some places there is no other road than a freeway. And a bike lane
would be more likely to be cleaned than a plain shoulder. And less
likely to have rumble strips (like the shoulder of a freeway I rode
hundreds of miles on on a cross-country trip.



--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Bill Sornson]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>> Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period. Elsewhere, they're
>>> objectional to varying degrees.
>>
>>
>> The one place they're never needed is the freeway. Bikes are seldom
>> allowed anyway, and when they are there's a big fat shoulder on
>> which to ride. (Granted, grime and debris gets pushed out on the
>> shoulders, but would also on a freeway bike lane since they're not
>> sweeped the way regular roads are.)
>
> Bicyclists should be allowed on freeways. If the shoulder is named a
> Bike Lane, then pressure can be applied to clean it.

While I agree with the second part of that, I still maintain that freeway
riding is anything but enjoyable and should only be used for literal
transportation or when there's no alternative to get back to a decent road
to ride.

>> Where I live I can think of two stretches of freeway that allow
>> bicycles. (No "bike lanes" per se, however.) I avoid them like the
>> plague, but when I have used them they stunk. Fumes, vehicle wind
>> wakes, and lots of broken glass and other ****.
>
> I never implied that freeway riding is pleasant, though it can be on a
> rural freeway with little traffic. I only implied that bicyclists
> should be allowed on them.

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.

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. This would unquestionably push bike riders farther to
the right. It's clear as day when you look at the lanes: the left lane is
narrower than the right lane, with a bike lane to right of that. Take away
the BL, and they'd never leave that skinny left lane as is with a HUGE right
lane next to it. No, they'd even them out somewhat, and cars in both lanes
would move right. Bikes? Welcome to the gutter...OR to getting brushed
much more often.

Bike lanes (here at least) work great.

(no) BS

 

[Bob Quindazzi]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:56:11 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Wayne Pein wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:
>>
>>>> Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period. Elsewhere, they're
>>>> objectional to varying degrees.
>>>
>>>
>>> The one place they're never needed is the freeway. Bikes are seldom
>>> allowed anyway, and when they are there's a big fat shoulder on
>>> which to ride. (Granted, grime and debris gets pushed out on the
>>> shoulders, but would also on a freeway bike lane since they're not
>>> sweeped the way regular roads are.)
>>
>> Bicyclists should be allowed on freeways. If the shoulder is named a
>> Bike Lane, then pressure can be applied to clean it.
>
>While I agree with the second part of that, I still maintain that freeway
>riding is anything but enjoyable and should only be used for literal
>transportation or when there's no alternative to get back to a decent road
>to ride.
>
>>> Where I live I can think of two stretches of freeway that allow
>>> bicycles. (No "bike lanes" per se, however.) I avoid them like the
>>> plague, but when I have used them they stunk. Fumes, vehicle wind
>>> wakes, and lots of broken glass and other ****.
>>
>> I never implied that freeway riding is pleasant, though it can be on a
>> rural freeway with little traffic. I only implied that bicyclists
>> should be allowed on them.
>
>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.
>
>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. This would unquestionably push bike riders farther to
>the right. It's clear as day when you look at the lanes: the left lane is
>narrower than the right lane, with a bike lane to right of that. Take away
>the BL, and they'd never leave that skinny left lane as is with a HUGE right
>lane next to it. No, they'd even them out somewhat, and cars in both lanes
>would move right. Bikes? Welcome to the gutter...OR to getting brushed
>much more often.
>
>Bike lanes (here at least) work great.
>
>(no) BS
>


How, exactly, do the cars move you over?

 

[Luke]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bill Sornson]

Bob Quindazzi wrote:

> How, exactly, do the cars move you over?

By not trimming their posts. HTH

 

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Z.]

Luke <[email protected]> writes:

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

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.

> 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.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] writes:

> On Aug 17, 12:03 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > [email protected] writes:
> > > On Aug 16, 9:32 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > > > [email protected] writes:
> > The park is using the excuse that pedestrians
> > > also walk in those lanes, and that therefore "they are a multi-user
> > > facility, not a bicycle facility, and they don't have to meet the
> > > standards for bicycle facilities." The park administration is backing
> > > him up.
> >
> > Krygowski is obviously dissembling - if it is a "park" and a "multi-user
> > facility", whatever this facility is, it is not a bike lane, and not
> > being claimed to be a bike lane. It sounds more like a bike path.
>
> When they first installed the facility, they called it a bike lane.
> Until our latest attempt at getting it changed, they called it a bike
> lane. Every cyclist I've talked to about it has called it a bike
> lane. Terming it a "multi-user facility" is merely the park
> superintendent's latest dodge, an excuse for violating design
> standards set by AASHTO and the state DOT.
>
> It's a portion of a 20 foot wide roadway separated from the motor
> vehicle lane by a white stripe. What would you call it?

The reason I don't believe you, Krygowski, is your history of
dissembling.


>
> > In California, the only roads that bicycles can be restricted from using
> > are freeways and toll bridges. You do not have to use a path or sidewalk,
> > and a "multi-user" facility is obviously either an off-road path or a
> > sidewalk, but is not a bike lane.
>
> As is often the case, what you think is obvious is totally mistaken.
> It's not a sidewalk. It's not off-road. It's the same asphalt as the
> rest of the roadway, separated by a white stripe.

So you say, but as far as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility.

>
> And it violates many standards.

So send them a letter outlining the standards they are violating
and be sure to CC the Trial Laywer's Association (the "ambulence
chasers" to they'll be sure to know that the people responsible
for the facility knows of the alleged hazard).


> I could go on. But the main point is, these park officials are
> convinced of the necessity and value of white paint.

And why should I believe you?

> > Also in Califonria, if a jurisdiction refuses to follow the Caltrans
> > bike lane standards (basically the AASTO ones), a bicyclist is under
> > no legal obligation to use it - the bike lane rules in the CVC
> > specifically state that they apply only to lanes installed in
> > conformance to state standards.
>
> We're not required to use the lanes, unless we want to ride south on
> that road. Except, that is, by the car drivers who blare their horns
> and yell "Get in the bike lane!!!"

If it is one way for cars (your statement) and if you object to being
treated differently than cars (according to you), then don't in
that direction, which is opposite to the flow of traffic for cars.

That's all you have to do. Whining like you are is childish.
>

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

I know what you do - whine incessantly on usenet about how hurt you
are.

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

So make suere they are sued if there is an accident, and tell the
laywers know that that the officials were warned multiple times and
willfully violated the standards (if this is in fact true). That will
really push the damages they'd have to pay through the roof. That will
get anyone's attention. Once the people responsible for the finances
find out, it will probably result in some heads rolling (figuratively,
of course).

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

Liar - I described the real world - the town I live in. It isn't
a fantasy. What you are blaming me for is really your own stupidity
and your own ineptness.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB