The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city...

[R15757]

>So if you claim that ten feet is a reasonable buffer, you're effectively
>
>telling cyclists to move into the oncoming lane when a car waits at the
>
>stopsign in front of my house.

An arterial street will likely have much wider lanes.

But on a narrow residential street like that, please
explain why the rider should be anywhere other than
the middle of the street in the absence of any
oncoming or overtaking traffic.

Robert

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

>>So if you claim that ten feet is a reasonable buffer, you're effectively
>>
>>telling cyclists to move into the oncoming lane when a car waits at the
>>
>>stopsign in front of my house.
>
>
> An arterial street will likely have much wider lanes.
>
> But on a narrow residential street like that, please
> explain why the rider should be anywhere other than
> the middle of the street in the absence of any
> oncoming or overtaking traffic.

Let's see: Perhaps because he's riding side by side with another
cyclist? Or is that illegal in your book?

Besides, you haven't explained what you'd do if there _were_ oncoming
traffic. There you'd be, no way to maintain your minimum-acceptable 10
foot buffer. What do you do? Get off your bike and walk?

Again, I absolutely do not believe that you ride this way - that is, I
absolutely do not believe you stay ten feet away from every car that
pulls up to a stop sign.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 04 Dec 2004 23:55:36 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>Well, he could hardly fail to see me could he?

>Are you serious? Man, you just don't get it.

On the contrary, I get it perfectly well. The classic SMIDSY does not
mean they didn't see, merely that they didn't notice. In either case
the outcome is the same: I take responsibility for my safety and never
rely on the other driver having seen me. But to make it easier for
them, and to reduce to manageable proportions the number who don't, I
ride well into the traffic lane. This works well; I don't have to
deal with many of them at all.

>>How would you have "made space" in this incident?

>I would likely ride pretty far to the right on such
>a road, a "clear country road," precisely because of
>incidents like the one in question. These roads are
>very different from city streets, where the
>greatest danger is from crossing and turning traffic.

Tell me something I don't know. In this case I was riding in the
secondary riding position, there being no compelling reason to be
elsewhere. I would *never* ride closer to the kerb than the secondary
position on these roads, due to the debris which accumulates at the
margins.

Once again I think you are picturing the roads near you. If that road
is as much as 16ft kerb to kerb I'd be surprised.

>But I would bet that you were out in the lane,
>riding in the "primary position" or "secondary
>position," thinking about how best to manage
>overtaking traffic that, at that particular time,
>didn't even exist.

No such hypothesis is necessary. Apart from anything else, I know
when there is traffic behind because I have a mirror. Most recumbent
riders do.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Jeremy Parker]

> >And this is the group that collectively jumps my ass for
> >sometimes riding on the wrong side so I can see an idiot
> >coming my way???

We should take him to Swindon's magic roundabout, and get him to ride
the wrong way round that. [To non Brit's, who don't know what a magic
roundabout is, don't ask. I think there's a picture of Swindon's on
the internet somewhere, though]

Jeremy Parker

 

[Erik Freitag]

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:39:21 +0000, Jeremy Parker wrote:

>
>
>> >And this is the group that collectively jumps my ass for
>> >sometimes riding on the wrong side so I can see an idiot
>> >coming my way???
>
> We should take him to Swindon's magic roundabout, and get him to ride
> the wrong way round that. [To non Brit's, who don't know what a magic
> roundabout is, don't ask. I think there's a picture of Swindon's on
> the internet somewhere, though]
>
> Jeremy Parker

Is there a wrong way? I thought that particular roundabout went in both
directions.

 

[Bill Baka]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 20:39:21 -0000, Jeremy Parker
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>> >And this is the group that collectively jumps my ass for
>> >sometimes riding on the wrong side so I can see an idiot
>> >coming my way???
>
> We should take him to Swindon's magic roundabout, and get him to ride
> the wrong way round that. [To non Brit's, who don't know what a magic
> roundabout is, don't ask. I think there's a picture of Swindon's on
> the internet somewhere, though]
>
> Jeremy Parker
>
>
I know what a roundabout is and we could use some here in the states.
Some drivers WE have would go around for hours. I think it would be
cool to ride some of Europe but obligations keep me here. Of course
if I could ever talk myself into a BUSINESS trip, heh.


--
Bill (?) Baka

 

[The Real Bev]

Bill Baka wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >And this is the group that collectively jumps my ass for
> >> >sometimes riding on the wrong side so I can see an idiot
> >> >coming my way???
> >
> > We should take him to Swindon's magic roundabout, and get him to ride
> > the wrong way round that. [To non Brit's, who don't know what a magic
> > roundabout is, don't ask. I think there's a picture of Swindon's on
> > the internet somewhere, though]

http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm

There's a quicktime movie, but I can't see it. Frightening enough in
photos!

> I know what a roundabout is and we could use some here in the states.

Bite your tongue. They've put a few in here as "traffic calming"
devices. Big planting circle out in the middle, one lane around it, and
FOUR STOP SIGNS, one on each corner. You not only have to swerve around
the stupid circle, you have to stop before you do it. They've also
added bumps and stop signs to all the major north/south streets and in
some cases turned the parking lanes into traffic lanes, which is pretty
bad news for bicyclists. I really don't want to take the lane in 50 mph
traffic whether I'm entitled to be there or not.

--
Cheers,
Bev
______________________________________________________
"Parasites plus suckers do not add up to a community."
-- Thomas Sowell

 

[Matt O'Toole]

The Real Bev wrote:

> Bill Baka wrote:

>> I know what a roundabout is and we could use some here in the states.

> Bite your tongue. They've put a few in here as "traffic calming"
> devices. Big planting circle out in the middle, one lane around it,
> and FOUR STOP SIGNS, one on each corner. You not only have to swerve
> around the stupid circle, you have to stop before you do it. They've
> also added bumps and stop signs to all the major north/south streets
> and in some cases turned the parking lanes into traffic lanes, which
> is pretty bad news for bicyclists. I really don't want to take the
> lane in 50 mph traffic whether I'm entitled to be there or not.

I can't imagine cars travelling at 50 MPH on streets with the features you
described. Obvously you're describing different situations, or you're not
describing accurately.

I'm a big fan of roundabouts. They have them all over the UK in lieu of traffic
lights. They're great because traffic moves slowly but hardly ever stops. This
is good for safety, noise, and air quality. Once you get used to them, driving
is easier too.

I'm also a big fan of the of the traffic calming devices used in residential
neighborhoods in Vancouver -- islands like you describe, and intersections that
block motorized through traffic but let cyclists and pedestrians through.
Tourists complain about all the one way streets and "can't get there from here"
situations, but it keeps through traffic out and speeds down in these
neighborhoods. LA ought to do the same thing with some of its inner city
neighborhoods -- particularly Hollywood, which has a very similar layout and
traffic patterns.

Matt O.

 

[The Real Bev]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
> > Bill Baka wrote:
>
> >> I know what a roundabout is and we could use some here in the states.
>
> > Bite your tongue. They've put a few in here as "traffic calming"
> > devices. Big planting circle out in the middle, one lane around it,
> > and FOUR STOP SIGNS, one on each corner. You not only have to swerve
> > around the stupid circle, you have to stop before you do it. They've
> > also added bumps and stop signs to all the major north/south streets
> > and in some cases turned the parking lanes into traffic lanes, which
> > is pretty bad news for bicyclists. I really don't want to take the
> > lane in 50 mph traffic whether I'm entitled to be there or not.
>
> I can't imagine cars travelling at 50 MPH on streets with the features you
> described. Obvously you're describing different situations, or you're not
> describing accurately.

You're correct. The north/south streets through wealthy neighborhoods
get speed bumps, stop signs and traffic circles. They used to be 50-mph
(when the cop wasn't looking) streets, until the residents started
whining loudly. What really pisses me off is when bumps make you slow
down to 15 mph in a 25 mph zone. May hoodlums fling bricks through
their picture windows.

Due to increased traffic, parking lanes on other streets have been
converted to traffic lanes, generally a little narrower than the lane
would be if there were a parking lane next to it. There is NO room on
these streets to ride a bike, especially since the traffic is either
40-50 mph or bumper to bumper with frantic drivers, many/most of whom
didn't drive before moving to the US as adults.

> I'm a big fan of roundabouts. They have them all over the UK in lieu of traffic
> lights. They're great because traffic moves slowly but hardly ever stops. This
> is good for safety, noise, and air quality. Once you get used to them, driving
> is easier too.

Perhaps, but the local implementations suck badly.

> I'm also a big fan of the of the traffic calming devices used in residential
> neighborhoods in Vancouver -- islands like you describe, and intersections that
> block motorized through traffic but let cyclists and pedestrians through.
> Tourists complain about all the one way streets and "can't get there from here"
> situations, but it keeps through traffic out and speeds down in these
> neighborhoods. LA ought to do the same thing with some of its inner city
> neighborhoods -- particularly Hollywood, which has a very similar layout and
> traffic patterns.

The problem is that the residential streets are in many cases the ONLY
through streets for miles. Yeah, it's tough on the homeowners, but with
the turnover in real estate I'd be willing to bet that heavy traffic was
already evident when they bought their houses.

--
Cheers,
Bev
=============================================================
"What's truly sad is that your vote counts the same as mine."
-- S. Brown

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> writes:

> I'm also a big fan of the of the traffic calming devices used in residential
> neighborhoods in Vancouver -- islands like you describe, and intersections that
> block motorized through traffic but let cyclists and pedestrians through.

A couple of times while riding by such a "traffic circle"
as we call them, I've had drivers come up speeding behind
me and pass me on the other side (the wrong side) of the
traffic circle. Then there are the drivers, and perhaps
worse -- wrong way riders, who when turning off of one
street and onto the other, cut the corner and go around
the traffic circle the wrong way. Those things can be a
mixed blessing.

The City seems to have gone overboard with them, installing them
all over the place - even at poorly sight-lined intersections
that would be better controlled with plain stop signs.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Mike Latondresse]

[email protected] (Tom Keats) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> The City seems to have gone overboard with them, installing them
> all over the place - even at poorly sight-lined intersections
> that would be better controlled with plain stop signs.
>
A couple of the ones going down Ontario between 25th and Broadway fall
into that category and you are really hauling because of the slight
downhill. There is an advantage to the dark AMs as you can see the
lights of cars approaching rouondabouts at right angles well before you
can see them.

 

[R15757]

Frank K wrote:

>> But on a narrow residential street like that, please
>> explain why the rider should be anywhere other than
>> the middle of the street in the absence of any
>> oncoming or overtaking traffic.
>
>Let's see: Perhaps because he's riding side by side with another
>cyclist? Or is that illegal in your book?

Yeah, in other words, if there's no oncoming or
overtaking traffic, the rider is best off riding
straight down the freaking middle of a very narrow
residential street, especially if the street is lined
with parked cars as they often are in urban areas.
I dont know why you'd fight this, being a lover of
visibility and all that, you are most visible near
the middle of the street, right? Isn't that the most
important thing, to Be Visible? Put your money
where your mouth is.

>Besides, you haven't explained what you'd do if there _were_ oncoming
>traffic.

Yes I did, a few times. I'd move over.

>There you'd be, no way to maintain your minimum-acceptable 10
>foot buffer. What do you do?

Slow down a bit. As I wrote about four times.
Keep in mind that my normal speed through
the city is a crisp 18-22 mph. If you ride slow,
a ten foot buffer might seem crazy to you, in
fact the whole concept of leaving space might
seem foreign, I don't know.

> Get off your bike and walk?

That act is old. Listen up, Jack. I don't
stop, put a foot down, or get off my
bike unless I have to. That's the whole
point.

>Again, I absolutely do not believe that you ride this >way -

Believe it.

>that is, I
>absolutely do not believe you stay ten feet away from every car that
>pulls up to a stop sign.

Not every one. But if I'm riding fast
and have to cross within six or seven
feet of a car at a stop sign, it puts a
chill through my bones. I know what
happens when people do that.

So I guess you're not still operating under
the assumption that our riding styles are
exactly the same? Good, that was disturbing.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>Tell me something I don't know. In this case I was riding in the
>secondary riding position, there being no compelling reason to be
>elsewhere.

I find the frequency of incidents like the
one you described to be quite a compelling
reason to move further right.

> I would *never* ride closer to the kerb than the secondary
>position on these roads, due to the debris which accumulates at the
>margins.

Well, that's your choice. But now you know
that if you're riding that position and become
distracted or momentarily interested in something
off to the side, you could be killed by one of these
speeding drivers popping out to pass.

>No such hypothesis is necessary. Apart from anything else, I know
>when there is traffic behind because I have a mirror. Most recumbent
>riders do.

Is that due to the recumbent or due to the type
of people who ride them also being more likely to
use a mirror? Personally I am feeling the need
for a mirror on some of the clear country roads
around these parts.

Robert

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 10 Dec 2004 08:39:13 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>Tell me something I don't know. In this case I was riding in the
>>secondary riding position, there being no compelling reason to be
>>elsewhere.

>I find the frequency of incidents like the
>one you described to be quite a compelling
>reason to move further right.

That stops people pulling overtaking coming the other way does it?
Fascinating. But without seeing you, obviously.

>>No such hypothesis is necessary. Apart from anything else, I know
>>when there is traffic behind because I have a mirror. Most recumbent
>>riders do.

>Is that due to the recumbent or due to the type
>of people who ride them also being more likely to
>use a mirror?

A moment's thought will reveal the reason. It is much easier to look
behind you on a wedgie than a recumbent.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound