bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 15 Aug 2007 15:50:26 From: DanKMTB@gmail.com Subject: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story 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/d7701d71a8e070ab/2537a72c21e4603e#2537a72c21e4603e   Date: 05 Sep 2007 09:16:42 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Sep 5, 12:02 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > > > /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting people's > positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change that. If the pavement is already wide enough for easy lane sharing, what exactly does that white stripe do that's "hugely beneficial"? It doesn't add space. It doesn't add visibility. It doesn't give cyclists any more right to the road. What is "hugely beneficial"? - Frank Krygowski   Date: 20 Aug 2007 01:58:40 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <1187550124.778867.252160@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > Pretty much sums it up, imo. Thanks Tom. Well, yeah. So many people wanna make riding bike into a big deal. A bigger deal than it natuarally is. It's kind of like multicuturalism. That always existed here in East Vancouver, on its own accord. Then the Federal Gov't (under Lester B. Pearson) decided to legislate it & take credit for it, and make it Official Policy. Y'see, gov'ts check-out what happens, and then they butt-in and take the credit. "But when The Lord gets ready, you gotta move." -- (Miss'ippi) Fred McDowell (my beloved mentor & Spiritual Guide.) Him, 'n Jimmy Reed. Actually, me 'n Jimmy hang, 'n party together. Fred gets disgusted, and wags his finger at us, telling us that we're going to hell. I hope Kinsey Report plays there. But I hate places with red lights, red upholtstery, red carpets, red everything. Ugh. Hell is too red, and heaven is too alice-blue & white. We need a place with some Hawaiian shirt colours in it. Y'know what? Mick Jagger is one of the best blues harpists going. Even up there with Sonny Boy Williamson II, or Corky Siegal. -- I've got a room with a view of The Blues.   Date: 19 Aug 2007 19:08:55 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 19, 12:19 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 19, 3:18 am, r15...@aol.com 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." Damned shame but that's pretty much the way the world works. I am not advocating complete defeatism in the face of bad facilities, I'm just urging folks to look at the big picture. Just think how easy and coddled our lives here must be if we can spend so much energy complaining about ill-designed bike lanes. Robert   Date: 19 Aug 2007 19:02:04 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 19, 2:11 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > In article <1187508149.648564.247...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > r15...@aol.com writes: > > > On Aug 18, 6:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > > <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> 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. Pretty much sums it up, imo. Thanks Tom.   Date: 19 Aug 2007 18:19:29 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 19, 3:18 am, r15...@aol.com 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     Date: 20 Aug 2007 04:49:13 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 19, 3:18 am, r15...@aol.com 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. Aside from the "NEWSFLASH", it is not sarcasm but a pretty accurate statement, and I might add that you can find some terribly designed roads as well. With the number of roads in the U.S., you have a large enough sample to find some unusually bad examples. Those bad examples are not an indication that the state of the art for traffic engineering is inadequate, but merely that if some task is repeated enough times, someone will do something really dumb. > > 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. This statement from Krygowski is ridiculous. > > 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. This is most likely another lie from Krygwoski - it is not believable that someone with 30+ years of avid cycling would be misled by a stripe on the road so as to be nearly hit by a vehicle. <rest of his rhetoric snipped out of boredom - he's repeating himself > -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:57:50 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 19, 2:12 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com > 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     Date: 20 Aug 2007 04:41:52 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 19, 2:12 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> 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! More lies from Krygowksi - when I stated something was a lie, it was a case of being deliberately misquoted, and I gave you perfectly rational argument which all of you simply ignored. > > 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. Rather, I suggested that Krygowski's history of dissembling made anything he said questionalble, all the more so after he cleimed that his "park administration" called it a "multiuse path" (or something equivalent), and if they call it that, it is not a bike lane. > > 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. Krygowski is once again lying, and he has yet to explain the fact that when riding in a standards-compliant bike lane next to a 12 foot traffic lane, you will be riding in nearly the exact same position on the road that John Forester in _Effective Cycling_ states that you would be riding in a wide outside lane when going at less than the normal speed of traffic, and you will have adequate clearance from the curb and gutter (several feet). And Forester rants incessantly about bike lanes. I'd conclude that you people are out of your minds - your emotions have simply blinded you to reality. > But with such an ignorance-is-blissful existence, you'd think he'd be > a lot less bitter, wouldn't you? Bitter about what? This is simply another lie from Krygowski. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 19 Aug 2007 01:11:09 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <1187508149.648564.247800@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com >, r15757@aol.com writes: > On Aug 18, 6:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" > <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> 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     Date: 19 Aug 2007 15:10:12 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <tut8af.8m3.ln@vcn.bc.ca >, tkeats2005@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > 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. I works for me. -- Michael Press   Date: 19 Aug 2007 07:22:29 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 18, 6:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@innvalid.com > wrote: > ... Apartheid bicyclist farcilities (sic). NEWSFLASH!!! Cyclists have more freedom than any other class of road user. NEWSFLASH!!!     Date: 19 Aug 2007 12:44:50 From: Bob Quindazzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 07:22:29 -0000, r15757@aol.com wrote: >On Aug 18, 6:34 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" ><sunsetss0...@innvalid.com> wrote: > > >> ... Apartheid bicyclist farcilities (sic). > > >NEWSFLASH!!! Cyclists have more freedom than any other class of road >user. NEWSFLASH!!! Well, true at this point, and it would be nice to keep it that way. Bike lanes do not further this end at all. Jay has already given a nice example of the bicycle lane end game: if you don't use the lane you can be ticketed.   Date: 19 Aug 2007 07:18:44 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 18, 4:45 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, frkry...@gmail.com wrote: > >On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > >> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> 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!!!   Date: 18 Aug 2007 20:12:41 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 18, 4:16 am, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com > wrote: > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly > evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my > imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line > defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road? If there were no bike lane stripe on that road, I would probably be riding near where the stripe is anyway, not in the gutter or in the slop but near the stripe, to help out my fellow citizens who are also attempting to use the road. For me, the stripe may actually define the ideal riding space (in addition to the sub-prime space it also defines). IOW, I find your argument against this particular lane, as badas it is, to be almost completely emotional. Bike lanes just aren't a very big deal. Robert > And what motorist would not consider his lane being inferior when it is > half comprised of a gutter and punctuated by hazards the relative > equivalent of the sewer grate that a cyclist, riding the above lane, > must navigate in his assigned space? But I suppose the driver will be > reconciled to his lowly status and gratified that he's receiving value > for his tax dollars by the reassuring sight of a painted logo of an > auto on his lane. ;-) > > > > > > I can anticipate motorists' reactions if a pedaller should forsake his > > > designated lane in favour of a safer line: 'Get back in your lane you > > > #$%$#@, Why do cyclists to complain, they have their own lane don't > > > they?, etc...' > > > > I agree with Muzi's musings: in this case, better to have saved > > > taxpayer $ and abandoned the proposition. > > > His musings are silly, and in some cases there is practically no > > money to save because if there were no bike lane, there would be > > a shoulder stripe anyway, and the cost of the paint is trivial. > > Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly > designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates > misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede > traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road > (where their safety is compromised).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:14:07 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 18, 4:16 am, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> 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.       Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:33:11 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > r15757@aol.com wrote: >> On Aug 18, 4:16 am, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> 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         Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:39:36 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> r15757@aol.com wrote: >>> On Aug 18, 4:16 am, Luke <lucasirag...@rogers.com> 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   Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:50:08 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 17, 4:05 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > ... (I go west 2 blocks over on > Dayton) Now that wasn't so hard, was it? Save your 'disgust' for things that actually matter.   Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:34:33 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 18, 5:07 am, tkeats2...@hotmail.com (Tom Keats) wrote: > > > I think bike lanes can be useful on steep upgrades > that slow a rider wayyy down -- sort of a "please > feel free to go ahead and pass me lane," as opposed > to a passing lane for the faster vehicles. > > After all, passing lanes accommodate the faster > vehicles; why not accommodate the slower-slower > vehicles (as per the terrain of the locale) too? > Or instead? To me, the question is always this: What is the benefit of the bike lane stripe, if you already have the pavement width needed for a bike lane? On the steep upgrades, cars can pass whether or not there's a stripe, as long as there's sufficient width. Adding a stripe doesn't change the width. It does cause gravel and glass to collect, and it does make certain motorists and cyclists think we're not allowed out of the lane. Those cyclists who feel they must have some symbol to justify their use of the road might want to lobby for "sharrows." Forget the blasted stripes. - Frank Krygowski     Date: 18 Aug 2007 18:24:07 From: Kristian M Zoerhoff Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On 2007-08-18, frkrygow@gmail.com <frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote: > > To me, the question is always this: What is the benefit of the bike > lane stripe, if you already have the pavement width needed for a bike > lane? 9 times out of 10, you /don't/ have the extra width. The bike lane is crammed in either by removing street parking or narrowing the other lanes, at least where I've ridden in Chicago. Fourteen-foot lanes are unheard of here. Of course, since IL is the only state in the union where cyclists can only sue for damages due to poor maintenance/design if they're riding in a bike lane or other marked facility, we don't have many bikes lanes outside the city. You'd like that, if the alternative weren't to simply pretend bikes don't exist, or belong off-road, as most municipalities around here seem to do. -- __o Kristian Zoerhoff _'\(,_ kristian.zoerhoff@gmail.com (_)/ (_)     Date: 18 Aug 2007 15:23:27 From: still me Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:34:33 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >To me, the question is always this: What is the benefit of the bike >lane stripe, if you already have the pavement width needed for a bike >lane? > >On the steep upgrades, cars can pass whether or not there's a stripe, >as long as there's sufficient width. Adding a stripe doesn't change >the width. It does cause gravel and glass to collect, and it does >make certain motorists and cyclists think we're not allowed out of the >lane. <snip > Well, it give motorists the upper hand in a lawsuit if there's an accident outside the bike lane. If gives the bicyclist an upper hand if the motorist crosses into the bike lane. Maybe. Lawyers and their moronic suggestions and inferences notwithstanding and subject to local laws. I agree with your suggestions for the most part. It might help keep some motorists away from the edge and more alert, but the cyclist has different issues (road side debris, pavement issues, etc) and I don't see a real advantage.   Date: 18 Aug 2007 02:07:14 From: Tom Keats Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <46c601eb$0$16429$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > > Bike lanes are appropriate on freeways. Period. Frontage roads adjacent to freeways/expressways/highways might be preferable, so long as they go through to riders' destinations. And if they exist at all. > Elsewhere, they're > objectional to varying degrees. I think bike lanes can be useful on steep upgrades that slow a rider wayyy down -- sort of a "please feel free to go ahead and pass me lane," as opposed to a passing lane for the faster vehicles. After all, passing lanes accommodate the faster vehicles; why not accommodate the slower-slower vehicles (as per the terrain of the locale) too? Or instead? But, I guess the predominant CarHead mindset is to accommodate the swift, and to dismiss and ignore the plodders & sloggers. Oh, well. cheers, Tom -- Nothing is safe from me. I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca     Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:29:35 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Tom Keats wrote: > I think bike lanes can be useful on steep upgrades > that slow a rider wayyy down -- sort of a "please > feel free to go ahead and pass me lane," as opposed > to a passing lane for the faster vehicles. > > After all, passing lanes accommodate the faster > vehicles; why not accommodate the slower-slower > vehicles (as per the terrain of the locale) too? > Or instead? A potential problem with that is attracting wrong way bicyclists in the bike lane. A simple 15' or 16' lane would allow motorists to readily pass but has none of the "baggage" of a bike lane. Wayne   Date: 17 Aug 2007 20:15:58 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 17, 12:03 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > On Aug 16, 9:32 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > frkry...@gmail.com 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     Date: 18 Aug 2007 06:50:27 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 17, 12:03 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > frkry...@gmail.com writes: > > > On Aug 16, 9:32 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > > frkry...@gmail.com 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   Date: 17 Aug 2007 07:00:50 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 16, 9:32 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > frkry...@gmail.com 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     Date: 17 Aug 2007 16:03:53 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 16, 9:32 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > frkry...@gmail.com 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       Date: 17 Aug 2007 16:20:47 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Z. wrote: >> frkrygow@gmail.com 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   Date: 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> 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     Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:45:36 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> 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       Date: 18 Aug 2007 18:01:09 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >>> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> 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         Date: 18 Aug 2007 22:16:16 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > writes: > carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com 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           Date: 19 Aug 2007 01:14:34 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> writes: > >> carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com 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             Date: 20 Aug 2007 04:42:33 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> writes: > > > >> carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote: > >>> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com 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? No, merely a hyperbole detector. I've yet to see a non-emotional argument from you. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 19 Aug 2007 00:10:52 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story carlfogel@comcast.net writes: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:45:19 -0700, frkrygow@gmail.com 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     Date: 16 Aug 2007 18:32:17 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story frkrygow@gmail.com writes: > On Aug 15, 2:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > > On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. Or we can just be honest and note that bike lanes that meet the current design standards are not a problem. The idea that nobody ever screws up is a figment of Krygowksi's imagination, but he frequently puts out strawman arguments or tries to put words in people's mouths. > 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. 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. > My experience is quite the opposite, of course. But to a true bike > lane fan, the bad examples simply don't count. Krygowski's experience is usually a figment of his imagination and stated for rhetorical effect. :-) -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB   Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:01:47 From: landotter Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 1:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > 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... The Coventry Velodrome http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm That's spectacular!     Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:58:09 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story landotter wrote: > On Aug 15, 1:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> 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... > > > The Coventry Velodrome > > http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm > > That's spectacular! At UIUC, on of the "bicycle paths" has knee height concrete ventilation boxes in the middle of the path. Needless to say, I always used the streets. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia BEER IS FOOD -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com     Date: 16 Aug 2007 15:08:05 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:01:47 -0000, landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote: >On Aug 15, 1:04 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: >> 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... > > >The Coventry Velodrome > >http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm > >That's spectacular! Dear LD, That site is a bit hard to link to--here's your Velodrome: http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/October2006.htm Cheers, Carl Fogel       Date: 16 Aug 2007 18:44:58 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story >> carlfo...@comcast.net 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/August... > landotter <landotter@gmail.com> wrote: >> The Coventry Velodrome >> http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/August2007.htm >> That's spectacular! carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > That site is a bit hard to link to--here's your Velodrome: > http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/October2006.htm Calling Tom Sherman! Calling Tom Sherman! An employment opportunity if ever there was one. Anyone who's ever been astride a bike, even a recumbent, could do better. They need you _now_ in Coventry! The Civil Service goes home at 4pm, full benefits, vacations and apparently no pesky performance standards. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971   Date: 16 Aug 2007 12:20:17 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 16, 11:17 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1187282924.303795.102...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> > , > Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote: > > > There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate > > from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me > > riding in traffic, then I could get busted. > > This is what makes bicycle lanes a bad idea. > The camel's nose is in the tent. Yes, but I think the upside is still pretty up, having lived with and without them on the same busy road. Because there are local laws requiring the addition of bike lanes when constructing or reconstructing roadways, it means that we at least get some space that we otherwise wouldn't have. It is also a benefit that the bike lane is considered a traffic lane and gives cyclist right of way that they would not otherwise have -- like against turning cars. It is clearly an imperfect solution, but at least it is something. I know there are more global arguments that can be made against them, but in my personal experience, they have been good. On another topic, a local professor did a study and determined that merely installing bike lanes did not increase ridership by people living within a quarter mile of the bike lanes. I guess this means that people do not feel safe in bike lanes or that they are not staying off their bikes simply because there are no bike lanes. The latter explanation tracks my experience -- those people who say "oh, commuting in traffic is so dangerous" are usually Jaba the Desk Jockeys who would not commute even if there were dedicated bicycle chutes from their front doors to work. -- Jay Beattie.   Date: 16 Aug 2007 12:07:18 From: John Kane Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 11:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com > 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. These are UK examples but you can probably just cycle around town and find some equivalents http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/ and click on the facility of the month link.   Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:48:44 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 16, 8:20 am, Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net > wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> > wrote: > > >Bob Quindazzi wrote: > > >> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed. > > >Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and > >they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on > >them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright > >dangerous without them.) > > >Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are > >some.) > > >BS > > Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on > cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving > current roads. > > I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great > during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools > prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education" Egads! Bike lanes as racist homelands. That clearly wins the RBT hyperbole award for 2007! I have bike lanes almost all the way in to work. They are great compared to the prior set-up which was a narrow and busy traffic lane, a fog line and no shoulder. The quasi-evil part of bike lanes or "bike trails" is that under local law, you have to be in them if they are deemed "safe" (a ticketed cyclist has to prove the lane has not been deemed safe). There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me riding in traffic, then I could get busted. -- Jay Beattie.     Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:17:10 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <1187282924.303795.102510@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com > , Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote: > There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate > from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me > riding in traffic, then I could get busted. This is what makes bicycle lanes a bad idea. The camel's nose is in the tent. -- Michael Press     Date: 16 Aug 2007 13:41:44 From: Bob Quindazzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:48:44 -0700, Jay Beattie <jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote: >On Aug 16, 8:20 am, Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> >> wrote: >> >> >Bob Quindazzi wrote: >> >> >> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed. >> >> >Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and >> >they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on >> >them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright >> >dangerous without them.) >> >> >Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are >> >some.) >> >> >BS >> >> Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on >> cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving >> current roads. >> >> I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great >> during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools >> prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education" > >Egads! Bike lanes as racist homelands. That clearly wins the RBT >hyperbole award for 2007! > >I have bike lanes almost all the way in to work. They are great >compared to the prior set-up which was a narrow and busy traffic lane, >a fog line and no shoulder. The quasi-evil part of bike lanes or >"bike trails" is that under local law, you have to be in them if they >are deemed "safe" (a ticketed cyclist has to prove the lane has not >been deemed safe). There are some dangerous "bike trails" (separate >from traffic) that I never use, and if some cop does not like me >riding in traffic, then I could get busted. -- Jay Beattie. Well Jay, I think you've just proven my point.   Date: 16 Aug 2007 12:50:18 From: goodone Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 7:42 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:35:54 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson > > <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote: > >On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > >wrote: > > >>One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed > >>up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan, > >>and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack > >>parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from > >>that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too > >>close to the gutter pan. > > >What is a gutter pan? > > Dear John, > > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > Cheers, > > Carl Fog Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane.     Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:38:18 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story goodone wrote: >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane. Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane. Wayne       Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:54:26 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com > writes: > goodone wrote: > > > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane. > > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane. Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be ineptness), that depends on the width of the asphault inside the bike lane. If it is three feet wide, the lane meets the design standards and and riding inside the bike lane while staying on the asphault should be easy for almost anyone. If it is substandard, the city that installed it is taking a liability risk if there is an accident (e.g., if someone catches a wheel in the slot that forms after the surface degrades at the joint between the asphault and the gutter pan). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB         Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:20:28 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <87643fcyxp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > goodone wrote: > > > > > > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > > > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane. > > > > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane. > > Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be > ineptness), Even incompetent people can be malicious. > that depends on the width of the asphault inside the bike > lane. If it is three feet wide, the lane meets the design standards > and and riding inside the bike lane while staying on the asphault > should be easy for almost anyone. > > If it is substandard, the city that installed it is taking a liability > risk if there is an accident (e.g., if someone catches a wheel in the > slot that forms after the surface degrades at the joint between the > asphault and the gutter pan). -- Michael Press           Date: 16 Aug 2007 13:55:50 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > writes: > In article <87643fcyxp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > > > goodone wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > > > > > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane. > > > > > > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane. > > > > Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be > > ineptness), > > Even incompetent people can be malicious. With respect to bike lanes? Get real. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB             Date: 20 Aug 2007 13:12:35 From: Jay Beattie Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 20, 1:00 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > > Wayne Pein wrote: > > >>G.T. wrote: > > >>I know that when I'm in bike lanes around here I never get > > >>>crowded but two times in the last week I've had a couple cars get > >>>waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to me in regular lanes. I'm getting to the > >>>point where I'm going to start riding in the left side of the right > >>>hand lane like a motorcycle so cars will move over a lane rather > >>>than pass me with only inches to spare. > > >>Bingo! > > > He "never gets crowded" in bike lanes. Bingo indeed! LOL > > He'd never get crowded in a wide lane or a lane that he fully used. So > why should he settle for a narrow Bike Lane, aka Bike Bantustan or Bike > Reservation? > Does this mean we can have casinos in bike lanes, or perhaps banks with numbered accounts and favorable tax laws? Cheap liquor and cigarettes? It's bike-lane party time, baby! -- Jay Beattie.               Date: 20 Aug 2007 16:58:12 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Jay Beattie wrote: > On Aug 20, 1:00 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>He'd never get crowded in a wide lane or a lane that he fully used. So >>why should he settle for a narrow Bike Lane, aka Bike Bantustan or Bike >>Reservation? >> > > > Does this mean we can have casinos in bike lanes, or perhaps banks > with numbered accounts and favorable tax laws? Cheap liquor and > cigarettes? It's bike-lane party time, baby! -- Jay Beattie. > Yes, but we also have to accept higher risk for a lot of bad things, like alcoholism, suicide, etc. :-( Wayne             Date: 20 Aug 2007 02:22:33 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 19, 6:58 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote: > (PeteCresswell) wrote: > > > I pretty much have to take that road at least now and then. I ride > assertively and am not shy about signaling cars to move over to pass me, but > it's clearly more dangerous than virtually identical roads with bike lanes. Clearly? Got data? I recall one study that combined a cyclist survey with measurements of motorist passing distance. The cyclists said that motorists "clearly" gave them more room when there was a bike lane present. But the measurement data showed the opposite. (I think it was Wayne Pein who pointed us to that study.) Of course, I'm way past expecting Bill Sornson to actually read a scientific paper! > (You deleted the context of my comment, but that was the gist.) :-) This is the same guy that was yelling for people to TRIM in another thread. I'm afraid Bill's never going to figure out Usenet! - Frank Krygowski               Date: 19 Aug 2007 20:23:58 From: G.T. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 19, 6:58 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote: >> (PeteCresswell) wrote: >> >> >> I pretty much have to take that road at least now and then. I ride >> assertively and am not shy about signaling cars to move over to pass me, but >> it's clearly more dangerous than virtually identical roads with bike lanes. > > Clearly? > > Got data? > > I recall one study that combined a cyclist survey with measurements of > motorist passing distance. The cyclists said that motorists "clearly" > gave them more room when there was a bike lane present. But the > measurement data showed the opposite. (I think it was Wayne Pein who > pointed us to that study.) Whatever. I know that when I'm in bike lanes around here I never get crowded but two times in the last week I've had a couple cars get waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to me in regular lanes. I'm getting to the point where I'm going to start riding in the left side of the right hand lane like a motorcycle so cars will move over a lane rather than pass me with only inches to spare. I mean, this is our reality, it's not some stupid "study". Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky                 Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:19:20 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story G.T. wrote: I know that when I'm in bike lanes around here I never get > crowded but two times in the last week I've had a couple cars get > waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to me in regular lanes. I'm getting to the > point where I'm going to start riding in the left side of the right hand > lane like a motorcycle so cars will move over a lane rather than pass me > with only inches to spare. > Bingo! Wayne                   Date: 20 Aug 2007 11:46:00 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein wrote: > G.T. wrote: > > I know that when I'm in bike lanes around here I never get >> crowded but two times in the last week I've had a couple cars get >> waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to me in regular lanes. I'm getting to the >> point where I'm going to start riding in the left side of the right >> hand lane like a motorcycle so cars will move over a lane rather >> than pass me with only inches to spare. >> > > Bingo! He "never gets crowded" in bike lanes. Bingo indeed! LOL                     Date: From: Subject:                 Date: 19 Aug 2007 20:47:14 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story G.T. wrote: > frkrygow@gmail.com wrote: >> On Aug 19, 6:58 pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote: >>> (PeteCresswell) wrote: >>> >>> >>> I pretty much have to take that road at least now and then. I ride >>> assertively and am not shy about signaling cars to move over to >>> pass me, but it's clearly more dangerous than virtually identical >>> roads with bike lanes. >> >> Clearly? >> >> Got data? >> >> I recall one study that combined a cyclist survey with measurements >> of motorist passing distance. The cyclists said that motorists >> "clearly" gave them more room when there was a bike lane present. But the >> measurement data showed the opposite. (I think it was Wayne >> Pein who pointed us to that study.) > Whatever. I know that when I'm in bike lanes around here I never get > crowded but two times in the last week I've had a couple cars get > waaaaaaaaaaaay to close to me in regular lanes. But...but...that's not what STUDIES say! (Supposedly.) > I'm getting to the > point where I'm going to start riding in the left side of the right > hand lane like a motorcycle so cars will move over a lane rather than > pass me with only inches to spare. Sometimes that's necessary. Sometimes that's tantamount to suicide, too. I ride in the "sweet spot" that's outside of the door zone and yet lets cars pass easily IF they'll just move close to the line. Too many asswipes won't, however, and that is downright scary. (I use a mirror so I can move LEFT if necessary to force 'em over; or move right if it's safe to do so.) MUCH nicer when there's a bike lane, assuming it's well designed and appropriate; don't have to sweat it at all. > I mean, this is our reality, it's not some stupid "study". Oh-oh, NOW you've stepped in it! <eg > Bill "personal experience coupled with common sense has no place in arguments with Frank" S.             Date: 17 Aug 2007 08:54:01 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Z. wrote: > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> 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               Date: 17 Aug 2007 09:39:00 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Z. wrote: > >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> 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                 Date: 17 Aug 2007 16:15:37 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story 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                   Date: 04 Sep 2007 17:39:30 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:15:37 -0400, 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 bike lanes I saw today all over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of development and overall layout, demographics, etc.) Irvine's arterial roads, like most built since the 60s in CA, have main traffic lanes at least 12' wide, sometimes 14', with bike lanes at least 5' wide outboard of those. Bikes and motor vehicles coexist well on these roads, despite speed limits of 40-50 MPH, and de facto speeds higher than that. In contrast, NoVA has 4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and often no sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves at the same 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable with on arterial roads with few intersections, cross streets, or driveways. This is a disaster for cyclists (not to mention pedestrians). Sprawl development is inevitable, at least for the near future. But as cyclists we'd be better off if we could get our highway departments on the east coast to build new roads more like they do out west, with enough room for everyone to begin with. Commercial strips with driveways and cross streets and de facto speeds under 35 MPH may be addressed differently. Matt O.                     Date: 05 Sep 2007 09:36:00 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Matt O'Toole wrote: In contrast, NoVA has > 4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and often no > sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves at the same > 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable with on arterial > roads with few intersections, cross streets, or driveways. This is a > disaster for cyclists (not to mention pedestrians). I ride everyday on such a 5 lane road. My presence as a bicyclist slows motorists and they move over, many changing lanes. > > Sprawl development is inevitable, at least for the near future. But as > cyclists we'd be better off if we could get our highway departments on the > east coast to build new roads more like they do out west, with enough room > for everyone to begin with. A 12' lane is plenty of room for a 2' bicyclist. The purpose of wide lanes or bike lanes (like multiple lanes, in general) boils down to making it easier for motorists to pass, a dubious advantage for bicyclists. http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/index.htm demonstrates numerous videos in which motorists are shown to move over. http://www.cyclistview.com/overtaking/files/A-Draft-Rebuttal-of-Walker-Paper-Rev-3.pdf shows a draft graph of data from the above videos showing the more lane a bicyclist uses, the better is motorist overtaking behavior. Wayne                       Date: 05 Sep 2007 09:02:58 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Pein's World o' Paranoia wrote: > Matt O'Toole wrote (in part): >> In contrast, NoVA has >> 4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and >> often no sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves >> at the same 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable >> with on arterial roads with few intersections, cross streets, or >> driveways. This is a disaster for cyclists (not to mention >> pedestrians). > I ride everyday on such a 5 lane road. My presence as a bicyclist > slows motorists and they move over, many changing lanes. You DELETED what Matt wrote before that: "The bike lanes I saw today all over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)." /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting people's positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change that. Bill "nice try though" S.                         Date: 05 Sep 2007 16:03:13 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > You DELETED what Matt wrote before that: "The bike lanes I saw today all > over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum > Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of > northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of > development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)." > > /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting people's > positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change that. > > Bill "nice try though" S. Stalking Ignoramus, I responded to another part of his post and added a couple of links to further the conversation. You, in contrast, typically add nothing, as in your response above, choosing instead to stalk me and offer nothing but inane blather. Wayne                         Date: 05 Sep 2007 15:57:10 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > Pein's World o' Paranoia wrote: > >>Matt O'Toole wrote (in part): > > >>> In contrast, NoVA has >>>4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and >>>often no sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves >>>at the same 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable >>>with on arterial roads with few intersections, cross streets, or >>>driveways. This is a disaster for cyclists (not to mention >>>pedestrians). > > >>I ride everyday on such a 5 lane road. My presence as a bicyclist >>slows motorists and they move over, many changing lanes. > > > You DELETED what Matt wrote before that: "The bike lanes I saw today all > over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum > Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the disaster of > northern VA, which in every other way is just like Irvine (type of > development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)." > > /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting people's > positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change that. > > Bill "nice try though" S. > > Stalking Ignoramus, Didn't I ask you to stop stalking me? Can't resist though, can you? Wayne                           Date: 05 Sep 2007 20:09:09 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Peni's Paranoia World: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> Pein's World o' Paranoia wrote: >>> Matt O'Toole wrote (in part): >>>> In contrast, NoVA has >>>> 4 and 6 lane arterials with 12' outer lanes, no bike lanes, and >>>> often no sidewalks. Despite speed limits of 35 MPH, traffic moves >>>> at the same 40-50 MPH because that's what drivers feel comfortable >>>> with on arterial roads with few intersections, cross streets, or >>>> driveways. This is a disaster for cyclists (not to mention >>>> pedestrians). >>> I ride everyday on such a 5 lane road. My presence as a bicyclist >>> slows motorists and they move over, many changing lanes. >> You DELETED what Matt wrote before that: "The bike lanes I saw >> today all over east Irvine, CA (Irvine Spectrum >> Area), looked pretty good to me -- especially compared to the >> disaster of northern VA, which in every other way is just like >> Irvine (type of development and overall layout, demographics, etc.)." >> >> /Good/ bike lanes work great and are hugely beneficial. Deleting >> people's positive experiences and opinions of them doesn't change >> that. Bill "nice try though" S. > Stalking Ignoramus, > > Didn't I ask you to stop stalking me? Can't resist though, can you? Let's get this straight. You delete that which refutes your paranoid position, leaving only something out of context that /seems/ to conform to your distorted view. I point this out, and reiterate what every experienced road cyclist knows: good bike lanes are effective and beneficial; bad ones aren't. Summary: you'd prefer that your "presence as a bicyclist slows motorists and they move over, many changing lanes" to having a smooth, wide, dedicated space available solely for cyclists. One can only conclude that (wait for it)...YOU'RE AN AGENDA-DRIVEN (so to speak) NUT! HTH Bill "if you can't stand opposing views then plonk me" S.                       Date: 05 Sep 2007 07:45:17 From: me Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Wayne Pein" <wpein@nc.rr.com > wrote in message news:46deb0c0$0$6418$4c368faf@roadrunner.com... (snip) the more lane > a bicyclist uses, the better is motorist overtaking behavior. > > Wayne > That's my experience, too. I feel it's the cyclist's responsibility to make himself visually apparent: bright, light-colored clothing, plenty of blinking/flashing and steady rear lights at night (headlight also, of course), and well out in the lane. Skulking along on the extreme right edge of the lane in the gutter simply encourages drivers to stay well in the lane and to pass at normal speed. They're probably less likely to notice the cyclist, too, since he is not in the location for a "real" vehicle. And, it exposes the cyclist to all the debris and drain grates in the gutter area, as well as other tube-popping irregularities found there. Cal                   Date: 17 Aug 2007 15:42:30 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story 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 crap. 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                     Date: 17 Aug 2007 19:24:03 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:42:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > 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 crap. 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 ****************************                     Date: 17 Aug 2007 19:11:56 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story 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 crap. 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                       Date: 17 Aug 2007 16:56:11 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story 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 crap. > > 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                         Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:23:57 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > > Fine, but bike lanes on freeways are unnecessary, especially when compared > to regular roads and traffic. The only "dangerous" part of the ride I went > on today was where the bike lanes on each side end and there's a 2-3 mile > section with diagonal parking followed by 4-5 miles of regular parallel > parking with 4 fast-moving lanes. It's always a relief to get past that > (coming and going) and back to nice safe conditions with ample bike lanes on > each side. I'd simple use the entire right lane of the 4 lane road. That would be a relief. > > Other routes don't have or need bike lanes, but this one benefits enormously > from them. (As do many others I ride.) > > >>Give me a decent road any day. Even better if it has >> >>>a good, effective bike lane, but fine if none. > > >>I can do without the stripe that effectively reduces my space and >>rights, enables faster motoring, and creates a debris pen. > > > Not where I live. If they removed the bike lane, they'd immediately move > the middle line over to the right a good two feet, and cars in the right > lane will MOVE RIGHT. So your government changes the space. Too bad. They really want to segregate bicyclists. Competent bicyclists use sufficient space to compel motorists to MOVE LEFT and change lanes. Wayne                           Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:26:11 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > > >> >> Fine, but bike lanes on freeways are unnecessary, especially when >> compared to regular roads and traffic. The only "dangerous" part of >> the ride I went on today was where the bike lanes on each side end >> and there's a 2-3 mile section with diagonal parking followed by 4-5 >> miles of regular parallel parking with 4 fast-moving lanes. It's >> always a relief to get past that (coming and going) and back to nice >> safe conditions with ample bike lanes on each side. > > I'd simple use the entire right lane of the 4 lane road. That would > be a relief. As do I when possible. However, if fast-moving cars are there first, it can be a dangerous move. (There's also the asshole factor, and it's always a big fat asshole if present.) HOWEVER, what's again implicit in your comment is that a proper, well-designed bike lane eliminates the need to be a hero--- er, take the lane, and is MUCH safer and more enjoyable than worrying about getting squeezed or even brushed by Socker Mom SUV-er On A Cellphone While Doing Her Makeup. Given the choice, I'll take a road that takes bike traffic into account any day over one that doesn't. >> Other routes don't have or need bike lanes, but this one benefits >> enormously from them. (As do many others I ride.) >> >> >>> Give me a decent road any day. Even better if it has >>> >>>> a good, effective bike lane, but fine if none. >> >> >>> I can do without the stripe that effectively reduces my space and >>> rights, enables faster motoring, and creates a debris pen. >> >> >> Not where I live. If they removed the bike lane, they'd immediately >> move the middle line over to the right a good two feet, and cars in >> the right lane will MOVE RIGHT. > > So your government changes the space. Too bad. They really want to > segregate bicyclists. Why would they leave a very narrow left lane and a very wide right lane? Even if they didn't actually move the line (and they would), left laners would move to the right a bit if right laners had more room to /their/ right, and cyclists are left with less room than before. Why on earth would anyone object to a good, effective bike lane? > > Competent bicyclists use sufficient space to compel motorists to MOVE > LEFT and change lanes. You left off "when necessary". Why ride like that all the time when a proper bike lane eliminates the need to "fight over space" with much bigger and faster adversaries. It's really not that complicated...unless you're trolling. Pick a better pet issue. BS                             Date: 18 Aug 2007 18:51:01 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story 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                               Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:39:12 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story 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                                 Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:13:30 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > 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.) What you say doesn't make sense. I'd love to see a picture of this road with actual width dimensions. How can one be brushed to the left and doored to the right? Is the available space 2' wide? A wide lane is only a wide lane if there are 14 plus feet of CLEAR space. Space that is consumed by parked cars and their open doors does not count. Parked cars and their open doors consume 10'. Wayne                                   Date: 20 Aug 2007 11:44:34 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> 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.) > > What you say doesn't make sense. I'd love to see a picture of this > road with actual width dimensions. How can one be brushed to the left > and doored to the right? Is the available space 2' wide? It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a median in the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether there's a white line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter. Fast traffic. Limit 35 or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See below for further explanation; missed the "wide lane" descriptor.) If I stay out of the door zone I'm far enough in the right lane to make cars cross the lane line (barely) to pass me with ample room. Some drivers REFUSE to cross that sacrosanct line, and so pass way too close for comfort. If I move farther left to really take the lane, I run the risk of being hit (less likely of course) or brushed (often on purpose by idiots who can't figure out why I'm out there; or by bad drivers who come right up behind me and then suddenly see that they have to move over to get by). This is NOT a unique situation by any means. Every road cyclist (as opposed to path riders or sidewalk wobblers) will recognize it. > A wide lane is only a wide lane if there are 14 plus feet of CLEAR > space. Space that is consumed by parked cars and their open doors does > not count. Parked cars and their open doors consume 10'. I see that I missed your caveat that it be a "wide lane", which of course is desirable. My bad. These are not wide lanes per se, although the right lane is bigger than the left somewhat. My POINT is that these types of roads are stressful to ride compared to identical roads that provide bike lanes. I realize that they can't always be widened even a little to accommodate them, but the ones that have 'em are wonderful to ride compared to these types of "Squeezeways". (I don't see anyone widening this road, for example -- adding bike lanes or not.) I also forgot that I'm not supposed to bite on your trolling any more. My double bad. BS                                     Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:58:27 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >>Bill Sornson wrote: >> >> >>>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.) >> >>What you say doesn't make sense. I'd love to see a picture of this >>road with actual width dimensions. How can one be brushed to the left >>and doored to the right? Is the available space 2' wide? > > > It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a median in > the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether there's a white > line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter. Fast traffic. Limit 35 > or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See below for further explanation; missed > the "wide lane" descriptor.) I ride on a similar road everyday, except there is no parking. Cars may do 50, but generally not in my presence. They slow down and move over. > > If I stay out of the door zone I'm far enough in the right lane to make cars > cross the lane line (barely) to pass me with ample room. Some drivers > REFUSE to cross that sacrosanct line, and so pass way too close for comfort. > If I move farther left to really take the lane, I run the risk of being hit > (less likely of course) or brushed (often on purpose by idiots who can't > figure out why I'm out there; or by bad drivers who come right up behind me > and then suddenly see that they have to move over to get by). > > My POINT is that these types of roads are stressful to ride compared to > identical roads that provide bike lanes. And MY point is that wide lanes are less stressful to ride. > > I also forgot that I'm not supposed to bite on your trolling any more. My > double bad. > Just because you don't like or understand what I say doesn't mean my posts are trolling. But if I do troll, I hope you don't bite because arguing with you is like, as Dilbert put it, wallpapering fog. Wayne                                       Date: 20 Aug 2007 13:44:55 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a >> median in the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether >> there's a white line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter. Fast >> traffic. Limit 35 or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See below >> for further explanation; missed the "wide lane" descriptor.) > I ride on a similar road everyday, except there is no parking. Cars > may do 50, but generally not in my presence. They slow down and move > over. The parked cars make all the difference, of course. How far from the side of the road does one ride with no parked cars present versus when they're there? HUGE difference. Of course you know this, Troller. HAND                                         Date: 20 Aug 2007 19:17:11 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >>Bill Sornson wrote: > > >>>It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a >>>median in the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether >>>there's a white line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter. Fast >>>traffic. Limit 35 or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See below >>>for further explanation; missed the "wide lane" descriptor.) > > >>I ride on a similar road everyday, except there is no parking. Cars >>may do 50, but generally not in my presence. They slow down and move >>over. > > > The parked cars make all the difference, of course. How far from the side > of the road does one ride with no parked cars present versus when they're > there? HUGE difference. > > Of course you know this, Troller. HAND > > Ignoramus, When cars are parked, the "side of the road" is the end of extended doors, which is about 10' out. So you ride an appropriate distance left of that based on available remaining lane width, your speed, destination, and cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to control overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create good sight triangles. When there are no cars parked, the side of the road is the edge of usable pavement, and you ride an appropriate distance left of that based on available remaining lane width, your speed, destination, and cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to control overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create good sight triangles. So, there is NO difference in how you ride. You just have a different definition for "side of the road." Of course, you don't know this. But now you do. Like I said earlier, arguing with you is like wallpapering fog. Wayne                                           Date: 20 Aug 2007 17:23:10 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: > >> Wayne Pein wrote: >> >>> Bill Sornson wrote: >> >> >>>> It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a >>>> median in the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether >>>> there's a white line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter. >>>> Fast traffic. Limit 35 or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See >>>> below for further explanation; missed the "wide lane" descriptor.) >> >> >>> I ride on a similar road everyday, except there is no parking. Cars >>> may do 50, but generally not in my presence. They slow down and move >>> over. >> >> >> The parked cars make all the difference, of course. How far from >> the side of the road does one ride with no parked cars present >> versus when they're there? HUGE difference. >> >> Of course you know this, Troller. HAND >> >> > > Ignoramus, > > When cars are parked, the "side of the road" is the end of extended > doors, which is about 10' out. So you ride an appropriate distance > left of that based on available remaining lane width, your speed, > destination, and cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to > control overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create > good sight triangles. > > When there are no cars parked, the side of the road is the edge of > usable pavement, and you ride an appropriate distance left of that > based on available remaining lane width, your speed, destination, and > cross traffic conditions. You ascertain your need to control > overtaking motorists, increase your conspicuity, and create good > sight triangles. > So, there is NO difference in how you ride. You just have a different > definition for "side of the road." > > Of course, you don't know this. But now you do. > > Like I said earlier, arguing with you is like wallpapering fog. You're the one who compared your no-parked-cars road to the one I described; they're not similar whatsoever. Happy Papering...                                     Date: 20 Aug 2007 15:51:55 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >>Bill Sornson wrote: >> >> >>>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.) >> >>What you say doesn't make sense. I'd love to see a picture of this >>road with actual width dimensions. How can one be brushed to the left >>and doored to the right? Is the available space 2' wide? > > > It's a typical road -- 4 lanes with parking on both sides and a median in > the middle. No bike lane; can't recall off-hand whether there's a white > line for the parking zone, but it doesn't matter. Fast traffic. Limit 35 > or 40; cars go 50+ all the time. (See below for further explanation; missed > the "wide lane" descriptor.) > > If I stay out of the door zone I'm far enough in the right lane to make cars > cross the lane line (barely) to pass me with ample room. Some drivers > REFUSE to cross that sacrosanct line, and so pass way too close for comfort. > If I move farther left to really take the lane, I run the risk of being hit > (less likely of course) or brushed (often on purpose by idiots who can't > figure out why I'm out there; or by bad drivers who come right up behind me > and then suddenly see that they have to move over to get by). > > This is NOT a unique situation by any means. Every road cyclist (as opposed > to path riders or sidewalk wobblers) will recognize it. > > >>A wide lane is only a wide lane if there are 14 plus feet of CLEAR >>space. Space that is consumed by parked cars and their open doors does >>not count. Parked cars and their open doors consume 10'. > > > I see that I missed your caveat that it be a "wide lane", which of course is > desirable. My bad. These are not wide lanes per se, although the right > lane is bigger than the left somewhat. > > My POINT is that these types of roads are stressful to ride compared to > identical roads that provide bike lanes. I realize that they can't always > be widened even a little to accommodate them, but the ones that have 'em are > wonderful to ride compared to these types of "Squeezeways". (I don't see > anyone widening this road, for example -- adding bike lanes or not.) > > I also forgot that I'm not supposed to bite on your trolling any more. My > double bad. > > BS > >                                 Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:31:18 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Per Bill Sornson: >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. Don't you get the feeling that the odds are going to catch up with you eventually? -- PeteCresswell                                   Date: 19 Aug 2007 15:58:07 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story (PeteCresswell) wrote: > Per Bill Sornson: >> 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. > Don't you get the feeling that the odds are going to catch up > with you eventually? I pretty much have to take that road at least now and then. I ride assertively and am not shy about signaling cars to move over to pass me, but it's clearly more dangerous than virtually identical roads with bike lanes. (You deleted the context of my comment, but that was the gist.) Why anyone would prefer dodgy situations and close calls to fast, uninterrupted smooth sailing is beyond me. Bike lanes work; good bike lanes work great. BS                             Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:37:02 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story 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                         Date: 17 Aug 2007 20:56:11 From: Bob Quindazzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:56:11 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > 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 crap. >> >> 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?                           Date: 17 Aug 2007 19:44:24 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bob Quindazzi wrote: > How, exactly, do the cars move you over? By not trimming their posts. HTH                             Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:29:19 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Per Bill Sornson: >Bob Quindazzi wrote: > >> How, exactly, do the cars move you over? > >By not trimming their posts. HTH > Amen! -- PeteCresswell             Date: 16 Aug 2007 17:24:23 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <87odh7ryg9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > > > In article <87643fcyxp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > > > > > goodone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > > > > > > > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane. > > > > > > > > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane. > > > > > > Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be > > > ineptness), > > > > Even incompetent people can be malicious. > > With respect to bike lanes? Get real. I do not understand the question. Reality is a multifaceted concept. -- Michael Press               Date: 16 Aug 2007 18:25:16 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > writes: > In article <87odh7ryg9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes: > > > > > In article <87643fcyxp.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, > > > nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > > > > > > > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > goodone wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > > > > > > > > > > Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane. > > > > > > > > > > Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane. > > > > > > > > Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be > > > > ineptness), > > > > > > Even incompetent people can be malicious. > > > > With respect to bike lanes? Get real. > > I do not understand the question. > Reality is a multifaceted concept. The idea that you have any significant number of malicious government employees, competent or not, with a thing about bike lanes is ridiculous (I'd put it at zero except for the possibility of an undiagnosed psycho somehow managing to hold a job). -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB         Date: 16 Aug 2007 15:42:24 From: still me Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On 16 Aug 2007 07:54:26 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB An anagram would be more fun in this situation         Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:22:14 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Z. wrote: > Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com> writes: > > >>goodone wrote: >> >> >> >>>>http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg >> >>>Only high skilled cyclists can ride on this kind lane. >> >>Only highly malicious government employees create this kind of lane. > > > Aside from the paranoia (attributing malice to what might merely be > ineptness), that depends on the width of the asphault inside the bike > lane. If it is three feet wide, the lane meets the design standards > and and riding inside the bike lane while staying on the asphault > should be easy for almost anyone. Don't try to justify maliciousness with ineptitude. It shows you to be a bike lane apologist. Clearly this lane is not 3 ft of asphalt, so your point is irrelevant. Further, people who know something about bicycling argue that 3 ft of pavement is substandard, irrespective of the fact that foolish guidelines say it is fine. It's not merely the ability to stay on asphalt that is important, as you assert. If that were the case, almost anyone could ride on 2 ft of pavement. Wayne           Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:00:16 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein wrote: > ...It shows you [Bill Zaumen] to be a bike lane apologist.... In other breaking news... -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:45:09 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 7:41 pm, Wayne Pein <wp...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > > Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets > > with no bike lanes? > > Of course they do. But they are not lured to ride there, unlike as with > door zone bike lanes, which also may be mandatory to use. And, if not > mandatory by law, motorist coercion compels their use. Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane is outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should be in a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike lanes are outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a bike lane stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but ignorance about the DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some people ride in the DZ whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or not. If doorings are what concerns you, you should advocate for bike lane striping that compels riders to remain outside of the DZ (like the striping of new lanes in Seattle and Denver), rather than leave the street unstriped and leave unsuspecting novices to their own devices. So is it really doorings of unsuspecting cyclists that has you concerned, Wayne? Robert     Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:35:53 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story r15757@aol.com wrote: > > Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean > you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane is > outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should be in > a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike lanes are > outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a bike lane > stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but ignorance about the > DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some people ride in the DZ > whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or not. Bike lanes are marketed as safe havens for those too timid or unknowledgable to ride on normal roads. If a portion of the bike lane is indeed outside the door zone, it is the extreme left side of it. These biyclists are not going to be thinking about riding on the left side of the bike lane. They are scared of overtaking motor vehicles and are inclined to ride as far away from motor vehicles as posssible. > > If doorings are what concerns you, you should advocate for bike lane > striping that compels riders to remain outside of the DZ (like the > striping of new lanes in Seattle and Denver), rather than leave the > street unstriped and leave unsuspecting novices to their own devices. Bike lane striping isn't needed to guide the ignorant. Simple "parking crosses" are sufficient. http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf Unsuspecting novices shouldn't ride bikes in situations for which they are ill equipped anymore than unsuspecting motor vehicle drivers should drive motor vehicles. If you are going to ride in a complex traffic environment you should be competent. > So is it really doorings of unsuspecting cyclists that has you > concerned, Wayne? I'm concerned about government installed and sanctioned hazards. Wayne       Date: 16 Aug 2007 08:26:08 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Wayne Pein wrote: > r15757@aol.com wrote: > >> >> Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean >> you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane >> is outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should >> be in a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike >> lanes are outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a >> bike lane stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but >> ignorance about the DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some >> people ride in the DZ whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or >> not. > > > Bike lanes are marketed Bzzt. "Marketed"?!? Only in Pein's World. > ... as safe havens for those too timid or > unknowledgable to ride on normal roads. If a portion of the bike lane > is indeed outside the door zone, it is the extreme left side of it. > These biyclists are not going to be thinking about riding on the left > side of the bike lane. They are scared of overtaking motor vehicles > and are inclined to ride as far away from motor vehicles as posssible. Riders like that are in danger all on their own. On roads without bike lanes they hug the gutter or ride on sidewalks. Hell, getting comfortable in traffic via /well designed/ bike lanes is a good way to learn how/where to ride in general. You own/take the space on the right (or correct) side of the road to the left of the door zone. If a BL gives a novice a bit more confidence to learn this, then that's an extra bonus. Only poorly designed bike lanes are detriments. >> If doorings are what concerns you, you should advocate for bike lane >> striping that compels riders to remain outside of the DZ (like the >> striping of new lanes in Seattle and Denver), rather than leave the >> street unstriped and leave unsuspecting novices to their own devices. > > Bike lane striping isn't needed to guide the ignorant. Simple "parking > crosses" are sufficient. > http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/door_zone.pdf > > Unsuspecting novices shouldn't ride bikes in situations for which they > are ill equipped anymore than unsuspecting motor vehicle drivers > should drive motor vehicles. If you are going to ride in a complex > traffic environment you should be competent. > > > >> So is it really doorings of unsuspecting cyclists that has you >> concerned, Wayne? > > I'm concerned about government installed and sanctioned hazards. Rare, and usually quickly corrected. BS         Date: 16 Aug 2007 15:02:30 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > Wayne Pein wrote: > >>r15757@aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>Even if one feels compelled to ride in the bike lane, it doesn't mean >>>you have to ride in the door zone, because some portion of the lane >>>is outside the DZ. I agree that NO portion of any bike lane should >>>be in a door zone (and in places like Seattle and Denver new bike >>>lanes are outside of the doorzones in their entirety). It is not a >>>bike lane stripe that 'lures' people to ride in the DZ, but >>>ignorance about the DZ. This is shown by the simple fact that some >>>people ride in the DZ whether there is a 'door zone bike lane' or >>>not. >> >> >>Bike lanes are marketed > > > Bzzt. "Marketed"?!? Only in Pein's World. Sornson, Try to refrain from being an ignoramus for just a minute. > > >>... as safe havens for those too timid or >>unknowledgable to ride on normal roads. If a portion of the bike lane >>is indeed outside the door zone, it is the extreme left side of it. >>These biyclists are not going to be thinking about riding on the left >>side of the bike lane. They are scared of overtaking motor vehicles >>and are inclined to ride as far away from motor vehicles as posssible. > > > Riders like that are in danger all on their own. On roads without bike > lanes they hug the gutter or ride on sidewalks. Ignoramuses shouldn't ride a bike on scary roads that cause them to do that. Hell, getting comfortable > in traffic via /well designed/ bike lanes is a good way to learn how/where > to ride in general. You own/take the space on the right (or correct) side > of the road to the left of the door zone. You're a hoot. Bike lanes teach people where to ride! Hahahahaha. If a BL gives a novice a bit more > confidence to learn this, then that's an extra bonus. > > Only poorly designed bike lanes are detriments. Ignoramus, Why should the rest of us put up with bike lanes, poorly designed or allegedly "well designed," just so the ignorant can have more confidence? Bike lanes make ignoramuses believe that they know all they need to know. >>I'm concerned about government installed and sanctioned hazards. > > > Rare, and usually quickly corrected. Ignoramus, If that were the case, then bicyclists wouldn't consistently be involved in dooring collisions in them. Wayne   Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:26:14 From: Veloise Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Just got the latest issue of "American Bicyclist," published by the League of [same], and it contains a photo of a line of helmeted cyclists carefully riding single file...in the door zone adjacent to a line of parked cars. Nice. --Karen D. life member, not ready to resign so I stay out of bike lanes   Date: 15 Aug 2007 23:50:01 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 1:16 pm, Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net > wrote: > Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed 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. Robert     Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:17:01 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story > Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote: >> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed r15757@aol.com 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. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971       Date: 15 Aug 2007 20:13:57 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story A Muzi wrote: >> Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote: >>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed > > r15757@aol.com 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         Date: 16 Aug 2007 23:02:14 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Sornson wrote: > A Muzi wrote: >>> Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed >> r15757@aol.com 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           Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:49:48 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote: > Bill Sornson wrote: >> A Muzi wrote: >>>> Bob Quindazzi <bobq...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed >>> r15757@aol.com 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   Date: 15 Aug 2007 23:47:02 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 12:26 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote: > > http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm > > Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality. "Classic?" Really? Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets with no bike lanes?     Date: 16 Aug 2007 17:16:34 From: William O'Hara Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On 15 Aug 2007, you wrote in rec.bicycles.misc: > On Aug 15, 12:26 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: >> >> http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm >> >> Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality. > > "Classic?" Really? > > Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets > with no bike lanes? I do not. Remember cars can not pass you if they do not have reasonable room. They will have to wait. I do not have to give way to a faster moving vehicle in Massachusetts since I do not have a mirror. 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. -- --- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR       Date: 19 Aug 2007 14:00:03 From: !Jones Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:16:34 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "William O'Hara" <whoohara@yahoo.com > 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         Date: 21 Aug 2007 12:09:18 From: William O'Hara Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story !Jones <piss@off.com > wrote in news:p14hc3p81c8njicbpi9jhuemfgff383ult@ 4ax.com: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:16:34 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech "William > O'Hara" <whoohara@yahoo.com> 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. I tend to think that bicycle lanes should be closed only to bicycles. I also have noticed for a long time that people complain about mountain bikers around here, but there is heavy damage from ATV instead. They complain at Ames Nowell and Wompatuck, where it is illegal ATV instead of the mountain bike. The aggitators in California are crazy and the placement of piano wire should be evidence to you that the mountain bikers are not of wild bunch that many suggest. -- --- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR       Date: 16 Aug 2007 20:14:17 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Per William O'Hara: >I do not. Remember cars can not pass you if they do not have reasonable >room. They will have to wait. Was that written tongue-in-cheek? -- PeteCresswell         Date: 21 Aug 2007 12:07:36 From: William O'Hara Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote in news:u1q9c3h51jrmqfkjm1vcos7p3lsvfu96p6@4ax.com: > Per William O'Hara: >>I do not. Remember cars can not pass you if they do not have reasonable >>room. They will have to wait. > > Was that written tongue-in-cheek? No. You can not pass if you do not have reasonable room. I would like Massachusetts to officially determine the distance by statute as Maine has done. It should be at least four feet. People pass me with 2" after forcing me onto the White line or the edge. I ride in a lot of places without any shoulder or anything past the travel lane. Most of Massachusetts roads are substandard. Motorists complain about the overwhelming lack of maintenance for Route 138, but most roads in general have insufficient subroadbed in terms of depth and width. Travel lanes are too narrow. The biggest evidence is the premature failure of the hard top on the sides of the road. Bicyclists have it tough when people can't wait. Think about a bike going 20mph and some knucle has to pass the bicycle at 30 mph. How much time saving was acheived by the motorist? There are so many places on my local routes that do not have passing room and are only 30mph for the maxium speed limit. Massachusetts have a horrible driving culture representative of me first generation and poor roads. -- --- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR           Date: 21 Aug 2007 17:48:28 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Per William O'Hara: >No. You can not pass if you do not have reasonable room. To indulge in some semantic pedantry.... Drivers *may* not pass without reasonable room (i.e. "May" implying permission). But they *can* pass any time/any way they please ("Can" implying ability). I say that because I know for sure that there are people out there who will just plain hit you with their vehicle because they're angry at you - and get away with it. I've seen it done in Philadelphia. -- PeteCresswell     Date: 16 Aug 2007 02:39:02 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Per r15757@aol.com: >Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets >with no bike lanes? There's a conflict that I sometimes see with some bike lanes: To ride far enough away from parked cars to avoid getting doored, sometimes the cyclist has to encroach on the car lane. You do that enough and eventually you'll find drivers that consider you to be out of line - riding in *their* lane instead of that perfectly good bike lane - and who will harass you accordingly, sometimes passing with way, way, way too little room. A few lessons like that - or even the prospect of same - and people who aren't doing a lot of deep thinking on the subject (i.e. most people...) will stay well within the defective bike lane... and get doored from time-to-time. -- PeteCresswell       Date: 16 Aug 2007 19:11:03 From: Dennis Ferguson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On 2007-08-16, (PeteCresswell) <x@y.Invalid > wrote: > Per r15757@aol.com: >>Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets >>with no bike lanes? > > There's a conflict that I sometimes see with some bike lanes: To > ride far enough away from parked cars to avoid getting doored, > sometimes the cyclist has to encroach on the car lane. > > You do that enough and eventually you'll find drivers that > consider you to be out of line - riding in *their* lane instead > of that perfectly good bike lane - and who will harass you > accordingly, sometimes passing with way, way, way too little > room. This happens, but in my experience it has little to do with bike lanes. It is true that if you need to ride outside the bike lane, while most motorists will deal with it, the occasional one will get their shorts in a knot, but it is equally true that when you are far enough left to be safe on a road without bike lanes, while most motorists will deal with it, the occasional one will get their shorts in a knot. I don't think this happens any more often with bike lanes than without. It may be they'll be yelling "Ride in the bike lane" in the first case and "Ride on the sidewalk" or "Get off the road" in the second case, but the difference isn't too important. The ones that want to yell will yell whether there's a bike lane or not, and the ones that want to pass too close will do it whether there's a bike lane or not. In either case if you can't stay far enough right to safely share the lane with the cars you've got to be far enough left to make sure they realize they need to change lanes to get by you, and you'll need to deal with the occasional dickhead. > A few lessons like that - or even the prospect of same - and > people who aren't doing a lot of deep thinking on the subject > (i.e. most people...) will stay well within the defective bike > lane... and get doored from time-to-time. And the same person, when they're scared like this on a road without bike lanes, will be just as close to the parked cars. I don't think it matters whether the bike lane is there or not. Dennis Ferguson     Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:41:02 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 15, 12:26 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote: > >>http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm >> >>Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality. > > > "Classic?" Really? > > Are you suggesting that people don't ride in the door zone on streets > with no bike lanes? > Of course they do. But they are not lured to ride there, unlike as with door zone bike lanes, which also may be mandatory to use. And, if not mandatory by law, motorist coercion compels their use. Wayne   Date: 15 Aug 2007 15:16:56 From: Bob Quindazzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:50:26 -0000, "DanKMTB@gmail.com" <DanKMTB@gmail.com > 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/d7701d71a8e070ab/2537a72c21e4603e#2537a72c21e4603e Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed.     Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bob Quindazzi wrote: > Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed. Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright dangerous without them.) Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are some.) BS       Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:20:21 From: Bob Quindazzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote: >Bob Quindazzi wrote: > >> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed. > >Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike lanes, and >they work great. That's not to say that one should become DEPENDENT on >them, but they're terrific when done right. (And /some/ roads are downright >dangerous without them.) > >Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, there are >some.) > >BS > Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving current roads. I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education"         Date: 16 Aug 2007 16:28:01 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Per Bob Quindazzi: >Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on >cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving >current roads. The ones that scare me the most aren't uneducated; they're preoccupied - with phone conversations, text messaging, or email. -- PeteCresswell         Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:09:33 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bob Quindazzi wrote: > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:08:04 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> > wrote: > >> Bob Quindazzi wrote: >> >>> Bike lanes seem counterproductive no matter how well designed. >> >> Absurd. Many of the popular bike routes in my area feature bike >> lanes, and they work great. That's not to say that one should >> become DEPENDENT on them, but they're terrific when done right. >> (And /some/ roads are downright dangerous without them.) >> >> Only badly designed bike lanes are "counterproductive". (And yes, >> there are some.) >> >> BS >> > > > Every dime that goes into bike lanes could be much better spent on > cycling/driving education, "share the road" signs and improving > current roads. Good bike lanes ARE improvements to the roads. Virtually all the bike clubs around here use routes that feature them, and NOT because they don't know how to ride roads without them. It's because they're better and safer, all things considered. > I'm sure some South Africans thought "homelands" were just great > during the aparteid era. So were those "separate but equal" schools > prior to "Brown vs the Board of Education" Wow. Well that sure lends perspective to the issue. ROTFL Nobel Peace Prize for...WAYNE PEIN! LOL   Date: 15 Aug 2007 11:04:03 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com > 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/August2007.htm Cheers, Carl Fogel     Date: 15 Aug 2007 15:06:54 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story > On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> 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... carlfogel@comcast.net 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. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971       Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:56:11 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Andrew Muzi wrote: >> On Aug 15, 9:50 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> 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... >>> > > carlfogel@comcast.net 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. [1] Just a couple of blocks from Andrew's shop. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia BEER IS FOOD -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 17 Aug 2007 17:05:16 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story >>> "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> 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... >> carlfogel@comcast.net 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         Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:41:56 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > writes: > > carlfogel@comcast.net 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   Date: 15 Aug 2007 10:52:18 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Aug 15, 10:47 am, "OughtFour" <lus...@rnospam.com > wrote: > I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better job > on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very bad > ones in Cambridge. 'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly. Got any examples of bike lanes killing people? Robert     Date: 16 Aug 2007 17:15:11 From: William O'Hara Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story r15757@aol.com wrote in news:1187200338.921757.61610@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com: >> better job on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There >> are some very bad ones in Cambridge. > > 'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly > designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly. > > Got any examples of bike lanes killing people? The gestapo will REQUIRE you to use the bike lane in the door zone. Riding in Cambridge bears a high liklihood of injury. -- --- William O'Hara www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re: ICRR     Date: 15 Aug 2007 11:26:41 From: Dane Buson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In rec.bicycles.misc r15757@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 15, 10:47 am, "OughtFour" <lus...@rnospam.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better job >> on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very bad >> ones in Cambridge. > > 'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly > designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly. > > Got any examples of bike lanes killing people? http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality. -- Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith. -- Albert Einstein       Date: 16 Aug 2007 16:04:17 From: OughtFour Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message news:14tbp4-smv.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org... > In rec.bicycles.misc r15757@aol.com wrote: >> On Aug 15, 10:47 am, "OughtFour" <lus...@rnospam.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better >>> job >>> on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very >>> bad >>> ones in Cambridge. >> >> 'Can kill people?' I'm no fan of bike lanes, but to call the poorly >> designed ones deadly is pretty damn silly. >> >> Got any examples of bike lanes killing people? > > http://www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/cambridge/doorzone/laird1.htm > > Classic bike lane as car-door lane fatality. That was the incident I had in mind. Really awful when it happened.   Date: 15 Aug 2007 16:47:43 From: OughtFour Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story <DanKMTB@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1187193026.402794.115070@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com... > 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 The Globe recently did a very strange story recently about a popular multi-use path in Eastern Mass, the Minuteman. The headline was about "bike path rage," though the story only cited one actual "rage" incident that was two years old. Then lots of quotes about how crowded the path is and how cyclists and joggers and skaters and eveybody have to get along--not the same thing, but put in a context that suggested the people quioting were "responding" to the rage "problem." The story was the top story of the Sunday paper a few months ago. I'm not sure what that was about, but I hope this reporter does a better job on bike lanes, which can kill people if done badly. There are some very bad ones in Cambridge.   Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "DanKMTB@gmail.com" <DanKMTB@gmail.com > writes: > 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. We've had a few dangerous lanes, but these were installed many years before the current design standards were developed. The main issue was a lane that was too narrow to safely pass a parked car - an opening door could completely block the lane. One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan, and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too close to the gutter pan. That lane was removed and is now back after some major road improvements that eliminated the problem. A few people complained about the bike lane being removed, but removing it was the only reasonable decision, given the liability risk of having a substandard design. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB     Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:35:54 From: John Forrest Tomlinson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed >up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan, >and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack >parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from >that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too >close to the gutter pan. What is a gutter pan? -- JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com ****************************       Date: 15 Aug 2007 22:09:11 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > writes: > On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) > wrote: > > > >One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed > >up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan, > >and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack > >parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from > >that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too > >close to the gutter pan. > > What is a gutter pan? The concrete area on the side of some roads that allows rainwater to run to a drain. The asphalt ends where the cutter pan starts. We have these in our area. When installed, the connection is flat and smooth. After a decade or so, weathering causes a gap between the two, parallel to the direction of travel. It's the sort of thing that can trap a wheel, if not completely, at least enough to require a quick correction to get out of it. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB       Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:42:34 From: Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:35:54 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote: >On 15 Aug 2007 09:20:11 -0700, nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) >wrote: > > >>One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed >>up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan, >>and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack >>parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from >>that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too >>close to the gutter pan. > >What is a gutter pan? Dear John, http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 16 Aug 2007 02:29:34 From: (PeteCresswell) Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Per carlfogel@comcast.net: > >http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg Now I see why some people are so down on bike lanes. -- PeteCresswell           Date: 16 Aug 2007 01:53:10 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story (PeteCresswell) wrote: > Per carlfogel@comcast.net: >> >> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > Now I see why some people are so down on bike lanes. That's like looking at a picture of Michael Moore and saying you see why people are down on men. Bill "horrible examples not typical, thank God" S.         Date: 16 Aug 2007 00:36:34 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story carlfogel@comcast.net aka Carl Fogel wrote: > ... > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg A true bicycle farcility (sic). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com         Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:15:05 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed >>> up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan, >>> and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack >>> parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from >>> that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too >>> close to the gutter pan. > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote: >> What is a gutter pan? carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right? We'd never willingly ride over that crap 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?? -- Andrew Muzi, who rode on a Bike Path . . . once. www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971           Date: 15 Aug 2007 22:24:22 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > writes: > >> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > >>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone messed > >>> up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the gutter pan, > >>> and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up with a crack > >>> parallel to the direction of travel, so you need enough clearance from > >>> that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane while not getting too > >>> close to the gutter pan. > > > John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote: > >> What is a gutter pan? > > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right? > We'd never willingly ride over that crap 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. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB             Date: 17 Aug 2007 21:29:31 From: Luke Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <87mywshx15.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote: > > > > The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right? > > We'd never willingly ride over that crap 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.               Date: 18 Aug 2007 06:37:26 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > writes: > In article <87mywshx15.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z. > <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > > > > The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right? > > > We'd never willingly ride over that crap 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                 Date: 18 Aug 2007 06:16:11 From: Luke Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story In article <87zm0pwdk4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net >, Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net > wrote: > > > > You're missing the point. The issue is not the logo but the inferiority > > of the bicycle lane; the logo, representing to all that the gutter - or > > close to it - is to be the exclusive preserve of cyclists, adds insult > > to injury. > > No, *you* are missing the point. Your "inferiority" is simply a > figment of your imagination, as evidenced by your "adds insult to > injury" statement. > > A bike lane is simply one option that a transportation engineer > might use. That's it. It is no more "inferior" than the HOV > lanes on the Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara, California, which > are located closer to the gutter than the other traffic lanes. > > Your "argument" is quite frankly purely emotional. The issue is not the 'transportation engineer' resorting to his tools rather the ineptness with which he wields them. Perhaps I should've been more thorough in quoting text before posting my previous message and not snipped the following: http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road? And what motorist would not consider his lane being inferior when it is half comprised of a gutter and punctuated by hazards the relative equivalent of the sewer grate that a cyclist, riding the above lane, must navigate in his assigned space? But I suppose the driver will be reconciled to his lowly status and gratified that he's receiving value for his tax dollars by the reassuring sight of a painted logo of an auto on his lane. ;-) > > > I can anticipate motorists' reactions if a pedaller should forsake his > > designated lane in favour of a safer line: 'Get back in your lane you > > #$%$#@, Why do cyclists to complain, they have their own lane don't > > they?, etc...' > > > > I agree with Muzi's musings: in this case, better to have saved > > taxpayer $ and abandoned the proposition. > > His musings are silly, and in some cases there is practically no > money to save because if there were no bike lane, there would be > a shoulder stripe anyway, and the cost of the paint is trivial. > Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road (where their safety is compromised).                   Date: 18 Aug 2007 13:56:23 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story > In article <87zm0pwdk4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z. > <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote: > >>> You're missing the point. The issue is not the logo but the inferiority >>> of the bicycle lane; the logo, representing to all that the gutter - or >>> close to it - is to be the exclusive preserve of cyclists, adds insult >>> to injury. >> No, *you* are missing the point. Your "inferiority" is simply a >> figment of your imagination, as evidenced by your "adds insult to >> injury" statement. >> >> A bike lane is simply one option that a transportation engineer >> might use. That's it. It is no more "inferior" than the HOV >> lanes on the Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara, California, which >> are located closer to the gutter than the other traffic lanes. >> >> Your "argument" is quite frankly purely emotional. Luke wrote: > The issue is not the 'transportation engineer' resorting to his tools > rather the ineptness with which he wields them. Perhaps I should've > been more thorough in quoting text before posting my previous message > and not snipped the following: > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly > evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my > imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line > defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road? > And what motorist would not consider his lane being inferior when it is > half comprised of a gutter and punctuated by hazards the relative > equivalent of the sewer grate that a cyclist, riding the above lane, > must navigate in his assigned space? But I suppose the driver will be > reconciled to his lowly status and gratified that he's receiving value > for his tax dollars by the reassuring sight of a painted logo of an > auto on his lane. ;-) >>> I can anticipate motorists' reactions if a pedaller should forsake his >>> designated lane in favour of a safer line: 'Get back in your lane you >>> #$%$#@, Why do cyclists to complain, they have their own lane don't >>> they?, etc...' >>> I agree with Muzi's musings: in this case, better to have saved >>> taxpayer $ and abandoned the proposition. >> His musings are silly, and in some cases there is practically no >> money to save because if there were no bike lane, there would be >> a shoulder stripe anyway, and the cost of the paint is trivial. Luke wrote: > Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly > designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates > misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede > traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road > (where their safety is compromised). Well phrased, better than what I wrote -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                     Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:21:23 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > writes: > > In article <87zm0pwdk4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z. > > <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote: > Luke wrote: > > Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly > > designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates > > misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede > > traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road > > (where their safety is compromised). > > Well phrased, better than what I wrote Whether you like the phrasing or not, all Luke wrote was an overly emotional, content-free rant based possibly on thinking that a four lane road was a two lane road (the dashed lane stripe in the picture is hard to spot due to the image quality, but it really is there). The bike lane would be way too narrow if this was a two-lane road (one lane in each direction), but it simply isn't. The only question is whether the asphalt inside the bike lane is 3 feet wide or some smaller amount, and from the picture, you can't really tell because there is no object with a known size in it. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                   Date: 18 Aug 2007 15:41:56 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Luke <lucasiragusa@rogers.com > writes: > In article <87zm0pwdk4.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z. > <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > > > > You're missing the point. The issue is not the logo but the inferiority > > > of the bicycle lane; the logo, representing to all that the gutter - or > > > close to it - is to be the exclusive preserve of cyclists, adds insult > > > to injury. > > > > No, *you* are missing the point. Your "inferiority" is simply a > > figment of your imagination, as evidenced by your "adds insult to > > injury" statement. > > > > A bike lane is simply one option that a transportation engineer > > might use. That's it. It is no more "inferior" than the HOV > > lanes on the Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara, California, which > > are located closer to the gutter than the other traffic lanes. > > > > Your "argument" is quite frankly purely emotional. > > The issue is not the 'transportation engineer' resorting to his tools > rather the ineptness with which he wields them. Perhaps I should've > been more thorough in quoting text before posting my previous message > and not snipped the following: > > http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > This is the 'inferiority' I was referring to. That it is blatantly > evident and needs no qualification is not a 'figment of my > imagination'. What remotely experienced cyclist would choose the line > defined by this cycling lane when riding down this road? If you look closely at the picture, near the very top of it, there seems to be *two* traffic lanes in the same direction as the bike lane (the picture resolution and contrast is poor enough that this could be misleading). If those are normal width lanes (12 feet), riding inside the bike lane will put you about 14 feet from the dashed lane stripe. Cars typically will be 2 or 3 feet from the dashed stripe. If you allow 5 to 6 feet for the vehicle width, that puts the right edge of the car 7 to 9 feet from the lane stripe. If you ride a foot or two inside the bike lane, you have about 5 feet of clearance from vehicles (maybe a bit more). In _Effective Cycling_, you'll read that with a wide outside lane (and with traffic faster than you are riding) you would typically ride about 14 feet from the lane line. Being just inside the bike lane puts you in that position. Whether that is true of the lane in the picture depends on the dimensions, and you simply can't tell. the main issue with this bike lane (assuming there are in fact two traffic lanes in that direction) is the width of the asphault inside the bike lane. It should be a minimum of 3 feet in width. From the picture, I can't tell. > > And what motorist would not consider his lane being inferior when it is > half comprised of a gutter and punctuated by hazards the relative > equivalent of the sewer grate that a cyclist, riding the above lane, > must navigate in his assigned space? But I suppose the driver will be > reconciled to his lowly status and gratified that he's receiving value > for his tax dollars by the reassuring sight of a painted logo of an > auto on his lane. ;-) ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could trap a wheel. > > His musings are silly, and in some cases there is practically no > > money to save because if there were no bike lane, there would be > > a shoulder stripe anyway, and the cost of the paint is trivial. > > > > Elaborating further: I'd categorize the above as case of a poorly > designed bike lane doing more harm than no bike lane. It propagates > misconceptions that cyclists, as slower vehicles, are not to impede > traffic in any way and that they belong at the extreme edge of the road > (where their safety is compromised). Wish-washy, emotional statement on your part. You are looking at a four lane road (it is just hard to see the dashed lane stripe due to the quality of the photo). If you ride inside the bike lane when going slower than normal traffic, you will be in the same position as the left edge of a slower vehicle using the right most traffic lane. The only question is whether the lane is substandard, which depends on dimensions that you cannot determine easily from the photo. Curiously, for all the emotional ranting from your "side" of the discussion, I've yet to see anyone explain what they think might be wrong with the numbers I provided. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                     Date: 18 Aug 2007 13:32:02 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Zaumen wrote: > ... > ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three > foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look > closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could > trap a wheel.... That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to ride through. It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a diversion fall. P.S. What is "asphault"? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia BEER IS FOOD -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                       Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:14:57 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > ... > > ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three > > foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look > > closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could > > trap a wheel.... > > That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall > when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to > ride through. As I said, the standard requires a bike lane wide enough for three feet of asphalt to the *left* of the gutter pan. If you can't avoid a grate within the gutter pan with that much asphalt to ride on, you probably shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place. If you ride 1.5 feet within the bike lane (measured from the left), you will automatically miss the grate. Also, if you do not know how to avoid debris or that you should avoid debris, you probably should not be riding a bicycle either. > It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the > asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a > diversion fall. > > P.S. What is "asphault"? A typo - is should have been "asphalt" - surely you could figure that out - it's the black surface in the picture, not the bare concrete. You know, the surface that cars drive on. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                         Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:35:41 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> ... >>> ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three >>> foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look >>> closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could >>> trap a wheel.... >> That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall >> when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to >> ride through. > > As I said, the standard requires a bike lane wide enough for three > feet of asphalt to the *left* of the gutter pan. If you can't avoid a > grate within the gutter pan with that much asphalt to ride on, you > probably shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place. > > If you ride 1.5 feet within the bike lane (measured from the left), > you will automatically miss the grate. Also, if you do not know how > to avoid debris or that you should avoid debris, you probably should > not be riding a bicycle either. Well, who brought up that the grate was not a problem due to the angle of the slots? >> It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the >> asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a >> diversion fall. >> >> P.S. What is "asphault"? > > A typo - is should have been "asphalt" - surely you could figure that > out I thought it might have been a grammatical error. ;) > - it's the black surface in the picture, not the bare concrete. > You know, the surface that cars drive on. Actually, both surfaces are concrete, just with different types of cement holding the aggregate matrix together. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia BEER IS FOOD -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                           Date: 18 Aug 2007 13:33:01 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> writes: > > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>> ... > >>> ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three > >>> foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look > >>> closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could > >>> trap a wheel.... > >> That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall > >> when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to > >> ride through. > > As I said, the standard requires a bike lane wide enough for three > > feet of asphalt to the *left* of the gutter pan. If you can't avoid a > > grate within the gutter pan with that much asphalt to ride on, you > > probably shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place. > > If you ride 1.5 feet within the bike lane (measured from the left), > > you will automatically miss the grate. Also, if you do not know how > > to avoid debris or that you should avoid debris, you probably should > > not be riding a bicycle either. > > Well, who brought up that the grate was not a problem due to the angle > of the slots? I said it does not have any slots that could trap a wheel, and that is all I said about it (other than noting that a typical path a cyclist would follow in that lane would not go over the grate anyway). With no valid argument, it is no wonder that you are trying to put words in my mouth - it's simply a dishonest tactic on your part. You also haven't shown that this particular type of grate is all that slippery when wet - the lack of any flat surface on it for water to accumulate mitigates the problem and you'd only go over the grate if you weren't paying attention - it is not where you would normally ride. > >> It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the > >> asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a > >> diversion fall. > >> > >> P.S. What is "asphault"? > > A typo - is should have been "asphalt" - surely you could figure that > > out > > I thought it might have been a grammatical error. ;) That just shows your inability to think! Oh, and I might add that the design standard calls for three feet between the bike lane stripe and the edge between the asphalt and the gutter. That's enough room for a cyclist to ride comfortably within the bike lane while avoiding the edge (and 3 feet is the minimum allowed - they won't shoot you for providing a lot more). > > - it's the black surface in the picture, not the bare concrete. > > You know, the surface that cars drive on. > > Actually, both surfaces are concrete, just with different types of > cement holding the aggregate matrix together. You are reduced to silly quibbling. "Asphalt" is typically used for the black, relatively soft surface used on roads and "concrete" for the hard subtance used below the asphalt and for the gutter pans. Obviously, as you have no real point at all, you are simply trying to obfuscate the discussion to avoid the fact that you have no valid point. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > BEER IS FOOD > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                             Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:32:08 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> writes: >>> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> ROTFLMAO! You have plenty of clearance from said sewer grate (a three >>>>> foot wide asphault path according to the standards) and if you look >>>>> closely at the picture, the grate does not have any slots that could >>>>> trap a wheel.... >>>> That steel grate is likely slippery enough to potentially cause a fall >>>> when wet. Similarly, debris clogging the grate would be a hazard to >>>> ride through. >>> As I said, the standard requires a bike lane wide enough for three >>> feet of asphalt to the *left* of the gutter pan. If you can't avoid a >>> grate within the gutter pan with that much asphalt to ride on, you >>> probably shouldn't be riding a bicycle in the first place. >>> If you ride 1.5 feet within the bike lane (measured from the left), >>> you will automatically miss the grate. Also, if you do not know how >>> to avoid debris or that you should avoid debris, you probably should >>> not be riding a bicycle either. >> Well, who brought up that the grate was not a problem due to the angle >> of the slots? > > I said it does not have any slots that could trap a wheel, and that is > all I said about it (other than noting that a typical path a cyclist > would follow in that lane would not go over the grate anyway). With > no valid argument, it is no wonder that you are trying to put words in > my mouth - it's simply a dishonest tactic on your part. I think we need a new term for gratuitous accusations of dishonesty on Usenet; how about the "zaumenism"? > You also haven't shown that this particular type of grate is all that > slippery when wet - the lack of any flat surface on it for water to > accumulate mitigates the problem and you'd only go over the grate if > you weren't paying attention - it is not where you would normally ride. Well duh, the grate is not where someone would normally ride. So why is the grate in the "bicycle lane"? Most steel surfaces are slippery when wet - must not get much rain in Silly Cone Valley, eh? >>>> It is hard to tell from the photograph, but the ridge between the >>>> asphaltic pavement and concrete gutter could be tall enough to cause a >>>> diversion fall. >>>> >>>> P.S. What is "asphault"? >>> A typo - is should have been "asphalt" - surely you could figure that >>> out >> I thought it might have been a grammatical error. ;) > > That just shows your inability to think! Whoosh! Zaumen forgets in the past he has called typos grammatical errors. > Oh, and I might add that the > design standard calls for three feet between the bike lane stripe and > the edge between the asphalt and the gutter. That's enough room for > a cyclist to ride comfortably within the bike lane while avoiding the > edge (and 3 feet is the minimum allowed - they won't shoot you for > providing a lot more). > >>> - it's the black surface in the picture, not the bare concrete. >>> You know, the surface that cars drive on. >> Actually, both surfaces are concrete, just with different types of >> cement holding the aggregate matrix together. > > You are reduced to silly quibbling. "Asphalt" is typically used for > the black, relatively soft surface used on roads and "concrete" for > the hard sub[s]tance used below the asphalt and for the gutter pans. > Obviously, as you have no real point at all, you are simply trying > to obfuscate the discussion to avoid the fact that you have no valid > point. Only a cyclist hater or ignoramus would create the "bicycle lane" in question, and only Zaumen would defend it. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia BEER IS FOOD -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com                               Date: 18 Aug 2007 17:03:43 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> writes: > > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> 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 sub[s]tance 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                                 Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:34:04 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> writes: >>> >>>> Bill Zaumen wrote: >>>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> 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 sub[s]tance 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                                   Date: 18 Aug 2007 18:57:52 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> 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                                     Date: 19 Aug 2007 01:12:01 From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Zaumen wrote: > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> writes: > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: >> >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> 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                                       Date: 20 Aug 2007 04:35:09 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com > writes: > Bill Zaumen wrote: > > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> writes: > > > >> Bill Zaumen wrote: > >> > >>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@innvalid.com> 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. ROFLMAO. What I said was perfectly clear, and the only thing I said specifically about the grate is that it couldn't trap a wheel. You turned that into something quite different. Since this seems to be the standard mode of operation for you people, I've concluded that you are reduced to lying - all the evidence indicates that. > > > >>>> 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. Reduced to inserting a response midsentence so that people can't see what I actually said (which follows and which is not "illogic" in any sense of the word. > > > > 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. You don't know what it is from the picture. What *I* said about it is that the configuration is not a problem *if* it meets the design standards, which require 3 feet of asphalt between the bike lane stripe and the gutter pan. This is a discussion about bike lanes in general, so one should reasonably talk about ones that conform to the design standards. You can always find some traffic lane or other facility somewhere that is poorly designed. So what? All you should do is complain to whoever is responsible and ask for it to be fixed. > 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. Speculation on your part - it was patched, but the picture shows no indication of cracks or bumps. > > > >>>> 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. (not the lack of a response) > > 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? It sounds like you "didn't inhale". Come off it. I've used other programs for spell checking too, and simply copied *everything* I wrote into that program, ran the spell checker, and copied it back. If I had missed something, it wouldn't have been one or two words in the middle of a sentence. So I think you are making it all up. > > > >>>> 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. Liar - you are the person with the obsession. I merely pointed out that bike lanes that conform to the latest design standards aren't a problem given the rules in the California Vehicle Code. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB                     Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:14:56 From: Wayne Pein Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story Bill Z. wrote: http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > If you look closely at the picture, near the very top of it, there > seems to be *two* traffic lanes in the same direction as the bike > lane (the picture resolution and contrast is poor enough that this > could be misleading). If those are normal width lanes (12 feet), > riding inside the bike lane will put you about 14 feet from the > dashed lane stripe. If the adjacent "motor vehicle" lane is 12', riding just inside the bike lane will put you just over 12' from the dashed lane stripe. Where do you get 14', in some other universe? > In _Effective Cycling_, you'll read that with a wide outside lane > (and with traffic faster than you are riding) you would typically > ride about 14 feet from the lane line. Being just inside the > bike lane puts you in that position. Whether that is true of the > lane in the picture depends on the dimensions, and you simply can't > tell. the main issue with this bike lane (assuming there are in > fact two traffic lanes in that direction) is the width of the > asphault inside the bike lane. It should be a minimum of 3 feet > in width. From the picture, I can't tell. It's plainly obvious that is not 3' of asphalt, and I've already said that 3' is inadequate anyway. You are also wrong on what EC says. Wayne           Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:43:39 From: Bill Sornson Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story A Muzi wrote: >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: >>>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone >>>> messed up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the >>>> gutter pan, and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up >>>> with a crack parallel to the direction of travel, so you need >>>> enough clearance from that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane >>>> while not getting too close to the gutter pan. > >> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote: >>> What is a gutter pan? > > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: >> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right? > We'd never willingly ride over that crap 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?? JFTR I've never seen a bike lane like that around my area. (I think there might be a few cases that used to be and have been fixed quite nicely, however.)             Date: 15 Aug 2007 22:15:44 From: Bill Z. Subject: Re: Bike lanes in MA, dangerous bike lanes and a possible news story "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > writes: > A Muzi wrote: > >>> nobody@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote: > >>>> One lane was installed about 10 years ago by mistake (someone > >>>> messed up the design) - it put the lane stripe too close to the > >>>> gutter pan, and as the pavement deteriorates over time, you end up > >>>> with a crack parallel to the direction of travel, so you need > >>>> enough clearance from that so that a cyclist can ride in the lane > >>>> while not getting too close to the gutter pan. > > > >> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote: > >>> What is a gutter pan? > > > > carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > >> http://motorman.org/wp-content/gutterpan_02.jpg > > > > The dippy condescending white paint logo makes it 'desirable', right? > > We'd never willingly ride over that crap 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?? > > JFTR I've never seen a bike lane like that around my area. (I think there > might be a few cases that used to be and have been fixed quite nicely, > however.) FYI (I thought I pointed this out but it isn't in the quoted text), the lane I mentioned was removed shortly after the bike lane stripe was painted, and re-installed after the problem was fixed (either by cutting back the gutter pan or by restriping the other lanes so the bike lane could be put in in accordance with state standards. We have a few very old bike lanes that are a bit two narrow, being some of the first installed in California, so they went in before the design standards existed. These are being fixed over time. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB