Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[Wayne Pein]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists)
>>to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths,
>>etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left
>>turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing
>>out of the bike lane?"
>
>
> Except it is not true - that is simply a bogus argument some people
> have put out. Look up the California Driver's Handbook
> <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm> and
> specifically <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike>:
>
> "Bicyclists on public streets have the same rights and
> responsibilities as automobile drivers. Respect the
> right-of-way of bicyclists because they are entitled to share
> the road with other drivers."
>
> Also <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln>:
>
> "A bicycle lane is shown by a solid white line along either
> side of the street, four or more feet from the curb. The white
> line will usually be broken near the corner and the words
> "BIKE LANE" will be painted in the lane. When you are making a
> right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other
> driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the
> turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time."
>
> You have to read this handbook to pass the California driver's test.
> Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is
> not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't
> care.

Zauman lives on Bike Lane Fantasy Island. None of those words above
address the real world where the presence of a bike lane creates "motor
vehicle lanes" that motorists then vigorously defend.

Wayne

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 12:12 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your
> > from nowhere land.
>
> I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of
> nowhere. That's great.

Can you be in the middle of nowhere and have a Walmart next door?

I bet they got a section on bear hunting gear.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 12:59 pm, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Aug 1, 11:07 am, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> There are other ways, but most are not what would be acceptable in a
> >> civilised culture - eg the one which was responsible for a large increase
> >> in
> >> riding in London unfortunately involved killing 52 people...
>
> > In what way? It sounds like terrorism to me...
>
> There's a good reason for that...
>
> (what it did was put people off using PT, so they gave bikes a try - it was
> summer.)

Letting bikes loose out on the roads can be dangerous. Better channel
them through bike lanes.

 

[Wayne Pein]

[email protected] wrote:


> I'd prefer not to have bike lanes, I'd much rather have wide curb lanes
> without the magical paint stripe.
>
> Paint doesn't actually stop reckless drivers from hitting things, but it
> does stop careful drivers from driving to the right when there isn't a
> bike present. That means the bike lane doesn't get swept by passing
> cars, so it builds up broken glass and radial tire wires.
>

Bike lanes collect debris? Preposterous!

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/Debris.pdf (2.34 MB)

Wayne

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 1:13 pm, Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 1, 11:02 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/physically-separated-bike-lanes/
>
> > > They don't really help. And they've been shown not to help and we can
> > > see them not helping in practice.
>
> > Are you saying that those committed cyclists are stupid and that they
> > don't know what they are asking for? Remember they are not kids, but
> > real cyclists that tell you the real problems out there. How more real
> > can you get?
>
> Lessons in life are often counter-intuitive.
>
> Separated bike lanes are fine where they are separated, it's just that
> sooner or later you have to have a junction and if you have more
> separated lanes you end up with more complex junctions and that's where
> the accidents happen.
>
> What good is it if you decrease the accident rate at point 'a' along
> a route and at the same time increase it at point 'b' along a route such
> that the overall accident rate is higher?
>
> In contrast to the 'idea' of ever more separate lanes being good for
> improved safety there is the contradictory data that shows that in
> places where you remove all the lane markings, signs and junction
> priorities you often get a measurable increase in safety.

Should we erase the car lanes too? I think we could have bike lanes
and still enforce those breaking the law, so they can pay for more
bike lanes. Are you parked in the bike lane? You got a fine for 100
bucks...

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 4:16 pm, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > Are you saying that those committed cyclists are stupid and that they
> > don't know what they are asking for?
>
> It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of knowledge.
> "Common sense" suggests segregated facilities will improve one's
> lot (and in /some/ limited cases I agree they do), but just like
> "common sense" indicating helmets substantially reduce serious head
> injuries and compulsory seat belts must reduce road casualties it
> turns out the effect in the real world doesn't know much about your
> "common sense" and it is contarry to popular assumption and belief.
>
> > Remember they are not kids, but
> > real cyclists that tell you the real problems out there. How more real
> > can you get?
>
> The accident figures from segregated facilities that show us that
> Real Cyclists suffer just as many Real Accidents on segregated
> facilties (or rather, where they meet roads, as they inevitably do)
> are just as real, and are far more representative than your small
> sample quoted.
>
> You really need to find out the effects of things before you start
> proclaiming to the rooftops that they're The Answer.

WHATEVER GETS PEOPLE OUT IS GOOD, then we polish it up along the way.

 

[William]

On Aug 1, 2:28 pm, William <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 11:12 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 11:54 am, William <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 1, 10:25 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 1, 10:43 am, donquijote1954 <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 1, 4:00 am, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes, there are some idiots who'll sit behind you and honk at you, but
> > > > > > they won't run you down, because it might scratch the paintwork. If you
> > > > > > push people off into bike lanes as a rule they will be far more maligned
> > > > > > and looked down upon on the instances where they have no choice to use
> > > > > > the roads, if they're typically in a bike lane instead.
>
> > > > > > They don't help. We know they don't help as we can see them not
> > > > > > helping. *HAVE YOU GOT THAT YET?*
>
> > > > > You still avoiding my question: BIKE LANES OR NO BIKE LANES, HOW DO WE
> > > > > BRING BIKE RIDERSHIP FROM THE AMERICAN OR BRITISH LEVES TO THE DUTCH
> > > > > OR DANISH LEVELS?
>
> > > > You see, you are thinking about the problem from the wrong direction.
> > > > You are saying "biking is great, what is wrong with everyone else".
> > > > Instead, you need to examine why other people don't bike and address
> > > > that.
>
> > > > Predominantly, I would think it is the combination of "no time to bike
> > > > & no place to bike to". Most people won't bike to work if they get
> > > > sweaty or if they work the night shift, etc. Bike lanes might
> > > > partially address the "no place to bike to" issue, but not really.
>
> > > > For example, I need to run out and get my kid some things for football
> > > > practice. While we're at it we need to do some back-to-school
> > > > shopping. Okay, that's simple and the kid is in great shape. I just
> > > > need to run to the nearest sporting goods store. Fortunately, there's
> > > > a small mall across the street. This trip is a bit unusually because
> > > > I do 90% of my shopping at the nest Walmart. So ideally, this is
> > > > bikeable. But the problem is, the nearest sporting goods store is
> > > > about 45 miles away. That's about 15 miles past the Walmart. So at
> > > > 10 mph (because of the hills and the purchases), you're talking at 9
> > > > hour bike ride.
>
> > > I don't blame you, biking works best
> > > when everything is
> > > more central and dense like a metro area.
>
> > > > So I think your idea has merit, it just needs to be tweeked. The
> > > > community didn't allow a Walmart because of a DOT right-of-way issue.
> > > > But maybe if we had more Walmarts, so that they were closer to people,
> > > > the people could bike to them easier. Plus if they put in
> > > > SuperCenters with groceries, then more shopping could be done in 1
> > > > trip.
>
> > > > So I guess bike lanes are part of the problem, but having a place to
> > > > go is the other part. Therefore, maybe you should lobby for more
> > > > Walmarts -- and have them tied into bikeways -- to encourage shopping
> > > > by bike.
>
> > > Have you no sense of quality Pat? I guess that is implied when your
> > > from nowhere land.
>
> > I don't follow your logic. Of course I am from the middle of
> > nowhere. That's great. Clean air. Clean water. Mountains in the
> > background (okay, the Allegany's aren't exactly the Rockies). It is a
> > nice, simple life. What else to I need. This is a great lifestyle.
> > What "quality" am I missing? The Kleenex from Walmart is somehow
> > worst than the Kleenex from the Kleenex Boutique? The $18 Harry
> > Potter book I bought last week has different words in it than $32
> > version in your corner bookstore? My backyard swimming pool is
> > somehow less wet than your municipal one? My fruit-of-the-loom
> > underwear are somehow less fruity than yours from the mall. Does a
> > Timex keep different time than a Rolex -- it doesn't really matter to
> > me, because I don't wear a watch.
>
> > You might crave some imported, organic, fresh pasta only made by
> > virgins on the hillsides of Italy. But regular pasta is fine by me.
> > You don't need that stuff to live well. You only need it to fill the
> > hollow spots in your sole. There's nothing wrong with simplicity.
> > I'm not exactly a monk, but this definitely isn't Madison Ave. But
> > that's what makes it nice.
>
> > On Friday, a friend and I are thinking of throwing a canoe on the
> > Allegany River and going a few miles, just for the heck of it. That's
> > excitement around here.
>
> > Besides, the Walmarts around here are pretty generous when it comes to
> > youth sports. We'll hit up each of them during fundraising for each
> > of the sports. It's not a lot, but they'll throw in $25 to $50 (each)
> > any time they are asked -- and we ask them quite often. That buys
> > stuff for the concession stand or for a raffle.
>
> > So what about this "quality" thing?
>
> Pat, Walmart is McDonalds department stores. In every way. If you wanna
> call that quality go right ahead. Just keep that bull **** out of the
> city.

To be more specific, ever notice how a lot of things, not
ALL things but a lot, are a heck of a lot crappier at walmart as
apposed to the other extreme like William-sanoma or crate and barrel?
I'm not saying that every place should be as expensive and *high tech*
for a lack of a better word as those places are. But ever notice how
theres a lot of poor people at Walmart? I guess you would'nt since
thats all you have in nowhere land but here in the cities when people
have more options then the lowest and crappiest, we tend to shoot for
the happy medium between excessive and contemptible.

I prove via internet: http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=2403033

Wal*Mart:Lowest Common Denominator
Look at this cool set of pots and pans and the mounted rack. Only
34.32!!!
But in reality,look at cheap and thin the metal on the cooking
utensils and the pots is. Don't expect those to get through a
thanksgiving dinner....


Kohls: A Happy Medium
http://www.kohls.com/products/produ...LDER<>folder_id=440616035&bmUID=1186004381433
A good medium, not to bad it gets the job done. 170$ is pretty
reasonable, closer on the low end of things but again it will get the
job done.






William-Sonoma: When brains collide with class and stlye Bet you don't
have one of these at "The Rez" do you Pat?
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku9639873/index.cfm?pkey=cckwseti
600 dollars and just for the pots. Yea I would say this would out live
the competition in ever way by a large margin. Still, nothing to there
1,400$$$ one. ttp://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/sku8991465/index.cfm?pkey=cckwseti
Hey, you get what ya pay for!

Now, cheap prices may seem all good, but why not just pay a little
extra for the one that will last?
(Ahem* because your either poor or have no options or you just have no
sense of quality)

Now Pat, you may be saying to yourself that those other sets of pots
are expensive only for more profit, but if that was true, do you
REALLY think William-Sonoma would still be around?

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> Here's a picture comparing
> > the two:
> > ------- bike lane stripe --------
> > *** cyclist ****
> > ____________ shoulder stripe_____________
> > with a bike lane stripe, you'd nominally ride just inside the
> > bike lane. With a shoulder stripe, you would normally ride as
> > far the right on the roadway as is practicable (that's what the
> > traffic laws say), which puts you just outside the shoulder.
> > With a shoulder stripe placed a couple of feet to the right of
> > where a bike lane stripe would go, the cyclist is in the same
> > position on the roadway.
> > So what's the problem? You'd ride in about the same position on
> > the roadway regardless.
> >
>
> I'll assume your "shoulder stripe" is the edge of usable surface. I'll
> also put dimensions to it for clarity.
>
> The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane.
>
> 16' lane:
> - bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other
> operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge
> under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as
> a stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed.

..... which is just what you do in the bike lane case - when riding
at less than the normal speed of traffic you will be nominally
14 feet from the adjacent traffic-lane's stripe, which puts you
a couple of feet inside the bike lane. If you are less than 12 feet
from that lane divider (which puts you just outside the bike lane)
you should be going as fast as traffic unless avoiding some specific
hazard (which the bike lane rules allow).

> Bicyclist can pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing
> lanes. - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle
> operators. Bicyclist has superior right to occupy that lane space
> since he was there prior to overtaking motorists. - bicyclist
> within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists. - bicyclist
> traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from motor
> vehicles.

The California Vehicle Code forbids lateral movement on a roadway
unless such a movement can be made with reasonable safety. If you
were going slower than traffic and then decide to move left, you
do not have squatters rights, lane stripe or not.

> - bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor
> vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion.

Nonesense. You simply have a road with multiple lanes and slower
traffic is required to use the rightmost lane. If it is a bike lane,
then the rightmost lane is one that motor vehicles cannot use unless
preparing for a turn across that lane.

> - bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane"
> means that motorists need not be cautious.

That is also wrong. A driver has a responsibility to operate a
vehicle safely. Even drivers who don't care generally don't want
their fenders dinged needlessly.

> - presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether
> bicyclists are present or not.

Bike lanes actually have the opposite effect - motorist speed tends
to increase the wider a lane is.

> The bike lane acts as a paved shoulder and buffer from roadside
> elements, well channelizes vehicles, and places them in a favorable
> position for optimal lines of sight. - bike lane collects debris.

Not true either, unless the adjacent traffic lane is very wide.
Drivers nominally guide on the lane stripe, staying a couple of
feet inside. Whether you have a bike lane stripe or not, the
area 12 to 16 feet from the "traffic" lane stripe will be kept
clean. However, as a bike lane, a local jurisdiction that installed
the bike lane then has an obligation to keep it clean, but there
is no such obligation for a shoulder (which is not intended for
vehicular travel).


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 4:26 pm, Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> My strategy is demonstrating that cycling is a safe, normal thing
> that normal people can do in safety and without special armour.
> Doesn't **** anyone much off, doesn't call people idiots and
> antagonise them, doesn't characterise what I'm doing with
> ridiculous and self evidently non-sensical hyperbole, doesn't
> deamnd that they put themselves out and into perceived danger for
> some cause. I think all of those things it doesn't do makes it a
> positive way to proceed, unlike calling for things that don't help
> and stridently getting on folks' cases.

OK, your strategy doesn't motivate anyone because people are no
fools. They know cars fly by too close for comfort. That's why there's
no significant number of people riding bikes on busy thoroughfares. It
just doesn't make sense to push people onto roads and then having to
say, "Sorry, **** happens."

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.
>
>
> Of course it does! There are mandatory bike lane laws. Two lanes
> become 4 lanes, the bike lane being a substandard width lane.

A bike lane is not a substandard width lane, but in any case the
rules of the road do not change. The legislature does not magically
go into session and change the laws just because someone entered a
bike lane while riding a bicycle, or even because someone put in a
bike lane in their town.

> > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic
> > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state
> > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other
> > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to
> > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left
> > turn, or when approaching a place where a right turn is permitted.
> > Drivers are required to stay out of bike lanes except when turning
> > across one, in which case they must merge into the bike lane and may
> > start merging when within 200 feet of a turn.
>
> Your description clearly indicates that the rules of the road change
> when a bike lane is added.

No it doesn't. The rules are the same. If the rules of the road changed,
you'd need a new edition of the CVC.

>
> > Pretty simple, and there is nothing to get upset about.
>
> Not for bike lane apologists.

Not for anyone with an ounce of common sense.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Martin Dann]

Bill Z. wrote:

>
> This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a vehicle
> was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a
> lane change whether or not there is a bike lane. The drivers will
> notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not
> one

If cyclist are put onto a different road network to cars,
then car drivers will stop thinking that cyclist should be
on the road.
When a driver meets a cyclist on the road, (s)he will have
less experience of how to deal with that cyclist.


- drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes.
I've
> yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.)
> side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous.

I claim that (ICMTP)

cycling to the right (US) of the white strip is dangerous.
It means that you are cycling in the un-swept gutter full
of broken glass, branches from trees and marbles.


> Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile
> before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the
> traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your
> left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be
> riding a bike, at least not on that road.

IF you argue that, then you really don't know what the
traffic is like in the UK, even on minor roads.

Sometimes I cycle three of more miles past almost
stationary cars. It is dangerous to pass them kerbside,
and idiotic to try and move across they non-existent flow.

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy
> >>>spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little
> >>>boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman!
> > (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his
> > infantile insults before replying.)
> > Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You
> > might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist
> > might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion.
>
> Zauman,
>
> Grow up.

Pein, stop projecting and get some professional help for your emotional
problems.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>The bicycle lane leads motor vehicles operators (who are not cyclists)
> >>to believe that cyclists should be confined to bike lanes, bike paths,
> >>etc. This creates an especial difficulty when needing to make a left
> >>turn [1], since the cagers wonder "what the hell is the cyclist doing
> >>out of the bike lane?"
> > Except it is not true - that is simply a bogus argument some people
> > have put out. Look up the California Driver's Handbook
> > <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm> and
> > specifically <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike>:
> > "Bicyclists on public streets have the same rights and
> > responsibilities as automobile drivers. Respect the
> > right-of-way of bicyclists because they are entitled to share
> > the road with other drivers."
> > Also <http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs22thru25.htm#bike_ln>:
> > "A bicycle lane is shown by a solid white line along either
> > side of the street, four or more feet from the curb. The white
> > line will usually be broken near the corner and the words
> > "BIKE LANE" will be painted in the lane. When you are making a
> > right turn and are within 200 feet of the corner or other
> > driveway entrance, you must enter the bike lane for the
> > turn. Do not drive in the bike lane at any other time."
> > You have to read this handbook to pass the California driver's test.
> > Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is
> > not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't
> > care.
>
> Zauman lives on Bike Lane Fantasy Island. None of those words above
> address the real world where the presence of a bike lane creates
> "motor vehicle lanes" that motorists then vigorously defend.

Pein has a serious emotional problem and should seek professional help
for it, as this sort of outburst from him shows. He apparently didn't
like my post even though I merely quoted official California state
government publications.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 5:34 pm, Wayne Pein <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Drivers know what the rules are. If they harrass you anyway, it is
> > not because they weren't taught the rules. It's because they don't
> > care.
>
> Zauman lives on Bike Lane Fantasy Island. None of those words above
> address the real world where the presence of a bike lane creates "motor
> vehicle lanes" that motorists then vigorously defend.
>
> Wayne-

Show me a picture of a significant number of bikers mingling with
drivers along a busy street. Where's the beef? Maybe you do, but you
are quite insignificant.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 5:55 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:

> > Zauman lives on Bike Lane Fantasy Island. None of those words above
> > address the real world where the presence of a bike lane creates
> > "motor vehicle lanes" that motorists then vigorously defend.
>
> Pein has a serious emotional problem and should seek professional help
> for it, as this sort of outburst from him shows. He apparently didn't
> like my post even though I merely quoted official California state
> government publications.

He fits the profile of a Hummer driver (too aggressive)...

"The industry has come to some unflattering conclusions about the
people who buy its SUVs. As summarized by Bradsher:

They tend to be people who are insecure and vain. They are frequently
nervous about their marriages and uncomfortable about parenthood. They
often lack confidence in their driving skills. Above all, they are apt
to be self-centered and self-absorbed, with little interests in their
neighbors and communities.

They are more restless, more sybaritic, and less social than most
Americans are."

and...

"SUV owners want to be more like, 'I'm in control of the people around
me.'"

http://savefuel.tribe.net/thread/45bad811-c1a9-498b-989f-228e221cb482

Cylists are more social, you know. In other words, Pein fits the
profile of the lion, and us, cycists, are more like social monkeys.

 

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 1, 5:54 pm, [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
> > Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > > Wayne Pein <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > >>Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > >>>ROTFLMAO - classic projection just as I said! You are the guy
> > >>>spewing all the venom! You are reduced to acting like a little
> > >>>boy spouting insults. And over what? Bike lanes? Grow up.
>
> > >>Damn, you are fool. Get off the floor Zauman!
> > > (Of course, being embarassed by his behavior, Pein snipped his
> > > infantile insults before replying.)
> > > Pein, why don't you get some professional help for your problem? You
> > > might start with an anger-management class, although a psychiatrist
> > > might be able to give you a more apropos suggestion.
>
> > Zauman,
>
> > Grow up.
>
> Pein, stop projecting and get some professional help for your emotional
> problems.

Pein, stop being a pain in the ass.

 

[Martin Dann]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.

But it makes most cagers think that the rules have changed.
It is like have seating for coloured people on buses, you
think it helps, but it just causes antagonism between groups.

> In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic
> have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state
> standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other
> traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to
> use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left
> turn,

So if I see bike lanes in your state as inherently
dangerous, I can ignore them completely?
If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does
it has to get out of my way, or do these rules only work
one way (e.g. ****ers have to give up their bus seats for
the superior whites).

From you arguments it sounds like you just want to keep
normal traffic (cyclists) out of your way.

[1] On my bike I am normal traffic.

 

[Bill Z.]

Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > This argument is pure nonsense. You brought up the case where a
> > vehicle
> > was stopped ahead of you and you had to go around it. That requires a
> > lane change whether or not there is a bike lane. The drivers will
> > notice you just as much if there is a bike lane than if there is not
> > one
>
> If cyclist are put onto a different road network to cars, then car
> drivers will stop thinking that cyclist should be on the road.
> When a driver meets a cyclist on the road, (s)he will have less
> experience of how to deal with that cyclist.

You are confusing bike lanes with bike paths. The latter is a
"separate road network", but the former is not, but rather simply
a lane on the same road that drivers use. Bicyclists have to
leave bike lanes every so often - e.g., to prepare for a left
turn or when stopped at a light so that right-turning traffic
can get by.

At one spot a few miles from where I live, we have a bike lane a
few hundred feet long at a freeway underpass, with the bike lane
to the *left* of two lanes that lead onto the freeway (where
bicycles are permitted). This area gets very heavy commute traffic.
Given that the bike lane is placed between heavily used traffic
lanes, it would hardly send a message that cyclist do not belong
on the road. Also, the bike lane was really an improvement over
the previous design: if you road in a safe spot (to the left of
the right turn lanes), the optimal location in terms of not
inconveniencing drivers was right over a lane line, which had
"bots dots" (raised reflectors) on it. Now we can ride in basically
the same spot but without having to dodge reflectors. The bike
lane starts at the start of the dual turn lanes, so you only have
to cross one lane of traffic from the shoulder to enter it.

> - drivers de facto treat bike lanes like shoulder stripes. I've
> > yet to see anyone claim that riding to the right (left in the U.K.)
> > side of a shoulder stripe is dangerous.
>
> I claim that (ICMTP)
>
> cycling to the right (US) of the white strip is dangerous. It means
> that you are cycling in the un-swept gutter full of broken glass,
> branches from trees and marbles.

It's simply not true on the road in the town I live in. The shoulders
are kept free of debris, but by "dangerous" I was referring to
collisions only - in a short usenet post, you simply can't cover
every contingency, and this thread is not worth spending hours
composing each post, in order to cover every special case no matter
how obscure.

> > Your U.S. left turn argument is really bogus. If you are a mile
> > before your turn, you'd just use the bike lane to bypass most of the
> > traffic, and then you simply change lanes and get in position for your
> > left turn. If you can't manage that, you probably should not be
> > riding a bike, at least not on that road.
>
> IF you argue that, then you really don't know what the traffic is like
> in the UK, even on minor roads.

I was describing conditions in Silicon Valley - this area has some of
the worst congestion in the U.S., and we can get very long lines of
cars that are at a dead stop due to traffic signals.

> Sometimes I cycle three of more miles past almost stationary cars. It
> is dangerous to pass them kerbside, and idiotic to try and move across
> they non-existent flow.

It is not dangerous to pass them on by the curb if you have adequate
clearance from them and they are stopped, the usual situation around
here for the case where a bike lane really helps you get somewhere
faster. But whether they are stopped or not, if you are going at the
normal speed of traffic or faster, you don't have to use a bike lane
(at least you don't have to in California).

Whether you can safely pass moving vehicles by riding near the curb
depends on the situation. If you in an area with no driveways or
intersections, it is reasonably safe given adequate clearance from
the vehicles.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Wayne Pein wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> Here's a picture comparing
>
>
>
> > the two:
>
> > ------- bike lane stripe --------
> > *** cyclist ****
> > ____________ shoulder stripe_____________
>
> > with a bike lane stripe, you'd nominally ride just inside the
> > bike lane. With a shoulder stripe, you would normally ride as
> > far the right on the roadway as is practicable (that's what the
> > traffic laws say), which puts you just outside the shoulder.
>
> > With a shoulder stripe placed a couple of feet to the right of
> > where a bike lane stripe would go, the cyclist is in the same
> > position on the roadway.
>
> > So what's the problem? You'd ride in about the same position on
> > the roadway regardless.
>
> I'll assume your "shoulder stripe" is the edge of usable surface. I'll
> also put dimensions to it for clarity.
>
> The comparison is therefore a 16' lane vs. a 12' lane with 4' bike lane.
>
> 16' lane:
> - bicyclist chooses lateral position based on speed and other
> operational and physical context. It can be 4', 5', 6' from the edge
> under typical conditions or further under atypical conditions such as a
> stopped delivery vehicle or very high bicyclist speed. Bicyclist can
> pass to left of stopped vehicle without changing lanes.
> - bicyclists are ordinary slow moving vehicle operators. Bicyclist has
> superior right to occupy that lane space since he was there prior to
> overtaking motorists.
> - bicyclist within the lane engenders caution in passing motorists.
> - bicyclist traveled way is kept debris free by tire and wind blast from
> motor vehicles.
>
> 12' and 4' bike lane.
> - bicyclist's lateral position is chosen for him to be 4' or less from
> edge. Bicyclist must have a reason for lateral position to be more than
> 4', and must yield to traffic in the "motor vehicle lane" before
> changing lanes. Stopped vehicles, like busses, fully block the bike lane.
> - bicyclists are "special." Bicyclist has less right to use the "motor
> vehicle lane" either by law or by motorist coercion.
> - bicyclist behind bike lane stripe and out of "motor vehicle lane"
> means that motorists need not be cautious.
> - presence of bike lane can encourage higher motor speeds whether
> bicyclists are present or not. The bike lane acts as a paved shoulder
> and buffer from roadside elements, well channelizes vehicles, and places
> them in a favorable position for optimal lines of sight.
> - bike lane collects debris.

HOT DOG! WE HAVE A WEINER!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

 

[Bill Z.]

Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Adding a bike lane does not change the rules of the road.
>
> But it makes most cagers think that the rules have changed.
> It is like have seating for coloured people on buses, you think it
> helps, but it just causes antagonism between groups.

Not true at all. It's more like having an HOV lane.

> > In my state, cyclists riding at less then the normal speed of traffic
> > have to use a bike lane (when installed in accordance with state
> > standards), but not cylcist riding as fast or faster than other
> > traffic, and there are a number of exceptions to the requirement to
> > use a bike lane: to pass something, avoid a hazard, prepare for a left
> > turn,
>
> So if I see bike lanes in your state as inherently dangerous, I can
> ignore them completely?

Sure, and if ticketed, you can try to convince the judge that there
was a real hazard. If the issue for you is traffic turning across
your path, the California law allows you to leave a bike lane at
when approaching a place where a right turn is permitted.

If Caltrans standards were ignored when the lane was installed, you
don't have to use it either.

> If "normal[1]" traffic is travelling slower than me does it has to get
> out of my way, or do these rules only work one way (e.g. ****ers have
> to give up their bus seats for the superior whites).

Well, aside from your racisim, you obviously also lack the integrity
to quote what I actually said, as I clearly referred to the normal
speed of traffic, not "normal[1]" traffic. The word "normal" clearly
modified the word "speed", not "traffic".

> From you arguments it sounds like you just want to keep normal
> traffic (cyclists) out of your way.

The phrase I used, "normal speed of traffic", appears in the California
Vehicle Code. What I posted was a factual statement about the laws in
California. If you don't like what they are, I suggest you write to
the state legislature. But don't blame me for merely telling you what
the law actually states.

> [1] On my bike I am normal traffic.

The law refers to traffic, not vehicular traffic, and the phrase was
"normal speed of traffic", not "normal traffic". Try thinking about
it for a few hours until you understand it.

Sorry for the repetition, by you really are being dense.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB