Crashed today

David Reuteler said:

R15757 said:

Reality includes
multiple objects and debris out on the roads,
and it's every rider's responsibility to avoid
it. That's not an opinion, it's a simple statement
of fact.

why do you think i disagree with this? it's also not an opinion that it
was
the responsibility of the construction company to not clutter the traffic
lane. that is also a simple statement of fact. they each have
responsibilities.

I know, that's why "The construction
company was undoubtedly negligent" was
the first thing I wrote.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How can two parties share "personal responsibility?"

they don't. i didn't say that. i said one's responsibility does not
absolve the other of theirs.

I think we agree then gaw-durnit.

Robert

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

I've ridden in bike lanes
that have had construction signs purposely set up in them. In my mind,
this can't be justified unless something _very_ unusual is going on.
The signs are usually just as visible if they're on the curb. Sure, a
dozing motorist may be very slightly less likely to see the sign - but
is the small chance of that worth more than the greater possibility of
bicyclist injury?

I'd certainly complain, and in writing, and to several agencies,
including the local newspaper.

"(S)everal agencies, including the local newspaper"? Geez, Frank! Who would

you

Quoted message said:

complain to besides the appropriate DOT and where do you live that the

local

Quoted message said:

newspaper is going to report on such a minor incident?

Geez, Rob! Itching for a fight? So much so that you're willing to
throw common sense out the window?

I'd write to the newspaper for this purpose: Bike lanes are too often
seen as "the" solution to accommodating cyclists on the road. Yet
they're too often not taken seriously once installed. The ones I'm most
familiar with are trash pits, and this is an extreme case of that.

A properly phrased letter to the editor would raise consciousness that
road departments must be conscious of the safety requirements of
cyclists, that bike lanes should be kept as clear as motoring lanes.
Publicity of a letter to the editor means the managers in charge are
more likely to pay attention.

No, Frank. I'm neither itching for a fight nor am I throwing common sense out
the window. Elsewhere in this thread I suggested to the OP that he contact the
company directly, explain what occurred to them, calmly point out the liability
issue to them, and see how they respond. Your stated course of action appears
to me anyway to be taking the long way around. (I'm still curious as to what
"several agencies" besides the responsible DOT you think would be appropriate
avenues for a complaint.)

Quoted message said:

And FWIW, such a letter _would_ likely be published in our paper, which
has a circulation well over 75,000, IIRC.

There's a place for "letters to the editors" but IMO such a letter is not a
preferred first resort because it's a poor substitute for resolving a problem
by direct communication.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for setting up road signs on sidewalks- First, they are *road* signs not
pedestrian walkway signs. The further away from the roadway they are moved

the

Quoted message said:

less effective they become.

You are arguing nonsense. Would you advocate setting up warning signs
in an open motor vehicle lane? Would you advocate leaving disassembled
signs in an open motor vehicle lane? Why are you arguing in favor of
leaving them in an open bike lane?

I'm not arguing any such thing. Leaving temporary warning signs in a bike lane
after they are no longer performing their purpose is different than posting
them there. Your post led me to believe that you believe that a bike lane is
sacrosanct, that warning signs should never be erected in them. Lanes that
would otherwise be open- both bike and other lanes- are often closed by the
placement of signs warning of special conditions ahead. For example,
"Construction Ahead- Right Lane Closed" signs are posted before the actual
construction closes the lane. If you honestly believe that those signs all
belong adjacent to the roadway or, at worst, on the curb line then *one* of us
is arguing nonsense but it isn't me.

Quoted message said:

In a situation where there is no on-street parking...

Look at the pictures.

Nice bit of editing, Frank. I was addressing hypothetical situations in general
terms, not the situation of the OP that started this thread, so tell me.
Exactly how does one view pictures that have not been posted?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

You are arguing nonsense. Would you advocate setting up warning signs
in an open motor vehicle lane? Would you advocate leaving disassembled
signs in an open motor vehicle lane? Why are you arguing in favor of
leaving them in an open bike lane?

I'm not arguing any such thing. Leaving temporary warning signs in a bike lane
after they are no longer performing their purpose is different than posting
them there. Your post led me to believe that you believe that a bike lane is
sacrosanct, that warning signs should never be erected in them.

I believe that a bike lane, if provided, should be as sacrosanct as an
ordinary travel lane. In my experience, that's not been the case. Yes,
I have ridden around warning signs placed in bike lanes, when moving the
sign four feet rightward onto the curb would have had no detrimental
effect on anyone - motorist, cyclist or pedestrian.

This behavior is a symptom of "bikes don't matter" thinking, the same
sort that infamously caused a road crew in your state to severely injure
a cyclist by leaving a bridge surface in a deadly condition, with no
warning. It was OK for cars - and hey, bikes don't matter!

I think DOTs and construction companies need to be taught that bikes
_do_ matter.

Lanes that

Quoted message said:

would otherwise be open- both bike and other lanes- are often closed by the
placement of signs warning of special conditions ahead. For example,
"Construction Ahead- Right Lane Closed" signs are posted before the actual
construction closes the lane. If you honestly believe that those signs all
belong adjacent to the roadway or, at worst, on the curb line then *one* of us
is arguing nonsense but it isn't me.

And of course, I never said _all_ such signs belong adjacent to the roadway.

But despite my limited experience with bike lanes, I've seen them used
as sign mounting space, when there was no particular reason to do that.
We're looking at an example of a bike lane as equipment storage space.
And I've seen plenty of examples of bike lanes as storage space for a
year's worth of glass and gravel, and five year's worth of potholes.

In general, I think the mentality is, frequently, "It's only for bikes,"
as in "it doesn't matter." I think bikes matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In a situation where there is no on-street parking...

Look at the pictures.

Nice bit of editing, Frank. I was addressing hypothetical situations in general
terms, not the situation of the OP that started this thread, so tell me.
Exactly how does one view pictures that have not been posted?

Your complete statement was "In a situation where there is no on-street
parking that could obscure the signs and the roadway has no shoulders, I
might see some utility in putting signs on the curb." The pictures of
this incident showed that this was the case.

And incidentally, your "might" in that sentence makes me wonder... why
shouldn't it be the _default_ policy to keep a travel lane - that is, a
bike lane - clear if possible?

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

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

We're looking at an example of a bike lane as equipment storage space.

This seems to illustrate the root of not this but also some of our past
disagreements in similiar cases. You appear to believe that this was a case of
a road crew worker thinking, "I'm not going to bother to move this heavy angle
iron tripod completely off the roadway. I'll just throw it in the bike lane.
Screw those bike riders." while I think it's much more likely that he or she
simply got careless and thought it *was* completely off the roadway. Read the
OP's post detailing the outcome of his talk with the construction company's
rep. This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It
was a simple human error and all the letters to newspapers, transportation
departments, and all those other still unspecified agencies you say you'd write
will never eliminate that.

Quoted message said:

And incidentally, your "might" in that sentence makes me wonder... why
shouldn't it be the _default_ policy to keep a travel lane - that is, a
bike lane - clear if possible?

Of course it should. It should also be a default policy to complete all road
construction projects as rapidly as possible. Now if you can just supply a
universally accepted absolute time frame that defines "possible" we'll be onto
something.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

We're looking at an example of a bike lane as equipment storage space.

This seems to illustrate the root of not this but also some of our past
disagreements in similiar cases. You appear to believe that this was a case of
a road crew worker thinking, "I'm not going to bother to move this heavy angle
iron tripod completely off the roadway. I'll just throw it in the bike lane.
Screw those bike riders." while I think it's much more likely that he or she
simply got careless and thought it *was* completely off the roadway. Read the
OP's post detailing the outcome of his talk with the construction company's
rep.

Here's what I find, on re-reading:

"The construction company told me that they take the signs down when
they are not doing road work, they just don't bother to clear the shoulder."

"They just drop them in the shoulder and set them up again the next day
when construction resumes."

"I asked them to move the signs 6 feet farther from the traffic lanes
when they take them down. They don't have to haul them anywhere. As of
yesterday, they had not done that. The signs were down but this time
blocking the entire shoulder right out the the lane marker. Maybe the
word had not reached the job site."

"I talked to the company again and the owner wanted to meet with me at
the job site. He was very responsive to my complaint, and said they are
concerned about the safety issue."

This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It

Quoted message said:

was a simple human error ...

It seems to me the statements above disprove what you say. Did I miss
something? (Admittedly, I haven't re-read the entire thread.)

If it was a "simple human error," it consisted of thinking "Bikes? What
bikes? We can lay this stuff in the roadway until we want to set it up
again."

Of _course_ the company representative later said they were "concerned
about the safety issue." As much as I don't like certain aspects of our
litigous society, it does get most companies to act with some sense of
responsibility - especially when caught!

and all the letters to newspapers, transportation

Quoted message said:

departments, and all those other still unspecified agencies you say you'd write
will never eliminate that.

Nothing is perfect, Bob. But after a call to the DOT, the city or
county engineer who hires these contractors, and a letter to the editor,
I'd think the odds are good that the _next_ contractor would exercise
more care.

I could be wrong, of course. I'm continually astonished at the lack of
good sense out there!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And incidentally, your "might" in that sentence makes me wonder... why

Quoted message said:

shouldn't it be the _default_ policy to keep a travel lane - that is, a
bike lane - clear if possible?

Of course it should. It should also be a default policy to complete all road
construction projects as rapidly as possible. Now if you can just supply a
universally accepted absolute time frame that defines "possible" we'll be onto
something.

It's hard to believe you think it wasn't possible in this case. Or in
any similar case.

Agreed, I doubt we'll reach a universally accepted standard. Just look
at the trouble convincing people that the road isn't to be used for
storage! But I think I'm making some headway. Every little bit helps!

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

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

Here's what I find, on re-reading:

"The construction company told me that they take the signs down when
they are not doing road work, they just don't bother to clear the shoulder."

"They just drop them in the shoulder and set them up again the next day
when construction resumes."

"I asked them to move the signs 6 feet farther from the traffic lanes
when they take them down. They don't have to haul them anywhere. As of
yesterday, they had not done that. The signs were down but this time
blocking the entire shoulder right out the the lane marker. Maybe the
word had not reached the job site."

"I talked to the company again and the owner wanted to meet with me at
the job site. He was very responsive to my complaint, and said they are
concerned about the safety issue."

This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It

Quoted message said:

was a simple human error ...

It seems to me the statements above disprove what you say. Did I miss
something? (Admittedly, I haven't re-read the entire thread.)

Yes, I believe you have missed something that being the difference between a
marked bike lane and a shoulder. Perhaps I misinterpret what you quote but I
can only rely on the quotes supplied and those quotes all specify "shoulder".

Quoted message said:

If it was a "simple human error," it consisted of thinking "Bikes? What
bikes? We can lay this stuff in the roadway until we want to set it up
again."

On the shoulder does not equal in the roadway.

Quoted message said:

Of _course_ the company representative later said they were "concerned
about the safety issue." As much as I don't like certain aspects of our
litigous society, it does get most companies to act with some sense of
responsibility - especially when caught!

Perhaps you also missed the part that said, "He was very responsive to my
complaint..." as well? This back and forth isn't getting either of us anywhere
though. You apparently think I'm defending the worker that left the sign tripod
where it could be hit while blaming the cyclist for hitting it. I'm not. OTOH,
I think your suggested course of action- numerous letters, threatened legal
action, and attempting to stir up a public outcry- is using a 20 lb hammer to
swat a fly. Maybe I'm mistaken so let's once again agree to disagree, ok?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Hunrobe said:

Quoted message said:

Frank Krygowski [email hidden]

wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

Here's what I find, on re-reading:

"The construction company told me that they take the signs down when
they are not doing road work, they just don't bother to clear the shoulder."

"They just drop them in the shoulder and set them up again the next day
when construction resumes."

"I asked them to move the signs 6 feet farther from the traffic lanes
when they take them down. They don't have to haul them anywhere. As of
yesterday, they had not done that. The signs were down but this time
blocking the entire shoulder right out the the lane marker. Maybe the
word had not reached the job site."

"I talked to the company again and the owner wanted to meet with me at
the job site. He was very responsive to my complaint, and said they are
concerned about the safety issue."

This wasn't a case of intentionally storing anything in a bike lane. It

Quoted message said:

was a simple human error ...

It seems to me the statements above disprove what you say. Did I miss
something? (Admittedly, I haven't re-read the entire thread.)

Yes, I believe you have missed something that being the difference between a
marked bike lane and a shoulder. Perhaps I misinterpret what you quote but I
can only rely on the quotes supplied and those quotes all specify "shoulder".

Quoted message said:

If it was a "simple human error," it consisted of thinking "Bikes? What
bikes? We can lay this stuff in the roadway until we want to set it up
again."

On the shoulder does not equal in the roadway.

Quoted message said:

Of _course_ the company representative later said they were "concerned
about the safety issue." As much as I don't like certain aspects of our
litigous society, it does get most companies to act with some sense of
responsibility - especially when caught!

Perhaps you also missed the part that said, "He was very responsive to my
complaint..." as well? This back and forth isn't getting either of us anywhere
though. You apparently think I'm defending the worker that left the sign tripod
where it could be hit while blaming the cyclist for hitting it. I'm not. OTOH,
I think your suggested course of action- numerous letters, threatened legal
action, and attempting to stir up a public outcry- is using a 20 lb hammer to
swat a fly. Maybe I'm mistaken so let's once again agree to disagree, ok?

Fine. The picture of the "shoulder" is now taken down, so I can't point
to what it _really_ looked like anyway.

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