Below is a press release from CT Governor Jodi Rell about increasing funding for bike/ped projects. Of note:
Researve 50% of funding for this...which means road projects will be scaled back to fit in the sidewalk/bike path aspects of a project.
Filling in the gaps of the ped trails in the eastern parts of the state. Yeah, b/c we ALL commute on the bike/ped paths to work. How about completing the missing sections of expressways!?!?
and...
restriping roads to provide wider shoulders for bikes...how about restriping roads to allow for left-turns lanes?!?!? CT doesn't do enough of it.
READ THE PRESS RELEASE BELOW!:
Governor M. Jodi Rell today announced that as part of an ongoing effort to provide a more balanced transportation network, the state is changing its policies and practices to be more supportive of bicycling and pedestrian projects — a move that will ultimately make it safer and more convenient for Connecticut residents to bike and walk.
"If we are going to have a truly "˜multi-modal' transportation system, our focus must include bicycle and pedestrian efforts," Governor Rell said during a news conference on a segment of the East Coast Greenway in Manchester. "As a state, we have made some progress in changing priorities to better incorporate and respond to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. However, the time has come to step up the pace."
"These new initiatives, implemented over the coming months, will continue to push us toward a more equitable statewide transportation infrastructure — one that reflects a growing sector of those walking and cycling on a regular basis," the Governor said. "Many of the improvements we have made so far have come at the local and regional level. They have not been as coordinated statewide as they could be — or should be. And I always believe we can do better."
Currently, for example, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations at rail stations vary from station to station and from transit operator to transit operator. The DOT's initiative is intended to help address these and other impediments to bicycle and pedestrian options.
Governor Rell announced five immediate program changes at the DOT:
Quick Fix Program: This DOT program will quickly respond to relatively minor bicycle and pedestrian issues
DOT Sidewalk Policy: DOT policy will assure that sidewalks are considered as part of the normal roadway design process and that their funding is treated the same as any other element of a road construction project
Funding: DOT will reserve 50 percent ($4 million) of State Transportation Plan-Enhancement funding each year for bicycle and pedestrian projects and allow the use of STP-Urban funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects
Project Design Manual: DOT will enhance the existing project design manual so bicycle and pedestrians needs are fully considered as part of the project design process
Inter-agency Collaboration: DOT and the state Department of Environmental Protection will collaborate more closely on issues related to bike and pedestrian needs
The DOT has identified several other important actions it will take immediately. These steps are intended to demonstrate the agency's commitment to implementing the new initiative and assuring it meets the goal of improving bicycle and pedestrian travel in Connecticut.
East Coast Greenway — East Hartford segment: Provide $300,000 to finalize the design of a 2-mile segment that will fill a major gap in the Greenway, which is part of a larger greenway planned to extend from Maine to Florida
East Coast Greenway — Manchester to Bolton: Provide funding to finish design plans through Manchester and Bolton Notch, which will advance plans to fill this second major gap in this statewide trail
Farmington Canal Trail — Cheshire: Provide funding to design a key segment of a trail that extends from New Haven to Northampton, Mass., eliminating one of the remaining large gaps in the Canal Trail
Bike Storage at Train Stations: Improve and expand bike storage facilities at the state's three largest train stations — New Haven, Stamford and Bridgeport — which will later be extended to all stations
Small Safety Projects: Correcting small-scale pedestrian and bicycle safety problems such as the restriping of crosswalks and pavement markings at the intersection of Route 100 and Park Place in East Haven to allow safer crossings for pedestrians
Road Re-striping: Expand the program of restriping state roads to widen shoulders and narrow travel lines where feasible, which will have the dual benefit of reducing travel speeds and providing more shoulder space for cyclists
"We are casting a wide net to improve both short-term, simple deficiencies in our infrastructure and, at the same time, change the way we do business when it comes to non-motorized infrastructure," said DOT Commissioner Jeffrey A. Parker. "This initiative won't change the face of our state overnight, but it will help us be more responsive to our constituencies. Under this program, we will be securing nearly $4 million dollars a year to put directly toward non-motorized programs, projects and fixes."
$4 million a year dedicated to bicycle projects doesn't seem all that outrageous. That's pennies.
A lot of state DOTs already have provisions to consider ped/bike facilities in new projects. This is just bringing CT up to speed.
QuoteGoing Nuts with Bike/Ped at the expense of roads
That's nothing new here the Bay Area, specifically San Francisco. The new eastern span of the Bay Bridge is going to have a pedestrian walkway/bike path going from Oakland to Treasure Island. The S.F. Bicycle Coalition wanted that path extended to San Francisco by adding on to the existing suspension bridge but that idea was shot down by Caltrans and the state legislature because it was too expensive.
There are also plans in San Francisco to remove traffic lanes and parking spaces to make room for additional bike lanes. Driving in S.F. and finding parking are already difficult so it makes perfect sense to take away lanes and parking spaces and replace them with bike lanes... ugh! :banghead:
Quote$4 million a year dedicated to bicycle projects doesn't seem all that outrageous. That's pennies.
In the grand scheme of things, that is indeed pennies.
Bike/ped projects tend to provide the most bang for the buck. Perhaps not so much in more rural areas, but definitely the case in urban areas, where their costs are miniscule compared to highway projects.
For the past 60+ years the mantra in the US has been roads, roads, and more roads, to the detriment of all else. Bringing some balance back into the equation is most certainly a good thing. Froggie's mention of "bang for the buck" is very apt, because we've already picked all the low-hanging fruit of good road projects. It's gotten to the point where we're spending so much money on new and expanded roads that provide little to no benefit, while saddling taxpayers with huge construction and maintenance bills. It's time to look elsewhere to maximize the potential of all the other modes of travel that have been neglected for so long. That diversified portfolio of transportation options provides a safety net in the face of rising energy prices, weather catastrophes, changing land use patterns and the like. It's also cheaper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9BUyWVg1xI
Is there any bang at all? Certainly it's nice to have bike facilities, but do they actually contribute anything towards improving the transportation situation in a given area (i.e. add more capacity to the transport network, reduce congestion on other modes, etc.)?
Capacity isn't everything, safety is another big factor (and you should definitely watch the YouTube video I posted above to see that safety is very relative). For instance, my street was recently changed from 3 lanes each way to 2 with a center turn lane and bike lanes against the curb. A lot of the local residents who are not cyclists still applauded the project because of the extra buffer space the bike lanes put between traffic and pedestrians. The sidewalks are unfortunately very close to the road, and in several places right up against the curb and 35 mph traffic. The elimination of a few infrequently used parking spaces and the re-striping has made the road hugely safer for everyone, and it actually seems to have improved traffic flow among all the other benefits.
Of course, any individual project might not have much of an impact on overall capacity/congestion concerns, but you do have to start somewhere. Certain obstacles like motor vehicle-only bridges or certain dangerous stretches of roads can be insurmountable to cyclists or pedestrians, even if the overall distance isn't very far. There's a huge number of people (children included) who would like to use their bike for more day-to-day trips, but they're not comfortable riding with traffic. Painted bike lanes aren't the answer for everyone of course, but it's a step in the right direction to building a more comprehensive network that's actually usable for more people.
Bring in all the pedestrian and bicycle accommodations we can. That's what makes a neighborhood a place where people live instead of a place where cars live. It creates a community instead of a face-less strip of bumpers and driveways. With the increased property values and a greater sense of place, it's a good bang for the buck.
The curb bump-outs at pedestrian crossings are such an asset. I can't understate how much less of a psychological barrier that is when crossing even a moderately busy street.
You will never be able to "create a community" through infrastructure. Creating a community involves people, not technology. If right now you walk next door and give your neighbor a bunch of cookies that will do more for creating a community than $4 million worth of bike stuff ever will.
That's a very narrow point of view Scott. Hundreds, even thousands of communities have been destroyed by thoughtless construction of infrastructure. You can't walk next door if your neighbor is on the other side of a major interstate highway, or if they're in the next subdivision separated by a concrete wall. Cycling/pedestrian/transit oriented development is all about improving access, by breaking down barriers and making it actually easier to walk next door or down the street or wherever you need to go without absolutely having to get in your car for every single trip.
It may be narrow but it's 100% true. Creating a community through infrastructure is like fixing the economy through slot machines.
Creating community is very much about infrastructure, in addition to other things. The decisions that are made about where infrastructure goes and how it's used have an enormous impact on the community. Wide arterial streets and highways with lots of traffic separate neighborhoods from one another, so you end up with neighborhood "pods" bounded by those main streets. On the other hand, narrow more pedestrian friendly streets act more as the focus of the neighborhood, linking the people on both sides, rather than acting as a barrier between them. Projects that narrow streets, demolish urban highways, build bike paths, etc., link neighborhoods and communities together. How can you say that has no impact? You're taking an oddly absolutist view to it, using terms like "never be able to" or "100% true" for instance. That in and of itself is just flat out wrong. I'm not saying community is 100% about infrastructure, or that it's always a factor, but it IS a factor that can't be ignored. After all, without any infrastructure, even if it's just a dirt path between houses, there can be no community anyway, so it's certainly important.
Creating a (good) community is done by avoiding infrastructure that doesn't fit with the community, like highways designed for through traffic. Extra infrastructure can also help, such as linking cul-de-sacs with short paved trails, or connecting subdivisions with abutting existing longer trails.
I don't see a world free of the car. I do, however, see a world where a car is not necessary for ordinary trips, but existing patterns of suburban development make this impossible. The problem is entitlement: people feel that they're entitled to their own piece of land and all that comes with it.
Aside: let's not bring bike lanes into it. Their main impact for cyclists who already know what they're doing is that motorists no longer have to pay attention to them, at the expense of cyclists' safety. (The same is true for sidepaths - basically wide sidewalks - at intersections with cross streets and driveways.)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 12, 2010, 08:01:46 PM
Bring in all the pedestrian and bicycle accommodations we can. That's what makes a neighborhood a place where people live instead of a place where cars live. It creates a community instead of a face-less strip of bumpers and driveways. With the increased property values and a greater sense of place, it's a good bang for the buck.
Until those greater property values start killing those along the streets with the increased property taxes. I could also care less about of a "sense of place" relative to the quality of the home/apartment I get for my limited dollars.
[quoute]The curb bump-outs at pedestrian crossings are such an asset. I can't understate how much less of a psychological barrier that is when crossing even a moderately busy street.
[/quote]
And those bump outs really make biking in traffic so much more fun. As a ped, I much prefer the islands between the right turn lane and the cross street, as these elimate walk time being wasted due to conflicts with right turners.
Yes, governments have started to go too far with the ped improvements; some of the road diets for ped safety have created new congestion, and have likely reduced bicycle safety. In a metro area with a population greater than 1 million there will need to be other ways to get around besides walking, but these needs seem to be forgotten.
A cyclist's view on traffic calming: http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/09/20/traffic-calming-what-does-it-say-about-us/ (don't read other stuff on the site if you're easily annoyed by cyclists)
QuoteUntil those greater property values start killing those along the streets with the increased property taxes.
In the cities I'm familiar with, this isn't as much of a problem as you portray it to be.
QuoteAs a ped, I much prefer the islands between the right turn lane and the cross street, as these elimate walk time being wasted due to conflicts with right turners.
The problem here is that right-turners tend to take those "free rights" much faster than they should, with the ensuing safety/severity risk for peds trying to cross.
In my area they have added a Ped Phase only for traffic lights where all 4 sides of traffic are stopped for peds. This adds more congestion for vehicles as there are 30 seconds where all traffic is stopped in addition to the vehicle phases.
So traffic can be sitting at the light for a minute or longer.
Two questions I'd have to ask there:
- Are peds allowed to cross during the green phase?
- Is there a lot of existing pedestrian traffic at that intersection, or is there planned development that would increase pedestrians?
A pedestrian scramble (I think that's the technical term for it) can be very advantageous in areas of high pedestrian volume, or where a lot of them need to cross diagonally, but I've never heard of it being used anywhere other than downtown areas. They can also be very useful at intersections with odd geometries, like 5 and 6 way intersections that would require a pedestrian to wait through two or three cycles of the light to get all the way across.
Quote from: NE2 on December 12, 2010, 09:27:08 PM
The problem is entitlement: people feel that they're entitled to their own piece of land and all that comes with it.
And what is wrong with that?
In previous centuries, land ownership was only for the powerful and wealthy.
Here in the U.S. anyone with the money, and before the mortgage fiasco, many without the money were able to own a bit of land.
I'll tell you this much, I feel much less of a serf now that I have my own property.
Quote from: mightyace on December 13, 2010, 11:30:27 AM
Quote from: NE2 on December 12, 2010, 09:27:08 PM
The problem is entitlement: people feel that they're entitled to their own piece of land and all that comes with it.
And what is wrong with that?
it's unintended consequences. I'd love to own land and so would everyone else, but when you put together a bunch of landowners, you get such blights as planned subdivisions, gated communities, homeowners' associations, arterial roads, strip malls, labyrinthine parking lots, and other misfeatures that give rise to sprawl, sprawl, sprawl.
the problem with people isn't that they're "entitled to own their piece of land"; it's that they feel entitled to use a car to go 0.6 miles down to the grocery store, purchase two items, and return.
^^^
I think you hit the nail right on the head.
It may be part of our "NOW" culture. Just because we can, we do.
For example, before cars, people who lived where I do (over 5 miles to any stores) went "to town" sporadically. (i.e. once every week, two weeks, etc.) This was in part because either using a horse or walking would literally take all day.
I try to minimize my trips out of the house and try to do my shopping coming home from work rather than making a separate trip.
And, if it's only two items, I will "do without" until it is more economical for me to go unless there is a pressing need for the item.
yep, I run errands whenever I have a car, which is about every weekend, sometimes less frequently. This weekend I grabbed about 40 pounds of supplies at Home Depot, and mailed out maybe 130 pounds of highway signs. (Neither of which would have been too fun to do on foot.)
if I need supplies or groceries or whatnot extemporaneously, I will walk to the store and pick up just no more than I can carry home.
This implication that we're discussing a zero sum game in regards to car infrastructure vs. bike and pedestrian infrastructure is false. Especially when the cost of striping a bike lane or bumping out a crosswalk or slapping in a sidewalk is paltry compared to the cost of expanding capacity for cars. Now obviously a distinction must be made between major corridors of regional significance and the local and arterial streets in a given city. In the latter, too many roads are built for absolute peak traffic conditions and we wind up with streets that are wider than they need to be 90% of the time. And all those decades of only improving the infrastructure for cars means residents find themselves with no other option but to drive everywhere. When people have those other options, they use them. Every new bike path I've ever seen is instantly a big hit. I've seen it in small towns, suburbs, mid-size cities and big cities the same. The new bike path behind my apartment building was seeing major usage before they were even done paving it.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 13, 2010, 12:52:39 PM
the problem with people isn't that they're "entitled to own their piece of land"; it's that they feel entitled to use a car to go 0.6 miles down to the grocery store, purchase two items, and return.
Assume a 30 MPG car, a 1 mile drive to grocery store @ 30mph, a 3mph walking speed, and $3/gal gas. That works out to 20 cents to drive to the store round-trip with 4 minutes travel time vs. a 40 minute walk round-trip for free. It's not that I feel entitled for the short trip, it just makes economic sense to me to pay the 20 cents to save 36 minutes of time.
This assumes that you own a car anyway and need it for other reasons. If you wanted one solely to drive to the store, the other costs of ownership would need to be factored in and would greatly change the situation. This also doesn't factor in the environmental cost.
Not that walking and bikes are bad. I bike to work frequently in the winter when we have nice weather here. I just disagree that shorts trips are necessarily due to a sense of entitlement. And FWIW, I own my house on a 1/2 acre of land both because I can afford to and because it makes financial sense long-term for me, not because I feel entitled to it.
if you can make a mile and back in four minutes, you are not living in Suburban Hell. I'd spend four minutes at the first traffic light alone.
Comparing 30 minutes of stress and aggravation to a pleasant 40 minute walk, I know which one I'd choose every time.
Even if you already own a car, you need to account for all the other mileage-related costs of the car. Regular maintenance, oil changes, tires, brakes, etc etc. Not necessarily a significant increase, perhaps another 10-20 cents/mile, but one far too often forgotten by people.
In my case, including insurance and purchase price, I calculated my total car cost out to about 33 cents/mile. So that theoretical 2 mile round-trip to the grocery store is a $0.66 trip.
Also, unless you're buying a huge amount of groceries, another mode you didn't consider for your theoretical store trip was bicycling. Minimal maintenance cost (especially compared to cars). At a 10mph average, you're looking at 12 minutes round-trip travel time.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2010, 05:22:13 PM
Not necessarily a significant increase, perhaps another 10-20 cents/mile, but one far too often forgotten by people.
In my case, including insurance and purchase price, I calculated my total car cost out to about 33 cents/mile.
that "not necessarily a significant increase" is 30 to 60 percent of your total car costs!
(there is a damn good reason why I do not own a car, and that is because I'd hate to be changing my oil every other weekend.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 13, 2010, 05:43:28 PM
(there is a damn good reason why I do not own a car, and that is because I'd hate to be changing my oil every other weekend.)
You would drive 1500-3000 miles per WEEK if you owned a car?
It's Jake. He's been known to drive 1500-3000 miles per DAY. :sombrero:
If they built bike lanes around here I would probably rarely use them, and even then only for recreational purposes–there is nothing but a gas station and housing within biking distance, my job is rather far away (and there is no housing within walking distance even if I wanted to live near to it), and frankly, it's worth not only the time savings but also the respite from the elements to drive rather than attempt to bike. Being outside in Oklahoma is simply a pain in the ass for 75% of the year, and my car can handle a 40 MPH headwind a lot better than I can on a bike.
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2010, 08:34:39 PM
It's Jake. He's been known to drive 1500-3000 miles per DAY. :sombrero:
1500 miles/24 hrs = 62.5 miles per hour. (3,000/24 = 125 miles per hour)
I think you need to do some walking or biking Scott, you're getting too much carbon monoxide from your car/truck.
Quote from: route56 on December 13, 2010, 06:18:42 PM
You would drive 1500-3000 miles per WEEK if you owned a car?
per weekend. I work during the week. when I did not have a day job, I was putting in 5000 regularly per week.
Quote from: Adam Smith on December 13, 2010, 08:46:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2010, 08:34:39 PM
It's Jake. He's been known to drive 1500-3000 miles per DAY. :sombrero:
1500 miles/24 hrs = 62.5 miles per hour. (3,000/24 = 125 miles per hour)
I think you need to do some walking or biking Scott, you're getting too much carbon monoxide from your car/truck.
You've never been on a roadtrip with Jake driving, have you? :sombrero:
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2010, 11:25:45 PM
You've never been on a roadtrip with Jake driving, have you? :sombrero:
and neither have I.
I rather see more bike paths. Frankly, sharing the road is a pain in the ass, especially in Portland. I volunteered in Downtown Portland for a while, and I almost collided with 3 bicyclists, all of which went through a stop sign.
Also, Portland was the first city to put these up:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2442%2F3804464399_d75162feec.jpg&hash=ac2a26a3ab9746ec9cc25812da6377aca5c2def5)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 13, 2010, 05:20:22 PM
if you can make a mile and back in four minutes, you are not living in Suburban Hell. I'd spend four minutes at the first traffic light alone.
Comparing 30 minutes of stress and aggravation to a pleasant 40 minute walk, I know which one I'd choose every time.
Traffic isn't quite as bad here in my quiet corner of Florida as it is in San Diego. There's only 1 light between my house and the closest Winn-Dixie. Our weather is less consistent than yours also.
Quote from: froggie on December 13, 2010, 05:22:13 PM
Even if you already own a car, you need to account for all the other mileage-related costs of the car. Regular maintenance, oil changes, tires, brakes, etc etc. Not necessarily a significant increase, perhaps another 10-20 cents/mile, but one far too often forgotten by people.
GSA mileage reimbursement is currently set at $0.50 per mile. It tends to track gas mileage, so at 30mpg and $3/gal gas that would be $0.40 per mile in costs above gas alone. Congratulations! Your $0.33 per mile cost is significantly better than the federal reimbursement rate.
Quote from: realjd on December 14, 2010, 07:45:53 AM
Our weather is less consistent than yours also.
I did the walking thing in Boston too, which features basically Florida's rain and oppressive humidity ... and also a little thing called snow every so often!
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 14, 2010, 07:01:45 AM
Also, Portland was the first city to put these up:
What is that? Some sort of left turn lane for the bikes?
Quote from: Duke87 on December 14, 2010, 08:16:52 PM
Quote from: KEK Inc. on December 14, 2010, 07:01:45 AM
Also, Portland was the first city to put these up:
What is that? Some sort of left turn lane for the bikes?
Yes - it's a "bike box",
an attempt to reconcile cyclists' desire to stay in the bike lane with their necessity to turn left never mind - it's only in the rightmost lane. It can be dangerous if one enters it just as the light changes. (By the way, Portland may have been the first US city to use them, but I think, like most "experimental" facilities, they're from overseas.)
The important thing about bike boxes is the ability for cyclists to get in front of waiting vehicular traffic, which reduces the chance of a vehicle turning right and swiping a cyclist who's going straight. The green paint acts as a caution zone for turning vehicles, but the important part is having the queue space in front of motor vehicles so the cyclists can get going before any vehicles have a chance to turn into them. On a wide oneway street like the one pictured, the bike box is basically useless for left turning cyclists, but it still benefits from the protections against right turning vehicles, which is one of the most common accidents.
Quote from: jjakucyk on December 14, 2010, 09:01:22 PM
The important thing about bike boxes is the ability for cyclists to get in front of waiting vehicular traffic, which reduces the chance of a vehicle turning right and swiping a cyclist who's going straight. The green paint acts as a caution zone for turning vehicles, but the important part is having the queue space in front of motor vehicles so the cyclists can get going before any vehicles have a chance to turn into them. On a wide oneway street like the one pictured, the bike box is basically useless for left turning cyclists, but it still benefits from the protections against right turning vehicles, which is one of the most common accidents.
This is only "necessary" in states like Oregon where motor vehicles cannot enter the bike lane to turn right. In Florida, the bike lane is treated as part of the roadway, and right turns are made from it:
Quote from: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/laws/ped_bike_bikeLaws3.shtmFor this reason, a motorist approaching a corner to make a right turn should - after yielding to any cyclist present - approach the right-hand curb or edge, even where a bicycle lane is present. Doing so emphasizes the driver's intent to turn and establishes the order in which the driver and any overtaking cyclist will enter the intersection, so as not to surprise the cyclist with a sharp "right hook" turn at the corner. Approaching the right curb or edge also partially removes the driver from the path of overtaking motor vehicles.
Of course drivers rarely do this, but signs would educate them as to the proper method of turning right.
So what are everyone's opinions here on bike lanes? Personally I like them, but I know a large number of hard-core cyclists don't. I haven't figured out if they have a valid reason for not liking them other than the fact that some cycling-activists would rather ride in traffic and smugly slow down cars.
Painted bike lanes have a place in the transportation hierarchy, but they're not a fix-all solution. There's two main issues that must be dealt with whether an avid cyclist or not. The first is that when motorists see that there is a bike lane or a side path or whatever, they assume that cyclists must use it and they get angry at cyclists who don't. There's several legitimate reasons for a cyclist not to use a bike lane, such as avoiding debris, preparing to make a left turn, or to overtake illegally parked delivery vehicles. The second problem is that debris. Since cars don't drive in the bike lane, they tend to sweep road debris into it which makes it nearly useless for cyclists. Monthly street sweeping is inadequate to keep up with this.
More experienced cyclists would rather ride in the travel lane for the reasons stated above. Also because, quite frankly, it is usually safer. Storm drains are not a problem in the travel lanes, and it forces motorists to observe and wait for a safe opportunity to pass rather than buzzing by someone in the bike lane. There's nothing smug about it, and any cyclist who appears to be blocking traffic from passing is usually doing so because they know passing would be unsafe.
the smug bike behavior for me isn't the use or non-use of the bike lane. it's the running of red lights, or not stopping at all for stop signs.
I hate encountering the same bicyclist block after block - does he not realize that if he lets me pass once, he doesn't ever see me again, but if repeatedly we keep running into each other, at some point (just by the inevitability of statistics) I will literally run into him???
also, riding up the sidewalk in the wrong direction. that's just frightening as a pedestrian because you just never expect anyone to be doing that - silently and out of nowhere, some bike passes inches from you doing 15mph on a narrow sidewalk.
Salmoning as a pedestrian is fine (and is in fact recommended, so you can keep an eye out for vehicular traffic nearest to you) but on a bike it's just antisocial.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2010, 10:33:14 AMthe smug bike behavior for me isn't the use or non-use of the bike lane. it's the running of red lights, or not stopping at all for stop signs.
I would go with that stricture where stop signs are concerned, but not red traffic lights. I don't really have an objection if a cyclist, having taken full advantage of adequate visibility, sees that he can cop a free right turn or pass along the top of a tee junction without conflicting with other traffic and without interfering with the behavior of other, law-abiding, road users.
QuoteI hate encountering the same bicyclist block after block - does he not realize that if he lets me pass once, he doesn't ever see me again, but if repeatedly we keep running into each other, at some point (just by the inevitability of statistics) I will literally run into him???
Look at it from his point of view: he has no way of knowing if he will catch up with you at a stoplight or stop sign, thus starting the passing tag all over again. As a general rule, this situation doesn't lend itself to mutually beneficial tit-for-tat.
My personal impression, as someone who has driven for 18 years and has been a daily cycle commuter for 11, is that lots of motorists devote unnecessary energy to passing bicyclists because they don't want bicyclists in their blind spots, where it is more difficult to judge the distance between the cyclist and the car and where any sudden unexpected movements are likely to go undetected until it is too late to avoid an accident. I can understand this behavior as an attempt at defensive driving, but personally I think it puts the cart before the horse. The better and more robust approach is to assume that cyclists won't stay overtaken, and to avoid positioning oneself in such a way that a cyclist has nowhere to go (e.g. by deliberately moving so close to the curb that the cyclist can't pass).
When I am on a cycle, I try to follow a rule of minimizing the angle between my path of movement and the general direction of traffic, especially when I pull out to overtake parked cars. This improves my visibility to motorists and helps avoid situations where a motorist can't see me until the absolute last minute. As a motorist I have had cyclists whip out of my blind spot just as I am about to run into them, so I fully understand how discomfiting the experience is for motorists. But for as long as there are a significant proportion of cyclists who are naive to life behind the wheel of a car or an even larger motor vehicle, motorists have to be prepared for unexpected behavior.
Quotealso, riding up the sidewalk in the wrong direction. that's just frightening as a pedestrian because you just never expect anyone to be doing that - silently and out of nowhere, some bike passes inches from you doing 15mph on a narrow sidewalk.
Cyclists on the sidewalk are a major nuisance, especially on typical American suburban sidewalks which tend to be narrow (I think the standard width in Wichita is 3' or 4'). It doesn't really matter whether the cyclist is moving head-on or in the same direction. As a general rule, I think cycling on the sidewalk should be either banned or effectively discouraged except for young children or novice cyclists, exceptions being limited to sidewalks where an engineering evaluation has showed that shared use can be safely accommodated. In Britain pavement cycling is flat-out illegal except on certain tracks which are explicitly signed as being open to cyclists.
I don't even like to encounter other pedestrians when I am walking down a typical suburban sidewalk. The paved width is so narrow that it essentially accommodates only one pedestrian "lane," which makes it very hard to avoid unwanted staring matches when someone is approaching from the opposite direction. In other countries where pedestrian pavements are a more important and more heavily used part of the overall transportation system, there is almost always enough width for at least two pedestrians to walk abreast, and the entirety of the width between the curb and some architectural feature which delimits the boundary between public and private--outside wall of a high-rise building or a garden wall, say--is paved.
QuoteSalmoning as a pedestrian is fine (and is in fact recommended, so you can keep an eye out for vehicular traffic nearest to you) but on a bike it's just antisocial.
I wouldn't consider that an universal rule--contraflow cycle lanes have been used successfully in Britain to give cyclists enhanced mobility on one-way streets and false culs-de-sac in city-center districts.
Where curbside cycle lanes are concerned, I am agnostic. In 11 years there has been just one occasion where I have been yelled at for using the road instead of a parallel cyclists-only facility, and the facility in question was actually a parallel separated cycle track rather than a curbside cycle lane. (In this particular case, I opted to cycle in a bus lane instead of using the cycle track, because I wanted to avoid dealing with driveway crossings, and a bus driver pulled up next to me in the general-purpose lane and opened the door so he could yell at me for using "his" lane. I don't think he realized that the bus lane signs clearly indicated that cyclists could use the bus lane and therefore my use of it was perfectly within the law.) Drain gratings, debris, and water ponding due to fallen leaves clogging the drains are all real problems with cycle lanes, but in my experience motorists are sensible enough to realize that if cyclists are using the general-purpose lane instead of the cycle lane, it is for a good reason which normally is visually evident.
In most states it IS illegal to ride on the sidewalk anyway, at least for people older than 16. Bicycles are considered vehicles, and it's illegal to operate a vehicle on sidewalks. This is something that's made Segway adoption difficult. They're too fast to operate safely on sidewalks, especially since they're so quiet, but too slow to really operate on the roads too.
It is also worth remembering that a cyclist/pedestrian collision can seriously injure or kill both parties, and in Britain at least there are examples of cyclists who have received lengthy custodial sentences for fatally running down pedestrians. (Threads discussing such incidents are a bit of a specialty on SABRE, where it is not uncommon for motorists to complain that cyclists get off lightly compared to motorists guilty of similar offenses.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 15, 2010, 11:22:57 AM
I would go with that stricture where stop signs are concerned, but not red traffic lights. I don't really have an objection if a cyclist, having taken full advantage of adequate visibility, sees that he can cop a free right turn or pass along the top of a tee junction without conflicting with other traffic and without interfering with the behavior of other, law-abiding, road users.
going along the top of the Tee or doing a free right turn are fine by me, because indeed you get great visibility on a bike, and can see the situation unfolding as you approach at a relatively slow rate of speed. I mean zooming through a red light at a standard X intersection.
QuoteLook at it from his point of view: he has no way of knowing if he will catch up with you at a stoplight or stop sign, thus starting the passing tag all over again. As a general rule, this situation doesn't lend itself to mutually beneficial tit-for-tat.
by about the fourth encounter, he should have some understanding of what is going on - and he should quickly figure out that it's his scofflaw attitude that is 100% responsible for the problem.
Quoteblind spots
a pretty significant problem with vehicle design, wouldn't you think? the problem is extra disconcerting to me because I rent a different car every week, so part of the learning curve is figuring out where one's blind spots are and how much I have to crane my neck to get around them. My '89 Escort had little fisheye mirrors (similar to what you'd find on a box truck) stuck to the main rear-view side mirrors, and that really helped matters out greatly. On a rental car, I tend to just take the headrests off. as I tell people: I'd rather avoid an accident than survive one.
I can see the practical impossibility of preventing blind spots in large vehicles (especially those with no rear windows), but why exactly do compact cars come with them? Maybe that's what the feds should be focusing on, as opposed to requiring an active parking camera. I'd rather avoid a high-speed collision on the arterial road than a 3mph collision in my own driveway. "oops, hit the planter again" is nothing compared to blowing away a bicyclist.
QuoteIt doesn't really matter whether the cyclist is moving head-on or in the same direction.
head-on, you can at least
see them coming. That, to me, is a big difference!
QuoteAs a general rule, I think cycling on the sidewalk should be either banned or effectively discouraged except for young children or novice cyclists
I sense a flaw with that reasoning. What if I were to propose that novice drivers be permitted to drive the wrong way down a one-way street?
QuoteI don't even like to encounter other pedestrians when I am walking down a typical suburban sidewalk. The paved width is so narrow that it essentially accommodates only one pedestrian "lane," which makes it very hard to avoid unwanted staring matches when someone is approaching from the opposite direction.
in my experience, the sidewalk tends to accommodate two lanes. One in each direction is generally comfortable, unless someone has a British moment and we attempt to pass each other on the left, resulting in an "after you - no, after
you" moment of awkwardness.
the real trouble comes when a pair of people walking two astride refuses to merge into one lane. That's just overstepping your right of way.
QuoteI wouldn't consider that an universal rule--contraflow cycle lanes have been used successfully in Britain to give cyclists enhanced mobility on one-way streets and false culs-de-sac in city-center districts.
oh, I had meant salmoning on the sidewalk. If there is a specific contraflow bike lane, then I'll assume there's a good reason for it and wont begrudge your right to use it.
Quote from: jjakucyk on December 15, 2010, 11:34:39 AM
This is something that's made Segway adoption difficult. They're too fast to operate safely on sidewalks, especially since they're so quiet, but too slow to really operate on the roads too.
also, the fact that they make you look like an entitled asshole.
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2010, 08:38:06 AMSo what are everyone's opinions here on bike lanes? Personally I like them, but I know a large number of hard-core cyclists don't. I haven't figured out if they have a valid reason for not liking them other than the fact that some cycling-activists would rather ride in traffic and smugly slow down cars.
1)They are often too narrow
2)Cars give less of a wide berth, feeling they can get as close to the line as they want, which coupled with point 1 makes it not very pleasant - because of this, 99% of cycle-only lanes are too narrow
3)the gutter is normally taken as part of the width, so a large amount of the path is useless for anything other than a buffer to the kerb, which when you don't have enough space on the road side for safe passing isn't great.
4)they often have cars parked in them or are sited in the door space of parked cars
Done well, cycle lanes are great, done badly and they have negative benefits. Done really badly, they'll end up here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/)
I find on-sidewalk cycle lanes worse than on-road ones, and shared-use pedestrian/cycle paths are even worse, especially when there's lots of pedestrians.
Quote from: jjakucyk on December 15, 2010, 10:11:18 AMThe first is that when motorists see that there is a bike lane or a side path or whatever, they assume that cyclists must use it and they get angry at cyclists who don't.
Indeed, I once had a motorist irate with me and a friend as we were cycling two abreast, taking up half the traffic lane and the driver didn't want to cross over the centre line to overtake us (there was nothing coming, and we couldn't hear his engine, so it scared the life out of us when he honked his horn and started hurling abuse that we shouldn't be in the middle of the road and that we had to let him pass - which we don't - we should, but don't have to. We weren't even going slowly).
Quoteit forces motorists to observe and wait for a safe opportunity to pass rather than buzzing by someone in the bike lane. There's nothing smug about it, and any cyclist who appears to be blocking traffic from passing is usually doing so because they know passing would be unsafe.
Or doesn't know that there's a car behind them, or needs to be in that lane to turn. I normally let cars past by slowing slightly and moving towards the side of the road - I won't do that if I need to be near the middle of the road to make a right turn.
And the amount of times I've pulled over slowed right down and waved the person to go past me only for them to refuse to do it for no reason and prefer to sit on my tail. Often they get annoyed about the slow pace I'm going, which I'm doing for them. Normally after they refuse, I pull out into the middle of the lane and accelerate - partially to stop them being 4ft behind me creeping quietly (never works), partially as I don't want to go slowly, partially out of not wanting to hold them up, even though they seemingly want to.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2010, 12:15:08 PMI mean zooming through a red light at a standard X intersection.
Yup, I figured that was the scenario you had in mind, but I thought it was worth pointing out other cases. I'm also used to the viewpoint (which personally I think is wrong-headed) that cyclists shouldn't be doing things motorists cannot legally do because it is unfair to motorists.
QuoteQuoteLook at it from his point of view: he has no way of knowing if he will catch up with you at a stoplight or stop sign, thus starting the passing tag all over again. As a general rule, this situation doesn't lend itself to mutually beneficial tit-for-tat.
by about the fourth encounter, he should have some understanding of what is going on - and he should quickly figure out that it's his scofflaw attitude that is 100% responsible for the problem.
Not necessarily--there are plenty of scenarios that can lead to repeated overtakes even when both cyclist and motorist are following the law (e.g., closely spaced stoplights, bus making frequent stops to pick up or drop off passengers, etc.).
QuoteQuoteAs a general rule, I think cycling on the sidewalk should be either banned or effectively discouraged except for young children or novice cyclists
I sense a flaw with that reasoning. What if I were to propose that novice drivers be permitted to drive the wrong way down a one-way street?
The two situations are not analogous since child cyclists tend to be slower and less confident, while a novice driver has access to the same horsepower as an experienced driver.
I would not argue that an exception for child cyclists be created where the existing situation is that all cyclists are banned from sidewalks. On the other hand, if all cyclists are allowed to use the sidewalk (as is, I understand, the case in many American cities where local ordinances allow cyclists to use sidewalks), I would focus more on banning the adult cyclists. Adult cyclists have the speed, mass and musculature to do maximum damage to pedestrians in pedestrian/cycle collisions, and there are tradeoffs in taking away a place where children can learn to cycle proficiently while protected from traffic.
Quote from: english si on December 15, 2010, 12:26:45 PM
Done well, cycle lanes are great, done badly and they have negative benefits. Done really badly, they'll end up here (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/)
I'm not sure if I understand the logistics of that. Is the bicyclist supposed to jump a diagonal curb and ride between the red, white, and black pylons? And then plow into the back of the parked car? What is the optimal path the bicyclist is supposed to take?
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 15, 2010, 12:35:38 PM
Not necessarily--there are plenty of scenarios that can lead to repeated overtakes even when both cyclist and motorist are following the law (e.g., closely spaced stoplights, bus making frequent stops to pick up or drop off passengers, etc.).
in that case it's a legitimate concern. I just distinctly remember a bicyclist and I passing each other about 11 or 12 times because he breezed through every four-way stop and red light, while I did not get a single green light.
(yes, I probably should've chosen a better route to take, but it's tough to look for old US-201 signs while not actually driving the old alignment.)
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 15, 2010, 11:22:57 AM
Cyclists on the sidewalk are a major nuisance, especially on typical American suburban sidewalks which tend to be narrow (I think the standard width in Wichita is 3' or 4'). It doesn't really matter whether the cyclist is moving head-on or in the same direction. As a general rule, I think cycling on the sidewalk should be either banned or effectively discouraged except for young children or novice cyclists, exceptions being limited to sidewalks where an engineering evaluation has showed that shared use can be safely accommodated. In Britain pavement cycling is flat-out illegal except on certain tracks which are explicitly signed as being open to cyclists.
evident.
In Florida, sidewalk riding is legal (unless banned locally). At least here in Palm Bay, they usually make the sidewalks wide like a multi-use path would be to accommodate. The law says a bicycle on a sidewalk must yield to pedestrians on foot and is considered legally a pedestrian instead of a motor vehicle so they must follow crosswalk laws and such.
When I bike to work, I usually ride down the sidewalk. Foot traffic is low, the sidewalks are wide, and I feel more comfortable riding separate from traffic. I do have to be more cautious though at driveways and cross streets on the sidewalk than I would in the striped bike lane in the road.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2010, 12:15:08 PM
oh, I had meant salmoning on the sidewalk. If there is a specific contraflow bike lane, then I'll assume there's a good reason for it and wont begrudge your right to use it.
Can you salmon on a sidewalk? I thought they were bidirectional. Walking on the road you are supposed to walk against traffic. Do sidewalks then go with or against traffic?
QuoteIn most states it IS illegal to ride on the sidewalk anyway, at least for people older than 16. Bicycles are considered vehicles, and it's illegal to operate a vehicle on sidewalks.
This is actually a misnomer. As a general rule, state bike laws specify that (following example taken from Mississippi Section 63-3-207) bicyclists riding on a highway
shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. Such doesn't apply when bikes are ridden on the sidewalk. In fact, Florida for example goes as far as to specify (Section 316.2065) that anyone riding a bike on the sidewalk
has all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances. Washington State (Section 46.61.261) specifies that drivers must yield to bicycles (and of course peds) on the sidewalk.
Going through some of the state statutes, the only state I found that explicitly prohibits bicycle riding on the sidewalk is Wisconsin...but even they allow local jursidictions to reverse that and allow bicyclists to use the sidewalk (Section 346.94). Most of the states I checked allow bicycle riding on the sidewalk unless specifically prohibited by local/county ordinance. In every case, though, bicyclists using the sidewalk must yield right-of-way to pedestrians.
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2010, 02:19:56 PM
Can you salmon on a sidewalk? I thought they were bidirectional. Walking on the road you are supposed to walk against traffic. Do sidewalks then go with or against traffic?
well, whether it is considered salmoning or not, sneaking up behind a pedestrian and then nearly blowing them off the road as you pass doing 15mph makes you an asshole.
Quote from: froggie on December 15, 2010, 02:28:05 PMIn every case, though, bicyclists using the sidewalk must yield right-of-way to pedestrians.
good luck with that. no one yields right of way to pedestrians. the other day I was nearly totalled by someone flooring it off a four-way stop, despite the fact that I had already walked halfway across the intersection by the time he arrived at his stop line.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2010, 02:35:03 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2010, 02:19:56 PM
Can you salmon on a sidewalk? I thought they were bidirectional. Walking on the road you are supposed to walk against traffic. Do sidewalks then go with or against traffic?
well, whether it is considered salmoning or not, sneaking up behind a pedestrian and then nearly blowing them off the road as you pass doing 15mph makes you an asshole.
Most bikers around here will yell "on the left" or otherwise make themselves known as they're getting ready to pass. Personally, I'll stop or pull around them in the grass if I can't get enough clearance on the sidewalk itself.
There's a guy in my neighborhood who rides his vespa down the sidewalks. And God help you if you're a pedestrian in his path! I saw him bitch at one guy walking his dog who didn't vacate the sidewalk quick enough for his tastes.
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2010, 02:40:35 PM
There's a guy in my neighborhood who rides his vespa down the sidewalks. And God help you if you're a pedestrian in his path! I saw him bitch at one guy walking his dog who didn't vacate the sidewalk quick enough for his tastes.
isn't that blatantly illegal? Someone needs to throw a garbage can in his path and claim self-defense.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 15, 2010, 02:44:40 PM
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2010, 02:40:35 PM
There's a guy in my neighborhood who rides his vespa down the sidewalks. And God help you if you're a pedestrian in his path! I saw him bitch at one guy walking his dog who didn't vacate the sidewalk quick enough for his tastes.
isn't that blatantly illegal? Someone needs to throw a garbage can in his path and claim self-defense.
Garbage can? This is Florida. We're all armed!
But yes. They're very illegal to ride on the sidewalk. It wasn't even a real scooter. He was riding one of those "DUI-mobiles" that people can get here due to a technicality in the law if they lose their license. He's clearly a winner at life.
Quote from: realjd on December 15, 2010, 04:06:53 PM
Garbage can? This is Florida. We're all armed!
clearly this loser does not understand the implications of blowing the wrong guy off the sidewalk.