From: Brent on
On 2010-06-21, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote:
> Besides,bikes aren't part of MOTOR VEHICLE traffic.
> They're more like a kid playing in the street. they really don't belong
> there.
>
> (BTW,I put 63 miles my my bike last week(in 6 days),and 60 the week
> before,most of it on sidewalks or bike trails.)

10 miles a day at safe sidewalk and multi-use (there are no dedicated
bicycle paths even when labeled as such) path speeds isn't particularly
impressive.

I used a street parallel bike path that became a sidewalk and then
vanished entirely because I didn't feel up to riding a heavy trafficed
two lane arterial road on my return trip saturday. Dodging bushes,
debris, tree limbs, and then the odd jog of a nearly two 90 degree
turns....

To achieve decent speeds on a bicycle safely means to either use roads
or empty/near empty path systems that are located well away from roads.
Even Chicago's lake front path has many sections where good speeds are
not safely achievable because someone might step into the path 3 feet in
front of you. Not to mention frequent braking for people who can't keep
right.

> BTW,recently there's been some heavy debate about Orlando's creation of
> bike lanes and a proposed law to require cyclists to use them,and how
> cyclists first demanded bike lanes and now don't want them. There's even a
> cyclist on the transportation planning board,a Mighk Wilson,IIRC.
> Orlando(and Florida in general) is a pretty dangerous place for cyclists.
> It's not going to get any better,either...

Um... there are two kinds of people who use bicycles basically. There
are those like Arif and Myself who are vehicular bicyclists who move at
what most people think to be motorized speeds much of the time and then
there are those like you who putter around on paths and sidewalks (often
driving their bicycle to a forest preserve). The former kind often
favors wide curb lanes as I do. The later kind wants bike lanes thinking
that painted line offers protection.

Like most protective things it's a trap. You end up imprisoned by that
white line. It gets much more difficult to get places because turns
become complicated. Every intersection becomes a hazard. Bicycle lanes
are only effective on roads where there are very few intersections _AND_
they are swept of debris. This weekend the bike lanes I encountered were
littered with debris. All sorts of branches, gravel, etc.

From: Arif Khokar on
On 6/21/2010 9:00 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
> Arif Khokar<akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote in
> news:BmCTn.124614$nk1.91011(a)unlimited.newshosting.com:

>> Only an idiot allows a LLB to pace them for miles on end.

> so,what do YOU do to lose the LLB pacing you?

Umm ... I don't know. Change my speed, perhaps? <rolls eyes>

>>> Bullshit;
>>> if he was in the rightmost lane,5 over is fine.
>>> He's not under any obligation to "keep up with the pack",not in the
>>> rightmost lane.
>>> It's their obligation to pass if they want to go faster.

>> I'll remember that the next time I'm cycling going 20 mph in a 35 mph
>> zone taking the right most lane on a multi-lane surface street.

> Would that be "multi-lane" as in more than one lane in each direction?

What do you think?

> Besides,bikes aren't part of MOTOR VEHICLE traffic.

They are part of traffic.

> They're more like a kid playing in the street. they really don't belong
> there.

According to the vehicle code, they do belong on the road. Nothing
irritates me more than to be brush-passed by a cyclist while walking on
the sidewalk when there's a perfectly clear traffic lane several feet
away for him to ride in.
>
> (BTW,I put 63 miles my my bike last week(in 6 days),and 60 the week
> before,most of it on sidewalks or bike trails.)

I just got back from a 16 mile ride. About 25% of it was riding in
traffic. The remaining was a bike trail that goes between two different
towns (where the alternative route is a limited access highway posted at
65 mph)

>>> what if he was towing a trailer??? are you saying he should speed up
>>> in order to not "disrupt traffic"?

>> Then he should stick to driving on roads where traffic speed is lower.

> Nonsense,any -rational- person knows it takes a loaded semi much longer to
> get up to speed,and they use highways.

They really need to shift the cargo to rail and get off the highways.

> In many states,semis are RESTRICTED to lower speeds on the
> Interstates and highways.

That's stupidity on the state's legislative and executive branches'
part. FYI, most states do not have split limits for trucks and cars.

> BTW,recently there's been some heavy debate about Orlando's creation of
> bike lanes and a proposed law to require cyclists to use them,and how
> cyclists first demanded bike lanes and now don't want them. There's even a
> cyclist on the transportation planning board,a Mighk Wilson,IIRC.
> Orlando(and Florida in general) is a pretty dangerous place for cyclists.
> It's not going to get any better,either...

It really comes down to how many people actually cycle. If cyclists are
rare, it's more dangerous. If cyclists are common, it's not dangerous
at all. Fortunately, I live in an area where cycling is quite common.
From: gpsman on
On Jun 21, 11:20 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...(a)yahoo.com>
whined:
>
> I used a street parallel bike path that became a sidewalk and then
> vanished entirely because I didn't feel up to riding a heavy trafficed
> two lane arterial road on my return trip saturday. Dodging bushes,
> debris, tree limbs, and then the odd jog of a nearly two 90 degree
> turns....

An odd jog? 2 (TWO) 90° (NINETY) turns? On a bicycle?!

Where do you live, hell?

> To achieve decent speeds on a bicycle safely means to either use roads
> or empty/near empty path systems that are located well away from roads.

So... use roads.

You're welcome.

> Even Chicago's lake front path has many sections where good speeds are
> not safely achievable because someone might step into the path 3 feet in
> front of you. Not to mention frequent braking for people who can't keep
> right.

Not to mention those damn roads it isn't well away from.

> > BTW,recently there's been some heavy debate about Orlando's creation of
> > bike lanes and a proposed law to require cyclists to use them,and how
> > cyclists first demanded bike lanes and now don't want them. There's even a
> > cyclist on the transportation planning board,a Mighk Wilson,IIRC.
> > Orlando(and Florida in general) is a pretty dangerous place for cyclists.
> > It's not going to get any better,either...

Fascinatingly duh.

> Um... there are two kinds of people who use bicycles basically.

Luckily, we have you to explain.

> There
> are those like Arif and Myself who are vehicular bicyclists who move at
> what most people think to be motorized speeds much of the time and then
> there are those like you who putter around on paths and sidewalks (often
> driving their bicycle to a forest preserve). The former kind often
> favors wide curb lanes as I do. The later kind wants bike lanes thinking
> that painted line offers protection.

Of course they do.

> Like most protective things it's a trap.

Rut roh.

> You end up imprisoned by that
> white line.

OMG!

> It gets much more difficult to get places because turns
> become complicated.

Oh those goddamn complicated turns!

> Every intersection becomes a hazard.

That's the first time that ever happened.

> Bicycle lanes
> are only effective on roads where there are very few intersections

Right. They're only "effective" on roads through woods that lead
nowhere anyone needs to go.

> _AND_
> they are swept of debris.

Right. "Roads" are safe, and I presume effective, whether or not they
are swept. Bike lane on the same road... not so much.

> This weekend the bike lanes I encountered were
> littered with debris. All sorts of branches, gravel, etc.

What comprises the short list of everything that is -not- in your way?
-----

- gpsman
From: Jim Yanik on
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote in
news:IbUTn.325965$pO2.235677(a)unlimited.newshosting.com:

> On 6/21/2010 9:00 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Arif Khokar<akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote in
>> news:BmCTn.124614$nk1.91011(a)unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
>>> Only an idiot allows a LLB to pace them for miles on end.
>
>> so,what do YOU do to lose the LLB pacing you?
>
> Umm ... I don't know. Change my speed, perhaps? <rolls eyes>

so then the LLB pacer changes his to continue his pacing....
So,in essence,the other guy determines your speed.
>
>>>> Bullshit;
>>>> if he was in the rightmost lane,5 over is fine.
>>>> He's not under any obligation to "keep up with the pack",not in the
>>>> rightmost lane.
>>>> It's their obligation to pass if they want to go faster.
>
>>> I'll remember that the next time I'm cycling going 20 mph in a 35
>>> mph zone taking the right most lane on a multi-lane surface street.
>
>> Would that be "multi-lane" as in more than one lane in each
>> direction?
>
> What do you think?

Clarify,please. a two lane street could be considers a "multi-lane" street.

>
>> Besides,bikes aren't part of MOTOR VEHICLE traffic.
>
> They are part of traffic.

yes,clogs in the traffic.

>
>> They're more like a kid playing in the street. they really don't
>> belong there.
>
> According to the vehicle code, they do belong on the road.


you can repeat that until the cows come home,but it doesn't change
reality;that bicycles don't really belong mixed in with motor vehicle
traffic.

> Nothing
> irritates me more than to be brush-passed by a cyclist while walking
> on the sidewalk when there's a perfectly clear traffic lane several
> feet away for him to ride in.

I don't "brush-pass",I warn them ahead of time,by calling out "coming up on
your _____". Just like cyclists do on the street when passing other
cyclists. Most of the time,people shift over before I have to do that,other
times,I just ride onto the grass until I'm past them. (a benefit of having
an off-road bike)

Besides,in Orlando,the traffic lanes are not ususally "perfectly clear",or
even bearably clear.

>>
>> (BTW,I put 63 miles my my bike last week(in 6 days),and 60 the week
>> before,most of it on sidewalks or bike trails.)
>
> I just got back from a 16 mile ride. About 25% of it was riding in
> traffic. The remaining was a bike trail that goes between two
> different towns (where the alternative route is a limited access
> highway posted at 65 mph)

and the reason they prohibit bicycles from those roads .....?
because the speed differential is too great,and a severe hazard for
bicycles.... Of course,when local road traffic is going 40 or more and
you're only doing maybe 25(and only part of the time),the hazard is about
the same.

>
>>>> what if he was towing a trailer??? are you saying he should speed
>>>> up in order to not "disrupt traffic"?
>
>>> Then he should stick to driving on roads where traffic speed is
>>> lower.
>
>> Nonsense,any -rational- person knows it takes a loaded semi much
>> longer to get up to speed,and they use highways.
>
> They really need to shift the cargo to rail and get off the highways.

Nonsense,trucks still have to get around locally,and rail schedules don't
do too well for perishables and other goods. That is why trucks are now the
primary manner of shipping many goods.

Where/when using rail is commercially PRACTICAL,it gets used.

You sound like one of those Soviet central planners.

>
>> In many states,semis are RESTRICTED to lower speeds on the
>> Interstates and highways.
>
> That's stupidity on the state's legislative and executive branches'
> part. FYI, most states do not have split limits for trucks and cars.
>
>> BTW,recently there's been some heavy debate about Orlando's creation
>> of bike lanes and a proposed law to require cyclists to use them,and
>> how cyclists first demanded bike lanes and now don't want them.
>> There's even a cyclist on the transportation planning board,a Mighk
>> Wilson,IIRC. Orlando(and Florida in general) is a pretty dangerous
>> place for cyclists. It's not going to get any better,either...
>
> It really comes down to how many people actually cycle. If cyclists
> are rare, it's more dangerous. If cyclists are common, it's not
> dangerous at all. Fortunately, I live in an area where cycling is
> quite common.
>

I see groups of cyclists almost every day,wisely taking the back streets of
Maitland and avoiding major roads where traffic is very dense and fast
moving.(and full of clueless drivers...)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com