About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/

You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains some
interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>
> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains some
> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>

Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.

Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to

Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
are paying for the service so if your not getting it?

Roger Merriman

On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:09:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>
> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains some
> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

I have covered that well before. Traffic engineers rather than having a manual from which to work, simply do anything that they think is a good idea. And since almost none of them ride a bike, most of the ideas are really stupid. I spoke before about one street in particular Where they placed a bike lane against the curb and moved the parking area towards the middle of the street. The "bike lane" was full of broken glass and such and parked cars had to open their doors into the narrow traffic lane. If you don't call stupid, stupid that what do you do? Agree that Father Knows Best?

On 2/16/2024 12:45 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>>
>> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains some
>> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
>> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>>
>
> Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
> barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.
>
> Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to
>
> Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
> are paying for the service so if your not getting it?
>
> Roger Merriman
>
>

Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely you jest!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:09:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>>
>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>>
>> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains some
>> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
>> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> I have covered that well before. Traffic engineers rather than having a manual from which to work, simply do anything that they think is a good idea.

Actually, it's gotten worse than that. For a long time, the design
manuals for bike facilities warned of dangers regarding weird
infrastructure. For example, I own several editions of the AASHTO design
manual for bike facilities. It listed about a dozen detriments of
segregated bike paths at the edge of roadways. These were problems that
were obvious to the engineers compiling the manual - things like
motorists not noticing cyclists off to the side and colliding when
cutting across their path. Or ignorant bicyclists turning left from a
right edge facility. Or wrong-way cyclists zooming unexpectedly into
intersections. The manual didn't absolutely forbid such designs, but it
cautioned heavily against them.

That didn't sit well with the "paint & path" crowd, the advocates who
think there's no such thing as a bad bike facility. So first, they
formed their own organization, NACTO, and put out their own quasi
manual. Rather than a design manual, it was an exhaustive collection of
every weird idea conceived anywhere. It was intended as inspiration.
There was almost no actual design information, such as dimensions
necessary for safe use by bicyclists.

The next stage, still pretty new, was taking over AASHTO. "Paint & path"
folks got themselves onto AASHTO's committees, and modified the manual
to permit all their weird ideas. The manuals now encourage "do anything
you think is a good idea."

So bi-directional on-road bike lanes that have increased car-bike
crashes by factors of ten or more? Check! Great idea!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:09:15 AM UTC-8, Frank
>> Krygowski wrote:
>>> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto
>>> traffic:
>>>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>>>
>>> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post.
>>> It contains some
>>> interesting details about California laws that apparently
>>> give you
>>> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>> I have covered that well before. Traffic engineers rather
>> than having a manual from which to work, simply do
>> anything that they think is a good idea.
>
> Actually, it's gotten worse than that. For a long time, the
> design manuals for bike facilities warned of dangers
> regarding weird infrastructure. For example, I own several
> editions of the AASHTO design manual for bike facilities. It
> listed about a dozen detriments of segregated bike paths at
> the edge of roadways. These were problems that were obvious
> to the engineers compiling the manual - things like
> motorists not noticing cyclists off to the side and
> colliding when cutting across their path. Or ignorant
> bicyclists turning left from a right edge facility. Or
> wrong-way cyclists zooming unexpectedly into intersections.
> The manual didn't absolutely forbid such designs, but it
> cautioned heavily against them.
>
> That didn't sit well with the "paint & path" crowd, the
> advocates who think there's no such thing as a bad bike
> facility. So first, they formed their own organization,
> NACTO, and put out their own quasi manual. Rather than a
> design manual, it was an exhaustive collection of every
> weird idea conceived anywhere. It was intended as
> inspiration. There was almost no actual design information,
> such as dimensions necessary for safe use by bicyclists.
>
> The next stage, still pretty new, was taking over AASHTO.
> "Paint & path" folks got themselves onto AASHTO's
> committees, and modified the manual to permit all their
> weird ideas. The manuals now encourage "do anything you
> think is a good idea."
>
> So bi-directional on-road bike lanes that have increased
> car-bike crashes by factors of ten or more? Check! Great idea!
>

Yes I have some familiarity with that and you are right.

Yet, you generally favor a nation with 'rule by experts'
despite glaring disasters as above and examples large and
small besides.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:33:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/16/2024 12:45 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>>>
>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>>>
>>> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains some
>>> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
>>> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>>>
>>
>> Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
>> barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.
>>
>> Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to
>>
>> Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
>> are paying for the service so if your not getting it?
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>>
>
>Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely you jest!
>
>https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/

No wonder the borders are full of folks trying to get across. -) Free
money, dinner in the big hotels...

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/16/2024 4:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:09:15 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>>>>
>>>> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains
>>>> some
>>>> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
>>>> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>> I have covered that well before. Traffic engineers rather than having
>>> a manual from which to work, simply do anything that they think is a
>>> good idea.
>>
>> Actually, it's gotten worse than that. For a long time, the design
>> manuals for bike facilities warned of dangers regarding weird
>> infrastructure. For example, I own several editions of the AASHTO
>> design manual for bike facilities. It listed about a dozen detriments
>> of segregated bike paths at the edge of roadways. These were problems
>> that were obvious to the engineers compiling the manual - things like
>> motorists not noticing cyclists off to the side and colliding when
>> cutting across their path. Or ignorant bicyclists turning left from a
>> right edge facility. Or wrong-way cyclists zooming unexpectedly into
>> intersections. The manual didn't absolutely forbid such designs, but
>> it cautioned heavily against them.
>>
>> That didn't sit well with the "paint & path" crowd, the advocates who
>> think there's no such thing as a bad bike facility. So first, they
>> formed their own organization, NACTO, and put out their own quasi
>> manual. Rather than a design manual, it was an exhaustive collection
>> of every weird idea conceived anywhere. It was intended as
>> inspiration. There was almost no actual design information, such as
>> dimensions necessary for safe use by bicyclists.
>>
>> The next stage, still pretty new, was taking over AASHTO. "Paint &
>> path" folks got themselves onto AASHTO's committees, and modified the
>> manual to permit all their weird ideas. The manuals now encourage "do
>> anything you think is a good idea."
>>
>> So bi-directional on-road bike lanes that have increased car-bike
>> crashes by factors of ten or more? Check! Great idea!
>>
>
> Yes I have some familiarity with that and you are right.
>
> Yet, you generally favor a nation with 'rule by experts' despite glaring
> disasters as above and examples large and small besides.

Should bike facilities be designed by experts? Or should every park
system, township, village, city and state invent its own crazy ideas?

Yes, the purported "experts" can be political hacks with agendas, as in
the rewrite of the bikeway design manuals. But there are limits to their
errors; and at least ideally, there are mechanisms for correcting those
errors. If enough evidence accumulates that (say) bi-directional
on-street bike lanes are dangerous, some edition of the manual will
eventually recommend against them.

Meanwhile, overconfident and ignorant folks actually argue in favor of
wrong way riding, for collision hazards like posts in the middle of bike
lanes, and for other craziness. Putting them in charge of facility
design is worse.

Typical regulation and government is imperfect. But I think anarchy
usually produces much worse results.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/16/2024 8:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> Should bike facilities be designed by experts? Or should every park
> system, township, village, city and state invent its own crazy ideas?
>
> Yes, the purported "experts" can be political hacks with agendas, as in
> the rewrite of the bikeway design manuals. But there are limits to their
> errors; and at least ideally, there are mechanisms for correcting those
> errors. If enough evidence accumulates that (say) bi-directional
> on-street bike lanes are dangerous, some edition of the manual will
> eventually recommend against them.

I should add that a true expert will spot the politically driven
shortcomings in a design manual and will not incorporate those bad
features into his designs. I know of one traffic engineer that is a true
bicycling expert and is working hard on just that aspect of his job.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/16/2024 10:45 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
> barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.
>
> Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to
>
> Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
> are paying for the service so if your not getting it?

One of the major reasons for the protected bike lanes is, ironically,
pointed out in Zach Kaplan's post: "...possible wheel, rim, and
suspension damage for any motorists that have a lapse of attention and
drift over them." Well yes, the idea is that motorists should not be
"drifting" over them whether it's because of a lapse of attention or
whatever.

Without those separators motorist routinely drift into onto the shoulder
or painted bike lane, or decide to park there to take a call, make a
delivery, do drop-offs or pick-ups, etc.

One incident of some idiot motorist damaging a piece of infrastructure
is not a reason to proclaim that it's just terrible (well unless you're
"he who must not be named").

Another advantage of the separated bike lanes is that motorists drive
slower and are forced to pay attention.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On 2/16/2024 1:56 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

>> Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely you jest!
>>
>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/
>
> No wonder the borders are full of folks trying to get across. -) Free
> money, dinner in the big hotels...

It's terrible. Of course it's not actually true, like most "news" in the
Washington Examiner or New York Post.

No credit cards are being given out. It's debit cards that can be used
for food and baby supplies. They will replace the food boxes that are
currently being supplied to those in need and will save an estimated
$7.2 million annually.

Too many people that lack critical thinking skills will believe social
media posts or stories in right-wing media outlets, without doing any
fact checking.

Remember "Obama-phones." Started under President Reagan, for landline
phones, then expanded to mobile phones under George W. Bush, you now
have Republicans screaming about subsidizing lifeline service for
low-income people, and trying to blame Obama for something he didn't start.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 18:33:54 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/16/2024 1:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely you jest!
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/
>>
>> No wonder the borders are full of folks trying to get across. -) Free
>> money, dinner in the big hotels...
>
>It's terrible. Of course it's not actually true, like most "news" in the
>Washington Examiner or New York Post.
>
>No credit cards are being given out. It's debit cards that can be used
>for food and baby supplies. They will replace the food boxes that are
>currently being supplied to those in need and will save an estimated
>$7.2 million annually.
>
>Too many people that lack critical thinking skills will believe social
>media posts or stories in right-wing media outlets, without doing any
>fact checking.
>
>Remember "Obama-phones." Started under President Reagan, for landline
>phones, then expanded to mobile phones under George W. Bush, you now
>have Republicans screaming about subsidizing lifeline service for
>low-income people, and trying to blame Obama for something he didn't start.

Yes, you may "know" this and I may "know" this, but, more and more,
largely through the advent of the Internet, what the average guy knows
is often not the same thing.

This is not a really a new accomplishment as the U.S.-Spanish war
(April - December 1898) was largely promoted by two newspapers - The
New York World and the New York Journal which recognized the
potential for great headlines and stories that would sell copies.
--
Cheers,

John B.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:45 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
>> barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.
>>
>> Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to
>>
>> Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
>> are paying for the service so if your not getting it?
>
> One of the major reasons for the protected bike lanes is, ironically,
> pointed out in Zach Kaplan's post: "...possible wheel, rim, and
> suspension damage for any motorists that have a lapse of attention and
> drift over them." Well yes, the idea is that motorists should not be
> "drifting" over them whether it's because of a lapse of attention or
> whatever.
>
> Without those separators motorist routinely drift into onto the shoulder
> or painted bike lane, or decide to park there to take a call, make a
> delivery, do drop-offs or pick-ups, etc.

Indeed it’s also a much like Frank a Vehicular cycling group, this said the
argument for wider lanes so cargo bikes etc can use them is a valid one.
>
> One incident of some idiot motorist damaging a piece of infrastructure
> is not a reason to proclaim that it's just terrible (well unless you're
> "he who must not be named").
>
> Another advantage of the separated bike lanes is that motorists drive
> slower and are forced to pay attention.
>
Can’t say I noticed that in the various ones locally with some they have
lost a lane but in those cases that’s central london and frankly you can
walk quicker at times!

But even out here can’t say I notice a slower pace more that they don’t
drift across to use the cycle lane to get in position for the junction
ahead, as it has bolted hard rubber?

https://www.zicla.com/en/zebra-family/

Though I’ve only seen them installed end on rather that diagonal as shown!

Roger Merriman

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:48:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/16/2024 4:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:09:15?AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>>>>>
>>>>> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains
>>>>> some
>>>>> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
>>>>> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>
>>>> I have covered that well before. Traffic engineers rather than having
>>>> a manual from which to work, simply do anything that they think is a
>>>> good idea.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's gotten worse than that. For a long time, the design
>>> manuals for bike facilities warned of dangers regarding weird
>>> infrastructure. For example, I own several editions of the AASHTO
>>> design manual for bike facilities. It listed about a dozen detriments
>>> of segregated bike paths at the edge of roadways. These were problems
>>> that were obvious to the engineers compiling the manual - things like
>>> motorists not noticing cyclists off to the side and colliding when
>>> cutting across their path. Or ignorant bicyclists turning left from a
>>> right edge facility. Or wrong-way cyclists zooming unexpectedly into
>>> intersections. The manual didn't absolutely forbid such designs, but
>>> it cautioned heavily against them.
>>>
>>> That didn't sit well with the "paint & path" crowd, the advocates who
>>> think there's no such thing as a bad bike facility. So first, they
>>> formed their own organization, NACTO, and put out their own quasi
>>> manual. Rather than a design manual, it was an exhaustive collection
>>> of every weird idea conceived anywhere. It was intended as
>>> inspiration. There was almost no actual design information, such as
>>> dimensions necessary for safe use by bicyclists.
>>>
>>> The next stage, still pretty new, was taking over AASHTO. "Paint &
>>> path" folks got themselves onto AASHTO's committees, and modified the
>>> manual to permit all their weird ideas. The manuals now encourage "do
>>> anything you think is a good idea."
>>>
>>> So bi-directional on-road bike lanes that have increased car-bike
>>> crashes by factors of ten or more? Check! Great idea!
>>>
>>
>> Yes I have some familiarity with that and you are right.
>>
>> Yet, you generally favor a nation with 'rule by experts' despite glaring
>> disasters as above and examples large and small besides.
>
>Should bike facilities be designed by experts? Or should every park
>system, township, village, city and state invent its own crazy ideas?
>
>Yes, the purported "experts" can be political hacks with agendas, as in
>the rewrite of the bikeway design manuals. But there are limits to their
>errors; and at least ideally, there are mechanisms for correcting those
>errors. If enough evidence accumulates that (say) bi-directional
>on-street bike lanes are dangerous, some edition of the manual will
>eventually recommend against them.
>
>Meanwhile, overconfident and ignorant folks actually argue in favor of
>wrong way riding, for collision hazards like posts in the middle of bike
>lanes, and for other craziness. Putting them in charge of facility
>design is worse.
>
>Typical regulation and government is imperfect. But I think anarchy
>usually produces much worse results.

When local governments fail, a higher level government will rush in to
make everything worse.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the
government and I'm here to help.”
- Ronald Reagan

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 18:33:54 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/16/2024 1:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely you jest!
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/
>>
>> No wonder the borders are full of folks trying to get across. -) Free
>> money, dinner in the big hotels...
>
>It's terrible. Of course it's not actually true, like most "news" in the
>Washington Examiner or New York Post.
>
>No credit cards are being given out. It's debit cards that can be used
>for food and baby supplies. They will replace the food boxes that are
>currently being supplied to those in need and will save an estimated
>$7.2 million annually.
>
>Too many people that lack critical thinking skills will believe social
>media posts or stories in right-wing media outlets, without doing any
>fact checking.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-cia-asked-foreign-agencies-to-illegally-spy-on-trump-associates-report/vi-BB1igvTs

On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, sms wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 1:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely you jest!
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/
>>
>> No wonder the borders are full of folks trying to get across. -) Free
>> money, dinner in the big hotels...
>
> It's terrible. Of course it's not actually true, like most "news" in the
> Washington Examiner or New York Post.
>
> No credit cards are being given out. It's debit cards that can be used
> for food and baby supplies. They will replace the food boxes that are
> currently being supplied to those in need and will save an estimated
> $7.2 million annually.
>
> Too many people that lack critical thinking skills will believe social
> media posts or stories in right-wing media outlets, without doing any
> fact checking.

Right, like the free new cars allegedly being given to illegal immigrants

>
> Remember "Obama-phones." Started under President Reagan, for landline
> phones, then expanded to mobile phones under George W. Bush, you now
> have Republicans screaming about subsidizing lifeline service for
> low-income people, and trying to blame Obama for something he didn't start.
>

--
Add xx to reply

On 2/17/2024 3:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:48:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2024 4:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:09:15?AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
>>>>>> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>
>>>>> I have covered that well before. Traffic engineers rather than having
>>>>> a manual from which to work, simply do anything that they think is a
>>>>> good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's gotten worse than that. For a long time, the design
>>>> manuals for bike facilities warned of dangers regarding weird
>>>> infrastructure. For example, I own several editions of the AASHTO
>>>> design manual for bike facilities. It listed about a dozen detriments
>>>> of segregated bike paths at the edge of roadways. These were problems
>>>> that were obvious to the engineers compiling the manual - things like
>>>> motorists not noticing cyclists off to the side and colliding when
>>>> cutting across their path. Or ignorant bicyclists turning left from a
>>>> right edge facility. Or wrong-way cyclists zooming unexpectedly into
>>>> intersections. The manual didn't absolutely forbid such designs, but
>>>> it cautioned heavily against them.
>>>>
>>>> That didn't sit well with the "paint & path" crowd, the advocates who
>>>> think there's no such thing as a bad bike facility. So first, they
>>>> formed their own organization, NACTO, and put out their own quasi
>>>> manual. Rather than a design manual, it was an exhaustive collection
>>>> of every weird idea conceived anywhere. It was intended as
>>>> inspiration. There was almost no actual design information, such as
>>>> dimensions necessary for safe use by bicyclists.
>>>>
>>>> The next stage, still pretty new, was taking over AASHTO. "Paint &
>>>> path" folks got themselves onto AASHTO's committees, and modified the
>>>> manual to permit all their weird ideas. The manuals now encourage "do
>>>> anything you think is a good idea."
>>>>
>>>> So bi-directional on-road bike lanes that have increased car-bike
>>>> crashes by factors of ten or more? Check! Great idea!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I have some familiarity with that and you are right.
>>>
>>> Yet, you generally favor a nation with 'rule by experts' despite glaring
>>> disasters as above and examples large and small besides.
>>
>> Should bike facilities be designed by experts? Or should every park
>> system, township, village, city and state invent its own crazy ideas?
>>
>> Yes, the purported "experts" can be political hacks with agendas, as in
>> the rewrite of the bikeway design manuals. But there are limits to their
>> errors; and at least ideally, there are mechanisms for correcting those
>> errors. If enough evidence accumulates that (say) bi-directional
>> on-street bike lanes are dangerous, some edition of the manual will
>> eventually recommend against them.
>>
>> Meanwhile, overconfident and ignorant folks actually argue in favor of
>> wrong way riding, for collision hazards like posts in the middle of bike
>> lanes, and for other craziness. Putting them in charge of facility
>> design is worse.
>>
>> Typical regulation and government is imperfect. But I think anarchy
>> usually produces much worse results.
>
> When local governments fail, a higher level government will rush in to
> make everything worse.
>
> The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the
> government and I'm here to help.”
> - Ronald Reagan
+1 to that!
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/16/2024 10:49 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 10:45 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
>>> barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.
>>>
>>> Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to
>>>
>>> Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
>>> are paying for the service so if your not getting it?
>>
>> One of the major reasons for the protected bike lanes is, ironically,
>> pointed out in Zach Kaplan's post: "...possible wheel, rim, and
>> suspension damage for any motorists that have a lapse of attention and
>> drift over them." Well yes, the idea is that motorists should not be
>> "drifting" over them whether it's because of a lapse of attention or
>> whatever.
>>
>> Without those separators motorist routinely drift into onto the shoulder
>> or painted bike lane, or decide to park there to take a call, make a
>> delivery, do drop-offs or pick-ups, etc.
>
> Indeed it’s also a much like Frank a Vehicular cycling group, this said the
> argument for wider lanes so cargo bikes etc can use them is a valid one.
>>
>> One incident of some idiot motorist damaging a piece of infrastructure
>> is not a reason to proclaim that it's just terrible (well unless you're
>> "he who must not be named").
>>
>> Another advantage of the separated bike lanes is that motorists drive
>> slower and are forced to pay attention.
>>
> Can’t say I noticed that in the various ones locally with some they have
> lost a lane but in those cases that’s central london and frankly you can
> walk quicker at times!
>
> But even out here can’t say I notice a slower pace more that they don’t
> drift across to use the cycle lane to get in position for the junction
> ahead, as it has bolted hard rubber?
>
> https://www.zicla.com/en/zebra-family/
>
> Though I’ve only seen them installed end on rather that diagonal as shown!
>
> Roger Merriman
>

Antipersonnel device against cyclists. Just more
overthinking overspending and impedimenta.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:49 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 10:45 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
>>>> barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.
>>>>
>>>> Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to
>>>>
>>>> Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
>>>> are paying for the service so if your not getting it?
>>>
>>> One of the major reasons for the protected bike lanes is, ironically,
>>> pointed out in Zach Kaplan's post: "...possible wheel, rim, and
>>> suspension damage for any motorists that have a lapse of attention and
>>> drift over them." Well yes, the idea is that motorists should not be
>>> "drifting" over them whether it's because of a lapse of attention or
>>> whatever.
>>>
>>> Without those separators motorist routinely drift into onto the shoulder
>>> or painted bike lane, or decide to park there to take a call, make a
>>> delivery, do drop-offs or pick-ups, etc.
>>
>> Indeed it’s also a much like Frank a Vehicular cycling group, this said the
>> argument for wider lanes so cargo bikes etc can use them is a valid one.
>>>
>>> One incident of some idiot motorist damaging a piece of infrastructure
>>> is not a reason to proclaim that it's just terrible (well unless you're
>>> "he who must not be named").
>>>
>>> Another advantage of the separated bike lanes is that motorists drive
>>> slower and are forced to pay attention.
>>>
>> Can’t say I noticed that in the various ones locally with some they have
>> lost a lane but in those cases that’s central london and frankly you can
>> walk quicker at times!
>>
>> But even out here can’t say I notice a slower pace more that they don’t
>> drift across to use the cycle lane to get in position for the junction
>> ahead, as it has bolted hard rubber?
>>
>> https://www.zicla.com/en/zebra-family/
>>
>> Though I’ve only seen them installed end on rather that diagonal as shown!
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>
> Antipersonnel device against cyclists. Just more
> overthinking overspending and impedimenta.

I don’t mind them I prefer them to wands and they do stop cars drifting
over and far from expensive road stuff.

Only I think seen them in one place.

Roger Merriman

On 2/17/2024 4:05 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 18:33:54 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/16/2024 1:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely you jest!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/
>>>
>>> No wonder the borders are full of folks trying to get across. -) Free
>>> money, dinner in the big hotels...
>>
>> It's terrible. Of course it's not actually true, like most "news" in the
>> Washington Examiner or New York Post.
>>
>> No credit cards are being given out. It's debit cards that can be used
>> for food and baby supplies. They will replace the food boxes that are
>> currently being supplied to those in need and will save an estimated
>> $7.2 million annually.
>>
>> Too many people that lack critical thinking skills will believe social
>> media posts or stories in right-wing media outlets, without doing any
>> fact checking.
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-cia-asked-foreign-agencies-to-illegally-spy-on-trump-associates-report/vi-BB1igvTs

It's that and more. Lies on top of lies. We pay taxes so the
administrative State can manipulate facts into pogroms:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/2861182/a-tree-fell-in-washington-but-no-one-heard-it/
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/17/2024 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/17/2024 3:22 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:48:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/16/2024 4:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2024 3:24 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:09:15?AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> About the purported benefits of "protection" from auto traffic:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/897754635015080/posts/960457842078092/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You shouldn't need to be a Facebooker to read the post. It contains
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> interesting details about California laws that apparently give you
>>>>>>> special legal rights to avoid the worst of the "innovation."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have covered that well before. Traffic engineers rather than having
>>>>>> a manual from which to work, simply do anything that they think is a
>>>>>> good idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it's gotten worse than that. For a long time, the design
>>>>> manuals for bike facilities warned of dangers regarding weird
>>>>> infrastructure. For example, I own several editions of the AASHTO
>>>>> design manual for bike facilities. It listed about a dozen detriments
>>>>> of segregated bike paths at the edge of roadways. These were problems
>>>>> that were obvious to the engineers compiling the manual - things like
>>>>> motorists not noticing cyclists off to the side and colliding when
>>>>> cutting across their path. Or ignorant bicyclists turning left from a
>>>>> right edge facility. Or wrong-way cyclists zooming unexpectedly into
>>>>> intersections. The manual didn't absolutely forbid such designs, but
>>>>> it cautioned heavily against them.
>>>>>
>>>>> That didn't sit well with the "paint & path" crowd, the advocates who
>>>>> think there's no such thing as a bad bike facility. So first, they
>>>>> formed their own organization, NACTO, and put out their own quasi
>>>>> manual. Rather than a design manual, it was an exhaustive collection
>>>>> of every weird idea conceived anywhere. It was intended as
>>>>> inspiration. There was almost no actual design information, such as
>>>>> dimensions necessary for safe use by bicyclists.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next stage, still pretty new, was taking over AASHTO. "Paint &
>>>>> path" folks got themselves onto AASHTO's committees, and modified the
>>>>> manual to permit all their weird ideas. The manuals now encourage "do
>>>>> anything you think is a good idea."
>>>>>
>>>>> So bi-directional on-road bike lanes that have increased car-bike
>>>>> crashes by factors of ten or more? Check! Great idea!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes I have some familiarity with that and you are right.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, you generally favor a nation with 'rule by experts' despite
>>>> glaring
>>>> disasters as above and examples large and small besides.
>>>
>>> Should bike facilities be designed by experts? Or should every park
>>> system, township, village, city and state invent its own crazy ideas?
>>>
>>> Yes, the purported "experts" can be political hacks with agendas, as in
>>> the rewrite of the bikeway design manuals. But there are limits to their
>>> errors; and at least ideally, there are mechanisms for correcting those
>>> errors. If enough evidence accumulates that (say) bi-directional
>>> on-street bike lanes are dangerous, some edition of the manual will
>>> eventually recommend against them.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, overconfident and ignorant folks actually argue in favor of
>>> wrong way riding, for collision hazards like posts in the middle of bike
>>> lanes, and for other craziness. Putting them in charge of facility
>>> design is worse.
>>>
>>> Typical regulation and government is imperfect. But I think anarchy
>>> usually produces much worse results.
>>
>> When local governments fail, a higher level government will rush in to
>> make everything worse.
>>
>> The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the
>> government and I'm here to help.”
>> - Ronald Reagan
> +1 to that!

"Help us! We have flooding!"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/watch-florida-gov-ron-desantis-requests-aid-from-biden-as-hurricane-ian-makes-landfall

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/16/2024 9:13 PM, sms wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 10:45 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
>> barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.
>>
>> Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to
>>
>> Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
>> are paying for the service so if your not getting it?
>
> One of the major reasons for the protected bike lanes is, ironically,
> pointed out in Zach Kaplan's post: "...possible wheel, rim, and
> suspension damage for any motorists that have a lapse of attention and
> drift over them." Well yes, the idea is that motorists should not be
> "drifting" over them whether it's because of a lapse of attention or
> whatever.
>
> Without those separators motorist routinely drift into onto the shoulder
> or painted bike lane, or decide to park there to take a call, make a
> delivery, do drop-offs or pick-ups, etc.

When there is no bike lane stripe or barrier, the total width of asphalt
is the same, but the _clean_ width is greater. Motorists do occasionally
drive over the rightmost part of the pavement when there are no cyclists
there. The motorists' tires and moving air tend to kick debris off the
road. Cyclists should give thanks for a service they provide for free.

With a paint stripe, the debris layer begins maybe 6" to 12" to the
right of the stripe. With concrete barriers, it begins immediately at
the barrier. That's unless the jurisdiction spent money for equipment
and manpower to keep things swept, which is very rare IME.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/17/2024 6:28 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 1:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely you jest!
>>>>
>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/
>>>
>>> No wonder the borders are full of folks trying to get across. -) Free
>>> money, dinner in the big hotels...
>>
>> It's terrible. Of course it's not actually true, like most "news" in
>> the Washington Examiner or New York Post.
>>
>> No credit cards are being given out. It's debit cards that can be used
>> for food and baby supplies. They will replace the food boxes that are
>> currently being supplied to those in need and will save an estimated
>> $7.2 million annually.
>>
>> Too many people that lack critical thinking skills will believe social
>> media posts or stories in right-wing media outlets, without doing any
>> fact checking.
>
> Right, like the free new cars allegedly being given to illegal immigrants

I wonder how many of those rumors are started by Russian troll farms.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/17/2024 10:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/17/2024 6:28 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 9:33 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2024 1:56 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Government services for the actual taxpayers? Surely
>>>>> you jest!
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2835683/nyc-plans-to-give-pre-paid-credit-cards-to-migrants-to-tune-of-53-million/
>>>>
>>>> No wonder the borders are full of folks trying to get
>>>> across. -) Free
>>>> money, dinner in the big hotels...
>>>
>>> It's terrible. Of course it's not actually true, like
>>> most "news" in the Washington Examiner or New York Post.
>>>
>>> No credit cards are being given out. It's debit cards
>>> that can be used for food and baby supplies. They will
>>> replace the food boxes that are currently being supplied
>>> to those in need and will save an estimated $7.2 million
>>> annually.
>>>
>>> Too many people that lack critical thinking skills will
>>> believe social media posts or stories in right-wing media
>>> outlets, without doing any fact checking.
>>
>> Right, like the free new cars allegedly being given to
>> illegal immigrants
>
> I wonder how many of those rumors are started by Russian
> troll farms.
>

I for one had not heard nor read that.
The long list of outrages is enough without writing fiction.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/16/2024 9:13 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 2/16/2024 10:45 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Isn’t that mainly a behaviour ie drivers shouldn’t be driving over the
>>> barriers, or leaving bins etc on the road blocking the cyclelane.
>>>
>>> Change is always a surprise and takes time for people to get used to
>>>
>>> Plus maintenance ie roads should be cleaned/damage repaired, which folks
>>> are paying for the service so if your not getting it?
>>
>> One of the major reasons for the protected bike lanes is, ironically,
>> pointed out in Zach Kaplan's post: "...possible wheel, rim, and
>> suspension damage for any motorists that have a lapse of attention and
>> drift over them." Well yes, the idea is that motorists should not be
>> "drifting" over them whether it's because of a lapse of attention or
>> whatever.
>>
>> Without those separators motorist routinely drift into onto the shoulder
>> or painted bike lane, or decide to park there to take a call, make a
>> delivery, do drop-offs or pick-ups, etc.
>
> When there is no bike lane stripe or barrier, the total width of asphalt
> is the same, but the _clean_ width is greater. Motorists do occasionally
> drive over the rightmost part of the pavement when there are no cyclists
> there. The motorists' tires and moving air tend to kick debris off the
> road. Cyclists should give thanks for a service they provide for free.
>
> With a paint stripe, the debris layer begins maybe 6" to 12" to the
> right of the stripe. With concrete barriers, it begins immediately at
> the barrier. That's unless the jurisdiction spent money for equipment
> and manpower to keep things swept, which is very rare IME.
>
This is all true but in my experience the debris comes from motorists, the
old cycleway which is some distance from the road bar one flyover where it
gets a light coating in glass/plastic and sand!

But rest of it stays fairly clean only needing really vegetation cut back,
or leaves swept away which seems to happen maybe twice a year? Certainly
lot less than the parallel road, which you’ll see sweepers multiple times a
year rather than a man and cart, let alone having to fix/clean up
infrastructure after car crashes which are reasonably frequent as busy plus
folks in a rush.

It even uses the old road on one brief section under the Motorway and
roundabout which apart from vegetation taking over the footways, the road
surface is clear.

Roger Merriman