On 10/20/2023 8:32 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:44:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Can you give links to document that campaign?
>
> It isn't an organized campaign, just sporadic announcements that car
> tires must never, ever touch pavement used by bicycles.
>
> Since bike lanes are the most-annoying result of League Against
> Bicycling's "Bike Friendly City" designation, that was the first
> example to spring to mind.

Ah. I've noted that "never, ever touch" concept in many online
complaints from delicate cyclists. I hadn't seen it in anything the LAB
directly says.

I looked around for a while and attempted to log into LAB's driver
education program, but their site froze during my registration and
wouldn't allow me in.

But searching for Warsaw IN bike education led me to this, from Fort
Collins:
https://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/files/ride-smart-drive-smart-brochure.pdf

I note it says under "move right to turn right" that motorists should
"treat a bike lane like a right turn lane."

As I understand, that's the law in most states, with Oregon as an
illogical exception. However, when I do it here in Ohio (which is
roughly once per week) I never see anyone else doing it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 21:05:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> But searching for Warsaw IN bike education led me to this, from Fort
> Collins:
> https://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/files/ride-smart-drive-smart-brochure.pdf
>
> I note it says under "move right to turn right" that motorists should
> "treat a bike lane like a right turn lane."

Yea, rah! The Indiana driver's manual explicitly forbids that. I'd
post a link, but the link is on the Linux computer and it's almost
bedtime.

(My Linux is not on our intranet, so copying information from it to
the computer that Agent is on isn't something to do when it's one
minute to shut-down time.)

On 10/20/2023 10:30 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 21:05:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> But searching for Warsaw IN bike education led me to this, from Fort
>> Collins:
>> https://www.fcgov.com/bicycling/files/ride-smart-drive-smart-brochure.pdf
>>
>> I note it says under "move right to turn right" that motorists should
>> "treat a bike lane like a right turn lane."
>
> Yea, rah! The Indiana driver's manual explicitly forbids that. I'd
> post a link, but the link is on the Linux computer and it's almost
> bedtime.
>
> (My Linux is not on our intranet, so copying information from it to
> the computer that Agent is on isn't something to do when it's one
> minute to shut-down time.)

About the driver's manual: It's been noted that in some places, Ohio's
driver's manual - the ones people study to get their license - conflicts
with Ohio traffic laws.

One example is the manual claims one cannot (ever) cross a yellow line
to pass. But Ohio law specifically allows doing that when it's safe, and
when the vehicle (including bikes) are going no more than half the speed
limit.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it’s up with painted bike lanes,
>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn’t seem to do
>> much.
>>
>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>> types.
>
> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>
That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.

> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>
> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>
I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.

> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>
> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>
>
Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.

Roger Merriman

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it’s up with painted bike lanes,
>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn’t seem to do
>>> much.
>>>
>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>> types.
>>
>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>
>That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>
>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>
>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>
>I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>
>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>
>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>
>>
>Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
>suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>
>Roger Merriman
>

Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.

And somewhere I read that some 25% of all car trips were 1 mile or
less.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 5:42:57 AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
> > wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
> > achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
> >
> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.

"Don't hug the curb" is absolutely NOT instinctively known in the U.S.! I read today about a
Hollywood producer, known for getting everywhere on his bike, who was killed by getting doored.
He rode close enough to a parked car that when the driver popped the door open, the cyclist
was knocked down immediately in front of a passing car.

Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road, is it not? If that
were instinctively known, they would not devote ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.

And I'll remind you that there are individuals in this group who seem to believe a cyclist should
never delay any motorist. I've been called names here for suggesting riding lane center is wise.

> > Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
> > everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
> > microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
> > those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
> >
> > If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
> > see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
> > estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
> > drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
> > know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
> > Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
> > even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
> >
> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.

Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child for "innovative" bike
facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.

> > Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
> > unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
> > impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
> > designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
> > who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
> > DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
> > because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
> >
> > Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.

- Frank Krygowski

On 10/22/2023 4:42 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.

Bingo.

> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.

It's happening in cities that have decided to make it happen. San
Francisco has had a huge increase in journey's by bicycle as a result of
several things coming together. A big increase in bicycle
infrastructure, expensive and limited parking, car break-ins, and a
decrease in automobile traffic caused by remote-working.

Down in Silicon Valley, Palo Alto made a big commitment to bicycle
infrastructure with bicycle boulevards (no bike lanes, just a street
with priority for bicycles and eliminating through traffic for cars)
<https://www.routeyou.com/en-us/route/view/2049925/cycle-route/ellen-fletcher-bicycle-boulevard>.
Once you cross into Mountain View it continues and links up with
multiple MUPs that serves major job centers. Another MUP is in the
planning states that will link up with the major Apple campuses
<https://walkbikecupertino.org/projects-and-funding/junipero-serra-i-280-trail/>
though it will not be a pleasant recreational path. Still need a name
for that trail after objections to naming it the Junipero Serra trail
given the history of Father Junipero Serra.

Also helping increase cycling in Silicon Valley is the very poor public
transit, as well as the mild weather.

--
“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 Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 5:42:57?AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>> > wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>> > achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>> >
>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>
>"Don't hug the curb" is absolutely NOT instinctively known in the U.S.! I read today about a
>Hollywood producer, known for getting everywhere on his bike, who was killed by getting doored.
>He rode close enough to a parked car that when the driver popped the door open, the cyclist
>was knocked down immediately in front of a passing car.
>
>Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
>One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road, is it not? If that
>were instinctively known, they would not devote ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.

I've seen TV commercials where the consumer is advised not to ingest
the product if they are allergic to the ingrediants.

>And I'll remind you that there are individuals in this group who seem to believe a cyclist should
>never delay any motorist. I've been called names here for suggesting riding lane center is wise.

I''ve seen neither of those. Must have been before I started reading
RBT. Oh, Wait, it's likely just another Krygowski exaggeration.

Amplifying achievements, obstacles and problems to seek attention is
an everyday occurrence[1] Inflating the difficulty of achieving a goal
after attaining it, can be used to bolster self-esteem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration

>> > Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>> > everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>> > microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>> > those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>> >
>> > If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>> > see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>> > estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>> > drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>> > know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>> > Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>> > even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>> >
>> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>
>Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child for "innovative" bike
>facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
>including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
>very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
>
>> > Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>> > unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>> > impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>> > designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>> > who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>> > DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>> > because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>> >
>> > Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 9:53:12 AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 5:42:57?AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> > Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
> >> > wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
> >> > achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
> >> >
> >> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
> >> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
> >> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
> >
> >"Don't hug the curb" is absolutely NOT instinctively known in the U.S.! I read today about a
> >Hollywood producer, known for getting everywhere on his bike, who was killed by getting doored.
> >He rode close enough to a parked car that when the driver popped the door open, the cyclist
> >was knocked down immediately in front of a passing car.
> >
> >Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
> >One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road, is it not? If that
> >were instinctively known, they would not devote ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.
> I've seen TV commercials where the consumer is advised not to ingest
> the product if they are allergic to the ingrediants.
> >And I'll remind you that there are individuals in this group who seem to believe a cyclist should
> >never delay any motorist. I've been called names here for suggesting riding lane center is wise.
> I''ve seen neither of those. Must have been before I started reading
> RBT. Oh, Wait, it's likely just another Krygowski exaggeration.
>
> Amplifying achievements, obstacles and problems to seek attention is
> an everyday occurrence[1] Inflating the difficulty of achieving a goal
> after attaining it, can be used to bolster self-esteem.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration
> >> > Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
> >> > everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
> >> > microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
> >> > those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
> >> >
> >> > If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
> >> > see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
> >> > estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
> >> > drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
> >> > know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
> >> > Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
> >> > even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
> >> >
> >> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
> >> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
> >
> >Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child for "innovative" bike
> >facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
> >including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
> >very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
> >
> >> > Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
> >> > unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
> >> > impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
> >> > designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
> >> > who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
> >> > DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
> >> > because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
> >> >
> >> > Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
> >
> >- Frank Krygowski

This is a case of Krygowski lying straight out. NO ONE has ever said that you should not delay traffic under any conditions. But while we have said that these should be rare and only when necessary, Frank had repeatedly said that there should be no bike lanes and that people on bicycle should take the lane.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:58:15 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 9:53:12?AM UTC-7, Catrike Rider wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 08:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 5:42:57?AM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> >> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> > Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>> >> > wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>> >> > achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>> >> >
>> >> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>> >> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>> >> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>> >
>> >"Don't hug the curb" is absolutely NOT instinctively known in the U.S.! I read today about a
>> >Hollywood producer, known for getting everywhere on his bike, who was killed by getting doored.
>> >He rode close enough to a parked car that when the driver popped the door open, the cyclist
>> >was knocked down immediately in front of a passing car.
>> >
>> >Britain, where you live, has educational material and programs for cyclists, does it not?
>> >One of the main points is to ride in the "primary position" on the road, is it not? If that
>> >were instinctively known, they would not devote ink, lessons and bandwidth to teaching it.
>> I've seen TV commercials where the consumer is advised not to ingest
>> the product if they are allergic to the ingrediants.
>> >And I'll remind you that there are individuals in this group who seem to believe a cyclist should
>> >never delay any motorist. I've been called names here for suggesting riding lane center is wise.
>> I''ve seen neither of those. Must have been before I started reading
>> RBT. Oh, Wait, it's likely just another Krygowski exaggeration.
>>
>> Amplifying achievements, obstacles and problems to seek attention is
>> an everyday occurrence[1] Inflating the difficulty of achieving a goal
>> after attaining it, can be used to bolster self-esteem.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration
>> >> > Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>> >> > everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>> >> > microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>> >> > those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>> >> >
>> >> > If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>> >> > see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>> >> > estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>> >> > drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>> >> > know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>> >> > Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>> >> > even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>> >> >
>> >> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>> >> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>> >
>> >Bull. I've ridden quite a lot in Portland, Oregon, America's poster child for "innovative" bike
>> >facilities. I've ridden in (or sometimes purposely avoided) bike lanes in countless cities,
>> >including in Europe. With other local cyclists, I've experienced and complained about the
>> >very newest ones installed within 10 miles of my home.
>> >
>> >> > Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>> >> > unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>> >> > impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>> >> > designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>> >> > who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>> >> > DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>> >> > because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>> >> >
>> >> > Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>> >
>> >- Frank Krygowski
>
>This is a case of Krygowski lying straight out. NO ONE has ever said that you should not delay traffic under any conditions. But while we have said that these should be rare and only when necessary, Frank had repeatedly said that there should be no bike lanes and that people on bicycle should take the lane.

Well, he has written articles and has been interviewed about bicycle
safety issues...

Am I qualified to talk about such things? Yes, by virtue of attending multiple
classes at various levels for each of the programs described above. I've also acted
as an editorial consultant on two well known books dealing with those matters.
I've written many articles on those and related topics, and had some of them
reprinted by publications in other states and one other country. I no longer maintain
the teaching certification, but I've taught many cycling classes, I've written scripts for
and appeared in televised instructional spots, I've been interviewed for newspapers and
TV on such matters, and I've spoken (by request) at city, regional and statewide gatherings.

--Frank Krygowski
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/zq7Xw0dOUx4/m/cPDmX5OWAQAJ

On 10/22/2023 4:42 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.

Bingo.

> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.

It's happening in cities that have decided to make it happen. San
Francisco has had a huge increase in journey's by bicycle as a result of
several things coming together. A big increase in bicycle
infrastructure, expensive and limited parking, car break-ins, and a
decrease in automobile traffic caused by remote-working.

Down in Silicon Valley, Palo Alto made a big commitment to bicycle
infrastructure with bicycle boulevards (no bike lanes, just a street
with priority for bicycles and eliminating through traffic for cars)
<https://www.routeyou.com/en-us/route/view/2049925/cycle-route/ellen-fletcher-bicycle-boulevard>.
Once you cross into Mountain View it continues and links up with
multiple MUPs that serves major job centers. Another MUP is in the
planning states that will link up with the major Apple campuses
<https://walkbikecupertino.org/projects-and-funding/junipero-serra-i-280-trail/>
though it will not be a pleasant recreational path. Still need a name
for that trail after objections to naming it the Junipero Serra trail
given the history of Father Junipero Serra.

Also helping increase cycling in Silicon Valley is the very poor public
transit, as well as the mild weather.

--
“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 Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:57:07 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 4:42 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
> > using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
> Bingo.
> > Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
> > cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
> > suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
> It's happening in cities that have decided to make it happen. San
> Francisco has had a huge increase in journey's by bicycle as a result of
> several things coming together. A big increase in bicycle
> infrastructure, expensive and limited parking, car break-ins, and a
> decrease in automobile traffic caused by remote-working.
>
> Down in Silicon Valley, Palo Alto made a big commitment to bicycle
> infrastructure with bicycle boulevards (no bike lanes, just a street
> with priority for bicycles and eliminating through traffic for cars)
> <https://www.routeyou.com/en-us/route/view/2049925/cycle-route/ellen-fletcher-bicycle-boulevard>.
> Once you cross into Mountain View it continues and links up with
> multiple MUPs that serves major job centers. Another MUP is in the
> planning states that will link up with the major Apple campuses
> <https://walkbikecupertino.org/projects-and-funding/junipero-serra-i-280-trail/>
> though it will not be a pleasant recreational path. Still need a name
> for that trail after objections to naming it the Junipero Serra trail
> given the history of Father Junipero Serra.
>
> Also helping increase cycling in Silicon Valley is the very poor public
> transit, as well as the mild weather.
> --
> “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

I really have to wonder how often and where you actually ride. Palo Alto has strong traffic control with stop lights or signs near most intersections but bike lanes are very limited. I've never found bike trails except near the bridgeway.

Yes the south bay area around where Silicon Valley used to be has bike lanes but very often next to a 4 or 6 lane street without any signals and on which cars are traveling 60 or more mph, drifting in and out of the bike lanes at the small curves and are entirely unpoliced as far as I've ever seen.

Riding by Google and Apple I have NOT seen much bicycle parking and the safest roads leading to them are dirt trails that are part of the Bay Trails.

At what point did you become an expert on Junipero Serra? Reading some Woke book about him? The Spanish Mission system entirely ended the continuous warring of California tribes against one another so making claims about that system needs extraordinary proof and not stupid comments. We do know that as the Mission System ended with the ceding of California to the US, most of the tribes did not go back to their tribal systems but took the names of their missions as their tribal names.

Am 22.10.2023 um 14:23 schrieb John B.:
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it’s up with painted bike lanes,
>>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn’t seem to do
>>>> much.
>>>>
>>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>>> types.
>>>
>>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>
>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>>
>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>
>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>
>> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>
>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>
>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>
>> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
>> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>
> Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
> In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
> owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.

Also in Europe, nearly everybody owns a car. European cites typically
fall under
>>> places where motoring is somehow restricted or impractical
just like New York City or San Francisco.

Lack of space means it's impossible to allocate enough space to make car
driving enjoyable, so the proportion of people happy to use public
transport or bicycles is a lot higher than in sprawled-out cites.
This in turn enables politicians to restrict the proportion of land
allocated to cars, makeing car driving even less attractive...

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:36:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 22.10.2023 um 14:23 schrieb John B.:
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it’s up with painted bike lanes,
>>>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn’t seem to do
>>>>> much.
>>>>>
>>>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>>>> types.
>>>>
>>>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>>>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>>
>>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>>> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>>>
>>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>>
>>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>>
>>> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>
>>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>>
>>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>>
>>> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>>> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
>>> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>>
>> Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
>> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
>> In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
>> owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.
>
>Also in Europe, nearly everybody owns a car. European cites typically
>fall under
> >>> places where motoring is somehow restricted or impractical
>just like New York City or San Francisco.
>
>Lack of space means it's impossible to allocate enough space to make car
>driving enjoyable, so the proportion of people happy to use public
>transport or bicycles is a lot higher than in sprawled-out cites.
>This in turn enables politicians to restrict the proportion of land
>allocated to cars, makeing car driving even less attractive...

Rather like Bangkok. While we had a car we used it mainly for trips
away from the city. In fact the only time we used it in the city was a
weekly trip to buy groceries which was about a 2 km drive to the store
and 2 km home again, with the weeks food..

But having said that, Bangkok has a rather extensive public
transportation system and it is much quicker to take public
transportation then to drive.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:09:13 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:36:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
><news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>>Am 22.10.2023 um 14:23 schrieb John B.:
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it’s up with painted bike lanes,
>>>>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn’t seem to do
>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>>>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>>>>> types.
>>>>>
>>>>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>>>>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>>>
>>>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>>>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>>>> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>>>>
>>>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>>>
>>>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>>>
>>>> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>>
>>>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>>>
>>>> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>>>> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
>>>> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>>>
>>> Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
>>> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
>>> In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
>>> owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.
>>
>>Also in Europe, nearly everybody owns a car. European cites typically
>>fall under
>> >>> places where motoring is somehow restricted or impractical
>>just like New York City or San Francisco.
>>
>>Lack of space means it's impossible to allocate enough space to make car
>>driving enjoyable, so the proportion of people happy to use public
>>transport or bicycles is a lot higher than in sprawled-out cites.
>>This in turn enables politicians to restrict the proportion of land
>>allocated to cars, makeing car driving even less attractive...
>
>Rather like Bangkok. While we had a car we used it mainly for trips
>away from the city. In fact the only time we used it in the city was a
>weekly trip to buy groceries which was about a 2 km drive to the store
>and 2 km home again, with the weeks food..
>
>But having said that, Bangkok has a rather extensive public
>transportation system and it is much quicker to take public
>transportation then to drive.

I hate driving in the city so I only do it when I have to. I hate
riding a bicycle in the city even more, and since I don't ever have to
ride in the city, I don't do it. I'll ride a suburban or rural, low
traffic road occasionally, but for the pure pleasure bike ride that I
prefer, nothing beats rural bike trails like I'll be doing today. The
county just repaved the six mile Starkey Park trail that I use as a
warm up and that takes me out to the 56 mile state managed Suncoast
Trail. The Suncoast is mostly rural, but it does go through a couple
of suburban areas, however it parallels a limited access highway so it
doesn't require stopping at intersections every three or four hundred
feet.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:36:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 22.10.2023 um 14:23 schrieb John B.:
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it’s up with painted bike lanes,
>>>>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn’t seem to do
>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>>>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>>>>> types.
>>>>>
>>>>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>>>>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>>>
>>>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>>>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>>>> ie don’t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>>>>
>>>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>>>
>>>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>>>
>>>> I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>> using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>>
>>>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>>>
>>>> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>>>> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can’t not
>>>> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>>>
>>> Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
>>> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
>>> In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
>>> owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.
>>
>> Also in Europe, nearly everybody owns a car. European cites typically
>> fall under
>>>>> places where motoring is somehow restricted or impractical
>> just like New York City or San Francisco.
>>
>> Lack of space means it's impossible to allocate enough space to make car
>> driving enjoyable, so the proportion of people happy to use public
>> transport or bicycles is a lot higher than in sprawled-out cites.
>> This in turn enables politicians to restrict the proportion of land
>> allocated to cars, makeing car driving even less attractive...
>
> Rather like Bangkok. While we had a car we used it mainly for trips
> away from the city. In fact the only time we used it in the city was a
> weekly trip to buy groceries which was about a 2 km drive to the store
> and 2 km home again, with the weeks food..
>
> But having said that, Bangkok has a rather extensive public
> transportation system and it is much quicker to take public
> transportation then to drive.

Realistically if folks can drive easily then large % will, in general folks
like easy life. As car numbers have grown become less easy particularly in
cities and further in.

Ie the idea even london which is having significant grown in cycling
numbers are still low, though walking is broadly equal to driving and
public transport ie 3 way split, though the exact split will depend where.

In general cities seem to be discouraging car use, and encouraging other
uses be that cycling/walking bus/tram/train boats and so on.

Roger Merriman

On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:57:07 AM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>
> It's happening in cities that have decided to make it happen. San
> Francisco has had a huge increase in journey's by bicycle as a result of
> several things coming together. A big increase in bicycle
> infrastructure, expensive and limited parking, car break-ins, and a
> decrease in automobile traffic caused by remote-working.

"It's happening" ... "a big increase..." San Francisco's bike mode share is still
under 4%. Its mode share began "surging" (if a percent or two is a surge) while
a lawsuit prevented the building of almost any bike facilities. Bicycling apparently
became fashionable, so people began bicycling.

Bicycling was fashionable in Portland too, for a very long time. Maybe that's what
triggered SF's fashion. But Portland's bike mode share has been dropping like
a stone, despite ever more "innovative" bike facilities. It may be that SF's bike mode
share will go through the same boom and bust. We'll see.

I'd love to see guesses from the facilities fanatics on what America's bike mode share
will be in five or ten years. How soon will our society transform itself, and to what degree?

For the record, nationwide bike mode share has been something like 0.6% for years upon
years, despite the charming predictions of the paint & path crowd.

Andrew said something like "Those who like to bike will bike. Those who don't like to bike
won't bike." I'll add that Fashion will also play a part - and will probably have a bigger
influence than any collection of "innovative" facilities.

- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:39:45 PM UTC-4, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> Realistically if folks can drive easily then large % will, in general folks
> like easy life.

Exactly. That's been proven true even in "new towns" designed from scratch to
have bike access to all important points, totally separate from motor vehicle traffic.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/they-built-it-and-they-didnt-come-the-lesson-of-milton-keynes/

If you want lots of bike mode share, you have to restrict motor vehicles. Some cities
do that, either accidentally or deliberately. Very few American cities will ever do that.
Americans love their cars.

Oh, and the usual spiel, "ordinary roads are SO DANGEROUS! We NEED protected facilities"
discourages bicycling here and now. That false claim is much faster at scaring people
away from ever cycling than it is at getting facilities built. And it will never get them built
all the way to every place people need to travel in any given city.

- Frank Krygowski

-

On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:39:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
wrote:

>John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:36:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 22.10.2023 um 14:23 schrieb John B.:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it?s up with painted bike lanes,
>>>>>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn?t seem to do
>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>>>>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>>>>>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>>>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>>>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>>>>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>>>>> ie don?t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>>>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>>>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>>>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>>>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>>>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>>>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>>>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>>>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>>>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don?t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>>> using I?d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>>>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>>>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>>>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>>>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>>>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>>>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>>>>> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can?t not
>>>>> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
>>>> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
>>>> In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
>>>> owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.
>>>
>>> Also in Europe, nearly everybody owns a car. European cites typically
>>> fall under
>>>>>> places where motoring is somehow restricted or impractical
>>> just like New York City or San Francisco.
>>>
>>> Lack of space means it's impossible to allocate enough space to make car
>>> driving enjoyable, so the proportion of people happy to use public
>>> transport or bicycles is a lot higher than in sprawled-out cites.
>>> This in turn enables politicians to restrict the proportion of land
>>> allocated to cars, makeing car driving even less attractive...
>>
>> Rather like Bangkok. While we had a car we used it mainly for trips
>> away from the city. In fact the only time we used it in the city was a
>> weekly trip to buy groceries which was about a 2 km drive to the store
>> and 2 km home again, with the weeks food..
>>
>> But having said that, Bangkok has a rather extensive public
>> transportation system and it is much quicker to take public
>> transportation then to drive.
>
>Realistically if folks can drive easily then large % will, in general folks
>like easy life. As car numbers have grown become less easy particularly in
>cities and further in.
>
>Ie the idea even london which is having significant grown in cycling
>numbers are still low, though walking is broadly equal to driving and
>public transport ie 3 way split, though the exact split will depend where.
>
>In general cities seem to be discouraging car use, and encouraging other
>uses be that cycling/walking bus/tram/train boats and so on.
>
>Roger Merriman

I suspect that the percentage, anywhere, that will ride a bicycle as a
means of transportation will always be low.
"GOOD LORD! It's Raining!", for example.

Singapore probably has the largest percent of folks that "ride to
work" and that is only from their housing area to the nearest
subway/bus station where the park the bike and take public
transportation.
See
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/27000-bike-spaces-at-mrt-stations-allocated-based-on-user-demand
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 10/23/2023 6:09 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Rather like Bangkok. While we had a car we used it mainly for trips
> away from the city. In fact the only time we used it in the city was a
> weekly trip to buy groceries which was about a 2 km drive to the store
> and 2 km home again, with the weeks food..
>
> But having said that, Bangkok has a rather extensive public
> transportation system and it is much quicker to take public
> transportation then to drive.

You've pointed out a key issue that the politicians in cities like San
Francisco intentionally ignore, for specific reasons.

In San Francisco, even residents that use public transportation for
commuting are still very likely to own a car. It's necessary for
shopping, for weekend excursions, for taking the kids to whatever
activities they need to go to.

In San Francisco they recently passed a law that eliminates the
requirement that developers include off-street parking for new projects.
Since underground parking is very expensive to build the developers are
thrilled to export the parking onto city streets. This is not only a
security issue but it also eliminates EV charging in underground
garages. It also puts so many cars onto the streets that any attempt to
convert street parking to bicycle infrastructure is opposed.

For for-sale housing, developers will still include parking, even though
it's not required, because it would be difficult to sell the houses or
condos if there was no parking. For rental housing they may not care
even though they can charge extra for parking spaces. It costs about
$80,000 per underground parking space. They would have to charge a lot
per space to make that expense pencil out.

--
“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 10/23/2023 5:16 PM, John B. wrote:

> I suspect that the percentage, anywhere, that will ride a bicycle as a
> means of transportation will always be low.
> "GOOD LORD! It's Raining!", for example.

When I first visited China, in 1987, there was only one small subway in
the whole country (a short line in Beijing). People commuted by bicycle.
Now there are extensive subway systems in large and medium cities, and
bicycle use for commuting is much rarer. You saw how the whole bicycle
share industry collapsed in China <https://www.sixthtone.com/news/1009095>.

Some people try to attribute every change in the number of commuter
cyclists to whatever reason they can come up with that fits the
narrative that they are promoting. The biggest example of this was an
effort to claim that a mandatory helmet law led to a reduction in
cycling. The reality was the cycling numbers actually increased after
the law was passed. The story then changed to "well, the cycling numbers
didn't increase proportionally with the population increase so that
proves that the helmet law was responsible." The reality is that cycling
numbers change for multiple reasons such as changes in weather, changes
in public transit infrastructure, changes in bicycling infrastructure,
changes in work culture such as remote-working, demographic changes
especially an aging population, and crime.

--
“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 Tue, 24 Oct 2023 05:16:14 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:39:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:36:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 22.10.2023 um 14:23 schrieb John B.:
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it?s up with painted bike lanes,
>>>>>>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn?t seem to do
>>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>>>>>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>>>>>>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>>>>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>>>>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>>>>>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>>>>>> ie don?t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>>>>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>>>>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>>>>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>>>>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>>>>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>>>>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>>>>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>>>>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>>>>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don?t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>>>> using I?d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>>>>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>>>>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>>>>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>>>>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>>>>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>>>>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>>>>>> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can?t not
>>>>>> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
>>>>> In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
>>>>> owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.
>>>>
>>>> Also in Europe, nearly everybody owns a car. European cites typically
>>>> fall under
>>>>>>> places where motoring is somehow restricted or impractical
>>>> just like New York City or San Francisco.
>>>>
>>>> Lack of space means it's impossible to allocate enough space to make car
>>>> driving enjoyable, so the proportion of people happy to use public
>>>> transport or bicycles is a lot higher than in sprawled-out cites.
>>>> This in turn enables politicians to restrict the proportion of land
>>>> allocated to cars, makeing car driving even less attractive...
>>>
>>> Rather like Bangkok. While we had a car we used it mainly for trips
>>> away from the city. In fact the only time we used it in the city was a
>>> weekly trip to buy groceries which was about a 2 km drive to the store
>>> and 2 km home again, with the weeks food..
>>>
>>> But having said that, Bangkok has a rather extensive public
>>> transportation system and it is much quicker to take public
>>> transportation then to drive.
>>
>>Realistically if folks can drive easily then large % will, in general folks
>>like easy life. As car numbers have grown become less easy particularly in
>>cities and further in.
>>
>>Ie the idea even london which is having significant grown in cycling
>>numbers are still low, though walking is broadly equal to driving and
>>public transport ie 3 way split, though the exact split will depend where.
>>
>>In general cities seem to be discouraging car use, and encouraging other
>>uses be that cycling/walking bus/tram/train boats and so on.
>>
>>Roger Merriman
>
>I suspect that the percentage, anywhere, that will ride a bicycle as a
>means of transportation will always be low.
>"GOOD LORD! It's Raining!", for example.
>
>Singapore probably has the largest percent of folks that "ride to
>work" and that is only from their housing area to the nearest
>subway/bus station where the park the bike and take public
>transportation.
>See
>https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/27000-bike-spaces-at-mrt-stations-allocated-based-on-user-demand

I suspect that in the USA, most bicycling is done for recreation, not
transportation, and I doubt that's going to change. The state and
local governments around here are investing in bike trails everywhere
I look.

On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:25:19 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
>
> Some people try to attribute every change in the number of commuter
> cyclists to whatever reason they can come up with that fits the
> narrative that they are promoting.

Yes, indeed! Thanks for admitting that. What I've been posting on that issue
is the _lack_ of increase in bike mode share despite countless miles of ever-
weirder "innovative" bike facilities. They built it, but they didn't come. And to
repeat, in Portland they keep building "it" and bike mode share is dropping like
a stone,

>The biggest example of this was an
> effort to claim that a mandatory helmet law led to a reduction in
> cycling. The reality was the cycling numbers actually increased after
> the law was passed. The story then changed to "well, the cycling numbers
> didn't increase proportionally with the population increase so that
> proves that the helmet law was responsible."

So Scharf speaks in defense of all-ages mandatory helmet laws!

And Scharf must be referring to Australia's territories and New Zealand, which are really
the only large jurisdictions with all ages, pretty well enforced mandatory helmet laws (MHLs).
And although he seems unable to understand concepts like "per capita," the per-capita
cycling rate dropped sharply when those MHLs were instituted. They have NOT recovered.

> The reality is that cycling
> numbers change for multiple reasons such as changes in weather, changes
> in public transit infrastructure, changes in bicycling infrastructure,
> changes in work culture such as remote-working, demographic changes
> especially an aging population, and crime.

Yet the drops in Australia's and New Zealand's per capita cycling were step changes,
drops that occurred immediately after the imposition of the MHLs. What other step
changes occurred at that same time? Did weather suddenly and permanently become
more hostile? Did public transit suddenly get built everywhere? Did work culture
instantanously change across Australia?

No. The biggest change was the sudden imposition of fines (now over $300) for
riding a bike without a styrofoam hat. Oddly enough, tons of people said "Screw it.
I'm not riding a bike." And now, after decades of propaganda, tons of people are
saying "Just riding a bike is so dangerous it can kill you without the funny hat! I'm
not doing anything that dangerous!"

Meanwhile, pedestrian traffic deaths eclipse bicyclist deaths both in total and per mile
traveled. But no helmets for them!

- Frank Krygowski

Am 24.10.2023 um 00:16 schrieb John B.:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 19:39:41 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:36:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
>>> <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 22.10.2023 um 14:23 schrieb John B.:
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/18/2023 3:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://bikeportland.org/2023/10/16/new-service-offers-bicycle-equivalent-of-drivers-ed-380356
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not convinced it makes much difference, it?s up with painted bike lanes,
>>>>>>>> shows willing or more likely box ticking efforts but doesn?t seem to do
>>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While more expensive at least up front decent segregated infrastructure
>>>>>>>> does seem to change folks habits be that more cyclists or more varied
>>>>>>>> types.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much difference it makes depends on what someone is trying to
>>>>>>> achieve. Personally, I was interested in being able to ride wherever I
>>>>>>> wanted. For that, cyclist education was absolutely the best way to
>>>>>>> achieve that. It opened up the world to my riding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is real edge case stuff, that you needed training to use roads? Some
>>>>>> folks maybe will have had some training as a kid, beyond that the essential
>>>>>> ie don?t hug the kerb seems to be instinctively known.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because what was the alternative? Wait for "protective bike lanes"
>>>>>>> everywhere? Even simple bike lane stripes are not yet on more than a
>>>>>>> microscopic portion of the streets and roads I ride. If I'd waited for
>>>>>>> those things, I'd still be confined to my driveway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If instead people are trying to achieve big changes in society, I don't
>>>>>>> see that fancy bike infrastructure is working. After years of inflated
>>>>>>> estimates of 6+% bike mode share, Portland Oregon is dealing with a huge
>>>>>>> drop in bike mode share. And as a guy who visited Portland frequently, I
>>>>>>> know there was no time that 6% of the vehicles in motion were bicycles.
>>>>>>> Other American cities typically have bike mode shares down around 1%,
>>>>>>> even if they have miles and miles of (empty) bike lanes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don?t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>>>>>> using I?d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Americans are not going to use bikes instead of cars except for very
>>>>>>> unusual places - places where motoring is somehow restricted or
>>>>>>> impractical. No amount of expensive, weird and often incompetently
>>>>>>> designed bike facilities will make Americans give up cars. Worse, those
>>>>>>> who constantly say "We NEED separate facilities because roads are too
>>>>>>> DANGEROUS!" are telling most people that they should never ride a bike
>>>>>>> because of that danger. It's counterproductive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Education works. Utopian fantasies don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cars are not natural forces of the world, if Europe can certainly in the
>>>>>> cities start to become less car dominated no reason the Americans can?t not
>>>>>> suggesting all journeys need to be by bike, or no cars just less.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps in Europe but in the U.S. nearly everyone owns a car.
>>>>> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/
>>>>> In 2021 only 8.3% of U.S. families DID NOT own a car. Some 37.10%
>>>>> owned 2 cars and 22.3% owned 3 or more.
>>>>
>>>> Also in Europe, nearly everybody owns a car. European cites typically
>>>> fall under
>>>>>>> places where motoring is somehow restricted or impractical
>>>> just like New York City or San Francisco.
>>>>
>>>> Lack of space means it's impossible to allocate enough space to make car
>>>> driving enjoyable, so the proportion of people happy to use public
>>>> transport or bicycles is a lot higher than in sprawled-out cites.
>>>> This in turn enables politicians to restrict the proportion of land
>>>> allocated to cars, makeing car driving even less attractive...
>>>
>>> Rather like Bangkok. While we had a car we used it mainly for trips
>>> away from the city. In fact the only time we used it in the city was a
>>> weekly trip to buy groceries which was about a 2 km drive to the store
>>> and 2 km home again, with the weeks food..
>>>
>>> But having said that, Bangkok has a rather extensive public
>>> transportation system and it is much quicker to take public
>>> transportation then to drive.
>>
>> Realistically if folks can drive easily then large % will, in general folks
>> like easy life. As car numbers have grown become less easy particularly in
>> cities and further in.
>>
>> Ie the idea even london which is having significant grown in cycling
>> numbers are still low, though walking is broadly equal to driving and
>> public transport ie 3 way split, though the exact split will depend where.
>>
>> In general cities seem to be discouraging car use, and encouraging other
>> uses be that cycling/walking bus/tram/train boats and so on.
>
> I suspect that the percentage, anywhere, that will ride a bicycle as a
> means of transportation will always be low.
> "GOOD LORD! It's Raining!", for example.

Wrong. Several cities in Europe (typically in the size range of 100,000
to 500,000 people) have 40% of all journeys made by bicycle; cities
above 500,000 people are more likely to be public-transport dominated.

Rolf

Am Sun, 22 Oct 2023 09:42:53 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<roger@sarlet.com>:

>I don’t believe you have any experience of modern infrastructure, and are
>using I’d suspect some dubious data points as the fit your argument.

Do you mean last years bicycle infrastructure, which, as everybody
already knows, is absolutely inferior, or next years bicycle
infrastructure, which people favor today, in theory?

Anyway. I have enough experience with "modern cycling infrastructure" to
take flight when I come across it.

--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen