Bike Forums
Page 14 of 19
« First
4
12
13
14
15
16
Last »
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Dutch perspective on cycling in the US (https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/898450-dutch-perspective-cycling-us.html)

Jaywalk3r 07-07-13 05:35 PM
Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 15824730)
The state that B.Carfree resides has a "mandatory use" law, and I can partially see his taking issue with cycling infrastructure, loop holes or not. Again, not all US cycling infrastructure is designed with the cyclist's needs in mind, and can be made worse if one has to chose between setting a court date or being subordinate.
I can't see a reasonable cyclist taking issue with the law, given how it does not actually make bike lane use mandatory in virtually any case where riding in the bike lane would not be seen as the best option by a reasonable cyclist. It's "the sky is falling" rhetoric, mischaracterizing the law to justify fear-mongering.

FBinNY 07-07-13 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824736)
It's not a new trend. There are lots of "cyclists must ride right unless …" and "cyclists must use bike lane unless …" laws. The "unless …" aspect of them leaves such requirements toothless.

.
Ride right laws are quite old, and consistent with the slower traffic, keep right laws so there's no objection. Plus, as you point out, there's generally an exception clause allowing discretion on the part of the driver.

However "must use path" laws are new and on the upswing, And they ARE being enforced, at least in NYC and a few other cities. My point isn't on how strict enforcement is, but on how the safety rational for paths can be extended in the future to expand the number of roads cyclists are banned from --- for their own good.

Think about all the laws passed to protect us (Americans in General, not just cyclists) from ourselves, then think about how we'll fight FYOG laws relating to cycling if it's the same cycling community that asks for separate infrastructure to protect us from the hazards of sharing the road.

dynodonn 07-07-13 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15824784)
Have you received any such traffic tickets?
No I haven't since I don't live in the same state, and the chances are that B. Carfree may not have received a ticket either, being that his city's law enforcement maybe more enlightened to a cyclist's needs, with only 2 failure to use bike lane tickets being issued in a 13 month period.

http://eugenebicyclist.com/2011/12/0...citations-for/

Jaywalk3r 07-07-13 05:55 PM
Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15824843)
Ride right laws are quite old, and consistent with the slower traffic, keep right laws so there's no objection. Plus, as you point out, there's generally an exception clause allowing discretion on the part of the driver.

However "must use path" laws are new and on the upswing, And they ARE being enforced, at least in NYC and a few other cities. My point isn't on how strict enforcement is, but on how the safety rational for paths can be extended in the future to expand the number of roads cyclists are banned from --- for their own good.
The "must use" laws tend to offer exceptions similar to "ride right" laws. It defies logic to object to one and not the other. (Personally, I'm opposed to both laws, but I recognize that they don't actually prohibit much of anything. They're harmless and useless laws.)

If you'll recall, in NYC, some cops were even ticketing cyclists for things that weren't remotely close to statute violations, such as riding with no helmet. It would appear that cops are cracking down on cyclists in NYC for purely political reasons, not because the law says this or that. Where cops are willing to enforce laws that they make up as they go along, cyclists can hardly blame their treatment on the laws.

FBinNY 07-07-13 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824891)
The "must use" laws tend to offer exceptions similar to "ride right" laws. It defies logic to object to one and not the other. (Personally, I'm opposed to both laws, but I recognize that they don't actually prohibit much of anything. They're harmless and useless laws.)

If you'll recall, in NYC, some cops were even ticketing cyclists for things that weren't remotely close to statute violations, such as riding with no helmet. It would appear that cops are cracking down on cyclists in NYC for purely political reasons, not because the law says this or that. Where cops are willing to enforce laws that they make up as they go along, cyclists can hardly blame their treatment on the laws.
Have it your way. I'm of an age where I won't be around long enough to be affected by these laws as they're passed. But you're lving in a fool's paradise if you don't believe mandatory use laws won't proliferate and be enforced.

dynodonn 07-07-13 06:07 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824891)
They're harmless and useless laws.
If an LEO is enforcing a law that is on the books, and the law really does not take into account in fully addressing cyclists' safety needs, I wouldn't call the law harmless, useless maybe, not harmless.

Jaywalk3r 07-07-13 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15824911)
Have it your way. I'm of an age where I won't be around long enough to be affected by these laws as they're passed. But you're lving in a fool's paradise if you don't believe mandatory use laws won't proliferate and be enforced.
Who cares if they are enforced, if they are enforced as they are written? They tend to be written to only require bikes to take the bikelane/path in absence of any compelling (or not so compelling) reason to not do so. Recognizing that they pose no threat to cyclists is not "living in a fool's paradise." It's basic reading comprehension.

Jaywalk3r 07-07-13 06:23 PM
Originally Posted by dynodonn (Post 15824926)
If an LEO is enforcing a law that is on the books, and the law really does not take into account in fully addressing cyclists' safety needs, I wouldn't call the law harmless, useless maybe, not harmless.
To what law, exactly, are you referring? Or are you simply pointing out that it is, theoretically, possible to create a law that can harm cyclists? It's also possible that you could find a lottery ticket worth several million dollars on your next bike trip, but you might not want to quit your job just yet.

B. Carfree 07-07-13 06:33 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824964)
Who cares if they are enforced, if they are enforced as they are written? They tend to be written to only require bikes to take the bikelane/path in absence of any compelling (or not so compelling) reason to not do so. Recognizing that they pose no threat to cyclists is not "living in a fool's paradise." It's basic reading comprehension.
And here's one of the (many) places you are failing. Go back to the post that started this discussion of mandatory use. It referred to an impending replacement of bike lanes with a bike path. There is no practical way to leave an elevated two-way sidepath on the left side of the road and cross five lanes of 50 mph traffic to take the right lane, particularly with a load that is measured in the hundreds of pounds. Those dangerous driveways? Go back to the state law: once a sidepath has been certified as safe, then those driveways are legally safe, even if not safe in reality, and are no longer eligible as a reason to leave the sidepath. Also, I have made no statements opposing bike infrastructure in general, only the replacement of bike lanes with sidepaths that contain driveways or intersections and, of course, dzbls.

Be disagreeable if you must, but don't be a boor by misstating what others have said and misunderstanding simple scenarios.

spare_wheel 07-07-13 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15824777)
How many traffic tickets have you had to "suffer" because of Oregon traffic codes about bike lanes?
What makes you think the horns and insults you "suffer" are the result of Oregon traffic codes? Maybe there is something else about you or your riding style that earns you more insults and horns than other cyclists suffer in other locations with or without bike lanes.
once there is a segregated facility motorists tend to interpret the existing law to mean that cyclists "must" always use it. this is one of the major problems with poorly designed and incomplete segregation.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike (Post 15824777)
Maybe there is something else about you or your riding style that earns you more insults and horns than other cyclists suffer in other locations with or without bike lanes.
When I take roads with no infrastructure I have virtually no problems. Only on a few small stretches of my commute where I take the lane to avoid a very problematic cycletrack do I have negative interactions. Previously this stretch had a 6 foot bike lane which I used without any problems.

B. Carfree 07-07-13 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by northernlights (Post 15822184)
What do you know about cycling as a form of mass transportation? I'm guessing not very much. Not just merely transportation for the 1% of hardcore bikers, which is the only demographic that is willing to ride their bikes everyday on our very non-bike-friendly streets. The biking infrastructure in North America is pretty terrible 98% of the time, no question. But even so I think the Dutch can still learn from us. They can learn what not to do.
Your guess would be wrong. When I moved to Davis, CA in 1980, it was the unquestioned bike capital of the world. That lack of "infra" in Davis noted in the video was even more lacking when we had streets full of bikes from 1975-85. The bike was so clearly the dominant means of transportation that no one even bothered to collect ridership numbers. We arrogantly assumed the war against the car was over and we had won.

And about only hard-core cyclists being interested in riding any distance. We put on a little ride every May called the Davis Double Century. In the '80s about 5% of the city population either rode the ride or volunteered to support it. Of course that was in the days before the Balkanization of cycling.

Back then, folks from the Netherlands would visit to learn from our success. I suspect that the zero-tolerance traffic law enforcement we had was something that influenced them. Interestingly enough, that policy disappeared in the mid-'80s, along with most of the bikes. I still mourn the loss of that once-wonderful cycling nirvana. I stayed long enough to have my family known as the "bike family" since we were just about the last holdouts to a vanished past.

FBinNY 07-07-13 06:46 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824964)
Who cares if they are enforced, if they are enforced as they are written? They tend to be written to only require bikes to take the bikelane/path in absence of any compelling (or not so compelling) reason to not do so. Recognizing that they pose no threat to cyclists is not "living in a fool's paradise." It's basic reading comprehension.
There's no sense debating. You clearly believe what you believe which is your right. You also feel you can convince a judge (if it comes to that) that the loopholes are large enough for you to jump through. OTOH, if you've ever had to kill 3 hours in traffic court (on a good day) you might not be so sanguine about the harmless nature of must use laws. (and that's if you win).

I'm out on this thread, since all that could be said on the subject has been said, so continued debate is pointless.

Jaywalk3r 07-07-13 06:58 PM
Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 15825005)
Go back to the post that started this discussion of mandatory use.
You should do that. You'll find unfounded fear-mongering about how implementing bike infrastructure will force cyclists from the road, despite the laws being written in a manner that makes that extremely unlikely.

Jaywalk3r 07-07-13 07:09 PM
Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 15825040)
When I moved to Davis, CA in 1980, it was the unquestioned bike capital of the world.
That raises the question of how Amsterdam came to claim that title. It's almost as though prioritizing bikes and implementing bicycle specific infrastructure helped dramatically increase the bicycle modal share.

Jaywalk3r 07-07-13 07:18 PM
Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15825042)
You also feel you can convince a judge (if it comes to that) that the loopholes are large enough for you to jump through. OTOH, if you've ever had to kill 3 hours in traffic court (on a good day) you might not be so sanguine about the harmless nature of must use laws. (and that's if you win).
I would actually be eager for the opportunity. However, I've never lived anywhere where the "must use" or "ride right" laws were enforced in a manner inconsistent with the way they were written. LEOs I've encountered have all allowed cyclists to use their best judgement regarding where to ride.

Incidentally, I was recently given a verbal warning for trespassing for riding an MUP after dark that cut through a public park. I was told I needed to use the traffic lane of the adjacent road.

northernlights 07-07-13 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by B. Carfree (Post 15825040)
Your guess would be wrong. When I moved to Davis, CA in 1980, it was the unquestioned bike capital of the world. That lack of "infra" in Davis noted in the video was even more lacking when we had streets full of bikes from 1975-85. The bike was so clearly the dominant means of transportation that no one even bothered to collect ridership numbers. We arrogantly assumed the war against the car was over and we had won.

And about only hard-core cyclists being interested in riding any distance. We put on a little ride every May called the Davis Double Century. In the '80s about 5% of the city population either rode the ride or volunteered to support it. Of course that was in the days before the Balkanization of cycling.

Back then, folks from the Netherlands would visit to learn from our success. I suspect that the zero-tolerance traffic law enforcement we had was something that influenced them. Interestingly enough, that policy disappeared in the mid-'80s, along with most of the bikes. I still mourn the loss of that once-wonderful cycling nirvana. I stayed long enough to have my family known as the "bike family" since we were just about the last holdouts to a vanished past.

Davis is a great little cycling town, but it is an oasis in a desert of auto-sprawl.
A desert of auto-sprawl and endless traffic congestion is how I would describe 98% of California.

Which seems kind of ironic because California is supposed to be the great Golden State with great year round sunny mild weather. You would think it would very bike-friendly but it isn't at all. Especially Southern California where I grew up is known as the car capital of the world. People would rather drive or sit at home then be outside. Like vampires or something people are afraid to go out in the sun very much. They should call it the Vampire state. Same with Florida, supposed to be the Sunshine State but yet there's practically no public transit, no bike-friendly infra to speak of.

CB HI 07-07-13 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by northernlights (Post 15823088)
What Jaywalk3r said is indeed true. Spinal discs are gel-like materials in your spine that makes it bendable and flexible. They act like shock absorbers for your spine whenever you're running around, biking, jumping up and down or whatever. Without these flexible discs in your back you wouldn't be able to walk around or do much of anything.

http://www.spine-health.com/conditio...y/spinal-discs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interve...disc#Structure
And what you and Jaywalk3r clearly do not understand is that it is not a good thing pounding the hell out of those shock absorbers when a more aerodynamic cycling position will significantly expand the life of your spinal shock absorbers.

CB HI 07-07-13 10:12 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824042)
To start with, E = mc^2 is a consequence of Einstein's special relativity theory, not the theory itself. It's not even the most interesting consequence of the theory. Further, Einstein started with two postulates, and mathematically derived special relativity from those. It's easy enough to check his mathematical logic, so, no, guys like me (math guys) would not be calling him non-sensical.

Calling you non-sensical, on the other hand, would be perfectly justified!
Of course you would not call him wrong or non-sensical now that you know how wrong you would be. But back then you would, just like so many of your math buddies back then actually did. And just as you claim gravity now even though we all know so little about gravity.

And how interesting how much effort you put into deflecting from the point.

CB HI 07-07-13 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824141)
If you can't make a 400 foot climb on a heavy bike, you won't be able to do it on a light bike, either. It's the engine, not the bike, that matters. My daily load often varies by as more than the difference between a light and heavy commuter, and makes no noticeable difference in my commute.
Which does not include a 400 foot climb, does it. Now where was that >12% grade climb of yours in Springfield , Missouri again? I must have missed it in one of your previous post.

spare_wheel 07-07-13 10:37 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15825110)
That raises the question of how Amsterdam came to claim that title. It's almost as though prioritizing bikes and implementing bicycle specific infrastructure helped dramatically increase the bicycle modal share.
You do realize that amsterdam once had 70-80% cycling mode share without even a tiny fraction of its current segregated infrastructure. It's also an indisputable fact that the Dutch spent about a billion euros doubling their physically separated infrastructure while only showing a tiny increase in mode share. Likewise, Denmark has has an unfortunate decade-long downward trend in mode share despite a massive infrastructure building program. On the other hand, Germany has seen a meteoric rise in mode share despite a policy of decommissioning physically-separated infrastructure and construction of bike boulevards/lanes.

spare_wheel 07-07-13 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by northernlights (Post 15825178)
yet there's practically no public transit, no bike-friendly infra to speak of.
things are changing very rapidly in CA:

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/07/02...-green-status/
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2013/06/10...market-street/
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/05/19...ed-bike-lanes/
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2012/07/03...-17th-streets/

CB HI 07-07-13 10:48 PM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824339)
Actually, I have a bum knee. Riding a bike uphill doesn't bother it nearly as much as climbing stairs, but I do feel it.

Don't get me wrong, there are times I'd prefer having gears, but it isn't a big enough factor to keep me from riding where I want to ride.
You have bum knee but still choose to ride a single speed, you claim it best to ride upright because you have spinal shock absorbers (clueless that those will wear out with constant upright riding, you imply you routinely ride >12% climbs in Springfield, MO and you do 20 mph group rides for over 2 hours on your 36 x 18 geared upright steel single speed?:rolleyes::troll:

FBinNY 07-07-13 10:57 PM
Originally Posted by CB HI (Post 15825747)
...., you imply you routinely ride >12% climbs in Springfield, MO and you do 20 mph group rides for over 2 hours on your 36 x 18 geared upright steel single speed?:rolleyes::troll:
Watasmatta? Don't you believe that he can ride for two hours maintaining an average cadence of 128rpm for the entire time?

CB HI 07-08-13 01:18 AM
Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 15825764)
Watasmatta? Don't you believe that he can ride for two hours maintaining an average cadence of 128rpm for the entire time?
Well, he probably does 150 rpm up the easy >12% grades; then he has time to take a couple of sips of water at the 40 mile point. So I believe him, after all, the math guy knows everything about gravity.

sudo bike 07-08-13 05:59 AM
Originally Posted by Jaywalk3r (Post 15824127)
You're far different from some other posters in this thread, in that you don't assert that a Dutch city bike is too heavy to be ridden in the USA.

Currently, my only bike is a steel singlespeed 29er. I'm car-free, so it's my commuter, as well as my recreational ride.

Don't get me wrong, the bike is more fun than any other bike I've ever owned. I love it. However, had I realized that it would be my primary transportation when I bought it, I would have purchased something completely different. It certainly works as a commuter, in conjunction with a big backpack, but it isn't ideal by any stretch of the imagination. (I would argue that it's far better suited to the task than a road bike, but that isn't saying much.)

Since my primary use for a bike is commuting, my next bike will be a purpose built commuter. That will allow me to use my singlespeed for only recreational riding, which in turn will allow me to make small adjustments that make it even better at the stuff that it's good at.

If I'm buying a bike for a specific task, I'm not going to make any compromises with it. It won't have derailer gears or rim brakes, its chain will be fully enclosed, it will have plenty of cargo capacity, it will have plenty of clearance for wide tires and fenders, it will have a dynamo hub, and it won't require stretching out over the bike to ride. In other words, it will be optimized for commuting and utility riding.

I'm under no illusions that such a bike is ideal for other kinds of riding. Would it work? Absolutely, but other bikes would be better suited. But those other kinds of riding aren't why I'm interested in that kind of bike. I'm interested in that kind of bike because, after a few years of being car-free, I recognize that those features are quite desirable for a commuter/utility bike, something the Dutch figured out long ago.
Sounds like we're more or less on the same page. I really want to build a commuter around a city frame. I've been drooling over IGH's, hub dynamos, and the like for longer than is probably healthy. It would probably be more comfortable for my short ride onto/around campus. The touring bike will still be there for... touring, rec rides, or shopping trips that are a little further out.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:30 PM.
Page 14 of 19
« First
4
12
13
14
15
16
Last »
Show 30 post(s) from this thread on one page


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.