Urban Cycling Developments

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Leave the lawyerin' to the lawyers

I'm not sure what this is in response to? This is the same municipal code I referenced before posting, I just didn't feel it necessary to copy and paste the whole thing into this thread. Also why did you bold those parts?

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and if anyone wants to bring their bike to chicago and attempt to bike the stretch of sheridan road in question, you'll quickly see that it's a bit of a special case and that it is not just any old ordinary busy street. it's a freaking zoo at rush hours because of the overwhelming crush of cars trying to get on and off LSD right there at hollywood.

Also don't forget that it is usually crawling with ambulances and firetrucks that drive around picking up all the elderly that drop dead or are otherwise incapacitated. Delivery trucks also seem to think its super cool to just stop in the right lane and block traffic. Sheridan is the street from hell, I don't see why all those people in the highrises are against extending LSD around them to Evanston, it would radically change the nature of the street they live on and make it a vastly more pleasant place to live. As far as property values go, one needs look no further than where I live just south of Hollywood where Sheridan is nice and quiet to see that property values are much higher when the street you live on is completely messed up and you have a huge park with beaches in your back yard.

[fflint]

So Chicago guys (well, and anyone else in a transit-oriented city), I've got a question.

First an explanation: my cycling friends and I have noticed certain SF neighborhoods and districts we once considered remote or hard to access via public transit are now easily accessible. Biking has reordered our mental maps of the city's geography, and shaken up which areas/bars/parks/stores etc. are easy to get to. Has cycling altered your impression of your own city like that?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by fflint

We don't really have bike lanes in San Francisco--there are a few here and there, but the NIMBYs have prevented their installation for years and years now and motorists block them where they do exist--so we don't face the bike lane/door zone conundrum as often as riders in more progressive cities. California law allows cyclists full use of the lane when riding to the side is unsafe, and dooring is certainly a danger, so you'll see cyclists a bit farther out on most SF streets.

I've read your posts before about the Nimbys, but gosh, I never would have guessed San Francisco would be so hard on bikes. Bike riding must be a test of your endurance and nerve anyway in that city with the hills. So I would have thought bike lanes would be encouraged to keep them out of the lanes.

We're getting a few nice things here. There are bike lanes on select streets all around town, even in the suburban areas. Of course, not all of the streets have them, and some of those streets are nearly impossible to ride on because of killer hills and higher speed limits, say above 35 miles an hour. Bikes are accepted on the streets here, since not all of them have bike lanes. From my house going into downtown, there's only one major street with bike lanes to downtown. So that's the one I take. There are 3 other streets that lead either into downtown, or near it. Those three don't have bike lanes, but two of those allow bicyclists to ride in the street and even take the full lane. The third street is pretty much off limits to bikes since the terrain goes up and down like a roller coaster. So we have bike lanes, bikes are allowed to take the full lane on at least some streets (where it's safe), and we're even getting some bike boulevards in downtown.

Originally Posted by fflint

And Kevin--11 bikes? What a junkie!

Yeah. Of course that's counting everything, including a frame of a 1968 Schwinn Collegiate that I'm wanting to put together, a 1985? GT Performer (BMX) bike that I rode when I was a teen, and a junkie Roadmaster I found that I use for late night trips to the convenience store. I only spent 5 dollars on it, getting the tubes replaced, it's a real piece of junk, so if it gets swiped I won't be crushed. 4 of them aren't quite ridable yet.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I'm not sure what this is in response to? This is the same municipal code I referenced before posting, I just didn't feel it necessary to copy and paste the whole thing into this thread. Also why did you bold those parts?


.

Because you made a legal conclusion that is not in fact what the code says...any how enough about that

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by fflint

So Chicago guys (well, and anyone else in a transit-oriented city), I've got a question.

First an explanation: my cycling friends and I have noticed certain SF neighborhoods and districts we once considered remote or hard to access via public transit are now easily accessible. Biking has reordered our mental maps of the city's geography, and shaken up which areas/bars/parks/stores etc. are easy to get to. Has cycling altered your impression of your own city like that?

Most definitely......I am an avid cyclists from mid/ late MArch - November.....not the winter Rambo that Steely is. One of the greatest things about cycling around the city is seeing things / new places etc that I otherwise would blow by in a car at 40mph also I often take meandering routes where I "discover" places I never knew existed despite having been in those areas before.
\
Also one thing.....cycling has shown me how far the northside has come and how far parts of the southside and westsides need to go......god if we could just get those parts of the city as health as much of the northside Chicago would be really something else

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

seriously? the police in portland actually pull over cyclists who break traffic laws? i've never experienced nor witnessed such a thing in chicago, and i've rolled through stop signs directly in front of squad cars before and they just look on or give a wave. bikes are invisible to the CPD, i guess they're just too busy contending with real crime to be bothered with writing up traffic tickets to cyclists.

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

And if they gave them a ticket are they going to force them to show them their ID to be able to ensure they get payment.

Yes, in fact. They will actually arrest you if you don't have some sort of ID. I'd know - I was pulled over and given a ticket about a year ago for making a California-stop, right-on-red on my bicycle. In Portland. On a bike.

$242 for failure to obey a traffic control device.

I knew a guy in Portland who was tackled by multiple PPD officers for not having a front bike light:

http://bikeportland.org/2008/06/11/m...rtland-police/

=========================

As for not being able to ride a bike and being well dressed? Seriously?!?!



Picture courtesy of larsdaniel on flickr
Via www.copenhagencyclechic.com

Check out this:

http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/s...0in%20a%20suit


Picture courtesy of bikeportland.org

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Yes, in fact. They will actually arrest you if you don't have some sort of ID. I'd know - I was pulled over and given a ticket about a year ago for making a California-stop, right-on-red on my bicycle. In Portland. On a bike.

$242 for failure to obey a traffic control device.

I knew a guy in Portland who was tackled by multiple PPD officers for not having a front bike light:

I was threatened with a ticket last summer at North and Damen by a bike cop.....bike cops are almost 100% pricks on wheels.....for not having a front light.....it was late afternoon / early eve in summer 6ish or a little later.....sunset that day was after 8pm ;
according to the chicago muni code you need a light at night.....not during daylight....nonetheless he threatened me with a ticket unless I accepted a free light that was being passed out by some bike ambassador....fcukin brown shirts don't even know the law

9-52-080 Headlamps, reflectors and brakes.

(a) Every bicycle when in use at nighttime shall be equipped with a head lamp which shall emit a white light visible from a minimum distance of 500 feet from the front and with a rear red reflector capable of reflecting the head lamp beams of an approaching motor vehicle back to the operator of such vehicle at distances up to 200 feet or a rear lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of at least 200 feet from the rear.


--Correction to above....I should have said twilight, not dusk, and twilight would begin at sunset

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by fflint

Dooring is the #1 cause of cyclist injury-accidents. Here in California, dooring is *always* the motorist's fault, even if done by a passenger. That's why cabbies don't want you entering/exiting on the left, and won't unlock the back doors until all is clear.

I got doored at ashland and foster here in chicago this fall...broke my hand in multiple places, broke my ribs in multiple places, cracked my head, seriously bruised my hip....still feel it, bike was screwed up......lucky I am alicve given traffic level on ahsland

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Ouch! Did you sue the crap out of the person that doored you? That's why I never ride on Ashland (not the dooring, but the traffic as you mention), especially not up in that area, people treat the segment between Lawrence and Clark like a freaking freeway. That attitude continues on up Ridge/Peterson and Clark for quite a ways too.

I actually came within inches of destroying some moron on his bike with my car at the corner of Ridge and Clark because he completely blew a red light. He was going North on Clark and I was going NW on Ridge so he was coming at me from 45 degrees back and to my left so it was even harder to see him. He blew the light so badly that I had already begun accelerating into the green and had moved about 10 feet forward when he came tearing in front of the van in the left lane and I. That guy was a complete moron and will probably be dead within 6 months if he keeps riding like that, especially in intersections like Ridge and Clark.

Re: Posting the entire code, it doesn't take a lawyer to look up and read the Municipal code. But anyhow, the mistake I made was reading the section on Bike Messengers and seeing that they have to have an ID on them and not noticing it was in a subsection re: bike Messengers.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

What about main streets that allow parking...

On one hand we know that cars wouldn't be driving in those lanes but then there are those unexpected doors opening on you and stuff.

Portland does this:







In the third picture, as you can see, a special green painted box exists to allow bicycles to turn left across traffic when the light crosses pedestrians.

[mwadswor]

Originally Posted by JordanL

IMO, this is the best way to do bike lanes. The parked cars provide a nice buffer with traffic and there's enough room to stay out of door range. The biggest problem as pointed out in the news story posted a bit ago, is that you're riding in a spot where cars turning right won't notice you if they aren't used to the street and paying good attention.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by fflint

So Chicago guys (well, and anyone else in a transit-oriented city), I've got a question.

First an explanation: my cycling friends and I have noticed certain SF neighborhoods and districts we once considered remote or hard to access via public transit are now easily accessible. Biking has reordered our mental maps of the city's geography, and shaken up which areas/bars/parks/stores etc. are easy to get to. Has cycling altered your impression of your own city like that?

cycling has definitely opened up crap loads more of my city to me, well, really more of my entire metro area, thanks to chicagoland's forest preserve system and our awesome commuter rail system that allows bicycles on the trains.

as one example, my sister lives WAY the hell out in the exburban boondock wastelands of lake county illinois, but i can ride my bike from my downtown home out to her house with all but about 10 of those 65 miles on off street bike paths. how freaking cool is that?

as for bars, i still use public transit and cabs for bar nights because riding a bike when i'm black-out drunk is just downright dangerous.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by mwadswor

IMO, this is the best way to do bike lanes. The parked cars provide a nice buffer with traffic and there's enough room to stay out of door range. The biggest problem as pointed out in the news story posted a bit ago, is that you're riding in a spot where cars turning right won't notice you if they aren't used to the street and paying good attention.

I can agree with that, often times when I am turning where this style of bike lane is I have found it to be hard to fully see if there were any bikes coming. I have never had an issue yet, but I can see where one would come from. Which I think it is the bikers responsibility to pay attention to their surroundings when coming up on these intersections.

This is actually a test, the other test street is Oak and Stark, where we reduced the lanes by one to create a bike lane that sits in between parked cars and moving cars. This idea also has its pluses and minuses, it is easier to see people on bikes, but you also have idiots who dont pay attention to paint and think their car can drive anywhere they want. Also you get an issue with people swerving into the bike lane to try to get a street parking spot. There is also an issue of cars using the bike lane as a turn lane, which is also wrong of car drivers.

[M II A II R II K]

The Sharrow


March 28, 2010



Read More: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...cks-geraniums/

On the confirmation side, Trevor Haag, 22, who lives in University City, turned his cycling enthusiasm into a study of shared-lane markings on narrow streets — stylized arrows and bike symbols called “sharrows.” The question he tackled was whether driving and cycling behavior changes in the presence of these markings.

“I didn’t think it would have a significant effect on behavior,” Haag said, and therefore formal bicycle lanes would seem to be the safest way to separate cars from bikes.

Haag did his field work on Pacific Street in Oceanside, among the county’s first use of sharrows markings. He noticed that motorists tend to steer away from the space marked by the arrow and bike symbol and cyclists lean to the left side of the markings away from parked cars, when at any moment a driver could open a door and cause an accident with oncoming rider. Earlier, he surveyed users of the street, and few realized the markings were there

“I was really surprised how the surveys and field research contradicted each other,” he said. “I expected people would change their behavior if they noticed the markings, but I didn’t have a strong reporting of it.”

He checked narrow streets in Pacific Beach where there are no markings and found driving and bike-riding behavior were not as safe.

The conclusion: Caltrans engineers knew what they were doing when they painted the sharrows markings — motorists subconsciously look out for cyclists when there is a periodic reminder painted on the pavement.

“These findings contradict the popular belief that drivers and bicyclists are cognizant of their routine actions,” Haag said in his 21-page paper.

[vid]

A few months ago some idiot, by himself, got my city to change a plan for bike lanes on just one block of street to sharrows so that he could park his car in front of his house on the street instead of in the driveway behind the house.

[PragmaticIdealist]

Bicycles are a form of transportation that is best combined with Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, like golf carts, etc.

Most other motorized vehicles are not human-scaled. They generate air and noise pollution. And, they are unsafe because they weigh several tons and can travel at high speeds. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, conversely, are able to provide short-range transportation for those users who are, otherwise, opposed to bicycles.

The ideal is for privately-owned vehicles, like bicycles and Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, to be combined with: walkable mixed-use development; high-quality transit (everything from high-speed trains to local circulators); and clean-energy car and bike sharing (subscription-based rentals of cars and bikes, as well as Neighborhood Electric Vehicles).

[M II A II R II K]

US Transportation Secretary pushes bike reform


6 Apr 2010

By Kirsten Frattini

Read More: http://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...-reform--25643

Ray LaHood, the US Secretary of Transportation, encouraged the Department of Transportation to raise bicycling and walking to equal terms with motorized forms of transportation in a new policy statement this month. LaHood announced the need for major reform in transportation policy on the Department of Transportation blog several weeks ago. The Policy Statement on Bicycling and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendation was signed on March 11 and announced on March 15.

“This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized,” LaHood said.

The statement puts walking and bicycling on equal ground with other transportation modes. It ensures that there are transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities, especially children. The policy recommendation asks urban planners to go beyond a minimum design standard and integrates bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on rehabilitated and limited-access bridges.

The statement seeks data to set targets for walking and biking trips. It also sets provisions for maintaining sidewalks and shared-use paths, in the same way roadways are maintained, especially during snowy weather. It requires the improvement of non-motorized facilities during maintenance projects.

The statement is similar to the fast growing Complete Streets policy whereby cycling advocates support a redesign for road use to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and transit passengers and to build road networks that are safer for everyone.

A 'complete street' has provisions for motorized and non-motorized users.

[M II A II R II K]

Brooklyn Welcomes Bike-Friendly Policy


04-14-2010

By Joan Lowy & Raanan Geberer



Read More: http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categor...id=31&id=34786

BROOKLYN – In Washington, D.C., Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a weekend bicyclist, is facing a backlash after saying that the government is going to give bicycling and walking the same importance as cars in transportation planning and funding. The National Association of Manufacturers called the policy “dumb and irresponsible,” while Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) suggested that the secretary’s thinking had been “clouded by drugs.”

But in Brooklyn, bicyclists have found a much friendlier atmosphere. The borough has miles and miles of bike paths – both dedicated paths like those in Prospect Park and on Ocean and Eastern parkways, and bike lanes in city streets like those on Bedford Avenue, Union Street, Third Avenue, Grand Avenue, Empire Boulevard and elsewhere. And, of course, this includes the bike paths over the Manhattan, Brooklyn and Williamsburg bridges.

The new policy is an extension of the Obama administration's livability initiative, which regards the creation of alternatives to driving — buses, streetcars, trolleys and trains, as well as biking and walking — as central to solving the nation's transportation woes. Many in Brooklyn welcome the policy, saying that federal funding accounts for the majority of financing for bike-path improvements.

[philvia]

my dad has a truck he uses for recreational purposes... hmmmmm i wonder what John Cook would think about that.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by fflint

The bicycle is obviously a transportation device, and one that was on our streets before cars were even invented.

So is the horse. So what?