Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Commuter innovation
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:48:48 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <uum430$3tspr$2@dont-email.me>
References: <uu14g8$2rhqp$1@dont-email.me> <uu1d8i$2tl4a$1@dont-email.me>
 <uu1oqn$153im$2@dont-email.me> <uu6s8v$dib2$1@dont-email.me>
 <uu72i2$3hru4$3@dont-email.me> <uu795o$giit$2@dont-email.me>
 <jHGNN.170832$1t2.145142@fx05.ams4> <uu7n17$jmbh$1@dont-email.me>
 <FslON.151628$Tp2.96788@fx03.ams4> <uud7it$28r4g$1@dont-email.me>
 <i2UON.137594$2N2.51864@fx09.ams4> <uuh8g1$39k8q$1@dont-email.me>
 <LEYON.221060$yZ2.42395@fx13.ams4> <uukatj$42v9$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 11:48:49 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fb50002821c92d5c479d9d0d32a51d2b";
	logging-data="4125499"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19lv33fhGFRUr6hBAgQlcjwpw27YsP91G4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u9xGqZ7SpOIK9BAn/Xzwb20mNt0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uukatj$42v9$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 6223

On 4/3/2024 3:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/2/2024 3:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 4/2/2024 9:50 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if you're including typical "protected bike lanes" in 
>>>>> your
>>>>> "full on separated" category or not. But the "protected" bike lane 
>>>>> I've
>>>>> linked to before (near our city's downtown) is shunned by almost all
>>>>> cyclists in part because of its debris. The low concrete separators 
>>>>> are
>>>>> apparently not able to stop gravel, etc. from being flung in from the
>>>>> road. And those separators do have gaps for driveway access.
>>>>
>>>> At least the one you linked seems very poorly implemented and next to
>>>> industrial/commercial buildings and as such likely to collect debris
>>>> quickly, ie it’s something of self fulfilling proficiency.
>>>
>>> You seem to be employing the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
>>>
>>> I'm giving shortcomings of bike facilities as they actually exist here.
>>> Wolfgang has done the same for those actually existing in Germany. I'm
>>> not impressed by claims saying "Well, _those_ are badly done," and
>>> implications that few have the documented problems.
>>>
>> That one cycle lane you’ve highlighted is subpar we’ve agreed on that, 
>> your
>> cherry picking your data to try to defend your ideology/political views.
> 
> I'm not cherry picking. Regarding bad design or bad maintenance, I'm 
> describing what I've seen and what data has revealed in countless 
> cities. 

You cherry picked one article that you thought supported your position, 
and as Jeff pointed out, the article didn't do a very good job of it. If 
you're relating 'data from countless cities', we have yet to see any 
evidence of it.

> The fundamental fact is, so few people are interested in 
> ditching their cars that it's foolish for municipal governments to spend 
> real money on either design or maintenance. Funds are limited and 
> budgets are real, so corners are cut.
> 
> And about design: Many starry-eyed facility advocates say "It's so 
> easy!" But totally separate bike paths are impossible in almost all 
> locations, because commercial land (i.e. where people actually need to 
> go) is already owned by someone, and is very valuable. There are rare 
> exceptions (apparently your embankment is one), but pretending that's 
> somehow normal is blatant cherry picking.

It's neither rare, nor an exception, nor cherry picking from Rogers 
experience, and is well supported by the many other Europeans who post 
in this forum describing the government run infrastructure supporting 
bike lane use, _successfully_.

> 
> And integrating a bike lane into an existing road runs up against a 
> fundamental geometric problem: You're almost always trying to put 
> straight-ahead bike traffic to the right (in the U.S.) of motor vehicles 
> that may be turning right. The conflict should be obvious. That practice 
> is not allowed in any other road situation, for good reasons.

We get it. You hate cycling infrastructure. You think it's a waste of 
time and money, and consider it to be inherently unsafe and unworkable.

> ISTM we're dealing with vague fantasies of huge herds of cyclists 
> flowing hassle-free and dwarfing the motorist population. Decades of 
> effort and resulting data have proven that it's really just fantasy.

Europe has proven otherwise. This isn't an issue of objective, inherent, 
and insurmountable problems as you claim, it's one of USAian attitude. 
Here's one example:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/22/bike-lane-debate-continues-cambridge/

"The qualitative survey results in the study revealed that more than 60 
percent of the business owners believe their revenues declined following 
the installation of the bike lanes.

“That is what they’re feeling. That is what their experience is. And 
even though it couldn’t be matched up with financial data, it’s still a 
great concern as to what is happening with our businesses,” Councilor 
Joan F. Pickett said."

Let me point out the relevant issue for certain other willfully ignorant 
trolls in this forum (no, Frank, that isn't directed at you):

"60 percent of the business owners believe their revenues declined 
following the installation of the bike lanes....even though it couldn’t 
be matched up with financial data".

Trying to analogize your disdain for efforts in this country with 
successful examples in other parts of the world isn't going to work.

The only objective, inherent, and insurmountable problem is USAian 
selfishness.



> 

-- 
Add xx to reply