Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: central bike lanes
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 16:12:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 101
Message-ID: <vmubc4$1q2s6$3@dont-email.me>
References: <lvf1g3FqdgaU1@mid.individual.net> <vmtmis$1ma6d$1@dont-email.me>
 <vmu2su$1o8bt$3@dont-email.me> <lvflm7Ftj5aU1@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 22:12:37 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ee00c4715cad0c6424c0f220541dbc1c";
	logging-data="1903494"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19a9jqsOZW4kA+bPVtvBHeNMx7mXxBQ1YA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LOjOkWKHXU4fg2CGrMOUTaNnv7E=
In-Reply-To: <lvflm7Ftj5aU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5901

On 1/23/2025 3:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/23/2025 10:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2025 8:19 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>> <https://youtu.be/sfflAs-GCVc?si=AHf0WbvpjAHmlDJD>
>>>>
>>>> Update on the street in San Francisco by “Rob the road guy” I tend to
>>>> agree
>>>> that it’s the wrong solution to this location ie how do you stop for a
>>>> coffee/cake. So on.
>>>>
>>>> I guess that it (having the bike lanes in the middle would work on
>>>> locations such as London Embankment where all traffic is moving though
>>>> with
>>>> controlled junctions, than a shopping street where one of the
>>>> advantages of
>>>> bike traffic is generally it’s easier to just stop and do some
>>>> shopping and
>>>> so hence the typical curve where businesses are horrified by the idea of
>>>> segregated bike lane but once it’s installed and foot traffic increases
>>>> tend to be pro it.
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Meh.
>>> Guerrero Street is parallel. No problem.
> 
> And by looks of things quite a bit steeper, 7/9% as Valencia seems to be in
> the sweet spot with the various hills and only 1% or so.
> 
> Either way been done and tried and failed to convince cyclists that they
> should take back streets and be shunted off and take the long way around.
> 
> Ie clearly is a reason Guerrero and others are shunned looking at the
> heatmap for the area, I’m sure it’s rideable but doesn’t seem to be folks
> 1st choice.
>>
>> I'd absolutely choose a street without the crazy infrastructure.
>>
>> Before the center bike lane, the average car speed was 24 mph. If there
>> were no special stripes at all, a cyclist could just ride far enough
>> leftward to avoid the parked cars' door zone, cars could pass on the
>> left, bicyclists approaching intersections or driveways wouldn't be
>> hidden behind parked vehicles, and traffic would flow smoothly.
>> Especially if the "green wave" traffic light timing were maintained for
>> cyclist speeds.
> 
> Looks like they will do a more conventional design at least I think that’s
> what Rob reported, which should allow more foot traffic, as he noted number
> of car parking will decline even if put back to as it was, as they don’t
> allow parking near the junctions any more!
> 
> How that is win beggars belief!

I don't consider "parking protected" to be a conventional design. It 
took a secretive and well organized political campaign to get it 
approved with no serious engineering evaluations. The earliest attempts 
trying "parking protected" bike lanes were soon terminated because of 
big increases in car-bike crashes. There are real hazards to hiding 
bicyclists out of sight until just before crossing points.

The "daylighting" of intersections (which I've mentioned here before) is 
an attempt to somewhat mitigate that hazard. But if timid cyclists 
demand a sanctified place to ride, it's far better to put it where the 
cyclists are visible. That should be adjacent to the normal traffic 
lane, and well away from parked cars' door zone.

Even that really shouldn't be necessary. The entire "Gotta have a bike 
lane!" campaign is based on unrealistic fear of being run down directly 
from behind. It's not that it never happens, but it's about the rarest 
type of car-bike collision - something like 3%, IIRC.

A street with average traffic speed of 24 mph needs nothing. Well, maybe 
hash marks to convince the unwitting riders (um... like the guy in the 
video!) to stay out of the door zone.

>> And what's with the "parklets"? What's the rationale for letting a
>> restaurant take over public space on the roads? That seems weird - not
>> much different than letting a homeless guy set up his tent in that same
>> space.
>>
> It’s no more than parking a car, which is what they replace and does allow
> more folks to get something from the space, they aren’t without their
> issues and so on.

We could segue into parking places - as in "Why is it ever legal to 
store your personal property (your car) on public property for free?" 
But if they have parking meters, I'm fine with that, and it seems 
Valencia does.

But back to the "parklets": It's a bit weird for business proprietors to 
be complaining about lack of parking, while other business proprietors 
are taking over parking places to cheaply expand their businesses. 
They're squatting on public land! I assume someone passes an ordinance 
allowing that, but if the traffic problems are as extreme as the video 
portrays, "parklets" make no sense to me.

-- 
- Frank Krygowski