headers
eric.britton | 1 Apr 2001 13:36

"I'm an instructor in our local cyclists' club and we teach . . "

Dear Theo Schmidt and other knowledgeable CarFree Cyclists,

We here at The Commons - the group behind Earth Car Free Day - have long
maintained in our transport policy and practice work that cycling, and in
particular urban cycling, is something that people need to take the time to
learn to do properly. We have seen in over thirty years of observation and
advisory work in almost as many countries that is simply ain't as easy as
it may look to most observers. When an American or Southern European goes
to the Netherlands or Demark and sees all those people scooting about so
easily on their cycles, the presumption all too often is what is needed to
making cycling safe and effective is hardware (paths, bike racks, etc.) and
certainly not software (training, education, culture). And of course they
are fatally wrong (and all too often as Theo has pointed out literally so).
Which brings me to my question and proposition to you all.

On Earth Car Free Day we would like to see if we can get this message out,
and for that we need to have access to some sort of "kit" to guide people in
this. Maybe such a kit already exists. If do, it would be great to know
where so that we can link to it.
Certainly one fine example of a good tool for this is that
www.bicyclinglife.com site which Lauren Cooper mentions. But I see this as
a very useful input and not exactly the tool that we are looking for here.

More generally I am aware that there is a lot that is available on our
subject, but I wonder if someone who is right in the middle of this might
possibly take a few hours and create specifically an outline and guide for a
1-3 hour 'cycling initiation workshop' that people with a heart, head and
good strong legs might be able to use in their communities to either start
or support ongoing educational efforts and programs along these lines. A
curriculum of sorts. And I imagine that anything along these lines could be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
FolderPete | 1 Apr 2001 18:50
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re:What Is Safe Bicycling -- lanes

In a message dated 4/1/01 2:26:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, EB writes:

> Though I agree with JF's premise that bike lanes are really just a
> conspiracy to get bikes out of the way 

While I don't hold anything against JF, I guess I disagree with him here. I 
like bike lanes. Think there should be more. And the analogy is the slow 
lane and the passing lane on the hywy. Generally this works well in the 
car-context; and I'd like an even slower lane for bikes. Without the 
separator line, cars tend to drift, with the slower (but no less deadly) ones 
drifting to the right where us bikes ride. Better that its demarcated, so 
they stay where they belong.

Besides, where else will all the SUVs double-park?
FP jsut another april fool
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Lisa Brandt | 1 Apr 2001 19:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: Great sign

Oh, I wish I could get ahold of one of these!!

--- In CarFree@..., Karen Sandness <ksand <at> h...> wrote:
> Walking around town, I happened to pass a building that had offices 
with
> big windows at street level.
> 
> One of the workers had poster on his/her cubicle. Judging from the
> graphic style and content, it was from the era of World War II 
gasoline
> rationing, but it's a clever way of publicizing existing car-
sharing organizations.
> 
> It said, "If you drive alone, you're driving with Hitler. Join a
> car-sharing club."
> 
> That was my good laugh for the day.
> 
> In transit,
> Karen Sandness
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
De Clarke | 1 Apr 2001 21:32
Favicon

bike lanes, pro and con

FolderPete@... (FolderPete <at> aol.com) wrote:
> In a message dated 4/1/01 2:26:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, EB writes:
> 
> > Though I agree with JF's premise that bike lanes are really just a
> > conspiracy to get bikes out of the way 
> 
> While I don't hold anything against JF, I guess I disagree with him here. I 
> like bike lanes. Think there should be more. And the analogy is the slow 
> lane and the passing lane on the hywy. Generally this works well in the 
> car-context; and I'd like an even slower lane for bikes. Without the 
> separator line, cars tend to drift, with the slower (but no less deadly) ones 
> drifting to the right where us bikes ride. Better that its demarcated, so 
> they stay where they belong.

This is a very complicated topic. So please forgive a longish post...
and skip it if you are not deeply interested in bike lanes.

Car Speed

A "slow lane" which bikes can use in heavy car traffic is a Good Thing,
particularly where cars are permitted to drive fast (25 mph and more). On
a high-speed road like a highway, the bikes need to be separated further
from the cars because of the buffeting from the air envelope around the
larger, faster vehicle. I would like to have at least 10 feet distance
from cars and trucks moving at 50mph and more. Unfortunately, in my area
the fastest roads have tiny, badly-paved shoulders, and the "bike lanes"
are on lower-speed roads!

Now, having said this, I'd like to note that cars are permitted to
drive too fast in densely populated and residential areas, period.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Ed Beighe | 2 Apr 2001 01:53
Favicon

Re: bike lanes, pro and con


From: De Clarke <de@...>
> , and the "bike lanes"
> are on lower-speed roads!

Oh, this is so typical. In my area, many of the collector roads have bike
lanes. The usual configuration is a 48' wide (! curbface-to-curbface), one
"car lane" of 19' in each direction, 5' bikelane, 1 foot gutter pan (no
parking! there is virtaully no on-street parking except on residential
streets).
One can only guess that the roads are built wide so that they can be
instantaneously converted to more lanes(?).

None of the arterials around me has bike lanes. They are typically set up
with either 4 or 6 (2 or 3 each direction) 10.5' lanes. The worst
configuration has a right hand edge stripe and a 1 to 3 foot shoulder next
to a vertical curb. I call it a shoulder because that's what it is legally,
it is (properly) not marked as a bike lane -- however for all intents and
purposes, to motorists, it is a bike lane. Some of these arterials are also
marked with the green/white Bicycle Route signs and "Share the Road" (which
I really HATE) signs, further adding to the confusion.

> Pedestrians have a right, in CA, to cross the street at any
> point including the middle of the block, and they have the right of way.

Really???!!! This just can't be correct -- the right of way part I mean, it
would be chaos(?) Here is AZ statue, for example:

28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk
A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
De Clarke | 2 Apr 2001 05:26
Favicon

Re: bike lanes, pro and con

Ed Beighe (ebeighe@...) wrote:
> 
> > Pedestrians have a right, in CA, to cross the street at any
> > point including the middle of the block, and they have the right of way.
> 
> Really???!!! This just can't be correct -- the right of way part I mean, it
> would be chaos(?) Here is AZ statue, for example:
> 
> 28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk
> A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked
> crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the
> right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

You got me there! I had that info by hearsay, not from reading the CVC.
I will check with other sources... it may very well be that peds can legally 
cross anywhere, but the r-o-w is reversed in mid-block. Sadly, in my town 
it doesn't make much difference, cars take the r-o-w on pedwalks also :-( 
violation of occupied crosswalk is probably the most common moving violation 
on our local streets, and almost never ticketed...

de

--

-- 
.............................................................................
:De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
:Mail: de@... | :
:Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
De Clarke | 2 Apr 2001 06:12
Favicon

ped xings and ROW

De Clarke (de@...) wrote:
> Ed Beighe (ebeighe@...) wrote:
> > 
> > > Pedestrians have a right, in CA, to cross the street at any
> > > point including the middle of the block, and they have the right of way.
> > 
> > Really???!!! This just can't be correct -- the right of way part I mean, it
> > would be chaos(?)
> > 

City of Walnut Creek official traffic safety info online:

http://www.ci.walnut-creek.ca.us/crosswalks.html

precis:

it is illegal for a ped to cross the street other than at
an intersection only in business districts. elsewhere peds
can cross the street anywhere.

right of way is by a "who was here first" rule: a pedestrian
is not supposed to step out in front of a vehicle "close enough
to present a hazard," but a driver is supposed to yield to
any ped already crossing the street. I am surprised to find
that in the Walnut Creek document, this ROW rule seems to be
applied to marked crosswalks... given the aggressive flow of
traffic at many of our intersections, a ped who waited until
there was no car closely approaching would wait a heckuva 
long time :-)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
eric.britton | 2 Apr 2001 10:53

Adolf alone. "Oh, I wish I could get ahold of one of these!!"

Well, you can. We have had Adolf helping us in our carshare work for a
number of years now, and here is how you can have him for your warm self.
Slight complicated, but it's worth the detour.

1. Go to www.carfreeday.com
2. Click Media Tool Box
3. Click Project Library
4. Click Local CFD support doc.

At that point you are ready to have your very own Adolf Alone poster.

But as with everything in life, there is a price for this.

You have to (have to?) have a look at the Earth Car Free Day and then sign
in. \

Uncle World needs you!

Earth Car Free Day 2001 is at www.carfreeday.com
"We must be the change we wish to see"

The Commons ___technology, economy, society ___
Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France
Eric.Britton@... Tel: +331 4326 1323 URL ecoplan.org
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
eric.britton | 2 Apr 2001 13:05

Today on Earth Car Free Day: Special New Colonist Issue on CarFree Cities

This is to let you know that the TODAY selection for Earth Car Free Day for
April 2nd, following the awful April 1st debacle of "Music City USA Car-Full
Day", is the entire Special Issue on CarFree Cities of our good friends over
at The New Colonist. Read all about it at www.carfreeday.com

(For tomorrow's Today selection, we have given into incredible popular
pressure (two people) who have asked us to make one-click available the
original World War II US poster, "When you ride alone you ride with
Hitler!". This carshare publicity is a large pdf file, but it is virus
free.)

And while you are wandering about in out site, don't forget to sign in. All
it takes is a click, and a conscience.

We know we are going to hear from you,

Eric Britton

PS. We need your nominations and suggestions for future TODAY pieces that
will help wake up and inform.

Earth Car Free Day 2001 is at www.carfreeday.com
"We must be the change we wish to see"

The Commons ___technology, economy, society ___
Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris, France
Eric.Britton@... Tel: +331 4326 1323 URL ecoplan.org
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ed Beighe | 2 Apr 2001 17:05
Favicon

Re: ped xings and ROW

From: De Clarke <de@...>
>
> 21952. The driver of any motor vehicle, prior to driving over or
> upon any sidewalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian
> approaching thereon.
>
> driving upon a sidewalk? huh? I thought driving on
> a sidewalk was just plain illegal, period, end of story.
>

No, it looks like this covers both driveways ("driving over") and also the
occaisonally need to drive on sidewalks, think in terms of maintenance
vehicles, college campus, etc.
It *does* have the strongest rights for peds, so it sounds OK.

> something I am surprised not to see here (maybe it's in another
> section?) is a rule about a crosswalk with people on it. I thought

Here is the AZ version of what you are referring to. In short, cars on the
*same side* of the road as the ped must yield. I, too, am thinking that CA
has a more stringent deal?

28-792. Right-of-way at crosswalk
A. Except as provided in section 28-793, subsection B, if traffic control
signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle
shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be in order
to yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the
pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling
or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of
the roadway as to be in danger. A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave any
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane