Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Car free mostly, car light otherwise

Expand Messages
  • fred_dot_u
    I ve noted in the on-topic posts that many people comment about how difficult it is to ride safely on our roads. Those cyclists who have taken LAB road courses
    Message 1 of 15 , Apr 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I've noted in the on-topic posts that many people comment about how
      difficult it is to ride safely on our roads. Those cyclists who have
      taken LAB road courses learn to manage the lane and enjoy safer riding
      as a result. What many people do not realize is that there is a motor
      vehicle result on the positive side.

      When I ride in the center of my lane, which is almost always
      sub-standard width (under 14 feet), traffic behind me are able to see me
      and plan and execute a lane change under less self-imposed stress. I
      have seen in my mirror motorists change lanes as far back as a quarter
      mile. I usually ride on high-speed multi-lane roadways because they are
      usually the only route to my destination. I've also found that these
      roads are in quite good condition, with respect to debris and road
      deterioration.

      On wider roadways, I will move over to the right portion of the lane,
      allowing following traffic to pass me safely. These areas are usually
      quite short, under a half-mile in length and usually terminate in a
      right turn only area, at which point I move into the lane and control it
      again.

      Within the last two months, I've been stopped three times by the police
      officers of a particular city. I have been cited twice, which would have
      resulted in a nearly fifty dollar fine per citation. I chose to hire an
      attorney and together we assembled a Motion to Dismiss. The foundation
      for the Motion was that the specific statute for which I was charged
      also contained an exception for sub-standard width lanes, also defined
      in the statute. The definition was that a sub-standard width lane is one
      that is of insufficient width for a motor vehicle and bicycle to occupy
      side-by-side. The officers involved in the traffic stop refused to
      consider this exception. Florida DOT documents also specify that the
      minimum lane width for a motor vehicle and bicycle to occupy
      side-by-side is fourteen feet. This is nearly the exact wording of both
      the FL DOT manual and the FL Statutes. We also included in the motion
      some documents printed from the Florida Bicycle Association web site
      which describe safe lane positioning for cyclists.

      Four days after filing the Motion to Dismiss, the Clerk of Court public
      records had an entry with my name and citation numbers, followed by
      Disposition: DISMISSED.

      I highly recommend that car-free cyclists check their state statutes for
      similar wording and to carry a copy of the statutes and the LAB
      documents, and if your DOT has a standards manual, see if there's a
      reference for cycling safe widths.

      I've assembled a package in PDF form containing my citations, the
      supporting documents and the disposition documents, with duplicates
      removed (two citations, one set of documents) for anyone who wishes to
      make use of it. You can download it at:
      http://www.humanpoweredmessages.com/trafficstopcollection.pdf
      <http://www.humanpoweredmessages.com/trafficstopcollection.pdf>

      I hope this is helpful to cyclists all over the nation. If I help even
      one rider avoid the grief with which I had to contend, it will have been
      worth every dollar. I can now ride safely without worrying about
      getting a traffic citation from an uninformed uniformed officer (or the
      chief!).

      fred



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • sail4free
      ========== Perhaps I have only myself to blame, but Tom Frost has infiltrated other groups I belong to -- including at least one that I own -- after me
      Message 2 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        ==========
        Perhaps I have only myself to blame, but Tom Frost has infiltrated other groups I belong to -- including at least one that I own -- after me mentioning that I own several groups and moderate two others . . . and NOW he is Emailing me direct OFFlist. (Frustrated, no doubt, that newbies can't post without moderation on any groups I own or moderate.) This is your public notice, Tom, that you are NOT authorized to contact me direct and if you persist, things WILL get ugly. As you appear in groups that I'm a member of, I'll also be letting those list owners/moderators know what you're up to. I've established a file to record your antics, and I can only hope you have sense enough to back off and get a life. I thought others in the group might want to know what we're dealing with here.
        ==========
        sail4free
        ==========




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Whitney Turner
        Jim, As a fellow listowner, I sympathize with the thankless nature of the job. As a list subscriber, I would ask that you not post your interpersonal travails
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Jim,

          As a fellow listowner, I sympathize with the thankless nature of the job.

          As a list subscriber, I would ask that you not post your
          interpersonal travails for all the world to witness. You have the
          freedom to moderate your groups as you see fit, and to set up filters
          to autodelete messages from anyone who annoys you. Silence is your
          most powerful weapon against trolls.

          As a fellow member of this group, I would ask you to answer three
          little questions I posted for you a couple days back - I would like
          to hear your answers, in as sincere and honest a mien as I posed the questions.

          Many thanks in advance,
          Whitney

          ps - Email does not have the power of, say, stalking. There is no
          reason to go on about "unauthorized" contact. As I said above, just
          trash what you don't want to hear - as far as I can tell everyone's
          free to make up their own minds, and many have decided that this
          little drama isn't worth the time to watch.
        • Whitney Turner
          Jim, I wanted to make the job of visualizing the site a little simpler. Please open Google Earth and set a placemark at: 26° 9 57.52 N 80° 9 52.46 W -
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim,

            I wanted to make the job of visualizing the site
            a little simpler. Please open Google Earth and set a placemark at:
            26° 9'57.52"N 80° 9'52.46"W - this is the point
            where my car hit the kerbing. I actually
            accelerated around the cyclist before hitting my brakes at the last minute.

            Assuming the graphics on Google Earth remain
            constant until you see this, the cyclist was (at
            that moment) a little east of where the white car is in the image.

            Hope this helps.

            Whitney
          • Steven Schoeffler
            Cork it, Sail. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Cork it, Sail.


              On Apr 7, 2009, at 9:34 AM, sail4free wrote:

              > ==========
              > Perhaps I have only myself to blame, but Tom Frost has infiltrated
              > other groups I belong to -- including at least one that I own --
              > after me mentioning that I own several groups and moderate two
              > others . . . and NOW he is Emailing me direct OFFlist. (Frustrated,
              > no doubt, that newbies can't post without moderation on any groups
              > I own or moderate.) This is your public notice, Tom, that you are
              > NOT authorized to contact me direct and if you persist, things WILL
              > get ugly. As you appear in groups that I'm a member of, I'll also
              > be letting those list owners/moderators know what you're up to.
              > I've established a file to record your antics, and I can only hope
              > you have sense enough to back off and get a life. I thought others
              > in the group might want to know what we're dealing with here.
              > ==========
              > sail4free
              > ==========
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Peacenik
              Folks its time to move. All combatants have either left or been placed on moderated status. No further comment on this, or any other off-topic thread is
              Message 6 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Folks its time to move. All "combatants" have either left or been placed on
                moderated status.

                No further comment on this, or any other off-topic thread is required. Lets move on
                back to talking about CarFree issues.

                Pretty please.

                gil
                still your friendly, though more interventionist, moderator
              • Whitney Turner
                So.... At this time I m not even vaguely carfree, though I do tend to preach, teach, and facilitate wherever I can. I d like to get back to it pretty much
                Message 7 of 15 , Apr 7, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  So....

                  At this time I'm not even vaguely carfree, though I do tend to
                  preach, teach, and facilitate wherever I can. I'd like to get back
                  to it pretty much full-time, but there are some logistical
                  concerns. I'm now divorced, have a young daughter who'se outgrown a
                  cheapass tow-bike, and I was wondering if anyone on here has/had a
                  Burley Piccolo. I am wondering, in particular, what the reasonable
                  upper weight limit is on these critters. I see on the website that
                  they recommend not more than 85 lbs. child weight, but I'm curious if
                  that's a bit conservative, and would like to hear from anyone with experience.

                  My other option would be to go to an Xtracycle, but I've already got
                  the tandem to store, and one long bike in the house is quite enough
                  of a logistical issue.... :-)

                  Thanks,
                  Whitney
                • James & Ute Grayson
                  From: Whitney Turner Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:14 PM So.... At this time I m not even vaguely carfree, though I do tend to preach, teach, and facilitate
                  Message 8 of 15 , Apr 8, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From: Whitney Turner Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:14 PM



                    So....

                    At this time I'm not even vaguely carfree, though I do tend to preach,
                    teach, and facilitate wherever I can. I'd like to get back to it pretty much
                    full-time, but there are some logistical concerns. I'm now divorced, have a
                    young daughter who'se outgrown a cheapass tow-bike, and I was wondering if
                    anyone on here has/had a Burley Piccolo. I am wondering, in particular, what
                    the reasonable upper weight limit is on these critters. I see on the website
                    that they recommend not more than 85 lbs. child weight, but I'm curious if
                    that's a bit conservative, and would like to hear from anyone with
                    experience.

                    My other option would be to go to an Xtracycle, but I've already got the
                    tandem to store, and one long bike in the house is quite enough of a
                    logistical issue.... :-)

                    Thanks,
                    Whitney



                    Hi Whitney,



                    No, we never had a Burley Piccolo, but I've heard 'good things' about them.



                    When our granddaughter was smaller, we had her on a pedal-trailer (Adams
                    Trail-a-Bike), which we all enjoyed. She was able to participate, or not,
                    as she wished, and we always knew exactly where she was.



                    Another option we sometimes employed was for her to sit in the stoker's
                    'cabin', but with her feet on a U-bolt lock mounted on the stoker seat tube.
                    Obviously, she couldn't pedal, but it was satisfactory for short trips when
                    it wasn't necessary for my regular stoker to be along. At one point, I
                    considered attaching wooden blocks to both sides of the stoker pedals, but
                    never completed that idea.



                    As she grew taller, I was able to lower the stoker seat and she was able to
                    reach the pedals at full bottom of the stroke. She is now 12 and stands 5'
                    6" and can pedal without lowering the seat.



                    Unless your tandem has a very high stoker top tube, I suspect your daughter
                    will be able to reach the pedals of your tandem long before she exceeds the
                    (suggested) 85-pound limit of the Piccolo.





                    James Grayson



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • pystanis
                    I want to thank fred (hope I got the name right) Unsafe passing is a real problem in my area ventura county, calif. Basically the attitude seems to be if they
                    Message 9 of 15 , Apr 8, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I want to thank fred (hope I got the name right)

                      Unsafe passing is a real problem in my area ventura
                      county, calif. Basically the attitude seems to be
                      if they can squeeze by me then it is a safe pass.
                      Although we have a lot of bike lanes, typically at
                      intersections the lane disappears setting me up
                      for a sideswipe. This post talks about how the
                      cars coming up from behind can prepare for a lane
                      change if the cyclist is visible and I agree with
                      the premise. On the other hand when the bicycle
                      lane suddenly ends then I find myself having to
                      merge suddenly or stop as there is no way to
                      signal my intentions in a timely manner.
                      Probably the only solution is to require passing
                      motorists to move over a lane at all times.


                      --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "fred_dot_u" <fred_dot_u@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > I've noted in the on-topic posts that many people comment about how
                      > difficult it is to ride safely on our roads. Those cyclists who have
                      > taken LAB road courses learn to manage the lane and enjoy safer riding
                      > as a result. What many people do not realize is that there is a motor
                      > vehicle result on the positive side.
                      >
                      > When I ride in the center of my lane, which is almost always
                      > sub-standard width (under 14 feet), traffic behind me are able to see me
                      > and plan and execute a lane change under less self-imposed stress. I
                      > have seen in my mirror motorists change lanes as far back as a quarter
                      > mile. I usually ride on high-speed multi-lane roadways because they are
                      > usually the only route to my destination. I've also found that these
                      > roads are in quite good condition, with respect to debris and road
                      > deterioration.
                      >
                    • David Hansen
                      ... Is this a lane which is part of the road, separated by some paint, or a separate one alongside the road? -- David Hansen, Edinburgh I will *always* explain
                      Message 10 of 15 , Apr 9, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 8 Apr 2009 at 13:48, pystanis wrote:

                        > This post talks about how the
                        > cars coming up from behind can prepare for a lane
                        > change if the cyclist is visible and I agree with
                        > the premise. On the other hand when the bicycle
                        > lane suddenly ends then I find myself having to
                        > merge suddenly or stop as there is no way to
                        > signal my intentions in a timely manner.

                        Is this a lane which is part of the road, separated by some paint, or a
                        separate one alongside the road?

                        --
                        David Hansen, Edinburgh
                        I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents
                        me
                        http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
                      • Justice McPherson
                        ... They re supposed to dissapear at intersections; at an intersection, a bicycle is to insert themself into the appropriate vehicle positioning for navigating
                        Message 11 of 15 , Apr 9, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "pystanis" <pystanis@...> wrote:

                          > Although we have a lot of bike lanes, typically at
                          > intersections the lane disappears setting me up
                          > for a sideswipe.

                          They're supposed to dissapear at intersections; at an intersection, a bicycle is to insert themself into the appropriate vehicle positioning for navigating the intersection. Otherwise it creates such perversions as placing straight travel lanes to the right of right turn lanes, which is what a straight-through separate side lane is.
                          Sidelanes are proven to roughly double per capita fatalities, by the way, which is why there is so much interest these days in sharrows. The standards for sharrows are to be added officially to the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in the latest version.
                        • pystanis
                          I appreciate the explanation, but the solution is nearly as bad as the alternative in my opinion. Ventura has a bike lane on johnson road somewhat narrow and
                          Message 12 of 15 , Apr 11, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I appreciate the explanation, but the solution is nearly as
                            bad as the alternative in my opinion.

                            Ventura has a bike lane on johnson road somewhat narrow and at this one intersection created a straight through bike lane which starts some distance before the intersection with a dotted line implying
                            that I should merge to the left to get into the new straight
                            through bike lane and also to allow traffic turning right to
                            cross my path. Invariably people speed ahead of me crossing
                            the bike lane to make their right turn instead of slowing down
                            to change lanes behind me.
                            Still this seems to me to be a better solution than to suddenly end the bike lane.
                            The worst spot on johnson is at bristol where three lanes become
                            one. The rightmost lane becomes a right turn only which I
                            have to cross and then the two remaining lanes merge. The intersection is narrow and the next section of road is residential with no bike lane, roadside parking and motorists in a hurry to
                            get to work, the result being unsafe passing with motorists trying to squeeze by me.

                            It is the second rate status of bicyclists that I object to,
                            why should I have to merge at every intersection not only
                            looking to both sides for safety but behind as well for motorists
                            not interested in slowing down as I merge? Invariably they
                            swing wide of me passing unsafely by me and partially into
                            oncoming traffic speeding up then cutting in front of me for
                            their purposes.

                            Now in oxnard the bike lane on gonzales road is in my opinion
                            better in that it runs right up to the intersection. There is
                            a dashed section which is where right turning traffic can merge
                            so the motor vehicle has to watch for bicycles as they are making
                            the lane change.



                            --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "Justice McPherson" <JusticeZero@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "pystanis" <pystanis@> wrote:
                            >
                            > > Although we have a lot of bike lanes, typically at
                            > > intersections the lane disappears setting me up
                            > > for a sideswipe.
                            >
                            > They're supposed to dissapear at intersections; at an intersection, a bicycle is to insert themself into the appropriate vehicle positioning for navigating the intersection. Otherwise it creates such perversions as placing straight travel lanes to the right of right turn lanes, which is what a straight-through separate side lane is.
                            > Sidelanes are proven to roughly double per capita fatalities, by the way, which is why there is so much interest these days in sharrows. The standards for sharrows are to be added officially to the federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in the latest version.
                            >
                          • Justice McPherson
                            ... As noted, the MUTCD is adding sharrows into the latest edition, following tests in several cities.. Sharrows are, in essence, where engineers find the best
                            Message 13 of 15 , Apr 12, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "pystanis" <pystanis@...> wrote:
                              > I appreciate the explanation, but the solution is nearly as
                              > bad as the alternative in my opinion.

                              As noted, the MUTCD is adding sharrows into the latest edition, following tests in several cities.. Sharrows are, in essence, where engineers find the best place for cyclists to ride vehicularly, make sure the road is best suited for such vehicular riding, then mark the holy bejimminy out of that track with a gazillion bicycle arrows so that nobody can miss noticing them. In tests, they perform far better than bike lanes in terms of safety, and have a similar reassuring effect on potential facility users.
                            • fred_dot_u
                              An interesting concept. Engineers are going to determine where the road is best suited for vehicular cycling? From my experience, ALL roads are best suited for
                              Message 14 of 15 , Apr 13, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                An interesting concept. Engineers are going to determine where the road
                                is best suited for vehicular cycling? From my experience, ALL roads are
                                best suited for vehicular cycling, which simply means operating as a
                                vehicle, obeying traffic controls and the like. I can understand not
                                needing sharrows on standard width lanes, those fourteen feet wide and
                                wider, but how many of those exist for any distance? In this area, they
                                are usually loaded with parking spaces, so they are not truly standard
                                width lanes.

                                I suggest to any engineer to present to me a road not suited for
                                vehicular cycling, on which bicycles are currently not prohibited. This
                                excludes interstate highway lanes, unless otherwise permitted.

                                I'll certainly agree that marking the road with sharrows might pass
                                tests for safety and reassuring cyclists. I'd expect also that it
                                reduces the tendency of motor vehicle operators to think that the road
                                is for motor vehicles only.

                                --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "Justice McPherson" <JusticeZero@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "pystanis" pystanis@ wrote:
                                > > I appreciate the explanation, but the solution is nearly as
                                > > bad as the alternative in my opinion.
                                >
                                > As noted, the MUTCD is adding sharrows into the latest edition,
                                following tests in several cities.. Sharrows are, in essence, where
                                engineers find the best place for cyclists to ride vehicularly, make
                                sure the road is best suited for such vehicular riding, then mark the
                                holy bejimminy out of that track with a gazillion bicycle arrows so that
                                nobody can miss noticing them. In tests, they perform far better than
                                bike lanes in terms of safety, and have a similar reassuring effect on
                                potential facility users.
                                >
                              • Justice McPherson
                                ... By where , I mean what lane positioning is optimal; out of the door zone, best visibility, and so on so forth as opposed to which pieces of road are
                                Message 15 of 15 , Apr 14, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, "fred_dot_u" <fred_dot_u@...> wrote:
                                  > An interesting concept. Engineers are going to determine where the road
                                  > is best suited for vehicular cycling? From my experience, ALL roads are
                                  > best suited for vehicular cycling

                                  By 'where', I mean what lane positioning is optimal; out of the door zone, best visibility, and so on so forth as opposed to "which pieces of road are best". Any road is a candidate for sharrows as a treatment really; it mostly just means making sure the road meets somewhat more stringent design standards that avoid creating hazards for bicyclists, then slapping a line of stencils down along the roadway out of things like door zones and whatnot.

                                  > I'll certainly agree that marking the road with sharrows might pass
                                  > tests for safety and reassuring cyclists. I'd expect also that it
                                  > reduces the tendency of motor vehicle operators to think that the road
                                  > is for motor vehicles only.

                                  Kind've the point, yes. =)
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.