Re: Daytime running light popularity

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 11/6/2024 9:41 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 11/6/2024 3:05 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 11/6/2024 6:03 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@gXXmail.com> wrote:

 
At the location I described, in front of the library, it's two wide lanes.

 
As it approaches the bridge yes but doesn’t seem to be any narrower than
when it’s 3 lanes, ie it’s still a wide car centric road.

 
Of course it's a "car centric road." 99.999% of roads in the U.S. are
"car centric," and will always be so. The history and geography of the
U.S. guarantee that.
 

History I’d agree with geography no, considering that American cities where
built by rail, and has been high speed rail for 50/60 years in Uk and
probably earlier than that elsewhere.
 
America could of had a high speed rail network, ie city to city rather than
having interstate highways and interchanges in and though the cities which
is very much a American thing, ie to be able to drive at 70mph into and
though a city.
 
And that was purely a political decision.
 
 

Which is why building bike lanes to get people out of their cars is a
delusion. Spending fortunes to build "good" bike lanes (as if that's
really possible) is also a fantasy. The most that happens, with
extremely rare exceptions is what you've called "box ticking exercises."
 

No it can be done number of the london ones do work and have increased
numbers but and this is the gotcha you do need to go all in, ie you have to
accept that your going to take space away from motorists and slow them at
junctions or even prevent turns at certain junctions and so on.
 
Ie unlike that segregated cyclelane you’ve posted where cars can turn
across with a nice bell curve so can maintain speed, no attempt to narrow
the junction or install a raised bed to slow cars down or so on.
 
It can be done but not if you keep the car centric system in place.
 

Even the rail-trail linear parks often have problems, as Andrew and
others have mentioned. But in my mind, those are a separate issue. They
really are recreational parks. Very few of them have any transportation
function.

Mind you did see a video of locally some car in a “must get past”

overtook

a cyclists doing 20mph past a speed camera, which triggered the camera! Car
not bike which would have being doing fair bit more than 20mph to overtake.
 
Mind you it’s shocking how folks didn’t understand how average speed camera
work when they first started to be rolled out some 10 or so years ago.

 
As more evidence of "car centric," any proposal for speed cameras in the
U.S. gets militant opposition. Motorists absolutely hate the
inconvenience of having to obey speed limits.
 

Can’t say uk motorists like it much with claims of war on the motorists but
realistically like lots of places the balance of how road and in particular
cities are shaped is changing away from just cars.
 
Roger Merriman

 
Nothing against trains or cycling on bucolic country lanes
(which I do), but cultural attitudes and expectations are
different here in USA than in UK.
 
Land's End to John O'Groats is 840 miles which distance
doesn't even get me from here to New York or Denver or to
Houston. It is roughly the distance across Texas. Higher
auto use rates make more sense here than for you and make
more sense for you than for Nederlanders.
 
Deconflicting rail traffic and Interstate highways through
cities is an ongoing struggle but well worth the effort and
both are improving steadily. I don't see a serious conflict
with either in terms of cycling.
 

As the distances increases so high speed rail, makes much more sense,
particularly as America did have the rail infrastructure or at least the
connections ie towns where built via rail.
 
Even 50 years ago intercity trains where 120 ish mph more modern trains can
be quite a lot faster, some of the longer European trains ie multiple
countries are definitely comparable to flights, as they have much less faff
with airports.
 
Your Geography lends its self to trains not hinders, they will hold average
speeds at least double if not more, even the uk stuff which is largely 50
something years old is in that range, and that’s with trains that stop a
few times over a hr journey, journeys with less stops the distance in time
between train and cars widens and again this is with 50 year old trains let
alone the 21st century stuff!
 
Roger Merriman

 
Our rail networks work very well for freight but no
passenger rail breaks even on operations- they all lose
money on operations- and the capital is sunk.

And roads are? Interstates alone cost huge amounts to both
built/improve/maintain, the idea that only public transport gets grants
subsidies is demonstrably false.

 
The distances are long and the cities are diffuse so I can't
see any reasonable scenario for high speed rail except as a
curiosity or a political project (Amtrak).
 

That’s what high speed rail, is good at, even the old intercity trains from
London to Cardiff with multiple stops holds an average speed just over
100mph, more modern stuff can be double that.

A modern (ish) high speed railway would be capable of crossing America
within a long day, a sleeper would probably make more sense.

Let alone cities only a hundred of miles away.

Again America is the outlier, with lots of high speed rail projects, being
built/planned or built, China is huge one, both in country size and amount.

America chose the car and the interstate network as it fit the American
dream I guess? But that is a political decision than a geographical or
economic one.

Roger Merriman