Re: Commuter innovation

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. 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.
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.
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.
--
- Frank Krygowski