Re: Commuter innovation

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 3/29/2024 2:50 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/29/2024 1:03 PM, sms wrote:

On 3/27/2024 11:33 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>
<snip>

I don't know that I've ever heard anyone claim street sweeping is a
cure for anything. Certainly diligent and frequent use is quite
helpful, but "cure"?

>
<snip>
>

I don't think a street sweeper would have been very effective on
either of those.

>
Street sweeping protected bike lanes requires a narrow sweeper/vacuum,
which are available.
>
Frank is philosophically opposed to bike lanes so he will fabricate
whatever narratives are necessary to support his philosophy ─ like our
45th U.S. president.
>
Protected bike lanes with a concrete divider are best because trash in
the traffic lane ends up mostly against the divider rather than ending
up in the bike lane.
>

>
I understood us to be talking about unprotected bike lanes, such as in
the picture he showed, and that the discussion of street sweeping wasn't
qualified by protected lanes or smaller street sweeping vehicles.
>
I personally have had very little experience in protected lanes, but
most of the towns around here have widened shoulders marked as bike
lanes and marked-off sensor areas for trigger traffic lights (which
rarely actually work). It's my experience that these widened shoulders
designated as bike lanes are swept with the same frequency as the roads
in general as there is no physical barrier.

>
I think the relevant questions are these: What is that sweeping
frequency? And how much debris accumulates before a sweep cycle?
>
For a cyclist exercising his legal right to use the normal traffic lane,
both questions are of low importance.
>
>

 In my experience bike lanes are generally cleaner than roads which
themselves fairly well swept. And certainly some of the segregated ones are
sufficiently distanced from the road to get any debris spray, and so don’t
need such a frequent sweeping.
 I strongly suspect this is more an American thing.

 Roger Merriman