Wolfgang Strobl <news5@mystrobl.de> wrote:
> Am Thu, 28 Mar 2024 10:39:01 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
> <roger@sarlet.com>:
>
>
>> No I said road sweeping than just bike lanes which are swept along with
>> road sweeper or by man cart with a few dedicated bike lane sweepers though
>> in a self selecting way bike infrastructure that needs a cart or bike lane
>> sweeper is sufficiently far enough away from motorised traffic which is the
>> cause of most of the debris, so will need less cleaning.
>
> Vegetation, trees, tree grates, grass verges, front gardens, fields,
> garbage cans, etc. are sources of material that ends up in nearby areas
> used exclusively by cyclists or pedestrians, where it then remains as
> dirt and rots, slowly.
>
In my experience only get garbage ie dropped litter generally around well
fast food places, or town centres I pass though a 10m stretch on the
commute, though it’s cleared quickly.

Much more common is car thrown littler around fast food on sides of big
road.

Vegetation absolutely does remain on smaller roads that will have
overhanging trees, only places that’s common for cycle infrastructure at
least in the uk, is old railway lines converted, and in general those are
sort of routes that by nature need to be able to cope with some leaves, ie
is unlikely to be paved at all points.

> Motorized traffic does not cause much of that dirt, but it cleans the
> surfaces by grinding dirt down into fine-grained particles cleared by
> rain or by throwing it to the side, i.e. onto the cycle paths or
> footpaths, where the dirt then remains.
>
> As I have shown with pictures a few times already, the effect is easily
> seen when watching how fast asphalted surfaces became dry where the
> tires of cars, trucks and busses roll, but stays wet on the less touched
> surfaces for much longer. That cleaning effect is less visible and less
> obvious with dirt, but essentially similar.
>
Bit like the Americans if that urban/suburban needs to swept up. And in
general vegetation doesn’t arrive quickly is reasonably predictable, the
cycleway on my commute has recently had it all cut back for example and
this is fairly unloved stretch.
>>
>> My old cycleway remains clear of debris it’s more vegetation that slowly
>> starts to narrow it.
>
> <https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/fahrten/radwege/dreckwege/IMG-3548.jpeg>
>
>
> That then newly built cycleway on my commute collected debris like a fly
> trap. Thats an up a hill road outside buildup areas.
>
> <https://www.mystrobl.de/Plone/radfahren/fahrten/radwege/dreckwege/IMG-4054.jpeg>
>
> From my commute, too, but this time in Bonn, almost at the center of the
> city. There are many more such examples. For the most dangerous traps it
> is quite difficult to take pictures, because they are essentially
> invisible, because the dirt is tiny, transparent and/or is dark.
>
> You've probably never ridden on the dirt of leaves that have been
> shredded from car tires and thrown onto the bike path to rot and dry?
> Weeks later, after a short rain shower? You don't notice it on the road,
> which becomes clean and dry quickly, but on the cycle path it's almost
> like soft soap, sometimes for days. Even worse, to the motorist it looks
> as clean as "his" road, with the obvious consequences. "GET OFF THE ROAD
> ON TO THE BIKEPATH, ASSHOLE!!"

Personally as my commute is though parks and one in particular has lots of
for london at least large trees and so in autumn lots of leaf which aren’t
cleared terribly quickly, but my commute bike is a Old MTB and so lots of
grip take a lot more than leaf mulch to unsettle it.
>
>>
>> And yes london certainly sweeps its road many more times than twice a year
>> even my forgotten cycleway gets a sweep every few months.
>
> Great. The road in front of my house gets swept twice a week. Most cycle
> paths im my region don't get swept at all. Do you earnestly believe that
> a mandatory bicycle path like the one shown in this collage
> <https://www.mystrobl.de/ws/pic/fahrrad/20230910/20230910_110041s3.jpg>
> gets cleaned at all? FYI, that sign in the red circles is a warning
> sign saying "ATTENTION! cycle path damage", sitting there for years,
> both before and after the promised and completed refurbishment. Do you
> really believe that the clean roads shown in the other pictures get
> swept regularely? Some spots might, once a year, after the beet harvest.
> Most don't.
>
>
That is political than transport choice, my old cycleway gets bare minimum,
but it remains clean ie away from spray and the trees that do line aren’t
big so don’t dump that much leaves.

The ones in central london get cleaned very regularly and others else where
rather depends on location cycle lane’s get swept with the road more
segregated stuff that depends on the detail but in general debris in the
bike lane isn’t really a uk thing.

Roger Merriman

On 3/29/2024 4:49 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> 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
>

Yes, road are viewed differently here, from the right side.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/29/2024 5:49 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> In my experience bike lanes are generally cleaner than roads which
> themselves fairly well swept.

If you're talking about bike lanes sharing the same asphalt as adjacent
general purpose lanes, my experience is absolutely opposite. And
contrary to Mr. "sms," my experience seems commons. For example:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bike+lane+debris&t=newext&atb=v416-1&iax=images&ia=images

I don't see how it's possible to have more debris on the portion of road
where car tires pass at least occasionally. Each car tire rolls over at
least six inches of pavement, and at relatively high speed. Bits of
gravel or glass get thrown up and would eventually end up in an adjacent
bike lane simply by random chance, even if the car's wind blast didn't
add impetus.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:41:22 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>In my area they streets are swept once a year (really, not kidding),
>usually sometime in mid spring after the threat of any more snow has
>become negligible, mostly to remove sand that has accumulated from the
>snow storms.

Bike Lane Sweeper:
<https://bikelanesweeper.com>
<https://www.facebook.com/bikelanesweeper>
<https://newatlas.com/bicycles/bike-lane-sweeper/>

Last year, I acquired a small chipper and vacuum cleaner:
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/4x73QwhV22k423pk7>
When assembled, it usually has a large bag attached, such as in a push
behind lawn mower. I thought it might make a tolerable road debris
remover, but haven't had the opportunity to try it.

We used to have a seemingly incurable problem with construction debris
in the road. I would roll around a magnetic floor sweeper, something
like these:
<https://www.harborfreight.com/search?q=magnetic+floor+sweeper>
It worked in the flat spots but wouldn't pickup anything in even a
small pothole. The problem was solved when the contractor, who was
responsible for most of the scrap metal debris in the road, sold his
house. We still run a leaf blower and a magnetic sweeper along the
road during summer when the road is dry. We had the road re-surfaced
in June 2022,
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/U4cn1ZuMnepBBm9B9>
making magnetic pickup more effective. No car or bicycle tire
punctures reported since then.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:41:22 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In my area they streets are swept once a year (really, not kidding),
>> usually sometime in mid spring after the threat of any more snow has
>> become negligible, mostly to remove sand that has accumulated from the
>> snow storms.
>
> Bike Lane Sweeper:
> <https://bikelanesweeper.com>
> <https://www.facebook.com/bikelanesweeper>
> <https://newatlas.com/bicycles/bike-lane-sweeper/>
>
> Last year, I acquired a small chipper and vacuum cleaner:
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/4x73QwhV22k423pk7>
> When assembled, it usually has a large bag attached, such as in a push
> behind lawn mower. I thought it might make a tolerable road debris
> remover, but haven't had the opportunity to try it.
>
> We used to have a seemingly incurable problem with construction debris
> in the road. I would roll around a magnetic floor sweeper, something
> like these:
> <https://www.harborfreight.com/search?q=magnetic+floor+sweeper>
> It worked in the flat spots but wouldn't pickup anything in even a
> small pothole. The problem was solved when the contractor, who was
> responsible for most of the scrap metal debris in the road, sold his
> house. We still run a leaf blower and a magnetic sweeper along the
> road during summer when the road is dry. We had the road re-surfaced
> in June 2022,
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/U4cn1ZuMnepBBm9B9>
> making magnetic pickup more effective. No car or bicycle tire
> punctures reported since then.
>
>
These are the specific if not that exact model type of thing I see in the
newer cycleways also used for pavements as well.

Clearly most of time a full size sweeper will work though the smaller ones
can do both roads and smaller spaces possibly why they are seen more.

Roger Merriman

On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:40:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>If you're talking about bike lanes sharing the same asphalt as adjacent
>general purpose lanes, my experience is absolutely opposite. And
>contrary to Mr. "sms," my experience seems commons. For example:
>https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bike+lane+debris&t=newext&atb=v416-1&iax=images&ia=images

So many problems with riding amongst cars and trucks. I'm really lucky
in that I have no reason to do so.

On 3/30/2024 1:12 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:41:22 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In my area they streets are swept once a year (really, not kidding),
>> usually sometime in mid spring after the threat of any more snow has
>> become negligible, mostly to remove sand that has accumulated from the
>> snow storms.
>
> Bike Lane Sweeper:
> <https://bikelanesweeper.com>
> <https://www.facebook.com/bikelanesweeper>
> <https://newatlas.com/bicycles/bike-lane-sweeper/>
>
> Last year, I acquired a small chipper and vacuum cleaner:
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/4x73QwhV22k423pk7>
> When assembled, it usually has a large bag attached, such as in a push
> behind lawn mower. I thought it might make a tolerable road debris
> remover, but haven't had the opportunity to try it.
>
> We used to have a seemingly incurable problem with construction debris
> in the road. I would roll around a magnetic floor sweeper, something
> like these:
> <https://www.harborfreight.com/search?q=magnetic+floor+sweeper>
> It worked in the flat spots but wouldn't pickup anything in even a
> small pothole. The problem was solved when the contractor, who was
> responsible for most of the scrap metal debris in the road, sold his
> house. We still run a leaf blower and a magnetic sweeper along the
> road during summer when the road is dry. We had the road re-surfaced
> in June 2022,
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/U4cn1ZuMnepBBm9B9>
> making magnetic pickup more effective. No car or bicycle tire
> punctures reported since then.
>
>

Fortunately you have a private road.

https://nypost.com/2024/03/30/us-news/california-couple-alex-and-daisy-de-la-rosa-ordered-to-stop-fixing-compton-potholes/

--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 07:39:51 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/30/2024 1:12 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 10:41:22 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In my area they streets are swept once a year (really, not kidding),
>>> usually sometime in mid spring after the threat of any more snow has
>>> become negligible, mostly to remove sand that has accumulated from the
>>> snow storms.
>>
>> Bike Lane Sweeper:
>> <https://bikelanesweeper.com>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/bikelanesweeper>
>> <https://newatlas.com/bicycles/bike-lane-sweeper/>
>>
>> Last year, I acquired a small chipper and vacuum cleaner:
>> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/4x73QwhV22k423pk7>
>> When assembled, it usually has a large bag attached, such as in a push
>> behind lawn mower. I thought it might make a tolerable road debris
>> remover, but haven't had the opportunity to try it.
>>
>> We used to have a seemingly incurable problem with construction debris
>> in the road. I would roll around a magnetic floor sweeper, something
>> like these:
>> <https://www.harborfreight.com/search?q=magnetic+floor+sweeper>
>> It worked in the flat spots but wouldn't pickup anything in even a
>> small pothole. The problem was solved when the contractor, who was
>> responsible for most of the scrap metal debris in the road, sold his
>> house. We still run a leaf blower and a magnetic sweeper along the
>> road during summer when the road is dry. We had the road re-surfaced
>> in June 2022,
>> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/U4cn1ZuMnepBBm9B9>
>> making magnetic pickup more effective. No car or bicycle tire
>> punctures reported since then.

>Fortunately you have a private road.
>
>https://nypost.com/2024/03/30/us-news/california-couple-alex-and-daisy-de-la-rosa-ordered-to-stop-fixing-compton-potholes/

Sometimes, that can be an advantage. To get from State Hwy 9, the
first miles of Scenic Way is a country maintained road. The county
does a tolerable job of patching pot holes. I once tried to help the
county and was treated by a long, detailed and quite informative
lectures on why cold patch doesn't work when it's cold, why
do-it-myself asphalt patches don't stick when the pothole is wet, why
they put drainage gravel at the bottom of the pothole, and how to
recognize if the pothole is from an underground stream or a leak in
the water districts plumbing. About 1/4 mile above the end of the
country maintained road are a tangle of private roads. I live on one
of these owner maintained roads and am currently the de facto chair of
the road committee. My job is to extort enough spare change from the
residents to pay for patching, resurfacing and overlaying. Ideally,
the road needs to be resurfaced at least every 10 years. We don't
even come close. We resurfaced it in June 2022. Prior to that, it
was resurfaced in July, 1999. When the inhabitants are mostly home
owners, extorting road maintenance fees is painless. When they are
renters, neither the landlords or renters want to contribute. The
2022 resurfacing was not exactly planned. Some of the neighboring
roads were being resurfaced, so we arranged a deal with the paving
company to expand the project for a substantial reduction in costs.
The neighboring road got a super-highway, while we got whatever was
left in the truck when the job was almost done.

Amazingly, there was some bicycling involvement in road maintenance. I
don't recall the exact year, but my guess is the 1975 to 1985 range.
At the time, most of the owner maintained roads were compacted base
rock sprinkled mostly with automotive engine oil. At the time, the
road was used by the local marijuana growers to ride up the hill to
the state park and water their crop. Panniers front and back with 4
gallons of water (33.2 lbs). On summer weekends, there were quite a
few cyclists going up and down the road. As a joke, someone asked if
they wouldn't mind contributing to the road maintenance costs. They
donated more than expected. Returning the favor, we did a better than
usual job of maintaining the road during summer.

Like all good things, it didn't last. We had a major storm which
washed out the trail to the top of the hill. Short of building a
bridge, there was no trail for the growers. So, no more cyclists.

I won't mention the problems with parking, right of way, property
lines, county "assistance", irritating neighbors, oversized propane
delivery trucks, construction traffic, property appraisers, county
building inspectors, etc.

Owning a piece of a private road is rarely a "fortunate" thing.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 3/29/2024 5:49 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> In my experience bike lanes are generally cleaner than roads which
>> themselves fairly well swept.
>
> If you're talking about bike lanes sharing the same asphalt as adjacent
> general purpose lanes, my experience is absolutely opposite. And
> contrary to Mr. "sms," my experience seems commons. For example:
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bike+lane+debris&t=newext&atb=v416-1&iax=images&ia=images
>
> I don't see how it's possible to have more debris on the portion of road
> where car tires pass at least occasionally. Each car tire rolls over at
> least six inches of pavement, and at relatively high speed. Bits of
> gravel or glass get thrown up and would eventually end up in an adjacent
> bike lane simply by random chance, even if the car's wind blast didn't
> add impetus.
>

You snipped my explanation ie I was talking about all bike lanes/cycleways
ie the full on segregated stuff doesn’t get road debris spray. The ones
with wands yes I’m sure but it’s really not a thing, personally I notice
more the potholes on one road that even with 2in tires I don’t want to hit
the edge too hard, is some vegetation in the gutter on one cycle lane but
it’s hardly problematic.

Other places that cross town centres can get glass or rubbish from night
life but it’s generally cleaned up quickly and hardly a bike lane only
thing.

Which tends to be more a thing with larger urban roads which are most
definitely more an American thing, than European. And such roads are dirty
and will collect debris with multiple lanes and higher speeds I believe the
term is Stroads and I’d not be surprised if such places unless swept very
frequently would end up with all sorts of debris and rubbish.

Ie this is down to choices with how the space is used and so on.

Roger Merriman

On 3/31/2024 6:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 3/29/2024 5:49 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> In my experience bike lanes are generally cleaner than roads which
>>> themselves fairly well swept.
>>
>> If you're talking about bike lanes sharing the same asphalt as adjacent
>> general purpose lanes, my experience is absolutely opposite. And
>> contrary to Mr. "sms," my experience seems common. For example:
>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bike+lane+debris&t=newext&atb=v416-1&iax=images&ia=images
>>
>> I don't see how it's possible to have more debris on the portion of road
>> where car tires pass at least occasionally. Each car tire rolls over at
>> least six inches of pavement, and at relatively high speed. Bits of
>> gravel or glass get thrown up and would eventually end up in an adjacent
>> bike lane simply by random chance, even if the car's wind blast didn't
>> add impetus.
>>
>
> You snipped my explanation ie I was talking about all bike lanes/cycleways
> ie the full on segregated stuff doesn’t get road debris spray. The ones
> with wands yes I’m sure but it’s really not a thing, personally I notice
> more the potholes on one road that even with 2in tires I don’t want to hit
> the edge too hard, is some vegetation in the gutter on one cycle lane but
> it’s hardly problematic.

I may be having trouble decoding that paragraph of yours. But: First,
I'm not talking about completely separate paths away from roadways.
Those are a minuscule portion of bicyclists' riding surfaces. Almost all
riding is on streets or roads. And as others have pointed out, even
completely separate paths often have debris problems.

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.

As for "really not a thing," You seem to be ignoring the images linked
above, and the images I've recently posted. I have other images as well,
from longer ago, if you need to see them.

About potholes: Yes, they occur on roads. My area gets a lot of them,
due in part to the local climate generating lots of freeze-thaw cycles.
In a road, they are generally easy to see and avoid.

A problem in a bike lane can be avoided too, but often only by leaving
the bike lane or avoiding it entirely, which is what I generally do.
State law makes it clear that bike lanes are not mandatory.

>
> Other places that cross town centres can get glass or rubbish from night
> life but it’s generally cleaned up quickly and hardly a bike lane only
> thing.

Again, car tires naturally sweep small bits of gravel or glass off the
roadway. When they do that, they end up in a shoulder or a bike lane,
whichever is adjacent. Look at the photos again.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 22:53:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Almost all
>riding is on streets or roads.

Almost all bike riding around rural and suburban west central Florida
is on bike trails and occasionally sidwalks.

On 3/29/2024 5:49 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> 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.

Indeed.

>
> Roger Merriman
>

--
Add xx to reply

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 3/31/2024 6:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/29/2024 5:49 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In my experience bike lanes are generally cleaner than roads which
>>>> themselves fairly well swept.
>>>
>>> If you're talking about bike lanes sharing the same asphalt as adjacent
>>> general purpose lanes, my experience is absolutely opposite. And
>>> contrary to Mr. "sms," my experience seems common. For example:
>>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bike+lane+debris&t=newext&atb=v416-1&iax=images&ia=images
>>>
>>> I don't see how it's possible to have more debris on the portion of road
>>> where car tires pass at least occasionally. Each car tire rolls over at
>>> least six inches of pavement, and at relatively high speed. Bits of
>>> gravel or glass get thrown up and would eventually end up in an adjacent
>>> bike lane simply by random chance, even if the car's wind blast didn't
>>> add impetus.
>>>
>>
>> You snipped my explanation ie I was talking about all bike lanes/cycleways
>> ie the full on segregated stuff doesn’t get road debris spray. The ones
>> with wands yes I’m sure but it’s really not a thing, personally I notice
>> more the potholes on one road that even with 2in tires I don’t want to hit
>> the edge too hard, is some vegetation in the gutter on one cycle lane but
>> it’s hardly problematic.
>
> I may be having trouble decoding that paragraph of yours. But: First,
> I'm not talking about completely separate paths away from roadways.
> Those are a minuscule portion of bicyclists' riding surfaces. Almost all
> riding is on streets or roads. And as others have pointed out, even
> completely separate paths often have debris problems.
>
In terms of absolute distance fully segregated ie has a kerb than simply a
wand or similar yes would be fairly low in terms of being used as these
tend to be massively used as they are on main routes.

And are growing in numbers both the cyclists and cycleways.

> 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.
>
> As for "really not a thing," You seem to be ignoring the images linked
> above, and the images I've recently posted. I have other images as well,
> from longer ago, if you need to see them.

That somewhere on the internet something has happened, doesn’t mean it’s a
routine or common thing ie don’t believe everything on the internet. I’d
also suggest that American with its car centric approach ie big wide
multiple lane roads, and apparently minimal maintenance is again a self
inflicted problem.

That’s not to say can’t get debris or rubbish (London) but it’s a rare
occurrence and due to the usage will get reported etc and collected fairly
rapidly.
>
> About potholes: Yes, they occur on roads. My area gets a lot of them,
> due in part to the local climate generating lots of freeze-thaw cycles.
> In a road, they are generally easy to see and avoid.
>
Freeze-thaw only opens cracks made, ie already weaken areas, ie its motor
traffic that does that.

Hence lanes and even some of the old railway cycleways tarmac lasting many
decades, as it doesn’t get the vehicle traffic, and on the lanes that do
have potholes they open very slowly, been a double pothole on one lane
where I grew up that largely hasn’t changed in 30+ years, as while it most
certainly gets weather get snow/ice and lots of water but relatively few
cars mainly the local farmers, that lane may well be on it’s original
tarmac to be honest.

> A problem in a bike lane can be avoided too, but often only by leaving
> the bike lane or avoiding it entirely, which is what I generally do.
> State law makes it clear that bike lanes are not mandatory.
>
Potholes tend to be where motor vehicles run, or sometimes around sunken
drain covers and so on. So even with painted lines type stuff the mechanism
for a bike lane potholes is largely not there, and this is corroborated by
observation ie lack of bike lane potholes, certainly london wide and even
uk.

Not impossible but not terribly likely.
>>
>> Other places that cross town centres can get glass or rubbish from night
>> life but it’s generally cleaned up quickly and hardly a bike lane only
>> thing.
>
> Again, car tires naturally sweep small bits of gravel or glass off the
> roadway. When they do that, they end up in a shoulder or a bike lane,
> whichever is adjacent. Look at the photos again.
>
This is almost certainly a product design and maintenance, ie large roads
and lack of maintenance. Again this is if not a choice isn’t an inherent
feature of cycle lanes.

Roger Merriman

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.

As I've quoted before, one well known American cycling advocate said
"99% of bike lanes give the others a bad name."

>> As for "really not a thing," You seem to be ignoring the images linked
>> above, and the images I've recently posted. I have other images as well,
>> from longer ago, if you need to see them.
>
> That somewhere on the internet something has happened, doesn’t mean it’s a
> routine or common thing ie don’t believe everything on the internet. I’d
> also suggest that American with its car centric approach ie big wide
> multiple lane roads, and apparently minimal maintenance is again a self
> inflicted problem.

Do you have a detailed strategy for America quickly transforming to your
version of something better? Some strategy that works in terms of
American laws, court decisions, elected officials, political climate, etc?

I ask because (riffing off your "everything on the internet" point)
there are countless internet articles claiming America should just
become Amsterdam or Copenhagen. That's despite totally different
climate, terrain, history, legal structure, politics, etc.

In the real world where I live, bike lanes collect debris. They are not
regularly swept. They are often very badly designed, in terms of traffic
interactions like right hooks or left crosses or other intersection
problems. In many cases, they impose additional hazards or delays,
compared to legally riding in the normal traffic lane. And providing
them almost never makes a significant difference in bike mode share.

Check out the article "DC Cycling, Bike Lane Usage Decline Dramatically"
at
https://saveconnecticutave.org/f/dc-cycling-bike-lane-usage-decline-dramatically

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/2/2024 10:33 AM, Frank Krygowski 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.
>
> As I've quoted before, one well known American cycling
> advocate said "99% of bike lanes give the others a bad name."
>
>>> As for "really not a thing," You seem to be ignoring the
>>> images linked
>>> above, and the images I've recently posted. I have other
>>> images as well,
>>> from longer ago, if you need to see them.
>>
>> That somewhere on the internet something has happened,
>> doesn’t mean it’s a
>> routine or common thing ie don’t believe everything on the
>> internet. I’d
>> also suggest that American with its car centric approach
>> ie big wide
>> multiple lane roads, and apparently minimal maintenance is
>> again a self
>> inflicted problem.
>
> Do you have a detailed strategy for America quickly
> transforming to your version of something better? Some
> strategy that works in terms of American laws, court
> decisions, elected officials, political climate, etc?
>
> I ask because (riffing off your "everything on the internet"
> point) there are countless internet articles claiming
> America should just become Amsterdam or Copenhagen. That's
> despite totally different climate, terrain, history, legal
> structure, politics, etc.
>
> In the real world where I live, bike lanes collect debris.
> They are not regularly swept. They are often very badly
> designed, in terms of traffic interactions like right hooks
> or left crosses or other intersection problems. In many
> cases, they impose additional hazards or delays, compared to
> legally riding in the normal traffic lane. And providing
> them almost never makes a significant difference in bike
> mode share.
>
> Check out the article "DC Cycling, Bike Lane Usage Decline
> Dramatically" at
> https://saveconnecticutave.org/f/dc-cycling-bike-lane-usage-decline-dramatically
>

Most all commuters would confirm that from daily experience.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:33:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Check out the article "DC Cycling, Bike Lane Usage Decline Dramatically"
>at
>https://saveconnecticutave.org/f/dc-cycling-bike-lane-usage-decline-dramatically

The bicycle traffic graph of "L Street, NW" plots "Peak Hour Bike
Count". As I read it, that's the number of bicycles that pass, in one
hour, when bicycle traffic is at it's peak for the day, week, month or
year, at one intersection. Since there's no link to the source of the
data[1] and assuming my interpretation is correct, that seems like a
rather strange way to measure bicycle lane use.

The graph might also be a case of coincidence versus causation. In
2017, there was a large unexplained drop in bicycle lane use, for no
obvious reason. For all I know, it could have been caused by a
construction project, that diverted traffic to the adjacent "M
Street". Similarly, the drop in 2020 thru 2023 might be related to
the Covid pandemic and it's change from commuting to working from
home.

Hint: If your conclusions are based on statistical data, kindly
provide the original source.

[1] "Source: DDOT" is not a good source:
<https://ddot.dc.gov>
Searching the site for "Peak Hour Bike Count" found nothing.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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.

> As I've quoted before, one well known American cycling advocate said
> "99% of bike lanes give the others a bad name."
>
>>> As for "really not a thing," You seem to be ignoring the images linked
>>> above, and the images I've recently posted. I have other images as well,
>>> from longer ago, if you need to see them.
>>
>> That somewhere on the internet something has happened, doesn’t mean it’s a
>> routine or common thing ie don’t believe everything on the internet. I’d
>> also suggest that American with its car centric approach ie big wide
>> multiple lane roads, and apparently minimal maintenance is again a self
>> inflicted problem.
>
> Do you have a detailed strategy for America quickly transforming to your
> version of something better? Some strategy that works in terms of
> American laws, court decisions, elected officials, political climate, etc?
>
> I ask because (riffing off your "everything on the internet" point)
> there are countless internet articles claiming America should just
> become Amsterdam or Copenhagen. That's despite totally different
> climate, terrain, history, legal structure, politics, etc.

Uk and London isn’t Amsterdam or Copenhagen either note London who’s
boundaries are vague at best population is fairly close to the Netherlands,
and is some 40/50 miles across this said that stuff has worked elsewhere is
a good sign, but needs to be somewhat pragmatic about it.

and indeed the newer london segregated stuff is that, the embankment which
is a fast direct route is designed to retain that so folks can clip along
at 20+ MPH vs Chiswick High Street with lots of junctions and so on.

I’m vaguely aware that Paris is doing similar and probably elsewhere as
well.

And yes some folks aren’t pragmatic but ideologically minded, again don’t
read too much into stuff one sees on the internet, it while a wonderful
technology does tend to amplify the loud or more extreme voices.
>
> In the real world where I live, bike lanes collect debris. They are not
> regularly swept. They are often very badly designed, in terms of traffic
> interactions like right hooks or left crosses or other intersection
> problems. In many cases, they impose additional hazards or delays,
> compared to legally riding in the normal traffic lane. And providing
> them almost never makes a significant difference in bike mode share.
>
> Check out the article "DC Cycling, Bike Lane Usage Decline Dramatically"
> at
> https://saveconnecticutave.org/f/dc-cycling-bike-lane-usage-decline-dramatically
>
Cherry picking places that agree with your views doesn’t make the data
correct.

Roger Merriman

Am 02.04.2024 um 19:48 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:33:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Check out the article "DC Cycling, Bike Lane Usage Decline Dramatically"
>> at
>> https://saveconnecticutave.org/f/dc-cycling-bike-lane-usage-decline-dramatically
>
> The bicycle traffic graph of "L Street, NW" plots "Peak Hour Bike
> Count". As I read it, that's the number of bicycles that pass, in one
> hour, when bicycle traffic is at it's peak for the day, week, month or
> year, at one intersection. Since there's no link to the source of the
> data[1] and assuming my interpretation is correct, that seems like a
> rather strange way to measure bicycle lane use.

Where there are not automatic traffic counting devices, it is usual to
take a manual "peak hour" count, as it is not realistic to employ a
person to count traffic at 3 AM. The planning literature has
suggestions on how to estimate daily usage out of peak hour counts.

> The graph might also be a case of coincidence versus causation. In
> 2017, there was a large unexplained drop in bicycle lane use, for no
> obvious reason. For all I know, it could have been caused by a
> construction project, that diverted traffic to the adjacent "M
> Street".

The "peak count" points to manual counting, and this might have been
done on one random working day for all I know, so even the weather might
have impacted the 2017 count (you should invest into at least 4-5
counting days to avoid those shrt-term effects).

I found it interesting that the installation of bike lanes in 2012
somehow led to almost doubling cyclist numbers in the PM peak with a
very small impact on the AM peak.

> Similarly, the drop in 2020 thru 2023 might be related to
> the Covid pandemic and it's change from commuting to working from
> home.

The drop in 2020 seems to be obviously due to the pandemic. Not
recovering by now might also have something to do with the fact that the
rate of random violent crime has risen since then.
Both of these potential causes do indeed point towards it being better
not to invest money into additional bike facilites at the current point
in time.

On 4/2/2024 1:48 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:33:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Check out the article "DC Cycling, Bike Lane Usage Decline Dramatically"
>> at
>> https://saveconnecticutave.org/f/dc-cycling-bike-lane-usage-decline-dramatically
>
> The bicycle traffic graph of "L Street, NW" plots "Peak Hour Bike
> Count". As I read it, that's the number of bicycles that pass, in one
> hour, when bicycle traffic is at it's peak for the day, week, month or
> year, at one intersection. Since there's no link to the source of the
> data[1] and assuming my interpretation is correct, that seems like a
> rather strange way to measure bicycle lane use.
>
> The graph might also be a case of coincidence versus causation. In
> 2017, there was a large unexplained drop in bicycle lane use, for no
> obvious reason. For all I know, it could have been caused by a
> construction project, that diverted traffic to the adjacent "M
> Street". Similarly, the drop in 2020 thru 2023 might be related to
> the Covid pandemic and it's change from commuting to working from
> home.
>
> Hint: If your conclusions are based on statistical data, kindly
> provide the original source.
>
> [1] "Source: DDOT" is not a good source:
> <https://ddot.dc.gov>
> Searching the site for "Peak Hour Bike Count" found nothing.

Your objection is noted. But I don't think it counters the fact that
bike facilities do not normally generate huge increases in bike mode
share, as promised. Locally, I've seen zero evidence of increase -
although there are admittedly few bike lanes here. But for years I've
observed and occasionally used bike lanes in two nearby cities I
frequently visit. I almost never see other cyclists using them. And one
major city a bit more distant has lots of bike lanes, but IME they
always appear to be empty.

Sometimes there are surges in bike mode share. Portland was famous for
that; but while it lasted for years, the bicycling fashion seems to have
passed. See
https://bikeportland.org/2023/03/15/city-counts-reveal-data-behind-portlands-precipitous-drop-in-cycling-371407

Pittsburgh currently has lots of visible cyclists, especially in its
University area. But data now unavailable on the web once made clear
that the surge in bike use happened before, not after, the surge in bike
facility construction. We'll see how long that surge lasts.

As I've mentioned many times, the U.S. probably has added thousands of
miles of bike facilities in the past 15 years. But bike mode share is
still stuck way down below one percent.

We've "built it" in city after city. Despite the _Field of Dreams_
fantasies, they haven't come.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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.

It’s a particular type of cycleway, as city often do have embankments next
to the river, see Paris for other examples.

>
> 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.
>
Considering the size of of American roads there absolutely is space for
segregated cycle lanes will they potentially need access points to be kept
open? Yes absolutely though doesn’t in my experience seem to matter,
Chiswick High road has one and being a high street has access across it, in
multiple places, as long as these aren’t high volume it seems to work.

As ever stuff can be done but needs pragmatism and political bravery.

Roger Merriman

On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:33:06 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>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.

Seems to be your fantasy anyway.

On 4/3/2024 3:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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.

You cherry picked one article that you thought supported your position,
and as Jeff pointed out, the article didn't do a very good job of it. If
you're relating 'data from countless cities', we have yet to see any
evidence of it.

> 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.

It's neither rare, nor an exception, nor cherry picking from Rogers
experience, and is well supported by the many other Europeans who post
in this forum describing the government run infrastructure supporting
bike lane use, _successfully_.

>
> 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.

We get it. You hate cycling infrastructure. You think it's a waste of
time and money, and consider it to be inherently unsafe and unworkable.

> 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.

Europe has proven otherwise. This isn't an issue of objective, inherent,
and insurmountable problems as you claim, it's one of USAian attitude.
Here's one example:

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/22/bike-lane-debate-continues-cambridge/

"The qualitative survey results in the study revealed that more than 60
percent of the business owners believe their revenues declined following
the installation of the bike lanes.

“That is what they’re feeling. That is what their experience is. And
even though it couldn’t be matched up with financial data, it’s still a
great concern as to what is happening with our businesses,” Councilor
Joan F. Pickett said."

Let me point out the relevant issue for certain other willfully ignorant
trolls in this forum (no, Frank, that isn't directed at you):

"60 percent of the business owners believe their revenues declined
following the installation of the bike lanes....even though it couldn’t
be matched up with financial data".

Trying to analogize your disdain for efforts in this country with
successful examples in other parts of the world isn't going to work.

The only objective, inherent, and insurmountable problem is USAian
selfishness.

>

--
Add xx to reply

On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It’s a particular type of cycleway, as city often do have embankments next
> to the river, see Paris for other examples.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
> Considering the size of of American roads there absolutely is space for
> segregated cycle lanes

In some locations, yes. However by and large those are more wide-open
areas where the distances necessary for travel are quite a bit longer
than most people are capable of easily commuting by bike.

The issue here is in American cities. The newer cities in the
Midwest/west could certainly implement a decent infrastructure, but most
of the cities on the east coast are heavily congested with narrow roads
designed and built (if they could even be considered as 'designed') well
before the advent of cars.

Frank is correct that efforts to force bike infrastructure in the US are
largely met with massive resistance, but mostly due to USAian attitude
rather than than inherent flaws as he claims. In Europe there is much
more acceptance of working towards the common good. That's why
northeastern European countries consistently rank at the top of the
'happiness' studies while we in the US are saddled with an obnoxious,
ignorant, and vocal minority of miserable selfish pricks.

https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/marjorie-taylor-greene-penned-conspiracy-theory-laser-beam-space-started-deadly-2018

> will they potentially need access points to be kept
> open? Yes absolutely though doesn’t in my experience seem to matter,
> Chiswick High road has one and being a high street has access across it, in
> multiple places, as long as these aren’t high volume it seems to work.
>
> As ever stuff can be done but needs pragmatism and political bravery.
>
> Roger Merriman
>
>
>

--
Add xx to reply

Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/3/2024 4:59 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It’s a particular type of cycleway, as city often do have embankments next
>> to the river, see Paris for other examples.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Considering the size of of American roads there absolutely is space for
>> segregated cycle lanes
>
> In some locations, yes. However by and large those are more wide-open
> areas where the distances necessary for travel are quite a bit longer
> than most people are capable of easily commuting by bike.

Looking at both Youngstown which seems to have large multi lane urban
roads, and San Francisco and the somewhat curious central cycleway again
with space for multiple lanes and parking and a cycleway!

I believe for America was some historical regulations around street width,
which corresponds to number of European cities boulevards such as Paris
Grand Boulevard’s ie the fashion/prevalent idea was big wide roads where
healthy london didn’t largely get these for various reasons though had been
planned to.

>
> The issue here is in American cities. The newer cities in the
> Midwest/west could certainly implement a decent infrastructure, but most
> of the cities on the east coast are heavily congested with narrow roads
> designed and built (if they could even be considered as 'designed') well
> before the advent of cars.
>
Don’t doubt that there are narrower American roads which are more in line
with European roads. But I’d argue that on a whole seems to have more space
in general, and there are choices in terms of how much space is used for
who, for example the trend is to have less wide open junctions so
pedestrians have less distance to cross, and take less time, and motorists
have to slow down.

Ie stuff can be done if there is the political will to do so it’s a matter
of choices.

> Frank is correct that efforts to force bike infrastructure in the US are
> largely met with massive resistance, but mostly due to USAian attitude
> rather than than inherent flaws as he claims. In Europe there is much
> more acceptance of working towards the common good. That's why
> northeastern European countries consistently rank at the top of the
> 'happiness' studies while we in the US are saddled with an obnoxious,
> ignorant, and vocal minority of miserable selfish pricks.
>
> https://www.mediamatters.org/facebook/marjorie-taylor-greene-penned-conspiracy-theory-laser-beam-space-started-deadly-2018

Some of the things that are happening in london such as low traffic
neighbourhoods ie barriers to stop though motor traffic, has a predictable
initial this is terrible where will my customers park etc, to slowly this
is so much better.
>
>> will they potentially need access points to be kept
>> open? Yes absolutely though doesn’t in my experience seem to matter,
>> Chiswick High road has one and being a high street has access across it, in
>> multiple places, as long as these aren’t high volume it seems to work.
>>
>> As ever stuff can be done but needs pragmatism and political bravery.
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>>
>>
>>
>

Roger Merriman