Hit and Run - Page 39 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-05-2004, 12:47 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Ben Pfaff <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> From your other postings, you seem to think that this is just a
> fact of life.

It is. Traffic ain't perfect. Or at least, the
people in it aren't.

> I am somewhat sympathetic--except that this is a
> designated and marked "Bike Boulevard".

.... and drivers dare intrude upon it, because they
can?? Horrors!!

> Does this designation
> mean anything at all?

Not, apparently, to some of the drivers on it.

So have your City traffic-calm it or something,
or have them put-in bike lanes. Whatever.

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

06-05-2004, 01:00 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article <im9wc.15130$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes:
>
>>Er no. I think the point is that defensive cycling (or driving) is a
>>good idea, and someone who is frequently having close calls should
>>consider whether they can do anything to fix that.
>>
>
>That's pretty much it. Along with a suggestion that it's generally
>simpler for the road-user to adapt to the road, than adapting the
>road to the road-user.
>
Yup. Critical Massers say "Bicycles ARE traffic, get used to it!"
Well, cars are traffic too. Get used to it. No one completely follows
the rules of the road. "Taxi stops" at stop signs are normal (though
illegal) everywhere.
Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
and deal with what's coming up in front of you.
That's how I see it anyway.
Bernie

06-05-2004, 01:00 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article <im9wc.15130$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes:
>
>>Er no. I think the point is that defensive cycling (or driving) is a
>>good idea, and someone who is frequently having close calls should
>>consider whether they can do anything to fix that.
>>
>
>That's pretty much it. Along with a suggestion that it's generally
>simpler for the road-user to adapt to the road, than adapting the
>road to the road-user.
>
Yup. Critical Massers say "Bicycles ARE traffic, get used to it!"
Well, cars are traffic too. Get used to it. No one completely follows
the rules of the road. "Taxi stops" at stop signs are normal (though
illegal) everywhere.
Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
and deal with what's coming up in front of you.
That's how I see it anyway.
Bernie

06-05-2004, 01:00 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article <im9wc.15130$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes:
>
>>Er no. I think the point is that defensive cycling (or driving) is a
>>good idea, and someone who is frequently having close calls should
>>consider whether they can do anything to fix that.
>>
>
>That's pretty much it. Along with a suggestion that it's generally
>simpler for the road-user to adapt to the road, than adapting the
>road to the road-user.
>
Yup. Critical Massers say "Bicycles ARE traffic, get used to it!"
Well, cars are traffic too. Get used to it. No one completely follows
the rules of the road. "Taxi stops" at stop signs are normal (though
illegal) everywhere.
Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
and deal with what's coming up in front of you.
That's how I see it anyway.
Bernie

06-05-2004, 01:00 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article <im9wc.15130$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes:
>
>>Er no. I think the point is that defensive cycling (or driving) is a
>>good idea, and someone who is frequently having close calls should
>>consider whether they can do anything to fix that.
>>
>
>That's pretty much it. Along with a suggestion that it's generally
>simpler for the road-user to adapt to the road, than adapting the
>road to the road-user.
>
Yup. Critical Massers say "Bicycles ARE traffic, get used to it!"
Well, cars are traffic too. Get used to it. No one completely follows
the rules of the road. "Taxi stops" at stop signs are normal (though
illegal) everywhere.
Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
and deal with what's coming up in front of you.
That's how I see it anyway.
Bernie

06-05-2004, 01:00 AM

Tom Keats wrote:

>In article <im9wc.15130$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes:
>
>>Er no. I think the point is that defensive cycling (or driving) is a
>>good idea, and someone who is frequently having close calls should
>>consider whether they can do anything to fix that.
>>
>
>That's pretty much it. Along with a suggestion that it's generally
>simpler for the road-user to adapt to the road, than adapting the
>road to the road-user.
>
Yup. Critical Massers say "Bicycles ARE traffic, get used to it!"
Well, cars are traffic too. Get used to it. No one completely follows
the rules of the road. "Taxi stops" at stop signs are normal (though
illegal) everywhere.
Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
and deal with what's coming up in front of you.
That's how I see it anyway.
Bernie

06-05-2004, 02:04 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Bernie <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
> and deal with what's coming up in front of you.

And beside you.

Actually, I feel a sort of sympathy with anyone who wants this
Bryant Street to be really treated as the cycling route it
apparently is designated as.

When I first got wind that our Windsor Street was going to be
a bike route, I suggested that Dumfries St would have been a
better choice. Now I find out Dumfries is also being considered,
but the proposed treatments of the Dumfries/King Edward/Kingsway
intersection fall far short of safe & convenient usability.
Sight lines are especially a big problem there.

There needs to be a traffic light that gets people on Dumfries
safely and directly across both King Ed and Kingsway.

As if such inconveniencing of drivers on King Edward & Kingsway
would ever happen!

BTW, Windsor St needs a push-button light at King Edward, same
as Heather St.

I don't really know what this Bryant Street is like. All I
know is, people are complaining about it to the wrong people.

I hope they get it fixed properly.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

06-05-2004, 02:04 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Bernie <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
> and deal with what's coming up in front of you.

And beside you.

Actually, I feel a sort of sympathy with anyone who wants this
Bryant Street to be really treated as the cycling route it
apparently is designated as.

When I first got wind that our Windsor Street was going to be
a bike route, I suggested that Dumfries St would have been a
better choice. Now I find out Dumfries is also being considered,
but the proposed treatments of the Dumfries/King Edward/Kingsway
intersection fall far short of safe & convenient usability.
Sight lines are especially a big problem there.

There needs to be a traffic light that gets people on Dumfries
safely and directly across both King Ed and Kingsway.

As if such inconveniencing of drivers on King Edward & Kingsway
would ever happen!

BTW, Windsor St needs a push-button light at King Edward, same
as Heather St.

I don't really know what this Bryant Street is like. All I
know is, people are complaining about it to the wrong people.

I hope they get it fixed properly.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

06-05-2004, 02:04 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Bernie <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
> and deal with what's coming up in front of you.

And beside you.

Actually, I feel a sort of sympathy with anyone who wants this
Bryant Street to be really treated as the cycling route it
apparently is designated as.

When I first got wind that our Windsor Street was going to be
a bike route, I suggested that Dumfries St would have been a
better choice. Now I find out Dumfries is also being considered,
but the proposed treatments of the Dumfries/King Edward/Kingsway
intersection fall far short of safe & convenient usability.
Sight lines are especially a big problem there.

There needs to be a traffic light that gets people on Dumfries
safely and directly across both King Ed and Kingsway.

As if such inconveniencing of drivers on King Edward & Kingsway
would ever happen!

BTW, Windsor St needs a push-button light at King Edward, same
as Heather St.

I don't really know what this Bryant Street is like. All I
know is, people are complaining about it to the wrong people.

I hope they get it fixed properly.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

06-05-2004, 02:04 AM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
Bernie <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Don't let yourself get complacent, it's a jungle out there. Be aware
> and deal with what's coming up in front of you.

And beside you.

Actually, I feel a sort of sympathy with anyone who wants this
Bryant Street to be really treated as the cycling route it
apparently is designated as.

When I first got wind that our Windsor Street was going to be
a bike route, I suggested that Dumfries St would have been a
better choice. Now I find out Dumfries is also being considered,
but the proposed treatments of the Dumfries/King Edward/Kingsway
intersection fall far short of safe & convenient usability.
Sight lines are especially a big problem there.

There needs to be a traffic light that gets people on Dumfries
safely and directly across both King Ed and Kingsway.

As if such inconveniencing of drivers on King Edward & Kingsway
would ever happen!

BTW, Windsor St needs a push-button light at King Edward, same
as Heather St.

I don't really know what this Bryant Street is like. All I
know is, people are complaining about it to the wrong people.

I hope they get it fixed properly.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca