>It's not all about comfort and safety. Cycling can be uncomfortable,
>exciting and fun too. Have some fun in the snow. It's a gift.

You seem to be arguing in circles. You claimed your choice of the
path over the roadway was safety based in an earlier email.
Now you seem to be saying the opposite.

Personally, I give safety considerations a prime role in
all my activities, whether for fun or function.

I love snow and have great fun in it. It was part of why I was
so willing to move to Maine. However that is besides the point.
The point is: the most general case is that roadways stay passable
and safe for bicyclist use during and after a snow storm
better then paths and sidwalks. Sidewalk bicyclist riding with or
without snow is a dangerous activity. Paths don't have all that
great general safety rates either, compared to roadways. As a
pedestrian, I don't want bicyclist using or invited onto
the pedestrian facility.

>> The topology of how 100km of "continuous" parks can be layed down
>> onto an well designed urban grid while "never" crossing a road -
>> engineered in any reasonable-cost fashion - escapes me... yes.
>
>A geography lesson is called for.

Nothing very typical about that for an urban area.

I suspect there are a number of massive-scale-heavy-engineered
choices for urban areas with these geography constraints, of which
this flood control design is one choice. I am still sure that
including continuous parks not at grade along each and every
stretch of 100kms of river front modifies the cost of the
engineering.

I think it is a questionable use of public money and political
will to throw all a city's recreational resource eggs into a
basket that is under yearly threat of total flooding. It probably
involves all kinds of compromises about what those recreational
facilities can look like and include.

I place greater importance on recreation and community aesthetics
then to relegate it to what would normally be considered unusable
land due to geography/climate constraints.

Ken

--- In bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth O'Brien"
<kob2@...> wrote:
>
> >virgin snow. Get out and ride more and you will learn this too.
>
> Plenty of experience with riding and snow. I confidently stand by
> statement that the roadway always stays more passable with greater
> comfort than paths and sidewalks, through and after the various
kinds

It's not all about comfort and safety. Cycling can be uncomfortable,
exciting and fun too. Have some fun in the snow. It's a gift.

> The topology of how 100km of "continuous" parks can be layed down
> onto an well designed urban grid while "never" crossing a road -
> engineered in any reasonable-cost fashion - escapes me... yes.

A geography lesson is called for. In Korea almost all the rain comes
in July and August during the monsoon season. The amounts often
exceed 6 inches in a day and the stormwater runs off the mountains
quickly and floods the valleys. The main waterway is the Han River,
which has dams to mitigate the problem but with lakes fill up
sometimes and they have to let the water go. By opening the dam
different amounts. they can control the amount of flooding. There are
multiple flood levels they have designed for. In the early stages
they flood the lower parks and when things get desperate they flood
the entire park area. That's why there is no permanent development in
the river basin. All the roads cross over on bridges. Similarly,
within Seoul there are two major water courses from the north and two
from the south. These each split upstream and all are parks that
double as areas to hold water during flooding. The water courses must
be maintained for flood control so it is an easy thing to just add
paths and some amenities. Buildings within the watercourses are
floating type that are anchored.

Tom

--- In bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Frost Jr."
<tomfrostjr@...> wrote:
>
> Thomas "_d_" Church explains the ins and outs of how he managed to
> fall "only" once on his ride, and concludes the paragraph with:
>
> "Get out and ride more and you will learn this too."
>
> TF: How much snow does your neck of the woods usually receive per
> year, Mr. Church?

I grew up in Rochester New York, which averages just under 8
feet/year. Seoul rarely has snow. When it does, we rush to the
mountains and ride it. On mountain bikes of course. Rode yesterday in
the snows to the east of Bundang. Most of the snow was gone except
above 400 meters and in the shadows.

Tom

Sorry, that last email looks like it got trunctated
somehow

======================================================

I did envision something that I assumed was either
posited or described by Mr. Church... And a list
member described approximately what I envisioned.

>I believe I know the area that he is describing.
>The Han river flows through the middle of Seoul, and
>it is developed with a border of 50-100m on either
>side of the river devoted to recreation - there are
>paths for walking, other paths for cycling, soccer
>pitches, baseball diamonds etc all lining the river.
>The bridges that cross the river for automotive
>traffic are elevated prior to the park area so it does
>creat a continuous ribbon that flows through the
>middle of the city. It works very well for
>recreational riding, but not terribly well for
>transportation unless you happen to want to go to/from
>places that are on the banks of the river. This
>recreational development extends for many miles on
>both sides of the river.

But I stand by my statement that this does not strike me
as either of reasonable cost or of reasonable design for
an urban area.

I would not consider 100km of river flowing through an
urban area locked off to access by nothing but green
recreation area as wise use of that natural resource running
through an urban area. I believe the built/developed part
of the urban environment should have frequent (even primary)
access to waterfront areas. I believe we need to start thinking
of urban waterfronts access and water course in terms of the
transportation they might provide. I suspect this transportation
net flyover design greatly elevates the cost and engineering
level of the transportation net crossing this 100km
total of land strips. I do not want bicyclist
astride their bicycles invited into such green recreation
areas that do exist in urban areas. I don't want the
extra public expense in the form of higher engineering
level, certain details of the facility design, and the extra
push for vehicle rule behavior in pedestrian areas that invitation
to bicyclists usually involves.

I probably would not evaluate this idea as working well.
I think urban design that worked well would sprinkle
recreation areas in a more random - almost chaotic - fashion
throughout the urban area... It would sprinkle a much higher
percentage of each and every transportation corridor with
aesthetic features that encouraged pleasant and comfortable
use by the widest range of modes of travel practicable, with
an eye towards maximum connectivity provided at lowest
cost/lowest engineering practicable. The transportation
net of urban areas should greatly de-emphasis the concept
of the arterial over present practice.

Ken

push for vehicle rule behavior in pedestrian areas that invitation
to bicyclists usually involves.

I probably would not evaluate this idea as working well.
I think urban design that worked well would sprinkle
recreation areas in a more random - almost chaotic - fashion
throughout the urban area... It would sprinkle a much higher
percentage of each and every transportation corridor with
aesthetic features that encouraged pleasant and comfortable
use by the widest range of modes of travel practicable, with
an eye towards maximum connectivity provided at lowest
cost/lowest engineering practicable. The transportation
net of urban areas should greatly de-emphasis the concept
of the arterial over present practice.

Ken



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web

>virgin snow. Get out and ride more and you will learn this too.

Plenty of experience with riding and snow. I confidently stand by
statement that the roadway always stays more passable with greater
comfort than paths and sidewalks, through and after the various kinds
of snow storms. The increased frequency of storms over the last 9
years of my life has finally gotten me to move to studded tires...
and I toy with the trike idea now and then... But stand by my idea.
As a matter of fact, I move to a route with more major road and heavier
traffic when it is snowing because all factors come into play
to make that best route as snow develops: continous travel of heavier
vehicles, usually best surface condition of paving, often best treated
by sanding trucks before/during the event.

>You have no idea what you're talking about. The water courses have
>been developed into continuous parks in Seoul.

The topology of how 100km of "continuous" parks can be layed down
onto an well designed urban grid while "never" crossing a road -
engineered in any reasonable-cost fashion - escapes me... yes.


>>To suggest that riding in a storm on the roads around Seoul is safer
>>than riding on a multi-use path with no road crossings at all is
>>lunacy. The hundreds of kilometers of trails Seoul has constructed
>>along the water courses are similar to railtrails except they never
>>cross roads at all. They are a wonderful resourse for Seoulites and are
>>model projects that all cycling advocates should heartily endorse.
> The primary emphasis/model for bicyclist advocacy
> should be based on: "bicyclists fare best when they act and are
> treated as drivers of vehicles", and defending/expanding
> bicyclist roadway access advocacy.

>Get real. There are all kinds of riders with all kinds of priorities.
>Who are you to tell everyone what to think.

I'm me. As you are you - someone who suggested: 1) I was a lunatic,
2) I should support your view of how to configure urban
areas, and 3) as a pedestrian I must accept bicyclists astride
their bicycle using dedicated pedestrian facility areas. I, again,
am me, telling you that I will oppose these ideas vigorously.

> Open your mind. Advocacy
>should respect riders with various priorities.

>There are plenty of
>cyclists who believe cycling has more in common with walking and
>hiking than driving.

At the heart of my advocacy is the understanding that this
idea is a major error. You don't "open your mind" by
rejecting one of the major premises/conclusions you use
to contruct your views on a subject.

Ken

My interest in "punks on ATVs" is that I tried for years (despite not
owning, nor wishing to own, an ATV myself) to prevent whining
segregationists on mountain bikes from booting them off the rail-
trail near me. When "punks on ATVs" are on a corridor, whining
segregationists on mountain bikes can't very well put in pork-barrel
trail improvements because they know that the "punks on ATVs" will
ruin the improvements. In short, the presence of "punks on ATVs" on a
corridor helps that corridor to remain fallow, and hence, "punks on
ATVs" are an important ally for real cyclists (i.e. those of us who
want these corridors to remain fallow) and future-railroad fans.

Unfortunately, "punks on ATVs" aren't organized enough to prevent
ISTEA-funded opponents from booting them off the trails. The tricks
that I did to try to keep them from being booted off the rail-trail
near me, finally failed in 2002.

"Punks on ATVs" using roadways are even more important potential
allies to cyclists. I once asked a "punk on ATV" why he was on the
wrong side of the road, and he replied, "I'm just trying to stay
_off_ the road". Sound familiar? Cyclists and ATVers united could be
a powerful constituency to combat segregation. Theoretically, of
course.

- Tom Frost Jr.


--- In bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com, "kob2@..." <kob2@...> wrote:
>
> If we need tort law reform to help rail corridors lie fallow
> (and that only is _IF_ we need that)... and _if_ that works out to
> be one part of a set of policies that will help these corridors
> lie  fallow without creating a powerful political constituency
> that will eventually be an obstacle to putting mass transit back
> into that corridor... Well that might be something that should be
> worked on. At the moment I only have your analysis that says
> these issues are important. I would have to probably do the analysis
> of the situation myself before I bought all you claim here.
>
> My primary goal is not protecting "punks on ATVs". _If_ the changes
> in tort law are needed as part of this policy, and _if_ those
changes
> result in less legal recourse for trespassing "punks on ATV's", I
could
> live with that.
>
> My specific and primary goal is to avoid turning these corridors
over to
> groups that will create a powerful poltical constituency
> that will stand in the eventual return of this corridor to
> mass transit use.
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Tom Frost Jr. tomfrostjr@...
> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:52:20 +0000
> To: bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [bicyclingadvocacy] Re: Praise for multi-use paths
>
>
> --- In bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth O'Brien"
> <kob2@> wrote:
> > I think a rail corridor should have rail running through
> > it, or lie fallow waiting for rail to run through
> > it again some day.
>
> TF: I agree. But unfortunately, you're not President for Life, and
> I'm not Top Field Marshal.
>
> Is the railroad company that owns the corridor going to agree with
> us? Not when they have to deal with lawsuits from punks who
trespass
> and get hurt on it with ATVs during the fallow decades. So, the
> current state of the starched-white-shirters' art is that the
company
> gives the corridor away to non-fallow-use entities, the current
major
> example of which is rail-trail organizations. The segregationist-
> magnet (although technically not 100% segregationist in _concept_,
> and thus I've infiltrated one of them all the way to Secretary)
> outfits that rail-trail organizations are, increase car-bike
> collisions 260%, but on the other hand, are at least more likely
than
> bankrupt railroad companies are, to barricade off the most rotten
> bridges so that punks don't ATV right off of them and become
> paraplegics as happened in one case near Simpson, Pa. that's
> currently making lawyers rich.
>
> - Tom Frost Jr.

Thomas "_d_" Church explains the ins and outs of how he managed to
fall "only" once on his ride, and concludes the paragraph with:

"Get out and ride more and you will learn this too."

TF: How much snow does your neck of the woods usually receive per
year, Mr. Church? Enough for you to have ridden in snow more than
those of us in the northeastern U.S. where a town not bothering to
have snow-removal equipment like you reported in an earlier post is
the case in yours, is unheard of?

- Tom Frost Jr.

--- In bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth O'Brien"
<kob2@...> wrote:

> Since solo falling is part of safety.... Also "impassable" often
> is a practical consideration that comes into play to everywhere
> I have ever lived during a snow storm.

Solo falling is a luxury I enjoy frequently, especially when mountain
biking. I only fell once Wednesday night and landeed on my left hip
for a change. No cars were around to run me over. I fell on a ramp
exiting the multi-use path that was glazed in ice. Generally new snow
fall is not very slippery. It is only when it's been packed by
vehiicles or pedestrians that it is slippery. In extreme cold, new
snow has almost no impact on traction. With wetter snow, the tires
punch tthrough to the pavement and traction is fair, at least if it's
virgin snow. Get out and ride more and you will learn this too.

> Many pedestrians feel as I do - they don't want vehicle drivers
> encouraged to use what should be pedestrian
> recreation facilities.

Couldn't agree more. vehicles should be banned from multi-use paths
since they are for pedestrians and cyclists; or as Bob would
say, "cyclestrians". Vehicles drivers are absolutely not welcome. I
wouldn't drive my car in such places. That's what roads are for.

> As already mentioned, I think recreation money, especially in urban
> areas, should have much more  directed to destination-type parks
> and public travelled way aesthetic features, and much less directed
at > "greenway" and paths then at present.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The water courses have
been developed into continuous parks in Seoul. The length of these
parks exceeds 100 kilometers now and have multi-use paths on both
sides, soccer fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, banked tracks
for speed skaters, roller blade areas in some places separated from
the multi-use paths, people flying kites, children riding trikes,
joggers, bikers, skateboard parks, beautiful flower gardens,
amphitheaters, basketball courts, eateries, windsurfing sites,
paddleboats, etc.....

These facilities are exceptionally well used and appreciated by
Seoulites.

> The primary emphasis/model for bicyclist advocacy
> should be based on: "bicyclists fare best when they act and are
> treated as drivers of vehicles", and defending/expanding
> bicyclist roadway access advocacy.

Get real. There are all kinds of riders with all kinds of priorities.
Who are you to tell everyone what to think. Open your mind. Advocacy
should respect riders with various priorities. There are plenty of
cyclists who believe cycling has more in common with walking and
hiking than driving. (By "driving", I mean operating a four wheeled
motor vehicle. That is the normal usage. It is also normal to refer
to the act of operating a bicycle as "riding".)

Tom

> the scientific study references used.
>
>
>http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/rwt/
>
>http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/rt/rails_w_trails.cfm
>
>Links to several other studies here:
>http://www.americantrails.org/resources/railtrails/index.html


Thanks

>They want to avoid being struck (and passed too
>closely) by drunk, drugged, distracted, sleeping,
>elderly, reckless, and speeding cagers. The best way
>to do that is by not operating within close proximity
>of vehicles. The best way to do that is by riding on
>separated facilities. The more separation, the better.


Right. Like I said... Something other than a rational
examination of actual safety statistics on real
public facilities of reasonable overall design directs
their  feeling/misperception-driven actions and advocacy
efforts.

>The best way
>to do that is by not operating within close proximity
>of vehicles. The best way to do that is by riding on
>separated facilities. The more separation, the better.

The best way (for effectiveness and as part
of operating in the civic/public realm) to address
the relatively statistically minor bicyclist related
bicyclist safety issue from the listed behaviors - is
work on lowering the rates of drunk, drugged, distracted,
sleeping,..., reckless, and speeding vehicle drives
("elderly" is insufficient qualifier and not a behavior,
so I took it off my list).


Ken

>To suggest that riding in a storm on the roads around Seoul is safer
>than riding on a multi-use path with no road crossings at all is
>lunacy.

Since solo falling is part of safety.... Also "impassable" often
is a practical consideration that comes into play to everywhere
I have ever lived during a snow storm.

>The hundreds of kilometers of trails Seoul has constructed
>along the water courses are similar to railtrails except they never
>cross roads at all.

>They are a wonderful resourse for Seoulites and are
>model projects that all cycling advocates should heartily endorse.

Hundreds of kilometers of recreational trails
that never cross roads at all in a single
urban area sounds like a bad waste of public funds
on wrong-headed design ideas.

Many pedestrians feel as I do - they don't want vehicle drivers
encouraged to use what should be pedestrian
recreation facilities.

As already mentioned, I think recreation money, especially in urban
areas, should have much more  directed to destination-type parks
and public travelled way aesthetic features, and much less directed at
"greenway" and paths then at present.

The primary emphasis/model for bicyclist advocacy
should be based on: "bicyclists fare best when they act and are
treated as drivers of vehicles", and defending/expanding
bicyclist roadway access advocacy.


>Those who like these type of trails are quite willing to let you play
>in traffic, if that is your choice.

Actually, that is part of the political/cultural problem.
This statement is not true. See the Jim Smith
Florida-non-bicyclist-bikelane-proponent editorial recently
linked-to from this list to see a more typical
example of the psychology that often accompanies
heavy expenditure on facilities the public believes
are to help encourage bicyclists to not use roadways.



>For your added information, Seoul
>has no snow clearing equipment at all, so your argument that the roads
>are clear in a rare snowstorm are uninformed.

You will note I gave the reason road surfaces stay clear better for
wheeled vehicles in two parts. One was public sanding/salting and
clearence. The other was the continual passage of heavier vehicles.
Whether are not your description of public roadway maintainece
in Seoul is accurate, the second part still applies.

Ken

--- Kenneth O'Brien <kob2@...> wrote:

>
>
> >Now that a rich body of historical evidence exists
> >proving rails "with" trails are safe,
>
> Could you provide the references to that rich body
> of evidence please? Thanks. (I suspect this is
> correct, by the way.... I just would like to have
> the scientific study references used.


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/rectrails/rwt/

http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/rt/rails_w_trails.cfm

Links to several other studies here:
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/railtrails/index.html


> >I wouldn't
> >expect cyclestrian activist groups to kick up too
> much
> >of a storm if a corridor was reverted back to rail
> as
> >long as cyclestrians were accommodated with an
> >adjacent ROW.
>
> I think it VERY unlikely that the constituency
> looking for the
> kind of experience they think a trail without rail
> in a
> corridor provides them, would not oppose the
> re-introduction
> of rail just because of safety stats.
>
> If they were people who cared deeply about rich
> bodies of evidence indicating good safety rates,
> they would be vehicular bicyclists using the
> roadway.

They want to avoid being struck (and passed too
closely) by drunk, drugged, distracted, sleeping,
elderly, reckless, and speeding cagers. The best way
to do that is by not operating within close proximity
of vehicles. The best way to do that is by riding on
separated facilities. The more separation, the better.


-Bob M.

>Now that a rich body of historical evidence exists
>proving rails "with" trails are safe,

Could you provide the references to that rich body
of evidence please? Thanks. (I suspect this is
correct, by the way.... I just would like to have
the scientific study references used.

>I wouldn't
>expect cyclestrian activist groups to kick up too much
>of a storm if a corridor was reverted back to rail as
>long as cyclestrians were accommodated with an
>adjacent ROW.

I think it VERY unlikely that the constituency looking for the
kind of experience they think a trail without rail in a
corridor provides them, would not oppose the re-introduction
of rail just because of safety stats.

If they were people who cared deeply about rich
bodies of evidence indicating good safety rates,
they would be vehicular bicyclists using the roadway.

Ken OB

To suggest that riding in a storm on the roads around Seoul is safer
than riding on a multi-use path with no road crossings at all is
lunacy. The hundreds of kilometers of trails Seoul has constructed
along the water courses are similar to railtrails except they never
cross roads at all. They are a wonderful resourse for Seoulites and are
model projects that all cycling advocates should heartily endorse.
Those who like these type of trails are quite willing to let you play
in traffic, if that is your choice. For your added information, Seoul
has no snow clearing equipment at all, so your argument that the roads
are clear in a rare snowstorm are uninformed.

Now that a rich body of historical evidence exists
proving rails "with" trails are safe, I wouldn't
expect cyclestrian activist groups to kick up too much
of a storm if a corridor was reverted back to rail as
long as cyclestrians were accommodated with an
adjacent ROW.

-Bob Matter
Calumet Citizens for Connecting Communities
Lake, Porter, and La Porte County, Indiana cyclestrian
advocacy since 2002

If we need tort law reform to help rail corridors lie fallow
(and that only is _IF_ we need that)... and _if_ that works out to
be one part of a set of policies that will help these corridors
lie  fallow without creating a powerful political constituency
that will eventually be an obstacle to putting mass transit back
into that corridor... Well that might be something that should be
worked on. At the moment I only have your analysis that says
these issues are important. I would have to probably do the analysis
of the situation myself before I bought all you claim here.

My primary goal is not protecting "punks on ATVs". _If_ the changes
in tort law are needed as part of this policy, and _if_ those changes
result in less legal recourse for trespassing "punks on ATV's", I could
live with that.

My specific and primary goal is to avoid turning these corridors over to
groups that will create a powerful poltical constituency
that will stand in the eventual return of this corridor to
mass transit use.

Ken



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Tom Frost Jr. tomfrostjr@...
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:52:20 +0000
To: bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bicyclingadvocacy] Re: Praise for multi-use paths


--- In bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth O'Brien"
<kob2@...> wrote:
> I think a rail corridor should have rail running through
> it, or lie fallow waiting for rail to run through
> it again some day.

TF: I agree. But unfortunately, you're not President for Life, and
I'm not Top Field Marshal.

Is the railroad company that owns the corridor going to agree with
us? Not when they have to deal with lawsuits from punks who trespass
and get hurt on it with ATVs during the fallow decades. So, the
current state of the starched-white-shirters' art is that the company
gives the corridor away to non-fallow-use entities, the current major
example of which is rail-trail organizations. The segregationist-
magnet (although technically not 100% segregationist in _concept_,
and thus I've infiltrated one of them all the way to Secretary)
outfits that rail-trail organizations are, increase car-bike
collisions 260%, but on the other hand, are at least more likely than
bankrupt railroad companies are, to barricade off the most rotten
bridges so that punks don't ATV right off of them and become
paraplegics as happened in one case near Simpson, Pa. that's
currently making lawyers rich.

- Tom Frost Jr.





Yahoo! Groups Links




--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web

--- In bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth O'Brien"
<kob2@...> wrote:
> I think a rail corridor should have rail running through
> it, or lie fallow waiting for rail to run through
> it again some day.

TF: I agree. But unfortunately, you're not President for Life, and
I'm not Top Field Marshal.

Is the railroad company that owns the corridor going to agree with
us? Not when they have to deal with lawsuits from punks who trespass
and get hurt on it with ATVs during the fallow decades. So, the
current state of the starched-white-shirters' art is that the company
gives the corridor away to non-fallow-use entities, the current major
example of which is rail-trail organizations. The segregationist-
magnet (although technically not 100% segregationist in _concept_,
and thus I've infiltrated one of them all the way to Secretary)
outfits that rail-trail organizations are, increase car-bike
collisions 260%, but on the other hand, are at least more likely than
bankrupt railroad companies are, to barricade off the most rotten
bridges so that punks don't ATV right off of them and become
paraplegics as happened in one case near Simpson, Pa. that's
currently making lawyers rich.

- Tom Frost Jr.

>My view is Bike lanes/paths is a poor-man's way of building a
>sidewalk with hidden motives. The only exception is Rail/Canal-ways
>which are acceptable don't get me wrong their nice but dirty.

I think a rail corridor should have rail running through
it, or lie fallow waiting for rail to run through
it again some day.

I suspect the occasional isolated private individual encroaching
into the fallow rail corridor will be a much, much smaller
obstacle for resurrecting rail along that corridor, than a united
large constituency of people who have come to think of that
corridor as theirs for recreation.

I think most-to-all recreational paths should be low engineered
pedestrian facilities that at a  minimum do not invite bicyclists
astride their bikes.

I think the expense on "greenway" and path type recreation facilities
are WAY over done in our culture right now. I think the lion's share
of recreation funds should be redirected towards destination parks
and improved aesthetics scattered everywhere around dense developed
communities (many pocket parks along the normal traveled way, for
instance).

Ken

My view is Bike lanes/paths is a poor-man's way of building a sidewalk with
hidden motives. The only exception is Rail/Canal-ways which are acceptable don't
get me wrong their nice but dirty.
   Fleutz

Kenneth O'Brien <kob2@...> wrote:
           I've lived the last nine years in a place that gets greater
than your average amount of snow for a US location.

Roadways stay passable for my me on my bicycle, during storms,
long after the sidewalks and paths have become slippery, icy
impassable problems even for walking. I often find myself
moving to roads for walking - even when ped facilities
are included in a corridor - during and after the storm.

Roadway surfaces clear up for comfortable riding often long before
I would consider the surface of any sidewalk or path even capable
of keeping me upright and moving forward on my bike (or walking
for that matter). However, I would never ride those places anyway,
because I don't think it is appropriate place to ride my vehicle.

Continual roadway use by heavier vehicles, plus the culture's
investment in immediate snow removal and roadway surface treatments
coincident with storm occurence, makes the difference.

Wise public policy would keep costs low and maximize the
effectiveness/utility of storm related surface maintainence,
by building a single net of roadways for vehicle use.

I am sure that my headlight and large SAE rear facing reflector
are quite visible under a wide range of conditions - even snow
storms - because I've tested them in a wide range of conditions
that include those conditions. With respect the rear reflector,
VERY heavy fog is the one condition on which I suspect I may need
to do a few extra test.

I find all my roadway bicycle riding joyous.

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of tom church
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:28 PM
To: bicycle advocacy
Subject: [bicyclingadvocacy] Praise for multi-use paths

Last night I rode 75 K from Osan AB to Seoul Korea a night, in a blizzard,
on a time trial bike. I started at 5:15 with light flurries and dry roads
and I figured I could cover the first 25 K of confused roads and reach a 40
K mult-use path before dark. Then it would be a simple matter to tuck down
and bore through the raging headwind until I was home in Seoul.

It started snowing hard and I missed an important turn and ended up adding
10 K to the road portion of the ride. The snow was blinding and I had to
ride slowly. The result was that I was on very busy roads in a blizzard with
head and tail lights and a reflective vest, but I was still very sure nobody
could really see me.

And then I crossed the river I was yearning for, with it's marvelous
multi-use path, and I was saved. I rode the remaining 40K in blinding snow
which obscurred the path and it was all rather nuts except there were no
cars to worry about. What a joy. I had 3 inches of snow caked on the front
of my body, my gears and brakes were encased in a thick layer of ice and no
longer functioned, I could no longer feel my feet, but it was a joyous ride
without concern for cars. I love multi-use paths.

---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Links






And that's all there is !


---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
  Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

tom church wrote:
>
> And then I crossed the river I was yearning for, with it's marvelous
> multi-use path, and I was saved. I rode the remaining 40K in blinding
> snow which obscurred the path and it was all rather nuts except there
> were no cars to worry about.
>
>
Coincidentally I received notice today about two new pages added to a
local cyclist's voluminous site.  One has a caption that says it all.
"The Banks-Vernonia Trail is a popular destination for Portlanders and
makes a great bike-camping from the city."
http://bikeportland.org/2007/03/07/vernonia-poised-to-become-velo-nia/

Right.  The trail is a popular destination, not a popular route.

The other page is about transportation money being spent on a trail.
http://bikeportland.org/2007/03/07/feds-fund-gresham-fairview-trail-bridge-over-\
powell/

Note:  around here people carelessly use the words trail and path
interchangeably.

This marvelous path you were on.  Did it run alongside the river for any
distance?  If so, I would be more worried about missing the path in the
blinding snow and running into the river than I would be worried about
colliding with cars on the road.

Kat Iverson

I've lived the last nine years in a place that gets greater
than your average amount of snow for a US location.

Roadways stay passable for my me on my bicycle, during storms,
long after the sidewalks and paths have become slippery, icy
impassable problems even for walking. I often find myself
moving to roads for walking - even when ped facilities
are included in a corridor - during and after the storm.

Roadway surfaces clear up for comfortable riding often long before
I would consider the surface of any sidewalk or path even capable
of keeping me upright and moving forward on my bike (or walking
for that matter). However, I would never ride those places anyway,
because I don't think it is appropriate place to ride my vehicle.

Continual roadway use by heavier vehicles, plus the culture's
investment in immediate snow removal and roadway surface treatments
coincident with storm occurence, makes the difference.

Wise public policy would keep costs low and maximize the
effectiveness/utility of storm related surface maintainence,
by building a single net of roadways for vehicle use.

I am sure that my headlight and large SAE rear facing reflector
are quite visible under a wide range of conditions - even snow
storms - because I've tested them in a wide range of conditions
that include those conditions. With respect the rear reflector,
VERY heavy fog is the one condition on which I suspect I may need
to do a few extra test.

I find all my roadway bicycle riding joyous.

Ken



-----Original Message-----
From: bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of tom church
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 8:28 PM
To: bicycle advocacy
Subject: [bicyclingadvocacy] Praise for multi-use paths


Last night I rode 75 K from Osan AB to Seoul Korea a night, in a blizzard,
on a time trial bike. I started at 5:15 with light flurries and dry roads
and I figured I could cover the first 25 K of confused roads and reach a 40
K mult-use path before dark. Then it would be a simple matter to tuck down
and bore through the raging headwind until I was home in Seoul.

   It started snowing hard and I missed an important turn and ended up adding
10 K to the road portion of the ride. The snow was blinding and I had to
ride slowly. The result was that I was on very busy roads in a blizzard with
head and tail lights and a reflective vest, but I was still very sure nobody
could really see me.

   And then I crossed the river I was yearning for, with it's marvelous
multi-use path, and I was saved. I rode the remaining 40K in blinding snow
which obscurred the path and it was all rather nuts except there were no
cars to worry about. What a joy. I had 3 inches of snow caked on the front
of my body, my gears and brakes were encased in a thick layer of ice and no
longer functioned, I could no longer feel my feet, but it was a joyous ride
without concern for cars. I love multi-use paths.


---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





Yahoo! Groups Links

Last night I rode 75 K from Osan AB to Seoul Korea a night, in a blizzard, on a
time trial bike. I started at 5:15 with light flurries and dry roads and I
figured I could cover the first 25 K of confused roads and reach a 40 K mult-use
path before dark. Then it would be a simple matter to tuck down and bore through
the raging headwind until I was home in Seoul.

   It started snowing hard and I missed an important turn and ended up adding 10
K to the road portion of the ride. The snow was blinding and I had to ride
slowly. The result was that I was on very busy roads in a blizzard with head and
tail lights and a reflective vest, but I was still very sure nobody could really
see me.

   And then I crossed the river I was yearning for, with it's marvelous multi-use
path, and I was saved. I rode the remaining 40K in blinding snow which obscurred
the path and it was all rather nuts except there were no cars to worry about.
What a joy. I had 3 inches of snow caked on the front of my body, my gears and
brakes were encased in a thick layer of ice and no longer functioned, I could no
longer feel my feet, but it was a joyous ride without concern for cars. I love
multi-use paths.


---------------------------------
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From Kimberly Cooper:
Anybody got a video camera that can record narration?

youtube would be great for making some little instructional videos to educate
people on road laws, safe on-road bicycling, and safe driving techniques.



=====================
From: "John A. Ardelli" <gelfling@...>

I told 'em. Go to the link if you want to see my response...
----
Jim Gagnepain
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

--- In bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Plakus"
<michael.plakus@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20070226/NEWS01/702260303
>
> There is a forum connected to this article and I appear to be
fighting a one
> man battle for the cyclists.  It's a very automobile-centric fight
for the
> roads.
>

A few months have passed so I thought I'd check in and give a report
from Seoul. I see poor Bob Matter still seems to be willing to
battle with all knowing Ken. You aren't as lonely as you appear Bob.

Winter forgot to show up here so riding has been consistent all
winter. The few times it snowed, conditions were good for snow
riding in the mountains. I must admit though, my little motorcycle
is superior for commuting so biking has mainly been recreational or
training. I trained hard for a Himalaya riding trip along the
Everest Base Camp trail from Lukla to Jiri but we were forestalled
by a major blizzard the evening we arrived in Lukla and did a lot of
trekking in very deep snow but no riding.

I put my road bike together and had the wheels trued and will start
training on it for a cross Korea ride in April. Definately need to
ride this type bike in a more "vehicular" manner than my usual
mountainbike. But also I need to ride it out of the city or on the
multi-use paths along the riverways.

I've also decided to train for the infamous OD Bike Marathon
(mountainbike race up and down 12 mountains) again in spite of
swearing last year was enough for me. If work remains this slow I'll
see about doing some X-terras this year too. I managed a 45 K mixed
road/multi-use path/singletrack ride at lunch yesterday and
discovered another new section of multi-use path has been completed
connecting Gwacheon with the Olympic Stadium. Seoul has spent a lot
of money very well on establishing multi-use paths on all the
waterways and these are well used by the public. Some riders loose
patience with the rollerbladers and other users who make sustained
speed nearly impossible, but I appreciate all who use the path and
use the occational slowdowns for sprint type training. It's amazing
how many informal little races you can get into.

The trend of folding bikes is amazing and the number of cyclists
continues to grow very rapidly. I think most of this growth is due
to multiuse paths. Cyclists on roads remain scarce. A friend who is
a major bike distributor is starting to sell a lot of hybrid bikes
which seems ideally suited for urban riding. Most don't need a full
mountainbike and a road bike setup is just too dangerous on the
streets. The upright position is best in this kind of traffic.
Cycling is flourishing here.

Cheers from seoul,

Tom

>To ride sidepaths safely (often essentially impossible due to
>how sidepaths are eventually practically implemented) reduces
>the utility of this corrdior to the bicyclist way below
>its utility if the bicyclist stayed on the roadway.

In addition, the strange and difficult engineering designs
added in an attempt to ameliorate the danger adding the
sidepath created, are almost sure to lower the potential utility
of this corridor for all users.

The strange and difficult engineering added in an attempt to
ameliorate the danger assing the sidepath created will likely
have a large failure rate.

KOB


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint

> Ken

>Decades of real world experience and data collection
>proves otherwise.

No. All scientific data collected so far has supported that
sidepaths have worse safety rates. The better the scientific
methods used, the more clear the safety inferiority
of sidepath facilities the data indicates.


>Sidepaths require a little bit more attention at
>intersections.

That is incorrect, and a terrible piece of mis-education
to propagate.

To ride sidepaths safely (often essentially impossible due to
how sidepaths are eventually practically implemented) reduces
the utility of this corrdior to the bicyclist way below
its utility if the bicyclist stayed on the roadway.

> In exchange for that the chance of
>being doored (the most frequent accident type in
>Chicago) is  zero

It is also zero for bicyclists taught to never ride
in door zone.

> as is the chance of being clipped or
>hit from behind.

That risk is already very low on the roadway. This low
risk occurrence is swamped by the increased intersection
dangers of sidepaths.

> And you don't have obnoxious cagers
>honking and screaming at you

This is rare for me. I find it really easy to ignore.

> and throwing things at
>you and passing

In my ~40 years of near-daily riding, including major
American cities this is all but non-existent.

>fast and close.

Again rare - and in any-way dangerous, all but
non-existent.

Also, pandering to ignorance about bicyclist use
of roadways certainly isn't a path towards improvement
in these secondary issues.



>Cyclestrians fare best when accommodated with
>exclusive space free of vehicles.

This philosphy - and not the vast bulk of merely vague
ambivalent feelings towards bicyclists that characterizes
our present culture - is the prime enemy good bicyclist
advocacy now faces.

Ken OB



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint

--- Kenneth OBrien <kob2@...> wrote:

>
> > "This is the most important boulevard in
> Australia,
> > and we need to revitalise it," the council's
> planning
> > chairwoman Catherine Ng said yesterday. "And we
> need
> > to make this strip more cyclist and
> > pedestrian-friendly. People who are inexperienced
> > cyclists — like me — will now ride along this
> > boulevard."
>
> It takes a higher level of understanding and
> greater experience to ride safe on a sidepath
> along any given road then on the roadway itself.
>
> 'Real' bicyclist advocacy must oppose vehicle-type
> segregationist ideas in general.
>
> 'Real' bicyclist advocacy must _vigorously_ oppose
> sidepath
> facilities.
>
> 'Real' bicyclist advocacy needs to smooth the
> progression
> from inexperienced, mis-informed bicyclist to
> experienced bicyclist using any roadway facility
> that achieves
> a trip purpose.
>
> Bicyclist advocacy must not pander to ignornace and
> mis-perception.
>
> It would be best overall for our culture and for
> bicyclist
> advocacy's contribution to wise/contructive civic
> life if 'real'
> bicyclist advocacy discouraged bicycling in any
> pedestrian-dedicated areas, and discouraged the
> construction
> of hybrid pedestrian areas that encouraged
> transportational
> bicyclists from using anything other than the
> roadway
> facility of urban and suburban communities.
>
> Ken

Decades of real world experience and data collection
proves otherwise. Cities with extensive sidepath and
bike lane systems (Copenhagen, Davis, et al) have
cycling rates up to 30 times higher and fatality rates
up to 26 times lower than those without.

Sidepaths require a little bit more attention at
intersections. In exchange for that the chance of
being doored (the most frequent accident type in
Chicago) is  zero as is the chance of being clipped or
hit from behind. And you don't have obnoxious cagers
honking and screaming at you and throwing things at
you and passing fast and close.

The meridian in the photo accompanying the article
should be continuous with only slight ramping at
intersections thus acting like a speed bump to force
turning cagers to slow down.

Cyclestrians fare best when accommodated with
exclusive space free of vehicles.

-Bob Matter

> "This is the most important boulevard in Australia,
> and we need to revitalise it," the council's planning
> chairwoman Catherine Ng said yesterday. "And we need
> to make this strip more cyclist and
> pedestrian-friendly. People who are inexperienced
> cyclists — like me — will now ride along this
> boulevard."

It takes a higher level of understanding and
greater experience to ride safe on a sidepath
along any given road then on the roadway itself.

'Real' bicyclist advocacy must oppose vehicle-type
segregationist ideas in general.

'Real' bicyclist advocacy must _vigorously_ oppose sidepath
facilities.

'Real' bicyclist advocacy needs to smooth the progression
from inexperienced, mis-informed bicyclist to
experienced bicyclist using any roadway facility that achieves
a trip purpose.

Bicyclist advocacy must not pander to ignornace and
mis-perception.

It would be best overall for our culture and for bicyclist
advocacy's contribution to wise/contructive civic life if 'real'
bicyclist advocacy discouraged bicycling in any
pedestrian-dedicated areas, and discouraged the construction
of hybrid pedestrian areas that encouraged transportational
bicyclists from using anything other than the roadway
facility of urban and suburban communities.

Ken

Note: This article contains an excellent digitally
altered picture depicting how the Copenhagen-style
bike lanes will look. -RJM

The Melbourne City Council yesterday unveiled a
masterplan for the [St. Kilda Road] boulevard. Under
it, a lane of car traffic will be removed to make way
for new "Copenhagen-style" bicycle lanes, running from
St Kilda Junction to Princes Bridge.

"This is the most important boulevard in Australia,
and we need to revitalise it," the council's planning
chairwoman Catherine Ng said yesterday. "And we need
to make this strip more cyclist and
pedestrian-friendly. People who are inexperienced
cyclists — like me — will now ride along this
boulevard."

The council also wants to see the boulevard's speed
limit reduced from 60km/h to 50km/h, a move that has
drawn the ire of the RACV.

Complete article:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/elms-to-be-replaced-on-st-kilda-rd/2007/0\
3/01/1172338796101.html